FOF Great Debate V: For Running Backs, a Ratio Really Matters

[QuikSand]

FOF Great Debate V: For Running Backs, a Ratio Really Matters

This will be a series of threads designed to provoke debate about a matter in the FOF 8 game, around which there appears to be some uncertainty. We will pose the topic as a statement, and invite your responses to start with either PRO or CON, as you indicate whether you agree, or disagree, with the stated assertion.

Today's statement for debate:

The ratio of Hole Recognition / Elusiveness should be a central component of your RB evaluations. Running backs in FOF have a lengthy series of ratings that seem to connect to useful abilities. Many savvy FOFers have reduced their analysis to a shorter list, maybe three visible bars and one non-visible one. That seems to be a productive way of thinking. But in keeping with some grassy knoll worthy whispers over the years, a deeper insight might lie in the ratio of two potentially offsetting bars: Hole Recognition and Elusiveness. High elusiveness may undermine an otherwise good hit-the-hole back. Instead of looking at bars in isolation, at RB it's definitely worth considering the ratio of these two bars as its own metric...perhaps to help plot your guy onto an Emmitt/Barry matrix, and to help understand why some of these "he has good bars" players don't perform the way we'd hope.


Respond in this thread, please, starting with a clear statement in all caps of your position, PRO or CON.