Courageous, Dumb, or Both?

[Oldfan]

In our debate on the read-option issue in another thread, we got into the issue of how running backs protect themselves. Some posters doubted my observation that Clinton Portis got as much gain as he could and then was very slick at getting down to avoid big hits. I see most running backs in the NFL doing it from time to time. It surprises me that some other fans don't see it. 

 

I was a Ladell Betts fan. I  like RBs who can catch a football. But I marked him down for not being as smart as Portis when finishing plays. Ladell would twist and turn for six inches of ground, sometimes ending up on the pile back down, football exposed. I waited for it; it took a while; but finally the inevitable happened. A DB came up late and stripped him.

 

Coincidentally, in a very recent interview, Alfred Morris was asked if he has spoken to veteran running backs about defenses who will now adjust to him. This was his reply:

 

Alfred: No, not from vets, but I have talked to some of them about just making your body last and not taking unnecessary hits, going down instead of fighting for the extra yard. I can take one or two extra hits off you, and sometimes fighting for those extra yards, you get that hit and then you’ve got a bruised rib or you’ve got this. It will actually keep you off the field. 

 

Morris was most likely naive in saying this to the media. An admission of that sort will not go over well with many fans. Our own insider, Lavarleap, had this to say about it:

 

Lavarleap: Shanny doesn't want the RB's going out of bounds or sliding, he wants them to deliver punishment. Morris was referring to taking on 2-3 defenders at a time more so than sliding or avoiding contact. 

 

To me, that remark sounds like LL trying to do some spin control.

 

The first time I saw a runner go out of bounds just short of a big hit was probably in the early 1950s at Griffith Stadium. It surprised and annoyed me. It seemed cowardly. But, I've since changed my mind. Unless the RB is just short of a first down, going out of bounds  short of a big hit is smart football. On defense, hard hits injure opponents and cause fumbles. As a coach of the offense, I want my RBs minimizing the hard hits they take as much as possible.

 

I'm not talking about those situations in which the RB can deliver a blow to the tackler and gain more yards; and I'm not talking about sliding well short of picking up as much gain as possible. I'm talking about those times when the RB sees that the hard hit is headed his way and he's vulnerable. Does he take it to gain another yard or does he get down?

 

As a coach, I want him to get down for the same reason that, as a military commander, I would not want to expose my troops to high risk for small gains. I think the RBs who fight for every inch, exposing their bodies to more punishment, are both courageous and dumb.

 

What's your opinion?

[Darth Tater]

Every back that had a decent length career knew when to go out of bounds or otherwise protect himself from the big hit.  Hell, I'd say almost every player who plays for more than half a decade either was very lucky or learned how to protect himself.  I suspect that failure to learn that is part of the reason that some great players burn out so quickly.

[MartinC]

It does not matter what we think - here is what Shannys has to say about it in his 2004 Denver playbook (I have a PDF copy) I understand he uses the same language in our current playbook.

"stay in bounds - Broncos running backs do not run out of bounds. Attack and strike defenders".

[Oldfan]

It does not matter what we think - here is what Shannys has to say about it in his 2004 Denver playbook (I have a PDF copy) I understand he uses the same language in our current playbook.

"stay in bounds - Broncos running backs do not run out of bounds. Attack and strike defenders".

 

Well, my opinions do matter --- to me.

 

Obviously, I think that's poor coaching. What's your opinion?

[KDawg]

I think it needs to be a situational thing and not black and white. There are times to lower your shoulder and smoke a defender. There are other times where the back needs to get down or get out of bounds.

[MartinC]

It does not matter what we think - here is what Shannys has to say about it in his 2004 Denver playbook (I have a PDF copy) I understand he uses the same language in our current playbook.

"stay in bounds - Broncos running backs do not run out of bounds. Attack and strike defenders".

Well, my opinions do matter --- to me.

Obviously, I think that's poor coaching. What's your opinion?

I think it's part of a backs job to avoid a defender getting a square hit on him both to protect himself and the football. I also don't think you want a back scratching for half a yard if in doing so they expose themselves to such a hit - the exception being 3rd and short and at the goalline when inches can matter.

However I also don't think that's inconsistent with what Shannys is coaching in his statement above. There is a difference in being the hitter and the hittee - if you have your back attacking defenders, especially defensive backs that takes a tool on the defender and later in the game they start falling off tackles or being tentative in coming up on the force.

I have no problem with a back protecting himself and the ball if he is penned in and there are a number of defenders around him but I would be in the ear of a back who runs out of bounds when faced with say just a corner on the edge for example.

Edit. By the way based on your OP you would have LOVED my running style from the QB spot ......

[Oldfan]

I think it needs to be a situational thing and not black and white. There are times to lower your shoulder and smoke a defender. There are other times where the back needs to get down or get out of bounds.

 

Just to clarify: I assume that you, like me, disagree with Mike Shanahan's policy as quoted by Martin: 

Mike Shanahan: "stay in bounds - Broncos running backs do not run out of bounds. Attack and strike defenders."

[Oldfan]

Martin: However I also don't think that's inconsistent with what Shannys is coaching in his statement above.

 

We must be interpreting that statement differently. 

[Burgold]

Time and place.  If you are in a huge pile or about to get absolutely clobbered an there's nothing that can be done about it protecting yourself and the ball is a good idea.  What I saw Portis do at the end of his career was something other.  He dove 2 yards in front of a defender without making any effort to dodge, stiff arm or power through.  He would make for the sidelines well in advance of the hit to try to be untouched.

 

In the pile, or as you are about to be struck self-preservation is good, but try not to be hit, try to beat the guy or out race the guy, or juke the guy if it's a one on one situation.  Laying down is different than learning how to fall and presenting a target where you are less likely to be hurt.

[Pedro]

For me it depends on what is needed yards wise and who the defender is.

 

If we need that extra yard for a first down it's a no brainer, if the defender is a DB it's a no brainer.

 

EDIT: and to echo others contact still has to be initiated just do it smart so it's 1 on 1 not 1 on 4 type scenarios, sliding and running out of bounds is for QBs not RBs.

[Oldfan]

Burgold: What I saw Portis do at the end of his career was something other.

 

I saw it the same way. At the end, Clinton was giving up too much ground to protect himself.

[bowhunter]

Morris had the reputation as a fumbler in college, maybe he's learned

[KDawg]

Yes, OF, I do disagree with his running back philosophy. I think it's partially right, in my mind, because there are times where I want my back destroying someone, but more often than not I don't want him taking unnecessary hits.

Then again, he's a Super Bowl winner and I coach high school football.

[chipwhich]

The thread title doesn't match up with the OP.

 

From my sports playing days, a hit is not a hit.  Meaning me driving an opponent on a hit has a different effect on my body than him driving a hit on me.

 

In football it would always be "it depends".  Depends on the type of hit the running back is taking before going out of bounds.  I saw Portis fall down on stuff where the collision would have been minimal if any.

 

So the answer is it depends.  Too many players now run out of bounds when a hit wouldn't be violent at all.

[Oldfan]

Yes, OF, I do disagree with his running back philosophy. I think it's partially right, in my mind, because there are times where I want my back destroying someone, but more often than not I don't want him taking unnecessary hits.

Then again, he's a Super Bowl winner and I coach high school football.

 

Stop with that humble crap! It's ME you're talking to. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

We have recently seen this philosophy employed successfully on dynamic offenses. The "Greatest Show On Turf" Rams seemed to have a rule for their skill position players to avoid contact. I remember it a little more with their WRs than I do with Faulk, but they were a finesse offense and they would catch the ball and get to the ground to avoid hits.

 

It's logical...if you're gaining chunks of yardage, the risk of getting hurt/fumbling isn't worth the reward of stretching out/fighting for 1-2 more yards. 

[Oldfan]

The thread title doesn't match up with the OP.

 

From my sports playing days, a hit is not a hit.  Meaning me driving an opponent on a hit has a different effect on my body than him driving a hit on me.

 

In football it would always be "it depends".  Depends on the type of hit the running back is taking before going out of bounds.  I saw Portis fall down on stuff where the collision would have been minimal if any.

 

So the answer is it depends.  Too many players now run out of bounds when a hit wouldn't be violent at all.

 

So, this paragraph from the OP didn't make it clear enough for you to identify the kind of situation I was writing about? You needed a more comprehensive list?

 

I'm not talking about those situations in which the RB can deliver a blow to the tackler and gain more yards; and I'm not talking about sliding well short of picking up as much gain as possible. I'm talking about those times when the RB sees that the hard hit is headed his way and he's vulnerable. Does he take it to gain another yard or does he get down?

[Oldfan]

We have recently seen this philosophy employed successfully on dynamic offenses. The "Greatest Show On Turf" Rams seemed to have a rule for their skill position players to avoid contact. I remember it a little more with their WRs than I do with Faulk, but they were a finesse offense and they would catch the ball and get to the ground to avoid hits.

 

It's logical...if you're gaining chunks of yardage, the risk of getting hurt/fumbling isn't worth the reward of stretching out/fighting for 1-2 more yards. 

 

Sure. It's obvious that RBs need to accept more risk than WRs; and WRs need to accept more risk than QBs. However, there are many times when RBs can prudently get down to minimize their risk of injury and prevent fumbles by getting down a yard early.

[d3gauss]

Morris got yards because he kept running through hits. He would be a sub par rb if he avoided hits.

[KDawg]

Chip,

Correct me if my physics knowledge is a bit off... But, any contact means there's an equal force being applied by both players, or am I way off? Momentum comes into play unless an object is static, and I'll assume the object isn't static.

So yeah, the nail probably takes more brunt than the hammer, but force is still applied to the hammer.

[Jumbo]

I didn't get to it yesterday when I saw it come up in the thread with a Redskins fan saying they only saw CP take an early slide "once" and presented as though they never heard about such ever being an issue. This is the kind of remark that to me, goes beyond "differences of opinion" and just leaves me wondering what type of perception or observation abilities are in play there, but yes, ES had plenty of discussion about CP not just "giving up" early more than a few times, but also the whole "taking myself out of the game when I think I should" stuff. And various media covered it often enough.

 

Most CP defenders (on this matter) acknowledged they were seeing it (and some debated frequency, and/or allowable degree), and many trusted CP was just protecting his hard-used body and were willing to cut him slack for how much he was perceived to already be putting his body on the line for us (and coach always also referring to him as such a warrior type and had CP's back).  Reasonably, even the harsher critics on this matter tended to still be big on CP and properly appreciative.

 

But how one could be a fan of this team, or reading on this board during that time, and not even "know" this was a major topic of discussion during those times stood out, evokes my "um, what?"

 

I have to spend the day deep in Seasquawks territory and even around a couple people connected to the organization (medical staff wise). May need another bail fundraiser. Play nice. Enjoy good conversation. It's a beautiful day. 

[Oldfan]

Morris got yards because he kept running through hits. He would be a sub par rb if he avoided hits.

 

So, you read my OP and understood it to mean that I wanted RBs to avoid hits in general?

[chipwhich]

Chip,

Correct me if my physics knowledge is a bit off... But, any contact means there's an equal force being applied by both players, or am I way off? Momentum comes into play unless an object is static, and I'll assume the object isn't static.

So yeah, the nail probably takes more brunt than the hammer, but force is still applied to the hammer.

 

If I run through a player standing still as compared to another player running at me as I am running at him full speed there is not equal force.

[Jumbo]

Per Kdawg and OF (unless I misread--time is short), I'm fine with a coach teaching RBs to use their head about their body (ha ha) and make smart choices as opposed to a "fight to the death for every yard on every play." The basics of what that might look like, and the frugality in application I imagine would be best, should be pretty obvious. Some descriptions of such are already in the thread. Success of such a strategy also hinges on the judgement capability of the RB. So the coach using that strategy a lot may find some backs are more hands on, or need a more limited decision making role.

[d3gauss]

Morris got yards because he kept running through hits. He would be a sub par rb if he avoided hits.

So, you read my OP and understood it to mean that I wanted RBs to avoid hits in general?

No. But Morris didn't avoid hits at all. He ran every play like he was going to take it all the way or die trying. That is what made him good. If you start avoiding hits sooner or later you will start avoiding hits you had no businesses avoiding and you lose your job. If you play like Morris did last year and just play like every down is your last then you will come up with bigger plays. Morris has determination more than anything, he isnt the fastest or the strongest but he had heart. And if you play with heart you don't take a dive because you are afraid. You cover up the ball and you go for the end zone.