How did Brett Favre look?

Tonight we got our first real extended look at Brett Favre since he joined the Minnesota Vikings, as he played the first half plus one series against the Houston Texans. A week ago, he played in 2 series and completed 1 of 4 passes against the Kansas City Chiefs. From all accounts, the offense was very rusty with Favre last week, as he had only been with the team for a couple days.

Things looked much more comfortable for Favre and the Vikings against the Texans, as Favre completed 13 of 18 passes for 142 yards and a touchdown. He was making good decisions, and making throws putting the Vikings many playmakers in position to make plays.

With guys like Adrian Peterson (who had a 75 yard TD run on the first play from scrimmage), Bernard Berrian, Sidney Rice, and Percy Harvin, the Vikings have lots of guys that can make plays. Defenses have a lot of guys they will have to focus on, and that could lead to some big plays if Favre can get the ball in their hands, which he looked much more comfortable doing tonight. That trend should continue as they get more reps together and the QB and WRs can get a better sense of what the others are going to do.

The biggest thing was touched on by Adam Schefter at halftime... Favre didn't make mistakes. He is the NFL's all-time leader in interceptions, and has a tendency to try and force plays when nothing is there. He can't do that this year if the Vikings are just going to be successful, as he needs to just let the defense and running game lead the team, and take whatever the opposing defense is going to give him. He was able to do that here.

The Vikings didn't have a lot of success down the field... Favre aired it out one time to Jaymar Johnson, but nothing came of it. Again, that is stuff that tends to happen when they have more practice time together, so we will just have to see how that develops.

All in all, a successful showing from Favre and the Vikings. He looked a lot more comfortable this week, and should look even better with a couple more weeks of practice left before the season opener against the Cleveland Browns.

Ferrum @ Emory and HenryPre Game Overview

The Wasps come into the 2009 season with reasons to be optimistic about their chances in the ODAC. Voted to finish second by the ODAC coaches, Emory and Henry comes off of a season that saw them finish in a 4 way tie for first place, and are looking to take the championship for themselves this year.With two returning All Americans in RB Caleb Jennings, and LB Evin O'Sullivan, the Wasps will be a strong opponent for Ferrum.

Last year was a tale of two halves for the Panthers. Trailing at halftime 13-6, and 20-6 at the end of the third quarter, Ferrum made a strong bid in the fourth quarter, but came up short 26-21. The Wasps exploited a young secondary, and scored three touchdowns through the air. Turnovers limited the Panthers chances as Ferrum had three fumbles on the day (losing two), and threw two interceptions. Lastly Ferrum had 10 penalties for 92 yards. While Ferrum lead in most statistical categories, they did not lead in time of possession, and gave up 3 of 4 touchdowns through the air.

Ferrum has the talent to win this game, but needs to not play catch up. Turnovers need to be eliminated, and Ferrum must improve on pass defense, to include more pressure on the QB. Ferrum did not record a sack last year against the Wasps.

Penalties have to be kept to a minimum. Nothing can be given away. Special Teams will be crucial as every scoring attempt must be capitalized on. Lastly the mind set of takeaway and score must be paramount.When Ferrum is the beneficiary of a turnover, they MUST convert that good fortune to points. Time of possession is important, but it is far more important to make that possession productive.

Keys to a Panther Win


No Turnovers
Must capitalize every time E&H turns the ball over. Takeaway and Score
Must pressure and sack the QB, and play aggressively in the secondary.
Minimal penalties
Special Team execution- No missed scoring opportunities
Score First- Set the Tone!

Like last year, I think this will be a close game. E&H is recognized as one of the stronger teams in the ODAC, and received votes in the D3.com top 25 preseason poll. Playing on the road will present a challenge, but Ferrum is a more talented team than people realize, and I think will surprise a lot of people. The Panthers can win this game with sound fundamentals....emphasis on mental.

My prediction-

Ferrum 20
E&H 17

NFC North Predictions

The NFC North was a division that experienced a lot of change in the offseason. In 2008, it was considered a pretty weak division when the Minnesota Vikings won it, but in 2009 it appears to be much stronger, with 3 teams battling for supremacy. It should be one of the most intriguing division races in the NFL.

The cellar will again be occupied by the Detroit Lions, but they should be much improved. Of course, it is impossible not to improve on their 0-16 season, but that's beside the point. The biggest change is at the top, with Jim Schwartz as the new head coach. After coming over from the Tennessee Titans, he is attempting to instill a new attitude in the franchise. A big part of that will be Matthew Stafford, the number 1 pick in the NFL Draft, a QB with a ton of physical tools, who will undoubtedly see the field at some point this season.

The Green Bay Packers should be much improved, as they were one of the youngest teams in the NFL last season. Aaron Rodgers should be more comfortable in the passing game, and that should make the passing game very potent. The biggest key for the Packers success will be how well they can transition to the 3-4 defense. Dom Capers is trying to make the change this season, and Green Bay will be in the hunt for the division crown if they can make the transition seamless.

There is a lot of excitement around the Chicago Bears, mostly due to the addition of quarterback Jay Cutler. He was acquired in a trade from the Denver Broncos, and gives the Bears an elite quarterback that they have not had for a long-time. While their receiving options are inexperienced, Cutler will make everyone on the offense better. If the defense can recapture its form from the Super Bowl team, then the Bears will be strong contenders for the NFC North title.

Last, there is the Minnesota Vikings, who will be looking to repeat and make it back to the playoffs. The biggest change, of course, is the late addition of Brett Favre. After numerous struggles at the quarterback position over the past few season, Brad Childress is hoping that the 40 year-old Favre can bring stability to the most important position in football. He will have plenty of options, with Adrian Peterson, Bernard Berrian, and Percy Harvin to gather the attention of opposing defenses. This offense, in addition to one of the best defenses in football, should be enough to repeat in the division, in my mind.

So the NFC North will be one of the most interesting and competitive divisions in football, with the Vikings, Bears, and Packers all looking like legitimate contenders. I think the Minnesota Vikings will repeat as division champions, but opinions are varied. It will be fun to see how things turn out.

NFC South Predictions

Every year there seems to be a new face atop the NFC South. In a League that is full of change and unpredictably, no division in the NFL exemplifies that more than the NFC South. Over the past 5-10 years, each team in the division has had their degrees of success and division titles, which is not always the case in other divisions. Once again, entering the 2009 season the division race looks wide open.

The Tampa Bay Buccaneers will probably occupy the cellar of the division, as they are in the midst of a lot of change. They will have a new head coach, new quarterback, and a lot of new pieces on defense. They made it clear that they were looking to rebuild, as they did not spend a lot of their free cap space, and drafted QB Josh Freeman in round 1. They have some nice young pieces, but they won't be contending for a division title this season.

The New Orleans Saints look like they will be the 3rd place team in this division. They have a very explosive offense (led by Drew Brees), but the defense will once again be very suspect. Expect them to air it out often like last year, with Brees getting lots and lots of passing yards. He is one of the best QBs in the League, and perfectly suited for Sean Payton's offense. However, they will need a more consistent running attack from guys like Pierre Thomas and Reggie Bush if they are going to have any chance to contend in the division.

I believe the Carolina Panthers will be in second place in the division, just one year after winning it and getting a first round bye. If their running back committee of DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart can stay healthy, they will again have one of the best running attacks in the NFL. However, I am still not sold on Jake Delhomme. At this point in his career, he seems like a guy just good enough to get by in the regular season, but not good enough to take a team places in the postseason.

That leaves the Atlanta Falcons, who I think will be the best team in the division. They are led by 2nd year QB Matt Ryan, who is one of the best young quarterbacks in the game. He adds another weapon to his disposal with TE Tony Gonzalez, one of the best tight ends of all-time. With Michael Turner back and an improving defense, the Falcons should continue to get better under coach Mike Smith. They should win the division and could be one of the best teams in the NFC.

So the NFC South should be a wide open division once again. The division race seems to be between the Carolina Panthers and Atlanta Falcons, but the New Orleans Saints have the firepower to sneak in there and make some noise. I like the Falcons to eventually prevail, but it will be an interesting and entertaining division race to watch this season.

What is your prediction?

Ferrum Football ranked 86th in the Nation

Out of 238 teams, Ferrum has been ranked 86th by D3 football.com, according to their release of Kickoof 2009, an online overview of all D3 teams. While this ranking to me is somewhat lower than I originally expected, changes to the Panthers roster have probably relegated their position somewhat. D3 football.com has predicted a 5-5 year for the Panthers, resulting in being one of three teams tied for third.place in the conference.

The D3.com predictions for the rest of the conference are below:


D3.com Preseason Rankings:


Christopher Newport University National Ranking- 20th

North Carolina Wesleyan National Ranking- 54th

Ferrum College National Ranking 86th

Maryville College National Ranking 119th

Averett University National Ranking 120th

Shenandoah University National Ranking 146th

Methodist College National Ranking 158th

Greensboro College National Ranking 181st


The D3 football.com USA South predicted order of finish is :


Predicted record:
Christopher Newport 8-2, 6-1
North Carolina Wesleyan 6-4, 5-2
Maryville 4-6, 4-3
Averett 6-4, 4-3
Ferrum 5-5, 4-3
Shenandoah 4-6, 3-4
Methodist 4-6, 2-5
Greensboro 2-8, 0-7


National Rankings of Ferrum's Non Conference opponents are :

Emory and Henry 88th
Bridgewater 96th

*Southern Virginia University is not ranked in this poll as they are an NAIA representative.

Fall Camp in Full Swing at Ferrum

I recently visited the Panthers fall camp as they were preparing for the upcoming season. Here are a few pictures from my trip. While they have no captions, and show very little in the overall preparation process, Ferrum looked strong and seemed all business as they get ready for 2009.

I came away with a good feeling, and am very much looking forward to the start of the season.

(Click on any photo to enlarge)

Road Games May Be The Key For Ferrum

When looking at the 2009 schedule, a few things stand out. First, the order of the games this year has been shuffled. While this may cause the need to adjust routine travel expectations, it really will not mean much in the scheme of the conference standings.

Secondly, and perhaps most important, are the difficult road games that Ferrum has this year. Opening the season at Emory and Henry is the first step of five road games that will all present different challenges. Emory and Henry has for the past couple of years defeated Ferrum (except in 2007, Ferrum ultimately won by forfeit as E&H had an ineligible player) This year, Emory and Henry will be a strong contender for the ODAC crown, and will feature two D3football.com Second team All American selections. Given that this is the season opener, and that its on the road, Ferrum will have its first real test early. The Panthers can win, but they must play every down to the whistle, and preferably need to take the lead and not have to play catch up.

The next road game will be against Southern Virginia University in Buena Vista. This is one of those everything to lose, and nothing to gain games. SVU is not an NCAA affiliated school (They are in the NAIA), and this game will not improve Ferrum's rankings in the eyes of anyone putting out weekly polls, or determining playoff possibilities based on the NCAA regional rankings.
While Ferrum will be favored to win this game, and should in the end win, it will not help in the long run. In the event that SVU won the game, it will prove to be a difficult obstacle to overcome as far as rankings are concerned.

Conference play begins on the road for Ferrum as they travel to Rocky Mount N.C. to take on the powerful North Carolina Wesleyan team that outgunned Ferrum last year in Ferrum 41-14. This game will be critical to the Panthers hopes of making the playoffs, and a Panther win here can have huge implications on the conference championships.
North Carolina Wesleyan will again be stong this year, and Ferrum will have to play an inspired game to win on the road.

Winchester will be the next road stop for Ferrum as Oct. 24th, the Panthers visit Shentel Stadium to take on the Shenandoah University Hornets for the only night game of the season. Shenandoah will be looking to make a statement in the USA South. This wil be an important game for both teams, and as last years game was so very close, The Hornets will be up for this one. I would expect another tough game. Nothing easy about this game. On paper, Ferrum will be the favorite albeit by a small margin.

Ferrum closes its season as it began it, on the road. The final game is in Maryville TN. Maryville comes into the season with a lot of question marks, but they will ride an ever increasing reputation as a team that gets up for big games, and is difficult to beat at home. Ferrum may be fighting for the conference title, but rest assured, Maryville will be looking to play the spoiler.

Over the last two seasons, Ferrum has been successful on the road. Last year, their only road loss came at the end of the season as they played for the conference championship. This year, I look for the Panthers to contend again, but it will not come without success as the visiting team.

Get Ready Panthers! Next Stop- Emory VA.

Smart Football has moved to smartfootball.com

You read that right: I have moved the site to smartfootball.com -- tell your friends. Don't panic, don't fear, everything is staying just the same except for the new, fancier digs.

So check it out, and continue to show up, as there won't be anymore new content here on Blogspot (though all the archives will remain).

Smartfootball.com

Who will be the newcomers in the NFL Playoffs in 2009?

It seems like every year in the NFL there is plenty of turnover in who makes the playoffs and who misses out. In a League with ultimate parity, a team can rise from nowhere to make the playoffs, much like the Miami Dolphins and Atlanta Falcons did a season ago. 2009 will be no different, as there will almost certainly be multiple teams that will make the playoffs in 2009 that missed out in 2008.

First and foremost, the New England Patriots. With the return of Tom Brady, they could be the most dangerous team in the NFL, and have to be considered the favorite to win the AFC East and get back to the playoffs. They will have one of the most explosive offenses in the league, with Brady pitching throws to Randy Moss, Wes Welker, and Joey Galloway. Look for them to lead the NFL in scoring and make it back to the playoffs after a one year hiatus.

The Houston Texans have a longer playoff drought than anyone else in the NFL, but they should be a very dangerous team in 2009. With offensive weapons like Matt Schaub, Steve Slaton, and Andre Johnson, they have the potential to be one of the most explosive offenses in the League if they can all remain healthy. The defense, led by Mario Williams, needs to get better. If it does, the Texans could get to the playoff for the first time in the history of their franchise.

The Dallas Cowboys were widely regarded as one of the favorites in the NFC last season, but they collapsed in the 2nd half, causing them to miss the playoffs all together. However, they certainly have all of the pieces in place to be a very dangerous team. Led by Tony Romo and a vaunted rushing attack featuring Marion Barber, Felix Jones, and Tashard Choice, the offense will be potent under OC Jason Garrett. The defense is led by DeMarcus Ware, who might be the best defensive player in the NFL. If they can put it all together and be disciplined, they will be in the thick of things in the NFC.

Next there is the Seattle Seahawks, who just got hit with a bevy of injuries last season which doomed things before the start. Matt Hasselbeck is back and looking very good so far. The addition of WR TJ Houshmanzadeh will help the offense be more explosive, and rookie LB Aaron Curry will be a nice boost for the defense. If they can remain healthy, they will be a dangerous team under first year coach Jim Mora Jr.

It seems like every year we experience a lot of turnover in the NFL playoffs, and there is no reason to think that 2009 will be any different. Look for teams like the Patriots, Texans, Cowboys, and Seahawks to be very dangerous and threaten for playoff spots in 2009.

Article can also be found here.

Kicking Off Ferrum Football

In 1955, Ferrum got its first football coach. For two years,
Sam Webb gave his all to grow the fledgling program

Sam Webb was too small to play high school football, but by May 1955, when the Rev. Ralph Arthur, Ferrum president, invited him to discuss a coaching job at what was then Ferrum Junior College, he had signed or been offered a pro contract in all three major sports and had had a successful coaching stint in the high school ranks. As a result of that meeting, Webb became the College’s first football coach, and during his two-year stay, forged an enduring place for football at Ferrum.

Webb’s love of sports spans back to his days as a student at Wade Junior High School in Bluefield, W.Va., where he first played football. "In those days, you skipped grades, and I went from first grade to third, and from fourth grade to sixth," said Webb. When he entered the 10th grade at Beaver High School, also in Bluefield, he was 14. He played JV basketball his first year, at 5'10" and 115 lbs. When he graduated, he was 6'2" and weighed 165 lbs. Although he played football in junior high, he felt he was too small to play in high school, where boys could play to age 19.

After graduation, Webb attended Moorehead (Ky.) State Teachers College on a basketball scholarship in 1943-44. In August of 1944 however, he was drafted into the Navy. Initially stationed in Sampson, N.Y., near Buffalo, he decided to try out for the base football team, coached by Cdr. Jim Crowley—one of the Four Horsemen under Knute Rockne at Notre Dame. They had a successful team and played many big games, mostly against other military institutions.

Webb was transferred to Camp Shelton in Norfolk, which was located next to Little Creek Amphibious Base. “It looked like I would be shipped off to fight Japan,” he said, "but as luck would have it, I was approached by an acquaintance, Louis Bell about playing basketball on the Camp Shelton team. I tried out, made the team, and led the team in scoring with 13.5 points per game." During this assignment, he also played baseball, enjoying much success at the bat and as a defensive first baseman. Webb’s athletic prowess kept him stateside until being discharged in July of 1946.Webb (#8) with the Camp Shelton Basketball Team

(Photo Courtsey Sam Webb)

After the service, Webb had offers from many colleges to play sports. He enrolled at West Virginia University, and was going to play basketball, but they had two All-Americans on the team, Leyland Byrd and Fred Schaus, so he withdrew from WVU, and enrolled at Concord College in Athens, W.Va., where he led the team in scoring. In 1949, while at Concord, Webb, still wishing to play football, tried out for a semi-pro team in Wierton W.Va. called the Wierton Steelers. They were an affiliate with the Pittsburgh Steelers franchise. He played with this team for two years. Webb finished college with a degree in physical education and minors in English and social studies.

Soon after leaving Concord, Webb saw a newspaper advertisement for tryouts for the St. Louis Cardinals baseball team, to be held in Williamson, W.Va., and decided he would give it a shot."There were a lot of guys at the tryouts, and if you did well the first day, they would invite you back for the second day," he said. After what he thought was a miserable first day, Webb felt his chances were nil for a second-day invite. "But as I was about to leave the field at the end of the day, one of the coaches yelled ‘Hey, Webb, are you going to come back tomorrow?’ I was shocked,” Webb said. “I had made an error and had a bad day at the bat." The second day, he made a better showing and was offered a contract to play in the Cardinals organization.

This would not be Webb's only opportunity to play professional sports. Around the same time, he was invited to play in the Boston Celtics summer league. This would have been on the same level as a developmental league today in the NBA. He was offered a contract and faced a big decision: baseball or basketball? Baseball won out, and he advanced in the Cardinals organization to the Triple A level, although he was never called up to the major leagues.


Becoming a Coach

"I told my Dad once that I always wanted to do two things in life, play professional sports and coach,” Webb said. “I was able to do both." His coaching started at Colonial High School, just east of Roanoke. From there, he went to Christiansburg High School and to William Byrd High School in Vinton. He was at William Byrd when he got the call from President Arthur. "He asked me if I would be interested in talking about a coaching job,” Webb said. “I quickly said yes, and hung up the phone not even knowing where Ferrum was."

Webb met with Dean Elmer Thompson and President Arthur to discuss the coaching opportunity and was invited back for a second interview. Arthur told Webb that the Methodist Conference was considering closing Ferrum, but "we’re not going to close this school, we’re going to make it go." Arthur said. Arthur felt that athletics were key to keeping Ferrum Junior College open, and he knew that the campus and community would rally around the College if its athletics program included football. Webb was offered the post of head football coach and quickly accepted. "I have never felt a sense of such excitement, quickly followed by an uneasy feeling of What have I gotten myself into?" He was also head basketball and baseball coach while at Ferrum.

Rev. Ralph Arthur, Sam Webb, and Dean Elmer Thompson after the announcement of the hiring of Webb and the addition of football at Ferrum Junior College. (photo courtesy Sam Webb)

Hardscrabble Beginnings

It was only four months to kickoff, and Ferrum didn’t have a field, didn’t have uniforms, didn’t have equipment, and didn’t have any players. They didn’t even have a schedule of opponents, and there was no assistant coach. "I went to high schools in the area and borrowed equipment,” Webb said. “I also borrowed equipment from Virginia Tech.” Home games were played on a plain dirt field in Rocky Mount.

Although he had a small apartment below the President’s House, Webb said, “I mostly lived out of my car,” trying to recruit graduating high school seniors as well as students already at Ferrum. Rev. Arthur had an office set up for Webb in the basement of the chapel, near the basketball court (now Schoolfield Hall). That served as Webb’s base of operations for scheduling opponents. "I called any team I could, to put together a schedule” he said.

With 14 players, Ferrum’s football team opened its inaugural season in Vinton against the Naval Receiving Station out of Washington, D.C. Ferrum lost 14-6. The second game was against the VMI freshman team. "VMI suited up and taped about 40 players…we didn’t have a roll of tape, and used ankle wraps instead.” Webb said. "I told the team, you might be out sized and out manned, but you will not be out-hearted." With a quarterback and a center weighing 140 lbs. each, Ferrum took on a VMI team that featured Bobby Ross at quarterback. Ross would go on to a successful coaching career serving as head coach in both the college and pro ranks. “With the Lord looking over us, we won, 18-13," Webb said. “I cant explain how we did it.”

Soon after that game, the coach at VMI, John McKenna, called Webb and offered him an assistant coaching job at VMI. After some internal debate, Webb politely declined the offer. Ferrum would win one more game that season, against the Washington and Lee freshmen team, by a score of 13-6, at Lexington. There were only seven games in 1955, one of them a 37-6 loss on the road to Chowan College. The next year, Ferrum had 10 games scheduled and played Chowan again, this time in Rocky Mount. Chowan won again, but the final score was 6-0.

‘On the track’

Coach Webb left Ferrum at the end of the second season, for financial reasons. "I was going in debt as the position only paid $250 a month," Webb said. "I talked to Rev. Arthur, and he knew I needed more money, but there was none available. I also had serious concerns about my health, and was worried that I may have a terminal condition. Thankfully that was not the case."

Through Arthur’s foresight, Ferrum secured the right man for the job. Few people could have made something out of nothing between May and September that first year. Arthur was also correct in his contention that football would strengthen the campus and be a source of pride for the students and the community.

Webb recalled the last time he saw Rev. Arthur. "He had a serious illness, and I happened to be at the hospital visiting a friend when I saw an orderly helping someone down the hall. He saw me and smiled, saying “Sam!" Webb realized it was Arthur. "We embraced, and he said to me, ‘We got the train on the track and headed in the right direction, Sam.’” Both men stood there in tears.

Even though the won-loss record did not show it, Arthur and Coach Webb had succeeded at laying the foundation of an important part of campus life at Ferrum. The College’s football team went on to win junior college national championships in 1965, 1968, 1974 and 1977.

Coach Webb lives in the Roanoke Valley. He continues to follow sports with great interest and still gets to Ferrum for a football game when he can.

Sam Webb (L) and Ferrum's second football coach Carson Barnes at the 50 years of Ferrum football celebration in 2005.

(Photo Courtesy of the Ferrum College Alumni Office)

Rick Pitino

I defer to Jeff Pearlman of SI.com for my thoughts, as he says it best:

If you are a parent, and your son is considering an offer to play basketball at the University of Louisville, you need to reconsider.

Really, you do.

I know ... I know. Rick Pitino rebuilds programs, wins championships and turns out pros. That, there's no denying. But Rick Pitino also cheated on his wife and five children in a restaurant with a woman (who in a strange twist of fate later became his co-worker's wife), and gave said woman $3,000 -- which depending on whose side you believe, to have an abortion (her claim) or buy health insurance (his).

Oh, then he "mans up" (the most meaningless phrase in the history of sports vernacular) and admits to his transgressions ... six years later after she allegedly attempts to extort $10 million from him.

EDIT: Also, the founder of the group Cardinals for Life:

Meanwhile a student group at the University of Louisville called for the school to fire Pitino due to a morality clause in his contract that states the coach can be terminated for "acts of moral depravity."

Abortion should count as a morally depraved act, said Matt Foushee, who founded the group Louisville Cardinals for Life.

"The real root of this issue is that we have someone who would've been a six-year-old boy or girl right now, who is dead," Foushee said. "And the tragedy is that it is not being seen as a problem. (Pitino is) being seen as the victim."

Amen.

Deconstructing the Illinois run game

Over at Dr Saturday. As always, thanks to the Doc for the invite, and check out the full thing here.

How to beat press man coverage

... and get off the jam, via Ron Jenkins.



A few minor coaching points:

• All receivers must master -- and I mean master -- at least two of these release moves. At the NFL level, you need three if not more. But all receivers, college and high school, need to be masters of two and competent at three or four. Don't forget to use hands.
  
  
• The best release move in the world is useless if you don't get back on top of the defender. The receiver wants to run his route literally behind and through the DB -- as a result he wants the DB to move his feet, so that the receiver, although making moves, more or less runs in a straight line. If the receiver has to run in or out to get into his route he's losing.
  
  
• If you can stop, you can get open. All receivers must learn to stop immediately while in full speed. If you can stop in two short steps, you can always be open. On deeper routes, it might take three, but stopping -- slamming on the breaks -- is the key to cutting, breaking either direction, and just getting open generally.
  
  
• Ron Jenkins doesn't really discuss it, but one imperative technique is to learn to "lean into" the defense back at the top of the routes. If you're running an out against press man, once you hit about 10-12 yards you should be "leaning into" the defensive back before you break and separate away. Somewhat counterintuitively, on some of these routes you do want to be near the defender before breaking away at the last minute, and never too early. But this lean will get the defender's center of gravity and momentum going in the wrong direction. Mike Leach is famous for this coaching point.
  
  
• Some routes (and route concepts) call for sharp breaks, others for more rounded but quicker "speed cuts," which aren't quite as precise but the receiver doesn't slow down as much. Know the difference, and always know which is appropriate.
  

Smart Notes and Links 8/13/2009

1. Advanced NFL Stats weighs in on the evaluating running backs/running games discussion, which I addressed (with assistance from some wonderful comments) here and here. Do read the whole thing, but Brian has, as always, a very interesting take. Drawing on earlier discussion about risky and conservative strategies for underdogs and favorites (see my discussion of the topic here and Brian's here), he asserts:

I want to address an age-old water cooler question that Chris discussed in his post at Smart Football. Consider two RBs, both with identical YPC averages. One however, is a boom and bust guy, like Barry Sanders, and the other is a steady plodder like Jerome Bettis. Which kind of RB would you rather have on your team?

The answer is it depends. Essentially, we have a choice between a high-variance RB and a low-variance RB. When a team is an underdog team, it wants high-variance intermediate outcomes to maximize its chances of winning. And when a team is a favorite, it wants low-variance outcomes. Whether those outcomes occur through play selection, through 4th down doctrine, or through RB style, isn't important. If you're an otherwise below-average team, you'd want the boom and bust style RB. If you're an otherwise above-average team, you'd want the steady plodder. . . .

Further, even if the high-variance RB has a lower average YPC, we'd still want him carrying the ball when we're losing. This is due to the math involved in competing probability distributions.

That's just one aspect of it. He uses a handy chart for the distribution of runs for the various backs...



...and notes how curious it is that Tomlinson's distribution looks so much like that of the rest of the NFL. (This same thing ends up holding true for most backs.) What conclusions does Burke draw? With the usual caveats,

[w]hat amazes me is how similar they all are to each other and to the league average. . . . Usually, a RB needs 4 to 5 yards to just break even in terms of his team's probability of converting a first down. What we'd want to see on a RB's distribution is as much probability mass as possible to the right of 4 yards.

So if [Jerome] Bettis' distribution looks so much like Tomlinson's, how does Bettis have a 3.9 career YPC and Tomlinson have a 4.4 career YPC? As others have noted previously, the difference among RB YPC numbers primarily come from big runs. It's the open field breakaway ability that separates the guys with big YPC stats from the other RBs. Of Tomlinson's runs, 1.5% were for 30 yards or more. Bettis' 30+ yd gains comprised only 0.46% of his carries. The other RBs and the league average are as follows:

- NFL 0.91%
- [Jamal] Lewis 0.88%
- [Brian] Westbrook 0.93%
- [Adrian] Peterson 2.20%

Adrian Peterson's 2.2% figure is exceptional. It's interesting because it really suggests that what separates Peterson as a great runner is based on only 2% or so of his runs. Otherwise, he's practically average.

2. Courtesy of Brophy, I have added video of Mike Leach's "settle & noose" drill, which, it will be recalled, is both a great warm-up drill and works on teaching receivers to find holes in the zone and quarterbacks how to deliver the ball to them.



3. Tom Brady muses on life with Bill Belichick. As he tells Details:

"You'll practice on a Wednesday, and you'll come in Thursday morning and he'll have the film up there from practice," Brady says. "Sometimes, during practice, you throw a bad ball—that's the way it goes. But the video comes up and he says, 'Brady, you can't complete a g--damn hitch.' And I'll be sitting there thinking, I'm a [expletive] nine-year veteran, I've won three ---damn Super Bowls — he can kiss my... That's what you're thinking on the inside. But on the outside I'm thinking, You know what? I'm glad he's saying that. I'm glad that's what he's expecting, you know? Because that's what I should be expecting. That's what his style is."

(Ht Shutdown Corner).

4. Bruce Feldman chats with Norm Chow, who materializes into matter from various spectral rays to participate.

5. The NY Times's The Quad Blog chats with Dan Shanoff about, what else, his Tim Teblow blog.

6. Spencer Hall/Orson Swindle to SB Nation. When you get $7 million from Comcast, you better find ways to spend it, and I can't think of a better way than for SBNation (whose official name is "Sportsblogs, Inc.") to lure Every Day Should Be Saturday's Spencer Hall over, including away from the Sporting News. I like everyone else think this is a wise move for both sides, but one underrated aspect is that Mr. Hall/Swindle (Mr. Hall-Swindle? I kind of like that) will be able to focus on just one blog (and probably a book too), which should really let him flourish.

7. Holly over at Dr Saturday remembers Northwestern's magical 1995 season, which is still the only 10 win season in school history. This was a sort of epoch-changing season for NW -- though that is a very relative statement -- in that the Wildcats' history since has been considerably better. Indeed, two years later I saw them play in the Citrus Bowl against Tennessee (this was back in the "You can't spell Citrus without UT" days). Though, most of that game was spent marveling at the show Peyton Manning put on (408 yards, 4 touchdowns, no interceptions) as I sat there telling everyone around me what Peyton Manning's audibles would be (for some reason Northwestern thought it could play man coverage against Tennessee's receivers, so he kept checking to fades and slants). In any event, it is hard to overstate how strange but wonderful that 1995 season was for Northwestern. In football, sometimes the gods are with you.

Are tight-ends an endangered species?

At the NFL level, where nearly every player has already won the DNA lottery, there are plenty of candidates to be effective tight-ends who can both run block like guards and get downfield like receivers -- or at least there are enough to be a force in the league and make every other team salivate (I'm looking at you Antonio Gates). At the lower levels though, finding one of these perfect specimens isn't so easy. And, with the rise of the spread, it is no surprise that tight-ends don't take the field quite as often as they used to. But reports of the demise of the position are overstated.

As an example, one coach recently asked, "Realistically, how much of a problem does a TE as a pass blocker pose in modern football?" He went on to say, "I say this because now that everyone's trying to go to some type of spread and put as many small, quick guys on the field as possible, TEs are becoming an almost endangered species on teams who want to throw." There were other observations about the ongoing usefulness of the tight-end position. Although I agree that just holding up a freak like Antonio Gates doesn't get you far (good luck finding those), I do not think the position is so useless or impractical as some have implied. (Beware, this post is kind of wonky and technical.)

Homer Smith discussed the role of the TE/H-back as a triple threat: he can block, release vertical (in a way that a back cannot), and can block for a few counts and release on a delayed pass, and therefore make two guys cover him. Here is what Homer Smith explained:

It takes a sixth frontal player (not counting the QB) to pull an identifiable pass defender into the front and to give the blockers something to work with to keep the center off the island. It takes the sixth, just as it takes him to deal with a blitz.

Which is a better sixth [blocker, a tight-end or a runningback]? A TE is more of a threat with the delayed pass that makes the pass defender on him stay at bay while the TE blocks the rusher. I think a TE is the better.

Anyway, this is not so black and white, RB versus TE. It's all shades: imagine lining up with a FB in the I. Now the FB cheats over; he lines up in a two-point stance, behind the guard at 4 yards. Now behind the tackle at 3 yards. Now he splits the tackle with his inside leg, at about 2 yards. What is he? A FB or an H-back? He can BOB the linebacker, no? He can still kick out for power, release into the flat, maybe even take a handoff if he comes inside enough. Now he steps over maybe another foot, etc. Now suddenly he's a tight-end/h-back all the way? And all those advantages are lost?

Also don't confuse personnel with position. You can put anyone you want there. I don't see why your RB is some invaluable pass blocker, despite the fact that he has to work on carrying the ball, catching the ball, and blocking in the run game, while the TE is just helpless?

Nothing wrong in HS in having a division of labor for these positions. On most teams I've been around, the TEs spend more time practicing with the OL than they do the receivers. If you want a glorified slot guy, then sub a receiver in and go from there. Or use a FB type (if you're got one).

Bottom line: it's an exceptionally useful thing, and don't be straitjacketed by black and white conceptions. The advantage of the four wide spread was a division of labor thing -- you could put four wides out there and get mismatches against the other team's base personnel, and often get them out of their base looks. You might not have a good TE or fb, so you didn't put one out there; you looked for advantages elsewhere. Nowadays with everyone being spread, is that really the case that just going four wide gives you all these mismatches? I'm not so sure; using a TE -- or alternating between TEs, FBs, and slot receivers -- seems to me the better move.

I consider my base offense to be 3 WR, 1 QB, 1 RB, and then a hybrid H-back position. That H-back position can be a true slot receiver (routes and jet sweeps), a FB, a true TE/H-back (either as a blocker or hybrid guy, though those are quite rare), or even just a 2nd RB. Depends on the guys you have, what you're trying to accomplish, and also your depth (can do a lot of great things if you have a couple of kids who fit the above descriptions and then just sub them in and out to give different looks).

But unquestionably, TE is maybe my favorite position. True, it's not always easy to find a good one, but it helps a lot. (And the two best formations in football might be trips closed and a TE/wing set, with a TE and a wing player to one side, and either a split end and flanker or a twins look).

Finally, one of the concerns was that a tight-end is in poor position to pass protect:

To me, a RB who starts out deeper in the backfield is in much better position to pick up blitzers, chip DEs, or even take a DE 1-on-1. . . . Now, compare that to a TE, who is always on the end of the line and is really only in position to pick up somebody coming off the edge. He also has far less time and room for error in diagnosing a blitz or stunt and getting his body where he needs to be.

I disagree; it is best not to overthink this. One, if you're having that many problems you can always back the TE up to be an H-back so he can see more. Second, you can make a very simple call ("solid") if the DE lines up on or outside the TE and the LB lines up inside. If both the DE and LB come (and don't twist) the tackle takes the LB and the TE takes the DE; if the LB doesn't rush then the TE passes the DE off to the tackle before releasing. You do get into the matchup issues, but it's not so ridiculous like he can't get there or will just whiff. It's just a simple area principle.

Past is prologue: Alabama running the flexbone?

Check out the highlights of the 1980 Sugar Bowl (between Bryant's Crimson Tide and Lou Holtz's Arkansas Razorbacks) for some great wishbone stuff, but, as reader Ben Smith points out, they show a decidedly "flexbone" look at the 3:16 mark.

Drew Brees is scary accurate

So when I started watching this, which is one of those hokey Sports Science comparisons between a pro athlete and some rather arbitrary metric, I thought there was no way that Drew Brees was more accurate than a world-class archer. Well, I was very, very wrong. Watch below. (Brees's throwing picks up at about the 4:10 mark.)

Assorted Links - 8/10/2009

1. Michigan cast off Justin Feagin was involved in some wild stuff. Mgoblog comments:

Freep FOIA findings:

Feagin told investigators that “when I first started going to (Burke’s) house he had three big jars of weed up in his room. … One day T.J. was talking to me about some illegal stuff. He was under a lot of pressure because of his financial problems.

“I told him that I knew someone who could get him some cocaine. A few days later he asked me if I had talked to the person yet. I called right then and set up a deal.”

Feagin arranged to send $600 to a friend in Florida, whom he identified only as “Tragic.” In exchange, “Tragic” would send an ounce of cocaine to Ann Arbor.

It goes on from there. No cocaine ever showed up, this Burke guy tried to scare/murder Feagin by filling a bottle with gasoline and setting it on fire outside his dorm room, etc, etc, etc. You know, typical college stuff. . . . TJ Burke does what he wants, which is apparently spend up to ten years in prison.

Feagin was a last-minute addition to Michigan's first class under Rodriguez when it became clear that Rodriguez wasn't likely to acquire a higher-rated quarterback recruit. He did not work out, obviously. The Freep article dryly notes that Feagin "struggled to learn the playbook" mere paragraphs after describing Feagin's extensive marijuana habit. . . .

But seriously: it's bad. It's also one guy that Michigan apparently didn't run as thorough of a background check on—or possibly any background check on—as they scrambled to reconfigure Rodriguez's first recruiting class. As long as the incident remains isolated, fine. . . .

2. Mark Sanchez might win the Jets' job, but is he crossing over from confident to arrogant?

3. The NY Times Fifth Down Blog remembers Eagles defensive coordinator Jim Johnson (and includes your humble blogger in its roundup).

4. The pro-football reference blog with Part III of its quest to rank the greatest QBs of all time.

5. Steve Spurrier is very upset: "We've got a lot of guys, I don't even know if they like football." (Ht Blutarsky.)

6. Saurian Sagacity looks at statistical characteristics of BCS champions. This is good and fine, but as Dr Saturday pointed out, the BCS winner hasn't always been the "best" team over time, or even in a given year. This is not a BCS knock -- and on this score I don't think a playoff would reduce the randomness of who gets crowned champion -- but it's worth remembering.

6. The end of the postal service?

7. Callers, tossers, and the odds of the flip.

8. History of the Times New Roman typeface.

Run & Shoot Series Part 4 - The "Streak"

[This is Part 4 of a multi-part series on a "Simple Approach to the Run and Shoot." In one sense I mean "simplified," but the series is, more than anything else, intended to both diagnose and explicate some of the fundamental concepts behind the shoot as well as discuss how I might marry them with some passing modern ideas, all in an effort to just understand passing offense generally. You can see the full series here. Also check out Parts 1, 2, and 3.]

It's been a bit since my last installment, but I'm not quite done, as there are two concepts left in the fearsome foursome of the 'shoot. This foursome includes: go, choice, and now streak and switch.

These two plays really do not involve any new learning, and although considered separate plays, they really are two sides of the same coin: four verticals, which I analyzed recently with Dan Gonzalez. I begin with "streak." The switch will come in the next installment.

Streak

At core, streak is just what the run and shoot guys call "four verticals." And four-verticals is a very simple concept that is so powerful because well designed pass plays boil down to elementary math: geometry and arithmetic. Four receivers bolt down the field, and if they keep the proper spacing between them -- by staying on their "landmarks" -- the defense will be outnumbered and can't properly defend the play. Against Cover Two, well, the defense only has two deep (hence the name) while the offense has four receivers deep. With cover three, well the offense still has a man advantage. And, again, if the spacing is correct, the offense can even whittle it down so that they know who they are operating against, namely, the deep free safety.

But this doesn't mean that the defense is without options. They can disguise coverage, play different techniques, or quite simple play four deep -- four on four gives the advantage to the defense. (Contra Ron Jaworski, creating favorably one-on-one matchups lags far behind creating favorable numbers advantages, i.e. two on one defend.) In response, the run and shoot, as usual, gives them freedom. Hence, the "seam read" all over again.



As the diagram above shows, the four receivers all release vertically. But the coaching points are critical:

The outside receivers will release on go routes. The "frontside" one (in the diagram, the one on the offense's right) has a mandatory outside release: he will keep pushing to the defender's outside hip. That said, he still wants to keep five yards between him and the sideline, to give the quarterback a place to drop the ball into.

The slot receivers release up the seams. But they must be more precise than that: in college, they must be two yards outside the hashes; in highschool (where the hashmarks are wider), they must be on them. This spacing is the most critical element of the entire play: it is what makes it geometrically difficult for the deep secondary to cover.

The runningback might be in the protection, but if he releases he will run either a drag across the field or a little option route underneath. He looks for an open spot in the zones as an outlet if the undercoverage releases for all the receivers, and against man he will cut in or out. He should be working against a linebacker and can't let that guy cover him.

The outside receivers, if they can't get deep, will break the route down and "come down the stem" -- retrace their steps -- to get open later. The QB, if the initial reads are not there, will hitch up and throw them the ball on the outside.

But the key to this play, as it has been for all four of these "core" run and shoot plays, is the seam read. I previously described this route in detail, but in sum: against a defense with the deep middle of the field "open" (cover two), the receiver will split the two safeties on a post route; against middle of the field closed (cover 3, cover 1), with a single deep middle safety, the receiver will stay away from him and continue up the seam. In that sense the route is a lot like the divide route I've discussed before. But the route is more dynamic: if the safeties stay very deep, or any defender crosses the receiver's face, he will cut inside or underneath those defenders to get open.

Below are a few clips courtesy of Michael Drake again. In this first video the quarterback, though a bit slow, hits the seam read.



On this second video, the defense is in a blitz look. (Sort of Cover 1 with a "rat" or floater, though no deep safety.) The receiver probably should have crossed the defender's face, but they are able to complete it.



And below is a clip of four-verticals where it gets dumped off to the runningback.



Finally, below is video of Texas Tech running the play (courtesy of Trojan Football Analysis). I end with this both because Tech of course is not exactly a run & shoot team, but also because some of the variants shown on the video -- particularly the shallow cross -- are things a lot of R&S coaches have gone to, including June Jones.

How Mike Leach keeps producing prolific passers

Dr Saturday recently observed that

[o]f the five starters Leach has trotted out in nine years, every one has topped 4,000 yards and 30 touchdowns in a season; even in terms of efficiency as opposed to straight cumulative totals, they've been remarkably consistent from year to year.

He also notes that it's unlikely that Texas Tech will quite reach the heights they did last year, and that "[u]nless the stars align for the new kids in some unforeseen, improbably way, even 4,200 yards and 35 touchdowns could feel like the first hints of stagnation in the success story." Quite likely. But how has Leach continued to produce such wildly successful (in terms of stats, at least) quarterback?

One answer is "the system," but let's get more specific. The Captain has frequently noted that his system is all stuff that's been done before. Indeed, what is remarkable is that guys can seem to leap off the bench and do nothing but throw completions. He had one of the great three-year runs, where, defying the common spread/passing offense wisdom of playing your younger guy so they can get some experience, he rode three fifth-year senior quarterbacks to great heights (and, again, stats).

My explanation, and I think Leach would agree with me, is how the Red Raiders practice. One, they obviously do not run the ball much so all the focus is on throwing and catching, every day. Leach also does not believe in traditional stretching; rather he begins practices with medium speed drills that work on techniques like settling in the windows between zones and dropping back and throwing. Everything is focused on throwing the ball. Bob Davie visited Texas Tech a few years ago, and was blown away by what he saw:

Last year, Tech averaged 60 passes a game so it is obviously not a balanced attack, but this actually works in their favor. In practice, they spend virtually all their time focusing on fundamentals related to the passing game. From the time they hit the practice field until they leave, the ball is in the air and the emphasis in on throwing, catching and protecting the quarterback.

It takes great confidence in your scheme to be able to take this approach, but the players appreciate it because they can focus on execution.

Practice -- What's Different

When you watch Texas Tech practice, it doesn't seem as structured as most college practices. They do not stretch as a team and unlike most practices, there is not a horn blowing every five minutes to change drills. The bottom line is that the cosmetic appearance of practice is not as important to Leach as it is to some coaches.

Although not as structured, it is impressive to watch Texas Tech practice and you quickly see why it is so successful. The ball is always in the air and what the Red Raiders practice is what you see them do in a game. They work on every phase of their package every day and in most passing drills, there are four quarterbacks throwing and every eligible receiver catching on each snap.

There is great detail given to fundamentals in all phases of the passing game. Wide receivers, for example, work every day on releases versus different coverages, ball security, scrambling drills, blocking and routes versus specific coverages.

Davie is referencing some of the specific "Airraid" passing drills -- the real secret to the scheme's success. The main drills are:

• Settle-noose: This is basically a warm-up drill. The receivers begin out quarter speed and shuffle between two cones, "settling" nearer to one than the other, as if they were two zone defenders. The quarterback takes a drop -- again, reduced speed -- and throws the ball, aiming for the receiver but away from the nearer "defender." The receiver uses good catching form and bursts upfield after making the catch. You can see how this simple drill sets up the entire theory of their offense, which relies on finding seams in the zones and quarterbacks throwing between defenders. Check out the video below, courtesy of Brophy:
  
  
  
  
• Pat-n-go: This is another simple drill. Most teams use a form of "route lines," or quarterbacks dropping and receivers running routes on "air" -- i.e. with no defenders. The one clever insight here is that one group of QBs and receivers lines up on opposite from another. This way they can complete a pass, have the receiver burst as if scoring, and simply get in line on the opposite side of the field, rather than have to run back through. Just another way they get more repetitions.
  
  
• Routes on air: Probably their best drill. The coaches line up garbage cans or bags or whathaveyou where defenders would drop for a zone. Then all five receivers and/or runningbacks line up, and they call a play. Five quarterbacks (or four and a manager, etc) each drop back and throw the ball to a receiver. Here's the deal: if you're the QB who should throw it to the first read, you drop back and throw it to him. If you are assigned to the third read, well you drop back, look at #1, then #2, then #3 and throw it to him. Same goes for #2, #4, and even #5. Moreover, every receiver who runs the route catches a ball and practices scoring. Then the quarterbacks rotate over -- i.e. if you threw it to #2 now you throw it to #3, etc -- and a new group of receivers steps in. This way quarterbacks absolutely learn all their reads and practice it every day (how many reps like this does the third or fourth string guy at another school get?), and they also practice throwing it to all their receivers. Each time they do this
  
  
• 7-on-7 and man-to-man: These are what they sound like, and most do these drills. One-on-one or man-to-man involves the receivers going against press man in practice, while 7-on-7 is like a real scrimmage, minus the linemen.

Good drills, no? As the Airraid practice plan shows, they do these drills almost every day. As Davie summed up:

Tech gets an amazing amount of repetitions in practice and most importantly, it doesn't waste reps practicing things they don't do in a game.

Indeed, if you're third-string quarterback at Texas Tech, I can't imagine a program whose third-stringer gets more reps than you. Same goes for second-string, third-string, etc. Now, games are certainly different -- Tech's defense has never been confused with Texas's or Oklahoma's -- but these drills, coupled with their total commitment to throwing the ball, is a big factor in Leach's ability to churn out successful quarterbacks.

USA South Coaches Poll:Panthers Picked to Finish 3rd.

At the 2009 USA South Media Day held on the campus of Averett University, Ferrum was picked to finish 3rd by the USA South conference coaches for this upcoming season. For complete voting results, see the link below:


2009 USA South coaches poll

More on evaluating the run game

The discussion surrounding evaluating the run game was great. I will have more to add, but I wanted to highlight some of the best commentary. First, I did want to say that my focus was generally on two aspects, and I don't think I made that clear.

One, I really am more interested in running games, or a team's ability to run, than I am in one runningback versus another. I definitely play fantasy football myself, but it's not the reason I get interested in football stats. Instead I want to know how good an offense is, and then secondarily how good a particular play is; whether Barry Sanders or Emmitt Smith is better is usually not a discussion I get into. As a result I don't mind so much that it's hard to disassociate how good a runningback is from how good the line is, or the faking, etc. From an evaluation perspective, if you can analyze one play being better than another, then you can pretty easily ask if it is scheme or execution, and thus concepts or players.

Second, I do prefer to focus on easily observable stats. Some of this is maybe my laziness, but that's one big appeal of yards per carry: I know it has little application on third down. (One yard could be a success if it converts for a first down, and eight yards could be a failure if it was third and ten -- but then what if the draw was a good call rather than an interception or a sack? I digress.) That is just mainly aimed at seemingly interesting stats that would be a practical nightmare, based on every play and then a subjective interpretation of how many guys he bounced off of or his vision and cutback versus contact, etc -- you get the idea.

Anyway, Bill Connelly of Football Outsiders (and RockMNation) had actually discussed this fairly recently:

Regular Varsity Numbers readers have probably become familiar with some of the basic VN concepts, namely PPP (Points Per Play) and the "+". PPP is a measure of explosiveness--the amount of Equivalent Points (EqPts) averaged per play. The "+" number compares an offense's output to the output expected against a given defense, and vice versa. With the "+" number, 100 is average, anything above 100 is good, and anything below 100 is bad.

Points Over Expected

Is there any way to use these concepts to come up with a good rushing measure? Of course! Meet POE (Points Over Expected), the collegiate stepchild of DYAR. Whereas a rusher's PPP+ would compare his EqPts output to what would be expected, and is therefore great for measuring an offense's overall effectiveness, POE is cumulative. It is a comparison of a rusher's total EqPts to the Expected EqPt total, subtracting the latter from the former.

POE = EqPts - Expected EqPts. . . .

Most Varsity Numbers measures, in one way or another, bounce output versus expected output. POE, a brother to PPP and cousin to S&P and S&P+, does just that. POE, which intends to both evaluate both per-play and cumulative success, could also be used to evaluate receivers and tight ends, but that will be hard without good "pass intended for _____" data (some college play-by-plays record detailed information in this regard, others do not). Right now, it is an RB-only figure, but it is a pretty good one.

Not sure I entirely buy this as the best method (requires getting into the nitty gritty of FO's methods), but overall this is a good starting spot. It tends to reward the explosive players.

Moving to the comments, a few highlights, though all were excellent. Brad said:

I don't think getting long runs is the only way a back can improve his average. He can also do so by getting less short gains.

Think of a back that gets 3 yds minimum on slightly over half of his carries and gets 6 yds on the rest. Then compare him to a back that gets loses a yard on a third of his carries gets 3 yards on a third of his carries and gains 10 yards on a third of his carries.

Both backs have a median rush of 3 yds, but the first back averages around 5 yds per carry while the second one averages only 4. However the second back clearly has more "Big play potential" because he gains 10 yards on 1/3 of his runs.

My point is that a back can improve his average vs median both by getting more long gains OR by having less short runs. Which of these two things that great backs do is a question for the data.

I should have conceptualized this better in the first place, because this helps explain why Reggie Bush has been such a mediocre rusher in the NFL. It's not his explosiveness (though he hasn't broken many very long runs), but his routine bad plays. It also is why Emmitt Smith and Barry Sanders are so hard to compare: Barry's stat line was full of negative plays and small gains, but checkered with the spectacular long runs. Emmitt Smith, the opposite. (And I don't think with Barry it was all just jump and bad blocking; it was also just his running style. Do you think he would have fit in well with the Denver Broncos "one-cut-and-go" philosophy? People say "oh, if he had played for them he would have had 3,000 yards but I'm not so sure.)

Tom points me to another good bit from Football Outsiders, this time by Mike Tanier, quoted at length:

The 4.0-4.1 yard average is an arithmetic mean: add up all the yards, divide by the attempts. The arithmetic mean is easily skewed by extremes in data. A 75-yard run can increase a starting running back's rushing average by several tenths of a point by the end of a season. This skewing always increases rushing averages: there are several 50+ yard rushes every year, but no 50+ yard losses on running plays.

We all know that a few big plays can make a mediocre running back's rushing average look great. But how much effect do long gains have on the league rushing average? The best way to see this is to break down every running play by distance. . . . The table reveals a surprising fact: the mean carry may yield four yards, but the median carry yields only three yards, and the data distribution is centered at two yards. . . .

Over 20 percent of running plays gain zero or one yards. Factor in losses, and over one-fourth of all runs result in negative or negligible yardage. The rushing average for the plays in the -4-to-10 yard range in 2005 was 2.95 yards per attempt. Long runs make up only about nine percent of all rushing plays, but they increase the league rushing average by over 40 percent. . . .

As a way of negating the importance of team strength as well as studying the contrasts between rushing styles, let's examine a pair of teammates from 2005.

Last season, Tatum Bell gained 920 yards and averaged 5.3 yards per carry. Mike Anderson gained 1,014 yards but averaged just 4.2 yards per carry. Despite the wide disparity in yards per carry, DVOA and DPAR ranked Anderson as the better back. Anderson was 37.0 points above replacement level, Bell 16.4. Anderson was 20.3 percent better than the average back, Bell just 7.6 percent.

Bell's rushing average was inflated by several long runs: he had a 68, 67, and 55 yard run in 2005, plus several 35-yard runs. Anderson's longest carry of the season was 44 yards, and that was his only run longer than 25 yards. We all know that Bell is a "home run threat" while Anderson is more consistent. But is it really fair to downgrade Bell because of his long runs? We're inclined to downgrade Bell somewhat because so much of his value is contained in a few plays. But is that really fair? After all, gaining four yards at a time is great and all, but big plays are pretty important, too. . . .

Anderson's yardage distribution is centered in the 2-3 yard range, while Bell's is centered in the 1-2 yard range, giving Anderson a full yard-per-play advantage on carry after carry. Bell's advantage, of course, is on runs of more than 10 yards. All but 6.5 percent of Anderson's runs gain from -4 to 10 yards, while 10.5 percent of Bell's runs are outside the chart (he only lost five yards on one play last season). Give them both 200 carries, and Bell will have eight more long runs than Anderson, and those runs will be longer than what Anderson can usually muster. But Anderson will gain an extra yard that Bell couldn't on dozens of other
runs. . . .

Anderson's in-the-box mean was 3.36 yards per attempt, noting again that his "box" is larger. Bell's was just 2.67. What's interesting is that we tend to think of backs like Anderson as "ordinary" while backs with Bell's big-play potential are held in higher esteem. But Bell's rushing distribution is more in line with the league norms than Anderson's. He's very good, but his contributions are typical of what backs around the league provide. Anderson, at least in 2005, was the unique player, providing hard-to-get, down-in, down-out production.

The difference between Bell and Anderson suggests that "cloud of dust" backs are more valuable than "boom or bust" backs, but we must be careful when using cheesy labels. Our perception of a back's production profile are often way off. How would you classify Marshall Faulk in his prime? Probably as a boom-or-bust back, albeit one with lots of boom and only a little bust.

But Faulk's running distributions show that in his prime he was much more than a big-play machine. . . .

Faulk's in-the-box mean was 3.37, a very good figure. What's more, his "box" only included 86 percent of his runs. Faulk had seven 12-yard runs, six 16-yard runs, and three 18-yard runs in 2000, giving him a very high percentage of 11-20 yard runs. But what's most remarkable about his production was his ability to avoid no-gainers and his above-average totals in the 3-5 yard range. Fast, shifty Faulk was just as good at using his skills to gain a yard or two as he was at burning defenses for long gains.

By contrast, [Jonathan] Stewart's ability to avoid losses and pick up two or three yards couldn't offset his complete lack of big-play potential. At first glance, Stewart's distribution looks similar to Anderson's. But his in-the-box mean of 2.8 is over a half-yard lower. The differences are subtle -- Anderson is a little more likely to gain five or six yards and a little less likely to lose yardage -- but they add up over a few hundred carries. And Stewart, like Anderson, concentrated 95 percent of his carries in the -4-to-10 yard range, so he had few 10-20 yard bursts to increase his productivity. Stewart, like Anderson, was providing a unique skill, which is why he was able to stay in the league for several years. Unlike Anderson, he wasn't a great exemplar of that skill, and the Football Outsiders metrics took him to task for it. . . .

Teams don't generate rushing yards in three-, four-, or five-yard bursts. They gain it through punctuated equilibrium, waiting through dozens of minimal gains for a few big plays per game.

And those big plays aren't that big. We've focused on gains of ten or less in this article, ignoring the 10.5 percent or so of plays that yield more yardage. The vast majority of those runs gain 11-20 yards: 6.9 percent overall. Almost 25 percent of the rushing yardage gained in the NFL is generated on runs of 11-20 yards. There were 960 such runs last year: 30 per team, or just over two per team per game. Amazingly nearly 10 percent of all rushing yardage is generated on runs of 30 or more yards, plays which occur about four times per year for a typical team.

These distribution breakdowns are so interesting that they might seduce us into making some wacky conclusions. Keep in mind that all of these averages and distribution patterns are situation dependent. . . .

Without further study, we shouldn't leap to grand conclusions. But we know this much: if we expect to gain four or five yards on every running play, we're going to be disappointed most of the time. No wonder passing totals have been creeping up for decades. If all a handoff gets you is two yards and a cloud of dust, you might as well throw the ball.

Lots going on here, but it mostly just reinforces what we know: Backs and teams have different styles, and it is not always easy to compare them; you want a guy who (a) does not lose yardage, (b) consistently gets positive yardage, and (c) is a big-play threat. They don't always come that way, so it is interesting that Tanier and FO conclude that the consistent back is simply better than the big-play threat. I'd like to see more to support that -- i.e. that the "dozens of first downs" or extra yards Anderson might have pulled down for the team were worth more than Tatum Bell's big plays. I'm not saying I disagree, but that it is interesting. That kind of conclusion could have troubling implications for a guy like, say, Barry Sanders, or moreso Reggie Bush.

Chase of the PFR Blog points out marginal yards, and adds:

I looked at rushing yards over 3.0 yards per carry. However, as the author has implied, I've begun shifting my focus away from yards per carry.

Rushing first downs is a key part of evaluating a running game. Without play by play information, I'd want to focus on rushing first downs, rushing yards, rushing TDs and carries.

I think this is good; rushing first downs should be part of the evaluation. According to CFBStats, last season's top first-down teams in college football are an expected bunch:

1. Air Force
2. Tulsa
3. Navy
4. Nevada (tie)
4. Oklahoma State (tie)
6. Oregon
7. TCU
8. Florida
9. Oklahoma
10. Georgia Tech

As a side note, I do think yards per carry is most useful on first down, and CFB Stats (as well as the pro-football reference site), has a ready breakdown of rushing stats by down, for all teams. For example, the yards per carry of the top 5 teams in the country last year, limited solely to first down, were:

1. Nevada 6.95
2. Louisiana-Lafayette 6.77
3. Florida 6.76
4. Navy 1843 6.12
5. Oregon 1676 5.96

Each team had over 1,600 yards on first down alone (everyone bud Oregon had over 1,800, and Nevada over 2,000). And those averages -- yes I just pasted that thing from FO saying you can't solely look at averages -- indicates that these teams had a lot of favorable down and distances to convert (Louisiana-Lafayette, the one seemingly strange entry, was in the top 15 of total offense last year despite not being a great throwing team).

In the end ... I have to think about this question some more. I think we're moving in the right direction, as, again, part of my motivation is to find handy and easy to use stats (thus one reason I dislike the idea of some kind of "running back efficiency rating" like they use with quarterbacks). I agree that the debate is going to be between styles of running game (or running back), as well as situation. I would imagine that teams like Oregon or Georgia Tech are going to have much different looking rushing distributions than, say, Wisconsin. But we're on our way down the path to the end.

End note: I'll be on vacation this week. I have a couple of posts set to go up, but otherwise I'll be out of pocket until next weekend/week. Cheers.