The 25-Carry Back
Wednesday, May 2, 2007 at 08:00PM Does he exist? Is he endangered? Is he extinct?
We've all read and heard from scouts, coaches and analysts talk about someone being a 25-carry back. Such a player is given idealized status among tailbacks. He is a heroic figure, durable and dependable and highly prized by fans and coach alike.
But is he real? Are we being fooled? Is the 25-carry-back a relic, a throwback?
After looking at some data, I was surprised to find he's still kicking around but not as we classically interpret him. In my mind's eye, the 25-carry-back was someone like Marcus Allen. A player who could be counted on to carry the ball nearly 30 times every game. We can throw in names like Eric Dickerson, Walter Payton and Barry Sanders as well to give us an idea who exactly is being talked about.
Sadly, those guys are throwbacks. The modern 25-carry-back does it different.
Among the NCAA's top 100 D-IA rushers in 2006, only Rutgers' Ray Rice averaged more than 25 carries a game. Just one guy!
I went through the data and compiled a spreadsheet which recorded the number of games each top 100 rusher played and how many times he had 25 or more carries in a game. The results can be seen in the chart below:
(Games with 25+ carries on the vertical, back NCAA rankings 1-100 on the horizontal)
Not one player reached the 25-carry mark more than six times. Fresno State's Dwayne Wright had the best overall rate, but that meant he went for 25+ carries in only 50 per cent of his games.
Looking at the data, the conclusion I drew was that today's backs can still do the 25-carry-a-game thing, but not with the alleged regularity of days past. He's not completely gone, but he's also a rare bird indeed. When someone says a player is a 25-carry back and they're talking about someone who can't/doesn't do it at least 4-6 times a year, I now reserve the right to call BS.
Looking at my spreadsheet, I would only give that honor to a handful of backs, namely Dwayne Wright (six games with 25+ carries in 2006), P.J. Hill (6), Mike Hart (6), Garrett Wolfe (5), Ian Johnson (5), Ray Rice (5), Darren McFadden (5), Tony Hunt (5) and Tanard Choice (5). And if we're feeling generous, maybe mention the following players (all with four games at 25+ carries): Dennis Kennedy, Mark Bonds, Branden Ore, Amir Pinnix, Kevin Smith and Damion Fletcher. At most, that's 15 out of 100 backs who can do that 25-carry thing at a rate supposedly much lower than their forebears.
Why is this? I'm not a rocket scientist but most of the reasons are obvious.
- Passing's up. The college game at present is quite pass-happy. The days of Student Body Right and Three Yards and a Cloud of Dust have given way to the spread, Mike Leach's pass-pass-pass style and the west coast offense and all its variants.
- Split backfields. Many teams are opting for "thunder and lightning" tandems in their backfield. This reduces the wear-and-tear on both backs and forces opponents to prepare for multiple running styles and abilities. It also asks backs capable of being the workhorse to make like Marshawn Lynch instead of Mike Hart.
- Backs as receivers. Blame the west coast offense with its quick-hitters to backs and fullbacks. As backs become more involved in the passing game their carries can go down either situationally or due to stamina issues.
- Specialists. If the split backfield wasn't enough, teams often utilize a waterbug third down specialist who can run and receive and log a few touches a game. Again, this reduces carries for a primary back who might otherwise be having another 25-carry day.
- Running quarterbacks. The option is all but dead in college football, but running quarterbacks give defenses fits and steal carries from competent backfield mates. Pat White's phenomenal run ability meant that teammate Steve Slaton was the only top-10 rusher in the NCAA to reach the 25-carry plateau just twice in 13 games.
Conclusion: nothing you didn't already know. We're in a different ballgame but it's annoying just the same to hear commentators ramble on about 25-carry backs. I've provided some data (in the chart and also in a rudimentary excel spreadsheet for download below) that is a snapshot of the NCAA's top 100 rushers from 2006 that shows most backs just aren't carrying the ball 25 times a game right now. The best of them don't do it more than five or six times a season. The result is not so much a bell curve but a small cluster near the top of the rankings followed by a lengthy tail of backs who are happy to avoid the 25-carry mark all but a few times a season.
***
The web camera is very helpful to provide visual accessibility to the users via World Wide Web. The different kinds of helmet camera are introduced in the market of electronics, also known as CCTV. The main function of the underwater camera is to capture the images under the water currents very clearly. The digital camera memory encompasses the different storage capacity to preserve all visual data.
References (1)
-
by CornFromAJar at Rocky Top Talk on May 5, 2007Is the premier back getting less carries because coaches want to keep the 2nd and 3rd guys happy? And if so, does it have anything to do with promises made during the recruiting process?






Reader Comments (8)
This is great work, a reminder of the human tendency to repeat 'facts' long after they have ceased to be so.
Your painstaking research also poses a question. Is this trend good for the pro game? On the one hand, backs are now arriving in the NFL with fewer miles on the clock. On the other, does a workhorse back need that level of work to develop the durability to pound it out in the fourth quarter? How far does such a back use what he learns on his earlier carries to his advantage later on?
Once again, a hearty bravo to you for revealing the myth of the workhorse back (with certain honourable exceptions) in college football.
Just a fit of curiosity, really. I'd had this in mind for a while now and finally just sat down and started looking at the data. About two hours of typing in data with a Champions League game in the background and most of the non-thinking work was already done.
More like 10 or 11 game but true, yes.
I wonder if culturally there just wasn't that much attention to athlete conditioning back then. For whatever reason baseball pitchers of old logged a lot more games and innings and didn't come down with anywhere near the number of injuries as modern pitchers. At least that's my perception which could be wrong.
Same thing with the tailbacks, arguably.