Disciplined, commitment to the run football back in DC and it works! Who knew?

[Malapropismic Depository]

Hogs 3.7

 

****  YEAHHHHHH !!!!

[KDawg]

The fullback news is wonderful. I take everything back. Go Coach Callahan!

[wrecker]

...and now turf toe. You can,t make this up.

[Wildbunny]

12 hours ago, goskins10 said:

Let's go another direction though - just for kicks and grins. Let's say that the run game was exponentially better and it was due to hard work and discipline. Where was this the last 3 or so yrs and especially the first 5 gms? Wasn't he in charge of the Oline? Didn't he own the run game? Was Bill coaching them down so he become HC? That makes no sense unless he is a complete POS of a human being.

Our culture is damn good!

[Probos]

On 10/15/2019 at 7:27 AM, KDawg said:

 

Because, quite frankly, just because the front office stinks it doesn't mean that they are completely terrible all the time.

 

1st round picks under Snyder:

 

1999- Champ Bailey

2000 - LaVar Arrington/Chris Samuels

2001 - Rod Gardner (wah wah)

2002 - Patrick Ramsey (lamb to the slaughter of a brutal OL)

2004 - Sean Taylor

2005 - Carlos Rogers/Jason Campbell

2007 - Laron Landry

2009 - Brian Orakpo

2010 - Trent Williams

2011 - Ryan Kerrigan

2012 - RG3

2015 - Brandon Scherff

2016 - Josh Doctson

2017 - Jonathan Allen

2018 - Daron Payne

2019 - Dwayne Haskins/Montez Sweat

 

There are some absolute flops on that list, but also a good mix of very good players for the team. 

 

Only top 5 picks: Scherff, Griffin, Samuels, Arrington, Taylor, Williams

 

"they are completely terrible all the time" -- Really setting the bar high there,....

 

Sooo,...ok.  Sure, there have been some good draft picks in the first round over the years.  I'm not arguing against that fact -- what I'm saying is how have those good picks translated to wins/success on the field over that period of time?  Not too terribly well.  And I know it's too early to tell with the '19 draft, obviously.  

 

If Dan and Bruce are still picking players for this team next year, year after, etc, nothing will change.  I don't care where they're picking in the 1st round.  

[Probos]

On 10/15/2019 at 7:28 AM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I get the point but we'd have to believe that Kyle Smith stinks at his job to blow a top 3 pick.  He I think is the best thing we got cooking.  Heck even Vinny couldn't blow high draft picks -- its pretty hard to do.  Yeah you got some busts in the high end of the draft but the odds are much greater in your favor.

 

For me its not that I think that's what everyone should think.  People can think whatever floats their boat.  We are all fans with minds of our own.  For me, I want  a top pick to either get an elite player or even better trade down for a bounty of draft picks. 

 

In my view the only thing this FO does well is have Kyle Smith pick players in the draft.  So for me it's doubling down on what this team does best.    the more young talented employees you got the more likely you can override (to use your analogy) the two drunkard and delusional dudes at the top. 

 

<Sigh>,....I'm not saying they wouldn't pick a very good player, but if Dan and Bruce are involved in making the choice, that's bad.  And, with the current climate of the franchise bringing that top 3 pick in doesn't give him the best chance to become the best he can be.  **** is broken.  Dan picked Dwayne.  He was over drafted.  He's not ready.  Could he end up being a solid QB in the league, sure.  But that pick is just one example of why Dan should never be involved in personal decisions from a pure football/player perspective.  I'm sure Kyle Smith is very good at his job.

[KDawg]

20 minutes ago, Probos said:

 

"they are completely terrible all the time" -- Really setting the bar high there,....

 

Sooo,...ok.  Sure, there have been some good draft picks in the first round over the years.  I'm not arguing against that fact -- what I'm say is how have those good picks translated to wins/success on the field over that period of time?  Not too terribly well.  And I know it's too early to tell with the '19 draft, obviously.  

 

If Dan and Bruce are still picking players for this team next year, year after, etc, nothing will change.  I don't care where they're picking in the 1st round.  

 

I'm not arguing that they will fix the team.

 

If you've followed my posts, which I'm not sure if you have or haven't because theres about 4000 active posters here  I am completely against the way our FO operates on a regular basis.

 

My argument was strictly based on "they'd screw up the first rounder". It's not likely they would, actually. But it is likely they'd screw up the team around the first rounder.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

On ‎10‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 11:54 AM, Gibbs Hog Heaven said:

Getting upset at faceless posters is not something I care to do on an internet message board. Being surprised at your repeated ignoring of what's actually said and inferring something completely different would be more to the point. 

 

I wasn't aware I had/ was expected to have,  a position shy of pointing out some dramatic changes to the first 5 weeks play on Sunday in conjunction with the changes made on a day-to-day basis here the past week. Which I don't think it's any kind of a leap to see the effect they've had. The same way you chose to point out things to the contrary in your brief synopsis of the weekend. 

 

What am I missing here? 

 

Hail. 

 

You are missing that nothing actually changed except we played a team that may not be good enough to make the XFL playoffs and should have lost.

 

Also, we didn't actually run the ball that well considering it was the Miami Dolphins.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

On ‎10‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 6:33 PM, FuriousD said:

 

We're currently VERY bad at keeping TE's healthy but you wouldn't advocate scratching TE's from the roster, would you?  

 

Do you remember the Run & Shoot offense, by chance?  It was a concerted effort to feature the pass over the run.  Played exclusively from the gun and flooding the secondary with 4 or 5 receivers on every play.  Some very smart people spent a ton of time and effort trying to change the pass-run ratio to their advantage and guess what? It didn't work!  No clock control.  No way to throttle the opposition when nursing a lead and it floundered in the red-zone with the field shrunk up and no power running game to fall back on.

 

It really doesn't matter how bad the Skins are at running the ball, they have to keep trying.

 

Did you just wake up from a coma in 1998?

 

Run and shoot concepts are all over the league right now. It's the same formation and route ideas just built on getting the ball out quickly....not having Rodney Peete stand like a statue for six seconds.

[Est.1974]

Prediction...we run half decent against the vaunted 9ers line and lose gracefully and this thread is lit up with Callahan has us running all the way to the big prize again 

[carex]

well, I don't expect us to win, but it's supposed to rain on Sunday, I think heavily, and Kyle does occasionally forget you're allowed to run the ball so maybe something will happen

[Conn]

 

This tweet isn't about the Skins, but it applies because it is why we will be demolished the rest of the season trying to do what we did against the Dolphins against real teams, imo. 

[Koolblue13]

This is hysterical. Zskins put you up to this? :old:

[Voice_of_Reason]

On 10/14/2019 at 11:02 AM, Gibbs Hog Heaven said:

So prior to yesterday, going totally against common misconception, in 2019 we.ve actually passed more over the season on first and second down. (First Down- 76 P/ 57 R. Second Down- 79 P/ 27 R.). 

But not during the competitive parts of the games.  We passed more on first down only after the game was out of control.

 

Eagles:

Drive 1: 3 first downs, 3 first down runs.  5 yards, 3 yards, 1 yard.

Drive 2: 4 first down, 2 runs, 2 passes CT for 6 yards, Guice for 4 yards. 

Drive 3: 1 first down, 1 run.  Guice for 2 yards. (Scored on the McLaurin bomb on the second play)

Drive 4: 1 first down, 1 run.  Guice for 5 yards on a 1st and 17 after a holding call on a run.  This drive resulted in a 3-out and a punt.

Drive 5: 1 First down 1 pass.  

Drive 6 doesn't count, it was a 2 minute situation.

So, in the first half, they had 10 first downs, and ran on 8 of them.  For an average of like 3.3 or something.

Drive 7: 1 first down, 1 run for no gain.  Score is 20-14 Redskins at this point.

Drive 8: 1 first down, 1 pass.  NOTE: This was the missed bomb to McLaurin.  Score is not 21-20 Eagles

Drive 9: Now we're in the 4th quarter, down by 9.  1 first down, 1 pass.  Personally, I don't count this so much, but you can if you want.  

Drive 10: Doesn't count, garbage time, down 12 points and the drive started with 3 minutes left.  

So in the Eagles game, when the game was competitive, which was the first half and the first 3 dires, they had 13 first downs, and they ran on 9 of them. For terrible results.

 

Dallas: 

Drive 1: 2 first downs, 1 pass, 1 run for -4 yards.

Drive 2: 1 first down, 1 pass.  EXCEPT that the first attempt at a first down was an AP run where they had a holding penalty.  So they tried to run on that first and 10.  

Drive 3: 3 first downs, 2 runs.  

Drive 4: 3 first downs, 2 runs

Drive 5: 1 first down, 1 pass.

Drive 6: (Kneel down. )

First half 10 first down, they ran on 5 of them.  This was pretty balanced.  

Drive 7: (Down 21-7 at this point, so now we're passing to catch up after a 14 point swing.  4 first downs, 1 run, 3 passes. 

Drive 8: (Down 24-14) 2 first downs, 1 run, 1 pass.  Run was for 2 yards. Turned it over on downs. 

Drive 9 doesn't count.  Down 31-14 late in the fourth quarter.

So, the first half was balanced, then they got less balanced in the second half as they kept falling further and further behind.

 

Bears: 

Drive 1: 2 first downs, 2 runs.

Drive 2: 4 first downs, 3 runs.  

Drive 3: 1 first down, which was a fumble by Keenum.

Drive 4: 1 first down, 1 run.  (btw, we're down 21-0 at this point.)

Drive 5: doesn't count, 2 minute situation down by 28.  

Second half doesn't count.  They were down 25 at the break and throwing to catch up.

So, they had 8 first downs in competitive situation, and ran on 5 of them.

 

Giants:

Drive 1: 1 1st and 10, they ran.  The second first down was a run(penalty), false-start, then a 1st and 23, which I don't count.).  Unless you want to count the second first down as a run attempt, in which case they were 2 for 2 running

Drive 2: They ran on 1st and 10 and got a penalty.  THey passed on 1st and 17.  

Drive 3: (Down 14-0) 1 first down, 1 pass.

Drive 4: 2 first and 10's and ran on both of them.  

That's the first half. This is just misery.  They TRIED to run on all of their first downs, but they kept getting called for penalties, forcing them into long situations, so they passed.    

Drive 5: (down 17-3) 1 first down, 1 run.  

Drive 6 and on, I don't count.  Down 24-3 in the third quarter, they're passing. 

 

NE: 

Drive 1: 2 First downs, 1 run, 1 pass.

Drive 2: 1 first down, 1 run.  

Drive 3: 1 first down, 1 pass (sack)

Drive 4: 2 first downs, 1 run, 1 scramble

Drive 5: 1 first down 1 pass

Drive 6: 1 first down, 1 pass. (and a fumble.

Drive 7: 1 first and 10, 1 run.  Then they tried on the second first down, got a hold, then a false start, then a hold and ended up at 1st and 25.

Drive 8: 1 first down, 1 pass (which was intercepted)

Drive 9: Knee.  

So, in the first half, which was competitive, they had 10 first downs, and ran on 4 of them.  So this is the first half where they passed on first down more than they ran.

Drive 10: (down 19-7) 2 first downs, 1 run, 1 pass.

Drive 11: 1 first down, 1 run. 

Now we're down 26-7, and nothing else matters.

So, while the game was competitive, they had 12 first downs, ran on 6.  Which, again, is balanced.

 

So, the moral of the story is you can't trust the overall stats.  You have to look at the details.  When the games were competitive, Jay ran the ball more than he passed, at times by a wide margin, on first down.  All while having NO success doing it.

 

If they had had more success running the ball, they might have been able to run more.  Also, if Jay had been more creative on first down, they might have been more succesful.

 

Callahan committing to the run against the Dolphins means nothing.  He had the luxury of going 3-out 3 times to start the game because the Dolphins are awful.

 

If he tries that against the 49ers, he'll be down 2-3 scores and forced out of running the ball.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, carex said:

well, I don't expect us to win, but it's supposed to rain on Sunday, I think heavily, and Kyle does occasionally forget you're allowed to run the ball so maybe something will happen

He does?  I mean, I can think of one play in the SB when he forgot.  The Shanahan's have running the ball in their genetics.  They rarely get away from it unless they are losing badly.  

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

If you're gonna' quote first and second downs mate, at least look at both. 

 

The disparity in all the drives you listed above on 2nd downs was 40-14 pass-run. (You were all over the Giants game that we came out passing in so I left that.). The first down runs were poor. Along with the penalties. But the commitment to run regardless to place us in third and short manageable downs wasn't there which was a major difference last weekend. That's your detail. 

 

The simple fact remains, regardless of what anyone thinks of the opposition, we were far more committed to the run, with far greater, penalty-free success, Sunday than we ever were in the first 5 games. 

 

However you try slight that into 'means nothing' as it was against Miami, it's still a major shift however you cut it. 

 

Hail. 

 

 

[carex]

10 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

He does?  I mean, I can think of one play in the SB when he forgot.  The Shanahan's have running the ball in their genetics.  They rarely get away from it unless they are losing badly.  

 

three plays.  He only ran once during the end of that drive with third down getting a redo over a holding call

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, carex said:

 

three plays.  He only ran once during the end of that drive with third down getting a redo over a holding call

Ok, well, if that scenario comes up we’ve got it in the bag.  

[Voice_of_Reason]

11 hours ago, Gibbs Hog Heaven said:

If you're gonna' quote first and second downs mate, at least look at both. 

 

The disparity in all the drives you listed above on 2nd downs was 40-14 pass-run. (You were all over the Giants game that we came out passing in so I left that.). The first down runs were poor. Along with the penalties. But the commitment to run regardless to place us in third and short manageable downs wasn't there which was a major difference last weekend. That's your detail. 

 

The simple fact remains, regardless of what anyone thinks of the opposition, we were far more committed to the run, with far greater, penalty-free success, Sunday than we ever were in the first 5 games. 

 

However you try slight that into 'means nothing' as it was against Miami, it's still a major shift however you cut it. 

 

Hail. 

 

 

I mean, you’re wrong, but at least you’re committed to the cause.    

 

The reason they didn’t trun on second down is because they were so awful at running on fists they were in 2nd and 8+ more often than not.

 

Jay committed to running on first down, like he’d done unsuccessfully since 2014.  Anything other than acceptance of that point is fooling yourself for whatever reason you are choosing to fool yourself.  

 

The problem with Jay’s play calling over 5 years was never a lack of commitment to run in early downs.  It was that they tried to run too much on first downs, particularly in first halves, and were massively unsuccessful at it. This put them in decks and long more often than any other team in the league, and forced them into known passing situations.  This was a 5 year trend and backed up by every analytic there is. 

 

I put an entire thread together with detailed analysis going back years after week 2 or 3.  

 

This notion of Jay not being committed to the run has been a passion of mine going back years. I think I almost got myself banned by pointing out every single first down run in the game day threads.   I kept a running track of each first down and total yards.  It’s been pathetic.  

 

The issue with Jay wasn’t the number of runs.  It was the predictability and atrocious average.  If they had been more successful, then they might have run more on second down. But it’s damn hard to run on second and 8.2 or something, which was the first half average to go after a running play.

 

This is like trying to argue the sun rises in the West.  You can be very adamant about it but you’ll still be wrong.  

 

Also, the only reason we could be committed to the run is because after going 3-out 3 times in a row, we weren’t losing by 2 scores because the Dolphins suck. On both offense and defense.  The Dolphins aliso gave up 175 yards on the ground on average, and we managed 145.  

 

Any attempt to separate results from this opponent is fools gold. 

 

Now IF Callahan manages to stick with the run and they run the ball successfully against San Fran, then we can start to have a discussion about what is different. However the 49ers are a completely different challenge than the Dolphins.  If we go 3-out 3 times in a row to start the game, Kyle’s going to have a 2 score lead, because he’s going to make Manusky his ****.  

 

Keep in mind, I’m not suggesting they should turn into the greatest show on turf.  What they needed to do is be more unpredictable on first down so they could run more on second down. Because the second down rushing numbers are a direct reflection of the awful production on first down runs.  Because Jay called the same running play for 2 yards on first down for 5 years.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

@Voice_of_Reason , mate,  I know the situations we were in on second and longs with the penalties and the P poor choice of first-down runs yielding next to nottin under Gruden.  I caveated the OP with situational football. But he could still have run if he wanted to on second down to the end of a manageable third regardless. Which we did Sunday regardless of what anyone thinks of the opposition. Ones being committed to a running identity. Ones half-arsing it. 

 

Call me wrong all you like in disagreeing, but the fact remains however you spin it we were far more committed to the run game from every standpoint last Sunday than the previous 5 weeks. Unless you want to call HC and OC flat out liars for everything they've repeatedly said and shown thus far and say it's only down to the Dolphins being so poor that it played out like that?

 

Why people are trying to lessen the one good thing we did do properly, along with being more disciplined, is mind-boggling. 

 

Hail. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

34 minutes ago, Gibbs Hog Heaven said:

@Voice_of_Reason , mate,  I know the situations we were in on second and longs with the penalties and the P poor choice of first-down runs yielding next to nottin under Gruden.  I caveated the OP with situational football. But he could still have run if he wanted to on second down to the end of a manageable third regardless. Which we did Sunday regardless of what anyone thinks of the opposition. Ones being committed to a running identity. Ones half-arsing it. 

Wait, after you average 2 yards on first down repeatedly, you want to run on second down also and expect different results?  You know what that is?  The absolute definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.  Gruden was a horrific first down play caller for 5 years BECAUSE he ran the ball too much.  There aer a million different analytic guys who have been saying this for years.  This is not a new concept. 

 

And then saying they should have been doing MORE of the same which wasn't working, in a situation that was now behind the sticks, that's insanity.  They would have been in 3rd and 6-8 every single time, and even if they went 50% on third down, which is unlikely, that's just a recipe for 3-outs over and over and over again. 

 

And I do submit the ONLY reason it worked on Sunday is because the Dolphins are potentially the worst team in the history of football.  And, btw, we would have lost that game if they had started Fitzpatrick, because as soon as he came in the game, we couldn't stop the offense.  

 

34 minutes ago, Gibbs Hog Heaven said:

Call me wrong all you like in disagreeing, but the fact remains however you spin it we were far more committed to the run game from every standpoint last Sunday than the previous 5 weeks. Unless you want to call HC and OC flat out liars for everything they've repeatedly said and shown thus far and say it's only down to the Dolphins being so poor that it played out like that?

I'm calling you wrong not out of opinion, but out of sheer, completely verified and unarguable FACTS.  The FACTS say that when the game was competitive, Gruden ran on 1st down at the highest rate in the NFL.  The FACTS say that the Redskins ranked last in 2nd yards to go in the NFL.  And these are not just this year FACTS.  They are FACTS going back to 2014.  This is not an opinion.  It's a FACT.

 

And while I believe Callahan wants to run the ball more, the only reason he was able to actually pull it off is because the Dolphins are giving up 175 yards on the ground on defense, and their offense is so pathetic that they couldn't make the Redskins pay for starting the game with 3 straight 3-outs.  

 

34 minutes ago, Gibbs Hog Heaven said:

Why people are trying to lessen the one good thing we did do properly, along with being more disciplined, is mind-boggling. 

 

Hail. 

I don't think anything we did on Sunday against the Dolphins was good.  The Dolphins were averaging giving up 175 yards on the ground, we got 145.  They were losing by an average of something like 40-6, we won by 1 point.  They were averaging giving up over 270 yards passing, we got 166.  They were averaging 176 yards passing per game, we gave up 132 yards passing to Fitzpatrick in a quarter and a half.  They were averaging 55 yards on the ground, we gave up 88.

 

There is just nothing positive to take away from this game at all.  We won by 1 point and under-performed every single statistical category.  We rant the ball "ok" against a horrifically bad rushing defense.  

 

If ol' Bill Callahan wants the Redskins to be a running team, they are going to have to run a whole heck of a lot better than they did, commitment or not, or they're going to be blown out by everybody.  

 

You're reaching for a positive.  There is no positive.  If they had gone in there and won by 14, 17, 21, or looked somewhat competent, then there might have been something positive to take away. 

 

As it was, they came one stupid 2-point play from losing the game, against an organization who is ACTIVELY trying to lose. 

 

And I also think this whole commitment to the run thing is just playing to Bruce.  Who's stupid enough to think that's how you can be successful.  It feeds into the whole "we were 6-3 running the football and playing defense" narrative.  Which is patently false and stupid.  They were about to be 6-4, and in the 4 games they lost they were boat-raced by better teams.  But Bill is smart enough to know how stupid Bruce is, and he's playing to his boss.  

 

The actual right thing to do is to scrap the running game because it sucks, go hurry-up, quick game, and use CT (or Smallwood) and be a predominantly passing team to accentuate the receivers, who (and who thought this was going to be true) are actually the strength of the offense.  Whether that be with Case of Haskins, that's the right thing to do.  Running the ball into the line 25 times a game with a 65 year old AP proves nothing, develops nothing, and is patently stupid. 

 

 

 

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

I don’t believe I was comparing anything outside of this season but yanno? Tangents and all that.

 

Like we weren’t winless and totally devoid of confidence ourselves going in last week. By what right should we have been rolling over Miami? Aside from a first time OC and HC calling his first game in over a decade. The lack of context on last Sunday is another recurring theme that’s equally mind-boggling to me. 

 

We’ll have to agree to disagree as we patently aren’t agreeing on anything. 

 

Enjoy the game tomorrow.

 

Hail.

[megared]

2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I don't think anything we did on Sunday against the Dolphins was good.  The Dolphins were averaging giving up 175 yards on the ground, we got 145.  They were losing by an average of something like 40-6, we won by 1 point.  They were averaging giving up over 270 yards passing, we got 166.  They were averaging 176 yards passing per game, we gave up 132 yards passing to Fitzpatrick in a quarter and a half.  They were averaging 55 yards on the ground, we gave up 88.

 

I think you have to be careful with categorizing the Dolphins previous four games as 'average' opponents.  They played the Ravens, Patriots, Cowboys and Chargers.  We aren't better at doing any one of those things you listed than any of those four teams.  This was supposed to be close, because it's where we are...

 

Aaaaand the teams that've played us and came away with unrealistic expectations, are crashing down to earth (because we are far from average)

[Califan007 The Constipated]

 

 

 

1

3 hours ago, Gibbs Hog Heaven said:

I don’t believe I was comparing anything outside of this season but yanno? Tangents and all that.

 

Like we weren’t winless and totally devoid of confidence ourselves going in last week. By what right should we have been rolling over Miami? Aside from a first time OC and HC calling his first game in over a decade. The lack of context on last Sunday is another recurring theme that’s equally mind bungling to me.

 

I mentioned something similar in a post somewhere earlier this week...for all the people saying "t was just the Dolphins", I would say "we ARE the Dolphins" lol...The Redskins were an 0-5 team that was averaging 3 1/2 feet per game on the ground...in my eyes, there is zero reason to blow off any success they have running the ball in any game whatsoever. Seeing AP make those jump cuts and use his vision almost makes me feel as if "commitment to the run" and "commitment to running AP" go hand in hand. We know where Gruden seemed to fall in terms of that.

[Peregrine]

I thought this might be a satire before clicking the link, but that appears to not be the case.  Seems Bruce can still convince a few of you. Quite an attempt to draw that conclusion, but I think there are a few major problems.

 

First, we did not win.  The Dolphins elected to lose.

 

Second, against what is at this point the WORST team in the entire history of the NFL, we managed 145 rushing yards.  Thats terrible.  The team we face this week averages 180 a game, including against good teams.  We averaged 4.4 yards per carry, which would make us bang average in the NFL.

 

Third, against what will go down as the worst team in NFL history, a team who averaged losing by 35 points, and whos BEST game defensively was 30 points allowed, we managed to score 17.  Scoring 17 points a game in the NFL is good enough to ensure you are one of the worst offenses in the league...much less doing so against the worst defense.

 

Fourth, NO SERIOUSLY, DO YOU REALIZE HOW BAD THE DOLPHINS ARE, AND HOW BAD WE WERE OFFENSIVELY AGAINST THEM?  Its truly spectacular what they have done, and its truly amazing to think that people believe if we can just play like that every week that we wont be 1-15.

[skinny21]

@Voice_of_Reason Obviously I agree with your facts, but I’m not sure it’s fair to say that running on second down (when Gruden was only picking up 2-ish yards on 1st down) would lead to 3rd and 6-8.  Ditto calling a 2nd down run ‘insanity’ because it’s doing the same thing for different results.  

Given Gruden’s tendency to run, pass, pass, running on 2nd was likely to be at least marginally more successful.  In other words we should avg 3rd and less than 6 (not 6-8).  We would have had to run for an even worse average on 2nd downs to hit your stated numbers.  

 

Obviously I agree though that Gruden ran way too much on first down.  
 

If Callahan sticks to that tendency and runs regularly on 2nd, I’m not sure that’s going to help us much.  If he switches things up while still leaning more heavily toward the run, it could help a bit.  

 

Not a big fan of skewing toward the run game in this day and age, but for this team, as currently constructed, it might be the better way to go.   
1) Allow the defense to rest more (maybe - more 3 and outs could mitigate this gain).

2) Help the qbs by cutting down on the 3rd and long situations.  

3) fewer passes thrown - ideally leading to fewer chances of INTs

4) fewer drop backs - less chance of sacks/fumbles.

5) by taking pressure off the qbs (theoretically - not inherently), it ups the chances we get to put Haskins in the game.  

6) maybe fewer offensive penalties (holding and false starts).

 

To your point though, good teams (heck, maybe even decent ones) might build quick leads and blow this whole thing out of the water.  Don’t see this method working very well against the next few D’s we face.  Of course, I’m not sure any method we try will work against them.