TST: Bleacher Report's Top Ten RB's By Team - No Rams?

[Prime Time]

http://www.turfshowtimes.com/2016/5...-bleacher-report-los-angeles-rams-todd-gurley

Rams RBs, Todd Gurley, Don't Make Bleacher Report's Top 10 NFL Backfields
By 3k  @3k_ on May 23, 2016

Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images

Is Todd Gurley being underrated in year 2? Are the Rams holding him back?

Let's get the lede out of the way.

Russell Baxter, a featured columnist over at Bleacher Report, ranked his top 10 RB groups from across the NFL. The Rams, and reigning offense rookie of the year Todd Gurley, didn't make the cut. Not only that, the Rams didn't feature in the three "bubble" teams that didn't make his cut meaning the best the Rams could have featured was 14th.

For the sake of reference, here are his top 10 (rankings in 2015 rushing yards in parentheses):

1. New York Jets (10th)
2. Dallas Cowboys (9th)
3. Buffalo Bills (1st)
4. Carolina Panthers (2nd)
5. Kansas City Chiefs (6th)
6. Pittsburgh Steelers (16th)
7. Minnesota Vikings (4th)
8. Denver Broncos (17th)
9. Green Bay Packers (12th)
10. Arizona Cardinals (8th)

Baxter's three teams that just missed the cut? The Tennessee Titans(25th), Tampa Bay Buccaneers (5th) and Cincinnati Bengals (13th).

The only top 10 teams from 2015's team rushing totals not to make his list? The Seattle Seahawks, who lost Marshawn Lynch to retirement, and the Los Angeles Rams.

On one hand, perhaps you can chalk this up to the Rams being one of the least visible teams among national media in the last decade until this offseason's relocation to Los Angeles from St. Louis. Being overlooked or perhaps forgotten in pieces like this is something Rams fans should be used to. The idea that national writers haven't watched a ton of Rams football isn't just a notional idea. And it's hard to argue they should have spent their time otherwise.

On the other hand...this is a difficult ranking to justify. The Rams finished seventh in the NFL in total rushing yards and that was without the benefit of a QB padding those stats. And Just Todd Gurley...for all my misgivings about the selection of Gurley itself, I think he's a good running back with a ton of potential.

I think the problem here is twofold.

One, the Rams are the Rams. I'm clearly biased, but I'd think a group of Todd Gurley, Tre Mason and Benny Cunningham would place on this list were they on a different team. Consider the opposite true when looking at the Dallas Cowboys who placed second on Baxter's list with a rookie RB in Ezekiel Elliott with capable backups in Darren McFadden and Alfred Morris.

The difference between the Cowboys at 2nd and the Rams being unranked is only partially on talent; clearly the other component is the bias (and I'd argue it's closer to a fair bias than an unfair one) against the franchises themselves.

The other problem is projecting Gurley not just for 2016, but with the Rams as a whole.

There was a great piece late last week from the inimitable @FantasyDouche over at RotoViz late last week that portended a regression for Gurley this upcoming season. It's stat-heavy, but well-researched. And it only hints at perhaps the biggest bias from inside the Rams bubble that's begging to burst: overinflating Gurley's 2015 season.

Again, I don't have any real gripe in terms of Gurley as an individual talent, but look at the gaps in his production in 2015 (which I'd argue you can fairly assign part if not much of the responsibility for that on his surroundings).

Throwing out the Steelers game, Gurley had five games of 100+ yards and seven under that mark. Going off of yards per carry, in those five big games he averaged 5.3 yards per or higher; in the seven other games, it was 4.6 or lower. In fact, Gurley had three games in which he averaged less than three yards per carry.

Volume was an issue as well. Gurley had two games late in the season in which he only carried the ball nine times in each game for just 60 yards between the two; no surprise that the Rams lost those two games by a combined score of 10-58.

That's the real risk confronting the Rams' rushing attack and why you could mount a defense of Baxter's rankings.

It's uncomfortable, but it just might be accurate.

 

[RamsJunkie]

BSalm::jerkoff:

 

[DaveFan'51]

this is a difficult ranking to justify. The Rams finished seventh in the NFL in total rushing yards and that was without the benefit of a QB padding those stats

a group of Todd Gurley, Tre Mason and Benny Cunningham would place on this list were they on a different team. Consider the opposite true when looking at the Dallas Cowboys who placed second on Baxter's list with a rookie RB in Ezekiel Elliott with capable backups in Darren McFadden and Alfred Morris.

The Rams, and reigning offense rookie of the year Todd Gurley, didn't make the cut. Not only that, the Rams didn't feature in the three "bubble" teams that didn't make his cut meaning the best the Rams could have featured was 14th.

Just considering these three points, "A person with an ounce of Brains has to go WTF!!" R-E-D-I-C-U-L-O-U-S!!! And Gurley was 3rd in the League in rush yards, IF I'm not mistaken!! L-U-D-I-C-R-O-U-S!! :seizure:

 

[Roman Snow]

I prefer it this way. Underestimate us. List the J E T S Jets first. The Cowboys, in all fairness, have a proven O-line. Ours is yet not proven, though we biased ROD members know better.

The Rams have a lot to prove. Let's strap it on boys! ball:

 

[dieterbrock]

I would have respected the list if Minnesota wasn't on it either.
Take the #1 RB of the teams and how good is the running game?

 

[OntarioRam]

No way Gurley backed by Mason and Cunningham is outside the top 10. Oh well. As Roman Snow said, it's better this way. Let teams and fans underestimate us at their own peril.

 

[Legatron4]

Yeah, as soon as articles like this don't mention Tavon Austin(he IS a RB for us too), I stop reading it. Todd Gurley will be better then Adrian Peterson this year. I can guarantee it. But yeah, please underestimate us.

 

[-X-]

 

[Fatbot]

Ok, the article the guy is reviewing is from Bleacher Report so it's a pretty silly waste of time to even discuss it, but since it's even worse to compound it with some bad points, I can't resist:

clearly the other component is the bias (and I'd argue it's closer to a fair bias than an unfair one) against the franchises themselves

Fair bias? Uh, oxymoron much? No, I get what he's saying -- it's that the Rams have not earned respect, and that's fine. But justifying Bleacher Report's constant unprofessional bias on any level is wrong. The article states it's examining "which clubs have the most talent at RB", not "which clubs that we like have the most talent at RB", so it fails, no excuses.

There was a great piece late last week from the inimitable @FantasyDouche over at RotoViz late last week that portended a regression for Gurley this upcoming season.

Far be it for me to question the legitimacy of the renowned "FantasyDouche", but that might be an even worse article because it has the false air of legitimacy the 'Douche tries to fake with "well-researched stats" to prove Gurley will suck -- er, regress. Everyone else knows context is king, and every major variable that contributes to why a RB will succeed is actually pointing up -- new QB, new staff added to bring some new offense, and most important experience on the OL with hopefully less injury.

 

[Rams43]

You can't fix stupid...

I have no further comment about this author.

 

[NateDawg122]

First of all, BR is a joke and has been for a long time now. It's just click-bait articles aimed at fans who don't know a whole lot. Every once in a whole they'll come up with a great article but it's rare.

Secondly, I fail to see how the Rams could possibly be off this list. I would take Gurley alone over the entire Panthers backfield. We were 7th in rushing last year and that was with Gurley only really playing 12 games. Also, the Cardinals should be a lot higher.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

The Author is probably a Niner fan.

The Rams will show this guy how dumb this year.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

How is Green Bay on that list at all? Their running game was not good last year. Lacy came in heavy and was not affective in the early going and Starks is hot and cold.

 

[tempests]

300+ reader comments on that BR article and no one asked about the Rams, that I could see.

This guy had been responding to the comments and explaining his reasoning so I asked about them. Will see if I get an answer.

 

[Rambitious1]

http://www.turfshowtimes.com/2016/5...-bleacher-report-los-angeles-rams-todd-gurley

Rams RBs, Todd Gurley, Don't Make Bleacher Report's Top 10 NFL Backfields
By 3k  @3k_ on May 23, 2016

Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images

Is Todd Gurley being underrated in year 2? Are the Rams holding him back?

Let's get the lede out of the way.

Russell Baxter, a featured columnist over at Bleacher Report, ranked his top 10 RB groups from across the NFL. The Rams, and reigning offense rookie of the year Todd Gurley, didn't make the cut. Not only that, the Rams didn't feature in the three "bubble" teams that didn't make his cut meaning the best the Rams could have featured was 14th.

For the sake of reference, here are his top 10 (rankings in 2015 rushing yards in parentheses):

1. New York Jets (10th)
2. Dallas Cowboys (9th)
3. Buffalo Bills (1st)
4. Carolina Panthers (2nd)
5. Kansas City Chiefs (6th)
6. Pittsburgh Steelers (16th)
7. Minnesota Vikings (4th)
8. Denver Broncos (17th)
9. Green Bay Packers (12th)
10. Arizona Cardinals (8th)

Baxter's three teams that just missed the cut? The Tennessee Titans(25th), Tampa Bay Buccaneers (5th) and Cincinnati Bengals (13th).

The only top 10 teams from 2015's team rushing totals not to make his list? The Seattle Seahawks, who lost Marshawn Lynch to retirement, and the Los Angeles Rams.

On one hand, perhaps you can chalk this up to the Rams being one of the least visible teams among national media in the last decade until this offseason's relocation to Los Angeles from St. Louis. Being overlooked or perhaps forgotten in pieces like this is something Rams fans should be used to. The idea that national writers haven't watched a ton of Rams football isn't just a notional idea. And it's hard to argue they should have spent their time otherwise.

On the other hand...this is a difficult ranking to justify. The Rams finished seventh in the NFL in total rushing yards and that was without the benefit of a QB padding those stats. And Just Todd Gurley...for all my misgivings about the selection of Gurley itself, I think he's a good running back with a ton of potential.

I think the problem here is twofold.

One, the Rams are the Rams. I'm clearly biased, but I'd think a group of Todd Gurley, Tre Mason and Benny Cunningham would place on this list were they on a different team. Consider the opposite true when looking at the Dallas Cowboys who placed second on Baxter's list with a rookie RB in Ezekiel Elliott with capable backups in Darren McFadden and Alfred Morris.

The difference between the Cowboys at 2nd and the Rams being unranked is only partially on talent; clearly the other component is the bias (and I'd argue it's closer to a fair bias than an unfair one) against the franchises themselves.

The other problem is projecting Gurley not just for 2016, but with the Rams as a whole.

There was a great piece late last week from the inimitable @FantasyDouche over at RotoViz late last week that portended a regression for Gurley this upcoming season. It's stat-heavy, but well-researched. And it only hints at perhaps the biggest bias from inside the Rams bubble that's begging to burst: overinflating Gurley's 2015 season.

Again, I don't have any real gripe in terms of Gurley as an individual talent, but look at the gaps in his production in 2015 (which I'd argue you can fairly assign part if not much of the responsibility for that on his surroundings).

Throwing out the Steelers game, Gurley had five games of 100+ yards and seven under that mark. Going off of yards per carry, in those five big games he averaged 5.3 yards per or higher; in the seven other games, it was 4.6 or lower. In fact, Gurley had three games in which he averaged less than three yards per carry.

Volume was an issue as well. Gurley had two games late in the season in which he only carried the ball nine times in each game for just 60 yards between the two; no surprise that the Rams lost those two games by a combined score of 10-58.

That's the real risk confronting the Rams' rushing attack and why you could mount a defense of Baxter's rankings.

It's uncomfortable, but it just might be accurate.

The writer of this article is...well.....

 

[Prime Time]

First of all, BR is a joke and has been for a long time now. It's just click-bait articles aimed at fans who don't know a whole lot. Every once in a whole they'll come up with a great article but it's rare.

Not everything from that site is bad. Isn't one of our own ROD members a contributor there? There used to be an ex-NFL player who wrote extremely analytical and interesting articles for BR but seems to have dropped from sight.

http://deadspin.com/5948516/bleache...ne-bleacher-report-would-write-for-this-story

"Bleacher Report Is The Worst Thing In The History Of Journalism" Is The Headline Bleacher Report Would Write For This Story
By Tom Ley

The SF Weekly just published a massive piece about the Borg-like rise of Bleacher Report, and it is a doozy. The Weekly's Joe Eskenazi talked to a host of former and current writers, editors, and columnists to try and figure out how Bleacher Report became the third-most-read sports site in the world, a valuable enough property that Turner was willing to pay $175 million for it. What he discovered is the reductio of journalism's very worst absurdum.

Aside from its legion of unpaid writers running on a legion of hamster wheels, Bleacher Report's greatest strength is its ability to reverse-engineer stories based on data gathered by an "analytics team."

One of the great ironies of Bleacher Report is that a site essentially founded on the mantra "for the fans" operates via an extremely regimented, top-down system. While nearly every major publication now has an SEO maven on board, Bleacher Report employs an entire analytics team to comb through reams of data, determining who wants to read what, and when, at an almost granular level. In this way, the site can determine the ideal times to post certain types of stories — thus meeting a demand that doesn't yet exist, but will.

Reverse-engineering content to fit a pre-written headline is a Bleacher Report staple. "The analytics team basically says, 'Hey, we think this is going to be trending, these eight to 10 terms will be trending in the next couple of days,'" says a former editor for the site. "We say thank you, and we as editors come up with the headlines and pass those on to writers to write the content."

The data beget the headlines beget the ideas. The market is your editor-in-chief now, to a degree that not even the crassest tabloid (and we'll include ourselves in there) would consider.

And about those headlines: They are misleading by design, Eskenazi writes.

One of Bleacher Report's top-five strategies for up-and-comers is to pen "hyperbolic headlines" and "always aim to either overstate or understate your position." As such, "NBA: LeBron James Signs with the Miami Heat," while accurate, is an unacceptable headline. The right take is "LeBron James Signing Makes the Miami Heat the Best Team in NBA History."

Finally, writers are urged to "cater to the masses." "For better or worse, readers love breezy sports-and-culture stories. If you really want to maximize your fanbase, your best bet is to give the people what they want." But, at the same time, don't forget to "beat against the mainstream." The exemplar of contrarian thinking offered within the site's curriculum is a Bleacher Report article titled "Why Tom Brady Is the Most Overrated Quarterback in NFL History."

Eskenazi goes on to explain that the kid who wrote that Tom Brady headline was 19 at the time. He didn't actually believe what he was writing for a second.

But what about Bleacher Report's Lead Writer program? The one that brought in names like Bethlehem Shoals, Dan Levy, and Josh Zerkle and was designed to dramatically raise the quality of the site's content (and perhaps protect its flank against any tweaks to the Google algorithm). How are the lead writers feeling about what they've accomplished? [Update, 10:40 a.m.: See Dan Levy's response at bottom.]

That's the technique generations of bloviating sports scribes have used to stir the pot. But Bleacher Report's lead writers didn't think this is what they were being brought in to do. "Why pay me lots of money to dumb down my content?" asks one. "They could have used unpaid people to do this."

This way, however, Bleacher Report doubles its pleasure by enjoying the cache of employing high-end writers while raking in the hits from low-end material. "They can have it both ways," says one prominent writer. "An unsophisticated sports fan clicks on the story and it validates what he thinks. A sophisticated fan is so angry at the dumb headline, he can't help but hate-click on it." When this writer questioned the length of an assignment, he was told that it was determined by "our computer model."

It's a model that's computing well for Bleacher Report, if not every writer. "I started out being worried that joining up with Bleacher Report would make other people think I'm a fraud and a hack," says one high-level writer. "Now I'm worried I have become that fraud and hack."

That's horrible. Now, all of these things happen to one extent or another in every newsroom in the country. Columnists overstate themselves to get a rise out of people. Editors push lifestyle-page vitamin stories on callow reporters because they think that's what readers want. These things happen in our newsroom, and they happen in SF Weekly's, and they happen in the New York Times's, too.

What's depressing about Bleacher Report is that it's handed its editorial brain wholesale over to the marketplace and reduced the business to its most lamentable impulses. It's like every bad or degrading moment anyone's ever had in journalism, all strung together and turned into machine-certified corporate policy.

Read the entire piece, all 5,000 non-slideshow, non-belisticled, non-algorithm-approved words of it. It is well worth your time.

Update, 10:40 a.m.: Lead writer Dan Levy responds:

I signed up for this knowing my name would be in articles like this, but I vehemently disagree with almost all of what the anonymous "lead writer" said. Did that happen to him/her? I'm not going to call them a liar. But I've had quite the opposite experience and I didn't think it was fair to have my name even tangentially attached.

Update, 11:40 a.m.: Lead writer Josh Zerkle responds:

 

[Roman Snow]

It's ok. @x stole this dudes lunch pail in the media cafeteria.

 

[Faceplant]

Meh, not too upset about this. The Rams haven;t earned any respect yet. Gurley had a good rookie season, but I think you would have to be blind not to have season gaps in his game as well. OL will need to be a lot better for him to have another season like that with a rookie QB. This team is still a year away from what I can tell.

 

[Ramrasta]

Somehow Denver is there when they spent most of the year struggling to run the ball and finished in the bottom half of the league in rushing? Ok, I guess you win the Super Bowl and you are automatically on the list...

 

[LosAngelesRams]

Fuck Bleacher Report.