The Running Back Room

GBRFAN said:
Now that is silly talk - being a "factor" has already happened
Click to expand...




Agree here, especially with the bolded (we haven't had a game yet). It's more crazy to think Washington won't be a factor this year than to think he'll get most of the carries, imho. It's basically a given he'll be a factor this year. We've had 5+ coaches and players raving about him and we're 5 practices in.

 
Making Chimichangas said:
I think there will only be "grumbles" about running back by committee if there is no production to speak of.

If each RB is averaging 5-6 (or more) yards a pop, I doubt any one will care.
Click to expand...


This isn't a "Rozier gets 40 carries a game" offense, either. Too much of its strength comes from forcing a defense to consider all of the possibilities. 

As to production, this staff means it when they say every day is competition day. Who plays game 1 may not be who plays game 8. That's where it's huge that Bryant and Washington are now available. There's now competition that forces everyone to get better, and if you're not cutting it (see last year), there are now options. Riley, by his own failure to correct roster issues, was forced to overuse the one back that was productive.

 
Dilly Dilly said:
Maybe worth mentioning, maybe not, but a UCF fan did analytics on what personnel was used and the success rate.  He mentioned that when there were 2 back sets, it was successful 60% of the time.  Now, I don't know what percentage of time there were two backs, but don't be shocked if we see it.

http://power6analytics.com/breaking-down-ucfs-2017-success-and-what-to-expect-in-2018-using-analytics/
Click to expand...




personnel-ucf.jpg


2 running backs is Personnel #20 and #21. The first # indicates the number of running backs. So 17.77% of the time.

The 2nd # is the # of TEs.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A huge consideration in that analysis is he is considering Otis Anderson as a running back, not a receiver. This is also a look at personnel and not formation. Very important distinctions in this offense. 

 
brophog said:
A huge consideration in that analysis is he is considering Otis Anderson as a running back, not a receiver. This is also a look at personnel and not formation. Very important distinctions in this offense. 
Click to expand...




If he wanted to be obsessive about it (and wasn't) he would look at whether the WR/RB ran a route or ran the ball/was faked to.

 
Moiraine said:
If he wanted to be obsessive about it (and wasn't) he would look at whether the WR/RB ran a route or ran the ball/was faked to.
Click to expand...


That gets into NFL territory where pay is based on position in a game that is becoming more and more positionless. There have been such tedious analysis, especially on positions like TE/WR or DE/LB. At some point it becomes useless semantics.

 
Cool. I can't say I know anything about Wash, but the speed sounds good for us (Frost's offense). I believe the lead carrier will come down to Bell and Bryant. This trio should solidify the backfield. Agree?

 
admo said:
Cool. I can't say I know anything about Wash, but the speed sounds good for us (Frost's offense). I believe the lead carrier will come down to Bell and Bryant. This trio should solidify the backfield. Agree?
Click to expand...
I think those 3 are all 3 great options to feel good about making plays when it’s their turn to be in the game. But I think if your rating the most natural talent in the room it’s washington. He is the youngest and newest to the program so maybe at the start of the season he is not the starter while he catches up. But by seasons end or for sure next season he is #1 on depth chart 

 
I love Wash ... but I was still hoping he would play the last four games of the year so he doesn't use a year of eligibility.

This might end up being a silly view.  :-)

 
Back
Top