Did Tim Hightower underperform today?

[#BgMase76#]

I don't think so. It appeared the giants sold out to stop the run and try to force us into passing which would normally had been their strength. I can blow this one off but I expect THT to leave it all on the field next week. If he doesn't sell out against his foemer team thenyeah we might wanna be proactive and address the entire run game

[darrelgreenie]

We do run some pulling and trapping plays, or at least we did Sunday. But we're still running off tackle in general in normal situations.

As far as I can remember, we didn't run any toss plays Sunday. That's not a bad play call given that Trent can run and get out in front of it but I don't think calling a few more toss plays will change much about our running game. A toss left still has the line blocking pretty much the same way as a stretch left.

I don't understand your point here.

I thought you were just saying that there wasn't any other run plays neccesary besides the stretch?

I don't recall see many traps or pulls but if there were doesn't that show that are clearly other running plays to call other then the stretch?

Of course the toss isn't a bad playcall it was a staple of the Denver running scheme.

If we don't run toss then plays and we start running toss plays how is that not a change?

A toss can get blocked several ways from several different formations but it would not be blocked the same as a zone stretch it would include at least a pull or a crack.

Our success on the ground will always come back to successfully executing the stretch left for us. The play gives a smart runner enough options that you don't need a ton of variety with the playcall to pick up yards so long as someone on the playside of the line does a good job blocking

Its very likely that inside/outside stretch left will be the staple run play for the running game.

But a good running game has variety just like a passing game.

But there are ways to complement the stretch run with other runs, especially when the stretch is being stoppped.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

The outside zone stretch running play isn't just a playcall, it's a foundation that an entire offensive philosophy is built on.

I understand calling different types of runs when we line up in shotgun and on the goal line but what other running play is there to call when we line up behind center in normal situations?

What other running playcall do we need?

I don't understand. You're saying that we should ONLY run stretch plays anytime we're handing off (with the exception of goal line and shotgun situations)? I don't agree. I'm fine with it being the predominant running play, however I think there is room to change it up with a run up the middle. How can that be a bad thing to at least keep the D honest.

Hell, we ran a couple of those to run the clock out with the Giants knowing a run was coming and gained 10 yards on two plays (which is easily better than anything else we did on the ground the entire second half). I just don't see the down side to making defenses defend everything. To me, saying we ONLY run stretch plays is like Gibbs saying that he'd only run counter plays. If that were the case, teams would have caught up to that play much more quickly than they did.

I'm just nitpicking and believe that there is room for variety even if the stretch play is our bread and butter. That's all.

[Going Commando]

I don't understand your point here.

I thought you were just saying that there wasn't any other run plays neccesary besides the stretch?

I don't recall see many traps or pulls but if there were doesn't that show that are clearly other running plays to call other then the stretch?

My point is that you can run a good rushing offense calling the stretch play ~90% of the time like we do. I'm not entirely sure what your point is? Should we run draws and inside traps more than the handful of times we did against the Giants? I don't think we need to vary the playcalling much more than we did. The stretch left is our foundational play and our default call in most downs and distances.

Of course the toss isn't a bad playcall it was a staple of the Denver running scheme.

If we don't run toss then plays and we start running toss plays how is that not a change?

OK to split hairs, calling one or two toss plays a game constitutes a change, if a marginal one.

A toss can get blocked several ways from several different formations but it would not be blocked the same as a zone stretch it would include at least a pull or a crack.

The toss left as it was typically run in 2008 by Denver had Clady pull in front and is not terribly different in execution than the outside zone runs we are already calling. They are similar long developing plays to the outside. Philosophically, I don't see how they constitute much of a shift from the stretch except for the way the handoff is made.

I assumed from your post that you're calling for many more inside runs, which would constitute a large offensive shift IMO. I don't think it's very likely we'll see this happen and I don't think it's necessary to do so to have an effective rushing attack.

[tiger187126]

i saw an offensive line that was 3 yards behind the LOS consistantly on running plays. i applaud the commitment to the run and the fact that had that been portis we would have had a fraction of the 75 hightower put up and he would have fallen down on that touchdown.

TW needs to find that mean streak that got him to destroy ray lewis and tap into it a little more often.

[KDawg]

First, we should probably stop comparing our offense to Mike's Denver offense. Kyle is the OC and calling the majority of the plays.

Second, you can't just call one rush play over and over. Even if it's used to set up something. The stretch is our foundation play, but there is plenty of other options. Iso, blast, power, inside zone, any variety of traps, etc.

The stretch needs to be the rushing play we run most often with the system we're trying to execute. It doesn't mean it needs to be the only one.

I wouldn't advise a reverse off the stretch play, either. Reason being, is the reverse forces a defender to stay home, and they'd have to respect that. I think that takes away from the Naked Pass we're running off of stretch action.

If we were to run a toss play, it wouldn't be your typical toss. You'd have to crack/pull to make it a different play from the stretch, otherwise it's fairly similar, except you're looking to hit the outside and not looking for a cutback lane.

I'm a big fan of INSIDE BOB. Which is where you run inside zone to the weakside with split flow (meaning your fullback, if employed, goes backside to the first backer, likely a WILL or a MAC/MIKE... that's the BOB part... Split flow means the fullback is going backside and the tailback goes playside (doesn't have to be a fullback, could be a motion man). So if its inside zone left BOB (not what you'd actually call the play, but I'll just make it simple here) the OL would step left, the hand off would occur to the left. The difference is the motion man/fullback would go backside to a backer. Generally on an inside zone play, you leave the backside end unblocked and pick him up with motion man/FB. You don't here. Your entire OL steps left besides the backside tackle, who mans up and blocks the defensive end, thus allowing the fullback/motion man to get to the second level and pick up WILL. The play should hit further inside than your normal inside zone play and puts pressure on the safeties and can split the shell or hope the backers over flow thinking its your normal inside zone play when its not.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Great post KDawg...that's all I was talking about (the different running plays). Thanks.

[KDawg]

For the record, not to speak for him, but I don't think steve ever meant we only run one play. I think he meant its the only go to play. But, I don't want toput words in his mouth.

[Diesel__44]

The problem is on your end. I said I wasn't sold on Hightower at the time of the trade, not that I wasn't sold on the Hightower trade. They are not the same thing; how do you not get that?

Whatever, I can only go by what you type, and what you typed and your explantion is absurd. The absurdity is on your end. Bottom-line, if we would have gotten a ham sammich for Vonnie Holiday, I would have been happy. Instead we stole a 25 YR old RB that grew up in the area, is above average in pass pro and has 23 TDs in his first 3 YRs. You weren't sold?? Own your words dude.

[mi6]

Tim ran well given the circumstances.

The O-line had an underwhelming day to say the least. Trent William was a liability and allowed a ton of penetration. Once we shore up the O-Lines performance, we will see Tim being more productive.

[darrelgreenie]

My point is that you can run a good rushing offense calling the stretch play ~90% of the time like we do.

I disagree that we can run 90% stretch and have a good rushing offense.

Our OL is not good enough for that type of simplicity.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is?

A running game like any facet of the offense should have variety.

Should we run draws and inside traps more than the handful of times we did against the Giants? I don't think we need to vary the playcalling much more than we did. The stretch left is our foundational play and our default call in most downs and distances.

I'm not saying which plays should have been run specifically against the Giants, I have no way to know that.

There are running plays that can be used to in conjuction to and to help set-up other run plays.

A good running game has variety/creativity and Kyle's running game is vanilla compared to his passing attack.

OK to split hairs, calling one or two toss plays a game constitutes a change, if a marginal one.

I still don't understand your point here?

How can adding a new element to the the gameplan not be considered a change, regardless of the play type?

The toss left as it was typically run in 2008 by Denver had Clady pull in front and is not terribly different in execution than the outside zone runs we are already calling.

Talk about splitting hairs....its not terribly different except that its blocked differently.

They are similar long developing plays to the outside. Philosophically, I don't see how they constitute much of a shift from the stretch except for the way the handoff is made.

I would not call a toss slow or long developing play and it attacks the defense in different way and set-ups other action plays and complements other elements(that we don't do much of) of the ground game.

I assumed from your post that you're calling for many more inside runs, which would constitute a large offensive shift IMO. I don't think it's very likely we'll see this happen and I don't think it's necessary to do so to have an effective rushing attack.

I'm hoping for more variety inside or outside.

Of course variety isn't neccesary but it certainly helps.

For some reason it seems as if you are under the impression that the stretch is the main element of Mike's ground game.

My point with pretty little videos was to show that Mike's offense had a variety of runs not just the outside zone that you seem to love.

---------- Post added September-13th-2011 at 09:50 PM ----------

I'm a big fan of INSIDE BOB. Which is where you run inside zone to the weakside with split flow (meaning your fullback, if employed, goes backside to the first backer, likely a WILL or a MAC/MIKE... that's the BOB part... Split flow means the fullback is going backside and the tailback goes playside (doesn't have to be a fullback, could be a motion man). So if its inside zone left BOB (not what you'd actually call the play, but I'll just make it simple here) the OL would step left, the hand off would occur to the left. The difference is the motion man/fullback would go backside to a backer. Generally on an inside zone play, you leave the backside end unblocked and pick him up with motion man/FB. You don't here. Your entire OL steps left besides the backside tackle, who mans up and blocks the defensive end, thus allowing the fullback/motion man to get to the second level and pick up WILL. The play should hit further inside than your normal inside zone play and puts pressure on the safeties and can split the shell or hope the backers over flow thinking its your normal inside zone play when its not.

If I understand you correct we run a similar concept with the motion TE or WR goes in motion and blocks backside but like most of our runs its an outside play not inside.

Does the motion man become a defacto lead blocker inside?

I'm sure I've seen this inside zone with a motion but I can't remember for sure, but conceptually I like the play.

I'm bored here's a clip of outside zone with a backside motion block:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU81QXB9lXY&feature=related

The motion POA blocker set-ups the playaction where the former motion blocker sneaks past his block and goes backside on a wheel or similar route.

[iMeast]

The Giants came in to stop the run and make Rex Grossman beat him. They succeeded in stopping the run, but Grossman picked them apart.

HTTR

[KDawg]

If I understand you correct we run a similar concept with the motion TE or WR goes in motion and blocks backside but like most of our runs its an outside play not inside.

Does the motion man become a defacto lead blocker inside?

I'm sure I've seen this inside zone with a motion but I can't remember for sure, but conceptually I like the play.

I'm bored here's a clip of outside zone with a backside motion block:

The motion POA blocker set-ups the playaction where the former motion blocker sneaks past his block and goes backside on a wheel or similar route.

I can't see the video at work.

The stretch play can be full flow (which is the opposite of split flow, the fullback/motion man goes playside with it and it's to the same side the tailback is going) or split flow. If you want to set up Naked, you have a better shot running it split flow. A popular concept on the stretch is Stretch BOSS. BOSS means BACK ON STRONG SAFETY, so he goes to the strong side of the formation, which will generally make it a full flow play. If you run a symmetrical offensive set, such as the double tight ace back with a motion man, it's difficult to know which side is the strong side. This allows you to call BOSS and run the play away from motion action, creating split flow (Again, split flow is FB/Motion man going opposite direction of the play). You could also run it to the strong side and have an extra blocker at the POA. The symmetrical formations allow for us to disguise the play a bit.

If you're in a standard 1 tight end set, the motion man can give it away a bit easier. Since the motion will generally occur to the strong side (playside) due to fewer blockers on the weak side.

[paloosa]

Not worried about his performance because his inability to run effectively was due to the Giants effort to stop the run so that Rex had to beat them. We all know the results of that don't we? Hightower broke off a few good runs in the 1st Quarter that made the Giants adjust to stop the run which opened up the passing game. So while he may not have been effective stats wise he was effective enough to make the Giants adjust their game plan which enabled us to get the win. I will take that over an outstanding performance in a losing effort. Lets see what he does the next couple of weeks before we judge it.

[Going Commando]

I don't remember seeing a lot of two TE sets in normal down and distance situations on Sunday KDawg, but from what Rex claims, we'll be seeing more of them. I do remember seeing a lot of three receiver sets though. Lots of trips right formations with Gaffney motioning left on running plays. I actually felt like Gaffney motioning left kind of tipped our hand run given the frequency of the call.

That also seems to indicate that our staff has a lot of confidence in our receivers to block the edge, Gaffney and Austin in particular. It felt like every time Austin came in we ran the ball.

We ran effectively from the few two TE sets we did call, both Davis and Paulsen did a pretty good job at the line from what I noticed. Paulsen cleaned up on Hightower's touchdown and there were times Davis outblocked Chester and Jammal Brown.

I'm excited to see our TEs become a more active part of the offense down the line.

I'm also looking forward to Austin becoming more involved in the offense as well, not just coming in for running situations.

[KDawg]

I don't remember seeing a lot of two TE sets in normal down and distance situations on Sunday KDawg

I just pointed out a symmetrical formation helps mask it a bit more. Which is why I like the two TE sets.

Lots of trips right formations with Gaffney motioning left on running plays. I actually felt like Gaffney motioning left kind of tipped our hand run given the frequency of the call.

I agree. Which is why a said zone is more effective from a symmetrical formation rather than an overloaded formation.

We ran effectively from the few two TE sets we did call, both Davis and Paulsen did a pretty good job at the line from what I noticed. Paulsen cleaned up on Hightower's touchdown and there were times Davis outblocked Chester and Jammal Brown.

Yup. Generally the case. Symmetry for a zone scheme = good.

[Going Commando]

I think a feature of this offense is that they're actually using the pass to set up the run pretty often to create that subterfuge we're looking for. Just generally speaking and without stats to back it up, I'd say we pass on first down much more than the Denver Shanahan/Turner offense did. To me this is another clear sign of the split between Kyle's and Mike's offensive systems.

Maybe it's just a sign of the times though, because a lot of other NFL teams come out passing on first down, particularly form spread formations.

[darrelgreenie]

Symmetry for a zone scheme = good.

Without a doubt, symmetry is very useful.

And 2 WR 2 TE personnel package gives us a lot flexibility because of Davis and Cooley.

Those 2 coupled together point s to the ACE formation (which we used some against the Giants)becoming one of our main sets going forward.

Going back to the inside BOB for a second.

I'm trying to conceptualize the play and I'm wondering if the motion man becomes the defacto lead blocker inside?

---------- Post added September-14th-2011 at 01:35 PM ----------

I think a feature of this offense is that they're actually using the pass to set up the run pretty often to create that subterfuge we're looking for.

I don't know Steve.

I don't really believe in the pass to set-up the run in general.

But specifically to the Burgundy and Gold I don't think we pass to set-up the run..

We don't run many draws nor do we run on 3rd down which could catch a pass defense off guard.

Just generally speaking and without stats to back it up, I'd say we pass on first down much more than the Denver Shanahan/Turner offense did. To me this is another clear sign of the split between Kyle's and Mike's offensive systems.

Your hunch would be correct as of week 9 last year Kyle's offense was amoung the league leaders in 1st down passing. (Its posted in a thread I started about Kyle saying he wanted to run the ball better and more often)

Kyle's tendency towards the pass is one of the philosophical differences between how Mike and Kyle run the scheme.

Another difference is the diversity in the run game.

[Larry]

The snarky response to the original question is "I hope so".

(No, that's not a way of saying "he'd better have been". That's a way of saying "if that's one of his bad days, that's pretty good, for me").

[darrelgreenie]

Kdawg-

Look at the play @ 2:19:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiRntXbiL-k&feature=player_embedded

If that was an inside BOB run would Trent step left and block Pierre Paul and Davis lead into the whole and block #94?

Because if watch the tape look how hard the Giants pursue to the outside, if there was an inside run to with similar action there would be a natural lane there to the left of Montgomery.

[KDawg]

Going back to the inside BOB for a second.

I'm trying to conceptualize the play and I'm wondering if the motion man becomes the defacto lead blocker inside?

Kind of. There is still no "designed" hole on BOB, same as normal inside zone. The back is still looking for an opening. However, because the back is on backer (Back On Backer = BOB) the play should hit a little bit earlier. Sometimes to the playside A Gap, sometimes to backside A Gap, but it should be an earlier running lane. Because the hole SHOULD be there, doesn't mean it will be. Defenses gameplan for this stuff and sometimes like to clog holes if they recognize BOB being run so that it can't hit tighter. But in theory, and in a perfect world, that motion man is probably considered more of the key blocker more than the lead blocker, as the tailback will very rarely be following him directly.

Kdawg-

Look at the play @ 2:19:

If that was an inside BOB run would Trent step left and block Pierre Paul and Davis lead into the whole and block #94?

Because if watch the tape look how hard the Giants pursue to the outside, if there was an inside run to with similar action there would be a natural lane there to the left of Montgomery.

I can't see the play. Work has YouTUBE blocked. But I think I can get the gist of it from what you're saying.

Pierre Paul is lined up to the weakside of the offensive formation?

If so, on INSIDE BOB, TW (weak tackle) would kick PP out.

Our motion man (I assume that's Davis) would then kick out the WILL backer against a 4-3 defense.

The natural hole should occur somewhere between the A-Gaps on BOB. So, if the film is as you describe it, yes, there would be a running lane to the left of Montgomery (or somewhere near that point).

BOB is designed to be run to the X side (Split End Side) or simply the weakside of the offensive formation.

[SkinsFanCTT]

Of course Hightower didn't underperform, they never let anyone else touch the ball to create controversy. Wait until that happens, probably 3rd Q on sunday.

[mike42]

actually i think our play calling for him got predictable.. he did well when we ran it up the gut at the end..

Agreed. The run play calling was very predictable.

[KCClybun]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaJ6MdNPVhM&feature=player_embedded

Not saying we didn't run a lot of stretch, but I think it's important to note that you can run more than one kind of stretch play. Just because it's the same concept doesn't make it all the same stuff. I see outside stretch zone, inside stretch, stretch zone from the I-formation, stretch counter, I saw a zone stretch from shotgun. Different formations, personnel groups, different shifts and everything.

I know the Texans run a whole lot of stretch and Arian Foster was the leagues leading rusher, despite the predictable play calling.

I

[NoCalMike]

I think one thing most people forget is that the Run & Pass ideally work together as a unified offense. As 'Skins fans, not having a QB all these seasons, we have been used to having to use the running game in order to have any hope of a passing game. However in the NFL there are plenty of teams that seem to use the pass to set up a more sneaky running game.

The game against the NYG, was a sign that if need be, the offense can be effective, go downfield, and score even when the running game is not running on all cylinders, and only working sparingly.

We know Shanahan uses the zone-blocking scheme, but it would silly to assume that everything is going to be ran and called the exact same way here as it was in Denver, or Houston (Kyle). The personnel is going to dictate how we run our offense.

In previous seasons, the passing game was so inconsistent that without a strong running game it was hopeless trying to pass. That may not be the case anymore.

---------- Post added September-17th-2011 at 06:16 AM ----------

Watching the Hightower highlights video from week 1, hard to say he under performed. Most times when he was stopped with a short, or no gain it was mostly because the Giants defense got penetration on our O-line and were in the backfield.

I didn't really see where Hightower missed any lanes, or where he could have done much more with what he got. Even with injuries, I'd say the Giants are a pretty stout defense against the run.

Not counting on the Cardinals to be as successful. We'll see.