Tales of Mythology Part 1 - The Mystery of the Running Game
by Doc Bear on Jun 19, 2009 6:30 AM MDT
Email
PrintWith 3rd-and-5 the offense is in the shotgun. The quarterback takes the snap and steps up into the forming pocket. The defenders come screaming in off of both sides and the MLB comes up the middle on a delayed blitz but the quarterback coolly performs his checkdowns and threads the ball between two defensive backs towards his receiver. The ball falls just out of reach and the play is over. What just happened? The truth is, we'll never know.
We live in an age where the information stream is constant. Instantly experts abide and abound and analysis becomes reality as quickly as theories are touted. The game of professional football is constantly challenging and exciting. What goes on down on the field is difficult, even impossible to deeply understand just by watching television. It requires study, practice and effort. Even then, you can't tell, in many cases, if an interception is caused by a badly run route or errant throw. You would have to be privy to what goes on in the film room (where a bird's eye view of the game is replayed), the team meetings and then the huddle.
Have you ever watched the instant replay that showed something utterly foreign to what the announcers described? If, like me, you've watched a lot of football, you have. What is sometimes most interesting in the modern football world is the issue of information - and misinformation.
There are three reasons that announcers misstate what is happening on the football field. The first finds its roots in human nature - some broadcasters prepare extensively, while some barely go over the production notes. Some are glib and charming, others far less so, but those things aren't of issue here. The important thing is whether or not the information is accurate.
If the broadcaster happens to be one who prepares well, what are the other common reasons for misstatement? You cannot, by looking at the television perspective(s) of a play, which emphasize the quarterback, running backs, wide receiver and the ball, tell accurately what is going on. That really requires coaching film, taken from overhead, from the end zones and the sidelines. If the announcer is counting on televised feeds, he may make the same mistakes that you might make at home. Coaching film can tell a vastly different story.
The third reason that broadcasters make mistakes is that they may simply not understand that subject very well. They fall victim to the same myths and half-truths as many of the fans do - often because they, too, believed things simply because they were often said. It's important to avoid the common myths and misconceptions of the game. I chose three of the most egregious, in my experience, and I'm going to address them.
Myth #1 - The mystery of the running game
Let me start by defining terms: This next section is in no way intended to minimize the importance of the running game. I'm a huge fan of the running game. I grew up on Gayle Sayers and matured watching Walter Payton, so my love of the run game is fully intact. The raw power and fierce grace of that position brings us to our feet and brings cries to our lips. The ability to run the ball has several advantages beyond the yardage gained. The first, and probably the most important, is that if a team can run on you, it begins to sap your willpower.
Players on both sides of the ball have talked about this extensively over the years. If you are running the ball well, it means, first and foremost, that the offensive line is imposing their will on the defense. They are opening holes. They are moving men out of the way of the running back, clearing the way for the fullback (if any) to get to the linebackers in the second level. They are winning the battle for territory. The running backs are getting stronger by the play and as they see the defenders start to waver.
And the defenders? From the defense's perspective, it's an awful feeling when you can't stop the run. You can't get off the field. Drives begin to wear on you. The offensive line, running backs, the coaches on the sidelines, even the wide receivers begin to know in their hearts that you can't stop them. As their confidence soars, yours begins to falter. You get a sinking feeling in your guts and you start looking at the scoreboard, watching the clock, wondering when they're going to score on you again. It's one of the worst feelings in the world.
So, what's the myth? The myth is this - There is a constantly touted idea that a lot of running attempts means that you're going to win the game. People claim that if such and such a team would just run the ball X number of times, they'd be in the playoffs. Proponents of this claim that the rushing attack is the holy grail of football, that if you just rush the football, the game will be yours. Important as I agree the rushing attack is, they're still wrong.
If that were true, all of the teams out there would be running the ball 25, 30, 40 times a game. We know from experience that doing so doesn't win games. In fact, just running the ball a lot whether you are scoring or not is a fool's game. Look back at Oakland last year to see just how true that is. But failing to mount an effective rushing attack is also a fast track to losing. We all know that the rushing game is essential, and it is. What's the right way to look at it?
Here's the middle road - the truth - about the rushing game: The running game is just a tool. How you wield that tool says a lot about your club. You can choose to make it the dominant weapon in your arsenal, to emphasize the passing game or to balance the two. Which way you choose will be dependent on your philosophy and your players. No matter which way you go, you will still need a great offensive line to get you started.
Winning teams do run the ball a lot, but that's not why they are winning. In fact, it's exactly the other way around. Good teams, whether a rushing club or not, know that you run the ball when the game is close or when you're holding and protecting a lead. If you can run effectively at that point, you're going to win a lot of games. That's the real story. It's not just that you run the ball a lot. You can win a lot or lose a lot with that approach - it doesn't help or hurt you, in and of itself. But if you get the lead, whether by running or passing, most teams will then try to run out the clock.
That's why the number of rushing attempts ends to be higher for winning clubs. They don't win because they run - they are rushing a lot because they're winning. That's why winning teams have higher numbers of rushing attempts. The number of times that you rush the ball is going to depend on your players, your offensive philosophy and your situation in each game. When you're ahead, you should slow down the clock, and that means running the ball. I personally believe that you need a top rushing attack in the same way that you need a top passing attack, defense and special teams - they all contribute to a winning season. But that can also depend on the players that you have healthy, the defense you face and other factors. Regardless of how you're winning - if you're winning the game, the number of rushes will go up.
There is a grand story about Bill Parcells that illustrates this. He was coaching the Giants, long ago, and the Miami Dolphins and Dan Marino were going to be in town for game 3 of the 1990 season. Parcells is very upfront about his preference for the defensive game over the offensive, so this was touted as a classic battle. And it was...
After the kickoff, which Miami received, the Giants were able to hold Miami and force a punt. They took the ball and went slowly down the field, a chip at a time, taking a total of 17 plays to go 57 yards, taking 10 minutes and 25 seconds off the game clock. The drive only ended in a field goal, but Parcells immediately said to his quarterback, "Work the clock!"
At the beginning of the second quarter he was already planning how he would take 1-3 drives off the clock by slowing the game. The final score was 20-3 in favor of New York, and the quarterback got to spend most of the afternoon handing off and letting his offensive line, defense and his running backs do the rest. Would he have done that if he didn't have the lead, or at least a shot at it? Of course not. He knew when to run, and that made all the difference.
Understanding how to minimize the advantages of the opposing team, and how to manage the game to create a victory is a heck of a skill to develop. As fans, the more of it we understand, the more we can enjoy it. Next time, I'm going to take on a myth that has taken on stature among football fans. I hope that you'll join me.
47 comments
|
14 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Love it, Bear!
It’s great to read something that’s not about Brandon Marshall.
Especially in sports, the “correlation is causation” mindset is endlessly aggrivating. In numerous sports, you hear the statisitc that the team who scores first is likely to win the game. What they don’t mention is that the team who scores second, third, and fourth carries equal probability of victory. So the less-exciting reality is that teams who score tend to win more frequently than teams who do not.
But then again, John Madden made a career out of stating the obvious.
that's a huge pet peeve for me, too.
It’s also commonly repeated during week one of the season and (in other sports) regarding the first game of a playoff series. We’re all familiar with the statistics that show how winning the first game of the season series correlates with success down the road. But correlation is not that winning the first game makes the rest easier, but rather that the sucessful team in the long run was probably the better team to begin with, which in turn is why they won that first game. It just doesn;t seem that way becuase we don’t always realize that the team in question is actually a good team right away, especially in the NFL when teams can go from worst to first so quickly. If announcers would just change their pre-game hype from “the first game of the season is soooo important for getting into the playoffs” to “This is our first opportunity to see which teams are for real this year”, it’d be more accurate and less annoying
Belief is accepting something because you’ve been convinced to do so, whether you like it or not. Faith is accepting something because you want to accept it.
by Hercules Rockefeller on Jun 19, 2009 10:36 AM MDT up reply actions
Maddening
But then again, John Madden made a career out of stating the obvious.
Or mis-stating it…;-)
Hillis/Moreno in '09
Great post bear,
and a good offensive coach will see how good a job the OL is doing to the defense, and make the neccessary adjustments whether it’s the pass or the run. If the defense is a hard time with the OL then run it down their throats, and vice-versa. Take what they give you to win, don’t just try and push a point that is senseless.
The Shannahan Philosophy
Proponents of this claim that the rushing attack is the holy grail of football, that if you just rush the football, the game will be yours. Important as I agree the rushing attack is, they’re still wrong.
Once misperception I see from a lot of Bronco fans is that Shannahan was all about ‘establishing’ the run to drive the offense. The reality is that Shannahan scripted 15 plays and went through massive preperations so that the Broncos could use whatever means necessary— often a heavy passing attack— to build a big enough lead to bleed away with the running game. It worked beautifully when they had an offense that could work well in the redzone. I didn’t hurt that the Denver ball control running game was so dang good that you had to fear it early also.
This is also, IMO, why the defense slowly disolved away. If you’ve got guys like Davis, Sharpe, Eddie Mac, and Rod Smith on the roster, you can reasonably expect to overwhelm a team offensively. Then you just need simple defense that plays soundly and carefully and makes the other offense play perfectly. If its a little soft against the run, fine. Let them try to chip away at your three score lead 5 impressive rushing yards at a time. In otherwords, the defense was ‘neglected’ because Shannahan had already proved that ‘dominant D’s win championships’ is also a MSM/Announcer fallacy. The fact is, an average defense can be offset by an effective balanced attack.
Its really the same philosophy— albiet through completely different schemes— that the Patriots employ. Be so overwhelming on offense early that you make even the greatest power running attack futile. Then, once you feel comfortable…try to hold on. When you can pull it off, it makes average defenses like the Broncos ‘97 and ’98 editions all the sudden seem fully adequet and capable. When you have crappy safeties and poor tackling by LB’s, you give up huge plays that offset your own ability to jump to a lead.
That’s why, IMO, Knowshon Moreno was the most vital option to help this D. With the weapons at hand, assuming that Orton doesn’t completely tank, this O can jump out and ride the running game in the second half…provided they don’t make big play mistakes and continue with the poor tackling on defense.
I am an idiot walking a tightrope of fortune and fame
I am an acrobat swinging trapezes through circles of flame
If you've never stared off in the distance, then your life is a shame
and though I'll never forget your face,
sometimes i can't remember my name.
--Counting Crows, "Mrs. Potter's Lullaby"
by PredominantlyOrange on Jun 19, 2009 8:25 AM MDT reply actions
Defense
To be fair our championship defense was good at taking away the ball. With a powerful offense and a defense that puts the ball back into the offense’s hands once or twice a game you can win a lot of games.
I find it very interesting too, if anyone has noticed, that Houston’s problems exist in the red zone and with turnovers. The same problems Denver had. I wonder if the scheme was prone to this failure.
Tis better not to throw it to the deep receiver but the open receiver.
They were solid.
That was a nice defense, but hardly great. And you’re right, they were more agressive with the blitzing, and then forced turnovers that way. But they could be more agressive on defense because their running game decreased the margin of error and allowed them to ‘run out’ big leads. If they did give out a big play on defense, they could then ride the ball for another 8 minutes…leveling out possible momentum shifts and, like Bear pointed out, demoralizing the opponent who always knew they were running out of time.
I am an idiot walking a tightrope of fortune and fame
I am an acrobat swinging trapezes through circles of flame
If you've never stared off in the distance, then your life is a shame
and though I'll never forget your face,
sometimes i can't remember my name.
--Counting Crows, "Mrs. Potter's Lullaby"
by PredominantlyOrange on Jun 19, 2009 9:34 AM MDT up reply actions
Well That is My Point Exactly
Tis better not to throw it to the deep receiver but the open receiver.
Sorry
I was just trying to clarify that I’m not saying you can win with bad D, but being able to protect a lead helps your defense protect a lead too. They can then blitz and be more agressive and come up with turnovers. If you’re terrified of momentum shifts, you play cautiously, and even bad teams can pick apart a D constantly on its heals…
I am an idiot walking a tightrope of fortune and fame
I am an acrobat swinging trapezes through circles of flame
If you've never stared off in the distance, then your life is a shame
and though I'll never forget your face,
sometimes i can't remember my name.
--Counting Crows, "Mrs. Potter's Lullaby"
by PredominantlyOrange on Jun 19, 2009 9:44 AM MDT up reply actions
a good point and a bit of trivia to go along with it
Anyone know the all-time best Broncos running D (at least statistically speaking)?
It’s not the 2005 broncos, not the 80’s teams with Meck, Rulon, Fletcher, etc, not even the Orange crush – it was the ‘98 D. I think they allowed something like 30 yards rushing in the playofss to the Dolphins and Jets combined. Once Elway & Co got them a confortable lead, the opposing rushing game went out the window and the Bronc’s D could T off on the passing game.
Belief is accepting something because you’ve been convinced to do so, whether you like it or not. Faith is accepting something because you want to accept it.
by Hercules Rockefeller on Jun 19, 2009 10:41 AM MDT up reply actions
nice!! Forgot about that
stats can be misleading eh?
by Whidbey Bronco on Jun 19, 2009 10:45 AM MDT up reply actions
Predominately Orange – better defensive players are the most vital option to help our D, not a good RB. If Raji or Tyson Jackson were available at 12, Denver would have sprinted to the podium to pick them instead of drafting Moreano. Moreano was (in the opinion of The Coach) the best player available (at a position of need) when #12 was on the clock.
I bet The Coach was hoping for Tyson Jackson at 12 (Raji was a pipe dream) and Moreano at 18, but KC over-drafted Jackson and F*ed up the draft for us well.
If I was calling the shots, I’d have taken Orakpo or Jenkins at 12, but that’s just this fan’s opinion. I also believe the Moreano pick makes good sense and it was decent value at 12.
Hope Moreano works out for the best for my Broncos, but if Denver is losing a lot of games in 2009, Moreano better be good at catching the ball because we’ll be passing often. A good RB helps the defense when he is RUNNING the ball successfully.
Available
IMO, Moreno was the best available at 12. I have no doubt that Raji or Jackson probably would have been the pick…but they weren’t available.
My point is, in the modern NFL, being able to run the ball is as much a defensive tool as an offensive tool. Its not so much as about dictating the terms of the game on offense, but rather a tool to protect leads. Notice, for example, the defensive ‘resurgence’ mid-season that directly coincided with the emergence of Peyton Hillis. When the Broncos had a chance to control the ball a little, they won. When they had to try to shoot it out, they inevitably failed.
I am an idiot walking a tightrope of fortune and fame
I am an acrobat swinging trapezes through circles of flame
If you've never stared off in the distance, then your life is a shame
and though I'll never forget your face,
sometimes i can't remember my name.
--Counting Crows, "Mrs. Potter's Lullaby"
by PredominantlyOrange on Jun 19, 2009 9:29 AM MDT up reply actions
it's nice that we, as fans, have our opinions of how the draft went
but it would be nice to back up our opinions with reasoning and facts. you may have wanted orakpo or jenkins at 12, but do we really need a 260lb DE when we’re making the transition to a 3-4 defense? i think not. we need bigger bodies who are capable of clogging up the running lanes, allowing the linebackers to do their job. do we need to draft a CB who will more than likely play safety in the NFL? i don’t think so, especially after we drafted two capable safeties in later rounds, and brought in two seasoned veterans to start and teach the rookies the ropes.
MORENO was the best player available at 12, and arguably the best running back in the draft. after seeing 7 RBs fall to injured reserve last season, it was obviously, even to a casual fan, that the broncos needed major help in that department. unless you believe the media, which chastised McD for bringing in veterans (not all of who made the final cut) and drafting a RB.
for the record, Moreno can catch the ball quite well, so he will be a great fit in our new offense. he is also a terrific blocker and fits into the Broncos one-cut zone blocking running scheme.
Moreno rushing 2008 — 1400 yards, 16 TDs
Moreno receiving 2008 — 392 yards, 2 TDs
(not meant to be a personal jab, it’s just that I’ve seen Orakpo’s name thrown about constantly with no real reasoning to back up the pick. other than “we haven’t addressed the front 7, blah blah blah”)
so u throw out moreno's stats and it makes it ok to have an opinion?
I would have picked Orakpo before Moreno based on their respective college performances, I’ll not list them as they’re not comparable. My obvious lack of comparable knowledge lies in my lack of knowledge as to how well Nolan likes our pre-draft front seven.
My other reasons would be the current successful trend (league wide) of not drafting RBs early, our rapidly improving O-line and our long history of turning low rounders into competitive RBs.
I like Moreno but he seems like such a risk when in my opinion our position of need was glaringly our front seven!
Back to the original post though… Won’t it be great when we can choose the our field view and replays at home (or in the booth for that matter)!! So many times I need to see the other side of the field to figure out what’s really going on out there.
by Whidbey Bronco on Jun 19, 2009 10:32 AM MDT up reply actions
Another Parcell story to add
That is how the Giants beat the Bills at Super Bowl XXV in 1991. The Bills were heavily favored to win. To counteract the Bills’ no-huddle offense, the Giants’ strategy was to use a power running game utilizing O.J. Anderson, aided by QB rollouts, bootlegs, and play-action fakes. They came out with 3 TE’s, and let the Bill’s try to tackle O.J., if they could. This enabled the Giants to take time off the clock and limit Buffalo’s possessions. The Giants set a Super Bowl record for time of possession with 40 minutes, 33 seconds, including 22 minutes in the second half. Parcell’s knew he had a disadvantage with Jeff Hostetler, but shrewedly outhought his opponents for the win.
With the 12th pick, the Broncos select Knowshon Moreno - Roger Goodell
That'll move the chains - Andy Samberg
Great illustration of the value of the run game - clock control.
Your comment got me thinking about the broader value of the run game. Bear’s great post above includes this very true gem:
“They don’t win because they run – they are rushing a lot because they’re winning”
The Bills/Giants example above shows that the correlation between rush attempts and success actually goes two ways. The run game when used to keep the other offense off the field while sitting on a lead clearly raises the chances of a win. However the run game can also be used, regardless of score, to defuse a potent offense and control the clock – keeping a team in a game in which they otherwise run the risk of being blown out.
And what does this mean? Basically I am seeing that the deeper correlation is between (timely) clock and ball control and winning. And the run game is absolutely critical for that to happen.(Open for debate is the nature of the ToP/Win correlation. Mgrex over at Stampede Blue has put together a great series on winning factors and addressed ToP. His conclusions suggest ToP per drive is a more correlative stat to winning that ToP alone…)
In short I would say:
“Winning teams win because they control the clock and the ball – and the rushing attack is a key tactic in doing so”
Thanks to Kirk and Bear for making me think on my day off!
Makes you Think of the
Giants and Patriots too. I am not sure what the time of possession was then as well but the Giants had a good multi-pronged running game there.
Tis better not to throw it to the deep receiver but the open receiver.
It's not just time of possession...
what I think often gets lost in the post game analysis of that SB, is that when the Patriots got the ball toward the end of the game they were able to drive down the field and score the go ahead touchdown. The NYG defense did not stop the Patriots. However, because the Giants had taken away NE’s running game the Patriots were unable to control the clock. How much different would that game had been if the Patriots had been able to run more and take another minute off the clock?
Most games in the NFL are decided by a touchdown or less. Controlling who gets the ball last and how much time they have is a key part of winning. Don’t you think Ariz wishes they had left Pitt with less time at the end of this last SB?
by SlowWhiteGuy on Jun 19, 2009 2:47 PM MDT up reply actions
That Was a Great Game
That was so much fun to watch. I have never seen Brady just get plastered the way he did that game. Makes you appreciate defense when done right.
Tis better not to throw it to the deep receiver but the open receiver.
Nice job Broncobear
The key ingredient for winning is balance. Passing, rushing, defense, special teams, and coaching.
I believe the Broncos defensive resurgence (I use that term generously) had more to do with excellent and disciplined play from their LBs (i.e. Woodyard and Larsen) than from our running game. Hillis and Co. were just average in wins vs Cleveland (shoot out win that was ALL CUTLER), ATL (Woodyard & Larsen) and KC (a bad win if such a thing exists).
I won’t disagree that a great running game is beneficial to the defense, but better defensive players are the key. A great running game won’t turn our historically awful defense into a Top 15 unit. Four+ much better defensive players would.
Interesting point about announcing...
I’m a huge Kornheiser fan /duck. I wasn’t a huge fan of him on MNF— it wasn’t his type of thing— but I’ve listened to every incarnation of his radio show since the mid 1990’s and can’t wait for the next one. Anyway, he had some interesting things to say about the reality of broadcasting football games. He said, if the coaches have no idea what happened on the field until after games when they watched film, how can you expect an announcer to give some sort of substantive analysis immediately after the play. This expectation is ridiculous. No matter how much film a former player/coach like Jaws or Gruden watch can help him provide substantive analysis of plays as they happen. That’s the precise reason you get cliché after cliché.
"Talking tough is easy when it's other people's evil and you're judging what they do or don't believe. It seems to me you'd have to have a hole you're own to point a finger at somebody else's sheet" -- Mike Cooley
Well said
That’s a big reason that I started on this series. We all (mea culpa) get a little worked up by what we perceive and what we think that we see. Styg’s works on how to evaluate are WELL WORTH going over 5 or 10 times, but even then, there’s more out there that we can’t see than what we can.
The tendencis to cover that lack of knowledge with aphorisms has to be tempting as heck to the guys in the booth, and it carries over into the language we as fans use. I thought that a few discussions (mostly from you folks) on some of the, shall we say, somewhat debatable common statements might be kind of fun and perhaps enlightening. Thanks for stepping in, guys.
Hillis/Moreno in '09
Kornhieser Couldn't Adjust
The guy went into games with opinions that didn’t change even if they were being refuted on the field…right in front of him. He always commented on the game he expected rather than the game that was actually playing out. It drove me nuts.
I am an idiot walking a tightrope of fortune and fame
I am an acrobat swinging trapezes through circles of flame
If you've never stared off in the distance, then your life is a shame
and though I'll never forget your face,
sometimes i can't remember my name.
--Counting Crows, "Mrs. Potter's Lullaby"
by PredominantlyOrange on Jun 19, 2009 12:04 PM MDT up reply actions
I agree...
Part of the problem was ESPN’s defined role for Tony, which was to provide the broadcast with an overreaching storyline. He’d set the storyline up in his monologue, and stay on the storyline throughout the broadcast. That’s a tall order when you think about it, as you risk repeating yourself throughout the broadcast, or worse, keep plugging ESPN’s dumb storyline that doesn’t exist anymore because its been disproved as you said. That’s not what Tony’s best at.
Tony’s best at his insecure rants. I would have loved to hear him call out his detractors on air during the broadcast like he would do during his radio shows, or personally attacking the coaches, players and refs that deserve it incessantly. Tony’s also a great social commentator. He should have been allowed to riff on pop culture and current events. That would have pissed-off the real fans watching the game, but the real fans are watching anyway. The reason you bring a non-football guy in is to bring in viewers that would not normally watch a game. You bring in that third guy and you say, “you must have at least three water cooler comments per broadcast”. If you want to appease the base, you get the non-football guy out of the booth and replace him with a jock, which is the road that ESPN obviously.
Since I would argue (and did above) that the Jock can really add nothing of value to the booth because of the complexity of the game, I think we should eradicate the jock from the booth. My ideal booth would be a three hour profane and irreverent exchange between Drew Magary, Larry David, and Charles Barkley. Just let these guys do one game a week, preferably Monday night. The serious fans could turn on the radio or something or not even watch. Ratings would be off the charts. You know how they have the ESPN 360 thing where they simulcast the games on all the networks? Throw an alternate booth out there with Drew, Larry and Chuck. That way the “fans” could get pummeled with clichés from Terico, Jaws and Gruden, while the rest of us who don’t take ourselves too seriously could actually have fun watching the game.
"Talking tough is easy when it's other people's evil and you're judging what they do or don't believe. It seems to me you'd have to have a hole you're own to point a finger at somebody else's sheet" -- Mike Cooley
About the TV thing...
TV coverage has been a pet peeve of mine for some time. It seems I can’t get a good idea of what is really happening because of the framing of the action by the cameramen and the endless one-on-one replays. Occasionally they will show the overhead camera shot and I get to a snippet of a football play.
I think it would be a great series to have an expert write an article on how to best watch a TV game. Sure, we can all watch the guards, but there is certainly more to it. I don’t know how to mitigate the limited camera angles that TV insists on giving us. Is there a way to intelligently watch a game on TV? Other than making sure the sound is off and the radio is on?
Wherever you go, there you are.
great article
I agree whole-heartedly BBear.
Its tough to win with no running game… but no tougher than having no passing game, or no defense, etc. Causation/Correlation are great things, though I still can’t figure out why the increase in piracy off Somalia hasn’t stopped global warming yet…
Back to the subject at hand… To be a solid playoff team, you have to excel in at least one area, and than should be at least average everywhere else. So you can be a great running team, a great passing team, or a great defense… if you get 2 out of 3, you have a good shot at a Championship.
Can’t wait to see the next “myth” you tackle.
Thanks Bear great stuff and rec'd,
What we are provided for viewing is definitly too narrow to get what really happened for most of the game. I think what really irks me about broadcast TV coverage is the number of times the guys in the booth are talking about something that didn’t even occur leaving me wondering if they are even watching the same game I am.
Great stuff Bear.
Not only are announcers to blame, but even former coaches and players that aren’t clear in what they say (and even I may be guilty).
For example, there are elements of the running game that give it an advantage over the passing game (and vice versa). As a defensive coordinator, I much prefered to face a tough passing team than a team with a tough running game. Great passing is easier to scheme against and make adjustments for than a great running game. A passing game can feature adjustments in zone, player placements, double coverages, etc. And those changes won’t affect the run defense too much.
But a team that can run through a defense is typicaly out-muscling the defense, and therefore a much more difficult prospect (at least at the HS level). a coordinator can make adjustents, but at some point the guys are going to have to be “tough enough” to stop run.
I think most coaches (both offensive and defensive) share this belief, which by itself isn’t a myth. But then the belief gets blown out of proportion and turns into “knowledgeable football folks prefer the run”, and that’s just not true. The passing game has a role, as does the running game. Balance doesn’t really need to be required (as the Patriots showed in the ’07 season with a massive air attack and a nearly undefeated season).
The running game (as Bear points out) is useful for teams that are ahead; the running game eats up clock and can also keep the ball from a good offense. It also leads to less turnovers than the passing game. But if I were a head coach, and my team is falling behind, the ball is going to go in the air at some point. The running game, for all of its merits, is not a quick strike option when a team needs points now.
Good teams can come out running or passing, or mix it up. My biggest beef with the ‘08 Denver offense was how predictable they were, and how they allowed opposing offenses the time on the clock to beat us (as well as putting our defense in atrocious positions. For their part, the defense didn’t perform well anywhere on the field). We threw the ball well, but not in the redzone (where defenses became more compressed and dangerous).
Excellent article, and very rec’d!
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
Thanks for the comment, HT!
We threw the ball well, but not in the redzone (where defenses became more compressed and dangerous).
Of a certainty! My question would be this – Orton’s red zone numbers destroyed Cutlers. I’ve never heard anyone claim that Ron Turner is an offensive guru of note with unstoppable powers to score. I would agree, however, that Forte was a real force in the zone, but that doesn’t really explain why Orton’s completions, QB rating, TDs, etc were so much better than Cutler’s (despite a massively higher number of sacks, both in raw numbers and in percentage). Any thoughts on this?
Hillis/Moreno in '09
I haven't actually run the numbers...
but at first glance I think the difference is entirely attributable to the interceptions. Orton did a much better job of taking care of the ball in the redzone.
Of course that begs the question of why Orton took care of the ball so much better. Before addressing that, let me dispel one myth. There seems to be this notion that Marshall was constantly drawing double teams all year. Not that I saw. What I did see, was that after game three cutler face a steady stream of cover-2 and cover-3. When the QB locks onto one receiver and doesn’t look off the safety then even average safeties will have plenty of time to move over and any zone is going to look like double coverage.
In the middle of the field the safeties had to stay back and respect cutler’s deep ball. But as the field shortened they didn’t need to stay as far back and the coverage tightened. Cutler seems to struggle against good zone coverage. Dissecting a zone takes patience and discipline. When you see that the safety has moved over top of your primary you have to know that someone else has been left isolated and have the discipline to work your progression and the patience to find the open receiver.
When in doubt, cutler seems to trust his arm more than the system and probably has since HS. Orton learned in Joe Tiller’s offense where the emphasis was one stretching the coverage out, working the progressions, and finding the open man. Redzone play is right up his alley. I would never say that Orton is the better QB, but he may be the better fit in McD’s offense.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Jun 20, 2009 10:16 AM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
There you go again, SWG
Confusing the issues with facts…
Of course that begs the question of why Orton took care of the ball so much better. Before addressing that, let me dispel one myth. There seems to be this notion that Marshall was constantly drawing double teams all year. Not that I saw. What I did see, was that after game three cutler face a steady stream of cover-2 and cover-3. When the QB locks onto one receiver and doesn’t look off the safety then even average safeties will have plenty of time to move over and any zone is going to look like double coverage.
I haven’t mentioned the issue with Marshall and coverage just because I’m trying to stay out of what is currently an emotional discussion, but I haven’t seen much of that either. It’s often an unpleasant fact that ruins a lot of good theories.
When in doubt, cutler seems to trust his arm more than the system and probably has since HS. Orton learned in Joe Tiller’s offense where the emphasis was one stretching the coverage out, working the progressions, and finding the open man. Redzone play is right up his alley. I would never say that Orton is the better QB, but he may be the better fit in McD’s offense.
You’re right. I thought that it was interesting that Orton’s decision-making was very good by the end of his tenure in Purdue. He was very raw, as his draft reports showed, and getting tossed into the games his rookie season didn’t help his career much, but last year when the Bears had occasion to run a no-huddle or when Orton visibly went to an audible he seemed very crisp, very confident. I’d forgotten about Joe Tiller and his influence on Orton and many accomplishments – thanks for the reminder.
Hillis/Moreno in '09
Sorry that's a habit of mine
interjecting facts into the debate – I’ll try to do better next time.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Jun 20, 2009 11:27 AM MDT up reply actions
My thinking...
..(and I haven’t got down to SWG to see his take yet), is a couple of things.
One, I would guess that we didn’t have a balanced attack in the redzone. We continued to pass the ball, and passing lanes are more dangerous in the redzone (again, compression of space).
Two, Cutler is a passer who forces passes and doesn’t check down very well. It’s not a bad thing per se, but it is a style that doesn’t work well in an unbalenced offense that now finds itself in the redzone. Orton is a more careful QB. He doesn’t have the flash that fans like to see, but he is also much lower risk. He’s going to play smarter in the redzone.
Those are very simplistic answers, but those are my guesses without the film to watch.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Jun 20, 2009 5:12 PM MDT up reply actions
And now I've read SWG's answer...
…and his answer is dead on correct too. He also has a better way with words.
: )
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Jun 20, 2009 5:14 PM MDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Getting Social With MHR
Web Stuff
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Report: Chad Ochocinco will become Chad Johnson once again
- Video: Bill Belichick implores his defense to make the Giants throw to Mario Manningham
- Training Day: Learning the 40 with an Olympian
- Terrell Owens is still clinging to the NFL dream
- Measles patient may have exposed others at Super Bowl Village
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
