White Closing in on 1,000 Yards

How many times have I told you people...don't bring logic and critical thinking into an argument with tide.:dead:

 

Logic and critical thinking sounds good but then why use baseball studies to try and make a point? The bell curve for baseball players peaking either as a hitter or a pitcher isn't going to be anything like one for a RB. Why not put up a bell curve for professional golfers and try to make a point, it would be about as ridiculous.

All you have to do is look historically at RBs stats who have been good enough to play in the league until age 30. What you will find is virtually all RBs hit the ground running fairly quickly in their careers (the learning curve isn't very long or steep for a RB) and they typically stay about the same (the meaning of the word plateau) until they start to approach 30 years old where they begin to decline. This thought there is a gradual increase in YPC and effectivness over the players career is bogus thinking. Graphically it isn't going to look like a bell curve with a gradual increase to a peak and a corresponding gradual decrease. The curve on a RB is going to have a very fast increase to a flat area with a dramatic drop off at the end.

This argument is really about LW. It is fantasy to think LW is going to become a combination of Gale Sayers and Jim Brown. It isn't fantasy to think with some better conditioning LW might be able to sustain a 4.0 YPC average for the next 5 years and stay fairly durable.

 

Got, we have the stats to prove that backs don't need much time to function at peak or close to peak abilities. Guys like peterson or mcfadden could have been 1000 yard rushers in the nfl at 18 or 19 years old. Want to talk about age barry sanders who entered the league at 21 and put up 1470 yards. That 1470 yards at age 21 is comparable to what he averaged per season in his whole career.

Mike vick entered the nfl at 20. Was he an inferior athlete then compared to the last 2 years?

What a waste of time..

 

What logic and critical thinking big tt? An article about baseball players who play until they are 40? The average career for an nfl runningback is 4.5 years. Guys are leaving the league at 26 years old.

I want you or any of your heros to come up with solid statistical data that proves that a runningback 22-24 years old is less prolific or effective a runner than a 26-27 year old.

Earl campbell walked off a college campus and into the nfl at age 23 and ran for over 1400 yards with a 4.8 average. His first 3 seasons ages 23-25 he averaged over 1600 yards a season. Earl campbell the next three years age 26-28 barely averaged a thousand. Is that development or a big back getting beaten up?

Lendale white just turned 23. He might only have another 4 seasons in him before he wears down. Getting better hell i hope he can stay the same for 6-7 years.

 

Bamaboy and Sockpuss make emotional arguments about HoFers entering the league fully developed, granted Gayle Sayers was about as good as he was gonna get at 23 and Jim Brown was a modern pro playing against part-timers. What about the unwashed hord who do not get 1000 carries before turning 25?

Bamaboy you, as best as I can tell, state that LW has had 300 carries and he is what he is - period. I say he has room for improvement because of his age and conditioning. Too me it makes perfect sense. Too you there is some unstated chart or something that says otherwise.

The use of "baseball" players age vs production is because it is available. I see virtually no reason why physical peak would differ between baseball and football. Aren't we all human afterall?

Would enjoy seeing the same analysis for football, but I could not find it. I expect that what you would find is that the players still getting carries up until 26 are in fact more productive than when they were younger, but most players will be dinged/injured and therefore replaced by younger more healthy players. Makes sense and and I would NEVER sign a RB to a second contract, well possibly a 1 or 2 year deal, but not a 5-6 year deal.

RBs, like DTs, are replacable commidities. Although difference makers must still be respected as far as CAP is concerned.

 

The stats might be available but it is totally stupid to compare baseball and RBs in football. Maybe a better comparison might be to baseball players and QBs or something. If you can't understand the difference there is no point in me wasting my time because you won't understand.

I agree that if LW has room to add muscle, lower body fat and increase his quickness he could marginally improve his performance. He will never be LT but he could be a little better version of LW.

 

This thread is getting silly, now we are comparing LW to LT? Look LT is one of the best ever, to me he still ranks behing Walter Payton but I could see the argument the other way. LW is a good back, is he a great back no he is not, will he ever be? No, but he does well at what fisherball needs, a back that has few negative plays, moves the chains and eats the clock. I would like to see him shed a few (maybe 20) pounds and see if he could become his best. I still say he has an upside and could, maybe be a bettis like player. And that would make for a fine, fine career.

 

Kind of hard to evaluate a guy who doesn't play. Some guys do succeed when they finally get the chance but that doesn't make your point for you. This whole concept of development that a player gets better by playing but if that player isn't on the field how could that be true?

Stephen davis didn't even have 200 carries his first 3 seasons in the league. 198 to be exact. In those 198 carries spread out over 3 seasons he averaged 4.1 yards a carry. In 1999 at the age of 25 he finally got to start a whole season and ran for over 1400 yards. Davis for his career had that same 4.1ypc. Davis in those supposed prime years at age 26-28 averaged exactly 4.0 yards everytime he carried the ball for 3 straight years. He didn't get better he just got more carries.

 

The only Difference between LT and LW is that Lendale always owns the W. boom!

 

Its called development. look it up at dictionary dot com yourself. If a player is not playing it is because the guy in front of him is better, therefore the player must either get better or the starter must fall. According to my understanding of Bamaboy RBs cannot get better so therefore the only way any of them ever get a chance is if they enter the league as a starter or the current starter drops in ability. Wait isn't a fact only true if its opposite is also true? If RBs do not develop then they must not degrade either? So if I understand Bamaboy correctly then yet again he is talking mean monkey missles instead of facts. So which is it Bamaboy do RBs develop, which is obvious to everyone except you, or do RBs not degrade which is obviously false - see EG post toe?

Davis did not play either because he was not good enough at the start of his career, possibly he was unable to pick up a blitzer or whatever, and he developed over the first few years of his career peaking at about 25 and getting playing time because of this. It is called normal progression along the skill vs age chart. I provided you proof of this concept already and Davis is a perfect example. He got good enough to play and contributed as a starter until he degraded and was replaced. It is typically a bell curve around the age of 26. HoFers enter the league able to play at an All-Pro ability immediatly, most players do not.

I am done with this thread. You are too stubburn to see you are aboustly wrong and even when facts are presented you would rather continue to sling mean monkey missles - like normal for you.