How Would You Use Your RB in Your Passing Game?

[Airyx]

I have several comments.

 

It doesn't make sense to have a standard policy of using your back as a WR OR as a blocker. It depends on the situation, your opponent's tendencies, and the abilities of your players.

 

In General:

 

The RB is in the best position of any player on the field to see a blitz coming, and pick it up. Anyone on the LoS can't do that post-snap. So, if you are playing a team like Pittsburgh, that blitzes from odd directions, you MUST have a back kept in for protection.

 

If you are playing a team like the Giants, who generally rush only their four DLs, then a back can be leveraged into the passing game, and not just as an outlet.

 

This past season the only guy with good hands (Helu) was injured, so Kyle did not design many plays for the RBs to catch passes. Also, the 'skins lacked...and still DO lack, an RB who is good at blitz pickup. This is a large part of why they ran so much play-action. Morris does more to slow a blitz by play-faking then he does by blocking.

 

You suggested that Gibbs thinks you need to keep a back in all the time...not true. Gibbs' backs caught an average of 50 passes per season. In the early 90's Ricky Earvins was used as a specific receiving threat, just as Kelvin Bryant had been in the late 80's and Joe Washington was in the early 80's. Portis actually DID have good hands, and was quite effective as a receiver.

 

When Kyle has a back that can catch, he designs plays for him when the situation allows. Helu caught 49 passes during the 2011 season. This year, there will be TWO backs with good hands on the roster, so I'd expect to see a lot more plays designed for them. Kyle loves to move backs around to create mis-matches and confusion on the defense. He did it with Steve Slaton in 2008 and 2009, Kieland Williams in 2010, and Helu in 2011.

 

The Pistol formation gives you some creative ways to use a back. Without Helu in 2012, Kyle put Young back there for protection, and sometimes Banks to create a speed mis-match, but both are one-dimensional players. I'm looking forward to seeing Morris behind Griffin with Helu or the new rookie speedster in the up-back spot. I predict lots of movement, and defenders bumping into each other as they try to figure out who to cover.

[Oldfan]

Airyx: It doesn't make sense to have a standard policy of using your back as a WR OR as a blocker. It depends on the situation, your opponent's tendencies, and the abilities of your players.

 

Your argument does not counter the argument I made in the OP because you begin by assuming the abilities of your players are a given and undetermined. In the OP I used Joe's Gibbs's 2004 decisions as examples of how those decisions might have changed the roster if Joe had agreed with me.

 

My preference for a RB would lead me to look for RBs in the draft who would be outstanding receivers. Brian Westbook would be my model. I would not allow a defense to dictate that such a RB should be used as a blocker ...except in extraordinary situations.

The RB is in the best position of any player on the field to see a blitz coming, and pick it up. 

Anyone on the LoS can't do that post-snap. So, if you are playing a team like Pittsburgh, that blitzes from odd directions, you MUST have a back kept in for protection.

 

 

As I pointed out in the OP, the RB is in the best position to run the football and to run pass patterns too. Furthermore, with seven big boys near the LOS, as I have suggested, the only blitzer able to get a free run at the QB would have to come from a very wide position. If the D wants to send him from there, I'd be pleased. That means they have one less player in coverage. With an outlet available to him, my QB isn't going to be holding the ball long.

 

This past season the only guy with good hands (Helu) was injured, so Kyle did not design many plays for the RBs to catch passes. Also, the 'skins lacked...and still DO lack, an RB who is good at blitz pickup. This is a large part of why they ran so much play-action. Morris does more to slow a blitz by play-faking then he does by blocking.

 

 

We did discuss the Skins situation in this thread, but it was not relevant to the argument made in the OP.

 

You suggested that Gibbs thinks you need to keep a back in all the time...

 

 

No, I didn't suggest that.

[skinny21]

Good points Airyx.

The only exception I take is with your assessment of Young. Oddly enough, he reminds me a bit of Cooley. Not too shifty and not fast, but he's got good hands, he's a very willing blocker and he seems to get YAC consistently as though he refuses to be tackled. The guy makes plays and is very underrated. Perhaps Paulsen is a better comparison since I'm not sure either of them can match Cooley's savviness at finding holes in coverage.

Not that I think you were knocking Young, just (understandably) saying he's more limited in the passing game then guys like Helu, Thompson and Reed.

[Oldfan]

Hitman: 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.

 

 

I'm glad to hear it. That evidence makes it even less likely that his high ratio with Spurrier was due to an inability to get open and catch passes; and, consequently, even more likely that he was kept in to block.

 

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

 

 

What are the chances the Skins will win the first seven this season? Would you bet on it? You would be insane to do it unless given big odds. 

 

It's highly unlikely that Trung Canidate was sent out routinely as a pass receiver because, as you pointed out, he was a good receiver, and yet caught only 10 passes compared to 142 rush attempts. It's far more likely that he was kept in to block.

[Hitman21ST]

 

Hitman: 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.

 

 

I'm glad to hear it. That evidence makes it even less likely that his high ratio with Spurrier was due to an inability to get open and catch passes; and, consequently, even more likely that he was kept in to block.

 

>> 

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

 

 

What are the chances the Skins will win the first seven this season? Would you bet on it? You would be insane to do it unless given big odds. 

 

It's highly unlikely that Trung Canidate was sent out routinely as a pass receiver because, as you pointed out, he was a good receiver, and yet caught only 10 passes compared to 142 rush attempts. It's far more likely that he was kept in to block.

 

 

FWIW, the Fun n Gun, Spurrier's offense, uses the pass to set up the run. He wanted to spread out the defenses. Watching some videos of him at Florida and with the Skins shows the RB going out for passes quite a few times.

 

Just because he didn't get it thrown his way doesn't mean they didn't use him as a receiver

[Oldfan]

The concerns about not using the RB in pass protection expressed by some of the posters in this thread are overblown. The most sensible way to handle pass protection is to use seven big bodies at or near the LOS. A two-TE set is one way. Here's another using a Pistol alignment.

 

WR................LT.LG.C.RG.RT...............WR

...............SB..............................SB (Slotback)

.

................................QB

.

................................RB

 

The rules of the game give edge rushers an outside rush advantage over the OTs. On pass plays, the slotbacks (SB) with TE bodies and skillsets can read the defense and then help the OT with a chip and then release; they can block a blitzer in front of them; or they can release as a receiver.

 

Since it puts the WRs on the LOS, big-bodied WRs who can handle the press would be needed.

 

Notice that this formation is balanced. It goes left or right with equal ease.

[Hitman21ST]

The one problem with using that formation is it severely limits the route combinations you can run, especially if you keep in one or both TE/Wings to block.

 

That also eliminates your advantage from the OP (having five receivers getting into different areas). If you keep both TEs in to block, then you're running a two man route with an outlet.

 

There is much more versatility with a RB who can block than just using him as a receiver and having to go into the Ace formation anytime you need extra blockers; also, if you don't have WRs who can handle the press, then you've just lost any advantage you might have had.

[RG3Hunna]

I have some old Eagles games on youtube that shows "Westbrook" looking for Blitzes FIRST religiously before he even goes out for a route. It's fundamental football, RB's are taught to look for the blitz first before they go out for routes, or they'll never play. 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8qKX75mPH4

 

This youtube user name has so many Old Eagle games and you can see westbrook looking to passblock first and foremost before he goes out for routes. 

 

And when they would motion him to the LOS the pressure would get to the QB so fast he could barely get the ball off. lol

 

None the less I think your idea is a great idea in "Moderation" just to keep the defense guessing. However looking for the blitz has always been the 1st thing a RB should do on a passing play if lined up directly behind the QB. 

[darrelgreenie]

The play @ 15:56 illistrates my point-

 

Westbrook is probably supposed to block someone before he goes out on his route, but he doesn't block anyone

he makes a cursory scan then goes out into his route.

Meanwhile his QB, who could have used the added time of even a chip block, gets engulfed by the pass rush.

[RG3Hunna]

The play @ 15:56 illistrates my point-

 

Westbrook is probably supposed to block someone before he goes out on his route, but he doesn't block anyone

he makes a cursory scan then goes out into his route.

Meanwhile his QB, who could have used the added time of even a chip block, gets engulfed by the pass rush.

Exactly, and enough of those type of hits throughout a season could put your QB out for the season. lol

[Oldfan]

Hitman: The one problem with using that formation is it severely limits the route combinations you can run, especially if you keep in one or both TE/Wings to block.

 

That also eliminates your advantage from the OP (having five receivers getting into different areas). If you keep both TEs in to block, then you're running a two man route with an outlet.

 

There is much more versatility with a RB who can block than just using him as a receiver and having to go into the Ace formation anytime you need extra blockers; also, if you don't have WRs who can handle the press, then you've just lost any advantage you might have had.

 

If your defense dictates that both SBs must stay in to block I still have three in the pattern. If you use your max protection against my D, you only have two out in the pattern.

 

What I'm recommending isn't a perfect solution. Perfect solutions don't exist in football. Every football tactic has advantages and disadvantages. The biggest disadantage is that I can't keep both the TEs and WRs in the backfield. As I said, I need WRs who can handle the press. The Skins have the kind of WRs I'd need.

 

A big advantage of my formation is the adaptibility I've given the SBs. The don't both stay in to block unless they are needed. They have options. If the edge rusher on one side is dominating and the other is weak, The SB can give help to the OT who needs it. I don't need the "versatility" coming from the RB. I have it in two bigger SBs who are blocking rushers before they build momentum.

 

The biggest advantage of the formation I diagrammed is that it allows my dual-threat RB to become a bona fide weapon rather than asking him to do a job that adverse momentum makes difficult.

[Oldfan]

DG: Westbrook is probably supposed to block someone before he goes out on his route, but he doesn't block anyone he makes a cursory scan then goes out into his route.

Meanwhile his QB, who could have used the added time of even a chip block, gets engulfed by the pass rush

 

 

RG3Hunna: Exactly, and enough of those type of hits throughout a season could put your QB out for the season. lol

 

 

Why did you feel the need to find a video to support your point? You didn't have to go to all that trouble. I willingly concede there are exceptions to my general statement. As I said in Post 117...As a general rule keeping the RB in to block is a dumb idea. I don't care how many exceptions 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.

[Hitman21ST]

 

If your defense dictates that both SBs must stay in to block I still have three in the pattern. If you use your max protection against my D, you only have two out in the pattern.

 

What I'm recommending isn't a perfect solution. Perfect solutions don't exist in football. Every football tactic has advantages and disadvantages. The biggest disadantage is that I can't keep both the TEs and WRs in the backfield. As I said, I need WRs who can handle the press. The Skins have the kind of WRs I'd need.

 

The biggest advantage is the adaptibility I've given the SBs. The don't both stay in to block unless they are needed. They have options. If the edge rusher on one side is dominating and the other is weak, The SB can give help to the OT who needs it. I don't need the "versatility" coming from the RB. I have it in two bigger SBs who are blocking rushers before they build momentum.

 

The biggest advantage of the formation I diagrammed is that it allows my dual-threat RB to be come a bona fide weapon rather than asking him to do a job that adverse momentum makes difficult.

 

If I run a defense that requires you to keep two extra blockers in, then you have a maximum of three receivers out running routes. Logically, wouldn't you want three of your most effective route runners/receivers out running then? Having a TE/RB stay in and block then using a three WR package would make the most sense. 

 

The advantages of having the RB staying and blocking are that he can see where the most help is needed and go that way. Although he might be at a disadvantage due to size, making the defender change his angle to work around the RB negates that disadvantage. Instead of having a straight shot at the QB, the rusher now has to slow down, change his angle to be shallower or deeper, then readjust after he gets around the RB.

 

Like you said, though, no scheme is perfect.

[Oldfan]

Hitman: If I run a defense that requires you to keep two extra blockers in, then you have a maximum of three receivers out running routes. Logically, wouldn't you want three of your most effective route runners/receivers out running then? Having a TE/RB stay in and block then using a three WR package would make the most sense.

 

If I put a third WR in, and keep the RB in to block, then I'd lose one of the SBs . The defense could than read the formation and overload the weak side. Besides, my dual-thread RB is more of a threat than my third-WR.

[Hitman21ST]

 

If I put a third WR in, and keep the RB in to block, then I'd lose one of the SBs . The defense could than read the formation and overload the weak side. Besides, my dual-thread RB is more of a threat than my third-WR.

 

There's absolutely no way he's more of a threat in the passing game (because that's what we're talking about) than an actual receiver. Especially in today's NFL, where slot receivers are arguably the most valuable receiver on the team.

 

And if the team overloads the weak side, then the RB blocks to that side. That's also where you have the matchup advantage with the slot receiver, because he can't be pressed, and he'll either have a LB or Safety (automatic matchup win for the offense), or a Nickle back, in which case you should still be able to hit him on a hot route.

[RG3Hunna]

 

DG: Westbrook is probably supposed to block someone before he goes out on his route, but he doesn't block anyone he makes a cursory scan then goes out into his route.

Meanwhile his QB, who could have used the added time of even a chip block, gets engulfed by the pass rush

 

 

>> 

RG3Hunna: Exactly, and enough of those type of hits throughout a season could put your QB out for the season. lol

 

 

Why did you feel the need to find a video to support your point? You didn't have to go to all that trouble. I willingly concede there are exceptions to my general statement. As I said in Post 117...As a general rule keeping the RB in to block is a dumb idea. I don't care how many exceptions 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.

 

So we just throw out claims without showing visual evidence to support our "claims" on this blog now? I showed a video because debating through font sometimes isn't enough, sometimes you have to show a visual picture like you did with your "formation". Would you like for me to show you saints film which has RB's pass blocking before going out for routes? Your vision to attack defenses by just sending out routes and not pass blocking just doesn't make sense, it's never been done in the league and you wont be able to find any coaching staff in the NFL level who has. 

[Hitman21ST]

So we just throw out claims without showing visual evidence to support our "claims" on this blog now? I showed a video because debating through font sometimes isn't enough, sometimes you have to show a visual picture like you did with your "formation". Would you like for me to show you saints film which has RB's pass blocking before going out for routes? Your vision to attack defenses by just sending out routes and not pass blocking just doesn't make sense, it's never been done in the league and you wont be able to find any coaching staff in the NFL level who has.

 

Playing devil's advocate, it has been done, but not to the extent that OF is arguing for, as a general offensive philosophy. Because you're right, it just doesn't make sense.

[Skinsinparadise]

 

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. 

 

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."

 

 

Agree. Definitely, with this offense much if it is predicated by, if you zig we will zag drill.  It's IMO a big part of why RG III is so good, its not just his athletic skill set but his ball skills/decision making at the mesh point.

 

 

 

 

 

[Oldfan]

Rg3Hunna: So we just throw out claims without showing visual evidence to support our "claims" on this blog now?

With that remark, you just repeated the same error that prompted my previous statement. I made a general statement and you turned it into an absolute. If I had said that video evidence is never of any value, your post would make a valid point. But I didn't say that nor did I mean that.

When someone makes a general statement, your pointing out that exceptions can be found is pointless. It doesn't matter whether you offer your exception in text, video, or as a power point presentation.

[Oldfan]

Quote

Hitman: Playing devil's advocate, it has been done, but not to the extent that OF is arguing for, as a general offensive philosophy. Because you're right, it just doesn't make sense.

Your opinion that my tactic doesn't make sense is noted. However, I'm more interested in your arguments.

You're wrong that my approach has never been done. Bill Walsh, for example, built a dynasty and he used the RB as I suggest. Roger Craig's career stats show that he ran the ball 1,991 times and caught 566 passes. His run/pass ratio was a low 3.52 which is almost in Brian Westbrook's neighborhood (3.13). Craig killed defenses catching swing passes. In 1985, he finished the season with 1,050 yards rushing and 1,016 as a receiver.

[Oldfan]

SIP:  Agree. Definitely, with this offense much if it is predicated by, if you zig we will zag drill.  It's IMO a big part of why RG III is so good, its not just his athletic skill set but his ball skills/decision making at the mesh point.

 

 

Absolutely. Our scheme also has our receivers operating on the run-and-shoot principle... which makes me wonder if the window dressing is necessary. Why try to decieve the defense with a variety of formations if you're going to take what they give by zigging when they zag?

 

Yes, I know the offense is moving the football, but does the window dressing have anything to do with it?

[darrelgreenie]

I wasn't pointing out an exception. It was an example of what happens when the pass rush is greater then the pass protection.

And your initial foray into this topic was presented as an absolute either the back stays in or the  back goes out.

Everyone would agree that the best course of action is situation dependent.

[Hitman21ST]

Quote

Hitman: Playing devil's advocate, it has been done, but not to the extent that OF is arguing for, as a general offensive philosophy. Because you're right, it just doesn't make sense.

Your opinion that my tactic doesn't make sense is noted. However, I'm more interested in your arguments.

You're wrong that my approach has never been done. Bill Walsh, for example, built a dynasty and he used the RB as I suggest. Roger Craig's career stats show that he ran the ball 1,991 times and caught 566 passes. His run/pass ratio was a low 3.52 which is almost in Brian Westbrook's neighborhood (3.13). Craig killed defenses catching swing passes. In 1985, he finished the season with 1,050 yards rushing and 1,016 as a receiver.

Now who's pointing out exceptions to general statements? I didn't say it's never been done. Offering one example that it has been done* doesn't prove me wrong.

*Having Craig's ratio be similar to Westbrook's doesn't prove anything either, unless you can go back and definitively prove he barely stayed in and blocked. It could mean a bevy of things.

And I've stated why it doesn't make sense, many times. I've pointed out the advantages of having a RB blocking, and you've just summarily dismissed them with a "you're wrong" without giving any other reasoning than "physics".

[darrelgreenie]

Judging scheme to scheme I would think Faulk in Martz scheme is a better example then Walsh.

I would say that Walsh appreciated pass protection from his backs much more then Martz.

[Oldfan]

Hitman: Now who's pointing out exceptions to general statements? I didn't say it's never been done. Offering one example that it has been done* doesn't prove me wrong.

 

 

You wrote:

 

...it has been done, but not to the extent that OF is arguing for, as a general offensive philosophy.

 

 

That reads like an absolute statement to me. However, if you meant that it hasn't often been done before to the extent I advocate, I would agree with that, but so what? That's not an argument against it. Are you opposed to the Pistol and the read-option because they haven't often been done in the NFL before?

 

 *Having Craig's ratio be similar to Westbrook's doesn't prove anything either, unless you can go back and definitively prove he barely stayed in and blocked. It could mean a bevy of things.

 

 

If it could mean a bevy of other things, name a couple.

 

And I've stated why it doesn't make sense, many times. I've pointed out the advantages of having a RB blocking, and you've just summarily dismissed them with a "you're wrong" without giving any other reasoning than "physics".

 

 

That's a false claim. I've countered your points specifically. I even showed you one way the pass pro could be improved even with the RB not involved.