Week 4 Gameday Chatter Thread | Cowboys at Saints |10/04/2015

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb

The stats you guys are bickering about, check this website out. Especially, check the success rate ("suc rate") of the RBs here. Better than ypc, this stat takes into consideration the down and distance, measuring a back's consistency. If 3rd down and 20 and the RB gains 12 on a draw, it's a fail. Conversely, 1st and goal from the 1-inch line is considered a success. In general, gaining 40% of a first down conversion on 1st down is a success, 60% on second down is a success and 100% on third down is a success.

Randle is in the bottom 25% of RBs with >32 rushes.

To go further, Randle has one of the highest DVOA ratings, meaning he's a boom-or-bust RB. McFadden, on the other hand, ranks Top 10 in success rate and DVOA, meaning he's much more consistent in his yards gained while not losing too much yardage of Randle's 'boom' runs.

Cant wait until next year when we have another RB.

Cowboysrock55 said:

See this is how crazy some of the stats manipulation is. Here is a breakdown of Randle's runs. I bolded the bad runs. Meaning runs for 1 yard that result in a TD are not bad runs. Basically anything else under 4 yards I put down as a bad run. So tell me how 80% of his runs were poor? Other then clearly the defense had adjusted in the second half (AKA the crazy amount of penetration leading to negative runs).

28 yards
37 yards TD
1 yards TD
20 yards
1 yard
-1 yard
1 yard TD
4 yards
1 yard
0 yard
-1 yard
-4 yards
2 yards
-2 yards

Click to expand...

Are you seriously trying to tell me this isn't mostly bad? Good lord.

Cowboysrock55 said:

Randle against the Eagles for example only went for under 3 yards on 6 out of 18 carries or so. So 33% led to what one could consider a failure of a run.

Murray against the Eagles for example went for under 3 yards against the eagles on 17 of 31 carries for example (Second Eagles game). So over half of his carries against the same defense with the same QB went for shit.

So when someone says that Randle doesn't get positive yards on enough carries the way Murray did I wonder how well they remember all of the games Murray played.

Click to expand...

Hey I have an idea, let's cherry pick the worst games from an 1800 yard back andthen compare it to the slop we have this year.

Are you kidding me? Talk about manipulating stats.

Here's another trick you can do. Find a great game from randle and compare. I'll wait. And wait.

pdom said:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb

The stats you guys are bickering about, check this website out. Especially, check the success rate ("suc rate") of the RBs here. Better than ypc, this stat takes into consideration the down and distance, measuring a back's consistency. If 3rd down and 20 and the RB gains 12 on a draw, it's a fail. Conversely, 1st and goal from the 1-inch line is considered a success. In general, gaining 40% of a first down conversion on 1st down is a success, 60% on second down is a success and 100% on third down is a success.

Randle is in the bottom 25% of RBs with >32 rushes.

To go further, Randle has one of the highest DVOA ratings, meaning he's a boom-or-bust RB. McFadden, on the other hand, ranks Top 10 in success rate and DVOA, meaning he's much more consistent in his yards gained while not losing too much yardage of Randle's 'boom' runs.

Click to expand...

Yep. McFAdden consistently doesn't get any yards.

Genghis Khan said:

Are you seriously trying to tell me this isn't mostly bad? Good lord.

Click to expand...

One would have to spread other RBs to really determine if it is bad. I have no idea how the trends go for other backs. This may be normal or it may not be.

Genghis Khan said:

Hey I have an idea, let's cherry pick the worst games from an 1800 yard back andthen compare it to the slop we have this year.

Are you kidding me? Talk about manipulating stats.

Here's another trick you can do. Find a great game from randle and compare. I'll wait. And wait.

Click to expand...

Ayuh.

Genghis Khan said:

Are you seriously trying to tell me this isn't mostly bad? Good lord.

Click to expand...

Jusy pointing out that your 80% was a made up stat. Seems to be a lot of that.

Genghis Khan said:

Are you kidding me? Talk about manipulating stats.

Click to expand...

There weren't a lot of games to pick from where they played a common defense that had the same front 7 basically from one year to the next. They also both had Romo in those games. Since its not really fair to compare an offense with Weeden and an offense with Romo.

But hey if you want to go to the other Eagles game be my guest.

Genghis Khan said:

I'll wait. And wait.

Click to expand...

And grow old.

Brees named NFC Offensive Player of the Week

Posted by Zac Jackson on October 7, 2015, 10:57 AM EDT

Saints quarterback Drew Brees has been named NFC Offensive Player of the Week for Week 4 of the season.

Brees, who missed the Saints’ previous game with a shoulder injury, completed 33-of-41 passes for 359 yards and two touchdowns against the Cowboys, including the game winner in overtime that marked his 400th career touchdown pass.

Brees recorded a 119.4 passer rating for the game and posted his 46th career game of at least 350 passing yards, the most in NFL history. Brees also became the third player in NFL history to complete 5,000 passes for his career.

Since joining Saints in 2006, Brees has won 19 player of the week awards, the most in the NFL during that span. With 21 such awards in his career, he joins Peyton Manning (27) and Tom Brady (24) as the only players with 20 or more.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/10/07/brees-named-nfc-offensive-player-of-the-week/

C'mon. No effing way Brees was the best offensive player in the NFC last week.

Genghis Khan said:

Hey I have an idea, let's cherry pick the worst games from an 1800 yard back andthen compare it to the slop we have this year.

Are you kidding me? Talk about manipulating stats.

Here's another trick you can do. Find a great game from randle and compare. I'll wait. And wait.

Click to expand...

Yea, you gotta be kidding me with this shit.

Some people, for some unknown reason, want to prop Randle so much that they'll resort to making stupid ass comparisons.

Murray ONLY got 1,845 yards last year. As average as he was, it's amazing how he limped his way to that total.

Texas Ace said:

Murray ONLY got 1,845 yards last year.

Click to expand...

Then this number gets used as a baseline to determine that Randle "should be" a 1400 yard rusher.

ravidubey said:

Then this number gets used as a baseline to determine that Randle "should be" a 1400 yard rusher.

Click to expand...

I for one never thought Randle would be good for more than 1000 yards. I had hoped a RB would be drafted to make up the difference but my hopes were dashed when MacFadden was acquired.

L.T. Fan said:

I for one never thought Randle would be good for more than 1000 yards. I had hoped a RB would be drafted to make up the difference but my hopes were dashed when MacFadden was acquired.

Click to expand...

IMO, Gregory had more of an impact on that decision than McFadden. He shouldn't have been there in the 2nd and there were backs they liked available.

L.T. Fan said:

I for one never thought Randle would be good for more than 1000 yards. I had hoped a RB would be drafted to make up the difference but my hopes were dashed when MacFadden was acquired.

Click to expand...

Yeah pretty much. I had a number of guys I really liked in the draft. There were a number of backs I would have liked to see in Dallas splitting carries with Randle.

Now I'm hoping that Michael can fill that role. He does have physical talent. He can't do any worse then McFadden which is basically to just instantly fall at first contact.

Deuce said:

IMO, Gregory had more of an impact on that decision than McFadden. He shouldn't have been there in the 2nd and there were backs they liked available.

Click to expand...

I wish that was the case but the committee plan was already in place before the draft.