Chris Carson #5 Rushing Leader

[DomeHawk]

Not bad for a guy who had such a rough start. On pace for 1300+ season.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/player

 

[SoulfishHawk]

And his yards after contact is very impressive. Not only is he tough, but he has that incredibly balance. Reminds me of Lynch often.

 

[Maulbert]

Not bad for a guy who had such a rough start. On pace for 1300+ season.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/player

He finished 5th last season, and that was while missing two games.

 

[Boiler]

Something about seeing that list made me remember growing up following the Seahawks in the late 70s, when Sherman Smith was the leading rusher at about 800 yards per year. Carson has that in half a season and we still think he's underperforming.

 

[erik2690]

Don't mean to dog Carson at all b/c he's been great, but total rushing yards is a dumb stat to show his greatness. Using the yards after contact stats or broken tackles stats that he seems high on would be much more impressive. Total yards is so often just a function of more attempts. His yards per carry aren't really very impressive so this stat is basically just saying "we give Carson the second most attempts in the league", the number 1 attempt guy has a way more impressive yards per carry by the way. And again that doesn't mean the guy with more yards is playing better b/c yards is a fairly bad stat, but at least Yards "per" whatever gives you a metric of efficiency rather than volume. Is it more impressive to have 300 yards on 40 carries or 500 yards on 150 carries? That's extreme to illustrate the point. Just to reiterate, Carson has been very good, I believe there are 5 better stats at least to illustrate that though.

 

[niveky]

Don't mean to dog Carson at all b/c he's been great, but total rushing yards is a dumb stat to show his greatness. Using the yards after contact stats or broken tackles stats that he seems high on would be much more impressive. Total yards is so often just a function of more attempts. His yards per carry aren't really very impressive so this stat is basically just saying "we give Carson the second most attempts in the league", the number 1 attempt guy has a way more impressive yards per carry by the way. And again that doesn't mean the guy with more yards is playing better b/c yards is a fairly bad stat, but at least Yards "per" whatever gives you a metric of efficiency rather than volume. Is it more impressive to have 300 yards on 40 carries or 500 yards on 150 carries? That's extreme to illustrate the point. Just to reiterate, Carson has been very good, I believe there are 5 better stats at least to illustrate that though.

I agree on most of what you said but Yards is valid if the yards per carry is at a good level.

 

[sutz]

I'm actually starting to worry that they're using him too much. More than 20 carries/game is starting to hit my preferred ceiling for RBs. You look down the list of great backs, and those who get above 310-320 carries per season start to have increased injury concerns the season after.

Which makes me happy that they got Penny some carries against Atlanta. We need to keep Carson in the games for the long haul, so seeing more of Penny and Prosise is a good thing IMO.

 

[erik2690]

Don't mean to dog Carson at all b/c he's been great, but total rushing yards is a dumb stat to show his greatness. Using the yards after contact stats or broken tackles stats that he seems high on would be much more impressive. Total yards is so often just a function of more attempts. His yards per carry aren't really very impressive so this stat is basically just saying "we give Carson the second most attempts in the league", the number 1 attempt guy has a way more impressive yards per carry by the way. And again that doesn't mean the guy with more yards is playing better b/c yards is a fairly bad stat, but at least Yards "per" whatever gives you a metric of efficiency rather than volume. Is it more impressive to have 300 yards on 40 carries or 500 yards on 150 carries? That's extreme to illustrate the point. Just to reiterate, Carson has been very good, I believe there are 5 better stats at least to illustrate that though.

I agree on most of what you said but Yards is valid if the yards per carry is at a good level.

Sure but at that point the Yards per carry would likely be impressive anyway so it'd still be a kind of redundant stat maybe. I get what you mean though. Sample size matters, as well, obviously I'm not impressed by a high YPC on 20 attempts any more than I'm impressed by a decent total yardage while having the most attempts. It is a balance, but rarely is total yards a good metric w/o accompanying info. Like I said what makes Carson's good numbers likely elevated to great are things like yards after contact and broken tackles. But just saying "he's #5 in yards" is almost reductive when you see he's second in attempts, I think if anything citing his yards underrates him.

 

[AubHawk71]

Stats, schmats.

If you were to look at the top QBs and saw Andy Dalton there at #4, you'd think the Bengals were a contender, not win-less and benching carrot top.

Building on Carson's success (not just relying on it) in the second half (HELLO Josh Gordon?) will be the key to some tough wins on the horizon.

Balance, baby!

Oh, and defense.

 

[KiwiHawk]

Where YPC fails as a stat is that it doesn't care how the yards happen. I would much rather have a guy get 5, 5, 5, 5 than 20,0,0,0, because the first guy got 2 first downs while the second guy got a first then forced his team to punt.

Carson is more the 5, 5, 5, 5 kind of back, like Lynch, that I like. Always moving forward, always falling forward. Probably too slow to be much of a threat for long touchdowns, but if you try to tackle him with one guy, you lose.