PDA

View Full Version : Run & Shoot


Txn_in_Oki
10-12-2005, 05:45 AM
First off, by no means am I in any way, shape or form suggesting installing this offense. What I am interested in is getting people take, an honest opinion on what they thought of it. The success of it really can't be denied and even after all the bad play-off appearances the Oilers were still taking it into the post season. They probably would have done so even if Pardee wasn't fired. I had already left the city prior to the firing and was just wondering if in that last season if it was a fall off in production or if it was just a usual snap judgment by Bud that made the firing inevitable. From what I see the offense is credible and productive. Why such the negativity?

I have been looking online and kind of trying to research it due to our current woes on offense. What I have found is that it is a system that takes sub-par talent and gives them the ability to produce.

Like I said, I'm not screaming to implement it, I just want opinions.

:tomato:

texan279
10-12-2005, 05:51 AM
I have suggested using 4 WR sets more often with AJ, Gaffney, Armstrong, and Mathis, 2 burners and 2 sure handed guys. We tried it a couple of times 2 games ago but we ran out of that set. I say put the 4 WR's out there, put a RB in the backfield to help block, and put Carr in the gun. Have 2 of them run slant routes and the other 2 run deeper routes. What could it hurt to try anything at this point?

HardKnockTexan
10-12-2005, 06:09 AM
The problem with the run-n-shoot is that it limits your options. The Oilers went to a complete run-n-shoot offense leaving them with no fullback and no TE. The first few years it worked extremley well because we had a great team and it was an offense that most DC's hadnt seen before. It took exactly 2 seasons to learn how to stop the run-n-shoot. Tight zone coverage limits the options that the recievers had and this basically shut down the offense dramatically.

I'm all for the Texans using more 4 wide sets but it cant be done all the time because A.) Our offensive line doesnt hold blocks long enough and B.) We dont consistantly beat zone coverage for this to be effective on a regular basis.

Texas_Thrill
10-12-2005, 07:53 AM
I dont think it gets u the same effect as being able to run run run run. playaction toucccchdown. That being said nobody takes our run or playaction seriously or anything else we do for that matter.

edo783
10-12-2005, 07:57 AM
The problem with keeping a back into help block in a 4 wide set is that our backs (DD in particular) are not very good at blocking.

Double Barrel
10-12-2005, 08:03 AM
As a pure offense (meaning one where a team only uses it like the Oilers), it cannot control games.

Case in point is 35-3. Moon pretty much had a perfect first half, throwing four TD receptions. The second half should have seen the Oilers running, running, running to eat time off of the clock. Control the ball. Create 7-8 minute drives. But with no TE and FB on the roster, our running game was one dimensional.

[Of course, the defense playing prevent didn't help, either!]

As one of the options for an offensive unit, the R&S is alright (like the red gun - 3 WR / 1 TE). But it should just be another offensive formation that is in a team's bag of tricks, not the bread & butter.

As a pure offensive scheme, the NFL defenses figured it out a long time ago and it's glory days in professional football are long gone.

And I disagree with you that you can take subpar talent to make it work. The Oilers were successful because they had a great QB, sold OL, and a WR corps that could run great routes and make great plays. It also helped to have decent RBs that could make something out of nothing. (Look at the Lions during the same period, as they used the R&S, as well. But without the talent, they were mediocre at their height.)

eriadoc
10-12-2005, 08:04 AM
I think the Bills game proved two things - 1.) the Oilers were cursed, 2.) the R&S could have gotten them to the Super Bowl. That collapse was a simple case of turning off the intensity.

Like everything in this league, it got figured out and planned against. The fact that it's still being used, in parts, is a testament to how good it was during its time. If you have the right tools on offense, there's no real defense for it, but that's the case for WCO as well.

touttail
10-12-2005, 12:18 PM
To me the run-and-shoot is more of a gimmick than a complete offense.

bobby 119C

Texas_Thrill
10-12-2005, 01:01 PM
What NFL offense run the R&S????

It is not a formation I want to see b/c it does not offer BALANCE. Look at the Eagles against the Cowboys.

And remember for as good as that R&S of the oilers was.....we were the visiting team so our season didn't go that well folks.

eriadoc
10-12-2005, 01:47 PM
What NFL offense run the R&S????

When the Rams line up with Holt, Bruce, Curtis, and McDonald, and sometimes split Faulk (now Jackson) out wide, that's essentially R&S. No one does it full-time like the Oilers did, but elements of it live on in the NFL to this day.

ocd
10-12-2005, 03:07 PM
the run and shoot was an excellent offense. It was one deminsional (no running game) but scored the points and ran the heck out of their defenses.

The problem w/all the teams sited by vinny is that those teams sucked. Our team, the Oilers, had a very crappy defense. When we played against Elway and montana in the playoffs, it was our defense that gave up numerous big plays. And then there's the buffalo game...we had enough points in the first half to win the game but special teams and defense blew it.

Many can say the run and shoot was a joke but the reality was that the defense was a joke, always giving up huge plays. When a defense is giving the opponent the 3 and out treatment it just puts your offense back on the field. Our defense stayed on the field alot during playoff games. Our offense usually scored plenty of points to win handily.

Number19
10-12-2005, 04:17 PM
There is a good reason nobody runs it full time....IT DOESNT WORK IN THE NFL, and Jack Pardee, June Jones, Jerry Glanville, and Mouse Davis proved it. If the league was more like baseball and you had equal possessions for every team it may be an awesome offense to install....but we don't use the innings system. That said...every team uses elements of it and most teams use multiple wr read-routes.
At the time, I felt the run & shoot as played by the Oilers lacked one ingredient to be truly sucessful - a big, strong single wing type quarterback who was capable of running the ball 15 times a game, making for a more balanced attack. These would be designed running plays, not scrambles. To address the obvious objection of the QB being more suseptible to injury, I would say that this is less likely when your intent is to run and you are anticipating the hit.

What is your opinion?

rmartin65
10-12-2005, 04:36 PM
I like how the Eagles run their offense. They run some, then use a lot of screens, and throw deep a couple of times. Sure the halfbacks dont get as much rushing yards, but they recover by using screen yardage. And the Texans have all the components. A good, versatile back (DD), A QB that can move, and is kinda accurate (DC), and good WR's (AJ, Gaff, Mathis).

Txn_in_Oki
10-12-2005, 06:02 PM
So, when you say the defense figured it out, do you mean containment or what? I am not someone who studies the game so if you start talking x's and o's I'm going to get lost. I am just going off of the production of the offense. Some of the stats that I have seen online:

1991 -Three N.F.L. (Detroit, Atlanta, Houston) teams make the playoffs with the Run and Shoot as their
offense
-The Detroit Lions reach the NFC Championship Game-Barry Sanders 1,000+ yard rusher
-The Houston Oilers have three receivers over 70 catches and nearly three with 1,000+ yards (1,181-
1,109-996)
-Warren Moon breaks N.F.L. record with 404 completions

1992 - Houston Oiler Lorenzo White, 1,000+ yard rusher

1993 -Houston Oiler Gary Brown rushes for 1,000+ yards in only 9 games

1995 - The Atlanta Falcons become the first team to have a 4,000+ yard passer (Jeff George), a 1,000+
yard rusher (Craig Heyward), and three 1,000+ yard receivers (Eric Metcalf, Terrance Mathis, and Bert
Emanuel)

I am going to research the stats more and some from previous years. Don't ask me why all of a sudden I have become interested in this, maybe it's because our offense has been so crappy.

Yeah, I know the last big numbers appear to be 10 years ago. SO what happened? Why the sudden animosity towards this offense. The run seems able to put up the numbers. Did the lack of ball control have that much of an effect on the "d"?

:texflag:

ocd
10-12-2005, 07:06 PM
Losing teams often have big passing stats...Stats are for baseball fans and fantasy football players. You have got to be able to drain the clock in the NFL....Big numbers won't make me change my mind on this issue...ive seen em.



yeah vinny, the big numbers you saw were our defense allowing big numbers put up against us. The teams you mentioned earlier all had poor defenses. When you score 30+ points in a game and then go on to lose that same game, it's the defense not the offensive scheme.

ocd
10-12-2005, 07:20 PM
we're not talking about the texans...the oilers didn't make it a habit to go 3 and out under Pardee. The O line protected Moon and the receivers caught the majority of passes.

Txn_in_Oki
10-12-2005, 07:26 PM
But didn't the Oilers blow out Buffalo the week prior? I think that debacle up in Buffalo was a defensive failure, well, I don't think it, it was pretty damn obvious that was a defensive failure. They kept putting up points and the defense didn't adjust.

ocd
10-12-2005, 07:32 PM
we were winning 35 to 3 at the half...if we did go 3 and out the rest of the game the defense still should've done it's job...the bills scored 38 points in the 2nd half...that's a defensive failure.

And getting back to your point about the rest of the league vinny, we are currently trying to do what the rest of the league seems to think of as normal, you know, the whole balanced offense with pass and run balance...how's that working out for us? :fishing:

mean mark8
10-12-2005, 07:44 PM
There is a good reason nobody runs it full time....IT DOESNT WORK IN THE NFL, and Jack Pardee, June Jones, Jerry Glanville, and Mouse Davis proved it. If the league was more like baseball and you had equal possessions for every team it may be an awesome offense to install....but we don't use the innings system. That said...every team uses elements of it and most teams use multiple wr read-routes.

I'm going totally nuts with this, but what about bringing Glanville back to Houston. The guy had a knack for turning deplorable teams into teams that believed in themselves. I think he has a Psych degree. We don't want him long-term because he can't get anyone to the big game but everywhere he went he turned the program into something that believed in itself and won. Ok, I'm done with my lunacy now. lol:

Nighthawk
10-12-2005, 07:54 PM
Every dime store football guru says it won't work, but when it failed with the Oilers it was the defense that failed, not the offense. There was a lot of criticism from armchair coaches and actual coaches, and it requires specific personnel to execute--a very good QB and quick and smart and sure-handed receivers, not to mention the O line. Now days everyone uses a little bit of it, of course, but it was pretty nifty when the Oilers ran a reasonable true version of it, and before them that other Texas team in that other league.

Could it work in the NFL? I'd say yes, if you had the D to go with it.

Number19
10-13-2005, 02:02 AM
"...When you get to the playoffs you face only the best teams in football in mainly harsh conditions since most of the NFL is in the north east....Chances are you will face a tough defense in December....you have got to be able to run the ball to protect any lead you may get...
The rest of the league runs balanced offenses because they work, are hard to defend and can exploit run weakness or pass weakness...
Vinny, you still haven't addressed my idea of making the R&S a more balanced offense by adding a second full time running threat - the QB. Throwing the ball only 35-40 times a game and running 20-25 times is fairly balance and allows you to control the clock, your main objection to this scheme. At times, there is nothing preventing the offense from running even more if the situation dictates. My idea gives the offense 4 receivers in addition to the standard 2 back threat.

HardKnockTexan
10-13-2005, 06:45 AM
I say we run the Option!! It works so well in college....