The Larry Johnson 416 carries debate

[t.j 35]

Might as well pin this sucker, because this debate will be had hundreds of times between now and Labor Day. There will be some who dismiss LJ's '06 workload as a factor completely. There will be many wafflers who think it matters but give LJ the benefit of the doubt and project stud numbers for him anyway. There will be others who predict doom and gloom for him. I am more on the latter side, but I will let the numbers do the talking. And I am not talking about the numbers of just a guy or two who suits my argument.

Below are the rushing numbers of the RBs who had the 21 most rushing attempts (22 including LJ) in a season since 1978 (which is when the league went to 16 games). Followed by the rushing numbers they had in the following season. (FP = rushing fantasy points based on 0.1 points per yard and 6 points per TD)

 

Update: Now includes the players' ages, on Sep. 1 of the second season.

3/14/07 Edit: The website I used reports Ottis Anderson's 1981 stats incorrectly. According to other websites, Ottis carried 328 times, not 382. So that changes some of the top 20 analysis below.

 

Year Player				 Rush Yds   Avg  TD  FP	 AttDif YdsDif YPCDif TDDif FPDif Age
2006 Larry Johnson, KC	  416  1789  4.3  17  280.9
'07  Larry Johnson, KC	  ???  ????  ?.?  ??  ???.?								   27.8
1998 Jamal Anderson, ATL	410  1846  4.5  14  268.6  
'99  Jamal Anderson, ATL	 19	59  3.1   0	5.9  -391   -1787  -1.4  -14  -262.7  26.9
1984 James Wilder, TB	   407  1544  3.8  13  232.4  
'85  James Wilder, TB	   365  1300  3.6  10  190	 -42	-244  -0.2   -3   -42.4  27.3
1986 Eric Dickerson, LAM	404  1821  4.5  11  248.1   
'87  Eric Dickerson, LA/IND 283  1288  4.6   6  164.8  -121	-533   0.1   -5   -83.3  27.0
2000 Eddie George, TEN	  403  1509  3.7  14  234.9  
'01  Eddie George, TEN	  315  939   3	 5  123.9   -88	-570  -0.7   -9  -111.0  27.9
1985 Gerald Riggs, ATL	  397  1719  4.3  10  231.9  
'86  Gerald Riggs, ATL	  343  1327  3.9   9  186.7   -54	-392  -0.4   -1   -45.2  25.8
1998 Terrell Davis, DEN	 392  2008  5.1  21  326.8  
'99  Terrell Davis, DEN	  67   211  3.1   2   33.1  -325   -1797  -2	-19  -293.7  26.8
2003 Ricky Williams, MIA	392  1372  3.5   9  191.2  
'04  Ricky Williams, MIA	  0	 0  0	 0	0	-392   -1372  -3.5   -9  -191.2  27.3
1983 Eric Dickerson, LAM	390  1808  4.6  18  288.8  
'84  Eric Dickerson, LAM	379  2105  5.6  14  294.5   -11	297	1	 -4	 5.7  24.0
1992 Barry Foster, PIT	  390  1690  4.3  11  235  
'93  Barry Foster, PIT	  177   711  4	 8  119.1  -213	-979  -0.3   -3  -115.9  24.7
1988 Eric Dickerson, IND	388  1659  4.3  14  249.9 
'89  Eric Dickerson, IND	314  1311  4.2   7  173.1   -74	-348  -0.1   -7   -76.8  29.0
2000 Edgerrin James, IND	387  1709  4.4  13  248.9  
'01  Edgerrin James, IND	151   662  4.4   3   84.2  -236   -1047   0	-10  -164.7  23.1
2003 Jamal Lewis, BAL	   387  2066  5.3  14  290.6  
'04  Jamal Lewis, BAL	   235  1006  4.3   7  142.6  -152   -1060  -1	 -7  -148.0  25.0
2002 Ricky Williams, MIA	383  1853  4.8  16  281.3  
'03  Ricky Williams, MIA	392  1372  3.5   9  191.2	 9	-481  -1.3   -7   -90.1  26.3
1981 Ottis Anderson, STL	382  1376  3.6   9  191.6  
'82  Ottis Anderson, STL	145   587  4	 3   76.7  -237	-789   0.4   -6  -114.9  25.6
1984 Walter Payton, CHI	 381  1684  4.4  11  234.4  
'85  Walter Payton, CHI	 324  1551  4.8   9  209.1   -57	-133   0.4   -2   -25.3  31.1
1985 Marcus Allen, LAI	  380  1759  4.6  11  241.9  
'86  Marcus Allen, LAI	  208   759  3.6   5  105.9  -172   -1000  -1	 -6  -136.0  26.4
1984 Eric Dickerson, LAM	379  2105  5.6  14  294.5  
'85  Eric Dickerson, LAM	292  1234  4.2  12  195.4   -87	-871  -1.4   -2   -99.1  25.0
1981 George Rogers, NO	  378  1674  4.4  13  245.4  
'82  George Rogers, NO	  122   535  4.4   3   71.5  -256   -1139   0	-10  -173.9  23.7
1995 Emmitt Smith, DAL	  377  1773  4.7  25  327.3  
'96  Emmitt Smith, DAL	  327  1204  3.7  12  192.4   -50	-569  -1	-13  -134.9  27.3
1983 John Riggins, WAS	  375  1347  3.6  24  278.7  
'84  John Riggins, WAS	  327  1239  3.8  14  207.9   -48	-108   0.2  -10   -70.8  35.1
1997 Jerome Bettis, PIT	 375  1665  4.4   7  208.5  
'98  Jerome Bettis, PIT	 316  1185  3.8   3  136.5   -59	-480  -0.6   -4   -72.0  26.5

 

Let's ignore Ricky Williams' '04 season, since he was suspended for the entire '04 season. (Thus his 0 carries are clearly not indicative of his physical state.)

Only 1/20 had as many carries the following year, only 1/20 had as many rushing yards the following year, only 7/20 (35%) had a better per-carry average the following year, and 0/20 had as many rushing TDs the following year.

But this is no surprise. I think we can all agree that it goes without saying that a guy is going to have fewer attempts the year after having one of the highest-attempts seasons in history. And we can all agree that fewer attempts is going to mean fewer yards also. So the question is, really, did the performance of these guys really suffer, or did they just come back to earth after a career-type year?

 

Now let's analyze these follow-up seasons as a group, so we can see how much the dropoff is. Again, ignoring Ricky's Ganja year. That gives us the top 20 all-time seasons in terms of rushing attempts, and their follow-up seasons. Updated to remove Ottis Anderson, see above note regarding Ottis

 

Year  Player	Rush  Yds	 Avg   TD   FP	 AttDif YdsDif YPCDif TDDif FPDif
1stYr  Top 20  389.1  1730.6  4.45  14.15  258.0
2ndYr  Top 20  260.8  1052.5  4.04  7.26  148.8	-128  -672  -0.40   -6.79   -107.9

 

As you can see, the backs who had the 20 most carries in a season, the following year, averaged 134 fewer carries, 677 fewer rushing yards, 0.36 fewer yards per carry, and scored 6.75 fewer TDs the following year.

Instead of only looking at the average difference, let's also look at the median difference. If you don't know what a median is, google it. The median difference was -87.5 carries, -569.5 yards, -0.35 yards per carry, and -6.5 TDs. Naturally, since the worst cases were so bad, the median difference is not as bad as the average difference.

 

Clearly, these guys had stud years when they were up there in terms of rushing attempts. Not only did they tote the rock a lot, they had excellent per-carry averages and scored a lot of TDs. Mostly top 2 or 3 FF RBs that year. They followed it up on average with 1030 yards and 7 TDs. Basically, low-end RB1 numbers.

Not everyone will agree, but to me this is a difference that goes beyond coming back to normal after a career year, it also demonstrates a significant difference in the player's health and performance level as a result of the high workload the previous year.

 

Now, let's project the median dropoff to LJ's numbers.

If we add the median difference in carries, then add the median difference in yards, his '07 numbers project to: 328.5 carries, 1219.5 yards (3.71 ypc), 10.5 TDs, 175.9 FP.

Or, if we add the median difference in yards, then the median difference in yards per attempt, his '07 numbers project to: 1219.5 yards, 3.95 ypc (309 carries), and again 10.5 TDs and 175.9 FP.

 

Whether or not you buy it that the median difference (or worse, the average difference) is a reasonable difference to project for LJ, at least give it some consideration, and do the following:

1. Ask yourself, where would you draft a guy who you expected to have 1220 yards and 10.5 TDs rushing? (that would have placed a guy 8th for rushing fantasy points last year)

2. Ask yourself, considering that LJ had more carries than everyone on this list, isn't it likely that he will have more of a dropoff than the median?

 

ETA: Here's a thread I was not aware of that looks back on an article from a year ago, on this same subject. The approach is slightly different and the data set chosen is slightly different, I highly encourage taking a look - http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...=heavy+workload

[kutulu 1,554]

I don't think LJ has had his best FF season yet.

[msudavedawg 5]

No, the good ones hit the wall somewhere around 30-32. The mileage will be noticable by then.

[scherber830 0]

no one wants to read that ######.

 

LJ is good.

[The Football Guru 214]

Great work TJ...

 

I won't say it is a no-brainer that LJ will have a significant dropoff just b/c of the workload. I get the feeling that if he gets hurt next season, it will be due to an injury that isn't due to overuse. I'm dropping him more due to further deteriation of his line-now losing Will Shields-and the aging and talent of the rest of his supporting cast. Right now, I'll predict for him what I did in 2006, somewhere in the neighborhood of 1600 total yards and 10-12 TDs. So, at this point, I'll probably move him down to the #5 RB for now. He could move down more if guys like Addai get the starting job all to themselves. Heck, I'll probably move him below Rudi. I'm thinking 8-10 in the first round, meaning I probably will not have him on any team next year.

 

The Chiefs need an excellent offseason in both the draft and free agency on the offensive side of the ball. LJ is a top 3 RB all things being equal, but he now just has too many things going against him at this point.

[SmartassBoiler 0]

Age and career workload up to that point should be considered as well. LJ is young, and has a small workload prior to this year, especially given that this is his first fulltime year as a starter. This is probably abnormal for the group being examined.

 

I don't think the workload is that big of a deal, but I don't think he's the unquestioned #2 for next year as this year's numbers would indicate. I think losing Will Shields is the bigger story. This offensive line is a shell of it's former self, and while LJ will be great no matter what, he's not going to be that stud from the 2nd half of 2005 unless something drastic changes in that teams surrounding offense.

 

LT will be the undoubted #1, but I think Steven Jackson and Frank Gore merit consideration as well with the #2 pick.

[football_scooter 0]

SmartassBoiler hit it right on the head. He posted pretty mcuh what I came in here to post. That up until now, LJ has played off the bench or split carries.

 

Thus one heavy workload isn't going to cause him to be "damaged goods".

 

Now, if he'd just come off of a 350, then 350, then 350, THEN 400+ seasons? I'd give it some credence.

 

But you sound like all the Tiki Barber detractors who said he couldn't be a FT player because of his age, when his miles were relatively low for his position. It's almost identical to LJ, but in this case Tiki is the "lightning" player and more fragile whereas LJ is the "thunder" player and thus likely to be more durable.

 

I think you're seriously reaching here considering LJ's relatively low milage, and you're making way too much out of one heavy year. Not only did he not break down toward season's end, he appeared to get stronger - and he came back from a badly sprained neck without missing a carry. That's tough right there.

 

But that's ok - you go on and post irrelevant stats from guys who were feature backs for years before getting a heavy load, who then got hurt and try to compare those oranges to Larry Johnson's apples - the fact remains that it's a totally different situation. And while you make a compelling case for the Ricky Williams and Eddie Georges and Terrell Davises of the world, you also have the benefit of hindsight. And unlike LJ, lmost every back on that list was physically abused for years before thier heavy season.

 

LJ was not.

 

Here's some better stats for you to paint the whole picture, since you're such a d-bag towards people when they post stats and you deem them "irrelevant"...

 

Eddie George:

averaged 340 carries/4 years before his 403 carry season - so did the extra 63 carries cause his injury, or did his power running style and 1,360 carries in the 4 years preceding contribute just a bit?

 

Terrell Davis - same story: he averaged 357 carries for 2 years preceding his injury. That's 714 carries in 2 years. Do you really think the extra 35 touches caused his injury? That's like playing 1 extra game. Please.

 

Ricky Williams - laughable that you put him on this list, as it is the nail in your argument's coffin. You point out how he had 392 carries, then got hurt the following season - how convenient for your argument that you neglect to mention that he had 383 carries the season before that. And that 383 season was after a 2001 season where he only carried 313 times. So by your argument/logic, Ricky should have been effected negatively in 2003 - hurt even. After all, his carries increased from 313 to 383!! How hurt did he get? So hurt that in 2003 he rushed for an additional 9 carries (392) amassed 1372 yards on the ground with 9 RuTDs and had 50 receptions for 351 yards and a TD.

 

Oops. So are you really going to make a case that those extra 9 carries from 2002-2003 put him on the DL in 2004? So much for that theory.

 

I agree - some players the yardage adds up. It doesn't mean they have one big year and *poof!* they're screwed. While that happens, it is generally preceeded by many years of rushing the football at a good pace. It's the miles that build on a player - not one heavy load one season. Almost every player on your list fits that trend, and many were older when the injury was sustained.

 

Larry Johnson by comparison averaged only 158 carries a season for the 3 years he's been in the league prior to this one. And that's even skewed, since he touched the ball just 20 times in 2003, and 120 in 2004. His only heavy season was 2005 when he had 336 carries.

 

If he had more miles on him, I'd be concerned about him breaking down. Considering he was born 11/19/1979, I'd say he has plenty of tread left on those tires.

 

The ONLY back I'd consider ahead of him after LT2 is Alexander - and that's IF he makes a full recovery. The reason I wouldn't take Gore ahead of him is simple: LJ gets the GL carries.

 

IMO, no other backs besides those two have a chance of putting up better numbers than LJ in 2007. As I said in the other topic - go on and pass on him at 3 or 4...your funeral. I think the logic you're employing is deeply flawed and extremely myopic. One can use stats to represent almost any argument, sometimes poorly - yours is a perfect example of that.

[Foghorn Leghorn 0]

Nice work, tj.

 

This makes you wonder. One major injury the following year = coincidence. Two = hmmmm. Three = wait a sec. Jamal Anderson + Terrell Davis + Edgerrin James + Barry Foster = Four = statistically significant. And the age of these four at the the time of each injury is NOT statistically significant, as each were in their twenties, weren't they?

[football_scooter 0]

Nice work, tj.

 

This makes you wonder. One major injury the following year = coincidence. Two = hmmmm. Three = wait a sec. Jamal Anderson + Terrell Davis + Edgerrin James + Barry Foster = Four = statistically significant. And the age of these four at the the time of each injury is NOT statistically significant, as each were in their twenties, weren't they?

 

wow - are you also going to ignore the number of carries prior to injury?

 

To paraphrase Orwell, "all stats are created equal but some are more equal than others"?

 

And what of Ricky Williams? You think that it's "statistically significant" that he had 383 carries and then performed to the tune of 1600+ total yards and 10 TDs? Was it really the 9 extra carries that pushed him to the brink the following year?

 

It's all good theory until scrutinized - then it falls apart.

 

Again: the "too many carries" theory is a good one...but it's more of a "straw that broke the camel's back" cumulative effect than it is a sudden impact sort of thing.

 

And LJ had nowhere near the workload of those other backs.

 

This is also something called deception through ommission. You know, there've been quite a few backs who have had a career high in carries and did NOT get hurt the next year... My, isn't it sort of remiss to not mention those? You know, paint a balanced picture and all? As reporesented by t.j., every back who has a career high in carries gets hurt the next season. My, isn't that a convenient way to look at it.

 

As mentioned, Ricky Williams had 383 carries - about 70 more than his career high, and came back highly productive the following year as a top 10 RB.

 

How about Tiki Barber? He averaged just 125 carries a season for 5 years before carrying the load with a 303 carry season in 2002 - 4.6 ypc. He also had 69 receptions for 372 total touches. So by that logic, 2003 should have been an injury year - after all, "4 players - that's statistically significant" right? How odd then that Tiki went on to have a very productive 2004, registering 278 carries with the same 69 receptions. Of course, Tiki had a 4.4 ypc average, and 9 fewer TDs, but that's hardly in line with the theory y'all seem to be buying as gospel.

 

What about Ladanian Tomlinson? His career high in carries was 372. That's a significant number compared to all these guys getting hurt, no? It exceded his rookie campaign by 33 carries, and thus he should have been less productive than his 4.5 ypc average with 14 Tds, no? Yet somehow the next year, despite putting up just 313 carries, he managed to amass only 38 fewer yards, and INCREASE his average per carry from 4.5 to 5.3. He also UPPED his reception total to a career high 100, which was good for 725 yards. That's 2370 all purpose yards, UP from 2172 all purpose yards the previous season. After a career high in carries too - that's sort of opposite the "trend" y'all are putting so much faith into.

 

Let's look at Marshall Faulk - another ommitted name. Like Tomlinson, he posted a career high in carries for the 1998 season with 324. That was good for 1319 yards, a 4.1 ypc average. It was also a whopping 58 more carries than the young back had ever had. With 86 receptions that year, Faulk was as good as done the next season by the logic of this "heavy load" theory, eh? Let's see what Faulk did in 1999: wow - amazingly, not only did he not get hurt, but he managed a season where he carried the ball 253 times for 1381 yards - like LT2, his average per carry INCREASED by 1.4 yards to an incredible 5.5 ypc!!! He also had 87 receptions for 1048 yards - also an improvement to 12 yards per catch from 10.6 in 1998. So Faulk, after a career high in carries/touches (+/- 20% increase from prior 4 seasons ave to 1998) managed to not only not get hurt, but to post career highs across the board. I'd say this is enough evidence to shoot down this entire theory, but that's just one man's opinion.

 

Shall I list all the stats of every back who's had a career high carry year and not been hurt afterwards, or do my 4 players also make a "statistically significant" enough argument?

[The Football Guru 214]

IMO, no other backs besides those two have a chance of putting up better numbers than LJ in 2007. As I said in the other topic - go on and pass on him at 3 or 4...your funeral. I think the logic you're employing is deeply flawed and extremely myopic. One can use stats to represent almost any argument, sometimes poorly - yours is a perfect example of that.

Let's not forget Steven Jackson, who I think you can put at #1 (over LT) depending on who the Chargers bring in...

 

Right now, it's Gore and LJ neck and neck for #3, pending Alexander's (and his OL) healthy returns. As I said earlier, I think you can make a case that he ends up as the #6 or #7 RB if things fall (or in his case do not fall) right.

 

LJ, along with LT and Jackson, are the top three talents at RB. However, LJ now has by far the worst supporting cast. Let's indulge in projection-based statistical analysis:

 

LJ just set the record for carries in a season this year, meaning the likelihood of him approaching the same number of carries in 2007 is unlikely. Let's give him a still-heavy 375 carry workload. With 12-time Pro Bowler Shields retiring, it's safe to say he's not going to average 4.3 yds/carry next year. Let's say based on strictly ability, he can average 4.0. Also keep in mind he had the luxury of playing 4 games against the weak run defenses of the NFC West in 2006. Next year, he'll face the North where Chicago will be healthy, Minnesota just finished #1 in run defense, and GB will have an improved defense.

 

375 x 4.0 = 1500

(Let's give him another 400 yds receiving.)

 

1900 total yards, best case scenario. Not bad, but his TDs are going to come down too. I'll come up from my earlier 1600 yard prediction to about 1750. But I don't think he tops 12 TDs, numbers that put him in the class of 2006 Westbrook and Willie Parker. That class is still pretty good, but it's not LT and Steven Jackson territory.

[football_scooter 0]

Let's not forget Steven Jackson, who I think you can put at #1 (over LT) depending on who the Chargers bring in...

 

Right now, it's Gore and LJ neck and neck for #3, pending Alexander's (and his OL) healthy returns. As I said earlier, I think you can make a case that he ends up as the #6 or #7 RB if things fall (or in his case do not fall) right.

 

LJ, along with LT and Jackson, are the top three talents at RB. However, LJ now has by far the worst supporting cast. Let's indulge in projection-based statistical analysis:

 

LJ just set the record for carries in a season this year, meaning the likelihood of him approaching the same number of carries in 2007 is unlikely. Let's give him a still-heavy 375 carry workload. With 12-time Pro Bowler Shields retiring, it's safe to say he's not going to average 4.3 yds/carry next year. Let's say based on strictly ability, he can average 4.0. Also keep in mind he had the luxury of playing 4 games against the weak run defenses of the NFC West in 2006. Next year, he'll face the North where Chicago will be healthy, Minnesota just finished #1 in run defense, and GB will have an improved defense.

 

375 x 4.0 = 1500

(Let's give him another 400 yds receiving.)

 

1900 total yards, best case scenario. Not bad, but his TDs are going to come down too. I'll come up from my earlier 1600 yard prediction to about 1750. But I don't think he tops 12 TDs, numbers that put him in the class of 2006 Westbrook and Willie Parker. That class is still pretty good, but it's not LT and Steven Jackson territory.

 

Good post - I like the reasoning, and I can certainly buy it - like I said, I can't put Gore there until he

1. gets control of his fumble-itis

2. gets GL carries - cannot imagine how he is not successful there with his punishing power style - I blame the playcalling/O-Line. From what I saw, the few GL chances he had were bad play calls...slow developing crap. You need to use hm like a battering ram inside the 5 IMO. Hopefull they'll figure that out this year.

 

But I do agree - unless the Quiffs build a better team around him, LJ's production will suffer some. Enough to knock him out of the top 4? No way in hell - he's too young & healthy to put behind Fast Willie Parker (who IMO is more of an injury risk due to his size) and Westbrook and his degenerative knee.

 

A case can definately be made for Jackson - I had him in the WCOFF this year with the 10th overall pick. Man was that a steal.

[Melissa Stark 1]

Nice work, tj.

 

With his O-line changing also, I think will contribute even more for him

He is relatively young yet and wasn't overworked really until this year.

It does make you wonder

[t.j 35]

Age and career workload up to that point should be considered as well. LJ is young, and has a small workload prior to this year, especially given that this is his first fulltime year as a starter. This is probably abnormal for the group being examined.

 

Age is most likely an important factor to consider, you are right. If I get a chance tomorrow I will try to add some age information there. It will complicate the matter, but it is worth a look in case most of the worst cases were older players.

Prior workload, IMHO, having not seen any numbers on it, I don't think is as likely to be significant. An example off the top of my head, Curtis Martin in 2004 was 32 years old and had already carried the ball 2927 times in his career. But he came off an '03 season in which he had only rushed 323 times, and he had the best season of career in '04. But that's just one example so take that FWIW. I'm really not sure how one would go about showing the effects of career workload, statistically. That's a much more complex analysis.

Anyway, I realize that there are always more relevant factors. The scientific ideal would be if all other factors were equal and carries were the only difference, but of course that's not the case. Even so, considering that sample is a seemingly normal distribution of players (other than being good players who had an extreme number of carries), I think there's something to it.

 

Ricky Williams - laughable that you put him on this list, as it is the nail in your argument's coffin. You point out how he had 392 carries, then got hurt the following season - how convenient for your argument that you neglect to mention that he had 383 carries the season before that.

 

I didn't neglect to mention Ricky's increase from '02 to '03. In fact, I pointed out that 1 of the 20 backs had more carries the next season... that 1 was Ricky. Also, again, I took his '04 season out of the averages, because he was suspended for '04. Obviously there would be even more of an average difference if his zeroes from that season were included.

But, since you brought it up, it's worth noting that while Ricky's workload didn't decrease from '02 to '03, his production fell off the cliff, dropping from 4.8 ypc and 16 TDs to 3.5 ypc and 9 TDs. Hardly a nail in a coffin for my argument.

 

This is also something called deception through ommission. You know, there've been quite a few backs who have had a career high in carries and did NOT get hurt the next year... My, isn't it sort of remiss to not mention those? You know, paint a balanced picture and all? As reporesented by t.j., every back who has a career high in carries gets hurt the next season. My, isn't that a convenient way to look at it.

 

I never mentioned anything about guys having a career high in carries. I posted the 20 highest-carry seasons in modern history, everyone that carried 375 times or more since 1978. No omissions.

[football_scooter 0]

 

I never mentioned anything about guys having a career high in carries. I posted the 20 highest-carry seasons in modern history, everyone that carried 375 times or more since 1978. No omissions.

 

well, when you put it that way, I guess you weren't being selective at all. :oldrolleyes:

 

Oh, wait - you were since you ommitted age and % increase in carries in addition to workload in years prior to the "top 20" season.

 

Again: your point is valid, so long as one approaches it as myopicly as you are doing. While an interesting argument, I'm hardly convinced.

[The Football Guru 214]

Good post - I like the reasoning, and I can certainly buy it - like I said, I can't put Gore there until he

1. gets control of his fumble-itis

2. gets GL carries - cannot imagine how he is not successful there with his punishing power style - I blame the playcalling/O-Line. From what I saw, the few GL chances he had were bad play calls...slow developing crap. You need to use hm like a battering ram inside the 5 IMO. Hopefull they'll figure that out this year.

 

Obviously, there is a fair amount of "hoping" that Gore will work on his handle (I think he was much better with that in the 2nd half of the season). I expect 350+ carries for Gore next year (he had 313 this year) at roughly the same clip (5.4 yds/carry). I'll give him 5.0.

 

350 x 5.0 = 1750

I expect roughly the same amount of receiving yards, give him 400.

 

He should get 10+ TDs.

 

Thus, in leagues that go 1 pt/10 yards rec/rush:

LJ: 1900 total yards, 12 TD = 262 pts

Gore: 2150 total yards, 10 TD = 275 pts

 

Looking at it like that, I think I'm going with Gore, especially considering he gets 6 games against the NFC West and a game each against Cleveland and Cincy. The only thing that would keep me from going with Gore ahead of LJ is if Gore has an injury setback of some sort, but I'm starting to believe he may be past those injuries. Either way, it's a tight debate and I wouldn't criticize anybody that drafts LJ ahead of Gore and/or Alexander next year. I think LJ will end up settling in at around #4 for me this fall.

[t.j 35]

well, when you put it that way, I guess you weren't being selective at all. :oldrolleyes:

 

Oh, wait - you were since you ommitted age and % increase in carries in addition to workload in years prior to the "top 20" season.

 

Again: your point is valid, so long as one approaches it as myopicly as you are doing. While an interesting argument, I'm hardly convinced.

 

I was polite to you with my first response, following several antagonistic posts on your part, but listen up now because this is the last time I am going to address your ass in this thread, as you just aren't worth it.

Didn't I just cooperatively agree in response to SmartassBoiler to add age to the equation tomorrow (tomorrow because I have the spreadsheet at work)? So what the fock is your problem? I also said I will consider adding workload in years prior, if I can think of a good way to represent it, time permitting. The % increase in carries thing never once even crossed my mind, even now I don't see how % increase in carries matters or how you would want it represented, yet you paint it like it was some big deception to hide it. I find your complaining to be rather ungrateful, at best.

That said, the last thing I expect (or desire) to do, is change your closed mind.

[football_scooter 0]

I was polite to you with my first response, following several antagonistic posts on your part, but listen up now because this is the last time I am going to address your ass in this thread, as you just aren't worth it.

Easy there big fellah - don't getcher panties in a bunch now. I'm hardly trying to antagonize you any more than you did I when I posted what you refered to as "selective" stats.

 

Didn't I just cooperatively agree in response to Scooter to add age to the equation tomorrow (tomorrow because I have the spreadsheet at work)? So what the fock is your problem?

 

You were actually responding to smartassboller, and I didn't see that post at first. was that an after edit? If not, then my bad.

 

I also said I will consider adding workload in years prior, if I can think of a good way to represent it, time permitting. The % increase in carries thing never once even crossed my mind, even now I don't see how % increase in carries matters or how you would want it represented, yet you paint it like it was some big deception to hide it.

Oh, I don't see itas anything nefarious as "deception" - And my questions were intended only to show other possibilities as to why a player might get hurt or break down - that it's not as black & white as the number of carries. Thing is that I think you're already convinced of 400+ carries being incredibly significant. And I don't think you paint the whole picture with the narrow view you've presented.

 

In the "Another BIG blow to Larry Johnson" topic, you said

Of course Shields is retiring. It was an upset that Shields played last year.

 

Combine that with Johnson's NFL-record heavy workload last year, and there's no way I would take him in the top 5 in '07.

And you go on to state that you wouldn't take him top 10 - so clearly you believe that he will suffer next year in a big way, despite the tone in which you started this topic.

 

That said, the last thing I expect (or desire) to do, is change your closed mind.

My mind is actually pretty open . But you seem to be presenting a case for everyone who carried the ball "375 times or more since 1978. No omissions." here.

 

I just find that interesting considering Tiki & LT2's career highs are just 3 carries shy of that (372). Is that a coincedence? Or did you happen to see that their numbers were contradictory to your conclusions?

Funny how the two guys who actually did well (one of them improved) after their "extreme seasons" respectively were left out because they missed the criteria that you chose by 3 yards. So by "selective" I suppose I mean how you are defining "extreme".

 

And don't receptions count as touches? Don't they wear on the body as well? So all those players who's total touches were at or around 375 combined - where are they? Did they show a similar trend? I think it's worth looking at.

 

But hey - otherwise, spot on. I too will bow out of this debate - and I'll take LJ top 4 in 2007 without reservation. I don't think he'll be the beast he was when he had his all-pro O-Line, but I think the KC offense will run through him.

 

One thing I think we can all agree on - if they keep running him 370+ carries a season, he's going to have a short, but productive career.

[Riddlen 1]

I am good at math. That is a good observation, but I dont think the numbers bear out the cause. The causal relationship between high carries andbreakdown of body is interesting though.

[t.j 35]

Added age to the chart above.

 

The average age of the players with the 20 most carries in a season, at the beginning of the next season, was 26.7 years old. Again this does not include Ricky's '04 suspension season. LJ will be 27.8 years old at the start of '07. The only player in the top 20 to increase his number of attempts (Ricky in '03) was 26.3 at the start of that season. The only player in the top 20 to increase his yardage and fantasy rushing points (Dickerson in '84) was 24.0 at the start of that season.

 

As you can see, the backs who had the 20 most carries in a season, the following year, averaged 134 fewer carries, 677 fewer rushing yards, 0.36 fewer yards per carry, and scored 6.75 fewer TDs the following year.

Instead of only looking at the average difference, let's also look at the median difference. If you don't know what a median is, google it. The median difference was -87.5 carries, -569.5 yards, -0.35 yards per carry, and -6.5 TDs. Naturally, since the worst cases were so bad, the median difference is not as bad as the average difference.

 

Let's break out the 10 youngest and 10 oldest from within the top 20. The 10 youngest average 25.2 years of age, with being Marcus Allen the oldest of that group at age 26.4. The 10 oldest average 28.5 years of age, with the youngest of that group being Jerome Bettis at 26.5.

The average difference for the 10 youngest players in this group was -144 carries, -747 yards, -0.37 ypc, and -6.0 TD

The average difference for the 10 oldest players in this group was -126 carries, -657 yards, -0.53 ypc, and -8.6 TD

 

Also, let's look at the 16 players who were older than LJ will be, versus the 4 players who were older than LJ will be. The 16 younger than LJ average 25.8 years of age, and the 4 older than LJ average 30.8 years of age.

The average difference for the guys in this group younger than LJ was -151 carries, -805 yards, -0.55 ypc, and -7.3 TD

The average difference for the guys in this group older than LJ was -67 carries, -290 yards, -0.05 ypc, and -7 TD

 

It's a little strange that the 4 oldest (the guys older than LJ) did so much better than the 10 oldest (some of which were slightly younger than LJ). This is because of Jamal Anderson and Terrell Davis, who were among the 10 oldest but were younger than LJ, at 26.9 and 26.8, respectively. Unfortunately, data sets of 10 (let alone 4) players are pretty small. Another guy worth noting individually is John Riggins, just because he was so damn old, he was 35.1 years old to start the season, following his 375 carry season.

[t.j 35]

Some comments on how and why I did this, which might shed some light on why I chose the data that I did.

After what happened with SA last year, I am wary of LJ. Last year there were a lot of discussions about whether SA would wear down, and there were a few numbers thrown around here and there about players coming off a season with a huge workload. Some of them I found compelling, but thinking about it yesterday, I didn't remember anything specific, or or anything from a sizeable data set.

 

So, I set out to research it for myself. From this site - http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/stats.nsf/Annual/2005-rush - I copied the rushing numbers, dating back to the first 16-game season, one year at a time. What I chose to include originally was a result of what data was on these pages. Once the data was copied, it was a simple task to sort by number of carries, and a moderate amount of work to find the following season for each guy in the top x, and put the following season next to the high-carry season. Then throw in a few Excel formulas, and wa-la.

 

It did cross my mind to include reception totals, but I wasn't convinced it was worth it. A high percentage of receptions end in running out of bounds or getting tackled by a DB or OLB. Whereas most runs end in getting gang tackled, often by the biggest guys on the defense. How many receptions equals as much punishment as the average carry? 2? 3? More? And how big is the variation in reception numbers among these guys? Didn't seem worth it considering it would be twice the work to look up the reception data.

It did cross my mind to include age, but in my head it didn't seem like the guys who had these bad seasons coming off a large number of carries were all that old. Plus each guy's birthdate would have to be looked up individually. Now that I have looked up the ages for the top guys, it confirms my hunch, age wasn't really the cause for the bad follow-up seasons they had. Being 27 years old doesn't appear to be either a positive or a negative for LJ.

 

Where to draw the line was the other question. Top 5 highest-carry seasons? Top 10? Top 20? Top 40? Top 100? To me it was a balance of getting a big enough data set and also not getting too far away from LJ's record-setting number of 416 carries. Top 20 turned out to draw the line at 375, which is close enough to be an exceptional workload but also enough people for the numbers to be meaningful. There were another 15 guys who had 362 carries or more, but I had to draw the line somewhere. #21-#26 didn't fare any better than #1-20, by the way. After that, there were several guys who fared in the 360s who did fare much better. But, it seems like 50 carries less than LJ is getting pretty far away. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

 

The last issue, brought up and fairly so, is the career workload. Intiuitively, it makes sense that it would matter. As an educated guess from what I've observed following stats though, I do not believe it's an important factor when compared to just the last year's workload. LJ certainly has a much lower career workload than a lot of these other guys. I'm open to suggestions as to how to represent it. Analyzing career workload will be a lot more work than the other stuff was, so I only want to do it once if I do it at all.

[Foghorn Leghorn 0]

wow - are you also going to ignore the number of carries prior to injury?

 

To paraphrase Orwell, "all stats are created equal but some are more equal than others"?

 

And what of Ricky Williams? You think that it's "statistically significant" that he had 383 carries and then performed to the tune of 1600+ total yards and 10 TDs? Was it really the 9 extra carries that pushed him to the brink the following year?

 

It's all good theory until scrutinized - then it falls apart.

 

Again: the "too many carries" theory is a good one...but it's more of a "straw that broke the camel's back" cumulative effect than it is a sudden impact sort of thing.

 

And LJ had nowhere near the workload of those other backs.

 

This is also something called deception through ommission. You know, there've been quite a few backs who have had a career high in carries and did NOT get hurt the next year... My, isn't it sort of remiss to not mention those? You know, paint a balanced picture and all? As reporesented by t.j., every back who has a career high in carries gets hurt the next season. My, isn't that a convenient way to look at it.

 

As mentioned, Ricky Williams had 383 carries - about 70 more than his career high, and came back highly productive the following year as a top 10 RB.

 

How about Tiki Barber? He averaged just 125 carries a season for 5 years before carrying the load with a 303 carry season in 2002 - 4.6 ypc. He also had 69 receptions for 372 total touches. So by that logic, 2003 should have been an injury year - after all, "4 players - that's statistically significant" right? How odd then that Tiki went on to have a very productive 2004, registering 278 carries with the same 69 receptions. Of course, Tiki had a 4.4 ypc average, and 9 fewer TDs, but that's hardly in line with the theory y'all seem to be buying as gospel.

 

What about Ladanian Tomlinson? His career high in carries was 372. That's a significant number compared to all these guys getting hurt, no? It exceded his rookie campaign by 33 carries, and thus he should have been less productive than his 4.5 ypc average with 14 Tds, no? Yet somehow the next year, despite putting up just 313 carries, he managed to amass only 38 fewer yards, and INCREASE his average per carry from 4.5 to 5.3. He also UPPED his reception total to a career high 100, which was good for 725 yards. That's 2370 all purpose yards, UP from 2172 all purpose yards the previous season. After a career high in carries too - that's sort of opposite the "trend" y'all are putting so much faith into.

 

Let's look at Marshall Faulk - another ommitted name. Like Tomlinson, he posted a career high in carries for the 1998 season with 324. That was good for 1319 yards, a 4.1 ypc average. It was also a whopping 58 more carries than the young back had ever had. With 86 receptions that year, Faulk was as good as done the next season by the logic of this "heavy load" theory, eh? Let's see what Faulk did in 1999: wow - amazingly, not only did he not get hurt, but he managed a season where he carried the ball 253 times for 1381 yards - like LT2, his average per carry INCREASED by 1.4 yards to an incredible 5.5 ypc!!! He also had 87 receptions for 1048 yards - also an improvement to 12 yards per catch from 10.6 in 1998. So Faulk, after a career high in carries/touches (+/- 20% increase from prior 4 seasons ave to 1998) managed to not only not get hurt, but to post career highs across the board. I'd say this is enough evidence to shoot down this entire theory, but that's just one man's opinion.

 

Shall I list all the stats of every back who's had a career high carry year and not been hurt afterwards, or do my 4 players also make a "statistically significant" enough argument?

 

Seeing as you don't understand what "statistically significant" means, I'd suggest you read tj's last two posts. In no way were he or I referring to this as gospel.

 

tj, I think what you've done here definitely merits further statistical investigation. If you had the time, I'm sure you would have run some regressions on this data to see what kind of correlation some of these variables might have. That's not to say you'd find anything, just that what you've presented so far bears further investigation.

[football_scooter 0]

#21-#26 didn't fare any better than #1-20, by the way. After that, there were several guys who fared in the 360s who did fare much better. But, it seems like 50 carries less than LJ is getting pretty far away. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

 

Again: Tiki Barber and LT2 each had a season of 372 carries.

 

You're saying #s 21 - 26 didn't fare any better, yet here we have 2 RBs with just 3 carries shy of your criteria who seem to buck the trend.

 

Any explanation why you left them out? You seem to sum it all up with a "had to draw the line somewhere" - so are you saying those extra 3 carries put your 375 bunch over the top? Those were the "unlucky" extra 3 carries?

 

Still having a hard time with that - I asked before and you have yet to explain why you'd leave out these two players, one of whom actually improved in the season following his "extreme" number of carries.

 

Call me silly, but I don't see 372 carries as any less "extreme" than 375 carries. Am I missing something there?

 

Hey Foghorn - you know so much, and support t.j. - maybe you can help me explain the "statistical significance" of those +3 carries since I obviously don't know what it means. Help a guy out why dontcha.

[t.j 35]

I guess I am not getting the benefit of the doubt here so I will provide the evidence for my claim that #21-26 didn't do any better than #1-20.

 

Year Player				 Rush Yds   Avg  TD  FP	 AttDif YdsDif YPCDif TDDif FPDif Age
1980 Earl Campbell, HOU   373  1934  5.2  13  271.4
'81 Earl Campbell, HOU	361  1376  3.8  10  197.6	  -12	-558  -1.4   -3   -73.8  26.4
1992 Emmitt Smith, DAL	373  1713  4.6  18  279.3
'93 Emmitt Smith, DAL	 283  1486  5.3  9   202.6	  -90	-227   0.7   -9   -76.7  24.3
2002 LaDain. Tomlins, SD  372  1683  4.5  14  252.3
'03 LaDain. Tomlins, SD   313  1645  5.3  13  242.5	  -59	 -38   0.8   -1	-9.8  24.2
2004 Curtis Martin, NYJ   371  1697  4.6  12  241.7
'05 Curtis Martin, NYJ	220   735  3.3  5   103.5	 -151	-962  -1.3  - 7  -138.2  32.3
1989 Christian Okoye, KC  370  1480  4.0  12  220
'90 Christian Okoye, KC   245   805  3.3  7   122.5	 -125	-675  -0.7   -5   -97.5  29.0
2005 Shaun Alexander, SEA 370  1880  5.1  27  350
'06 Shaun Alexander, SEA  252   896  3.6  7   131.6	 -118	-984  -1.5  -20  -218.4  29.0

 

Average difference for #21-26: -93 carries, -574 yards, -0.57 ypc, -7.5 TD

My bad, I shouldn't have said "they didn't fare any better" than #1-20, I should have said "They just barely fared better than #1-20"

 

Honest to god, I am trying my best to give the best sample of comprehensive data, rather than draw the line at the most convenient point. And I am trying my best to consider each relevant case equally, rather than name-drop a few convenient examples and harp on those (which seems to be the standard M.O. here at FFT, but I won't name any names). Considering that #21-#26 was a bad group, followed by a good group, I thought it was a lot more fair to draw the line after #20 than after #26. Perhaps later I will post a bunch more seasons for people to look at. You'll find that there is a general range where having that many carries is consistently followed by ugly results, and below that is a range where it doesn't seem to be harmful anymore. LJ is clearly in the former range, not the latter. Getting too picky on the boundary of that general range is not helpful. No data set is perfect, everyone is going to have a different take. But I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the range of maybe 35-50 carries less than LJ is where the borderline of relevance is... close enough and worth including up to the point where you have a big enough data sample... but after that adding more seasons with even fewer carries is pushing it.

[football_scooter 0]

I guess I am not getting the benefit of the doubt here so I will provide the evidence for my claim that #21-26 didn't do any better than #1-20.

 

Year Player				 Rush Yds   Avg  TD  FP	 AttDif YdsDif YPCDif TDDif FPDif Age
1980 Earl Campbell, HOU   373  1934  5.2  13  271.4
'81 Earl Campbell, HOU	361  1376  3.8  10  197.6	  -12	-558  -1.4   -3   -73.8  26.4
1992 Emmitt Smith, DAL	373  1713  4.6  18  279.3
'93 Emmitt Smith, DAL	 283  1486  5.3  9   202.6	  -90	-227   0.7   -9   -76.7  24.3
2002 LaDain. Tomlins, SD  372  1683  4.5  14  252.3
'03 LaDain. Tomlins, SD   313  1645  5.3  13  242.5	  -59	 -38   0.8   -1	-9.8  24.2
2004 Curtis Martin, NYJ   371  1697  4.6  12  241.7
'05 Curtis Martin, NYJ	220   735  3.3  5   103.5	 -151	-962  -1.3  - 7  -138.2  32.3
1989 Christian Okoye, KC  370  1480  4.0  12  220
'90 Christian Okoye, KC   245   805  3.3  7   122.5	 -125	-675  -0.7   -5   -97.5  29.0
2005 Shaun Alexander, SEA 370  1880  5.1  27  350
'06 Shaun Alexander, SEA  252   896  3.6  7   131.6	 -118	-984  -1.5  -20  -218.4  29.0

 

Average difference for #21-26: -93 carries, -574 yards, -0.57 ypc, -7.5 TD

My bad, I shouldn't have said "they didn't fare any better" than #1-20, I should have said "They just barely fared better than #1-20"

 

Honest to god, I am trying my best to give the best sample of comprehensive data, rather than draw the line at the most convenient point. And I am trying my best to consider each relevant case equally, rather than name-drop a few convenient examples and harp on those (which seems to be the standard M.O. here at FFT, but I won't name any names). Considering that #21-#26 was a bad group, followed by a good group, I thought it was a lot more fair to draw the line after #20 than after #26. Perhaps later I will post a bunch more seasons for people to look at. No data set is perfect, everyone is going to have a different take. But I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the range of 30-50 carries less than LJ is borderline relevant to LJ... close enough and worth including up to the point where you have a big enough data sample... but after that adding more seasons with even fewer carries is pushing it.

 

I actually believe you're trying to look at the data fairly - I just still question the data you're employing.

 

I "harp" on those two names, (read this slowly) because they had just 3 (three) carries less than where you drew the line. Perhaps you think there's something more relevant about 375 than 372, but I do not.

 

And the fact remains that Tomlinson IMPROVED across the board after his 372 carry season. How is this point not registering?

 

Perhaps you should look at some of those other RBs, because while they didn't see 375 or greater carries, some had a bunch of receptions to bring their total touches up over 375. You also said you chose to leave receptions out, why I cannot imagine.

 

You posted only LT2's rushing totals and took care to point out the -9 less fantasy points for 2003 following his 372 carry 2002 season...but you failed to note that his receptions were higher, for 100 total in 2003, and his receiving yeards eclipsed his 2002 totals, so in reality his FFB points were greater than 2002, not -9.8 less as you indicate.

 

Seems like Marshall Faulk had 410 touches in 1998 regardless of whether he was handed the ball or thrown the ball - he then went on to record a career year the following season.

 

So are you actually saying that the number of touches isn't relevant, but the number of carries is? This is the part I am having so much trouble with. Doesn't a reception wear on the body? Please elaborate.

[t.j 35]

Hey SmartassBoiler, did you read the age thing? Any thoughts? Also any suggestions on how to do the long-term wear analysis?

[NAn 39]

Good stuff tj.

 

Related info from articles, threads previously at FFToday:

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...=heavy+workload

 

with two items that will just fuel the debate further:

 

* The thread cites that others that historical data show may have a signficant drop in production this upcoming season aside from Larry Johnson are: Ladainlin Tomlinson, Stephen Jackson

 

* This excerpt from original article in '04:

Jamal Lewis: 387 carries/26recs = 400 f/carries ‘03

Attaining 400 f/carries last year does not bode well for Lewis this season. Only 3 of 17 times (17.6%) has a RB coming off a 400 f/carry season met or only slightly decreased in FF production... Edgerrin James ('00), LaDainian Tomlinson ('03), Walter Payton ('85).

 

Key with this excerpt re: the 'mileage', 'age' debate: is of those 3 players, Edge/LT/Payton that 'met or slightly decreased in production', 2 of them did it early in the careers:

Edge, rookie year to 2nd year

LT, 2nd year to 3rd year

 

And let me save myself some typing and put out my blanket caveat to the article before I get the witty 'come on Nan, so if you have the 1st pick next year b/c of the data you'd skip LT....you're an idiot, join my league, let me join your league, etc.' responses:

 

By no means am i saying LT/LJ/SJax are on this list for next year...don't draft them period.

That's asinine considering the value they hold to FF community in general.

I'm just saying consider the data and adjust as you see fit.

 

Say it was situation of two RBs in late 1st and every general and personal analysis has them about the same, flip flopping at 8 and 9 spot depending on who's drafting. And RB1 is coming of a previous 370 season. Personally that factor, along with considering many others, would be a negative for me for RB1.

 

To illustrate I had the 3rd pick in one of my drafts this previous season and Alexander fell to me. I did take Alexander b/c saw no other value there for trading or picking at the time.

Per the article, I followed his situation closely and then when he didn't come out strong early and traded him (at the time his value was only slightly diminished from predraft so got solid return).

Where otherwise, if I had not considered the 370 data, I may have just stuck by my guns and held onto him. It's just a tool and one factor of many we ffers can (or choose not to )consider. (again, fact that he didn't come out of gate gangbusters also weighed in my decision).

[Foghorn Leghorn 0]

Hey Foghorn - you know so much, and support t.j. - maybe you can help me explain the "statistical significance" of those +3 carries since I obviously don't know what it means. Help a guy out why dontcha.

 

Let's say that, for argument's sake, the rate of major injuries among starting RBs is about 5-10% per year (I have no idea what the exact number is, but I'm guessing it's not more than that). tj listed the RBs with the 21 highest carry totals in a season. Four of those suffered a major injury the next year (roughly 20%), which is roughly double the average. That is statistically significant, in that there MIGHT be a correlation, and bears further investigation. I don't think anyone's saying that if you have that many carries, you WILL get injured the next year - as you pointed out, 80% of the RBs didn't. The data's not ideal either, what with the small sample size, but based on this is it reasonable to say that the number of carries MIGHT increase the risk of injury the following year?

 

If I came off like a know-it-all, I'm sorry - that was not my intention, especially to a fellow Niners fan.

[t.j 35]

Good stuff tj.

 

Related info from articles, threads previously at FFToday:

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...=heavy+workload

 

Thanks NAn, great stuff! I had not seen that post, or else I would have just bumped it. Awesome to see some other extensive research on this subject.

 

I see that you found the same pattern that I did... that there seems to be a certain point of workload at which those above are very likely to fall off significantly. And those below, even if they are just below, fare much better, for whatever reason. I also see that RamslovaMartzhata had the same objection as is being voiced in this thread... that it doesn't make sense that those at the benchmark should be consistently worse off than those just below the benchmark. Maybe it doesn't make sense, but it seems to happen anyway. And again, LJ is way above the benchmark.

 

Also I see that you included receptions, as equivalent to half a carry.

 

If you're interested, I can send you my spreadsheet, not sure if it has any data that you didn't already have, but maybe it does.

[football_scooter 0]

Let's say that, for argument's sake, the rate of major injuries among starting RBs is about 5-10% per year (I have no idea what the exact number is, but I'm guessing it's not more than that). tj listed the RBs with the 21 highest carry totals in a season. Four of those suffered a major injury the next year (roughly 20%), which is roughly double the average. That is statistically significant, in that there MIGHT be a correlation, and bears further investigation. I don't think anyone's saying that if you have that many carries, you WILL get injured the next year - as you pointed out, 80% of the RBs didn't. The data's not ideal either, what with the small sample size, but based on this is it reasonable to say that the number of carries MIGHT increase the risk of injury the following year?

 

If I came off like a know-it-all, I'm sorry - that was not my intention, especially to a fellow Niners fan.

 

No worries - this post I can completely agree with. It is a reasonable thought, and it might indeed increase the risk.

 

But t.j. happened to have started this topic somewhat in defense of his prior statement that he wouldn't rank LJ in the top 5, and that based on his high carries he wouldn't take him in the top 10.

 

So obviously t.j. seems convinced of LJ's impending doom.

 

Others have said it's no guarentee that LJ gets hurt, and with that I agree. But since t.j. seems to think it is a lock that LJ suffers from this 416 carry season, I felt compelled to bring up examples of players who have had different experiences. I think it's a little off-base to judge based on a criteria that supports one's contentions. THus my question about 375 vs 372 carries. I see 0 difference in how "extreme" either is - they're both extremely high. The only difference is that the players with 375 carries+ went on to do something that supported t.j.'s contentions about LJ, and the players with 372 carries went on to do something that contradicted t.j.'s contentions about LJ.

 

Sort of like at a baseball game, where a mediocre player comes up for the home team, and they post "bats .472 against LHP, in June, at night" on the scoreboard. Sure, it's true - but is it telling?

 

Anyway, I agree with those who say it's a concern. But one needs to evaluate more than # of carries. I see t.j.'s added some criteria, but he has yet to address his ommission of receptions. And in the case of LT2, he posted that he had 9.8 fewer fantasy points in 2003, when in every league I was in he posted more in 2003 than in 2002. itsatip those 100 receptions and dramatic increase in receiving yards.

 

Again - no offense to you - I think you're pretty reasonable in your eval. But how can one not include receptions? It's touches that add wear & tear, not just carries. Ask Brian Westbrook if receptions are significant or not.

 

I'd be willing to bet that there are players left out of the top 20 RuAtt's list who totalled as many touches when combining rushing & receiving. If that were employed, I'd be very interested to see if the same trend is apparent.

[Foghorn Leghorn 0]

No worries - this post I can completely agree with. It is a reasonable thought, and it might indeed increase the risk.

 

But t.j. happened to have started this topic somewhat in defense of his prior statement that he wouldn't rank LJ in the top 5, and that based on his high carries he wouldn't take him in the top 10.

 

So obviously t.j. seems convinced of LJ's impending doom.

 

Others have said it's no guarentee that LJ gets hurt, and with that I agree. But since t.j. seems to think it is a lock that LJ suffers from this 416 carry season, I felt compelled to bring up examples of players who have had different experiences. I think it's a little off-base to judge based on a criteria that supports one's contentions. THus my question about 375 vs 372 carries. I see 0 difference in how "extreme" either is - they're both extremely high. The only difference is that the players with 375 carries+ went on to do something that supported t.j.'s contentions about LJ, and the players with 372 carries went on to do something that contradicted t.j.'s contentions about LJ.

 

Sort of like at a baseball game, where a mediocre player comes up for the home team, and they post "bats .472 against LHP, in June, at night" on the scoreboard. Sure, it's true - but is it telling?

 

Anyway, I agree with those who say it's a concern. But one needs to evaluate more than # of carries. I see t.j.'s added some criteria, but he has yet to address his ommission of receptions. And in the case of LT2, he posted that he had 9.8 fewer fantasy points in 2003, when in every league I was in he posted more in 2003 than in 2002. itsatip those 100 receptions and dramatic increase in receiving yards.

 

Again - no offense to you - I think you're pretty reasonable in your eval. But how can one not include receptions? It's touches that add wear & tear, not just carries. Ask Brian Westbrook if receptions are significant or not.

 

I'd be willing to bet that there are players left out of the top 20 RuAtt's list who totalled as many touches when combining rushing & receiving. If that were employed, I'd be very interested to see if the same trend is apparent.

 

I think ideally you would take a whole bunch of different variables (age, carries, receptions, etc) and plug them into Excel, where you can run statistical analyses that would tell you if the variables are "significant" (ie. are they important?). And even then, it's not foolproof.

[NAn 39]

 

I see that you found the same pattern that I did... that there seems to be a certain point of workload at which those above are very likely to fall off significantly. And those below, even if they are just below, fare much better, for whatever reason. I also see that RamslovaMartzhata had the same objection as is being voiced in this thread... that it doesn't make that those at the benchmark should be consistently worse off than those just below the benchmark. Maybe it doesn't make sense, but it seems to happen anyway. And again, LJ is way above the benchmark.

 

 

This may have been lost in the thread tj, but here's excerpt where I speak to just that point.

 

And yeah, I have a few spreadsheets from my research but be interesting to see how they compare...can you still email via the site using my user name.

 

'Why 370?'

 

Re: that original analysis and analysis since: It was not some arbitrary number of '370' I picked out of a hat. I looked at various numbers to benchmark as a 'heavy workload' and settled on 370 b/c that was the pt when the data really started to say something. Looking at numbers for 350-369 f/carries, the data showed that, more or less, a RB was just as likely to do well as fall off (about 58% would be 'FF productive' if memory serves, not a strong number either way).

Again, cited were LT/Rudi who fell in that 350-369 range...Portis was also in that range. He looks like he is on way to very productive season, but he did miss time. Pt being, data seems to be saying that if you do get a RB with 350-369 f/carries (in some cases less), that he could go either way.

 

LT in fact dodged bullet of '370' most of his years and so has continued to be successful year after year. Holmes also never attained 370 during his run as FF stud, but was in 350-369 a few years (even in the 340s a few years). Marshall Faulk also never attained 370, actually in the 320-340 range, during his run. Again, possible conclusion could be drawn that they were successful for so long b/c they didn't attain 370 benchmark.

Other RBs who attained 370, fell off quickly, usually the year after attaining that number: Jamal Lewis, Ahman Green, Ricky Williams, Terrell Davis, Eddie George

[Ambroc 0]

Excellent debate. To the OP, thanks for taking the time to pour through the statistics. To your detractors, keep an open mind; the OP may be incorrect with regards to LJ, but the statistics are convincing, especially when you see highlights of LJ crashing into his opponents at full speed.

 

As much as we pick on SA for curling up in the fetal position any time a tackler is near, he is more likely to have longer career than LJ. Still...I like watching LJ more. Then again, my favorite RB of all time was Earl Campbell.

 

Thanks again.

[Foghorn Leghorn 0]

This may have been lost in the thread tj, but here's excerpt where I speak to just that point.

 

And yeah, I have a few spreadsheets from my research but be interesting to see how they compare...can you still email via the site using my user name.

 

'Why 370?'

 

Re: that original analysis and analysis since: It was not some arbitrary number of '370' I picked out of a hat. I looked at various numbers to benchmark as a 'heavy workload' and settled on 370 b/c that was the pt when the data really started to say something. Looking at numbers for 350-369 f/carries, the data showed that, more or less, a RB was just as likely to do well as fall off (about 58% would be 'FF productive' if memory serves, not a strong number either way).

Again, cited were LT/Rudi who fell in that 350-369 range...Portis was also in that range. He looks like he is on way to very productive season, but he did miss time. Pt being, data seems to be saying that if you do get a RB with 350-369 f/carries (in some cases less), that he could go either way.

 

LT in fact dodged bullet of '370' most of his years and so has continued to be successful year after year. Holmes also never attained 370 during his run as FF stud, but was in 350-369 a few years (even in the 340s a few years). Marshall Faulk also never attained 370, actually in the 320-340 range, during his run. Again, possible conclusion could be drawn that they were successful for so long b/c they didn't attain 370 benchmark.

Other RBs who attained 370, fell off quickly, usually the year after attaining that number: Jamal Lewis, Ahman Green, Ricky Williams, Terrell Davis, Eddie George

 

Thanks for shedding a little more light on this NAn.

 

I noticed mention of weighting the receptions at 0.5. Would you know what the rationale was for 0.5 as opposed to another weight (say, 0.75)?

[NAn 39]

Thanks for shedding a little more light on this NAn.

 

I noticed mention of weighting the receptions at 0.5. Would you know what the rationale was for 0.5 as opposed to another weight (say, 0.75)?

 

In outset of article I cite that I chose .5 b/c recs don't cause as much wear as rushes, where rushes you are often tackled by more players and usually larger/stronger players (DLM, LB).

 

Honestly I was just trying to quanitfy recs beyond just touches as in general I think the above is true.

 

As I continued analyzing data with that number/premise, data stayed consistent.

[Walter34 3]

Well done tj amd solid arguments by all - even scooter despite his antogonistic tone.

 

I was an advocate of the heavy workload argument for years and have traditionally avoided these guys the following year. NAn put the work and analysis in that supported what made sense logically, just as tj did now.

 

The main argument against is the workload over a number of prededing years. This is also a valid point and contributes to the "down year". With carries, you take a beating over time and it wears on you. There are a few exceptions like Cumar and payton over the years, but by and large, most wear down. This makes sense and its shown in the numbers. The heavy workload in one season argument is undeniable based on the numbers. We only have 20-25 cases to base the analysis on, but the results being approximately 90% in favour of a substantial drop the next year is significant.

 

What I think is that both contribute to a down year. Its sort of like a boxer who takes body blows for several rounds. he is getting weaker each round and then one round he takes more shots and a few haymakers and he's down for the count. The 400 carry season is the haymaker.

 

The reception question I think should be dismissed as tj points out, the hits are often one on one, sidelines or by smaller players. Nowhere near the beating that is absorbed on a run into the dline.

 

Would I draft LJ? Probably not, but its based on several reasons. Shields and the deteriorating line, trent's age, the lack of a passing game and LJ's workload in 06. The Chiefs were 27th in pass attempts and 4th in rush attempts. Even a little league coach can figure out the 8 in the box defence strategy should be employed against the Chiefs. This isnt saying that if he falls to 6 or 7 that I wouldnt likely ignore the numbers and take him, but he wont fall beyond 2 or 3. I'll gladly allow someone else take him and settle for Jackson or Gore.

 

If he is the 2nd of 20 to improve on his numbers, so be it. For my first pick, I'll take better than 10% odds on improving. Traditionally 5 backs will drop out of the top 10 each year - LJ is a prime target to be one of the 5.

[Raider 84 29]

Too many carrries and no Shields isn't going to help him. I still have him ranked #3.

[t.j 35]

Here's another article I happened across on the topic. It was written about Ricky Williams, right before he retired in '04.

 

The first half of it makes similar arguments to what's above, about how bad things happen to guys after they have a large number of carries (like Williams in '02 and '03, and LJ in '06). It's not as well done as NAn's heavy workload article on fftoday, though.

 

The second half of it talks about the performance of players the year after their yards per carry changed by +0.5 or more (minimum 250 carries). That part doesn't apply to LJ but it does apply to LT, interestingly.

 

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2004/07/2...t-analysis/236/

[hellothere 1]

I don't read/post as much on the Main Board as much anymore because of lack of quality posts such as these.

 

t.j. thanks for putting in the time, and stimulating a good discussion

[SmartassBoiler 0]

Hey SmartassBoiler, did you read the age thing? Any thoughts? Also any suggestions on how to do the long-term wear analysis?

 

Hey TJ - I don't check this board very often in the offseason. Personally, I believe that career carries is a better determining factor. Now, obviously Curtis Martin in 2004 was an anomaly, but somebody with 1500 career carries is going to be more likely to wear down after a 375 career season that someone with only a couple hundred. It helps get past players like LJ and Tiki who didn't rack up much of a workload their first couple seasons. In fact, you could look at carries/year.

 

Another factor I thought of is playoff carries, and also how many playoff games they play in. That not only increases their workload, but also shortens their resting time in the offseason.

 

I really think all we're doing here is confusing ourselves even further. It's definitely an interesting argument, and one worth examining given that it is a record for carries. However, LJ is young, with a light career workload, and hopefully KC will address the backup RB position at some point in the offseason or via the draft. He didn't carry the ball that much in his playoff game, which was good news, and he's having a pretty normal offseason in terms of length.

 

Again, I'm more worried about the loss of Shields. LJ's workload will go down, presumably, and their offensive line won't be as good. Those will affect his projections and knock him into the 4th overall RB, IMO. I can't see taking him any lower than that because I feel there's yet another big dropoff between those three and guys like Westbrook.

[DrJ 0]

No, the good ones hit the wall somewhere around 30-32. The mileage will be noticable by then.

 

This is actually not all that true. For the most part, RB's start to decline noticably beyond 28. They disappear and are done by 30-32 typically, but there is a very noticable decline that usually begins around age 28.

 

And it doesn't seem to be all that dependent on work load - a 30 year old's body just doesn't heal as quickly as a 26 year old's body, no matter how many hits he took when he was 22.

 

Larry Johnson will be 28 this season (in November). There is some risk due to that workload, but I'd suspect he can probably grind out another year at close to this pace. Dynasty leaguers better watch out, though. Age is a far greater factor to a RB's decline than workload.

 

Redraft, don't worry too much, I think he's going to be okay for one more season. Dynasty, mark my words - get his massive value this season. Let 28 year old RB's be someone else's problem. If you trade RB's when they are 28, you don't end up with Shaun Alexander 1 year too late (who played behind Watters for his first 1 1/4 seasons to keep him fresh and clean)...

 

However, LJ is young

 

Not in RB years he's not.

 

Again: Tiki Barber and LT2 each had a season of 372 carries.

 

He also left out Alexander, who had 370 in the regular season and went deep into the playoffs, and was focked up the next season.

 

I do agree with Smartass' point about playoffs being important. Those 372 carries Tomlinson got weren't all that historically significant when you consider the number of carries RB's have had including the playoffs. I posted something after that season because of the Tomlinson workload bashers, and if you counted the playoffs it wasn't even close to one of the top workloads of all time. It probably bears noting that he was 23 that season too.

 

Tiki is one of the few exceptions to almost all of these rules. There are few exceptions though, and with the punishment Johnson receives it's unlikely he's going to show Tiki Barber type longevity.

 

Sell now dynasty leaguers - get massive value now rather than hoping an angry running back like Johnson is going to be one of the rare expections to RB longevity trends...