Murray's YPC in college

[jobberone]

If it makes you feel any better, Football Outsiders says "don't be surprised if Murray ends up as the surprise hit in this year's cast of backs." They're basing that on Murray's size/speed ratio, which they claim is highly predictive for running backs' NFL success, and the fact that he was "the best receiving back in this class."

Murray's "speed score" was 112.6, which is a little higher than the average for a first-round pick. By comparison, Mark Ingram's score was 94.4, which is the lowest for any running back drafted in the first-round for as far back as Football Outsiders has measured it (going back to 1999).

Very interesting information Adam. I mentioned in one thread that Murray is as fast as Dorsett was and got no comment. Maybe people will pay closer attention to his speed with this tidbit. And for others I'm not comparing him to Dorsett other than his speed. We'll have to wait to see how he does in the NFL.

 

[craig71]

Something I stumbled across.

In his five years in Norman, DeMarco Murray underwent a radical transformation by necessity. He arrived on campus as an electric home run threat, but injuries eventually stole some of that explosiveness from him.

Normally that would scare pro scouts away, but Murray, a four-year starter for the Sooners, has developed a full complement of skills that should make him an asset in the NFL. He may not have the same burst he once possessed, but the difference in Murray’s strength as a between-the-tackles runner now from four years ago is night and day. He excels catching the ball out of the backfield, as well as lining up as a receiver in the slot – he finished second on the team in receptions in 2009 and 2010. He also recognizes and picks up the blitzes well in pass protection.

The biggest hole in Murray’s game is that he’s a “one-and-done” runner. He struggles when the first hole isn’t there and instead has to make cutbacks and use his vision.

All in all, Murray is the kind of back who won’t struggle to find a place on an NFL roster. He won’t be playing in any Pro Bowls, but he has the all-around game to play in a time-sharing arrangement and be a valuable contributor on passing downs. Murray won’t win any games on his own, but he’s the kind of player you always find on winning teams.

http://www.ramsgab.com/2011/01/26/demarco-murray-scouting-report/



Craig

 

[craig71]

Another Demarco Murray article/report.

The 2009 season did not go quite as well as opposing defenses keyed in on the ground game after the injury to quarterback Sam Bradford. Murray's yards-per-carry average went down a lot, but he still proved to be a dangerous back that is always a threat to get to the end zone. In 2010 Murray finally got the ground game all to himself. Through ten games he has not disappointed and has rushed for 911 yards on 207 carries. Murray has also caught an impressive 52 passes and has accounted for a total of 17 touchdowns.

http://www.fftoolbox.com/nfl_draft/profile_display.cfm?prospect_id=1768#ixzz1LUdN9D1W

I didn't realize that there is an unofficial D. Murray website.

http://demarco-murray.com/

Craig

 

[jimmy40]

True and it reflexs on his carries. He went from (09) 171 carries to (10) 282 carries and he became more of the focal point by defenses as well.

he didn't have Bradford in '09 either.

 

[Doomsday101]

he didn't have Bradford in '09 either.

1st 3 games of 09, but your right Bradford missed most of the season

 

[Stautner]

he didn't have Bradford in '09 either.

The Bradford argument is a double edged sword. It could mean Murray was only able to perform at an elite level when teams had to focus all their attention on stopping a Heisman level QB, and that when he was asked to be the focus he dropped off, or it could mean that the QB after Bradford was so poor that he couldn't take any of the pressure off Murray and defenses could focus primarily on stopping the run.

Which is accurate ...? Or is neither?

 

[TheRat]

Chris Johnson's college career was pretty mediocre until his senior year, and keep in mind he was playing against poorer competition in Conference USA. There is a lot that factors into it. And a lot of it has to do with the offensive line, which has been pretty atrocious at Oklahoma for the past few years.

 

[Nirvana]

Just found his combine tape if anybody is interested:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-combine/09000d5d81eaa2db/2011-combine-workout-DeMarco-Murray


I like what I see in this kid. 4.37 official 40 time is blazing fast. McFadden was 4.34, Felix 4.47

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Thanks for looking this up - I don't know why I didn't think to. While a lot of people here were singing his praises, like you, I didn't remember being that impressed watching him in college. Like you I didn't watch him that much, but I do watch some Big 12 football and have at least seen him from time to time. What i remember seeing is mostly a lot of pretty pedestrian runs with an ocassional nice run mixed in, and of course, a lot of times nice runs at a big time football schools are often as much a product of having a bigger, stronger, more athletic O-line than opponents can match up with as they are about the actual RB. But again, like you, I can't claim to have watched him play enough to say I have the ideal picture of the situation the way a guy who has watched every OU game the last few years would.

Honestly Ernie, I think he's a back who fits a zone blocking scheme, much like Denver ran years ago with Terrell Davis. In fact, that is kinda how I see Murray being like if he's successful in the NFL. I think he's a a one cut back that would fit best in a zone blocking scheme.

 

[WV Cowboy]

The Bradford argument is a double edged sword. It could mean Murray was only able to perform at an elite level when teams had to focus all their attention on stopping a Heisman level QB, and that when he was asked to be the focus he dropped off, or it could mean that the QB after Bradford was so poor that he couldn't take any of the pressure off Murray and defenses could focus primarily on stopping the run.

Which is accurate ...? Or is neither?

You know the answer. Both.

When Bradford was there, the pass and run flourished.

The next QB at OU was not as good as Bradford.

If a defense does not have to worry as much about the QB, they can pay more attention to stopping the run.

Once again I will say, I don't know enough about Murray to toot his horn or make predictions, but I like the way he runs and if we can get some improved run-blocking this season, I think all of our RB's will benefit

 

[Stautner]

You know the answer. Both.

When Bradford was there, the pass and run flourished.

The next QB at OU was not as good as Bradford.

If a defense does not have to worry as much about the QB, they can pay more attention to stopping the run.

Once again I will say, I don't know enough about Murray to toot his horn or make predictions, but I like the way he runs and if we can get some improved run-blocking this season, I think all of our RB's will benefit

Neither .... both ...... it all remains to be seen. The fact is some people are trying to use one variable to come up with an answer that has to be based on multiple variables. Each variable may be interesting to ponder on it's own, but it cannot provide the answer on its own.

 

[WV Cowboy]

You know the answer. Both.

When Bradford was there, the pass and run flourished.

The next QB at OU was not as good as Bradford.

If a defense does not have to worry as much about the QB, they can pay more attention to stopping the run.

Once again I will say, I don't know enough about Murray to toot his horn or make predictions, but I like the way he runs and if we can get some improved run-blocking this season, I think all of our RB's will benefit

Neither .... both ...... it all remains to be seen. The fact is some people are trying to use one variable to come up with an answer that has to be based on multiple variables. Each variable may be interesting to ponder on it's own, but it cannot provide the answer on its own.

These three statements from above are true:

1) When Bradford was there, the pass and run flourished.

2) The next QB at OU was not as good as Bradford.

3) If a defense does not have to worry as much about the QB, they can pay more attention to stopping the run.

Those are not variables.
Now whether or not that impacted Murray's numbers, or to what extent, I can't say.
But it stands to reason that it would have had some impact on any of OU's RB's.

 

[Stautner]

These three statements from above are true:

1) When Bradford was there, the pass and run flourished.

2) The next QB at OU was not as good as Bradford.

3) If a defense does not have to worry as much about the QB, they can pay more attention to stopping the run.

Those are not variables.
Now whether or not that impacted Murray's numbers, or to what extent, I can't say.
But it stands to reason that it would have had some impact on any of OU's RB's.

The QB and the focus of the opposing defense aren't variables in determining how successful a RB will be? I have to disagree there.

But the three statements you made are true, but like you said, whether and how much they affected Murray's numbers is uncertain. They are factors to look at, but in and of themselves they don't tell the whole story, and it really isn't possble to even say just how much of the story they do tell.

 

[WV Cowboy]

The QB and the focus of the opposing defense aren't variables in determining how successful a RB will be? I have to disagree there.

Yes, they are variables, but what I meant was that in this case those variables were known.

* QB isn't as good
* Defense allowed to focus more on running game.

Actually I don't care what his numbers were at OU, I just hope he is able to contribute to this offense, as a rookie.

 

[Stautner]

Yes, they are variables, but what I meant was that in this case those variables were known.

* QB isn't as good
* Defense allowed to focus more on running game.

Actually I don't care what his numbers were at OU, I just hope he is able to contribute to this offense, as a rookie.

Well, your right, they are known, although even knowing there was a QB dropoff doesn't really go as dee as you can get. How much of a dropoff there was and how much that affected opponents game planing is also part of that. The variables can go as deep or as shallow as you want, but ultimately it all comes into play even if it is difficualt (or impossible) to quantify.

Ultimately though, my point was simply that whether known or not, any one variable isn't the tell all, and even so I'm sure you would agree, there are always unknowns even after factoring in the knowns. What it boils down to is that evaluating college players and projecting how they will do in the NFL is not an exact science, and seemingly great prospects can fail, and seeingly marginal prospects can succeed, and the entire spectrum between can come into play.

 

[AdamJT13]

A quote from Bob Stoops that I had never heard or had forgotten --

"DeMarco Murray has a chance to be a really special player and he is just such a good athlete. It is fun to watch him. He has got great hands and I have said it before he could be an All-American at corner, receiver or running back. He just has that ability to do about anything he wants and he could have no problem to play college basketball if he wants. It is just amazing. His upside and what is potential is really is quite vast."