AMERICAS_FAN
Active Member
- Messages
- 7,198
- Reaction score
- 0
Everyone who wants to believe that the running game had no impact in the Washington game needs to re-think what a running game really is. One of my football coaches had the best explanation of what a running game really is. He would say that a running game has 2 successive goals: (1) first and foremost, the first goal of a running game is to establish a defensive outcome via the offense. (2) Once established, then the goal of a running game is to score points. So if it leads to points then it has built on that defensive platform to take over a game offensively. But if it does not lead to points, it can still be effective if it sets this defensive backdrop.
And, by setting a defensive backdrop, he meant that running the ball is like playing defense in that it allows you to control the clock better, thus control the game better, and it also keeps the opposition from having favorable filed position. Thus a good running game, whether it directly leads to points or not, helps give the opposition fewer and more far between offensive chances, and more difficult chances to score because now they have to travel further down the filed to score. In the end, by establishing a defensive backdrop, it also takes pressure off the defense itself; so it can work in conjunction with the defense’s efforts to give the offense more scoring opportunities and better filed position in turn.
In the case of Dallas, This is the difference between giving up 17 points (Green Bay) and 6 (Washington). So if your offense scores just 7, running the ball helps keep opposition points down and gives you a higher probability to win! If you evaluate these Dallas games from this perspective then you can clearly see how the running game had a direct effect on losing and winning. Against the Packers, you could see how the pressure on Dallas’ defense built up as the game wore on. The lack of an effective running game put all the pressure on the defense, where as in the Washington game, you could see how the defense never wore down as the game went on, and at the end it was able to have a direct effect in icing the game. Why? It’s because the running game took enough pressure off the defense to enable their effectiveness in the end.
And, by setting a defensive backdrop, he meant that running the ball is like playing defense in that it allows you to control the clock better, thus control the game better, and it also keeps the opposition from having favorable filed position. Thus a good running game, whether it directly leads to points or not, helps give the opposition fewer and more far between offensive chances, and more difficult chances to score because now they have to travel further down the filed to score. In the end, by establishing a defensive backdrop, it also takes pressure off the defense itself; so it can work in conjunction with the defense’s efforts to give the offense more scoring opportunities and better filed position in turn.
In the case of Dallas, This is the difference between giving up 17 points (Green Bay) and 6 (Washington). So if your offense scores just 7, running the ball helps keep opposition points down and gives you a higher probability to win! If you evaluate these Dallas games from this perspective then you can clearly see how the running game had a direct effect on losing and winning. Against the Packers, you could see how the pressure on Dallas’ defense built up as the game wore on. The lack of an effective running game put all the pressure on the defense, where as in the Washington game, you could see how the defense never wore down as the game went on, and at the end it was able to have a direct effect in icing the game. Why? It’s because the running game took enough pressure off the defense to enable their effectiveness in the end.
