I made some changes from last week after a few good suggestions..
I put them in order of Rushing Rank and also added a column to see what exactly that equates to in terms of yards.
I also took a little look at each team to see if their QB is heavily involved with the run game,
Also added some random notes to the side as it pertained to each individual team.
Saw someone last week say why I didn't add GT --> took a little look and added then at the end.
Is this something that people would love to continue to see week by week?
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
I certainly hope you keep doing this each week. It really helps to see real numbers when discussing our issues in the running game. The first time you posted this stuff basically cemented the futility of Shane's Wheel of Running backs for me.
At quick glance our running game most closely resembles....UVA
I'll let that sink in for a minute
I want Shane to see the table, and then to see your comment. Someone make it happen!
Wake's second leading rusher out-rushed our entire team? Oh. Okay. It's okay. Everything is fine.
Everything is fine.
Everything is fine.
via GIPHY
What baffles me is the fact that Pitt knew the sweep was coming all day long and once they proved to lock that up we basically went away from the run..
If McMillian is still being used as a sweep type guy then we have bigger issues.. I'd love to see I formation Rogers leading the way behind 2 TE sets and just run power every 1st down play, if we can't get 3 yards then we're in bigger trouble than we think.
It's like Beamer/Lefty don't think that other teams watch film or something? The jet sweep works when used properly at the right time and the "right time" isn't every damn series. If I am an opposing defense and I see #34 spread out to the short side of the field it is a dead giveaway that he is getting the ball on a sweep, or motley is going to keep and run into the teeth of the defense. So frustrating.
It's also worth pointing out that the 2 receivers to the field are both lined up on the LOS. It becomes pretty obvious that the jet sweep is coming when from what I've seen this tendency holds 100% true. I'm ready for our bye week so that Lefty can have a little more time to do some self-scouting.
Thanks for organizing this data this way. It provides a snapshot of where we are relative to the rest of the ACC for this statistic as the season progresses.
Just so I am square: The %carries is just for the previous game or for the entire season (looks like just the last game)?
If that stat is included for the entire season, that combined with the ranking (average yds/game is the same metric basically) tells us what we need to know. There will be anomalies, but that should tell the tale of whether across the ACC (and likely NCAA) if "The RB Wheel of Fortune" works or not.
yes % carries is just for the last game and not for the whole season.. I can easily create another column for season % as well.
thanks for the feedback!
Yes Please!
added and pictures/stats updated
And how many of those teams with a narrower distribution of carries also lost last weekend?
What bothers me more is the total number of carries (15)...not the distribution of carries. Even if just one guy got all 15 carries, it still would have been an exercise in futility.
Sorry but distribution of carries is just another in a long list of very minor excuses that help people rationalize the game and get through the 7 stages of sports grief rather than simply recognize that the team and the coaches collectively stunk up the joint last weekend and got outplayed by Pitt.
I partially agree with you. I think there should have been more carries by the RBs in general. I also think there should be a clear #1 and #2 getting 50-80% and 20-50% carries respectively. These are 18-20 year old kids we're talking about. You can't pretend like getting into a rhythm isn't important to their success. If you're constantly yanking a kid out of the game, even if you tell him that's the plan and he has a job to do, it's going to mess him up. I'd be okay with more even distribution as well if it wasn't so sporadic or illogical. Instead of giving players certain packages and having them only play in certain situations, give the players entire series' and rotate them each time we have the ball instead of each time the ball is re-set.
Another thing that bothers me about the whole situation is that Shane/Loeffler insist that they are 'playing to the strength' of each player. I don't like this approach because by doing this you're pigeon-holing the players. They're not going to grow and improve as backs if they don't work on parts of their game that need improvement. I would much rather have 2 backs who can do everything than 4 backs who each do one thing well. The NFL isn't going to pursue guys who can only pass protect. The NFL isn't going to pursue guys who can only run the jet sweep. The NFL isn't going to pursue guys who can only catch screen passes. The NFL isn't going to pursue guys who can only run between the tackles (I say this, but I don't think we have anybody who can do that anyway)
I don't think you're getting the argument/issue..
I am ok will spreading out carries with 2 backs as long as you have a true starter and a back that can be a change of pace/breather back.
VT has 3 back who currently are getting almost the same amount of carries. 1 RB has shown vision and the ability to break tackles and create chunk plays but only is allowed to run speed sweeps. 1 RB's has shown to pussy foot in the backfield and only get what's blocked and nothing more and gets an apology from RB coach. 1 RB has shown to be an ok back and would be the perfect redzone/goal line back.
Travon- 32 carries for 223 yards 7.0 avg and longest run of 63
JC- 37 carries for 120 yards 3.2 avg and longest run of 10
Trey- 36 carries for 149 yards 4.1 avg and longest run of 35
So tell me why JC continues to be RB1 when Travon and Trey could do a 60 40 split and probably both double their output? Travon as RB1 and Trey as the bruser/goal line short yardage back??
That however is 100% true.. and this discussion of RB carries/rotation plays into the fact that our RB coach has no clue what to do...
If you know running isn't working, and you got an idiot who you can't get rid of, because his dad is your boss, making it suck...are you going to call run plays? I won't. Beams says he changed, it, let's call run plays Friday and see if he did...50/50 splits runs and passes. Ride Tmac till the 4th and then challenge that Oline to mash with tre...we don't have to run I formation, we use pistol sets, pro sets, and heavy sets...any of them will do. Open holes and hit the dive, QB (who ever it is) is a lot safer with threat of a run (play-action) and the defense will suck up.
For what it's worth BC's rushing rank is completely skewed by playing Howard and racking up 347 yards in that game.
Do we know which coach decides which RB is on field from play to play?
my guess is its Shane as he is RB coach..
Shane's comments about apologizing would certainly seem that he is the one who picks and chooses which RB gets in.
the whole each rb has a package seems to be a waste as stated multiple times above/in other threads.. If we're only giving each rb 1/3 of the playbook no wonder why we can't run the ball. However I don't think that's the case.
Wouldn't it be nice to be a fly on the wall in one of those meetings..
absolutely
I would say that we can't know for sure if this is the case. I'd like to think it isn't the case but the coaches seem insistent on the fact that each RB brings something different to the table and they try to play to each RB's strength. That stinks of customized packages for each player. Also, I agree that Shane is primarily responsible for choosing which backs get into the game at which times but I believe they have alluded to how certain packages dictate who gets out on the field. IMO, I don't think the package should dictate which RB, specifically, gets on the field. I think the packages should dictate whether or not a RB is on the field in general. That would simplify things. My fear, unsubstantiated of course, is that Shane has predetermined which back will get carries based on the play call. Loeffler calls down Play D and Shane looks at his chart and says "Okay, Trey, this is you buddy" and the next play call form Lefty is Play R and Shane looks at his chart and says "Okay, Travon, get in there!" and so-on and so-forth.
I'm curious to hear your reasoning why that ISN'T the case. I'd really like for it not to be, but it's the only logical explanation I can fathom given the illogical rotation of backs that we've seen under S.Beamer.
perfect.. this is what I think is happening. it might not be 100% packaged wise but shane has pre determined who will get what snap. I have yet to see Travon get a inside the tackle look and I have yet to see JC get a sweep.
IMO it should be the opposite. JC should get the sweeps and Travon +Trey the bigger backs with better vision should get the inside the tackle runs. Having Travon run the sweep when everyone knows he's the home run hitter its completely obvious he is getting the ball. We should use JC like sproles is used and that's a scat back not a inside the tackles back.
first you said
and then you agreed with my unsubstantiated fear of what's going on
which, to me, sounds synonymous with packages designed to cater to each RB's strengths. It would then follow logically that if 3 backs are getting packages of plays catered to their styles that they would effectively only be getting work with 1/3 of the playbook. Now I'm confused. Maybe you have a different idea of what 'packages' are?
I don't think each RB is only given 1/3 the playbook and that's all they learn.. 1/3 of the playbook would be a package. to me
If each RB knows the whole playbook and shane is picking and chosing who he thinks fits the play that sounds like its a coaches personal choice and not a package. If that's the case then we're in a whole load of trouble for the rest of the year.
is that clearer. Our RB situation/selection is soo confusing and it really shouldn't be.
I think you and I are probably in the same book...maybe even the same chapter...but on different pages. I would really like for that to be the case. I want it to be the case that each back learns the entire playbook. Based on what we're seeing, though, it looks more like they plug in whichever back has been determined to go with whatever play we're running at the time.
They game-plan and practice all week according to what they want to do on Saturdays. If Shane thinks that Travon is the Jet Sweep back, why would he bother giving Jet Sweep reps to the other two guys in practice? If Trey is the goal line back, why would he give goal line reps to the other two? Do you see what I'm getting at? You might be right that each player does indeed learn the entire playbook but I haven't seen any evidence to support that claim.
I think what I'm trying to say is that I think it should be the way you think it is. I don't know why you think it is, though.
yes I do!!!!
the sad thing is so does every coach that scouts/watches our tape.. If McMillian is lined up at WR he will be involved in some sort of sweep and it probably will be keyed on by the opposing defense. If JC is in then the defense knows more than likely he will be getting the ball inside the tackles. Trey has been used sparingly as a short yardage back and if we're stuck deep inside our own 5 yard line. I hope Friday brings different results but its been 4 weeks and its still the same.
drives me nuts! I like Shane as a person, but the man just isn't cut out for coaching RBs. I wish that somebody would do something about that...I think the fact that nothing has changed (or likely will change) with the RB coaching is the reason this offense is trending in the wrong direction. You have got to be able to run the ball to be effective offensively. We've struggled mightily to run the ball under S.Beamer. I don't know how one can't make that connection
I think everyone is making that connection. however the last name is also a big reason why its been swept under the rug. No one is going to call out your bosses son because that's a risky thing to do, however I could see some more subtle hints if the lack of production continues.
I also will acknowledge that the running backs are not our only problem the o line looked awful as well and without the big guys up front 100 yard offensive games are going to happen.
I hope Friday is a complete 180 for all 3 phases of the game.
yeah the O-line got man-handled by Pitt and there's no excuse for that. However, through the first 4 games, the OL looked decent. RBs just weren't seeing the field. French and Mason both pointed out that RBs left a ton of yardage out there because they didn't hit the right hole or they were too slow getting to the hole. I also have yet to see Coleman or Trey win a one-on-one battle with a backer. The OL can block 5 guys but the RB has to be able to win that one-on-one 50% of the time. They haven't. If I'm an OL and I'm opening holes up for the backs and they're not hitting them, I'm losing confidence in them. I'm getting tired of making plays for naught. I'm getting lazy and discouraged. I'm losing focus. I think coaching is an issue but you have to wonder if the failure by the RB to produce is having an affect on the OL. It's got to be wearing them down mentally.
absolutely.. the o line has to be going/asking how big of a hole do we need to make. that's one of the things that bothers me with JC and Trey, they only get whats blocked and if they have to make a guy miss yeah that doesn't happen to often.
I also still think we're trying to figure out who are best 5 linemen are, we have 3 solid ones but are obviously still shuffling around. Nijman and McL are being swapped out every 2-3 series.
Sorry to jump into you two's conversation, but you bring up an interesting point.
If Shane has it pre-determined that each back is only going to run certain plays, then maybe all of the sweeps is Loeffler's way of getting his best running back on the field. He may not be able to tell the Boss's son that he should stop with the substitutions and just put McMillian out there, or maybe he has and it falls on deaf ears. Either way, what would you do in Loeffler's position? Or he could just think that Shane's rotation is just nifty. Who knows.
No need to apologize. That thought has crossed my mind but how far are we willing to go to defend Loeffler? Ultimately it's his responsibility, right? If he doesn't have the cojones to tell Shane what needs to be done he's never going to make it as an OC. We can blame Shane all day for the RBs because they're his direct responsibility. We can theorize that Loeffler doesn't like what Shane is doing but can't stand up to the Man to change anything. We can hypothesize that Loeffler intentionally calls plays that involve running his two best runners (Travon and Motley) as a passive aggressive way to send a message to Shane. We don't know if any of that is true though.
For all we know, Shane wants to narrow the RB rotation down to just 2 guys splitting the carries 60-40 but Loeffler is forcing his hand to split carries evenly among the 3 backs. We really don't know what's going on but ultimately it falls on Loeffler, doesn't it? If he can't control his offense and doesn't get what he wants out of his staff then he's not good at his job. If he's directly responsible for this rotation, then not only is he bad at his job, he's ruining the perception of Beamer and cutting him at the knees. Double bad. Personally, I believe Shane is responsible for the idiotic RB rotation but it's Loeffler's fault for not making changes to it. This is all unsubstantiated opinion though. I really know nothing concrete about the situation.
Is it possible that Loeffler doesn't like it and is afraid to confront the Golden Boy about it? Sure. Is it possible that Loeffler has demanded that S. Beamer plan to split carries evenly to each back? Sure.
We don't even know for sure if narrowing down the running back rotation and making Travon the primary ball carrier will do anything to help the offense. I think conventional wisdom says that if you have a RB getting consistent work he'll be more productive but we don't actually know what these guys look like in practice. It's the coaches job to put these guys in the best possible positions to succeed. They get paid a lot more than I do to do that. Maybe they actually are using the backs in the best possible way. (admittedly, I have my doubts)
Couldn't agree more. The running back circus may indeed be Shane's doing, but if Loeffler is unwilling or apprehensive to do anything about it, then just as much blame should be placed on him. A pattern of disorganization is beginning to come through with the offense as a whole and the management of the staff. This is why I think we have an incredibly gifted QB coach and recruiter in way over his head as offensive coordinator. I don't think Loeffler is a bad coach or bad guy, but I think he's a QB coach and lacks the skills necessary to manage an effective offense overall.
This is reasonable. I don't think there's much doubt that he understands the game of football and he must have a pretty firm grasp on Xs and Os. Managing is different from technical know-how. Maybe he's just not cut out for it.
I think similarly Stinespring is a really good TE coach and an all around great guy. He was way in over his head as OC, though.
Another point to note: for all the years of experience Loeffler has all over the place, coaching Brady, Tebow, Henne, et al., keep in mind this is only his 5th year as OC, and 3 of those 5 have been at VT. To say there has been some degree of learning on the job might be an understatement. His second year at Auburn was abysmal, and his first was likely heavily overseen and influenced by Steve Addazio, especially considering Temple's rushing statistics that year.