Originally Posted by Idgit
This game was pretty much a textbook example of the value of a running game. And I say that knowing full well what position I've always taken on the value of running game effectiveness.
Statistically, it didn't look exceptionally good. But the plays Murray made changed the outcome of the game and made the passing game more effective. I'm not sure how to isolate that effect in the stats line, but it was obvious last night.
I don't think our style of offense works without a running game because the passing routes are slow to develop. If D-Linemen can pin their ears back and pay little attention to controlling their gaps because the running game can't get past them, then they'll make it harder for the QB. If there's no running game, you can't use play action.
Look at the coaches over the years that run the Zampese style of offense.
Each guy saw their offense flourish when the running game got going. I know this is sort of a 'weight stat', but look at Gibbs' record when he gets 20 carries rushing a game, it's incredible. Again, sort of a weighted metric, BUT it was only 20 carries a game. While the offense has to move to get more carries, 20 carries is still not a lot and Gibbs' teams I only think lost once when they had 20+ carries.
Martz's offenses were great in St. Louis until he stopped running the ball and doing those crazy Mike Martz things. That's why it worked with Vermeil, a guy who could veto those crazy Mike Marts things.
Saunders had his prime years of an unstoppable offense in KC with Priest Holmes, then Larry Johnson. He couldn't run the ball well in Washington and it collapsed like a house of cards.
Same with Cameron when he went to Miami. And Norv has always been that way.
The other offensive styles would love to have good running games, but it's not a necessity. The Zampese style scheme pretty much has to have it. The difference is if it has it, it's almost unstoppable. But if it doesn't have it, it's a mess.