To put the running game in context

[sherck]

First of all, I am a data guy so I completely understand that short-term trends do not mean long-term success nor do averages mean much because each activity is a unique event.

That said, I have greatly enjoyed our last three games in having a running game again. Watching our new Offensive Line configuration just maul folks and spring our RBs to actually be beyond the line of scrimmage before contact has been great. In the past three games, we have averaged 5.5, 5.9 and 5.6 yards per carry.

While we did rush for over 100 yards in each of our first two games (101 yards against CIN; 104 yards against WAS), those yards per carry were 3.4 and 3.7 yards respectively. There, we did it through repetition of effort (not fun watching) instead of because of success on most of the individual plays.

So, for the past three games, we are averaging 182.0 yards per game rushing. If that average were to continue for the second half of the season, we would reach 2,397 rush yards for the season. We would fall 17 yards short of the Rams who are currently rushing for an average of 150.9 yards per game and if they maintain that rate, will end with 2,414 yards for the season.

As 182.0 yards per game, there is only one team since 2002 that had a season per game rushing average higher than that and it was the 2006 Atlanta Falcons (both Warrick Dunn and Michael Vick had over 1,000 rushing with Jerious Norwell tossing in 633 yards) at 183.7 yards rushing per game.

I have no idea if we can continue running the ball at the same clip we have these past three games but if we can, it will be at a pretty historically high rate compared to the rest of the NFL.

Please, please, please let the O-Line stay healthy!!

Walk Worthy,

[Puck]

Originally Posted by sherck

First of all, I am a data guy so I completely understand that short-term trends do not mean long-term success nor do averages mean much because each activity is a unique event.

That said, I have greatly enjoyed our last three games in having a running game again. Watching our new Offensive Line configuration just maul folks and spring our RBs to actually be beyond the line of scrimmage before contact has been great. In the past three games, we have averaged 5.5, 5.9 and 5.6 yards per carry.

While we did rush for over 100 yards in each of our first two games (101 yards against CIN; 104 yards against WAS), those yards per carry were 3.4 and 3.7 yards respectively. There, we did it through repetition of effort (not fun watching) instead of because of success on most of the individual plays.

So, for the past three games, we are averaging 182.0 yards per game rushing. If that average were to continue for the second half of the season, we would reach 2,397 rush yards for the season. We would fall 17 yards short of the Rams who are currently rushing for an average of 150.9 yards per game and if they maintain that rate, will end with 2,414 yards for the season.

As 182.0 yards per game, there is only one team since 2002 that had a season per game rushing average higher than that and it was the 2006 Atlanta Falcons (both Warrick Dunn and Michael Vick had over 1,000 rushing with Jerious Norwell tossing in 633 yards) at 183.7 yards rushing per game.

I have no idea if we can continue running the ball at the same clip we have these past three games but if we can, it will be at a pretty historically high rate compared to the rest of the NFL.

Please, please, please let the O-Line stay healthy!!

Walk Worthy,

Anyone that wants to argue that drafting high for 2 guards didnt equal difference makers are nuts.

[Dam8610]

Originally Posted by Puck

Anyone that wants to argue that drafting high for 2 guards didnt equal difference makers are nuts.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/sta...oints-per-game

[sherck]

Originally Posted by Dam8610

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/sta...oints-per-game

That all you got?

Seriously, his questions was "Anyone that wants to argue that drafting high for 2 guards didnt equal difference makers are nuts?"

Are you honestly saying that Nelson and Smith are not making a difference?

Your linking to a stat showing how bad our defense is keeping opposing offenses out of the endzone DOES NOT negate the fact that we have two Offensive Linemen making an IMPACT on our offense.

If we had drafted two more high defensive players, might our defense be better? Sure.

But, our offense would be worse than it is with two different starters in there other than Nelson and Smith.

You are still not providing a counter-argument to his question.

Which defender did you want at #6 who was still on the board? Hey, you get to cherry pick! Find the one with the most stats and say THAT guy! Go for it.

But, you best choice is probably Vander Esch whom NO ONE would have picked top ten.

But, you go ahead and throw a name up there and maintain that drafting HIM instead of Nelson would have put the team further ahead. Go on.....

So, instead, I will go with Puck and say that you are nuts since you don't appear to want to debate whether Nelson is making an impact or not. You just want to yell at the wind.

Peachy....



[Gets down off soapbox.....]

Walk Worthy,

[smitty46953]

Originally Posted by sherck

That all you got?

Seriously, his questions was "Anyone that wants to argue that drafting high for 2 guards didnt equal difference makers are nuts?"

Are you honestly saying that Nelson and Smith are not making a difference?

Your linking to a stat showing how bad our defense is keeping opposing offenses out of the endzone DOES NOT negate the fact that we have two Offensive Linemen making an IMPACT on our offense.

If we had drafted two more high defensive players, might our defense be better? Sure.

But, our offense would be worse than it is with two different starters in there other than Nelson and Smith.

You are still not providing a counter-argument to his question.

Which defender did you want at #6 who was still on the board? Hey, you get to cherry pick! Find the one with the most stats and say THAT guy! Go for it.

But, you best choice is probably Vander Esch whom NO ONE would have picked top ten.

But, you go ahead and throw a name up there and maintain that drafting HIM instead of Nelson would have put the team further ahead. Go on.....

So, instead, I will go with Puck and say that you are nuts since you don't appear to want to debate whether Nelson is making an impact or not. You just want to yell at the wind.

Peachy....



[Gets down off soapbox.....]

Walk Worthy,

Sherck, let me introduce you to Dammy …

[sherck]

And for those of you who care,


The highest rookie OT PFF grade is Mike McGlinchey, SF, at 80.2 (7th highest OT grade overall).

Braden Smith has the 2nd highest rookie OT PFF grade at a 73.1 (#21 overall).

The next highest rookie OT PFF grade is Brian O'Neill, MIN, at a 62.7 (#49 overall).

--

The highest rookie OG PFF grade is Will Hernandez, NYG, with a 72.9 (#8 overall).

Quinton Nelson has the 2nd highest rookie OG PFF grade at 70.2 (#16 overall).

The next highest rookie OG PFF grade is James Daniels, CHI, at a 63.0 (#35 overall).

Colts Starting O-Linemen:

LT Anthony Castonzo, 64.5 (#45 OT overall)
LG Quinton Nelson, 70.2 (#16 OG overall)
OC Ryan Kelly, 76.5 (#6 OC overall)
RG Mark Glowinski, 78.2 (#4 OG overall)
RT Braden Smith, 73.1 (#21 OT overall)

6th man Le'Raven Clark, 68.8 (#31 OT overall)

Who would have thunk it?

Walk Worthy,

[Dam8610]

Originally Posted by sherck

That all you got?

Seriously, his questions was "Anyone that wants to argue that drafting high for 2 guards didnt equal difference makers are nuts?"

Are you honestly saying that Nelson and Smith are not making a difference?

Your linking to a stat showing how bad our defense is keeping opposing offenses out of the endzone DOES NOT negate the fact that we have two Offensive Linemen making an IMPACT on our offense.

If we had drafted two more high defensive players, might our defense be better? Sure.

But, our offense would be worse than it is with two different starters in there other than Nelson and Smith.

You are still not providing a counter-argument to his question.

Which defender did you want at #6 who was still on the board? Hey, you get to cherry pick! Find the one with the most stats and say THAT guy! Go for it.

But, you best choice is probably Vander Esch whom NO ONE would have picked top ten.

But, you go ahead and throw a name up there and maintain that drafting HIM instead of Nelson would have put the team further ahead. Go on.....

So, instead, I will go with Puck and say that you are nuts since you don't appear to want to debate whether Nelson is making an impact or not. You just want to yell at the wind.

Peachy....



[Gets down off soapbox.....]

Walk Worthy,

Trading down to 12 would've still been the better option IMO. The Bills were offering 12 and 22. And if you don't like what's at 12 (though Derwin James at the very least would've been a good option there), trade down again. I'm not actually upset about the Braden Smith pick, I just think Ballard missed a chance to get way more value out of the 6th pick than Nelson. Much like I can't argue Chubb over Nelson, Smith, Turay, and Wilkins, I don't think with the right maneuvering anyone would've been able to argue for Nelson over the haul that could've been had for the 6th pick.

[omahacolt]

Originally Posted by Puck

Anyone that wants to argue that drafting high for 2 guards didnt equal difference makers are nuts.

Adding talent on the oline is definitely making a difference. I think people only argue how that talent is added, right?

[VeveJones007]

Originally Posted by Dam8610

Trading down to 12 would've still been the better option IMO. The Bills were offering 12 and 22. And if you don't like what's at 12 (though Derwin James at the very least would've been a good option there), trade down again. I'm not actually upset about the Braden Smith pick, I just think Ballard missed a chance to get way more value out of the 6th pick than Nelson. Much like I can't argue Chubb over Nelson, Smith, Turay, and Wilkins, I don't think with the right maneuvering anyone would've been able to argue for Nelson over the haul that could've been had for the 6th pick.

Has that ever been confirmed?

[Puck]

Originally Posted by omahacolt

Adding talent on the oline is definitely making a difference. I think people only argue how that talent is added, right?

Oh absolutely, BUt I disagree and I dont see another what we would have gotten to this level of production so fast without Nelson for sure. But adding Smith was a super plus. Add that to Kelly who doesnt get enough credit IMO and finally getting AC back makes the whole vision that Ballard/Reich had in mind explode into view.
Glowinski and Slaussen were also very good additions. The oline is fixed We can move on to other areas.

Coaches can say they are gonna protect #12.... these guys pulled it off in their first draft together.

Ballard has already said that next yrs draft is about defense... and said it will be a very top heavy defensive draft. I assume he means as a league and as a team.

In this defense we are probably only about 3 high draft picks/FA's from being a top 5-7 defense.

3Tech Hopefully Lewis
SS need a Bob Sanders
and an edge rush to go along with Lewis when/if he moves outside on passing downs (Ballard already said he would do this) or one of the young guys already on the team. The rest of the D needs upgraded but not all have to be superstars in this defense and it doesnt have to be next yr.. Also need one really good zone/man corner.

Offense.... only thing I see right now is a need at WR. I'm not putting my bets on Caine. Not sure why everyone thinks he will be the for sure #2 behind TY.... Find someone who can move the chains like Reggie did in the 3rd or 4th round and keep feeding the TE's