Ok so I finally decided it was time to dig into this theory that teams have 1 lead back and 1 change of pace/scat back. We have had tons of conversation about it the last few weeks and maybe seeing the stats all laid out would help the conversation. I do understand each RB has a skill set and so called package but there comes a time when teams play towards their strengths and or that RB that is the best option.
I decided to use ESPN stats and only counted RBs that had 8+ carries as that seems to be legit with 3 games played so far. I left out GT since they're a option team and that has 0 correlation with 90% of teams.
Hopefully this isn't redundant as I think seeing the stats laid out in 1 place will help and maybe get this conversation/issue cleared and dusted.
Cheers
Comments
Seems the only teams that are splitting carries evenly amongst more than 2 backs are us, WF, and Syracuse. I think for us that its also important to note that Motley has the most carries on the team. Definitely don't see many other teams splitting carries almost evenly amongst 4 ball carriers like we are.
WF & Syracuse.... oof. Not the company I want our team to be associated with on anything football related.
Exactly
Really? Because the Cuse have won a national championship in Football.
There's that to be related to.
And that is the attitude that turns you in to a team that won one ACC games last year
NC State likes to run the ball...apparently
NC State is 16th in the country when it comes to YPG.. Their QB only has 65 yards through 3 games.
Some Salt- Their schedule so far consists of: Troy, Eastern Kentucky, ODU & South Alabama.
They have a good game vs Louisville this week so will be interesting to see what happens there.
I also am thinking of keeping this spreadsheet up to date. not sure yet,
Yes Please!
This. Nice work. Keep it up.
Please keep up to date and send it to Shane and Lefty every week. Sure we have a deep RB group and the separation of talent might be small, but c'mon, so do some of the other ACC teams.
I bet Dalvin Cook would get less than 50% of carries in our backfield.
Nah Davin Cook would beat the competition like he was out at a ba....oh wait
i will not send it to Shane and Lefty as they have the stats as well.. just wanted to put this all in 1 place so we could see and have mature talks about it
Perhaps you could present the teams in the order of their FBS offensive rushing ranking each update. That combined with the stats you have will be telling...
that is a great idea.. I will keep that in mind come Sunday
Was Dalvin cook a freshman last year or year before. Would be interesting to see his early numbers when coming off the bench because if I remember right, he also had a pretty good average going similar to mcmillian.
to quickly answer your question..
Dalvin Cook- Sophomore.. Freshman year ran for 170 carries 1008 yards AVG 5.9 Longest 44 (TD) 8 Td's
Next guy was
Karlos Williams 150 carries 689 yards AVG 4.6 Longest 28 11 TD's
Excellent sir. If my memory was right at all then, it would have had to have been early in the season. I had no idea he had the most carries last year.
sirMa'am, FYI.haha thanks guys... it didn't even bother me
Apologies.
Every other team has at the bare minimum 2 backs accounting for a combined 2/3 carries... except us.
Hate to say it, but if I'm Shai McKenzie and I've already considered transferring (even though I disagree with his current reasoning of health), I'm thinking about it even more. No way I want to redshirt just to get maybe 30% of the carries on the team. Not worth it.
I'd argue that any running back with nfl aspirations would benefit from reduced wear and tear in a time that their careers are so short.
RB with NfL aspirations isn't going to get the stats or looks only playing 30% either.
Agreed. Try to point out any NFL RB right now that didn't run at least %40 of the carries for his team in college.
So we have circled back to the question of whether there are any nfl quality running backs on the roster. It's kind of weird because I don't remember us ever having this many good running backs without a great one.
If you had asked this question a few years back, I would have said "Willie Parker."
A leg for you. Would never have thought of Willie Parker
I'll never forget the stories of how he generally refused to acknowledge playing at UNC since John Bunting hardly used him.
I'm not a Steelers fan by any stretch, but 2 Pro Bowls and 2 championship rings might have eased his frustration a bit.
Is anyone really shocked by this?
Shane's system is dumb, retarded, fucking stupid. It was something that he said they were going to take care of in the preseason, and yet we're doing the same stupid thing that we did last year, and the year before.
The preseason comments are bewildering at this point. HE should be reminded.
For the record, I know he has said it the last two springs, and I'm pretty sure it's the last three. No change, no improvement.
This is great work. Very illuminating. It would be interesting to sort the teams by yards per carry, just to see if there's any correlation. Not that you don't have better things to do with your time. ;-)
IDK about illuminating; the writing has been on the wall for quite some time. But I agree, makes the point very clearly when you see those stats all in one place.
Yards Per Carry are as follows.
FSU- 6.55
Miami- 6.36
NC State- 5.91
UNC- 5.59
Pitt- 5.40
Clemson- 5.08
Syracuse- 5.05
BC- 5.03
VT- 4.95
Duke- 4.73
Louisville- 3.65
Wake Forrest -3.37
LOLUVA-3.27
duhh should have known LOLUVA
LOLUVA, as required in these matters
I guess you could say LOLUVA's running game is "Smoke" and mirrors.
Noice.
They do have a history recently of small backs with big reputations and great nicknames who can't run.
Difference between 6th and 9th places: 0.13 yards per carry. That's less than five inches.
Ahem...
that is what she said.
Do running backs coaches know about shrinkage?
.[ Image via www.TakeFiveADay.com ]
More ACC sans GT comparisons: average year of starting offensive line (according to http://www.ourlads.com/ncaa-football-depth-charts/)
1 is Freshman, 4 is Senior, add +1 if redshirt
I didn't bother with position changes, playing time, or transfers so Wade Hansen, a R-SR, gets a "5"
Definitely less correlation than I expected, but is anyone surprised that FSU lineman would be ready to play sooner than others'?
Yes but no, with legit staters ahead they got plenty of time to learn for 1-2 years then step in?
They had 3 OL get picked in the 2015 draft. Tre Jackson Cam Erving (1st round) and Bobby Hart. They seem to know how to get the most out of their O-Line.
Is this just for RBs? Cause I feel like Motley has a pretty decent YPC average that might make ours as a team look better.
We probably do have a better YPC with Motley's stats but for sake of comparing our running offense to others I thought I would only use RB's so we could clearly get a look at the ACC
Well, turns out I was wrong. Looked up Motley's rushing numbers. Only averaging 3.6 YPC.
Sacks are included in that.
which again makes it impossible to include QB's and get a real value.. I'm sure it could be done but wwowwzahhh
Sacks being included in rushing yardage is just categorically dumb. To be considered a sack, by definition, it must be on a pass attempt. On a designed QB run, it gets recorded by a tackle for loss. And yet sacks subtract from rushing yardage. It's bogus.
Yardage lost to sacks should be its own distinct statistical category. Add passing, add rushing, subtract sacks, equals total offense.
And keep in mind that Pitt has that average without their ACC OPOY James Connor. And Miami's is that high without their 5*(I believe) starting RB Gus Johnson.
Coleman's longest carry is 10 yards. Wasn't he supposed to be a speed guy?
The numbers and the eyes say McMillian should be the lead back right now. Maybe Shane will figure this out at some point.
Coleman also hasn't been given the ball on a fly sweep that McMillian has on 80% of his carries.
true.. but to be fair JC never averaged 8 yards as a freshmen either. I completely understand McMillian is running a different scheme/set but JC had that opportunity and didn't do to well. McMillian has a burst and hits the holes hard which is why he is getting tons of yards.
JC and Trey both ballerina dance in the backfield and then run for 2-3 yards. That 3rd and 1 from the ECU game trey took at least 5 steps in motion then ran into the back of the o line for a loss of 2. On 3rd and 1 you get the ball and absolutely have to go forward, its 1 freaking yard.
If there isn't a hole then there isn't a hole. The running backs haven't magically gotten worse there is just nowhere for them to go.
I can understand that to some point but on 3rd an 1 knowing we need 1 yard we can't even get that? A 6'2 220lb RB cannot get 1 yard.
yeah I might be nitpicking but it's plays like this that really hurt. didn't help the play-call was also an obvious rb draw so who knows..
Not sure McMillian could have picked that up either. McMillian should see an increase in carries but I don't think he should start yet. I would like to see him run more of a traditional role first. He shows a lot of promise.
yeah I'm not a football know-it-all by any stretch of the imagination but I sitill like to play Monday Morning QB with the best of them and when we line up in a shotgun look on 3-1 at a critical juncture in the game it has me throwing stuff....I just don't get it
Pretty sure we seen multiple videos of him taking the wrong hole. He just doesn't have good vision.
I guess none of the running backs have vision then.
IMO JC and Trey are both second string running backs. They're much more Josh Oglesby than Darren Evans. I have much more hope McMilliam, McKenzie and Marshawn (especially the first two).
Neither McKenzie nor Williams will likely get another carry this season so talking about those two in the scope of this season is irrelevant. Your Josh oglesby Daren evens comparison makes no sense because non of those backs run like either back they were characterized as.
I didn't mean running style, I meant quality of back. Oglesby was not talented enough to be a first string running back on a top 3 ACC team. Darren Evans was. I don't think JCC or Trey are talented enough to be a first string running back on a top 3 ACC team. I believe that the other three could someday.
Essentially I was agreeing with your previous comment:
McMillian might, but I don't think Trey/JCC do.
I think giving up on Coleman and Trey this early in the season would be a mistake but in the future McMillian definitely looks big time.
The fly sweep isn't a magical play. Last year Deon Newsome ran the fly sweep for 1-2 yards a game.
Except against OSU when he went for like 15-20 two different times.
That is wildly incorrect
One needs only look at UVA to see that giving one guy half the carries gives no benefit. /s
One stat that holds true for every team except us is that the back with more carries has more yards, McMillan leads us in yards, but is only 3rd in carries.
First, this is awesome. Thank you.
Second, all of Shai's carries have come in garbage time, and it looks like he's done for the year. He hasn't been a part of the meaningful rotation, and with the injury update today, he won't be.
So we're one of eight ACC schools to not have a back getting at least 50% of the carries, but one of only two to not have one back getting at least 40% of the carries. That tells me we're following the standard model maybe just a little too well. I'd kind of like a 45/40/15 or 45/35/20 split.
Here's the problem. The knee jerk reaction is JCC should see a reduction in carries. But he turned in his best performances last season when he was the unquestioned feature back. Maybe he needs that level of carries to hit his stride. Flow and feel might just be of premium importance with him. Who here wouldn't take JCC's performance in the last four games last year?
I also get the sentiment that McMillian should be the feature back. But I can understand the hesitation to put too much on the redshirt freshman too soon, especially since he isn't a natural tailback. He's had two seasons as a tailback, with Shane as his position coach that whole time. Those of you who are critical of Shane let that sink in for a second. The sum total knowledge McMillian has about being a tailback comes from a running backs coach who is arguably not very good at his job. Might be early to pencil him in as the savior of the backfield. There's a chance we're using Travon exactly how he would be most effective.
Ultimately, I don't know what we should do. I'm a stats-driven football fan, and I know that statistically speaking, what we had been doing with the tailbacks had been working up until this past Saturday, so I can't fault Shane for what he's done with the rotation. If he continues this distribution of carries should JCC and Trey both continue to average less than two yards per carry, then I'll obviously take issue with it. Right now, though, all the tailback rotation angst seems reactionary. I would like at least a two game sample. Aberrations happen in statistics all the time. Two bad performances should be viewed as the start of a trend. So the rushing game against Pitt will be very important in deciding what changes if any should be made to the rotation.
Thanks again for doing this. Perspective is the most valuable thing in statistics.
i generally agree with this sentiment. the fear i have is that we will struggle to move the ball on the ground with the tailbacks but won't see a change as a result
If that happens, this is a totally different conversation. Right now my point is we've basically had one game where JCC and Trey looked terrible, and it seems like the criticism of the rotation exploded immediately thereafter. That seems really reactionary to me. Backs have bad games. It's rare that two have a bad game at the same time, but not unheard of. If JCC and Trey post similar numbers against Pitt that they did against ECU, then it's time to rework the rotation. And if Shane refuses to, then we have a conversation about his incompetence.
For all the talk about platooning the tailbacks, it seems like a lot of people have forgotten that we basically did have a two back rotation last season. Injuries just continuously changed which two backs were getting the carries. Now everyone is up in arms because we're seeing even distribution among three backs. But to risk sounding like a broken record, that had been working through the first three games.
I totally agree with you. If Trey and JCC struggle against Pitt and we see the same 1/3 distribution across the three backs, this becomes a whole different issue. For now, I'm holding.
I have been vocal against the rotation since last season...I agree that the rhetoric has picked up significantly on the heels of our loss to ECU but it's something that has been bugging me much longer
Yeah, it's been an ongoing theme of Shane's tenure. In fact, it predates Shane. We were having this exactly same conversation in '09 and '10 about Darren Evans, Ryan Williams and David Wilson all getting rotated in and out constantly. I think Shane picked a lot of that mentality up from Billy Hite, because I think for Shane's first couple of years, Billy was the power behind the throne as Shane found his sea legs in his new job.
Beyond any conversation of distribution of carries, honestly, I'm ready for Shane to leave the program. I think his presence is a net negative. He has cooled in recruiting, he is not producing elite backs (though the talent he's had to work with might have something to do with that) and his coaching style seems to detract and distract. The running backs are showing marked improvement last year to this, but that's completely overshadowed by the perceived mismanagement of the tailback stable.
I think the jury is still out on the Tailbacks having marked improvement. We haven't exactly played the stiffest of competition. When we're about 3 or 4 games into ACC Play and the RBs still look markedly better than last year then I'll consider that there may have been actual improvement. At this point, I'm cautiously optimistic. But based on French and Mason film reviews, it looks more like the O-line has improved a ton and the tailbacks are benefiting from the O-Line improvement more than they have actually improved themselves.
Touche. Like I said somewhere else, I'm driven by stats as a football fan. We haven't played the stiffest competition, but we've played remarkably similar competition to what we played through the first four games of 2014, and so far YPC by running backs (which I define as tailbacks and fullbacks) is at 5.0 ypc, up from 4.2 ypc after four games last year.
Yes, it could totally be the O line. I also don't care if it's the O line. I care that the numbers are better. That facet of our offense has improved, and the improvement is significant. O line, running backs, some combination of both, whatever. It's better. I'm happy. I care about gaining yards and scoring points. That makes me smile on Saturdays.
So when I say the running backs are showing marked improvement, I just mean that their YPC is up by a noticeable amount. The run game has a pulse. That's what's being overshadowed.
I agree that there has been statistical improvement (I'm still leaning towards attributing said improvement to Oline improvement) and it would appear that our running game now has a pulse and that's good! BUT, I'm a firm believe that if we stuck with one RB for at least an entire series, our running game would have MORE than just a pulse. I think we're on the brink of being able to run the ball down opponents' throats. We just don't have any tailbacks running confidently and I think the reason for that is because they can't get into a rhythm. They play 2 or 3 snaps (2 of which they probably don't even touch the ball) and then they're pulled out and standing on the sideline again. Give them a chance to get a feel for the game. If we did a RB by committee and just ran each tailback each quarter that would be better than swapping them out every other play.
"RB by committee" is the worst. Unless you have an unbelievably talented 1-2 punch (we don't) it just doesn't work.
It's a trend in both NCAA as well as NFL football, teams have become too concerned with spreading the carries out and "keeping guys fresh" to realize that it completely prevents anyone from getting in a rhythm and makes them all ineffective.
There's a medium to be found between pounding the rock 30+ times with your top guy and giving every RB on the roster 7-10 carries, but very few teams seem to want to find it.
Last season there were eight FBS teams that averaged over 300 rushing yards per game. In 2008, there were zero.
Whatever the trend is, its working as far as the numbers go.
Isn't that medium either two RB's with 15-20 carries a piece, or one with 2/3 of the carries and the other being short/goalline plays?
I appreciate the research and the numbers, but I still think the point is mainly being missed. The problem is not the total carries the two or three or four backs are getting over the course of a season. The problem I see is that the backs are shuffled constantly in such a way that no one gets to "build up a head of steam" or "get in the groove" or whatever cliche you prefer. If JCC got the lion's share of carries in the first half and Trey got the lion's share of carries in the second half I believe the results would be far better than "Shane's RB Carousel" where each back gets two carries and then gets pulled out. At the end of the game they may have an equal number of carries, but during the game one guy would get enough consecutive carries that he gets to go from cold to warm to hot.
Oh there wasn't any research there. I was just pointing out that there's a pretty basic strategy that most teams use. :)
I meant the spreadsheet and the article. I appreciate the effort Chopping Wood put into the article, but it doesn't answer my question.
I will be re watching the Purdue game to see exactly whose in at RB and what happens when said RB is in. I think maybe understanding the roles a bit more and seeing how many snaps a back gets will also clarify things.
Is JC really brought in for 2 snaps then taken out and in comes trey?
I already have a huge spreadsheet and am trying to compile the Purdue results along with the upcoming Pitt results to see if we can see a scheme.match in the gameplans/RB usage..
early tidbit from Purdue game.. McMiliian was used specifically as a speed sweep/option decoy. Trey's 1st snap which also resulted a carry was a run from our 1/2 yardline for a gain of 0. He was extremely lucky to get the ball out of the endzone.
We had a 2 back rotation last year, until Shai lost his ACL, again. Then, Marshawn went down. S&M were a legit freshman one two punch.
I saw what you said about GT being an option team but I still they should be included in the conversation of at least yards per carry. The running game figures predominately into their whole offensive identity. I think you should reconsider and put them in if you plan on continuing this discourse.
No question the running is their identity, but their running game is qualitatively different than all the other conference teams. It really is like comparing apples to oranges, because there's almost no traditional handoffs. Depending on if you're the A back or the B back, all your carries will be either right up the middle or around end. A good QB in that system is almost more valuable than a good O line in getting the RBs lots of carries and lots of yardage. Unless you're running the same system, you can't draw strong comparisons between what your ground game is doing vs what GT's is.
A-back and B-back...1A-back, 1B-back, and 1C-back...
I think you're on to something. Get Scott and Shane on the phone...maybe PJ as well.
We'll call it the Hokie Bone Offense.
We'll call it the
Hokie BoneTurkey Leg Offense.FTFY
Their rb split depends on what the defense shows them, not who the coaches put on the field and decide to give a carry
This may have already been said, but the presence of Motley makes the necessity of trimming down the RB rotation even more important because Motley will inevitably be getting carries each game. With Motley's presence, there should be no more than 2 RB's getting carries with Rogers as the occasional go-to in short-yardage situations. I think Shane needs to roll with TM#34 and sit either JC or Trey. Both are pretty good but the offense will be better with one of them than it will be with both of them.
Other issue I don't see being talked about is why haven't we seen McMillian get many touches/chances as the 1 RB in lineup out of pistol or shotgun or even I back? I would be 100% ok with them giving him a chance and then looking at the results and son you're a better scat back/sweep back.
However I see sooo much more that McMillian being a scat back, everytime he touches the ball even if its on a sweep I get the feeling he could take it to the house. With JC and Trey i'm expecting more 2 yard gains/loss of 1 than a 5-10 yard burst.
To put into perspective, over the last 4 games in 2014 for JC Coleman
Duke- 20 carries 95 yards 4.8 avg- longest run 12. Next closest back had 5 and that was Marshawn
Wake- 18 carries 94 yards 5.4 avg -longest run 31. Next closest back had 5 Deon Newsome
UVA- 18 carries 118 yards 6.6 avg - longest run 38. Next closest back had 8 Sam Rogers & Motley
Cincy- 25 carries 157 yards 6.3 avg 1 TD- longest run of 35. Next closest back had 4 Sam & Trey
the #'s of carries and stats with those don't lie. .. spreading 25 carries between 3 backs is utterly confusing.
Couldn't it just as easily be argued that the platooning system is what kept JCC fresh so that when needed for increased carries forced by injuries, that he was fresher and healthier than opposing defenses down the stretch?
there was a clear 1-2 back system after W&M last year. JC got benched for fumbles and lack of production. later came on strong as he was the only RB left and he got 15+ carries.
One thing I've been wondering about: what do you think about the possibility that the intent was for a 1-2 rotation with JCC and Trey, with McMillian getting spot work to bring him along, but Travon has just been so damn good that it's muddied the waters. The distribution of carries against OSU (12 JCC, 11 Trey, 6 McMillian) indicates a two back rotation with a breather back. But the next week against Furman, IIRC, JCC came out with a leg issue that turned out to be minor. That opened the door for Travon, and he blew the fuck up. Ever since then, it's been splitting the carries three ways.
I see it as JC and Trey getting 1a 1b looks based on knowing the system and JC playing well to end last year.
Everyone got carries vs Furman.. yes JC was out but McMillian stepped in and played well. along with Trey.
Purdue- No reason why 4 RB's all have between 8-10 carries each.. add in Motley with 15 and that's a crowded backfield to feed.
I will be paying close attention to the RB split this week as it's honestly a make or break week. If we see RB's getting 8-10 carries each it will sadly be the theme the whole year unless injury's happen.
And i think that's where things got weird.
TreyTravon destroys Furman and nearly goes for 100. So everyone's like, damn, son, maybe we'll give you a look against Purdue. And they do, and he maintains the pace. But at that point, JCC and Trey are posting good numbers. Not great, but completely respectable. It's not like they're a liability. But then ECU happens, and our 1A and 1B back hit a wall, but McMillian still shows flashes. I can see how we've gotten here without this ever being the intention to start with.What I'm trying to say is, the whole thing is a clusterfuck.
yup Travon did well vs Furman had a 63 yard run to start the 2nd half in a game that was only 14-0 at that point..
JC gets a pass vs Furman as he had ankle issue.. Trey went 9 for 41 which is still pretty good.
Purdue was a bit of the same, every back held their own and got yards Total AVG of 6.17.
ECU- everything fell apart.. I just did a play by play for the RB breakdown.. Yards then who carried follows. Soo Travon got more carries after we were down which is a good sign.. how many of those were sweep plays I'm not sure.
1st Half went like this
2 JC
1 JC
1 Trey
1 JC
3 Trey
2 JC
3 JC
-1 Trey
7 Travon
2 JC
2nd Half
2 JC
7 Travon
1 Travon
5 Trey
0 Trey
14 Travon
1 Travon
You are dismissing a lot of valuable information in this post. There was a very good reason that the carries were split so much.
We have played 4 games, 2 of which were blowouts. The 1st string O didn't play much in the 4th quarter of either blowout, so it makes sense to see a variety of RBs getting touches. Furthermore, we are going to run the ball with a large lead in the 4th, so the carries pile up for Shai and McM.
For example, here is how the 4th Q went against Purdue:
Start of 4th:
1st series:
Edmunds run
McM run
Incomplete pass
FG
2nd series:
Lawson run
Lawson run
Lawson run
Punt
3rd series
Shai run
Shai run
DL run
Incomplete pass (Turnover on downs)
4th series (Motley/1st team back in after TD run from Purdue)
McM run
McM run
McM run
McM run
Motley run
Shai run
Shai run
Bucky TD catch from BM
5th series
Shai run
Shai run
Shai run
Shai run
All of Shai's runs were in the 4th quarter. I am almost certain it was the same for Furman. McMillian had 9 carries, 5 of which were in the 4th. Taking away the garbage time, that means the carries were 10 for JCC, 8 for Edmunds, and 4 for McM. Shai only played the 4th (when the game was out of hand) and over half of McM's carries were in the 4th as well.
I'm confused are you saying since Travon only gets garbage time runs they should not be counted for??
Shai's runs I'll give you as it seems they wanted to test him out to see what to do..
You said:
I was simply pointing out how there is a huge reason why 4 RBs got 8+ carries. Obviously they wanted to see what each player could do, and McM got chances late when the game waa out of hand. Leonard Fournette isn't going to get 20 plus touches against the worst rushing defense in the country this weekend... games and situations matter.
Gotcha just was a tad confused. Agree on shai getting late carries vs Purdue.
Fournette is AVG 24 carries a game. With 2 SEC schools and a ACC school. I'd say he gets 15 carries and they rest him in 4th.
Key difference is Fournette is the top back there as he is a freak of an athlete/rb. Maybe Shane and co are just trying to figure out who to use and it's taken 3 games to do that. i can understand that for sure. Will be telling with these next 2 weeks as to what happens in that rb room.
If Shane had stepped onto campus for the first time in September this would be understandable. If he had figured out his depth chart and his #1 had been injured it would be understandable. If one guy had played well in practice, but just couldn't play well under the lights, it would be disappointing but understandable.
I'm trying to understand and not crucify the rotation but the stats of our rbs and other teams definitely isn't helping.
So he wasn't even playing, so he was indeed well rested
The game prior, williams had the vast majority of the carries and only averaged 2.5 ypc... Its not cut and dry as some make it out
BC also only gave up an avg of 94 rushing yards a game last year.. that's pretty impressive.
It certainly looks good when compared to JCCs stats vs ECU, but I'd hardly call it impressive.
Just trying to show there might be a bit of confirmation bias in your stats
Biased how so I'm interested??
Marshawn + Shai were easily the best back on the team until they tore their ACL. I was saying BC's rushing defense was pretty impressive for giving up less than 100 yards a game not Marshawn's performance which definitely was mediocre.
Here's the AVG rushing yards given up of the last 4 teams JC faced..
Duke 192.9
Wake 168.6
UVA 111.3
Cincy 183.6
I proposed a perfectly sound reason as to how JCC was able to succeed the last 4 games that had nothing to do with being the main balk carrier
Rocco also just made a post that is probably more accurate than either if our proposed explanations though
I countered saying JC was rested because he was a liability to the team by putting the football on the ground to many times and not producing early in the year when we had 4 healthy RB's.
It's not like the coaches knew ohh lets rest JC because we're going to have 2 RB's tear their ACL and 1 RB break his clavicle. JC got benched for better production at the RB spot..
No matter the reason, the point stands, that it's entirely possible he did better down the stretch last year because he was fresh and the opposing defenses weren't. I'm not saying that is the reason, I'm saying it fits the data, and is as plausible as your explanation,
To be clear, it's entirely possible that being "the man" and not having to worry about another back was part of Coleman's numbers. There's no way to disprove that. But it's also true that by then Teller became a starter and the run blocking improved. And it's also true that VT faced weak run defenses. I tend to favor the tangible rather than the intangible factors when trying to explain things.
I agree with this. I mentioned above, maybe JCC needs to have the bulk of the carries to hit his ceiling. But just speaking practically, what do you think the fan reaction would be if we start giving JCC 18 touches a game after his performance against ECU? For all the calls to decide on a tailback, I think reaction would be equally negative if Shane decides on the "wrong" tailback.
Not saying you or anyone else is in that boat. I'm just saying I really think Shane has wandered into the middle of lose/lose territory. If he sticks with equal carries among three backs, he's wrong. If he tries to get one feature back going and that back struggles, he's wrong. If he tries to increase McMillian's workload and McMillian's numbers fall off because of it, he's wrong. I think this has gone so sideways the only answer is a change of coach at that position.
If Shane is worth keeping his job then he'll cut down the rotation and he won't be wrong. Heck, I'd be fine with him splitting the carries as long as he gives each back uninterrupted series' to play with. Maybe give JCC the first 2 series. If he puts 20-40 yards on the ground in his first two at-bats, if you will, then throw him a 3rd series to see if he can keep it going. Then get one of the other guys in there for a couple of series. Don't sub them out every other play. See who has the hot hand that day and ride him through the 3rd quarter.
I have wondered since Loeffler took over who decides what back is in the game. It seems like there's a lot more subbing in and out since Scot took over, which maybe indicates it's tied to personnel packages. If that's the case, that's actually not on Shane. But I have no idea either way.
One thing I will say, there were a couple times against ECU where I noticed JCC come in, run one carry, then sub out. I was thinking, Jesus, for real? And then I noticed on the next play we were empty or Sam was the only back. So in that case, that's not even a back rotation. That's a change of formation. If JCC came back in on the next play with a tailback in the formation, then that's a playcalling issue, not a running back rotation issue.
That's when it would be really nice to have a pass-catching / blitz-pickup threat as a RB who could move out to the slot or move to HB in those other personnel groupings. I know Loeffler does like to mix it up but it would be nice if we could create a bunch of different looks without subbing guys in and out all the time
Shane (i think) mentioned that on passing downs they like either Rogers or McMillan in, which added to the lack if carries for JCC and Trey, once down 2tds, we were using a lot more passing formations/personnel
If Shane did that, he'd at least have history on his side in making JCC the feature back. I think most of us would accept his reasoning, though I hardly speak for a majority of Hokies.
Also think you were correct up-thread when you speculated that Trayvon was intended to be sporadically used, but showed himself to be too good to keep on the bench but not trustworthy enough (yet) to be the feature guy. Hopefully what we're seeing is a dynamic process of Trayvon growing as a complete back and he'll become the feature guy over a few games as we get deeper into the ACC schedule (or the coaches will decide he's not ready yet and will focus on JCC or Trey for the remainder of the season).
As for JCC and Trey, if the coaches really want to even up the carries between those two, I wonder if picking one of them as the feature guy for a given game, depending on the matchup and which provides the skill set to best exploit that week's opponent, would do the trick. Presumably they could each have some games as the feature back and either get in a groove and excel in the game, or fail and fall down the depth chart. Just a thought.
Now look at how those teams did defensively against the run. Then look again at Coleman's numbers and see if his production makes more sense.
(Spoiler alert: 3 of the 4 teams were near the bottom. The remaining team is UVA.)
My personal thoughts on the issue: I think Shane is dividing the carries as evenly as possible in an attempt to 1) keep everyone happy, involved, and prevent transfers, and; 2) be loyal to the upper classmen (JC, Trey). I mean, when you see JC come in for one play and right back out, that is absurd. His comments yesterday were awful when asked about getting McMillian more carries. He said something to the effect of, "Yeah, I want to get him more carries. And I want to get JC more carries. And Trey more carries." When you give someone else more carries, you're taking away carries from the others and watering down the production of everyone. McMillian has shown to be our most dynamic back, and he deserves the bulk of the carries, with Trey spelling him here and there or in certain short-yardage situations. JC just hasn't performed so far. You cannot please everybody, and football is a competitive sport.
I wish I had more time to read through all the comments, but unfortunately I don't. However, I +1'ed your comments because it's exactly how I feel. Shane, and to a lesser extent, Scot have screwed the pooch again in terms of the RB situation. They claimed in the off-season that they were creating competition so that they could have a defined hierarchy come season time. But they slipped right back into the Shane Beamer Wheel-of-Carries system. If JC was the #1 back out of fall practice, they should have rode him until there was no light at the end of the tunnel. Then promote Trey if he was the #2. But now the coaches have Hokie Nation foaming at the mouth to have Travon be #1 because he looks to be the most successful RB on the field. Flip-flopping has rarely, if ever, been effective in college football. That's one lesson that Shane will need to prove he's learned if he's to ever be seriously considered for a power-5 conference HC job.
I'm just going to echo what a lot of others have said. I am no expert, but my eyes tell me that McMillian is the best RB we have healthy right now.
JC seems to be back to where he was at the start of last year, missing lanes/holes and trying to prove that he can run like a much larger back, physics be damned!
Trey just doesn't seem right. He isn't seeing the holes and is running like a much smaller back. It looks to me that he is just not back to 100%, mentally and/or physically.
Travon looks to have vision, burst, and just hits the hole quickly. Yes, he has been running mostly sweeps and sideline to sideline plays, but you still have to find the lanes, then quickly and decisively plant your foot and go. He does that. I also think that he is well-suited to be split out wide when you want to go empty backfield or to help solve the WR3 problem. The dude has wiggle in the open field so they should really be scheming to get him the ball.
For the people who say that Coleman needs carries to get into a rhythm and point to his stretch last year as proof:
Last four games, carries 1-10 of a game: 6.275 yards/game
Last four games, carries 11-25 of a game: 5.34 yards/game
He didn't need lots of carries to get into a rhythm. He started off running well and kept running well. There are a number of different reasons as to why he played well but "he got the carries he needed" isn't one of them. If he started off games in 2015 averaging 6 yards/carry there would be no rotation at all.
I disagree with this. The difference between the end of last year and the beginning of this year is that at the end of last year, he was our only option. He would stay in for multiple FULL drives in a row before getting a breather. It isn't entirely the number of carries that is affecting him. It is being in the game for stretches at a time. This year, he goes in for 2 plays and then gets subbed off. Shane said it himself that JCC was in the ECU game for 7 PLAYS, not even just carries, 7 PLAYS. That is just ridiculous for your starting RB no matter what the conditions are(barring injury).
If you're averaging less than 4 yards/carry and there are options behind you that are doing better it's likely that you're going to get benched. All the evidence suggests that giving him more carries this year would just be a waste. He's welcome to prove that wrong whenever he's ready.
Against Duke last year he had 23 yards in his first 3 carries. He had 26 against Wake. he ripped off a 35 yard run against Cincy on his 3rd run. He got off to a slower start against UVA which probably not coincidentally was the best run defense he faced in that stretch. Plus as far as I know it's never been proven that "running back needs X amount of carries to get into a groove" is a real, consistent thing.
Yeah and you're missing my point. It's not entirely about the number of carries. It is about being IN the game for a consistent number of plays. I would like to know the longest stretch of plays that JC has been IN the game so far this season. Not necessarily getting carries, just in the game. Because it's probably like 4 plays.
And I think their point is that it doesn't matter how many consecutive plays JCC is in for. In his good run last year, he was ripping off good runs from the start. He didn't have to build up to it or "get into a groove."
Bingo. Perhaps Coleman would stay on the field more if his carries accomplished something other than creating 2nd and long.
Just an FYI for something to note in the NC State numbers:
NC State RB Shadrach Thornton missed the first two games of the season due to suspension. That team deserves a closer look on how they have divided the carries since he has returned.
Dayes' carries dropped from 24 in week two and 20 in week three to 8 in week four.
Shadrach went from not playing in week two to 18 in week three to 12 in week four.
Reggies Gallaspy II went from 8 carries in week two to not playing at all in week three to 6 in week four.
Jaylen Samuels went from 6 in week two to 5 in week three to 5 in week four.
Dakwa Nichols went from 1 in week two to 0 in week three to 5 in week four.
And just to understand how their running game is working compared to how often they throw, Jacoby Briskett threw 22 times in week two to 27 times in week three to 23 times in week four. They are running way more per game on average than their throws.
So it looks like they have a committee approach since Thornton's return (unless you need more than two backs to be a committee) splitting the carries between two primary backs Thornton and Dayes with the others getting sprinkled in, likely for garbage time drives.
this is very true .. and with this mornings news Thornton could possibly be kicked off the team as he was arrested last night for failure to stop/help.. aka hit and run.
This will be his 5th arrest/issue since 2013..
Ugh. The only reason I knew that he was suspended was because of college Fantasy Football. Now I need a new RB.
Thanks for telling me, though!
I'm sorry did you say 5th arrest?
yup..
1 assault that got suspiciously dorpped.
2 drug related charges
1 domestic
and now this hit and run.. which I'm reading was with a scooter and a pedestrian..
I'm sorry but how many chances do you need? Hit and Run with a scooter is soo mind blowing
Did you see the hit and run was hitting a pedestrian on a sidewalk while riding his MOPED??!! What. A. Idiot.
Emma Watson, First Lady of TKP, would also like to register her feelings:
andddd officially been dismissed by NC State,, HE GONE
Milady
Well they have also played...
Troy
Eastern Kentucky
Old Dominion
South Alabama
The committee approach works very well when you are scrimmaging the first 4 games of the season.
Also true.
Also let's compare VT history
2009 National Stats
Freshman RMFW
#5 rusher yards per game #8 attempted runs per game
2010 National Stats
Darren Evens
#95 rushing yards per game Not top 100 in attempts per game at Committee approach to running
RB Rotation- Darren Evans Att/G 10.71
- Tyrod Taylor Att/G 10.43
- David Wilson Att/G 8.62
- Ryan Williams Att/G 11.10
2011 National Stats
David Wilson #8 YPG #16 Attempts per game
2012 National Stats
Logan Thomas #98 in attempts per game Not top 100 in Yards per game at Committee approach to running
1 Logan Thomas Att/G 13.31
2 J.C. Coleman Att/G 8.38
3 Tony Gregory Att/G 5.82
4 Michael Holmes Att/G 6.36
2013 National Stats
Edmunds #78 in attempts per game Not top 100 in Yards per game at Committee approach to running
2014 National Stats
Not top 100 in Yards/Att/G per game at Committee approach to running
If the coaches have only one running back they know is the real deal they run him and use him 2008,2009,2011. If the coaches have more than one running back they just play it fair to everyone 2010,2012,2013,2014. Got to look at how that effects keeping and recruiting Top Running Backs. Like Ryan Williams, did he leave because he knew he wouldn't be the Top Running back. D Wilson was our only running back so he became a bigtime player but if Williams had stayed would VT had played the committee approach again
Williams left because RBs who are going to be early draft picks need to go the NFL as soon as possible.
Kinda,On January 9, 2011, it was announced that Williams will give up his final 2 years of NCAA eligibility. If it was a known thing why wait so long.
Yea it's kinda a stretch, but if he was to come back to VT you got to believe his only question to all the coaches was "am I the #1 and only back at VT"
Also David Wilson by contrast announced it 2 days after the end of the season. He knew what he wanted
You have a meeting with the coaches about your future, meet with the agent. Make a decision
That really seems like a stretch. Maybe he just didn't know what he wanted to do but decided he couldn't pass up the money? Turns out it was the right decision for him.