Neat, I think, to see Nick Chubb at #29. I really admire that young man. He had a "career ending knee injury" his second year when he appeared ready to truly break out. (He already had.)While I didn't see a lot of Georgia games while he was there, I remember him being a very good back for the Bulldogs. I would have loved to see him in the Scarlet and Gray. His production in Cleveland simply validates what I saw of him in Georgia. He is probably 1 of the top 5 backs in the NFL now while playing for a mediocre team in Cleveland.
Of course, that probably is why he stayed his fourth year. He was a second rounder, behind Sony Michel, who "started" behind him.. When healthy, Chubb was really good IMHO, power and speed.
And a note on the Barry Sanders thing. We all know his 88 season was epic, but an underrated aspect of this is volume. If you don't account for volume, Felix Jones was better than Darren McFadden. If you don't account for volume, most any RB with fewer carries can be considered better than the guy with more carries. It's a statistical thing (which many here cannot seem to grasp). No, Sanders would not start sucking, had he started 3 years instead of 1, but he also wouldn't have continued averaging what he did in 1988.It's not a statistical thing.
this type of thing happened to plenty of great backs where they followed or were a year ahead of another great backFor his first two seasons at Texas, Ricky Williams was actually the fullback whose primary responsibility was lead-blocking for Priest Holmes.
Mike Rozier / Roger Craig
many great Sooner backs
Sanders was twelving. (Eighting?)That's getting old. And, for the Big 8 of Barry Sanders' era, it's not even accurate. At all.
Greg Pruitt (http://www.soonerstats.com/football/players/details.cfm?playerid=1265) | RB | 1970-72 | 3,122 | 422 | 38 | 7.40 | 13 | 3 |
That's getting old. And, for the Big 8 of Barry Sanders' era, it's not even accurate. At all.It was satire, pointed at the op. Settle.
It's not a statistical thing.It IS a statistical thing.
What is statistically true is that a small sample size will have more noise and less signal than a larger sample size. But the guy who only gets 50 carries on the year, if used on similar playcalls as the guy who gets 200 carries a year, is probably more statistically likely to have a LOWER ypc than the guy who gets 200... Or else he wouldn't be the backup.
What happens is that often those "backups" who get lower volume and higher ypc averages aren't really backups at all--they're change of pace backs. If you play fantasy football, you see this in the NFL all the time. The Patriots run Sony Michel into the middle of the line on first and second down, and then on 3rd and long they bring in James White and if he gets the ball it's misdirection or on the edge and the defense is playing more pass than run, giving him room to work.
Sony Michel gets more volume and lower ypc, because he's used in more predictable run situations. James White gets more varied playcalling in pass formations. And James Develin only has 15 career rushing attemps, at a paltry 1.7 ypc. But he's also got 5 touchdowns, because those rushing attempts are goal-line situations.
Also Barry Sanders had Thurman Thomas ahead of him. Not exactly apples to apples on other guys who had one great yearThe "why" doesn't matter here.
Update
.
1. Ricky Williams, Texas
2. Jonathan Taylor, Wisconsin
3. Royce Freeman, Oregon
4. Archie Griffin, Ohio St
5. Ron Dayne, Wisconsin
6. Justin Jackson, Northwestern
7. LaMichael James, Oregon
8. Tony Dorsett, Pitt
9. Anthony Thompson, Indiana
10. Charles White, USC
11. Cedric Benson, Texas
12. Darren Sproles, Kansas St
13. Myles Gaskin, Washington
14. Melvin Gordon, Wisconsin
15. Herschel Walker, Georgia
16. Montee Ball, Wisconsin
17. George Rogers, South Carolina
18. Mike Rozier, Nebraska
19. Trevor Cobb, Rice
20. Nick Chubb, Georgia
21. Ken Simonton, Oregon St
22. Michael Hart, Michigan
23. Dalvin Cook, Florida St
24. Avon Cobourne, West Virginia
25. Darren Lewis, Texas A&M
26. Marcus Allen, USC
27. Ray Rice, Rutgers
28. Paul Palmer, Temple
29. Ted Brown, NC State
30. Lorenzo White, Michigan St
31. J.K. Dobbins, Ohio St
32. Thurman Thomas, Oklahoma St
33. Terry Miller, Oklahoma St
34. Antony Davis, USC
35. Darren McFadden, Arkansas
36. Ameer Abdullah, Nebraska
37. Kevin Faulk, LSU
38. Darrell Thompson, Minnesota
39. Damien Anderson, Northwestern
40. Jamie Morris, Michigan
40. Eric Dickerson, SMU
41. Bo Jackson, Auburn
42. Earl Campbell, Texas
43. Johnathan Franklin, UCLA
44. Javon Ringer, Michigan St
45. Amos Lawrence, North Carolina
46. Troy Davis, Iowa St
47. Stepfan Taylor, Stanford
48. A.J. Dillon, Boston College
49. Autry Denson, Notre Dame
50. Tyrone Wheatley, Michigan
51. David Thompson, Oklahoma St
52. Noel Devine, West Virginia
53. Joe Morris, Syracuse
54. Ka'Deem Carey, Arizona
55. Errict Rhett, Florida
56. Samaje Perine, Oklahoma
57. Shock Linwood, Baylor
58. Tico Duckett, Michigan St
59. Allen Pinkett, Notre Dame
60. Zach Line, SMU
61. Kendall Hunter, Oklahoma St
62. Ralph Webb, Vanderbilt
63. Anthony Thomas, Michigan
64. Lamont Jordan, Maryland
65. Byron Hanspard, Texas Tech
66. Rodney Smith, Minnesota
67. Robert Holcombe, Illinois
68. Travis Etienne, Clemson
69. Amos Zereoue, West Virginia
70. Zack Moss, Utah
71. Warrick Dunn, Florida St
72. Dalton Hilliard, LSU
73. James White, Wisconsin
74. James Gray, Texas Tech
75. Joe Washington, Oklahoma
76. Robert Lavette, Georgia Tech
77. Mike Voight, North Carolina
78. Darrin Nelson, Stanford
79. Christian McCaffrey, Stanford
80. Ezekiel Elliott, Ohio St
81. Chris Polk, Washington
82. Laurence Maroney, Minnesota
83. Napoleon Kaufman, Washington
84. Adrian Peterson, Oklahoma
85. Charles Alexander, LSU
86. Chris Barclay, Wake Forest
87. Thomas Jones, Virginia
88. Anthony Dixon, Miss State
89. Ahman Green, Nebraska
90. Raymond Priester, Clemson
91. P.J. Hill, Wisconsin
92. Steve Slaton, West Virginia
93. Tyrell Sutton, Northwestern
94. Eric Bieniemy, Colorado
95. Bryce Love, Stanford
96. Evan Royster, Penn St
97. Jacquizz Rodgers, Oregon St
98. Steve Owens, Oklahoma
99. Emmitt Smith, Florida
100. Sedrick Shaw, Iowa
------------------------------------
101. Yvenson Bernard, Oregon St
102. Saquon Barkley, Penn St
103. Leonard Fournette, LSU
104. Billy Sims, Oklahoma
105. James Davis, Clemson
106. Benny Snell Jr, Kentucky
107. BenJarvis Green-Ellis, Ole Miss
108. Butch Woolfork, Michigan
109. June Henley, Kansas
It IS a statistical thing.No, this falls to a much older debate.
Why, oh why, do they have statistical thresholds for statistics leaders?
The highest yards per carry average in a game will always be more than that of a season...of a season will always be more than that of a career. Period.
.
The leader in yards per carry with 900 career carries will have a lower yards-per-carry average than the leader with 800 carries. And if he doesn't, then he certainly does compared to the leader with 700 carries, and so on.
.
I was following you until your last paragraph, which showed you don't understand this at all.
If you don't account for volume, most any RB with fewer carries can be considered better than the guy with more carries. It's a statistical thing (which many here cannot seem to grasp). No, Sanders would not start sucking, had he started 3 years instead of 1, but he also wouldn't have continued averaging what he did in 1988.
Barry Sanders, with the same usage, blocking, and all else would have a lower ypc average in 1,000 carries than he did in 350. THAT'S the point.You keep making this assertion. You have never once supported it.
You're chopping it up season-by-season, which actually still makes my point for me. Sanders carried the ball 344 times in 1988. That's a lot. So in '89, with everything else the same, let's give him 400 carries, no - 500! Let's give him 500 carries THEN tell me his ypc wouldn't go down.Sanders carried 74 times in 1986 at 4.4 ypc. He carried 105 times in 1987 for 5.7 ypc. He carried 344 times in 1988 for 7.6 ypc.
By your logic, teams should just give the ball to their best RB every running play forever, while assuming their effectiveness will stay the same. It's absurd.
There's a reason there are different thresholds when it comes to non-counting stats in sports. It'd be unfair to compare Ron Dayne's ypc average to RBs with only 600 carries, because he had twice the volume. His 5.8 ypc looks good when compared to other RBs with over 1,000 carries. It looks a lot more pedestrian when compared to RBs with only 600 carries, though. I wonder why that is?!?It's because of the signal-to-noise ratio.
The larger the sample, the more drawn to the mean the ypc will be. No, Barry Sanders' mean wasn't 4.5 ypc or anything like that, it was obviously high. But if his 340 carries turned into 440 carries that next year, that ypc is decreasing.On that we agree. But where you make the unsupported logical leap is the mean will be lower as carries increase.
Anyways, here's the initial list we're going to chop up, roll over, fold and cut, and re-administer over and over until it's pretty and nice and good.A few years back, "we" put together our own computer ranking with help from The Bobs. We started simply and then modified it, over and over, until it more or less matched the AP ranking, at which point we belatedly realized what we had done. (I was the chief culprit here.)
You keep making this assertion. You have never once supported it.You're picking and choosing individual player seasons to negate my point. I'm saying if you inputted all player seasons, it would show that I'm correct. I'm obviously, plainly just stating a fact. It IS a statistical "thing".
A few years back, "we" put together our own computer ranking with help from The Bobs. We started simply and then modified it, over and over, until it more or less matched the AP ranking, at which point we belatedly realized what we had done. (I was the chief culprit here.)Cincy, I'm walking you through this preliminary jiggering to show that I have absolutely no ranking in mind. I'd love for Emmitt to be higher, and it's weird that Sanders isn't even on the list, but I'm being transparent here and letting the outcome be whatever it may be. I'm not trying to slant it one way or another, nor am I choosing criteria to aid any particular players.
Our goal was to make something that basically reproduced a ranking we already had. I didn't realize that before the fact. So, if you already have a ranking in mind, you could just post that instead of a lot of preliminary jiggering to create that ranking.
I can recall much of what we did, a team got credit for the number of Div 1 wins any team it beat had. We took the square root of point diff. If you beat a team that had 7 wins, you got 0.7 points in addition to a point for the win, and then a function of point diff. I think we added in some further fudge factors .... unwittingly to make it "look right" (e.g., match existing polls).
this list needs a ton of work.You're wanting to include RBs that are among the general consensus. If we wanted that, we could simply look it up. I want something fresh. Yes, a list with names we wouldn't expect on it is useful. It may even be better than the general consensus!
jim brown
rashaan salaam
willis mcgahee
shaun alexander
derrick henry
gale sayers
and completely discounts guys like faulk. i get level of comp is something to take into consideration, but when they also tear up nfl, i think level of comp is moot.
H2H would not mean squat idividually as they would be facing off against different defenses in different offensesOf course, but that didn't stop the media from playing it up.
Here - here you go.
- 1996: 325 carries at 6.5 ypc (25 apg)
- 1997: 263 carries at 5.5 ypc (23.9 apg)
- 1998: 295 carries at 5.2 ypc (26.8 apg)
- 1999: 337 carries at 6.0 ypc (28.1 apg)
Next, let's take Ron Dayne. About 1,200 carries and 5.8 ypc.But how do you justify this? Remember what I said about Dayne:
But what we can do with this data is also state that if he 'only' had 1,000 carries, his ypc would have very likely been higher than 5.8. He'd have had the leeway of it being higher - having not been bogged down by all those carries. And the converse is true - if Dayne had been fed the ball more, he would have yielded diminishing returns, and his ypc would have decreased with 1400 carries.
To jump to Sanders, I admit, we have no clue what HIS true mean for ypc would have been. But we do know 344 carries is a lot. We know 7.6 ypc is extremely high. So how is it not logical to assume that his ypc would decrease (from a very high point) adding to an already-high number of carries? How is that being invalid?Now, in the case of Sanders I think we both agree that we don't know what HIS true mean would be. We do know that he's one of the most talented running backs ever to play the game, as evidenced by his NFL career. Moving up in competition he was an All-Pro selection every one of his 10 seasons, and one site that has attempted to adjust ypc averages for the era in which a player played says that he's 3rd place all-time in the NFL (https://www.footballperspective.com/career-leaders-in-yards-per-carry-era-adjusted/).
You're wanting to include RBs that are among the general consensus. If we wanted that, we could simply look it up. I want something fresh. Yes, a list with names we wouldn't expect on it is useful. It may even be better than the general consensus!if you just want a most productive list, then you're in luck. the ncaa already has those lists. you've used one in this thread.
.
Sigh. NFL production. I'm not sure how many ways I can say this - NFL PRODUCTION HAS NO BEARING ON A PLAYER'S COLLEGE MERITS. HIS COLLEGE CAREER IS SEPARATE FROM HIS PRO CAREER. To be fair, I should take the words "better" and "best" and never use them again.
.
Let's call this the "100 college RB careers that were the most productive", okay?
Update.
1. Jonathan Taylor, Wisconsin
2. LaMichael James, Oregon
3. Ricky Williams, Texas
4. Royce Freeman, Oregon
5. Ron Dayne, Wisconsin
6. Tony Dorsett, Pitt
7. Herschel Walker, Georgia
8. Anthony Thompson, Indiana
9. Mike Rozier, Nebraska
10. Archie Griffin, Ohio St
11. Cedric Benson, Texas
12. Justin Jackson, Northwestern
13. Dalvin Cook, Florida St
14. Myles Gaskin, Washington
15. Charles White, USC
16. Montee Ball, Wisconsin
17. Darren Sproles, Kansas St
18. Ray Rice, Rutgers
19. Melvin Gordon, Wisconsin
20. Ken Simonton, Oregon St
21. George Rogers, South Carolina
22. Trevor Cobb, Rice
23. J.K. Dobbins, Ohio St
24. Nick Chubb, Georgia
25. Michael Hart, Michigan
26. Avon Cobourne, West Virginia
27. Darren McFadden, Arkansas
28. Darren Lewis, Texas A&M
29. Marcus Allen, USC
30. Paul Palmer, Temple
31. Ted Brown, NC State
32. Lorenzo White, Michigan St
33. Thurman Thomas, OKlahoma St
34. Terry Miller, Oklahoma St
35. Anthony Davis, USC
36. Ameer Abdullah, Nebraska
37. Troy Davis, Iowa St
38. Kevin Faulk, LSU
39. Darrell Thompson, Minnesota
40. A.J. Dillon, Boston College
41. Damien Anderson, Northwestern
42. Jamie Morris, Michigan
43. Eric Dickerson, SMU
44. Bo Jackson, Auburn
45. Earl Campbell, Texas
46. Johnathan Franklin, UCLA
47. Ka'Deem Carey, Arizona
48. Javon Ringer, Michigan St
49. Samaje Perine, Oklahoma
50. Amos Lawrence, North Carolina
51. Stepfan Taylor, Stanford
52. Autry Denson, Notre Dame
53. Tyrone Wheatley, Michigan
54. David Thompson, Oklahoma St
55. Noel Devine, West Vriginia
56. Joe Morris, Syracuse
57. Travis Etienne, Clemson
58. Errict Rhett, Florida
59. Shock Linwood, Baylor
60. Byron Hanspard, Texas Tech
61. Tico Duckett, Michigan St
62. Allen Pinkett, Notre Dame
63. Amos Zereoue, West Virignia
64. Zach Line, SMU
65. Kendall Hunter, Oklahoma St
66. Ralph Webb, Vanderbilt
67. Anthony Thomas, Michigan
68. Lamont Jordan, Maryland
69. Rodney Smith, Minnesota
70. Robert Holcombe, Illinois
71. Christian McCaffrey, Stanford
72. Ezekiel Elliott, Ohio St
73. Zack Moss, Utah
74. Laurence Maroney, Minnesota
75. Warrick Dunn, Florida St
76. Adrian Peterson, Oklahoma
77. Dalton Hilliard, LSU
78. James White, Wisconsin
79. James Gray, Texas Tech
80. Joe Washington, Oklahoma
81. Ahman Green, Nebrsaka
82. Robert Lavette, Georgia Tech
83. Mike Voight, North Carolina
84. Steve Owens, Oklahoma
85. Darrin Nelson, Stanford
86. Chris Polk, Washington
87. Napoleon Kaufman, Washington
88. Charles Alexander, LSU
89. Chris Barclay, Wake Forest
90. Steve Slaton, West Virignia
91. Thomas Jones, Virginia
92. Jacquizz Rodgers, Oregon St
93. Emmitt Smith, Florida
94. Anthony Dixon, Miss State
95. Raymond Priester, Clemson
96. Saquon Barkley, Penn St
97. Leonard Fournette, LSU
98. P.J. Hill, Wisconsin
99. Tyrell Sutton, Northwestern
100. Benny Snell Jr, Kentucky
--------------------------
101. Eric Bieniemy, Colorado
102. Bryce Love, Stanford
103. Evan Royster, Penn St
104. Sedrick Shaw, Iowa
105. Yvenson Bernard, Oregon St
106. Billy Sims, Oklahoma
107. James Davis, Clemson
108. BenJarvis Green-Ellis, Ole Miss
109. Butch Woolfork, Michigan
110. June Henley, Kansas
Here - here you go.Thurman Thomas:
325 carries = 6.5 ypc
1,220 carries = 5.8 ypc
.
THIS is the point.
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/nfl/rb/2019 (https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/nfl/rb/2019)Yeah, none of that is available for historical college football stats, lol.
I didn't look at this in detail, but it's an effort to rank NFL runnings backs.
Running backs are ranked according to DYAR, or Defense-adjusted Yards Above Replacement. This gives the value of the performance on plays where this RB carried/caught the ball compared to replacement level, adjusted for situation and opponent and then translated into yardage. DYAR (and its cousin, YAR, which isn't adjusted based on opponent) is further explained here (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/methods#dyar).
The next statistic given is DVOA, or Defense-adjusted Value Over Average. This number represents value, per play, over an average running back in the same game situations. The more positive the DVOA rating, the better the player's performance. Negative DVOA represents below-average offense. DVOA (and its cousin, VOA, which isn't adjusted based on opponent) is further explained here (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/methods#dvoa).
The simple version: DYAR means a running back with more total value. DVOA means a running back with more value per play.
Effective Yards, listed in red, translate DVOA into a yards per attempt figure. This provides an easy comparison: in general, players with more Effective Yards than standard yards played better than standard stats would otherwise indicate, while players with fewer Effective Yards than standard yards played worse than standard stats would otherwise indicate. Effective Yards are not the best way to measure total value because they are more dependent on usage than DYAR.
The final statistic is Success Rate. This number represents the player's consistency, measured by successful running plays (the definition of success being different based on down and distance) divided by total running plays. A player with higher DVOA and a low success rate mixes long runs with downs getting stuffed at the line of scrimmage. A player with lower DVOA and a high success rate generally gets the yards needed, but doesn't often get more. Success Rate is further explained here (https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/introducing-running-back-success-rate). It is not adjusted for opponent.
Thurman Thomas:Here, look at it like this, because it applies to Thomas. Maybe you'll see this as a different point, but it's all related:
- 1984: 205 carries for 4.1 ypc
- 1985: 327 carries for 5.1 ypc
- 1986: 173 carries for 4.3 ypc
- 1987: 251 carries for 6.4 ypc
So... Per your logic:
205 carries = 4.1 ypc
956 carries = 5.1 ypc
Wait... What?
Or any way in between:
205 carries = 4.1 ypc
532 carries = 4.7 ypc
705 carries = 4.6 ypc
956 carries = 5.1 ypc
I get your point. If you cherry-pick a certain player's highest ypc season, their overall mean will be lower than their highest individual season. But if you assume that the historical accident that Ron Dayne's freshman campaign was his highest ypc season (although not highest overall carries per season nor his highest number of carries per game) it makes it simple to assume that all future seasons would be lower.
But then you look at Thurman Thomas and his highest number of carries per season (327) was also his second-highest ypc average, and that his second-highest number of carries per season was his highest ypc average. If I followed your logic and saw the first three seasons, I'd assume that his sophomore campaign at 5.1 ypc was the outlier, and that his junior campaign was reversion to the mean. If he had left college for the NFL after his junior year, none of us would have known he was due to explode with a 6.4 ypc campaign as a senior.
Yet his senior campaign was SO good that one year brought his overall mean from 4.6 ypc up to 5.1 ypc, equal to his BEST individual season previously.
You don't know which season is the outlier, so you can't assume that future seasons not played are lower ypc than even good previous seasons.
I've been watching college football since 1980 or so, and Jonathan Taylor is the best running back I've seen.Wonderful. Make the case against the Oregon RBs, based on what happened on the field.
I'm not so sure about those Oregon guys on here. They seem to not belong on that top 10, given some of the other names.
but if you want this to be a group project instead of you just waxing poetic, then maybe you should consider some of those other opinions as valid instead of just wrong or useless.This isn't meant to be a group project at all.
I've been watching college football since 1980 or so, and Jonathan Taylor is the best running back I've seen.
I'm not so sure about those Oregon guys on here. They seem to not belong on that top 10, given some of the other names.
My overall point is that in the case of Thurman Thomas, independent of coming off an injury, if he had carried the ball 300+ times, that 6.4 ypc would have dropped towards his 5.1 career ypc average. It's plain as day.(FYI I didn't now that Thomas had a knee problem in 1986. Thanks for that context.)
YPC averages tend to vary in a zig-zag, using the career ypc average as the baseline. YPC tends to zig-zag WITHIN the career arc of a bell curve. If a player has a high number of carries one season, he'll tend to benefit in a ypc bump the next season with fewer carries.
I too have been watching college football since 1980 or so, and Ricky Williams is the best running back I've seen. :)Dayne was better.
Dayne was better.Not according to OAM's current maths.
I too have been watching college football since 1980 or so, and Ricky Williams is the best running back I've seen. :)for my money, i'll take willis mcgahee or adrian petersen.
If you had one game against a great defense and you had a decent OL, which college RB would you pick, healthy, from his best year?Earl Campbell
Who?Oh yeah? Well you can just rightly screw off then. Good day, sir!
I'll never forget the goof trading his entire draft for that kid. Then the first rounder that the goof traded to Washington was later traded to the Bears, who promptly took Cade McClown.
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/jan-1999-cade-mcnown-of-the-ucla-bruins-is-tripped-during-the-rose-picture-id396937?s=612x612)
I hate Ricky Williams.
Earl Campbellword
wordEarl Campbell was supposedly NFL ready straight out of high school
I seem to recall that Earl C. was "the first" of he big powerful backs who also had speed. He was amazing.I put Campbell, Herschel, and Bo in that group. Maybe Ricky Williams?
I'd choice Barry S. myself because he could gain yards even with poor blocking.
Earl Campbell was supposedly NFL ready straight out of high schoolas was Marcus Dupree
How would you define "big"? By height?by weight
by weightRiggins and Campbell were about 230, but Campbell was 5-11 and Riggins was 6-2. Those are not the same.
think John Riggins
See, I could do this. It would require more work, and everyone would be placated because it would have Sanders at #1. We'd have multiple seasons from the same RB, which would be interesting, too.
mostly because I'm not a "career" guy - you don't need to prove it to me over 4 seasons and 2,000 carries
I can determine a great back in one season or less
I thought Walker and Jackson played at around 215-220. Both were a little more than 6' tall.Bo may have been 220, but Herschel was heavier.
I'm ok with Barry at #1He was definitely better than Ron Dayne, that guy sucked.
he was much better than Ron Dayne or Ricky Williams
I like the Badger play calling in the 2012 CCG against Nebraska best of all games.You'd enjoy the 2nd half of the 2012 LSU @ Florida game. The Gators ran the ball on 17 of 18 plays for 2 scoring drives, then closed out the game with 25 straight runs.
Indiana's Levron Williams had the same career ypc average as Sanders. Is anyone suggesting his OL was better than Sanders' was??? Was Tevin Coleman's???one reason is from watching some film
This is an obvious case of a player being put up on a pedestal.
Nope, garbage. Not nearly enough jukes.I laughed. Good one. I think that was his "best" run in his college career, possibly because it was his first year and "we" were just getting used to who he was.
that makes me the asshole.
And here I am, railing against an all-time great, just because I don't like 2nd and 11. I don't award style points. And I guess that makes me the asshole.plenty of great backs have lost a yard on 1st down
speed counts for something, but if you simply take the hand-off and run in a straight line untouched for 99 yards that's not much of a run
doesn't take much talent
doesn't make you the best back on the field
Nope, garbage. Not nearly enough jukes.You're a teepee,you're a wigwam,you're a teepee,you're a wigwam - you're too tense.Make you mind up you just implied you weren't that impressed with the wow-zee factor.You can't teach speed if they can't touch you - you don't have to juke
I think elite speed is an elite talent, but speed alone obviously is insufficient. The combination of speed and power is elite and rare. I don't think Barry S. had elite speed, he had power and shiftiness. I don't think any back has combined all three, Gurley might be an example of a RB who had a lot of all three.Barry wasn't slow. Obviously quickness was Barry's strength, not top end speed, but he wasn't slow
Sanders ran, I believe, a 4.37. So he had straight-line speed, too.Interestingly I think the 40 is more of an acceleration measurement than straight line speed.
then you have to define full padsOL shouldn't run the 40 to begin with. Totally useless information.
do olinemen wear knee braces?
There is also speed in pads and gear, which can be different, as a smaller guy will slow down more than a larger guy.Yes, they should.
They should run the 40 in full pads.
OL shouldn't run the 40 to begin with. Totally useless information.Agreed. 10 yd split is only useful thing for oline from the 40.
I agree, but 40 time is an indicator of athleticismYes, and they do other measurements as well that are not as often cited, like vertical jump.
| 1. | Samaje Perine (http://www.soonerstats.com/football/players/details.cfm?playerid=3013) | RB | 2014-16 | 4,122 | 685 | 49 | 6.02 | 15 | 6 |
| 2. | Billy Sims (http://www.soonerstats.com/football/players/details.cfm?playerid=1418) | RB | 1975-79 | 4,118 | 593 | 53 | 6.94 | 20 | 7 |
| 3. | Joe Washington (http://www.soonerstats.com/football/players/details.cfm?playerid=1621) | RB | 1972-75 | 4,071 | 675 | 39 | 6.03 | 19 | 1 |
| 4. | Adrian Peterson (http://www.soonerstats.com/football/players/details.cfm?playerid=1883) | RB | 2004-06 | 4,045 | 747 | 41 | 5.41 | 22 | 6 |
| 5. | Steve Owens (http://www.soonerstats.com/football/players/details.cfm?playerid=1168) | RB | 1967-69 | 4,041 | 958 | 57 | 4.22 | 23 | 3 |
| 6. | Quentin Griffin (http://www.soonerstats.com/football/players/details.cfm?playerid=625) | RB | 1999-02 | 3,938 | 744 | 44 | 5.29 | 16 | 4 |
| 7. | DeMarco Murray (http://www.soonerstats.com/football/players/details.cfm?playerid=2681) | RB | 2006-10 | 3,685 | 759 | 50 | 4.86 | 13 | 1 |
https://www.facebook.com/CFBonESPN/videos/212086346553647/ (https://www.facebook.com/CFBonESPN/videos/212086346553647/)That guy was a pretty good college running back.
this is enough volume for me
Yeah, I guess, I can't evaluate a college career without thinking about their NFL performance.Sigh
Yeah, I guess, I can't evaluate a college career without thinking about their NFL performance.Tough to do sometimes,guys like Charles White looked good with those great USC lines in the late '70s but was small and not all that fast.And of coarse the BROWNS drafted him.Reggie Bush was another great in college didn't carry over.Archie Griffin,same, great balance and moves - marginal in the Sunday league.Tebow would have loved to have him on Saturday roster
Yeah, I guess, I can't evaluate a college career without thinking about their NFL performance.Peterson is interesting because he battled those injuries his last two years and was still pretty dang productive despite missing games.
Tough to do sometimes,guys like Charles White looked good with those great USC lines in the late '70s but was small and not all that fast.And of coarse the BROWNS drafted him.Reggie Bush was another great in college didn't carry over.Archie Griffin,same, great balance and moves - marginal in the Sunday league.Tebow would have loved to have him on Saturday rosterI disagree on Reggie Bush. He had a pretty solid NFL career.
SighYou want to see them against the best competition. Otherwise they might be running it up against large HS teams.
Yeah, but what about his NFL career?A paltry 14,216 yards rushing, Browns would have never touched these guys
Tough to do sometimes,guys like Charles White looked good with those great USC lines in the late '70s but was small and not all that fast.And of coarse the BROWNS drafted him.Reggie Bush was another great in college didn't carry over.Archie Griffin,same, great balance and moves - marginal in the Sunday league.Tebow would have loved to have him on Saturday rosterWhite was odd because he was injured and middling most of his career, then All Pro at 29, done at 31.
So, there is a strong correlation between college performance and NFL performance once injury is taken out of it. We have a few sleepers and a few duds, but not many.The very-talented and aptly named HB Joe Don Looney who got kicked off Bud Wilkinson's last really-good Sooner team (1962) flamed out very quickly in the NFL. Might have been drugs combined with Eastern mysticism. It couldn't have been much of a surprise to anyone.
Who is the best college back to be a dud in the pros injury aside? Might be someone who got into drugs.
Take your pick:More than a few of those guys were perfectly fine pros.
Fournette
Gordon has stunk
Trent Richardson.
CJ Spiller
Ryan Matthews
Knowshawn Moreno
McFadden
Reggie Bush
Cedric Benson
Ron Dayne
Curtis Enis
Lawrence Phillips
Ki-Jana Carter
Tyrone Wheatley
Garrison Hearst
Tommy Vardell
Blair Thomas
Tim Worley
Brent Fullwood
David Overstreet
USC's Ricky Bell was taken #1 overall, only ran for 3,000 yds. The #2 pick was HOF Tony Dorsett.
Take your pick:
The list was guys who didn't live up to being a top 10 pick. You don't draft a RB 4th and hope he rushes for 3,000 career yards.Well, Fournette has disappointed more due to injury than anything. He's been fine when healthy.
.
Fournette wasn't drafted with the Jags hoping for 4.0 yards per carry and 800 per season. Not with the 4th pick.
The list was guys who didn't live up to being a top 10 pick. You don't draft a RB 4th and hope he rushes for 3,000 career yards.A bunch of those guys weren't top-10 picks.
.
Fournette wasn't drafted with the Jags hoping for 4.0 yards per carry and 800 per season. Not with the 4th pick.
Oh, sorry, I had posted different criteria than not living up to their draft pick.I was just going to point that out.
Yeah, I guess, I can't evaluate a college career without thinking about their NFL performance.the only thing related to the NFL that I evaluate is their NFL draft position
Oh, sorry, I had posted different criteria than not living up to their draft pick.I was just doing the legwork of giving you choices.
Lawrence Phillips??He's up there. It's interesting when you have the split of someone like him, who just couldn't hold his shit together as compared to someone who got to the league just wasn't that good.
#6 pick by the Rams - 2 seasons in the NFL - less than 3.5 yards per carry - less than 1300 yards total
The Dophins took Ronnie Brown with the #2 pick. He had one 1,000 yard season.This and the ensuing list of backs kinda locks it in for me ... you should basically expect Ronnie Brown or Reggie Bush with the No. 2 picks.
He wasn't bad, but you're expecting more than that with the #2 pick.
Among recent players:Wilson - career ending spinal injury
David Wilson, RB, Va Tech is the 1st rounder with the fewest rushing yardage.
Drafted in 2012 by NYG, he's only gained 504 career yards.
Ouch.
But he was the last pick of Round 1.
.
The worst top 10 pick is Richardson from Alabama.
Drafted in 2012 as well, he's gained 2,032 career yards.
#3 pick in the draft.
So with the No. 2 pick in the draft, across 17 years, you're at a 47 percent chance of drafting Robert Gallery or a player worst than him. What I'm saying is, expect nothing.I look at it a different way...
good point, the LA Rams ruined Lawrence PhillipsLawrence Phillips ruined Lawrence Phillips. He was enabled at UNL. That didn't help him either. But, MNC's.
he was a very productive back at UNL - when he was on the field
I look at it a different way...I like this as a novel theory. But I see a couple issues.
If you have the #2 pick in the draft, you have a sh!tty football team. That's how you got the #2 pick.
Now, for some teams it's a down year in a good organization. For other teams (I'm looking at you, Cleveland) it's a consistently terrible management structure that produces perennially bad teams.
So if you've got the #2 pick and you're a bad football team with bad management, what are the odds that you're going to ruin your draft pick? Probably higher than one would think...
I'll bet if you look at #30-32 picks you'll see a lot of successes. Because they're being drafted by competent management in successful organizations and given every opportunity to succeed.
the draft isn't much better than recruiting high school talentIt would be interesting to look at the statistics, somehow. I know there is a decent correlation between number of stars and who is drafted later. But, how many drafts are busts I don't know.
Does anyone here think the guys at 24/7 sports spend more time doing college football "stuff" more than I do?I'd hope so. They get paid to do it full time.
Well if he played 12 years, you'd think he'd have gotten on the field enough...:57:Ha, yeah, that would be extended eligibility for sure.
Does anyone here think the guys at 24/7 sports spend more time doing college football "stuff" more than I do?In total for sure. They have a lot more guys than you.
I'd hope so. They get paid to do it full time.Right, they do it for work, then go home and do whatever else. I go home and do college football stuff - for leisure and with the game, get paid. Now that I'm teaching from home, I have more hours to devote to it.
I assume most of these types of things are just given to a guy and he's instructed to either play it safe or be outrageous on purpose. Nothing actually genuine or in-between those extremes.I'd say they play it safe and then throw in something outrageous to stir things up
1) Barry SandersNot in college, he isn't.
2-100 - mere mortal RB's in comparison. Does it really matter?
Not in college, he isn't.Disagree. He didn't need to start for more than 1 year. What he did in one year will never be done again.
I assume most of these types of things are just given to a guy and he's instructed to either play it safe or be outrageous on purpose. Nothing actually genuine or in-between those extremes.I think this one involved some polling.
Who are your top 10 for Michigan?1. Tyrone Wheatley
Not in college, he isn't.my #1 vote goes to Barry
1. Tyrone WheatleyBiakabatuka is up there. I think he maybe was the best pure RB. He’s probably #2 for me, still have to put Wheatley #1. Wheatley was just a freakish athlete though. Unlike any RB that has ever played at Michigan.
2-10. Everyone else
Kelly Baraka? Derrick Green?Baraka would’ve been interesting. I really think he had the talent to be special. Baraka broke the state record in the 100m dash that was held by Wheatley and Charles Rogers. He was a RARE athlete. Unfortunately he couldn’t keep himself out of trouble and got kicked out of school and wound up transferring to small ball and got kicked out of their as well. People can have all the talent in the world. But you can’t fix stupid.
;)
Sorry man.
Wheatley was just a freakish athlete though. Unlike any RB that has ever played at Michigan.Bo made NFLers look like kids. Wheatley never did that.
And honestly he gets forgotten way too often in the annals of CFB history. He is right up there with Bo Jackson or any athletic freak that’s ever played RB in CFB. This dude was a 6’1 and 235 pound jacked ball of muscle that set the state record in HS for the 100m dash. He was a bonafide track star whose speed translated to the football field and he was just so big and strong and no one that size should be able to run that fast.
I like this. I was having a discussion about something similar on another board. Basically, was Alando Tucker or Frank Kaminsky the best Badger. Frank had the best season and probably the third best between them. But Tucker had four pretty good to very good seasons (one could make a case he averaged 19 a game in his worst season).
.
Take the 3 categories I mentioned initially:
Single season - sure, it's Barry Sanders, '88
Speed/power/40 time/juke moves - maybe Sanders again. Maybe Herschel. Maybe Peterson. Maybe Bo.
Stats-only, career - maybe Jonathan Taylor, maybe Ricky Williams, maybe Ron Dayne.
.
The endless bickering occurs when we mix those 3 categories up and each pick one. Specifics help.
That I've seen:I'm going to sub Corey Clement in here somewhere. Probably have to slip him in for Calhoun, who only had one season in Madison. So put Corey in at #10 and move the rest up. The top 5 is set in stone for me. The rest I could be convinced otherwise, including leaving Calhoun in at the expense of someone else.
1. Jonathon Tayler
2. Melvin Gordon
3. Ron Dayne
4. Montee Ball
5. Brent Moss
6. Brian Calhoun
7. Terrell Fletcher
8. John Clay
9. Anthony Davis
10. James White
I like this. I was having a discussion about something similar on another board. Basically, was Alando Tucker or Frank Kaminsky the best Badger. Frank had the best season and probably the third best between them. But Tucker had four pretty good to very good seasons (one could make a case he averaged 19 a game in his worst season).Never did well against Michigan, and that bowl game against Georgia.. ugh.
Ron Dayne is interesting because he's such a "college player." The downside of that means, a smattering of big-game duds and more than a few 400 yards against Hawaii games.
Bo made NFLers look like kids. Wheatley never did that.Wheatley had a piss poor NFL career. Bo had a much better one. There’s no question about that. I thought this was a college discussion only though.
Wheatley had a piss poor NFL career. Bo had a much better one. There’s no question about that. I thought this was a college discussion only though.We are.
If we’re talking college only- Wheatley made a lot of future NFL players look like kids. He was a man amongst boys in college. He was a freak show in college. He had a rep as lazy malcontent with injury issues and it caused him to slip in the draft, but he was special in college.
I'm going to sub Corey Clement in here somewhere. Probably have to slip him in for Calhoun, who only had one season in Madison. So put Corey in at #10 and move the rest up. The top 5 is set in stone for me. The rest I could be convinced otherwise, including leaving Calhoun in at the expense of someone else.If career matters, I'd move up White. Here's his stats:
I also never saw Bo in college
That I've seen:I 100% agree with this top 3.
1. Jonathon Tayler
2. Melvin Gordon
3. Ron Dayne
career numbers just don't do it for meThere's nothing wrong with that idea, but the key is you're focusing on what they could have done, while I tend to focus on what actually happened.
many players get injured - Gale Sayers, Billy Sims - sorry NFL reference
some simply retire - Barry Sanders - sorry NFL
doesn't mean if they were "lucky" with injuries or "lucky" with the NFL organization(s) they played for they wouldn't have put up much better career numbers than others
I have VERY little doubt, that if Barry Sanders started for 4 years in college, he'd have incredible numbers. Better than Ron Dayne.
It would be good if the NCAA would go back and count bowl games for guys like Dayne.The fact that they haven't is one of the more curious stat anomalies ever. It wouldn't be even a little bit hard
The fact that they haven't is one of the more curious stat anomalies ever. It wouldn't be even a little bit hardI hear they are busy trying to find a way to make Micah Potter ineligible for next year.
MSU/UM that I've seen, which basically goes back to 1990 (so no Lorenzo White or Jamie MOrris)Those were two guys I hope landed in C-Bus.I know with Powers(Akron) he came out the same year as Robert Smith(Cleveland) so that wasn't going to happen.There was some reason about Ringer,I think it was some Buckeyes got dinged on grades and Ringer had dyslexia or some disability.My brother saw him play down in Dayton and he was real good and reportedly a good kid
- Javon Ringer
9.Ricky Powers
Those were two guys I hope landed in C-Bus.I know with Powers(Akron) he came out the same year as Robert Smith(Cleveland) so that wasn't going to happen.There was some reason about Ringer,I think it was some Buckeyes got dinged on grades and Ringer had dyslexia or some disability.My brother saw him play down in Dayton and he was real good and reportedly a good kidHe tore his ACL and missed the entire camp circuit and his senior year IIRC. It was viewed as a UM-OSU battle until then
There's nothing wrong with that idea, but the key is you're focusing on what they could have done, while I tend to focus on what actually happened.well, obviously, I tend to focus on what actually happened in one game or one season or one highlight reel run
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLAQRYw0RVM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLAQRYw0RVM)man that was great and brings back memories. Hadn’t watched video of Wheatley in awhile. He was special. I remember hearing Michael Strahan say in an interview that the most talented athlete he ever played with in his career with the NY Giants was Wheatley. Strahan said something to the effect of he had never seen anything like Wheatley when Wheatley got to the Giants, that Wheatley could out-lift all the DL and OL and out run all the DBs and WRs on the team. He was a freak show.
It would be good if the NCAA would go back and count bowl games for guys like Dayne.wouldn't it be much easier to simply exclude all bowl games as before?
even if it's a real game - the extra game skews the single season or career statsThis is why the all-time rushing leader should be the one with the highest career yards per game. Or even better - yards per start.
But we don't have that, because people hate math...even simple arithmatic.People hate speling and grammer two.
Umm, well, he did run for 74 more yards. It happened. It doesn't have anything to do with you.umm, well those other backs ran for yards way back in those other bowl games. It happened.
I'm late to the party on this, but a top 100 that only has 1 player from Penn State, and it's Evan Royster, is fundamentally flawed.I'd have Thomas higher on this list. Probably between Johnson and Enis??
Penn State's top 10
Saquon Barkley
Ki-Jana Carter
John Cappelletti
Curt Warner
Larry Johnson
Curtis Enis
Lydell Mitchell
Lenny Moore
Franco Harris
Blair Thomas
I'm late to the party on this, but a top 100 that only has 1 player from Penn State, and it's Evan Royster, is fundamentally flawed.Okay, you fit the 300 RBs that SHOULD be ranked in the top 100... :)
Penn State's top 10
Saquon Barkley
Ki-Jana Carter
John Cappelletti
Curt Warner
Larry Johnson
Curtis Enis
Lydell Mitchell
Lenny Moore
Franco Harris
Blair Thomas
umm, well those other backs ran for yards way back in those other bowl games. It happened.We agree.
Prior to 2002, bowl game statistics were not included in players' career totals
This is why the all-time rushing leader should be the one with the highest career yards per game. Or even better - yards per start.but, we can do that to assemble this top 100 list
But we don't have that, because people hate math...even simple arithmatic.
Doesn't it feel odd to say the guy who ran for the most yards ever wasn't _____ enough? Again, what more do you want?Dayne got a ton of carries though. How many other backs started all 4 years and averaged over 300 carries a year? That’s why he’s got the stats.
Dayne got a ton of carries though. How many other backs started all 4 years and averaged over 300 carries a year? That’s why he’s got the stats.Jonathan Taylor does have a claim to the best ever - because of what he did on the field. The one thing Herschel Walker's proponents had was the 'most yards in a 3-year career' thing. But Taylor has that now. He earned it on the field.
Yes, exactly. If it was so easy, why isn't it common?
Doesn’t take a genius to know when one player is better than another. You can just see it.
Yeah, you can have that. I'll stick with what actually happened on the field.
Their yards per carry would plummet.there's also a reason one player had more yards in a single season with fewer games and fewer carries than Ron
Can you guarantee those players will handle 1,220 carries? Won't get hurt all the time? There's a reason only one player has 1,220 career carries, and his name is Ron Dayne.
I was thinking about Ron Dayne this morning.I think there's a factor that kind of blends the stats and the style. The best Dayne needed 30-plus carries. If you were in a game where you couldn't get him there, that caused some problems. His duds seem to stick out more, especially in two key losses to Michigan, and perhaps his consistent greatness meant some of his great games blended into the background a bit (his 200-yard Rose Bowls came in games of some uneven quality). He wasn't a guy when you were down 10 who could make it a 3-point game on one play from the 20.
The all-time leading rusher (I think?).
Being ranked 3rd by our own resident Badgers.
.
So...what should he have done differently? No, not even realistically, but more like what would had to have changed for him to be #1? Would you make him faster? Say we could make him faster, from a 4.55 guy to a 4.4 guy. So he's 5'10", 260 lbs, running a 4.4. Does he have the same career? Would he have rushed for more yards? Wouldn't his whole running style change? Wouldn't the play-calling change?
He did what he did using what he was, and it yielded the most rushing yards in a career. I don't think you change that. I don't think you slide it into 3rd place at his own program, right?
I'm reminded of a quote from Moneyball - I think some of you are trying to sell jeans. You've got super-productive guys who juke and run a 4.4 having great careers and then you have a short, fat guy who jogged and bounced off people who was a bit more productive....and most people side with the 4..4 guys. We're not selling jeans, here.
Well that's what the simple math suggests, but we can't say that. More carries = more chances to get hurt, then you're back to Fearless' point. Plus, if Gordon has 3 years of high carries, he loses the season with 10 ypc...I found this interesting on two fronts, and it kind of changed my perspective a bit.
It's a million different little things out of their control.
A huge inefficiency in football is a HC sticking with a good player, despite having a better one as a backup. Thomas should have been backing up Sanders at OKST. Ball should've been backing up Gordon. And if that's a leap too far, Gordon should have at least gotten way more carries when he was 3rd-string. If you have a guy averaging 10 ypc, it's irresponsible to not get him more carries. But then you have to consider knowledge of the offense and/or pass-blocking, etc.
.
It's just fun to think about.
I think on jet sweeps when the box was loaded and the OL was a mess. He had mop up work after an early fumble in a blowout of Purdue and mop up in a bloodletting of IU.Yeah, that goes back to coaching then.
Plus there's the fly sweep factor, which is to say he usually got the ball in favorable spots (also that offense was a weird mess because of some push/pull between OC and HC). So there was some modest coaching malpractice, though with the passing game and a mid-season OL coach change, I'm unsure 200 Gordon carries change all that much.
Sanders had one try - 11 gamesinclude the bowl game and the guy had 2,850 yards and 42 rushing td’s in 12 games.
I think there's a factor that kind of blends the stats and the style. The best Dayne needed 30-plus carries. If you were in a game where you couldn't get him there, that caused some problems. His duds seem to stick out more, especially in two key losses to Michigan, and perhaps his consistent greatness meant some of his great games blended into the background a bit (his 200-yard Rose Bowls came in games of some uneven quality). He wasn't a guy when you were down 10 who could make it a 3-point game on one play from the 20.I know it's a quibble, but man I wish Gordon had a senior year. He was behind Ball and White in 2012. Behind White in 2013. On his own in 2014.
There's also an odd fact that his most prolific run was the latter half of his first year just smashing tomato cans and solid Utah team. Also interesting that a 231-yard game, eighth best of his career, is forever remembered for a mess of fumbles in a 17-12 loss to Cincinnati.
Some if it just watching, you watch Gordon and Taylor and there's a little more well-rounded-ness to them. They could run with power, with wiggle and break a big one at any time. Dayne was a little more limited.
Now putting Taylor over him isn't so hard. Taylor's YPC was higher with a still very large workload. His had a few dud games against really talented OSU teams, one mess of fumbles against NW. Gordon is trickier. His senior year was better than any year Dayne had. His junior year, he had a split situation with a good player and was a terror.
I think the argument is those two were better backs, but Dayne had a better career, even if he was a more limited runner overall. The career stuff is cool, but these days it just feels like so much of that was staying around for a season no good backs stay for anymore.
include the bowl game and the guy had 2,850 yards and 42 rushing td’s in 12 games.Ya but that was against those wimp Sooner defenses ;D
That is an astonishing 237.5 yards rushing per game and 3.5 rushing TD’s a game.
No one will ever come close to averaging those kind of numbers.
Ya but that was against those wimp Sooner defenses ;DSo he was just twelving?
Wisconsin doesn’t get enough credit for being in the RB U convo. They churn out OL’s and RB’s at an astonishing level. This isn’t a helmet program like Bama that can just cherry pick 5 STARZ from across the country. Pretty impressive what they are able to do.
I think they get plenty of credit, at least with anyone with a clue at all. I suspect some out there view them as "System RBs", which would be partly true and partly deceptive. It does help to have a great OL and run oriented offense (duh), but other teams that run a lot don't produce this kind of RB talent.I do sometimes fall into that group thinking that there are "system RBs" at Wisconsin... But that doesn't mean that they don't have talent.
Yeah, that goes back to coaching then.A few nits to pick here. I numbered for response to the other one.
1. If jet sweeps and fly sweeps net so much yardage for the backup, why the hell aren't they doing it with the starter?
2. I think HCs are married to this idea of starter/backup, and it's antiquated and asinine. And if their play-calling is described as you've said, that HC doesn't know what he's doing.
No, I'm not saying I'd do a better job as HC of a major program, but I would be confident being the nerdy advisor, providing reports each week of how he could improve his offense with simple tweaks.
3. For instance, if you have a starting RB getting a bulk of the carries with a lower ypc, and his carries are more traditional play-calls, that's an easy fix.
A - you give the backup more carries, period
B - the more traditional carries the backup gets and the more dynamic, diverse carries the starter gets, the harder it will be for the defense to know which is in there to do which
Tailbacks at UW have to contend with 8-9 man fronts almost all the time.So that's not totally a thing, unless a offense wants it.
Imagine what Taylor could have done with Russell Wilson at QB?
Montee Ball made a killing working in that offense. Taylor would have been off the charts - even more off the charts than he already was.
Tailbacks at UW have to contend with 8-9 man fronts almost all the time.That's a good point but a quick seem would take care of that.Maybe they show it and backed off don't have the stats
Part of valuing volume is that the players earned their way onto the field early in their careers. If Barry Sanders was so good, why was he a backup for 2 years? Yes, we know why, but if he was THAT good, he'd start ahead of the established star. We can fault coaching or traditional wisdom or whatever, but would Peterson have backed up Thurman Thomas? Would Herschel? Would Bo?Thurman Thomas wasn't chopped liver. He's in the NFL and CFB Halls of Fame.
Thurman Thomas wasn't chopped liver.Who said he was?
Yeah, that goes back to coaching then.You're aware that it's not always the case that when something works, doing more of it will work more, right?
If jet sweeps and fly sweeps net so much yardage for the backup, why the hell aren't they doing it with the starter?
I think HCs are married to this idea of starter/backup, and it's antiquated and asinine. And if their play-calling is described as you've said, that HC doesn't know what he's doing.
No, I'm not saying I'd do a better job as HC of a major program, but I would be confident being the nerdy advisor, providing reports each week of how he could improve his offense with simple tweaks.
For instance, if you have a starting RB getting a bulk of the carries with a lower ypc, and his carries are more traditional play-calls, that's an easy fix.
A - you give the backup more carries, period
B - the more traditional carries the backup gets and the more dynamic, diverse carries the starter gets, the harder it will be for the defense to know which is in there to do which
Wisconsin loves to run it at you and they get in personnel groupings that reflect this style. You will often see only one or two receivers in the game for the Badgers. They run the ball with the backs to almost lull you to sleep and then they break out another one of their favorites, the jet sweep.
Jet motion involves a player coming full speed across the formation and either receiving or faking a handoff immediately after the ball is snapped. Wisconsin loves to use this as a restraint play.
Restraint plays are plays that you call to keep a defense honest. What do you do if you are running the ball inside a ton and the defense starts to load the box between the tackles? You would call something that would hit outside to force the defense to stop cheating for the inside run. Wisconsin did exactly this to Michigan in their game last year.
Who said he was?This can happen at times because:
Even still, you don't have your better RB be the backup.
You're aware that it's not always the case that when something works, doing more of it will work more, right?This is interesting because for the most part Wisconsin doesn’t bass out of outside zone. But if you watch that Western Kentucky game is referenced, they definitely run a lot of outside zone.
While we've argued the idea of more carries vs ypc to death, the one thing I will say is that with many things in football, you reach a point of diminishing returns.
Or, more accurately, it goes back to Chris Brown's constraint theory of offense: http://smartfootball.com/offense/why-every-team-should-apply-the-constraint-theory-of-offense (http://smartfootball.com/offense/why-every-team-should-apply-the-constraint-theory-of-offense)
Wisconsin's base play is outside zone. It may not be flashy. It might not be a GREAT ypp call. But the yards per play are often enough to move the chains. But if you know that outside zone is coming, and you load the box against it selling out for outside zone, you might render it ineffective.
The throw in jet sweeps (and fake jet sweeps) as a constraint play. It's well described here: https://www.thedailystampede.com/2019/8/15/20806114/watching-film-the-refined-brutality-of-the-wisconsin-offense-badgers-usf-football-jonathan-taylor (https://www.thedailystampede.com/2019/8/15/20806114/watching-film-the-refined-brutality-of-the-wisconsin-offense-badgers-usf-football-jonathan-taylor)
The zone running scheme is their bread and butter. They're going to run that right down your throat until you prove you can stop it, at which point they run constraint plays to punish you the defense selling out on one thing.
You can't just say "well run more jet sweeps and fly sweeps" because unless the defense is selling out for the traditional runs, the jet sweeps and fly sweeps won't work well against a base defense that's trying to contain the edges.
Same thing with the passing game. Wisconsin typically is pretty solid statistically in yards/attempt. Does that mean they should throw the ball more? Not if the run game is working the way they want to. They usually have high ypa and low attempts, specifically BECAUSE they're using downfield passing as a constraint on teams selling out for the run.
-------------
This is basic offensive coaching. "What do we do well?" "What do we do when the opposing team tries to take away what we're doing well?"
If you're doing it right, the constraint plays look more successful than the base plays, because the opposing team is working so hard to stop the base that they leave vulnerabilities elsewhere. But it becomes a bad idea to think that you should then be using the constraint plays more often. You want to use them just enough that your base still works well, because the base is your identity.
You're aware that it's not always the case that when something works, doing more of it will work more, right?Precisely!
While we've argued the idea of more carries vs ypc to death, the one thing I will say is that with many things in football, you reach a point of diminishing returns.
I don't know why that guy calls them "constraint" plays, they're all simply counters. Meh.There's long been the perception that passing is riskier than running the ball.
What he lays out is exactly how I'd coach if I had a team, starting from scratch. In practice, we'd start with one play, and we'd run it and run it and run it until the defenders cheated, and I'd introduce the counter play off that play.
.
Now along these lines, and this may be 25 years too late, but teams SHOULD pass more. They should pass more because the average pass attempt is much higher than the average rush attempt. You should pass enough so that those numbers get close (diminishing return). Same with the backup or more-talented RB....get him more carries until his ypc gets close to the starter's.
Now along these lines, and this may be 25 years too late, but teams SHOULD pass more. They should pass more because the average pass attempt is much higher than the average rush attempt. You should pass enough so that those numbers get close (diminishing return). Same with the backup or more-talented RB....get him more carries until his ypc gets close to the starter's.I think there's a lot to be said for that, but as I've argued before, sometimes you're balancing average with variance.
I think there's a lot to be said for that, but as I've argued before, sometimes you're balancing average with variance.Definitely, great points about individuality and variance.
Passing has higher average ypp than rushing, but I'd argue that it also has higher variance in ypp than rushing.
My belief is that the stronger your team is, the more you rely on low-variance strategies because you trust your talent to beat the opposition. A high-variance strategy might hang 75 points on a mid-P5 team, but it offers a lot more opportunities for turnovers, stalled drives, etc that might allow a worse team to beat you.
The weaker your team, the more you need to rely on high-variance strategies because you're at a talent shortfall. Maybe it'll mean you get blown out too often, but it gives you more opportunity to beat a team you "shouldn't".
Obviously it's not binary. Alabama's strategy when facing LSU or Clemson is going to be different than their strategy when facing Towson. So it helps to have the ability to go either way. But I don't think it's one size fits all.
.1. The WR might drop the ball, or have the pass thrown at his feet or over his head.
What's the difference between a WR screen gaining 4 yards and a run for 4 yards, when it comes to the clock?
ANY pass entails higher risk than a simple hand off, statistically.According to Football Outsiders, the best OL in the league in 2019, Dallas, has a 13% likelihood of a run being stuffed, i.e. tackled at or behind the LOS. The worst, Miami, was 26%, but only 9 of 32 were 21% or higher.
Well, which tactic runs clock best is pretty obvious.FYI I was trying to expand on your post, not disagreeing ;-)
FYI I was trying to expand on your post, not disagreeing ;-)They don't. They count in rushing stats, officially.
But the point extends beyond running clock. Running clock isn't a concern unless it's late in the game and you're trying to protect a lead. The difference between variance and average exists during the whole game.
A pass is riskier than a run because it has a higher likelihood to be zero or negative yards. I didn't include sacks because I don't know if those statistically factor into completion percentage, and I didn't include completed passes which are tackled for no gain or negative yards because I couldn't find stats on that.
They don't. They count in rushing stats, officially.Yeah, I think sack yardage should be it's own thing. So you have -50 in sack yardage and throw for 200 and run for 200, your total yards would be 350. The expectation that rush + pass yards = total yards would have to go away.
Some "dorks" keep track though. I do, when, let's say UW goes for 500 rushing yards but is only credited with 465. Damn sacks!!
They don't. They count in rushing stats, officially.That's college. I don't think the NFL considers lost sack yardage against rushing.
Some "dorks" keep track though. I do, when, let's say UW goes for 500 rushing yards but is only credited with 465. Damn sacks!!
That's college. I don't think the NFL considers lost sack yardage against rushing.Oh wait. We're talking NFL now?
also, int's should count against wr/te/rb if it was a tipped ball or obviously catchable and they messed it up.I get the idea, but it gets tough to determine. What if they ran the wrong route? Does it get charged to the OT if he whiffed his block and the QB got drilled as he released it? What if the missed blitzer though, was the result of the QB misreading the rush.=?
Oh wait. We're talking NFL now?In the post you were responding to, I was using the examples of stuffed runs and completion percentage rates from the NFL.
"3 things can happen when you throw a pass, and 2 of them are bad."I mean, a lot of things can happen on a run or a pass.
- WW Hayes
I mean, a lot of things can happen on a run or a pass.Yes. But that's what Woody said.
According to Football Outsiders, the best OL in the league in 2019, Dallas, has a 13% likelihood of a run being stuffed, i.e. tackled at or behind the LOS. The worst, Miami, was 26%, but only 9 of 32 were 21% or higher.FWIW, that gap in College is 11.1 percent (Army) to 32.6 (Tennessee). Not sure if sacks are filtered out.
Contrast that to completion percentage. Brees was at the high end, besting 75% this year, but only 3 players were over 70%. The bulk were between 60-70%, with only three players finishing below 60%. (Qualified by minimum 200 attempts--there are several starters who didn't qualify with 200 attempts below 60% though, most of whom failed to qualify due to seasons limited by injury).
So not taking into account fumbles, interceptions, sacks, somewhere under 20% of runs will be zero (or negative) yards for most teams, while somewhere between 30-40% of passes will be zero yards.
That's my point when it comes to variance. The NFL average is 4.26 ypc, so two "average" runs should leave 3rd and short. Two mediocre runs in a row, let's say half of average, or one stuffed run and one average run, and you might be facing 3rd and 5 or 6, where you're still in intermediate territory and may have a run or a pass option. Two incomplete passes in a row and you're in 3rd and 10 and in an obvious passing situation.
The way to win football games is to move the chains in sustained drives. Variance where 30-40% of your plays go for zero yards can stall drives even if the average of those plays is higher.
FWIW, that gap in College is 11.1 percent (Army) to 32.6 (Tennessee). Not sure if sacks are filtered out.Well yeah, there's more variance in the variance in college ;-)
Very true - outlier offenses may have their own diminishing returns point. Their bell curve may be off-set from the norm by 20% or so. You have your Switzers on one end and your Leaches on the other and they may stray so far from the norm that they require their own math.
So the discussion about the pass/run split is different when you are talking about a triple-option team than it is when you are talking about an offense like Bama's or Clemson's or LSU's or Ohio State. The QB run in those offenses may well be part of the game plan, but it's not designed into the vast majority of plays.
Very true - outlier offenses may have their own diminishing returns point. Their bell curve may be off-set from the norm by 20% or so. You have your Switzers on one end and your Leaches on the other and they may stray so far from the norm that they require their own math.Have you analyzed Leach's offenses for pass/run balance? It's my impression that he runs a lot more than people think he does, but I don't have stats to back that up. And I'm talking about real runs, not swing passes to backs.
imo, sacks should be a passing stat. rpo throw a wrinkle in it a little, but imo, it should count towards the type of play it was intended to be.so this play should go down as passing yardage??? 75 yards!!!
also, int's should count against wr/te/rb if it was a tipped ball or obviously catchable and they messed it up.
I get the idea, but it gets tough to determine. What if they ran the wrong route? Does it get charged to the OT if he whiffed his block and the QB got drilled as he released it? What if the missed blitzer though, was the result of the QB misreading the rush.=?
so this play should go down as passing yardage??? 75 yards!!!anomalies happen, but no. once the ball crosses the los, i'd count as a running play.
Taylor Martinez 75-Yard TD Run vs. Wisconsin in Big Ten Championship - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HGZk5mQTuY&list=PLLT_AYU4pcjHCVUFxgPl7xVC6MPJUCen8&index=67)
go back to the 70s with the SoonersThe late, great Jack Mildren in particular was a master of the downfield pitch.
so this play should go down as passing yardage??? 75 yards!!!I know some schools would count that against their pass defense in the unofficial stats they keep. Also some count screens as runs.
Taylor Martinez 75-Yard TD Run vs. Wisconsin in Big Ten Championship - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HGZk5mQTuY&list=PLLT_AYU4pcjHCVUFxgPl7xVC6MPJUCen8&index=67)
We'd have specified stats for all of it, if football was invented yesterday. But it wasn't.Are you responding to my post about late pitches in triple-option offenses? It seems like maybe for one season or two some scorers were splitting the rushing yards for a play with a late pitch between the QB and the HB. I'm not sure about that. I just remember either in the '72 or '73 season where reporters were making it very clear that the rushing yards on such plays all went to the guy who ended up with the ball.
Dare I ask how you'd score a halfback pass? Rare today, but back in the 40s and earlier, it was common. For many teams, if you just looked at the stats, you could not figure out who the QB was vs who the RB was - their pass attempts and rush attempts were so similar - and not just those 2 guys, either. You'd have 4 guys with 20+ pass attempts in a season, when passes were few and far between.
Maybe any pass behind the line of scrimmage should be counted as a run. If it's incomplete, it's a rush for zero yards.I mean, some of it is functional. I'm in pass defense on a scramble. I'm not really in coverage on a quick screen.
Now that I've made that suggestion, I don't know that I like it.
Are you responding to my post about late pitches in triple-option offenses? It seems like maybe for one season or two some scorers were splitting the rushing yards for a play with a late pitch between the QB and the HB. I'm not sure about that. I just remember either in the '72 or '73 season where reporters were making it very clear that the rushing yards on such plays all went to the guy who ended up with the ball.No, I was just sharing about how roles weren't so clearly defined back in the day.
I don't see any problem with a halfback pass. It's a pass attempt.
If there is a problem, it might be one of insufficient historical data.
Clay was low-key overrated.He certainly looked the part thought he might hang around the league longer than one season.Like Allen Iverson he apparently didn't like to practice
He certainly looked the part thought he might hang around the league longer than one season.Like Allen Iverson he apparently didn't like to practiceHe was very good, not great. Had potential, but probably relied too much on his physical gifts. Word was he was always light upstairs. Only barely won admission to UW, as I recall--and many thought he wouldn't be able to cut it in the classroom.
He certainly looked the part thought he might hang around the league longer than one season.Like Allen Iverson he apparently didn't like to practiceHe liked food and a good time and his ankles did not like him so chunky.
No, I was just sharing about how roles weren't so clearly defined back in the day.If you do that, start with the '71 season.
I'd have to research those 72/73 seasons to understand what you're saying, or to see if it's evident. I had never heard that before, though, so cool.
He liked food and a good time and his ankles did not like him so chunky.~??? Classy!
Somewhere on the Facebook was a picture of him with a red shirt that had what looked like a Coca Cola logo on it. But under the word "enjoy" it said, well an anatomical word. The image always stuck with me.
81. Ahman Green, Nebraska (1995-1997)Yeah, and over 100 better than Barry Sanders....
80 backs better than Ahman? Impressive
So far I'm seeing too many guys ahead of Barkley & Fournette that IMO that would be flattered to back them upThey couldn't back them up, they're too busy being on the field, running the ball, being more productive.
that's a simple question?man, i'd go with one that can catch out of the backfield. bama can and has/does stuff elite big rb's as well as shifty ones. but we still struggle covering one that dynamic out of the backfield. take the lsu rb form this year. of course, he had an all around great game, but his biggest impact was catching out of the backfield. 9 catches, 77 yds and a td. and several were drive saving catches.
any of the top 5 backs should REALLY help your cause here
but, If I'm playing Bama I'd pick a larger back to go against those NFL sized D-linemen and LBs
Earl Campbell, Bo Jackson, Herchel, Jim Brown,
Gray, White, and Moss weren'tWhite's long NFL career begs to differ. I know we're not supposed to consider that around here, and ding him for being a third-down back all you want; he's survived in the League a lot longer than most of the guys on this list.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGTLokMyP_IWhite didn't have to break a tackle on that play but he was touched twice
when he goes for 75 on a broken play vs a good defense, let me knowJust ranking their careers, not their draft spot or 40 time, we're not selling jeans here.
heck, Sexy Rexy Burkhead has an NFL career still going and he's not good
was on the same team as White
not really such a knock on White, I just don't agree that some other fine backs should be lower on the list
CLICKBAITYOU GOT ME TO CLICK ON THIS LIST WITH THE POSSIBILITY IT MIGHT BE A LIST THAT AT SOME POINT WOULD PISS ME OFF WITH ITS ORDER!!!
YOU GOT ME TO CLICK ON THIS LIST WITH THE POSSIBILITY IT MIGHT BE A LIST THAT AT SOME POINT WOULD PISS ME OFF WITH ITS ORDER!!!That, sir, is a certainty. :72:
that's a simple question?Can't go wrong with any of those. I'd go with Jim Brown.
any of the top 5 backs should REALLY help your cause here
but, If I'm playing Bama I'd pick a larger back to go against those NFL sized D-linemen and LBs
Earl Campbell, Bo Jackson, Herchel, Jim Brown,
80. Joe Washington, Oklahoma (1972-1975)Better than some of the guys ahead of him, I think.
Four-year contributor, but never had 200+ carries in a season for OU's option offense. Very quick and fast, he averaged over 6 ypc for his career, receiving those option pitches. He had 2 seasons of nearly 7 ypc. OU won the NC his final 2 seasons.
Lost 8 yards on that punt return. That's what matters to me. Fun video to watch, sure, but he made an incredible AND stupid play. The entertainment aspect for us is great, but he cost his team some field position.Is that all you watched? The first 33 seconds?
Hayes would've benched him for that. Bo would have benched him. Saban would've benched him. If your highlight reel costs the team, you sit.