Running Game? Balance?

by Andrew B on Feb 2, 2009 4:55 PM EST Comment 11 comments

Who cares?

Neither Arizona or Pittsburgh needed it last night.

Pittsburgh - 22 rushes, 58 yards vs. 35 called passes

Arizona - 12 rushes, 33 yards vs. 45 called passes.

Did anyone miss 3 yards and a cloud of dust last night? I didn't.

Where were all those power running teams last night? The Giants, Panthers, Falcons, Ravens, Titans, Vikings? Oh yeah, except for the Ravens and Titans who played each other, they all went one and done vs. wide-open passing offenses in the playoffs.

Points come from the passing game, and if your passing game is good enough, you can come back from almost any deficit to take the lead. Pittsburgh, Arizona showed that last night. We showed it playing Arizona two weeks ago.

How many more Super Bowls need to be won in this manner to finally put the offense of the 1970's out to pasture as the only model for winning?

0 recs | Comment 11 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I agree…how many times this year did I hear about the Panthers, Giants, Titans, and Ravens from Eagles fans wanting to be like them…did any of them make it further than the Eagles?

I agree that a running game is a good thing but a power running game doesn’t always win over a wide open offense…i would love to have a great passing game and a power running game but that is very rare…the way the finances work in the NFL you can’t have everything…a good OL, good TE, superstar WR, QB, and RB, blocking and receiving FB etc…sometimes you have to prioritize and leave some holes just like in most regular jobs…

by PoppiDamus on Feb 2, 2009 5:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I agree and I disagree. the NFL is first and foremost a passing league and playoff games/championships are ultimately won through the air. however balance and a solid running game is necessary to be succesful in the regular season. It keeps defenses from teeing off on your quarterback (thus keeping him healthy) and it forces the defense to be honest. a wide open passing attack is of much greater risk-reward then a running attack, thus it is harder to sustain over the course of a 17 game season. a passing offense is much more susceptible to slumps/conditions/etc. the running game is safer but much more limited.

I hate when people cry for the eagles to return to the aformentioned 1970’s brand of football that is best suited for friday night high school games, but at the same time, we lost games this year because our offense became to predictable and one dimensional.

in a one game setting a wide open passing attack almost always beats a conservative running game (Alabama vs Utah bowl game…) however balance is necessary to sustain success over a long 17 game season

by njh3293 on Feb 2, 2009 8:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

The Giants did pretty well last year with an almost Pop Warner-simple offense. Fullback, TEs, one wide receiver in some sets. Their power running game worked decently for them in the regular season.

In a one-game sample, this offense was enough to beat the Patriots and their spread offense last year. Albeit the defining play was a pass, but the Giants use Madison Hedgecock pretty frequently in a traditional fullback sense.

Teams use different gameplans, obviously. If I had Adrian Peterson as a runner and Tavaris Jackson as a QB, I’d certainly be more inclined to run the ball, and run it often. But that definitely doesn’t work when you have zero passing attack. That being said, I certainly believe that the league is heading for spread-it-out schemes in a hurry. Which is cool with me, makes the games more exciting, case in point.

by Walcott on Feb 2, 2009 9:53 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

2007 Super Bowl

Giants – 23 rushes for 87 yards, 38 called passes (37-63 ratio)
Patriots – 16 rushes for 45 yards, 53 called passes (23-77 ratio)

The Giants “balance” last year in the Super Bowl is the sort of playcalling that regularly gets Andy Reid crucified in the media.

Running is all well and good, but please show me the last team to come back from a 2 score hole using the running game.

by Andrew B on Feb 2, 2009 11:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i'll probably lose this debate, but this was a 2 score hole...

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter?game_id=29596&displayPage=tab_gamecenter&season=2008&week=REG5

by eagleyosh on Feb 3, 2009 12:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

man

I have no idea what you are talking about. I know am a retard and I didn’t even watch the superbowl. Hiking at Red Rock was better in all ways possible.

You could be right. I am usally wrong.

Am I understanding you clearly? Are you Andrew B, trying to get rid of the running game? I don’t think so. I think you are like many of the new school football guys that feel that running should take a backseat to passing the ball. You might be right.

Here is one question. Did PItt win it with Defense or with Offense(I didn’t watch the game)? To be clear what was more important? My opinion is simple, and to most unattractive. All this offensive attention should and needs to take a back seat to Defense. Run and pass ratios in 2009 have less to do with the reason Pitt has won their 6 ring than does Pitts defense.

If our defense would have played better, we wouldn’t have been beaten. The reason Pitt won their 6th Superbowl is that they made a stop when the needed to. We didn’t.

by topcat6 on Feb 3, 2009 3:17 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Well

Stats are stats, but I think there’s more to it than that. You need your opponent to know that you can run, and will run on occasion. We did not do that consistently this year. There were times when McNabb would run play action and I would just shake my head, like who’s going to buy that? At least make your opponent game plan some run defense, even if you don’t run much.

by MRPH on Feb 3, 2009 7:27 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Also, there are times when you need to be able to run … to kill the clock/protect a lead/not generate turnovers, and also in short yardage situations and the red zone.

That’s where the Eagles tend to lack. I’m OK with a 60-40 play-calling balance if the Eagles can and will run when it’s called for.

I think the Birds can win as currently constructed, but they clearly need to be more effective in the red zone, if nothing else. They rarely get blown out, but they often lose close games — NFC championship included — where they settled for field goal attempts more than once as early drives stalled.

by D3Keith on Feb 4, 2009 12:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs