Courageous, Dumb, or Both?

[elkabong82]

It's a decisive process, knowing when to go for it and when to play it safe. Morris and RG3 are both in the process of figuring it out. Players with long careers take care of themselves, but also learn when to go for it and when not to. 

 

I think Morris' comments are based on long-term strategy and are wise when you consider the average shelf life for RBs in the league, especially the ones who run like Morris does. Plus, anyone who watches him play knows he won't shy away from contact when a needed first down or score is on the line.

[Dan T.]

The Redskins' Larry Brown ran as violently and relentlessly as any running back the NFL ever saw:

 

 

His NFL career ground to a halt after 7 years due to an accumulation of injuries.
 

 

 

As great as Franco Harris was, he was often criticized for sidestepping out of bounds instead of fighting for that extra yard or two.  His Hall of Fame career as a running back lasted 13 years.

[8181]

As a Redskins fan first, I agree with Mike Shanahan.

 

The chance of breaking one for what should extend downs and culminate in a scoring drive should be greater than the chance of a fumble.  If you have fumbling issues, the coach will probably bench you if not cut you.

 

From a player's perspective, it's dumb, you're shortening your career.  I think Willis McGahee is one of the few running backs I see always trying to deliver punishment, but he's getting hurt pretty often.

 

But I'm a Redskins fan.

 

If Alfred Morris gets hurt... Hate to say it, but I doubt we're  in big doo doo because runningbacks are so replaceable.  Will we miss him?  Sure, but not as much as we would almost any other position on the field.

[zoony]

Careers for nfl running backs are as short as they've ever been. A few years, really. For bruising backs like Morris, they're even shorter

If Morris does end up having a five year plus career with his running style, he will be an exception.

As for Shanny, of course he's going to tell his running backs to not avoid hits. He has no vested interest in their longevity. He will find another RB when the time comes. If Morris were smart, he'd run a little smarter.

[Darth Tater]

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?

Depends.  Do I want a RB who has a decent career or do I not give a crap?  If I want a RB to have a decent career and maybe a life, he goes out of bounds or stops fighting when there is no reason to keep fighting.  If I don't give a crap about the specific person and just see him as just another cog, well, I may push him to lay it on the line.

[Oldfan]

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.

 

How about quoting me? What did I say to make you think that I was arguing that RBs should react to every situation the same way?

[Oldfan]

TDWR: I was agreeing with the philosophy, even for RBs. I think, the more dynamic your offense is, the less risk you need to accept.

 

If I wasn't clear about it, I understood your original post and agree with the point you added.

[Oldfan]

As a Redskins fan first, I agree with Mike Shanahan.

 

The chance of breaking one for what should extend downs and culminate in a scoring drive should be greater than the chance of a fumble.  If you have fumbling issues, the coach will probably bench you if not cut you.

If there's a chance of breaking one, you aren't talking about the kind of situation I had in mind. Nor am I talking about RBs with fumbling issues. From the OP:

 

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?

 

From a player's perspective, it's dumb, you're shortening your career.  I think Willis McGahee is one of the few running backs I see always trying to deliver punishment, but he's getting hurt pretty often.

 

But I'm a Redskins fan.

 

If Alfred Morris gets hurt... Hate to say it, but I doubt we're  in big doo doo because runningbacks are so replaceable.  Will we miss him?  Sure, but not as much as we would almost any other position on the field.

 

RBs like Morris are rare. I think he's Terrell Davis rare running the ZBS.

[Oldfan]

Dan: The Redskins' Larry Brown ran as violently and relentlessly as any running back the NFL ever saw:

 

Watching Larry Brown run often made me think "Damn, I would hate to tackle that guy." Alfred Morris produces the same reaction.

[TSO]

I love the post from KDawg about the physics of football in reply to chipwich, and while logically sound, I do want to say that it omits one massive issue, and that is the mental part of "getting the hit" or "giving the hit". That is not to say Kdawg himself doesn't know this since he was simply replying to the "equal force" comment and refuted it. 

 

That being said, I think I understand what chipwich was saying. Well, I don't if he was trying to say this, but at least the idea he was positing is not so ridiculous, though logically flawed.

 

I'm not going to find all the scientific evidence on this and post it, but I believe there's been plenty of modern research that has shown just how much our brain affects our bodies. When delivering the blow, your muscles not only brace themselves for impact simply due to the nervous system working it's magic, but the other player is usually not as prepared and/or surprised by the hit, which means his muscles are not in the best state to handle the blow. 

 

Simple test for this would be taking the same punch with the same force in the gut, except one time you do it knowing it's coming and the next time you have it happen unexpectedly. I'm sure we all know the difference in feeling, lol. Now, how much of that "feeling" or "pain" is tied to legitimate signals from the brain of danger? Or, in other words, does one punch have a higher potential of injury versus the other punch and is our brain essentially telling us that by sending signals of immense pain on one versus the other? So the force is the same but there is a huge difference in terms of injury-risk.  

 

I'd say the research these days on the brain and the nervous system would indicate that, yes, being mentally prepared for the same force is healthier and safer than not.     

 

I'd also like to mention that I think drafting two RBs this year is a pretty good indication that Shanahan doesn't view Morris as a throw-a-way body and would like him to have a long, productive career. Now, if none of them (as well as Helu) take carries away from Morris for anything other than poor showings in training camp and preseason, I'd have to wonder about that. I just find it hard to believe we have all these RBs competing for the two and three spots behind Morris and we go into the season with the same rotation (essentially Morris, Morris, Morris, and more Morris with a teenie weenie sprinkle of Royster on the side).

 

So far, I've read that Helu is getting a ton of work on third downs thus far in training camp, so there's that.  

 

 

 

 

And, yes, I am posting in an Oldfan thread now. One must let go of grudges eventually, lol.

[Oldfan]

thesubmittedone: And, yes, I am posting in an Oldfan thread now. One must let go of grudges eventually, lol. 

 

Good to hear. Let's get it back to where we once were -- which was good.

[KDawg]

Submitted,

I actually touched on that in another post. It will help to demoralize a defense when you smoke a defender. But as someone who played a little ball, I can tell you that you get an edge by ducking defenders sometimes, too.

That's not to say be a coward. But do you realize how frustrating it is for a linebacker to line up a ball carrier for a big hit, start closing in on him, and then have him duck out of bounds at the last second?

That sometimes causes temperamental defenders to take 15 yard penalties later in the game and screw with their heads.

I really think its ALL situational. I know I'm playing a hot head, I'm going to do my best to taunt him. Maybe smoke him once just to show him I'm not scared. But get him frustrated.

If I'm playing a very poised defense, it probably requires more of a mix of hits and ducks.

[Oldfan]

... It will help to demoralize a defense when you smoke a defender. But as someone who played a little ball, I can tell you that you get an edge by ducking defenders sometimes, too...

 

I believe that's true in War and every violent competitive sport. In boxing, nobody calls a fighter a coward when he ducks a punch. Now, if he just doesn't want to engage, that's different.

[KDawg]

... It will help to demoralize a defense when you smoke a defender. But as someone who played a little ball, I can tell you that you get an edge by ducking defenders sometimes, too...

I believe that's true in War and every competitive sport. In boxing, nobody calls a fighter a coward when he bobs and weaves now and then.

100% in agreement. People like to make things as black/white as possible but I find that as a general rule, it's usually some shade of gray that holds the answer.

[MumboSauce]

I agree, I think a great runner has both the understanding of the position, a certain maximized skill set, and smarts. Knowing how to use your body, or not is integral. How to make guys miss, avoid a huge hit when the gain isn't worth it. How to angle your body and get skinny, when to square up and deliver a shot, or elude with a well placed stiff arm. etc.  and PROTECT THE FOOTBALL.

 

As much as I couldn't stand the cowboys, I thought Emmitt Smith, for the majority of his career was great at this. He wasn't super fast, but he was slippery, didn't regularly take huge shots, got down, and had a great stiff arm.

 

edit: also like the "situational awareness" quote. basically what I was getting at said in a much more succinct way.

[Dan T.]

 

Dan: The Redskins' Larry Brown ran as violently and relentlessly as any running back the NFL ever saw:

 

Watching Larry Brown run often made me think "Damn, I would hate to tackle that guy." Alfred Morris produces the same reaction.

 

 

And there's no doubt that style lopped years off of his career.  That was him, though. He knew no other way.  

[TSO]

 

thesubmittedone: And, yes, I am posting in an Oldfan thread now. One must let go of grudges eventually, lol. 

 

Good to hear. Let's get it back to where we once were -- which was good.

 

Agreed.

 

 

And I totally agree with Kdawg's response to my post as well. 

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

Submitted,

I actually touched on that in another post. It will help to demoralize a defense when you smoke a defender. But as someone who played a little ball, I can tell you that you get an edge by ducking defenders sometimes, too.

That's not to say be a coward. But do you realize how frustrating it is for a linebacker to line up a ball carrier for a big hit, start closing in on him, and then have him duck out of bounds at the last second?

That sometimes causes temperamental defenders to take 15 yard penalties later in the game and screw with their heads.

I really think its ALL situational. I know I'm playing a hot head, I'm going to do my best to taunt him. Maybe smoke him once just to show him I'm not scared. But get him frustrated.

If I'm playing a very poised defense, it probably requires more of a mix of hits and ducks.

This is my feeling as well.  Guys don't like running all over the field and not getting to take a shot at someone.  Personally, I wouldn't change how Al Mo runs in between the hashes, but I wouldn't mind seeing him use the sideline a little more when he runs out of room.

 

As for the physics stuff, that was certainly an interesting read.  However, I am still a "You either give a lick, or you take a lick" guy.  It's kinda like hitting a baseball out in front of the plate, instead of it getting in your kitchen.  It just feels better.

[rick7423]

Always remember Newton's Laws.

I like Fig Newtons... ummmm.

[illone]

Portis was an elite athlete who knew exactly how to fold his body in a way to minimize punishment.  That's why he is walking around today a fairly healthy dude.

 

Not everyone has his vision or athletic ability.  Portis was special.

 

So I think it depends on the back, and what you are asking him to do.  Morris has that same type of "slippery" to him.  Defenders just seem to slide off him at times.

 

Ultimately my opinion is that it varies depending on the situation.  fighting for extra yards just because it might be there is no excuse to expose yourself to undue punishment.  RG3 could take a few lessons on that this camp.  The other side of the coin is that the low man usually wins, so as long as the RB is getting low and using his ability to minimize punishment, then I think it's neither courageous, or dumb, it's simply doing your job moving the football.

[Dan T.]

The other side of the coin is that the low man usually wins, so as long as the RB is getting low and using his ability to minimize punishment, then I think it's neither courageous, or dumb, it's simply doing your job moving the football.

Terry Allen was one of the best at getting real low at the end of his runs and diving forward both to stretch out an extra yard or two AND to avoid a last punishing hit. He almost never got driven backward at the end of runs.

[TexasSkinsFan]

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?

Does this apply to WR as well? Yesterday posters were comparing Hankerson and Robinson and some comments were Aldrick fights for every yard while taking the extra hits but LH does not and looks "soft"

That is a small part of this, perseption. As a fan do you want to see your players protecting themselves for another play by going out of bounds or do you want to see them attack the other team with reckless abandon?

Personally my opinion is it depends on the situation. If it is a winnable battle between two men then I want to see the fight in our players. If it is hopeless and multiple defenders on one of our players then I want to see smart football. I cannot give you an exact answer because there should be a balance between smart and tough football plays

[Oldfan]

hankersonfan: Does this apply to WR as well? Yesterday posters were comparing Hankerson and Robinson and some comments were Aldrick fights for every yard while taking the extra hits but LH does not and looks "soft" 

 

Here, our topic was RBs, but while WRs are not expected to take punishment like RBs, the same question applies. That quote on the topic from Shanahan's 2004 playbook would set a harder line than you and a majority of the posters in this thread would agree to as policy.

[G1]

Does Newton's law of physics mean that Brandon Jacobs felt the same force as Landry when he trucked him because to my naked eye it sure didn't look that way.

 

When I am watching the game and in the moment I want all players to get every yard possible and hit the other team (whether it's offence or defence) as hard as possible. Thinking dispassionatley, of course, players have to be smart. However, I don't have to be smart. I'm a fan and I can want the players to go all out.

 

Furthermore, if anyone knows Running Backs, their value and how to operate a running game, it's Shannahan.

[MartinC]

Always remember Newton's Laws.

I like Fig Newtons... ummmm.

Named of course after the town of Newton in Massachusetts. With credit to Penny from Big Bang Theory for that fun fact.

Does Newton's law of physics mean that Brandon Jacobs felt the same force as Landry when he trucked him because to my naked eye it sure didn't look that way.

I smiled when I read KDawgs post on that. I'm not disputing the science but I now get great satisfaction in knowing that all those DEs who flattened me from behind hurt as bad as I did as a result.