PDA

View Full Version : NFL Running Games


S T R I N G
10-20-2009, 10:19 AM
What is going on with running games in the NFL this season? It seems like there are very few teams who are getting it done on the ground.

There have been a ton of guys who can't get their YPC over 4. Who do you guys think are some of the biggest disappointments?

Brandon Jacobs - 3.6
Knowshon Moreno - 3.8
Michael Turner - 3.5
Kevin Smith - 3.2
Ryan Grant - 3.8
Larry Johnson - 2.7
Matt Forte - 3.4
Julius Jones - 3.9
Steve Slaton - 3.0
Jamal Lewis - 3.5
Jerome Harrison - 3.7
Joseph Addai - 3.4
Willie Parker - 3.1
Glen Coffee - 2.6

And the list goes on...

Some guys that stand out to me are Forte, Turner, and Jacobs. These guys were supposed to tear it up this year but they've been downright awful.

Splat
10-20-2009, 10:20 AM
Whats a running game?

Signed,
Chiefs fan

Go_Eagles77
10-20-2009, 10:23 AM
The fact that Brian Westbrook isn't on that list but the eagles still run as little as you do tells you all you need to know about the eagles running game.

Gay Ork Wang
10-20-2009, 10:27 AM
Forte needs to break tackles 5 yards behind the LOS.

S T R I N G
10-20-2009, 10:29 AM
Forte needs to break tackles 5 yards behind the LOS.

I haven't seen every Bears game but he doesn't look like the player he was last season despite how poorly their offensive line has played.

Mr. Stiller
10-20-2009, 10:30 AM
Rashard Mendenhall - 5.1 YPC

He's the Steelers Starter... not Parker.

Vikes99ej
10-20-2009, 10:33 AM
Peterson has had his struggles this year. I blame our offensive line, with two new starters.

SchizophrenicBatman
10-20-2009, 10:35 AM
The only guy I'm surprised is on that list is Jacobs.

What's the deal Giants fans? Small sample size or has he worn down some? Because it's to be expected that he'd slow down earlier than most RBs but even so, this is pretty damn early

Go_Eagles77
10-20-2009, 10:36 AM
Peterson has had his struggles this year. I blame our offensive line, with two new starters.
But yet he's leading the NFL in rushing. lol

S T R I N G
10-20-2009, 10:37 AM
Peterson has had his struggles this year. I blame our offensive line, with two new starters.

Are you kidding me? He's averaging 5.2 YPC. The only game he struggled was against Green Bay.

Only legitimate knock on Peterson I see is his inability to hold onto the football.

wicket
10-20-2009, 10:37 AM
The only guy I'm surprised is on that list is Jacobs.

What's the deal Giants fans? Small sample size or has he worn down some? Because it's to be expected that he'd slow down earlier than most RBs but even so, this is pretty damn early

he misses his fire of last year imo

BeerBaron
10-20-2009, 10:56 AM
I haven't seen every Bears game but he doesn't look like the player he was last season despite how poorly their offensive line has played.

AP (the good one) wouldn't be able to run the way our o-line has been. Like GoW said, Forte has to break tackles in the backfield just to eek out the 2 or 3 yards he does get.

And defenders are still stacking the box against him. Even in the losses, Cutler was moving the ball easily through the air before throwing picks in the redzone because the defenders are selling out to stop Forte.

Jughead10
10-20-2009, 10:58 AM
he misses his fire of last year imo

I think it is a little bit of that.

But also early this year I'm sure everyone's game plan was to stop Jacobs and let Eli try and beat them with the unproven WRs. Which he did. I thought Jacbos looked better in the Saints game, but we were down so much so fast that our run game was taken right out of the equation.

NY+Giants=NYG
10-20-2009, 11:01 AM
Teams early on were playing run to test our WRs out. Now they stopped it, but I always liked Bradshaw's skill set a lot more than Ward, Ware and Jacobs. He is really doing a good job.

S T R I N G
10-20-2009, 11:02 AM
AP (the good one) wouldn't be able to run the way our o-line has been. Like GoW said, Forte has to break tackles in the backfield just to eek out the 2 or 3 yards he does get.

And defenders are still stacking the box against him. Even in the losses, Cutler was moving the ball easily through the air before throwing picks in the redzone because the defenders are selling out to stop Forte.

Interesting theory but I don't buy it.

Forte averaged 3.9 YPC last season. He's averaging 3.4 this season.

Look at his game logs:
http://i38.tinypic.com/2vv0tu9.jpg

Take out the game where he beat up on a pathetic Lions rushing defense and his YPC is in the 2s.

The guy hasn't proven he can be a consistent rushing threat whereas Cutler has proven he can move the ball through the air. So why exactly are teams stacking the box?

Gay Ork Wang
10-20-2009, 11:12 AM
because they know eventually Cutler will take a risk and make mistakes. The bears are a run first offense, so taking away the run is crucial. on the other hand Ron Turner is horrible so that he doesnt utilize Forte or Cutler the right way

Geo
10-20-2009, 11:14 AM
This is a trend to notice, but still, it is only 6 weeks into the season. Some guys have 10 or even 11 games left to play, to improve their numbers. Plus their offensive lines can continue to gel and/or the offense as a whole gels. Teams might run the ball more as the weather worsens.

Maybe in a few cases it could also be a scheduling thing, ex. if a back plays 3 tough run defenses in his first 5 or 6 games, that's obviously going to considerably affect the numbers to this point.

Re: the Colts backs, they are running the ball much better than the numbers would indicate, and more importantly they are proficient as receivers and blockers (especially Addai). I'm not concerned about them at all, honestly I don't think I would trade Addai and Brown for anyone because they are a perfect fit for the Colts.

BeerBaron
10-20-2009, 11:21 AM
because they know eventually Cutler will take a risk and make mistakes. The bears are a run first offense, so taking away the run is crucial. on the other hand Ron Turner is horrible so that he doesnt utilize Forte or Cutler the right way

Exactly. They're willing to gamble on the unknown against Cutler and our young receivers rather than let Forte and the run game beat them. Shut that down and hope for the crazy throw from Cutler.

S T R I N G
10-20-2009, 11:27 AM
Exactly. They're willing to gamble on the unknown against Cutler and our young receivers rather than let Forte and the run game beat them. Shut that down and hope for the crazy throw from Cutler.

The fact is, Forte and the "run game" haven't beat anybody this season. Hell, they barely beat anybody last season with the exception of Indianapolis, Detroit, and St. Louis. Look at his game logs.

I just don't see the productivity on the field to back up all the hype Forte got last year. His numbers are eerily similar to Ryan Grant after his first season.

Bengalsrocket
10-20-2009, 11:36 AM
The fact is, Forte and the "run game" haven't beat anybody this season. Hell, they barely beat anybody last season with the exception of Indianapolis, Detroit, and St. Louis. Look at his game logs.

I just don't see the productivity on the field to back up all the hype Forte got last year. His numbers are eerily similar to Ryan Grant after his first season.

If by similar you mean nothing alike, sure :P

Grant had a higher average rushing, but much less attempts. Meanwhile Forte was an all around better receiver.

Ryan Grant:

Run - 188 attempts for 956 yards (5.1 ypc) for 8 touchdowns.

Catch - 30 receptions for 145 yards (4.8 ypc) for 0 touchdowns.

Matt Forte:

Run - 316 attempts for 1,238 yards (3.9 ypc) 8 touchdowns.

Catch - 63 receptions 477 yards (7.6 ypc) for 4 touchdowns.

The main difference between the two backs in their first year, which you can tell from the stat lines and watching the games, is that the Bears needed Forte, the Packers didn't need Grant.

They're different types of backs, with very different styles and the only thing in common is that they both rushed for 8 touchdowns and are similar in size.

awfullyquiet
10-20-2009, 11:43 AM
or minnesota... or tampa...

you have to remember, he had the highest percentage of team yards.
he WAS the offense...

this year... the run blocking is abysmal, that's the difference between this year and last year... if you'd watch game film on forte you'd see that... it's akin to what happened to grant last year...

the difference between them is... is that they're two different backs, with different lines, but similar problems... you can't say their 'eerily' similar if one is a complete back, and the other is a pound the ball downhill runner.

it's like comparing LJ to LT.

S T R I N G
10-20-2009, 11:49 AM
If by similar you mean nothing alike, sure :P

Grant had a higher average rushing, but much less attempts. Meanwhile Forte was an all around better receiver.

Ryan Grant:

Run - 188 attempts for 956 yards (5.1 ypc) for 8 touchdowns.

Catch - 30 receptions for 145 yards (4.8 ypc) for 0 touchdowns.

Matt Forte:

Run - 316 attempts for 1,238 yards (3.9 ypc) 8 touchdowns.

Catch - 63 receptions 477 yards (7.6 ypc) for 4 touchdowns.

The main difference between the two backs in their first year, which you can tell from the stat lines and watching the games, is that the Bears needed Forte, the Packers didn't need Grant.

They're different types of backs, with very different styles and the only thing in common is that they both rushed for 8 touchdowns and are similar in size.

Huh? You're comparing the wrong years. I'm talking about 2008. They had basically identical seasons in terms of RUSHING.

Grant - 1203 yards on 312 attempts (3.9 average)
Forte - 1238 yards on 316 attempts (3.9 average)

Now this season:

Grant - 347 yards, 91 attempts (3.8 average)
Forte - 294 yards, 86 attempts (3.4 average)

So how exactly are they so different in terms of running the football, statistic-wise? They are both subpar backs in the NFL and haven't produced the past two seasons.

MasterShake
10-20-2009, 11:49 AM
Frank Gore coming back this week....welcome back running game.

Finz99
10-20-2009, 11:50 AM
Dolphins know what's up.

Ronnie Brown has a 4.8 average and Ricky Williams has a 5.2 average.

The Unseen
10-20-2009, 11:57 AM
Yeah, I've also noticed that NFL running games are lagging of late. But those are things that tend to improve as the season progresses, though. It may just be that the big names we've been accustomed to are not longer big, aside from AD. Mendenhall? Ronnie Brown/Ricky Williams? Ray Rice? MJD? I mean, we all thought they were good, but the LTs and LJs aren't doing so hot of late.

bigbluedefense
10-20-2009, 11:57 AM
Just wait until the weather gets cold. YPC will go up, as will the # of touches.

The true reason is a combination of multiple things, but I also think that once the weather makes it more difficult to throw (which is already starting to happen in the Northeast and Midwest), teams will concentrate on running more and be more patient with the run game.

Mark Sanchez got his first taste of the swirling winds at Giants stadium and it didn't treat him very well. I expect them to run the ball a lot more than they already have.

I expect other teams in similar situations to do the same.

DoughBoy
10-20-2009, 12:06 PM
All I know is that Chris Johnson has almost is like 4 yards shy of 600 yards rushing and 120 rec yards and has an average attempt of 6.3 yards per carry. All of this is great but we are still 0-6. Anybody want Chris?

j/k

bigbluedefense
10-20-2009, 12:19 PM
All I know is that Chris Johnson has almost is like 4 yards shy of 600 yards rushing and 120 rec yards and has an average attempt of 6.3 yards per carry. All of this is great but we are still 0-6. Anybody want Chris?

j/k

just imagine what he'd do with an actual offense around him.

JT Jag
10-20-2009, 12:33 PM
Seeing this list makes me feel better about Maurice Drew's "down" 4.3 ypc average.

Bengalsrocket
10-20-2009, 12:37 PM
Huh? You're comparing the wrong years. I'm talking about 2008. They had basically identical seasons in terms of RUSHING.

Grant - 1203 yards on 312 attempts (3.9 average)
Forte - 1238 yards on 316 attempts (3.9 average)

Now this season:

Grant - 347 yards, 91 attempts (3.8 average)
Forte - 294 yards, 86 attempts (3.4 average)

So how exactly are they so different in terms of running the football, statistic-wise? They are both subpar backs in the NFL and haven't produced the past two seasons.

Well you said "Ryan Grant after his first season" - 2008 wasn't Grant's first season :P

S T R I N G
10-20-2009, 12:43 PM
Well you said "Ryan Grant after his first season" - 2008 wasn't Grant's first season :P

Huh? After his first season would be 2008. He played exceptionally well in 2007, his first season. Afterwards, he's been subpar. During the same time that Grant has been subpar, Forte has been subpar.

Anyway, confusing but I think you get my point now. :P

Bengalsrocket
10-20-2009, 12:50 PM
Huh? After his first season would be 2008. He played exceptionally well in 2007, his first season. Afterwards, he's been subpar. During the same time that Grant has been subpar, Forte has been subpar.

Anyway, confusing but I think you get my point now. :P

Yes, I get what you are you saying now. Just to clarify though, there is two different ways to read what you said, and since I can't read tone through text I guess I chose to read it one way, albeit arbitrarily.

I'd like to add though, that I don't think Forte was sub par (That's 2 words by the way, not correcting you to be a jerk, just pointing out for future use) his rookie year. Considering the lack of talent around him, I think 1,200+ yards rushing and 400+ yards receiving is pretty decent for a rookie.

DoughBoy
10-20-2009, 12:50 PM
just imagine what he'd do with an actual offense around him.

The only thing our offense does not have is a QB and a good gameplan.

NY+Giants=NYG
10-20-2009, 12:55 PM
The only thing our offense does not have is a QB and a good gameplan.

Not a fan of Carrie Collins? What about your franchise QB in Young?

bigbluedefense
10-20-2009, 12:57 PM
The only thing our offense does not have is a QB and a good gameplan.

yeah, thats pretty much what I mean. I still think Kerry is good enough at qb, you just need more creativity on offense.

You have a solid set of TEs, a good up and coming WR in Britt, one of the best olines in the league, and a duel threat in CJ.

I just feel the offense can be used in a lot more ways, but its not.

awfullyquiet
10-20-2009, 01:00 PM
Yes, I get what you are you saying now. Just to clarify though, there is two different ways to read what you said, and since I can't read tone through text I guess I chose to read it one way, albeit arbitrarily.

I'd like to add though, that I don't think Forte was sub par (That's 2 words by the way, not correcting you to be a jerk, just pointing out for future use) his rookie year. Considering the lack of talent around him, I think 1,200+ yards rushing and 400+ yards receiving is pretty decent for a rookie.

I thought the exact same thing as you rocket...

Forte's starting year was on par with... well. the other 3 running backs last year in johnson and slaton. on a poor offensive team... without that good of a passing threat...

NY+Giants=NYG
10-20-2009, 01:00 PM
yeah, thats pretty much what I mean. I still think Kerry is good enough at qb, you just need more creativity on offense.

You have a solid set of TEs, a good up and coming WR in Britt, one of the best olines in the league, and a duel threat in CJ.

I just feel the offense can be used in a lot more ways, but its not.

Carrie is horrible! I hated him soo much when he was our QB. Mind you, he did have his moments, but I couldn't wait until he left. They need to develop Young faster. Both Matt L and Young are on the bench behind their respective veteran QBs.

S T R I N G
10-20-2009, 01:00 PM
Yes, I get what you are you saying now. Just to clarify though, there is two different ways to read what you said, and since I can't read tone through text I guess I chose to read it one way, albeit arbitrarily.

I'd like to add though, that I don't think Forte was sub par (That's 2 words by the way, not correcting you to be a jerk, just pointing out for future use) his rookie year. Considering the lack of talent around him, I think 1,200+ yards rushing and 400+ yards receiving is pretty decent for a rookie.

Actually, subpar can be one word.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subpar

Forte was simply not efficient at getting those yards. Grant was the same way. Big yardage numbers but it took them both a ton of carries to get them.

Bengalsrocket
10-20-2009, 01:02 PM
I saw Fisher on NFL network when they were undefeated last year, and Rich Eisen asked the question "So what do you with Vince Young now?" or something like that, and Fisher responded with something along the lines of, "What if Vince and Collins were on the field? How would a defense handle that?".

Anyways, I thought it was an interesting idea. It doesn't necessarily have to be "wildcat", which seems to have a negative connotation on it now, but maybe just some ordinary formations that feature Vince in unusual spots to throw the defense off.

awfullyquiet
10-20-2009, 01:02 PM
Actually, subpar is one word.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subpar

Forte was simply not efficient at getting those yards. Grant was the same way. Big yardage numbers but it took them both a ton of carries to get them.

3.4 ypc = 10 yards per 3 down.

I'll take that...

Bengalsrocket
10-20-2009, 01:03 PM
Actually, subpar is one word.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subpar


Doh. Touche salesman.

S T R I N G
10-20-2009, 01:03 PM
Doh. Touche salesman.

It can be both ways. :P

subpar or sub par

One of those things...

bigbluedefense
10-20-2009, 01:04 PM
Carrie is horrible! I hated him soo much when he was our QB. Mind you, he did have his moments, but I couldn't wait until he left. They need to develop Young faster. Both Matt L and Young are on the bench behind their respective veteran QBs.

I didn't think he was THAT bad. I liked him as a bus driver.

he can't win you games, but he can ride that bus. good stopgap qb.

wordofi
10-20-2009, 01:04 PM
What is going on with running games in the NFL this season? It seems like there are very few teams who are getting it done on the ground.

There have been a ton of guys who can't get their YPC over 4. Who do you guys think are some of the biggest disappointments?

Brandon Jacobs - 3.6
Knowshon Moreno - 3.8
Michael Turner - 3.5
Kevin Smith - 3.2
Ryan Grant - 3.8
Larry Johnson - 2.7
Matt Forte - 3.4
Julius Jones - 3.9
Steve Slaton - 3.0
Jamal Lewis - 3.5
Jerome Harrison - 3.7
Joseph Addai - 3.4
Willie Parker - 3.1
Glen Coffee - 2.6

And the list goes on...

Some guys that stand out to me are Forte, Turner, and Jacobs. These guys were supposed to tear it up this year but they've been downright awful.

I thought the running games of many teams were down this year. It's probably because defenses are getting faster with time.

Shiver
10-20-2009, 01:06 PM
This happens every year. The running game becomes the focal point as the weather gets colder and the defenses become hobbled with injuries.

S T R I N G
10-20-2009, 01:20 PM
3.4 ypc = 10 yards per 3 down.

I'll take that...

Is this sarcasm?

If not...try watching some football one day. ;)

Rosebud
10-20-2009, 01:37 PM
The thing with jacobs is not only that teams loaded up on the run to test our passing game, but that Jacobs also seems to be running more carefully, as though he's trying to save himself for the more important games later in the season. He's been trying to cut and weave and be a real running back instead of being the ogre who knocks down anyone in his path that he has been in the past, this has also stopped him from making many 10+ yard runs to boost his average.

NY+Giants=NYG
10-20-2009, 02:11 PM
I didn't think he was THAT bad. I liked him as a bus driver.

he can't win you games, but he can ride that bus. good stopgap qb.

I hated him with a passion. He was like a robot. Sometimes I wondered outside the deep ball, did he actually think as a QB. I couldn't wait until he left us. He appeared better because he was the first "real" Qb outside the Kannel, Brown, Cherry, era of non sense. So Carrie appeared amazing! lol.

Ravens1991
10-20-2009, 02:33 PM
Ray Rice averages 6 yards per carry and 9.8 YPC, he leads the NFL in yards from scrimmage. Scotty is a genius. I think Rice will be used like Tomlinson did back in his prime in SD.

But who has the best yards per carry? Is it Chris Johnson?

Rosebud
10-20-2009, 02:36 PM
Ray Rice averages 6 yards per carry and 9.8 YPC, he leads the NFL in yards from scrimmage. Scotty is a genius. I think Rice will be used like Tomlinson did back in his prime in SD.

But who has the best yards per carry? Is it Chris Johnson?

Ahmad Bradshaw's getting 6.2 ypc I think that's around what Johnson's getting. Then again I am far from a stat guy so there could be a few guys I'm just not realizing are performing as well as they are.

awfullyquiet
10-20-2009, 03:00 PM
Is this sarcasm?

If not...try watching some football one day. ;)

why? because 3.4 yards is absolutely terrible? but, imagine, you can gain 3.4 yards per play consistently. you'll move the chains more often than not. obviously the key word is consistency, and very often 'home run hitters' strike out. so, if you could guarantee me a RB who gained 3.5 yards per rush... i don't think a person would ever turn that down... that's not the way it works, but, provides a good estimate... when i say 3.4 ypc, it's a baseline of what an average NFL RB should be producing. Any RB that produces better is 'good', but unfortunatly, you're under the false position that 'running yards' is that important, especially with some of these (chris johnson, steve slaton, ray rice) have proven to be huge passing threats as well... it's less part of the 'running game' as you put it, but more part of a complete offensive scheme which is being leveed across the NFL. Versatility at RB has never been as highly valued as it is now. If that's what you mean by 'Running Game', then sure, the running game is down so far... But does that mean that that the running back position is suddenly less productive? No way in hell.

Sure, you'd love for your RB to average 5 ypc right now... but right now, receptions AND reception yards are up among running backs at the moment compared to the last six games of last year... isn't that something to be perused over? or is that beyond the scope of this thread?

Heck, look at rushing yards... HOLY ****. START A FIRE! this year... the average ypc across the league is. 4.2 ypc. what was the league wide ypc last year? OH ****. 4.2 ypc. how about in 2007? OH ****. 4.1 ypc. how about in 2006? OH ****. 4.2 ypc.

You're selectively leaving out people, in hopes that you can say that 'the NFL running game is sucking'... your argument that you've used as a premise is wrong. and, as i just pointed out, that the YPC among the league, YOUR STAT YOU CHOSE, is EXACTLY the same as it's been for the past 3 seasons.

And I don't know what to make of your last comment sir. Are you saying I don't watch football, with a coy wink to imply that it's sexist? You sir, are a moron with half-assed thoughts of the game. Thank you. Go to hell.

Job
10-20-2009, 03:06 PM
An angry AQ is always entertaining.

S T R I N G
10-20-2009, 03:13 PM
why? because 3.4 yards is absolutely terrible? but, imagine, you can gain 3.4 yards per play consistently. you'll move the chains more often than not. obviously the key word is consistency, and very often 'home run hitters' strike out. so, if you could guarantee me a RB who gained 3.5 yards per rush... i don't think a person would ever turn that down... that's not the way it works, but, provides a good estimate... when i say 3.4 ypc, it's a baseline of what an average NFL RB should be producing. Any RB that produces better is 'good', but unfortunatly, you're under the false position that 'running yards' is that important, especially with some of these (chris johnson, steve slaton, ray rice) have proven to be huge passing threats as well... it's less part of the 'running game' as you put it, but more part of a complete offensive scheme which is being leveed across the NFL. Versatility at RB has never been as highly valued as it is now. If that's what you mean by 'Running Game', then sure, the running game is down so far... But does that mean that that the running back position is suddenly less productive? No way in hell.

3.4 yards is terrible actually, if the league average is 4.2. Pretty much common sense. This discussion is about RUNNING the football. I'm not talking about backs catching the ball out of the backfield because it has no relevancy to this topic.

Sure, you'd love for your RB to average 5 ypc right now... but right now, receptions AND reception yards are up among running backs at the moment compared to the last six games of last year... isn't that something to be perused over? or is that beyond the scope of this thread?

Heck, look at rushing yards... HOLY ****. START A FIRE! this year... the average ypc across the league is. 4.2 ypc. what was the league wide ypc last year? OH ****. 4.2 ypc. how about in 2007? OH ****. 4.1 ypc. how about in 2006? OH ****. 4.2 ypc.

Past 3 seasons NFL teams have averaged 116, 111, and 117 yards per game on the ground. This season it's 77.9 so far. Sure, it will probably go up a bit once the weather changes but that's a HUGE drop considering it hasn't changed that much in DECADES.

Yes, the YPC is around the same. I was more pointing out that a lot of backs who were considered very good are producing at a very low level.

You're selectively leaving out people, in hopes that you can say that 'the NFL running game is sucking'... your argument that you've used as a premise is wrong. and, as i just pointed out, that the YPC among the league, YOUR STAT YOU CHOSE, is EXACTLY the same as it's been for the past 3 seasons.

Huh? I posted the stats of the rushers with low averages only because I noticed the trend when pouring over some stats. Obviously some RBs with high YPCs like Johnson, Rice, and Peterson are bringing the stat up. I was just giving a list of players that have disappointed this season.

And I don't know what to make of your last comment sir. Are you saying I don't watch football, with a coy wink to imply that it's sexist? You sir, are a moron with half-assed thoughts of the game. Thank you. Go to hell.

Sexist? I'm assuming you're a woman then? Not sure if you're aware of this, but I'm not aware of the sex of every NFLDC member.

Further, if you think 3.4 YPC is anything other than terrible, you don't know football. Which is exactly what I was implying.

awfullyquiet
10-20-2009, 03:52 PM
3.4 yards is terrible actually, if the league average is 4.2. Pretty much common sense. This discussion is about RUNNING the football. I'm not talking about backs catching the ball out of the backfield because it has no relevancy to this topic.

because schemes haven't changed? really? since when? i think that me pointing out that running backs the first 6 weeks have a marginal rise in reception and reception yards is worthy of notating a discrepancy between the rushing yards. I think it's why we refer to 'touches' now moreso than carries.

Past 3 seasons NFL teams have averaged 116, 111, and 117 yards per game on the ground. This season it's 77.9 so far. Sure, it will probably go up a bit once the weather changes but that's a HUGE drop considering it hasn't changed that much in DECADES.

oh this is correct... you tend to think this currently (RIGHT NOW) is more of a fluke and will normalize by the end of the year? Because you're saying it's not a fluke. That the rushing game is getting worse?

Yes, the YPC is around the same. I was more pointing out that a lot of backs who were considered very good are producing at a very low level.

And? You just said it yourself, sure, it'll probably go up a bit once the weather changes. Therefore, current stats should be taken with a grain of salt when saying that the sky is falling.

Huh? I posted the stats of the rushers with low averages only because I noticed the trend when pouring over some stats. Obviously some RBs with high YPCs like Johnson, Rice, and Peterson are bringing the stat up. I was just giving a list of players that have disappointed this season.

But are they actually disappointing? Has Steve Slaton really been a disappointment this year? over 90 yards from scrimmage per game is bad?

Glen Coffee is a backup. Jamal Lewis plays on the incompetent brownies. Julius Jones is playing with a 3rd string offensive line. Are you assuming there were lofty expectations for these people?

How far away is 3.8 from 4.2? .4 yards? Would you say that once the weather changes, you could expect maybe a .4 ypc increase in these backs? Maybe more? How about in Atlanta... with 81 carries over 5 games and yet their still averaging 100 ypg on the ground? Could it be something to do with integrating Norwood into the offense?

I think you just throwing out numbers without providing context has done nothing to prove your point. Sure, the YPC are down, but... it doesn't say anything useful?

The Giants are second in the league with 139 rushes and 4.2 ypc? Is that 'not getting it done on the ground'? How about the Cowboys who have SIX rushing touchdowns?

Sexist? I'm assuming you're a woman then? Not sure if you're aware of this, but I'm not aware of the sex of every NFLDC member.

Yeah. Subtle wink fail. Right?

Further, if you think 3.4 YPC is anything other than terrible, you don't know football. Which is exactly what I was implying.

In Forte's context? 3.4 ypg is fantastic. Why? I was doing this the other night for Renji/GOW at the average relative yard of first contact, this year, over 68 verified carries, he was first touched .3 yards from the line of scrimmage. Ryan Grant? .5? Adrian Peterson? 1.7. Adrian Peterson was touched at or behind the line of scrimmage 14 times, Grant 11, Forte? 21 times he was touched at or behind the line of scrimmage. Does that say something about why I'd don't really mind seeing 3.4 ypc from Forte?

Are you unfamiliar with the concept three yards and a cloud of dust? 3.4 ypc is the absolute baseline of what an NFL running back should be, which I represented TWICE...

when i say 3.4 ypc, it's a baseline of what an average NFL RB should be producing.

or how about we do math... 3.4*3 = 10.2... isn't a first down only 10 yards? didn't i say something along the lines of... edit: it's akin to the mendoza line in my book.

obviously the key word is consistency

Consistency? Isn't that what makes a good rushing attack? The Giants know this one the best of all, pound out yards on the ground, play ball control, and succeed. Sure, Bradshaw has been pushing the YPC envelope, but, their running attack has been consistant. If you could gain 3.4 yards EVERY DOWN rushing. Why wouldn't you run the ball? That's what I postulated. Sure, having 4 ypc would be better, and 5 better still, especially if your chances to get stopped at the line of scrimmage are greater. But, the very minimum you should be producing, the baseline, with consistency is 3.4 ypc. That's what I was trying to say. It's not a stupid concept, actually, it's a very old concept. Older than you. Conservative, yes, but bad? No.

Again, I think you're trying to form this opinion that the statistics are 'wrong' and that they're not going to normalize? I'd be damn surprised if in 2 months, all of those numbers don't go up (except for Jamal Lewis, again, that's not his fault).

edit: to clarify something further, i'd like to say that YPC does not necessarly equate to the consistency of a running game. You can be gaining 6ypc after a carry of 18 yards, a loss of 2 yards, a NG, and a run of 8 yards. which, would be 6 ypc, and only one first down... OTOH, you could theoretically run 6 yards 4 times and gain 2 first downs... in that regards, wouldn't looking at first downs also be indicative of how well rushing in the league is? Have you touched on that? No? You might want to bring that part up.

Gay Ork Wang
10-20-2009, 05:11 PM
seriously the bears line is ******* horrible at run blocking. I dont think there is any other word to describe it. Once Forte had like 1-2 holes, he had those big runs against the lions. we couldnt even get holes against the lions more than 2-3 times though

BlindSite
10-21-2009, 05:51 AM
3.4 yards is terrible actually, if the league average is 4.2. Pretty much common sense. This discussion is about RUNNING the football. I'm not talking about backs catching the ball out of the backfield because it has no relevancy to this topic.

Not necessarily. If you're gaining 3.4 yards every time you hand off you're never coming off the field. 3.4 yards as a gain ends up being 2nd and 6.

The averages in yards gained come about because numbers are not always divisible by the number of carries.

In essence if it's 3+ anything it's a four yard carry. Arguing that they're .8 yards shy of anything is foolish, since that's literally one bad defensive play. Also, great running backs have had days where their YPC average is terrible because they've shunted in touchdowns from the one yard line.

Yards per play is never indicative of how good a running game is. The number of touchdowns they score, their conversions on third and fourth and short, and in the redzone however is, number of run plays +10 and +20 yards is also a good indicator.

These are the things simply going to nfl.com/stats won't tell you and but it is most definitely something that factors when actually watching the games.

Oh and, fyi, the turn of the phrase is "has no relevance" "relevancy" is the plural noun.


Past 3 seasons NFL teams have averaged 116, 111, and 117 yards per game on the ground. This season it's 77.9 so far. Sure, it will probably go up a bit once the weather changes but that's a HUGE drop considering it hasn't changed that much in DECADES.

To bring a homer shade into the argument, look back at DeAngelo Williams performance as of the end of week 4 last year.

He had 194 yards and 0 touchdowns, his ypc had been above 3 just twice in that time.

His final statistics were eye popping 3rd overall in rushing, by far the most effective running back per rush in the NFL and lead the league in touchdowns.

My point: Early stats in running games mean nothing whatsoever. The money period is the middle 8 weeks when linebackers and DTs get a little beat up, the temperature begins to drop and above all else, offensive lines begin to find that rhythm that leads to a symphony of production.


Yes, the YPC is around the same. I was more pointing out that a lot of backs who were considered very good are producing at a very low level.

You're basically saying that the sun rises and sets in a 24 hour period. It's not ground breaking analysis, it's an accepted normality of the league that running games do not heat up till the middle of the season.


Huh? I posted the stats of the rushers with low averages only because I noticed the trend when pouring over some stats. Obviously some RBs with high YPCs like Johnson, Rice, and Peterson are bringing the stat up. I was just giving a list of players that have disappointed this season.

These guys are the exception to the rule and two of these guys are recognised universally as backs who can produce without production from the offensive line. They are the phenoms of the NFL at the position right now.

Ray Rice isn't in their class, but as I've mentioned many times he's probably the NFL's most effective rusher in that he's rarely stuffed behind the line and gains on average more of the middle averages than any one else.


Sexist? I'm assuming you're a woman then? Not sure if you're aware of this, but I'm not aware of the sex of every NFLDC member.

Further, if you think 3.4 YPC is anything other than terrible, you don't know football. Which is exactly what I was implying.
I don't know why you have such an attitude everywhere you post. It's ok to be insecure, but don't project pissy little shots at everyone. You've made some interesting points, but no one and I mean no one, will want to read your posts if they're littered with insults.