Wisconsin Football 2023

[BrewerFan]

4 minutes ago, LouisEly said:

James Conner has had a nice career in the pros and he's 6'1", 233, and ran a 4.65 at the combine.  He was a late 3rd round pick.

As other have said, Allen's biggest issue is staying healthy.  In the right system with the right blocking scheme, he can be an effective one-cut back similar to Conner.

Dayne didn't not succeed because of a lack of elusiveness.  He didn't stay in shape, Fassel first wanted him to lose weight but then turn him into a goal-line back, and he got demotivated being stuck behind Tiki Barber.  Dayne had 1400 rushing yards combined his first two seasons playing 2nd string to Barber.

Dayne was another guy who had exceptionally good feet, and patience and used his blockers so well.

So many backs run past their blockers, but Dayne would slow down, set them up, and then kick it back down(Jones does this well). 

But he probably should have lost 15 pounds or so, and I'd guess he probably ran a 4.75. He was pretty slow for an NFL back.

I think teams need to be smarter about how they use their backs. If you have a guy like Dillon, run some iso, and some power. Double-team at the point and let him take on the LBer in the hole. Especially with smaller LBers. Just running outside zone with him, it doesn't play to his strengths. 

Big backs can definitely have success, but making the right reads are that much more important for them as they often lack the quickness to make up for it and you need your OL to stop penetration.

Saw this during the Titans game, but Henry averages .5 YPC when first contact is in the backfield, and it was like 7.5 when it's past the LOS. They need a little runway to get going. That should be obvious, but you can't just throw a big guy out there and expect him to lower the shoulders and pick up 2-3 yards if it's not blocked.

[LouisEly]

5 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

But he probably should have lost 15 pounds or so, and I'd guess he probably ran a 4.75. He was pretty slow for an NFL back.

Dayne ran a 4.65 at 259 lbs.  Same time as Conner at 233 lbs.

That's a good time for a 259 lb TE, and Dayne is only 5'10".

[igor67]

I always felt that if Dayne had ended up a Steeler he would have been Bettis 2.0

[Jim French Stepstool]

5 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

Damn...I knew the Pac-12 was hurting, but I don't think I realized it was THAT bad. I just haven't really paid attention that closely I guess. 

That's kinda sad though. That was a great conference. WE were all better off, IMO, when you had a strong SEC, B1G, SEC, B12, Pac12 and ACC. You could pick a year and the best team in CFB could legitimately come from any of those. Now it's really just the two and MAYBE a Clemson or FSU will have a big year, but it's too bad.

Of course the Ivy League was once one of those dominant conferences. Things change and evolve. 

It IS too bad. Not only was it more interesting (to me anyway) when you had 5-6 major conferences, but in both football & basketball you had your occasional cinderellas from CUSA, the MWC, Mid-American, A-10, wherever. I think that's the spice that makes college sports what it is, but with the current structure they may wind up being little more than developmental incubators For the AFC (SEC) and NFC (B10).

Things certainly do change. Whether it's evolving or devolving, I don't think that chapter's been written yet.

[BrewerFan]

4 hours ago, LouisEly said:

Dayne ran a 4.65 at 259 lbs.  Same time as Conner at 233 lbs.

That's a good time for a 259 lb TE, and Dayne is only 5'10".

Yeah, but I'm always a little skeptical of the combine numbers vs the field. You spend so much time training for just those numbers.

That is plenty fast if you've got a good OL and you're a one cut-and-go type back.

1 hour ago, igor67 said:

I always felt that if Dayne had ended up a Steeler he would have been Bettis 2.0

I thought Bettis was pretty unique. He was great at ND, LA and then a perfect fit in Pitt. He had a good crossover with Dawson and Faneca, right? Plus Hines Ward and usually blocking TEs...and then elite defenses with edge rushers who created turnovers(Troy P). 

I think Bettis was just on another level, but the Steelers were perfect for him. Set the tone in the cold or wet weather. 

[CheezWizHed]

On 11/29/2023 at 6:32 PM, LouisEly said:

Dayne didn't not succeed because of a lack of elusiveness.  He didn't stay in shape, 

Which then killed any elusiveness he had, which (for the NFL) was already marginal. 

Dayne did have good feet and cut well, but he has to be the poster-child for the difference between the NFL and NCAA football.  He was the best RB in NCAA history (at that time) and blew up college defenders.  But his best in the NFL was average.  He clearly struggled to bully-ball his way through tackles. And he wasn't fast enough to beat people outside. 

Those first two seasons you mentioned where he got 1400 yards, he had less than a 3.6 yd/carry.  The reason he got those yards was because NYG invested a 1st round pick (11th overall) in him and kept feeding him the rock to try to justify it. 

[LouisEly]

29 minutes ago, CheezWizHed said:

Those first two seasons you mentioned where he got 1400 yards, he had less than a 3.6 yd/carry.  The reason he got those yards was because NYG invested a 1st round pick (11th overall) in him and kept feeding him the rock to try to justify it. 

The reason he averaged 3.6 is because the Giants tried a thunder-and-lightning approach with Barber.  Teams knew when he was in the game that they were going to run.  His rushing success rate, as defined by pro-football-reference.com, was higher than Barber's during Dayne's rookie year (when he averaged 3.4/carry) and about the same in Dayne's 3rd year (when Barber had 2.5x as many carries as Dayne, when Dayne averaged 3.4/carry).

Dayne hated how Fassel used him, and they had a "contentious" relationship.

[CheezWizHed]

1 hour ago, LouisEly said:

The reason he averaged 3.6 is because the Giants tried a thunder-and-lightning approach with Barber.  Teams knew when he was in the game that they were going to run.  His rushing success rate, as defined by pro-football-reference.com, was higher than Barber's during Dayne's rookie year (when he averaged 3.4/carry) and about the same in Dayne's 3rd year (when Barber had 2.5x as many carries as Dayne, when Dayne averaged 3.4/carry).

Dayne hated how Fassel used him, and they had a "contentious" relationship.

I'm not sure what you are trying to contend?  Dayne would've been a HOF back if he was buddies with his coach? I admitted that at-best, he was NFL average.  You are showing nothing that says he was more than that.

Even before Dayne hit the NFL, there were rumblings about how well his style would work.  If the stars would've aligned and the Steelers got him to play Bettis-ball, and he had a coach he liked... he probably was still just and average NFL RB with a bit longer and happier career. 

He had good feet to hit a hole, but he was running behind huge lines in the NCAA where boys were being run over by men (both Dayne on our OL).  The playing field leveled in the NFL and he didn't have the size advantage.  Thus he became average. 

[BrewerFan]

48 minutes ago, CheezWizHed said:

I'm not sure what you are trying to contend?  Dayne would've been a HOF back if he was buddies with his coach? I admitted that at-best, he was NFL average.  You are showing nothing that says he was more than that.

Even before Dayne hit the NFL, there were rumblings about how well his style would work.  If the stars would've aligned and the Steelers got him to play Bettis-ball, and he had a coach he liked... he probably was still just and average NFL RB with a bit longer and happier career. 

He had good feet to hit a hole, but he was running behind huge lines in the NCAA where boys were being run over by men (both Dayne on our OL).  The playing field leveled in the NFL and he didn't have the size advantage.  Thus he became average. 

I tend to agree. I don't think he ever becomes Bettis-like. Bettis had extraordinarily quick feet for a back his size. Just in general he had quick feet. 
I'd also argue Dayne was never the "best" College Running Back of all time, but I get you're going by yards. 

Dayne had a really nice NFL career. Not everyone is going to be a superstar. He probably could have made a little more out of his ability, but I also think he was wildly overrated as the #11 pick and had a limited upside.

Totally off the topic, but when I think about these big, bruising, physical backs, it just makes me marvel that much more at Jim Brown and Bo Jackson. Both were in that ~240 range with incredible speed and they were elusive. Brown at a time when many OL were barely 240!

[nate82]

1 hour ago, CheezWizHed said:

He had good feet to hit a hole, but he was running behind huge lines in the NCAA where boys were being run over by men (both Dayne on our OL).  The playing field leveled in the NFL and he didn't have the size advantage.  Thus he became average. 

I remember Aaron Gibson being talked about being a really good or maybe average tackle at one point.  But he basically ate himself out of the league and wasn't as strong or quick when he got to the NFL.  I remember seeing how big he had gotten in the NFL and then watching NFL DL just bum rushing him even though he was bigger than everyone else. 

[BrewerFan]

2 hours ago, LouisEly said:

The reason he averaged 3.6 is because the Giants tried a thunder-and-lightning approach with Barber.  Teams knew when he was in the game that they were going to run.  His rushing success rate, as defined by pro-football-reference.com, was higher than Barber's during Dayne's rookie year (when he averaged 3.4/carry) and about the same in Dayne's 3rd year (when Barber had 2.5x as many carries as Dayne, when Dayne averaged 3.4/carry).

Dayne hated how Fassel used him, and they had a "contentious" relationship.

That's a REALLY dumb stat IMO. I would imagine Dayne would be higher simply because he'd be used in more short-yardage situations, but...that's not a particularly useful metric for me. But if you ARE going to use it, Barber had a significantly higher success rate in total during their time with the Giants. 

Yards per carry is a much better metric IMO when you're talking about the same team. You don't need to account for the OL like you do when talking about Barry vs Emmitt(imagine Barry running behind that 90's Cowboys OL). And you don't need to get real deep with EPA or stuff like that PFF does where you have someone grading every individual play. Something that's going to lead to inconsistencies even if it's the same person, but now you have multiple people doing it?

The Giants went to the Super Bowl Dayne's rookie year. They spent the 11th pick. I could be wrong, but I don't think a HC in the NFL is going to give carries to an inferior back because he's not getting along with the back. But, that's just my opinion. 

 

[BrewerFan]

1 minute ago, nate82 said:

I remember Aaron Gibson being talked about being a really good or maybe average tackle at one point.  But he basically ate himself out of the league and wasn't as strong or quick when he got to the NFL.  I remember seeing how big he had gotten in the NFL and then watching NFL DL just bum rushing him even though he was bigger than everyone else. 

Yeah, Gibson was a massive human being. I thought he got up into the 400s. I actually thought he was that big for a time at UW, but they got him to lose some weight.

It's just so rare for a human that big to be able to take the beating their knees, hips, ankles, back...all that stuff takes. And as we saw with Mekhi Becton, the time it takes to come back from injury can be much longer.

It's very rare to have an Ogden-sized player who stays healthy his whole career. And almost all of those guys, once you get past 330 or so, you're going to have a lot of bad weight. 

 

[LouisEly]

16 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

Yards per carry is a much better metric IMO when you're talking about the same team.

I disagree with this.  Situation matters a lot.  Down & distance determines what the defense does, how many defenders they have in the box, how much cushion they give, etc.  Formation matters, whether the offense is trying to spread out the defense, extra TEs vs 3rd/4th WR.  That stat may not be a perfect stat, but the point is that a gain of 1 yard on 3rd/4th and 1 with 9 defenders in the box is a success where a gain of 8 on 3rd and 17 with five defenders in the box isn't a success.  A gain of 3 yards when there are 8 defenders in the box versus a gain of 6 when there are six defenders in the box is not the same; there are going to be less holes for the RB to find in the former.

Just because they are on the same team doesn't mean they are calling the same plays for them.  It was well known that the Giants used Barber and Dayne very differently.

I'm not saying that Dayne was great; I was responding to claims that Dayne was "pretty slow for an NFL back" and that "the reason he got those yards was because NYG invested a 1st round pick (11th overall) in him and kept feeding him the rock to try to justify it", both of which are not true.

[BrewerFan]

6 hours ago, LouisEly said:

I was responding to claims that Dayne was "pretty slow for an NFL back" and that "the reason he got those yards was because NYG invested a 1st round pick (11th overall) in him and kept feeding him the rock to try to justify it", both of which are not true.

Yeah, but he was slow for an NFL back. He was slow...and that's after he lost ~20 pounds going off the NFL combine score.

The "did he get more carries because he was the 11th pick," isn't something that can be answered objectively, but it stands to reason they gave the 11th overall pick carries...because he was the 11th overall pick. 

6 hours ago, LouisEly said:

I disagree with this.  Situation matters a lot.  Down & distance determines what the defense does, how many defenders they have in the box, how much cushion they give, etc.  Formation matters, whether the offense is trying to spread out the defense, extra TEs vs 3rd/4th WR.  That stat may not be a perfect stat, but the point is that a gain of 1 yard on 3rd/4th and 1 with 9 defenders in the box is a success where a gain of 8 on 3rd and 17 with five defenders in the box isn't a success.  A gain of 3 yards when there are 8 defenders in the box versus a gain of 6 when there are six defenders in the box is not the same; there are going to be less holes for the RB to find in the former.

Of course they matter. But over 228 carries(Barber, who BTW had 213 carries at 4.7 yards and nearly 1,000 yards more in total, but ~235 more rushing yards) unless you're saying Dayne was just a short-yardage back(Which doesn't seem consistent with the 228 carries) that's a hard argument to make. 

Those aren't all short yardage. It's also a very inconsistent stat. The 2nd year in the league, Dayne had a 38.9 success % and Barber a 47%. That's a pretty big difference. 

Yet AGAIN this year Dayne got more carries(which would seem to support the "he got more carries as the 11th overall pick," narrative). 

7 hours ago, LouisEly said:

Just because they are on the same team doesn't mean they are calling the same plays for them.  It was well known that the Giants used Barber and Dayne very differently.

Again, they each had 200+ carries. They weren't ABLE to use Dayne the same way they used Barber. They were able to do everything with Barber, not so much with Dayne. 

[CheezWizHed]

11 hours ago, LouisEly said:

I'm not saying that Dayne was great; I was responding to claims that Dayne was "pretty slow for an NFL back" and that "the reason he got those yards was because NYG invested a 1st round pick (11th overall) in him and kept feeding him the rock to try to justify it", both of which are not true.

I actually said elusive which is more about agility than it is speed.  But a 4.65 forty yd dash isn't exactly a speedster either. 

Dayne played out his rookie deal with NYG and then moved on.  Each year he got fewer and fewer carries.  As an 11th overall pick, he was widely seen as a bust. I doubt a 4th round pick would've lasted that long or gotten that many carries.  Anyone drafted that high is going to get more opportunities to just to try to justify the pick. 

[HarryDoyle]

I can hardly wait.

 

[HarryDoyle]

13 minutes ago, HarryDoyle said:

I can hardly wait.

 

It's LSU.

[yourout]

1 hour ago, HarryDoyle said:

It's LSU.

WOnder if they will have some guys sit it out.

 

[young guns]

I have no idea what a reliaquest is.  Did this bowl go by another name, like outback or something?

[LouisEly]

Yep, formerly Outback Bowl.

Sigh, was so hoping for Nashville so I could at least have the option of driving there (and staying at a friend's house).  So, no Tampa for me.

[yourout]

Bucky is going to be one of the biggest dogs in the bowl lineup.

On paper it's a bad matchup but really depends on who plays.

[nate82]

First transfer to the Badgers so far:

 

[CheezWizHed]

At leat it is a NYD bowl.  I wonder if we will have any RBs??

[Jim French Stepstool]

5 minutes ago, CheezWizHed said:

At leat it is a NYD bowl.  I wonder if we will have any RBs??

I don't know why Jackson Acker was unavailable for the finale, but we're talking over five weeks between games so hopefully it'll be him & Yacamelli, who actually ran hard vs Minnesota.

Certainly would be nice if Allen hadn't quit the team.

[Jim French Stepstool]

3 hours ago, nate82 said:

First transfer to the Badgers so far:

 

He's done some TFL business at Syracuse, with a few sacks. Sounds like a little bigger & hopefully a little more physical Darryl Peterson.