FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Yes, missing the holes. The author of that article is careful to mention only holes where the play is designed to go. He's essentially eliminating vision from the discussion entirely, since vision is one of Richardson's weakest points.Meh, the cliffs notes is basically "yeah Richardson is missing the holes, but maybe sometimes it's better to just run where the play is designed even if a hole isn't there" and "yeah the other Indy running backs have done much better, but each of them individually have only a small sample size of carries, and I'm just going to ignore that all 3 combined have a pretty good sample size of carries".![]()
Missing the holes? It actually said..
"Of his 14 carries, Richardson arrived at the intended point of attack to find it still viable just four times. That means that on 71.4% of his carries by the time he arrived at the hole he was supposed to hit it was already blown up!"
Look at the photo he uses to describe a play where the hole was stuffed.
https://www.profootballfocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ANBonus3.jpg
Sure, the play was designed to go up the middle and there's nothing there, but there is a big gaping hole one step to the right that Richardson is actually cutting AWAY from.
I'm sorry, but it's a bad piece of journalism. He even says in his article that it's a good thing that Richardson is just plodding into the spot where the play is designed and not trying to get through other holes that open up. Yet the other RBs on the team are finding those holes and being much more successful for it. He's basically trying to argue that if vision was irrelevant and every RB in history just took the ball and ran straight to where the play was designed, Richardson would have gotten a relatively bad beat in this one game.
If anything, Richardson is proving to us that vision is very relevant, and showing us what happens when a talented guy lacks the ability to do anything other than just plod into the spot the play was designed for.
This has been discussed ad nauseum in Richardson threads. Richardson is so slow out of his cuts and broken tackles that it essentially makes those broken tackles irrelevant. Big plays happen when guys run through tackles, not when they shake them off slowly, come to a dead stop, and have 5 more guys pile on them before they can get up to speed again. The latter is all Richardson has shown himself capable of. He can make a guy miss, but he slows himself down so much with each cut and has so little burst out of it that it doesn't really help him that much as it gives the other defenders time to get over and help.
and also
"Only Marshawn Lynch has more than the 34 forced missed tackles Richardson has tallied this season, and there is no back in football with a significant number of carries who is making people miss at a better rate than Richardson. This is a guy who is doing his best to make things happen, but so far hasn’t been able to overcome the plays crashing down around him."
He can break all the tackles he wants, but it doesn't mean much when that leads to YAC numbers that are below what a guy like Adrian Peterson gets with one broken tackle that he bursts through.