400+ Carry Theory - Debunked!

[pmcintyre 0]

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.

[Vanillarainstorm 0]

I really don't know why LJ gets ridiculed for the workload when most workhorse backs get around 350 carries. LT ran it 348 times, and his career carry total is over 2,000, not too mention the catches. LJ is under 900.

 

Last year the Chiefs had to deal with their All-Pro LT retiring during Training Camp. They had no clue he'd do that, they even tried to get him to reconsider. They ended up having put Jordan Black out there. All he did was give up sacks and suck it up And they had to use Kyle Turley on the other side. Then a few games into the season they lose Trent Green. Replacing him with the very un-scary Damon Huard

 

Despite all of that LJ was still a monster.

 

This year they knew Will Shields was gonna retire. McinTosh is an improvement over Black, and overall the line is solid. Nothing tremendous, but solid.

 

They improved the DT position which was a weak link.

 

Even with a dropoff the guy is still gonna put up big numbers.

 

Say he drops to 1450 yds rushing, 14 TD's, and 35 catches. Who wouldn't want that?

[Watchdog 0]

- 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.

 

Couple of points here. If the carries went down from 400 to 50, that's proably due to an injury. The increased risk of injury is one of the points of the 370 carry theory.

 

Also, while "performed well" is subjective, I'd have to see you provide stats that showed yards per carry and TDs per carry were comparable with the previous year. I have a feeling the dropoff is bigger on a per carry average than you're suggesting.

 

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.

 

But no one's arguing that the same dropoff occurs after a 320 carry season. 370 (regular season carries) has been the accepted number for years now, though a few others have tried to tinker with it.

[famousb 11]

sure, you can try to "debunk" the 400+ carry theory by talking about total workload...

 

but what about the fact that ONLY Dickerson has had back to back, 1800+ rushing yd seasons...

ok, so LJ only had 1789 yds last year... but he had 1750 the season before and NO RB in the HISTORY of the NFL has ever put up back-to-back-to-back 1750 yd rushing seasons...

 

additionally, guys that hold out for significant time do wind up either getting hurt, or not performing up to snuff...

 

put the 400+ carry theory together w/ the historical facts of putting up that many rushing yds multiple seasons in a row and also his lenghty holdout, and you have yourself a VERY good reason to avoid LJ unless his value is just too good.

 

also, here's a little quote about LJ for ya:

News: A 25-day holdout helped make Larry Johnson the most highly paid player in Chiefs history. The downside is the Pro Bowl running back doesn't think he'll be ready for a full role in the season opener. Asked Wednesday if he thought he'd be 100 percent ready by Sept. 9 when the Chiefs open at Houston, Johnson said, "No, it'll take a little bit more than that. Obviously, coaches are going to do a great job trying to get me on track to where week two or week three of the season I can hit my full stride. I'm going to try pick up as fast as I can. ... What I know about myself is I've never been a fast starter coming out of the blocks in a season. I've always been -- the last eight games is when I really turn it on. So I'm going to push myself as hard as I can to try to even it out."

[nobody 2,044]

Let's just merge this in to the other thread since it's the exact same stuff posted in there anyway.

[pmcintyre 0]

Couple of points here. If the carries went down from 400 to 50, that's proably due to an injury. The increased risk of injury is one of the points of the 370 carry theory.

 

True, that is correct, most likely due to injury...but there are significantly more occurrences of an RB not even getting close to 400 carries and have just as bad or worse injuries. So I don't think you can correlate the two. Rbs get injured all the time, just b/c an RB hits 400 carries the previous year doesn't mean it was directly related to last season's workload.

 

Also, while "performed well" is subjective, I'd have to see you provide stats that showed yards per carry and TDs per carry were comparable with the previous year. I have a feeling the dropoff is bigger on a per carry average than you're suggesting.

But no one's arguing that the same dropoff occurs after a 320 carry season. 370 (regular season carries) has been the accepted number for years now, though a few others have tried to tinker with it.

 

I can see your point. But the same conclusion would still apply if you upped it to 370. There are multiple RBs who had 370+ seasons who did well the next year. Emmitt had multiple years of 370+ carries and followed them up with slightly lower or better the next year. And in some cased the yards per carry even increased even though the number of carries decreased.

 

And you are right, "Performing Well" is very subjective. If you look at the stats though. 1300+ yards or better was gained the following year on multiple occassions:

 

- E. Smith '91 with 365 (rounding up) carries then in '92 with 372 carries and 6 more TDs

- E. Smith again in '94 with 368 carries and then in '95 with 377 carries and 4 more TDs

- W. Payton in '84 with 381 carries and '85 with 324 carries with only 130 less yards and 2 less TDs

- E. Dickerson in '83 with 390 carries and in '84 with 379 but over 100 more yards and 4 less TDs

- J. Wilder in '84 with 407 carries and 365 carries with only 200 less total yards and 3 less TDs (and only 0.2 decrease in YPC)

 

I can go on, but that's plenty

 

Granted that's not 1700 yards, but based on his ADP, getting 1400 rushing with 400 receiving would still most likely be in line with what to expect from him...based on going 3-6.

 

I don't think anyone is expecting 1750 rushing yards from LJ. If that was the case we wouldn't even be discussing this. But 1800 total yards and 14-16 TDs would be something I would be happy with. That's over 100 yards a game and almost a TD a game as well.

[Da Bomb 0]

you are accusing the other side of the argument of using the stats to say whatever they want, but thats EXACTLY what you are doing.

 

look, a lot of guys have had 340, 340, 360 carries and done great again the next season. for whatever reason that hasnt been a big deal. but historically, players who go over 370 have a poor recovery after that, and players over 390 are absolutely awful thereafter.

 

you mention wilder but fail to mention that he had 30+ receptions less, had a YPC of 3.6, and only had one even remotely good season the rest of his career -- it just happened to be that next year.

 

dickerson fell if in an absolutely huge way too, and youre right to point out that LJ parallels him pretty well, so i think that is pretty frightening.

 

anderson and terrell davis both snapped their ACLs and were never the same. eddie george is the only one who didnt miss injury time, but his YPC dropped and never recovered, nor the rest of his stats.

 

bottom line, you have either a freakishly large number of coincidences that LJ will prove wrong this year, or you have very good statistical reasoning to pass on LJ in your draft this year. i'll prefer rational thinking and logic personally.

[pmcintyre 0]

you are accusing the other side of the argument of using the stats to say whatever they want, but thats EXACTLY what you are doing.

 

you mention wilder but fail to mention that he had 30+ receptions less, had a YPC of 3.6, and only had one even remotely good season the rest of his career -- it just happened to be that next year.

 

dickerson fell if in an absolutely huge way too, and youre right to point out that LJ parallels him pretty well, so i think that is pretty frightening.

 

anderson and terrell davis both snapped their ACLs and were never the same. eddie george is the only one who didnt miss injury time, but his YPC dropped and never recovered, nor the rest of his stats.

 

That's the wonderfull thing about stats. You can argue either side with the same info....

 

Regarding wilder...you also fail to mention that he average 3.8 yards per carry the previous year, which still is not that great. And to be honest I don't think he's a good comparison, but just proved a point. And the receptions could be due to many things. Carries are more consistent. They could have changed the offensive scheme, I personally don't know.

 

And how can you say Dickerson fell in a huge way too when in the year after he had 390 carries, his YPG went from 4.6 yo 5.6 the next year, and ended up with more yards than his 390 year on less carries? And again when he had 388 carries his YPC went down only 0.1 the following year.

 

Anderson, davis and george are example in your favor, which I'm not saying there aren't any. All I'm saying is that for every one of your examples there's another one that refutes it. So you can't statistically say 400+ carries indicates failure.

 

My position is easier b/c I'm just trying to refute a statement, which is like the defense in a trial trying to refute the prosecution...all you need is reasonable doubt.

[Guest _my_2_cents_]

Wow! What an interesting contribution this would have been to the existing "LJ 416 carries" debate that's right here on the front page!

 

You had kinda bad aim in posting it though.

[pmcintyre 0]

Also, the year after dickerson had his 400+ season, was 1987, which was the year the NFL went on strike, AND he was traded, and managed to gain 1288 yards in nine games.....FYI.

[NAn 39]

- 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.

 

And this is part of point of data:

RBs coming off a season where they attained the heavy workload benchmark of 370 f/carries experienced a decreased in f/carries more than 8 out of 10 times—even when remaining healthy.

It’s rare to have a 370-f/carry season and even more rare for a RB to repeat the feat. Most of the time there is nowhere for an RB to go but down after a 370-f/carry season. It’s not that these RBs always come back with bad years—but they too often fail to live up to expectation. You should consider that statistical history says it’s highly unlikely for RBs coming off 370 seasons to attain a similar number of f/carries.

 

You're right it doesn't mean they won't be a top RB....but b/c expectations are usually exceptionally high, they end up falling short of those exceptionally high expectations.

 

Beyond that just under 12% ever attain 250 ff pts again the rest of their career...so doesn't they won't be a top RB, just odds are against it.

 

- 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.

 

 

you say just as many had down years as had up years but then you give a range of 400+ or 300+?

 

well of course that's the case when you're range is that big...we're saying it happens with RBs with high amount of carries and denote it at 370+

 

the whole point of data is that injuries seem to happen after a 370 year, that touches go down after a 370 season, that production goes down after a 370 season.

 

- 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.

 

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.

 

It's funny you mention these players as cited earlier, they are the exception to the rule and if you took them out of equation the data would be even more telling.

 

...you can count the number of players that repeatedly reached the highest levels of RB fantasy production on one hand! Emmitt Smith alone was responsible for three of the seven seasons with 300+ points. And of the ten times where backs reached the 250-299 point-mark more than once, seven of these seasons came from three players: Walter Payton (3), Curtis Martin (2), and Eric Dickerson (2).

Let's see...4 hall of famers, #1, #2, #4 and #6 all-time rushing yds...maybe there's a reason these particular guys are the exceptions? They are kind of special players?

 

 

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.

 

So we can't use actual statistical data as facts? what should we use? opinions? how else do you support something, heck anything, as fact if not proven prior data?

[Guest _my_2_cents_]

So we can't use actual statistical data as facts? what should we use? opinions? how else do you support something, heck anything, as fact if not proven prior data?

 

I suggest throwing a handfull of chicken bones up into the air, then divining the answers from the patterns in which they land.

 

go!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MTSkiBum 1,594]

I suggest throwing a handfull of chicken bones up into the air, then divining the answers from the patterns in which they land.

 

go!

 

 

Please dont give away my ranking strategy

[pmcintyre 0]

And this is part of point of data:

RBs coming off a season where they attained the heavy workload benchmark of 370 f/carries experienced a decreased in f/carries more than 8 out of 10 times—even when remaining healthy.

 

Show me the facts to this b/c I would like to see this 8 out of 10 times proven consistently. Also out of all the players I mentioned, every instance was a year where they had 370 in one year. The lowest example was 365 carries. So to say I'm using 300+ as the benchmark is false.

 

You're right it doesn't mean they won't be a top RB....but b/c expectations are usually exceptionally high, they end up falling short of those exceptionally high expectations.

 

Isn't that the point of this entire thread. I don't think anyone is thinking they are drafting LJ with the hopes/expectations that he will surpass jackson or LT. His numbers last year probably could. You can say the exact same thing about any RB that has an exceptional year. The odds of repeating are slim. I don't think that's the point. The point is will he produce to the level he is currently being drafted? And in my opinion, I am only saying that you can't look at past 400+ rushers and say "not even close."

 

you say just as many had down years as had up years but then you give a range of 400+ or 300+?

 

Look for yourself, every instance I gave was at least 370 carries, or damn close. The point of adding 300+ in is to show that multiple years where the RB continually has 300+ mixed in with 370+ signifincatly hurts his chances of having a great year after 4 or so seasons, which LJ is not there yet. Players who had 370+ carries early in their career easily can go on and have great years after.

 

Let's see...4 hall of famers, #1, #2, #4 and #6 all-time rushing yds...maybe there's a reason these particular guys are the exceptions? They are kind of special players?

 

I'm not sure you're seeing what I'm seeing from LJ (and I'm not even a KC fan), but for the past 2 1/2 seasons hasn't he looked like a back that can compete for any and all of those records? Who else would you compare him to? He's consistently been the best or 2nd best RB in the league since he's started, he is a workhorse who rarely gets injured. That's like saying Lebron James will never be close to Jordan. To be honest, I think that actually proves my point even more.

[t.j 35]

Show me the facts to this b/c I would like to see this 8 out of 10 times proven consistently. Also out of all the players I mentioned, every instance was a year where they had 370 in one year. The lowest example was 365 carries. So to say I'm using 300+ as the benchmark is false.

 

Check the other thread, it's all there. NAn posted a link to his fftoday.com article on the subject on page 1 or 2 of the other thread, I think.

Also I think NAn used regular-season only, not regular season plus playoffs. For my data, I used regular season carries only initially (page 1 of the thread) and then regular season plus playoffs (page 2). Another difference is that for NAn's study, he factored in 1 reception = ½ f-carry. In my data I did not include receptions.

 

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.

 

This is discussed on page 3 of the other thread, about halfway down the page.

[NAn 39]

Show me the facts to this b/c I would like to see this 8 out of 10 times proven consistently.

 

F/Carries And Injury For Rbs Coming Off A 370-F/Carry Season

Here are the ten-year totals for f/carries the season after a RB attains the heavy workload f/carry benchmark:

 

7 of 45 (15.5%) RBs had an increase in f/carries (In fact, the increase was a significant gain of +17.2 f/carries)

 

38 of 45 (84.4%) RBs had a decrease in f/carries

 

RBs that missed at least a game had an average decrease of –87.6 f/carries for the season

 

Even if the RB didn’t miss a game the overall workload decreased by an average of –29.2 f/carries

Overall, 22 of 28 (78.5%) RBs that didn’t miss a game in the season after they reached the heavy workload benchmark experienced a decrease in f/carries.

 

What It Means: RBs coming off a season where they attained the heavy workload benchmark of 370 f/carries experienced a decreased in f/carries more than 8 out of 10 times—even when remaining healthy. When doing projections or rankings of the top tier backs it’s useful to consider this data. The difference may seem nominal even if you deduct just 24.8 f/carries from a 370-f/carry back for this year—a conservative estimate—but it will likely yield more accurate projections for your draft.

 

Here, look for yourself below and for those who attained benchmark over past couple years can look up their stats on the articles page and archive articles page here at fftoday 'RB Heavy Workload'

 

Walter Payton

| 1979 chi | 16 | 369 1610 4.4 14 | 31 313 10.1 2 |

| 1980 chi | 16 | 317 1460 4.6 6 | 46 367 8.0 1 |

| 1984 chi | 16 | 381 1684 4.4 11 | 45 368 8.2 0 |

| 1985 chi | 16 | 324 1551 4.8 9 | 49 483 9.9 2 |

 

Earl Campbell

| 1979 hou | 16 | 368 1697 4.6 19 | 16 94 5.9 0 |

| 1980 hou | 15 | 373 1934 5.2 13 | 11 47 4.3 0 |

| 1981 hou | 16 | 361 1376 3.8 10 | 36 156 4.3 0 |

| 1982 hou | 9 | 157 538 3.4 2 | 18 130 7.2 0 |

 

George Rogers

| 1981 nor | 15 | 378 1674 4.4 13 | 16 126 7.9 0 |

| 1982 nor | 6 | 122 535 4.4 3 | 4 21 5.2 0 |

 

Eric Dickerson

| 1983 ram | 16 | 390 1808 4.6 18 | 51 404 7.9 2 |

| 1984 ram | 16 | 379 2105 5.6 14 | 21 139 6.6 0 |

| 1985 ram | 14 | 292 1234 4.2 12 | 20 126 6.3 0 |

| 1986 ram | 16 | 404 1821 4.5 11 | 26 205 7.9 0 |

| 1987 ind | 9 | 223 1011 4.5 5 | 13 133 10.2 0 |

| 1987 ram | 3 | 60 277 4.6 1 | 5 38 7.6 0 |

 

John Riggins

| 1983 was | 15 | 375 1347 3.6 24 | 5 29 5.8 0 |

| 1984 was | 14 | 327 1239 3.8 14 | 7 43 6.1 0 |

 

James Wilder

| 1984 tam | 16 | 407 1544 3.8 13 | 85 685 8.1 0 |

| 1985 tam | 16 | 365 1300 3.6 10 | 53 341 6.4 0 |

| 1986 tam | 12 | 190 704 3.7 2 | 43 326 7.6 1 |

 

Gerald Riggs

| 1985 atl | 16 | 397 1719 4.3 10 | 33 267 8.1 0 |

| 1986 atl | 16 | 343 1327 3.9 9 | 24 136 5.7 0 |

 

Marcus Allen

| 1985 rai | 16 | 380 1759 4.6 11 | 67 555 8.3 3 |

| 1986 rai | 13 | 208 759 3.6 5 | 46 453 9.8 2 |

 

Herschel Walker

| 1988 dal | 16 | 361 1514 4.2 5 | 53 505 9.5 2 |

| 1989 dal | 5 | 81 246 3.0 2 | 22 261 11.9 1 |

 

Christian Okoye

| 1989 kan | 15 | 370 1480 4.0 12 | 2 12 6.0 0 |

| 1990 kan | 14 | 245 805 3.3 7 | 4 23 5.8 0 |

 

Emmitt Smith

| 1991 dal | 16 | 365 1563 4.3 12 | 49 258 5.3 1 |

| 1992 dal | 16 | 373 1713 4.6 18 | 59 335 5.7 1 |

| 1993 dal | 14 | 283 1486 5.3 9 | 57 414 7.3 1 |

| 1994 dal | 15 | 368 1484 4.0 21 | 50 341 6.8 1 |

| 1995 dal | 16 | 377 1773 4.7 25 | 62 375 6.0 0 |

| 1996 dal | 15 | 327 1204 3.7 12 | 47 249 5.3 3 |

 

Barry Foster

| 1992 pit | 16 | 390 1690 4.3 11 | 36 344 9.6 0 |

| 1993 pit | 9 | 177 711 4.0 8 | 27 217 8.0 1 |

 

Thurman Thomas

| 1993 buf | 16 | 355 1315 3.7 6 | 48 387 8.1 0 |

| 1994 buf | 15 | 287 1093 3.8 7 | 50 349 7.0 2 |

 

Curtis Martin

| 1995 ne | 16 | 368 1487 4.0 14 | 30 261 8.7 1 |

| 1996 ne | 16 | 316 1152 3.6 14 | 46 333 7.2 3 |

| 1998 nyj | 15 | 369 1287 3.5 8 | 43 365 8.5 1 |

| 1999 nyj | 16 | 367 1464 4.0 5 | 45 259 5.8 0 |

| 2000 nyj | 16 | 316 1204 3.8 9 | 69 505 7.3 2 |

 

Ricky Watters

| 1996 phi | 16 | 353 1411 4.0 13 | 51 444 8.7 0 |

| 1997 phi | 16 | 285 1110 3.9 7 | 48 440 9.2 0 |

 

Jerome Bettis

| 1997 pit | 15 | 375 1665 4.4 7 | 15 110 7.3 2 |

| 1998 pit | 15 | 316 1185 3.8 3 | 16 90 5.6 0 |

 

Terrell Davis

| 1997 den | 15 | 369 1750 4.7 15 | 42 287 6.8 0 |

| 1998 den | 16 | 392 2008 5.1 21 | 25 217 8.7 2 |

| 1999 den | 4 | 67 211 3.1 2 | 3 26 8.7 0 |

 

Jamal Anderson

| 1998 atl | 16 | 410 1846 4.5 14 | 27 319 11.8 2 |

| 1999 atl | 2 | 19 59 3.1 0 | 2 34 17.0 0 |

 

Edgerrin James

| 1999 ind | 16 | 369 1553 4.2 13 | 62 586 9.5 4 |

| 2000 ind | 16 | 387 1709 4.4 13 | 63 594 9.4 5 |

| 2001 ind | 6 | 151 662 4.4 3 | 24 193 8.0 0 |

 

Eddie George

| 2000 ten | 16 | 403 1509 3.7 14 | 50 453 9.1 2 |

| 2001 ten | 16 | 315 939 3.0 5 | 37 279 7.5 0 |

 

Stephen Davis

| 2001 was | 16 | 356 1432 4.0 5 | 28 205 7.3 0 |

| 2002 was | 12 | 207 820 4.0 7 | 23 142 6.2 1 |

 

Ricky Williams

| 2002 mia | 16 | 383 1853 4.8 16 | 47 363 7.7 1 |

| 2003 mia | 16 | 392 1372 3.5 9 | 50 351 7.0 1 |

 

Ladainian Tomlinson

| 2002 sdg | 16 | 372 1683 4.5 14 | 79 489 6.2 1 |

| 2003 sdg | 16 | 313 1645 5.3 13 | 100 725 7.2 4 |

 

 

 

Also out of all the players I mentioned, every instance was a year where they had 370 in one year. The lowest example was 365 carries. So to say I'm using 300+ as the benchmark is false.

 

 

1. YOU are the one who used the general term 300+, then now clarify above that it's close to 365/370...if it's false, YOU brought up the number NOT ME.

 

2. You mention like 3 RBs that are the exception to the data, but tell me my sample is too small.

 

 

Isn't that the point of this entire thread. I don't think anyone is thinking they are drafting LJ with the hopes/expectations that he will surpass jackson or LT. His numbers last year probably could. You can say the exact same thing about any RB that has an exceptional year. The odds of repeating are slim.

 

All you say is true, but FFers are a funny lot...even when Alexander was coming off CAREER year in TDs, yds, carries, etc. common sense would tell you that he'd do less....but many ffers had him projected to do the same or better. Edge: everyone said he's going to new team, poor OL, he's lost a step, etc. again common sense...but people still had him anywhere from 5-8 last year.

Here's the deal: makes perfect sense that odds repeating are slim...unfortunately FFers don't always deal in sense...perfect or common.

 

I'm not sure you're seeing what I'm seeing from LJ (and I'm not even a KC fan), but for the past 2 1/2 seasons hasn't he looked like a back that can compete for any and all of those records? Who else would you compare him to? He's consistently been the best or 2nd best RB in the league since he's started, he is a workhorse who rarely gets injured. That's like saying Lebron James will never be close to Jordan. To be honest, I think that actually proves my point even more.

 

I see the problem...you have manlove for LJ and I don't.

 

The kid is very talented but NO I'm not going to talk about him in the same breath as Emmitt, Payton, Martin, Dickerson!

You want to start comparing after 2 and 1/2 years?!

Let's look at LOW man on that list, Dickerson: 12 seasons, 13000rush yds, 15000totyds, 4 seasons of over 2000totyds, 6 seasons of over 1200yds rushing. LJ has a long way to go in my book before I compare him to even the low man Dickerson.

 

If you disagre fine...but I suggest we just leave it at that b/c if you DO want to compare LJ at this pt to any of those guys, then we're NOT going to see eye to eye on this debate.

[MTSkiBum 1,594]

I would just like to say Nan's a stud, even if his team projections with us, the fftodayers helping out, flopped.

[Ruphus 0]

The kid is very talented but NO I'm not going to talk about him in the same breath as Emmitt, Payton, Martin, Dickerson!

You want to start comparing after 2 and 1/2 years?!

Let's look at LOW man on that list, Dickerson: 12 seasons, 13000rush yds, 15000totyds, 4 seasons of over 2000totyds, 6 seasons of over 1200yds rushing. LJ has a long way to go in my book before I compare him to even the low man Dickerson.

 

If you disagre fine...but I suggest we just leave it at that b/c if you DO want to compare LJ at this pt to any of those guys, then we're NOT going to see eye to eye on this debate.

 

Exactly my thoughts, only the rarest few "special" cases break the 370f/carries curse. If you look further and start comparing when RB's get injured after consistant seasons of a large workload, it's scary to draft RB's like Larry Johnson, Shaun Alexander and LaDainian Thomlinson. Only the big time RB's were able to keep up consistant 370+ carry seasons without sustaining injuries that would otherwise kill their fantasy values.

 

LaDainian is on that threshold... if he holds up for one more stellar year, I think it'll be safe to start calling him one of the "special" and possibly the best....

[pmcintyre 0]

F/Carries And Injury For Rbs Coming Off A 370-F/Carry Season

Here are the ten-year totals for f/carries the season after a RB attains the heavy workload f/carry benchmark:

 

7 of 45 (15.5%) RBs had an increase in f/carries (In fact, the increase was a significant gain of +17.2 f/carries)

 

38 of 45 (84.4%) RBs had a decrease in f/carries

 

The irony about that entire quote is that I look at the same data and see a completely different perspective. I seriously have no bias towards the guy whatsoever. This is seriously based on stats, and the risk of soley taking into account numbers without asking the question "Why?" or delving a little deeper.

 

I am not disputing the fact that there was a decrease in carries 84.4% of the time. What I am disputing is given that, look at the stats and compare actual yards and TDs for the following year, hell even compare carries. And of those RBs, there are many of them who still had what fantasy goers (and people who would choose LJ in the 3-6 draft position) would consider as great seasons. Also, in some cases that decrease was by 5% or less, or actually was irrelevant b/c YPC increased and caused players to have higher yardages anyway. Yes 84.4% of the time they will not be at the same level as the previous year. But that's the reason why LJ is not going top 2.

 

I think we are close in agreement on a lot of things. I'm not advocating taking the guy at any postion. All I'm saying is if you look at historical stats of RBs who have produced 370+ carries, he may not match previous year, but it is completely inclonclusive as to wether his stats will seriously or even remotely decrease. The only thing, IMOP, that your stats can show is that there is a decrease in carries. But we don't know how much....which is BY FAR the real question we would like to know.

 

Great. awesome. thanks. That decrease can be 2%, it can be 5%, it can be 10%, it can be 50%. He could end up having a 2%, hell a 15%, decrease and still lead the league in rushing this year. That would still fall in line with your hypothesis but does it help the average jo-ffl-er? In my opinion...NO!!!!

[Guest _my_2_cents_]

This is discussed on page 3 of the other thread, about halfway down the page.

 

wait - you mean the dead horse has been beaten already? Say it isn't so!

[NAn 39]

I think with the ‘history of’ the statistics…numbers attached to RBs over last 20 years…may be hard to ‘visualize’ how the research translates.

 

Let’s try to address that.

 

Since the original article/research PRIOR to ’04 season, these are RBs who attained the 370 f/carry benchmark.

 

Jamal Lewis

Ahman Green

Deuce Mcallister

Fred Taylor

Curtis Martin

Edgerrin James

Tiki Barber

Shaun Alexander

 

That’s 8 players…consider all the stats and in particular compare top (just these 8 players) v italicized (entire history of research)…think you may see some consistency in the percentages.

 

If that means anything to you great...if not, well then we'll just continue with

 

How many met or slightly decreased in production: 1 of 8 (12.75%)

How many fell of considerably (20%+) in production 7 of 8 (87.25%)

Just 8 of 45 (17.7%...the converse being 83.3%) times have RBs who attained 370 f/carries came back following year with equal or slightly less production

 

How many missed 1 game 2 of 8 (25%)

How many missed 1-3 games 4 of 8 (50%)

How many 4+ games 2 of 8 (25%)

26 of 45 (57.7%) Heavy Workload RBs missed at least 1 game

12 of 45 (26.6%) Heavy Workload RBs missed 1-3 games

13 of 45 (28.8%) Heavy Workload RBs missed 4+ games

 

How many increased in f/carries 0 of 8 (0%)

How many decreased in f/carries 7 0f 8 (87.5%)

7 of 45 (15.5%) RBs had an increase in f/carries

38 of 45 (84.4%) RBs had a decrease in f/carries

 

How many who did NOT miss games increase in f/carries 0 of 2 ( 0%)

How many who did NOT miss games decrease in f/carries 2 of 2 (100%)

 

Average decrease in carries of those who did NOT miss any games: 27

Average decrease in carries of those who did miss any games: 117

Average decrease of f/carries for those RBs who did NOT miss any games: 26.3

Average decrease of f/carries for those RBs who did miss any games : 85.3

[NAn 39]

The only thing, IMOP, that your stats can show is that there is a decrease in carries. But we don't know how much....which is BY FAR the real question we would like to know.

a

 

Jeez, would you just read the article?

 

RBs that missed at least a game had an average decrease of –87.6 f/carries for the season

Even if the RB didn’t miss a game the overall workload decreased by an average of –29.2 f/carries

Overall, 22 of 28 (78.5%) RBs that didn’t miss a game in the season after they reached the heavy workload benchmark experienced a decrease in f/carries.

 

What I am disputing is given that, look at the stats and compare actual yards and TDs for the following year, hell even compare carries. And of those RBs, there are many of them who still had what fantasy goers (and people who would choose LJ in the 3-6 draft position) would consider as great seasons.

 

 

Umm, I just don't think we're on same page:

 

RB Fantasy Production Following A 370-F/Carry Season

During the past twelve seasons, an overwhelming majority of heavy workload backs from the previous year see a drop in production. Here’s the breakdown:

 

Production Change Total Rbs Met Criteria Pct. Of Rbs Resulting Fantasy Production 
Same or better 45 7 15.5% At least 300 fpts 
Drop of 1%-10% 45 5 11.1% 270-299 fpts 
Drop of 11%-20% 45 2 4.4% 240-269 fpts 
Drop of 21%-30% 45 12 26.6% 210-239 fpts 
Drop of 31%-40% 45 6 13.3% 180-209 fpts 
Drop of 41%-50% 45 6 13.3% 150-179 fpts 
Drop of over 50% 45 7 15.5% At most 149 fpts

 

 

What It Means:

 

Only 12 of 45 (26.6%) running backs either met or experienced only a slight decrease (10% or less) in their previous season’s production. In contrast, 33 of 45 (73.4%) backs during that same period of time experienced at least a 20% decrease in their fantasy production.

 

Only 4.9% of backs ever attained 300+ fpts again once they already produced at 370-f/carry season (approximately 2100 total yds/15tds). Even when you lower the expectations to 250+ fpts (1700 total yds/13tds) the number only rises to 11.8%. You actually have to considerably lower your expectations to 200 fpts (1500totyds/8tds) just to see 1 out of 4 (25.0%) heavy producers ever reach that workload again.

 

Another way to put it is that after a RB has attained a 370 season, the following season, 75% of the time according to statistical historical data, those RBs will not even attain 200 fantasy points.

 

200 fantasy points is about 1500yds/8tds, not bad but definitely less than what most expect from a 1st rnd pick, which is what RBs coming off a 370 year are usually ranked to be: as a first rnd pick at least, often top5.

 

So I'd have to disagee that many FFers would consider the seasons after a 370 season as 'great seasons', as those 'great' season only happen 11.8% of the time (250ff pts) or 25% of the time if lower expectations (200ffpts).

[pmcintyre 0]

Like I said, I'm not arguing the stats. The stats are what they are. It's all about how you interpret them.

 

Like you said, let's take a look at those 8 backs:

 

Jamal Lewis - If you remember the season after his 2003 season was the year he was charged with attempting to distribute cocaine. He was suspended for 2 games, had a slew of legal issues and also served time in prison, which people now are starting to say he has just finally recovered from prison diet, lack of training during this time, etc. I completely discount his inclusion in this analysis for these reasons.

 

Ahman Green - He fits your example....however he never actually hit 370 rushing carries but would assume you are including receiving at 50%. At this he accomplished this feat in his sixth season. And we all know after 4-5 years as an RB, production will inevitably decrease. I have a hard time comparing LJ in what will be his 3rd full time season versus a guy who had been the starting running back with well over 300+ carries in 4 previous seasons and has at least 2 years in age equal comparison.

 

Deuce Mcallister - Very similar in comparison to LJ. Not much I can refute here.

 

Fred Taylor - Seriously? That's actually comical. Ok, where do I start. I guess I'll start by saying this guy is more inconsistent than any RB probably in recent memory. His rushing carries in each of his years are as follows: 264, 159, 292, 30, 287, 345, 260 (bolds being the years in question). First off, he also achieved this feat in his 6th year after many productive years. On top of this he achieved this feat two seasons AFTER he was out almost the entire 2001 season. Again, Putting him in this analysis is like comparing apples and Maseratis. I'm actually laughing right now.

 

Curtis Martin - He actually is an RB that fits my example, but has multiple years of hitting this mark or very close and has had only slight decreases the following year or an increase (1998 and 1999 seasons). The year you are putting in this example was his 2004 season. Do I really have to even make the following statement. THAT WAS MARTIN'S 10TH SEASON!!!!!. If you really want to make a comparison with he and Martin, look at his 98-99 seasons which they would have been similar in age but Martin actually had about a season and a half in more carries under his belt. Martin had almost 200 more yards on 2 less carries the following year.

 

Edgerrin James - Edge. if you are comparing his 2004 season, you have to account for the age factor. He was in his 7th season when he had 360 carries and already had a 390 carry season under his belt, on top of that an ACL injury and recovery year as well. You could make the claim his 01 ACL injury was due to his 2000 season....but I don't think you can make that claim with any serious proof since ACL injuries happen all the time to backs who don't have large seasons the prior year and seem to be random by nature. But that season would statistically fit in your mold.

 

Tiki Barber - again age factor. You are comparing a guy who accomplished this feat in his 9th season at RB. On top of that, he ended up rushing for 1662 yards the following season (a 10% decrease), which I think anyone who has LJ would love a 1660 rushing season since it would put him well over 2000 total yards. Yes, his TDs decreased significantly, but you can't tell me the inclusion of Brandon Jacobs into the NYG running game was not the main factor in that decline as he got almost all the goal line carries...So to be honest, I think he's actually an RB in my favor.

 

Shaun Alexander - Again...age factor. He accomplished this feat in his 6th season and was injured in his seventh. Not to mention he had 4 seasons prior to his 370 season averaging 320+ carries (not even including receiving carries in that).

 

So let's sum it up. You are comparing one guy who served time in prison and was suspended for two games in his following season, a "Glass Joe" running back who has never once been at all consistent, and 4 RBs who accomplished this feat in their 6th, 6th, 7th and 9th seasons....all of which had multiple 300+ carry seasons in their previous years. Out of those 2004+ seasons, I'll give you McCallister, with Tiki actually being an RB in my favor.

 

I can give you stats to fit any explanation, but seriously, why don't you just take a closer look like I have been saying before you go and say "The Numbers Don't Lie!!!"

 

Before you start giving stats again....Give me examples of an RB who is similar to LJ's mold:

 

- has a 370+ carry season within 2-3 years of his career

- Will still have less than 1,000 carries under his belt going into the next season following his big 370+ year

- has only two seasons of 300+ carries under his belt (including their 370+ season) and less than 4 seasons total in the league

 

There are not many backs that fit this mold. But of the ones that do or even come close, I point you to the dickersons, the smiths, and the curtis martins of the world. Sure you can point back to the Edges or the McCallisters, but that's not my point. My only point is that it's inconclusive.

[t.j 35]

Great. awesome. thanks. That decrease can be 2%, it can be 5%, it can be 10%, it can be 50%. He could end up having a 2%, hell a 15%, decrease and still lead the league in rushing this year. That would still fall in line with your hypothesis but does it help the average jo-ffl-er? In my opinion...NO!!!!

 

The numbers you are using to portray the situation are very misleading, because it is extremely rare for these guys to drop off by only 2% or 5% or 10% or 15%. The average rushing FF production dropoff for guys who carried more than 375 times in the regular season is 43%!! The vast majority of them drop off by more than 20%. Only 1 out of the 19 increased his rushing FF production, and that was only by 2%.

 

It's all here: http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...266227&st=0

[GobbleDog 816]

There are not many backs that fit this mold.

 

I agree with this. LJ's situation is so unique that there's not enough statistics to make a reliable prediction.

[t.j 35]

Before you start giving stats again....Give me examples of an RB who is similar to LJ's mold:

 

I covered the age thing and career workload at the top of page 2 of my thread.

 

Before you start demanding things of us again... do yourself a favor and actually read NAn's articles and my thread.

 

I agree with this. LJ's situation is so unique that there's not enough statistics to make a reliable prediction.

 

What's unique about LJ's situation is that he carried the ball more times in the regular season than any of these other guys we are comparing him to.

[pmcintyre 0]

I covered the age thing and career workload at the top of page 2 of my thread.

 

Do yourself a favor and actually read NAn's articles and my thread.

What's unique about LJ's situation is that he carried the ball more times in the regular season than any of these other guys we are comparing him to.

 

I read the thread. It does provide some very interesting analysis and comparison. However, you only threw out one outlier (williams), and include every other back that hit a certain mark, and then account on age.

 

My whole point is that you are not looking at the bigger picture and are looking at stats and stats alone to make decisions. It's like crunching a bunch of numbers on a stock and concluding it will suck or do great, and basing your decision on a- as small data set b- questionable comparisons c- those numbers alone. I'm telling you, nothing is ever this cut and dry and you always have to look deeper to see if things are skewing your results. I am just pointing out flaws in the underlying data, which can innevitably affect your overall analysis.

 

Again, you are including players who were traded the following year, years where the NFL went on strike, years where teams draft another RB who gets goal line carries, players who were suspended for part of the season, etc., etc. Take all those out and you have a handful of backs who may fit a reasonable comparison...but then your data set is so small it's hard to take it seriously.

 

I understand you have to work with what you have available. My point is, if you really want to compare apples and apples, you need to mimic as close as you can very similar situations. You can't just blanketly analyze a group of players and project how well they will do solely based on one stat. That in and of itself is a flawed analysis.

[pmcintyre 0]

I covered the age thing and career workload at the top of page 2 of my thread.

 

Before you start demanding things of us again... do yourself a favor and actually read NAn's articles and my thread.

What's unique about LJ's situation is that he carried the ball more times in the regular season than any of these other guys we are comparing him to.

 

Also, I do have to say I was a believer in this theory until I really looked into the data, and researched the players who hit these tiers to see if there was anything affecting their next season.

 

I'm not saying it is not interesting and I'm not saying he won't turn out to have the season your are saying he will. I'm just saying I'm not going to base my decision solely on the fact that he had a 416 carry season last year.

[pmcintyre 0]

Also are players who were in the low 300 range but made it to the superbowl or deep into the playoffs and ended up very close to this, are they in the analysis? Why should these players not be considered when in theory their workload would have been the same.

 

Or are more carries in a game more stressful than less carries but in more weeks....These all can be added as factors.

[t.j 35]

Also are players who were in the low 300 range but made it to the superbowl or deep into the playoffs and ended up very close to this, are they in the analysis? Why should these players not be considered when in theory their workload would have been the same.

 

Or are more carries in a game more stressful than less carries but in more weeks....These all can be added as factors.

 

Page 2 has data on players who reached 375 carries in regular season + playoffs. You claim you read it, but it sure doesn't freakin' sound like it.

[t.j 35]

My whole point is that you are not looking at the bigger picture and are looking at stats and stats alone to make decisions.

 

Wrong!! I'm looking at the stats to determine how important the stat is!! I am not advocating looking at the stats and saying you should make your entire decision about LJ based on it!!

[pmcintyre 0]

Page 2 has data on players who reached 375 carries in regular season + playoffs. You claim you read it, but it sure doesn't freakin' sound like it.

 

huh? claim I read what? Page 2? I just claimed that it didn't appear those players were in your analysis. Should they be? I don't know, but I can make a claim that they should...

 

Now are you just getting bitter?

[t.j 35]

huh? claim I read what? Page 2?

 

Right here, a few posts ago, you claim you read the thread:

 

I read the thread.

 

I just claimed that it didn't appear those players were in your analysis. Should they be? I don't know, but I can make a claim that they should...

 

Well, they are there. I don't know how you missed it.

 

Now are you just getting bitter?

 

I don't know if bitter is the word, but I am through trying to hold your hand leading you toward the information you seek when you have already been pointed to it and it has been tediously prepared. Happy reading, adios.

[skinsrule05 30]

Also are players who were in the low 300 range but made it to the superbowl or deep into the playoffs and ended up very close to this, are they in the analysis? Why should these players not be considered when in theory their workload would have been the same.

 

Or are more carries in a game more stressful than less carries but in more weeks....These all can be added as factors.

 

On any of the studies I have seen on this they do not include post season carries. And I tend to agree with that. I think the higher concentration of carries is what hurts. To compare to another sport, which do you think is more taxing on your body; running a marathon or running a 6 mile race on 4 separate occasions.

 

Maybe the post season does have an effect but I have not seen any stats that are as compelling as the 400 touch theory for the regular season. But just because in the past a high percentage of these high carry rbs have broken down the next year that doesn't mean it has to happen again. I however do live by the theory because last year it made me choose LT over SA. One championship later has turned that theory into gospel for me.

[Guest _my_2_cents_]

Wrong!! I'm looking at the stats to determine how important the stat is!! I am not advocating looking at the stats and saying you should make your entire decision about LJ based on it!!

 

Dude - relax - you're going to have an embalism. IMO you've dominated this debate from the onset, and really this should all be in the existing topic where it's all be discussed already. Why bang your head against the wall for things that have already been beaten into the ground?

[pmcintyre 0]

Wrong!! I'm looking at the stats to determine how important the stat is!! I am not advocating looking at the stats and saying you should make your entire decision about LJ based on it!!

 

 

To me that seems to be a completely hypocritical statement. This entire thread is about how his productivity will decline based on this one analysis. You've been quoted as saying b/c of it you are weary. You may not be stating you are doing it, but you certainly are implying it.

 

You have put in a lot of time, it's an interesting analysis, and I'm not saying you are insanely far off, either. I think if you can account for workload, age, average carries per season prior, etc. this may help your analysis. You also need to throw out some outliers where crazy circumstances affected their output. Maybe even include playoff carries (or not, but let us know your thoughts as to why you didn't and how you didn't think it was relevant).

 

Even after all that's done, it still may or may not make sense. There is something that definitely has to be said with carrying the ball too many times. I'm not saying there isn't. A buddy of mine who played RB at Minnesota said when he carried the ball 25 times on average, he really didn't feel that banged up, but it does take a toll...but when he got into the 40 carries in a game, he had to take the next week off practice.

[compone 0]

Historical stats prior to "X" year are probably irrelevant, maybe year 2000 or 2001. Things have changed period! Training methods have changed, pre-season has changed, coaching has changed, PT has changed, running styles..etc... everything basically has changed. I see the relevance only to exposure to the football elements at any given period makes a player more risk of injury. Not historical data from the previous season. The only other player to have 400+ carries since 2000 was Eddie George. The following year he still played 16 games. So what his attempts were down in the lower 300's. What is the relevance to someone having a large work load? My point is it seems if there's a heavy work load one year, there's a drop off the next. Ok maybe! but why? Putting LJ in for a injury plagued season is just ridicolous based on that historical data alone. I've read age, work load prior... what year... blabla... I think naturally a RB will wear down in the 20-25 carry range at a game. Kind of like a sprinter at the end of a race. Maybe a RB slows down around 350 carries, like a marathon runner at the end of 26.2 miles... So again exposure to the football elements is what I see as relevance to a heavy work load and not this prior years data.

[pmcintyre 0]

Right here, a few posts ago, you claim you read the thread:

Well, they are there. I don't know how you missed it.

I don't know if bitter is the word, but I am through trying to hold your hand leading you toward the information you seek when you have already been pointed to it and it has been tediously prepared. Happy reading, adios.

 

I was refering to your post and analysis not the one on Page 2. But I do read it.

 

Also, your stats from your post do not include any post season carries/yards.

 

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...howtopic=266227

 

Example Edge. 1709 yards regular season. and and additional 21 carries and 107 yards in playoffs.

[t.j 35]

I was refering to your post and analysis not the one on Page 2. But I do read it.

 

Also, your stats from your post do not include any post season carries/yards.

 

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...howtopic=266227

 

Example Edge. 1709 yards regular season. and and additional 21 carries and 107 yards in playoffs.

 

How many times do I have to tell you?

 

The playoff carries stuff, the age stuff, and the career workload stuff was added on PAGE TWO!!!

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...66227&st=40

[pmcintyre 0]

How many times do I have to tell you?

 

The playoff carries stuff, the age stuff, and the career workload stuff was added on PAGE TWO!!!

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...66227&st=40

 

 

That's pretty funny....here I'm racking my brain b/c I'm on ESPN's Page 2 not seeing any article or reference to this...my bad. Let me take a look.