Roberts vs Reynolds FOR THE CHAMPIONSHIP OF THE WORLD

I love this part!
We know Joffrey's the best running back in the league, hands down," said guard Taylor Robertson.

"We don't need the numbers to back that up or prove that." :roll:

How about rushing behind a receiving crew that spreads defences like no other in the league, there is more to consider than just yards per carry.

6.0 to 5.3 is better, but not WAY BETTER

off course, that also applies to total yards. You just ripped your own earlier statement

it is not always easy to compare all aspects of a performance at a postition, that is why most just rely on stats. My point is, if you are going to judge just based on stats, the AVG per Carry is way more important than just total yards gained.

In other words, joffry, keith, or anyone else could easily be the best in the league without the rushing title.

Although most members of the media can never understand such a concept. They always pick award winners based on blind total yards stats :roll:

Actually, I just ripped yours but I suppose if your prepared to look at things in a certain light than it doesnt much matter,

LOL…Average yards /carry is NOT as important as total yards.
Do you think that quaterbacks are the best rushers in the league?
When you think of the best recievers, do you think of those that have the most yards/catch?

And lastly, do you really not think that Calgary’s potent pass attack and Winnipeg’s lack of (untill recently) doesn’t have an effect of the yard/carry average?

LOL...Average yards /carry is NOT as important as total yards
that has to be the most ludicrous statement I have seen in a long time. I am so so astonished that anyone would say that. Are you a member of the media??

We are talking rushing yards, your other comments are irrelevant to the point of the topic.

Do QB's not run the ball? Do they not have very good yards/carry stats?
And whether it is rushing or passing we are talking about, your point would apply to both. So I guess you think that Simon is not the best reciever, by your thinking that would have to be Copeland.

By finishing first in rushing or recieving, or passing or what ever stat you want, it shows that you have been consistant for the WHOLE year. Many players can have very good games, or even a few games in a row, but not get the ball for awhile, and end up in the middle of the pack. Are these the best players? I don't think so. The best are the ones that finish on top.

nope. Receiving does not equate to Running.

It is easier for a running QB to get more yardage per carry. As well, they usually do not carry downfield as many times as RBs. Also, when a QB gets sacked, they do not count the negative yardage. Apples to oranges. We are talking about running backs carrying the ball. Not even including their receiving yardage. For purely running the ball, for running backs, average yardage is more important, assuming significant number of carries. Common sense.

As well, they usually do not carry downfield as many times as RBs.

So, are you saying that less carries = more yards? you just blew your theory! :stuck_out_tongue:

And I still don't see how what you are trying to say would not also apply to receiving......

I am not comparing a rb that carries 33 times to a rb that carries 133 times. I have said in almost every post that this is about comparing RB who all have a significant number of carries. Reynold and Roberts are both close in number of Carries compared to many other rbs. That is the point. I did not BLOW anything.

If you cant see how this would not apply to receiving then I cant explain it to you. I dont mean to offend you, I just dont know how to explain it is all.

I understand exactly what you are saying, but it is flawed. Averages do not prove who is better, the end result does.

This is the reason why Simon has already practically wrapped up the MVP by leading the recievers in total yards. Even though Stegall has more yards per game, and Copeland has more yards per catch, this does not matter.

Reynolds is a great back, and I think it is quite hard for anyone to say one is better than the other. But to say that Reynolds is better based solely on yards/carry is just silly.

OK, let me try one more time to be clear. I am not assuming that either one of them is the best back in the league. I have been argueing against the comment that only the one with the most yards can claim to be the best. I am saying that if you are going to use just one single stat to claim one is the best, then the one with them best yards average ( of those with significant carries) has the more valid claim. Let me try to use an exagerated example scenerio.

Lets say that 2 running backs stood out last season.

Running back A got the ball 500 times for a total of 2500 yrds. That be an average of 5 yrds per carry.

Running back B got the ball 400 times for a total of 2400 yrds. That be an average of 6 yrds per carry.

Now, you are an expansion team and you get to draft one of them, which do you take. Based on just those stats, I take B.

Now, you keep trying to bring receivers into it. Well, to me, the receiver who get into position to catch the ball the most in first down territory is the best, providing he also makes the catch.

So, who gets in the open the most. Who makes the best reads. Who is more dependable to catch the ball. Who is clutch. Simon seems to be doing all that. Right now, he is assumed by most to be the best. Maybe he is, and maybe he isnt, but if he is, its not because of the yrds, even if many give it to him for that reason. I bet his teammates dont. I bet his teammates knowbeleive he is the best for other reasons.

...last time i looked ....the RUSHING TITLE was awarded to the player who has the MOST TOTAL YARDS....not the best average....till the CFL changes that...I would think Charlie is considered the better rusher and will be awarded the title.....also.. a lot of people are forgetting ...Blink ran behind a different "o' line every game ...due to Bomber injuries....not the intact one that Calgary had for most of the year...should be lots of fun on Sat. at the ol' stadium... :wink: :lol:

No, I like the idea that the best back has the best average.
KK is clearly number one!!!

Anyway, average is misleading. So is total yards. There are a number of factors that go into making the "best" back.
Even if Charles Roberts gets the rushing title, and he has the extra game, so he should, I would still vote for Reynolds on an MVP ballot this year.
He has simply been the better back this year.
Based on career stats, I would definately take Roberts, however.

Oh yeah, total yards is definitely the way to determine who's the best.

So if you had to start a new team next season, and were allowed to pick literally anyone, I hope you guys would all take Damon Allen at QB. He's got the most total yards, so he must be THE BEST, right? Hell, you could even take him at RB.. he's got more total yards than Roberts, Reynolds, or Kenton Keith.. probably more than two of them put together.

The reason AVG is important is it shows ABILITY. If Reynolds was on Winnipeg, where he would get 30+ touches a game, he would run away with the title.. and don't tell me opposing defences would key on him, because they already do. And don't tell me about Winnipeg's poor Oline, because ours is nothing to brag about either. One thing is true, his average wouldn't be as high.. but he would mop up the league for the rushing title.. for further proof.. watch the game tomorrow.

Well, I guess I'll just disagree with that assessment.
If Roberts was playing for Calgary, with a better o-line, and a much more potent receiving corp, I would anticipate him to have about a 7.0 average and more yardage than he does.
Reynolds, on the other hand would not have a 6.0 yard average with Winnipeg--you say so yourself.
If all you are talking about is talent, which means potential, then KK is clearly the most talented of the 3.
But he is not a better running back than either Roberts or Reynolds.