05-27-2009, 07:04 PM
|
#10
|
|
Living Legend
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 37
Posts: 15,994
|
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
Quote:
Originally Posted by SBXVII
Again, For the first 8 games he was probowl bound. I think he ranked higher then all of them. I guess if people are looking at the whole season (which I guess ya have to) then statistically he's were he should be.
Also here's the statistics:
QB's;
9th-Cutler: threw for 4,526 yrds, 25td's, and 18inter. Rating 86.0
24th-Orton: threw for 2,972 yrds, 18td's, and 12inter. Rating 79.6
26th-Campbell: threw for 3,245 yrds, 18td's, and 6int. Rating 84.3
RB's;
Forte(Bears)-rushed for 1,238, avg-3.9yrds, 8tds.
Portis(Skins)-rushed for 1,487, avg-4.3yrds, 9tds.
then you have Denver who seemed to have RB by commitee;
Selvin Young-303yrds, 1td
Michael Pittman-320yrds, 4tds
Peyton Hillis-343yrds, 5tds
LaMont Jordan-363yrds, 4tds
One could say none of Denvers RB's got over 1,000yds like the other teams or you could say they are better back field wise simply cause they have 4 good RBs plus a plethora of others that had less then 100 yrds.
Speaking of backfield alone as I thought this thread was I would rank the Skins higher. If you are talking about the offense in general then we are probably ranked close but would move us above some of the teams ahead of us.
|
I come from a place where 84 is a higher number than 79, so you should probably help me figure out what stat you are using in your rankings.
I'm aware you aren't out to just disprove the notion that Campbell can ever have success here, but I'm just confused by the fact that you are citing "statistics" without actually telling us what statistic you are using to come up with the rankings.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
|
|
|