As some players get signed, and rumors persist about where other players might go, it is startling the things that are reported and considered by the media with regards to the productivity and potential of certain players. Maurice Moton reported in an article for Bleacher Report that Raiders GM Reggie McKenzie is not ready to fully anoint Latavius Murray as the team’s starting running back, even after Darren McFadden left for Dallas and Maurice Jones-Drew retired, because Murray is “an unproven commodity with only three career starts and 20-plus carries in only two games in 2014”. On the surface, this would look like a valid reason to search for a running back, but looking deeper, and with a mild understanding of football, it is not hard to see what has happened here.
Murray was a reserve in 2013, playing behind Darren McFadden, who the team was trying to get as much of a return on their investment as they could, even though it was clear that he was not what they expected that he would be when he was drafted. In 2014, the team added Jones-Drew, who proved to be as ineffective as McFadden, and this forced the coaches to insert Murray into the lineup, which might not have happened had RB Kory Sheets, who spent 2013 setting rushing records in the CFL, while finishing second in the league in rushing, and winning the MVP of the 2013 Grey Cup with a CFL-record 197-yard game, not gotten injured at the start of the season.
Murray’s having only started three games is not something within his control, nor is his only having carried the ball 20 times in two games solely his doing. The player does not decide if he is going to start, the coaches do, so for the GM to look at his lack of starting experience as a reason to doubt the back, he should ask the coach why that player hasn’t started more. Also, is it possible that the lack of 20-carry games is the result of the fact that the Raiders spent so many games playing from behind that the team was forced to pass more while attempting to make the games respectable? It is difficult to run the ball when the game clock is not an ally.
In truth, this logic exists for nearly every position on the field. WR Michael Crabtree was said to have had “a disappointing 2014 campaign in which he only caught 68 passes for 698 yards and four touchdowns”, but consider that he played on a team where Anquan Boldin caught 83 balls, and a total of 14 receivers caught at least one of Colin Kaepernick’s 289 completions. Crabtree was the second leading receiver on a team that didn’t really light up the league through the air, and caught 63% of the balls thrown his way, and without looking at every game on film, who knows if the other 37% were bad throws by the QB, were well played by the corners, or were the fault of Crabtree?
If a cornerback only has two interceptions in a season, he is considered unproductive, but it begs the question of how many balls were thrown in his direction. While there are many stats in football that could possibly be attribute solely to the players effort and ability, the most glaring would be tackles on defense and quarterback sacks (but blocking plays a part in these), and pass completions, even though there is a degree of blame that can be attributed to receivers and corners with that one.
Every stat in the game of football is a combination of the player, the play calling and other players on the field, so to look at a player and say that because he hasn’t carried the ball 20 times in a game, it is unlikely that he can, maybe he hasn’t because he is on a bad team that has to throw to stay in games, or because he plays for a running back by committee coach.
This is not to say that every player is better than their stats. More accurately, there might just be more to the player than their stats and more to the stats than just the surface numbers.
No comments:
Post a Comment