Jump to content

Moving On To 2020/2021.


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Dolmonite26 said:

There's mountains of evidence about it but we can start here

https://www.numberfire.com/nfl/news/19933/saquon-barkley-may-be-a-generational-talent-but-he-ll-still-be-overdrafted

 

did he though? Slowed down a lot by seasons end and 1 season of 3. Not promising when you're dealing with soft tissue injuries

This piece does not address the physical toll a running game takes on an opposing offense at all.

It also doesn't take into account time of possession over the course of the game in its study about whether time of possession or field position determines points scored on the subsequent possession:

"There's a very common thought that a good running game keeps a defense fresh, and when a defense is fresh, it performs at a higher level. But that's been debunked by Ben Baldwin." 

No it wasn't. That wasn't the point of the Baldwin study. A determination whether field position on a single series or time of possession leads to a score on the subsequent series has nothing to do with the impact of punching a team over and over again throughout the course of the game. Most games are won in the 4th quarter when the physical part of the game has taken a toll. 

It's insane to say a tired athlete, or an entire exhausted defense will perform just as well as a rested athlete or defense. Here's an amalgamation of what some football players on a Reddit thread have said about the exertion of energy in stopping the run versus the pass:

"Tackling sucks. If you're out there with someone who deserves to be out on the field, it won't be fun bringing them down. If I'm tired I would much rather drop back in coverage than take on a lineman, shed a block, and smash into a ball carrier. Most linebackers get a little tired of having to fight off a block and take on a dude running downhill right at them repeatedly for 4 quarters. It doesn't just wear on a team physically, it wears on them mentally. Especially if the running back is the one that is initiating contact time after time. Imagine lining up and when you read the play the RB is running full steam ahead through your gap for the 15th time."

On offense when the linemen get to be the aggressors -- asserting the point of attack on long sustained drives -- with a very good running back over the course of the game it exhausts defenses. I don't need analytics to figure this out. 

Again, most games are won in the 4th quarter, and a defense that is better rested is better equipped to make the stops at crunch time. On the other side of the ball, the offense that is more capable of wearing out the opponents defense will run out the clock.

The value of the running back depends on the team's mentality. With the Vikings currently, Cook's value is higher than the average team if you consider his useage rate (#8 in carries). Again, you don't have to like the fact that the Vikings are a run-first team, but they are. 

It's one thing to say teams score more when they throw more and analytics prove it. It's another thing to be dismissive of Cooks' value which isn't weighed by the teams' pocket book compared to how other teams would speculatively value him, or math that attempts to add every bit and piece of mind numbing statistic up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SteelKing728 said:

Do you guys see us trading up or back this year in the early rounds, seeing as we're picking pretty late?

I think Fromm is the key here.  Some mocks I have seen have him as the 4th QB to come off the board, late in the 1st round.  If a team sees him fall to our pick, and fears he might not be there when they pick early in the 2nd, they might be willing to overpay to acquire our pick.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, babababa said:

This piece does not address the physical toll a running game takes on an opposing offense at all.

I assume you mean defense, and it does address it. Passing correleates more with wins than running. That should be evidence enough when it comes how to build a team, but even when it comes to tactical information when dealing with in game decisions, a multitude of studies have been unable to draw a link to running earlier leading to better success later in the 4th. So where's the advantage? I mean obviously there nuance at play and it's hard to quantify all of this, but shouldn't there eventually be a stronger correlation with wins or points scored in the 4th after such a large sample size?

9 hours ago, babababa said:

It's insane to say a tired athlete, or an entire exhausted defense will perform just as well as a rested athlete or defense.

It is insane, problem is that, once again, no link has been drawn between defenses playing better when their offense runs more, or even when there's an advantage in ToP. In fact time of possession is just misleading in general. Of course teams that win more have the ball more, it's correlative, not descriptive. But the real point, that never gets brought up, is that for as much as a defense might get fatigued by the offense running the ball, so does the offense. Again running early doesn't lead to an increase in success later.

 

9 hours ago, babababa said:

Here's an amalgamation of what some football players on a Reddit thread have said about the exertion of energy in stopping the run versus the pass:

this is anecdotal and, once again, isn't backed by any measure of note. I'd be really interested in seeing what the effect of having to run all day covering routes has on a defense, intuitively it should fatigue a defense quite a bit.

9 hours ago, babababa said:

The value of the running back depends on the team's mentality. With the Vikings currently, Cook's value is higher than the average team if you consider his useage rate (#8 in carries). Again, you don't have to like the fact that the Vikings are a run-first team, but they are. 

Your first point might be true, but still ignores how replaceable RBs are or that the Vikings are extremely resource limited or that the running game is more dependant on its line than the running back. If the Vikings want to be a run heavy team than they should trade Cook to gain assets on the line and not waste their 2019 3rd round pick.

It's one thing to say teams score more when they throw more and analytics prove it

So the team shouldn't try to be better at the thing that wins more games?

9 hours ago, babababa said:

It's another thing to be dismissive of Cooks' value which isn't weighed by the teams' pocket book compared to how other teams would speculatively value him,

so they should ignore market value and over pay for an asset that has been proven you shouldn't do that with? Gurley, Zeke, Barkely, Freeman, and Fournette say hello.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dolmonite26 said:

 

Dolmonite, 

 It's great that you want to win football games, who doesn't. I'm sure if you tried these analytics 10 years ago the script would be different. I argue that trends and philosophies change in the league and bucking the trend can yield good results because everyone has adapted to defend the pass more which can lead to gains for a team attempting create a strong run game.  Teams in the playoffs this year have preferred to run the football, so are they wrong? Maybe this will be the new trend and analytics will shift and begin to reflect this.

If you're tired of hearing it from me try this from last year:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000996948/article/running-the-football-still-works-plus-the-amari-cooper-effect

You don't need a study to conclusively decide whether a steady diet of the run game will wear out a defense. If you've watched enough football over your however many years you will see teams like the Vikings wear out in the 3rd quarter when a team like the 49ers decides to run the ball 8 straight times for 44 yards down the field unimpeded. It breaks a defense's will.

Also, it's long been said that every team -- even pass first teams -- need a few decent running backs due to the physical demand of the position. Teams like the Vikings who run the ball more than average especially need at least 2 good backs. The idea that somehow Cook isn't of considerable value to this offense which uses him as a principle weapon that sucks in the defense, which in turn helps play-action isn't accurate.

Finally, comparing Cook to other running backs who signed their respective contracts and have been let downs to their subsequent teams is projecting negative speculation. We could sit here all day and talk about players of any position not living up to the contracts that they signed, but to turn that around and say this guy will be one of those guys is nothing more than an opinion. Were you upset every time Cook scored a touchdown this year? You don't even know what Cook is demanding from a contract standpoint and yet you want him out of Minnesota.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This isnt difficult man.

The running game hasn't evaporated from the game. It still has significance and can lead to wins, in ways that are bothmeasurable through raw data and other ways that much more difficult to feed through a calculator. We know this, it's not really what were debating.... However, Bucky Brooks is so lost if he thinks that correlating wins to rushing attempts carries enough contexts to be significant at all, but I digress.

What is quite clear, through sources I've cited and others that you can easily find if you actually want, is that running backs are largely replaceable.

Now lets be clear, many backs through the years have had moments where this isn't the case. They are able to play at a level that is well above replacement and where they directly affect defensive and offensive scheme. 2017-2018 Todd Gurley is a great example of that.

The problem is almost none of them repeat it or sustain it. Even our own Dalvin Cook couldn't do it for more than 8 games, and it took him three years to do it.

You accuse me of negative speculation. It's not, it's playing the odds based in historical precedent.

And finally

58 minutes ago, babababa said:

Were you upset every time Cook scored a touchdown this year? You don't even know what Cook is demanding from a contract standpoint and yet you want him out of Minnesota.

Dont put word in my mouth. I said none of this, but I dont have to tell you that.

I'd love for cook to be a Viking for longer. I thought he was the 2nd best back of his class and was a steal at his draft price, but now its time to move on and if they're smart they will.

Edited by Dolmonite26
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, SemperFeist said:

To put it simply, the run game is important. Running backs are not. 

The 49ers are sure proving that to be true.  Seems like they can field a different 100 (or 200+) yard rusher every week.  Some guys can get it done seemingly no matter who they run behind.  And yet, when the line is solid and the playcalling creative, relative nobodies can blow your doors off.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎25‎/‎2020 at 12:48 PM, Dolmonite26 said:

I assume you mean defense, and it does address it. Passing correleates more with wins than running. That should be evidence enough when it comes how to build a team, but even when it comes to tactical information when dealing with in game decisions, a multitude of studies have been unable to draw a link to running earlier leading to better success later in the 4th. So where's the advantage? I mean obviously there nuance at play and it's hard to quantify all of this, but shouldn't there eventually be a stronger correlation with wins or points scored in the 4th after such a large sample size?

It is insane, problem is that, once again, no link has been drawn between defenses playing better when their offense runs more, or even when there's an advantage in ToP. In fact time of possession is just misleading in general. Of course teams that win more have the ball more, it's correlative, not descriptive. But the real point, that never gets brought up, is that for as much as a defense might get fatigued by the offense running the ball, so does the offense. Again running early doesn't lead to an increase in success later.

 

this is anecdotal and, once again, isn't backed by any measure of note. I'd be really interested in seeing what the effect of having to run all day covering routes has on a defense, intuitively it should fatigue a defense quite a bit.

Your first point might be true, but still ignores how replaceable RBs are or that the Vikings are extremely resource limited or that the running game is more dependant on its line than the running back. If the Vikings want to be a run heavy team than they should trade Cook to gain assets on the line and not waste their 2019 3rd round pick.

 

 

So the team shouldn't try to be better at the thing that wins more games?

so they should ignore market value and over pay for an asset that has been proven you shouldn't do that with? Gurley, Zeke, Barkely, Freeman, and Fournette say hello.

Dolmonite...there are certain truths about football that will never change.  (1) A quality running attack is an advantage for a team both offensively and defensively.  (2) Without the threat of a running attack, the passing game is better defended by the opponent. (3) Coaches, since the dawn of football, have preached ball control and time of possession. Which is most effective when a team can mix run and pass. 

You seem to be suggesting that a running game is not needed in the so called "modern" game.  I think the 49'er's and the Chiefs would beg to differ....even if they use their backs differently.

Now, I'm not for overpaying a running back...however, there is a wide disparity of talent in the NFL.  The Vikings have one of the better talents at RB, but he's not Adrian Peterson who could take on an 8 or 9 mine front.  He needs his linemen to run block better AND pass block better, so that the running game and the passing game feed off of each other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Virginia Viking said:

Without the threat of a running attack, the passing game is better defended by the opponent.

Well, duh. Without the threat of a passing attack, the running game is better defend by the opponent, too. Balance will always be needed for an overall successful offense.

However, it’s easier to develop a competent passing game than it is a competent running game, and it’s more difficult to defend a team built around the pass than it is to defend a team built around the run. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SemperFeist said:

Well, duh. Without the threat of a passing attack, the running game is better defend by the opponent, too. Balance will always be needed for an overall successful offense.

However, it’s easier to develop a competent passing game than it is a competent running game, and it’s more difficult to defend a team built around the pass than it is to defend a team built around the run. 

Perhaps...but there is nothing better than an offense imposing their will on a defense by creating holes and running alleys for the backs to run through.  When a fast, strong back get's to the 2nd level, there aren't many LB's and DB's that are going to win a battle against a RB with a full head of steam.  To me that's football at its best.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...