Peter Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 same .1 yards per carry better .2 yards per carry better .3 yards per carry better .4 yards per carry better .5 yards per carry better .6 yards per carry better .7 yards per carry better .8 yards per carry better .9 yards per carry better 1.0 yards per carry better more than 1.0 yards per carry better
MadBuffaloDisease Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 I'd say not much since Thurman usually averaged about 3.9 YPC.
dave mcbride Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 same.1 yards per carry better .2 yards per carry better .3 yards per carry better .4 yards per carry better .5 yards per carry better .6 yards per carry better .7 yards per carry better .8 yards per carry better .9 yards per carry better 1.0 yards per carry better more than 1.0 yards per carry better i recommend that you not skew it by including the post-Wolford/Ritcher-in-steep-decline years (1993 - 3.53; 1994 - 3.79) and really focus on the glory years -- 1990-92 (and possibly 89 - 4.26). From 1990-92 the average is basically 4.5.
Peter Posted January 5, 2007 Author Posted January 5, 2007 i recommend that you not skew it by including the post-Wolford/Ritcher-in-steep-decline years (1993 - 3.53; 1994 - 3.79) and really focus on the glory years -- 1990-92 (and possibly 89 - 4.26). From 1990-92 the average is basically 4.5. I chose what I consider (and which I presume most people consider) to be our glory years since the old AFL days.
dave mcbride Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 also, when henning joined the bills in 97, the ypc went waaay up - to 4.22 from an abysmal 3.38 in 96. 97 - 4.22 98 - 4.07 99 - 3.93 00 - 4.05 01 - 4.15 02- 4.11 03 - 3.9 04 - 3.88 05 - 3.75 06 - 3.70 I assume you're making some point about McGahee, but as you can see, the numbers have been declining ever since he arrived on the scene. Note that I'm not blaming him.
silvermike Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 1990: 4.34 1991: 4.71 1992: 4.44 1993: 3.53 (!) . . . 2006: 3.70 2005: 3.75 2004: 3.88 2003: 3.90
dave mcbride Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 I chose what I consider (and which I presume most people consider) to be our glory years since the old AFL days. any one who watched that 93 team knows that it was highly diminished talentwise (on offense) and that it got to the super bowl because of a lot of tight victories, a ton of turnovers (they led the league) and home field advantage in the playoffs. Kelly was never the same guy after rupturing his bursar sac 2/3 of the way through the 92 season and then losing his only real deep threat (lofton aged 10 years from mid 92 to the end of that season). they were 7-9 in 94.
1billsfan Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 I'd say not much since Thurman usually averaged about 3.9 YPC. Thurman had a 4.2 career ypc average. He averaged over 4.8 from 1990-1992 http://www.profootballreference.com/players/ThomTh00.htm
obie_wan Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 i recommend that you not skew it by including the post-Wolford/Ritcher-in-steep-decline years (1993 - 3.53; 1994 - 3.79) and really focus on the glory years -- 1990-92 (and possibly 89 - 4.26). From 1990-92 the average is basically 4.5. The Bills OL was good at pass blocking but pretty ordinary (if not below average) run blocking. Their success was driven by the use of the no-huddle to gain a big advantage in wearing down defenses. Without the no huddle, the Ol was a very ordinary run blocking group.
Tcali Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 same.1 yards per carry better .2 yards per carry better .3 yards per carry better .4 yards per carry better .5 yards per carry better .6 yards per carry better .7 yards per carry better .8 yards per carry better .9 yards per carry better 1.0 yards per carry better more than 1.0 yards per carry better
Tcali Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 I believe the league average is HIGHER now--so you must figure that in.Different defnsive [philosophies etc
34-78-83 Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 The Bills OL was good at pass blocking but pretty ordinary (if not below average) run blocking. Their success was driven by the use of the no-huddle to gain a big advantage in wearing down defenses. Without the no huddle, the Ol was a very ordinary run blocking group. Yes but they were able to implement the no huddle because they were better conditioned (Rusty Jones plug) than the linemen from other teams and had continuity, and some real smart players on that line. You cannot simply say that they were ordinary if not for the no huddle because their abilities allowed them to run the no huddle. They are not exclusive of each other. Plus they were still able to line up in 2 Te's and run it on 3rd and 1 and get the first down the vast majority of the time.
Lori Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 RB STATS ONLY: 1990: 438-1947, 4.4 ypc, 27.4-121.7 yds/game, 20 TDs 1991: 459-2177, 4.7 ypc, 28.7-136.1 yds/game, 15 TDs 1992: 497-2305, 4.6 ypc, 31.1-144.1 yds/game, 17 TDs 1993: 495-1798, 3.6 ypc, 30.9-112.4 yds/game, 12 TDs 2001: 347-1302, 3.8 ypc, 21.7-81.4 yds/game, 8 TDs 2002: 356-1541, 4.3 ypc, 22.3-96.3 yds/game, 15 TDs 2003: 392-1546 3.9 ypc, 24.5-96.6 yds/game, 11 TDs 2004: 441-1696, 3.8 ypc, 27.6-106.0 yds/game, 15 TDs 2005: 371-1408, 3.8 ypc, 23.2-88.0 yds/game, 5 TDs 2006: 368-1370, 3.7 ypc, 23.0-85.6 yds/game, 8 TDs Conclusion: RB ypc has dropped off not only from the Super Bowl run (which is to be expected - not only was Will Wolford probably the best LT in team history, Thurman and KDavis were far and away better than our top two RBs now), it has even dropped from Travis Henry's last two full seasons here. Hmmm.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 RB ypc averages are GREATLY affected by the passing game of that team. Huge chunks of yardage are often gained on draws when teams have to play back, and vice versa, the LOS is stacked when you cannot throw. It's not always, and not even all that often an indication of the ability of the main RB. While not being able to block or catch as well as Thurman, Willis would have been an absolute terror on the SB teams with the no huddle.
sweetbaboo Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 RB ypc averages are GREATLY affected by the passing game of that team. Huge chunks of yardage are often gained on draws when teams have to play back, and vice versa, the LOS is stacked when you cannot throw. It's not always, and not even all that often an indication of the ability of the main RB. While not being able to block or catch as well as Thurman, Willis would have been an absolute terror on the SB teams with the no huddle. Frank Gore plays on a team with no passing game.
Lori Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 RB ypc averages are GREATLY affected by the passing game of that team. Huge chunks of yardage are often gained on draws when teams have to play back, and vice versa, the LOS is stacked when you cannot throw. It's not always, and not even all that often an indication of the ability of the main RB. While not being able to block or catch as well as Thurman, Willis would have been an absolute terror on the SB teams with the no huddle. On running plays, you may be right... but how much of the no-huddle's success was directly tied to Thurm's blocking/receiving ability? Chicken or the egg?
Kelly the Dog Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 On running plays, you may be right... but how much of the no-huddle's success was directly tied to Thurm's blocking/receiving ability? Chicken or the egg? In the Super Bowl years Kenneth Davis averaged as much per carry as Thurman did, and yet wasn't nearly as good or as effective as a receiver or blocker. http://pro-football-reference.com/players/DaviKe00.htm
Lv-Bills Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 On running plays, you may be right... but how much of the no-huddle's success was directly tied to Thurm's blocking/receiving ability? Chicken or the egg? I think Thurman was the best blocking running back, picking up the blitz in pro football history. I remember watching games and waiting for the replay to see Thurman stop blitzers in their tracks, or flip them over his body. What a truly great all around running back he was. That's why is makes me wanna puke today when some people try to peg McGahee as a great back. He's no where near a great running back. And it's hard to fathom that some people can't even remember that we had a great back in Thurman to compare him to not all that long ago. They aren't even close.
KnightRider Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 The Bills OL was good at pass blocking but pretty ordinary (if not below average) run blocking. Their success was driven by the use of the no-huddle to gain a big advantage in wearing down defenses. Without the no huddle, the Ol was a very ordinary run blocking group. Are you nuts? They were great on the counter trey whether it was hurry up no huddle or the typical no huddle...
keepthefaith Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 I think Thurman was the best blocking running back, picking up the blitz in pro football history. I remember watching games and waiting for the replay to see Thurman stop blitzers in their tracks, or flip them over his body. What a truly great all around running back he was. That's why is makes me wanna puke today when some people try to peg McGahee as a great back. He's no where near a great running back. And it's hard to fathom that some people can't even remember that we had a great back in Thurman to compare him to not all that long ago. They aren't even close. Bravo!
Recommended Posts