Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Running Teams in the NFL


Mother Grabber

Recommended Posts

This morning, his schmarminess, John Clayton, said that running teams in the NFL are good for 8-9 wins at best. Our beloved Panthers are perhaps the best 'running team' in the league, and no doubt one of the more obvious about it. Many of us, myself included, have complained about the Fox plan being too conservative and too single minded.

Perhaps he agrees? Afterall, we did put a lot of stock into the future of our passing game...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess he is pegging New Orleans and Dallas to 8 or 9 wins then. Both were top 10 in rushing last year, LOL. Cincinatti was one of the best running teams last year. Anyone think with 85 and TO, they won't throw more this year.

Most any team has to be able to pass and run at the same time. We ran so often last year because we really couldn't throw it very well with Delhomme. I expect that we will throw the ball alot more this year and open things up if we get good quarterback play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess he is pegging New Orleans and Dallas to 8 or 9 wins then. Both were top 10 in rushing last year, LOL. Cincinatti was one of the best running teams last year. Anyone think with 85 and TO, they won't throw more this year.

Most any team has to be able to pass and run at the same time. We ran so often last year because we really couldn't throw it very well with Delhomme. I expect that we will throw the ball alot more this year and open things up if we get good quarterback play.

Thats what it boils down too. Now Tennessee, thats different

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carolina alone shows that thought process is garbage.

2008- 12 wins

2009 - with some of the worst QB imaginable for the majority of the season we got 8 wins. With average QB play (not great or even good) Carolina wins easly 10 games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats what it boils down too. Now Tennessee, thats different

Wouldn't be surprised if Tennessee has to pick up their passing game also. I don't know that Johnson has another year like last year in him. Look what happened to Turner in 2009. He might be injury prone after all the abuse he took last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I agree with running teams automatically failing, but bringing up the Saints & Dallas doesn't help the argument. Both of those teams were top 10 in passing, which opened up their run game a lot more than us.

It's a quarterback league, and will continue that way with the constant rule changes and etc benefiting quarterbacks. Look at the Jets. Their passing game was awful and they basically won 7 games, and were given the last 2 games with Colts/Bengals resting. Then you have teams like the Titans who didn't establish their passing offense until later in the season, and would have finished with a better record had they established it earlier.

If we can just get our passing offense to average, we'll be fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I agree with running teams automatically failing, but bringing up the Saints & Dallas doesn't help the argument. Both of those teams were top 10 in passing, which opened up their run game a lot more than us.

It's a quarterback league, and will continue that way with the constant rule changes and etc benefiting quarterbacks. Look at the Jets. Their passing game was awful and they basically won 7 games, and were given the last 2 games with Colts/Bengals resting. Then you have teams like the Titans who didn't establish their passing offense until later in the season, and would have finished with a better record had they established it earlier.

someone on Sirius NFL commented about teams focused on stopping the pass and the swing back to the run once teams realized some teams might be exposed.

If we can just get our passing offense to average, we'll be fine.

I think it is worth noting....that the league is constantly changing. It is a passing league and teams are building themselves to stop it. At the same time it will be more difficult for teams to stop teams focued on the power run building for speed/coverage.

With Jake's play teams often put 9 in the box last year. We had 2 RBs at over 5 yards a pop. If not for turnovers that formula is very effective imo in today's NFL with the focus on most defenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I agree with running teams automatically failing, but bringing up the Saints & Dallas doesn't help the argument. Both of those teams were top 10 in passing, which opened up their run game a lot more than us.

It's a quarterback league, and will continue that way with the constant rule changes and etc benefiting quarterbacks. Look at the Jets. Their passing game was awful and they basically won 7 games, and were given the last 2 games with Colts/Bengals resting. Then you have teams like the Titans who didn't establish their passing offense until later in the season, and would have finished with a better record had they established it earlier.

If we can just get our passing offense to average, we'll be fine.

Our running game depends on passing also. We need to be able to keep the safety out of the box and have the DE worried about the pass which makes them susceptible to the draw. And the run sets up the play action pass. We need a good passing game this year so we can score lots of points. We lost several games last year because of an anemic offense. With the defense still up in the year, we need to be able to win a few shootouts this year.

I agree we don't need to throw for 300 yards a game, but we will have to score 24-30 points to beat Atlanta or New Orleans this year.

And bringing up Dallas and New Orleans shows that the best teams can run and throw the ball. One side helps the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roflcopter. We got those 8 wins last year with the worst QB in the league and an unreal amount of turnovers. With a middle-of-the-road QB we would have won 10-12 games easily last year. This year with an easy schedule it's not at all unreasonable to think we can win 10. Clayton sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is worth noting....that the league is constantly changing. It is a passing league and teams are building themselves to stop it. At the same time it will be more difficult for teams to stop teams focued on the power run building for speed/coverage.

With Jake's play teams often put 9 in the box last year. We had 2 RBs at over 5 yards a pop. If not for turnovers that formula is very effective imo in today's NFL with the focus on most defenses.

That is a good point. With teams going to lighter faster DEs and DTs to get pressure, it allows a team like us with a very big offensive line to just blow folks off the line. Teams focusing solely on the pass play right into our hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Sure it does, maybe not every position and not every draft.  You have to admit the hit rate goes down the further in the draft you get.  Would you more readily find a generational talent at the #2 pick or #19 pick?  High picks are considered "busts" if they doesn't pan out, whereas guys drafted later don't have that level of scrutiny upon them.  Different expectation levels.  If Styles does indeed go #2, I already listed the rarefied air that he would be in.  Maybe he doesn't set the League on fire, but my gut feeling is he does.  Again, you don't take an off-ball LB #2 if he is just a 'really good' player.
    • To illustrate my point, I watched (and commented on the Huddle) that Rozeboom would often wait a full second (or close to it) before taking his first step.  I assume that he probably had issues with false steps, a faulty practice that can take an ILB out of the gap completely.  Watch Luke and you see a step with the snap, and rarely was it a false step.  Rozeboom may have had 100 tackles (speculating) but initial contact was 2-3 yards on the defensive side of the ball.  Luke's 100 tackles were made 1-2 yards from the LOS.  Over the course of a year, Luke was much more productive (more fumbles, fewer long gainers, more OL penalties, fewer first downs, etc) that Rozeboom, but on the stat sheet, they both had 100 tackles.  In fact, Rozeboom's inefficiency kept him on the field more (more first downs, fewer OL penalties, turnovers, and punts) so he should have MORE tackles.   I would like to see stats that break down those things.   For example again, Josh Norman was slow--4.68 or so at CB.  However, his anticipation speed was incredible.  He made as many plays as a 4.4 CB.  I had one coach (college--later became the head coach at WCU) tell me that slower players have to use their brains more to still be around.  Elite athletes can just get by on their physical superiority.  He added, "Rarely does a football player run full speed.  Most of the time, they are not, so the 40 time is misleading stat.  Smart players overcome shortcomings--when the elite athlete becomes average (slows with age, advances in level of competition) they struggle against smarter (football IQ) competition.  
    • Obviously tongue in cheek hyperbole. But we do not need a first round RB to compete for a championship. We need intelligent roster building. That to me is the complete opposite of intelligent roster building because it is a prime resource at a devalued plug and play position when we have needs across the defense.
×
×
  • Create New...