Marshawn Lynch· Page 5

longtimefan
Registered

13 years ago

I hope Dexter's lengthy post wasn't directed at me. I'm no Lynch-supporter, I merely stated that you can't take out long runs from anyone's YPC, then compare them to someone else while counting their long runs.

"Packers_Finland" wrote:

I agree, but my point was this..

There was a statement that Lynch ran hard ALL day to set up that run

3.5 was his avg B4 the run, so how is that ran hard all day

Packers_Finland
Registered

13 years ago

#42

"longtimefan" wrote:

I agree, but my point was this..

There was a statement that Lynch ran hard ALL day to set up that run

3.5 was his avg B4 the run, so how is that ran hard all day

"Packers_Finland" wrote:

3.5 is a good average for a running back if you take away his longest run.

Both Ravens running backs had good games, but take away their longest runs and they average under 3 yards a carry both.

I'm not saying he had an excellent game, not nearly as good as Starks had. But 3,5 yards without your longest run is a solid game.

This is a placeholder

dhpackr
Registered

13 years ago

#43

turner>grant

So if you meet me Have some courtesy, Have some sympathy, and some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse, Or I'll lay your soul to waste

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

13 years ago

#44

3.5 is not a good average for a running back, period. You want 4.0 or higher for a running back.

Elite running backs have 5.0 or higher throughout the duration of their career.

Rockmolder
Honored Member

13 years ago

#45

3.5 is not a good average for a running back, period. You want 4.0 or higher for a running back.

Elite running backs have 5.0 or higher throughout the duration of their career.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

You have some high standards. Lol. Only 17 RBs in the history of the NFL averaged more than 5.0 yards. A lot of them played in the 40s-60s.

But, of course, coming from you, this is a bit of slobbering on Sanders' balls. Lol. :geek:

Dexter_Sinister
Registered

13 years ago

#46

"Packers_Finland" wrote:

I agree, but my point was this..

There was a statement that Lynch ran hard ALL day to set up that run

3.5 was his avg B4 the run, so how is that ran hard all day

"longtimefan" wrote:

"Packers_Finland" wrote:

Take away Starks biggest run for the game against the eagles and he is still about 4.5 ypc.

A 3.5 per is not a good average. It is minimally adaquate. Up until that run, he was not doing very good for the entire year. That was my original comment. That one run doesn't change that fact. It isn't taking out the longest run for every game. It is just saying that up until one last run, Lynch pretty much sucked the whole year.

I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

13 years ago

#47

3.5 is not a good average for a running back, period. You want 4.0 or higher for a running back.

Elite running backs have 5.0 or higher throughout the duration of their career.

"Rockmolder" wrote:

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

haha, was wondering if anyone would catch that. :)

I do feel the pecking order goes as follows, average, good, great, elite. I don't think there were that many elite running backs. I do think there were a lot of good and great running backs.

So to be elite, yes, I have high standards because I feel elite is just that, a high standard.

Dexter_Sinister
Registered

13 years ago

#48

turner>grant

"dhpackr" wrote:

This year he was.

I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.

Rockmolder
Honored Member

13 years ago

#49

3.5 is not a good average for a running back, period. You want 4.0 or higher for a running back.

Elite running backs have 5.0 or higher throughout the duration of their career.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

"Rockmolder" wrote:

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

Of course, but would you really try to tell me that players like O.J. Simpson, Eric Dickerson, Walter Payton and Earl Campbell weren't elite players?

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

13 years ago

#50

Of course, but would you really try to tell me that players like O.J. Simpson, Eric Dickerson, Walter Payton and Earl Campbell weren't elite players?

"Rockmolder" wrote:

If you're implying that I'm narrow minded and think that the only determination of a good, great, elite, etc running back is predicated on yards per carry, please, rip your nuts off and eat them with oatmeal. I want to see proof on

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

beast (8h) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁

beast (16h) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game

packerfanoutwest (21h) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (23h) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th

beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (23-Dec) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I literally just said it.

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS