Stats

Nope. It is true that his best ypc figure is for carries 1-5 (5.4), but carries 6-10 (3.5) and 11-15 (3.6) are pretty much identical, while carries 16-20 go back up to 5.0 ypc. The figures look even worse for your assertion when you take out the 70 yard touchdown run, as his 1-5 ypc then drops to 4.5. So unless we're going to stop him after five carries, there is no conceivable downside to giving him a heavy load (other than potential injury, but what would we be saving him for at this point?). Moreover, the idea of continuing to run even at less than 4 ypc is not that you'll suddenly get better, but that it wears down the defense, protects time of possession, and lessens your exposure to risks like turnovers.

 

Yeah - Foster runs better when he gets the rock 20-25 times. There could be alot of factors for that - but he does get better.

OOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHH. I'm so ****** ****** amped.

 

No shit. I want to play some football this afternoon.

 

I'm just looking at the facts. Below shows he trends down the more carries he gets. Where did you stats come from?
http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/302193/splits/2005
ATTEMPTS 1-THROUGH-10 4.5
ATTEMPTS 11-THROUGH-20 4.2
ATTEMPTS 21-THROUGH-30 1.9

 

His 2003 numbers looked similar (per Yahoo; which I figured out had your numbers)

Carry 1-5 4.1
Carry 6-10 4.6
Carry 11-15 2.2
Carry 16-20 3.8
Carry 21-25 2.0

That still is a downward trend.

EDIT: Stephen Davis's 2003

Carry 1-5 5.1
Carry 6-10 4.3
Carry 11-15 3.9
Carry 16-20 5.0
Carry 21-25 4.4
Carry 26-30 3.4
Carr 31+ 12.0

His numbers don't show a trend.

 

No, you're not. You're attempting to justify an incorrect opinion instead of simply correcting yourself. For his career, DeShaun has had a 4.7 ypc average on carries 1-5, 3.6 on carries 6-10, 3.3 on carries 11-15, 4.2 on carries 16-20, 6.8 on carries 21-25, and 1.6 on carries 26+. Furthermore, you're even more clearly wrong when you look at the numbers in context. Aside from that one 70 yard touchdown, Foster's numbers on carries 1-5 as a starter are more or less indistinguishable from his 6-10 and 11-15 numbers. His overall 1-5 numbers benefit from the times when he spelled Davis, as back-up RBs generally have a higher ypc average in their situational duties. Also, his 26+ numbers have come when running out the clock (NYG, KC), hence the very low average.

 

Actually, no I was just stating fact; aggregated in 10 run increment instead of your 5. I’ll grant you looking at the numbers in context is a fine idea but an idea you seemed to shun when making your famous “4+ sacks makes Jake a better QB” argument. I have no skin the game other than looking at the numbers for the story they tell. You and I both agree we don’t want to throw money at Foster to get him to stay and that he’s not our best long term answer. The numbers I cited support my comment when viewed without interpretation. I learned this less from you watching the 4+ sacks debate. :imagestor

 

Nice attempt at making me seem as unreasonable as you are, but that's not a factual statement either. In fact, we went through that sack debate and broke down each game individually, looking at the circumstances (rushing yards, points allowed, total passing attempts, etc) and context (when the sacks occurred). Say what you will about my attitude, but I always break down facts to understand them precisely because I don't have an agenda beyond learning as much as I can.

Your numbers were misleading because they were heavily influenced by having few carries at that top level split which happened to come in situations where the objective as to simply run out the clock. When broken down more specifically and more accurately, a very different picture emerged. Oh, and Davis' '03 splits mirror Foster's '05 numbers almost perfectly. His 1-5 numbers are highest, followed by a drop to 6-10 and 11-15, followed by an increase for 16-20.

Honestly, why are we arguing about this? You said something that was wrong, you now know better, and it isn't a big deal.

 

You are absolutely correct. 100% correct at that. You're numbers went into better detail than mine. Add to that context and I'm almost without a leg to stand on. Surely you saw that :imagestor indicating I was just giving you a little good hearted ribbing?