CTF says "Running Back U" not disappearing

[quietfan 233]

Just to calm some of those worried about Auburn running in the future:

http://blog.al.com/trackingtigers/2008/06/...in_running.html

Auburn's Tony Franklin: Running backs still as important as ever

Posted by Phillip Marshall, The Huntsville Times June 10, 2008 8:38 PM

Auburn offensive coordinator Tony Franklin says it is one of many myths about the coming of a spread offense to Auburn.

The widespread belief seems to be that Auburn now wants small, quick running backs and isn't so interested in big bruisers. What Auburn actually wants, Franklin says, is talented running backs.

"You'd kind of like to have a little bit of each," Franklin said. "It's nice to have a really good make-you-miss guy and, at the same time, have a pounder. My theory is take the best ones and adjust to what they can do."

Where there might be a difference in past recruiting of running backs is in the importance of catching the ball.

"If we can't see them catch the ball on film, we have to see them in person," Franklin said. "If they can't catch the ball, that's a huge liability."

The bottom line, Franklin says, is that Auburn is just as much in search of big-time tailbacks now as it ever was.

"I never watched a film and saw a great one and said 'He doesn't really fit,'" Franklin said. "We watched a film the other day on a kid that had been offered by nobody. He was a power runner who had great hands. I just saw a big back who could run fast and had great hands. The rest of it doesn't matter.

So are we on the trail of another diamond in the rough that everyone else ignored?

[AcctTiger 0]

"You'd kind of like to have a little bit of each," Franklin said. "It's nice to have a really good make-you-miss guy and, at the same time, have a pounder. My theory is take the best ones and adjust to what they can do."

This is the most refressing thing I have heard from any coach in a long time.......this type of attitude is why I believe AU will thrive under CTF offense! You have to love his brutal honesty......War Damn CTF!!!

[AUBURNJAC 53]

"You'd kind of like to have a little bit of each," Franklin said. "It's nice to have a really good make-you-miss guy and, at the same time, have a pounder. My theory is take the best ones and adjust to what they can do."

This is the most refressing thing I have heard from any coach in a long time.......this type of attitude is why I believe AU will thrive under CTF offense! You have to love his brutal honesty......War Damn CTF!!!

I agree........He seems like just the thing we need at Auburn.

I second the WAR DAMN CTF!

[WAR-MATT 2]

"You'd kind of like to have a little bit of each," Franklin said. "It's nice to have a really good make-you-miss guy and, at the same time, have a pounder. My theory is take the best ones and adjust to what they can do."

This is the most refressing thing I have heard from any coach in a long time.......this type of attitude is why I believe AU will thrive under CTF offense! You have to love his brutal honesty......War Damn CTF!!!

He's like CSS in the regard of it being more about the x's and o's and not the jimmy's and joe's.....

[mcgufcm 4,109]

I tend to think it's the other way around. The players make you. I don't care how clever your system is; if you don't have great players, you don't have anything scary. Texas Tech is a great example of that. The system is great and all, but in the end, they don't have the horses to compete against UT or OU. And it shows. Every year.

It's not the Xs and Os; it's the Jimmys and Joes.

Regardless, I think this article is both good and bad. On the one hand, it's great to hear Franklin say RBs are as important as ever. It's even better to hear him say we'll adjust to talented players, regardless of their style of play. I think it's telling that he says "we'd like to have both." That kind of comment takes you out of the running for a LOT of guys. If we're looking to have a pounder and a cutter... we're not looking to be a feature back team any more. If you want both, you don't get guys like Cadillac b/c he wants to BE both at the same time. He wants to be on the field every down. So to me, this is great (we still feature the running game and we will adjust) and bad (we aren't in the business of every down backs anymore) at the same time.

[AcctTiger 0]

I tend to think it's the other way around. The players make you. I don't care how clever your system is; if you don't have great players, you don't have anything scary. Texas Tech is a great example of that. The system is great and all, but in the end, they don't have the horses to compete against UT or OU. And it shows. Every year.

It's not the Xs and Os; it's the Jimmys and Joes.

Regardless, I think this article is both good and bad. On the one hand, it's great to hear Franklin say RBs are as important as ever. It's even better to hear him say we'll adjust to talented players, regardless of their style of play. I think it's telling that he says "we'd like to have both." That kind of comment takes you out of the running for a LOT of guys. If we're looking to have a pounder and a cutter... we're not looking to be a feature back team any more. If you want both, you don't get guys like Cadillac b/c he wants to BE both at the same time. He wants to be on the field every down. So to me, this is great (we still feature the running game and we will adjust) and bad (we aren't in the business of every down backs anymore) at the same time.

Rebuttal:

.

Texas Tech can compete with anyone in the country on offense.......they can't compete on defense and that's their problem.....not the offense.

Yes we are not a "Featured-Back" team anymore but we can still get guys like Caddy......the system may prevent us from getting a back that wants 20 plus carries a game (ie: Enrique Davis)......but do not be mistaken......the backs that we will recruit/sign will not be any less talented than a "Featured-Back".

It's not strickly x's and o's or jimmy's and joe's....its a mixture of both.....and the realization of that by CTF in his offensive philosophy is what has me so excited.....

[subterranean_jack 113]

I tend to think it's the other way around. The players make you. I don't care how clever your system is; if you don't have great players, you don't have anything scary. Texas Tech is a great example of that. The system is great and all, but in the end, they don't have the horses to compete against UT or OU. And it shows. Every year.

It's not the Xs and Os; it's the Jimmys and Joes.

Regardless, I think this article is both good and bad. On the one hand, it's great to hear Franklin say RBs are as important as ever. It's even better to hear him say we'll adjust to talented players, regardless of their style of play. I think it's telling that he says "we'd like to have both." That kind of comment takes you out of the running for a LOT of guys. If we're looking to have a pounder and a cutter... we're not looking to be a feature back team any more. If you want both, you don't get guys like Cadillac b/c he wants to BE both at the same time. He wants to be on the field every down. So to me, this is great (we still feature the running game and we will adjust) and bad (we aren't in the business of every down backs anymore) at the same time.

Rebuttal:

.

Texas Tech can compete with anyone in the country on offense.......they can't compete on defense and that's their problem.....not the offense.

Yes we are not a "Featured-Back" team anymore but we can still get guys like Caddy......the system may prevent us from getting a back that wants 20 plus carries a game (ie: Enrique Davis)......but do not be mistaken......the backs that we will recruit/sign will not be any less talented than a "Featured-Back".

It's not strickly x's and o's or jimmy's and joe's....its a mixture of both.....and the realization of that by CTF in his offensive philosophy is what has me so excited.....

I agree. TT whipped a good OU team last season. WV RB Noel Devine (not an every down back in a spread offense) looked pretty good against OU too.

[mcgufcm 4,109]

If you think Carnell Williams would've come here with the promise of 10 carries a game, you're crazier than Cadillac in the 2003 UT game.

You can certainly get good backs (Steve Slaton). You can get great specialists (Noel Devine). You just don't get the absolute best of the best without the chance that they'll be every down players at some point (with the possible exception of a WR... because receptions talk for them, not number of plays). The reason for that is that it makes it harder (not impossible but more difficult) to show NFL scouts that you're a complete back. Without playing every down, you don't get to show off pass blocking or running inside or moving in space... you miss something.

If you're asking me, I'd MUCH rather have a horse like Rudi than a guy like Devine... but recruiting experts would tell you Devine is "just as talented."

It's okay. I'm fine with the offense so long as we run the football. I'm just don't think we're going to see the GREAT all-timer type backs as long as we rotate guys and search for specialists.

[Wishbone 0]

If you think Carnell Williams would've come here with the promise of 10 carries a game, you're crazier than Cadillac in the 2003 UT game.

You can certainly get good backs (Steve Slaton). You can get great specialists (Noel Devine). You just don't get the absolute best of the best without the chance that they'll be every down players at some point (with the possible exception of a WR... because receptions talk for them, not number of plays). The reason for that is that it makes it harder (not impossible but more difficult) to show NFL scouts that you're a complete back. Without playing every down, you don't get to show off pass blocking or running inside or moving in space... you miss something.

If you're asking me, I'd MUCH rather have a horse like Rudi than a guy like Devine... but recruiting experts would tell you Devine is "just as talented."

It's okay. I'm fine with the offense so long as we run the football. I'm just don't think we're going to see the GREAT all-timer type backs as long as we rotate guys and search for specialists.

I agree to a certain point. However, if we had an elite back, he would play every down, even in the spread. I think we have had a hard time recruiting elite RB's lately through a false impression of the new offense.

[IndyTiger 3]

Rashard Mendenhall and Jon Stewart were in spread offenses and both went in the first round. We can still get big time backs with a spread.

[mcgufcm 4,109]

Illinois ran a spread offense in name only. That was an ace back, run heavy offense. It looked more like what we did in 2001 with Cadillac than a spread offense. So I call bunk on that one.

Stewart is the best example anyone can give, and if you really think about it, isn't he the exception that proves the rule? I mean think of all the teams that run some version of the spread. Even the run heavy places don't produce a lot of NFL caliber backs. Slaton wasn't well-rounded. Florida (of all freaking places) can't find a guy to take pressure off Tebow and Harvin. Oregon had one. Texas Tech has had none. Troy had none (and don't say they don't count... they were talented enough to have two defensive linemen as first round picks in recent drafts).

My point is, you can run the ball successfully (obviously... WVU, Oregon, and Troy all did it last year). But as long as you're flinging it all over the field and platooning guys, you're generally not going to get the best of the best. You might have a fluke and get a Jonothan Stewart that you just can't keep off the field, but that's the exception, not the rule.

[IslandTiger 0]

My $.02 FWIW....

Let's not forget that we're at Auburn and that Auburn = Running Back U. CTT has helped continue the tradition of Running Back U because he understands the total value of the running game. We've come from the pit of where we were prior to CTT's arrival to being one of the best programs in the country and everyone knows we've done so through a combination of lock down D's and a regiment of NFL caliber backs. These are two key characteristics of our HC's philosophy. I don't believe that CTT considers the success that's been achieved on the O-side of the ball under his watch a total failure that is deserving of total reconditioning-why should he? It's obvious that he realizes there's been enough of something on the O side of the ball that's been missing and he's doing something about it. Sure, going to a no-huddle spread from where we've been is a big change BUT we can still reflect his philosophy on running the ball in being the most run oriented spread offense around-can we not?

Once again, regardless of who the OC or DC is, CTT is the HC and he has proven time and time again that he believes in two things: 1. Great Defense 2. The Running Game. He can and will change his tactics when he brings in a new DC or OC but that doesn't me he's going to change his philosophy on what he expects from them. Yes, It's obvious that he wants to change his tactics on O by bringing in a OC like Franklin but again, that doesn't mean he's going to change one of his core philosophies to the point of abandoning the running game, the need for NFL caliber backs, or Auburn's ability to recruit them. If anything, the move to the spread now helps us balance out our ability to recruit tremendous athletes at the two other key O spots that we've struggled with since CTT arrival-QB and WR. Regardless of the change Auburn has and will continue to = Running Back U because that's a core philosophy of our HC.

War Damn Eagle!

[mcgufcm 4,109]

I don't think anyone is saying that we're going to run the ball less. I think we'll actually have MORE carries per game than we have the last two years. We have a physical offensive line that's better at run blocking than pass blocking, and we have multiple physical/fast runners. It'd be silly to abandon the run.

What I'm contending is that the system, which admittedly uses backs in very different ways, and the coach, who openly admits he likes specialists, will change the types of backs we get. You're going to get a different kind of guy if your offense is (RB1 for 20+ carries (inside and out) and 2/3 receptions per game and RB2 for 5-10 carries and 2-3 receptions) than you will when the offense is (two guys 12-15 carries (mostly read option) and 5-8 receptions per game). You just are. That's not to say you can't be as successful or moreso. It's just to say that you're less likely to get the Rudis, Cadillacs, and Stephen Davises.

[sogaaufan 27]

One thing I think is telling about this situation is that Eddie Gran was very instrumental in getting Coach Franklin to Auburn. Does it make sense for a coach to lobby for a coordinator who would diminish his role in the offense? We know that Coach Gran would like to be a HC someday. I doubt that he would do anything to hurt his chances. I believe he knows something we don't.

BTW, all it will take is for a running back to come in and have a big season in this offense and we will be fine. At this point, all a top high school RB has to go on is the coaches telling them that we aren't going to abandon the run. I think that once they have an opportunity to see this offense in action, the top guys will want to be a part of it. You can mark my words, before his career is over Enrique Davis will be kicking himself in the butt for not coming to Auburn when he had the chance. However, at the time it was hard to blame him for his choice.

[mcgufcm 4,109]

Enrique will be kicking himself in the butt this year. Forget over time. He's going about 2-6 in conference if they catch breaks. He went to Ole Miss to lose for most of his college career, which tells me he's just concerned about getting his touches and numbers and making the L.

[mowegl 4]

Illinois ran a spread offense in name only. That was an ace back, run heavy offense. It looked more like what we did in 2001 with Cadillac than a spread offense. So I call bunk on that one.

Stewart is the best example anyone can give, and if you really think about it, isn't he the exception that proves the rule? I mean think of all the teams that run some version of the spread. Even the run heavy places don't produce a lot of NFL caliber backs. Slaton wasn't well-rounded. Florida (of all freaking places) can't find a guy to take pressure off Tebow and Harvin. Oregon had one. Texas Tech has had none. Troy had none (and don't say they don't count... they were talented enough to have two defensive linemen as first round picks in recent drafts).

My point is, you can run the ball successfully (obviously... WVU, Oregon, and Troy all did it last year). But as long as you're flinging it all over the field and platooning guys, you're generally not going to get the best of the best. You might have a fluke and get a Jonothan Stewart that you just can't keep off the field, but that's the exception, not the rule.

You know a lot but you don't know everything. Illinois wasn't running an Ace back offense.

Watch these videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0AWFtV1KDk...feature=related

If that's not a spread, I don't know what is. I see exactly 2 plays not from the shotgun. 1 was a sneak and the other a short yardage give.

Now I don't think that Mendenhall is that great of a back, but that's better for us. If NFL scouts wanna project these guys high, I'd take it.

I can't even tell you half the RB's selected in the draft offenses.

Enrique will be kicking himself in the butt this year. Forget over time. He's going about 2-6 in conference if they catch breaks. He went to Ole Miss to lose for most of his college career, which tells me he's just concerned about getting his touches and numbers and making the L.

Exactly. He'll be gone after his junior year also if he has anything resembling a descent career.

[IndyTiger 3]

Illinois ran a spread offense in name only. That was an ace back, run heavy offense. It looked more like what we did in 2001 with Cadillac than a spread offense. So I call bunk on that one.

Stewart is the best example anyone can give, and if you really think about it, isn't he the exception that proves the rule? I mean think of all the teams that run some version of the spread. Even the run heavy places don't produce a lot of NFL caliber backs. Slaton wasn't well-rounded. Florida (of all freaking places) can't find a guy to take pressure off Tebow and Harvin. Oregon had one. Texas Tech has had none. Troy had none (and don't say they don't count... they were talented enough to have two defensive linemen as first round picks in recent drafts).

My point is, you can run the ball successfully (obviously... WVU, Oregon, and Troy all did it last year). But as long as you're flinging it all over the field and platooning guys, you're generally not going to get the best of the best. You might have a fluke and get a Jonothan Stewart that you just can't keep off the field, but that's the exception, not the rule.

You know a lot but you don't know everything. Illinois wasn't running an Ace back offense.

Watch these videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0AWFtV1KDk...feature=related

If that's not a spread, I don't know what is. I see exactly 2 plays not from the shotgun. 1 was a sneak and the other a short yardage give.

Now I don't think that Mendenhall is that great of a back, but that's better for us. If NFL scouts wanna project these guys high, I'd take it.

I can't even tell you half the RB's selected in the draft offenses.

Enrique will be kicking himself in the butt this year. Forget over time. He's going about 2-6 in conference if they catch breaks. He went to Ole Miss to lose for most of his college career, which tells me he's just concerned about getting his touches and numbers and making the L.

Exactly. He'll be gone after his junior year also if he has anything resembling a descent career.

Couldn't he leave after his Sophomore year since he went to Prep School, I thought it just had to be 3 years out of high school. I think Larry Fitzgerald did this.

[mcgufcm 4,109]

Yeah he could, but does anyone think he's going to put up good enough numbers to get picked up then? I can't remember if Fitzgerald did or just thought about it, but his numbers were disgusting in college.

You may be right about Illinois... I just don't remember them being a spread team. I don't remember seeing the read option. From what I remember (can't get to youtube at work), they ran really basic run plays without the option action, they ran a lot of sprint out QB stuff, they ran WR bubble screens, and QB dives. I wouldn't call that a spread offense. Now I could be wrong about what I think they ran, but I just don't remember seeing 4 wide sets, option plays, reverses, no huddle/up tempo stuff... the kind of thing I equate to a spread offense. You're right about them running more shotgun, but I still would call that offense a run-heavy Colts offense or a better version of our 2001 offense.

In the end, it doesn't matter what you term it. I'll concede that you're totally right. Mendenhall played in a shotgun heavy offense. That kind of success is the kind of thing we can point to as a success. So count him!