Denard's rushing stats "tainted"?
A friend of mine who is a self-proclaimed "college football purist" (whatever that means) and I are having a debate and I was hoping to get the opinion of some of the people on this board because I very much respect the overall knowledge of the community here. It involves Denard, his rushing stats, and his place in the Michigan record books.
His opinion is that Denard's rushing stats shouldn't be compared to the rushing stats of the running backs Michigan has had because he had a distinct advantage over every one of them: He worked with an extra blocker for 99% of his career.
My opinion is that, while an interesting point, it's a wash because he was on less balanced offenses than most of those backs and defenses geared basically 100% to stop him his whole career.
What do you folks think? I realize it's a pety argument, but the dude basically discounted Denard's entire career very calmly and nonchalantly and it kinda infuriated me in my loins. I appreciate any insight.
August 27th, 2013 at 12:22 AM ^
Bo era backs had more blockers because we generally only split one or two wide. Looking at the archives, we don't even start calling it "wide reciever" until the 90's. So if I were defending Denard, I'd bring up the fact that Denard had a bunch of recievers split away, less blockers on the line. Of course he would come back with the fact this spread defenses out (which was the point, of course) and this would definitively show you how dumb of an argument he is making: different players played on different teams, with different schemes, and different blockers (is A Train worse because his blockers all ended pro bowlers?). You can't compare in a vaccuum, there can't be a scientific comparison. It seems pretty thin to throw out what Denard did because of the scheme he did it in. That gives too much credit to the scheme, I think.
August 27th, 2013 at 12:23 AM ^
the argument he is making is also the kind that really can't be argued against for the reasons it is silly. Which really just makes it sillier.
August 27th, 2013 at 9:19 AM ^
Once the QB pitched the ball, he was required to block and not just bail out. There's your extra blocker in that scheme.
August 27th, 2013 at 12:23 AM ^
Rushing yards are rushing yards man. The fact that he gained those yards rushing the ball is all that matters.
August 27th, 2013 at 12:35 AM ^
August 27th, 2013 at 8:35 AM ^
Is Mell Sexy?
August 27th, 2013 at 12:25 AM ^
That is dumb.
Denard got his advantage because he can pass (better than any RB). Any other RB could have acquired passing skills so that they can also have the advantage of having more blockers. But they didn't, so they had to have another guy on the field who can pass.
Does this mean that RB's who get their yardage through wildcat formations should have their yards from that play stripped?
Along this same thinking, you can also argue that RB's who could catch the ball out of the back field also had unfair advantage over the RB's who could only run. Or RB's who can bounce outside had unfair advantage over RB's who could only run straigh ahead.
The point of the game is to gain as much ground as possible so that you can get to the otherside. It does not matter how you do it. What matters is that you do it.
August 27th, 2013 at 12:27 AM ^
now, you may want to exclude scrambling yards, as a qb may have an advantage over rb's there in terms of spacing on the field, but denard rarely scrambled so...poop on your friend's face.
August 27th, 2013 at 8:28 AM ^
That seems like it would take way too long to be an effective comback.
August 27th, 2013 at 12:28 AM ^
He's one of those guys who believes Babe Ruth's stats shouldn't be considered as impressive because he played before black men were allowed in the league.
And to clarify, he's not saying Denard's career wasn't impressive. He's talking about the comparison to Michigan running backs at the top of the rushing record list like Hart, Wheatley, etc.
August 27th, 2013 at 12:33 AM ^
i mean that's an argument for a different time, but there is definitely merit to that.
so i don't think that helps to discredit him if that's what you're going for. But i think he's fighting a losing battle here
August 27th, 2013 at 10:04 AM ^
how many black pitchers are in the hall of fame; post jackie robinson? answer: 3. i doubt ruth's stats would be impacted much by adding a few black pitchers onto AL rosters. further, baseball was THE GAME. the best athletes played baseball; not football. and basketball was virtually non-existent. so i could easily argue that the talent in baseball today is watered down; hence the large influx of latin players to compensate.
August 27th, 2013 at 10:34 AM ^
I wouldn't say players like Miggy are watering down the talent level. Rather, I'd say that if you had the best players back in the day from all races, there may have been more people who could put up the stats Ruth was putting up. So it's not that the pitching would have been tougher, it's just that the field of batters to compare Ruth to would have potentially watered down his accomplishments.
August 27th, 2013 at 5:42 AM ^
A little more info is required to really weigh in on this. Primarily, is your friend a wang?
Because he sounds like a total wang.
August 27th, 2013 at 9:54 AM ^
What does he think about comparing Denard to a guy like Darren McFadden? He ran from both a direct snap and from handoffs.
How about Tommy Fraiser? He didn't really have an extra blocker because most of the time it was an option play.
August 27th, 2013 at 12:30 AM ^
The reason Denard had an extra blocker is because he was the quarterback. So, by your friend's logic, presumably any quarterback who runs the ball himself has an extra blocker and thus "tainted stats." Think of how many offenses that involve running QBs. There are the modern spread teams, the old wishbone teams, the flexbone and I-form option teams (like Colorado in the late '80s-early '90s and Nebraska through the '90s), the very old single-wing offenses, the triple-option teams--it's an endless list. If you try and go back through the record books and disqualify people because they played in offenses with"extra blockers" you're going to X-out an awful lot of people. Dumb.
August 27th, 2013 at 12:35 AM ^
He's claiming you can only compare qb stats against other qb stats, and rb stats against other rb stats. the type of offense doesn't matter...
August 27th, 2013 at 2:20 AM ^
August 27th, 2013 at 12:33 AM ^
Tell your "friend" to troll elsewhere.
August 27th, 2013 at 12:37 AM ^
August 27th, 2013 at 12:43 AM ^
there will only be 9 blockers, regardless of play type--unless you have a reckless QB out there trying to kill himself.
Now, a qb might only have 9 blockers on a Read option play (rb acts as a decoy), but other than that, qb is gonna have 10 blockers (or 9.5 cuz rb's are probably not great at run blocking)...
August 27th, 2013 at 4:19 AM ^
August 27th, 2013 at 8:17 AM ^
August 27th, 2013 at 12:41 AM ^
August 27th, 2013 at 12:47 AM ^
Luc Jean-Marie Robitaille.
August 27th, 2013 at 12:43 AM ^
Is the game played 11 on 11 or not? How did Denard acquire an "extra" blocker? Did this "purist" watch Michigan State or Alabama play defense ever? The days of playing 1-high against a running QB are pretty much toast. But even if you want to, there are defenses that still make the numbers work (two gap or 2G1G schemes for instance).
Not to mention the "yeah but scheme" argument is one that forgets what kind of offense Bo ran and against whom. How many scholarships were available to Bo in 1973? The greater necessity of scheme in the first place comes from the fact that talent differences are less massive. And if you watched '11 and '12, you saw plenty of square peg/round hole problems. Not to mention the injury. So the schematic advantage he had across his 3 full seasons was relatively limited.
He still ran for 7 yards a pop in 2013, despite the total dysfunction of the offensive line and many of the RBs. That wasn't scheme. That was ludicrous talent with the ball in his hand.
Oh, also: sack yardage? Pretty sure that's counted against a QB total, but not RBs. There's even a plausible argument that says at least some sack yardage should be counted against RBs, since the effectiveness of the run game plays into the effectiveness of play action and other aspects of the passing game as a function of alignment/personnel responses to effective rushing.
August 27th, 2013 at 12:56 AM ^
QBs do not block on running plays for RBs.. RB's typically block on running plays for QB.
This is a stupid distinction, but it is not complicated.
August 27th, 2013 at 2:09 AM ^
August 27th, 2013 at 2:09 AM ^
August 27th, 2013 at 7:35 AM ^
August 27th, 2013 at 12:44 AM ^
He wasn't supposed to be, either. It is a ridiculous premise, and there is no argument unless you take the bait. Just don't do it. Nod your head and ask him to explain Mickey Mantle.
August 27th, 2013 at 12:51 AM ^
August 27th, 2013 at 1:04 AM ^
August 27th, 2013 at 12:56 AM ^
Considering how ineffective our OL was at blocking for anybody last year, saying Denard had "an extra blocker" is a fantasy.
But the most direct rebuttal of your friend's idiot argument is what Blue Badger said.
Besides, anybody who calls himself a "purist" about anything is virtually guaranteed to be the kind of insufferably smug asshat that people do their best to avoid being caught in an elevator with.
August 27th, 2013 at 2:19 AM ^
We've been friends since 3rd grade. I'm stuck with him. And his wife.
August 27th, 2013 at 6:48 AM ^
August 27th, 2013 at 7:11 AM ^
insightful
August 27th, 2013 at 5:54 PM ^
Ask Vincent Smith about our 2012 blocking.
August 27th, 2013 at 12:56 AM ^
Denards stats are tainted......untied shoelaces - not fair
August 27th, 2013 at 1:01 AM ^
If your friend turned this around and made the more common, practical, and relevant point that Denard often ran against 1 fewer defenders (because there is at leat 1 LB that is going to get sucked in to the RB on read options), then there might be a whimper of an argument. But then you'd quickly realize that draws do the same thing for RBs.
The equally relevnt counterargument is that RBs aren't really providing much run-blocking support on QB runs. They may act as a decoy, but their contribution as an "extra blocker" is irrelevant on typical plays.
August 27th, 2013 at 1:18 AM ^
August 27th, 2013 at 8:12 AM ^
You can look at any stat line and find things to help justify why they had it easier. What about a lot of option RBs who had the threat of the QB to run? What about ones with a better O-line? What about ones that were more durable? On teams with great balance? Comparing stats are just a way for fans to connect with the history of their program or sport or whatever. Outside of that, comparing stats to different eras is never apples to apples.
August 27th, 2013 at 1:41 AM ^
August 27th, 2013 at 1:44 AM ^
August 27th, 2013 at 2:41 AM ^
discredit Robinson then show that the majority of his yards were earned against lesser competition.
Counter with the fact that Robinson was playing with a weaker oline. I don't think Robinson is among the top 5 running qb's of all time. I would put Tony Rice, Tommy Frasier, Pat White ,Vince Young, Jamelle Holloway as much better running qb's. Dennis Franklin and Cornelius Greene are guys who could run more effectively against better competition.
Being fast and hitting the home run doesn't translate into being a great qb runner. It doesn't although it helps. Not saying Robinson wasn't a good running qb.
Robinson was probably the fastest running qb of all time.
August 27th, 2013 at 2:45 AM ^
Would you consider Denard the best of that bunch if they were all switched to running back? I can't imagine Vince Young being as good as Denard out of the backfield.
August 27th, 2013 at 7:41 AM ^
August 27th, 2013 at 3:31 AM ^
You should (semi-seriously) ask him what he thinks of RichRod and the zone-read offense. :)