How Would You Use Your RB in Your Passing Game?

[Hitman21ST]

 

 

 

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 quickly to his outlet also.

 

That doesn't necessarily help your argument though. They went to their checkdowns just as much because they didn't want to throw deep (there were numerous times with both QBs that a deep receiver was open and they just didn't throw it) as when it was needed due to pass rush. A lot of the Beck throws to Helu were screens vice checkdowns also.

[RG3Hunna]

 

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.

It's Rare to find QB's who can still function without a RB pass blocking on 3rd downs at all. Drew Brees and Peyton Mannings don't grow on trees. Sure if I had Drew Brees or peyton I would consider it but they are two hall of famers at the QB spot, heck some franchises have never had a hall of famer in their history at the QB spot and that's after years of drafting.  I think we're over thinking this, the game is still simple the team who wins the line of scrimmage (pass blocking/run blocking) wins the game. This selfless play by the RB right here is the difference between 6 points (if the QB is competent) or a drive killing sack. 

 

[Oldfan]

Hitman: 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.

Are you offering this highlight film as an example of what happens as a rule when RBs stay in to block. And, if not, what point are you making?

[Oldfan]

Hitman: That doesn't necessarily help your argument though. They went to their checkdowns just as much because they didn't want to throw deep (there were numerous times with both QBs that a deep receiver was open and they just didn't throw it) as when it was needed due to pass rush. A lot of the Beck throws to Helu were screens vice checkdowns also.

 

 

Earlier, you said this:

 

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.

 

 

My post countered that top grade QBs were likely to be slower to use their outlets. Why lesser QBs are quicker doesn't really matter.

[NoCalMike]

The Cowboys tried to use the RB in the flat to bail themselves out of a heavy pass rush and it resulted in Romo sits to pee's 3rd INT of the game.

[Oldfan]

RG3Hunna: It's Rare to find QB's who can still function without a RB pass blocking on 3rd downs at all. Drew Brees and Peyton Mannings don't grow on trees. Sure if I had Drew Brees or peyton I would consider it but they are two hall of famers at the QB spot, heck some franchises have never had a hall of famer in their history at the QB spot and that's after years of drafting. I think we're over thinking this, the game is still simple the team who wins the line of scrimmage (pass blocking/run blocking) wins the game. This selfless play by the RB right here is the difference between 6 points (if the QB is competent) or a drive killing sack.

If I had said that a RB has never made a good block on a pass rusher, posting a highlight video as you did, would be a valid counterpoint. But I didn't, so it wasn't.

As I pointed out to Hitman, Poor QBs are more likely to use their outlet more quickly (too quickly) than the top grade QBs, so your argument that the top grade QBs are less in need of protection doesn't work.

The Cowboys tried to use the RB in the flat to bail themselves out of a heavy pass rush and it resulted in Romo sits to pee's 3rd INT of the game.

So, in your mind, does that one play prove me wrong?

 

[RG3Hunna]

RG3Hunna: It's Rare to find QB's who can still function without a RB pass blocking on 3rd downs at all. Drew Brees and Peyton Mannings don't grow on trees. Sure if I had Drew Brees or peyton I would consider it but they are two hall of famers at the QB spot, heck some franchises have never had a hall of famer in their history at the QB spot and that's after years of drafting. I think we're over thinking this, the game is still simple the team who wins the line of scrimmage (pass blocking/run blocking) wins the game. This selfless play by the RB right here is the difference between 6 points (if the QB is competent) or a drive killing sack.

If I had said that a RB has never made a good block on a pass rusher, posting a highlight video as you did, would be a valid counterpoint. But I didn't, so it wasn't.

As I pointed out to Hitman, Poor QBs are more likely to use their outlet more quickly (too quickly) than the top grade QBs, so your argument that the top grade QBs are less in need of protection doesn't work.

 

>The Cowboys tried to use the RB in the flat to bail themselves out of a heavy pass rush and it resulted in Romo sits to pee's 3rd INT of the game.

So, in your mind, does that one play prove me wrong?

 

Ok now i'm confused....where was I arguing that "Top grade QBs are less in need of protection" ? I'm arguing that I want my QB to ALWAYS have protection. I stated really only Drew Brees and Manning are able to function without a 3rd down back pass blocking most of the time on 3rd downs. 

 

You're over thinking this bro. The reason why poor QB's tend to use their outlet too quickly is because they get rattled at any sight of pressure. Pass blocking helps give your "poor" qb peace of mind to know he can step up. "Great" Qb's have mastered the pocket they don't get rattled by blitzes. They are able to take a huge hit and forget about it a "poor" QB isn't he takes a hit and then he's looking to get the ball out as quick as possible. 

[NoCalMike]

No way! I was just pointing out that you have the right personnel to run the offense the coaches choose to run.

 

If Helu can stay healthy I think he has the opportunity to be a strong pass catching RB in this system, but I'd keep Morris in the backfield whether it is rushing or pass blocking.

[Oldfan]

RG3Hunna: Ok now i'm confused....where was I arguing that "Top grade QBs are less in need of protection" 

 

 

You wrote: "It's Rare to find QB's who can still function without a RB pass blocking on 3rd downs at all. Drew Brees and Peyton Mannings don't grow on trees."

 

The reason why poor QB's tend to use their outlet too quickly is because they get rattled at any sight of pressure. Pass blocking helps give your "poor" qb peace of mind to know he can step up.

 

 

The discussion is specifically about the RB position (not pass protection in general) and whether it is better to keep the disadvantaged RB in to block or to use him as an outlet. I don't see why that decision hinges on the quality of the QB. If it's better to use him as an outlet it will benefit all QBs -- the poor QBs will benefit and the good ones will benefit even more.

[Hitman21ST]

 

My post countered that top grade QBs were likely to be slower to use their outlets. Why lesser QBs are quicker doesn't really matter.

 

If it's a screen then it's not really an outlet, and in the cases that you used (Campbell and Beck), they still looked deep then went to their outlet. The time elapsed didn't change, or was slower (which was the point). Top grade QBs would use them sooner because they would either throw the deeper ball or realize that they couldn't faster, and thus use the outlet.

[Hitman21ST]

 

Hitman: 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.

Are you offering this highlight film as an example of what happens as a rule when RBs stay in to block. And, if not, what point are you making?

 

You said that if you're in a spot where the RB needs to stay in and block then it doesn't make a difference what you do, your situation is hopeless anyway. Well, that video showed a hopeless situation had MJD not stayed in and blocked, but his block was what gave Garrard time to throw.

[Bang]

Given the optimal scenario that the OL is healthy, and there's no reason to leave a RB in out of necessity to cover for a backup lineman,  then I do agree.

A back can be a very effective weapon out of the backfield, if even to clear some of the chaff out of the pocket as the OP states.

Lets not forget how badly Brian Westbrook would torch us and everyone else as a receiver out of the backfield. 

Not only in swing passes or screens, but short option routes, drag and crossing patterns..

I guess you could call it an outlet to put him in front of a passer who's on the move to act as a receiver crossing, but even as a primary receiver, the back with the ball in his hands on a dead run 5 or 6 yards beyond the line is going to be problematic for many defensive sets.

Especially given the running threat RG3 brings, the defense doesn't know which way to go again.  On a rollout with a RB on a drag route, he can run or he can pass a high percentage short throw that can be turned into good yardage.

 

Other than the worst case scenario in which a backup lineman is getting beat and putting RG3 at risk, then absolutely use the RB, and at most have him give a chip block before flaring out.

Fire those weapons, i say. 

 

~Bang

[Hitman21ST]

Now if we're just talking about the Redskins, then I completely agree with OP and Bang. The Shanahans' system doesn't require a RB to stay in and block, so why waste the weapon?

[Oldfan]

Hitman: If it's a screen then it's not really an outlet, and in the cases that you used (Campbell and Beck), they still looked deep then went to their outlet. The time elapsed didn't change, or was slower (which was the point). Top grade QBs would use them sooner because they would either throw the deeper ball or realize that they couldn't faster, and thus use the outlet.

 

 

We must have been watching different games. If John Beck and Jason Campbell went through all their reads before going to their outlets, they did it faster than Brady and Manning. My perception was that they hurried through the process, probably mis-reading  open receivers, and went to their outlet quicker than necessary. That's what rattled QBs do.

[Oldfan]

Hitman: You said that if you're in a spot where the RB needs to stay in and block then it doesn't make a difference what you do, your situation is hopeless anyway. Well, that video showed a hopeless situation had MJD not stayed in and blocked, but his block was what gave Garrard time to throw.

 

 

Here's what I said:

 

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.

 

 

Like 99.3% of all statements people make, I meant that as a general rule. Linking a highlight video of an exceptional block doesn't prove me wrong. You can't believe that I'm not aware the RBs don't make highlight-worthy blocks every now and then.

[Oldfan]

Bang: Lets not forget how badly Brian Westbrook would torch us and everyone else as a receiver out of the backfield. Not only in swing passes or screens, but short option routes, drag and crossing patterns..

 

 

I argued that the RB should be used mainly as an outlet rather than stay in to block, but if you were lucky enough to acquire a really talented, elusive receiver at the RB position, then you can go well beyond the "outlet" idea.

[darrelgreenie]

If I had to choose one or the other I would choose a blocker. (But, imo the either or dichotomy in your OP is too extreme to be realistic)

 

Quickly: By sending out another receiver (RB) you essentially are playing an empty formation and the onus of blocking will fall to the 5 OL and the QB. A defenses response to this is well known: blitz. My aim as a DC would be to limit the 1 thing I can control in this instance: TIME. I will send more people then you can block;  we will be sending a free rusher. Ensuring the ball will come out quick, thus limiting the distance and type of routes you can run and my guys will rally and tackle. Your QB will also get hit, hurried and rushed and we will attempt to confuse your OL+QB and disguise where the pressures are coming from along with throwing off the timing of the outside receivers.

[FuriousD]

Lots of pros and cons but I'll play devils advocate...

 

I would suggest that as an outlet receiver there are players in the design better suited to the roll.  The principle reason for this is simple math.  At the NFL level, the QB has somewhere between 2.5 & 3 seconds to get rid of the ball. The RB starts his route somewhere between 5-7 yards behind the line of scrimage and has no choice but to begin laterally.  More often than not, the best that can be hoped for in that time is a short pass to the flat for a minimal gain.

 

WR's and TE's on the other hand suffer no such disadvantage and can break off their outlet routes deeper down field.  Unlike the RB, motion can move both WR & TE pieces around for advantage without showing any cards pre-snap. Not to mention, if you really want a pass to the flat, a TE can chip then release and still make it there for a minimal gain. Sure, a RB could chip and release too, but are you really hoping to advance the ball if you toss it to him?

 

Finally, I think the roll of the RB is crucial in pass-pro.  There isn't a player on the field in better position to offer a second line of defense. The RB doesn't have to stone the rush.  Even if it's just a warm body in the way, that extra .5 of a second makes a difference.  So much of this game relies on deception and keeping the back in on passing plays makes play-action work and the added level of protection makes deep threats possible.  

 

All that being said, I have no problem with the RB going out for the occasional pass.  The right call at the right time can be high-light reel material.  But sending them out on every pass attempt is unsound.  Over the course of 60 mins, the additional blocking they can provide in the passing game will outweigh their value as decoy or outlet.

 

Finally (again), If any team is lucky enough to draft a real peach of a receiver in the guise of a running back, they should seriously consider changing where that player line up.  If memory serves, Ricky Sanders entered the NFL as a RB with the Patriots. Thank you, Mr. Beatherd.

[darrelgreenie]

^^GP

IIRC the time on a 3 step drops is less then 2 seconds, I believe its somewhere in the ballpark of 1.5-1.8 seconds.

I can check if need be; and when there is a free rusher I would wager there will be only equal or less time then for a 3-step drop.

[Hitman21ST]

^^GP

IIRC the time on a 3 step drops is less then 2 seconds, I believe its somewhere in the ballpark of 1.5-1.8 seconds.

I can check if need be; and when there is a free rusher I would wager there will be only equal or less time then for a 3-step drop.

 

Which, with even a decent jam at the line, wouldn't give the receivers enough time to do much of anything.

[Oldfan]

DG: If I had to choose one or the other I would choose a blocker. (But, imo the either or dichotomy in your OP is too extreme to be realistic).

 

 

Why is that so? Did you interpret my position to be an absolute -- send the RB out on every play as an outlet or keep him in on every play as a blocker?

 

In the final paragraph of my OP, I wrote:  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. 

 

Is Sean Payton's approach too extreme to be realistic?

 

Quickly: By sending out another receiver (RB) you essentially are playing an empty formation and the onus of blocking will fall to the 5 OL and the QB. A defenses response to this is well known: blitz. My aim as a DC would be to limit the 1 thing I can control in this instance: TIME. I will send more people then you can block;  we will be sending a free rusher. Ensuring the ball will come out quick, thus limiting the distance and type of routes you can run and my guys will rally and tackle. Your QB will also get hit, hurried and rushed and we will attempt to confuse your OL+QB and disguise where the pressures are coming from along with throwing off the timing of the outside receivers.

 

 

You play a great game on paper, but on the field, it isn't that easy. There are counters for every thing you do. In addition to the O-line, I have TE-body types to help pass protect. The bottom line is this: I want your defense having to deal with my shifty running back with the ball and some space around him rather than allowing you abuse him with a momentum-fueled bigger man.

[darrelgreenie]

 

DG: If I had to choose one or the other I would choose a blocker. (But, imo the either or dichotomy in your OP is too extreme to be realistic).

 

 

Why is that so? Did you interpret my position to be an absolute -- send the RB out on every play as an outlet or keep him in on every play as a blocker?

Yes, because of this quote:

 

 

I would not keep the running back in to block on passing plays. I'd use him as an outlet receiver.

If all you're saying is you want a back like Tomlinson then sure, sign me up for a back that can do both.

 

You play a great game on paper, but on the field, it isn't that easy. There are counters for every thing you do. In addition to the O-line, I have TE-body types to help pass protect. The bottom line is this: I want your defense having to deal with my shifty running back with the ball and some space around him rather than allowing you abuse him with a momentum-fueled bigger man.

I'm not sure what you're saying. But the feeling is mutual If you're saying you'll send your back out on a pattern all the time then I think that sounds far better on paper then on the field, especially for your QB. Send your shifty back out and I'll take my chances sending a free rusher at your QB.

[Oldfan]

FuriousD: Lots of pros and cons but I'll play devils advocate...

 

 

Good, bring it, Amigo.

 

I would suggest that as an outlet receiver there are players in the design better suited to the roll.  The principle reason for this is simple math.  At the NFL level, the QB has somewhere between 2.5 & 3 seconds to get rid of the ball. The RB starts his route somewhere between 5-7 yards behind the line of scrimage and has no choice but to begin laterally.  More often than not, the best that can be hoped for in that time is a short pass to the flat for a minimal gain.

 

 

I won't need counter-math to disprove your simple math theory. The "third-down back" has been doing what I advocate for years. It's still a staple in many schemes. In the Patriots' scheme, Danny Woodhead has taken over that position from Kevin Faulk who did it for 13 years. I just want the primary back to present that same kind of threat on every down. 

 

Finally, I think the roll of the RB is crucial in pass-pro.  There isn't a player on the field in better position to offer a second line of defense. The RB doesn't have to stone the rush.  Even if it's just a warm body in the way, that extra .5 of a second makes a difference.  So much of this game relies on deception and keeping the back in on passing plays makes play-action work and the added level of protection makes deep threats possible.

 

 

The Physics involved don't support your position. If your O-line can't do it alone, the best way to stall the rush would be with FB-TE body types meeting rushers closer to the LOS before the rushers built up much momentum. Furthermore, as stated in the OP, if you keep the back in, defenses will read it and blitz another player. How can the role of the RB be "crucial" if he's only drawing more traffic to the pocket?

[RG3Hunna]

If I had to choose one or the other I would choose a blocker. (But, imo the either or dichotomy in your OP is too extreme to be realistic)

 

Quickly: By sending out another receiver (RB) you essentially are playing an empty formation and the onus of blocking will fall to the 5 OL and the QB. A defenses response to this is well known: blitz. My aim as a DC would be to limit the 1 thing I can control in this instance: TIME. I will send more people then you can block;  we will be sending a free rusher. Ensuring the ball will come out quick, thus limiting the distance and type of routes you can run and my guys will rally and tackle. Your QB will also get hit, hurried and rushed and we will attempt to confuse your OL+QB and disguise where the pressures are coming from along with throwing off the timing of the outside receivers.

Thank You, I agree with this point 100%! I would love to have a RB who could be a receiving threat but if I had to choose between a great pass blocker at RB vs a great pass catching option at RB i'm taking the pass blocker. We all saw how the broncos struggled once they lost knowshon moreno in the ravens game and had to stick with hillman, he was so horrible at pass blocking that Peyton manning looked human in the 2nd half and was rattled by the 4th quarter. The ravens were just bringing pressure and the broncos couldn't do anything to stop it, even sending hilman out for routes wasn't working.  

[TheItalianStallion]

Back in 2009 I remember reading something to the effect that, when Zorn was calling plays, we tended to keep backs & TEs in to block. When playcalling duties were handed to Sherm Lewis, we tended to open things up and send guys out. We saw more success with Lewis' approach than Zorn's. This was with Campbell at QB, who isn't exactly known for being a fast decision maker.