Quote:
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.