CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: OrangeAfroMan on June 28, 2018, 08:23:52 PM
-
I messed up and the #20-24 are going longer than 4 days. Doesn't matter much, but whatever.
Have fun with this group, jeeez.
-
Damn, I'll come back later.
-
I did not know that Darren Lewis was sentenced to 27 yrs in federal prison a few years ago.
-
Didn't even give him is old jersey number in years?
-
thought about Freddie, there's a trophy named after him, but...........
went with McDonald - had more fist place Heisman votes than Paul Hornung
-
Rocket was the first player that I tuned in specifically to see.
-
I idolized Rocket Ismail, but Gordon is the most underrated college football player of all time. He'll get his due respect in time, but we've whiffed on him as an audience. His 2014 season is basically a Barry Sanders season, plus he averaged over 8 yards per carry outside of that season for his college career. It's not that he finished 2nd to Mariota for the Heisman, it's that Mariota won in a colossal landslide that shows me Gordon is underrated.
For all his exploits, Ismail only scored 15 TDs his entire career. The threat of him was bigger than the actual production. Gordon had more than that in his first 7 games of his SR season.
-
I sat through the "MELVIN GORDON" game in Madison
just couldn't give him the vote
-
Probably mostly here, but also in person and in other situations, I'm flabbergasted at how often earnest, genuine seeking of knowledge is taken by others as 'trying to prove a point'.
The leaps people make......I just can't.
-
some old folks are cynical
comes from experience
-
Jamaal Charles was so good at Texas, I wished he'd stayed for his final season. Colt McCoy might have gotten to play for a MNC earlier than 2009.
But Charles wasn't the best ever with this number. I don't know if Rocket was, but he's the one that gets my vote.
-
It would be fun to have a website that had "what if" stats for every player who left early. Just a 4th year - an average of their starting seasons - tacked on to see what their stats might have been.
It's easy to do it for one or two players, but to have entire leaderboards would be cool.
-
Jamaal Charles was so good at Texas, I wished he'd stayed for his final season.
he was REALLY good one night in Lincoln - heck, was that just the 4th quarter?
-
It would be fun to have a website that had "what if" stats for every player who left early. Just a 4th year - an average of their starting seasons - tacked on to see what their stats might have been.
It's easy to do it for one or two players, but to have entire leaderboards would be cool.
Yup. The Dawgs had a pretty good team after Herschel, but no passing game at all.
-
I sat through the "MELVIN GORDON" game in Madison
just couldn't give him the vote
So that's just wrong.
Gordon is the best tailback to ever play at Wisconsin and maybe close to the top overall ever, anywhere.
-
The stats back that up. Gordon is tied for the 2nd-best yards per carry average for a career. But here's the thing - all the other guys around him had 250-350 career carries to attain that lofty ypc.....Gordon had over 600 carries.
Now to be fair, that's not up there with the career carries leaders (1000+), but it dwarfs everyone around him in ypc average.
-
A good exercise is looking at career carries leaders and going down the list to find the highest YPC average, then going down and finding the next-highest, then the next, as the number of carries deceases - the law of diminishing returns. I don't know where to draw a line to cut off the sliding scale of optimal performance - maybe there isn't one. It's just fun to discuss.
I'll look at it, conference-by-conference and see what we get. The career carries leader will always be listed first, but then the very next player to have a higher YPC average is next, then so on, until we stop at the YPC leader.
SEC:
994 Walker (UGA) 5.3
785 McFadden (Ark) 5.8
758 Chubb (UGA) 6.3
650 Jackson (Aub) 6.6
390 Fullwood (Aub) 7.2 (Jackson's teammate, actually)
386 F.Jones (Ark) 7.7....and we stop here, as he's the SEC's career leader in YPC.
So somewhere in there, the volume combines with the performance to be of maximal use. But where?
-
B10:
1220 Dayne (Wis) 5.8
924 Griffin (OSU) 6.0
723 D.Robinson (UM) 6.2
631 Gordon (Wis) 7.8........and we're already done.
-
ACC:
881 Lawrence (UNC) 5.0
860 T.Brown (NCST) 5.4
687 Cook (FSU) 6.5
575 Dunn (FSU) 6.9........fin
-
Big XII:
1112 Benson (Tex) 5.0
845 R.Williams (Tex) 6.3
457 V.Young (Tex) 6.8.........all done - young conference.
-
PAC 12 10 8:
1147 C.White (USC) 5.4
947 Freeman (Ore) 5.9
771 James (Ore) 6.6
433 Bush (USC) 7.3
403 Love (Stan) 7.8........x
-
SWC:
1091 Cobb (Rice) 4.5
909 Lewis (A&M) 5.5
790 Dickerson (SMU) 5.6
765 Campbell (Tex) 5.8
635 Dupard (SMU) 5.9
493 K.Davis (TCU) 6.1
395 Weatherspoon (Hou) 8.2............x
-
Big 8:
956 T.Thomas (OKST) 5.1
871 T.Miller (OKST) 5.5
699 Bieniemy (CU) 5.6
668 Rozier (Neb) 7.2
393 Pruitt (OU) 7.5..............x
-
1023 Cobourne (WV) 4.9
910 Rice (Rut) 5.4
728 Devine (WV) 5.9
684 P.White (WV) 6.5.............x
-
Independents (while they were IND, since 1956):
1163 Dorsett (Pitt) 5.6
624 G.Allen (FSU) 6.0
553 M.Morris (W.Tex.A&M) 6.4
480 J.Adams (ND) 6.7....................x
Idk what kind of program West Texas A&M had, but since it's a guy I've heard of (Mercury Morris), I included him.
-
Taking from the lists, and noting the leader at every 100 carry benchmark:
1000+ Dayne, WIS (5.8)
900+ Griffin, OSU (6.0)
800+ Williams, TEX (6.3)
700+ L.James ORE (6.6)
600+ Gordon WIS (7.8)
500+ Gordon WIS (7.8)
400+ Love STAN ties Gordon, but Gordon has more carries. We'll see what he does this coming season.
300+ Weatherspoon (HOU) 8.2
*Gordon is the only repeat name on the list, and with only one guy tying him, no one surpasses his YPC for 300 carries, which is nuts.
*Also of note, look at how the YPC increases when you go down 100 carries - 0.2, 0.3, 0.3, 1.2, 0.4. Gordon's increase is 4x the average of the other benchmarks. There is a very good statistical case for Gordon as the best ever.
-
Big 8:
668 Rozier (Neb) 7.2
393 Pruitt (OU) 7.5..............x
too bad many Husker and Sooner backs didn't play the 4th quarter or even the 2nd half in many games
-
Would have been great had Gordon played in the 4th against UNL that one time... Probably could have passed the 500 yard mark that day.
-
Would have been great had Gordon played in the 4th against UNL that one time... Probably could have passed the 500 yard mark that day.
no.. it wouldn't have been great....
-
I voted Rocket. Gordon and Charles were great backs and both I considered. Rocket was a non husker I followed when I was younger. I remember him as magic on the field...
-
I take the stats for any back over the past 10-15 years with some skepticism. For one, tackling in the college game has gone to utter and complete shit. Second, running from spread sets has been a gamechanger...looking at nationwide averages, the number of rushing attempts is per game is at all-time lows, while YPC averages are at all-time highs. Guys are running through space instead of into weighted fronts.
What somebody like Simms, Rozier, Sanders, Dorsett et al would have accomplished under those circumstances is only a guess, but its a good bet their YPC numbers would be higher.
-
Your first point is jut an assertion. If you go look at old-school videos, the tackling was shit back then, too.
Secondly, Wisconsin isn't known for it's spread formations, is it? lol
Actually, your overall point is very true, which is why Weatherspoon is at 8.2 ypc - Houston was running the run-and-shoot, probably facing 7-8 guys dropping back in coverage every play to defend Ware and the passing game. So that was a type of preview into more modern-day spread running games, a la West Virignia and Urban Meyer, etc.
-
too bad many Husker and Sooner backs didn't play the 4th quarter or even the 2nd half in many games
That kept their YPC averages high, then. More carries = lower YPC
-
I voted Rocket. Gordon and Charles were great backs and both I considered. Rocket was a non husker I followed when I was younger. I remember him as magic on the field...
I remember the "phantom clip" that saved Colorado's MNC. (But I voted for Gordon.)
-
That's the over-the-top moment Ismail became a legend in my eyes - the announcers just assuming CU wouldn't kick to him...then they do....game is ending. He's skinny and someone grabs him, but then he springs free and takes it to the house. Most epic, clutch moment possible......but then there's laundry on the field.
The thing about that, I didn't care about ND, so I didn't care about the win. It was like a major fact being revealed in a courtroom, but then the jury being told to strike it......ehhh, no, I saw it happen, so it's real, lol.
-
Another way to look at it this (re Gordon) is how his teammates were doing at the same time. He was only the feature back his senior season. He shared carries with Ball (the #1) and White his freshman and sophomore seasons (Ball or Ball and White were the feature backs), with White and Clement his junior season (Gordon and White were evenly split as the main backs--White had a handful more carries than Gordon), and with Clement and Ogunbawale his senior year (the only season he was truly Wisconsin's feature back). On the one hand, why wasn't he the feature back sooner if he was that good? On the other hand, because Ball was (and may be again) and White is still an NFL back, so no slouches themselves.
His 8 ypc his senior year were significantly better than Clement and Ogunbawale (the latter being a frosh, I think, so best not to read too much into that), more than a yard per carry better than White his junior year (with approximately the same number of carries), way better than Ball and White his sophomore season (at 10 ypc, but on way fewer carries than either of those guys--Ball was at 5.1 as the feature back, white was at 6.4), and as a frosh--unsurprisingly--he was about average for the team.
Wisconsin backs get dinged for being "system" backs because Wisconsin typically has beastly offensive lines that open big holes. No question Badger backs--and Gordon--benefit from that. On the other hand, Gordon's production was substantially better than his Badger peers, both over his career--which included other professional-level Badger backs--and relative to other Badgers who had similarly dominant offensive lines (think the Ball/White/Clay years).
Gordon was really, really good. Best #25 ever? I voted for him, but there are a lot of good options.
-
That kept their YPC averages high, then. More carries = lower YPC
nope, defenses were worn down and the YPC actually went up, their backups proved it.
I'm saying
668 Rozier (Neb) 7.2
could have been easily over 700 carries and stayed above 7 ypc, if Rozier hadn't been a JUCO, perhaps over 800 carries with the plus 7 YPC average
those O-lines in 1981, 82, 83 were dominant.
-
I remember the "phantom clip" that saved Colorado's MNC. (But I voted for Gordon.)
I still don't think it was a bad call. It just sucks that it negated probably the greatest return in football history accounting for degree of difficulty and importance of the game/moment
-
It was a questionable call. I mean that in the true meaning of the word--fans for either side could complain about it if it went against them and would have a decent argument. To me it looks like the block is to the player's side, but there's an argument that it was from behind his shoulder. I'm sure Colorado fans take the opposite view. And it may not have changed the outcome of the play, but without that block, the Colorado player has a much better shot at the tackle.
To me, stopping the play at the moment right before the block, from the TV angle, it looks like the Notre Dame player is a hair ahead of the Colorado player and makes a clean block to his side. But I'm not unbiased. At :40-41 in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqC_Br3cDJg
-
I agree with that. I actually went and rewatched it before making my post, to make sure my recollection was correct. As you said that replay angle makes it look like a worse call than live. Live it seems like an easy call, but the direction he falls makes it so. Not that he was diving, but it's weird, given the angle the Irish player comes in at, for him to fall straight forward like that.
-
If you know football and you're looking for it, it looks clean. But the refs are looking at 20 different things and as a flash in your peripheral vision and the way he landed, it looks like a clip.
I just love the ND guy downfield as Rocket passes the kicker totally not worrying about blocking either of the 2 Buffs near him, he knows Ismail is gone, lol.
-
nope, defenses were worn down and the YPC actually went up, their backups proved it.
I'm saying
668 Rozier (Neb) 7.2
could have been easily over 700 carries and stayed above 7 ypc, if Rozier hadn't been a JUCO, perhaps over 800 carries with the plus 7 YPC average
those O-lines in 1981, 82, 83 were dominant.
Fearless, you're not understanding. Their backups having higher YPC averages proves my point. They attained those in far fewer carries. If you saddle any starting RB with 100 more carries in a season, his YPC average will decrease - it's simple statistics. Yes, even against worn-down defenses. The RBs themselves are more worn-down with more carries. That's why they have backups.
For carries (as with all things) - the greater the sample size grows, the more there is regression to the mean.
-
Your first point is jut an assertion. If you go look at old-school videos, the tackling was shit back then, too.
Secondly, Wisconsin isn't known for it's spread formations, is it? lol
Actually, your overall point is very true, which is why Weatherspoon is at 8.2 ypc - Houston was running the run-and-shoot, probably facing 7-8 guys dropping back in coverage every play to defend Ware and the passing game. So that was a type of preview into more modern-day spread running games, a la West Virignia and Urban Meyer, etc.
It is an assertion, but one that is pretty much universally held in the coaching ranks. The constant stream of ejections for what used to be considered fair hits lends additional credence, but YMMV.
Additionally, I would note that if you watch them play its apparent that Wisco uses plentiful numbers of 1-back and shotgun formations, like most everybody else. They lean on the FB lead plays more than most to be sure, but days of Wisco making its living off Ron Dayne on the OZ pitch from 12/21P are long gone. The Badgerz offense is fairly multiple these days.
This isn’t a knock on Melvin or J Taylor or anybody else, but just a nod to the obvious; the game has changed substantially since many of the backs on your list were toting the rock for their respective schools. Receivers from the 60s no doubt live in envy of Tim Brown or Desmond Howard’s now-archaic reception numbers!
-
Fearless, you're not understanding. Their backups having higher YPC averages proves my point. They attained those in far fewer carries. If you saddle any starting RB with 100 more carries in a season, his YPC average will decrease - it's simple statistics. Yes, even against worn-down defenses. The RBs themselves are more worn-down with more carries. That's why they have backups.
For carries (as with all things) - the greater the sample size grows, the more there is regression to the mean.
But I'm not sure that's entirely true. There's also usage. Not just how much a player is used, but HOW they are used.
The COP (change of pace) back often has higher ypc than your workhorse back. Does that mean the COP back is better? Or perhaps that he's used in situations and playcalls that have higher chances of breaking for large gains?
Your typical workhorse back is the player that's going to be used on first down in I formation to get your offense ahead of down-and-distance and create easier 2nd- and 3rd-down playcalls. He's the beast that the defense knows is coming but might STILL not be able to stop before he's rumbled for 5 yards. Oh, and that workhorse back probably has a more stout body to stand up to the punishment of all those carries, so he might be your 210 lb bruiser.
Your COP back might get a lot of usage on 3rd downs. He might get a lot of playcalls running in more obvious passing downs. He might get more reverses and sweeps to get him out onto the edge. He probably gets more indirection plays.
You had Felix Jones there who had the highest SEC average. He was the COP back for Peyton Hillis and Darren McFadden. McFadden was a hell of a running back, but the fact that he got double the carries in the same amount of time (2005-2007) as Jones suggests to me that he was being used in a lot of situations that Jones wouldn't have gotten carries in.
Then Vince Young. He had such a high average not because he had low carries, but because he was running when teams had to account for his ability to throw.
Same with Reggie Bush and LenDale White. White was your bruiser that got the ball on first and second down in obvious run situations. Reggie Bush had less than half the carries and a higher ypc by almost 2 yards. I'm not sure Bush would have excelled running into the middle of the line on 1st down.
When you look at the WVU guys, it's the same thing. Cobourne was the workhorse back. Noel Devine was a sprite that was used in the spread-to-run offense and shared a backfield with Pat White who had the same advantage as Vince Young - teams had account for him throwing so they couldn't entirely defend him running.
I don't think it's as simple as more carries = regression to the mean. I think there's a correlation where more carries is a symptom of being used in a COMPLETELY different way than the back who gets a lot fewer carries.
That's one of Melvin Gordon's strengths. He was able to sustain high ypc despite high usage. His senior year he carried 343 times and still maintained a 7.5 ypc average, despite the fact that he was the workhorse and Clement was the COP guy. That's what was so remarkable.
-
I agree with all of that, but there's only so many of teach carry 'type' to go around. If the COP back gets more workhorse-type carries, his YPC is going to decrease. If the workhorse gets COP-type carries at the expense of his normal carries, his will increase. If the workhorse just gets all the carries, his YPC will decrease, despite the COP-type carries he's getting, because the workload will tire him out.
Don't take my word for it, look at the stats (not just the exceptions, but the middle 99.7%, please).
-
Fearless, you're not understanding. Their backups having higher YPC averages proves my point. They attained those in far fewer carries. If you saddle any starting RB with 100 more carries in a season, his YPC average will decrease - it's simple statistics. Yes, even against worn-down defenses. The RBs themselves are more worn-down with more carries. That's why they have backups.
For carries (as with all things) - the greater the sample size grows, the more there is regression to the mean.
I understand what you're saying
if I follow, then if Rozier would have had fewer carries, his ypc would have been 8 or 9?
if it's simple statistics then why wouldn't the average, be the average, and bear out for more carries?
If Ron Dayne had fewer carries his average would be higher? not sure how that works
so if you take Dayne's frosh, soph, junior and senior season, the season with the least carries should have the highest average and the season with the most carries should produce the lowest average?
so if Rozier would have regressed to the mean, please tell me what Rozier's "mean" was
-
I'm just waiting for this to reach it's inevitable conclusion. Where are we going to find the RB with 1 carry for a 145 yard average? :smiley_confused1:
-
Ron Dayne:
1996: 25 att/game at 6.5 ypc
1997: 20.2 att/game at 5.5 ypc
1998: 24.6 att/game at 5.2 ypc
1999: 28.1 att/game at 6.0 ypc
Mike Rozier: (note: it doesn't tell how many games played)
1981: 151 carries at 6.2 ypc
1982: 242 carries at 7.0 ypc
1983: 275 carries at 7.8 ypc
Cedric Benson:
2001: 18.6 att/game at 4.7 ypc
2002: 23.5 att/game at 4.2 ypc
2003: 21.5 att/game at 5.3 ypc
2004: 27.2 att/game at 5.6 ypc
To put it simply, I'm not exactly seeing a huge correlation here. Dayne's highest average was at ~25 ypc and his lowest average was at ~25 ypc. Rozier seemed to have his average go up with total number of carries, but I can't tell how many games played from Wikipedia. Cedric Benson's worst year for ypc average was his second-highest att/game total, but his highest average was his highest att/game total.
I'm just finding it really difficult to find a correlation here.
I personally find my explanation--workhorse backs get more carries, but they're a different usage style--a lot more credible than the idea that more carries in itself is "statistically" going to force the ypc average down.
-
That's because you just did a 'study' of 3 backs. I'm talking about thousands of backs. And comparing the same back to himself over different seasons isn't really valid because each season is so different. Different roles, different team strengths, etc.
Look at the list of players per 100 carries earlier in the thread. The guy with 1000+ carries has a YPC average. The guy with 900+ carries - his is a little higher. The next guy down, with 800+ carries - his YPC is a little higher.
Now what I look at, when it comes to statistical efficiency, is did the coach give his best RB the ball as much as possible without pulling down his YPC? You look at the backup RB - his YPC is very often higher, as we've previously discussed. Shouldn't the coach give him more carries? Somewhere in there, there's a line where you need to limit your best RB's workload, but giving additional carries to the backup yields no return.
-
Let's take Rozier, since his YPC only went up with addition carries from year to year.
1983 - Rozier has the most carries and a 7.8 ypc. Gill, the QB, is excluded from this, because that's a different position and QB's rushing averages tend to be lower. But UNL had Jeff Smith run the ball and Mark Schellen. One of those might be a FB, but whatever.
Rozier, at 7.8 ypc, should've gotten the ball more. The next 2 RBs averaged 4.9 and 5.6 ypc. So to maximize efficiency, Rozier should've had some of their carries until their YPC averages infalted to around 7.8.
Now we assume players improve over time, at least they're supposed to, but we also know good OL graduate and all that. With a big-enough sample size, that's all a wash. But we're looking at one team here, so I can't control for those right now.
1982 - Rozier has the most carries, with a 7.0 ypc. Backups are Craig at 4.9 and Wilkening? at 5.2. Smith is there, with 56 carries for a 10.2 ypc. I'm certain he only had garbage time carries, and that is a thing, but with that ypc, he should've gotten more carries. Rozier should have as well. Smith, because giving him the ball until his YPC decreased to a number closer to the others would be maximizing efficiency. Rozier because he had the best YPC of the top 3 ball-carriers.
If this is all confusing, I'll try to make some simple, logical statements.
1 - Mike Rozier was Nebraska's best RB in 1982 and 1983.
2 - His YPC alone does not make statement 1 true, but his YPC and his volume (number of carries) does.
3 - With fewer carries, his prominent backups would very likely have had higher YPC averages.
4 - Jeff Smith should have had more carries in '82 and fewer in '83.
The point is, Rozier could've handled 50 more carries, 100 more carries, and his YPC average would've remained higher than his teammates'. That's efficiency.
-
On Dayne:
1996 Wisconsin:
Dayne 325 carries @ 6.5 per rush
McCullough 117 @ 4.6
QB - n/a
Stecker 36 @ 8.1
Dayne was better than McCullough, due to the greater YPC for a greater volume (car). Stecker, with the high YPC and such a small sample size, should've been given more carries unitl that YPC shrank. So if you were to coach the '96 Badgers again, knowing this, you'd split some of McCullough's carries between Dayne and Stecker. If Dayne carried the ball all he could (only came out of the game when he was exhausted), then you'd give them to Stecker until he no longer had a better YPC than McCullough.
Hopefully that was succinct and clear.
-
Taking from the lists, and noting the leader at every 100 carry benchmark:
1000+ Dayne, WIS (5.8)
900+ Griffin, OSU (6.0)
800+ Williams, TEX (6.3)
700+ L.James ORE (6.6)
600+ Gordon WIS (7.8)
500+ Gordon WIS (7.8)
400+ Love STAN ties Gordon, but Gordon has more carries. We'll see what he does this coming season.
300+ Weatherspoon (HOU) 8.2
*Gordon is the only repeat name on the list, and with only one guy tying him, no one surpasses his YPC for 300 carries, which is nuts.
*Also of note, look at how the YPC increases when you go down 100 carries - 0.2, 0.3, 0.3, 1.2, 0.4. Gordon's increase is 4x the average of the other benchmarks. There is a very good statistical case for Gordon as the best ever.
This is what makes Gordon such an outlier (in a good way) - no RBs with a higher YPC at 500+ or 400+ carries. There "should" be, but he was so good, there isn't. Yet, without fail, we find a higher YPC average down at 300+ carries.
And I'll make you a promise - if we looked below 300+ carries, we'd find someone with a YPC over 8.2......because math.
-
And with Rozier....there would be a point in which you'd give him too many carries and his YPC would start to fall. I don't know how many it would take, but it's obviously more than 275. Say you gave him 400 carries in a season - is anyone going to suggest his YPC wouldn't drop?
This is sort of a hidden reason why Herschel Walker is such a "dude" - his 5.3 career YPC isn't anything special. But the carries! He was their entire offense and everyone knew it.
Georgia, in 1980, did a very good job efficiently distributing their RB carries.
Walker had many more than anyone else, at 5.9 YPC.
The backup, Norris, was at 6.3. Those numbers, if close together, should error with the backup minimally having a better YPC, but close.
In 1981, they rode Walker hard - too hard, imo.
Walker had 385 carries @ 4.9 per.
Backup Stewart had only 66 @ 5.8. Walker could've benefited from a few fewer carries.
The following year, they did well, with the backups averaging about a half yard higher than Walker.
The point is, in-season, even if a coach is aware of all this, we can't expect to end the season with 3 RBs of varying ability levels to all have the same YPC. But you don't want a backup getting 7 yards a carry, but only getting a few carries. That's leaving yards on the field. You want to play your backup RBs enough, or as long as their YPC is within the normal range. If it's much higher, they should've gotten more carries. If your workhorse has the highest YPC, keep giving it to him until he doesn't (or it's close to the backup RBs).
-
And with Rozier....there would be a point in which you'd give him too many carries and his YPC would start to fall. I don't know how many it would take, but it's obviously more than 275. Say you gave him 400 carries in a season - is anyone going to suggest his YPC wouldn't drop?
I could make that suggestion based on 2nd halves vs poor teams such as Kansas or others were he averaged over 9 yards per carry but was pulled from the game early because of the huge lead and the risk of injury. If he simply doubles his carries vs weak opponents his average goes up as the number of carries goes up.
for example, 1983 vs Kansas - in the 1st half Rozier had 26 carries for 230 yards 8.8 average, in the 2nd half he added 5 carries for 55 yards - ave 11
I'd bet $$$ the 5 carries and 55 was the first drive out of the locker room. I'd also bet that if Rozier would have had 52 carries total he would have averaged over 9 yards per attempt. But, we'll never know.
there's no possible way of telling what might have happened based on the stats of any of these great backs.
there is also, no possible way of predicting if Melvin Gordon would have averaged more or less than Dayne had they each had the same number of carries. I'd bet on Melvin having the higher average at 1,000 carries, but there's no way to tell
-
We have no way to tell among these individuals. But the more data you collect, the clearer the picture is - the higher the volume, at some unknown tipping point, you start to regress to the mean.
Now we could talk about talent disparity - wasn't it UNL or OU beating someone 95-21 or something like that in the 80s? Once it's no longer any kind of competition, once it's not fun, then what's the point? I guess then you could claim to have broken the game of football?
-
We have no way to tell among these individuals. But the more data you collect, the clearer the picture is - the higher the volume, at some unknown tipping point, you start to regress to the mean.
the problem is that we are talking about individuals
and as you said, there's absolutely no way to know, regardless of stats
with any guy on the list, his next carry could be a 3 yard loss or a 73 yard gain
way too many variables, such as play calling, quality of opposing defense, field position
-
Let's take Rozier, since his YPC only went up with addition carries from year to year.
1983 - Rozier has the most carries and a 7.8 ypc. Gill, the QB, is excluded from this, because that's a different position and QB's rushing averages tend to be lower. But UNL had Jeff Smith run the ball and Mark Schellen. One of those might be a FB, but whatever.
Mark Schellen was a 5'10 225 lb Fullback - averaged 5.8 on 77 carries in 83 with 9 TDs.
The story was his straight line explosiveness. Was supposedly the only Husker to beat Fryer in sprints in practice. Not often, but more than once.
-
the problem is that we are talking about individuals
and as you said, there's absolutely no way to know, regardless of stats
with any guy on the list, his next carry could be a 3 yard loss or a 73 yard gain
way too many variables, such as play calling, quality of opposing defense, field position
Right, too many variables to make a wild guess, so we adhere to the overall trend.
-
you are a wild man
-
Had Gordon played in the 4th against UNL, he probably would have had that 73 yard gain.
And he'd still have the record that the kid from OU got from playing in the 4th the following week.
-
agreed, but he may have also blown out a knee
the coaching staff was smart
game was in hand
and the 2nd string needs a few treats to keep them motivated and sharp
-
We have no way to tell among these individuals. But the more data you collect, the clearer the picture is - the higher the volume, at some unknown tipping point, you start to regress to the mean.
I just don't think it's remotely that simple.
I don't think these other backs have higher ypc BECAUSE they have lower attempts. I think they have higher ypc because they were used differently than "volume" backs.
Not all carries are the same. As I tried to point out when you look at, say, Darren McFadden vs Felix Jones. The two players were on the team for three years alongside each other, but McFadden had ~2x the carries as Jones, yet Jones had ~2 ypc higher than McFadden.
If Jones consistently got higher ypc perhaps one would easily claim that it was ludicrous to give McFadden twice as many carries, right? Because by your rationale, you should reduce McFadden's workload which will make his ypc go up, and increase Jones' workload until his ypc regresses to equal McFadden's at a reduced workload.
What coach--making millions of dollars--can't figure this simple math out???
I'm saying that there's a reason you STILL give McFadden more carries despite lower ypc. Because they're different backs with different skill sets. Football is a situational game, and giving McFadden a first-down Power run is a carry he's more suited to than Jones. Giving Jones a pitch to the edge on 3rd-and-8 when the defense has to respect the pass is a carry he's more suited to than McFadden. I'd say the average ypc (but also higher variance) of that pitch is higher than the average ypc of the Power, but in most pro-style offenses you run Power more often than a sweep.
So your volume backs will naturally get different types of carries than your COP backs, and usually more of them.
There's no "regression to the mean" here. There's situational football and backs being used in different ways.
-
There's no "regression to the mean" here. There's situational football and backs being used in different ways.
Ed Zachery
this is not baseball - moneyball
-
and systems change too... stats in the 80's or 90's don't translate to today's game
-
I understand what you're saying
if I follow, then if Rozier would have had fewer carries, his ypc would have been 8 or 9?
if it's simple statistics then why wouldn't the average, be the average, and bear out for more carries?
If Ron Dayne had fewer carries his average would be higher? not sure how that works
so if you take Dayne's frosh, soph, junior and senior season, the season with the least carries should have the highest average and the season with the most carries should produce the lowest average?
so if Rozier would have regressed to the mean, please tell me what Rozier's "mean" was
So this has gotten weird, but because I’m a big ole nerd, it’s worth pointing out system factors in with Rozier, as do the kinds of carries.
Obviously don’t have a breakdown, but in the old Nebraska system, your I-backs were an interesting combo of downhill power guys, but also top edge players because they’re the ones catching pitches when the edge has been somewhat cleared. It factors more with true triple teams, but might be an element there.
Cory Schlesinger (sp) averaged a 1.2 more YPC than Phillips in 1994. If the carries were switched, it probably doesn’t hold becuase most of hit runs are traps with an option fake over them.
(Someone brought up Arkansas’ Jones and McFadden. I’m guessing that split was likely rooted in system as well. Jones was used as more of an edge guy. Teams tend to go edge in more favorable spots, so the upside is higher. And when they went Wildcat, McFadden was often the one running toward the box, win Jones toward the edge)
-
It is an assertion, but one that is pretty much universally held in the coaching ranks. The constant stream of ejections for what used to be considered fair hits lends additional credence, but YMMV.
Additionally, I would note that if you watch them play its apparent that Wisco uses plentiful numbers of 1-back and shotgun formations, like most everybody else. They lean on the FB lead plays more than most to be sure, but days of Wisco making its living off Ron Dayne on the OZ pitch from 12/21P are long gone. The Badgerz offense is fairly multiple these days.
This isn’t a knock on Melvin or J Taylor or anybody else, but just a nod to the obvious; the game has changed substantially since many of the backs on your list were toting the rock for their respective schools. Receivers from the 60s no doubt live in envy of Tim Brown or Desmond Howard’s now-archaic reception numbers!
They might not be as pure OZ toss as they once were, but it would not be so correct to say the distributon of power sets is like most other teams.
In standard downs, UW is mostly 12 and 21, primarily the I, a two-tight end double wing that gets multiple and their jet formation with two tight ends to the jet side. They used to be power/IZ/pin and pull, but have done more OZ and a ton more counter/lead power in recent years. And God they run a lot in those spots.
They used to only go to the gun as a a passing set win a few change-up runs. Now they’ve expanded the running package from the gun, but still rarely do it.
(There was a clear starter/COP gap in 2016. In 2017, Chris James was that, but also a middling reserve main back and Ibrahim just isn’t that good a runner. I hope Grochek can be a thing becuase Shaw is not great)
-
I just don't think it's remotely that simple.
I don't think these other backs have higher ypc BECAUSE they have lower attempts. I think they have higher ypc because they were used differently than "volume" backs.
Not all carries are the same. As I tried to point out when you look at, say, Darren McFadden vs Felix Jones. The two players were on the team for three years alongside each other, but McFadden had ~2x the carries as Jones, yet Jones had ~2 ypc higher than McFadden.
If Jones consistently got higher ypc perhaps one would easily claim that it was ludicrous to give McFadden twice as many carries, right? Because by your rationale, you should reduce McFadden's workload which will make his ypc go up, and increase Jones' workload until his ypc regresses to equal McFadden's at a reduced workload.
What coach--making millions of dollars--can't figure this simple math out???
I'm saying that there's a reason you STILL give McFadden more carries despite lower ypc. Because they're different backs with different skill sets. Football is a situational game, and giving McFadden a first-down Power run is a carry he's more suited to than Jones. Giving Jones a pitch to the edge on 3rd-and-8 when the defense has to respect the pass is a carry he's more suited to than McFadden. I'd say the average ypc (but also higher variance) of that pitch is higher than the average ypc of the Power, but in most pro-style offenses you run Power more often than a sweep.
So your volume backs will naturally get different types of carries than your COP backs, and usually more of them.
There's no "regression to the mean" here. There's situational football and backs being used in different ways.
You’re right. BayareaBadger is right. And I’m right.
Let me see how to put this...we’ve got a player talent bell curve on top of a play-calling bell curve on top of a playing time bell curve.
But a simple thing to take away from it all would be something simple and direct - like if Darren McFadden had 1,200 Carrie in his career, his YPC avg would be lower. Regardless of play calls or what quarter, etc. it’s a statistical near-certainty.
-
But a simple thing to take away from it all would be something simple and direct - like if Darren McFadden had 1,200 Carrie in his career, his YPC avg would be lower. Regardless of play calls or what quarter, etc. it’s a statistical near-certainty.
Why? If McFadden got Jones' playcalls in addition to his own, why would you assume his ypc would decrease?
I'd say his ypc would increase if his usage expanded to include the types of plays Jones was featured in.
-
Because he's a human man. Why are there backups at all? It's not a trick question.
-
Because he's a human man. Why are there backups at all? It's not a trick question.
Why did Tim Tebow, Chris Leak's "backup", get playing time as a freshman? Because he was used on playcalls that weren't well-suited to Leak's strengths.
Why did McFadden and Jones occasionally take direct snaps in the "Wild Hog" playcalls instead of snapping the ball to a QB? Because the playcalls called for some skill sets that Arkansas' QB didn't have.
Why is it so hard to accept that there is no "mean" to be regressed to. Different players get different playcalls. If McFadden was running the same plays that Felix Jones was running, it's conceivable to think that his ypc would actually go UP rather than down.
-
You’re right. BayareaBadger is right. And I’m right.
Let me see how to put this...we’ve got a player talent bell curve on top of a play-calling bell curve on top of a playing time bell curve.
But a simple thing to take away from it all would be something simple and direct - like if Darren McFadden had 1,200 Carrie in his career, his YPC avg would be lower. Regardless of play calls or what quarter, etc. it’s a statistical near-certainty.
plus a thousand or ten thousand other variables
there are not simple takeaways
-
plus a thousand or ten thousand other variables
there are not simple takeaways
We are splitting this hair right down to the smallest bit, and I'm honestly unsure if we're all not sort of on the same page, but pushing around little elements of minutiae.
There are system factors.
There are defensive focus factors.
There are talent factors.
There are surrounding talent factors.
There are fatigue factors, the runner in question's first and foremost, but the opponent's as well.
I'm sure I'm missing some.
I think we can say that, chances are on average, more carries make someone more tired, and tired people are, on average, worse at breaking long runs. This is not all the time. There are some freaks. There are some runners that get lathered up. There are some systems that funnel carries or certain ways or set up certain situations. (There's also a question of the outlier nature of long runs and efficiency, which would totally be fun to break down in a different sort of in the weeds discussion).
My small view. More carries often make it harder to keep a high YPC because of fatigue and situational factors. But not always, owing to talent differences and systems and other oddities.
Vote Melvin.
(I always like to look at the YPC stuff for modern triple teams because it's interesting to see how they fit or don't fit the patterns/roles. It's a little harder with old Nebraska because that FB role, and sometimes QB role is less well defined)
-
My small view. More carries often make it harder to keep a high YPC because of fatigue and situational factors. But not always, owing to talent differences and systems and other oddities.
This is exactly what I've been saying. Never have I said "always" - hence the repeated citations of a bell curve.
-
Why did Tim Tebow, Chris Leak's "backup", get playing time as a freshman? Because he was used on playcalls that weren't well-suited to Leak's strengths. Great, but has zero to do with this discussion.
Why did McFadden and Jones occasionally take direct snaps in the "Wild Hog" playcalls instead of snapping the ball to a QB? Because the playcalls called for some skill sets that Arkansas' QB didn't have. Again, totally irrelevant.
Why is it so hard to accept that there is no "mean" to be regressed to. Different players get different playcalls. If McFadden was running the same plays that Felix Jones was running, it's conceivable to think that his ypc would actually go UP rather than down. Here is where you seem 'off'.....everyone has a mean to regress to - but everyone's mean is not the same.
If McFadden was running the same plays that Felix Jones was running in addition to his workload, his YPC would absolutely have decreased.
If McFadden was running the same plays that Felix Jones was running instead of his workload (ie- they traded places), his YPC would absolutely have increased.
Both of these are most likely true, due to what we know about statistics - bell curves, sample size, and diminishing returns.
-
If McFadden was running the same plays that Felix Jones was running in addition to his workload, his YPC would absolutely have decreased.
If McFadden was running the same plays that Felix Jones was running instead of his workload (ie- they traded places), his YPC would absolutely have increased.
Both of these are most likely true, due to what we know about statistics - bell curves, sample size, and diminishing returns.
It isn't a question of statistics.
You are making the assertion that more carries leads to a back being more tired and worn down, and thus their ypc will go down as carried go up.
I am making the assertion that a back's ypc are more due to individual talent level and usage in a system. I am also making the assertion that your typical "workhorse" back is used in a way that will naturally have more carries and lower ypc than a change of pace / 3rd down back.
I am not denying that it's possible to over-work a player to the point that fatigue may make that player less effective. But I am denying that this is the reason that those backs with really high numbers of carries have lower ypc.
-
Here, I'll do a little study, posting the stats here, not knowing the result beforehand, ok?
I'll look at the collegefootballreference all-time leading rushers, by carries. I thought this was shown by the previous study I did about highest YPC at each 100-carry interval level, but I guess not.
Anyway, it lists the top 253 players by carries in a career. I'll take 3 groups (high on the list, middle, low) and compare their YPC averages. Keeping in mind the better a RB is, the more likely he is to get more carries, I believe the lowest group will have the highest average YPC, because they had many fewer carries.
I will also do the reverse - look at the top 250 players by YPC in a career. A high, middle, and low group - predicting the high group, by contrast, will have fewer carries on average than the low group.
Hopefully this will be deemed fair and persuasive. And hopefully it shows what I think it will, lol.
-
Hopefully this will be deemed fair and persuasive. And hopefully it shows what I think it will, lol.
I think this is a great idea.
One thing I would do to change it. Instead of breaking it down into "high, medium, low" groups, just put it in Excel and do a scatter plot. And then see if you do a scatter plot, if you can get Excel to actually perform the statistical analysis, give you a linear regression line, and actually come up with the R-value of the correlation strength.
-
Uhh, you can do that. I'm just going to create groups and find averages. I believe the averages will be different enough to show I'm right.
I'll link the pages the lists come from if you want to do all that.
-
I'm going to avoid the top 10 on either list, as they're the tip of the bell curve. The bottom end is not, however, as it's only the top 250 out of thousands of rushers college football has had. I hope you acknowledge this as prudent.
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/leaders/rush-yds-per-att-player-career.html
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/leaders/rush-att-player-career.html
-
The top rushing attempts list doesn't also contain the yards gained, and the top ypc list doesn't actually contain the number of carries...
How are you going to get all that data together?
If you can do the cross-reference and get the raw data into a spreadsheet, I can do the other calculations/graphs I mentioned.
-
The top rushing attempts list doesn't also contain the yards gained, and the top ypc list doesn't actually contain the number of carries...
How are you going to get all that data together?
If you can do the cross-reference and get the raw data into a spreadsheet, I can do the other calculations/graphs I mentioned.
I'm going to click their individual pages - you can do that when you're doing a quick 'n dirty study like I am. :13:
-
I'm going to click their individual pages - you can do that when you're doing a quick 'n dirty study like I am. :13:
Any chance your quick 'n dirty study will involve you clicking those pages and then putting the numbers into an Excel spreadsheet? ;-)
-
I'll do three 20-player groups, with midpoints at rankings 240, 130, and 20.
-
Any chance your quick 'n dirty study will involve you clicking those pages and then putting the numbers into an Excel spreadsheet? ;-)
I'll type them out here: YPC - player - Car for the one and then Car - player - YPC for the other and conclusions.
-
Ahh. Based on what numbers we see, we can figure out where to go from there.
I thought you were going to do all 250 and then break them into groups.
-
YPC:
Group 1 (high YPC - 11-30th, all-time):
6.8-7.2 ypc
Ki-Jana Carter 395
Mike Rozier 668
Brent Fullwood 390
Anthony Aldridge 363
Tevin Coleman 452
Billy Sims 544
Henry Josey 395
Tom Larsheid 316
Jhurrell Pressley 394
Matt Breida 542
Warrick Dunn 575
Colin Kaepernick 600
Boom Williams 367
Levron Williams 452
Vince Young 457
Calvin Jones 461
Gwain Durden 540
Anthony Wales 490
Pete Pedro 317
Barry Sanders 523
Group 2: (med YPC - 121-140th all-time)
6.1-6.2 ypc
Mike Gaddis 423
Obie Graves 357
Paul Gipson 447
Ray Lawry 659
Lawrence Phillips 449
Josh Robinson 323
Adonis Thomas 382
Sammie Smith 411
Marlon Mack 586
Kevin McDougal 471
Elvis Peacock 337
Ken Clark 494
Ryan Mathews 534
Quinton Flowers 598
Sean Jackson 347
Sony Michel 590
Ronald Jones 591
Carlos Hyde 523
Byron Marshall 307
Dan Alexander 402
Group 3: (low YPC: 231-250th all-time)
5.8 ypc
Lee Becton 347
Darren McFadden 785
Ron Dayne 1220
Lendale White 541
Deonce Whitaker 602
Walter Packer 483
Michael Perry 428
Xavier Johnson 459
Jerome Harrison 482
Jim Bohl 492
Earl Campbell 765
Marcus Murphy 337
Joshua Cribbs 632
Jeff Logan 349
Jon Cornish 387
Michael Wiley 509
Trent Richardson 540
Wendell Smallwood 425
Damon Washington 593
Chester Taylor 803
Averages:
High (Group 1): 462 carries
Med (Group 2): 461 carries
Low (Group 3): 559 carries
-
Ahh. Based on what numbers we see, we can figure out where to go from there.
I thought you were going to do all 250 and then break them into groups.
That wouldn't be quick nor dirty.
-
Career Carries groups - same as the YPC ones in terms of ranking (high, med, low).
Group 1 (11-30th all-time carries):
940 - 1059 car
Donnel Pumphrey 6.0
Ken Simonton 4.8
Avon Cobourne 4.9
Michael Hart 5.0
Dontrell Moore 4.9
Ricky Williams (Texas) 6.2
Damion Fletcher 5.3
Herschel Walker 5.3
Keenan Reynolds 4.7
Montel Harris 4.9
DeAngelo Williams 6.2
Thurman Thomas 5.1
Damien Anderson 4.7
Deland McCullough 4.6
Royce Freeman 5.9
Paul Palmer 5.2
Robert Holcombe 4.4
LaDanian Tomlinson 5.7
Jarvion Franklin 5.2
Michael Turner 5.3
Group B (121-140th all-time):
773-789 carries
Ricky Williams (TexTech) 4.6
Johnathan Franklin 5.6
Jacquizz Rodgers 4.9
Darnell Autry 4.8
Amos Zereoue 5.2
Darren McFadden 5.8
Anthony Davis 4.8
Troy Davis 5.6
Lance Dunbar 5.4
Kareem Hunt 6.3
Rick Parros 4.5
Gary Kosins 3.6
Brad Smith 5.4
Rodney Ferguson 4.6
Zach Line 5.4
Sonny Collins 4.9
Tony Sands 4.9
Brian Hill 5.5
Craig James 4.8
Bob Hitchens 4.0
Group C (231-250th all-time carries):
686 - 699 carries
James Butler 5.3
Donald Brown 5.4
James Starks 4.5
Tashard Choice 5.0
Curtis Dickey 5.3
Deshaun Foster 4.4
Harvey Unga 5.0
Chris Douglas 4.5
Jerry Mays 5.3
Brent Moss 4.9
Darius Walker 4.7
Tim Tebow 4.3
Ottis Anderson 4.8
Winslow Oliver 4.8
Tyrone Wheatley 6.1
Dalvin Cook 6.5
Ricky Dobbs 3.9
Gaston Green 5.2
Tanardo Sharps 4.8
Myles Gaskin 5.9
Group averages:
High (Group A): 5.215 ypc
Med (Group B): 5.030 ypc
Low (Group C): 5.030 ypc
-
Hopefully this will be deemed fair and persuasive. And hopefully it shows what I think it will, lol.
It will be deemed fair
after that you are reaching
-
Averages:
High (Group 1): 462 carries
Med (Group 2): 461 carries
Low (Group 3): 559 carries
So as we move away from the end of the bell curve, towards the fat middle, RBs with more carries tend to have lower YPC averages.
Also, if I had included the top 20 instead of 21-40, Group 1's average number of carries would be lower, just fyi.
-
Group averages:
High (Group A): 5.215 ypc
Med (Group B): 5.030 ypc
Low (Group C): 5.030 ypc
This shows me that yes, the most talented RBs get the most carries, but as move away from the end of the bell curve, it's level. I'm not sure what to do with this.
In terms of the lists themselves, one requires a guy to play a lot (carries) and in the other, you could be a backup/2nd fiddle (YPC), although most were starters for at least one season.
-
Look at the numbers.
For the high ypc, you have anywhere between 316 carries and 668.
For the middle ypc, you have anywhere between 323 and 659
For the low ypc, you have anywhere between 337 and 1220, although Dayne is a bit of an outlier, as the next highest was 803
For the high attempts, you have anywhere between 4.4 and 6.2 ypc
For the middle attempts, you have anywhere between 4.5 and 6.3 ypc
For the low attempts, you have anywhere between 3.9 and 6.5 ypc
Do you really see much rhyme or reason to these numbers?
-
Yeah, once I did it, it's all just kind of a mess.
-
Yeah, once I did it, it's all just kind of a mess.
That's frankly what I expected it would be, to be honest...
-
I need parameters.....and while I was doing it, I was thinking a per-season study would be more valid than a career one.....
-
I need parameters.....and while I was doing it, I was thinking a per-season study would be more valid than a career one.....
Well, one of the biggest issues is that your career leader in ypc list might include players who only started for 2 years and then went to the NFL... So given a 4 year career they might amass 750 carries but in two years they only got 320.
So the ideal thing would be to base it attempts/game... But where are you going to find those numbers lol?
-
Too fast and too dirty.
-
Look at the numbers.
Do you really see much rhyme or reason to these numbers?
yes, number of carries is not a factor
-
yes, number of carries is not a factor
Well, I'm a bit particular about these things...
OAM's data has not proven that number of carries is not a factor. OAM's data has failed to prove that number of carries IS a factor.
I personally feel vindicated and don't plan to discuss it further. But if a strong case could be made for his theory, I'm not ruling it out.
-
agreed
-
I'll look at it again sometime - I'm visiting my dad atm.