So what?

[barrett]

Originally Posted by papabear

I think that is a huge mistake. I'm not saying that we have to have a 50/50 split run to pass, but you HAVE to rush enough to keep the defense honest. Look at Jacoby's TD yesterday. That play won't happen if you abandon the run completely. They should probably borrow from Andy Reid's playbook a little with Westbrook and find some different ways of getting Slaton the ball too.

1. I have no problem passing to set up the run at all. Either way works, but teams have to respect that your are capable of doing either.

2. Same thing-If teams know you aren't going to run it's going to be even harder to throw in the red zone on a condensed field. If a defense only has 10-15 yards of field to cover and those 7 defenders can get straight into coverage responsibilities there just isn't much space and one on one match ups that you could exploit otherwise aren't there. Go watch some old Oiler games from the Run and Shoot era. Scoring in the red zone was a huge problem for those teams.

3&4. no argument really, other than you have to keep the defense honest.

Arizona, New England, and Philly are teams that have had success without much of a running game. They didn't abandon the idea completely though...at worst they found ways to use the short passing game as a substitute which I'm OK with. In the case of Arizona and New England. They also went out and used high draft picks on RB's (Wells/Maroney) or brought in Free agents to boost their running game (Dillon) because they knew they couldn't survive without the threat of a running game. The Texans shouldn't force the run when it's obviously not working in key situations. I'm not saying your ideas don't have merit, they do, and the Texans are just going to have deal with the fact they are a passing team. That being said I thought one of Kubiak's biggest mistakes his first year or two was abandoning the run game when it didn't work early in a game. That made us predictable and that leads to a lot of big hits on QB's.

But watch HOW New England runs the ball. They spread the field and beat you through the air. Then they run at you out of those spread alignments when you are worried about stopping the pass. They run draws and screens to Faulk out of a shotgun formation. They don't needlessly pound it on first down because that's what NFL logic says you do.

We run a bunch of plays in 3/4 WR sets and throw the ball. THEN we get in the I with Leach and try to run it. We do a very poor job of using the pass threat to open up the run game because we don't design for it. We are still more worried about using the run game to set up the play action. But our run game needs the help, not the other way around. There is no reason for us to ever show an I formation with the personell we have. Spread the field, throw the ball to win, and run it only as much as you have to OUT OF THAT SPREAD. I bet we can run it far more effectively with AJ, Walter, OD, and JJ/Anderson all split out and Schaub in the gun with Slaton (or even under center in a trips/trey one back), as opposed to getting in the "I" and running into the back of the center/guard who has been pushed into the backfield.

I just don't understand the stubborness that we have to go I formation and put a fullback on the field for half of our snaps when we are far less effective in that situation.

[Nconroe]

it looks like in the first six games we have had 137 runs and 219 pass attempts on offense which would be 1/3 or 33% run and 2/3 or 66% pass.

So,perhaps they have already switched but we hadn't noticed?

They seem to be overall pretty successful on offense, all but the first week of the season. ok, a few turnover and penalties at just the wrong time mixed in.

both offense and defense seem to be improving as year goes by. players and coaches.

and it is time for a win streak. atleast two or three more in a row would be nice to get above and stay above 500.

[barrett]

Again, it's not about the % of runs. Its the fact that no matter how well we have thrown the ball we haven't opened up the run game. And it's not because teams are stacking the box. It's because we have two separate offensive identities.

One identity recognizes the matchup problems our depth at WR create. It gets in Shotgun/Trips/Trey formations and throws the ball all over the field. Schaub gets to stand in and make quick reads and accurate throws both down the field and short. Screens work great because the formation encourages pass rush from the defense. Slaton is maximized because of the space he has. Daniels and Anderson are at their best because they get favorable matchups underneath due to AJ. Kyle Shanahan has shown great creativity in these sets with misdirection and screens. It should theoretically put the defense in 5 and 6 man fronts which we can actually run against. New England has been doing it for 3 years. Make the Defense bracket AJ and cover your possession guys underneath, and then run the draw for 7 yards. This offense suits our personnel perfectly.

The other identity gets in the "I" with Leach and attempts to run the ball into the teeth of the defense. Slaton, the o-line, and Daniels are all ill-suited for this. The one advantage is that it creates play action passing attempts off of the bootleg (schaub is ill suited for this by the way due to lack of mobility). That means that this formation has lots of drawbacks for our personnel and the one advantage is it helps the passing game (the part of our offense that needs no help).

So why do we insist on doing our running from under center exclusively and in the I most of the time. The only thing I can think is that it's what Kubiak knows best. Did anyone see Ray Rice's go ahead TD yesterday. The same counter play we run, but it came from the shotgun after 350+ yards of passing so all he had to do was beat the safety and then jog to the endzone. If they had gone into the I there like we do for our running plays, then they would have had to block it perfectly to make it work for 4 yards. And we don't block anything perfectly.

We need to take advantage of our personnel. No more I formation. No more Leach (I am a fan but he doesn't fit). No more running on running downs. Start running from passing formations when the Defense is having a nervous breakdown about AJ and JJ bunched on the outside about to run deep routes. Then you are facing 5 in the box with 6 DBs and the safety bracketed over the top. Start using formation to allow the pass game to help the run game, not the other way around.

[kravix]

Many of our big plays come off play action, and completely abandoning the run makes the team one dimensional, which will usually get your QB hit alot more from all out blitzing and pass rushes. It is a integral part of our Off, and I think Schaub does a great job in bootlegs as long as the DL bites and doesnt chase him down. The problem is he cannot scramble for yards from a bootleg when there is good coverage, but when the play works we usually get decent yardage out of it and it keeps our play calling unpredictable.

And that is the key, unpredictable. If you know a team is never going to bootleg, run from the I, pass from the I, run up the middle, screen, etc; then you never have to plan for it. Making it alot easier on def. Just becuase we are not running the ball well from the I does not mean it is not doing what it is intended for: Play Action.

Now I would like to see some more inspirational run calling, out of different formations, and I think we saw a few yesterday. I also think that had Brown gotten the load of carries it is possible he would have had a 100 yard game. Becuase he seems to be hitting the holes and lanes faster and and with more power than Slaton, I just dont ever see him knocking out 30+ yard runs. I would settle for 4-5 YPC all game though over break away runs.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by kravix

Many of our big plays come off play action, and completely abandoning the run makes the team one dimensional, which will usually get your QB hit alot more from all out blitzing and pass rushes. It is a integral part of our Off, and I think Schaub does a great job in bootlegs as long as the DL bites and doesnt chase him down. The problem is he cannot scramble for yards from a bootleg when there is good coverage, but when the play works we usually get decent yardage out of it and it keeps our play calling unpredictable.

And that is the key, unpredictable. If you know a team is never going to bootleg, run from the I, pass from the I, run up the middle, screen, etc; then you never have to plan for it. Making it alot easier on def. Just becuase we are not running the ball well from the I does not mean it is not doing what it is intended for: Play Action.

Now I would like to see some more inspirational run calling, out of different formations, and I think we saw a few yesterday. I also think that had Brown gotten the load of carries it is possible he would have had a 100 yard game. Becuase he seems to be hitting the holes and lanes faster and and with more power than Slaton, I just dont ever see him knocking out 30+ yard runs. I would settle for 4-5 YPC all game though over break away runs.

So we should get in the I so other teams have to plan for our weakest personnel package? Hopefully the Colts will take that advice before we play them and they will decide to run out of the I a bunch to make future opponents prepare for it.

As for Play action, that is my point. We are using our terrible running game to help our great passing game simply because that is what Kubiak knows best. It is our running game that needs help. So instead of calling passes that look like runs (or in addition to), how about we start calling some runs designed to look like passes.

The bottom line is that even if it means a more varied prep, Defensive Coordinators would pay Houston to get in the I and take one of our play makers off the field. They'd also pay us to hand the ball to Chris Brown, because it means AJ, Slaton, Daniels, Walter, JJ, Anderson, and Davis (all better players) are not getting it.

Indisputable facts
1. The I is a weak package for us personnel wise. It takes a good player off the field for one who has little impact.
2. Our OL is fast and blocks screens well. They would likely do well with draws as well since opposing DLs are flying upfield to rush the passer against us. They are undersized and terrible at traditional run blocking.
3. Schaub is at his best going through his progressions and using his accuracy/desicion making. He is average when coming out on the bootleg. The defense does not even honor it and simply tackles the RB first and then goes after schaub if he kept. We could get the same play action benefits without running the boot and without making Schaub turn his back on the defense or throw on the run (not strengths of his).

If Kubiak wanted to be Denver then he should have assembled Denver personnel. But he has struggled to put together a good OL and has never had a tough inside runner. But he has done a great job of finding WRs and a pass catching TE. He needs to play to the team's strengths and use them.

[Roy P]

Originally Posted by barrett

But watch HOW New England runs the ball. They spread the field and beat you through the air. Then they run at you out of those spread alignments when you are worried about stopping the pass. They run draws and screens to Faulk out of a shotgun formation. They don't needlessly pound it on first down because that's what NFL logic says you do.

We run a bunch of plays in 3/4 WR sets and throw the ball. THEN we get in the I with Leach and try to run it. We do a very poor job of using the pass threat to open up the run game because we don't design for it. We are still more worried about using the run game to set up the play action. But our run game needs the help, not the other way around. There is no reason for us to ever show an I formation with the personell we have. Spread the field, throw the ball to win, and run it only as much as you have to OUT OF THAT SPREAD. I bet we can run it far more effectively with AJ, Walter, OD, and JJ/Anderson all split out and Schaub in the gun with Slaton (or even under center in a trips/trey one back), as opposed to getting in the "I" and running into the back of the center/guard who has been pushed into the backfield.

I just don't understand the stubborness that we have to go I formation and put a fullback on the field for half of our snaps when we are far less effective in that situation.

Wow! I've been preaching this for quite a while in pieces and parts. You did a much better job of saying what I've been trying to convey. I agree with you 100%

The I Formation is killing Slaton's strengths and that of our O-Line.

Did anybody see the WR/RB screens and watch Duane Brown get out and block a Safety? Hell, Studdard was running to the sideline to block a CB. Slaton just trotted into the endzone.

[papabear]

Originally Posted by barrett

But watch HOW New England runs the ball. They spread the field and beat you through the air. Then they run at you out of those spread alignments when you are worried about stopping the pass. They run draws and screens to Faulk out of a shotgun formation. They don't needlessly pound it on first down because that's what NFL logic says you do.

We run a bunch of plays in 3/4 WR sets and throw the ball. THEN we get in the I with Leach and try to run it. We do a very poor job of using the pass threat to open up the run game because we don't design for it. We are still more worried about using the run game to set up the play action. But our run game needs the help, not the other way around. There is no reason for us to ever show an I formation with the personell we have. Spread the field, throw the ball to win, and run it only as much as you have to OUT OF THAT SPREAD. I bet we can run it far more effectively with AJ, Walter, OD, and JJ/Anderson all split out and Schaub in the gun with Slaton (or even under center in a trips/trey one back), as opposed to getting in the "I" and running into the back of the center/guard who has been pushed into the backfield.

I just don't understand the stubborness that we have to go I formation and put a fullback on the field for half of our snaps when we are far less effective in that situation.

That's fine with me....what got me to respond was your comment,

Originally Posted by barrett;

Just stop running the ball in general

It might to be fair to just cherry pick one comment like that, but that is what got my attention.

I have no problem with running out of more of spread look. I have no problem using screens and dump offs as a quasi running game(though if your going to do that you also need to make sure that your are throwing the ball down field enough). You just can't stop "running the ball in general". Spreading the field doesn't work as well down by the goal line though, when the field is already compressed so much vertically. Every team has some type of power formation for a reason...though I agree with you that we need to play to our strengths and not our weaknesses.