method man Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 As we saw on Sunday, we are ineffective running the ball without one of them there. Rabach is extremely important in getting into the second level and Wade is a good run blocker himself. Portis has seen his numbers go down as the OL injuries have piled up and he's become only semi-effective at this point. The good news is that there are teams getting by without good OL's like the Lions and the Packers, who both have winning records. Gibbs needs to let Saunders use a lot of 4 WR sets where our receivers run routes like slants so that Campbell can make quick decisions and get rid of the ball quickly, nullifying the ineffectiveness of the right side of the OL. Doing this has two positive benefits. 1) Arizona will back off the line of scrimmage, giving Portis room to operate. This kind of compensates for the crappy run blocking by the right side. We did this ourselves with Detroit. You have to remember Bell was successful in the limited carries he got. Arizona has two very good DTs in Dockett and Watson who clog the run pretty well. However, the Cards are susceptible to outside runs, because Barry is smallish and Dansby is dinged so if you pass, pass, and pass and force Adrian Wilson to back up, you give Portis a chance at a home run on a stretch play to the left (DeMulling is supposed to be a decent puller). 2) You will see us score more points, because our best playmakers are our receivers (Randle El is no. 1 right now and Moss, despite his sucky game, is always a threat). This also takes advantage of the Cardinals' weakness on defense. Rod Hood is their only good corner and Rolle and Green are not very good. Adrian Wilson is an Archuleta-type safety in that he is a run stopper who is not very good in pass coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
909997 Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 only difference our backups are injured half the guys on our line arent even our starters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Running would be far safer behind a bad line then trying to protect the QB while passing. The packers teed off on Jason late in the game once we lost Heyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HEavyJumbo85 Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Balance...it's extremely difficult to do what New England and Green Bay are doing, even Indy tries to be balanced. While it would be neat to throw the ball all over the place, Gibbs has some bad memories from when he tried to throw it all the time in his first season in D.C. You've gotta at least put the threat of running it out there or else the Cardinals will just pin their ears back and rush the QB. Tell me which you would rather have to face, an off balance D against a makeshift line or a D that is coming with everything they have to sack the QB against a makeshift line? The Packers are an annomoly, but they can get away without running it a ton because the do use the quick slants as you pointed out and they also use screens and other short patterns to act as a running game. But they have possession receivers and 2 solid pass catching tight ends. We have receivers that don't go over the middle. Your receivers take a lot of punishment going underneath like that towards linebackers and I don't know if we want to expose our small receivers to that kind of punishment, we have enough injury problems. Basically there's no chance of this happening, we'll try to run the ball because we have to. We might utilize quick passes and screens more than usual in our normal passing game, but we aren't going to throw the ball 40 times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianforster Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Balance...it's extremely difficult to do what New England and Green Bay are doing, even Indy tries to be balanced. While it would be neat to throw the ball all over the place, Gibbs has some bad memories from when he tried to throw it all the time in his first season in D.C. You've gotta at least put the threat of running it out there or else the Cardinals will just pin their ears back and rush the QB. Tell me which you would rather have to face, an off balance D against a makeshift line or a D that is coming with everything they have to sack the QB against a makeshift line?The Packers are an annomoly, but they can get away without running it a ton because the do use the quick slants as you pointed out and they also use screens and other short patterns to act as a running game. But they have possession receivers and 2 solid pass catching tight ends. We have receivers that don't go over the middle. Your receivers take a lot of punishment going underneath like that towards linebackers and I don't know if we want to expose our small receivers to that kind of punishment, we have enough injury problems. Basically there's no chance of this happening, we'll try to run the ball because we have to. We might utilize quick passes and screens more than usual in our normal passing game, but we aren't going to throw the ball 40 times. sums it up perfectly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swisha Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Your Oline is wounded, and you want to pass the ball?! That's illogical. If anything, you want to throw screens and quick passes, but don't do drop-backs and get the QB killed. Look at the passing teams and running teams, you will see that the passing teams have a lower pass per sack rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
method man Posted October 16, 2007 Author Share Posted October 16, 2007 Running would be far safer behind a bad line then trying to protect the QB while passing. The packers teed off on Jason late in the game once we lost Heyer. But all we would see is Portis for 2 yards. Portis loss of a yard. Portis with his biggest gain of the day of 8 yards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
method man Posted October 16, 2007 Author Share Posted October 16, 2007 Your Oline is wounded, and you want to pass the ball?! That's illogical. If anything, you want to throw screens and quick passes, but don't do drop-backs and get the QB killed. Look at the passing teams and running teams, you will see that the passing teams have a lower pass per sack rate. I'm also assuming this is out of shotgun so that Campbell will have an extra second or two to pass the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
method man Posted October 16, 2007 Author Share Posted October 16, 2007 Balance...it's extremely difficult to do what New England and Green Bay are doing, even Indy tries to be balanced. While it would be neat to throw the ball all over the place, Gibbs has some bad memories from when he tried to throw it all the time in his first season in D.C. You've gotta at least put the threat of running it out there or else the Cardinals will just pin their ears back and rush the QB. Tell me which you would rather have to face, an off balance D against a makeshift line or a D that is coming with everything they have to sack the QB against a makeshift line?The Packers are an annomoly, but they can get away without running it a ton because the do use the quick slants as you pointed out and they also use screens and other short patterns to act as a running game. But they have possession receivers and 2 solid pass catching tight ends. We have receivers that don't go over the middle. Your receivers take a lot of punishment going underneath like that towards linebackers and I don't know if we want to expose our small receivers to that kind of punishment, we have enough injury problems. Basically there's no chance of this happening, we'll try to run the ball because we have to. We might utilize quick passes and screens more than usual in our normal passing game, but we aren't going to throw the ball 40 times. I see your point. McCardell is probably the only guy willing to go over the middle. At the same time, though, Campbell is playing some excellent football and we need to take better advantage of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I'm also assuming this is out of shotgun so that Campbell will have an extra second or two to pass the ball. Doesn't the shotgun require a center? I guess we could use ethan albright and put like campbell back 10 yards... hmmmmmmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeronimobrat Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 How do you suppose Campbell's athletic ability and game will be utilized now? Do you envision many rollouts left/right to avoid the collapse of the pocket? How about seven yard dropbacks or five yard slants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.