How Would You Use Your RB in Your Passing Game?

[darrelgreenie]

 

DG: It easy to get confused on what your point is

You aren't confused. You know exactly what my point is. You've known all along.

I'm confused because you state that keeping the back in to block is a dumb idea.

But, you also assert that this is a 'general rule' which suggests there are some situation where you would keep your back in to block?

And if there situations where you keep your back in block what are they?

[Oldfan]

DG:I'm confused because you state that keeping the back in to block is a dumb idea.

But, you also assert that this is a 'general rule' which suggests there are some situation where you would keep your back in to block?

 

 

I think I understand your problem. This must be your first encounter with a general rule. So, I'll explain.

 

When someone writes "As a general rule XYZ is true. We should infer that the author means that XYZ is usually but not always true, there are likely to be exceptions.

 

And if there situations where you keep your back in block what are they?

 

 

Now, you see, that's really a dumb question when we are discussing something like a football tactic because there are hundreds of possible scenarios. No one can be expected to anticipate all the possibilities and give you an answer. It just seems likely that given all those possibilities there will be exceptions.

[skinfan2k]

ok so how do you plan on buying extra time for your QB to get a big play down field?  If you leave a RB to flare out, the defense will just bring 7 every time or overload on 1 side to force a quick throw

[RG3Hunna]

ok so how do you plan on buying extra time for your QB to get a big play down field?  If you leave a RB to flare out, the defense will just bring 7 every time or overload on 1 side to force a quick throw

I think he said he plans to throw short quick dink and dunk type routes because he favors ball control. However a defensive coordinator is just going to play shallow cover 2 and not worry about anything deep because he wont have time to throw deep anyways. 

 

II'm in agreement with you because I believe you can't dink and dunk in today's NFL and be successful, the players on the defensive side of the ball are just too athletic to get away with it. you have to mix it up and have your RB passblock when a blitz needs to be picked up or your QB will never have time to make a successful mid range to deep throw to stretch out the defense. 

[skinfan2k]

Right to counterattack this plan by OldFan, why wouldn't you not play any defense besides a 46 defense and keep everyone near the line of scrimmage.  

[Mahons21]

He's already stated that he would use his Slot backs or TEs as additional blockers to pick up the blitz, that would allow more than enough time to make a play downfield.

[darrelgreenie]

 

DG:I'm confused because you state that keeping the back in to block is a dumb idea.

But, you also assert that this is a 'general rule' which suggests there are some situation where you would keep your back in to block?

 

 

I think I understand your problem. This must be your first encounter with a general rule. So, I'll explain.

 

When someone writes "As a general rule XYZ is true. We should infer that the author means that XYZ is usually but not always true, there are likely to be exceptions.

 

> 

And if there situations where you keep your back in block what are they?

 

 

Now, you see, that's really a dumb question when we are discussing something like a football tactic because there are hundreds of possible scenarios. No one can be expected to anticipate all the possibilities and give you an answer. It just seems likely that given all those possibilities there will be exceptions.

 

Well answering that dumb question the best you can would go a long way to nailing down where you stand.

Because it seems like your playing both sides, you say that its not an absolute but you address/name some possible exceptions?

 

And when scenarios where it might be best to keep in a blocker you can always say well 'that's an exception'.

 

How about this questoin then: how often do you think your offense would keep your back in to block?

[skinfan2k]

He's already stated that he would use his Slot backs or TEs as additional blockers to pick up the blitz, that would allow more than enough time to make a play downfield.

 

That doesn't help if the blitz is coming up the middle where the RB staying in the backfield helps the most. 

[Mahons21]

He's already stated that he would use his Slot backs or TEs as additional blockers to pick up the blitz, that would allow more than enough time to make a play downfield.

 

That doesn't help if the blitz is coming up the middle where the RB staying in the backfield helps the most. 

 

No kidding?  In the nicest way possible have you read any of the posts in this thread?

 

If you had you might have seen OF state that he'd keep his SBs back for max pro, and you would have seen my last 4-5 posts which have detailed how the double a -gap blitz would in my opinion have a lot of success v the scheme he's proposing.

[skinfan2k]

 

He's already stated that he would use his Slot backs or TEs as additional blockers to pick up the blitz, that would allow more than enough time to make a play downfield.

 

That doesn't help if the blitz is coming up the middle where the RB staying in the backfield helps the most. 

 

No kidding?  In the nicest way possible have you read any of the posts in this thread?

 

If you had you might have seen OF state that he'd keep his SBs back for max pro, and you would have seen my last 4-5 posts which have detailed how the double a -gap blitz would in my opinion have a lot of success v the scheme he's proposing.

 

No i have not read any thread because it's useless to come into a thread and talk about something that was already talked about 20 posts ago

[Mahons21]

 

 

lockquote>

> 

He's already stated that he would use his Slot backs or TEs as additional blockers to pick up the blitz, that would allow more than enough time to make a play downfield.

 

That doesn't help if the blitz is coming up the middle where the RB staying in the backfield helps the most. 

 

No kidding?  In the nicest way possible have you read any of the posts in this thread?

 

If you had you might have seen OF state that he'd keep his SBs back for max pro, and you would have seen my last 4-5 posts which have detailed how the double a -gap blitz would in my opinion have a lot of success v the scheme he's proposing.

 

No i have not read any thread because it's useless to come into a thread and talk about something that was already talked about 20 posts ago

 

 

You actually came in right in the middle of the discussion, it was 3 posts before you came in.. But to each their own, carry on.

[Oldfan]

Mahons to skinsfan: If you had you might have seen OF state that he'd keep his SBs back for max pro, and you would have seen my last 4-5 posts which have detailed how the double a -gap blitz would in my opinion have a lot of success v the scheme he's proposing.

 

 

Technically, the formation I'm suggesting isn't max pro since I'm not using the RB to block.. The closest conventional alignment is the two-TE set except that the TEs are backed up into the slots. It's a strong pass-protection setup because it deals effectively with the edge-rushers without the need for super OTs on both sides.

 

Against an A-gap or a double A blitz, I'm sliding one or both sides of my blocking to the middle. I think you are overrating the effectiveness of the A gap blitz idea. Once the offense's blocking assignments have been worked out. It's not going to be any more of a problem than any other overload blitz for my formation or anybody else's.

 

And the price the defense pays will be a weakened defense against the pass. Ideally, a defense wants to pressure the QB with as few men as possible. It's the "principle of economy" in action. On offense, the task is to make the D have to spend more players to get the job done.

 

BTW, did I not read that you were going to zone my offense with safeties two-deep? Did you wisely edit that out? 

[Oldfan]

DG: Well answering that dumb question the best you can would go a long way to nailing down where you stand.

 

 

My position was nailed down in the OP for unbiased readers. Unbiased readers who weren't sure of what I meant would ask for a clarification. You never asked before criticizing.

 

Because it seems like your playing both sides..

.

 

It wouldn't seem that way if you didn't need so badly to find fault.

 

And when scenarios where it might be best to keep in a blocker you can always say well 'that's an exception'.

 

 

Sure. If I agreed that it was best to keep the blocker in, I would regard it as an exception. What else?

 

How about this questoin then: how often do you think your offense would keep your back in to block?

 

 

I'd say 7.7% of the pass plays, roughly.

[FuriousD]

And the price the defense pays will be a weakened defense against the pass. Ideally, a defense wants to pressure the QB with as few men as possible. It's the "principle of economy" in action. On offense, the task is to make the D have to spend more players to get the job done.

 

How does your "principle of economy" in action work when throwing to your RB 7 yds deep?  2.5 seconds later and he's still in the defenses first level...

 

If the task on offense is to have the D spend more players to get the job done, AS A GENERAL RULE, involving your RB more in the passing game is counter productive.  Plays that stay in front of the defense are far easier to contain and passes to RB's fit that catagory, hence the low YPC for RB's across the league.  On the other hand, either one of those (2) TE's your are keeping in to block, could get to the second level in no time if they had a route to run.

 

Did you know that Niles Paul averaged 19 yds per catch last year?  Wow!... Even the lumbering Logan Paulsen averaged 12.3.... not too shabby. Yeah, I know,... you don't like stats! 

[Oldfan]

FuriousD: ..., AS A GENERAL RULE, involving your RB more in the passing game is counter productive. 

 

 

I guess nobody warned Bill Walsh about that. 

Plays that stay in front of the defense are far easier to contain and passes to RB's fit that catagory, hence the low YPC for RB's across the league.  On the other hand, either one of those (2) TE's your are keeping in to block, could get to the second level in no time if they had a route to run.

 

Did you know that Niles Paul averaged 19 yds per catch last year?  Wow!... Even the lumbering Logan Paulsen averaged 12.3.... not too shabby. Yeah, I know,... you don't like stats! 

 

My SBs aren't staying in to block unless the D is blitzing. On most downs they would be available as chip-and-go receivers, on some downs the SBs would skip the chip and release... unless the DC was blitz happy.

 

Where did you get the idea that I don't like stats? I love them. I often point out how they are misused, though, just as you misused them in your post.

 

It makes no sense to offer yard-per-catch as you did without offering the companion completion percentage. 

A deep-threat WR is going to have a high YPC but a low completion percentage when targeted. And, on most downs, he won't be open. The RB-receiver will have a lower YPC but a much highr completion percentage.

[Mahons21]

Against an A-gap or a double A blitz, I'm sliding one or both sides of my blocking to the middle. I think you are overrating the effectiveness of the A gap blitz idea. Once the offense's blocking assignments have been worked out. It's not going to be any more of a problem than any other overload blitz for my formation or anybody else's.

And any overload blitz that gets a teams top pass rusher, whether it be a 43 DE or 34 OLB, manned up 1 on 1 with anyone other than an offensive linemen, is a win for the defense.  As I've stated, the positional advantage your SB once had is now lost, and no matter how well you coach your SBs they're still going to have a very difficult time blocking a OLB/DE, due to size alone.

 

And the price the defense pays will be a weakened defense against the pass. Ideally, a defense wants to pressure the QB with as few men as possible. It's the "principle of economy" in action. On offense, the task is to make the D have to spend more players to get the job done.

I'm completely fine with 5 in coverage v 3 routes and one of them being a RB if I'm running zone.

 

Also fine with 3 in coverage if I'm rushing 8 v your 7 blocking, if I'm running man.

 

BTW, did I not read that you were going to zone my offense with safeties two-deep? Did you wisely edit that out? 

You did on post 192, and it remains there.

[Oldfan]

Mahons: And any overload blitz that gets a teams top pass rusher, whether it be a 43 DE or 34 OLB, manned up 1 on 1 with anyone other than an offensive linemen, is a win for the defense.  As I've stated, the positional advantage your SB once had is now lost, and no matter how well you coach your SBs they're still going to have a very difficult time blocking a OLB/DE, due to size alone.

 

 

You are over-simplifying. If size usually dominates, how does Orakpo beat bigger OTs so often?

 

Size only dominates when the leverage factor is equal. The reason Rak, or any other edge rusher, can dominate a bigger OT is because the rules won't allow the OT to move, or even twitch, once set. That means that the edge-rusher can set up wider and gain leverage. But my SB has leverage on your edge-rusher. The only way for your edge rusher to cancel my advantage is to set up much wider than his normal position -- which is fine with me.

 

I'm completely fine with 5 in coverage v 3 routes and one of them being a RB if I'm running zone.

 

 

So am I, especially if you're going to play a two-deep zone. Why would you be concerned with taking away my vertical game? That's not what I plan to do best anyway.

 

Also fine with 3 in coverage if I'm rushing 8 v your 7 blocking, if I'm running man

.

 

That's good for me too. I am forced by the rules to keep my WRs on the LOS. So, I need big-bodied WRs who can beat the press. That size advantage is best used not trying to get separation. Instead, they will be bodying up against your smaller DBs like Brandon Marshall and others do.

[Mahons21]

You are over-simplifying. If size usually dominates, how does Orakpo beat bigger OTs so often?

 

 

Size only dominates when the leverage factor is equal. The reason Rak, or any other edge rusher, can dominate a bigger OT is because the rules won't allow the OT to move, or even twitch, once set. That means that the edge-rusher can set up wider and gain leverage. But my SB has leverage on your edge-rusher. The only way for your edge rusher to cancel my advantage is to set up much wider than his normal position -- which is fine with me.

 

Are you sliding your o-line or not?  If you're sliding them then I have Rak 1 on 1, and the positional advantage your SB once had is lost, if you're not sliding I've got an overloaded middle where I'm sending more than you can block.

 

 

 

So am I, especially if you're going to play a two-deep zone. Why would you be concerned with taking away my vertical game? That's not what I plan to do best anyway.

 

There is a variety of ways to run a cover-2 zone, and it is my fault for not clarifying.  I would be running a very shallow cover-2, far different then let's say a Tampa-2.

 

 

>

That's good for me too. I am forced by the rules to keep my WRs on the LOS. So, I need big-bodied WRs who can beat the press. That size advantage is best used not trying to get separation. Instead, they will be bodying up against your smaller DBs like Brandon Marshall and others do.

No way am I running press coverage with my DBs when playing in cover-0, that only works in madden with a dominant defense.  I'd run off man, I know I'd have a free rusher and the QB has to get rid of the ball quickly so I'd tell my DBs to try and squat on shorter routes.

[terryb101]

throw him the ball

[Oldfan]

Mahons: Are you sliding your o-line or not?  If you're sliding them then I have Rak 1 on 1, and the positional advantage your SB once had is lost, if you're not sliding I've got an overloaded middle where I'm sending more than you can block.

 

I'm not asking the SB to silde so that he's directly in front of the edge rusher. He couldn't even if he wanted to and he doesn't need to. When the SB reads a blitz up the middle, his assignment is to block the edge rusher from his slot position which gives him an angle aimed at his opponent's hip. 

 

There is a variety of ways to run a cover-2 zone, and it is my fault for not clarifying.  I would be running a very shallow cover-2, far different then let's say a Tampa-2.

 

You wrote:

 

Let's say I'm bring pressure that looks like this OLB DE LBLB DE OLB, 6 guys coming and dropping 5 in coverage with a 2 deep look.

 

Now, it's a two-shallow look?

 

Nevermind. How about explaining your best defense in detail using 11 players? How are you covering my RB?How many are you rushing? Zone or man?

 

No way am I running press coverage with my DBs when playing in cover-0, that only works in madden with a dominant defense.

 

I wasn't talking about your zero coverage. When the WRs are on the LOS defenses will often press.

 

I'd run off man, I know I'd have a free rusher and the QB has to get rid of the ball quickly so I'd tell my DBs to try and squat on shorter routes.

 

You are making these moves as if there's no negative. There are always negatives to be weighed when devising football strategy.

 

My QB is in the Pistol. Where would your free rusher set up against my formation? Even unblocked, he's not going to put my QB under duress. And, remember, my RB is out there as an outlet. Your free rusher is just one less defender my RB has to elude to gain good yardage. If your free rusher is lined up wide left, my RB and QB could read it and counter with a swing pass left.

[Mahons21]

1.) Your SB is going to be lined up outside my OLB, if you don't move him in front of him, and your T mans up with my DE(playing a DT position), then the OLB will have a direct line to the QB.

 

 

   OLB  DE LBLB DE  OLB

        T    G    C    G    T 

 SB                                   SB

 

My OLB is going to shoot the gap between T and SB, unless your SB moves laterally in towards the QB.

 

2.) With zone I'm rushing 6 OLB DE LBLB DE OLB, I will have my corners playing underneath 1/3s, with my NB taking middle 1/3, no one will be manned up with your RB, but when he receives the ball 4 yards behind the LOS I'm confident I can prevent him from gaining substantial yardage.  Safeties would be playing cover-2 behind corners underneath zone.

 

With man, I'll have my FS lined up with your RB, OLBs with your SBs, and CBs with your WRs, everyone else rushing QB.

 

3.) I'd only have a free rusher from my 0 coverage.  Which is the quote you responded to, when I said I'd be rushing 8 v your 7 blockers.

 

4.) The free rusher from the cover-0 would depend on who your line chooses not to block, they dicate that not my defense.  A QB even in shotgun is most certainly under duress by any free rusher that is playing reasonably close to the LOS. 

 

Yes but your RB will catch the ball 4  yards behind the LOS again, if my first guy brings him down then he's lost yards, if not it will gain substantial yards.  If your intent is to run a ball control offense though, all I need is one play to create negative yardage, to put you off schedule, and out of your comfort zone.

 

Man do I miss the old quote features, let me know if any of that doesn't make sense to you.

[Hitman21ST]

 

FuriousD: ..., AS A GENERAL RULE, involving your RB more in the passing game is counter productive. 

 

 

I guess nobody warned Bill Walsh about that. 

 

Does pointing out one exception to the general rule nullify it? Like you sig says, stating exceptions to general rules is pointless.

[Oldfan]

Mahons: My OLB is going to shoot the gap between T and SB, unless your SB moves laterally in towards the QB.

 

 

Your OLB doesn't shoot the gap unless your OLB has super-human acceleration or my SB isn't allowed to move at the snap. The move my SB makes is a 45 degree diagonal to the LOS. He would collide with the OLB at his right hip before either player took their second step.

 

With zone I'm rushing 6 OLB DE LBLB DE OLB, I will have my corners playing underneath 1/3s, with my NB taking middle 1/3, no one will be manned up with your RB, but when he receives the ball 4 yards behind the LOS I'm confident I can prevent him from gaining substantial yardage.  Safeties would be playing cover-2 behind corners underneath zone.

 

 

I asked for your best defense with 11 players. Since you mentioned this one first, I'll assume this was it.

 

You're blitzing the A gaps. So, on a pass play, I'm sliding my blocking assignments to the middle as we discussed. 

 

You are firing two of your best run defenders up the middle at my QB which makes your defense vulnerable to the outside run. If I run, the SBs seal off your OLBs.

 

You are also vulnerable to a quick toss to the RB going wide to either side. Since you aren't covering him man-to-man, I have the ball in the hands of my best playmaker on the edge with some space. My big WRs can help him with some blocking out there as well.

 

As for my other options, it's not going to matter much whether you play zone or man coverage because my receivers aren't going to be looking to settle into soft spots in the zone. They will usually be going right at your DBs and using their size-advantage to "post them up" as in a low post move in basketball.

 

In the second half of the 2004 season, Robert Royal caught six TDs from P. Ramsey on the kind of move I have in mind. If memory serves, Cooley caught four.

[Oldfan]

Hitman: Does pointing out one exception to the general rule nullify it? Like you sig says, stating exceptions to general rules is pointless.

If the poster, had said "As a general rule coaches don't like to involve their running backs in the passing game" then my remark, pointing out Walsh, would have been a pointless exception. But that wasn't what he said.

Walsh involved his RB in the passing game hundreds of times annually for several years and had great success with it. That's evidence that involving your RB more in the passing game is not counter productive as the poster alleged.