The Larry Johnson 416 carries debate

[t.j 35]

Hot topic

 

That thread is a debacle, especially the first post, which set the tone for the rest. It's all random data and unsupported points (much like any post by cmh6476). Someone should just link them to this thread.

[cmh6476 767]

lj is on the radio right now. he said Curtis matin, eddie george, all those guys were 4 yrs starters in HS, 4 yr starters in college. He's a different guy and it's a different sitation, and he was never exposed to any of that kind of beating.

 

 

 

he just debunked this entire thread

[cmh6476 767]

they just asked LJ about the carries, he said they talked to him and said they werent going to give him 400 carries, but he said he dont care, hes just going tout there, having fun and it doesnt matter to him how many times he asked to carry the ball.

[TD Ryan2 315]

That thread is a debacle, especially the first post, which set the tone for the rest. It's all random data and unsupported points (much like any post by cmh6476). Someone should just link them to this thread.

 

tee jay... understandably, you did a helluva' lotta good work here and would like to discuss this more

 

I just don't buy into the 400 carry benchmark... not all carries are the same, not all players and situations are the same during those carries whether it's the players' ages, or the force of the hits on those carries... there are just too many variables to rely on this one "carry" number.

 

It is even more crazy to me that somehow in all the "wear and tear" calculations being done that receptions are deemed 1/2 as damaging as an actual carry... it's so arbitrary... there's nothing really factual to back up that belief/calculation.

 

 

Downgrade LJ because the Chiefs losses on offense/o-line? I can't argue with that.

Downgrade LJ because leading the league in rushing or TDs is hard enough to do once, never mind repeating and maintaining? OK

 

but I really believe this "workload" issue is over analysis. LJs not an "old" player. He doesn't have lots of years of NFL mileage on him. He doesn't have any significant injury history.

 

Fantasy owners avoid RBBCs because they fear that their guy won't get the touches.

Now they're supposed to avoid guys who get the ball too much?

 

again t.j., unbelievable amount of work done here by you. I wish we had more threads/discussions like this. I was on the fence at the beginning of the year with LJ, the holdout pushed me over the edge with him... and now that he's back playing, and I've had time to read/digest the workload issue, this is where I stand on it.

[cmh6476 767]

i will take him with my 3rd pick if he is there and ride him tot he playoffs

[cmh6476 767]

i kinda think some people may be hoping for an LJ injury this year, just so they can come back in this thread and say "told you so"

 

 

All RBs get the most amount of touches per game and are alwasy the most subject to injuries. But why would you wish it on someone? When Emmitt was in his heyday, Faulk, Priest, you knew it wasn't going to last forever. But people would doubt every year, and most of the time the naysayers were proven wrong and the elite backs remained elite.

 

I don't see how you can do anything but root for this guy. I wouldn't wish injuries on guys like LT or Steven jackson because they played for my team's arch rival or because they weren't on ym fantasy team.

 

I hope that's not what any of you are doing

[t.j 35]

tee jay... understandably, you did a helluva' lotta good work here and would like to discuss this more

 

I just don't buy into the 400 carry benchmark... not all carries are the same, not all players and situations are the same during those carries whether it's the players' ages, or the force of the hits on those carries... there are just too many variables to rely on this one "carry" number.

 

It is even more crazy to me that somehow in all the "wear and tear" calculations being done that receptions are deemed 1/2 as damaging as an actual carry... it's so arbitrary... there's nothing really factual to back up that belief/calculation.

 

I didn't say receptions are 1/2 as damaging as a carry, nor did I include such a thing in any calculations. I'm looking only at the carries.

Which is actually the point. This isn't an attempt to take every variable in the world and spit out some magic formula for what's going to happen to LJ this year. This is a focused effort to study one factor and study what happens to guys that meet a certain criteria related to that factor. Of course there are other factors involved. Of course receptions have some effect on a player's wear and tear, maybe a big one, maybe a little one. Of course not all hits/carries have the same effect. But when players who have the same characteristic (in this case, an extremely high number of carries) have especially bad follow-up results again and again and again, why would you dismiss it as a consideration, as you seem to be doing?

 

LJs not an "old" player.

 

He's not "young" either.

 

He doesn't have lots of years of NFL mileage on him.

 

Where's your data to suggest that this matters?

 

He doesn't have any significant injury history.

 

Again, where's your data to suggest that this matters?

 

You can disbelieve all day long, and list a hundred other factors that may or may not be a factor in the decreased performance of the players that I posted the numbers for. But without the data to show that LJ's age makes him an exception, or his career mileage makes him an exception, or his reception totals make him an exception, or his injury history makes him an exception... without the other data, how can you be so confident that the single-season carry/workload concern is overblown?

 

Fantasy owners avoid RBBCs because they fear that their guy won't get the touches.

Now they're supposed to avoid guys who get the ball too much?

 

I think you're missing the point. I'm not saying avoid the guy. I'm saying lower your expectations for the guy a bit. It's the nature of fantasy owners to assume that a guy is going to do basically what he did before. But that's not a realistic approach. Sure, FF owners will adjust their expectations based on their personal evaluation of the player's talent, but their evaluation of the player's talent is usually heavily influenced by what the player's recent stats were to begin with. Sure, FF owners will adjust their expectations based on what they expect a player's role to be, yet when it comes down to it they generally don't believe that a guy can go from being a split-duty RB to a feature back until they see it; or conversely, they don't really believe that a guy will go from getting 25 carries a game to about 20 until they see it. Sure, FF owners know that overworking an RB is probably bad for his health, yet when it comes down to it they don't really believe that the stud who carried them to an FF championship is human until they see it.

[TD Ryan2 315]

what exactly are you trying to prove with the 400 carry data?

 

I have pointed out that LJ does not have any significant injury history and he does not have lots of years of NFL mileage on him and you have responded with "what's that matter"?

 

t.j. you've gone mad, it's torridesque!

those two things matter FAR more than anything else

 

 

that's what I'm saying here... you're taking the stance that having 400 carries is more important being over 30 or having 2000 career carries or playing 10 years in the NFL.

 

that's crazy talk.

 

 

 

I think you just added this (I didn't see it before):

I'm not saying avoid the guy. I'm saying lower your expectations for the guy a bit.

 

fair enough and I agree. LJ may not be a top 3 guy by seasons end... but I think he'll still be top 12. He may well under perform a bit with everything changing in KC, with the 400 carries, etc... but I see his floor as pretty high still... a lot higher than some of the other "top 12" RBs.

[cmh6476 767]

what exactly are you trying to prove with the 400 carry data?

 

I have pointed out that LJ does not have any significant injury history and he does not have lots of years of NFL mileage on him and you have responded with "what's that matter"?

 

t.j. you've gone mad, it's torridesque!

those two things matter FAR more than anything else

that's what I'm saying here... you're taking the stance that having 400 carries is more important being over 30 or having 2000 career carries or playing 10 years in the NFL.

 

that's crazy talk.

he's blinded with his silver and black tinted glassses

[TD Ryan2 315]

he's blinded with his silver and black tinted glassses

 

I'm in an impossible situation here with you on one side, t.j. on the other and me trying to decipher the truth about the AFC West.

[Franknbeans 46]

I'm in an impossible situation here with you on one side, t.j. on the other and me trying to decipher the truth about the AFC West.

the truth is LJ is a full grown man

[t.j 35]

what exactly are you trying to prove with the 400 carry data?

 

I have pointed out that LJ does not have any significant injury history and he does not have lots of years of NFL mileage on him and you have responded with "what's that matter"?

 

t.j. you've gone mad, it's torridesque!

those two things matter FAR more than anything else

 

If that's true, then show me. Show me data which demonstrates that guys coming off a heavy workload and also have a previous injury history are more vulnerable than those without a previous injury history. By your same reasoning, no one thought Edgerrin James would get hurt, or Jamal Lewis, or Terrell Davis, or Jamal Anderson, or Eddie George. Show me data which backs up your claim that having low career mileage and a clean injury history is FAR more important than anything else.

 

that's what I'm saying here... you're taking the stance that having 400 carries is more important being over 30 or having 2000 career carries or playing 10 years in the NFL.

 

No, that's not the stance I'm taking. Not at all.

[cmh6476 767]

If that's true, then show me. Show me which demonstrates that guys coming off a heavy workload and also have a previous injury history are more vulnerable than those without a previous injury history. By your same reasoning, no one thought Edgerrin James would get hurt, or Jamal Lewis, or Terrell Davis, or Jamal Anderson, or Eddie George. Show me data which backs up your claim that having low career mileage and a clean injury history is FAR more important than anything else.

No, that's not the stance I'm taking. Not at all.

The Chiefs hurt Edge

[cmh6476 767]

the truth is LJ is a full grown man

link

[t.j 35]

link

 

He's no David Boston.

[bno70_1 0]

If that's true, then show me. Show me which demonstrates that guys coming off a heavy workload and also have a previous injury history are more vulnerable than those without a previous injury history. By your same reasoning, no one thought Edgerrin James would get hurt, or Jamal Lewis, or Terrell Davis, or Jamal Anderson, or Eddie George. Show me data which backs up your claim that having low career mileage and a clean injury history is FAR more important than anything else.

No, that's not the stance I'm taking. Not at all.

Your logic is flawed. Blowing out an ACL in year x has NOTHING to do with the amount of work done the year before. Ligament ruptures aren't a result of a hard year's work, they are traumatic and singular events that happen to players all over the NFL every season. You can't predict that. You are trying to marry stats with coincidence. It's like saying people with red hair have a better chance to blow out a knee.

[GobbleDog 822]

It's like saying people with red hair have a better chance to blow out a knee.

 

Gingers have no souls.

 

[t.j 35]

Your logic is flawed. Blowing out an ACL in year x has NOTHING to do with the amount of work done the year before. Ligament ruptures aren't a result of a hard year's work, they are traumatic and singular events that happen to players all over the NFL every season. You can't predict that. You are trying to marry stats with coincidence. It's like saying people with red hair have a better chance to blow out a knee.

 

My argument is data-based, not logic based. In my mind, logically a guy should have enough time in the offseason to recover. And logically, a guy who carries that many times in a season would know how to take care of himself. But the data says otherwise. TD Ryan is the one making logic-based arguments that injury history and career workload are far more important factors to consider than previous-season workload. I'm open to the possibility that's he's right, but where's the data to show it?

 

I'm not predicting a ligament rupture. However, if you want to believe that the higher rate of serious injury for players coming off an extreme workload season is just coincidence, and you're not swayed by anything I've posted so far, then I guess I can't convince you otherwise. But I would be curious to hear what logic you would use to explain the fact that the 375+ carry backs saw a dropoff of 0.4 ypc from their average in their follow-up season, whereas the 300-340 carry backs saw no dropoff in their per-carry average. Coincidence also? It must suck to play FF thinking everything is a coincidence.

[Franknbeans 46]

My argument is data-based, not logic based. In my mind, logically a guy should have enough time in the offseason to recover. And logically, a guy who carries that many times in a season would know how to take care of himself. But the data says otherwise. TD Ryan is the one making logic-based arguments that injury history and career workload are far more important factors to consider than previous-season workload. I'm open to the possibility that's he's right, but where's the data to show it?

 

I'm not predicting a ligament rupture. However, if you want to believe that the higher rate of serious injury for players coming off an extreme workload season is just coincidence, and you're not swayed by anything I've posted so far, then I guess I can't convince you otherwise. But I would be curious to hear what logic you would use to explain the fact that the 375+ carry backs saw a dropoff of 0.4 ypc from their average in their follow-up season, whereas the 300-340 carry backs saw no dropoff in their per-carry average. Coincidence also? It must suck to play FF thinking everything is a coincidence.

 

Statistically, it can be argued it is based on the small sample sizes in fantasy football. All it will take is one guy to disprove your theory. You're right, it may not be LJ this year but there will be someone, someday.

[t.j 35]

Statistically, it can be argued it is based on the small sample sizes in fantasy football. All it will take is one guy to disprove your theory. You're right, it may not be LJ this year but there will be someone, someday.

 

Someone, someday? There has already been an exception, Eric Dickerson. That said, it's not a "theory" and one guy won't "disprove" it.

That's not really the point anyway. The point is, do we have reason to believe, based on the fate of previous extreme-workload backs, that LJ will suffer a big dropoff in performance? If you think the sample size is too small to be meaningful, I can accept that, although I disagree.

[Franknbeans 46]

Sure, there are exceptions to every rule. What's your point?

 

It's not a rule. It could be a coincidence.

[t.j 35]

It's not a rule.

 

Yeah, I already re-worded my post above because that's not what I wanted to say.

[cmh6476 767]

i foresee a eric dickerson~esque career ahead for lj

 

[mixmasterbert 0]

So do u take him at 3?

[NAn 39]

what exactly are you trying to prove with the 400 carry data?

 

I have pointed out that LJ does not have any significant injury history and he does not have lots of years of NFL mileage on him and you have responded with "what's that matter"?

 

t.j. you've gone mad, it's torridesque!

those two things matter FAR more than anything else

that's what I'm saying here... you're taking the stance that having 400 carries is more important being over 30 or having 2000 career carries or playing 10 years in the NFL.

 

that's crazy talk.

I think you just added this (I didn't see it before):

fair enough and I agree. LJ may not be a top 3 guy by seasons end... but I think he'll still be top 12. He may well under perform a bit with everything changing in KC, with the 400 carries, etc... but I see his floor as pretty high still... a lot higher than some of the other "top 12" RBs.

 

Allow me to jump in here since the receptions count as half carries was my doing from here: http://www.fftoday.com/articles/nicolas/07_rb_heavy.htm

 

Now Re: a player getting 400 carries one year is more relevant than 2000 carries over 10 years.

What you guys seem to be missing is that BOTH ARE RELATED in some way.

 

If you look at the history of my research or tj's more often than not these RBs built up to a large number of carries....so by the time they've done a workload of 370 f/carries or 375 actual carries, they have had alot of mileage behind them.

 

I cite in article that of those who bucked the 370 trend, most did it with little mileage overall.

 

So, I'm sure you're about to say: 'Well LJ is in same boat..low mileage overall'.

 

I'll cite two things why, despite that low mileage, I still see LJ not doing well;

*The attaining of 400 f/carries and 400 overall carries just has an awful historical trend...regardless of if a RB did it with low mileage or high mileage

*You guys keep harping on 'this one factor of 370 f/carries or one factor of 400 carries'...what you're missing and I allude to it in my article is that often other factors are related.

 

Take the sample from last year of Edge, Alexander:

EDGE

Moves to new team, that team has poor OL, Edge already has several miles on him, has noticably slowed down

SIGNFICANTLY BELOW EXPECTATIONS

 

ALEXANDER

Loss of Hutch, SB loser doing poorly following year, coming of career yr in all categories

SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW EXPECTATIONS

 

So, as I've said and tj have said many times, CONSIDER THIS 'HEAVY WORKLOAD' DATA AS ONE OF MANY FACTORS.

 

So let's look at LJ aside from workload:

 

Holdout over, but could affect his timing on field/conditioning/etc. for reg season? Signifcant OL downgrades, lack of supporting cast (new qb, below avg wr corp), poor defense (debatable only by CMH)

 

Safe to say there are some OTHER factors that come to play with LJ even if you just use the workload factor as just a 'red flag' .

[cmh6476 767]

Holdout over, but could affect his timing on field/conditioning/etc. for reg season? Signifcant OL downgrades, lack of supporting cast (new qb, below avg wr corp), poor defense (debatable only by CMH)

umm, that poor defense sure did a good job at making oakland look silly last year. You're just not paying attention if you aren't noticing the playmakers we have on defense now. if we don't win this season, it's not going to tbe the defenses fault.

 

Someday, LJ will not be a productive back in the league. A freak injury could happen week 1 and it would all be over. We may get 3 stud years out of him in a row, which would make that contract he signed the other day worth it's weight in gold. Nobody is going to be able to predict when his demise will begin, but feel free to continue beating yourselves over the head with it if you like

[pmcintyre 0]

Hey just created another thread and didn't see this was still being used. So I'll add my thoughts in here.

 

Ok, So I spent some time looking a little deeper into the stats on the 400+ carry RBs based on the other post. Here is the Summary:

 

 

- Of the RBs listed in the previous post, Most of the RBs earned their 400+ (or close to) year in their 4th or 5th season as an RB, with 4 full seasons of 200+ carries on under their belt.

 

- You can't expect a 400+ carrier to match the same carries/yards the next year. You have to assume some decrease in stats from the next year. But, that doesn't mean they still won't be a top RB.

 

- There are just as many RBs that have performed well the next year versus ones who got injured the next year, or had very down years. This can skew stats b/c if RB 1 has a 400+ year and then a 300+ year the next, with a slight decrease in performance, you will still see overall stats go down slightly. Add in a guy who goes from 400 to 50, and that really skews the stats. (examples are strong performers being walter payton, dickerson, emmit smith with flip side being Edge, terrell davis, barry foster). Creates a false positive.

 

- Dickerson is an interesting example b/c he had 390 carries his first year followed with up with a 379 carry season with rushing high, then dropped to 292, then back up to 404, then a couple years of low carry years and then back up to 360+. What's interesting is that by the time dickerson had his 400 season, he alrady had 1,000 carries under his belt. LJ has about 900 under his belt which includes his 400+ season.

 

- I'm not much of a football historian to know what other factors affected the team the following year (new QB, new coach, harder division, etc). These also could be factors in performance. Teams are constantly morphing so many other factors (assuming it's not injury) could be at play here.

 

From what I saw, the total number of carries seems to be more of a factor versus the number of carries in one season. Once a player hits the 4th or 5th year, their risks increase. But the average life of an RB is about 4 years anyway so this makes sense.

 

I think the underlying factor is that it is almost impossible to duplicate a 400+ carry season. So don't expect it. But to expect a significant decrease in the next year is flawed. Not saying it won't happen, but to say stats support it is flawed.

 

Bottom line, it depends. I can point you to Emmit Smith who had 5 years of 320+ carries and did very well in each of those years. Or Walter Payton, who did the same. Hell, Eric Dickerson who has three very close 400+ seasons had extremely productive years 2 out of three following seasons. Or LT who's averaging 340 carries a season and has much more wear on him than LJ does.

 

Anyway, hope this helps and feel free to criticize...so long as it's not dumbfounded.

[NAn 39]

Statistically, it can be argued it is based on the small sample sizes in fantasy football. All it will take is one guy to disprove your theory. You're right, it may not be LJ this year but there will be someone, someday.

 

If you look at data, there are several who buck the theory...it's just that the percentage of those who did was very small.

 

Can I just ask a general question as it keeps coming up: What would you guys consider a BIG or PROPER sample?

 

Just give me a hard number as the sample grows every year...I just want to know, so when we do hit the number we won't have to hear it anymore.

[NAn 39]

umm, that poor defense sure did a good job at making oakland look silly last year. You're just not paying attention if you aren't noticing the playmakers we have on defense now. if we don't win this season, it's not going to tbe the defenses fault.

 

Someday, LJ will not be a productive back in the league. A freak injury could happen week 1 and it would all be over. We may get 3 stud years out of him in a row, which would make that contract he signed the other day worth it's weight in gold. Nobody is going to be able to predict when his demise will begin, but feel free to continue beating yourselves over the head with it if you like

 

yeah, b/c it took a really stout defense to make the Raiders offense look silly last year.

 

CMH, you seem to be taking this as a PERSONAL attack on LJ...it's not, TJ and I are just pointing out that he's a candidate for this historical trend.

 

I don't know LJ and don't have an opinion one way or another about him personally, but as a rule I wouldn't wish injury on anybody and it's certainly not the case here.

[cmh6476 767]

If you look at data, there are several who buck the theory...it's just that the percentage of those who did was very small.

 

Can I just ask a general question as it keeps coming up: What would you guys consider a BIG or PROPER sample?

 

Just give me a hard number as the sample grows every year...I just want to know, so when we do hit the number we won't have to hear it anymore.

 

 

you seem to want to try and invent reasons why LJ will fail. Which is fine, just be honest about it.

 

I did it yesterday for my draft. I had 4th pick, and thought maybe LJ would fall to me. But, I think I want LJ in another league where I have 3 pick, and I know I will either get LT, SJ, or LJ.

 

So what I did was went back and lowered LJ's production, and upped Addai's production, just so it would work out the way I wanted it.

 

You're just trying to come up with tons of excuses.

 

well, the defense is bad. or at least it has been and they may have not done much to imrpove it

 

well, they lost Will Shields, there is no way the line is going to be able to keep opening holes all day and night for him

 

well, their receivers suck

 

well, their qb situation is up in the air and teams wion't respect a rookie so they're going to stack 8 in the box

 

come on, the guy has been pounded into the ground since he's been with the Chiefs.

 

 

The reality of all of this is, the defense is going to be pretty good, the run blocking is going to be fine (don't forget Dunn and how good Gonzo is at blocking as well), the receivers aren't any different from what the've been having success with at running the ball, and their QB situation should be improved from a year ago with all the local hype surrounding Croyle. Oh yeah, and LJ really hasn't been used and abused like most of the other examples from your flawed theories, except for last year being the lone season. Just give up and admit you just hope he ends up sucking so you don't have to listen to me run my mouth year after year.

 

HTH

 

 

also, wanna put another bill on the series?

 

[t.j 35]

yeah, b/c it took a really stout defense to make the Raiders offense look silly last year.

 

CMH, you seem to be taking this as a PERSONAL attack on LJ...it's not, TJ and I are just pointing out that he's a candidate for this historical trend.

 

I don't know LJ and don't have an opinion one way or another about him personally, but as a rule I wouldn't wish injury on anybody and it's certainly not the case here.

 

He's just doing his usual KC attention-whoring. Nobody is wishing injury on LJ. Whether or not there are factors working against LJ based on the state of the Chiefs team is just a side point as far as this thread is concerned, there are plenty of other threads covering that topic, and plenty of people saying the same things you have said. No need to justify them here to chiefsmegahomer6476. Just look at the rest of his posts on this page, I swear, the guy is 20-something years old, going on 12. Please don't validate his BS by helping him to hijack another thread.

[cmh6476 767]

why do i get the feeling t.j has never had priest or lj on any of his fantasy teams? and he wants us to believe he's unbiased...?

[bno70_1 0]

My point is, you can't look at data in a vacuum. Data points with differing circumstances cannot be easily compared to each other. Especially when you're talking about something as random as major injuries.

 

Kudos on the independent thought and effort, but I disagree with your method.

[t.j 35]

My point is, you can't look at data in a vacuum. Data points with differing circumstances cannot be easily compared to each other. Especially when you're talking about something as random as major injuries.

 

Kudos on the independent thought and effort, but I disagree with your method.

 

Maybe that's my problem: In college, I worked in a solid-state physics lab where we tested the properties of metals inside a vacuum. We knew that it was one thing to observe our findings in the vacuum, and another to apply them in a non-vacuum circumstance. But there were certainly some useful findings that we would not have been able to find without the isolation that the vacuum provided.

 

I respect your opinion that it's difficult to account for many aspects of the circumstances for these players. There is certainly a significant random element to injuries, I'll grant you that. But I still think there is enough evidence to believe that the extreme workloads increase the risk of injury in the following season. And, I'd like to caution against focusing too much on the major injury angle, and remind you that the historical dropoff in performance goes beyond that. Whether LJ plays all 16 games or not, I think last year's workload will have a significant negative effect on this year's production.

[Yippie Skippy 0]

LT is also an exception to the 370 carry rule theory.

 

He makes the criteria of 372 carries in 2002, falling to 313 carries in 2003. Done, move on, he fits into the box, and counts as a dropoff.

 

It fails to take into account that he actually had a BETTER fantasy year in 2003, when he had 100 receptions for 725 yds, or 236 more rec yards ontop of 3 more rec tds. His rush yards were only down 38 yards from 2002 with one less rush td.

 

So not only was there no dropoff in fantasy points for LT after 2002, the facts are; there was an improvement in fantasy points in 2003.

[cmh6476 767]

nor would it factor something like this that might suggest a decline in his numbers the following year...

[Yippie Skippy 0]

nor would it factor something like this that might suggest a decline in his numbers the following year...

 

 

 

Or it might suggest that LJ will carry his fantasy owners through their playoffs.

 

There is a reason why nobody is writing off LJ as a legit top 5 pick. Is there a man among us who would not pick LJ if he slipped to us at the 6 pick in any format even if he believed in the 370 benchmark theory??

[Franknbeans 46]

If you look at data, there are several who buck the theory...it's just that the percentage of those who did was very small.

 

Can I just ask a general question as it keeps coming up: What would you guys consider a BIG or PROPER sample?

 

Just give me a hard number as the sample grows every year...I just want to know, so when we do hit the number we won't have to hear it anymore.

That's for each person to decide on their own. My own number is closer to 100.

[compone 0]

I agree on the history of this stat. However, anytime a stat is broken there is huge chance there is a decline the following year. You can't expect a huge record in any stat to keep increasing or remain steady... You have to expect a drop off the following year. I think this just points at the stats and doesn't really look at the overall picture.

 

Of course if LJ has 416 carries one year, he will have less carries the next, less TD's, less fantasy points. He had 416 carries because Bennett was hurt for part of the year. More then likely LJ will have about 320 carries in '07. I really can't speak for any of the RB's with huge workload seasons from the past, but I'm sure there were fluke injuries, age, RBBC approach or whatever else that factered into the equation. I don't think there's a connection to the following year to a heavy workload. Obviously, if a runner has more carries there's more of a chance of injury... Regardless, if it's the following year or not.

 

Look at Mannings 49 TD passing season in less then 16 games. There was a huge drop off the following year. Does that mean he was over worked or had a large work load? Maybe, but maybe it's because when a record is broken or close, there's naturally a drop off the following year.

 

If you look at the injuries the following year of a heavy workload, were there any similar injuries? I doubt it! It's more of a case where more carries over all mean a more chance of an injury. Brandon Jacobs might be destined for 350 carries this year and I see him as an injury risk. However, his workload was low last year. I'm wondering if the stat men from this site can come up with a stat where RB's are projected for a high number of carries that get injured? If LT, LJ, S.Alexander.... are projected at 25 carries a game I'm sure there's more of a risk to injury.

[compone 0]

I suppose you can't ignore this stat, but I would like to see the 20 RB's that have the drop off in stats the following year, what was each individual case/scenario? New coach, injury, tired out, new RB on the scene, move to a more passing offense, defense wasn't as good, pre-season injury? I mean like I said before, the more carries you have the more exposure you have to injury. Some players are just injury prone, some are not. LT was the exception to the what ever amount of work load rule. Maybe some RB's can carry 400, while others drop off at 300? Maybe Jamal Anderson just died out because he can't carry the load, maybe RB's over 220 lbs. aremore risk for this. Like I said I think this is just a generalization and not narrowed down to all the facts. What facts need to be there? Well, maybe 1 of the 20 prove a huge drop off, but why? What was each individual case/scenario? I mean S.Alexander broke his foot. Jamal Anderson tore his ACL. I'm not sure on the others, but these injuries aren't relative to a certain work load the previous year. I think all these players who have 300+ carries are more of a risk to injury. Maybe someone should put out a stat as to injuries per carry. Maybe at 200 carries you're 2% prone to a injury, 250 - 4% , 300-350 5%, 400+ 10%. Point being I don't think the way it's argued makes sense. I think someone exposed the the RB injury elements more often are prone to an injury or maybe even a drop off. It's all odds of an injury. maybe this won't make sense, but maybe it will.