A Run First Offense and Potential For Success?

[rash]

If Romo were to retire, I'd be all for it. I can use some entertainment .

Sign Tebow and Vick once released, pick up Seneca Wallace for cheap, and then go out and get the most elusive QB in the draft.


Now that would be fun to watch.

[xwalker]

Originally Posted by Verdict

We all know that the NFL is a copycat league and that right now it is a pass first league. The rules favor the passing game and receivers are given every break when it comes pass defense. I totally get that.

With that having been said, I think the pendulum has swung way too far and most defenses have been constructed to defend the pass. Corners are generally very slightly built guys that can cover the pass well, and are marginal at playing the run and tackle only because they have to. Think Deion Sanders.

I wonder what would happen if you constructed a run first team, and assemble multiple quaterbacks (keep 4 qbs on the active game day roster) and put together a who's who of running QB's ala Mike Vick, Vince Young, Tim Tebow, etc. Those QB's come dirt cheap in this day in time. Make sure all of the running backs are former QB's in college who can also throw the ball.

[View Full Quote]Since your QB's and RB's are CHEAP them getting hurt isn't the end of the world. You just plug the next guy in. It becomes a system. If every RB can throw the ball, then the rb pass becomes very deadly because you might throw a rb pass every 4th or 5th time the guy touches the ball. Speed becomes the most important skill for the QB. Because the RB's are pounding it on the edges, CB's take a beating against that sort of team.

On the offensive line, it would also be much easier to acquire talent because you are assembling maulers whose pass blocking becomes secondary. It would also be much cheaper to acquire a left tackle because you aren't paying him to defend the blind side as much because passing attempts out of the pocket would be limited. Passing is on the move a majority of the time.

Corners would have a tough decision to make because they would need to help in run support, but they can't help in run support if the RB is throwing the ball every 5th touch. Think how successful LaDainian Tomlinson was in his prime.

The offensive side of the ball would be acquired with cheaper players which would help the defense be able to load up on that side of the ball, in both cap dollars and also using premium draft picks.

I am not looking forward to the change back to a 4-3 defense, but I will admit that the fact that so many teams are now in a 3-4 negated one of its advantages in that now more teams are competing for players with the same skill set. Initially you might get the best running QB in the college ranks as an udfa in most years. Think about that for a minute. Because no one else wants those players, a team could load up on that kind of talent. Keep the cap low, and acquire a boatload of those players for low picks.

I think you are already seeing a bit of this with RGIII and Kapernick ..... but RGIII cost a boatload of picks to get him. What if you were able to get an RGIII as an udfa.....(minus his arm) You wouldn't really care if he got hurt ... you would just plug in the next guy in line.

It all boils down to the time required to score vs the time required to score by the opponent.

This was the problem with the Wishbone and those types of offenses.

You could win games with this approach; however, if the offense had turnovers or the defense couldn't consistently force the other team to dink and dunk their way to a score, then you couldn't keep up on the scoreboard.

I do think that you could implement some of your ideas while taking a less radical approach. Make RBs with QB skills an integral part of offenses instead of using it as an occasional gimmick.

The thing that you can't get away from is quick/athletic OLinemen. The same types that are good pass-blockers are also required for outside running teams.

[Verdict]

Originally Posted by xwalker

It all boils down to the time required to score vs the time required to score by the opponent.

This was the problem with the Wishbone and those types of offenses.

You could win games with this approach; however, if the offense had turnovers or the defense couldn't consistently force the other team to dink and dunk their way to a score, then you couldn't keep up on the scoreboard.

I do think that you could implement some of your ideas while taking a less radical approach. Make RBs with QB skills an integral part of offenses instead of using it as an occasional gimmick.

The thing that you can't get away from is quick/athletic OLinemen. The same types that are good pass-blockers are also required for outside running teams.

I'm not sure that is entirely accurate. Some linemen are excellent run blockers but pathetic in pass protection. I am not saying you would want a guy who couldn't pass block at all. But a lineman can be good at one or the other without being good at both and being very athletic is a great skill for a lineman to have but it doesn't necessarily make a lineman great at blocking.

Tyron Smith is our best lineman by far and is no doubt much more athletic than Larry Allen, but which one would you want to run behind on 4th and goal at the 1 with the game on the line? See what I mean?

[Verdict]

The wishbone is was not viewed as a come from behind offense, but ask Nebraska ot Texas how many times OU came from way behind to beat them using it.

While it is true that the wishbone and running style offenses do not have as much likelihood for success in catch up mode, they do a couple of things much better, which include but are not limited to:

1. Control time of possession limiting the other team's touches.
2. Allow you to preserve a lead at the end of the game.
3. Limit turnovers. Pass INTs can be a back breaker.
4. Give your defense time to rest which helps the performance of your defense.
5. Running the ball puts your offensive linemen in attack mode and allows them to really lean on defenses and wear them down.

There are tradeoffs, of course, but there are also huge advantages which should not be overlooked.

[xwalker]

Originally Posted by Verdict

[/b]

I'm not sure that is entirely accurate. Some linemen are excellent run blockers but pathetic in pass protection. I am not saying you would want a guy who couldn't pass block at all. But a lineman can be good at one or the other without being good at both and being very athletic is a great skill for a lineman to have but it doesn't necessarily make a lineman great at blocking.

Tyron Smith is our best lineman by far and is no doubt much more athletic than Larry Allen, but which one would you want to run behind on 4th and goal at the 1 with the game on the line? See what I mean?

A 4th and goal at the 1 is not an outside running play.

Originally Posted by Verdict

The wishbone is was not viewed as a come from behind offense, but ask Nebraska ot Texas how many times OU came from way behind to beat them using it.

If anything that was highly successful is gone, then there is a reason.

While it is true that the wishbone and running style offenses do not have as much likelihood for success in catch up mode, they do a couple of things much better, which include but are not limited to:

1. Control time of possession limiting the other team's touches.
2. Allow you to preserve a lead at the end of the game.
3. Limit turnovers. Pass INTs can be a back breaker.
4. Give your defense time to rest which helps the performance of your defense.
5. Running the ball puts your offensive linemen in attack mode and allows them to really lean on defenses and wear them down.

There are tradeoffs, of course, but there are also huge advantages which should not be overlooked.

You did notice that I agreed with some of your ideas, right?

[Verdict]

Originally Posted by xwalker

A 4th and goal at the 1 is not an outside running play.


If anything that was highly successful is gone, then there is a reason.

You did notice that I agreed with some of your ideas, right?

1. I would think that a running back would run where ever he could get the yard.

2. True. But history does seem to repeat itself. If we follow your suggestion to its logical conclusion, then bringing Kiffin back is a mistake, since the Tampa Cover to is a somewhat antiquated defense.

3. Yes. I am not trying to argue a point or suggest a conclusion, just discussing the merits of that type of offense.

I understand why you might think that I am arguing against you because it is hard to judge intent or inflection from this form of communication.

[Verdict]

Originally Posted by Chocolate Lab

Nah, QB is too much of a leadership position on the team, and that makes it unique and different from all the others. There's a reason for the saying that if you have two or three QBs, you really don't have one.

I know that is what they say ... but they used to say that about running backs too, and now most teams use a platoon situation at running back. I would stipulate that it would be a little bit more problematic to use a platoon at QB using the current offensive schemes in place, but I think that isn't nearly as important in a run first scheme. Player speed and decision making skills are more important than being able have passing accuracy or timing with receivers in a run first scheme.