The Tape: Julius Jones
I taped Cowboys/Eagles II last season. I thought Seattle might face the Cowboys in the NFC Championship, but I also thought Julius Jones might be an undervalued free agent. Why? Gut feeling, nothing more. Well, a little bit more. As I've mentioned before, Jones's brother Thomas had a career renaissance after burning out his welcome with a few teams and I thought Julius may be able to do likewise. Pretty flimsy, I know. When I began to research Jones everything popped up negative: poor performance compared to teammate, declining speed, a seemingly good run blocking Cowboys unit--except for one thing: his receiving numbers were actually improving.
Anyway, I reviewed the tape of Jones, but before I get to what I saw, let me be clear: He only ran the ball 6 times, and didn't record a reception. So, major small sample size alert.
Julius Jones
- First play: Jones breaks an arm tackle and then does something I'm all too familiar with: sits in the hole. Jones is a very patient runner, too patient for the Cowboys blocking.
- Jones recorded 5 very solid blitz pickups and didn't whiff once. He's not a dominating pass blocker, but he's extremely disciplined and, really, pretty solid. He exampled 3 different kind of blocks: a shoulder block, a low block and a Sean Locklear-style shade and wash out. He did not once get out of position and even showed the awareness to "zone block", that is sit between two free blitzers and pick up the more urgent assignment. He did this twice. Once it resulted in a first down completion.
- Jones is, as previously stated, a rudimentary route runner, but, again, a disciplined one. His timing on play-action is solid, as is his sell. He doesn't do anything particularly dynamic in space, but he runs his routes/does what's asked of him.
- There's no avoiding this comparison: Jones looks like a younger Shaun Alexander. He's a weaving rusher that makes many small cuts. He's faster, quicker and much more agile than current Alexander. The end for Alexander was pretty simple: he simply could no longer break with any alacrity out of his cuts, effectively stopping in the hole. Jones gets into the hole, attempts to read his blockers and the defense, makes many quick, small cuts looking for daylight and then explodes into the open area. It's a maddening and demanding style that--on anything but an elite offensive line--will result in tons and tons of 0, 1, 2 and negative yardage rushing plays.
- It's also exactly how Mike Holmgren likes to run.
- The greatest difference between Marion Barber and Jones's performance with the Cowboys is fit. The Cowboys offensive line is stacked with giant, bruising blockers without an iota of finesse or technique. Barber runs straight, headlong through traffic and fights off tacklers, falls forward. It's an undemanding style that doesn't take great blocking to be effective. Undemanding, except on his body. Jones is almost pathologically patient. He lets his blockers setup, and if they don't is lost. Completely lost. Not unlike Alexander.
- Jones looked slow, discouraged and in need of a change. He was quick to the line, but painfully slow through the hole. The hole, if you're wondering, was more like a seam. He was out of place in Jason Garret's offense and had no chemistry with his blockers. He did not, though, look washed up or broken. He looked defeated, victim of too many blown assignments, free linebackers and microscopic holes.
Conclusion: Jones is a bit like Alexander reborn. A smart back with good vision that can be extremely effective, great even, if his blockers are assignment correct and create the kind space he needs. Consistently. If Seattle's line looks like last year's, Jones will only be slightly more effective than Alexander. If Mike Wahle rebounds and Rob Sims takes to right guard, Jones might make for a wonderful reclamation project. The logic seems to be: Morris was never going to be what Holmgren wants. Jones is. Jones is cheap, has no injury history and was once considered a top back. Give Holmgren a player that can work in his system, one he'll actually play. If I'm still not crazy about this signing I will at least say this, it makes a ton of sense. If this O-line comes to play, it also might be pretty damn sweet.
0 recs |
31
comments
Comments
"A younger SA" put me on alert
So that doesn't sound like a problem to me.
by Will Kier on Mar 8, 2008 12:10 PM PST 0 recs
Plus
by Scruffy Lefty on
Mar 8, 2008 1:47 PM PST
up
0 recs
I feel like it's christmas
by LantermanC on Mar 8, 2008 12:34 PM PST 0 recs
Yah!
by maxthedrummer on Mar 8, 2008 1:19 PM PST 0 recs
good writeup
After this site pretty much guaranteed the Hawks would beat the Skins becuase the Hawks front 7 would dominate and then they did. i can't say enough about the analysis here.
by puerto on Mar 8, 2008 1:22 PM PST 0 recs
Seems weird to me
by Matthew on Mar 8, 2008 1:23 PM PST 0 recs
The NFL is weird.
by John Morgan on
Mar 8, 2008 1:37 PM PST
up
0 recs
Because systems matter
That right there is the main reason we need offensive continuity when Holmgren steps down; if we change to a new offensive system that doesn't suit the personnel, the talent won't change, but the production sure as gunfire will.
by The Ancient Mariner on
Mar 8, 2008 1:59 PM PST
up
0 recs
Agreed.
by John Morgan on
Mar 8, 2008 2:10 PM PST
up
0 recs
I think it puts us in good position
The RB by committee sounds interesting, I'm looking forward to seeing what the depth chart and the rotation will be like.
My fanside wants Alexander back, and my blind-hope wishes he could return and make an impact, but a signing of a talented back in the prime of his career gives me almost as much hope for Jones' potential for success.
by J Hens on Mar 8, 2008 3:00 PM PST 0 recs
Never say never
This makes even more sense if Ruskell is headed toward a running-back-by-committee approach. By definition, that approach does not permit expending a large amount of resources (in terms of draft picks or dollars) on any one member of the committee. I happen to agree with RBBC, and did not want the Hawks to use their first-rounder on a RB even before the recent signings.
To hazard a guess, I think Ruskell's thinking O-line, and probably guard, in one of the first two rounds. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Mr. Sims has seen his last start as a Hawk.
by jeager on Mar 8, 2008 4:43 PM PST 0 recs
that'd be fantastic
by Snuffleupagus on
Mar 8, 2008 6:23 PM PST
up
0 recs
Really?
by Will Kier on
Mar 8, 2008 7:18 PM PST
up
0 recs
I like Sims
Moreover, Ruskell is hell-bent on improving the running game this offseason. See, e.g., Wahle, Duckett, Jones. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Ruskell pull the trigger on a guard who he thinks can contribute this year to a revitalized running game in one last Super Bowl push with Coach H.
by jeager on
Mar 9, 2008 9:56 AM PST
up
0 recs
IMO
This means we're not taking a RB at all this year, there's no reason to anymore.
First round will most likely go to an OL now, signing Wahle and moving Sims is definitely an upgrade but in case that doesn't work out I think we'll need a first rounder who can fill in immediately, or at least to add depth to the line if Sims does thrive at RG.
by notor on
Mar 9, 2008 10:58 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Actually
by Scruffy Lefty on
Mar 9, 2008 12:20 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Why would Wahle replace Gray?
Besides - It's not like Sims was a high-profile pick. He was a 4th rounder. Ruskell's had no problem cutting guys he drafted higher than that (Greene)
2 semi-productive years at LG after being forced into the line-up quickly, and then a chance to win the RG spot or become valuable depth ... that's far from a "bust" - that's decent production from a 2nd day draft pick.
by jteckmann on Mar 9, 2008 3:57 AM PST 0 recs
If we end up
by The Ancient Mariner on
Mar 9, 2008 5:22 AM PST
up
0 recs
"Reply to this" is your friend.
by BrettJMiller on
Mar 9, 2008 12:39 PM PDT
up
0 recs
The question is
We need depth at the guard position at the very least. Sims is gonna have to fight to start at RG against a draft pick, and I suspect it will be a fairly early draft pick, and/or Wrotto. After the perceived failings of Sims last season at LG, it is difficult to imagine Ruskell relying on him at RG.
by jeager on
Mar 9, 2008 1:55 PM PDT
up
0 recs
After the very real failings of Chris Gray at RG
I think Sims will have a pretty good shot at the starting job, he's by far the best option as things stand now. Though it depends on which OL fall to our position in the draft whether he'll have legitimate competition for it.
by notor on
Mar 9, 2008 2:10 PM PDT
up
0 recs
the OG class in the draft is very weak
by Matthew on
Mar 10, 2008 12:00 AM PDT
up
0 recs
sorry about getting out of thread
I just got the impression the post I meant to reply to meant it literally. I just hear the "Ruskell won't admit his mistakes" criticism so much that I zeroed in on it. I'm sorry for jumping to the wrong conclusion if that's not what the poster meant.
BTW - I specifically said in my post that Sims was NOT a bust, so not sure why you'd say I'm an idiot, since we're agreeing on that...
by jteckmann on
Mar 9, 2008 2:43 PM PDT
up
0 recs
FYI
by MFAN on Mar 9, 2008 6:39 PM PDT 0 recs
Tatum Bell
Looking back at 2006 when they were both starters it seems as though they were quite comparable with Bell being the better receiver...
On the other hand, it looks as though the Lions were trying to snag Jones over Bell as well so there must be a reason here.
by brokejumper on Mar 10, 2008 11:54 AM PDT 0 recs
I have no real clue
by Scruffy Lefty on
Mar 10, 2008 12:23 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Bell is like a somewhat faster Morris:
by John Morgan on
Mar 10, 2008 12:54 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Home Run
I think I might have to throw a few less items at my TV if we had a runner who did not sit in the hole until tackled... but maybe that is just me!
by brokejumper on
Mar 10, 2008 2:58 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Dear John Morgan
On a pure hawks note, I am very intrigued/excited to employ the new RBBC system (Duckett especially excites me) Duckett will be a perfect antidote for our short-yardage struggles. Jones and Morris can provide a great rotation type duo, Jones can mainly come in on first down and go for that 5 yards or more on the ground. I then think if you get more than 5 yards or so keep pounding the ball with Jones and Duckett down the field, until you start getting contained to smaller gains. Once Jones fails to get more than a yard or two on first downs, that's when you bring in Morris for passing downs to take advantage of his outstanding receiving skills, imo Kevin Faulk-esque receiving class. On top of that, as you mentioned John, Julius has great pass blockng skills as a running back, which we REALLY lacked last year with the retirement of Mack Strong.
I am optimistic about next season's run game.
by Theta Chi WSU on Mar 14, 2008 7:49 PM PDT 0 recs
will probably be a dissapointment...
The problem with the Seattle running game is the OL. That being said, what good does it do to sign a back that can't rumble for the solid 4? That's what the west coast offense is all about: keeping the drive alive.
I'm not a big number guy, but they don't lie. Jones averaged almost a whole yard less per carry than Morris, playing for a better team. That's why the boys let him go.
Fortunately, the addition of Jones will lead to the loss of Shaun, and that is a step in the right direction.
The Morris/Jones/Weaver combo has potential, because they all know how to run downhill and are fast. When a designated "superstar" back gets the majority of the carries, it often leaves no room for misdirection makes an offense more predictable; with three above-average backs, defenses will have less success keying.
Until the offensive line improves, Jones will be only slightly more effective than Shaun in his 06 season.
by howdyhat on Mar 15, 2008 10:06 PM PDT 0 recs










