PDA

View Full Version : An Analysis of the Running Attack


NEROtheZERO
10-17-2006, 09:47 PM
I see a lot of people lambasting Kubiak for trying to stick to the running game. While I understand that the passing game is working for us and the running game is not, there are a few reasons it is necessary to run the ball. 1. It keeps our sub par defense off the field which gives us a chance to keep the game close and gives us a better chance to win. 2. Running the ball sets up the pass. We have a great deep threat in AJ but cannot utilize it because the opposing defense can sit on deep routes without having to worry about covering the run. 3. Play action. Play action is an invaluable tool in the NFL as we all know from watching our divisional rivals perfect it.

Interestingly enough, the only game we have won is the only game we have run the ball more than 30 times (33.) The second most rush attempts (23) was against the Colts in our highest scoring game of the season.

sleepwalker
10-17-2006, 10:22 PM
I think people are more mad about Kubiak insisting on running when he know's we don't have the talent...I agree with you 100%...You must be able to run the ball.

Maybe Kubiak is trying change the way our players think....For example: Maybe his insistance on running the ball *when he knows they are not good enough yet* is putting even more pressure on them to get better or be embarassed.

South Texan
10-18-2006, 02:03 AM
If at first you don't succeed, run, run, again.

We need to at least keep up a semblance of a running game to keep the other guy's defense honest, well OK, semi honest.

Texans86
10-18-2006, 02:33 AM
IT doesn't matter if the running game is not successful. The threat to run is all you really need to set up playaction pass. If the defense believes you MIGHT run the ball, no matter how bad the running game is, they have to respect the playaction pass. It won't get nine people in the box, but it might freeze the LB for another fraction of a second, and every little bit counts.

Scooter
10-18-2006, 03:26 AM
IT doesn't matter if the running game is not successful. The threat to run is all you really need to set up playaction pass. NO. If the defense believes you MIGHT run the ball, no matter how bad the running game is, they have to respect the playaction pass. NO. It won't get nine people in the box, but it might freeze the LB for another fraction of a second, and every little bit counts.

dallas didnt blitz 5+ or stack the line more than twice the entire game because they didnt respect the run. there is no threat to run if you cant accomplish it successfully. we can run the ball 90 times a game, but if we cant get past their base defense, there is absolutely no reason for them to stop guarding the pass ... as dallas made perfectly clear. a running game that doesnt beat the base defense is the biggest hinderence an offence can have. it doesnt open up the passing game. it's doesnt open up play-action. it leaves defenses guarding your strength because they defeat your weakness without even trying.

there is no "threat to run". you either run the ball or you dont ... we dont.

threetoedpete
10-18-2006, 12:16 PM
IT doesn't matter if the running game is not successful. The threat to run is all you really need to set up playaction pass. If the defense believes you MIGHT run the ball, no matter how bad the running game is, they have to respect the playaction pass. It won't get nine people in the box, but it might freeze the LB for another fraction of a second, and every little bit counts.

In Denver's scheme, everything is predicated on the threat of the run. We're coming to the point in time, when no matter what, the opponents will no longer honor that threat. When that occours, we will be dead ducks. Won't be able to do either. You already have defenses reading the waggle play and ignoring the dive. It's bad now. But it could get worse.

Vinny
10-18-2006, 12:39 PM
Arizona can't run the ball either but they don't throw a billion 4 yard passes as their only course of action offensively. You can move the ball without running it...its been done in the NFL for years...now, winning football requires that you do both well since teams can always take away your strength (ie teams have taken away our waggle and our little TE dump passes the last few games). At least we can try to get the ball down field and stretch the defense...we don't even do that....and honestly, we have never done it. This is the most frustrating team offense I've ever seen....we are at half a decade and the problems are always the same when it comes to challenging a defense vertically.

Ghetto D
10-18-2006, 12:43 PM
So for those who are complaining about the amount of running plays, what would you have us do? Run a Texas Tech offense where only 20-25% of the plays are runs? That'll get us to respecatbility.

I'm not wild about a 1.5 ypc average, but you MUST at least appear to balance the offense.

wolfscar
10-18-2006, 01:08 PM
It is vital that you run a significant number of carries a game, for all the reasons posted above. Where we're falling down is that opposing teams are able to close down our running game without having to think about it. I haven't been able to see most of the games (living in Scotland), but from the analysis I've read and what I saw of the Dallas game, we're getting stopped at the line without the opposing D having to bring anyone up to cover it. We're way too predictable. All our running plays are between the tackles and - like folk are saying above - we're not throwing deep as much as we should. We need some variation. Right now the Texan running attack is somewhere between :crutch: and :brickwall

DocBar
10-18-2006, 01:29 PM
I posted this in another thread
Lot's of good posts on here, but I think one fundemental fact has been missed: Kubiak is a rookie HC and it shows. IMO, that's why he's making a lot of conservative calls on offense and knee-jerk reaction personnel decisions. I really started questioning his personnel moves when he let Wand and 'Baire Smith go. Trading Morency seemed bone headed to me. I would think a few scheme changes would be sufficient to help an RB that had blitz-pickup problems rather than wholesale changes at the position. How much of the O-line woes can be attributed to Mike Sherman's influence? Sherman is a former HC with a large ego(it's a must for an NFL HC) and definite opinions of how an offense should work. Maybe he's hurting more than helping.

TheCD
10-18-2006, 07:54 PM
There's no doubt you HAVE to run the ball, regardless of whether you are successful doing so. Part of the defense's job is to make the offense one-dimensional and attack the remaining dimension. If we just give up on running, how are we going to get past constant dime defenses?

One thing I've noticed thus far this year is that Kubiak has had a lot of success with his scripted plays, and then has tended to have some difficulties as the game goes on. Hurry-up offenses (from what I have seen) have tended to be slightly successful as well. I think that the play calling will get better as time goes on.

Kubiak is a rookie, too. If we don't give him time to develop, then we'll have shot ourself in the foot twice.

Erratic Assassin
10-18-2006, 10:09 PM
While I understand that the passing game is working for us and the running game is not, there are a few reasons it is necessary to run the ball. 1. It keeps our sub par defense off the field which gives us a chance to keep the game close and gives us a better chance to win.

Our inability to make first downs keeps our defense on the field. We turn the ball over every time we punt.

underdog65
10-18-2006, 10:57 PM
Arizona used short passes and quick outs to compensate for thier lack of a running game against Chicago. I believe we need to do the same thing to spread the defenses out and maybe and I mean maybe open up some running lanes in the middle.

powerfuldragon
10-19-2006, 02:32 AM
Here's my writeup of our runnign game:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v15/TheKingOfBums/level1.jpg

tsip
10-19-2006, 07:28 AM
...at least it's football season

Texan1
10-19-2006, 08:02 AM
I posted this in another thread
Lot's of good posts on here, but I think one fundemental fact has been missed: Kubiak is a rookie HC and it shows. IMO, that's why he's making a lot of conservative calls on offense and knee-jerk reaction personnel decisions. I really started questioning his personnel moves when he let Wand and 'Baire Smith go. Trading Morency seemed bone headed to me. I would think a few scheme changes would be sufficient to help an RB that had blitz-pickup problems rather than wholesale changes at the position. How much of the O-line woes can be attributed to Mike Sherman's influence? Sherman is a former HC with a large ego(it's a must for an NFL HC) and definite opinions of how an offense should work. Maybe he's hurting more than helping.

I like Kubiak - IMO the best coach we could get and an upgrade over the previous staff. But I agree that there have been some moves that I wonder whether Kubiak makes those moves after 3 years of HC experience....

nunusguy
10-19-2006, 08:13 AM
Are we now operating the same OLine blocking scheme(s) now that we were in the preseason ? I think not, but am unsure of the changes, if any, from then ?
And the thought that we may have fallen victum of the "too many Chiefs and not enought Indians", dilemma has also crossed the minds of many of us.

thunderkyss
10-19-2006, 10:39 AM
1. We are trying to learn how to run the ball.
2. Our last two games were against the #3 & #2 defenses against the run on ypc. Miami(#3 allowing 3.1 ypc) & Dallas(#2 allowing 2.9 ypc). I'm not happy about our performance, but I don't think we are in as dire straits as it's beeing made out to be. & while Dallas didn't "stack the box" we were running against a 5 man front. there were time when Owen was lined up far right, with GregEllis covering him. first, we should have checked to a pass play.... but if we weren't going to do that, we shouldn't have motioned Owen to the RT, especially when we were running to that side, and the man he was blocking was against the sideline.

TPIMP
10-19-2006, 01:46 PM
Arizona can't run the ball either but they don't throw a billion 4 yard passes as their only course of action offensively. You can move the ball without running it...its been done in the NFL for years...now, winning football requires that you do both well since teams can always take away your strength (ie teams have taken away our waggle and our little TE dump passes the last few games). At least we can try to get the ball down field and stretch the defense...we don't even do that....and honestly, we have never done it. This is the most frustrating team offense I've ever seen....we are at half a decade and the problems are always the same when it comes to challenging a defense vertically.

Sounds simple. But if your line can't block long enough to get the receivers downfield it's impossible to strech the defense. Arizona is a good example of that. Kurt Warner was pummulled early this season. I watched Marino throw the ball for years without a running game but his line could pass block. When they started to slip he struggled big time. This isn't a philosophy thing. The Texans have had three different OC's and every one of them has been limited in their play calling by what the OL can handle.