I want to learn about FF

[Ben Kenobi]

1. As snoopy pointed out, Ward wasn't a starter in the sense you seem to be using the word in New York, and isn't a starter in any sense in Tampa Bay.

Ward ran for a thousand yards. Sproles' best is 400, there's a big difference in their respective roles. Whether or not Ward was the 'starter' he racked up enough yards to be considered one.

2. Tomlinson had a few nice runs, but clearly lacked the explosiveness that made him what he was a couple of years ago. That's a big reason his longest run was 13 yards. Opportunities were there, but he couldn't take advantage of them. It's not a knock on the guy. He's still a good back. He's just not the special back he once was, and he's not going to be again. Point me to one RB who reversed his decline after age 30 or so. Oh, and with all due respect to Slowwy, holding him out as an expert here doesn't help your case.

I'm not saying he's vintage 2006 LT where he ran for 32 TDs and 1600 yards. I do feel he can rack up 1250 and 15 TDs. As for reversals, I look at the man he's chasing, Emmitt, who rebounded at the same point of his career as LT is now.

3. Preface: your PPR league is irrelevant, for obvious reasons, but I'll forge ahead anyway. So can I assume that LT scored 13 in your PPR league? How did Sproles do? He matched LT on touchdowns, topped him in yardage and had four more receptions.

Sproles had 24 points including all the return yards.

So clearly he performed well enough for a starting back in your league and then some, right?

Yes, he performed well. Sproles with his KR and PR duties should be a starter in our PPR league.

4. Sproles had a grand total of 3 carries after LT left the game. The biggest impact of LT not being hurt would have been that Sproles most likely doesn't get that last carry from the 5. As a retrospective matter, that would have made a big difference, but as a prospective matter, it's a good indicator that Sproles will remain plenty involved in the offense on LT's return. In the meantime, Michael Bennett isn't really much of a concern, for reasons I've already gone into.

I'm not arguing otherwise. I think 10 touches a night is about what we can expect, with the balance tilted towards the beginning of the season, and less as it wears on. Also, those 3 carries are pretty important and is a quarter of his total workload for the night, and a significant amount of his yardage.

5. You either completely missed why I said Sproles had a better game or decided to lie about it. 20% more yards on the same number of touches is why he had the better game. The fact that his touchdown was more impressive (and since you watched the game, I'm sure you know that's not just because of the distance involved) is just gravy.

Without the KR and the PR and without the fumble, they are very close to each other in points.

6. 20% more is negligible, but 5% over 4 ypc isn't "barely over"?

Baloney. 4 and a quarter is not 4.

8. Ovie Mughelli outperformed Michael Turner last week. Which Falcon would you rather have going forward?

My point is who would you rather have, Sproles, or LT? Based out over the whole season?

9. Your "point" pretends the passing game doesn't exist.

LT had more reception yards last season than Sproles had reception yards, but go on.

[Jon Miller]

So I am thinking about dropping my TE and QB for two more RB. But you guys are confusing me. I think I want someone who might start if he is looking good?

JM

[Jon Miller]

I picked up Fred Jackson for my backup TE too.

Should I put in Bennie Wells for Ronnie Brown?

JM

[SlowwHand]

Brown didn't do well last week, but Ricky Williams did. I think I'd sit Brown and see what the developing trend is, if you can do so.

[Ming]

With LT sitting out this week... Sproles becomes the main man

[Jon Miller]

I Don't think I get Sproles until Sunday though?

JM

[Solomwi]

Jon, good call dropping those two for RBs. On Sproles, you probably don't care about not hetting him until Sunday because you wouldn't want to play him this week anyway. Baltimore is a bad matchup, so even as the main man, he's unlikely to have a big game. On Brown, he had 13 touches to Williams' 9 last week, and is the younger, better back. In other words, just like last year, he's clearly the "senior partner" in the committee. That's not going to change significantly based on last week. I like Fred Jackson a lot, though, and would seriously consider starting him over Brown.

Edit: Beanie Wells is going to be good and going to be carrying the load at some point. I have him in one of my leagues, too. I just want to see him do it one week before I start him. And as I've been trying to educate Ben on, the true starting RB in the NFL is rare. Michael Turner, AP, Forte, Jones-Drew, S. Jackson and a few others will get the bulk of the team's carries, rain or shine, even though the backup may come in for long third downs or to spell the starter here and there. You'll notice, I hope, that these were the guys taken high in the first round. That's a big reason why. Marshawn Lynch used to be in this situation. Until he comes back, Fred Jackson is.

Most teams run a committee, where two or more backs get roughly equal touches, even though they may not be equal each week. A two-back committee is tolerable, especially when the two backs have defined roles and/or are considered 1 and 1A. For instance, some teams alternate their backs every series or every two series. You can handle that because you know your guy is going to play, and you roughly know how much. Three-back committees are frustrating as all hell, because they usually include one being the odd man out and it changes each week, so you may start a guy who's perfectly healthy and had 15 carries last week, only to see him get 5 carries this week. Baltimore last year was horrid about this. Even if all three play, the touches are spread so thin that you want to avoid the situation if possible. So don't put too much emphasis on who starts, but do look into the team's situation and know what you're getting into.

[Solomwi]

Ben, Emmit didn't rebound at this same point in his career. From age 30 on, his yardage declined every year, except his very last year in Arizona, and 31 was the last year he averaged 4 ypc or better. His last year with Arizona was a monumental 937 yard, 3.5-ypc campaign. You fail.

Starter is not determined by yardage. Even when running for 1000 yards, Ward wasn't New York's premiere back. Now he isn't Tampa Bay's. Further, you understand that Sproles emerged over the course of last season, his first as LT's backup, right? Season totals aren't to be ignored, but don't tell the whole story. Your attempted point about Tomlinson's receiving yards last year has the same flaw. Look at the game logs and you'll see that Tomlinson's receiving production last year is skewed to the first half or so of the season, and the late dropoff corresponds nicely to Sproles' increased involvement. The key is that Sproles is a much bigger threat in the passing game now, can do more than LT in the passing game, and can do it more effectively.

Without the KR and the PR and without the fumble, they are very close to each other in points.

"If you take away some of A's production and take away B's big mistake, A and B are really close!"

Come on, Ben, this is ridiculous. I can grant you taking away the return yrads based on the format that sparked this whole discussion. But no format I know of, other than touchdown-only, doesn't penalize for lost fumbles. The bottom line remains that if LT was good enough for you last week, so was Sproles, since he outscored LT in any format under the sun. As it is, he nearly doubled LT up (24-13) and you're trying to say they were about the same. Hey, you know if we disregard Sproles' touchdown and ignore the receiving yards, LT outscored him 11-2 under Jon's format! Clearly, this proves LT's superiority! Just stop.

Don't drop my "barely over." I never said 4.2 is 4. I said it's barely over, which is pretty obvious, and this is the second time you've tried to weasel your way around that.

Edit: Forgot to add that point is not, and never has been, whether you'd rather have LT or Sproles. That wasn't a choice offered to JM. The point was always whether Sproles is a viable back under JM's format.

[Ben Kenobi]

And as I've been trying to educate Ben on, the true starting RB in the NFL is rare

And LT is one of those. C'mon, get off of it. I know you hate LT, but at least be honest.

[Ben Kenobi]

Emmitt Smith:

1990* 21 DAL RB 22 16 15 241 937
1991* 22 DAL RB 22 16 16 365 1563
1992*+ 23 DAL RB 22 16 16 373 1713
1993*+ 24 DAL RB 22 14 13 283 1486
1994*+ 25 DAL RB 22 15 15 368 1484
1995*+ 26 DAL RB 22 16 16 377 1773
1996 27 DAL RB 22 15 15 327 1204
1997 28 DAL RB 22 16 16 261 1074
1998* 29 DAL RB 22 16 16 319 1332

LT:

2001 22 SDG RB 21 16 16 339 1236
2002* 23 SDG RB 21 16 16 372 1683
2003 24 SDG RB 21 16 16 313 1645
2004*+ 25 SDG RB 21 15 15 339 1335
2005* 26 SDG RB 21 16 16 339 1462
2006*+ 27 SDG RB 21 16 16 348 1815
2007*+ 28 SDG RB 21 16 16 315 1474
2008 29 SDG RB 21 16 16 292 1110

Emmitt bounced back in his ninth season and was quite productive afterwards. LT has outrushed Emmitt by about 500 yards in his first eight seasons.

[Ben Kenobi]

Starter is not determined by yardage. Even when running for 1000 yards, Ward wasn't New York's premiere back. Now he isn't Tampa Bay's.

So if a player has more touches and more yardage, he isn't the 'starter'?

Further, you understand that Sproles emerged over the course of last season, his first as LT's backup, right?

Even in his 'breakout' year, he received more touches at the beginning of the season, and fewer as the season wore on. Why are you lecturing me on Sproles? Dude, I've been watching him for longer than you have.

Season totals aren't to be ignored, but don't tell the whole story. Your attempted point about Tomlinson's receiving yards last year has the same flaw. Look at the game logs and you'll see that Tomlinson's receiving production last year is skewed to the first half or so of the season, and the late dropoff corresponds nicely to Sproles' increased involvement.

And you miss the fact that Sproles' production tapered off towards the end of the season. I really don't know why this is a debate.

The key is that Sproles is a much bigger threat in the passing game now, can do more than LT in the passing game, and can do it more effectively.

LT had more yards in the passing game than Sproles had all year. Sproles is a nice complement to LT, but he's never shown he can be successful on a consistant basis when he's the 'feature back'.

If you take away some of A's production and take away B's big mistake, A and B are really close!

1, most leagues don't count return yards.
2, I don't consider the fumble to be indicative of how LT will perform the rest of the season.

You see, I have to figure out how people are going to do the rest of the season, not just put on hindsight 100 percent goggles.

The bottom line remains that if LT was good enough for you last week, so was Sproles, since he outscored LT in any format under the sun.

Yes, but the million dollar question, is will he continue to do so?

As it is, he nearly doubled LT up (24-13) and you're trying to say they were about the same. Hey, you know if we disregard Sproles' touchdown and ignore the receiving yards, LT outscored him 11-2 under Jon's format!

Again, you misstate my argument. I exclude the fumble because I don't believe it will show up in future weeks, and I exclude the return yards, because they are not relevant to Jon's league. I do not exclude the TD, or the reception yards. WRT my league, it's a better question.

Don't drop my "barely over." I never said 4.2 is 4. I said it's barely over, which is pretty obvious, and this is the second time you've tried to weasel your way around that.

Barely over is not 25 points over. Goddamn. 4.25 is significantly better than 4 percent, especially on YPC.

That wasn't a choice offered to JM. The point was always whether Sproles is a viable back under JM's format.

Over Fred Jackson? I want some of what you are smoking. JM has plenty of backs, and they are all going to outscore sproles over the course of the season.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Btw, on topic, LT is officially scratched for Sunday:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4485260

[Solomwi]

Ben, now you're just making things up, which I'll get to in the next post. By the way, nice data chop on Emmitt. Here's the relevant data (since I've said repeatedly that hitting 30 years old is the important part):

1999 30 DAL RB 22 329 1397 4.2
2000 31 DAL RB 22 294 1203 4.1
2001 32 DAL RB 22 261 1021 3.9
2002 33 DAL RB 22 254 975 3.8
2003 34 ARI RB 22 90 256 2.8
2004 35 ARI RB 22 267 937 3.5

That's not what I asked for, which was a RB rebounding after age 30, and that's not Emmitt being "quite productive afterward." Sweet ****ing Christ, Ben, at least try to maintain a basic level of honesty.

[Solomwi]

And LT is one of those. C'mon, get off of it. I know you hate LT, but at least be honest.

Spit LT's **** out and try to pay attention. Pointing out that LT is on the downside of his career, and is not the same back he was two years ago, is not evidence of hatred.

[Ben Kenobi]

(since I've said repeatedly that hitting 30 years old is the important part):

Uhh, there's only a year difference between the two.

I'm not convinced that 30 is the 'magical number'.

I specifically referred to the point, "at this point in his career", ie, his 9th season.

Emmitt was more productive after 30 than he was in his 8th season.