PDA

View Full Version : Pass or run?


gtexan02
09-30-2006, 08:17 PM
Everyone always claims you need to establish the run in order to set up the passing game. I say establish the pass to set up the run (like the Colts did).

Last year our team was builit to be a run first team -
-Our OL were good with the run
-Our FB was a great blocking FB
-Our starting TE Bruener was regarded as the top blocking TE
-We only had 1 real pass catching option in Johnson

This year our team has undergone a complete overhaul
-We went with big OL rather than smaller zoneblocking OLs b/c they are better in pass situations (Spencer)
-We replaced our blocking FB with a pass catching FB (Cook)
-Our starting TE is better at receiving than blocking and is very fast
-We signed Moulds and Walters as additional receiving threats
-We brought in an ex-QB, QB guru in Kubiak
-We brought in a great coach in Sherman for the OL

So why is that we have made all the moves to create an amazing passing attack, yet we continue to hear everyone clamor about establishing the run first? This team isn't builit to run anymore. We could have gone with zone blocking linemen and kept Norris, but we didn't. Instead, we have what many would consider a potent receiving offense. Why not open up the game with 3 and 4 receiver sets? Why not establish the pass in order to setup the run?

"Pass to establish the lead, run to preserve it"

gtexan02
09-30-2006, 08:38 PM
The cutting of Norris and signing of Cook really speaks volumes to me. Why cut a great, proven run blocker to sign a pass catching FB and then never use him??

gtexan02
09-30-2006, 08:42 PM
There are almost limitless options with our personnel:
WRs - AJ, Moulds, Walters
TEs - Putzieir, Daniels
FB - Cook
HB - Lundy

All those guys are proven pass catchers

tsip
09-30-2006, 09:07 PM
Kubiak promised us he would (1) coach to our player's strength and (2) do whatever it takes to win. So far, however, we've been seeing the same :brickwall style of play we saw under Capers.

I believe this coaching style-more than anything else-has 'shocked' the fans and has greatly diminished the 'initial' fan 'delight' of Kubiak's hiring. Why aren't we seeing the 'fruit' of Gary's promises on the field--what has happened to all his aggressive rhetoric? Effective game plans and in-game adjustments to them-thought by many to be a Kubiak strength-have been non-existent so far...

What will we do against Miami? We came out 'slinging' the ball against the 'Skins and then went into our 'establishing' the run mode for the brief times our offense even saw the ball, so who knows?

IMO, the 'key' to the game will be Kubiak's actual game plan on both sides of the ball. Without question, a lot of what we've done so far has not worked, not even close. Miami will probably give us a big 'dose' of what has worked against us so far--what will we do?

One thing is for sure--if our game plan is the :brickwall same-o/same-o--it's going to be a longgggggggggggg day.:yahoo:

Txn_in_Oki
09-30-2006, 11:41 PM
We also have a first year head coach, maybe he needs to get a feel and find his groove as well. How many years was he an assistant/coordinator? It's a different feeling to be #2 and put into the #1 spot even if it's something you want. It's not like we got a Parcells type who has been a head coach for years, comes in and immediately knows what he wants. Kubiak probably had an idea of what he wants, he just needs the time to put all the pieces in place and get comfortable.

tsip
10-01-2006, 12:19 AM
We also have a first year head coach, maybe he needs to get a feel and find his groove as well. How many years was he an assistant/coordinator? It's a different feeling to be #2 and put into the #1 spot even if it's something you want. It's not like we got a Parcells type who has been a head coach for years, comes in and immediately knows what he wants. Kubiak probably had an idea of what he wants, he just needs the time to put all the pieces in place and get comfortable.

Kubiak is not the only newbie HC this year, coming in from being an assistant--fact is, Gary probably has many more years experience coaching in a winning environment than any of the other new HC. Some of these coaches have started out very well and-maybe, like you said-they,too, will get better with time.

TheCD
10-01-2006, 12:53 AM
Everyone always claims you need to establish the run in order to set up the passing game. I say establish the pass to set up the run (like the Colts did).



This sounds like a good idea to me, too. But my concern is the fact that you have to play to your o-line's strengths, and right now, our line's strength is questionable in the passing game (i.e. stepping on Carr's foot, etc.), but it has done better with the pass than the run. However, our coach believes in the run-first philosophy and that is what he's trying to establish...so I say let's just stick with continuity and not change everything up just because the players are having a hard time adjusting to a new system. It will come with time...

Txn_in_Oki
10-01-2006, 01:12 AM
Kubiak is not the only newbie HC this year, coming in from being an assistant--fact is, Gary probably has many more years experience coaching in a winning environment than any of the other new HC. Some of these coaches have started out very well and-maybe, like you said-they,too, will get better with time.


I know he's not the only one and to be honest I really don't keep up that much with the reat of the league so I'm not sure who all has new coaches and who doesn't.

Maybe I'm being cheesy but I'm trying to put the head coaching thing in perspective. I know what it's like to be the number 2 guy in a job and chomping at the bit to be number 1. You want to be the man, and you want it bad. Once you finally get it you're thrilled as all get out but it's also an "Oh ****!" moment because it's a brand new place with brand new responsibilities. Kubiak has been the number 2 for a loooooooong time. No matter how long you are the #2 guy, the switch to #1 is always an adjustment.

hollywood_texan
10-01-2006, 01:29 AM
IMO, defensive coordinators don't respect our passing game, particularly throws mid to deep down the middle.

Therefore, they play the run, blitz Carr, and give underneath stuff because we always take it.

I think the Texans need to use the entire part of the field before they can establish the run. And I am not talking about bootlegs that don't allow you to use the entire part of the field. We need Carr to stand in the pocket and make defenses pay for their schemes. When that happens, I think the whole offensive playbook opens up.

I am a run first type of guy, but the defense has to respect that you can pass at any time. We don't have that right now and establishing the running is going to be a lot harder to do as a result.

Txn_in_Oki
10-01-2006, 01:34 AM
I am a run first type of guy, but the defense has to respect that you can pass at any time. We don't have that right now and establishing the running is going to be a lot harder to do as a result.

I'm not that football savvy and have always been a bit off on thinking what we should do in the game. BUT. I have always hated teams that start a game with a run or "conservative".

Shoot the frick'n moon! First play of the game, air it the hell out and see what happens. Especially when you're on a team that's not going to the Super Bowl. Air it out, do some crazy ****, see what your team can do.

Then again I'm not the guy with the job on the line.

mancunian
10-01-2006, 03:47 AM
I think you should give some credit to Mike Martz, formerly of the St. Louis Rams, for doing this as well. I may be wrong, but I think he may have been the first to use the pass first to set up the run philosophy as the Offensive Coordinator of the Rams. If he wasn't the first he certainly was one of the most successful. I think you also might be right in thinking that the Texans could be more successful right now with a pass first approach, but I just don't see Kubiak doing that. My impression of Kubiak so far is that he is somewhat rigid and unwilling to adapt his approach. Personally, I think that is a what seperates good coaches from great coaches. Good coaches have a system that they try and mold their players into and may also struggle with gametime adjustments. Great coaches mold their system around their players and excell at gametime adjustments. That was what made Don Shula so great and today is also why Bill Belichick is so successful.

I always thought the pass to set up the run was what the "West Coast Offence" was all about. Holmgren uses it in Seattle.

HoustonFan
10-01-2006, 06:52 AM
Just came thru to answer the question.

Pass. Because it has been working much better than the run so far. And I agree with yout rationale of it setting up the run. Aside from AJ & Moulds the TEs have been on point as well.

thunderkyss
10-01-2006, 07:14 AM
So why is that we have made all the moves to create an amazing passing attack, yet we continue to hear everyone clamor about establishing the run first? This team isn't builit to run anymore. We could have gone with zone blocking linemen and kept Norris, but we didn't. Instead, we have what many would consider a potent receiving offense. Why not open up the game with 3 and 4 receiver sets? Why not establish the pass in order to setup the run?

"Pass to establish the lead, run to preserve it"


We are attempting to run the ball 20 times a game...

Indy, 26 att/game. StLouis, 28 att/game. Philly, 26 att/game.

In short, the only teams who run less than we do, Are Cleveland, Detroit, & TampaBay. All 0-3.

Tenesse is also 0-3, and they've avg'd to run the ball only 22 times a game.

The NYGiants have managed to win a game even though they've only run the ball 23 times a game....... & they've only won 1 game.

The Raiders, 23 att/game, 0-3

Greenbay, Carolina, Miami, & Arizona run the ball 25 times or less. 1-2 in the W-L columns.

Just looking at the stats(which don't mean anything) if you run the ball at least 26 times, You can be either 1-2, or 3-0........ no one who runs the ball at least 26 times, is 0-3.

We (as a team) avg 3.9 yards per attmpt.. not bad. 12th in the league. N.O. avg's 3.6 yards per attmpt...... 17th in the league (just saying, for comparison purposes).

I honestly don't understand why anyone would want us to run less, unless they are looking at our success in Garbage time, thinking we can be the Greatest show on turf......

thunderkyss
10-01-2006, 07:24 AM
I always thought the pass to set up the run was what the "West Coast Offence" was all about. Holmgren uses it in Seattle.

True, and we definitely don't run the ball (so far) as much as Seattle. But in truth, very few WCOs have had such a pure runner like Shuan Alexander. AhmanGreen might have been close, but not as durable.

You may be right. I wasn't sure. That is why I said I may be wrong. In addition, the St. Louis Offensive style looked different than the West Coast Offense to me. More deep passes and an emphasis on moving Faulk around alot.

The things that seperated StLouis apart from most WCOs, was speed. Most teams had a balance, a diversification at reciever........ You wanted a speed guy, a possession guys, and someone to go across the middle.... where StLouis, the top three guys were speed guys.... ONe flat out burner(AzHakim), & two speedy possession guys (Holt & Bruce) , & both Holt & Bruce would go across the middle, but the 4th guy who'd also sub in, mainly went across the middle for the tough catches.

With that speed, they challenged deeper than most WCOs, and they used a lot of timing routes. Kurt was also pretty good at reading defenses before the snap, and deciding where the ball should go, before the ball was even snapped.

Moving the RB, whether it was RogerCraig, or Ricky Waters...... was pretty common. Marshall Faulk was simply better, and thus more successful than those guys.

TK_Gamer
10-01-2006, 07:57 AM
We are attempting to run the ball 20 times a game...

Indy, 26 att/game. StLouis, 28 att/game. Philly, 26 att/game.

In short, the only teams who run less than we do, Are Cleveland, Detroit, & TampaBay. All 0-3.

Tenesse is also 0-3, and they've avg'd to run the ball only 22 times a game.

The NYGiants have managed to win a game even though they've only run the ball 23 times a game....... & they've only won 1 game.

The Raiders, 23 att/game, 0-3

Greenbay, Carolina, Miami, & Arizona run the ball 25 times or less. 1-2 in the W-L columns.

Just looking at the stats(which don't mean anything) if you run the ball at least 26 times, You can be either 1-2, or 3-0........ no one who runs the ball at least 26 times, is 0-3.

We (as a team) avg 3.9 yards per attmpt.. not bad. 12th in the league. N.O. avg's 3.6 yards per attmpt...... 17th in the league (just saying, for comparison purposes).

I honestly don't understand why anyone would want us to run less, unless they are looking at our success in Garbage time, thinking we can be the Greatest show on turf......

there is a reason we only run the ball 20 times a game, we are so far behind by the 3rd quarter we have to pass to catch up, so the run first goes out the window anyway. I dont think we have much data to really gauge our running game yet. I think Kubiak would love to run the ball 25 to 30 times a game. we just havent had that luxury so far.

tsip
10-01-2006, 08:10 AM
We are attempting to run the ball 20 times a game...

Indy, 26 att/game. StLouis, 28 att/game. Philly, 26 att/game.

In short, the only teams who run less than we do, Are Cleveland, Detroit, & TampaBay. All 0-3.

Tenesse is also 0-3, and they've avg'd to run the ball only 22 times a game.

The NYGiants have managed to win a game even though they've only run the ball 23 times a game....... & they've only won 1 game.

The Raiders, 23 att/game, 0-3

Greenbay, Carolina, Miami, & Arizona run the ball 25 times or less. 1-2 in the W-L columns.

Just looking at the stats(which don't mean anything) if you run the ball at least 26 times, You can be either 1-2, or 3-0........ no one who runs the ball at least 26 times, is 0-3.

We (as a team) avg 3.9 yards per attmpt.. not bad. 12th in the league. N.O. avg's 3.6 yards per attmpt...... 17th in the league (just saying, for comparison purposes).

I honestly don't understand why anyone would want us to run less, unless they are looking at our success in Garbage time, thinking we can be the Greatest show on turf......

I think there is a factor here that limits our ability to run more--simply, our offense is not on the field enough and is playing 'catch up' when it is...

We know we have the worse defense in the league and our TOP ranks near the bottom, as well, so the real question is--given the 'little' TOP we have to try and put points on the board, do we pass or run.

Now, of course, our scenario changes as the defense gets better (assuming it does) and our TOP and 3rd down conversions improve, giving us more realistic options that 'mirror' the rest of the league. Until then, however, our options are limited, IMO.

TK_Gamer
10-01-2006, 08:13 AM
I think there is a factor here that limits our ability to run more--simply, our offense is not on the field enough and is playing 'catch up' when it is...

We know we have the worse defense in the league and our TOP ranks near the bottom, as well, so the real question is--given the 'little' TOP we have to try and put points on the board, do we pass or run.

Now, of course, our scenario changes as the defense gets better (assuming it does) and our TOP and 3rd down conversions improve, giving us more realistic options that 'mirror' the rest of the league. Until then, however, our options are limited, IMO.

Dejavu....

thunderkyss
10-01-2006, 08:15 AM
there is a reason we only run the ball 20 times a game, we are so far behind by the 3rd quarter we have to pass to catch up, so the run first goes out the window anyway. I dont think we have much data to really gauge our running game yet. I think Kubiak would love to run the ball 25 to 30 times a game. we just havent had that luxury so far.



I think there is a factor here that limits our ability to run more--simply, our offense is not on the field enough and is playing 'catch up' when it is...

We know we have the worse defense in the league and our TOP ranks near the bottom, as well, so the real question is--given the 'little' TOP we have to try and put points on the board, do we pass or run.

Now, of course, our scenario changes as the defense gets better (assuming it does) and our TOP and 3rd down conversions improve, giving us more realistic options that 'mirror' the rest of the league. Until then, however, our options are limited, IMO.

No argument here from me. My point is two fold.

1) it makes no sense to criticize Kubiak for trying to run the ball. We have done nothing (really) so far that would suggest Kubiak is not, or will not take advantage of our recieving talent. We really don't know what our offense will/should look like, because we've been playing catch up for so long.

2) we don't know how strong our run game really is.