How Would You Use Your RB in Your Passing Game?

[Oldfan]

...

 

Sean Payton agrees with me. Peyton Manning agrees with me. But Redskins head coaches over the past 20 years have not. I would not keep the running back in to block on passing plays. I'd use him as an outlet receiver. And, to be clear, I'm talking about the primary back.

 

A football coach has to understand the Physics involved in the game, momentum in this case.  He has to plan to make the physics work for and not against his team. Keeping the back in to block a defender, usually a bigger man, who is coming at him with a running start gives the defender the edge because of the momentum factor. The RB can nullify that momentum edge using a cross-body block at the knees, but that opens him up to the enhanced possibility of a knee to the head resulting in a neck injury or a concussion if the block isn't executed well.

 

In recent years, defensive coordinators have exacerbated the problem by having a defender read the RB. If he stays in to block, they blitz. That means that, even if the RB executes his block well, the net effect of the decision to keep the RB in is to give the QB a pocket crowded with two more bodies thrashing about.

 

Ideally, the formation sets the RB up directly behind the QB so that he is equally effective going left or right as an outlet. Defending him with one man would be difficult since that player could easily get picked off by traffic, even by his own man. It's more likely the defense would have two defenders, one on each side, occupied with secondary coverage assignments. In other words, using the RB as an outlet complicates matters for the defense and that's good.

 

Make no mistake, this is a major decision for a coach. It changes the way he evaluates running backs. Joe Gibbs didn't agree with me, but if he had, it would have most likely  changed Redskins history. 

 

It's likely that when he came back and evaluated the talent he inherited, Ladell Betts, an outstanding receiver, would have gotten much higher marks; and we can be fairly sure that Joe would not have been willing to pay so much in trade for Clinton Portis who, at that time, had stone hands. He dropped as many passes as he caught. If forced to trade the franchised Champ Bailey, it's more likely that the trade would have been for a couple of number one picks. 

 

Alfred Morris is the best running back I've seen in Redskins colors since Larry Brown, but he's not a good receiver. He would not be a good fit for a scheme like Sean Payton's. Payton wants to put the ball in the air and he uses the RB as an outlet on a very high percentage of pass plays. Thus, a LaDainian Tomlinson type skillset is a better fit. When I consider the pros and cons, I like Payton's approach.

 

What's your opinion? Whether you agree or disagree, please offer your reasons.

 

 

 

[pjfootballer]

I agree.  I'd rather the RB be used as more of a weapon.  True that Morris is not the best receiver out of the backfield, but using the same Saints team, they usually take out Ingram, Thomas et al and put in Sproles to receive out of the backfield.  I think that's what we're going to have to do with Helu and Thompson.  I would love to find an everydown back, but they are rare nowadays.

[Oldfan]

I agree.  I'd rather the RB be used as more of a weapon.  True that Morris is not the best receiver out of the backfield, but using the same Saints team, they usually take out Ingram, Thomas et al and put in Sproles to receive out of the backfield.  I think that's what we're going to have to do with Helu and Thompson.  I would love to find an everydown back, but they are rare nowadays.

Substituting RBs according to the situation obviously isn't ideal. I think Payton would like to have Pierre Thomas as his lead back. In 2011, he carried 100 times and had 50 receptions. I don't know how many times he was targeted, but that's the kind of mix I would expect. Thomas has been plagued by injuries, though.

 

If Helu is healthy, he's a good "third down back" in the Shanahan scheme. I haven't seen Thompson yet. 

 

I think the reason we aren't seeing more dual threat RBs is that most coaches aren't looking for them. Most are placing the emphasis solely on the RBs threat as a runner. Then, they figure they can teach him to block in the passing game.

[Oldfan]

Duplicate post.

[Hitman21ST]

It really depends on the back. Portis was an outstanding blocker, as is MJD, Frank Gore, and a lot of backs from the University of Miami.

 

Sending out five receivers is definitely an advantage, you can get players to multiple levels and areas of the field. Making the defense cover more areas offers more of a chance that someone will make a mistake in their responsibility.

 

On the other hand, keeping a RB in to block, even with a "read" defender, can be an advantage because it makes it harder for each defender to cover his responsibility, be it man or zone. More area for receivers to get open vs man, larger zones to cover in zone. With a QB who can move around in the pocket and avoid rushers, even more rushers than there are blockers, would allow those receivers to find those areas. 

 

Ideally you'd like to have a back that can do both, because then the defense couldn't key on the RB as to what the offense is doing. It also makes it easier to run RB screens. But having a RB who can block does put the offense at an advantage over one who is just effective with the ball, be it running or catching.

[pjfootballer]

I agree. I'd rather the RB be used as more of a weapon. True that Morris is not the best receiver out of the backfield, but using the same Saints team, they usually take out Ingram, Thomas et al and put in Sproles to receive out of the backfield. I think that's what we're going to have to do with Helu and Thompson. I would love to find an everydown back, but they are rare nowadays.

Substituting RBs according to the situation obviously isn't ideal. I think Payton would like to have Pierre Thomas as his lead back. In 2011, he carried 100 times and had 50 receptions. I don't know how many times he was targeted, but that's the kind of mix I would expect. Thomas has been plagued by injuries, though.

If Helu is healthy, he's a good "third down back" in the Shanahan scheme. I haven't seen Thompson yet.

I think the reason we aren't seeing more dual threat RBs is that most coaches aren't looking for them. Most are placing the emphasis solely on the RBs threat as a runner. Then, they figure they can teach him to block in the passing game.

Agree because when you bring in a Sproles, most of the time it signifies pass. I think offenses have evolved to carrying "situational" players like you have on defense in regards to the RB position. It has become more situational than in the past. Plus, the position has been deemphisized as a "must have" franchise player.

[Oldfan]

Hitman: It really depends on the back. Portis was an outstanding blocker, as is MJD, Frank Gore, and a lot of backs from the University of Miami.

 

 

I think it makes more sense to choose your scheme first and then select players to fit it. A coach who agreed with me wouldn't give weight to the RB's pass blocking ability in the draft selection process. So, he wouldn't select a RB who pass blocked well in college unless he was also a very good receiver.

 

On the other hand, keeping a RB in to block, even with a "read" defender, can be an advantage because it makes it harder for each defender to cover his responsibility, be it man or zone. More area for receivers to get open vs man, larger zones to cover in zone. With a QB who can move around in the pocket and avoid rushers, even more rushers than there are blockers, would allow those receivers to find those areas.

 

 

Since the outlet's pattern is usually slower developing when compared to other receivers, and since it ends up at the LOS, or even behind the LOS, I don't see the problem you describe happening. And, if ignored,and if the DBs are pulled deep, the RB will have a lot of room to run underneath.

[rdskn4eva]

Unless I have Clinton Portis, Walter Payton, Emmitt Smith or Edgerrin James to block, I'd send my backs out on pass patterns every time they are in on pass plays..

[RiggosMohawk]

Finally an OF thread that I think I can offer substance into.

 

I completely agree with the OP. RBs excel/work/focus at making people miss in tight space. How is not a good idea to get the ball into the hands of a player with these inherent skills, in a situation where they only have one person to juke/break/truck, with probably more room to maneuver than you'll ever find between the tackles. It also can be seen as reduced workload also. It's still a touch for a skilled playmaker, but at a lower price for their body - more push out of bounds tackles and less pileups.

 

To take what Payton and the Saints can do further - I don't have stats to back it up, but it seems to me that what NO can do better than anyone is they make big plays on designed RB catches in the RZ. That is taking this concept to a whole other level.

[Hitman21ST]

 

I think it makes more sense to choose your scheme first and then select players to fit it. A coach who agreed with me wouldn't give weight to the RB's pass blocking ability in the draft selection process. So, he wouldn't select a RB who pass blocked well in college unless he was also a good receiver.

 

 

Since the outlet's pattern is usually slower developing when compared to other receivers, and since it ends up at the LOS, or even behind the LOS, I don't see the problem you describe happening. And, if ignored,and if the DBs are pulled deep, the RB will have a lot of room to run underneath.

 

I completely agree that you need to pick the scheme and then find players to fit. But the question was how would I use the RB in my passing game. I would find one who could block well, because I would use them as a blocker also.

 

I disagree that outlets are slower developing. Most RB outlets are swings, flats, and curls, which develop just as fast as any route of a similar distance run. Most defenses will allow that outlet to be thrown, also, then come up and make a tackle. Very few schemes are designed to take away the RB's route. They take away the deep and medium routes, and come up and tackle the short. With that in mind, sending the RB out just gives you another defender in the medium to deep range that you have to be aware of. Keeping the RB in to block, however, has the possibility of the "read" defender blitzing, which opens up the passing lanes.

 

Defenses can't take away everything, so they allow the throws that do the least amount of damage. As a defensive coordinator, I'd take you throwing the outlet all day every day. 

[Oldfan]

RiggosMohawk: Finally an OF thread that I think I can offer substance into.

 

 

Well, you most definitely did that. 

 

Your post made me feel ashamed that I hadn't written it into the OP myself.

[Oldfan]

Hitman: I completely agree that you need to pick the scheme and then find players to fit. But the question was how would I use the RB in my passing game. I would find one who could block well, because I would use them as a blocker also.

 

 

Okay, so you don't buy the argument I made in the OP or the amendment to it offered by RiggosMohawk, is that correct?

 

I disagree that outlets are slower developing.

 

It's possible that we are defining this term differently. For me, a slant is a quick developing play because it gets into the defense's territory quickly. An outlet pass is slower-developing by virtue of the fact that it begins with the receiver in the middle of the field seven yards behind the LOS and usually ends up at or near the LOS near a sideline.

 

Defenses can't take away everything, so they allow the throws that do the least amount of damage. As a defensive coordinator, I'd take you throwing the outlet all day every day.

 

 

Of course you would, but you are missing the point. As a defensive coordinator, would you rather deal with the RB with some open  field or have him trying to pass-block your bigger player on a rush? 

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

Ah, for some reason I thought this was going to be more about trying to get a RB out in the flats as a checkdown option, or have the RB actually go down the field as a receiving threat.  Like Marshall Faulk and Sproles.

 

As far as keeping him in to protect, I think you need to be able to mix it up.  Create some deception with how he pass blocks, and make it harder for the LB to tell if he should blitz.  Alternatively, if we start having some really productive pass catchers in the short/intermediate area of the field, then opposing teams might not want to send that linebacker in to blitz and instead keep him in coverage.

 

A lot of this depends on the type of play we're running; the type of defense we're going against and their blitzing tendencies.  Some D's just love to blitz no matter what, and if we're running a play that takes a little more time to develop but can exploit certain blitzes, we might need to keep the Back in to help give the QB that extra second.

[PlayAction]

If your OL can't pass protect I think most OCs are going to want to keep the RB in to block or keep a TE tethered to the line (or perhaps both!).  Ideally, the RB goes out for a pass every down in which he isn't carrying the ball or faking possession.  But, I still have to protect the QB long enough so that the intermediate routes are viable.  Otherwise, you'll always be dumping it off to the closest WR/RB and going nowhere.  

 

Ideally, you don't have a 5'11 215lb (or less) RB trying to block a charging 290lb lineman.  But, he's still better than nothing. 

[Oldfan]

Unless I have Clinton Portis, Walter Payton, Emmitt Smith or Edgerrin James to block, I'd send my backs out on pass patterns every time they are in on pass plays..

If you created an offense, would you design it for a RB who, in addition to his running talent, excelled at pass protection or one who excelled at pass receiving? We assume you will draft accordingly.

[Hitman21ST]

Oldfan: Okay, so you don't buy the argument I made in the OP or the amendment to it offered by RiggosMohawk, is that correct?

 

 

Not at all. As I stated in my first post, having a RB who is a threat as a receiver definitely has its advantages. You can attack more levels and areas of the field with more receivers, thus spreading the defense more and giving them more opportunities to make a mistake.

It's possible that we are defining this term differently. For me, a slant is a quick developing play because it gets into the defense's territory quickly. An outlet pass is slower-developing by virtue of the fact that it begins with the receiver in the middle of the field seven yards behind the LOS and usually ends up at or near the LOS near a sideline.

 

 

I don't think I did, but I didn't get my point across clearly. We have the same definition of quick and slow developing, but I don't necessarily consider an outlet any more slow developing than a dig, corner, deep out, or post route. You're not running just slants though with receivers (at least, I hope not). The outlet for me is an escape route, for lack of a better term. Something the QB goes to when everyone else is covered or the pass rush gets to him. In the former, the outlet doesn't have to be there immediately, but if the pass rush is on him now, the RB needs to be available now too.

 

Of course you would, but you are missing the point. As a defensive coordinator, would you rather deal with the RB with some open  field or have him trying to pass-block your bigger player on a rush? 

 

 

 

It's situation dependent, really. If I'm going all out after the QB, then I'd rather have him out as a receiver - it's one less guy my pass rushers have to get through. If he's not a good pass catcher, I'd rather have him out as a receiver. I don't really need to worry about him then.

 

The reason I would rather draft a blocking back is that it's easier to teach catching than picking up blitzes. Some guys just don't have the vision to see where blitzers are coming from or know the right angles to take to get to them, or as you stated, don't really understand the physics of it and try to go chest to chest with them. Finding a RB who can block is harder than finding one who can catch.

 

If I'm not sure whether you're blocking or going out on a route, that makes it that much harder for me to defend against you rather than if you're just going out. There are pros and cons to both. Always having him out isn't the answer 100% of the time.

[RG3Hunna]

I would use my running back to pass block on 3rd downs. Having a RB who can pass block is such an underrated weapon that many fans don't even recognize. Why put a RB out on a passing pattern if you're just going to leave your QB (The most important player on the whole team) unprotected? Having a RB who can catch out of the backfield is pointless if your QB gets killed before he can even plant his back foot. Sure I would love to have a pass catching threat out of the backfield but I would rather have a ELITE RB who can pass block before I have an ELITE RB who can't pass block but is a pass catching threat. Simply because pass blocking is the single most important aspect of football in my opinion and taking away the RB who is responsible for "Blindside blitzes the offensive line can't pick up that the QB can't see" just scares me too much. 

 

 

Here's an example where the LB "Ray Lewis" perfectly times a blitz and the RB is able to knock the stuffing out of him and give Weeden time to throw. 

[Oldfan]

Alcoholic Zebra: Ah, for some reason I thought this was going to be more about trying to get a RB out in the flats as a checkdown option, or have the RB actually go down the field as a receiving threat.  Like Marshall Faulk and Sproles.

 

 

Let's put the emphasis on the word MAINLY.  When he's not taking the handoff and running with the football, I want my RB used mainly as an outlet receiver and not kept in to  block.

 

A lot of this depends on the type of play we're running; the type of defense we're going against and their blitzing tendencies.  Some D's just love to blitz no matter what, and if we're running a play that takes a little more time to develop but can exploit certain blitzes, we might need to keep the Back in to help give the QB that extra second.

 

 

I might find a reason to keep my RB in to block, but it would not be something I'd do very often.

[Oldfan]

PlayAction: If your OL can't pass protect I think most OCs are going to want to keep the RB in to block or keep a TE tethered to the line (or perhaps both!).  Ideally, the RB goes out for a pass every down in which he isn't carrying the ball or faking possession.  But, I still have to protect the QB long enough so that the intermediate routes are viable.  Otherwise, you'll always be dumping it off to the closest WR/RB and going nowhere.  

 

Ideally, you don't have a 5'11 215lb (or less) RB trying to block a charging 290lb lineman.  But, he's still better than nothing. 

 

 

I think you are right in saying that most OCs would keep the RB in to block when the O-line is having trouble protecting. But, when Peyton Manning was asked about it, his preference was to use the RB as an outlet. I agree with Peyton for the reasons listed in my OP.

[Jumbo]

If anyone ever wanted to see how a superb model OP for a football-thought thread is crafted, study this one. And immediately, an excellent discussion forms. 

[Hitman21ST]

I think you are right in saying that most OCs would keep the RB in to block when the O-line is having trouble protecting. But, when Peyton Manning was asked about it, his preference was to use the RB as an outlet. I agree with Peyton for the reasons listed in my OP.

 

The one problem with that is that you're using Sean Payton (who has Drew Brees) and Peyton Manning as your examples - two of the fastest thinking QBs in the league, who can process that, read the blitzes, and get the ball to their checkdown/outlet. If you don't have that, then you need a RB who can block and give the QB that extra split second or so to process and find a receiver.

 

I'm not saying those are bad examples, but I think that's the exception more than the rule, and for good reason. Do you happen to know what Brady/Rodgers/Ryan prefer?

 

Or for that matter, what some of the slower thinking QBs prefer. Because while ideally you'd have a QB that can process as fast as Manning, chances are you won't.

[Oldfan]

RG3Hunna: I would use my running back to pass block on 3rd downs. Having a RB who can pass block is such an underrated weapon that many fans don't even recognize. Why put a RB out on a passing pattern if you're just going to leave your QB (The most important player on the whole team) unprotected? Having a RB who can catch out of the backfield is pointless if your QB gets killed before he can even plant his back foot. Sure I would love to have a pass catching threat out of the backfield but I would rather have a ELITE RB who can pass block before I have an ELITE RB who can't pass block but is a pass catching threat. 

 

 

If we accept with your assumption that your QB is going to get killed unless you keep your stationary RB in to block a bigger man running at him, then it's not going to make much difference how you play it. Your situation is hopeless either way.

[Hitman21ST]

 

If we accept with your assumption that your QB is going to get killed unless you keep your stationary RB in to block a bigger man running at him, then it's not going to make much difference how you play it. Your situation is hopeless either way.

 

The RBs aren't stationary though. They take at least one or two steps before blocking a pass rusher. But I think that RG3Hunna was referring to a play similar to this:

 

 

MJD steps up and flattens the rusher with the free run. We can't say what would have happened had he been going out, but with as fast as Merriman was getting in there, there's a good chance that Garrard wouldn't have been able to get a pass away.

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

 

I think you are right in saying that most OCs would keep the RB in to block when the O-line is having trouble protecting. But, when Peyton Manning was asked about it, his preference was to use the RB as an outlet. I agree with Peyton for the reasons listed in my OP.

The one problem with that is that you're using Sean Payton (who has Drew Brees) and Peyton Manning as your examples - two of the fastest thinking QBs in the league, who can process that, read the blitzes, and get the ball to their checkdown/outlet. If you don't have that, then you need a RB who can block and give the QB that extra split second or so to process and find a receiver.

 

I'm not saying those are bad examples, but I think that's the exception more than the rule, and for good reason. Do you happen to know what Brady/Rodgers/Ryan prefer?

 

See it's difficult with some of these.  Even the Peyton and Brees comparison's aren't the same.  Brees has a very good line with world class guards on it.  Peyton's just had a pretty good center and then spare parts.

 

Brady's always had a very good line.  Rodgers does everything, but I believe he keeps the back in to protect a bit more.  Also, because Rodgers has so many good receiving options, he'll find someone open sooner than most QB's will so the checkdown to a RB in the flats isn't as necessary.

 

Matt Ryan has the backs go out more, because he needs extra options.  He's got Julio Jones, Roddy White, Tony Gonzalez, and that's about it.  He has no real 4th receiving option.  So his FB and his RB get a lot more targets than they really should.  Remember when we played against them, they had a backup o-lineman play as the 2nd TE?  Ryan tossed two passes to him and he dropped both.  The Falcons have a few very big names but lack offensive depth.

[Oldfan]

Hitman: The one problem with that is that you're using Sean Payton (who has Drew Brees) and Peyton Manning as your examples - two of the fastest thinking QBs in the league, who can process that, read the blitzes, and get the ball to their checkdown/outlet. If you don't have that, then you need a RB who can block and give the QB that extra split second or so to process and find a receiver.

 

I'm not saying those are bad examples, but I think that's the exception more than the rule, and for good reason. Do you happen to know what Brady/Rodgers/Ryan prefer?

 

 

Peyton is the only QB I've read quoted on the topic. I don't know what the other top QBs think about it.

 

I think you are mistaken that the slow-thinkers would need more time. If you gave every QB an outlet on every pass play, the less gifted ones would not be too slow to use it, they would be too quick to do so. The classic Redskins example of that was John Beck's overuse of Roy Helu. Jason Campbell went too quickly to his outlet also.