I think our coaches finally figured out how to win consistently

[Gonk]

The answer has been under our nose for over a year, and I think the coaches finally picked up on it after Houston. GIVE. RICKY. THE. BALL. In 2002, Ricky had 10 games in which he had 22 or more carries. Of those 10 games, we won 7. The other losses came to NE (would've won if we kept running Ricky) and Buffalo (Ray Puke-us syndrome). We lost four out of six games when Ricky didn't get atleast 22 carries.

This year, the trend continues. We only ran Ricky for 17 times against Houston, and we lose. But oh wait, we come into NYJ, run Ricky 34 times and win! We do the samething to Buffalo and win again! Please, Norv, Wanny... keep giving the man the ball. The stats prove that he is the key to winning.

I think we can all agree that 42 rushes is a bit too much for the dread-locked demon, but in the situation we had with BUF last night, I would've done the samething. If we can give Ricky the ball 25-35 times a game, and keep the other teams offense off the field (ala Buffalo)... we will win a whole lot more.

 

[Illini_Jack]

Completely Agreed!

Good thing we have a bye week cause Ricky gets to rest up for the GMen

 

[XoPhinsoX]

If Ricky gets the rock 30 times a game we usually come out with a win.

 

[inFINSible]

If we ever get to the SB....I bet Ricky touches the ball 50+ times.....ride that horse..:horsey:<----- that's Wanny on Ricky's back!

 

[P4E]

IT. DOESN'T. WORK. QUITE. THAT. WAY.

I love you guys. I love Ricky. And I love the fins.

But you can't just equate some high number of Ricky carries with winning as a causal relationship. Can it be? Hell, yes, because they are yards, touchdowns, bruises inflicted and set-ups for the passing game, too.

But if you note that the games where any particular back OR TEAM carries relatively more are wins, and then deduce from that DIRECTLY that running more causes you to win, you're leaving out the factor that can virtually ALWAYS account for the margin of relatively more running. And that is that a team got the lead (possibly through running, but not necessarily so), and then proceeded to eat clock and control the ball by giving it to a back. Is Ricky THE back you want to have do that? YES. But did those marginal additional late runs give you that lead in the first place?

Additional runs TEND to be a function of having the lead and sitting on it. Ricky is the best at effecting that outcome as far as running backs go.

I just hate to see people fall into the trap of assuming the additional runs in themselves to necessarily be causal.

Please don't scream at me for trying to make this clear. Remember: I love you guys, Ricky and the Fins. :D

 

[inFINSible]

Originally posted by LeftJerseyPhin
IT. DOESN'T. WORK. QUITE. THAT. WAY.

I love you guys. I love Ricky. And I love the fins.

But you can't just equate some high number of Ricky carries with winning as a causal relationship. Can it be? Hell, yes, because they are yards, touchdowns, bruises inflicted and set-ups for the passing game, too.

But if you note that the games where any particular back OR TEAM carries relatively more are wins, and then deduce from that DIRECTLY that running more causes you to win, you're leaving out the factor that can virtually ALWAYS account for the margin of relatively more running. And that is that a team got the lead (possibly through running, but not necessarily so), and then proceeded to eat clock and control the ball by giving it to a back. Is Ricky THE back you want to have do that? YES. But did those marginal additional late runs give you that lead in the first place? &lt;-- Consider that sentence carefully before answering.

Additional runs TEND to be a function of having the lead and sitting on it. Ricky is the best at effecting that outcome as far as running backs go.

I just hate to see people fall into the trap of assuming the additional runs in themselves to necessarily be causal.

Please don't scream at me for trying to make this clear. Remember: I love you guys, Ricky and the Fins. :D

I was assuming that if Ricky touches the ball 50+ times then it would be because it was effective.

 

[MDFINFAN]

But if Ricky runs that much, he won't be effective in a SB, he'll be beat..that amount of running punish one's body and wear it down..We need to make the pass work as well, get a good lead and use Ricky to bring it home..but we need to be balanced in the first half to rest Ricky for the second half...and Minus needs to play more..Period..

 

[XoPhinsoX]

Originally posted by MDFINFAN
But if Ricky runs that much, he won't be effective in a SB, he'll be beat..that amount of running punish one's body and wear it down..We need to make the pass work as well, get a good lead and use Ricky to bring it home..but we need to be balanced in the first half to rest Ricky for the second half...and Minus needs to play more..Period..

Who the hell is minus? :confused: :goof:

 

[P4E]

Originally posted by inFINSible


I was assuming that if Ricky touches the ball 50+ times then it would be because it was effective.

THAT...is exactly right, which means you know that other part I was babbling about none too coherently.

I just gotta say that it has become a personal peeve for me when high-paid broadcasters and high-circulation sports columnists -- who purport to be helping the masses understand the game -- present the runs/wins relationship as if having won the last 9 of 10 games in which you rushed 35 times means that you'll have a 90% chance of winning IF you come out and rush 35 times.

Does anyone else cringe when you hear this or read this presented in this misleading way, or is that reaction more typically a response to my posts?

 

[inFINSible]

Originally posted by MDFINFAN
But if Ricky runs that much, he won't be effective in a SB, he'll be beat..that amount of running punish one's body and wear it down..We need to make the pass work as well, get a good lead and use Ricky to bring it home..but we need to be balanced in the first half to rest Ricky for the second half...and Minus needs to play more..Period..

Who knows? I've yet top see him have too many carries and besides that he'll have all those victory parades to recover in. :D

 

[MDFINFAN]

Originally posted by XoPhinsoX


Who the hell is minus? :confused: :goof:

Okay, lets try this again, Travis Minor...good one...:D

 

[MDFINFAN]

Originally posted by inFINSible


Who knows? I've yet top see him have too many carries and besides that he'll have all those victory pardes to recover in. :D

Where's atl's jamal, and Denver's Terrell, too many carries will shorten a rb's career. The body will react and injuries will follow. We need him down the stretch to get to a sb pardes, if we get there. Running doesn't alway equate to victory, diversity does, we need to be able to meet any situation with the right combination of plays to gain our ultimate objective, a W. That means our passing has to carry us when Ricky can't. And there will be games Ricky won't be able to do it, especially if we get behind by 2 TD's in the 2nd half. Ricky was strong at the end of last year because he was rested at the begining. It's only a question of how well he will do this year, with the new role of staying on every play.

 

[inFINSible]

Where's Emmit Smith and Walter Payton? I get what you're saying but, it could go either way. Don't get me wrong, I don't think he should tote the rock 40 times EVERY game but in BIG games, he's our biggest weapon, and we should fire it as many times as it's still effective.

 

[Can we win a SB]

It also depends on how the player treats his body.. with nutrition and healthy food. Ricky specifically lost to 225 so he can last longer and be more agile and faster... All i want is W's, even if we win it in overtime 3-0 with an mare field goal..

 

[XoPhinsoX]

Williams is in crazy condition..that's a big plus. It's not going to hurt him to run that rock 40 times once in a blue moon. If it becomes a habit it would be terrible, but it wont. .