ROYALWITCHEESE wrote:Then you would agree Denver is a superior run blocking offensive line compared to Cleveland? You yourself said, you dont care if girl scouts are blocking. Well, I hate to break it to you, but that does matter. The fact that with an inferior line Lee Suggs performed at the same ypc in 3rd downs as Droughns, clearly indicates that he is a better runner on 3rd down. If you dispute that, please, offer some sort of proof.
You still offer none. The only real proof here would be how each did on third down, which is equal. So there is no point continuing something neither of us can prove other than hypothetically.
And you fail to answer the question. Its very simple. Is Denver's offensive line better at run blocking than Cleveland?
Yes or No.
If you the answer is yes, then Suggs acheiving the same ypc on 3rd down is a great accomplishment than Droughns's.
This part of our discussion can go nowhere until you answer the question (I've bolded and italicized it for you in case you missed it).
Funny, in your previous post, you claimed my comments about Suggs could only mean that I was concerned he would be injured. Now that I've explained my comments, you claim to have understood them all along. You just got caught in a lie.
Uh, no. I said that about Droughns. And I have held my stance on 'strength not weight' for the entire argument. Once again nice try at a spin.
My bad, typo. Insert Droughns, where I typed Suggs. It doesn't change the fact that you said one thing, then claimed the other. I'm not disputing that you've held the stance of strength not weight, I'm pointing out that you claim my post meant one thing, then claim to have understood what it meant all along in your next post.
As for your strength vs. weight argument, you don't even provide any support for that until later, which we'll address.
They don't suffer the size disadvantage Suggs does.
Ah so if two people weigh about the same then they are the same strength level and run the same? Please. Tell me. Why can't Droughns be stronger and a more powerful runner than Suggs? I've seen them both run and I've explained this numerous times now. Enough is enough.
You asked how size mattering could be true given Denver's offensive line's size and success. I offered you a reasonable explanation, and this is your response? You're not even talking about the same points, you don't diagree with anything I posted in support of my theory. Since you didn't refute any of my points, I'll take that as acceptance. Unless you'd like to actually explain where I might've gone wrong with my analysis of why size matters more for a small RB than for a small lineman.
Would it not then be improper to apply that statistic to how a RB performs on 2nd and short, or 4th and short, 1st and goal, etc?
(the answer again, is yes)
Okay. so Suggs is better because he gets EQUAL yards on 3rd downs? Well what about the rest of his attempts and his 3.7 average? So you are saying he is superior enough to equal Droughns on third down (Maddog: Bingo! That's what I'm saying.), just not enough to come CLOSE on every other down? This makes perrfect sense. If your theory applies to third down, then it should apply to all downs if Suggs is superior--at least to the tune of it not being nearly a full yard difference in ypc.
Stop trying to apply the statistics outside of what they are. Suggs is better on 3rd downs. Therefore, in 3rd and short, the Browns would likely go with Suggs. Its no theory that Suggs is better on 3rd down, its statistically the facts. With worse blocking he acheived equal yards per carry. There is absolutely no reason why that would apply to first and 2nd down for a variety of reasons, the main one being that we're only examining 3rd down rushing attempts.
Therefore, where comparing how each did, we're comparing how they perform as a RB in 3rd down situations (both long and short). Therefore, we are talking about how they perform as a 3rd down RB, which by definition, is a RB used on 3rd down.
Again you fail to grasp this concept. A '3rd down back' is a specialty back for 3rd and long, not someone merely used on third down. And a 'third down back' is not necessarily used on every third down--only those where passing is probable. In fact true 'third down backs' are hardly ever used on third and short.
So there's no possible way someone could say 3rd down RB, and mean literally a RB used on 3rd downs? I mean, we are speaking English here, right? Is it too hard for you to grasp the concept that the term can be used to apply to what it literally means. Besides, we've defined what was meant by the term, so what is your complaint? You know now how the term was being used, do you dispute any of the statements made given the usage of the term?
In 10 minutes you only found 6? That sounds like the devitation to me. And hints that most the rest of the league is like I said.
Once again you fail to read my words: 6 starting RBs
. Starters. That is the starter for 18.75% of the teams in the NFL. That's no deviation, that's nearly a 1/5 of the entire league. I didn't bother checking the stats on backups, as they would have a limited sample size.
And more to the point, your original post on this point:
Those are your words Royal. You lied. Now you could be man enough to admit you got caught lying
EVERY running back has a drop off in ypc on 3rd down. If you don't think so look it up. So that argument is invalid which is why I dismissed it.
, or you can run from the issue like you are, by criticizing the data when you still haven't done/seen the research.
If you're going to continue lying, there is no point in this discussion.
I would actually like to respond to the rest of you post, you actually bring up one or two noteworthy points that are part of discussion instead of simply making personal attacks on me. So, when you're ready to act like a grown up, and stop lying, and admit to it when you've been caught lying, I'll more than gladly resume civil discussion. Until then...
EDIT: Found 2 more starters from last year that did significantly better on 3rd downs. In fact, these two averaged more 2 ypc more on 3rd downs. That brings the total to 8 starting RBs last year, that's 25% that not just did better, but did significantly better on 3rd down than any other down.
Yet ROYAl, you said EVERY RB does worse. You asked for me to look it up, and well I did. You've been proven wrong. That happens when you make assumptions and try to pass them off as fact. You get caught in a lie.
Also, your credibility sinks like a rock.