Courageous, Dumb, or Both?

[Oldfan]

Jumbo: 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 had that thought and... "How can they watch Portis play for seven years and not realize how good he was at avoiding that hard hit?" From me, he got a higher grade for that. It also explained why he fumbled less than most RBs.

[Oldfan]

d3gauss: ...If you start avoiding hits sooner or later you will start avoiding hits you had no businesses avoiding and you lose your job...

 

Lots of decisions, like this one, come down to -- where should we draw the line? You just made the "slippery slope argument" which is common in that kind of decision. Usually, it's a fallacy.

 

From the Morris quote, it seems he is receptive to suggestions from veteran RBs that he could protect himself better. I doubt that he doesn't realize that one could take that advice too far. I'm sure that he knows that he has to make smarter decisions, for himself, and for the team. 

[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.

 

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.

Incorrect.

 

In the book "Physics of Football" by Dr. Timothy Gay, he refutes exactly what you're saying by Newton's third law. Basically, he begins by saying in a game, Dick Butkus and a fullback met in the hole and Dick Butkus delivered a blow of 1,150 pounds of force. The fullback also delivered a blow as he had built up some speed in his short run, of -1,150 pounds of force. Players of similar size, speed and acceleration deliver a blow relatively equal.

 

Here's an excerpt from the book to disprove your theory above:

 

"In the above example, both players feel the same force during the hit. After all, they're of similar size, speed and acceleration. But what happens when a huge, fast player attempts to take out a small, stationary player? The bigger player exerts a bigger force than the smaller player, right? For the answer to this question we must turn to Newton's Third Law and the answer it gives is an unequivocal, NO!"

 

"Newton's Third Law says that whenever two objects collide, no matter what their individual masses, no matter how fast they're going, they always exert the same amount of force on each other, but in opposite directions."

 

"This idea may at first seem crazy to you. If Warren Sapp, running full tilt, sacks a small guy like Doug Flutie, who is standing stock-still in the pocket, getting ready to throw, how can they possibly exert the same force on each other? After all, Flutie is the one who goes flying, right?"

 

"How can we understand this counterintuitive idea? Perhaps the best way is to see how Newton's Third Law leads to another fundamental law of physics, the Conservation of Momentum. It is this law that explains why Flutie, not Sapp, goes flying."

 

"Momentum is often times used incorrectly. Momentum is the mass time the velocity. Newton called it "the quantity of motion". In any collision on the football field, the total momentum of the two players is the same before and after the hit."

 

"In addition to momentum, we want to consider impulse, which is really just the change in an object's momentum. If one object strikes another, we say it has delivered an impulse to that body that is equal to the change in the second body's momentum as a result of the collision. The impulse is equal to the product of the time over which the collision occurs multiplied by the average force exerted on the body. Here's the punch line: Since both objects (players) exert the same force on each other but in opposite directions during the collision, and they do so over the same time interval, they must deliver equal but oppositely directed impulses on each other. This means that one player gains the same momentum that the other loses, so the net change in momentum of the two players is zero."

 

"Now let's use the conservation of momentum to analyze the Sapp-Flutie altercation. Fluties velocity is zero, and he has a mass of 180 pounds. Sapp, weighing 310 pounds, pops Flutie hard - so hard that Sapp falls to the ground after contact is made, rolling on the turf at perhaps 3 feet per second. Flutie, of course, is knocked in the same direction as Sapp was traveling before the collision. How quickly is he moving? The initial momentum of the two players is due entirely to Sapp and equals his mass times his velocity: 7,440 lbm*ft/s. Remember that total momentum is the same before and after the collision, so the momentum of Sapp and that of Flutie combined after the hit must also be 7,440lbm*ft/s. Knowing Sapp's final velocity, we can calculate Flutie's final speed: 31 feet per second. The small guy really does go flying!"

 

In other words, Newton's Third Law states that the two players, no matter their application (I was even wrong in my original reply) exert the EXACT same force on one another. The explanation for the smaller player flying is the Conservation of Momentum, and NOT a different amount of force applied.

 

Always remember Newton's Laws.

[Warhead36]

This is not an area you can paint with a broad brush. I think it depends on the situation.

 

E.g., let's say the RB is up one on one against a DB. Powering through him could result in an even bigger gain, possibly a TD, but you also have the option of running out of bounds. In that case, I'd go for the damage and try to gain more yards. The return is worth the risk.

 

On the other hand, if there are like 2-3 LBs/DL type guys and you already have the first down, or are not gonna be anywhere near a first down regardless, then I'd rather you just play it safe and no ttry to risk further damage just for a pointless yard or two.

[KDawg]

 

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.

The positive of playing the way Morris does is that it can make a defense weary of contact and wear them down. It also gives the Redskins team and players one of those "OH YEAH!" moments to help lift them psychologically.

 

The negative of Morris playing that way is that he is putting a lot of wear and tear on his body in doing so. Each hit he delivers, the same force is delivered back at him due to Newton's Third Law. So while he may look like he's the one that's dealing pain, his body is taking a beating as well.

 

Shanahan likely encourages the play style he does because he can pull running backs from seemingly no where and can put them in his system and see their production flourish, so long as they're a schematic fit. He doesn't necessarily care about a players' individual longevity, he cares about team success and preaches that with the team. That's not to say Shanahan doesn't care about Morris' health, it just means that Shanahan knows that Morris (and every other RB) is replaceable. Hence the reason that strategy doesn't haunt Shanahan.

[d3gauss]

d3gauss: ...If you start avoiding hits sooner or later you will start avoiding hits you had no businesses avoiding and you lose your job...

Lots of decisions, like this one, come down to -- where should we draw the line? You just made the "slippery slope argument" which is common in that kind of decision. Usually, it's a fallacy.

From the Morris quote, it seems he is receptive to suggestions from veteran RBs that he could protect himself better. I doubt that he doesn't realize that one could take that advice too far. I'm sure that he knows that he has to make smarter decisions, for himself, and for the team.

The reason that type of argument is not a true fallasy is because it had no flaw in logic. If you try to avoid every hit that you perceive as being big you will eventually avoid at least one that you could have broken. The fact is rbs are expendable. And the point remains, playing scared is no way to play at all. The best believe they are the best; this is not to say anyone who believes they are the best is, but merely that you can't do something great if you are trying to do something safe.

So yes you can have your rbs run out of bounds and slide when they perceive a big hit to give you the safest outcome, but the moment you fall behind this strategy is worthless. It is far better to play hard until you are ahead enough to employ this type of strategy, which is what the majority of coaches do.

[SWFLSkins]

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.

I am absolutely thrilled to see you write this, it just makes me feel better about my overall acumen, lol. It really matters where you are in the game, what that game is. I agree with OF on one primary thing he wrote especially, there are guys who try to hard and then get stripped or fumble the ball doing so. If you are taking on one defender I hate seeing a guy run out of bounds, but when multiple defenders are closing in and not much more yardage is at stake, live to fight another down. Third and short would change that mentality unless the first is already achieved. 

[Oldfan]

KDawg: Shanahan likely encourages the play style he does because he can pull running backs from seemingly no where and can put them in his system and see their production flourish, so long as they're a schematic fit. He doesn't necessarily care about a players' individual longevity, he cares about team success and preaches that with the team. That's not to say Shanahan doesn't care about Morris' health, it just means that Shanahan knows that Morris (and every other RB) is replaceable. Hence the reason that strategy doesn't haunt Shanahan.

 

I have Alfred rated as the most talented RB Mike has had since Terrell Davis. I'll remind you that I haven't been high on the ZBS because I like ball control and the ZBS isn't consistent enough for me. However, Alfred is not just your one-cut-and-go typical ZBS back. The kid runs with power and gets his yards in consistent chunks.

 

I don't know what Shanny has in mind, but I hope he's not thinking that Alfred is easily replaceable.

[KDawg]

I think Alfred is special as well.

Having said that, it's entirely possible Shanahan updated his philosophy and forgot to send the memo to the fans

[Oldfan]

d3gauss: The reason that type of argument is not a true fallasy is because it had no flaw in logic. If you try to avoid every hit that you perceive as being big you will eventually avoid at least one that you could have broken.

 

You shifted positions. This is what you said earlier:

 

 ...If you start avoiding hits sooner or later you will start avoiding hits you had no businesses avoiding and you lose your job...

 

The fallacy is in assuming that what could possibly happen, indeed, will happen.

 

The fact is rbs are expendable.

 

Is Morris expendable on our team? 

 

And the point remains, playing scared is no way to play at all. 

 

As I see it, being unwilling to take maximum risks for minimal gains isn't playing scared; it's playing smart.

[skinny21]

Regarding Shanny's statement (about Denver runningbacks not going out of bounds) could this, in part, be a ball control/possession type issue? Wouldn't a team featuring a heavy dose of running prefer the clock not stop and the defense not have a chance to rest?

And, of course, there's the phsychological aspect as well. A team facing a runningback who consistently avoids contact (to some degree or another) may feel they are intimidating the RB. Conversely, a RB that keeps initiating or inviting contact can tire a defense more and may be more likely to have a phsychological impact on the opposing defense.

Not that these points are necessarily completely true, but I could see them playing into Shanahan's take on the role of Rbs.

[Oldfan]

I think Alfred is special as well.

Having said that, it's entirely possible Shanahan updated his philosophy and forgot to send the memo to the fans

 

That seems likely. It's hard to imagine him saying "Alfred, I don't care how big Ngata is. I don't want to see you running out of bounds again!

[rskin72]

To me this is almost a non-issue.  I think Morris showed his steel last season.  I don't think that he will suddenly go out of bounds or dive to the ground unless overwhelming odds oppose him.  Don't think anyone that still drives his Mazda when he certainly can afford more can be accused of losing focus, or having to purchase hats several sizes larger. 

 

Think the key is to play smart....as others have mentioned.  There is reason to pounding the football and wearing out the will of the opposition defense.....and that play will take it's toll on a body.  however, all of this happens in seconds, and the decision by the RB has to be made pretty quickly in many cases.  Morris has earned our acceptance that he will do what is necessary for the team, vice what is necessary for his career.....IMHO

[Morneblade]

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?

This is a little tougher to answer than it appears. I suppose the question is what is "vulnerable". Most of the time, if a back actually can see it coming, he can do something about it rather than fall down. It's usually the guy he doesn't see that delivers that kind of shot, and in that case there isn't much he can do about it either way. Now, in rare situations when a RB has 2 guys on him and have stopped his forward momentum and there is a guy coming in to clean house? I want him to get down and not risk it. Running on the sidelines with 4 guys converging on him and he doesn't have an angle on any of them? Get out of bounds unless its a TD/1st down on the line and you have a decent shot of getting it. Now, if it's out in the open field and some guy lines you up? If you fall down and give up, you're on the bench for awhile.

[Oldfan]

skinny: Not that these points are necessarily completely true, but I could see them playing into Shanahan's take on the role of Rbs.

 

Shanahan doesn't usually play a ball control game, so I'm fairly sure that his policy as quoted by Martin didn't have that in mind. You might be right on the psychological impact being a factor in his mind. 

[Bang]

Well, unless I misremember, it's now illegal for a running back to lower his head and power into a guy.

 

I don't know what the penalty is, I'll assume 10 yards. 

So in that respect, depending on how tight they call this, they should definitely go down or get out.

However, in my mind, this is not football, and if they were allowed to play football, i would not want to see my running back hiding on the sidelines or looking for the ground to avoid contact. 

football is a game of inches, and those inches he saved by not taking the hit could be the difference between a first down and a punt.

That attitude of "protect myself first" could be the difference between a win or a loss.

 

I also believe that a punishing runner does just as much damage to the defense, and when a powerful back slams himself time and again into those defenders, the linebackers or DBs are taking just as much of a blow. that adds up, and we've seen the benefits of this at the end of games.

 

Besides, it';s a fact in football that you can't really protect yourself too much on the field. You can go down on one play to avoid a hit, and on the next get your knee sprained while blocking.

Injuries are flukes. they happen to guys running the ball, they happen to guys blocking, they happen to guys away from the play.

if you are delivering the blow, you stand a better chance of not being hurt than if you're absorbing one.

I would not like a RB who is looking for the ground.

 

~Bang

[MR2Drift]

I agree with you. Morris is only good to us as long as he is healthy. As a player you have to be smart and pick your battles aka situational awareness. Fight for that crucial first down but no need to take a big hit and make a 12 yard run into a 13 yard.

[Oldfan]

MR2Drift:...As a player you have to be smart and pick your battles aka situational awareness..

 

That's a good line. I should have said that in the OP.

[Bang]

that is a good line. A dose of good ol' horse sense should aways be applied.

 

~Bang

[Hogs Ahead]

In Peewee ball we have to teach the kids to protect themselves by initiating the hit kids who play scared get hurt. I know physics says the forces are the same, but how those forces affect the human body is very different. I think what we're really seeing is that having an aggressive running style minimizes long term damage as long as the runner can handle the short term effects of the impact. Once the runner begins to decline they play more scared and the hits they do take have a greater long term affect because it. Portis situation was somewhat unique in that his shoulders started to fail before the rest of his body which affected his ability to lead with his pads. Shanny probably has no issue with players that play smart, just with his guys playing scared.

[KDawg]

Peewee ball is a bit different than the NFL, is it not?

[Hogs Ahead]

Sure, but I would assume the principles of Not playing scared still apply at the nfl level

[Morneblade]

 

MR2Drift:...As a player you have to be smart and pick your battles aka situational awareness..

 

That's a good line. I should have said that in the OP.

I think we can all agree on that.

[NoCalMike]

Like others have already said in this thread, I am not sure how this can be looked at an either/or situation.

 

A runningback's hands are on the ball so many times a game I don't see how it is realistic to think they will react to every situation the same, nor should they.

[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. 

 

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.

 

I was agreeing with the philosophy, even for RBs. I think, the more dynamic your offense is, the less risk you need to accept. That late-1990s/early-2000s Rams offense was gaining chunks of yardage. Very rarely were they in a spot where 2 yards was worth the increased risk of a turnover or injury. 

 

For an offense where things don't come so easily (think the Gibbs 2.0 Redskins), you might need your players fighting for any yard they can get to move the sticks and keep a drive alive. 

 

I'm hopeful that this offense has matured to the point where we can really pick our battles and keep our key play-makers upright and healthy.