Clarification: Jimmy Johns

I've gotten a few questions regarding Jimmy Johns that past couple of days. If you recall, a few weeks back I wrote one article talking about, once you viewed it through the advanced statistics, how well Johns performed in the "big" games last year (eight conference games, plus Hawai'i and the bowl game), and another article analyzing how specifically how Johns was under-utilized as games wore on, after a hot start. However, now Jimmy Johns is apparently getting most of his work at fullback, and from all that we can tell, Johns is going to play fullback this season.

So, some readers want to know, how do those two things mesh? They seem a bit conflicting, so how do you reconcile those two things?

Personally, I think there are a few reasons.

For one, all of the numbers from a year ago with Johns were in a back-up role. Yes, he did very well in that limited role, no doubt about it. However, there is a major difference between doing things in a limited role and doing them on a full-time basis. Just because you were good over the course of 50 carries doesn't mean you will necessarily replicate that success over the course of 250 carries. In fact, the guys at Football Outsiders even have a term for players who do well on a limited basis, but then fall on their face once they take over full time. They call it the "Doug Johnson Effect" in "honor" of the former Atlanta Falcons quarterback. All the data I crunched on Johns from a year ago says is that he, more or less, should have been given more carries instead of riding the bench. That said, however, we can never know whether or not he would have actually been able to have the same success in an expanded role, all we can say is that he should have gotten the opportunity to do so. Perhaps Saban and company do not feel that Johns would be able to have the same success on a full-time basis.

Two, we need a fullback. I know that sounds elementary, but it's true. I've written in the past that, in 2007, our base set is likely going to be a singleback formation, with three wide receivers (Brown and Hall out wide, Stover in the slot), with a tight end. And I think that is mainly correct, we'll see that a lot in 2007. It just makes sense, if those three guys are healthy. If we put Hall, Brown, and Stover on the field at the same time, it will require the opposing defense to force either a linebacker or a nickel corner to cover one of those three players, and that's a match-up we will win almost every time. But, still, you need a fullback, particularly in short-yardage and goal-to-go situations. Beyond that, it would be nice to utilize the fullback in other situations as well, particularly when he has play-making abilities of Jimmy Johns.

Three, even without Johns, we seem set at tailback. Despite the disappointing injury to Demetrius Goode (torn ACL), Terry Grant is doing very well and is apparently at the top of the depth chart. Glen Coffee, now much leaner, is also doing quite well, and as a whole we seem to be set at tailback. By moving Johns to fullback, we can put more talent on the field at one time, without really giving up anything at tailback.

Four, even though Johns is working a good bit at fullback, he could still play tailback some. It's not like this means he'll never line up at tailback again. If we need him there, for injuries or whatever reason, he could quickly move back and re-acclimate himself to the position in no time.

Putting it all together, it's just a move that makes a lot of sense. No one knows if Johns can really get it done at tailback on a full-time basis, we're in need of a fullback with experience, we seem set at tailback, and even so, Johns could move back to tailback, if needed. Again, it just makes a good bit of sense.

At bottom, though, above and beyond all else, I think this is mainly a move to add an extra threat to the offense. Nothing against Baron Huber, but the harsh truth is that we are likely a more productive offense with Grant / Coffee at tailback and Johns at fullback than we are with Grant / Coffee / Johns at tailback with Huber at fullback. Doing this really adds an explosive element to our offense, and honestly that's something we didn't have last year with Le'Ron McClain. Though McClain was with little doubt the best pure blocking fullback in the country, he was never a real rushing threat (averaged less than seven yards rushing per game for his career), and he was never a real receiving threat, either. He did have 38 catches the past two years, but it was mainly as desperation dump-off passes by Wilson / Croyle in attempts to avoid sacks. Generally speaking, he was never a significant part of the passing game.

Jimmy Johns, with no doubt whatsoever, would change that. He would give us a player at fullback with the running and catching abilities of a good tailback. He has the ability to legitimately be a player that, once he touches the ball, could well rack up first downs, big yardage, and touchdowns.

I imagine that Saban and company are fully expecting to use Johns in a role very much like the current LSU coaching staff has used a former Saban recruit: Jacob Hester.