How Would You Use Your RB in Your Passing Game?

[darrelgreenie]

Last post sent from the beach.

[s0crates]

My answer echos some of the other comments a bit.  I don't see this as a real dilemma, I don't think it is strictly an either/or type of question.  Basically, I have two reasons for saying this.

 

1) I think coaches should play to the strengths of their personnel.  If you have a running back who blocks like Clinton Portis, then you should use that to your advantage in pass protection.  If you have a running back who has hands like Marshall Faulk, then you should use him as a receiver as much as possible.  

 

2) I think a lot depends on game situations, you need to be willing to be flexible in your strategy based on the way the game is going.  If your offensive line is struggling in protection, then you might need to keep extra running backs and tight ends in to block.  If your receivers are struggling to get open, then you might need to have check down options for your quarterback.  That kind of thing.

 

I have a feeling OF might find my answer evasive, but that's my two cents worth.

[Jumbo]

Thanks, tb. I was going to point that out. Though you can usually count on OF & NLC to head-butt once or twice during an extended exchange, anyway. 

[skinny21]

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.

To be fair, OF has repeatedly said he wouldn't exclusively send his back out, though if its dumb to keep him in....

I'm getting hung up on the 'momentum' bit as well. Especially because, as you said, it's about slowing the rusher, not stopping him. Not to mention that while an o-lineman stands still, a back can charge the rusher.

Ideally, all rushers are stopped at the line, but with blown assignments, the back can be an added precaution against this. Personally, I'd switch it up all the time. Sometimes leave te(s) in to block and run the back out on a pattern, sometimes leave the back (even a fullback) in to block. Tendencies can get you burned, so I'd look to mix it up. Frequently.

I will agree that I don't want my back in the majority of the time, and I will agree that pass catching is more important than blocking when evaluating backs. The minimum I'd want from a guy is a willingness to block. Of course, the first thing I'd look at is the ba k's ability to run the ball (obviously), hence Morris.

[Oldfan]

DG: 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. 

 

 

That's right... and, yes, as I've previously said, the Pistol without the RB in pass pro does indeed require the throw to be a hair quicker on average than the Pistol with the RB in pass pro. That's the tradeoff for having another receiver in the progression.

 

However, the time allowed is still not 3-step drop quick. Thus, we are not talking about shortening the average pass to put it into the category that Walsh warned about.

 

Having said that, there are formations other than the conventional that I can use that will regain the time needed to go deeper when needed. I offered one earlier. It's essentially a two-TE set except that the TEs are in a double slot allowing the TE to chip, block or release at his option depending on what he reads.

 

Last post sent from the beach.

 

 

What goes to the beach should stay at the beach.

[Oldfan]

techboy: 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. 

 

 

You're right. I misread that. My apologies to NLC.

[Oldfan]

sOcrates: My answer echos some of the other comments a bit.  I don't see this as a real dilemma, I don't think it is strictly an either/or type of question.  Basically, I have two reasons for saying this.

 

1) I think coaches should play to the strengths of their personnel.  If you have a running back who blocks like Clinton Portis, then you should use that to your advantage in pass protection.  If you have a running back who has hands like Marshall Faulk, then you should use him as a receiver as much as possible.

 

 

You're right. I do consider your answer evasive because it ducks the issue. How much value do you put on Portis's blocking in the offensive scheme? How much value do you put on Faulk's value as a receiver in the offensive scheme? Do you think Portis and Faulk are comparable in value?

 

By the way, wasn't it Marshall Faulk who said he didn't regard Portis as an elite RB because he wasn't much of a receiver? Could be he was showing a little bias there. Nevertheless, I agree.

  

 

2) I think a lot depends on game situations, you need to be willing to be flexible in your strategy based on the way the game is going.  If your offensive line is struggling in protection, then you might need to keep extra running backs and tight ends in to block.  If your receivers are struggling to get open, then you might need to have check down options f.or your quarterback.  That kind of thing

 

 

If your O-line is struggling, there are better ways to give them help than keeping your RB in. The outlet option cuts down on sacks and the losses and QB fumbles that result from them.

 

I have a feeling OF might find my answer evasive, but that's my two cents worth.

 

 

I feel like I got short-changed.

[Oldfan]

skinny: To be fair, OF has repeatedly said he wouldn't exclusively send his back out, though if its dumb to keep him in....

 

 

"As a general rule keeping the RB in to block is a dumb idea "(Post 117)

 

I'm getting hung up on the 'momentum' bit as well. Especially because, as you said, it's about slowing the rusher, not stopping him.

 

 

That's a cop out. Pass protection is usually about slowing the rusher, not about stopping him, no matter which player is pass protecting or where he's doing it. That the RB is disadvantaged doing it remains a fact.

 

Not to mention that while an o-lineman stands still, a back can charge the rusher.

 

 

The O-lineman, a bigger man than the RB, catches the rusher before he can get much momentum going. The back does not often get the chance to charge his man and then reset for leverage. 

 

Once again, the rusher that the back is assigned to block often is only coming because he has read the back staying in. That's a loss for the offense even if the RB body-slams his man.

[sportjunkie07]

surprisingly, I think I agree with oldfan 100% on this one.

 

furthermore, I see Thompson as having the potential to suit the OP's role for a RB perfectly.

[skinny21]

skinny: To be fair, OF has repeatedly said he wouldn't exclusively send his back out, though if its dumb to keep him in....

"As a general rule keeping the RB in to block is a dumb idea "(Post 117)

I'm getting hung up on the 'momentum' bit as well. Especially because, as you said, it's about slowing the rusher, not stopping him.

That's a cop out. Pass protection is usually about slowing the rusher, not about stopping him, no matter which player is pass protecting or where he's doing it. That the RB is disadvantaged doing it remains a fact.

Not to mention that while an o-lineman stands still, a back can charge the rusher.

The O-lineman, a bigger man than the RB, catches the rusher before he can get much momentum going. The back does not often get the chance to charge his man and then reset for leverage.

Once again, the rusher that the back is assigned to block often is only coming because he has read the back staying in. That's a loss for the offense even if the RB body-slams his man.

Ahh, but a back is not expected to hold off a guy as long, is he? It's two slightly different measures of 'slow'.

Overall, I'm betting our positions are not far off from eachother. Probably the same with most in this thread. Most want a guy that can catch out of the backfield. I personally would send him on routes 'most' of the time, perhaps just not quite as often as you. Conversely, in certain situations (3rd and 10), I'd keep my back as a blocker 'most' of the time. Phew! Filled my 'most' quota for the day

[KCClybun]

You know, we're having this discussion about how Sean Payton uses his back compared to how Joe Gibbs used Clinton, and it kept on bugging me.

 

 

Clinton Portis averaged 33 receptions and 252 yards receiving the four years he was with Gibbs. Pierre Thomas averaged 29 catches and 234 yards his first four years in the league, including the year they went to the Super Bowl.

 

 

What Gibbs didn't have was a guy like a Reggie Bush, or a Darren Sproles; guys who had specialized roles that had specialized roles in the Saints offense. And I think if you are being honest about evaluating those guys, they're not really used as traditional running backs. Sean Payton tended to split Bush and Sproles out into the slot, and get them the ball in space.

 

 

But, he also keeps a running back like a Pierre Thomas or a Mark Ingram in to --- you guessed it --- read the coverage, determine if there's a blitzer, and react accordingly.

 

 

Payton very much still has the "here's my lead rusher, here's my third-down/COP guy" mentality. And I think it's important to recognize the difference between using the back mainly as an outlet receiver and having him read and react to the coverage.

 

And also to realize that just because the running backs weren't targeted a ton in this offense doesn't mean they weren't or couldn't be targeted as an outlet receiver.There were more than few times where Robert could've thrown it to an open Alfred or Royster or DY but pulled the ball down and got the yards himself.

[Oldfan]

skinny: Ahh, but a back is not expected to hold off a guy as long, is he? It's two slightly different measures of 'slow'. 

 

How do you mean the word "expected?" In one sense, there's no reason to expect less of him than any other pass protector. In the other sense, we expect less of the RB because the momentum factor doesn't allow him to be as good as his mates at the job.

 

Overall, I'm betting our positions are not far off from eachother. Probably the same with most in this thread. Most want a guy that can catch out of the backfield. I personally would send him on routes 'most' of the time, perhaps just not quite as often as you. 

 

If a coach really wants that, then he would acquire RBs capable of doing it.

 

Conversely, in certain situations (3rd and 10), I'd keep my back as a blocker 'most' of the time.

The "third-down back" concept used by Belichik and Payton brings a couple of 5-8 lightweights into the game. Using them to block would defeat the concept's purpose. If you feel a strong need for another pass protector in that situation, you could bring in a 300-pound back-up offensive tackle to play RB. It has been done before.

 

I think it makes much more sense to put seven big boys at the LOS on third and ten. If you put two TEs in a double slot -- using the laws of physics -- you cancel your opponent's momentum advantage and add leverage to yours. In today's game, OCs welcome blitzers. It's the edge rushers that keep them awake nights. A TE in the slot can give the OT the help he needs on the edge rusher's outside move. In most cases, using leverage, just a chip would do it.

[Oldfan]

NLC: Clinton Portis averaged 33 receptions and 252 yards receiving the four years he was with Gibbs. Pierre Thomas averaged 29 catches and 234 yards his first four years in the league, including the year they went to the Super Bowl.

Those stats are useless unless both RBs were on the field for an equal number of plays; and you know very well that wasn't the case.

Over his career thus far, the often-injured Pierre Thomas has carried the ball 628 times and has 205 receptions. That's a 3.06 to one ratio.

In his career, Clinton carried 2,230 times and had 247 career receptions. That's a 9.03 ratio. If we assume an equal drop rate, that means that, when Thomas played, Brees targeted him three times more often than Redskins and Broncos QBs targeted Portis.

 

What Gibbs didn't have was a guy like a Reggie Bush, or a Darren Sproles; guys who had specialized roles that had specialized roles in the Saints offense.

Gibbs had Ladell Betts who could have competently filled the third-down back role had he been called upon. We never got a consistently effective passing game going in Gibbs Two. There were lots of reasons for that but I think the failure to use Ladell Betts in the passing game was one of them.

[KCClybun]

We're not talking about his career, we are talking about Clinton's career under Gibbs 2.0, because that is specifically what you mentioned in the OP. What he did under Shanny and Zorn becomes moot.

And understanding the season Betts had in 2006, what makes you so certain he was exactly what you consider for a third down pass catcher role?

[Oldfan]

We're not talking about his career, we are talking about Clinton's career under Gibbs 2.0, because that is specifically what you mentioned in the OP. What he did under Shanny and Zorn becomes moot.

And understanding the season Betts had in 2006, what makes you so certain he was exactly what you consider for a third down pass catcher role?

Well, then talk about Clinton with Gibbs if you would like, but don't offer deceptive stats for those four years. Your readers saw the team play. We know Clinton wasn't targeted much under Gibbs and we also know that he wasn't targeted much under other coaches.

 

As for Ladell's 2006 season. He rushed 245 times and caught 53 passes. That's a 4.62 ratio which means his QBs targeted him almost twice as much as Portis. His negative for that season was the six fumbles. Ladell needed to be taught to take a dive to avoid the big hit like Portis did.

 

I think his 2006 season, with 1,599 combined yards in nine starts, supports my claim that Ladell would have made a competent third-down back -- not great but competent.

[Skinsinparadise]

good to see you posting again.  I know it doesn't address your point directly but as a sidebar:  we should see more pass catching this year from the RBs.   Helu was the RB with the good hands but as we know he got hurt, and Shanny did utilize him in that capacity the previous season when he was healthy.   Chris Thompson who they took in the 5th round has a similar skill set.  Neither Thompson or Helu are much in the pass protect department.   The other RB, Jamison, they drafted also has good hands. 

 

To your post, which is about the disadvantages running backs have blocking pass rushers -- none of what am saying address that. But to your other point about how the running back positioning on the play gives away what's coming,  I think with how Shanny messes with the pistol formation and confuses defenses with what goes down at the mesh point -- I think Shanny's scheme makes thing sufficiently confusing.  With this offense, defenses usually have no immediate idea what the running back plans to do.   Shanny seems obsessed with misdirection. 

[Oldfan]

SIP: ...good to see you posting again.  

 

 

Hey, SIP...Always a pleasure.

 

I know it doesn't address your point directly but as a sidebar:  we should see more pass catching this year from the RBs.   Helu was the RB with the good hands but as we know he got hurt, and Shanny did utilize him in that capacity the previous season when he was healthy.   Chris Thompson who they took in the 5th round has a similar skill set.  Neither Thompson or Helu are much in the pass protect department.   The other RB, Jamison, they drafted also has good hands.

 

 

I was just thinking that it could turn into a good thing if Morris is lousy in pass protection. Since he doesn't look comfortable pass receiving, the Shannies won't be reluctant to go to a third-down back. A healthy Helu could do it. I've only seen a little video on Thompson, not enough to make a judgment.

 

Morris is a difference maker. I've never been high on the ZBS because I like ball control and the scheme isn't consistent enough, especially in short yardage situations, to do that well. But, Morris makes it more consistent. He runs with power you wouldn't expect from someone his size. 

 

To your post, which is about the disadvantages running backs have blocking pass rushers -- none of what am saying address that. But to your other point about how the running back positioning on the play gives away what's coming,  I think with how Shanny messes with the pistol formation and confuses defenses with what goes down at the mesh point -- I think Shanny's scheme makes thing sufficiently confusing.  With this offense, defenses usually have no immediate idea what the running back plans to do.   Shanny seems obsessed with misdirection.

 

Right. Mike loves his window dressing. It seems he can make it work too. I don't know how he could disguise a back staying in on passing downs; but anything's possible, I guess.

 

I think the NFL offenses, though, are headed toward a concept that began with the run-and-shoot. "We're going to do what we did last Sunday and the Sunday before that. But knowing that won't help you after the snap. When you zig, we'll zag. When you go in, we'll go out, etc."

[MWAI]

Oldfan.... I think I am on the same page with you and many others here when I say a running back should either be a running back or receiver or at least a diversion. Instead of having a worthless blocker in the backfield why not turn a weakness into a strength by having a speedy scat back fly out of the backfield and pose a threat. On 6 man blitzes why not have the speedy scat back fly out of the backfield and the QB can just lob the ball over the oncoming blitz and let the 5'8  190 pound twister out wiggle a linebacker or safety in coverage.

 

I have often wondered on many a play why I can see this and the offensive coordinator doesn't. That occured over the years usually when I have been watching a pathetic blocking attempt by a Redskins back while the QB gets hit with no outlet receiver standing 5 yards away, because the outlet receiver was attempting a pathetic block.

 

With all that said....I think that the Shanahans are now on the same page as us because we are talking about Helu and Thompson competing for the same position as we are clearly getting vibes that the Skins want Morris as the 1st and 2nd down back and the new guys as the fleet of foot scat back guys coming out of the backfield for draw plays, screen passes, and outlet receivers on 3rd DOWN.

 

I am so happy that the Shanahans have us around to help them out. I hope they appreciate us.

[Hitman21ST]

Instead of having a worthless blocker in the backfield why not turn a weakness into a strength by having a speedy scat back fly out of the backfield and pose a threat.

 

I love the assumption that we would have a "worthless" blocker in the backfield. Was Portis a "worthless" blocker?

 

On 6 man blitzes why not have the speedy scat back fly out of the backfield and the QB can just lob the ball over the oncoming blitz and let the 5'8  190 pound twister out wiggle a linebacker or safety in coverage.

 

 

 

 

 

That's a good way to get your RB absolutely destroyed by a LB or Safety flying up, or get your QB to throw a pick. Yes, it can work, but remember the Rob Jackson pick on Romo sits to pee? We sent 6 (we might have even sent less, I need to rewatch the play. Either way, we had a free rusher that a RB staying in would have picked up), Romo sits to pee lobbed it over the oncoming blitz to his outlet, and Jackson picked it off. There's as much a chance of that happening as you completing the pass. QBs tend to make more mistakes when hurried. Why not give him that extra .5 seconds it would take to find a receiver and get off a good pass?

 

I have often wondered on many a play why I can see this and the offensive coordinator doesn't. That occured over the years usually when I have been watching a pathetic blocking attempt by a Redskins back while the QB gets hit with no outlet receiver standing 5 yards away, because the outlet receiver was attempting a pathetic block.

 

That's probably because the OC sees about 10 or 20 things you don't, and he sees that keeping the RB in is the smartest thing at the moment. There's also this thing called a gameplan and a lot of times, a gameplan calls for having the RB block.

 

Oh, and what pathetic blocking have you been watching over the years? Portis was always one of the best blockers in the league. Ask coaches and analysts, and they'll tell you the same thing.

[Oldfan]

MWAI: I am so happy that the Shanahans have us around to help them out. I hope they appreciate us.

 

I dunno, my friend. Sometimes I feel that Mike Shanahan has never heard of the wisdom of the crowd. Honestly, between us? I don't think he listens to us. I feel this football wisdom I dispense is falling on deaf ears. I write it just to unburden my mind.

[RG3Hunna]

Oldfan.... I think I am on the same page with you and many others here when I say a running back should either be a running back or receiver or at least a diversion. Instead of having a worthless blocker in the backfield why not turn a weakness into a strength by having a speedy scat back fly out of the backfield and pose a threat. On 6 man blitzes why not have the speedy scat back fly out of the backfield and the QB can just lob the ball over the oncoming blitz and let the 5'8  190 pound twister out wiggle a linebacker or safety in coverage.

 

I have often wondered on many a play why I can see this and the offensive coordinator doesn't. That occured over the years usually when I have been watching a pathetic blocking attempt by a Redskins back while the QB gets hit with no outlet receiver standing 5 yards away, because the outlet receiver was attempting a pathetic block.

 

With all that said....I think that the Shanahans are now on the same page as us because we are talking about Helu and Thompson competing for the same position as we are clearly getting vibes that the Skins want Morris as the 1st and 2nd down back and the new guys as the fleet of foot scat back guys coming out of the backfield for draw plays, screen passes, and outlet receivers on 3rd DOWN.

 

I am so happy that the Shanahans have us around to help them out. I hope they appreciate us.

The reason offensive coordinators haven't done it is because it just doesn't work at the NFL level. You always have to have your running back think "Pass Protect" first before he can go out for a route, especially with so many freak of nature pass rushers at this Level of football.  

 

Steve Spurrier was a coach who had a "Futuristic" philosophy, where he would send RB's out and not really worry about pass pro too much(Trung Candidate) was our starting RB. It worked in college at Florida but at the NFL level it just doesn't work. lol 

[Oldfan]

RG3Hunna:  Steve Spurrier was a coach who had a "Futuristic" philosophy, where he would send RB's out and not really worry about pass pro too much(Trung Candidate) was our starting RB. It worked in college at Florida but at the NFL level it just doesn't work. lol 

 

Spurrier kept Trung Canidate in to block. We can be sure of that because Canidate sure as hell wasn't out catching passes. He only caught 10 in 2003 compared to 142 rushes. That's a 14.2 ratio which means he was targeted less than Portis (9.03).

[Hitman21ST]

Spurrier kept Trung Canidate in to block. We can be sure of that because he sure as hell wasn't out catching passes. He only caught 10 in 2003 compared to 142 rushes. That's a 14.2 ratio which means he was targeted less than Portis (9.03).

 

Just because he only caught ten passes doesn't mean he stayed in and blocked. Unless you go back and watch every play that he was in on, there's no way to tell how much he stayed in or went out. But the one thing you can say for sure was he didn't catch a ball every time he went out.

[Oldfan]

Hitman: Just because he only caught ten passes doesn't mean he stayed in and blocked. Unless you go back and watch every play that he was in on, there's no way to tell how much he stayed in or went out. But the one thing you can say for sure was he didn't catch a ball every time he went out.

 

 

You are choosing to ignore Probability. That ratio of 14.2 is very high. 

 

You are basically implying that Spurrier would continue to send his RB out as a receiver  even though he rarely got open or, when he did, he usually dropped the ball.

 

That's not likely. It's more likely that Canidate was kept in to block.

 

In 2006, Ladell Betts was often used as a receiver when he wasn't running. He rushed 245 times and caught 53 passes. That's a 4.62 ratio. That's about the ratio we should expect from a RB, with pretty good receiving skills, who isn't expected to block often on passing downs..

[Hitman21ST]

 

You are choosing to ignore Probability. That ratio of 14.2 is very high. 

 

You are basically implying that Spurrier would continue to send his RB out as a receiver  even though he rarely got open or, when he did, he usually dropped the ball.

 

In 2006, Ladell Betts was often used as a receiver when he wasn't running. He rushed 245 times and caught 53 passes. That's a 4.62 ratio. That's about the ratio we should expect from a RB, with pretty good receiving skills, who isn't expected to block often on passing downs..

 

Trung had about that ratio in 2001 as a member of the Rams (17 catches to 78 rushes). His ability as a receiver was there.

 

Spurrier threw the ball 527 times. We completed 283 of those. Our running backs caught 52 of those passes. Which means that a little under 80% of the time, a RB did not catch the ball. That doesn't mean that they didn't go out on routes. That means that they weren't thrown the ball.

 

There are plenty of times this past year that Morris ran a pass route, either from behind RG3 or split out. Shanahan probably called those plays fully expecting him to not get the ball. That's because the D has to respect any split out receiver.

 

Like I said in my earlier post. We have no way of knowing just how many times Canidate went out on a route. Any attempt to make a definitive statement like yours (we can be sure that he was kept in) is absolute speculation, unless you can do back and watch every snap that he was in on. All we know for sure is that he caught 10 passes, and that he wasn't thrown the ball on 273 pass plays. If you want to speculate that he was kept in, that's fine. Just don't try to pass it off as gospel because the probability might be in your favor.

 

Probability says we shouldn't have been able to win 7 straight to make the playoffs.