Talk:LaDainian Tomlinson

Under "Records" someone wrote: "On November 26, 2006, in a Chargers' comeback win over the Oakland Raiders, LaDainian Tomlinson broke his own record for most touchdowns scored in a five game span (15) with 16 TDs (14 rushing, 2 receiving). He also became the 7th player in NFL history to pass, rush, and receive for a touchdown in the same game. In his career, he has thrown for 6 touchdowns without an interception, and his QB rating is in the low 150's (a 'perfect' rating being 158.3). "

The first sentence is good and belongs under Records. The second sentence is false, on 11/26/06, he rushed for 2 TDs and passed (to Antonio Gates) for 1 TD; he didn't receive a touchdown in that game (it was a previous game in which he did all 3). And this does not belong under Records, but under Trivia. The 3rd sentence also belongs under trivia. I'll make those changes, please feel free to comment if you object.

Under the "Records" section someone wrote "Tomlinson has lead the league in rushing attempts every year of his career." This is not true. His league rank in rushing attempts in each of his first 4 seasons is:

2001 - Rank 3rd.

2002 - Rank 2nd.

2003 - Ranks not even in top 10 (despite being 3rd highest rushing yards in NFL that year).

2004 - Rank 6th.

2005 - Rank 5th.

In fact, LT has NEVER lead the league in rush attempts in a season. Your implication that he will burn out just like Eric Dickerson or Earl Campbell is not true. In fact, Marty Schottenheimer has LT on a pitch count to avoid just that. Therefore, I am removing the statement above.

I believe LT has led the league in "touches" per season, but I have not been able to find a site where I can easily look up this statistic.

Can anyone add a description of LT's signature move after a touchdown, when he puts his left hand behind his head and flips the football out of his outstretched right hand?

why do we have to criticize a short man but short people make the best impact in almost every sport.with emmitt smith paving the way for short RB "LT" followed after.

I think that Tomlinson has answered any questions about his "elite" status. The man will be the fastest player to reach 100 touchdowns and has scored 15 TDs over the last 3 games. Any debate over his ability at this point is simply irrelevant.

It needs a better source like an external link or at least the magazine issue and the page number, please see WP:CITE. Anyways one scout that says that he is declining really doesn't mean anything. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not one scout. It is several scouts.--TheTruth2 06:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It still needs a more valid source per WP:CITE like an external link or the magazine issue and page number. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

--TheTruth2 19:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)it does.

It only has the magazine, it needs the issue and the page number, otherwise it's not

sourced correctly, and a external link is easy to find on this. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no external link. I have listed the magazine and issue as well as the page number. As was reported in Pro Football weekly 2006 page 101 preview--TheTruth2 19:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"YPC" Statistic Under 60%?

Tomlinson has been held to less than 4 YPC in 45 51 his 89 regular season games: that equals 57.3%. 57.3% is less than 60%, and therefore the statistic listed under the facts section is incorrect.

It is 51 out of 89 It is 57.3 01 11 out of 16 02 10 out of 16 03 7 out of 16 04 10 out of 15 05 9 out of 16 06 4 out of 11

---

06: 4 out of 8 now. So 51 out of 88 is 58%. As a sign of willingness to end this editing conflict over maintaining factual accuracy I will not change the stat 60%. I have added a line that I hope will stop you and others from continually reverting this edit back and forth and also maintain neutrality (which I find ridiculous, since this is not a controversial figure). I removed your line about receiving average. Rotoworld is not a credited sports statistic site such a espn.com, cbssportsline.com, pro-football-reference.com or nfl.com. Additionally, I could find nothing about the topic you allege rotoworld discusses at the actual site. The stat is petty, unnecessary and overtly negative. It is out of place and encourage others to change it. Please leave it as is and I will leave your 60% YPC as it is, unless of course it falls under 50%. This is my attempt at a compromise. I sincerely hope you accept it.

For what its worth, I was the one who added the Rotoworld link, as it provided verifiability for a certain other editor who was convinced that 7.1 yards per catch was LOW for an NFL RB. Rototimes.com uses that same stats as NFL.COM, Associated Press, and every other sport media outlet, I only chose Rototimes because their site allows for easy filtering of statistics. The Footballoutsiders.com link was what another editor added to support one of his edits. In any case, it all falls under OR and could easily be removed as far as I'm concerned.---Jackel 14:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand football or the running back position if you think LT's 7.1 YPC is worth mentioning - I think someone who is an expert on this should come in and clear this up if you are going to be so adamant about it.

The stat you keep adding to the trivia section about LT's YPC being under 4 is irrelevant. LT is simply the best back in the league and a duel threat. The emphasis should be on total yards from scrimage rather than something like YPC.

I removed the whole line with "Tomlinson has averaged more than 4 YPC in his career and less than 4 YPC in nearly 60% of his games." This contradicts itself and I don't know whether the article speaks of yards per catch or yards per carry; nor do I care enough to try and sort it out myself. JaderVason 20:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I updated the "YPC" statistic through the Oakland game this year, and added a comparison to Emmitt Smith for the same statistic. Let me know what you think. 12/2/06.

Stop trying to water down this man's accomplishments with overtly negative statistics that you keep adding about his rushing and reciving numbers.

• Well, I think we can all congratulate TheTruth2 on attempting to source his information, albeit at the eighth or ninth time of asking. The trouble is that the sources and his use of statistics are invalid, or so badly misrepresented here as to be invalid. The first link, to footballoutsiders.com, leads to a page with fifteen to twenty stories, none of which have Tomlinson in the headline.

The second article leads to a statistical study which presents only Tomlinson's statistics for the 2002 season, and applies only to running backs who lead their team in both rushes and receptions. Since Tomlinson does not lead his team in receptions this year (2006: 53 receptions to Antonio Gates' 65 through 15 weeks); did not lead his team in receptions last year (2005: 51 receptions to Gates' 89); nor the year before that (2004: 53 receptions to Gates' 81), the statistic as presented here is at best misleading, and at worst entirely irrelevant.

(Source: San Diego Chargers Team Statistics)

There is still no citation for the statistic that Tomlinson has rushed for less than 4 yards per carry in 55% of his starts, and as such it should be removed. Even if true, it's totally out of context; it neglects to mention that Tomlinson played on some pretty bad Chargers teams early in his career. On the outstanding 2006 Chargers team, Tomlinson has averaged more than 4 yards per carry in 9 of 15 games thus far this season. (Ladainian Tomlinson's Game Log) Furthermore, without any comparison to similar statistics for other running backs, such a stat provides no useful metric for evaluating Tomlinson's quality or effectiveness. 71.135.103.140 00:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

A few weeks back, I tried to add a comparison to another relevant player (Emmitt Smith). TheTruth2 kept deleting it, because he is insistent on stating his YPC statistic in only the way he wants to state it, with no comparison. So I will add it again, let's see how long it lasts on the main page. I would agree with removing altogether this ridiculous statistic of "number of games with yards per carry less than 4.0." However, TheTruth2 seems insistent upon keeping this statistic in the Wiki article, so let us at least be accurate about it. The relevant statistic is as follows:

Number of games with Yards per Carry (YPC) less than 4.0:

LaDainian Tomlinson = 51 out of 93 = 54.8%

Emmitt Smith = 81 out of 149 = 54.4%

Or putting it another way:

Number of games with Yards per Carry (YPC) MORE than 4.0:

LaDainian Tomlinson = 42 out of 93 = 45.2%

Emmitt Smith = 68 out of 149 = 45.6%

--Chargerfan411 05:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that statistic would ever be relevant to an article. As I recall, 4.0 yards/carry is commonly percieved as a good benchmark for running backs. However, that's as a game or season average. All running backs have good games and bad games, and yards per carry is obviously a flawed way to look at running back performance. (Obvious example? A 1 yard touchdown run will lower a running back's yards per carry, but it's as succesful as a play could possibly be.)

Therefore, I just don't see that "percentage of games over 4 yards per carry" as being an at all relevant statistic. American football lends itself well to statistical analysis, and there are several advanced statistics which can be used to analyze a player's performance (DVOA and DPAR spring immediately to mind.) That said, there's no reason to just put every stat that you can think of in an article- it's, at least in my mind, a biography and guide to a player's career, not a page devoted to statistical analysis of their play. Barnas 20:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

2006 season

under LT's NFL career and accomplishments, this sentence seems out of place and does not belong in an encyclopedic entry: "Also as of December 10, Tomlinson has a lot of all-purpose (combined rushing, receiving, and passing) yards and 34 touchdowns (29 rushing, 3 receiving, and 2 passing)".

who cares if he has a lot??? You can mention how he only needs a few more points to take the record of most points by an NFL player in a single season, but not this junk of a sentence. 14:10, 12 December 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.247.166.29 (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

thats a terrible picture, needs to be changed

Stats

To the user that removed his stats; why did the stats need to be removed? You linked to WP:NOT which had nothing to do with his stats. Not mentioning his stats because it's listed on a different website is not a legitimate reason, you can say that about anything on this page. So his records shouldn't be listed either because they're linked to in the external links? This is puzzling and his stats add much to the article. ++aviper2k7++ 04:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia really website about statistics or general information. Would one really turn to an internet encyclopedia to find up to date statistics about an LT? The Last time I checked, there [[www.ESPN.com ESPN.com], [[NFL.com NFL], Pro-Football-Reference and database football devoted their content to statistics, while Wikipedia offers more encyclopedic approaches to these subjects. Although statistics are useful, it's near pointless as there are specific websites which offer the information. Additionally, removing the section would save page size, editing time, and the occasional stat correction errors [1]. However, if you feel the statistics and records are a must, it wouldn't hurt to make a page devoted to LT's many records, stats, accomplishments, milestones ect - as per Micheal Jordan. --ShadowJester07 05:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A statistic is general information. The Tomlinson article is ranked fourth when you google his name. Someone who is a bit familiar with Wikipedia may prefer that link and read his biography. Part of his career has to do with statistics. He has broken a number of records this year and it is important to include his stats on the year. You could make the statement about any article with any stat then. If it's included in an external link, why include it on encyclopedia? Just because it's listed in an external link, doesn't make it wrong to add the same information. Heck, every article on Wikipedia should have the same information in an external link. And reducing article size is not a valid argument because it takes up a mere six lines. In closing, the stats are in relation to his career in the NFL and are encyclopedic because it adds context and needed information to the article.++aviper2k7++ 05:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Statistics are general information? Can you even prove that people come to Wikipedia to tally up their fantasy leagues points over the three other Google results, of whom the editors of this article “borrow” their information from? Or that people actually even look at the Statistics? For that matter, how exactly do numbers contribute to an article when someone who may not know about football reads this article, and may not understand what are the abbreviations, or norms/standards of the NFL (somewhat relating to making WP accessible to Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible, Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions. At least add some substance to explain it.

Compared to actual text, statistical jargon is seemingly trivial. Numbers alone hardly offer any help to someone who may not know a lot about football, but wants to learn about LT or football Icons. Does it belongs on an encyclopedia? Encarta’s articles for Walter Payton, Michael Jordan, Peyton Manning omit standalone statistics, but instead splice use them as leverage to explain or elaborate on a specific point. --ShadowJester07 15:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)