Joseph Randle (Coaches Film) Running Review

[jrumann59]

Very nice. Thank you.

It would seem that next to Murray we saw some homerun ability.

Not anymore?
Because of DMC?

I think the indecisiveness. The kid knows he has at least two backs behind him that "could" carry the load. He is still thinking as opposed to just playing and let his talent and instincts carry him.

 

[CowboyRoy]

2nd Quarter

15:00 Randle up the middle for 5 yards. This is effectively Randle's first between the tackles carry. This was a great showing of both patience and explosion. There is nothing there and the Giants have maintained the edges, so Randle explodes through a tiny crease and picks up some hard yards. This is a good run to watch for anyone thinking Randle cant lower his shoulder.

14:13 Randle off LG for 3: Tyron gets a great pull and pushes his guy nearly off the field, but there are two other defenders who hit the hole with Randle. Looked almost like a blown blocking assignment somewhere.

Remarkably, this is the extent of Randle's work in the second quarter. Just as he seems to be getting into a rhythm, the team brings in McFadden.

His first carry, though it was only a 5 yard gain, showed great pop and a willingness to get the tough yards. This is why Randle is the starter.

bubububububut they didnt let Randle get going. hehehehehehe needs 30 carries to get going. So none of this counts. They are using him wrong!!!

This was the Murray apologists excuse for the first week Murray flop for Philly.

 

[JIGGYFLY]

I just checked the stats and I did remember it correct. 59% of his carries were 3 yards or greater.

Only 48% were 3 yards or less. This includes short yardage situations where he was just trying to only get a yard or less for first down and goal line situations where he only needed 3 yards or less to score.

And if you take those situations out, only 41% of his carries went for 3 yards or less.

I'm not sure where you got your stats but it's not true that more than half of his carries were 3 yards or less last year.

59% + 48% = 107% ?

Something is not right with your math.

 

[USMarineVet]

Not to take anything away from Murray's season last year, but never in my life have I seen a RB bump into his own man more often than Murray. The RB performance wasn't stellar by any means last week, but I do believe we'll see an improvement from them as the season moves along. They'll find their groove. We should see a bigger dose of runs next week against the Eagles due to the Dez situation.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Randle is a solid RB. He's tough and will fight for extra yardage. He just lacks that extra umph whether it's speed or power that you want in a full-time starter. that's my only complaint.

Yah, he is no stud RB, that is for sure. But he can certainly be VERY effective behind this line and he does have great pass catching skill as we got a chance to see. He IS an all around back. Not the power of Murray, but more burst, better vision, and better moves in the open field. Only time will tell on the injury prone part, but he has not had those issues in the past like Murray. And certainly one game where we fell behind is no way to judge a guy like Randle that has had little other experience in the NFL>

 

[CowboyRoy]

Which means what????

He has to be part of a RBBC. Nothing is going to get discovered this year.

Our running game with be up and down and not a particular strength. None of them do anything great.

I think we saw quite clearly that all of them catch the ball well and have good speed. Especially Dunbar and McFadden. Certainly much better than the slow footed Murray. A great new dimension to this team. What we did in that final drive with no timeouts would have been incapable with Murray.

 

[Kevinicus]

59% + 48% = 107% ?

Something is not right with your math.

Math isn't the problem.

There is overlap with the numbers since carries of 3 yards are included in both numbers.

 

[JIGGYFLY]

Math isn't the problem.

There is overlap with the numbers since carries of 3 yards are included in both numbers.

Ok that makes sense.

 

[Kevinicus]

Pro Football Reference has Murray with 49.5% of Murray's runs being over 3 yards (194/392).

Randle was (7/16) over 3 yards, or 43.8%. One more and he would have been at 50%. So, basically, he's right where you'd expect. He did not have any negative carries, so that is a positive too.

 

[JD_KaPow]

I just checked the stats and I did remember it correct. 59% of his carries were 3 yards or greater.

Only 48% were 3 yards or less. This includes short yardage situations where he was just trying to only get a yard or less for first down and goal line situations where he only needed 3 yards or less to score.

And if you take those situations out, only 41% of his carries went for 3 yards or less.

I'm not sure where you got your stats but it's not true that more than half of his carries were 3 yards or less last year.

The comment I was responding to compared Randle's runs of 4 yards or greater to his runs of 3 yards or less. I have no idea why you're putting 3 yard runs into both bins here.

 

[Zman5]

The comment I was responding to compared Randle's runs of 4 yards or greater to his runs of 3 yards or less. I have no idea why you're putting 3 yard runs into both bins here.

I was just trying to verify what I read last year that 60% of Murray's runs were 3 yards or greater was true. I think it was from one of Sturm's article is where I read it.

When I saw that stat I thought it was remarkable considering how much carries he had and some of the defenses he went against (Seahawks, Rams, Eagles, Texans, 49ners).

 

[JD_KaPow]

And if you want a closer comparison we can compare the first game from last year to Sunday's game.

Last year against SF, Murray had 22 carries. Of which only 7 were for 3 yards or less. That's 32% of his carries.

I would also point out SF defense that we played last year was much better than the Gints defense that we played against past Sunday. And the game against the SF was the first game our current OLine played as a unit.

I'm not trying to make this into Murray vs Randle. Only reason I'm even bringing up Murray is because of JimNabby's post.

I just feel our running game need a runner who can consistently get us 4 yards or better if we are to run the same type of offense as last year.

Now you're back to 4 yards or greater, even though the stats you posted earlier were about 3 yards or greater.

No running back consistently gets 4 yards or greater, if by consistently you mean >50% of the time. Randle missed by exactly one run, putting him in exactly the same territory that Murray was in last year.

And of course Murray had more longer runs in game 1 last year. We were playing from way behind and the 49ers were thrilled to have us run the ball; they were defending pass all the way. What this means is that Murray was even further from 50% the rest of the year. (Also remember that nobody knew we were going to be a running team in game 1 last year.)

 

[Zman5]

Now you're back to 4 yards or greater, even though the stats you posted earlier were about 3 yards or greater.

No running back consistently gets 4 yards or greater, if by consistently you mean >50% of the time. Randle missed by exactly one run, putting him in exactly the same territory that Murray was in last year.

And of course Murray had more longer runs in game 1 last year. We were playing from way behind and the 49ers were thrilled to have us run the ball; they were defending pass all the way. What this means is that Murray was even further from 50% the rest of the year. (Also remember that nobody knew we were going to be a running team in game 1 last year.)

I posted both 3 yards and 4 yard stats.

If you are way behind, you pass more not run more. Just like past Sunday where we pretty much didn't run in 4th quarter because we were behind.

 

[DenCWBY]

It's way to early to know anything about the running game.

Our turnovers for scores ruined any game plan having to play catchup.

Let's see what happens against Philly.

I suspect alot more of what we saw..

more ball control passing with the TES and RB'S and more bubble screens.

We are going to have to keep the Iggles offense on the sidelines as much as possible.

This. Funny how everyone becomes an expert on our run game after the first game of the season. Going to have to see at least 3-4 games to get a feel for the run game since different strategies and game plans are designed for different teams and defenses. Some plans may not emphasize the run and others have to leave the run in the event of the turnovers. Hilarious people in here writing off our run game already. Then great, go to yoga class instead of watching the games if our run game is not up to your expectations the first game of the season.

 

[JD_KaPow]

I posted both 3 yards and 4 yard stats.

You posted "3 yards or less," so yes, you can assume the "4 yards or more" number from that. Unfortunately, your numbers were incorrect. The correct numbers are:

199 rushes for <=3 yards. (50.6%)
194 rushes for >=4 yards. (49.4%)

If you are way behind, you pass more not run more. Just like past Sunday where we pretty much didn't run in 4th quarter because we were behind.

Yes, that's pretty much exactly my point. When you're way behind, runs are a surprise and tend to go for more yardage per run.

However, I just checked the game, and my hypothesis was wrong. After his first carry (which went for 2 yards before he fumbled and SF returned it for a TD), Murray ripped off a series of long runs on the next drive. He also had some long runs later when we were down by 3 scores, but it's true that on our second drive, he ran for 9, 7, 6, 5 and 6. I don't know what defense SF was in, but I suspect they weren't expecting us to run consistently (we never had before, after all).

 

[Zman5]

You posted "3 yards or less," so yes, you can assume the "4 yards or more" number from that. Unfortunately, your numbers were incorrect. The correct numbers are:

199 rushes for <=3 yards. (50.6%)
194 rushes for >=4 yards. (49.4%)

Yes, that's pretty much exactly my point. When you're way behind, runs are a surprise and tend to go for more yardage per run.

However, I just checked the game, and my hypothesis was wrong. After his first carry (which went for 2 yards before he fumbled and SF returned it for a TD), Murray ripped off a series of long runs on the next drive. He also had some long runs later when we were down by 3 scores, but it's true that on our second drive, he ran for 9, 7, 6, 5 and 6. I don't know what defense SF was in, but I suspect they weren't expecting us to run consistently (we never had before, after all).

It doesn't matter how many long runs he had in that game since my posts weren't about final YPC. I was looking at how many of the carries were short gains.

He only had 8 carries that were 3 yards or shorter out of 22. My whole point in this thread is I want a RB that can be get us closer to 4 yards per carry consistently than some one who gets us a big run followed by several 2 yard runs.

People are enamored with final YPC stat but that stat doesn't tell a whole story. You need to look at it closer and see how that stat was obtained.

It's the old Emmitt vs Barry Sanders debate. I much prefer Emmitt type of runner than Sanders for our offense.

 

[JD_KaPow]

He only had 8 carries that were 3 yards or shorter out of 22. My whole point in this thread is I want a RB that can be get us closer to 4 yards per carry consistently than some one who gets us a big run followed by several 2 yard runs.

Well, sure, everyone would. But you're moving the goal posts now. Before, you were complaining that 9 of Randle's 16 runs were for 3 yards or less...which puts him at about the same ratio as Murray last year. Now you're talking about some mythical runner who gets "a big run followed by several 2 yard runs", which doesn't describe Randle's performance at all. 69% of Randle's runs went for 3 yards or more (better than Murray last year, by the way).

 

[Zman5]

Well, sure, everyone would. But you're moving the goal posts now. Before, you were complaining that 9 of Randle's 16 runs were for 3 yards or less...which puts him at about the same ratio as Murray last year. Now you're talking about some mythical runner who gets "a big run followed by several 2 yard runs", which doesn't describe Randle's performance at all. 69% of Randle's runs went for 3 yards or more (better than Murray last year, by the way).

I'm not trying to move anything but to compare as fair as possible. 9 out of 16 is 56% and Murray's is at 50.5% and that doesn't include situations where he was only trying to get few yards (goal line and 1 yard to get first down carries). If you take away those situation, Murray's stats come out to be around 46%.

I'm not sure where you get this mythical runner crap from my posts. I just said you need to look at the YPC stats closer before determining how good or bad the RB performed and gave you examples of RB with contrasting styles. People just look at the final numbers and make a wrong conclusions.

 

[Redball Express]

This. Funny how everyone becomes an expert on our run game after the first game of the season. Going to have to see at least 3-4 games to get a feel for the run game since different strategies and game plans are designed for different teams and defenses. Some plans may not emphasize the run and others have to leave the run in the event of the turnovers. Hilarious people in here writing off our run game already. Then great, go to yoga class instead of watching the games if our run game is not up to your expectations the first game of the season.

True.

And when you see what happened to Philly's run game in their 1st game verses ours..

you"d have to admit we are ahead in our approach.

Sproles carried their rushing attack anyway.

For what they would have paid Murray to stay..

we now have 4 RBs in house who can all play.

I think the running game is going to be fine as long as the coaches are willing to call for it.

There is going to be times where it's not going to be the best play selection.