Football Texans fans seem to be falling in love with Pollard. - Page 8

**BossChief** · 01:38 PM

Mods, If this is against the tos please delete.

http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66399

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcsouth/pos...ns-improving-d

**OnTheWarpath15** · 10-30-2009, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

they STILL carry the ball less in the 4th. thats what i said originally right? funny how you move the posts yet again, we were talking about running backs and them getting more yards in the 4th. nothing about per carry avg. you come back and say that they have less yards in the 4th which i say is because most of them are behind in the 4th and thus are throwing the ball more. You say for ne to prove it and i did. Then, as per usual with you, you want to bring up yards per carry, something that has nothing to do with the discussion. They arent getting the same chances to run the ball in the 4th. well mostly

Damn, you're dense.

YPC takes the difference in workload out of the equation.

If a RB has a high YPC, he's going to be productive, even if he gets a limited amount of carries - and he'll be even more productive if he gets more.

When you break down a RB's YPC average by quarter, and see that his average is actually LOWER in the 4th quarter, it's shows he's less productive in the 4th quarter compared to the rest of the game.

YPC = Productivity.

You claimed that the majority of RB's rushing yards are gained in the 4th quarter.

Both the raw yardage numbers and the YPC numbers prove otherwise, regardless of how many excuses you'd like to make.

**SAUTO** · 10-30-2009, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Damn, you're dense.

YPC takes the difference in workload out of the equation.

If a RB has a high YPC, he's going to be productive, even if he gets a limited amount of carries - and he'll be even more productive if he gets more.

When you break down a RB's YPC average by quarter, and see that his average is actually LOWER in the 4th quarter, it's shows he's less productive in the 4th quarter compared to the rest of the game.

YPC = Productivity.

You claimed that the majority of RB's rushing yards are gained in the 4th quarter.

Both the raw yardage numbers and the YPC numbers prove otherwise, regardless of how many excuses you'd like to make.

whatever man, spin it how you want. they arent getting as many yards because they arent getting the reps. so if a guy runs 3 time for a hundred yards his average would stay the same if he had 20 rushes? thats what you are implying with the bolded statement. game situations dictate it more IMO. When Lj was killing it he looked stronger in the 4th than any other time. WHY? it's the same with peterson now. WHY?

**OnTheWarpath15** · 10-30-2009, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KC Fish

I don't have to. The burden of proof is on you. You made the ridiculous claim. If you want people to take you seriously, you'll have to back up claims like that. But you won't. And people will continue to dismiss your claims.

He doesn't understand.

And he's yet to prove that most RB's gain more yardage in the 4th quarter of games, because he can't.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 10-30-2009, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

whatever man, spin it how you want. they arent getting as many yards because they arent getting the reps. so if a guy runs 3 time for a hundred yards his average would stay the same if he had 20 rushes? thats what you are implying with the bolded statement. game situations dictate it more IMO. When Lj was killing it he looked stronger in the 4th than any other time. WHY? it's the same with peterson now. WHY?

You still haven't proven your statement.

Guessing doesn't cut it.

And to this goofy-ass point of yours, claiming that more carries/chances automatically means more yards...

LJ runs 20 times in the 4th quarter for 40 yards. A 2.0 YPC average.

Cedric Benson runs 10 times in the 4th quarter for 40 yards. A 4.0 YPC average.

Who was more productive?

Hint: It wasn't the guy with more carries.

And Fish and I are still waiting for you to prove that RB's gain more yardage in the 4th quarter.

Hammock Parties · 10-30-2009, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BossChief

the guy got better each and every year he was here and was a very young guy when he was jettisoned.

No, he didn't.

He was a poor tackler when he arrived and he was a poor tackler right before he was cut.

Sweet Daddy Hate · 10-30-2009, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BossChief

the guy got better each and every year he was here and was a very young guy when he was jettisoned.

He missed some tackles, but also made some big ones too, and he always went for the strip of the ball.

Our strong side safety leads a bad team in tackles and all of a sudden the fault is his that we suck?

that doesnt make sense.

GoChiefs is a goddamned fool when it comes to Pollard. Just save yourself the time and go debate a cereal box instead.

Hammock Parties · 10-30-2009, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raised On Riots

GoChiefs is a goddamned fool when it comes to Pollard. Just save yourself the time and go debate a cereal box instead.

Less of a fool than you were.

"MONSTER year for BP!"

Sweet Daddy Hate · 10-30-2009, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoChiefs

Less of a fool than you were.

"MONSTER year for BP!"

The year ain't over sonny and he's on a MUCH better team, so shut your cake hole.

Did LJ manage to break 1000 yet? Oh, that's right; he's suspended and on his way to the soup kitchen while Pollard is gainfully employed.

Good times, good times...

chiefzilla1501 · 10-30-2009, 06:03 PM

I never understood cutting Pollard. He's not a bad kid like LJ. He's a hard worker. And it's not like the Chiefs got a major upgrade in Mike Brown. This cut bothered me the most because this seemed to me to be purely due to trying to get rid of the previous regime's players.

I always said that Pollard was asked to do a ton more than any safety because he played in a cover 2 for one, he played in a cover 2 that couldn't rush the passer (double whammy), and in run D, RBs too often made it to the second level untouched. Your safety shouldn't be asked to make tackles on a RB as often as Pollard and Page were last year.

I liked Page a lot more than Pollard. The more I watch Page the more I realize I was wrong. I think Pollard was a much better piece to the puzzle than Page is.

Hammock Parties · 10-30-2009, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raised On Riots

The year ain't over sonny and he's on a MUCH better team, so shut your cake hole.

Did LJ manage to break 1000 yet? Oh, that's right; he's suspended and on his way to the soup kitchen while Pollard is gainfully employed.

Good times, good times...

LJ will lose more money in two weeks than Pollard will make all year...

What do you want to bet he's not even Houston's starter next year?

Hammock Parties · 10-30-2009, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

This cut bothered me the most because this seemed to me to be purely due to trying to get rid of the previous regime's players.

Yeah, that's all it was...it had nothing to do with him missing five tackles in three quarters of one preseason game....

**Skip Towne** · 10-30-2009, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I never understood cutting Pollard. He's not a bad kid like LJ. He's a hard worker. And it's not like the Chiefs got a major upgrade in Mike Brown. This cut bothered me the most because this seemed to me to be purely due to trying to get rid of the previous regime's players.

I always said that Pollard was asked to do a ton more than any safety because he played in a cover 2 for one, he played in a cover 2 that couldn't rush the passer (double whammy), and in run D, RBs too often made it to the second level untouched. Your safety shouldn't be asked to make tackles on a RB as often as Pollard and Page were last year.

I liked Page a lot more than Pollard. The more I watch Page the more I realize I was wrong. I think Pollard was a much better piece to the puzzle than Page is.

GoChiefs was wrong too. The difference is you admit it.

Sweet Daddy Hate · 10-30-2009, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoChiefs

LJ will lose more money in two weeks than Pollard will make all year...

What do you want to bet he's not even Houston's starter next year?

HAHAHAHA!

LJ pissed so much of his cash away he had to do an about-face on his bullshittery and keep his ****ing mouth shut in order to play and get paid this year after the ruling from the NFL.

Of course, we knew THAT wouldn't last long and lo and behold...

Plus, Jay-Z doesn't want him as a rep for his clothing line anymore, so LJ won't be "cak'n" via Diamond Cutter either.

BP works hard and has his head on straight, so even if he doesn't start for Houston next year as a SS, I'm sure he'll have a place on Special Teams or a starting position elsewhere in the league.

Now; tell me how awesome Mike Brown is again, I need a good chuckle.

Hammock Parties · 10-30-2009, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip Towne

GoChiefs was wrong too.

What was I wrong about?

**OnTheWarpath15** · 10-30-2009, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I never understood cutting Pollard. He's not a bad kid like LJ. He's a hard worker. And it's not like the Chiefs got a major upgrade in Mike Brown. This cut bothered me the most because this seemed to me to be purely due to trying to get rid of the previous regime's players.

I always said that Pollard was asked to do a ton more than any safety because he played in a cover 2 for one, he played in a cover 2 that couldn't rush the passer (double whammy), and in run D, RBs too often made it to the second level untouched. Your safety shouldn't be asked to make tackles on a RB as often as Pollard and Page were last year.

I liked Page a lot more than Pollard. The more I watch Page the more I realize I was wrong. I think Pollard was a much better piece to the puzzle than Page is.

Good post.

There is a quote floating around here from Pollard, talking about Gunther's departure, and how he was "held back" because he was asked to do things scheme wise that didn't play to his strengths - namely, playing in coverage.

Now, in just a short time, you can see that Pollard wasn't the problem - as Houston is playing him up in run support, and he's really given that bad run defense a huge boost. Hell, he's played less than half the season for them and he's 6th on the team in tackles.

10-30-2009, 11:01 AM
BossChief SuperBowl or bust Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: BF Iowa Casino cash: $-1615912	Texans fans seem to be falling in love with Pollard. Mods, If this is against the tos please delete. http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66399 http://espn.go.com/blog/afcsouth/pos...ns-improving-d Last edited by BossChief; 11-07-2009 at 01:38 PM..
Posts: 47,888

10-30-2009, 06:03 PM	#114
chiefzilla1501 In Search of a Life Join Date: Aug 2008 Casino cash: $-1605503	I never understood cutting Pollard. He's not a bad kid like LJ. He's a hard worker. And it's not like the Chiefs got a major upgrade in Mike Brown. This cut bothered me the most because this seemed to me to be purely due to trying to get rid of the previous regime's players. I always said that Pollard was asked to do a ton more than any safety because he played in a cover 2 for one, he played in a cover 2 that couldn't rush the passer (double whammy), and in run D, RBs too often made it to the second level untouched. Your safety shouldn't be asked to make tackles on a RB as often as Pollard and Page were last year. I liked Page a lot more than Pollard. The more I watch Page the more I realize I was wrong. I think Pollard was a much better piece to the puzzle than Page is.
Posts: 51,569