kleese Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Take a look at this folks. Sorry if someone else has already pointed this out: Here is the rushing leaders list for the NFL this year. 1. Ricky Williams: HOME FOR THE PLAYOFFS 2. LaDainian Tomlinson: HOME FOR THE PLAYOFFS 3. Priest Holmes: HOME FOR THE PLAYOFFS 4. Clinton Portis: HOME FOR THE PLAYOFFS 5. Travis Henry: HOME FOR THE PLAYOFFS 6. Deuce McAllister: HOME FOR THE PLAYOFFS 7. Tiki Barber: IN THE PLAYOFFS 8. Jamal Lewis: HOME FOR THE PLAYOFFS 9. Fred Taylor: HOME FOR THE PLAYOFFS 10. Corey Dillon: HOME FOR THE PLAYOFFS 11. Michael Bennett: HOME FOR THE PLAYOFFS Amazing. 10 of the top 11 rushers will be watching the post-season on the tube. While "pass first" teams like the Raiders, Eagles, and 49ers, will be in the thick of it. The Raiders and 49ers fill in the holes with a few "change of pace" backs that break the defense down once the pass had them on their heels. The 49ers are HIGHLY effective running the ball, despite not having a rusher in the top 10+ of the league. Betts/Watson can easily get the job done for us. The running game IS important, very important, but having one bruising, 25 carries a game RB IS NOT IMPORTANT! I like the energy and change-ups that Watson/Betts brings. They are also young, cheap, and no one injury could deplete us at RB. I think Watson/Betts is the clear answer next year-- even if Davis wants to play for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Something very similar to this was posted and discussed yesterday. Basically, almost all the best running backs are from AFC teams that didn't make the playoffs. Who knew? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canyonero! Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Ok, I'm not disagreeing here, but not many of these teams are really "running" teams though. I'd call 2 of them pass-first (Chiefs and Vikings), and only the Chargers a run-first team. The rest are balanced offenses. Also, this stat is deceiving. We should be looking at team rushing yardage. The top 11 teams there are like so: 1. Minnesota 2. Miami 3. Kansas City 4. Atlanta 5. Denver 6. San Fran 7. Philly 8. San Diego 9. Pitt 10. Jacksonville 11. Tennessee Now instead of saying "see, only 1 of the top 11 running backs is in the playoffs", we have to say that 5 of the top 11 running teams is in the playoffs. And I'll go ahead and mention the obvious caveat here: 5 of these teams have QBs that gained lots of yards scrambling on non-running plays, so these yards shouldn't really go to show the power of a team's running game, but oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Wow, that's pretty surprising in itself, that second list. OF the top ten rushing teams... only 30% are playoff bound and of those 3 teams at least one of them should be questioned as rushing due to the ammount of yards gained by qb scrambling. So, in reality you have 2 out out of ten. Doesn't speak well towards the rushing philosophy. My guess is the middle of the pack is where most of the playoff teams are hiding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsThug Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 How about a ranking of these teams defenses, strength of schedule, special team play, penalties incurred, and a count of their play selection? So much more has to be considered instead of how many yards their RB attains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeB Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Over the past 5 years I think we have all but witnessed the end of the power running game. The backs of today are Faulk like, good pass catchers, big yardage in open field, etc... Personally I think this is a factor in the Skins success over that timeframe. That is why I am not overly concerned over Davis' departure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRMADD Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 I think the conclusion we came to in the other thread was that the playoffs teams are the balanced teams, with both running and passing offenses. The losers who are already on the golf course were good at one or the other, but not both. It's about balance, guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 while that may be true, it is hard to find teams that have won the Super Bowl without a 1,000 yard back (in a full season). Faulk was a 1,000 yard rusher for the Rams. Lewis was for the Ravens. Davis was for the Broncos both years. Wasn't Bennett a 1,000 yard rusher for the Packers in '96? Smith was all three years for the Cowboys in '92, '93 and '95. Did SF have a 1,000 yarder in 1994? The Skins did in '91 with Byner. The Giants did in 1990 with Ottis Anderson. So, while you may not need the #1 rusher in the NFL in your backfield, there are few teams that reach and win the Super Bowl without a productive and clear #1 back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathByLinebacker Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Even though I am happy with the Betts/Watson combo, you do have a point Bulldog. Even A.Smith had over 1000 last year and Watters was the back with over 1000 in 94. Otis Anderson didn't have 1000 in '90 though. He only had 784. He combined with Carthon, Meggett, Hampton, Tillman and a couple of other backs for 1902 total rush yards from running backs. That is still a rare exception to your point though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 I don't know how I forgot Watters, he had such a big mouth and was such a prima donna during his career Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Originally posted by SkinsThug How about a ranking of these teams defenses, strength of schedule, special team play, penalties incurred, and a count of their play selection? So much more has to be considered instead of how many yards their RB attains. Here is the telling stat for me...the top 10 in time of possesion... TEN 32:47 PIT 32:46 ATL 32:02 SFO 32:00 GNB 31:50 TAM 31:43 MIN 31:30 NYG 31:26 MIA 31:24 OAK 31:21 Thats 8 out of the 12 playoff teams and one team, Miami, that should have been a playoff team had it not been for some brain farts down the stretch. Conversely, the bottom 10 in time of possesion only has 1 team in the playoffs, the Jets. Simple rule here - keep you offense on the field - you will win more than lose (usually). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ummagumma Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 1. Ricky Williams: HOME FOR THE PLAYOFFS 2. LaDainian Tomlinson: HOME FOR THE PLAYOFFS And also coached by our last two head coaches...maybe that has something to do with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 In the case of SD, I think their record got too far out in front of their talent, much as it did here in 1996 when Gus lead us to that 7-1 start only to stumble to 9-7 and miss the playoffs............... The Dolphins were a team that had early unity and cohesion that was interrupted by the injury to Jay Fiedler. Ray Lucas didn't play that well in some games the Dolphins should have won in the middle of the season and that cost them down the stretch. In retrospect the Dolphins should have been one of the teams aiming to secure Chris Chandler in the offseason. Lucas and Sage Rosenfels was not enough on the bench to backup a team with true playoff aspirations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kleese Posted December 31, 2002 Author Share Posted December 31, 2002 Just to clarify my point: I'm not saying the running game isn't important. I'm saying that it appears a nice duo (Watson/Betts) can be just as effective as a one-back bruiser like Davis. It's a much younger, cheaper, and fresher option IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 Originally posted by bulldog while that may be true, it is hard to find teams that have won the Super Bowl without a 1,000 yard back (in a full season). Faulk was a 1,000 yard rusher for the Rams. Lewis was for the Ravens. Davis was for the Broncos both years. Wasn't Bennett a 1,000 yard rusher for the Packers in '96? Smith was all three years for the Cowboys in '92, '93 and '95. Did SF have a 1,000 yarder in 1994? The Skins did in '91 with Byner. The Giants did in 1990 with Ottis Anderson. So, while you may not need the #1 rusher in the NFL in your backfield, there are few teams that reach and win the Super Bowl without a productive and clear #1 back Fair enough, bulldog, and carefully phrased. "A productive and clear #1 back" is not the same as "top 3 in NFL". It does seem that over the years, the RBs who contend for the rushing title are not on Super Bowl teams. (OK, I'm sure there's an exception, but I'm talking trends.) It may be that contending for a rushing title is by its nature a sign of an imbalanced team. In the same way, we saw a number of pass-happy AFC teams led by Marino, Elway, Fouts, O'Brien and Kelly never make it to the top of the mountain. (Elway did finally, but only when he was paired with Terrell Davis.) So, what matters finally is balance: being very good at both, rather than superb at one and mediocre at the other. As Art has said recently in a moment of sobriety, good opponents will take away your strength and force you to beat them with your weakness. So in the end, in the playoffs, your weakness on offense may end up being more important than your strength. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.