Do the Bears have an elite running game?

[Tim]

Here are the relevant stats. Please judge for yourselves.

 

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&offensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&conference=ALL&role=TM&season=2017&seasonType=REG&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS_PER_GAME_AVG&d-447263-o=2&d-447263-n=1

[Tim]

btw - I'm starting this for two reasons:

 

1) to take this stupid discussion out of the game day threads

2) I honestly want to find out if I'm the only one that thinks this way

[David]

The phrasing of the question is "Do the Bears have an elite running game?" if you're referencing the argument you're obviously referencing.

 

These are not the same things, even though in 4 games where they've had one hand tied behind their backs, the production has been fine.

[Tim]

The phrasing of the question is "Do the Bears have an elite running game?" if you're referencing the argument you're obviously referencing.

 

These are not the same things, even though in 4 games where they've had one hand tied behind their backs, the production has been fine.

Fine - I'll change the poll.

[David]

either way, i honestly expect you to "win" this poll both on the inherent subjectivity of the term "elite" and on the fact that the bears are generally considered awful and that tends to generally paint/cloud perceptions of the entire team (i think that with trubisky, they'll be OKish rather than awful, especially once he gets his feet wet).

[Sammy Sofa]

They are indeed the best at running away from success and not being an embarrassment.

[Guest]

Howard kinda sucks

 

I mean, you could make the poll, "does Howard kinda suck?"

[UMFan83]

I vote for an option C "while I have an opinion on this, I don't really care nearly as much as Tim and wonder why he won't shut up about this stupid argument"

[UMFan83]

And then option D "holy hell are you horsefeathering kidding me?" Which is actually fairly similar to option C

[Derwood]

"Sucks" and "elite" are useless adjectives without any clear cut definitions

 

Both sides keep moving the goal posts, so this argument is stupid.

[Guest]

i'm not planning on the Bears being down as quickly and totally as they have been, so we should get a fair assessment.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You can't judge this kind of thing by stats. Everything is too interconnected in the NFL. How many yards per game you get, or yards per carry, is dictated as much by context as it is by the quality of your running game. Are you losing all the time? Enjoy a great YPG as you rack up 12-yard draws in the final minutes against prevent defenses. Great all-around team? Grind out 150 yards a game when you are just trying to chew up clock in the second half because you're up two scores. Hell, the quality of your passing game has as much influence on your rushing stats as anything.

 

So my answer? I dunno. I don't watch enough other NFL teams to make a refined judgment about the difference between the second-best and fifth-best rushing attacks or whatever would be the line between elite and not elite. But I know it's damn good. They block well at the point of attack, Howard is an above-average back, and Cohen will be extremely fun to watch for the 20 career games he will squeeze in before being ground to paste. What they were able to accomplish against Pittsburgh when the pass was absolutely zero threat was pretty amazing.

[Tim]

"Sucks" and "elite" are useless adjectives without any clear cut definitions

 

Both sides keep moving the goal posts, so this argument is stupid.

Hey, I gave some level of definition to elite and was willing to take bets on it. I tried to get them to pin down what they meant by "elite". I even offered a pretty damn liberal definition of "elite" to make it easier.

 

Furthermore, I've never said that the running attack sucks as a whole. I did say that Howard sucks at one point in a game where he sucked. I then explained that I meant to that point in the season, gave reasons why, and speculated he might be battling an injury (which turned out to be true).

 

None of that is either outrageous or undefined.

 

 

What is outrageous on my part is that I refuse to let it go when they keep prodding me.

[Tim]

You can't judge this kind of thing by stats. Everything is too interconnected in the NFL. How many yards per game you get, or yards per carry, is dictated as much by context as it is by the quality of your running game. Are you losing all the time? Enjoy a great YPG as you rack up 12-yard draws in the final minutes against prevent defenses. Great all-around team? Grind out 150 yards a game when you are just trying to chew up clock in the second half because you're up two scores. Hell, the quality of your passing game has as much influence on your rushing stats as anything.

 

So my answer? I dunno. I don't watch enough other NFL teams to make a refined judgment about the difference between the second-best and fifth-best rushing attacks or whatever would be the line between elite and not elite. But I know it's damn good. They block well at the point of attack, Howard is an above-average back, and Cohen will be extremely fun to watch for the 20 career games he will squeeze in before being ground to paste. What they were able to accomplish against Pittsburgh when the pass was absolutely zero threat was pretty amazing.

I agree with most of that. I've repeatedly agreed that they have a good to very good rushing attack. In the end, the entire stupid argument is over the semantics of the word "elite".

[Guest]

"Sucks" and "elite" are useless adjectives without any clear cut definitions

 

Both sides keep moving the goal posts, so this argument is stupid.

Hey, I gave some level of definition to elite and was willing to take bets on it. I tried to get them to pin down what they meant by "elite". I even offered a pretty damn liberal definition of "elite" to make it easier.

 

Furthermore, I've never said that the running attack sucks as a whole. I did say that Howard sucks at one point in a game where he sucked. I then explained that I meant to that point in the season, gave reasons why, and speculated he might be battling an injury (which turned out to be true).

 

None of that is either outrageous or undefined.

 

 

What is outrageous on my part is that I refuse to let it go when they keep prodding me.

 

and i explained that Elite meant top 5. now, what is meant by top 5 is a better question. I also stated that I said that before the season started, meaning that they may not be top 5 in every individual game this season, but we'd have to look at the entire season and take into account injuries and quarterbacks.

 

what's outrageous is you insisting that Jordan Howard sucks despite a game and a half sample size and invoking "regression to the mean" nonsense. i mean, i'm really not kidding when i say your arguments are untenable.

[Tim]

Sully - if you want to troll me about the running game, do it here. Not in the game thread, please.

[Guest]

you honestly stated that since Jordan Howard wasn't playing well, that he sucks and is regressing to the mean, despite all of last year to tell us that he doesn't and he's not.

[Derwood]

What are the qualifiers for Elite? Is it fair to say "well, they'd have more yards if they weren't always behind", etc., or do you go with the raw numbers?

[David]

What are the qualifiers for Elite? Is it fair to say "well, they'd have more yards if they weren't always behind", etc., or do you go with the raw numbers?

 

it's how good is their offensive line at run blocking, how good are their running backs (and you can include Mitch in this, as I'd imagine there'll be some designed run options for him in the offense). it can't just be based on stats (especially traditional ones) because of how much context matters. football, both in the inherent small sample sizes and in the more complex nature of the game, does not lend itself to that type of objective statistical analysis, and most elements have to be evaluated subjectively.

[Tim]

meh - being "good" at something is pretty subjective. Being "elite" at something will show up in the numbers. Being elite means being good enough to impose your will on the other team.

 

I mean, all we're asking is to be in the top 5 in the stats - that's being in the top 16%. How many elite teams are there in a 32 team league?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

who’s on which side of this argument? never mind, I don’t care

[Tim]

Also - Pittsburgh's run defense might just suck.

[Sammy Sofa]

You'd think our own homegrown version of the classic "IS FLACCO A ELITE" bit would be hilarious and entertaining instead of boring and sad. Edited October 9, 2017 by Sammy Sofa

[Guest]

meh - being "good" at something is pretty subjective. Being "elite" at something will show up in the numbers. Being elite means being good enough to impose your will on the other team.

 

I mean, all we're asking is to be in the top 5 in the stats - that's being in the top 16%. How many elite teams are there in a 32 team league?

 

showing up in the numbers? after 4 games? Okay, you can say that they played well in the first game, Glennon ruined the second, they destroyed Pittsburgh in the third, and Glennon ruined the fourth.

[Guest]

You'd seeing out own homegrown version of the classic "IS FLACCO A ELITE" bit would be hilarious and entertaining instead of boring and sad.

 

let's play "is mojo trolling or is he having a stroke?"