How Would You Use Your RB in Your Passing Game?

[skinny21]

Great points Martin. I''d look at their running, then pass-catching, then blocking when rating a RB (to run my offense). Blocking can be taught, agility and hands, not so much. Unless we're talking complimentary back, then I'd maybe put running and catching on equal footing.

Griffin also has the benefit of the pistol, perhaps reducing the need for the backer to block.

Rb screens aside, 3rd and long, or 7 step drops (for me) means the back stays in. Otherwise, I'd use him as KDawg suggests.

OF, just out of curiosity, what do you think about the times we see a free rusher in the qbs face before they can plant? Especially the times the RB slows them down/knocks them aside thus allowing the QB time to throw?

[PlayAction]

 

"In 2003, Clinton's Broncos YPC was 5.5. In 2004, Clinton's Redskins' YPC was 3.8. The difference was in the scheme.

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. "

 

 

Well, we are choosing a player specifically for the ZBS so I'd pick the guy whom we know played extremely well in that scheme. Of course if you are looking to create a derivative of Phily's offense then Westbrook would be better.

[Oldfan]

skinny... OF, just out of curiosity, what do you think about the times we see a free rusher in the qbs face before they can plant? Especially the times the RB slows them down/knocks them aside thus allowing the QB time to throw? 

 

 

Well, obviously, if that was something we saw happening on a regular basis, my argument would be dumb.

 

However, as a defensive coordinator, I'd smile if you kept your back in routinely. I'd have a option-defender reading him with instructions to blitz if he stayed in. So, the net effect of your keeping the back in would be 1) I don't have worry about covering him in the pattern and 2) your QB would have two more bodies twisting around his pocket. 3) my option guy might even make the sack.

[FuriousD]

 

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? 

maybe I'm guilty of over simplifying...

 

Why do we care how far the RB had to run?  Because it has a direct effect on his average YPC.

 

Why do we care to compare with TE's & WR's?  Because their average YPC is typically more than double that of the RB. 

 

Why do we care about YPC?  Well, it's a simple story about return on investment.  This is the core of my arguement.

 

You would seem to value receiving over blocking from your backfield and suggest you would send your back out regularly as an outlet.  I am mearly suggesting that if you want an outlet route, you'll get a better return from one run by TE's and WR's. 

 

And by extension, if you want to invest in your passing game as a whole, you'll get more value from a back that can block well rather than a back who can catch well.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[KCClybun]

Ideally, you want a running back that can do all three.

 

 

Absent that? Give me a running back willing to block. One may feel Portis was overrated, but he was good enough being at outlet receiver when it was needed, and he'd stone a free rusher in the hole like nobodies business. Have Clinton was as good as having another o-linemen. You can always have a running back chip and then get out in his route. 

 

 

Pass blocking is a priority. We must protect the quarterback. Period. Part of the reason I hate watching Bruce Arians' scheme is because he does put all 5 edibles out in a route with no back and no tight end in to block, and then relies on his quarterbacks to run around and make a play. It's a nice way to get your quarterback pounded.

 

 

If the defense knows you're never going to keep your running back in to block. they're going to blitz the hell out of your formations and put you in a bind. You have to be balanced at what you do.

[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? 

maybe I'm guilty of over simplifying...

 

Why do we care how far the RB had to run?  Because it has a direct effect on his average YPC.

 

Why do we care to compare with TE's & WR's?  Because their average YPC is typically more than double that of the RB. 

 

Why do we care about YPC?  Well, it's a simple story about return on investment.  This is the core of my arguement.

 

You would seem to value receiving over blocking from your backfield and suggest you would send your back out regularly as an outlet.  I am mearly suggesting that if you want an outlet route, you'll get a better return from one run by TE's and WR's. 

 

And by extension, if you want to invest in your passing game as a whole, you'll get more value from a back that can block well rather than a back who can catch well.

 

Just my 2 cents.

Okay, I don't think you are over-simplifying. I think that trying to do this using stats is an overly complex approach. 

 

For example, yards-per-catch on its own is a useless stat for this purpose. It's a given that the WRs will have a higher YPC than other receivers because they run deeper routes. But QBs are going to have lower completion percentages on those deeper routes. If you could find a yards-per-attempt stat broken down for WRs, that would be interesting. But there is still an unaccounted-for consistency factor which I won't get into here.

 

Another factor is timing. If I create a four-read progression for the QB, the WRs are likely to be one and two on most plays because they can quickly penetrate the defense. The RB outlet, coming from the mid-backfield seven yards deep, would be four. It just times out better than way.

 

As for the TE types, If you put your WRs on the LOS, you can keep a couple of FB-TE bodies in the backfield for blocking, or to chip-and-go to help out on the edge rushers. While they can be used now and then as an outlet receiver. I think of that as a change-up.

[Oldfan]

PlayAction... Well, we are choosing a player specifically for the ZBS so I'd pick the guy whom we know played extremely well in that scheme. Of course if you are looking to create a derivative of Phily's offense then Westbrook would be better.

 

 

It would not be my intent to do either. I'm not a fan of the ZBS running game. I would use a Westbrook-type RB as the starting point for an entirely new offensive scheme. I choose him as a model because he represents the greater threat to defenses. 

[Oldfan]

NLC... If the defense knows you're never going to keep your running back in to block. they're going to blitz the hell out of your formations and put you in a bind. You have to be balanced at what you do.

 

 

If I can count on you to keep your back in, I'll send a blitzer. Otherwise, I probably won't. 

[KCClybun]

 

NLC... If the defense knows you're never going to keep your running back in to block. they're going to blitz the hell out of your formations and put you in a bind. You have to be balanced at what you do.

 

 

If I can count on you to keep your back in, I'll send a blitzer. Otherwise, I probably won't. 

 ...Yeah. That's why I said you need a balanced approach.

 

You can't always keep your back in to block, and you can't always send your running back out to be a receiver. The goal on offense is to not give the defense any keys or tips. 

 

 

You argue that having the block stay in to block is a natural disadvantage because of "momentum". I disagree. I've seen Clinton Portis stone guys screaming through the hole at 100 miles an hour cold.  I think you can watch any number of games and see a running back not lose ground to a linebacker, or at least if they're losing ground they're keeping the quarterback clean.

 

 

I also think if you had the benefit of seeing the All-22, and getting past your less-than-impressed notions of what Mike Shanahan's offense is, you'd see that even though he didn't catch many balls, Alfred was often put out as an outlet receiver.

 

 

If the backer blitzed, he picked him up. If the backer didn't blitz, he ran his route.

 

 

Which is exactly what the Saints backs do, for the most part.

[MartinC]

Just another thought on this re the conversation about the relative yards per catch of a receiver versus a TE versus a WR. I think that's a red herring in this debate personally.

I am too lazy to look up the average yards per play for a rush versus a pass attempt last year in the NFL but if I did I would expect to see yard per pass attempt be about 7.5 ish and yards per rush be 4.5 ish. So passing attempts consistently gain more yards per attempt than rushing he ball. Yet teams still run the ball - because it's important in developing consistency of offense, it keeps you out of third and long situations, it sets up play action, it stops the defense from selling out against the pass etc etc etc. In short there are reasons you would run the ball rather than throw it every down and there are reasons you would throw the ball to a back rather than to a receiver or TE every time you want to pass.

Also - and I think more importantly - in the pass heavy offense which is going to demand a back who is as good a receiver as a rusher many/some of the pass targets that go their way will replace run calls in a more balanced offense. They are intended to be high percentage throws which maintain ball control and time of possession and to set up deeper throws to receivers by drawing coverage in similar looks later in the game. In that context the yards per catch being less than a WR does not matter - it's still important in that style of offense to be able to throw to your back and IMO have a back who is at least an adequate blocker but a better receiver.

[Oldfan]

NLC... You can't always keep your back in to block, and you can't always send your running back out to be a receiver. The goal on offense is to not give the defense any keys or tips.

 

There might be a situation where I'd keep my Brian Westbrook clone in to block, but offhand I can't think of one. Generally, it would be a dumb thing to do.

 

 

You argue that having the block stay in to block is a natural disadvantage because of "momentum". I disagree. I've seen Clinton Portis stone guys screaming through the hole at 100 miles an hour cold.  I think you can watch any number of games and see a running back not lose ground to a linebacker, or at least if they're losing ground they're keeping the quarterback clean

.

 

We can't repeal the laws of physics. The momentum factor is against your RB on every down. The fact that your back is as good as Portis in overcoming that disadvantage doesn't change the fact that as a coach you have put him at a disadvantage on every play.

 

 

I also think if you had the benefit of seeing the All-22, and getting past your less-than-impressed notions of what Mike Shanahan's offense is, you'd see that even though he didn't catch many balls, Alfred was often put out as an outlet receiver.

 

 

I haven't seen the All-22s. I'll take your word for it.

  

If the backer blitzed, he picked him up. If the backer didn't blitz, he ran his route.

 

 

So, a defender reading him could blitz just to keep him out of his pattern. Right? So, the defender doesn't have to cover him. He can just blitz and harass the QB.

 

 Which is exactly what the Saints backs do, for the most part.

 

 

Nope. Payton has his RB outlet thing going on a very high percentage of pass plays...like a "third-down back." The exceptions usually have the RB running another pattern. He does keep the back in now and then, but from what I've seen, it's rare.

[Oldfan]

MartinC, I agree with your post #85 with the exception of this one thought:

 

- it's still important in that style of offense to be able to throw to your back and IMO have a back who is at least an adequate blocker but a better receiver.

 

 

I would be looking for RB in the draft using Brian Westbrook as a model. With all that talent as a runner and receiver, I don't care if he can block at all. On pass plays, I'd want him out running a pattern even if he's just a decoy.

 

You have my thinking pegged exactly right. Lots of quick, high-percentage passes, some runs mixed in, consistency, ball control.

[darrelgreenie]

Bill Walsh once said ~don't be seduced by the relative ease of completing 3-step drop passes (quick game fits in the 3-step group)

 

And that sounds like the type of offense you would be building.

If I was your QB I would care if my lead back can block, because there are times that I'm gonna check him out of a pass pattern and keep him in so I don't get crushed.

 

o For some reason I keep thinking of the 1st Brady (spread passing offense) vs the Giants (pass rush defense) SB

[Oldfan]

DG.... Bill Walsh once said ~don't be seduced by the relative ease of completing 3-step drop passes (quick game fits in the 3-step group). And that sounds like the type of offense you would be building.

 

 

The 3-step drop would not be in my plans. I wouldn't have my QB under center at all. The Pistol at 4.5 yards works better for me.

 

If I was your QB I would care if my lead back can block, because there are times that I'm gonna check him out of a pass pattern and keep him in so I don't get crushed.

 

 

You will rarely get crushed if you can read defenses, audible to the right play, and get the ball out.

[MartinC]

MartinC, I agree with your post #85 with the exception of this one thought:

 

- it's still important in that style of offense to be able to throw to your back and IMO have a back who is at least an adequate blocker but a better receiver.

 

 

I would be looking for RB in the draft using Brian Westbrook as a model. With all that talent as a runner and receiver, I don't care if he can block at all. On pass plays, I'd want him out running a pattern even if he's just a decoy.

 

You have my thinking pegged exactly right. Lots of quick, high-percentage passes, some runs mixed in, consistency, ball control.

I think your back has to be able to block at least 'adequately' - as per an earlier post I made in this thread IMO there will be game situations were you want/need your back to stay in and block. If your primary back is unable to block even adequately it gives the defense the ability to key based on personnel groupings too easily on what the play call may be and reduces your flexibility at the LOS to audible to a different protection if you know as the QB your back just can't pass block.

You will rarely get crushed if you can read defenses, audible to the right play, and get the ball out.

You can get the ball out quick for sure if you read blitz and throw hot. But if its 3rd and 10 and the defense makes you do that they are happy and you will be punting a lot.

[darrelgreenie]

 

DG.... Bill Walsh once said ~don't be seduced by the relative ease of completing 3-step drop passes (quick game fits in the 3-step group). And that sounds like the type of offense you would be building.

 

 

The 3-step drop would not be in my plans. I wouldn't have my QB under center at all. The Pistol at 4.5 yards works better for me.

Lets not get hung up on labels. Whether its from under center, shotgun or pistol the routes/combinations all have some sort of timing linked to them. The offense you describe is '3-step' or 'quick game' in nature. And Walsh's comments remain pertinent.

 

 

 

If I was your QB I would care if my lead back can block, because there are times that I'm gonna check him out of a pass pattern and keep him in so I don't get crushed.

 

 

You will rarely get crushed if you can read defenses, audible to the right play, and get the ball out.

I didn't literally mean your QB was gonna get crushed every play. But, he will be hurried, rushed, hit and sometimes sacked and sometimes crushed as a result of sending your back out every play.

[Oldfan]

Martin... I think your back has to be able to block at least 'adequately' - as per an earlier post I made in this thread IMO there will be game situations were you want/need your back to stay in and block. If your primary back is unable to block even adequately it gives the defense the ability to key based on personnel groupings too easily on what the play call may be and reduces your flexibility at the LOS to audible to a different protection if you know as the QB your back just can't pass block. 

 

 

I understand your thinking, but I can't agree. I try to put myself in the shoes of a defensive coordinator game planning for a RB with Brian Westbrook's talent. I'm mainly concerned with him as a pass receiver; I'm somewhat concerned with him as a runner; and I breathe a sigh of relief when he stays in to block.

[MartinC]

Martin... I think your back has to be able to block at least 'adequately' - as per an earlier post I made in this thread IMO there will be game situations were you want/need your back to stay in and block. If your primary back is unable to block even adequately it gives the defense the ability to key based on personnel groupings too easily on what the play call may be and reduces your flexibility at the LOS to audible to a different protection if you know as the QB your back just can't pass block. 

 

 

I understand your thinking, but I can't agree. I try to put myself in the shoes of a defensive coordinator game planning for a RB with Brian Westbrook's talent. I'm mainly concerned with him as a pass receiver; I'm somewhat concerned with him as a runner; and I breathe a sigh of relief when he stays in to block.

Imagine it's 3rd and 10 and your the DC. You know the back in will always release so you blitz force the QB to throw quickly to the back or a receiver making a blitz adjustment and run to the ball, tackle and send in the punt return unit. In that situation as the DC I prefer to see Westbrook catching the ball for 5 or 6 yards rather than pass blocking and having the QB throw the ball past the first down marker. The back might make a man miss or break a tackle every now and then to make the first down but I like my odds as the DC in that scenario.

[KCClybun]

Martin... I think your back has to be able to block at least 'adequately' - as per an earlier post I made in this thread IMO there will be game situations were you want/need your back to stay in and block. If your primary back is unable to block even adequately it gives the defense the ability to key based on personnel groupings too easily on what the play call may be and reduces your flexibility at the LOS to audible to a different protection if you know as the QB your back just can't pass block. 

 

 

I understand your thinking, but I can't agree. I try to put myself in the shoes of a defensive coordinator game planning for a RB with Brian Westbrook's talent. I'm mainly concerned with him as a pass receiver; I'm somewhat concerned with him as a runner; and I breathe a sigh of relief when he stays in to block.

That's why just about every scheme has the back read the coverage. If there's a free rusher he helps pick up the blitz. If the defense plays coverage he gets out in his route.

Most schemes don't just require the back to stay in and block without any care for how the defense is playing. You make it sound as though a runner must due one or the other and that's simply not the case.

[Oldfan]

DG.... The offense you describe is '3-step' or 'quick game' in nature. And Walsh's comments remain pertinent...

 

 

You are straining to make a connection to Walsh's comment. The Pistol allows the QB more time than the 3-step drop. That's why the Pistol is coming in while the 3-step drop is losing ground in offensive schemes.

 

I didn't literally mean your QB was gonna get crushed every play. But, he will be hurried, rushed, hit and sometimes sacked and sometimes crushed as a result of sending your back out every play.

 

 

It could happen rarely. All football strategies involve tradeoffs. I think the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages when the RB is selected for his pass receiving ability. As RiggosMohawk put it earlier:

 

...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.

[MartinC]

Good thread by the way OF - nice change of pace at this time of year.

[Oldfan]

NLC... That's why just about every scheme has the back read the coverage. If there's a free rusher he helps pick up the blitz. If the defense plays coverage he gets out in his route.

 

 

Right, now once again... as a D-coordinator, knowing that, would you not have a defender on the LOS, looking like a wannabe blitzer, but reading the back, and rushing only if the back stays in?

 

In that way, you don't have to cover the RB and you can crowd the pocket and harass the QB in the bargain.

Good thread by the way OF - nice change of pace at this time of year.

Thanks... and thanks for helping with it. 

[KCClybun]

NLC... That's why just about every scheme has the back read the coverage. If there's a free rusher he helps pick up the blitz. If the defense plays coverage he gets out in his route.

 

 

Right, now once again... as a D-coordinator, knowing that, would you not have a defender on the LOS, looking like a wannabe blitzer, but reading the back, and rushing only if the back stays in?

 

In that way, you don't have to cover the RB and you can crowd the pocket and harass the QB in the bargain.

Good thread by the way OF - nice change of pace at this time of year.

Thanks... and thanks for helping with it. 

That's simply not what most d coordinators do though. Most d-coordinators don't sugar their linebackers simply to read a back. Typically when you put your linebackers on the LOS you're trying to force the quarterback to make a quick throw, and if you're dropping your guys you're trying to confuse blocking and coverage.

If I know a dcoordinator is using the linebacker to essentially spy my running back, I know that takes a defender out of the equation. If its a backer, that leaves hole in the defense. I'll also figure that backer is going to overreact to whatever the back does, which exposes him in play action, and he'll probably over pursue too.

If you were a dcoordinator, I'd play action you to death.

[Oldfan]

Martin... Imagine it's 3rd and 10 and your the DC. You know the back in will always release so you blitz force the QB to throw quickly to the back or a receiver making a blitz adjustment and run to the ball, tackle and send in the punt return unit. In that situation as the DC I prefer to see Westbrook catching the ball for 5 or 6 yards rather than pass blocking and having the QB throw the ball past the first down marker. The back might make a man miss or break a tackle every now and then to make the first down but I like my odds as the DC in that scenario.

 

1) Do you think think the concept of bringing in the "third-down back" in that situation is foolish then?

 

2) In addition to the five-man O-line, I have the potential to use two players bigger than my RB and in better positions than him for pass protection. 

 

 

NLC... If you were a dcoordinator, I'd play action you to death.

 

 

You are imagining advantages that don't exist. DC's aren't going to give you the same look every time. But, if they do put a defender on the LOS to read your RB, play action is not going to be any more effective than it would be on any other play. 

 

You are correct that, for every blitzer there is one less defender in coverage. That factor is equally true for those in this thread who were going to blitz me to death. Were you not one of those posters?

[thebluefood]

It depends on what kind of RB it is and what their skill sets are.

 

If I were a coach, I'd probably run a two back formation with a fullback and a halfback.

 

My fullback would primarially serve as a blocker and a short yardage situation back, but if he could catch, I could use him the passing game.

 

My halfback, on the other hand, would be used frequently as a short yardage receiver. My quarterback, especially if he's working with a sub-standard line, needs a receiver he can throw to quickly for positive yardage (even if it's only a yard or two).