>> |
Anonymous
>>101127 I don't entirely disagree, but I don't entirely agree either.
For one, I very much disagree with - "If the running back was so bad their ability to run/receive well enough to pick up consistent yards and first downs was in question, they wouldn't get enough touches to be on that list in the first place."
The ability to evaluate talent is extremely prized. It's one of the reasons the Patriots have been so good over the past few years (yes, yes, 18-1, etc). Not every team is very good at it. The Cards keep running Matt Leinart out to start despite the fact that Kurt Warner is still better.
Also, sometimes, teams just don't have the talent to replace a bad player. If your team lacks talent at the major skill positions (QB, WR, RB), what are you going to do? You can't refuse to play offense, so you use what you have. You might choose to run the ball 45 times a game, then, if your QB is INT-prone - shorten the game, allow luck to have a larger factor, avoid turnovers, let your defense try to win. That doesn't mean your running back(s) are GOOD even though they rack up big counting stats. It just means you gave them the ball a lot.
The Vikings of 2006 would be a good example of this. Chester Taylor ran for 1,200 yards. Why? Because he got over 300 carries, as the alternative was to let 38-year old Brad Johnson throw (he wasn't actually terrible, but he wasn't very good either).
That 2006 Edge season -is- relevant. The Cards were pretty much league average in offense that year, DESPITE James's inefficiency. Why? Because Warner was very good when he got the chance to play, and even Leinart wasn't awful. You're right in that just using YPC fails in that there are a lot of other factors to assess (offensive line, scheme, game situation, usage, etc). But by the same token, just looking at pure yardage from scrimmage ignores many of those same factors.
|