I was browsing the Internet and came across a very good website: Fast and Furious Football. Essentially, they just post tons and tons of old playbooks on their website.
I've found three, in specific, that I'm sure the readers of OTS will find quite interesting.
First, there is the 1975 Alabama offensive playbook. Essentially, it covers a lot of the ends and outs of the wishbone. It's a neat deal, plenty of hand-written notes in it as well. Plenty of other good stuff tool, such as specific route trees. It even has a special teams breakdown and a good deal of stuff about the defense, though it's not quite as specific as the offense.
Second, the 1989 Alabama offensive playbook. This is straight from the mind of offensive guru Homer Smith, and it is quite good. It is very long, as you would expect, but it's a great thing to read. As you would expect with Homer, there is a lot of intellectual ramblings about football concepts and the like. Tons of football knowledge to be found here.
Third, we have the 1999 Alabama defensive playbook. It's good stuff, and honestly it's in a much more user friendly format. It's a lot easier to browse through and comprehend.
All in all, it's a neat site. You can even find some stuff about Saban while he was at LSU. Very informative.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Unit Breakdown: The Offensive Line
With no doubt, the Alabama offensive line has been the most frustrating and derided unit on the team the past two years, and possibly even longer than that. Shula regime struggles aside, even I can't remember when we had a really good line in terms of pass blocking. 2006 was a particularly disastrous year in terms of running the football, particularly in short-yardage situations, and the pass protection wasn't particularly good either, though it wasn't as bad as some made it out to be.
The funny thing though was, when Nick Saban arrived, it was mentioned quite often in a variety of circles that Saban and offensive line coach Joe Pendry were pleasantly surprised at the potential of the offensive line. And perhaps that shouldn't be too surprising. After all, there is no doubt that we have plenty of talent on the offensive. For all of the shortcomings of Mike Shula, he recruited very well on the offensive line, he could just never get it, as a unit, to perform that well.
So how is the line stacking up in 2007?
To begin with, we know we have two very good football players.
Center Antoine Caldwell returns for his junior campaign, and Caldwell is one of the best centers you will find anywhere. He's a very bright individual (always important for the center position), very athletic, and a hard worker. Combined, all of that ability makes him very versatile, and he can truthfully play any position on the offensive line at this level. As a redshirt freshman in 2005, he played guard, then moved to center for the Cotton Bowl and the 2006 season. After the Chris Capps meltdown in the 2006 Iron Bowl, he was moved to right tackle on the fly, and he did quite well. Auburn defensive end Quentin Groves, who will be playing on Sunday this time next year, didn't put another finger on John Parker Wilson once Caldwell was moved to right tackle. There are no two ways about it, Caldwell is a fine player, and we have no concerns at the center position.
Left tackle Andre Smith, too, is a great football player. When he came out of high school, he was the top offensive line recruit in the country, and many (including ESPN.com) dubbed him, with little doubt, as the best left tackle prospect to come out in ages. He didn't disappoint. Despite playing overweight and out of shape, he started all year as a true freshman at the line's most difficult position, and looked very good. He even nearly killed a thief in Fayetteville, and ran for a touchdown in the bowl game. The truth is, the sky is the limit for Smith, particularly now that he has much better coaching and is in much better shape. He legitimately has the raw talent to end up with a bust in Canton. If he can stay healthy, he'll probably make some All-America teams this year.
The other three positions are the question marks.
At left guard, Justin Britt is the likely starter. After spending his first two years on the defensive line, he made the move to left guard last year, and started ten games. All in all, he played pretty well. He's a bit small for a guard, but he is an aggressive player, and that usually pays off pretty well in the running game for an interior lineman. As expected, he was a bit raw last year, especially in terms of pass protection, but seems to be progressing nicely. Britt is not the second coming of John Hannah, but he seems to have the capabilities to turn in a solid campaign.
Right guard will belong to redshirt junior Marlon Davis. In 2006, B.J. Stabler was technically the starter for most the season (Davis started three games late in the year to spell an injured Stabler), but he generally split snaps all season long with Davis. Now that B.J. Stabler has been moved to right tackle, Marlon Davis will be taking over full-time at right guard. The good news is that Davis has really gotten it done in the weight room this off-season, and is in noticeably better shape. All told, Davis has dropped 21 pounds according to RollTide.com, and looks to be in great shape. The coaching staff obviously likes Marlon Davis, and thinks highly of his productive potential. The bright outlook on Davis was the major reason why B.J. Stabler was moved to right tackle, so it's reasonable to expect a solid season out of Davis in 2007.
Right tackle is where it really gets interesting. B.J. Stabler, never a workout warrior, has gotten it together this year, dropping 13 pounds, and he has moved to right tackle, as mentioned earlier. Unfortunately, Stabler has been slowed his entire career by leg injuries (three left knee surgeries), but it seems he is finally healthy in that regard. But he's not winning the starting job at the moment. Instead, Mike Johnson, a 6'6, 296 pound redshirt sophomore, seems to be the front-runner for the starting job. Johnson is an extremely bright individual (4.0 GPA in high school, and a 27 on the ACT), and he is a hard worker who has apparently really impressed the coaching staff thus far. Moreover, his natural size (6'6 equals long arms) fits well at tackle, and apparently his footwork is good.
So, that seems to be it at the moment. If you had to say today, the starting offensive line would be:
LT: Andre Smith
LG: Justin Britt
C: Antoine Caldwell
RG: Marlon Davis
RT: Mike Johnson
Moreover, a few other players are certain to enter into the mix as well.
B.J. Stabler, unless he makes a big surge in the coming weeks, is not going to start this year. However, a much leaner, much healthier Stabler will still be a major contributor, if but for nothing more than this versatility (can play both guard and tackle). Moreover, given his history of leg woes, a somewhat limited role could be the ideal situation for him.
Chris Capps won't be starting this year, but he is a very valuable back-up. He is currently splitting time between left tackle and right tackle. Though Capps isn't a particularly good player, with some help (tight end or back helping him out, or shorter drops from the quarterback), he can be relatively effective. He is a senior and he has started for two seasons (24 starts). Few teams have the luxury of someone like that coming off of the bench.
Evan Cardwell is a fine center, and his only problem is Antoine Caldwell. He played some last year at center, and did quite well. Again, he's not going to start, but he is a fine player, and it is nice to know that if something happened to Caldwell, we have a player the quality of Cardwell to come off of the bench.
All told, believe it or not, things look good for the offensive line in 2007. Andre Smith is likely a legend in the making, and Antoine Caldwell is one of the best centers you will find anywhere. If we can just get solid play out of the other three starters, we'll be in good shape.
There are just a lot of reasons to be optimistic about the offensive line. Everyone returns from a year ago, the players are in noticeably better shape, the coaching will be much improved, and this line has a good bit of depth.
Perhaps this will finally be the year all of the talent up front turns into production.
The funny thing though was, when Nick Saban arrived, it was mentioned quite often in a variety of circles that Saban and offensive line coach Joe Pendry were pleasantly surprised at the potential of the offensive line. And perhaps that shouldn't be too surprising. After all, there is no doubt that we have plenty of talent on the offensive. For all of the shortcomings of Mike Shula, he recruited very well on the offensive line, he could just never get it, as a unit, to perform that well.
So how is the line stacking up in 2007?
To begin with, we know we have two very good football players.
Center Antoine Caldwell returns for his junior campaign, and Caldwell is one of the best centers you will find anywhere. He's a very bright individual (always important for the center position), very athletic, and a hard worker. Combined, all of that ability makes him very versatile, and he can truthfully play any position on the offensive line at this level. As a redshirt freshman in 2005, he played guard, then moved to center for the Cotton Bowl and the 2006 season. After the Chris Capps meltdown in the 2006 Iron Bowl, he was moved to right tackle on the fly, and he did quite well. Auburn defensive end Quentin Groves, who will be playing on Sunday this time next year, didn't put another finger on John Parker Wilson once Caldwell was moved to right tackle. There are no two ways about it, Caldwell is a fine player, and we have no concerns at the center position.
Left tackle Andre Smith, too, is a great football player. When he came out of high school, he was the top offensive line recruit in the country, and many (including ESPN.com) dubbed him, with little doubt, as the best left tackle prospect to come out in ages. He didn't disappoint. Despite playing overweight and out of shape, he started all year as a true freshman at the line's most difficult position, and looked very good. He even nearly killed a thief in Fayetteville, and ran for a touchdown in the bowl game. The truth is, the sky is the limit for Smith, particularly now that he has much better coaching and is in much better shape. He legitimately has the raw talent to end up with a bust in Canton. If he can stay healthy, he'll probably make some All-America teams this year.
The other three positions are the question marks.
At left guard, Justin Britt is the likely starter. After spending his first two years on the defensive line, he made the move to left guard last year, and started ten games. All in all, he played pretty well. He's a bit small for a guard, but he is an aggressive player, and that usually pays off pretty well in the running game for an interior lineman. As expected, he was a bit raw last year, especially in terms of pass protection, but seems to be progressing nicely. Britt is not the second coming of John Hannah, but he seems to have the capabilities to turn in a solid campaign.
Right guard will belong to redshirt junior Marlon Davis. In 2006, B.J. Stabler was technically the starter for most the season (Davis started three games late in the year to spell an injured Stabler), but he generally split snaps all season long with Davis. Now that B.J. Stabler has been moved to right tackle, Marlon Davis will be taking over full-time at right guard. The good news is that Davis has really gotten it done in the weight room this off-season, and is in noticeably better shape. All told, Davis has dropped 21 pounds according to RollTide.com, and looks to be in great shape. The coaching staff obviously likes Marlon Davis, and thinks highly of his productive potential. The bright outlook on Davis was the major reason why B.J. Stabler was moved to right tackle, so it's reasonable to expect a solid season out of Davis in 2007.
Right tackle is where it really gets interesting. B.J. Stabler, never a workout warrior, has gotten it together this year, dropping 13 pounds, and he has moved to right tackle, as mentioned earlier. Unfortunately, Stabler has been slowed his entire career by leg injuries (three left knee surgeries), but it seems he is finally healthy in that regard. But he's not winning the starting job at the moment. Instead, Mike Johnson, a 6'6, 296 pound redshirt sophomore, seems to be the front-runner for the starting job. Johnson is an extremely bright individual (4.0 GPA in high school, and a 27 on the ACT), and he is a hard worker who has apparently really impressed the coaching staff thus far. Moreover, his natural size (6'6 equals long arms) fits well at tackle, and apparently his footwork is good.
So, that seems to be it at the moment. If you had to say today, the starting offensive line would be:
LT: Andre Smith
LG: Justin Britt
C: Antoine Caldwell
RG: Marlon Davis
RT: Mike Johnson
Moreover, a few other players are certain to enter into the mix as well.
B.J. Stabler, unless he makes a big surge in the coming weeks, is not going to start this year. However, a much leaner, much healthier Stabler will still be a major contributor, if but for nothing more than this versatility (can play both guard and tackle). Moreover, given his history of leg woes, a somewhat limited role could be the ideal situation for him.
Chris Capps won't be starting this year, but he is a very valuable back-up. He is currently splitting time between left tackle and right tackle. Though Capps isn't a particularly good player, with some help (tight end or back helping him out, or shorter drops from the quarterback), he can be relatively effective. He is a senior and he has started for two seasons (24 starts). Few teams have the luxury of someone like that coming off of the bench.
Evan Cardwell is a fine center, and his only problem is Antoine Caldwell. He played some last year at center, and did quite well. Again, he's not going to start, but he is a fine player, and it is nice to know that if something happened to Caldwell, we have a player the quality of Cardwell to come off of the bench.
All told, believe it or not, things look good for the offensive line in 2007. Andre Smith is likely a legend in the making, and Antoine Caldwell is one of the best centers you will find anywhere. If we can just get solid play out of the other three starters, we'll be in good shape.
There are just a lot of reasons to be optimistic about the offensive line. Everyone returns from a year ago, the players are in noticeably better shape, the coaching will be much improved, and this line has a good bit of depth.
Perhaps this will finally be the year all of the talent up front turns into production.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Tailback: Is Size A Concern?
Especially now that the bulky Jimmy Johns has been moved to fullback, some are worried about the lack of size for the likely starters: Terry Grant and Glen Coffee. Being specific, Grant is listed at 189 pounds, and Coffee is listed as 197. Obviously, neither of those two are the second-coming of Jerome Bettis, to say the very least.
So do Tide fans really have anything to worry about in terms of injuries to the tailbacks due to their small size? Well, let's look at history a bit first before we come to any conclusions.
Bobby Humphrey, for example, was probably the greatest running back we've ever had at Alabama, and during his prime he played at only about 180 pounds. After huge years in 1986 and 1987, Humphrey was the favorite to win the Heisman Trophy in his senior season in 1998. Unfortunately, he broke his foot early in his senior season (1988), an injury unrelated to his size, and that was the end of his career. Oddly enough, he suffered the injury when he was playing at his highest weight ever, just over 200 pounds. Since Shaun Alexander came along, most forget that Humphrey, despite missing almost all of his senior season, is only 145 rushing yards behind Alexander for the all-time Alabama record, and Humphrey still holds the all-time Alabama single-season rushing record.
Derrick Lassic, in 1992, was the key cog to our rushing attack, and one of the few bright spots we had on offense. Despite getting almost 200 carries that year, he ran for almost 1,000 yards, and was the Sugar Bowl MVP. He did so at a mere 186 pounds.
Sherman Williams was the Tide's leading rusher in both 1993 and 1994, yet he weighed in at well under 200 pounds.
Shaud Williams was one of the Tide's best all-time tailbacks. In his two years at Alabama, he rushed for well over 2,000 yards, and for 13 touchdowns, averaging over 5.5 yards per carry. In 2003, he had the third most single-season rushing yards in Alabama football history. He did it all at around 189 pounds.
And that's just a few Alabama players that I could think off of the top of my head. Beyond Alabama players, there are entirely too many other small tailbacks who have done extremely well with little or no injury problems at the collegiate level. Again, off the top of my head, a few players I can think of that did really well despite being a bit small are Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, and Warrick Dunn.
At bottom, there's just no legitimate concern with small tailbacks. There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that they are more prone to injury than bigger tailbacks. If anything, smaller tailbacks are most likely less injury prone because they can use their small bodies and increased agility to avoid big hits. Bigger runners, on the other hand, have no other option but to endure the punishment, and of course the ensuing injuries. The same can't be said for the small guys.
Injuries can happen at any time, and tailback is one of the most injury-prone positions. It shouldn't be shocking at all to see either Grant or Coffee go down with an injury, but those injuries won't be related to their size. If anything, their small stature will likely assist in keeping them healthy.
So do Tide fans really have anything to worry about in terms of injuries to the tailbacks due to their small size? Well, let's look at history a bit first before we come to any conclusions.
Bobby Humphrey, for example, was probably the greatest running back we've ever had at Alabama, and during his prime he played at only about 180 pounds. After huge years in 1986 and 1987, Humphrey was the favorite to win the Heisman Trophy in his senior season in 1998. Unfortunately, he broke his foot early in his senior season (1988), an injury unrelated to his size, and that was the end of his career. Oddly enough, he suffered the injury when he was playing at his highest weight ever, just over 200 pounds. Since Shaun Alexander came along, most forget that Humphrey, despite missing almost all of his senior season, is only 145 rushing yards behind Alexander for the all-time Alabama record, and Humphrey still holds the all-time Alabama single-season rushing record.
Derrick Lassic, in 1992, was the key cog to our rushing attack, and one of the few bright spots we had on offense. Despite getting almost 200 carries that year, he ran for almost 1,000 yards, and was the Sugar Bowl MVP. He did so at a mere 186 pounds.
Sherman Williams was the Tide's leading rusher in both 1993 and 1994, yet he weighed in at well under 200 pounds.
Shaud Williams was one of the Tide's best all-time tailbacks. In his two years at Alabama, he rushed for well over 2,000 yards, and for 13 touchdowns, averaging over 5.5 yards per carry. In 2003, he had the third most single-season rushing yards in Alabama football history. He did it all at around 189 pounds.
And that's just a few Alabama players that I could think off of the top of my head. Beyond Alabama players, there are entirely too many other small tailbacks who have done extremely well with little or no injury problems at the collegiate level. Again, off the top of my head, a few players I can think of that did really well despite being a bit small are Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, and Warrick Dunn.
At bottom, there's just no legitimate concern with small tailbacks. There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that they are more prone to injury than bigger tailbacks. If anything, smaller tailbacks are most likely less injury prone because they can use their small bodies and increased agility to avoid big hits. Bigger runners, on the other hand, have no other option but to endure the punishment, and of course the ensuing injuries. The same can't be said for the small guys.
Injuries can happen at any time, and tailback is one of the most injury-prone positions. It shouldn't be shocking at all to see either Grant or Coffee go down with an injury, but those injuries won't be related to their size. If anything, their small stature will likely assist in keeping them healthy.
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.
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.
The Crimson Recruiting Boom
Alabama football is currently experiencing a recruiting boom, no two ways about it. At the moment, some services already have us with a top ten class (Rivals, Inc.), and there is little doubt that we will finish with a top ten class with every major recruiting service. Truth is, it gets better, we have a great shot at getting a top five class.
According to Rivals, Inc., we have nine players rated as four-stars, and one player rated as a five-star. According to Scout.com, we have six players rated as four-stars. Either way you look at it, it is shaping up to be an incredible class.
Several more highly-rated prospects will eventually be committing to Alabama as well. Just to name a few possibilities (and keep in mind this list is not complete):
Star Jackson is one of the Elite 11 quarterbacks, rated a four-star player by both Scout.com and Rivals, Inc., and he is going to announce his collegiate decision on August 23rd. He has offers from the likes of Alabama, Auburn, Florida State, and West Virginia. He is expected to commit to Alabama then, and honestly, essentially everyone would be shocked if he didn't. He has praised Alabama in his comments the past few months about as much as the Pope praises Mary.
Mark Barron is a four-star wide receiver from St. Paul's Episcopal School in Mobile, Alabama, and sports offers from the likes of Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Florida, Florida State, and Miami. His teammates, Ivan Matchett and Destin Hood, have both committed to Alabama, and Barron is widely considered an Alabama lock.
Glen Harbin is a four-star defensive from Mobile's McGill-Toolen High School, and he could go to essentially any school in the country, with offers from Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Oklahoma, and others. According to Scout.com recruiting analyst Andrew Bone, "Alabama is the team to beat for his signature."
William Green is a four-star defensive end from Hoover High School, ranked the #13 defensive end in the country. He has offers from Alabama, Auburn, Florida, LSU, Oklahoma, and others. At the moment, it seems to be a battle between Alabama and Florida, and most expect him to stick with the in-state school and roll with the Tide.
Barrett Jones is a four-star offensive lineman from Tennessee, and is generally considered the top player in the state of Tennessee. He sports offers from essentially every major school in the country, and he has narrowed his list down to five. Considering that his father played football at Alabama, he is expected to eventually commit to the Crimson Tide.
And those are just people who are generally expected to sign with Alabama. But it gets even better for those who bleed crimson and white.
Julio Jones is considered by many to be the top player in the country, and any school in the country would do anything to get him. Fortunately, though he's been quiet on the recruiting front, most expect that he will commit to Alabama.
Jerrell Harris is a four-star linebacker from Gadsden, Alabama, and considered one of the top linebackers in the country, with offers from everyone. Alabama has a good chance of landing him.
Antoine McClain of Anniston, Alabama is a four-star prospect, and one of the top offensive line prospects in the country. Alabama will be one of the final teams in his decision. And seriously, when was the last time we lost out on a kid named McClain?
Damian Square is a four-star linebacker from Houston, Texas, and is considered one of the top Sam linebackers in the country. He was originally committed to Texas A&M very early, but backed out, and will now decide between Texas A&M, Alabama, Miami, and Florida. He took a trip to Tuscaloosa, and was apparently blown away. He makes his decision this Sunday, apparently.
Even Arthur Brown, considered by many as the overall number one player in the country (including by Scout.com), took a visit to Alabama and was blown away. A friend, Brian Butler, who runs a non-profit organization, went along with Brown and had this to say, "I can actually say the visit was phenomenal. I can't really think of any other adjective to describe it. It was fantastic, phenomenal, a first class organization. I would say I am very pleased with everything Alabama has to offer... I can say Alabama will play a factor in his final decision -- a critical factor."
Now will Alabama get all of those guys? Of course not, but with the way things are going with Saban on the recruiting trails, we'll get our fair share and then some.
Just a raw guesstimate, I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that, once this recruiting class is finally in the books, we'll add another seven or eight players players rated as four-star and higher, and quite possibly even more than that. Moreover, several of our current commitments could get a fourth-star as well. For example, Destin Hood was a three-star by both services, and when Rivals most recently updated their rankings, he got a fourth star, and it's only a matter of time before the same happens on Scout.com. Devonta Bolton has a great chance at getting a fourth star, as does Brandon Lewis.
There are no two ways about it, recruiting is experiencing absolutely nothing short of a boom period. The truth is, as I've noted before, we are likely to get as many four and five-star signees this year as we did in the entire four year period from 2002-2005. It's going to be a great class, no two ways about it. This will be, with almost no doubt, the best recruiting class to come to the Capstone in ages.
According to Rivals, Inc., we have nine players rated as four-stars, and one player rated as a five-star. According to Scout.com, we have six players rated as four-stars. Either way you look at it, it is shaping up to be an incredible class.
Several more highly-rated prospects will eventually be committing to Alabama as well. Just to name a few possibilities (and keep in mind this list is not complete):
Star Jackson is one of the Elite 11 quarterbacks, rated a four-star player by both Scout.com and Rivals, Inc., and he is going to announce his collegiate decision on August 23rd. He has offers from the likes of Alabama, Auburn, Florida State, and West Virginia. He is expected to commit to Alabama then, and honestly, essentially everyone would be shocked if he didn't. He has praised Alabama in his comments the past few months about as much as the Pope praises Mary.
Mark Barron is a four-star wide receiver from St. Paul's Episcopal School in Mobile, Alabama, and sports offers from the likes of Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Florida, Florida State, and Miami. His teammates, Ivan Matchett and Destin Hood, have both committed to Alabama, and Barron is widely considered an Alabama lock.
Glen Harbin is a four-star defensive from Mobile's McGill-Toolen High School, and he could go to essentially any school in the country, with offers from Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Oklahoma, and others. According to Scout.com recruiting analyst Andrew Bone, "Alabama is the team to beat for his signature."
William Green is a four-star defensive end from Hoover High School, ranked the #13 defensive end in the country. He has offers from Alabama, Auburn, Florida, LSU, Oklahoma, and others. At the moment, it seems to be a battle between Alabama and Florida, and most expect him to stick with the in-state school and roll with the Tide.
Barrett Jones is a four-star offensive lineman from Tennessee, and is generally considered the top player in the state of Tennessee. He sports offers from essentially every major school in the country, and he has narrowed his list down to five. Considering that his father played football at Alabama, he is expected to eventually commit to the Crimson Tide.
And those are just people who are generally expected to sign with Alabama. But it gets even better for those who bleed crimson and white.
Julio Jones is considered by many to be the top player in the country, and any school in the country would do anything to get him. Fortunately, though he's been quiet on the recruiting front, most expect that he will commit to Alabama.
Jerrell Harris is a four-star linebacker from Gadsden, Alabama, and considered one of the top linebackers in the country, with offers from everyone. Alabama has a good chance of landing him.
Antoine McClain of Anniston, Alabama is a four-star prospect, and one of the top offensive line prospects in the country. Alabama will be one of the final teams in his decision. And seriously, when was the last time we lost out on a kid named McClain?
Damian Square is a four-star linebacker from Houston, Texas, and is considered one of the top Sam linebackers in the country. He was originally committed to Texas A&M very early, but backed out, and will now decide between Texas A&M, Alabama, Miami, and Florida. He took a trip to Tuscaloosa, and was apparently blown away. He makes his decision this Sunday, apparently.
Even Arthur Brown, considered by many as the overall number one player in the country (including by Scout.com), took a visit to Alabama and was blown away. A friend, Brian Butler, who runs a non-profit organization, went along with Brown and had this to say, "I can actually say the visit was phenomenal. I can't really think of any other adjective to describe it. It was fantastic, phenomenal, a first class organization. I would say I am very pleased with everything Alabama has to offer... I can say Alabama will play a factor in his final decision -- a critical factor."
Now will Alabama get all of those guys? Of course not, but with the way things are going with Saban on the recruiting trails, we'll get our fair share and then some.
Just a raw guesstimate, I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that, once this recruiting class is finally in the books, we'll add another seven or eight players players rated as four-star and higher, and quite possibly even more than that. Moreover, several of our current commitments could get a fourth-star as well. For example, Destin Hood was a three-star by both services, and when Rivals most recently updated their rankings, he got a fourth star, and it's only a matter of time before the same happens on Scout.com. Devonta Bolton has a great chance at getting a fourth star, as does Brandon Lewis.
There are no two ways about it, recruiting is experiencing absolutely nothing short of a boom period. The truth is, as I've noted before, we are likely to get as many four and five-star signees this year as we did in the entire four year period from 2002-2005. It's going to be a great class, no two ways about it. This will be, with almost no doubt, the best recruiting class to come to the Capstone in ages.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
The Heisman Pundit Responds
The Heisman Pundit -- almost without doubt the foremost internet authority on all things Heisman -- has read the earlier post here on Outside The Sidelines regarding the Heisman Trophy, and has taken exception to some of the things noted.
If you recall, the money quote from that column was essentially this: "The truth of the matter is that for a player to have any legitimate shot at the Heisman Trophy these days, his team almost certainly has to be playing for the national championship."
The Heisman Pundit had this to say regarding that particular thesis:
The Heisman Pundit explicitly stated that in order to have a shot at the national championship, you probably have to have a Heisman Trophy contender.
Does that argument have any validity? As best I can tell, no. Far beyond merely contending for the national championship, six national champions have emerged in the past eleven years with no legitimate Heisman Trophy contender whatsoever.
Among that group includes:
2006 Florida: Despite some ESPN rumblings about Chris Leak potentially being a Heisman contender, the Heisman voters never felt that way. Though the Gators were undisputed national champions, according to the expanded Heisman Trophy voting, he was not among the top 11 vote-getters.
2003 LSU: Though the Tigers won the BCS national championship, they did not have a player finish in the top 10 in Heisman balloting in 2003. In reality, they won it with a journeyman quarterback who came to Baton Rouge via Lansing, Michigan and Minor League Baseball (Mauck), and a tailback who was a one-year freshman wonder (Vincent).
2002 Ohio State: The Buckeyes may have shocked the world by knocking off defending national champion Miami in the Fiesta Bowl, but they did so with an unheralded quarterback (Krenzel), and a true freshman tailback (Clarett). No Buckeye finished in the final top 10 in Heisman balloting in 2002.
1999 Florida State: The Seminoles went undefeated and won the national championship with a convincing win over Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl, but didn't have a legitimate Heisman contender. Wide receiver Peter Warrick finished sixth in Heisman voting. He ended with approximately one-tenth of the total points as did Heisman Trophy winner Ron Dayne. Perhaps this is a subjective judgment, but I wouldn't consider finishing sixth in Heisman voting with only roughly one-tenth of the total points as the eventual winner legitimately "contending" for the award.
1998 Tennessee: The Volunteers went undefeated in 1998 and won the national championship, but did not have a player finish in the final top ten in Heisman voting. What's more, Florida State, the Volunteers opponent in the first ever BCS national championship game, did not have a player finish in the final top ten in Heisman voting, either.
1997 Nebraska: Though the Corhuskers went undefeated and won the third and final national championship for Tom Osbourne, they did not have a player finish in the final top ten in Heisman voting in 1997.
So, as noted earlier, that argument just doesn't seem to have very much validity. There have been, in my eyes, entirely too many national champions the past several years that have done so with no legitimate Heisman contender whatsoever for that argument to have any real validity.
Now, let's move to the other corollary of that argument:
Moreover, if Heisman Trophy winners are really so integral, why have their teams struggled so much in national championship games? Since the inception of the BCS in 1998, Heisman Trophy winners have played in the national championship game six times, and generally it hasn't been pretty for those who have hoisted the Heisman. All told, their teams are only 1-5 in the BCS national championship game. More specifically:
2000: Florida State loses to Oklahoma, 13-2 (Chris Weinke)
2001: Nebraska loses to Miami, 37-14 (Eric Crouch)
2003: Oklahoma loses to LSU, 21-14 (Jason White)
2004: USC beats Oklahoma, 55-19 (Matt Leinart)
2005: USC loses to Texas, 41-38 (Reggie Bush)
2006: Ohio State loses to Florida, 41-14 (Troy Smith)
At bottom, having a Heisman Trophy winner on your team doesn't seem to pay off too much when it is all on the line.
Also, to close, if the Heisman Trophy is viewed as a total team award as opposed to an individual accomplishment, it does help explain why Heisman Trophy winners have generally struggled so greatly in the NFL the past few years. When looked at in that light, it makes a bit of sense. Arguably, the Heisman Trophy winners weren't particularly great players in their own right, but were mainly the by-product of great teams, and once they were faced with a much higher level of competition in the NFL and much more overall parity with their opponents, their true abilities were fully revealed. Certainly there are some exceptions to this rule (Carson Palmer, mainly), but generally that rule could be construed as valid (Jason White, Chris Weinke, Eric Crouch, etc.).
Either way, it's nice to get into a good debate with one of the best blogs you can find anywhere. I look forward to their response.
If you recall, the money quote from that column was essentially this: "The truth of the matter is that for a player to have any legitimate shot at the Heisman Trophy these days, his team almost certainly has to be playing for the national championship."
The Heisman Pundit had this to say regarding that particular thesis:
"It's really not that simple. In reality, it may be the other way around: To have a shot at the national championship you probably have to have a Heisman Trophy contender. Having one of what people regard as one of the best players in the country playing for your team at an important position like quarterback or running back is invariably a boost to ranking and record. Would Ohio State have made the national title game without Troy Smith under center? Doubt it. And that's the whole point: Heisman contenders usually make the teams, not the other way around.So let's look at the main argument.
The Heisman Pundit explicitly stated that in order to have a shot at the national championship, you probably have to have a Heisman Trophy contender.
Does that argument have any validity? As best I can tell, no. Far beyond merely contending for the national championship, six national champions have emerged in the past eleven years with no legitimate Heisman Trophy contender whatsoever.
Among that group includes:
2006 Florida: Despite some ESPN rumblings about Chris Leak potentially being a Heisman contender, the Heisman voters never felt that way. Though the Gators were undisputed national champions, according to the expanded Heisman Trophy voting, he was not among the top 11 vote-getters.
2003 LSU: Though the Tigers won the BCS national championship, they did not have a player finish in the top 10 in Heisman balloting in 2003. In reality, they won it with a journeyman quarterback who came to Baton Rouge via Lansing, Michigan and Minor League Baseball (Mauck), and a tailback who was a one-year freshman wonder (Vincent).
2002 Ohio State: The Buckeyes may have shocked the world by knocking off defending national champion Miami in the Fiesta Bowl, but they did so with an unheralded quarterback (Krenzel), and a true freshman tailback (Clarett). No Buckeye finished in the final top 10 in Heisman balloting in 2002.
1999 Florida State: The Seminoles went undefeated and won the national championship with a convincing win over Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl, but didn't have a legitimate Heisman contender. Wide receiver Peter Warrick finished sixth in Heisman voting. He ended with approximately one-tenth of the total points as did Heisman Trophy winner Ron Dayne. Perhaps this is a subjective judgment, but I wouldn't consider finishing sixth in Heisman voting with only roughly one-tenth of the total points as the eventual winner legitimately "contending" for the award.
1998 Tennessee: The Volunteers went undefeated in 1998 and won the national championship, but did not have a player finish in the final top ten in Heisman voting. What's more, Florida State, the Volunteers opponent in the first ever BCS national championship game, did not have a player finish in the final top ten in Heisman voting, either.
1997 Nebraska: Though the Corhuskers went undefeated and won the third and final national championship for Tom Osbourne, they did not have a player finish in the final top ten in Heisman voting in 1997.
So, as noted earlier, that argument just doesn't seem to have very much validity. There have been, in my eyes, entirely too many national champions the past several years that have done so with no legitimate Heisman contender whatsoever for that argument to have any real validity.
Now, let's move to the other corollary of that argument:
"And that's the whole point: Heisman contenders usually make the teams, not the other way around."On that point, I'd have to disagree. Successful teams, at bottom, are not about having one great player, but instead are about having great players at nearly every position, from top-to-bottom on the depth chart. To say that one player "makes" the team, in my eyes, is absurd. Certainly one player can be highly important to your team's overall successes, no doubt there. However, if all you have is one incredible player, you don't have very much, and aren't going to go very far. Calvin Johnson and 9-5 Georgia Tech provide the textbook example. Troy Smith and the Ohio State Buckeyes, on the other hand, prove the reverse of that point nicely. Though Smith was an integral piece, no doubt about it, Ohio State wasn't in the national championship game solely because of him. Rather, their national championship appearance was about a good offensive line, great receivers (Ginn and Gonzalez), a good running game (Pittman), a great defense (fifth in the country in scoring defense), and one of the best head coaches in the country. At bottom, football is the ultimate team sport, and is not defined by single good players. For any team to have any real national championship contender, they have to be good from top-to-bottom. True one man teams generally end up in mid-tier bowls at best, not hoisting the national championship trophy.
Moreover, if Heisman Trophy winners are really so integral, why have their teams struggled so much in national championship games? Since the inception of the BCS in 1998, Heisman Trophy winners have played in the national championship game six times, and generally it hasn't been pretty for those who have hoisted the Heisman. All told, their teams are only 1-5 in the BCS national championship game. More specifically:
2000: Florida State loses to Oklahoma, 13-2 (Chris Weinke)
2001: Nebraska loses to Miami, 37-14 (Eric Crouch)
2003: Oklahoma loses to LSU, 21-14 (Jason White)
2004: USC beats Oklahoma, 55-19 (Matt Leinart)
2005: USC loses to Texas, 41-38 (Reggie Bush)
2006: Ohio State loses to Florida, 41-14 (Troy Smith)
At bottom, having a Heisman Trophy winner on your team doesn't seem to pay off too much when it is all on the line.
Also, to close, if the Heisman Trophy is viewed as a total team award as opposed to an individual accomplishment, it does help explain why Heisman Trophy winners have generally struggled so greatly in the NFL the past few years. When looked at in that light, it makes a bit of sense. Arguably, the Heisman Trophy winners weren't particularly great players in their own right, but were mainly the by-product of great teams, and once they were faced with a much higher level of competition in the NFL and much more overall parity with their opponents, their true abilities were fully revealed. Certainly there are some exceptions to this rule (Carson Palmer, mainly), but generally that rule could be construed as valid (Jason White, Chris Weinke, Eric Crouch, etc.).
Either way, it's nice to get into a good debate with one of the best blogs you can find anywhere. I look forward to their response.
More On Kick-Off Rule Change
Nearly two weeks, I wrote on the massive effects that the rule change regarding kick-offs would bring about. Some have speculated that now, teams would simply kick the ball out of bounds and let the opponent take it at the 35, instead of risking a bigger return.
As usual, things aren't just that simple. I found the following in the NCAA rulebook (warning: PDF, scroll down to the top of page 185) regarding kicks that go out of bounds:
Say that you do choose to just kick the ball out-of-bounds. It won't work. If you kick it out-of bounds, the return team will simply accept the five-yard penalty, and you will have to re-kick from the 25 yard line. If you again kick it out of bounds, they will again accept the five-yard penalty, and you will have to re-kick from the 20-yard line. At bottom, kicking the football out of bounds only digs you deeper in the hole each time you do it.
The only way the return team would decline the penalty is if you shanked the kick-off (or got a poor subjective ruling from the officials as to where the ball really went out of bounds at), and then they would simply take the ball where it went at of bounds. Considering that would probably have them either near, or at, midfield, that wouldn't work. The average expected starting field position would be worse if they had just kicked it deep.
At bottom, all of this junk about kicking the ball out of bounds isn't going to work. It's a junk idea, and teams that try it (and I seriously doubt there will really be any) will soon find themselves in big trouble.
Moreover, even squib kicking -- while not as perilous as kicking the ball out of bounds -- is not likely to be particularly effective. In reality, generally speaking, the key to the squib kick is surprise. Return teams do not expect it, and a well-placed squib kick completely disorganizes the return. If you expect it, however, it's nowhere near as effective. The return team knows it is likely to come and they compensate accordingly. Return men will move up, then charge the ball to field it, and (as we've seen quite a bit in late-game scenarios in the NFL) even if the up-men grab the football, they will generally just immediately pitch it back to the returner and go about their business. Again, as noted earlier, the squib kick is just not going to be particularly effective if you use it on a regular basis.
At the end of the day, you simply are not going to weasel your way around this rule. You are going to have to kick the football deep, and you are going to have to go down and effectively cover it. And if you can't do that, well, you are in big trouble, and there is no real way around it.
As I said almost two weeks ago, this rule will have a massive impact, and teams that can cover kicks effectively and return kicks effectively will be in great shape to win a lot of games, and teams that cannot cover kicks effectively or return kicks effectively will be in big trouble, and could easily see wins turn into losses as a result of special teams meltdowns.
As usual, things aren't just that simple. I found the following in the NCAA rulebook (warning: PDF, scroll down to the top of page 185) regarding kicks that go out of bounds:
"A kickoff from Team A’s 30-yard line goes out of bounds untouched by Team B, and no other foul (or violation) occurs. RULING: Team B may accept a five-yard penalty from the previous spot with Team A kicking from the 25-yard line, or Team B may put the ball in play at Team B’s 35-yard line at the inbounds spot or at the inbounds spot where the ball went out of bounds. Team B may put the ball in play following a penalty at the dead ball spot."As said earlier, things just aren't that simple.
Say that you do choose to just kick the ball out-of-bounds. It won't work. If you kick it out-of bounds, the return team will simply accept the five-yard penalty, and you will have to re-kick from the 25 yard line. If you again kick it out of bounds, they will again accept the five-yard penalty, and you will have to re-kick from the 20-yard line. At bottom, kicking the football out of bounds only digs you deeper in the hole each time you do it.
The only way the return team would decline the penalty is if you shanked the kick-off (or got a poor subjective ruling from the officials as to where the ball really went out of bounds at), and then they would simply take the ball where it went at of bounds. Considering that would probably have them either near, or at, midfield, that wouldn't work. The average expected starting field position would be worse if they had just kicked it deep.
At bottom, all of this junk about kicking the ball out of bounds isn't going to work. It's a junk idea, and teams that try it (and I seriously doubt there will really be any) will soon find themselves in big trouble.
Moreover, even squib kicking -- while not as perilous as kicking the ball out of bounds -- is not likely to be particularly effective. In reality, generally speaking, the key to the squib kick is surprise. Return teams do not expect it, and a well-placed squib kick completely disorganizes the return. If you expect it, however, it's nowhere near as effective. The return team knows it is likely to come and they compensate accordingly. Return men will move up, then charge the ball to field it, and (as we've seen quite a bit in late-game scenarios in the NFL) even if the up-men grab the football, they will generally just immediately pitch it back to the returner and go about their business. Again, as noted earlier, the squib kick is just not going to be particularly effective if you use it on a regular basis.
At the end of the day, you simply are not going to weasel your way around this rule. You are going to have to kick the football deep, and you are going to have to go down and effectively cover it. And if you can't do that, well, you are in big trouble, and there is no real way around it.
As I said almost two weeks ago, this rule will have a massive impact, and teams that can cover kicks effectively and return kicks effectively will be in great shape to win a lot of games, and teams that cannot cover kicks effectively or return kicks effectively will be in big trouble, and could easily see wins turn into losses as a result of special teams meltdowns.
The Heisman Trophy: A Total Team Award
Upon his retirement, Paul W. Bryant was asked whether or not he was disappointed in the fact that he never had a Heisman Trophy winner at Alabama. His reply was something to the effect of, "At Alabama our players don't win Heismany trophies, our teams win national championships," addressing the notion that the Heisman is purely an individual award and that he cared only about team accomplishments.
That may have been true during the time that Bryant said it, but today, it couldn't be farther from the truth.
In reality, the Heisman Trophy is now a total team award. It is not the total team award (that honored distinction remains for the national championship), but it is nevertheless an award marked by overall team success, and not merely individual performance.
The truth of the matter is that for a player to have any legitimate shot at the Heisman Trophy these days, his team almost certainly has to be playing for a national championship.
Let's look at recent history, looking at the past eleven Heisman Trophy winners.
2006: Troy Smith took home the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Ohio State Buckeyes were 12-0, had a spot secured in the BCS Title game, and were also a massive favorite over Florida.
2005: Reggie Bush won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his USC Trojans were 11-0, coming off of back-to-back national championships, and were going into the Rose Bowl as the #1 team in the country.
2004: Matt Leinart won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his USC Trojans were 11-0, coming off of a national championship season, and were going into the Orange Bowl as the #1 team in the country.
2003: Jason White won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Sooners were 12-1 and had a spot secured to play for the national championship against LSU in the Sugar Bowl. For months, his Oklahoma Sooners were talked about as one of the greatest teams in the history of college football.
2002: Carson Palmer won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Trojans were Pac-10 champions, and were going to play Big Ten champion Iowa in the Orange Bowl.
2001: Eric Crouch won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Cornhuskers were 11-1 and were slated to play Miami for the national championship in the Rose Bowl.
2000: Chris Weinke won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Seminoles were 10-1 and playing Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl for the national championship. Florida State was coming off of a national championship season, and were playing in their third consecutive national championship game.
1999: Ron Dayne won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Big Ten champion Badgers were slated to play in the Rose Bowl, and Dayne had just broken the NCAA all-time rushing record.
1998: Ricky Williams won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Longhorns were slated to play in the Cotton Bowl, and Williams had just broken the NCAA all-time rushing record.
1997: Charles Woodson won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Wolverines were 11-0 and were slated to play, effectively, for the national championship in the Rose Bowl against Washington State.
1996: Danny Wuerffel won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Gators were 11-1, SEC Champs, and were slated to play Florida State for the national championship in the Sugar Bowl.
So, that's it for the past eleven years.
All told, of the eleven last Heisman Trophy winners, eight of them were on a team playing in the national championship game, and the two that didn't had teams playing in the Cotton Bowl and the Rose Bowl, respectively, and had just broken the all-time NCAA rushing record. The only winner that did not fall into either category was Carson Palmer, the 2002 winner, and he was generally considered the best player in the country (he was the number overall selection in the NFL Draft six months later), and his Trojans at the end of the year were likely the hottest team in the country. Not exactly a mediocre squad, to say the least.
Let's look at combined overall records to drive home the point. If you omit the two who won the Heisman because they broke the all-time NCAA rushing record (Williams and Dayne), the other nine Heisman Trophy winner's team's had, at the time they were given the award, a combined 100-6 record, and eight national championship game appearances. Even if you include the 1998 Texas Longhorns (Williams), and the 1999 Wisconsin Badgers (Dayne), the overall record is 119-11. Quite impressive, to say the least.
In the end, it's a pretty simple analysis: If you want to win the Heisman Trophy, your team almost certainly must be in contention for the national championship (and by that I mean literally playing in a national championship game), or you must break one of the most highly regarded historical records.
Again, at bottom, despite assertions to the contrary, the Heisman Trophy is very much a team award. Unless your team is having a national championship contending year, you just aren't likely going to be able to win the Heisman.
2006 provided the perfect example. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, agreed that Georgia Tech's Calvin Johnson was the best player in the nation. Many contended, and still contend, that he was the best Division 1-A receiver in decades, and honestly it was / is a legitimate argument. Nevertheless, Johnson never had a legitimate shot at the Heisman Trophy because he was on a mediocre team, and actually was not even in the final three at the Downtown Athletic Club. In fact, Johnson finished tenth in Heisman voting, behind the likes of Ian Johnson and Ray Rice.
And what about 2007? Most people have John David Booty as the Heisman Trophy front-runner, even though most will contend that Arkansas' Darren McFadden is the best player in the nation. Why? Booty's USC Trojans are #1 in the country, and everyone's pick to be national champions. Arkansas, on the other hand, isn't even picked to win their division, and is ranked 20th.
Again, there are no two ways about it, the Heisman Trophy is a team award.
That may have been true during the time that Bryant said it, but today, it couldn't be farther from the truth.
In reality, the Heisman Trophy is now a total team award. It is not the total team award (that honored distinction remains for the national championship), but it is nevertheless an award marked by overall team success, and not merely individual performance.
The truth of the matter is that for a player to have any legitimate shot at the Heisman Trophy these days, his team almost certainly has to be playing for a national championship.
Let's look at recent history, looking at the past eleven Heisman Trophy winners.
2006: Troy Smith took home the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Ohio State Buckeyes were 12-0, had a spot secured in the BCS Title game, and were also a massive favorite over Florida.
2005: Reggie Bush won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his USC Trojans were 11-0, coming off of back-to-back national championships, and were going into the Rose Bowl as the #1 team in the country.
2004: Matt Leinart won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his USC Trojans were 11-0, coming off of a national championship season, and were going into the Orange Bowl as the #1 team in the country.
2003: Jason White won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Sooners were 12-1 and had a spot secured to play for the national championship against LSU in the Sugar Bowl. For months, his Oklahoma Sooners were talked about as one of the greatest teams in the history of college football.
2002: Carson Palmer won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Trojans were Pac-10 champions, and were going to play Big Ten champion Iowa in the Orange Bowl.
2001: Eric Crouch won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Cornhuskers were 11-1 and were slated to play Miami for the national championship in the Rose Bowl.
2000: Chris Weinke won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Seminoles were 10-1 and playing Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl for the national championship. Florida State was coming off of a national championship season, and were playing in their third consecutive national championship game.
1999: Ron Dayne won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Big Ten champion Badgers were slated to play in the Rose Bowl, and Dayne had just broken the NCAA all-time rushing record.
1998: Ricky Williams won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Longhorns were slated to play in the Cotton Bowl, and Williams had just broken the NCAA all-time rushing record.
1997: Charles Woodson won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Wolverines were 11-0 and were slated to play, effectively, for the national championship in the Rose Bowl against Washington State.
1996: Danny Wuerffel won the Heisman Trophy, and when the award was decided, his Gators were 11-1, SEC Champs, and were slated to play Florida State for the national championship in the Sugar Bowl.
So, that's it for the past eleven years.
All told, of the eleven last Heisman Trophy winners, eight of them were on a team playing in the national championship game, and the two that didn't had teams playing in the Cotton Bowl and the Rose Bowl, respectively, and had just broken the all-time NCAA rushing record. The only winner that did not fall into either category was Carson Palmer, the 2002 winner, and he was generally considered the best player in the country (he was the number overall selection in the NFL Draft six months later), and his Trojans at the end of the year were likely the hottest team in the country. Not exactly a mediocre squad, to say the least.
Let's look at combined overall records to drive home the point. If you omit the two who won the Heisman because they broke the all-time NCAA rushing record (Williams and Dayne), the other nine Heisman Trophy winner's team's had, at the time they were given the award, a combined 100-6 record, and eight national championship game appearances. Even if you include the 1998 Texas Longhorns (Williams), and the 1999 Wisconsin Badgers (Dayne), the overall record is 119-11. Quite impressive, to say the least.
In the end, it's a pretty simple analysis: If you want to win the Heisman Trophy, your team almost certainly must be in contention for the national championship (and by that I mean literally playing in a national championship game), or you must break one of the most highly regarded historical records.
Again, at bottom, despite assertions to the contrary, the Heisman Trophy is very much a team award. Unless your team is having a national championship contending year, you just aren't likely going to be able to win the Heisman.
2006 provided the perfect example. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, agreed that Georgia Tech's Calvin Johnson was the best player in the nation. Many contended, and still contend, that he was the best Division 1-A receiver in decades, and honestly it was / is a legitimate argument. Nevertheless, Johnson never had a legitimate shot at the Heisman Trophy because he was on a mediocre team, and actually was not even in the final three at the Downtown Athletic Club. In fact, Johnson finished tenth in Heisman voting, behind the likes of Ian Johnson and Ray Rice.
And what about 2007? Most people have John David Booty as the Heisman Trophy front-runner, even though most will contend that Arkansas' Darren McFadden is the best player in the nation. Why? Booty's USC Trojans are #1 in the country, and everyone's pick to be national champions. Arkansas, on the other hand, isn't even picked to win their division, and is ranked 20th.
Again, there are no two ways about it, the Heisman Trophy is a team award.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Preseason Rankings: Do They Matter?
A few days ago, USA Today released its Top 25 Coaches' Poll. You've probably read about it by now, but in case you haven't, click here. The AP Poll, I'm sure, will be coming out shortly, though I don't know precisely when.
And, well, it is what it is. But the relevant question to it all is this: Do preseason rankings really matter? Do they have any real correlation with the actual end result, i.e. the final poll?
Well, that's what I wanted to know.
So, I did some analysis on the subject. All in all, I took the preseason AP Poll from 2002-2006, a five year stretch, and attempted to determine how well the preseason rankings correlated to the final rankings. In doing so, largely for simplification purposes, I decided to only look at the preseason top ten and then look how well those teams did in the final poll.
The following two images represent the entire data set summed up nicely. As you will see, team names are omitted, and only the raw ranking is shown. "Pre" indicates the slot that the particular team was ranked in the preseason AP Poll, and "Final" indicates where the team was ranked in the final AP Poll after the conclusion of the bowl games.
Here goes:
And that is all of the data regarding the subject analyzed here.
So, what did we find?
I ran the correlation numbers, and they were very hit and miss. Some years the preseason poll was pretty accurate, i.e. a pretty strong correlation, and in other years the correlation was almost non-existent. Here is the list of the correlation by year:
2002: .6068
2003: .6973
2004: .7901
2005: -.0105
2006: -.0657
So, as you can see, it's a bit all over the board. Some years you have pretty high correlation, and others there is effectively none whatsoever.
Going deeper than that, once you really look at the data past the raw correlation numbers, you see that even in the best years, the preseason poll isn't too accurate. Though they have a generally high correlation, nevertheless it's still very hit or miss, and the high correlation numbers are mainly due to the fact that a handful of teams were very close in terms of preseason ranking and final ranking.
Let's break things down year-by-year:
2002: As a whole, 2002 was one of the better years, but it still wasn't particularly good. Miami was the preseason number one, coming off of national championship. The Hurricanes didn't really disappoint, finishing second after a controversial overtime loss to Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl. Aside from that, though, the rest wasn't particularly good. All told, three teams of the preseason top ten did not even finish in the final top 25. Six of the preseason top ten teams did not finish in the top ten; the preseason top ten accurately predicted only four of the final top ten teams. Ohio State, the 2002 national champion that went 13-0, was ranked 13th in the preseason poll.
2003: Much like 2003, 2002 was a good year in terms of pure correlation, but looking deeper it was still very much hit or miss. Three of the preseason top ten teams finished outside of the final top 25, and five of the preseason top ten teams finished outside of the final top 10. LSU, the team that took the Coaches' Poll national championship and finished 2nd in the AP Poll, was ranked 14th in the preseason AP Polll.
2004: The 2004 season had by far the highest correlation of any year, but even it had problems. Though it accurately predicted the eventual national champion (USC), the only time that happened in the five year stretch, and only one of the preseason top 10 teams finished unranked, six of the preseason top 10 teams finished outside of the top 10. The preseason top 10 accurately predicted only four of the final AP top ten teams.
2005: The 2005 preseason poll had effectively no correlation. It accurately predicted the final top two teams, but aside from that it was quite poor. Preseason number three (Tennessee), and preseason number four (Michigan), finished well outside the top 25, and Tennessee went 5-6. Though only two preseason top ten teams finished the season unranked, but five of the preseason top ten teams finished outside the top ten.
2006: The 2006 preseason poll was even worse than 2005. Though none of the preseason top ten teams finished unranked, four teams finished outside of the final top ten. Of the preseason top five, only one team (Ohio State) ranked higher than ninth in the final poll.
At bottom, the preseason rankings can be solid at times, but essentially pointless at others. They generally tell you who the top team is (though, being honest, that's a pretty easy thing to do), but aside from that, I don't think, generally speaking, they really have very much meaning. Every year there are usually two or three preseason top ten teams that finished unranked, and generally speaking around five of the preseason top ten teams finish outside of the final top ten. All told, again, it just doesn't seem like they mean too much. Being brutally honest, it just seems that there is entirely too many uncertainties in college football for preseason rankings to be particularly accurate.
And, well, that's it. A couple of administrative notes:
And, well, it is what it is. But the relevant question to it all is this: Do preseason rankings really matter? Do they have any real correlation with the actual end result, i.e. the final poll?
Well, that's what I wanted to know.
So, I did some analysis on the subject. All in all, I took the preseason AP Poll from 2002-2006, a five year stretch, and attempted to determine how well the preseason rankings correlated to the final rankings. In doing so, largely for simplification purposes, I decided to only look at the preseason top ten and then look how well those teams did in the final poll.
The following two images represent the entire data set summed up nicely. As you will see, team names are omitted, and only the raw ranking is shown. "Pre" indicates the slot that the particular team was ranked in the preseason AP Poll, and "Final" indicates where the team was ranked in the final AP Poll after the conclusion of the bowl games.
Here goes:
And that is all of the data regarding the subject analyzed here.
So, what did we find?
I ran the correlation numbers, and they were very hit and miss. Some years the preseason poll was pretty accurate, i.e. a pretty strong correlation, and in other years the correlation was almost non-existent. Here is the list of the correlation by year:
2002: .6068
2003: .6973
2004: .7901
2005: -.0105
2006: -.0657
So, as you can see, it's a bit all over the board. Some years you have pretty high correlation, and others there is effectively none whatsoever.
Going deeper than that, once you really look at the data past the raw correlation numbers, you see that even in the best years, the preseason poll isn't too accurate. Though they have a generally high correlation, nevertheless it's still very hit or miss, and the high correlation numbers are mainly due to the fact that a handful of teams were very close in terms of preseason ranking and final ranking.
Let's break things down year-by-year:
2002: As a whole, 2002 was one of the better years, but it still wasn't particularly good. Miami was the preseason number one, coming off of national championship. The Hurricanes didn't really disappoint, finishing second after a controversial overtime loss to Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl. Aside from that, though, the rest wasn't particularly good. All told, three teams of the preseason top ten did not even finish in the final top 25. Six of the preseason top ten teams did not finish in the top ten; the preseason top ten accurately predicted only four of the final top ten teams. Ohio State, the 2002 national champion that went 13-0, was ranked 13th in the preseason poll.
2003: Much like 2003, 2002 was a good year in terms of pure correlation, but looking deeper it was still very much hit or miss. Three of the preseason top ten teams finished outside of the final top 25, and five of the preseason top ten teams finished outside of the final top 10. LSU, the team that took the Coaches' Poll national championship and finished 2nd in the AP Poll, was ranked 14th in the preseason AP Polll.
2004: The 2004 season had by far the highest correlation of any year, but even it had problems. Though it accurately predicted the eventual national champion (USC), the only time that happened in the five year stretch, and only one of the preseason top 10 teams finished unranked, six of the preseason top 10 teams finished outside of the top 10. The preseason top 10 accurately predicted only four of the final AP top ten teams.
2005: The 2005 preseason poll had effectively no correlation. It accurately predicted the final top two teams, but aside from that it was quite poor. Preseason number three (Tennessee), and preseason number four (Michigan), finished well outside the top 25, and Tennessee went 5-6. Though only two preseason top ten teams finished the season unranked, but five of the preseason top ten teams finished outside the top ten.
2006: The 2006 preseason poll was even worse than 2005. Though none of the preseason top ten teams finished unranked, four teams finished outside of the final top ten. Of the preseason top five, only one team (Ohio State) ranked higher than ninth in the final poll.
At bottom, the preseason rankings can be solid at times, but essentially pointless at others. They generally tell you who the top team is (though, being honest, that's a pretty easy thing to do), but aside from that, I don't think, generally speaking, they really have very much meaning. Every year there are usually two or three preseason top ten teams that finished unranked, and generally speaking around five of the preseason top ten teams finish outside of the final top ten. All told, again, it just doesn't seem like they mean too much. Being brutally honest, it just seems that there is entirely too many uncertainties in college football for preseason rankings to be particularly accurate.
And, well, that's it. A couple of administrative notes:
- I used the AP poll in this analysis, simply because, for whatever reason, it was easier to find the older AP polls than the Coaches' polls. That said, it really shouldn't make a difference one way or the other. All told, the polls are just so similar, there is just no legitimate amount of disparity between the two. They basically come to the same conclusions, and I imagine the analytical conclusions would be the same as well.
- For teams that finished outside of the top 25, I counted from 26 on down based on how many votes a particular team received. For teams that did not even receive a vote, I generally assigned them the spot immediately behind the last team that did receive a vote. I understand that there are no official rankings outside of the top 25, but this had to be done to complete the analysis.
Random Practice Notes
As of early Monday morning, the Crimson Tide has completed their third practice. And the third, i.e. the one that preceded Fan Day, was open to the public. At this point, we've found out a few things here and there that we can safely say, one way or the other, about developments thus far in practice. Here goes:
- Players, as a whole, seem to be in much better shape. Noticeably gone are the big bellies that we have seen the past few years. The apocryphal "Puddin' ass" and his cohorts in crime have apparently discovered, or perhaps I should say forced to discover, our world-class weight room facilities.
- The defensive line is big, no two ways about it. Again, "Puddin' ass"... The thing is, even the defensive ends are huge, which is largely to be expected in the 3-4. Generally speaking, even the defensive ends now are mostly between 270 and 285 pounds. The defensive ends in 2007 will essentially be as big as the defensive tackles that we have had the past several years. And, not to be outdone, the defensive tackles are quite large as well, with both Chapman and McCullough reporting around 300 pounds each.
- Prince Hall is not in the Saban doghouse. Some people concluded as such after Hall spent the first practice with the freshmen, but that's not the case. Apparently the staff is trying to get the young defenders (who, of course, we will need this season) acclimated to the environment and the college game.
- Speaking of Hall, at the open practice, he was barking out orders to the defense. With little doubt, he seems to be the field general of the defense.
- More on Hall, he's in much better shape this year. As well as he played last year, the truth was that he was a bit overweight and out-of-shape. Not anymore. He's dropped a good bit of weight and noticeably has the best physique since he has arrived at the Capstone.
- Rolando McClain showed up as a beast, as expected. He has been shadowing Prince Hall, from all we can tell, and that's not too surprising. I believe, judging by the totality of the circumstances, that the coaching staff realizes that, if at all possible from a mental perspective, McClain needs to start this year, as soon as possible. I imagine that tutoring McClain may have been the main reason Prince Hall was with the freshmen on the first day.
- Roy Upchurch missed the first practice, but he showed up today. However, he was wearing a black jersey signifying no contact. Then again, on the other hand, he was taking reps with the first-team offense. I imagine the only people who really know what is going on here is the players and the coaches, seems odd to say the least.
- Chris Capps does not appear to be close to any meaningful playing time. Obviously, among other things, the shoulder surgery that caused him to miss Spring practice and much of the off-season workout program have hurt him greatly. He has taken some reps at left tackle, backing up Andre of course, and has also taken some reps at right tackle. However, it seems that he is noticeably behind both Mike Johnson and B.J. Stabler (a much leaner B.J. Stabler, I might add). Given how the coaching staff is flipping him around, I cannot help but wonder if they are trying to mold Capps into a multi-dimensional reserve player who could play a variety of positions if, or I should say when, one of the starters gets hurt. Starting doesn't seem to be in his future, either way.
- Jimmy Johns is taken a high number of snaps at fullback. No, rumors of him being 250 pounds were incorrect, but nevertheless he is still taking reps as a fullback. I really do not know about this one, honestly. He was with the first-team offense during Spring practice, and you would assume he would be there again, but apparently not. Of course, this may be just Saban experimenting like the mad scientist that he is renowned for being on the practice field. And no one really knows if Johns is being used as a true fullback or more of a hybrid H-back. Again, lots of questions here, few definite answers.
- Glen Coffee has dropped a good bit of weight, it seems. I don't know if the 28 pound figure at RollTide.com is correct, but it is obvious just from plain-sight that he is considerably leaner. That's huge news, to be quite reserved about the situation. A tailback at 225 pounds is a completely different player than a tailback at 197 pounds. It's two completely different running styles, etc. Again, much like with Johns, lots of questions here, few definite answers.
- John Parker Wilson impressed several today at Fan Day, and many noted his seemingly improved arm strength. We'll see with the first scrimmage on that one, though there is little doubt that a rigorous workout program and improved mechanics (which probably wasn't a major problem with Wilson, but nevertheless) can improve overall arm strength.
- Marquis Maze is impressing everyone in the return game. He's not ready to play on offense, but he is wowing people when he gets the ball in the open field on returns. Considering Arenas and Grant are already considered good returners, I'm not sure he will play this year, but it's good news nonetheless.
- Though it shouldn't come as much of a surprise, the defense does seem much more complicated than in the past. Kines never had complex schemes; the underlying philosophy to the Kines' scheme in that sense was that we are going to be pretty simple, but we are going to be very good at those few things that we do. Saban is the exact opposite. Even going back to his time as defensive coordinator of the Cleveland Browns in the mid-1990's, Saban has been known for his extremely complex defensive packages, and that seems no different at Alabama. Unlike in the past, our guys will have to really keep their head in the playbook. No more simpleton stuff with the Nicktator around.
- Lorenzo Washington has gotten noticeably bigger. He still has a ways to go, but for the first time he is seemingly making progress. He is in the mid-280's now, and it shows. He has bounced back and forth, seeing some time at tackle and some at end. Hopefully he's beginning to fulfill his promise.
- Nikita Stover was hurt today, going out with an apparent knee / hip injury. He got tangled up going for a jump ball in double coverage, and I assume landed awkwardly. Nothing has been said of it thus far, so hopefully the silence is good news, especially considering how quickly the Demetrius Goode news came out.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Recruiting: Four and Five Stars
In an earlier post, I tried to determine whether or not recruiting rankings mattered in terms of future team performance. One of the many conclusions of that post was that approximately 80 per cent of Alabama's roster (not the total roster, but only those on scholarship)the past few years has been comprised of players rated as three-star or lower by the recruiting services. Long story short, the argument was that number was / is entirely too low.
So, I decided to take the same time period (2002-2004) and determine how many four and five star recruits that each SEC team signed over that period.
The following is what I found, listing the number signed by each team per year, and then the total for the three year period:
So, how well did all of that correlate with overall winning percentage in a future time-frame (2004-2006)? Here is that data broken down:
Much like with recruiting rankings, as you can see, where you rank in terms of how many four and five star recruits you sign, compared to the rest of the conference, strongly correlates with overall winning percentage on down the road.
To be specific, the correlation between recruiting rank and winning percentage rank was a robust .7202. That's not quite as strong as the .8 that we saw between overall team recruiting rankings and winning percentage, but it's still very strong.
At bottom, the teams that sign the most four and five star players are generally the ones that do the best on the playing field. Certainly there were a lot of busts included in those numbers, but on the whole the teams that signed the most high-quality players did better than the rest. It didn't correlate quite as high as overall team rankings, I presume, because recruiting isn't just about signing four and five star players (although that's the majority of it), it's also about signing some players that are rated three stars and below and turning them into quality football players as well.
Nevertheless, at bottom, it just further seems to indicate that, regardless of how vehemently some people want to assert otherwise, recruiting rankings do matter.
So, I decided to take the same time period (2002-2004) and determine how many four and five star recruits that each SEC team signed over that period.
The following is what I found, listing the number signed by each team per year, and then the total for the three year period:
So, how well did all of that correlate with overall winning percentage in a future time-frame (2004-2006)? Here is that data broken down:
Much like with recruiting rankings, as you can see, where you rank in terms of how many four and five star recruits you sign, compared to the rest of the conference, strongly correlates with overall winning percentage on down the road.
To be specific, the correlation between recruiting rank and winning percentage rank was a robust .7202. That's not quite as strong as the .8 that we saw between overall team recruiting rankings and winning percentage, but it's still very strong.
At bottom, the teams that sign the most four and five star players are generally the ones that do the best on the playing field. Certainly there were a lot of busts included in those numbers, but on the whole the teams that signed the most high-quality players did better than the rest. It didn't correlate quite as high as overall team rankings, I presume, because recruiting isn't just about signing four and five star players (although that's the majority of it), it's also about signing some players that are rated three stars and below and turning them into quality football players as well.
Nevertheless, at bottom, it just further seems to indicate that, regardless of how vehemently some people want to assert otherwise, recruiting rankings do matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
