Dowdle is a High Variance Rusher

My brother's kids love the kidzbop. I feel your pain.

 

You have my sympathy

 

I skipped over a couple when I told you I was skipping them over. When you started with the false claim about me dodging, I stopped reading. It is simple rhetoric. If you start from a place off turning of your reader, they often won't bother to read.

I'm not arguing against myself at all. I'm simply pointing out that there is a high variance in both backs. I also believe it is more instructive to look at Warren in 2025 than in previous seasons because his role changed. He had been a clear backup until 2025.

Also, it is false to claim that the variance in Warren is entirely based on how much he was used, especially when the numbers I provided gave you average yards per carry along with total yards. He averaged 8.3 yards per rush in three games against horrible defenses. (The Lions weren't bad all season, but they had been devastated by injuries by the time the Steelers played them. They had gone from having two studs at safety to a couple of scrubs whose mistakes helped create both of Warren's long touchdown runs.) In his 13 other games, Warren averaged 3.66 yards per rush. It isn't the yardage I'm talking about here; it's the average per carry.

 

I'm so glad my daughter got bored with that crap very quickly.

 

To your first point, I don't disagree. If you read through the post, I was arguing that they probably have similar variance carry-to-carry, which I think is going to be more strongly correlated to actual performance than game-to-game metrics.

I also argued to use a different sample, though I suggested the last 2 years (because 3 years ago for Dowdle was a completely different usage than the last 2 years)...just last year would be fine too.

Notice that I thanked you for pointing out how Dowdle's usage was all over the place last year. That was something I wasn't aware of. I even did the math to support your claim.

I didn't realize how much Dowdle's usage differed game to game. Seems like maybe it took time for him to prove that he could play to that new coaching staff?

Ultimately, I don't think game-to-game variance is all that useful because too many non-performance things play too big a role (e.g. usage and score effects). I think carry-to-carry results are more in the control of the RB than game-to-game ones. I guess that game-to-game usage is some measure of (i) health and (ii) coach's confidence in a player...but score effects are going to matter a lot for RBs.

Re: the bolded part. Of course that's a false claim. Which is why it's not a claim that anyone made.

But in an effort to try to "win" instead of have an honest discussion, you've used a fancy "rhetorical device". This one is called a strawman.

What I actually said was:

See those two words? Each of them alone make it clear that I don't think that the variance is "entirely" driven by usage.

Here's the definition of the word mostly:

Notice how "entirely" isn't listed in the synonyms.

Here's the definition of the word not necessarily:

The position you're arguing against here (which no one reasonable would take) is: Warren's [or any RB's] variance is entirely based on how much he was used.

Here's the definition of the word entirely

I don't know why they have the 1st definition there since it's circular.

I assume that you know that the word mostly isn't a synonym for entirely.

Which is why it seems to me like you're more focused on "winning" than having an honest discussion. At least I assume that's what you're doing. Because I can't believe that you honestly don't know that mostly and entirely mean very different things.

I put the meme at the end here because you said you stopped reading once you got to the funny pictures!



This is a cheap trick that people who are not having honest discussions use to try to "win" an argument after they know their argument isn't good.

Here's a meme making fun of me...because self-effacing humor is a good rhetorical device too. Especially when someone writes posts this long...

 

I tried to skip the kidzbop stuff (although we did have some MiniPops tapes when I was growing up, which are the same thing).

I'm lucky that my girls mostly listen to the music I listen to. I think part of this is that we don't really have them listening to things like Spotify or whatever (which I don't use either). But I did share with them all the MP3s that I ripped of the silly number of CDs I bought in the 90s / 00s.

I think we also lucked out with their friend groups.

 

You turned my use of entirely instead of mostly into all that nonsense? If this is you being civil, I'd hate to see how you post when you are trying to be a prick.

Substitute mostly for entirely in my post, but the actual point still stands. You were pushing the idea that the variance was based mostly on usage, and that simply is not supported by the evidence. The rest is you trying to cover for your poor argument by making a second false claim about how I posted on this thread. The dodge thing was utter crap, and entirely over mostly was a careless word choice, not a straw man. Even when you substitute a more perfect word choice, your argument was just as faulty. I'll remind you something I've had to tell a few others. Most of the time, I enjoy what you bring to the board, but I do not care nearly enough about your opinion to be dishonest with you or anyone else on this board.

Please try to do better in the future. Thanks.

 

Variance is mostly based on usage. Or at least usage has the greatest potential to affect game-to-game (or season-to-season) variability if the usage differences are big enough for us to see the effect. This is going to be more true for guys like Najee that don't get big runs. And less true for home run hitters like Henry.

This is probably why lots of people wouldn't have drafted Najee early last year in FF. Even if he played all year, his role would likely have been a lot smaller than he had with us after they drafted Hampton. So everyone would have expected Najee to have less production.

It's also why FF players will try to gobble up the backup RB when the lead back goes down. Because the RB2 is very likely to have more carries with the RB1 out. And that's very likely going to lead to more production.

I think you understood that before because just a post or two ago you (correctly) pointed out that Dowdle had more variance game-to-game last season than Warren because of his usage. Where there are big differences in usage, expect big differences in production.

In the quoted post, you said "...that simply isn't supported by the evidence". But I don't see any evidence that you provided. This is also the issue I have with your hand-wavy objection to succ% without any evidence that it doesn't do the thing that people think it does (gives a reasonable metric for carry-to-carry consistency).

Let's look at Dowdle and variance in 2025.

Here's Dowdle's 2025 Game Log: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/D/DowdRi01/gamelog/2025/

I uploaded a thumbnail that looks at number of carries (what I've been calling usage throughout) and yards in each game. I'll have to ask Budda how he gets them to be so nice in the post. Maybe he hosts them online somewhere? I just uploaded from my PC.

You'll see that the evidence does support that the yards he got in each game is mostly accounted for by the number of carries he got in each game. I assume that this is the result that basically everyone would expect. And it's clearly visible because his usage is all over the place.

On the x-axis we have "carries / game". On the y-axis we have "yards per game". I've also added a linear fit (with the equation and R^2 value).

Now, we can see that it's pretty linear before we add the fit. Although the FF ideas above I think show that most people would have already come to the conclusion that more carries is going to lead to more yards most of the time. Notice I said "most of the time" here, no more strawmen please.

The linear fit tells us that the R^2 value is ~71%.

We see an R^2 value of 71%. That means that 71% of the variability in Dowdle's yards/game last year is explained by the number of carries/game he had last year.

This will probably be less apparent for other RBs who usage is more consistent across a season (we'll look at Warren next). Because if the usage is fairly consistent, the other things that drive variability will be more important.

Aside: I know there are guitar players here. This is like when you play a harmonic. That sound is still there when we pluck the "e", we just can't hear it over the "dominant mode". But when we rest a finger on the 12th fret, then we mute the dominant mode (because it can't vibrate in the middle of the string), so we hear the higher frequency & lower amplitude sound.

Notice that 71% > 50%. This suggests that no other factor will account for the variability better than number of carries / game in Dowdle's case. This could still be the case for numbers below 50% because there are many variables that go into the variability (like how part of Mason playing poorly in that Baltimore game was because it was horrible weather).

Here we'd say that "most of the variability in Dowdles yards per game last year is the result of his usage (carries per game)".

Notice also that 71% isn't equal to 100%. So the strawman that the variability is entirely due to usage is incorrect (but no one reasonably would argue otherwise). This is why changing critical words in an argument is a dishonest way to engage with someone.

 

Can you define what you mean by "wildly"? I think this word choice is probably hyperbolic. Kind of like if you ever watch finance stuff on TV the market is always either "soaring" or "plummeting" when the change in a given day is usually within a standard deviation of the mean or something. Aside: watching finance stuff like this on TV is stupid IMO. Buy big indices (e.g., SP500, US Total Market) and just wait...you'll expect to get something like 7% - 10% per year on average over the long term.

And if Warren's production varied "wildly", how would you classify Dowdle's variation in performance? Dowdle's variation in yards-per-game is much higher than Warren's.

We can calculate the coefficient of variance for both players. This is the mean divided by the standard deviation. Last year Warren's is 56%. Dowdle's is 90%.

If Warren's is wild, is Dowdle's astronomical (or something even more hyperbolic)?

I think the answer is that we don't know without knowing what a typical value is across other backs with similar number of carries.

As we have discussed before, Dowdle's COV is high because his usage was all over the place. So, the most important thing for yards-per-game really shows up for Dowdle.

Warren had more consistent usage. So the importance of changes in usage aren't as apparent. His lowest yardage games are still generally those with low carries. And his highest yardage games are still generally those where he got more carries. But since the distribution of carries for him is tighter, then the outliers when he got big runs really drive the R^2 value down (~15%). One of these will be the Lion's game where he showed us how just two big runs can have a big impact on season YPC, even deep into the season.

Notice how presenting this data instead of just the Dowdle data is steelmanning your argument. That's the opposite of strawmanning.

Here we see that carries per game isn't nearly as important for Warren (although it still accounts for a fair amount of the variance at 15%). I think this is because Warren's carries per game are a lot more consistent than Dowdle's in 2025. Tightly controlling the thing that causes the biggest change means you limit it's effect. So the big gains he had in two games give us two outlying data points. And a real stinker against INDY 16 carries for 31 yards.

So I think the impact of carries is more visible for Dowdle because he had games with 3 carries and with 30. Warren's carries go from 8-18. If we were both being honest, I'm sure we'd agree that if we gave Warren a game with 3 carries, we wouldn't expect much production. But if we gave him 30 carries (12 more than his max last year), we'd expect him to have one of his better games.

ETA: I tested this idea in my next post where I looked over the 3 year sample in the OP. This expands the range of carries for Warren. Guess what happens to the R^2 value in a curve like this when the range of x-values increases?

This is why we teach mechanical engineers (and others I'm sure) about the importance of understanding sensitivity. When you're designing an experiment, if you know that small changes in an input are going to give you lots of change in your output (high sensitivity), you really need to focus on tightly controlling that input. But if your output isn't very sensitive to another input, then you don't need to spend as much time and money controlling that thing.

 

My middle daughter used to watch something like Powder Puff Girls on netflix, but it was in Japanese or Chinese or something.

I thought it was hilarious. But my eldest hated that every time my middle daughter (youngest at the time) got to pick what they watched (IIRC much less than 50% of the time), she had to watch some cartoon in a foreign language.

 

@Formerscribe

Here's the data for the 3 year sample that the OP was talking about.

This was also the sample I was talking about when you started arguing with me about the importance of usage (with a nice example of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy IMO...a much cooler name than cherry picking if you ask me!). "Well, if we only look at this part of the data then my argument is right!"

Images of just the graphs because the columns take up too much space. I put the numbers in quickly, so there could be some typos. You're welcome to double check it by making your own and comparing. It probably takes 5-10 minutes.

Notice how over the sample that was being discussed in the post you replied to (and the OP), usage accounts for 77.5% of the variability in Dowdle's per-game yardage. This is obviously the main driver.

For Warren, it "only" accounts for ~ 43% of the variability in his per-game output. Since there are likely more than two things that drive variability in per game yardage, it's very likely that this is also the biggest factor.

But even if it isn't he biggest factor for Warren, the point that I was making up thread (and in the post you replied to) is that the difference between the two RBs over the 3 year sample in the OP that gave Dowdle more variability is because he has far more very low carry games because he didn't get a lot of work in the first game of the sample.

If we only use the last two seasons (which is what I suggested upthread since the usage is far more similar for both guys over the last two years), the COV is much closer. Dowdle 75.5%. Warren 65.5%. My guess is that this difference isn't as big as it seems. And that it's still driven by variability in usage.

Still, you are calling Warren's variability high and suggesting that's bad. Dowdle's variability is higher even if we only look at the last two years. Years in which Dowdle has total carries and yardage that are remarkably similar season-to-season.

Conclusion: I still don't think that looking at game-to-game variability tells us much about how "good" a RB is. But I do think that these numbers are mostly driven by usage. This is not dissimilar to looking at total yardage over a season. But full season yardage is better because it probably averages out things like score effects across a whole season so that each back with enough carries probably has at least a somewhat similar situation across 17 games.

While it's imperfect, I think the easiest / best way to see how "good" a RB is is to look at both YPC (a proxy for how often they get big runs) and succ% (a proxy for how consistently they keep up with the chains). This isn't perfect, but I think it's the best method using single number stats that are readily available on highly reputable sites like PFR.

If I was forced to pick only one metric (which I'm not), I'd pick YPC. But looking at this undervalues guys who do a lot of short yardage work. Which is the main reason you also want to look at succ% IMO.

Aside: Did you (or anyone else) watch the Panther's much last year? Do you get a sense of why Dowdle's usage was all over the place? Seems like Hubbard was starting / getting more work for the first 6 games and Dowdle's role increased, particularly game 9+. My guess is that this is because Hubbard was a known commodity there and had 1200 yards the year before (4.8 YPC 54.8 succ%). But he declined pretty hard in 2025 (511 yards, 3.8 ypc, 50.7 succ%) last season. Did he have injury issues that he was playing through? Seems like the internet says Hubbard "struggled with calf and knee injuries". That's probably it. It's a little bit too bad for the Steelers. Because MM probably would still bring Dowdle back. But he'd have been cheaper if he got less work last year.

 

I didn't dodge nor did I use a strawman, so kindly stop repeating those falsehoods. Thank you.

I could claim that you just used a strawman if I wanted to play the same game. I didn't say that variance isn't often connected to usage in general. What I told you was that Warren's variance this past season wasn't tied to usage. I did provide evidence when I illustrated how he had a much higher average per carry in the two games against the Bengals and one against the Lions than he did the rest of the season. See the difference?

Of course, in the spirit of playing nice, I'm not going to accuse you of using a strawman argument. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that was a simple misreading on your part. Now that I have cleared it up for you, I'm sure you can see that I did provide evidence that backs my claim regarding Warren's high variance last season, that it wasn't based in usage at all. He simply wasn't as good in the other 13 games.

 

The post you quoted when talking about this was one where I was trying to explain the idea of a high-variance vs. low-variance players. Specifically talking about the 3-year time-frame in the OP. Then you started talking about a different one year time frame which wasn't being discussed. But even in the one year sample you specifically chose, Dowdle has much higher COV than Warren. So I still don't get what your point is here.

I don't believe that Dowdle's game-to-game variability in yardage is because of lack of performance. It's because of inconsistent usage last season. I don't get how you don't realize that because you're the one that alluded to it first.

Now let's examine the point that I think you're making in your current post. I think it's a good example of why you can't sharpshoot your way to an argument.

I believe that you said that the variation in Warren's YPC across different games is "wildly high". Please correct me if this is wrong.

Of course, every RB will have some variability in their YPC.

The reason that I asked you about the word choice "wildly" here is that to support this claim, we'd need to know (1) what his variability for YPC / game would be and (2) how that difference from the rest of the RBs in the league. I don't know either of these things (and I'm guessing you don't either).

For evidence, you looked at some games and said "I think this looks like high variance". But the reason people developed statistical methods is that we humans are ****ty at getting intuitive answers from looking at sets of numbers like this.

Fortunately, we can use statistical methods to quantify the variability in YPC / game for different RBs and then compare them. If we take the time to do this math, we'll avoid making poor conclusions based on the gut feelings we get (or by cherry picking data we think is important).

Are you ready for the math?

Warren's average YPC on a game-by-game (not carry-by-carry) basis was 4.49. The STDEV was 2.21. Warren's COV is then 49%. Is that wildly high? I don't know. Because we don't know about other backs in the league.

Let's look at Dowdle. His average YPC by game is 4.19. The STDEV is 2.0. Dowdle's COV is then 47%.

I didn't do the t-test on the YPC data, but I think it's very likely that there is no statistical difference between these two sets of data (YPC averages on a game-to-game basis).

We can put this on the mounting pile of evidence that these two RBs give basically the same results (even though they appear to have some stylistic differences). Honestly, the more we look at them, the more I think they look remarkably similar (results wise).

For context, I also looked at Henry. Who's the best RB of this generation IMO. His average game based YPC was 5.22, stdev 2.12, COV 40.6%. This difference might be significant compared to the other two.

He's such an amazing player. You'd think that a guy with a much higher game based YPC average would have higher variability. This is what you get if you can find a guy who year-over-year has (1) high YPC and (2) high succ% (although there was a dip in his last 3 years in TEN).

And it's incredible how he's been able to "outrun" father time (so far). But I'll be reluctant to draft him in fantasy because I just don't think he can keep up his insane usage for a 5th year in a row. He's a super-human among super-humans.

I don't know how you could say that you didn't use a strawman. It's pretty obvious. And also explained in what I'd imagine you'd agree is excruciating detail...this is me making fun of myself again.

I could buy that it was unintentional though (i.e., careless word choice, reading comprehension fail, etc).

If you'd like me to agree that you weren't dodging in your previous responses, please show me where you described how the definitions of "success" for a given down drive meaningful differences in succ%. Or just answer the question here. As stated upthread, it would be great to have a specific answer and not a handwavy one. Because then we can actually try to test the idea to see if it makes sense.

When a RB gets 2 yards on 1st down, is that good or bad?

When a RB gets 2 yards on 3rd or 4th and 1, is that good or bad?

When a RB gets 1 yard on 3rd or 4th and 2, is that good or bad?

As stated upthread, I think they should throw out 2nd and long runs from succ%. This is usually a fail on the OC's part. But I think many people who calculate succ% call any run that's over some threshold (e.g., 5 yards) successful regardless of down and distance. I think this is a potential issue with succ% methodology, but I'm not convinced that it makes a meaningful difference is relative succ% between different backs over a relatively large sample size.

 

Sorry, but I'm not accepting any of your false premises here.

I made two points in the post to which you were responding. One was that the huge disparity between Warren's average per carry in the two games against the Bengals and one against the Lions is evidence of his high variance in 2025. This is inarguable among the sane, no matter how much statistical bull**** you try to bury it in.

My other point was that you had misrepresented my point about Warren, painting it as a comment about variance in general. That was more of a straw man than anything I have written on this thread. When you complained about my post, I responded with integrity, conceding that I should have used a different word to more accurately reflect your post. You made a mountain out of a careless choice of words.

What you did, however, was completely misrepresent my entire point, yet I showed you the courtesy of assuming it was just a careless error on your part. Apparently, that was a mistake on my part. That you continue to misrepresent what I have written on this thread tells me you have no interest in an honest discussion.

I did not dodge. I focused on you contradicting yourself first. You made a weak joke about me not understanding what subjective is because I continue to point out that success percentage is subjective, then admitted in that very same post that success percentage is objective.

When you admit to that contradiction, I might actually take the time to plow through your poorly-written pile of statistical nonsense about a subjective statistic that does not interest me in the least. Maybe. If I'm really, really bored.

What I'd like you to do is start acting like you want the honest discussion you claim to want, but that seems to be a vain hope.

 

This is why I keep referencing the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. Which is a way better name than Cherry Picking.

This is exactly what you're doing by slicing the season to find a small number of examples that you think prove your point. When actually what you're doing is just showing that YPC/game is a noisy stat. So looking at small samples will give you poor conclusions.

And it's literally not possible to slice the data thinner than you have to look at variability in YPC/game than the two games you've used here.

Here's what you actually said.

Now we can see who's misrepresenting who's argument.

The thing that apparently went over your head here is that the argument that I have been making (in excruciating detail) is that "variability in yards per game" depends mostly on usage.

It's kind of important to define what "variability" we're talking about. There are many other things that have variability that do not depend on how many carries a RB gets in a particular game. For example, wind speed is not constant in a game. It changes in both speed and direction. I haven't done the math, but I assume that it's variability is independent of how many carries Warren or Dowdle get in a game. Although, I'm sure if someone tried hard enough to "win" this argument, they could cherry pick some data from some small number of games and make these two things look correlated.

To echo your spirit of being nice, I'll assume that you didn't realize or didn't understand what was being discussed earlier. And that you didn't intentionally try to argue against a position no one took.

Either way, you saying that variability in YPC isn't dependent on usage isn't related to that argument that yards/game is strongly dependent on carries/game.

Here's what I wrote when @jeh1856 asked what I thought the the OP told us. This is on the first page...maybe post 6 or something. Remember, we're talking about variance in yards per game. In post 2 (the very first reply on this thread) I said that variance in yards per game likely doesn't tell us all that much. I suggested that looking at rate based metrics was better. This is true (or at least I strongly believe it), but when you don't have enough carries it's noisy data. So you want a large enough sample (like a season rather than a game).

In case you don't believe that this was the argument I was making, here's me from something like post 6 in this thread.

Note that the part in RED & ITALICS wasn't added for just this post. It was that was in the original post from like 3 weeks ago.

See how it's talking about variance in per game stats (specifically yards per game because it's talking about the OP and specifically for Dowdle in this three year sample) is mostly driven by the difference in his usage? Because he wasn't used much in the first year of the sample.

Later, you (correctly) pointed out that his usage also varied a lot in the 3rd year of the sample, which also contributed to his variance in yards per game. I didn't know that and I've said thank you at least once already.

Then, for some reason you say that Warren's variability in YPC / game (which no one was talking about) wasn't based on usage. And you seem to think that this blows up the argument that usage is going to be the most important factor in yards per game. And we saw that specifically with Dowdle over the 3 year sample in the OP.

I think idea that variability in YPC/game isn't dependent on number of carries is: kind of right (noise in this sample makes it so there isn't a great signal), and kind of wrong (because if there was more usage, we'd get less noise). With less noise, you should get a more consistent value. But no back is going to get 100 carries in a game. And you probably need to get something like that to start getting reasonable data out of YPC.

You then appear to have specifically cherry picked 2 games for Warren that confirmed your prior opinion (Warren is worse than Dowdle). Then you leapt to the conclusion that his YPC per game varied "wildly" (again based on a specifically chosen sample that's the smallest possible option available to you to look at variability in YPC/game).

I'm pretty sure you even said you could probably sharpshoot Dowdle's season if you wanted to as well. You could have spend the 5 minutes to actually do the math. Even if you'd never heard of coefficient of variability before, the definition is upthead.

Either way your argument that Warren has a "wildly" high variability in YPC/game (1) has nothing to do with the conversation that was happening and (2) seems to be incorrect.

I'm only saying "seems" to be incorrect because I only looked at 3 different RBs and I don't want to overstate what I've shown you. We know for sure that in the sample you talked about 2025 season, Warren and Dowdle have what are almost certainly the same COV in YPC (no statistical difference). We also know that they have a COV that's higher than Henry.

Which is kind of the entire point of my previous post. Humans (this isn't a knock on you, it's all of us) are very bad at looking at a set of numbers and seeing what's actually there. I think I've heard people explain this as an evolutionary thing. In some sense, we're "pattern matching machines". So we find patterns even when they're not there.

That's why humans (mathematicians, who are nice people, but kind of an odd bunch if you ask me) invented statistical methods.

What happens when we look at the entire season instead of cherry picking a couple games? I showed you this in your last post. Warren and Dowdle are the same re: COV in YPC/game. If you want to prove that Warren has higher than average YPC, you'd need to do this for a good number of RBs that have some qualifying number of carries.

I don't mind doing some of your homework, but even I don't really want to do that job. If you do want to do this, I'd suggest learning how to use the tool that Bubba posted a link to (I think in this thread) re: scraping data from stats sites. There will be a lot of data to get for this project.

As said in the previous post, I'm happy to agree that you didn't dodge. When you show me the answer to the question your dodging. Do you see how someone reasonable could suggest that you dodged the question again in this response?

Even if you only answer the question for the first time here, I'll agree that you didn't dodge the question before (to be nice). Deal?

 

@NorthernBlitz. The ignore button is useful for dealing with pedantic small-minded know-it-alls. Just sayin.

 

This is probably advice I should take.

Did I mention that my wife would probably list stubborn as one of my defining traits?

It's just tough to get lectured about how great someone thinks they are at rhetoric while they're dropping logical fallacies left and right while telling you that you don't know your head from your ass in an argument.

Then when you call them out on it, you get


And


I just keep falling for the self-important idea that maybe if I just show him that he's wrong one more time, he'll admit it.



So on my part, it's almost certainly

https://media1.tenor.com/m/EHlH4rznmGoAAAAC/sheer-****ing-hubris-star-trek.gif

Edited to add: And I can't even get the "sheer ****ing hubris" gif to work! Which is probably a sign...so I'm not going to go back and fix it

 

HA

 

This is perfect!

 

It looks like Dowdle will be good too. I think Warren might be slightly better, but it's probably splitting hairs. They seem to have very similar outcomes.

Hopefully they both have pretty even distributions and both get over 1k total yards...my guess is they both fall short of 1k on the ground if the distribution is fairly even. Wonder if they can both clear something like 800 - 850 yards rushing?

One thing I recently heard was that MM has rarely had a RB distribution that was close to even. Hopefully Warren can break him of this habit like he did Tomlin...I personally think that not going to a RB by committee in today's NFL is a coaching mistake unless you have someone like Henry. We burned out Bell in several seasons because we were so focused on feeding him the ball in the regular season IMO.

 

I’m just going to mention that it crossed my mind “what the heck is wrong with you two don’t you have anything better to do?”

Just saying

 

Yep...this is me when I get too in to this stuff.



I think in the "what happened to the board thread" you (or maybe someone else) said that that being disconnected can be a little bit of a blessing sometimes.

I need to learn to...


Anyway, I'm testing out the ignore feature.