Running game - Is it really the guys up front?

[packer4life]

But a back with decent vision can make an O line look better than it is - and I'm not talking about Barry Sanders. Cedric Benson was starting to look competent until he broke his foot last season. I am eager to see what Lacy can do tonight.

Please let Lacy be the next Jerome Bettis...please god please.

[bobblehead]

I'd like to think I came up with the theory, but I heard it from Larry McCarren. In his opinion, the QB and RB make the OL, not the other way around. That's why I'm hard on AR for the sacks he takes. Favre had like 7 sacks his last season. AR had something like 40 the next season with the same guys. He just plays that style. And I don't even blame AR really. There's a give and take. I think the risks he takes holding the ball help our team because they pay off more often than not. And when it comes to running backs. When we had Grant, we were a good rushing team. Everyone else has sucked since.

I'm also excited about Lacy.



And I've seen counter arguements where the greatest OL's in NFL history blocked well for a lot of marginal players. I get that. But there are so few of those types of OL's. For the most part, and this I think is a strong majority of the time, I think the RB is what makes a running game. Great RB's will be great wherever they go. Really good ones will be really good. The OL plays a part, but I think great runners make the OL look good by setting up blocks and picking up extra yards after contact.

Dan Marino got rid of the ball faster than anyone I ever watched. Got sacked like 15 times a year. He didn't make the OL better, he made them LOOK better.

I got back to watching guys like Barry Redden and Tony Fischer look like world beaters behind great OL's. I watched Denver (under shannahan) plug one late pick after another into great seasons at RB.

Of course there is always someplace in the middle to agree. AP behind a terrible line couldn't get 1700 yards. Alex Green behind a great line would be a 1400 yard rusher. In the end though, a great line is always great. A great RB STILL needs a decent line.

[bobblehead]

I think what it proves is that the RB's on the roster before Harris showed up were not as good as he was, injuries or no injuries. This year Harris is 2nd to Lacy on most of the depth charts I've seen. MM says Harris is his starter. Where are the other guys from last year? Benson and Grant are gone. Green is on the bubble. Starks is the only one of last year's group who's given Harris any competition at all.

Exactly. Our RB's were terrible and we ran poorly. We didn't insert a great RB, we inserted a used car salesman....who was healthy. We committed to calling running plays and we were effective. I would say there are a ton of RB's who can run behind our average line. We just didn't have any on the roster.

[bobblehead]

But a back with decent vision can make an O line look better than it is - and I'm not talking about Barry Sanders. Cedric Benson was starting to look competent until he broke his foot last season. I am eager to see what Lacy can do tonight.

Yes, Cedric was averaging a whopping 3.5 yards a carry. STUD!!! What you actually are remembering is that we CALLED running plays and got favorable down and distances early on. Something we stopped doing quickly as MM doesn't really like running the ball.

[Smeefers]

Yes, Cedric was averaging a whopping 3.5 yards a carry. STUD!!! What you actually are remembering is that we CALLED running plays and got favorable down and distances early on. Something we stopped doing quickly as MM doesn't really like running the ball.

I gotta give benson some credit. He wasn't breaking anything huge or anything like that, but he was at the very least falling forward. His consistent 3.5 ypc was a helluva lot better than the streaky 4 ypc we were getting from harris and starks.

[Harlan Huckleby]

His consistent 3.5 ypc was a helluva lot better than the streaky 4 ypc we were getting from harris and starks.

Had to rub my eyes after I read this. I think I would take a streaky 4 ypc.

[run pMc]

Had to rub my eyes after I read this. I think I would take a streaky 4 ypc.

There's a kind of twisted logic to it that I kind of agree with. If you have a RB that can get you to 2nd and long 6 consistently vs. someone who might get you 2nd and 12...you go with the consistent guy. 2nd and 12 is a passing down for many teams, whereas 2nd and 6 gives you the chance to use play action, or try and run the ball. It's mostly about having "manageable down and distance".

That said, if someone over the course of several games/season is averaging 4.0, you take them over a 3.5 ypc back. That also assumes the avg isn't buoyed by one great run or one great game out of many.
Cedric Benson was no threat to break a long run, but he had better vision and patience than the other backs, so he was able to "take what the defense gave" and grind out a few yards at a time.
(sorry for using so many cliches, but there's some truth to them.)

[Harlan Huckleby]

What I want the world to do is to report the mean ypc rather than the average ypc. The mean will tell you what you can typically expect the runner to do. The average rewards runners who have big play ability. Both are useful stats, but I think the mean is more, dare I say it, meaningful.

[denverYooper]

What I want the world to do is to report the mean ypc rather than the average ypc. The mean will tell you what you can typically expect the runner to do. The average rewards runners who have big play ability. Both are useful stats, but I think the mean is more, dare I say it, meaningful.

I think you mean median, which is a measure of central tendency not affected by outliers.

[mraynrand]

What I want the world to do is to report the mean ypc rather than the average ypc. The mean will tell you what you can typically expect the runner to do. The average rewards runners who have big play ability. Both are useful stats, but I think the mean is more, dare I say it, meaningful.

I think you want the medium. Mean=average

http://www.purplemath.com/modules/meanmode.htm

You could get mean, medium, mode and range, but you probably should just compare all the runs, because a guy like Barry Sanders is gonna run a whole lot different than a guy like Jerome Bettis, and various teams are gonna run out of different formations, etc. etc. I always think that stats in football are more misleading than in other sports because of the situational aspects, but that's probably because I don't follow a lot of other sports.

[Pugger]

Yes, Cedric was averaging a whopping 3.5 yards a carry. STUD!!! What you actually are remembering is that we CALLED running plays and got favorable down and distances early on. Something we stopped doing quickly as MM doesn't really like running the ball.

Then why couldn't Grant find 3 yards a crack where Benson, who is now out of football, looked so much better? The better RBs can make something out of nothing and your garden variety back will only get positive yards if the line gives him a good sized hole. I'll have to watch the game in a little while to see for myself.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think you mean median, which is a measure of central tendency not affected by outliers.

yes, I had a brain fart, I meant median. If a guy has 100 runs, how long was his 50th longest one? Best indicator of what he typically does, IMO.

And the big outliers are long runs. (negative yardage are single digits usually) So the average, or mean, rewards backs who have break-away speed, which is a good thing in one sense.

Actually, this is really smeefer's original point. A back can have a high average ypc, bumped up by some long runs, and still not be very reliable.

[bobblehead]

Then why couldn't Grant find 3 yards a crack where Benson, who is now out of football, looked so much better? The better RBs can make something out of nothing and your garden variety back will only get positive yards if the line gives him a good sized hole. I'll have to watch the game in a little while to see for myself.

Grant never averaged 3.5 ypc with the packers. He averaged 9 last year....granted on 2 carries. In your mind benson looked good for 2 reasons. You were comparing him to 2 injured backs, green and starks. Secondly, we committed to the run early last year and it made him look better.

[bobblehead]

yes, I had a brain fart, I meant median. If a guy has 100 runs, how long was his 50th longest one? Best indicator of what he typically does, IMO.

And the big outliers are long runs. (negative yardage are single digits usually) So the average, or mean, rewards backs who have break-away speed, which is a good thing in one sense.

Actually, this is really smeefer's original point. A back can have a high average ypc, bumped up by some long runs, and still not be very reliable.

NOt likely over the course of 100+ carries. I can only think of one back ever that suffered from such a situation and that was barry sanders. avg. per carry is a reliable stat 99% of the time. Smeefers is wrong and you agreed with him. Backs don't have so many long runs that it skews the normal loss of 3. Just doesn't happen.

[Joemailman]

Grant never averaged 3.5 ypc with the packers. He averaged 9 last year....granted on 2 carries. In your mind benson looked good for 2 reasons. You were comparing him to 2 injured backs, green and starks. Secondly, we committed to the run early last year and it made him look better.

??? Grant averaged a little over 4 yards on 30 carries. He had a pretty good game in a rout of Tennessee. http://www.pro-football-reference.co...Ry00/gamelog//