Upright Running Style--Does it really matter? (1 Viewer)

[gianmarco]

I know we always say this when we see a guy run "upright" that he's bound to get injured because of that style and the # of hits these guys take. First guy that comes to mind is Chris Brown.

However, it seems this is stated an awful lot and I wonder if there's ever been anyone to really look at whether or not this has any merit. I was looking back at some scouting reports on some RB's the came from college that were described as running "upright". Both Larry Johnson and Steven Jackson were described this way. Now, I don't personally think they do and maybe they changed their style since joining the NFL, but I wonder how many upright runners truly get hurt because of that.

This year, both Brandon Jacobs and Peterson have been talked about because of their running style and how they have a higher chance to get hurt. Do you guys really think this is true and is there any proof? Is there really any way to check this or is it just something that we'll just keep on saying?

P.S.--Chris Brown's injuries also don't seem really related to his running style, but more about his toes. What's wrong with that dude's feet?

 

[steelcityman]

Eric Dickerson was good.

 

[veto87]

injuries happen to everyone but if you offer up a larger area to tackle, you will likely have a higher chance for injuries. There must be some truth to it though or those so called experts would stop repeating it.

 

[Bob Magaw]

platitudes like "upright runners are bad" can be useful as guidelines...

if you don't have time to breakdown film on dozens of rookie candidates, and you hear a bunch of scouts saying this could be trouble for a given prospect, maybe where there is smoke there is fire...

but if you are making a more monumental decision with more fateful consequences for your team, and you are dealing for instance with a known commodity like LJ (hypothetically, should i blow up my team to get him for my dynasty squad if the price is right... or not?), they can cause more mischief than they are worth & ultimately lead to more confusion... it was ostensibly meant to alleviate (hate that when that happens)...

in that example (LJ) it would probably be worth it to take the time to look at him (or a player of that stature) on a case by case basis... it should be easier, too, becuase more data will exist on a veteran, more opportunity to have seen before, more access to highlights, to different opinions on player in question, etc...

imo, while LJ may be "more likely" to sustain an injury due to his upright & high contact style, he is a big, fast, tough dude, & has been fairly resilient in past two 1,700+ yard seasons... so maybe he is not as susceptible as some players that may also have run upright, but seem to have gotten hurt more (robert smith & chris brown come to mind)...

to recap, for brute force jobs (like an initial screen of a large number of relatively unknown & unproven rookies), concepts such as this floating around as "folk wisdom" can have value as mechanical heuristics... but for more precision work (you wouldn't want your watch repairman to use a sledgehammer), it can be a pretty crude, blunt instrument... that said, there are many jobs a sledgehammer is useful for... if i want to bust up a cinder block/cement wall, i don't want to use some tiny, specialized watch repair tool... the important thing is to have different tools, the ability to recognize what job is before you, & the flexibility & adaptibility to find the best fit & match for tool given the job...

in more important acts of judgement, involving more well known players, time permitting, it is probably best to bring our individual powers of observation & insight to the table...

even in doing that, with practice & through habit, you can build up an internal catalog, index, etc, of comp players that both FIT the more typical class or rule, & conversely, also those that are examples of EXCEPTIONS to the rule... these you could probably employ more "mechanically" (going forward, bringing them to bear on future analysis), but from a higher level & probably on surer ground & footing, as they will have been informed by your own thought (& dialogue such as we have here, with the 1,000-eyed monster that is the SP)...

this wasn't meant to come off as a pedantic logic exercize...

but imo this matter could be important enough to try & simplify & claify, & attempt to attack the problem on a more principled & fundamental level... even if the way suggested above is off base... ANY kind of debate which moves in the direction of trying to break this problem down, is bound to be useful to many...

good question...

* after re-reading your question, i didn't really respond to it... you were more asking is their staistical data to back up the premise that upright runners get hurt more often...

i was addressing my post to some (& i think there may be many... & maybe for good reason... the question about which your post addressed), that take the scouting maxim (upright runner = injury prone) as accepted wisdom...

& even if it is correct most of the time (i'll leave this as an open, unanswered question), it CAN'T be correct all the time... in case of dickerson, upright most definitely did NOT = bad... maybe it needn't for LJ, too... fred taylor is/was fragile freddie, yet i'm not sure if he runs upright, compared to more classical comp player cites... but the bottom line, he used to get hurt like clockwork... so independent of his running style, we can evaluate his injury-proneness (if that is even a word or useful category) ON ITS OWN TERMS... running style consideration should probably enter into our thought process when evaluating players, but as a component, and not dismissively, without first looking at the bigger picture...

 

[LHUCKS]

Yes it matters.

There's a reason why football coaches teach to run with your shoulders down.

 

[j3r3m3y]

injuries happen to everyone but if you offer up a larger area to tackle, you will likely have a higher chance for injuries. There must be some truth to it though or those so called experts would stop repeating it.

I disagree. The experts punt on 4th down when sometimes statistically it is the wrong move. Sometimes when something gets repeated often enough it is simply accepted as truth.

 

[Bob Magaw]

there are also degrees of running upright...

peterson has that rap, but there are times he puts his shoulder down...

with a guy like christian okoye, who was an all-timer stiff (freakish physical specimen, though... national nigerian 100 yard dash AND shot put champ!!!), & maybe part of that was from picking up the game very late, he ran so brutally upright & took such hellacious shots that it wouldn't have been a stretch at the time to suggest that this would quickly become a problem...

 

[IU Hoosier]

The "upright running style" matters to many, but not all RB's. A RB with an upright style can still avoid injury if they have enough wiggle. Also, the upright style is not as punishing to a RB that runs mainly a zone scheme. These RB's are schooled so well on the single cut philosophy that they will take away the 1st square hit with single cut in most cases. The zone also gets the defense flowing one way and the RB may cut away from flow, also decreasing the punishing aspect of a tackle.

Upright Rb's in traditional schemes, who also lack "wiggle", will be the ones that take the big shots and stand greater chance of injury. The first guy that comes to mind is Jacobs, even though he has a little better plant and get back up field than people realize IMO.

 

[GroveDiesel]

The "upright running style" matters to many, but not all RB's. A RB with an upright style can still avoid injury if they have enough wiggle. Also, the upright style is not as punishing to a RB that runs mainly a zone scheme. These RB's are schooled so well on the single cut philosophy that they will take away the 1st square hit with single cut in most cases. The zone also gets the defense flowing one way and the RB may cut away from flow, also decreasing the punishing aspect of a tackle.Upright Rb's in traditional schemes, who also lack "wiggle", will be the ones that take the big shots and stand greater chance of injury. The first guy that comes to mind is Jacobs, even though he has a little better plant and get back up field than people realize IMO.

There's a big difference between a guy that runs upright but takes good angles and doesn't take direct hits and a guy that runs upright but runs straight up the middle and gets plowed. Eddie George was a guy that run upright through the middle of the line and took a lot of direct hits. He was a workhorse for a long time and pretty resilient, but IMO his career was shortened because of the punishment his body took.

 

[Garts]

Maroney runs really upright too.

 

[Zoomanji]

Eric Dickerson was good.

Robert SmithMarcus Allen

 

[kensat30]

You can't deliver punishment if your shoulders are down, you can only take punishment. Upright running style, does it matter?

Ask yourself this. How long would a tank, shaped like a wall, last on the battle field in a head-on fight? Why do you look for a rock with rounded edges when you are trying to find a skipping rock? Why do submarines, missiles, and rockets all have rounded tips? If there is less surface area, there is less drag, less of a target to the enemy, and it just plain makes objects more fluid in movement. While on the other hand, more surface area makes more drag and slower movement, an easier to hit surface, and just a plain awkwardness in general.

Upright runners present a huge portion of their body for punishment. They are presenting that "wall". It's almost begging a defender to decleat you, especially if you present a big target because you are tall. Chris Brown is the poster child of upright runners because he not only presents a huge target, but the guy is skinny and runs fast and straight ahead. It's like an injury waiting to happen.

If you lower you pads, it's much harder get hit in the solar plexus. It's much tougher to get picked up and driven into the ground. It's much tougher to get at the unprotected gut. And bottomline, you are much tougher to get a clean tackle on. Shoulder pads are like armor, and an upright runner does not utilize them properly while running. Not every hit in the NFL is expected, and you can't prepare yourself to lower you shoulders every time you anticipate a hit. You have to already been in that position to take advantage of your armor. So yes, upright running style does matter, and it is a drawback.

 

[gianmarco]

That's my point. I think there have been plenty of successful RB's who ran upright and I'm not sure that this isn't just a myth that seems like truth because it's been repeated so often. I don't know if there really is a way to prove or disprove this, but to say to shy away from someone like Jacobs or AP because of their running style may be a little over the top without much basis.

This site has proven a lot of "truths" to be misconceptions and I wonder if this isn't just another one of those.

 

[LHUCKS]

This site has proven a lot of "truths" to be misconceptions and I wonder if this isn't just another one of those.

There are very few absolutes in fantasy football and this certainly isn't one of them, but the thread is asking "Does it Matter?"Yes it does, and pretty much every football coach from HS up to the Pros will tell you that upright running is not the preferred rushing style.

 

[Warhogs]

I do not think an upright running style causes a greater cahnce to be injured. I think an upright running style creates a bigger target for tacklers. The only argument I can see for claiming a greater chance for injury is that if you feel an upright RB will take more severe hits than a RB who runs low to the ground. I might buy that but I think the chance of injury increase would be only a slight amount.

 

[gianmarco]

This site has proven a lot of "truths" to be misconceptions and I wonder if this isn't just another one of those.

There are very few absolutes in fantasy football and this certainly isn't one of them, but the thread is asking "Does it Matter?"Yes it does, and pretty much every football coach from HS up to the Pros will tell you that upright running is not the preferred rushing style.

100% agree with what you stated. And there's probably good reason to get the pad level down as is always talked about. And I'm sure a lot of it has to do with making someone a better runner by doing so.But, what about the RB's that are successful with that style. Not to say it shouldn't try to be changed, but maybe AP is a better runner that way. Same with Jacobs. I don't really know.

And while that may be the case, I don't really see why that's a reason to avoid some of these guys. I've seen so many analyses of these guys that says to avoid this guy or that guy because he runs too upright and he's not going to do well. I can say that I'm both a Jacobs and AP owner and reading all thisi does have me concerned. Don't really know if I should be, though.

 

[twitch]

the proof is usually in the pudding. if this discussion is about AD, then just look at his college #s. his carries dipped signifcantly each year as did his yardage totals. those #s are evidence of something. now is he considered an 'upright' runner? not exactly sure, but in 3 years of college football, his production went down each year. those are just the facts. any RB who's taller than 6' could be labeled as upright. right now, Peterson is listed as 6'2.....thats awfully tall for a back.

 

[GregR_2]

...imo, while LJ may be "more likely" to sustain an injury due to his upright & high contact style, he is a big, fast, tough dude, & has been fairly resilient in past two 1,700+ yard seasons... so maybe he is not as susceptible as some players that may also have run upright, but seem to have gotten hurt more (robert smith & chris brown come to mind)......

Something that I've noticed in these kind of threads. I think it's a common trap to fall into for people to equate "a player got injured" = "more injury prone" and to equate "a player didn't get injured" = "less injury prone". That isn't necessarily the case. Just to illustrate the point, let's say I have two dice. One of them is normal. The second is loaded and will roll a 6 more often than a normal dice, but not every time. I roll both dice 6 times. The first one gives results of 3, 6, 3, 6, 6, 1. The second gives results of 4, 2, 2, 6, 5, 1. If we used the same kind of non-rigorous evaluation we often see used in "injury prone" discussions, we would say that the first dice is more "6-rolling prone" than the second dice because... well look, it rolled more 6's! But we know that isn't the case. We just don't have a large enough sample size to show if a trend exists and what it is.To bring it back to football, if we have two RBs who are clones of each and have them play a few seasons on different teams, does anyone think that they will both end up injured the same amount? Of course not... random chance is going to play a big role. One guy could have his career end in a game in while the other guy might never miss a down, despite them having the exact same body and running style. Does a linemen roll over his leg ala Jamal Lewis his sophomore season? Does his cleat stick in the ground at just the wrong time? Someone can be more injury prone than another but never actually get injured. And a guy who is less injury prone can get injured all the time just because he ends up in the wrong spot at the wrong time. I would be cautious about attributing anything like this to a player based on a small a sample as we're talking about for some of these RBs.

 

[rundave]

I think they do but moreso it is if they are tall for their weight. The upright runners tend to be taller and more lean. Those guys don't handle the punishment as well as the bowling ball types. I put Barry Sanders as the ideal, 5'8'' and 205-210. LT2 is listed as 5'10", 221, while Adrian Peterson is 6'1", 217 lbs. Chris Brown is listed as 6'3" and 220 lbs. Those two are too light for their weight to be durable in the NFL.

 

[gianmarco]

I think they do but moreso it is if they are tall for their weight. The upright runners tend to be taller and more lean. Those guys don't handle the punishment as well as the bowling ball types. I put Barry Sanders as the ideal, 5'8'' and 205-210. LT2 is listed as 5'10", 221, while Adrian Peterson is 6'1", 217 lbs. Chris Brown is listed as 6'3" and 220 lbs. Those two are too light for their weight to be durable in the NFL.

And you know this how?

 

[FairWarning]

I do not think an upright running style causes a greater cahnce to be injured. I think an upright running style creates a bigger target for tacklers. The only argument I can see for claiming a greater chance for injury is that if you feel an upright RB will take more severe hits than a RB who runs low to the ground. I might buy that but I think the chance of injury increase would be only a slight amount.

And an upright runner is more likely to fumble because of the bigger target. The ball has a greater chance to be knocked out.

 

[gianmarco]

I do not think an upright running style causes a greater cahnce to be injured. I think an upright running style creates a bigger target for tacklers. The only argument I can see for claiming a greater chance for injury is that if you feel an upright RB will take more severe hits than a RB who runs low to the ground. I might buy that but I think the chance of injury increase would be only a slight amount.

And an upright runner is more likely to fumble because of the bigger target. The ball has a greater chance to be knocked out.

More likely than smaller backs? Did Eric Dickerson fumble a lot? Has Chris Brown fumbled a lot? Or is this just something that seems to make sense so it must be true but it isn't?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

And an upright runner is more likely to fumble because of the bigger target. The ball has a greater chance to be knocked out.

I would LOVE to see your research on this.

 

[LHUCKS]

And an upright runner is more likely to fumble because of the bigger target. The ball has a greater chance to be knocked out.

I would LOVE to see your research on this.

It's actually true...the ball is more exposed when your shoulder pads aren't lowered...allowing direct hits onto the ball.Football 101.Chris Brown did have a fumbling problem...don't recall Dickerson.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

It's actually true...the ball is more exposed when your shoulder pads aren't lowered...allowing direct hits onto the ball.Football 101.Chris Brown did have a fumbling problem...don't recall Dickerson.

I assumed that since 'upright runner' is really just a sloppy way of saying 'tall and thin' the whole argument was bunk, but at first glance it seems like you might be right...tall, low-BMI runners do seem to fumble moreickerson 78 fumbles/3277 touches (2.4%)Chris Brown 12 fumbles/596 touches (over 2%)compared toC Mart 29/4002 (.75%)Portis 16/1543 (1.0%)Sanders 41/3414 (1.2%)Of course, Travis Henry 28/1455 (1.9%) and Steven Jackson 8/883 (.9%) don't fit so it's probably worth more time for someone who cares enough to dig.

 

[gianmarco]

It's actually true...the ball is more exposed when your shoulder pads aren't lowered...allowing direct hits onto the ball.Football 101.Chris Brown did have a fumbling problem...don't recall Dickerson.

I assumed that since 'upright runner' is really just a sloppy way of saying 'tall and thin' the whole argument was bunk, but at first glance it seems like you might be right...tall, low-BMI runners do seem to fumble moreickerson 78 fumbles/3277 touches (2.4%)Chris Brown 12 fumbles/596 touches (over 2%)compared toC Mart 29/4002 (.75%)Portis 16/1543 (1.0%)Sanders 41/3414 (1.2%)Of course, Travis Henry 28/1455 (1.9%) and Steven Jackson 8/883 (.9%) don't fit so it's probably worth more time for someone who cares enough to dig.

Interesting.

 

[az_prof]

Eric Dickerson was good.

Robert SmithMarcus Allen

Robert Smith was often hurt.I think there is some truth to it, but like most truisms, it is not a hard and fast rule and as others have said, depends upon how the guy runs.

 

[IU Hoosier]

The other thing to consider is the RB's position at contact. Does he lower his shoulders, bend his knees to take a hit? Or does he remain upright and absorb the blow with his body?

 

[PantherPower]

I was watching NFL Network yesterday and they were showing the '83 NFC Playoff Championship and John Riggins (6'2" 230 lbs) ran straight up as well. And I might add the man had plenty of power and speed, despite that upright style.

 

[Bob Magaw]

...imo, while LJ may be "more likely" to sustain an injury due to his upright & high contact style, he is a big, fast, tough dude, & has been fairly resilient in past two 1,700+ yard seasons... so maybe he is not as susceptible as some players that may also have run upright, but seem to have gotten hurt more (robert smith & chris brown come to mind)......

Something that I've noticed in these kind of threads. I think it's a common trap to fall into for people to equate "a player got injured" = "more injury prone" and to equate "a player didn't get injured" = "less injury prone". That isn't necessarily the case. Just to illustrate the point, let's say I have two dice. One of them is normal. The second is loaded and will roll a 6 more often than a normal dice, but not every time. I roll both dice 6 times. The first one gives results of 3, 6, 3, 6, 6, 1. The second gives results of 4, 2, 2, 6, 5, 1. If we used the same kind of non-rigorous evaluation we often see used in "injury prone" discussions, we would say that the first dice is more "6-rolling prone" than the second dice because... well look, it rolled more 6's! But we know that isn't the case. We just don't have a large enough sample size to show if a trend exists and what it is.To bring it back to football, if we have two RBs who are clones of each and have them play a few seasons on different teams, does anyone think that they will both end up injured the same amount? Of course not... random chance is going to play a big role. One guy could have his career end in a game in while the other guy might never miss a down, despite them having the exact same body and running style. Does a linemen roll over his leg ala Jamal Lewis his sophomore season? Does his cleat stick in the ground at just the wrong time? Someone can be more injury prone than another but never actually get injured. And a guy who is less injury prone can get injured all the time just because he ends up in the wrong spot at the wrong time. I would be cautious about attributing anything like this to a player based on a small a sample as we're talking about for some of these RBs.

good post, greg...i did say elsewhere in the same post you excerpted from, i'm not sure what meaning the term "injury-prone" has...you do raise some interesting points...in the first paragraph, i wouldn't describe my own thought process with the word equates (though maybe it is present to varying degrees in some)... from my POV, it is more of an attempt to use probability... maybe LT has gotten lucky, maybe fred taylor hasn't... nonetheless, if RB A has a pattern of many years of heavy use relatively injury free, and RB B is repeatedly injured, it makes sense to incorporate that information in your decision making...it also makes sense to not stop there but see if the NATURE of the injuries has any identifiable aspects or larger pattern...for example, i'm not sure if peterson will be more like chris brown or dickerson (i think the latter)... we can observe he is tall, runs upright & exposes himself at times, seems to have a hard-charging style in which he seems to seek contact at times instead of using his speed & moves to run through, around & away from defenders... but as far as an injury pattern itself, they have been different (knee, ankle, collarbone)...seeking out medical information can be instructive... FBG has had an article for a few years... so did fantasy guru a few years ago... some injuries can be chronic... sprained ankles can lead to over-streched elasticity of the ligaments or tendons... which can lead to conditions in which the ankle is sprained both more easily & severely...sometimes in the fantasy world we don't have the luxury of data sets that have millions of data points, which would be more rigorous...if you were playing dice for real, and one make of loaded dice kept breaking apart 3-4 X in a row, exposing you to your dice mates going "alec baldwin" on you, then you got a few other brands at random & never had a problem after, you might be reluctant to replace future lost dice with the brand that broke multiple times... maybe if you were rigorous, trying dozens of future times, you might have found that the initial problem, was not replicated... but you might not last dozens of times at that rate, getting caught with loaded dice... so why take unnecessary chances?of course the flip side is overgeneralizing... you can get punished the opposite way... by wrongly guessing injury, & having players break out... at some point in drafts, & certain seasons, robert smith & fred taylor were great value...you did bring up point of clones on different teams have different results... but nearly always we AREN'T dealing with clones... a more real world example would be to compare LT & chris brown... they aren't physical clones, & more importantly they aren't running style clones (which is really what this thread is about, though it is connected to other things)... if brown is a taller, more upright runner, we might expect to see more shoulder & rib type injuries... this may be the case (i think he had both injuries at colorado & TEN)... LT has a more compact style, & is built lower to the ground with more powerful base, & we might expect less injuries... (though LT has had rib & hamstring or groin injuries, i think)...robert smith was a long strider... in WR domain, stallworth seems to have balky hammies... isaac brude did a long time ago, but at some point got over it... another aspect is do RBs play well in pain... maybe brown doesn't & LT does, but it is another factor we can look at & incorporate in our decision making...sometimes an injury IS just an injury... like when jerome bettis responded to an injury-prone remark... thats a foot hanging out of a pile & a 400 lb dude falling on it injury...

 

[veto87]

The other thing to consider is the RB's position at contact. Does he lower his shoulders, bend his knees to take a hit? Or does he remain upright and absorb the blow with his body?

if a car was coming at you , and you saw it out of the corner of your eye what would be your instinct to stretch out and get hit upright or to crouch hoping to brace and absorb some of the blow? The natural instinct would be to crouch and absorb. There must be some natural protection mechanism in your brain that makes you do that. The coaches are teaching you to run effictively ... ie reducing the chance for injury and increasing your chance toprotect the ballYou are of no use to the team if you fumble or are on the sidelines injured so why don't you preach a running style that could possibly reduce both problems