Were These Guys for Real?

Norries Wilson gets a Gatorade Shower (CREDIT: Columbia Athletics Dept.)

One of the questions Columbia fans and detractors alive have to ask themselves is whether last season's 5-5 record was a fluke or a sign of good things to come.

Of course, that's a tough question to answer honestly before the next season begins. Even the best season can be the result of luck or other factors that can't be replicated, (at least not on purpose).

But one thing you can't mistake, or fake, is fundamental football. That's making your blocks, finishing tackles, avoiding turnovers and penalties; stuff like that.

A look at Columbia's final stats and game-by-game performances answers any questions anyone might have about this team. In short, the stellar Lion defense was fundamentally sound as well as spectacular and exciting... it was "for real."

Columbia gave up and average of just 16.3 points a game, and never allowed more than 24 in any single contest for a remarkable sign of consistency. Compare that to the 337 points allowed in 2005, and as I've written many times before, you see a better than 50% reduction in points allowed which is something you never see in organized football at any level. It's unheard of, period.

The defense forced 24 turnovers and cashed in with six defensive touchdowns.

They went from giving up 236 rushing yards per game in 2005 to allowing 154 yards per game in 2006, a 30% improvement.

They went from allowing 183 passing yards per game in 2005, to giving up just 150 yards in the air in 2006, an 18% improvement.

And then there are the things you can't measure with statisitcs. From the opening minutes of the first game against Fordham, the enthusiasm of the Lion defensive unit was evident to everyone. And despite being in a 3-5-3 defensive system that requires more movement and thus more stamina, the unit never let down or looked tired in the latter part of any game. In fact, Columbia gave up fewer points in the second half than the first over the course of the season.

The 3-5-3 defense is also no fluke. It's actually a perfect system for most Ivy teams who tend to have a lot of quick defenders, but not enough big defensive linemen. I know that Dartmouth is considering using it this coming season, but with the exception of traditionally "big" teams like Penn and Harvard, everyone should use it.

The 3-5-3 works well partly because of the confusion all the pre-snap activity creates for opposing offenses, but mostly because it focuses on getting to the ball carrier quickly no matter where he goes, thus allowing the defense to focus on adjusting and staying quick on its feet. When Coach Wilson and his staff looked at the 2005 defense, they noticed the Columbia defenders were too locked into set positions and weren't moving and swarming to the ball when the offensive plays went elsewhere.

It's certainly possible that the graduation of five defensive starters, including 2006 team MVP Adam Brekke and leading tackler Tad Crawford, will take some of the punch out of this unit. But when you consider the way the freshmen and sophomores took to this system and to defensive coordinator Lou Ferrari, there seems to be just as much of a chance that the Columbia defense will be better, not worse, with the incoming group of fresh legs and eager minds joining the squad this season.

The bottom line is that the Columbia defense was about as fundamentally strong as a defense can get, and the defense was the heart and soul of this team.

On the other hand, the offense's woes were not the result of bad luck. Fundamental problems, highlighted by a continued inability to run the ball effectively, plagued the unit and cost the Lions each and every one of their five losses in 2006.

The Lions ran for just 68 yards per game with just four rushing touchdowns for the entire season. Leading rusher Jordan Davis averaged just 3.3 yards per carry and no one else even ran the ball more than 43 times.

Some of the eye-popping weaknesses in the 2006 running game have to be contrasted with the even poorer numbers in 2005. But the improvements were not enough and the Columbia ground game remained more than just a liability, it was a ticking time bomb that went off in several games and resulted in losses.

Davis had two fumbles, one in the Penn game, and then a week later in the Dartmouth game that took the winds out of the Lions' sales at crucial moments in both contests. The offensive line failed to get that "push" time after time in key short yardage situations, leading to an appalling 29% 4th down conversion rate. And the disturbing number of false start and holding penalties Columbia incurred at key moments, (they still were one of the least-penalized teams in the league), was another sign of weakness on the ground.

From Pop Warner all the way up to the NFL, you're going to win games if you can run the ball and you're going to lose if you can't. I don't care how good your passing game is, somewhere along the line a poor running game will kill you. The fact that Columbia went 5-5 with such an ineffective running game in 2006 is a testament to the defense, and to a lesser extent the passing game, but Columbia will need to greatly improve on its ground game in 2007 even if it wants another 5-5 season, let alone a winning record.

The good news for next season is the offensive line is more experienced and will be stronger. Improving the running game is something the front five is taking very personally and while effort alone won't make all the difference, combined with size and experience, it should produce some positive results. Another positive sign is that Jordan Davis looked like one of the most physically fit players on the team by far at the spring game. He's also sure to be challenged by the new crop of incoming freshmen ball-carriers like Leon Ivery and Augie Williams. But from a fundamental standpoint, the best relief may come from sophomore Ray Rangel, who is looking forward to an injury-free 2007.

The passing game in 2006 was almost as fundamentally sound as the running game was unsound. Craig Hormann threw just six interceptions in 10 starts, for an average of just one pickoff for every 54 passes thrown. He only tossed seven TD passes, but that left him with a positive TD-INT ratio. Only Hormann and Ivy player of the year Jeff Terrell of Princeton can say that. Every other leading Ivy QB threw more interceptions than touchdowns in 2006, which should tell you something about just how defense-dominated this league has become.

Hormann's completion percentage was a solid 57%, and the offense only allowed 16 sacks, compared to 33 in 2005. Even before his ACL injury in the off-season, Hormann was not exactly a fast young man, and while he did better rolling out than flat-out scrambling, the pass blocking up front was fundamentally sound in almost every game.

Leading wide receiver and Ivy League Rookie of the Year Austin Knowlin was a big reason for Columbia's success in the air. He was mostly sure-handed and always fast, and helped draw coverage away from the other receivers. As with all freshmen, there's a chance for a dropoff in his sophomore season. But Knowlin's fundamentals looked very sound last season, especially for a freshman.

The one dig on the passing game was the inability to establish a real deep threat. The longest pass of the season was 62-yard TD to Knowlin, but that was mostly a catch-and-run. By definition, the deep ball is a low-percentage weapon. If it worked all the time, every game would end with final scores in the 60's and 70's. But it does need to be an option and something the opposing secondary has to worry about. I suspect the lack of a serious Columbia deep threat hurt the offense overall on numerous occasions.

Special teams fundamentals were mostly good. Jon Rocholl struggled with a bit of inconsistency as a placekicker in the latter part of the season, but his punting was strong for all 10 weeks. Kick returning was flat out weak, but there were no lost fumbles on kick returns, and that is fundamental job 1.

Columbia's usual bugaboo of depth is still going to be a concern in 2007. Until some of the incoming freshmen prove themselves, we still are two or three injuries away from 3-7 or worse. But the fact that Columbia avoided the injury bug in 2006 does nothing to detract from the fundamentally sound qualities its players showed on the field.

From a fundamental standpoint, there was no smoke and mirrors with this Columbia team. The defense was truly strong and the offense was truly weak. To consider the 5-5 record last year to be a fluke would be to ignore the facts. But to think that Columbia could repeat at 5-5 or even improve in 2007 with the same fundamental strengths and weaknesses would also be foolish.