Really Harsh Critique of Melvin Gordon

[jday]

Pretty much. It doesn't offer anything we haven't heard before -- principally that it's just the Wisconsin system and offensive line that made Gordon look elite. We all know the effect of a good offensive line on a team. It's a team sport and, absolutely, if he had run behind a worse line his stats would be something less than 2500 yards and 29 TDs. Other than that, I'm not sure the article actually offered any critique.

Just my opinion but CB is a much bigger need than RB.. Especially Gurley. He has not even ran a 40 yet.. We have Oscan who wants a pay raise.. Carr who doesn't want to take a paycut.. Patmon and a hurt Mo Claiborne.. And I don't even want to get into the Safeties..

I'm not disputing the need for CB. But if all the CB's the Cowboys like aren't there or they think they can pick up one they like later than the RB they like, I would think they would opt to get that RB...once again if a trade down is not in the cards either.

 

[locked&loaded]

How does that compare with his peers? How does it compare with NFL backs? What's a typical percentage of rushes for no gains/loss? Any idea if that number is higher or lower that what is considered a good percentage? For example, in 2010, Adrian Peterson had 24% of his rushes go for no gain.

And the point he made about his 40 time being too slow is laughable. Only 4 RBs ran faster at the combine this year and none of those players are projected to go in the first two rounds. For what is considered a consensus deep draft at running backs, this guys is essentially saying none of them are fast enough to play in the NFL. Well, I gotta tell you that just sounds dumb.

Commendable post!

 

[theogt]

That's a huge undertaking I don't have time for...I looked at Ajayi against Arizona and it was over 20%.

But if you look at Gordon vs. Ohio State, he had 8 carries of 0/negative on 26 carries. That was, by far, the best run defense they played all year, and they were only ranked #34 in the country.

I just can't take any of Gordon's numbers too seriously b/c the run defenses he faced were just awful all year. Combined with the great OL and scheme that Wisconsin always has, it's just a huge red flag to me. His numbers just seem totally hollow.

So what you're telling me is you have no idea if 19% is good or bad. Got it.

 

[reddyuta]

Again people bring up the Ohio state game,he was constantly hit in the backfield, its difficult for any RB when your online was mauled most of the game.

 

[Future]

So what you're telling me is you have no idea if 19% is good or bad. Got it.

No, what I'm telling you is that 19% against terrible run defenses is bad, and that 30% against a good one is terrible.

For a more apples to apples comparison...here's other backs against Ohio State.

Melvin Gordon - (8/26) 30.8%
Tevin Coleman - (4/27) 14.8%
Jeremy Langford - (2/18) 11.1%
David Cobb - (7/27) 25.9%
Yeldon - (1/10) 10%

 

[Future]

Again people bring up the Ohio state game,he was constantly hit in the backfield, its difficult for any RB when your online was mauled most of the game.

You have to bring up the Ohio State game b/c it's the only good run defense he played against all year.

And even Murray got hit in the backfield plenty last year. It's not like he's going to get holes every play in the NFL.

 

[NinePointOh]

No, what I'm telling you is that 19% against terrible run defenses is bad, and that 30% against a good one is terrible.

For a more apples to apples comparison...here's other backs against Ohio State.

Melvin Gordon - (8/26) 30.8%
Tevin Coleman - (4/27) 14.8%
Jeremy Langford - (2/18) 11.1%
David Cobb - (7/27) 25.9%
Yeldon - (1/10) 10%

1) It's clear that Gordon had a bad day against Ohio State, but judging a prospect on the basis of one game is a terrible way to scout. Especially since, if you actually watched that game, it was clear the offensive line and defensive scheme had just as much to do with it -- if not more -- than Gordon's talent.

2) Yards per game (which I assume you're using, since you previously said Ohio State was the #34 defense) is a really lousy way to rank college defenses because the level of competition varies so widely -- there is no parity in talent or scheduling like there is in the NFL, and there are a lot more blowouts and a lot more garbage time. There are better measures that account for these things, which (unsurprisingly) reflect more favorably on several of Wisconsin's opponents/

3) Football Outsiders tracks "Stuff Rates," which is precisely what you're looking for. As it turns out, a rate of 19% of the time is roughly on par with what a typical offensive line allowed, and what a typical defensive line accomplished. Indiana (led by Tevin Coleman) got stuffed on 20.7% of their runs. Boise State (Ajayi) got stuffed 20.1% of the time. Both faced overall weaker schedules than Wisconsin's. Far from "bad" or "terrible," these numbers seem quite normal -- though some teams did much better and others did much worse. And if 20% is a typical average over an entire year, it should not be the least bit surprising for a player to have one or two games against good defenses with a stuff rate as high as 30%.

 

[jterrell]

No one looks at career stats when comparing college players. They look at their last season, sometimes last two seasons, in college.

Adrian Peterson says hello. 1900 yards as a freshman than 1100 and 1000 his final two seasons.
This isn't the NBA. Scouts do not just look at one year's tape.
The more info you have the better.
No one with much on the line will pay attention to any partial data.

 

[Future]

1) It's clear that Gordon had a bad day against Ohio State, but judging a prospect on the basis of one game is a terrible way to scout. Especially since, if you actually watched that game, it was clear the offensive line and defensive scheme had just as much to do with it -- if not more -- than Gordon's talent.

2) Yards per game (which I assume you're using, since you previously said Ohio State was the #34 defense) is a really lousy way to rank college defenses because the level of competition varies so widely -- there is no parity in talent or scheduling like there is in the NFL, and there are a lot more blowouts and a lot more garbage time. There are better measures that account for these things, which (unsurprisingly) reflect more favorably on several of Wisconsin's opponents/

3) Football Outsiders tracks "Stuff Rates," which is precisely what you're looking for. As it turns out rate of 19% of the time is roughly on par with what a typical offensive line allowed, and what a typical defensive line accomplished. Indiana (led by Tevin Coleman) got stuffed on 20.7% of their runs. Boise State (Ajayi) got stuffed 20.1% of the time. Both faced overall weaker schedules than Wisconsin's. Far from "bad" or "terrible," these numbers seem quite normal. And if 20% is a typical average over an entire year, it should not be surprising for a player to have one or two games against good defenses with a stuff rate as high as 30%.

Good post.

1 - It's also not fair to scout Gordon based on his games against terrible run defenses. To me, a game against Ohio St is far more telling than a game against Bowling Green.
2 - I get that, but it's just an easy ranking system. The fact is, those defenses were bad against the run. I'd like to see those ones that favor Wisconsin, b/c I doubt they'd make much of a difference.

3 - By that logic, Gordon is average, which is my point in general. People are talking about him as an elite first round back, and that stuff rate is comparable to second/third round guys. How does it compare to Gurley? Those guys you mention both have slightly higher stuff rates, but also had much worse OL to work with. I think that's a wash with any difference in competition (Coleman actually had the much more difficult schedule than Gordon - fared much better against Ohio State http://cowboyszone.com/threads/whos-better-gurley-or-gordon.319600/ ). Do you have a link for those numbers? I can't find them.

Edit: looked at a couple games for Gurley.

Clemson - (2/15) 13.3%
S. Car - (3/20) 15%
Auburn - (5/29) 17%

 

[jterrell]

1) It's clear that Gordon had a bad day against Ohio State, but judging a prospect on the basis of one game is a terrible way to scout. Especially since, if you actually watched that game, it was clear the offensive line and defensive scheme had just as much to do with it -- if not more -- than Gordon's talent.

2) Yards per game (which I assume you're using, since you previously said Ohio State was the #34 defense) is a really lousy way to rank college defenses because the level of competition varies so widely -- there is no parity in talent or scheduling like there is in the NFL, and there are a lot more blowouts and a lot more garbage time. There are better measures that account for these things, which (unsurprisingly) reflect more favorably on several of Wisconsin's opponents/

3) Football Outsiders tracks "Stuff Rates," which is precisely what you're looking for. As it turns out, a rate of 19% of the time is roughly on par with what a typical offensive line allowed, and what a typical defensive line accomplished. Indiana (led by Tevin Coleman) got stuffed on 20.7% of their runs. Boise State (Ajayi) got stuffed 20.1% of the time. Both faced overall weaker schedules than Wisconsin's. Far from "bad" or "terrible," these numbers seem quite normal -- though some teams did much better and others did much worse. And if 20% is a typical average over an entire year, it should not be the least bit surprising for a player to have one or two games against good defenses with a stuff rate as high as 30%.

The FO stuff is very good. It shows Wiscy OL rated 12th in adjusted line yards, yet the stuff rate was only 72nd. The OL also rates 5th in opp rate which measures how often the OL provides clean blocking through 5 yards.

 

[NinePointOh]

1 - It's also not fair to scout Gordon based on his games against terrible run defenses. To me, a game against Ohio St is far more telling than a game against Bowling Green.

Why limit yourself to "a" game in the first place? Judge him on his overall body of work. Every back has had a few games against Bowling Green-level competition.

2 - I get that, but it's just an easy ranking system. The fact is, those defenses were bad against the run.

Or they just played in a conference with some of the best running backs (like Big Ten schools that faced Coleman, Gordon, Abdullah, Cobb, and Langford plus underclassmen like Ezekiel Elliott). Was Toledo really a better run defense than Baylor, USC, and Ole Miss, or did they just face weaker offensive lines and RBs? Didn't you just say a game against Ohio State is far more telling than a game against Bowling Green?

I'd like to see those ones that favor Wisconsin, b/c I doubt they'd make much of a difference.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feidef

- By that logic, Gordon is average, which is my point in general. People are talking about him as an elite first round back, and that stuff rate is comparable to second/third round guys.

I'm not sure I'd call second/third round "average." But most first round players players are average (or even well below average) in more than one specific category. If a guy was elite in every category, he'd be projected in the top 5 or higher. If you're expecting to draft a guy at 27 who doesn't have a single statistic in any category that resembles a second/third round player, your standards are very unrealistic. This is the problem with cherry-picking particular statistics -- and especially particular statistics from particular games -- to evaluate a player overall.

Moreover, the stuff rate is only marginally reflective of a RB's abilities. There's a reason Football Outsiders lists it as an OLstat rather than a RB stat -- if the defense is in position to hit the RB at or before the line of scrimmage, it's almost always indicative of a blocking problem.

Those guys you mention both have slightly higher stuff rates, but also had much worse OL to work with.

Whatever their OLs were much worse at, it certainly wasn't preventing stuffs.

How does it compare to Gurley? ... looked at a couple games for Gurley. Clemson - (2/15) 13.3% S. Car - (3/20) 15% Auburn - (5/29) 17%

Gurley was out most of the year and had less than 25% of his team's carries, so the Football Outsiders stuff rates won't say much about him. And yet, Georgia's stuff rate was 15.5% -- almost exactly the average of the three games you've listed. Hmm, it's almost like stuff rates have very little to do with the RB, isn't it?

(Coleman actually had the much more difficult schedule than Gordon

The Sagarin strength of schedule points are virtually identical (71.56 versus 72.21), but one of Coleman's best games came against Indiana State, which isn't even an FBS school.

 

[theogt]

Good post.

1 - It's also not fair to scout Gordon based on his games against terrible run defenses.

That's a patently ridiculous statement.

By that logic, Gordon is average, which is my point in general. People are talking about him as an elite first round back, and that stuff rate is comparable to second/third round guys. How does it compare to Gurley? Those guys you mention both have slightly higher stuff rates, but also had much worse OL to work with. I think that's a wash with any difference in competition (Coleman actually had the much more difficult schedule than Gordon - fared much better against Ohio State http://cowboyszone.com/threads/whos-better-gurley-or-gordon.319600/ ). Do you have a link for those numbers? I can't find them.

Edit: looked at a couple games for Gurley.

Clemson - (2/15) 13.3%
S. Car - (3/20) 15%
Auburn - (5/29) 17%

I hope you're not trying to compare Gordon's game against Auburn to Gurley's game against Auburn. Gordon completely annihilated Auburn while Gurley did pretty good but nowhere close to the same performance.

 

[reddyuta]

heres the video
http://draftbreakdown.com/video/melvin-gordon-vs-ohio-state-2014/

i think gordon actually did well in this game considering the number of times he was hit way before the line of scrimmage.

 

[Brooksey]

The issue is that we are comparing RBs. Most RBs will be successful is they have Wisconsin's OLine playing against Bowling Green.

What Gordon say in the Ohio State game was what Coleman saw every week because his OLine was not great.

Obviously, I watched the Ohio State game and many others.

The problem was not so much that Wisconsin had a bad offensive line, it's the fact that Ohio State's D-line dominated them, actually humiliated them. I like to see what a running back can do with a hole. They both are (Gordon/Coleman) very good backs. I have not seen the tape where Coleman was hit in the backfield or at the line of scrimmage on 75% of his carries like Gordon did against Ohio St. When I see it we can compare apples to apples.

 

[Brooksey]

Had Tevin Coleman not ripped them for over 200 yards this would be easier to argue IMHO.
Wiscy had the best OL in the Big 10 and OSU had the best DL.
Gordon also had a fumble that really blew that game open when Joey Bosa ran it back for a TD.

I don't think anyone should entirely judge Gordon off one game but it is pretty clear he isn't a power back that breaks tackles in the backfield.
He is a very quick and fast back with the ability to get through the hole in a heartbeat.

I think he could do VERY well behind this OL. But I say that of 5-6 backs in this draft.

And does he block well enough and catch well enough to be an every down threat? Probably not as a rookie. So he is a lead back but 2 down guy and just not sure I give pick 27 for that. We have a guy who was clearly faster and even more breathtaking in college with Darren McFadden. If the OL is going to get a guy 3-4 yards of space before contact there is no reason he won't be plenty good without any draft pick cost. And Randle did average a very high yard per carry in a limited role.

It's all a puzzle but the pieces only fit one way for me and that is a strong lean against RB in R1 unless you think a top 10 talent falls to 27.

The game was already a blowout when Gordon fumbled. Yes Coleman ripped them for 200 yards but he had a big run of 90 yards that was setup by an outstanding block on the sweep left and he went "untouched" to the house ( absolutely beautiful run). In watching the game I didn't see Coleman break any tackles behind or at the line of scrimmage. If you watch you will also see Ohio st was playing alot of base and Nickel. Indiana's QB was a threat with his feet and they have a few speedy receivers that were making plays. It was a much closer game, the box was not stacked against the run, it was a totally different game then the Wisconsin - Ohio St game.

If you watch both runners against Ohio St and take away the big Coleman run...Gordon ran harder IMO. He finished his runs better. They are both smooth, Coleman on that big run looked like a young Darren McFadden, it was beautiful.

 

[NorthwestDallas40]

heres the video
http://draftbreakdown.com/video/melvin-gordon-vs-ohio-state-2014/

i think gordon actually did well in this game considering the number of times he was hit way before the line of scrimmage.

I agree. Other than a bad run at 3:05 (where he clearly had a lane backside, but missed it) and the fumble, I thought he ran tough, got the dirty yards that were blocked, looked pretty good in pass pro, and showed some heart making a tackle on an INT. Not to mention Ohio St was a superior opponent that exposed Wisc as a one-dimensional team that cannot throw.