How Would You Use Your RB in Your Passing Game?

[Oldfan]

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).

You took me back in time. You described the offense that nearly every NFL team was running 30-some years ago.

[KCClybun]

 

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?

 

 

No, I wasn't one of those people.

 

 

You need to be smart on BOTH sides of the ball. You can't send a green dog blitz every time you see the back go out on his route. The running back can just as easily run an angle route to the place where you vacate. A d-coordinator has to mix up their looks.

 

 

You and others are treating this like a black and white issue. It's not. Football is a chess match, and if you tip your hand to a tendency, you're going to get burnt for it.

 

 

I want my back to be able to block AND catch out of the backfield, so I have the latitude to do both depending on the game situation. I always want my back be able to read coverages and react accordingly. There are going to be times where the defense is okay letting you get a 3-4 yard checkdown route so the defender will drop whether the running back goes out in his route or not.

 

 

Likewise, there are very few offenses that have their running backs stay in and block when there's not a blitzer coming, unless you just have zero trust in your pass pro. Most backs are entrusted to reach the coverage, determine if there's a blitzer, and then either get out into their route, pass pro, or chip the blitzer and release to the flat.

 

 

It doesn't have to be "always leave you back in/always use him as an outlet receiver" and it doesn't have to be "always blitz the linebacker/always drop him." 

 

It's about balance and trying to pick out tendencies and making the proper reads accordingly.

[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).

You took me back in time. You described the offense that nearly every NFL team was running 30-some years ago.

It's a throwback for sure, but I like the idea of an offense that can not only break off the occasional big play, but is primarially concerned with eating up the clock, wearing down the opposition's defense and keeping the opposition's offense cold. Maybe I'm an old soul, but maybe it's because I've seen too many Redskins teams give up leads late in the game.

 

The first thing I look at after the final score in the stat line is the time of posession. I want my team dominanting in both respects.

[Oldfan]

NLC... It doesn't have to be "always leave you back in/always use him as an outlet receiver" and it doesn't have to be "always blitz the linebacker/always drop him." 

 

 

Neither of those positions are mine. I have repeated my positions enough times in this thread so that I shouldn't have to explain myself further at this point.

[Oldfan]

thebluefood... It's a throwback for sure, but I like the idea of an offense that can not only break off the occasional big play, but is primarially concerned with eating up the clock, wearing down the opposition's defense and keeping the opposition's offense.

 

 

My first thought was that your offense has been away for so long that a remake just might work. It was a solid plan for a long time.

[MartinC]

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

Re question 1 above personally in 3rd and long I would rather go without a traditional running back and use say a TE or H-Back in the backfield who would act as a additional blocker while I use 3 or 4 receivers and have my QB in the pistol or shotgun. A 3rd down back who is a really good pass catcher on 3rd and long could motion out and line up as a slot receiver of course but then I still want a TE or H-Back who I can use to give me that 6th blocker to give my QB a chance to let those downfield routes develop.

Re your point 2 - if you use 2 TEs and also a RB you only have 2 receivers and thats not enough for me personally in that situation? On 3rd and long I'd rather have an extra receiver and forgo the back altogether as above.

[Oldfan]

Martin... Re question 1 above personally in 3rd and long I would rather go without a traditional running back and use say a TE or H-Back in the backfield who would act as a additional blocker while I use 3 or 4 receivers and have my QB in the pistol or shotgun. A 3rd down back who is a really good pass catcher on 3rd and long could motion out and line up as a slot receiver of course but then I still want a TE or H-Back who I can use to give me that 6th blocker to give my QB a chance to let those downfield routes develop.

 

 

That might work. I like keeping the RB as a receiver and using two TE body types in the slots so that they could block, chip-and-go, or simply release as dictated by the defense. 

 

However, you didn't reply that you thought the third-down-back concept which Belichick, Payton, and other coaches employ is a foolish idea. Doesn't that contradict the hopelessness  you predicted for my RB/receiver concept in a third and ten situation?

 

Re your point 2 - if you use 2 TEs and also a RB you only have 2 receivers and thats not enough for me personally in that situation? On 3rd and long I'd rather have an extra receiver and forgo the back altogether as above.

 

I can use the two WRs and the RB-receiver, my elusive "Westbrook" (watch out for the screen!). My slotted TEs might be useful as receivers also depending on the D.

[DogofWar1]

Obviously you want a guy who can do all three, the running, the blocking, and the catching, but that's not always possible. At that point I'd try and find a blocking back and a receiving back, and use them based on the situation. I suppose you'd also try to get them to learn to do the other thing a bit so in a pinch they can work in a different way.

If I can only pick one kind of back, I pick based on the rest of the team probably. How is the receiving corp, offensive line, etc, how quick is the QB's release, arm strength, stuff like that. Like I imagine Aaron Rodgers wouldn't mind someone helping to keep his sack amount under 50. If you've got good receivers who can get open, then having a blocking back who can give you that extra second is nice. Alternatively, if you're thin at WR, then having a receiving back is very nice.

If you've got a good WR corp and a receiving back, that's fine too, your offense is just superpowered.

I guess the key thing for me is that I don't mind my RB not being a receiver so long as our WR corp doesn't stink. If we've got a good corp, then a receiving back is one of those next level tools, something to put a good team over the top. But if the WR corp has problems then that back needs to be around, because he's going to be getting the ball a lot.

[Voice_of_Reason]

My 2 cents, for what it's worth:
 

I think you do both, at different times, for different reasons. If you do just 1 thing, then a defense will figure out how to stop it. If you always send the RB out as an outlet, eventually, the defense is going to know, blitz hard up the middle, there's nobody to pick it up, the QB will throw hot, and you just have to have somebody covering the RB out in the flat, and chances are, you won't have a big gain against you.

 

If you constantly leave the RB in to protect, well, that limits the QBs options.

 

My wife is a Saints fan, so I watch a lot of Saints games.  And Peyton is an absolute master at using his pieces.  And the one thing he is not is predictable.  Sure, he sends his RBs out in routs a lot, but he also will have them stay in and block on certain plays, in order to (as much as possible) guarantee that Brees has enough time to wait for a deep route to develop. 

 

One thing on your analysis of Gibbs: His passing game, for better or worse, was always supposed to be vertical more than horizontal.  Unlike the concept of the WCO, where you can substitute a run with a short pass, the Gibbs philosophy was just to run the damn ball, and then take shots deep.  With that philosophy, you count on play-action and blocking to allow your QB to find targets deep. What the means, however, is that you have to have a running game (RB and OL) that can dominate, and WRs that can win 1-1 matchups, and a QB that can hit the WR when open. 

 

The problem Gibbs had is that he had only 1 of the 3 of those things: Portis and the OL could run the ball.  But his WRs were lacking, Moss was never a true #1, and they never approached having a secondary threat.  Cooley doesn't count.  And he had Brunnell, Ramsey and Campbell at QB. Which is just yuck to the yuck power.  

 

But Gibbs was still able to make it work well enough to get to the playoffs twice in 4 years.  

 

My contention is that if Gibbs was coaching the Saints and Colts, even if he forced his philosophy on those teams (which me might not have), because their personnel was SO much better than what he had here, they would have had much better success than what Gibbs had here.  Peyton Manning, Edgerin James, Harrison, etc. could have made any philosophy work.  If you wanted to ground and pound for a while, then smack them deep, they could have done it.  Same with Brees and the Saints.  They just have so many good players and playmakers, they can really DO anything.  

 

I think either philosophy can work.  Personally, I like a balanced approach. I think that you should be able to do everything, because that means the defense has to defend everything. 

[RG3Hunna]

Just to play along with your scheme, wouldn't a 6 man blitz with 5 defenders playing coverage destroy your offense? I mean you're saying you would have 2 TE's in the slot chip blocking before going for routes, 2 WR out wide and a RB in passing routes at all times, right? A defensive coordinator would just send 6 men blitzing that's 1 man more than your 5 lineman can block and put 5 defenders in press coverage. Your QB wouldn't even be able to find an open receiver, the unblocked pass rusher would be at your QB within 2 seconds and any defender can look like Deion Sanders if they only have to cover for 2 seconds. lol

 

I think what made Westbrook so successful is because a lot of times they were keeping him in as a pass blocker and That is what made him effective. They would pass block with their RB and then when you least expect it send him out on a pass or have him on a RB screen or RB dump off, after a coordinator would make a mistake and forget about westbrook and that was when he would break huge chunks of yardage or TDs. 

 

If you think you're gonna be successful having your RB out running routes "all the time" teams are just going to exotic blitz you and have defenders only worry about man coverage for 2 seconds or have defenders playing cover 2 or some form of shallow zone coverage. They won't even have to worry about covering deep because your QB will either have to pass quick (Short pass, which my defenders can cover that) or take a QB sack. 

[Oldfan]

VOR... I think you do both, at different times, for different reasons. If you do just 1 thing, then a defense will figure out how to stop it. If you always send the RB out as an outlet, eventually, the defense is going to know, blitz hard up the middle, there's nobody to pick it up, the QB will throw hot, and you just have to have somebody covering the RB out in the flat, and chances are, you won't have a big gain against you.

 

 

If I read all your general statements as absolutes, I could find fault with all your posts. For example, you wrote: ...the Gibbs philosophy was just to run the damn ball, and then take shots deep. 

 

Since you omitted a qualifier like "As a general rule..." I could interpret that line as an absolute to mean that you were foolishly claiming that Joe Gibbs did nothing but run the ball and throw deep.

 

When I wrote: I would not keep the running back in to block on passing plays. I'd use him as an outlet receiver. I omitted the qualifier. I did not mean that the RB would be used as an outlet on every passing down which, obviously, would be foolish.

 

How I use the RB on passing downs would depend on the back's ability as a receiver. Brian Westbrook would be a model for the player I'd look for in the draft. I would use him much the same way that Andy Reid did. A lesser talent would be used more as an outlet like a "third-down back." Keeping the back in to block is something I'd do rarely.

 

As for your idea that blitzing up the middle would be a killer defense when the back is used frequently as an outlet, then you need to explain why defenses don't do that when coaches like Gibbs, Belichik, Payton and others bring in a "third-down back" on third and long. Norv used Brian Mitchell as a third-down back very effectively. DCs didn't kill him with a blitz.

 

We disagree on our analysis of Gibbs Two but that's a worn-out topic and a considerable tangent here. I mentioned Joe only as an example of how the decision I write about is so very important.

[Oldfan]

RG3Hunna... A defensive coordinator would just send 6 men blitzing that's 1 man more than your 5 lineman can block and put 5 defenders in press coverage. 

 

 

I have seven blocking and all are bigger men, closer to the LOS than the RB, which nullifies the momentum disadvantage. As explained, the slot TE-body type can block, chip or release. It's his option depending on what the D presents.

 

I think what made Westbrook so successful is because a lot of times they were keeping him in as a pass blocker and That is what made him effective.

Not likely.

 

If you think you're gonna be successful having your RB out running routes "all the time" teams are just going to exotic blitz you...

 

 

If that's your killer defense, you need to explain why DCs haven't come up with that solution to the "third-down back" who is being used as I suggest. Coaches like Gibbs in Gibbs One, Belichik and Payton have used the third-down back as a staple. Norv used Brian Mitchell very effectviely.

[MartinC]

However, you didn't reply that you thought the third-down-back concept which Belichick, Payton, and other coaches employ is a foolish idea. Doesn't that contradict the hopelessness  you predicted for my RB/receiver concept in a third and ten situation?.

I don't think having a 3rd down back on the field is a foolish idea on 3rd and long IF he can block at last adequately. If he can't block then for me the only way he can be on the field on 3rd and long is if he such a good receiver he is better being split out than your 4th receiver is coming into the game - or allows you to do some different things with route combinations.

I don't watch enough of the Saints or Pats to really know but I would guess both teams keep their 3rd down back in to block if the way the defense reacts require that.

[Oldfan]

Martin... I don't think having a 3rd down back on the field is a foolish idea on 3rd and long IF he can block at last adequately

 

Keeping him in to block defeats the purpose of bringing him into the game.

 

Martin... I don't watch enough of the Saints or Pats to really know but I would guess both teams keep their 3rd down back in to block if the way the defense reacts require that.

 

 

Nah. Third-down backs are usually elusive little guys with good hands. Gibbs had Joe Washington. Belichik had Kevin Faulk, now Danny Woodhead. Payton has Darren Sproles. Norv used Brian Mitchell. They are all gutty little guys... 5-8, 5-9. But they weren't built for blocking in pass pro and they have not often been asked to do it.

[RG3Hunna]

Oldfan, on 07 Jul 2013 - 06:49, said:

Quote

RG3Hunna... A defensive coordinator would just send 6 men blitzing that's 1 man more than your 5 lineman can block and put 5 defenders in press coverage.

I have seven blocking and all are bigger men, closer to the LOS than the RB, which nullifies the momentum disadvantage. As explained, the slot TE-body type can block, chip or release. It's his option depending on what the D presents.

Quote

>>>>>>>

I think what made Westbrook so successful is because a lot of times they were keeping him in as a pass blocker and That is what made him effective.

Not likely.

Quote

If you think you're gonna be successful having your RB out running routes "all the time" teams are just going to exotic blitz you...

If that's your killer defense, you need to explain why DCs haven't come up with that solution to the "third-down back" who is being used as I suggest. Coaches like Gibbs in Gibbs One, Belichik and Payton have used the third-down back as a staple.

How do you have 7 people blocking if you said you were going to have 2 TE's chip blocking in the slot? your offense is confusing me lol. you're going to have 2 TE's in the slot a RB running a passing option two WR outside wide but 7 blockers closer to the line of scrimmage?

If you have two TE's in the slot that means you only have 5 offensive lineman to pass protect against my 6 defenders, which means 1 free man will get through 99% of the time I like those odds. You have 5 pass catching options and I also have 5 defenders on those pass catching options. I'm counting on your QB to throw the ball quickly once he sees my blitz and I'm confident my defenders can cover for 2.3 seconds because that's how long it's going to take for my free blitzer to get to your QB at the NFL level.

Not sure if you have watched Eagles game, westbrook was pass blocking a LOT, he was effective because as the game wore on he would start "fake pass blocking" and go out for dump off routes and eat teams alive once the other offensive threats on the team established themselves early on. Heck watch Lesean Mccoy he's pass blocking a LOT and then he sets you up with a fake pass block catches a dump off and runs for 40 yards. Please go to NFL.com and register for NFLRewind if you havent and go to week 11 Redskins vs Eagles and you'll see Lesean Mccoy pass blocking left and right early on.

Football has been around for over 60 years, in that time period you have found only 4 coaches(I'll say Andy Reid) who were successful in this type of offense out of thousands of coaches who have coached in the NFL. I can also name 4 QB's out of thousands of QBs who are shorter than 6 foot who were/are successful Drew Brees, Russell Wilson, Doug Flutie and Fran Tarkington however that doesn't change the fact that you almost ALWAYS want a QB over 6 foot and you almost ALWAYS want a RB who can pass block over a RB who is a pass catching threat but can't pass block, That is if you want the best chance to win a superbowl at this level.

If you watch the week 11 Redskins game it's 3rd and 17 with 4:37 left in the 2nd quarter Lesean Mccoy(5'11" 208 pounds) makes a crucial block on Lorenzo Alexander(6'1" 244 pounds) and steam rolls him and Nick Foles is able to deliver a BULLET for a 21 yard pick up and a first down. If you would have sent Mccoy out on a passing route Alexander would have ripped Foles head off with a blindside hit.

[Mania]

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.

Maybe because Portis was a great blocker and Gibbs was almost always keeping him in to block on 3rd downs.

[Oldfan]

Rg3Hunna... If you have two TE's in the slot that means you only have 5 offensive lineman to pass protect against my 6 defenders... 

 

 

No, Sir. Like a two-TE set my double slot has seven big boys close to the LOS.

 

Let's do it like this: First imagine a two-TE set. You have seven on the LOS, so you have to move your WRs off the LOS by 2.5 yards. Now we are going to adjust to a double slot formation. So, bring your WRs up to the LOS and back your TEs up 2.5 yards. We're doing this mainly to give your TEs a better blocking angle to chip on the edge rushers, but he can read the defense and, at his option, chip, block or release.

 

Not sure if you have watched Eagles game...

 

 

I've been a Skins fan since 1945, I've seen the Eagles a few times and I have no doubt that, if you search long and hard enough, you could find a few plays that support your claims.

 

Football has been around for over 60 years, in that time period you have found only 4 coaches(I'll say Andy Reid) who were successful in this type of offense out of thousands of coaches who have coached in the NFL.

 

Your reasoning would condemn every new football strategy no matter how well-conceived. Football has been around since the early 20th century. It was 60 years before Bill Walsh proved to other coaches that the forward pass could be a weapon to achieve ball control. Until last season NFL coaches rarely used the Pistol. Yet, I think it's a good idea. Don't you?

 

I can also name 4 QB's out of thousands of QBs who are shorter than 6 foot who were/are successful Drew Brees, Russell Wilson, Doug Flutie and Fran Tarkington however that doesn't change the fact that you almost ALWAYS want a QB over 6 foot and you almost ALWAYS want a RB who can pass block over a RB who is a pass catching threat but can't pass block, That is if you want the best chance to win a superbowl at this level.

 

 

Being over six feet is an obvious advantage for a QB. Because of momentum, a pass blocking RB is always at a disadvantage. 

 

If you watch the week 11 Redskins game it's 3rd and 17 with 4:37 left in the 2nd quarter Lesean Mccoy(5'11" 208 pounds) makes a crucial block on Lorenzo Alexander(6'1" 244 pounds) and steam rolls him and Nick Foles is able to deliver a BULLET for a 21 yard pick up and a first down. If you would have sent Mccoy out on a passing route Alexander would have ripped Foles head off with a blindside hit. 

 

 

As a general rule keeping the RB in to block is a dumb idea. I don't care how many exceptional plays you find, it will still be a dumb idea. I agree with those posters who wrote that you need to mix it up on offense, but I'm not a big fan of mixing in dumb just to be mixing.

[Oldfan]

SkinsFanMania... Maybe because Portis was a great blocker and Gibbs was almost always keeping him in to block on 3rd downs.

That's possible, in fact, I'd say likely. But it would be a stretch for anyone to claim Joe's decision was proved right by the results since the Skins could not get a consistent passing game going in Gibbs Two.

[#BgMase76#]

While I'm interested to know Morris' true skill set catching out of the backfield. We all lmow until camp starts and some one bumps him. Helu is clearly the best receiving threat oit of the back field. Maybe Thompson can push him. At the same time i understand why we uae the screen play to our back.

[KCClybun]

 

 

As a general rule keeping the RB in to block is a dumb idea. I don't care how many exceptional plays you find, it will still be a dumb idea. I agree with those posters who wrote that you need to mix it up on offense, but I'm not a big fan of mixing in dumb just to be mixing.

 

 

It is your opinion that it's dumb. 

 

Most offenses tell the running back to read the coverage and react accordingly. That's a more sound strategy then always putting your guy out on routes or always keeping him in.

 

You have some weird idea that "momentum" puts backs at a natural disadvantage. The idea isn't for a running back to stone a defender and put him on his ass every time, but for the back to slow down the defender and allow the quarterback to have that extra time to step up or manuever to find his man.

 

The idea is to slow the defenders momentum. Not stop him.

[Oldfan]

NLC... It is your opinion that it's dumb.

 

If my opinion was dumb, you wouldn't have to create strawman arguments to counter it. 

 

This is a strawman: 

 

That's a more sound strategy then always putting your guy out on routes or always keeping him in.

 

 

Here's another strawman: 

 

The idea isn't for a running back to stone a defender and put him on his ass every time..

.

 

Before reading your posts, I can tell when you are going to create strawman arguments because you don't quote me. You don't quote me because you can't find anything wrong with what I actually said.

 

I know it tougher to do, but you should really try countering your debate opponent's actual positions. When you resort to strawman arguments as often as you do, it only tells readers that you are frustrated because you disagree but you can't find fault with what your opponent actually wrote.

[Oldfan]

While I'm interested to know Morris' true skill set catching out of the backfield. We all lmow until camp starts and some one bumps him. Helu is clearly the best receiving threat oit of the back field. Maybe Thompson can push him. At the same time i understand why we uae the screen play to our back.

I seriously doubt that Morris will lose the #1. He's a fantastic runner. Helu has the talent for a third-down back. 

[darrelgreenie]

Do you agree that having the back always go out takes away from pass protection and a QBs functional time in the pocket?

[techboy]

NLC... It is your opinion that it's dumb.

 

If my opinion was dumb, you wouldn't have to create strawman arguments to counter it.

He wasn't calling your opinion dumb. He was suggesting that the idea that keeping the RB in to block is dumb is only your opinion. You missed a "t'" when reading too quickly, apparently.

[darrelgreenie]

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.

But we're not talking about Pistol vs drop back though. We're talking about time and the time needed for receivers to run certain routes. These routes, for sake of easy reference are often referred to by the depth of the drop. IE If your receivers are running quick/slants you don't need as much time/pass protection if your receivers are running post-corner. Pass protection / time and route depth are directly related. It is easier to throw quick and short then intermediate.

Naturally you don't see the connection between the offense you describe and Walsh comments. But I see it clear as day. Ultimately you want to gain yards and throwing quick generally leads to shorter gains then intermediate. But to throw intermediate you need pass protection/ time. By sending your back out you reduce your pass pro/time therefore you limit the types of routes your passing offense can execute. At the end of the day you need to produce YPC. Walsh comments to me are a warning for offense that throw quick but dont yield YPC like Pat Shurmur