How Would You Use Your RB in Your Passing Game?

[Oldfan]

RG3Hunna: ...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.

 

 

You have hit upon a good way to simplify this issue for the rest of us. 

 

Clinton Portis was one of the best pass-blocking RBs ever in the game. LaDainian Tomlinson and Brian Westbrook are two of the best RB pass receiving threats in recent years. Which do you think would give defensive coordinators more concern when game planning? The great blocker or the great RB-receiver?

 

If you could choose the second coming of one of those three retired players for your football team, which would you pick?

 

You want Clinton Portis, the great pass blocker?

 

Are you sure?

[Hitman21ST]

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?

 

They do though, there are plenty of examples of good blocking RBs that go up against pass rushers. Especially in today's NFL, where pass rushers are getting lighter and quicker.

 

We don't need the RB to stone cold stop the pass rusher, we just need him to take an extra couple steps, either getting around or fighting through, to give the QB the extra time to throw.

 

And as for bringing another pass rusher, go ahead and do it. That opens up the field more for my receivers to get open. One of the advantages of having the RB block is he can read who the most immediate threat is and go to him. Linemen have a very limited area of effectiveness. Especially with a defense that is sending more rushers than I have blockers. The RB can read and scan everywhere. My QB can also move around avoiding the rush. He's not cement-footed.

 

Besides, you can teach hands and catching. You can't teach blocking and instincts. If you HAVE to choose one (and I agree with dg that the dichotomy presented in OP is too extreme-it more often than not isn't either/or), I'd choose the great blocker and teach him to be a pass catcher.

[pjfootballer]

Alot of fans are still nostalgic over a "Clinton Portis" type RB that can stonewall a LBer coming on a blitz. Gibbs' offenses (I and II) always had alot more protections in them then our current offense.  I'm not sure the Shanahans emphisize the RB blocking in our offense and I believe if we had have had any semblance of a pass catching threat out of the backfield, they would have used one.  Just going by personal memory, even in the Denver Elway days, I don't recall Terrel Davis ever having to be this great blocker that alot of fans want to see. 

 

I'm with Oldfan (first time for everything) in that I'd rather put another weapon on the field for a defense to have to defend and think about.  There are other ways to combat the blitz with a TE of FB in the game.  Also, counter to what some have been saying that not leaving a RB in to block would get your QB killed, it could go the other way also, as we have a very intelligent QB who can get the ball out quickly and throw it on a rope.  Plus, blitzing a LBer might leave alot of real estate for the RB to manuever in.  It's not 100% that because a defense blitzes, that they will be successful.  Blitzing is a risk.  More of a risk then sending your RB out on a wheel route.

[Oldfan]

Hitman....They do though, there are plenty of examples of good blocking RBs that go up against pass rushers. 

 

 

So, when I say that "the Physics involved don't support your position," you think you have proven me wrong by pointing out that sometimes they don't? 

 

Especially in today's NFL, where pass rushers are getting lighter and quicker.

 

 

If I find some examples of rushers who are heavier than the average rusher of 20 years ago can I prove your statement wrong?

 

You have an annoying debating habit of challenging general statements by offering exceptions.

 

We don't need the RB to stone cold stop the pass rusher, we just need him to take an extra couple steps, either getting around or fighting through, to give the QB the extra time to throw

.

 

Yes, sometimes that's true. I'm aware of that. But, be aware that you are making another general statement. If I find a highlight film where the rusher blasts through the RB to sack the QB it would not disprove your point.

 

Besides, you can teach hands and catching. You can't teach blocking and instincts. 

 

 

You can teach both, but pass receiving requires more natural athletic skills.

 

If you could choose the second coming of one of these retired players: Clinton Portis(Grade A blocker) or Brian Westbrook (Grade A receiver) for your football team, which would you pick? 

[Oldfan]

pjfootballer....I'm not sure the Shanahans emphisize the RB blocking in our offense and I believe if we had have had any semblance of a pass catching threat out of the backfield, they would have used one... 

 

 

You can tell what a coach emphasizes by the way he evaluates RBs. I used Joe Gibbs as an example in the OP. Joe wanted a third-down back, but he wasn't looking for a dual-threat in his primary back.

 

Mike has never had a top grade dual-threat RB probably because he hasn't looked for one. His emphasis has been strictly on the running threat.

[daveakl]

 

RG3Hunna: ...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.

 

 

You have hit upon a good way to simplify this issue for the rest of us. 

 

Clinton Portis was one of the best pass-blocking RBs ever in the game. LaDainian Tomlinson and Brian Westbrook are two of the best RB pass receiving threats in recent years. Which do you think would give defensive coordinators more concern when game planning? The great blocker or the great RB-receiver?

 

If you could choose the second coming of one of those three retired players for your football team, which would you pick?

 

You want Clinton Portis, the great pass blocker?

 

Are you sure?

Oddly enough, LT avged 1.2 more reception per game and .6 yards less over his career.

[Oldfan]

Daveakl: Oddly enough, LT avged 1.2 more reception per game and .6 yards less over his career.

 

 

That is odd. The NFL stats show  a greater disparity in the career pass receiving stats.

 

Westbrook (9 years) 32.6 YPG and 30 TDs

 

Tomlinson  (11 years) 28.1 YPG and 17 TDs

 

Portis (9 years) 17.9 YPG and 5 TDs

[daveakl]

 

Daveakl: Oddly enough, LT avged 1.2 more reception per game and .6 yards less over his career.

 

 

That is odd. The NFL stats show  a greater disparity in the career pass receiving stats.

 

Westbrook (9 years) 32.6 YPG and 30 TDs

 

Tomlinson  (11 years) 28.1 YPG and 17 TDs

 

Portis (9 years) 17.9 YPG and 5 TDs

sorry, it is 1.5 per game, mistyped.  the .6 is per reception.  I was surprised to see that Portis actually averaged more per catch.  Maybe he could have been as good at receiving as LT if they had run that type of offense.  The difference is the games played.  Tomlinson played 170 to 113 for Portis.

[Hitman21ST]

So, when I say that "the Physics involved don't support your position," you think you have proven me wrong by pointing out that sometimes they don't? 

 

You made a general statement in that the Physics involved don't support my position. General statements are given because they are meant to be correct most, if not all of the time. But when given information that contradicts that general statement, yes, it does prove it wrong. Or are you trying to say that the Physics don't support my position, except when they do, which is a good amount of the time? If there was only one or two backs who were great at blocking in the history of the NFL, then yeah, the Physics wouldn't support me. But when there are a significant portion of the backs in the history of the NFL that were good at blocking, your general statement stops working.

 

If I find some examples of rushers who are heavier than the average rusher of 20 years ago can I prove your statement wrong?

 

If you want to play the general statement game, so can I. But if you want to get specific, whether or not pass rushers have gotten bigger or smaller, RBs have had the same proportional change that pass rushers have, so the physics involved with blocking them stays the same.

 

 

 

You have an annoying debating habit of challenging general statements by offering exceptions.

 

No better than your habit of treating your general statements as gospel. Your OP asked how I would use my RBs. When I gave you an answer with reasons, you started into trying to make sure I knew I was wrong because I disagreed with you. You want to ask for someone's opinion, don't then go trying to prove them wrong because it's not yours.

[Oldfan]

Hitman... You made a general statement in that the Physics involved don't support my position. General statements are given because they are meant to be correct most, if not all of the time. But when given information that contradicts that general statement, yes, it does prove it wrong.

 

 

You cannot contradict an applicable law of physics. Even when the RB-blocker wins his battle it doesn't contradict anything. It simply means that sometimes the back is good enough to overcome the disadvantage of his opponent's momentum.

 

Or are you trying to say that the Physics don't support my position, except when they do, which is a good amount of the time? If there was only one or two backs who were great at blocking in the history of the NFL, then yeah, the Physics wouldn't support me. But when there are a significant portion of the backs in the history of the NFL that were good at blocking, your general statement stops working

.

 

Let's designate the top 20% of RB pass blockers as grade A pass blockers and the top 20% of rushers as Grade A rushers. If these Grade A players were to clash 1000 times, we should expect the rushers to win the majority of them because they have momentum on their side.

 

If you want to play the general statement game, so can I. But if you want to get specific, whether or not pass rushers have gotten bigger or smaller, RBs have had the same proportional change that pass rushers have, so the physics involved with blocking them stays the same.

 

 

Agreed. It stays the same. Momentum will always give the edge to the rusher.

 

No better than your habit of treating your general statements as gospel. Your OP asked how I would use my RBs. When I gave you an answer with reasons, you started into trying to make sure I knew I was wrong because I disagreed with you. You want to ask for someone's opinion, don't then go trying to prove them wrong because it's not yours.

 

 

That's baloney. I'm telling you that you're wrong because you're wrong. 

 

The fact that RBs can often win their battles is not evidence that the physics (momentum) is not always against them. It's evidence that the RB can often overcome that  disadvantage. 

 

I asked this before but you didn't answer:

 

If you could choose the second coming of one of these retired players: Clinton Portis(Grade A blocker) or Brian Westbrook (Grade A receiver) for your football team, which would you pick?

[daveakl]

Oldfan: Let's designate the top 20% of RB pass blockers as grade A pass blockers and the top 20% of rushers as Grade A rushers. If these Grade A players were to clash 100 times, we should expect the rushers to win the majority of them because they have momentum on their side.

 

What would you say is a win?  If the RB slows up the rusher by .3 seconds and thus enables the QB to get the pass off before getting hit that would be a win for the RB correct?  It seems it doesn't have to simple be a physics thing of who wins that specific piece of real estate, but a timing thing on the overall play.

[skinny21]

Hitman....They do though, there are plenty of examples of good blocking RBs that go up against pass rushers.

So, when I say that "the Physics involved don't support your position," you think you have proven me wrong by pointing out that sometimes they don't?

Especially in today's NFL, where pass rushers are getting lighter and quicker.

If I find some examples of rushers who are heavier than the average rusher of 20 years ago can I prove your statement wrong?

You have a bad debating habit of challenging general statements by offering exceptions.

We don't need the RB to stone cold stop the pass rusher, we just need him to take an extra couple steps, either getting around or fighting through, to give the QB the extra time to throw

.

Yes, sometimes that's true. I'm aware of that. But, be aware that you are making another general statement. If I find a highlight film where the rusher blasts through the RB to sack the QB it would not disprove your point.

Besides, you can teach hands and catching. You can't teach blocking and instincts.

You can teach both, but pass receiving requires more natural athletic skills.

If you could choose the second coming of one of these retired players: Clinton Portis(Grade A blocker) or Brian Westbrook (Grade A receiver) for your football team, which would you pick?

Yeah, in my mind you hear much often about guys coming into the league that need to work on their blocking (and they do so). Just on our recent teams - Cooley, Davis, Royster, Helu etc. This doesn't disprove the point made, but I feel there is far more evidence supporting players learning to block as opposed to learning to catch.

I often disagree with you OF, but since I'm aware my opinions usually come from preconceived notions I usually act as a bystander. One thing I'll add is if you look at some clutch plays made by our defense - Kerrigan's 2 pick 6's, Jackson's pick 6 against the Bengals and Jackson's pick to ice the Cowboys game - I feel like the these plays trump the (usually minimal) gains made against us by outlet receivers. The short zone can be dangerous for the offense, particularly if their QB rushes his throw.

All in all, I feel like the time a QB can gain to make downfield throws (having an additional blocker) outweighs the minimal gains when a RB goes on routes. I haven't seen pocket presence mentioned either. Guys like Brees and Rodgers move so well in the pocket that they may rely less on a back buying them that extra moment of time.

Lastly, would the argument against leaving a RB in to block a bigger player also apply to a TE (if we figure a TE vs a d-lineman is roughly the equivelant of a RB vs a linebacker). Also, I'd assume the RB would often go up against blitzing safeties, corner, and linebackers, in which case size may be less of a disparity.

. I believe it both strategies have their benefits and so I'd use them dependent on the situation (ie playcall).

I'm very aware my arguments are framed quite poorly, but I wanted to get the ideas out there for discussion.

[Mania]

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.

I like your posts whether I agree with them or not, because they are well thought out, well written and thought provoking.

Btw, I agree with you on the op. I'd like to see the running back sent out more, maybe not all the time, but the majority of the time. You are right, that if it was like this prior to Gibbs, it really could have altered the redskins history.

I always thought Ladell Betts was a better back for a Gibbs system and he had pretty good hands also.

[Oldfan]

skinny21... .I often disagree with you OF, but since I'm aware my opinions usually come from preconceived notions I usually act as a bystander. 

 

 

I rarely start threads that most people would agree with. I don't try to be contrary just for the sake of it, but I don't have trouble finding disagreement with conventional beliefs.

 

One thing I'll add is if you look at some clutch plays made by our defense - Kerrigan's 2 pick 6's, Jackson's pick 6 against the Bengals and Jackson's pick to ice the Cowboys game - I feel like the these plays trump the (usually minimal) gains made against us by outlet receivers. The short zone can be dangerous for the offense, particularly if their QB rushes his throw. 

 

 

It sounds like you are talking about the quick screens that have become popular in the NFL. The outlet pass I'm thinking of I suspect would be the QB's fourth read in most schemes. DEs would not normally be a threat to intercept them.

 

All in all, I feel like the time a QB can gain to make downfield throws (having an additional blocker) outweighs the minimal gains when a RB goes on routes. I haven't seen pocket presence mentioned either. Guys like Brees and Rodgers move so well in the pocket that they may rely less on a back buying them that extra moment of time. 

 

 

Those aren't minimal gains. Even Ladell Betts, just a fairly good receiver, averaged 8.8 yards per reception. Using the RB as I suggest would require that the playbook cut down on slow-developing plays, but by giving the QB an outlet, it would also cut down on sacks and QB fumbles.

 

Lastly, would the argument against leaving a RB in to block a bigger player also apply to a TE (if we figure a TE vs a d-lineman is roughly the equivelant of a RB vs a linebacker).

 

For an offense, the momentum disadvantge could be minimized by having bigger players meet the rushers closer to the LOS. For example, I like the idea of TE body types in slot positions so that they can get leverage on the edge rushers (if you can imagine that scene).

 

 Also, I'd assume the RB would often go up against blitzing safeties, corner, and linebackers, in which case size may be less of a disparity. 

 

Size isn't a factor then, but you still have the player of equal size coming on the run.

. I believe it both strategies have their benefits and so I'd use them dependent on the situation (ie playcall). 

 

 

Well, yes, there are going to be unique situations. But this is an important choice that the head coach must make when he designs his offense and before he selects RBs in the draft.

I'm very aware my arguments are framed quite poorly, but I wanted to get the ideas out there for discussion. 

 

 

Your arguments were framed just fine. I appreciate your participation. 

[MartinC]

I think you need to look at this question from a strategic (scheme) and tactical (game planning/play calling perspective).

 

From a scheme perspective if you are setting out with the premise that you want the pass to be the staple of your offense with a complimentary running game you are going to want to draft and sign players suited to that scheme. So Bill Walsh back in the day or Andy Reid with the Eagles always wanted a back who was as comfortable as a receiver as he was a runner (Roger Craig had years with the 49ers when he had 1,000 yards receiving and rushing in the same season, Brian Westbrook was similar type of back for the Eagles).

 

Thats what Oldfan is looking for in his back and I totally agree if your offense is a pass first offense I too would want a back who is going to be used more as a receiver than a blocker. There is a caveat on that I will come back to though when we look at play calling.

 

However if my offensive scheme is going to be more balanced and based on establishing the run with a passing game with a heavy reliance on play action I'm going to be evaluating candidates for my primary running back based on their rushing ability not their ability to catch passes. I will, like Joe Gibbs did, have a complimentary 3rd down back who comes in when we are in obvious passing situations (and I'd want that back to be a receiving threat more than a great pass blocker - though he would have to be at least acceptable as a blocker).  

 

Our offense last year was all about establishing the run and taking chunk plays off play action. 40 odd percent of our passing plays where play action last year. Albert Morris is a perfect back for what Shanny wants from his back, but he probably would not be a back Andy Reid would have considered drafting for the Eagles. When we passed with Albert in the game he was almost always carrying out some kind of play action run fake and was a checkdown target - he trotted off the field on 3rd and obvious passing downs. I doubt we ran a single pass play last year which was designed with Morris as the primary receiver.

 

Thats the strategic element. There is no black and white right answer - what you need and how you use your back will depend on the offensive philosophy.

 

On a tactical level lets assume we are a pass first offense and I have a back who is a good receiver and an adequate blocker. Overall I'm going to want that back out in patterns (not just check downs) more than he is staying in to block. However football is a chess match and as DG pointed out if the defense knows the back is going to release almost every time they will counter that to bring pressure and make the QB throw hot and then try to limit YAC. So I need to mix things up and also have blocking schemes mixing up when my TE stays in and counters a blitz to the side the back releases and keep the back in and use the TE as a receiver. Its not very often I want to go empty backfield and also have no TE blocking as well.

 

Also if I go 4 wide I want my back in or at least to check blitz before he releases.

 

Finally if its 3rd and say more than 7 (whether I am a pass first or a run first offense) I also want my back to stay in more than he releases because in that situation if the back does release and the defense counters with a blitz my QB is probably not going to have time to allow his receivers to get past the first down marker before he has to release so he will be forced to throw short of the sticks and hope for some YAC to pick up the first. I want my 3rd down back to be at least an adequate blocker so he can at least buy the QB an extra second in that situation to get the ball down the field past the first down marker (I hate when offenses throw short of the sticks on 3rd down - drives me crazy - apart from the very occasional screen.

[Oldfan]

SkinsFanMania... I like your posts whether I agree with them or not, because they are well thought out, well written and thought provoking.

 

 

Much appreciated.

 

Btw, I agree with you on the op. I'd like to see the running back sent out more, maybe not all the time, but the majority of the time. 

 

 

Agreed. I don't think any football strategy is so good you want to do it all the time.

 

I always thought Ladell Betts was a better back for a Gibbs system and he had pretty good hands also. 

 

 

Maybe you will recall that Al Saunders came here and began, almost immediately, telling us how much production he could get from a back like Ladell Betts; but evidently Joe never let it happen. What surprised me is that he didn't even use Ladell as a third down back, a staple in Gibbs One. I can't explain that.

[RG3Hunna]

RG3Hunna: ...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.

You have hit upon a good way to simplify this issue for the rest of us.

Clinton Portis was one of the best pass-blocking RBs ever in the game. LaDainian Tomlinson and Brian Westbrook are two of the best RB pass receiving threats in recent years. Which do you think would give defensive coordinators more concern when game planning? The great blocker or the great RB-receiver?

If you could choose the second coming of one of those three retired players for your football team, which would you pick?

You want Clinton Portis, the great pass blocker?

Are you sure?

I would take LT over Portis (Because LT really was elite for years) and Portis over Westbrook HANDS DOWN.

You do realize how DANGEROUS of a RB Portis was when he was on a winning team in Denver? You're comparing "Washington Redskin" portis to LT and Westbrook two backs who were playing for playoff teams for a majority of their career. Portis played for our team when we had NOBODY on offense, he carried us on his back.

Coaches don't consistently "put RB's in passing routes" to stop the blitz, that just doesn't work at this level. it's too dangerous, do you know how important the QB is to a franchise? They "put RB's in pass blocking responsibilities" to protect the QB because if he goes down or isn't successful the whole coaching staff is getting fired. If you can't pass block in the NFL you wont play very much in this league(unless you're too dangerous a offensive threat to bench). Every coach has expressed the sentiment "if you can't pass block you won't play" why do you think they drill pass blocking drills over and over and over again with NFL backs?

Lesean Mccoy plays on 3rd downs for the eagles, no wonder they aren't winning games Lesean Mccoy is one of the worst pass blockers I have ever seen. Mike Vick consistently gets abused back there on 3rd downs and that's because they don't have a back who can pass block on that roster.

[skinny21]

skinny21... .I often disagree with you OF, but since I'm aware my opinions usually come from preconceived notions I usually act as a bystander.

I rarely start threads that most people would agree with. I don't try to be contrary just for the sake of it, but I don't have trouble finding disagreement with conventional beliefs.

One thing I'll add is if you look at some clutch plays made by our defense - Kerrigan's 2 pick 6's, Jackson's pick 6 against the Bengals and Jackson's pick to ice the Cowboys game - I feel like the these plays trump the (usually minimal) gains made against us by outlet receivers. The short zone can be dangerous for the offense, particularly if their QB rushes his throw.

It sounds like you are talking about the quick screens that have become popular in the NFL. The outlet pass I'm thinking of I suspect would be the QB's fourth read in most schemes. DEs would not normally be a threat to intercept them.

Well, I think the one against Dallas was the RB running to the flat, but yeah... I was just talking about the rushed throws to an out receiver. By the time they throw to them (unless there's a blitz), they've gone through there 3-4 reads and now better get rid of the ball in a hurry. And if there is a blitz (the Dallas int), the QB turns and throws sometimes without the luxury of noting the location of defenders near the target.

All in all, I feel like the time a QB can gain to make downfield throws (having an additional blocker) outweighs the minimal gains when a RB goes on routes. I haven't seen pocket presence mentioned either. Guys like Brees and Rodgers move so well in the pocket that they may rely less on a back buying them that extra moment of time.

Those aren't minimal gains. Even Ladell Betts, just a fairly good receiver, averaged 8.8 yards per reception. Using the RB as I suggest would require that the playbook cut down on slow-developing plays, but by giving the QB an outlet, it would also cut down on sacks and QB fumbles.

I get your point here and you're quite possibly right, but I'm guessing the wheel routes and screen passes may inflate those #'s.

Lastly, would the argument against leaving a RB in to block a bigger player also apply to a TE (if we figure a TE vs a d-lineman is roughly the equivelant of a RB vs a linebacker).

For an offense, the momentum disadvantge could be minimized by having bigger players meet the rushers closer to the LOS. For example, I like the idea of TE body types in slot positions so that they can get leverage on the edge rushers (if you can imagine that scene).

Also, I'd assume the RB would often go up against blitzing safeties, corner, and linebackers, in which case size may be less of a disparity.

Size isn't a factor then, but you still have the player of equal size coming on the run.

True, but the RB doesn't have to stop them, just slow them down. And, perhaps most importantly, I've got a last line of protection (particularly on the blind side of the QB)

. I believe it both strategies have their benefits and so I'd use them dependent on the situation (ie playcall).

Well, yes, there are going to be unique situations. But this is an important choice that the head coach must make when he designs his offense and before he selects RBs in the draft.

Good point. Of course, pretty much all teams have multiple backs with differing abilities. Obviously there is the problem of telegraphing run/pass dependent on the back.

I'm very aware my arguments are framed quite poorly, but I wanted to get the ideas out there for discussion.

Your arguments were framed just fine. I appreciate your participation.

Thanks, and thanks for the thread - very interesting and thought provoking. And don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion, just offering... concerns.

[PlayAction]

@oldfan "

If you could choose the second coming of one of these retired players: Clinton Portis(Grade A blocker) or Brian Westbrook (Grade A receiver) for your football team, which would you pick?"

 

Portis in the Denver offense was a phenomenal player.  I think Gibbs miscast him as a power back.  Given that Portis would be playing in the zone blocking offense again I'd pick Portis. 

 

[Oldfan]

MartinC... From a scheme perspective if you are setting out with the premise that you want the pass to be the staple of your offense with a complimentary running game you are going to want to draft and sign players suited to that scheme.

 

 

I wouldn't start out with that premise, Martin. The way I approach the problem is to start out by asking how I can use the RB position to add max production to the offense. I end up emphasizing pass over run only because that's where my reasoning takes me.

 

When the RB is lined up seven yards behind the center, he isn't just in the best position to run the ball. He's also in the best position to attack the defense as a receiver in a ball control passing game. I would expect the defensive coordinator to thank me if I keep the RB in to block.

 

So, you are right, I end up with a Walsh-like scheme in that I want the RB to end up with lots of yards passing and receiving and a  passing game that emphasizes high percentage passes to achieve ball control.

 

However, my OP wasn't meant to get this deeply into offensive strategy. My argument was simply that any scheme would benefit by using the RB more often as an outlet receiver as Sean Payton does.

[FuriousD]

 

Westbrook (9 years) 32.6 YPG and 30 TDs

 

Tomlinson  (11 years) 28.1 YPG and 17 TDs

 

Portis (9 years) 17.9 YPG and 5 TDs

 

I put it to you, ladies & gentleman, that these YPG numbers only support why RB's are not used more in the passing game!

 

32.6 YPG & 8.1 YPC for a "shifty" pass catching demon like Westbrook?  These are stellar numbers for a RB to be sure. 

 

But how far did Westbrook have to run to gain those 8 yds and how do those YPC numbers stack up against numbers put up at the TE and WR positions?

 

Are you sure you want to funnel more throws to your backs? 

[KDawg]

I'd give him a responsibility. If that defender, or a defender who would replace him comes, then I must at the very least knock the blitzer off course. If he doesn't, I release into my route. At that point, it would be on the QB to understand timing and responsibilities. If I release and my man decides to delay blitz, the QB needs to see it and get the ball out quickly and with precision. 

 

In basic summary, yes, I'd involve my backs in the passing game.

[Oldfan]

Playaction... Portis in the Denver offense was a phenomenal player.  I think Gibbs miscast him as a power back.  Given that Portis would be playing in the zone blocking offense again I'd pick Portis. 

 

 

In 2003, Clinton's Broncos YPC was 5.5. In 2004, Clinton's Redskins' YPC was 3.8. The difference was in the scheme. The ZBS tends to open up long runs. Clinton had almost as many long runs in two years in Denver as he did in seven years here.

 

When it's running well, the ZBS can put up some gaudy stats, but it's not consistent yardage so you can't compare the stats to those of a more consistent power blocking scheme. 

 

I think you're getting fooled by the stats. Clinton wasn't as good as he looked in Denver nor as mediocre as he looked here.

[Oldfan]

RG3 Hunna... You do realize how DANGEROUS of a RB Portis was when he was on a winning team in Denver? 

 

 

See my post #73, a reply to another poster on this topic.

 

Coaches don't consistently "put RB's in passing routes" to stop the blitz, that just doesn't work at this level. it's too dangerous, do you know how important the QB is to a franchise? 

 

 

Giving the QB an outlet prevents sacks, lost yardage and QB fumbles. 

 

Every coach has expressed the sentiment "if you can't pass block you won't play" why do you think they drill pass blocking drills over and over and over again with NFL backs?

 

 

Please stop the hype. You can't possibly know what every coach says or does. 

 

Portis played for our team when we had NOBODY on offense, he carried us on his back.

 

More hype. Clinton played behind an above average run blocking O-line for most of his carries here. His coaches also added some Denver offense for him.

[Oldfan]

FuriousD.... But how far did Westbrook have to run to gain those 8 yds and how do those YPC numbers stack up against numbers put up at the TE and WR positions?

 

 

I'm missing your points. Why do we care how far he had to run? And, why do we care how they compare to the TE and WR positions?