header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 29   Go Down
Author

Topic: 100 RBs who had lots of carries and didn't stink

 (Read 16912 times)

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37307
  • Liked:
Re: Top 100 RBs of All-Time
« Reply #14 on: March 09, 2020, 11:19:54 AM »
that's what makes it off-season FUN!
Logged
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12122
  • Liked:
Re: Top 100 RBs of All-Time
« Reply #15 on: March 09, 2020, 11:27:48 AM »
I don't particularly like "career yardage" as a metric, because it's biased towards players that stayed and started all 4 years. It's also a strong recency bias because in the old days freshmen were ineligible, and with seasons extending to 12 games + potential CCG + bowl proliferation, it gives recent players more opportunities to amass that statistic.

I could see something like "ypg average their top two seasons at the school" being a bigger thing. I wouldn't do it single-season, because there's probably too much statistical noise there, but if you have a back that has two seasons as his school's workhorse RB, that suggests he was "the guy" and a candidate. But ypg average also removes the recency bias where some players in the CFP era might have 15 games in a season while a guy from the 1990s finished on a 6-5 team and their team didn't go to a bowl, so he only got 11 games in. 

Granted, that's a lot more work for @OrangeAfroMan -- but he's clearly a stats nerd so I'm sure he's up for the challenge :57:
Logged

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37307
  • Liked:
Re: Top 100 RBs of All-Time
« Reply #16 on: March 09, 2020, 11:48:48 AM »
absolutely, he'll find a way for Emmitt to rank highly here
Logged
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 70998
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Top 100 RBs of All-Time
« Reply #17 on: March 09, 2020, 12:02:06 PM »
Neat, I think, to see Nick Chubb at #29.  I really admire that young man.  He had a "career ending knee injury" his second year when he appeared ready to truly break out.  (He already had.)

Of course, that probably is why he stayed his fourth year.  He was a second rounder, behind Sony Michel, who "started" behind him..  When healthy, Chubb was really good IMHO, power and speed.
Logged

NorthernOhioBuckeye

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1096
  • Liked:
Re: Top 100 RBs of All-Time
« Reply #18 on: March 09, 2020, 12:31:45 PM »
Quote from: Cincydawg on March 09, 2020, 12:02:06 PM
Neat, I think, to see Nick Chubb at #29.  I really admire that young man.  He had a "career ending knee injury" his second year when he appeared ready to truly break out.  (He already had.)

Of course, that probably is why he stayed his fourth year.  He was a second rounder, behind Sony Michel, who "started" behind him..  When healthy, Chubb was really good IMHO, power and speed.
While I didn't see a lot of Georgia games while he was there, I remember him being a very good back for the Bulldogs. I would have loved to see him in the Scarlet and Gray. His production in Cleveland simply validates what I saw of him in Georgia. He is probably 1 of the top 5 backs in the NFL now while playing for a mediocre team in Cleveland. 
Logged

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18784
  • Liked:
Re: Top 100 RBs of All-Time
« Reply #19 on: March 09, 2020, 12:44:12 PM »
Everyone's making good points, and no, there is no one right way to do this.  I'm just going to explore around, statistically, and see what it yields.  
.
Ideally, we'd have yards per game...but that's not readily available.  I may have the list move around and evolve some, then include yards per game for the top 20, then finalize it.  We'll see.
.
Imagine an all-time top 100 offensive linemen, with NO stats to go by.  I'm sure we'd all come to a consensus on that one, right?
.
.
.
And a note on the Barry Sanders thing.  We all know his 88 season was epic, but an underrated aspect of this is volume.  If you don't account for volume, Felix Jones was better than Darren McFadden.  If you don't account for volume, most any RB with fewer carries can be considered better than the guy with more carries.  It's a statistical thing (which many here cannot seem to grasp).  No, Sanders would not start sucking, had he started 3 years instead of 1, but he also wouldn't have continued averaging what he did in 1988.  
Logged
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37307
  • Liked:
Re: Top 100 RBs of All-Time
« Reply #20 on: March 09, 2020, 12:51:33 PM »
he may have
Logged
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11228
  • Liked:
Re: Top 100 RBs of All-Time
« Reply #21 on: March 09, 2020, 12:52:41 PM »
Sanders was twelving. (Eighting?)
Logged
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12122
  • Liked:
Re: Top 100 RBs of All-Time
« Reply #22 on: March 09, 2020, 02:00:30 PM »
Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on March 09, 2020, 12:44:12 PM
And a note on the Barry Sanders thing.  We all know his 88 season was epic, but an underrated aspect of this is volume.  If you don't account for volume, Felix Jones was better than Darren McFadden.  If you don't account for volume, most any RB with fewer carries can be considered better than the guy with more carries.  It's a statistical thing (which many here cannot seem to grasp).  No, Sanders would not start sucking, had he started 3 years instead of 1, but he also wouldn't have continued averaging what he did in 1988. 
It's not a statistical thing. 

What is statistically true is that a small sample size will have more noise and less signal than a larger sample size. But the guy who only gets 50 carries on the year, if used on similar playcalls as the guy who gets 200 carries a year, is probably more statistically likely to have a LOWER ypc than the guy who gets 200... Or else he wouldn't be the backup. 

What happens is that often those "backups" who get lower volume and higher ypc averages aren't really backups at all--they're change of pace backs. If you play fantasy football, you see this in the NFL all the time. The Patriots run Sony Michel into the middle of the line on first and second down, and then on 3rd and long they bring in James White and if he gets the ball it's misdirection or on the edge and the defense is playing more pass than run, giving him room to work. 

Sony Michel gets more volume and lower ypc, because he's used in more predictable run situations. James White gets more varied playcalling in pass formations. And James Develin only has 15 career rushing attemps, at a paltry 1.7 ypc. But he's also got 5 touchdowns, because those rushing attempts are goal-line situations. 
Logged

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 70998
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Top 100 RBs of All-Time
« Reply #23 on: March 09, 2020, 02:52:21 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGxgh2lXXus

Nick Chubb miked up, hilarious.
Logged

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 70998
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Top 100 RBs of All-Time
« Reply #24 on: March 09, 2020, 02:59:56 PM »
Sanders had the best single season I think ever.  It's not just yardage, it's also how tough the opponents were and how good the OL was.

Logged

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37307
  • Liked:
Re: Top 100 RBs of All-Time
« Reply #25 on: March 09, 2020, 03:54:49 PM »
are Husker backs of the 80s and Badger backs of the 00s discounted because of their dominant O-lines?
Logged
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

MaximumSam

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13046
  • Liked:
Re: Top 100 RBs of All-Time
« Reply #26 on: March 09, 2020, 03:59:47 PM »
Also Barry Sanders had Thurman Thomas ahead of him. Not exactly apples to apples on other guys who had one great year
Logged

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37307
  • Liked:
Re: Top 100 RBs of All-Time
« Reply #27 on: March 09, 2020, 04:04:16 PM »
this type of thing happened to plenty of great backs where they followed or were a year ahead of another great back

Mike Rozier / Roger Craig 

many great Sooner backs
Logged
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 29   Go Up
« previous next »
 
Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.
Hidden Safe

Hidden Safe