Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Jonathan Taylor versus 8 man fronts


Stephen
 Share

Recommended Posts

Jonathan Taylor over average versus 8 man fronts is 5.6 yards a carry. He averaged 4.9 yards a carry against the bills on such runs the NFL average is 3.7 against 8 man fronts. He has also scored a TD at highest rate in NFL against 8 man fronts AJ Dillon from Packers was number two. Stats are from colts article on colts.com

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DougDew that sounds "plow horse"-ish, no? lol....

 

17 minutes ago, Stephen said:

Jonathan Taylor over average versus 8 man fronts is 5.6 yards a carry. He averaged 4.9 yards a carry against the bills on such runs the NFL average is 3.7 against 8 man fronts. He has also scored a TD at highest rate in NFL against 8 man fronts AJ Dillon from Packers was number two. Stats are from colts article on colts.com

 

Last I looked (Nov-18), he only faced stacked fronts 17.4% of the time, which was 18th. I looked when that article came out on Colts.com and he's up to 20.2% and 9th. That means Buffalo stacked a ton. Likely when we got up, and also because JT was killing them. 

 

His average defenders in the box is 6.6, which is 21st, so still overall not seeing an overwhelming amount of 8 or more. But it's nice to see he's successful when it happens. Hoping Frank makes a mental nugget. Watching him get hit by 4 guys on a goal line run and still make it, was extremely nice to see. And much better than Hines up the gut.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

@DougDew that sounds "plow horse"-ish, no? lol....

 

 

Last I looked (Nov-18), he only faced stacked fronts 17.4% of the time, which was 18th. I looked when that article came out on Colts.com and he's up to 20.2% and 9th. That means Buffalo stacked a ton. Likely when we got up, and also because JT was killing them. 

 

His average defenders in the box is 6.6, which is 21st, so still overall not seeing an overwhelming amount of 8 or more. But it's nice to see he's successful when it happens. Hoping Frank makes a mental nugget. Watching him get hit by 4 guys on a goal line run and still make it, was extremely nice to see. And much better than Hines up the gut.

May see Hines up the gut sunday

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stats are meaningless, JT passes (with an A+) the eye test.

 

Here’s what stats can tell us:

 

Mr. RB gets 19 yards on 19 carry’s.  On his 20th carry, at the end of a game the D stacks the box.  He breaks free for 81 yards.  
 

Mr. RB goes for 5 yard per carry and averaged over 80 yards against a stacked box.  
 

The Patriots cut him the next week.  

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

Stats are meaningless, JT passes (with an A+) the eye test.

 

Here’s what stats can tell us:

 

Mr. RB gets 19 yards on 19 carry’s.  On his 20th carry, at the end of a game the D stacks the box.  He breaks free for 81 yards.  
 

Mr. RB goes for 5 yard per carry and averaged over 80 yards against a stacked box.  
 

The Patriots cut him the next week.  

That's why you look at success rates along with AVG.

50 minutes ago, Stephen said:

May see Hines up the gut sunday

I don't mind that between the 20s at times. Just not goal line, or critical 3rd and shorts.

But nothing would surprise me though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

That's why you look at success rates along with AVG.

I don't mind that between the 20s at times. Just not goal line, or critical 3rd and shorts.

But nothing would surprise me though.


Exactly, success rate (as a team too).  Last week some were saying Carson had a bad game.  They were looking at his stats, and not the game.  
 

He threw at least four ‘good’ incompletions.  While Allen, Mr. MVP candidate, had better stats but a worse success rate.  
 

All I’m saying is that stats don’t lie, but they can be used to prove a lot of wrong points.   

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Smonroe said:


Exactly, success rate (as a team too).  Last week some were saying Carson had a bad game.  They were looking at his stats, and not the game.  
 

He threw at least four ‘good’ incompletions.  While Allen, Mr. MVP candidate, had better stats but a worse success rate.  
 

All I’m saying is that stats don’t lie, but they can be used to prove a lot of wrong points.   

 

As long as you look at the right stuff, or know what to look at, it's fine. AVG for instance is a layer-1 type of stat when it comes to RBs. Over the year, it's more than fine to dwell on. Game to game, it's as important to look at success rates and efficiency. 

 

But if a RB has a good AVG, and has a good success rate, there's not a lot of area for error. Sharp is a great place to look at the layer-2 type of stuff. And there's a ton of stuff you can look at in the passing game. Got to paint the whole picture I guess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Stephen said:

Jonathan Taylor over average versus 8 man fronts is 5.6 yards a carry. He averaged 4.9 yards a carry against the bills on such runs the NFL average is 3.7 against 8 man fronts. He has also scored a TD at highest rate in NFL against 8 man fronts AJ Dillon from Packers was number two. Stats are from colts article on colts.com

If I’m a DC I would be really careful using 8 man fronts.   With our line JT could easily break a couple of long runs once he gets through.  He has already done it.  He can make them pay.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, EastStreet said:

@DougDew that sounds "plow horse"-ish, no? lol....

 

 

Last I looked (Nov-18), he only faced stacked fronts 17.4% of the time, which was 18th. I looked when that article came out on Colts.com and he's up to 20.2% and 9th. That means Buffalo stacked a ton. Likely when we got up, and also because JT was killing them. 

 

His average defenders in the box is 6.6, which is 21st, so still overall not seeing an overwhelming amount of 8 or more. But it's nice to see he's successful when it happens. Hoping Frank makes a mental nugget. Watching him get hit by 4 guys on a goal line run and still make it, was extremely nice to see. And much better than Hines up the gut.

It also helps that he knows how to fly at the Goalline hahaangry superman GIF

  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Smonroe said:

Stats are meaningless, JT passes (with an A+) the eye test.

 

Here’s what stats can tell us:

 

Mr. RB gets 19 yards on 19 carry’s.  On his 20th carry, at the end of a game the D stacks the box.  He breaks free for 81 yards.  
 

Mr. RB goes for 5 yard per carry and averaged over 80 yards against a stacked box.  
 

The Patriots cut him the next week.  

 

The Jets picked him up.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our O-line got some serious push and blocking in our game vs the Bills. I see the Saints OL struggle last night and realize our OL was doing really really good against a good defensive front and LBs in the Bills game and JT's vision, that has improved by a mile, was maximizing everything as well. 

 

Don't be surprised if he gets over 100 yards vs the Bucs as well though I expect his YPC to be closer to lower end of 4 YPC.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, chad72 said:

Our O-line got some serious push and blocking in our game vs the Bills. I see the Saints OL struggle last night and realize our OL was doing really really good against a good defensive front and LBs in the Bills game and JT's vision, that has improved by a mile, was maximizing everything as well. 

 

Don't be surprised if he gets over 100 yards vs the Bucs as well though I expect his YPC to be closer to lower end of 4 YPC.

It starts up front

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, richard pallo said:

If I’m a DC I would be really careful using 8 man fronts.   With our line JT could easily break a couple of long runs once he gets through.  He has already done it.  He can make them pay.

 

Yup, if you let him get past the front and have no depth to your defense, no one is catching him. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/26/2021 at 7:06 AM, EastStreet said:

@DougDew that sounds "plow horse"-ish, no? lol....

 

 

Last I looked (Nov-18), he only faced stacked fronts 17.4% of the time, which was 18th. I looked when that article came out on Colts.com and he's up to 20.2% and 9th. That means Buffalo stacked a ton. Likely when we got up, and also because JT was killing them. 

 

His average defenders in the box is 6.6, which is 21st, so still overall not seeing an overwhelming amount of 8 or more. But it's nice to see he's successful when it happens. Hoping Frank makes a mental nugget. Watching him get hit by 4 guys on a goal line run and still make it, was extremely nice to see. And much better than Hines up the gut.

Yes, he can be a plow horse (for a while).  But that's not his value for the 2021 Colts.   Ballard traded up for his speed.  He traded up for JTs ability to make Z type of chunk plays, especially needed in 2021 to score points in close games when we don't have a Z type of receiver. 

 

Plow horse matters more when we have a lead.....and with our defense.....pounding the rock with any RB in plow horse type of success is a questionable strategy.  If he is not getting Z type of runs, its a problem for our offense and diminishes our chances of winning.  In a close game, you want JT to get Z runs, not be a plow horse.

 

Yes, unless at the goal line...or in the shadow of your goal post so you don't throw a screen pass. LOL. 

 

But stats about in the box success becomes less relevant as you approach the goal line, when the field is shorter and all 11 players are in the box.

 

Variables embedded in the stats include health of the oline, prowess of the defensive front, prowess of the back seven to stop Z- result of running plays.  Stats of those past performances in past weeks against other teams speak little to what the game plan should be against this weeks opponent.

 

And comparing his stats to NFL averages is even less relevant. NFL averages include how 31 other teams with different personnel and injuries match up against 31 other teams with different personnel and injuries in previous weeks, including week 1 two months ago when circumstances could have been significantly different than what they are going into this week's game.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I love Taylor, I would still like to see him around 20 carries a game and targeted around 5 passes a game. That is enough to where he can even break a big play or 2 that turns a game. I want balance and do not want to see Taylor used up like Henry is in Tennessee. The amount of carries Henry has had in Tennessee the last 3 years is insane. He was an injury waiting to happen and it happened. We have a QB that I believe can carry us at times (see 2017 where he was front runner for MVP and 2019 where he had crap around him and the Eagles still won their division) when needed and have to be smart about when to use Taylor and let Wentz make a big play when needed. Do I want Taylor to have games like only 15 carries, hell no, but 20-22 is good. If there is a situation where he is having an easy way like last week and we need him to run the clock, then 25 carries or so is understandable. I think Henry's best days are behind him because of him carrying that team for years. Here I want to see Taylor and Wentz both carry our team to keep them healthy.

 

I have always considered Tannehill above average to good at times so he is top 15ish but can't carry a team without a great RB IMO. If you look at the Titans run in 2019 to the AFC Title Game it was Henry with 2 off the charts games and Tannehill did very little. My lock of the week this week is Pats over Titans. I would be surprised if that game is even close lmao .

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Yes, he can be a plow horse (for a while).  But that's not his value for the 2021 Colts.   Ballard traded up for his speed.  He traded up for JTs ability to make Z type of chunk plays, especially needed in 2021 to score points in close games when we don't have a Z type of receiver. 

 

Plow horse matters more when we have a lead.....and with our defense.....pounding the rock with any RB in plow horse type of success is a questionable strategy.  If he is not getting Z type of runs, its a problem for our offense and diminishes our chances of winning.  In a close game, you want JT to get Z runs, not be a plow horse.

 

Yes, unless at the goal line...or in the shadow of your goal post so you don't throw a screen pass. LOL. 

 

But stats about in the box success becomes less relevant as you approach the goal line, when the field is shorter and all 11 players are in the box.

 

Variables embedded in the stats include health of the oline, prowess of the defensive front, prowess of the back seven to stop Z- result of running plays.  Stats of those past performances in past weeks against other teams speak little to what the game plan should be against this weeks opponent.

 

And comparing his stats to NFL averages is even less relevant. NFL averages include how 31 other teams with different personnel and injuries match up against 31 other teams with different personnel and injuries in previous weeks, including week 1 two months ago when circumstances could have been significantly different than what they are going into this week's game.

 

Last post on the topic... 

  • his avg was good that game
  • his success rate was good that game
  • the ol graded fine that game
  • he's leading the nfl

There is zero out there that suggests we wouldn't have done better running him more that game. There is a ton out there that suggests we would. And good AVG combine with good success rate = good in game..... Pretty simple stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/26/2021 at 9:04 AM, Smonroe said:

Stats are meaningless, JT passes (with an A+) the eye test.

 

Here’s what stats can tell us:

 

Mr. RB gets 19 yards on 19 carry’s.  On his 20th carry, at the end of a game the D stacks the box.  He breaks free for 81 yards.  
 

Mr. RB goes for 5 yard per carry and averaged over 80 yards against a stacked box.  
 

The Patriots cut him the next week.  

Stats aren’t useless you just have to look at what they are telling you and not try to use them to say what you want them to say.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Last post on the topic... 

  • his avg was good that game
  • his success rate was good that game
  • the ol graded fine that game
  • he's leading the nfl

There is zero out there that suggests we wouldn't have done better running him more that game. There is a ton out there that suggests we would. And good AVG combine with good success rate = good in game..... Pretty simple stuff.

The issue is not that these stats suggest it and we have to argue they don't.  The issue is that we have to support the notion that these stats say that running the ball more would have helped. 

 

Netting 35 yards on 8 more running attempts would not have changed much other than calling two or three runs instead of the pass, IMO.  If you lower the pass run ratio from 51/16 to 43/24 ratio and claim that it would have been better, wouldn't you have to assume that JTs sure thing 4 yards would have been called at a time when we called a pass play that went incomplete?   Is that how we would have done better, by assuming the run plays would have replaced incomplete passes?  

 

Obviously, Frank should have called more 20 yard runs for JT instead of incomplete pass plays to WRs. LOL.

 

Based upon the game itself, not on assumptions based upon looking at win rates and such, I would say that raising a low 53% completion rate to a more desirable 60% rate by completing the pass plays that were called, would be a clearer way to lay blame for not winning a game rather than making a biased assumption that we would replace bad pass plays with sure thing 4 yard run plays. 

 

My overarching point to this is, nobody knows what would have happened either way, so to claim strongly that one of the ways was wrong and then support it with a bunch of simple stats seems misguided to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

The issue is not that these stats suggest it and we have to argue they don't.  The issue is that we have to support the notion that these stats say that running the ball more would have helped. 

 

Netting 35 yards on 8 more running attempts would not have changed much other than calling two or three runs instead of the pass, IMO.  If you lower the pass run ratio from 51/16 to 43/24 ratio and claim that it would have been better, wouldn't you have to assume that JTs sure thing 4 yards would have been called at a time when we called a pass play that went incomplete?   Is that how we would have done better, by assuming the run plays would have replaced incomplete passes?  Why shouldn't we assume that a 4 yard run play would have been called at a point that replaced a 15 yard pass play, and the incomplete pass play still happened?

 

Obviously, Frank should have called more 20 yard runs for JT instead of incomplete pass plays to WRs. LOL.

 

Based upon the game itself, not on assumptions based upon looking at win rates and such, I would say that raising a low 53% completion rate to a more desirable 60% rate by completing the pass plays that were called, would be a clearer way to lay blame for not winning a game rather than making a biased assumption that we would replace bad pass plays with sure thing 4 yard run plays. 

 

My overarching point to this is, nobody knows what would have happened either way, so to claim strongly that one of the ways was wrong and then support it with a bunch of simple stats seems misguided to me.

 

A coaches job, is to create a winning game plan, based on the strengths of his team.

 

In both TN games he iced our biggest strength at times. And we asked Wentz to shoulder the load and play hero ball. And that's what most said is exactly what we shouldn't do with Wentz... 

 

And it didn't work in game 1... so why do the same in game 2.

 

Dumb is dumb part 1, and then dumb is dumber part 2. There are just no stats on your side, nor logic. But continue on as the only one riding this narrative lol... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

Stats aren’t useless you just have to look at what they are telling you and not try to use them to say what you want them to say.


Thats basically what I said in my last post here.  They can be used, or misused to prove points.

 

IMO trends are way more important.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of the rare times in NFL history when a superlative back gets to run behind a superlative line. RTDB. It will work every week until some genius coach figures out how to stop it. I don't see Arians as a genius coach. He is good but not that good. I predict a Colts win Sunday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, bleevit said:

This is one of the rare times in NFL history when a superlative back gets to run behind a superlative line. RTDB. It will work every week until some genius coach figures out how to stop it. I don't see Arians as a genius coach. He is good but not that good. I predict a Colts win Sunday.

Arians has a good O mind, but it's really Bowles that will be creating the game plan on D.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Last post on the topic... 

  • his avg was good that game
  • his success rate was good that game
  • the ol graded fine that game
  • he's leading the nfl

There is zero out there that suggests we wouldn't have done better running him more that game. There is a ton out there that suggests we would. And good AVG combine with good success rate = good in game..... Pretty simple stuff.

Let me try again.

 

My main point in my posts is to point out that the criticisms of Frank are unwarranted, based upon the methods used.  The support provided is narrow and biased.  I'm not supporting any particular game plan or play call, because I know that no fan knows enough about it to properly opine.  Some think they do.  That's just ego, not logic.  My point is about the basis of the attacks.

 

What these stats show, is a historical summary of all of the plays called to JT up to that moment in time,  That's all they are.

 

It says absolutely nothing about what play should be called the very next play.  It says nothing about how much we should run JT against next week's defense. 

 

Another example of pretty simple stuff:  If Pittman's completion/target percentage was above 50%, you could say that we should have been targeting Pittman more...maybe 10 times more.  Maybe give him more targets per game than what he's been given because his % is greater than 50%.

 

Or:  Assume that MAC's historical completion/target percentage is 40% or greater.  If he's currently 0 for 3, the averages say that there is an 85 % chance the very next pass play to him will be complete.  So go ahead and call a screen pass. 

 

Sorry East, but most of the time, stats provide a really shallow basis for making many substantive conclusions about football.   Too bad millions of fans use them, mostly very simply, like gibberish.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Let me try again.

 

My main point in my posts is to point out that the criticisms of Frank are unwarranted, based upon the methods used.  The support provided is narrow and biased.  I'm not supporting any particular game plan or play call, because I know that no fan knows enough about it to properly opine.  Some think they do.  That's just ego, not logic.  My point is about the basis of the attacks.

 

What these stats show, is a historical summary of all of the plays called to JT up to that moment in time,  That's all they are.

 

It says absolutely nothing about what play should be called the very next play.  It says nothing about how much we should run JT against next week's defense. 

 

Another example of pretty simple stuff:  If Pittman's completion/target percentage was above 50%, you could say that we should have been targeting Pittman more...maybe 10 times more.  Maybe give him more targets per game than what he's been given because his % is greater than 50%.

 

Or:  Assume that MAC's historical completion/target percentage is 40% or greater.  If he's currently 0 for 3, the averages say that there is an 85 % chance the very next pass play to him will be complete.  So go ahead and call a screen pass. 

 

Sorry East, but most of the time, stats provide a really shallow basis for making many substantive conclusions about football.   Too bad millions of fans use them, mostly very simply, like gibberish.

they are warranted in those two games. you could write 1000 page novel and it wouldn't change anyone's mind.

you're whole narrative is that "we wouldn't know if running JT more would have helped", and "the game plan was good, just lacked execution"... 

 

That's silly on two fronts. #1 you don't ice your best weapon. #2 if your game plan is to target Dulin 52 times, and he doesn't execute, is the game plan fine and you blame Dulin....? lol... No, you blame game plan.....  Point is, and you continue to miss, is that a game plan is to supposed to include strengths and your best talents. Franks diminished JT's role. Very simple. But you know this... You're just stuck defending a bad position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

  Frank should have could have, doesn't get it, finally got it, keeps doing it over and over.

 Frank has all the experience with great coaches and playing experience, and all his coaches studying the opposition (coaching and players) looking for the weaknesses vs our strengths, coming up with our best ideas on how to attack. 
  Frank has an OC with sky box coaches assessing in real time the individual matchups on the lines. Who is getting push, who is getting pushed.
 I have zero doubt this info doesn't get past Frank for long. Taylor can see it in real time. And i have no doubt Frank will use the run aggressively when it seems like the best idea at the time. The big thing is that our tackles are back and kicking ____, and that helps the other 3 lineman do their jobs.

 With that success going on in front of him JT is using his excellent vision, quickness & speed to find space. All of a sudden Frank is a "finally getting it" coach.

 Vea and Suh can dominate an interior, i love their linebackers, so this looks to be a very tough assignment to out score them. 
 Let the battle begin. GO COLTS!

  Sticks and stones... "well, your mother wears army boots".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

 

 #1 you don't ice your best weapon. #2 if your game plan is to target Dulin 52 times, and he doesn't execute, is the game plan fine and you blame Dulin....? lol... No, you blame game plan.....  Point is, and you continue to miss, is that a game plan is to supposed to include strengths and your best talents. Franks diminished JT's role. Very simple. But you know this... You're just stuck defending a bad position.

Exactly,  you don't need a bunch of shallow stats to figure out who your best players are and who they are not.  Thank you for making logical points without cluttering it up with gibberish.  However, categorizing it as Frank "icing your best player", as if he doesn't know who that is, is biased hyperbole, IMO.

 

JTs best talent is his break away speed.  Using him as a plow horse is not the best use of talent.  There would have to be more analysis to understand why TEN can limit JTs big runs.  If they can do that consistently, a game plan would steer away from relying upon JTs big runs as chunk plays as a opposed to what a game plan would be against a different D.....(BTW, with NFL rankings having nothing to do with it).  With Byard, TEN probably has a better back seven than most, or match up better against us (since they don't have to worry about any receiver other than Pitt).  Targeting  receivers at 8.5 yds per completion more than running JT is not a bad game plan if you think JT is only going to get 4 yards each carry.

 

The one ill-planned target to MAC on the screen pass aside, targets to Dulin and MAC failed in execution and not in game plan.  Therein lies the issue more than not running JT 8 more times against TENs matchups, IMO.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Exactly,  you don't need a bunch of shallow stats to figure out who your best players are and who they are not.  Thank you for making logical points without cluttering it up with gibberish.  However, categorizing it as Frank "icing your best player", as if he doesn't know who that is, is biased hyperbole, IMO.

 

JTs best talent is his break away speed.  Using him as a plow horse is not the best use of talent.  There would have to be more analysis to understand why TEN can limit JTs big runs.  If they can do that consistently, a game plan would steer away from relying upon JTs big runs as chunk plays as a opposed to what a game plan would be against a different D.....(BTW, with NFL rankings having nothing to do with it).  With Byard, TEN probably has a better back seven than most, or match up better against us (since they don't have to worry about any receiver other than Pitt).  Targeting possession receivers at 8.5 yds per completion more than running JT is not a bad game plan if you think JT is only going to get 4 yards each carry.

 

The one ill-planned target to MAC on the screen pass aside, targets to Dulin and MAC failed in execution and not in game plan.  Therein lies the issue more than not running JT 8 more times against TENs matchups, IMO.

 

lol... you are the king of clutter and gibberish.... you've wrote several books without any fact, data, or sound logic. 

but thanks, at least I got some chuckles. love the "conceptual skewing" comment to explain you're blatant disregard for fact and reality.... 

 

giphy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, throwing BBZ said:

All of a sudden Frank is a "finally getting it" coach.

 

29 minutes ago, DougDew said:

However, categorizing it as Frank "icing your best player", as if he doesn't know who that is, is biased hyperbole, IMO.

Thanks to both of you. Arrogance by fans sometimes surprises me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

lol... you are the king of clutter and gibberish.... you've wrote several books without any fact, data, or sound logic. 

but thanks, at least I got some chuckles. love the "conceptual skewing" comment to explain you're blatant disregard for fact and reality.... 

 

giphy.gif

If you want to support an opinion about the TEN game:

 

That Frank should have diminished the targets to Dulin and MAC by giving those plays to JT, that gets us closer to supporting an opinion.

 

But criticizing a 51/16 ratio, or citing win rates, or historical numbers like NFL averages, isn't even in the ballpark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

If you want to support an opinion about the TEN game:

 

That Frank should have diminished the targets to Dulin and MAC by giving those plays to JT, that gets us closer to supporting an opinion.

 

But criticizing a 51/16 ratio, or citing win rates, or historical numbers like NFL averages, isn't even in the ballpark.

 

Dude... giving JT more runs obviously takes passes/targets away from others. Captain Obvious stuff doesn't help your bad take lol... 

And 51-16 ration is just punch you in the face Captain Obvious stuff, given our best weapon is a running back. Doesn't take a PHD.... If there's a flood, do you really have to point out that it's raining?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...