Are checkdowns a viable replacement to running?

[Galian Beast]

I think if you look at the numbers they can deceive you into thinking that a high percentage checkdown is a viable option in lieu of a running game.

I think those statistics only look good on paper. I think that while running the ball yields less yards on average than a checkdown it provides a dimension to an offense that opens things down the field in the passing game, gets tough first downs, and helps you score in the redzone.

We're about equal to our opponents in terms of first downs in the air, but we're completely dwarfed when it comes to rushing first downs.

I think our inability to run the ball effectively and consistently is why we lose close games. (In tandem with poor clock management by Garrett).

 

[tomsanders921]

I think if you look at the numbers they can deceive you into thinking that a high percentage checkdown is a viable option in lieu of a running game.

I think those statistics only look good on paper. I think that while running the ball yields less yards on average than a checkdown it provides a dimension to an offense that opens things down the field in the passing game, gets tough first downs, and helps you score in the redzone.

We're about equal to our opponents in terms of first downs in the air, but we're completely dwarfed when it comes to rushing first downs.

I think our inability to run the ball effectively and consistently is why we lose close games. (In tandem with poor clock management by Garrett).

In reality, you would love to be able to run and pick up a guaranteed 3 or 4 yards every time you run it. Problem is, we somehow lose yardage on a good percentage of runs. If that is happening, it completely kills drives. We have to be the worst team in football when it comes to running at the end of games. We always lose yardage when the defense knows we are running it.

I would rather drop back on 1st down and throw the check down to murray to get us 4 yards than attempt to run it. If he's not open and you are getting pressured, throw it at his feet.

 

[morasp]

I think if you look at the numbers they can deceive you into thinking that a high percentage checkdown is a viable option in lieu of a running game.

I think those statistics only look good on paper. I think that while running the ball yields less yards on average than a checkdown it provides a dimension to an offense that opens things down the field in the passing game, gets tough first downs, and helps you score in the redzone.

We're about equal to our opponents in terms of first downs in the air, but we're completely dwarfed when it comes to rushing first downs.

I think our inability to run the ball effectively and consistently is why we lose close games. (In tandem with poor clock management by Garrett).

I agree with you. Even if you don't gain yards you still have to make the defense honor the run. As we saw even against AP he had runs where he didn't get many yards but they kept feeding him and he broke some long ones too.

 

[Matts4313]

I think check downs are a suitable option for our team as it stands. I think everyone would love to have a power running game. But our best RB is injurey prone and the guys behind him dont exactly strike fear. On top of that, we have two highly questionable gardes flanking a rookie center... And then there is the ever perplexing Doug free.

hard to run the ball with a questionable ol and questionable rbs.... But all the RBs can catch, so if we can get them away from the LOS then get the ball in their hands, it could make sense.

 

[Hook'em#11]

I don't think so. And, I would never want it to be. Somehow, they have to find a way to run the ball. Commitment is the most glaring issue that sticks out to me. None of these running backs can get into any kind of groove out there. Always checking down is not going to work. More prone to turnovers as well IMO. Defenses will hip up to that. Start playing the pass, like they do already. And, the running game goes bye, bye. More three and outs, more time this weak defense is on the field. Not good.

No, commitment to the run is huge. And, these "coaches" need to start realizing this and put egos aside.

And, ENOUGH of the delay hand offs.. No one is buying it anymore. Once in a while is fine... But, not all the time.

 

[Future]

3rd and one do you want to call a pass with the intent of a checkdown?

 

[Doomsday101]

Depends, In the WCO Bill walsh said the swing passes and short passes out to the backs where an extention of the running game within their system. Having said that we don't run the WCO but in my book a 5 yard pick up is still 5 yards leaving you with 2nd and 5 which is a down and distance that still allows you to run or pass

 

[03EBZ06]

I much prefer to establish run game, however, if it's not there then utilize some check downs and/or screens to soften up defense and try to establish run game again.

 

[movaughn88]

I agree with you. Even if you don't gain yards you still have to make the defense honor the run. As we saw even against AP he had runs where he didn't get many yards but they kept feeding him and he broke some long ones too.

I have seen a lot of people say something to this nature about the Vikes game, and while I do agree with this principle in general of respecting the run for play action, etc, the idea of using AP and that game as an example doesn't make much sense to me. Of course you keep feeding it to the best RB in the league and he will literally run through NFL defenders and carry them. But we don't have an AP on this team, or anything close to it, so to me that fails as a parallel. Running isn't our strength, and you play to your strengths.

For what it's worth, play action was still working against the Vikes even though we barely ran the ball.

 

[jrumann59]

So the Green Bay Packers Offense circa 1992

 

[Doomsday101]

I have seen a lot of people say something to this nature about the Vikes game, and while I do agree with this principle in general of respecting the run for play action, etc, the idea of using AP and that game as an example doesn't make much sense to me. Of course you keep feeding it to the best RB in the league and he will literally run through NFL defenders and carry them. But we don't have an AP on this team, or anything close to it, so to me that fails as a parallel. Running isn't our strength, and you play to your strengths.

For what it's worth, play action was still working against the Vikes even though we barely ran the ball.

Not just that fact is AP is the Minn offense, it is not like they can getting into passing wars with any team. Ponder day vs Dallas was considered good by his standards but he still only had 238 passing with a TD and int. Vikes lean on Peterson they have too

 

[big dog cowboy]

Are checkdowns a viable replacement to running?

They are in our offense.

 

[morasp]

I have seen a lot of people say something to this nature about the Vikes game, and while I do agree with this principle in general of respecting the run for play action, etc, the idea of using AP and that game as an example doesn't make much sense to me. Of course you keep feeding it to the best RB in the league and he will literally run through NFL defenders and carry them. But we don't have an AP on this team, or anything close to it, so to me that fails as a parallel. Running isn't our strength, and you play to your strengths.

For what it's worth, play action was still working against the Vikes even though we barely ran the ball.

What I saw was their defensive lineman pinning their ears back and pass rushing every play. Romo had to rush his throws and we couldn't sustain a drive until the end of the game when they seemed to go into some sort of prevent defense.

 

[perrykemp]

So the Green Bay Packers Offense circa 1992

Remember, the early forms of the WCO -- the 49ers of the 80s and early 90s and the Packers of the early to mid 90s featured split back backfields with a RB and a FB lined not in the I-Formation but to either side of the QB.

Somewhere in the mid 90s or so both of those teams modified the WCO for reasons not entirely clearly to me to I formation.

Before that switch you saw a TON of swing passes, short passes instead of running, etc as well as FBs that caught tons of passes.

You just don't see that any more.

 

[Cowboy4ever]

Everyone that knows football wants a good running game. It helps out a lot. There are huge benefits of a good running game. But we don't have one. I see no point in running the ball, just to say we ran it 18 times or whatever. If 17 of those runs are ineffective and 1 goes for 20 yards, you haven't done yourself any favors. Our offense if built around passing the ball, if you have a good QB, you should pass the ball. If you have a Ponder as your QB, you better damn well run the ball great or you wont' have a chance. Even if you do run the ball great, you won't be very good if you QB sucks.

I think it is laughable to suggest that Garrett or any other coach doesn't want to run the ball. Of course they do, why wouldn't they. But they also want to move the chains and win the game, so if you are not effective running the ball, you only have one other option, so you do that.

 

[cowboysooner]

The running game helps in protection. It slows down defensive linemen, keeps linebackers out of their drops quickly and limits some stunts and slants that are more difficult for an online to protect.

Btw, I thought the play action last week was great. The only one that didn't really work was when Allen took a hard inside move on third down.

 

[Idgit]

Everyone that knows football wants a good running game. It helps out a lot. There are huge benefits of a good running game. But we don't have one. I see no point in running the ball, just to say we ran it 18 times or whatever. If 17 of those runs are ineffective and 1 goes for 20 yards, you haven't done yourself any favors. Our offense if built around passing the ball, if you have a good QB, you should pass the ball. If you have a Ponder as your QB, you better damn well run the ball great or you wont' have a chance. Even if you do run the ball great, you won't be very good if you QB sucks.

I think it is laughable to suggest that Garrett or any other coach doesn't want to run the ball. Of course they do, why wouldn't they. But they also want to move the chains and win the game, so if you are not effective running the ball, you only have one other option, so you do that.

In the Vikes game, when they invited the pass with their banged up secondary, we took the pass. If it weren't for the drops, we'd probably have backed the Ss off at some point, and gone back to running the ball when the defense had to give that up. That didn't really happen. Then in that second half, we had two drives with early 10 yard penalties, the strip fumble that took away on offensive possession, and the two two-minute drives at the end of the game where running the ball was impractical. It's just how that game turned out.

Had we converted early on some of those drives with the dropped passes, and had Minny then adjusted, we'd probably have seen more rushing attempts. If those drives were productive, we'd have had more points, and have been in position to run the ball more later in the game rather than giving up series to two-minute offense. It's a snowball effect that had to do with that particular game, and is not a statement about our philosophy for running the ball.

The bigger problem on offense last week was the drops and the return of the offensive penalties, honestly.

 

[cowboys1985]

Check downs do help off set the lack of running game and for some teams it can replace a running game. However, our OL while much improved isn't good and consistent enough to have them constantly pass block for 80% of the snaps.

Most importantly check downs cannot help you when you need to run that clock down at the end of the games. The biggest failure during JG's tenure is our inability to close games or protect leads at the end. How many times have we found ourselves in a situation where we are up with the ball with 4 minutes or less. How many times have we've been able to run that clock out? That is when we need a running game. As much as we talk about how passing is the new NFL you will always see elite teams be able to run the clock out via the running game. A lot like what Jamal Charles did to us this year.

Ideally, I'd love to have a running game to rely on, but at this point you are what you are. We are passing team, however, that does not mean we should ignore our running game. At minimum we have to figure out how to run effectively in crucial situations.

 

[cowboys1981]

I would like to see Beasley or Harris in the back field along with a RB in a shotgun formation. I think this would alleviate some pressure on the line if we run some quick tosses or dumps to the receiver and do draws to the RB as well. We can even do some Pa from this set and do some quick throws to the receiver going into the flat. This would make blitzing a challenge for the opposition.

 

[jobberone]

I think if you look at the numbers they can deceive you into thinking that a high percentage checkdown is a viable option in lieu of a running game.

I think those statistics only look good on paper. I think that while running the ball yields less yards on average than a checkdown it provides a dimension to an offense that opens things down the field in the passing game, gets tough first downs, and helps you score in the redzone.

We're about equal to our opponents in terms of first downs in the air, but we're completely dwarfed when it comes to rushing first downs.

I think our inability to run the ball effectively and consistently is why we lose close games. (In tandem with poor clock management by Garrett).

I don't disagree with that in part. Teams need to be able to run the ball. But you can pass the ball down the field. Ask Joe Montana and Bill Walsh. I like a combination of the vertical offense and the west coast variant added in along with a decent run game.