Will the NFL go back to the run? (1 Viewer)

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

I have quite a bit of coaching experience and that has allowed me many opportunities to learn the game. One of those opportunities was a few months learning from a major college conference Offensive Coordinator through an internship. I asked him any and every question I could in regards to football. One of the discussions led to how Fullbacks aren't recruited often and how offenses are evolving. I asked if they would ever be in use again. He said that football cycles and they will come around again.

Taking that into account think about this example. You're Mike Holmgren GM of the Cleveland Browns. Arguably one of the least talented organizations in the NFL. How do you get out of this hole quickly and become a winner?

Lets look at what you have on offense:

Ranked 24th in Passing and 28th in Rushing in 2011

Offensive Line has some solid pieces in Joe Thomas and Alex Mack. Eric Steinbach is coming back off of back surgery and missed the whole 2011 season. While a few other young OL got some playing time and possibly developed.

QB- Colt McCoy has spent two seasons being a bad to average QB.

RB- Peyton Hillis has a great season in 2010, injuries and bad play made him average in 2011 but he is a UFA now. Montario Hardesty has been very injured in his 2 year career. Brandon Jackson was a RB3 and he is what he is.

FB- Owen Marecic was drafted to be a blocking FB last year

WR- Greg Little was solid at times, Mohammed Massoquoi has been a disappointment as a WR1, Carleton Mitchell isn't much, Josh Cribbs is a gimmick return man trying to play WR(hi Devin Hester).

TE- Jordan Cameron was drafted last year and has potential but is raw. Ben Watson is 31, Evan Moore, Alex Smith, and Dan Gronkowski round out a solid group of TEs.

What to do on offense?

Option 1)Draft a franchise QB like the rest of the league, right? It's a passing league and all of the rules are for passing. However, even if RGIII comes into Cleveland, they don't have a solid RB(assuming Hillis is gone), Greg Little may never develop into a WR1, WR2 is nobody to write home about, and the solid group of TEs doesn't have a fully developed Gronk/Graham/Finley/etc.

Option 2)Build an offense around running the football. Kansas City showed a blueprint in how to beat the high flying GB Packers in 2011, heck Kansas City in 2010 had a pretty darn good rushing attack. The Carolina Panthers a few years ago showed how to be successful deep into the playoffs.

Why is option 2 better?

It's a much cheaper alternative than Option 1. In Option 1, if the team doesn't have a successful(talking top 15) QB it won't work. Drafting/trading/signing a QB and hoping they turn out to be top 15 is a risk in itself. In this scenario a team also has to find dynamic playmaking TE/WRs to be effective to present matchup problems. Lastly, a team in Option 1 has to have a good pass blocking OL, especially at the OT position. Just like in FF drafts when people start going on those TE/QB runs, if you follow in their footsteps you get the table scraps. Most NFL teams are looking for the premier QB/WR/TE/OT for the passing game. Who's looking for the premier run blocking OL? Or run blocking TE? Or premier RBs? By switching to a scheme that most of the NFL doesn't favor, this allows for a much easier route to obtaining talent.

While not having this premier passing game can hurt if you get down by a ton of points, you are doing something that other teams don't want...RUN THE FOOTBALL. Controlling time of possession, limiting the the time a passing offense has on the field. Grinding out positive yards every down, instead of an INT/Incompletion/sack/fumble by the QB. This creates better field position. Wearing down a defense throughout the game. Setting up Play Action as your most effective passing plays.

So back to the Cleveland Browns, how do they do this?

QB- Cleveland can stick with Colt McCoy at QB and see if he develops. Possibly bring in a cheap veteran as a backup(Jason Campbell).

RB- Sign two of Peyton Hillis/Michael Bush/BJGE/Ryan Grant/Cedric Benson. Cut Brandon Jackson. Draft Trent Richardson at #4 overall. That's correct, Cleveland will have 4 solid RBs moving forward: two signed free agents, Montario Hardesty, and Trent Richardson. How much will this cost overall? Not a whole lot(maybe 13 million tops) given how much the NFL doesn't prize the RB position. However, with the rotating of RBs, it will allow for them to stay fresh throughout the game and season. Defenses will get very worn out.

FB- Owen Marecic is already a big blocking FB

TE- Solid TEs that can run block

OL- Some really good pieces here, however I would bring in more beef to help with this philosophy change. Cut Eric Steinbach who is on the downside and recovering form injuries. I would spend the 22nd overall pick on RT. Spend some money to bring in Carl Nicks and Ben Grubbs. This will cost some cheddar upwards of about 16 Million a year to two Guards, however with cutting Steinbach's salary of 6 Million a year for the next two years it's not as bad.

So overall you spent under 30 million 1/4 of the salary cap to ensure your team can be dominating in a certain scheme. Compare that to bringing in maybe a franchise QB Kevin Kolb signed a 6 year 65 million deal, bring in one stud WR at about 8 million a year, and now you see how hard it is to do.

Running the ball in a cold city of Cleveland, rotating solid RBs and bringing in a good run blocking OL. Recipe for trouble for these passing teams.

 

[Jous]

I don't think so. Goodell has made it very clear he wants this to be QB driven passing league, things will only continue to get easier to pass, while running the ball will remain just as difficult.

 

[rizzler]

Noone respects our pass as is.

Teams would put 12 in the box against us and not bat an eyelid.

 

[jdubs952]

Yes, defenses will get smaller and faster to deal w/ all the receiving threats. You can build a power running team against a roster built like that.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

Yes, defenses will get smaller and faster to deal w/ all the receiving threats. You can build a power running team against a roster built like that.

Like the Colts for years built a defense around having a lead, so they had good pass rushers. However, vulnerable to the run.

 

[smackdaddies]

Will the NFL go back to the run?

No. Not as a league wide phenomena.

Can a team be successful in the NFL with a Run first offense?

Possibly.

Three considerations.

First - the team has to commit to the run - Oline, TE, RB, blocking WR. The Tebow dilemma.

Second - So long as there are very successful pass first teams, Defenses will have to be built to stop the pass. So long as that is true, good running teams have the potential to be successful.

Three - you better have a good defense, because if you get behind, your never going to catch up

 

[Tackling Dummies]

Yes, defenses will get smaller and faster to deal w/ all the receiving threats. You can build a power running team against a roster built like that.

And we've seen how well smaller defenders to play against 6'2" WRs & 6'5 TEs.

 

[moleculo]

this is what I believe is going on in Denver. Elway wants to build through the defense first as he believes that's how you capture home-field advantage. A stout D and a good running game is a proven formula for success, and has been since the beginnings of football.

 

[pittstownkiller]

These were the kinds of questions that I was asking in my thread. I do think there will be an effort to build more of a run offense, with run blockers, around the league.

 

[The Kuhn]

The lack of an off-season this year could have resulted in this- teams were either already committed to the run going into this season or were unable to get properly conditioned in the short time to last the season (or lost their prospects early- DET/ARI). I had to look up the leading rusher in the NFC, and the leading AFC rusher really was the only offensive weapon on the team. There were also a ton of O-line injuries this year- again, maybe conditioning or just a product of more fierce D-line pressure in the league. It's also been fortunate that very few games have been played in harsh weather conditions.

I think more teams really wanted to run the ball, and with a real off-season will likely do that more next year. DET tried in some of their early games where they only seemed to play a half. NYG has tried at times, but didn't have the healthy personnel to pull it off when the wins were needed the most. PIT and STL lost too much at O-line to make it work, etc.

 

[Ilov80s]

It could work, but the team needs a QB that is a legit running threat ala Tebow. If I am Denver, I go out and add a too back like Richardson or Lamar Miller.

 

[cstu]

Running the ball in a cold city of Cleveland, rotating solid RBs and bringing in a good run blocking OL. Recipe for trouble for these passing teams.

You mean exactly what every team in the division has tried to do for years?The Browns are actually very close IMO to being a tough team to beat. I think even taking Claiborne at #4 would be a smart move and force teams to run on them. They don't need Richardson if they have Hillis, Bush and Hardesty and a good OL.

 

[cstu]

It could work, but the team needs a QB that is a legit running threat ala Tebow. If I am Denver, I go out and add a too back like Richardson or Lamar Miller.

No, all they need is a QB good enough to keep defenses honest and I think McCoy can get there. Draft Kendall Wright in the 2nd to give them an actually weapon on offense.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

Running the ball in a cold city of Cleveland, rotating solid RBs and bringing in a good run blocking OL. Recipe for trouble for these passing teams.

You mean exactly what every team in the division has tried to do for years?The Browns are actually very close IMO to being a tough team to beat. I think even taking Claiborne at #4 would be a smart move and force teams to run on them. They don't need Richardson if they have Hillis, Bush and Hardesty and a good OL.

Pittsburgh isn't a running team and hasn't for years.Cinci isn'tRavens are a run based teamHowever, if that's all you got from my post then you missed the "concept". Putting together a run first team is much cheaper and easier to obtain.

 

[Da Guru]

The Giants seem to have to right mix of both right now.

 

[thatguy]

Kind of a Money Ball approach to the NFL. Finding undervalued positions/skillsets/philosophies and exploiting the market. I like the concept, but you basically need a rushing attack as dominant as, or even more dominant than, Dallas or Denver of the mid/late 90's to keep up with high powered passing offenses. I'm just not sure if that's as easy to create as it might seem, especially without a QB who can keep the defense honest (which both of the teams I mentioned obviously had).

The zone blocking scheme, at least the way it was employed in Denver by Gibbs/Shanny pretty much took advantage of the market in a similar way. During Shanny's tenure in Denver, when most teams were drafting 300+ pound behemoths in rounds 1 and 2 for power running games, he was waiting for the smaller more athletic linemen in the later rounds, guys perfectly suited for the zone blocking scheme. And when most teams were drafting stud 1st round RB's with blazing speed and elite power/agility/whatever, he would wait until the second round or more often later to find a RB with elite vision and decisiveness rather than a RB oozing with raw physical talent.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

Kind of a Money Ball approach to the NFL. Finding undervalued positions/skillsets/philosophies and exploiting the market. I like the concept, but you basically need a rushing attack as dominant as, or even more dominant than, Dallas or Denver of the mid/late 90's to keep up with high powered passing offenses. I'm just not sure if that's as easy to create as it might seem, especially without a QB who can keep the defense honest (which both of the teams I mentioned obviously had). The zone blocking scheme, at least the way it was employed in Denver by Gibbs/Shanny pretty much took advantage of the market in a similar way. During Shanny's tenure in Denver, when most teams were drafting 300+ pound behemoths in rounds 1 and 2 for power running games, he was waiting for the smaller more athletic linemen in the later rounds, guys perfectly suited for the zone blocking scheme. And when most teams were drafting stud 1st round RB's with blazing speed and elite power/agility/whatever, he would wait until the second round or more often later to find a RB with elite vision and decisiveness rather than a RB oozing with raw physical talent.

yeah kind of a moneyball approachI like your example of the smaller OL in Denver's scheme. Another example of using OL other don't want is in Georgia Tech with Paul Johnson running the triple option. The lineman need to be smaller, quicker, and also have a different pad level than what other programs use. This has allowed Paul Johnson to be successful at Georgia Southern/Navy when competing against better programs...now more of the same with Georgia Tech.I'm not sure how hard it would be to create to be honest and you have a valid point about the QB. Is a team really going to put 9 in the box? People need to realize this means man coverage with 0 help on the outside in a 2 WR set. This hardly ever happens. All you need is an average or even below average QB...Alex Smith, Joe Flacco, Jason Campbell could do this offense IMO. Good play action fakes and taking chances passing when they present themselves. On average this team needs to average 3.4 YPC to keep the chains moving. A good example of this is a Miami vs Indy game a few years back. Miami employed a strict ball control/wildcat scheme that chewed up near 40 minutes of clock, yet they still lost to the Colts. However, it made them competitive with a superior team. I just think this is a strategy a team with less talent can employ.

 

[cstu]

Running the ball in a cold city of Cleveland, rotating solid RBs and bringing in a good run blocking OL. Recipe for trouble for these passing teams.

You mean exactly what every team in the division has tried to do for years?The Browns are actually very close IMO to being a tough team to beat. I think even taking Claiborne at #4 would be a smart move and force teams to run on them. They don't need Richardson if they have Hillis, Bush and Hardesty and a good OL.

Pittsburgh isn't a running team and hasn't for years.Cinci isn'tRavens are a run based teamHowever, if that's all you got from my post then you missed the "concept". Putting together a run first team is much cheaper and easier to obtain.

The Steelers haven't been a very good running team lately but they aren't trying to be a passing team. They are still in the top half of rushing teams and their passing offense is rather mediocre.The Bengals had to pass a lot in 2010 since they were so bad but they were 4th in rushing attempts in 2009 and 10th last year.

 

[Sea Duck]

I have quite a bit of coaching experience and that has allowed me many opportunities to learn the game. One of those opportunities was a few months learning from a major college conference Offensive Coordinator through an internship. I asked him any and every question I could in regards to football. One of the discussions led to how Fullbacks aren't recruited often and how offenses are evolving. I asked if they would ever be in use again. He said that football cycles and they will come around again.

Football doesn't cycle. It evolves."Fullbacks" may indeed become valuable again, but the new and improved fullbacks will only bear a small resemblance to the likes of Bronco Nagurski and Lorenzo Neal.

 

[Catbird]

If the rules continue to heavily favor passing attacks, those will maintain the huge yardage-per-play and quick strike capability advantages they have shown this year. I agree its evolving, and not toward three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust. I think a running attack can have a bigger advantage than they do now if virtually all the teams go to pass heavy offenses and the defenses get lighter and quicker (and taller?), but rushing then will only work as a gimmick (sort of like the Wildc at, the option in Denver or as the triple wing was in spots after it faded out, when teams aren't ready for it). Passing can score so quickly and efficiently if the defenders can't make contact ... rushing just can't keep up. I think there may be a winning rush first team now and then, based in large part on defenses no longer being built to stop rushing attacks, but I also see that the pass has only become more and more dominant since the Knute Rockne days, sometimes in fits and starts, but its always been on the upswing. With talent and rules that make it only slightly more risky to throw it than run it, and the rewards per play are far higher, I don't see run first offenses building powerhouses except in an occassional extreme and short lived burst when all the pieces fall into place. Never say never. But I can see double-barrelled teams being dominant, like the Ravens could be if they had a more forceful passing attack (although making an OL go both ways costs you in having to block with 'tweeners' who do both well - which usually means not being great either way. I don't like it, but unless the rules change dramatically, I think that elite teams passing for 5K is here to stay.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

DBs aren't allowed to play defense, nobody can hit he Qb, just like when Sosa hit 60 plus home runs, Matk McGuire hit close to 70 and Bonds hit 70, we all knew there was a reason they were doing it at the same or same era.

I'm not suggesting at all these Qbs are using enhancing drugs, but I am suggesting there is a reason you have several guys in the same year throwing for 40 td's and 5000 yards. It's much more impressive if 1 guy does it and the 2nd place guy is way back. That suggests to me that the guy setting the record is doing something nobody else has done before.

When a guy like Matthew Stafford throws for nearly 5100 yards and 41 td's, and he doesn't even sniff the pro bowl it tells me he is a product of the new NFL.

I said it all year, I can't stand all of this pinball scoring and insane passing yardage. I am very glad that Green Bay and NO are out with those way below average defenses. The next team that deserves to be out is New England. That defense will be exposed as well.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

I have quite a bit of coaching experience and that has allowed me many opportunities to learn the game. One of those opportunities was a few months learning from a major college conference Offensive Coordinator through an internship. I asked him any and every question I could in regards to football. One of the discussions led to how Fullbacks aren't recruited often and how offenses are evolving. I asked if they would ever be in use again. He said that football cycles and they will come around again.

Football doesn't cycle. It evolves."Fullbacks" may indeed become valuable again, but the new and improved fullbacks will only bear a small resemblance to the likes of Bronco Nagurski and Lorenzo Neal.

I didn't say it, it is someone that knows much more about football than any of us in here.Are fullbacks important in the NFL now?

Arian Foster with Vonta Leach in 2010: 4.9 YPC

Arian Foster without Leach in 2011: 4.4 YPC

Ray Rice without Vonta Leach in 2010: 4.0 YPC

Ray Rice with Vonta Leach in 2011: 4.7 YPC

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

Running the ball in a cold city of Cleveland, rotating solid RBs and bringing in a good run blocking OL. Recipe for trouble for these passing teams.

You mean exactly what every team in the division has tried to do for years?The Browns are actually very close IMO to being a tough team to beat. I think even taking Claiborne at #4 would be a smart move and force teams to run on them. They don't need Richardson if they have Hillis, Bush and Hardesty and a good OL.

Pittsburgh isn't a running team and hasn't for years.Cinci isn'tRavens are a run based teamHowever, if that's all you got from my post then you missed the "concept". Putting together a run first team is much cheaper and easier to obtain.

The Steelers haven't been a very good running team lately but they aren't trying to be a passing team. They are still in the top half of rushing teams and their passing offense is rather mediocre.The Bengals had to pass a lot in 2010 since they were so bad but they were 4th in rushing attempts in 2009 and 10th last year.

Fair enough, but this conversation isn't really about the AFC North, I just used the Browns as an example.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

DBs aren't allowed to play defense, nobody can hit he Qb, just like when Sosa hit 60 plus home runs, Matk McGuire hit close to 70 and Bonds hit 70, we all knew there was a reason they were doing it at the same or same era.I'm not suggesting at all these Qbs are using enhancing drugs, but I am suggesting there is a reason you have several guys in the same year throwing for 40 td's and 5000 yards. It's much more impressive if 1 guy does it and the 2nd place guy is way back. That suggests to me that the guy setting the record is doing something nobody else has done before.When a guy like Matthew Stafford throws for nearly 5100 yards and 41 td's, and he doesn't even sniff the pro bowl it tells me he is a product of the new NFL.I said it all year, I can't stand all of this pinball scoring and insane passing yardage. I am very glad that Green Bay and NO are out with those way below average defenses. The next team that deserves to be out is New England. That defense will be exposed as well.

Get off my lawn!

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

If the rules continue to heavily favor passing attacks, those will maintain the huge yardage-per-play and quick strike capability advantages they have shown this year. I agree its evolving, and not toward three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust. I think a running attack can have a bigger advantage than they do now if virtually all the teams go to pass heavy offenses and the defenses get lighter and quicker (and taller?), but rushing then will only work as a gimmick (sort of like the Wildc at, the option in Denver or as the triple wing was in spots after it faded out, when teams aren't ready for it). Passing can score so quickly and efficiently if the defenders can't make contact ... rushing just can't keep up. I think there may be a winning rush first team now and then, based in large part on defenses no longer being built to stop rushing attacks, but I also see that the pass has only become more and more dominant since the Knute Rockne days, sometimes in fits and starts, but its always been on the upswing. With talent and rules that make it only slightly more risky to throw it than run it, and the rewards per play are far higher, I don't see run first offenses building powerhouses except in an occassional extreme and short lived burst when all the pieces fall into place. Never say never. But I can see double-barrelled teams being dominant, like the Ravens could be if they had a more forceful passing attack (although making an OL go both ways costs you in having to block with 'tweeners' who do both well - which usually means not being great either way. I don't like it, but unless the rules change dramatically, I think that elite teams passing for 5K is here to stay.

I agree with most of what you said and it's a solid post. Taller Defenses is interesting. While receivers get taller for jump balls/seam routes/and 50 50 passes...I don't think DB's can really get taller. DB is the second hardest position to play in the NFL(to QB). It's a reaction position and they need to be lower to the ground to be able to quickly change direction, therefore I can't see many successful CB's over 6'2...considering all of the 6'4+ weapons in the league it seams unfair.Another question, do you think the NFL will change the rules to make it more fair for defenses?

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

DBs aren't allowed to play defense, nobody can hit he Qb, just like when Sosa hit 60 plus home runs, Matk McGuire hit close to 70 and Bonds hit 70, we all knew there was a reason they were doing it at the same or same era.I'm not suggesting at all these Qbs are using enhancing drugs, but I am suggesting there is a reason you have several guys in the same year throwing for 40 td's and 5000 yards. It's much more impressive if 1 guy does it and the 2nd place guy is way back. That suggests to me that the guy setting the record is doing something nobody else has done before.When a guy like Matthew Stafford throws for nearly 5100 yards and 41 td's, and he doesn't even sniff the pro bowl it tells me he is a product of the new NFL.I said it all year, I can't stand all of this pinball scoring and insane passing yardage. I am very glad that Green Bay and NO are out with those way below average defenses. The next team that deserves to be out is New England. That defense will be exposed as well.

In a weird conspiracy theory, do you think the NFL has changed the rules to tailor to Fantasy Football because it's become so popular?

 

[Shutout]

Love the topic, and whether we want to say the NFL "cycles" or "evolves", I think the real answer may be that, like nature, it "adapts".

I see it going more like this:

Teams will start looking for taller DBs to be able to deal with the WRs and TEs that are simply just reaching up and taking the ball. All the coverage skill in the world means little when a DB is wearing a guy like a coat but the answer is that an accurate QB can simply throw the ball a foot higher..coverage doesn't matter at that point.

The short term result to that will be that receivers who have the time to run double moves will be able to exploit the bigger defenders that can't cover as well. To have that extra time means you need better o-lines suited for pass blocking. So you don't need the bulky guys; you need the athletic o-linemen.

This then leads to defenses developing these bigger DBs, but at the same time, not relying on the big thumping LBer behemoths. And because they don't have guys that can naturally cover as well, they will need more schemes that feature move coverage. So, enter the hybrid guys that can do "some" run support but also cover. The defense gets smaller in the front, bigger in the back, and teams play more pass defense. The rules currently favor passing. It allows players to play the slot with far less fear (small guys can actually go across the middle now without getting de-cleated). Offenses are spreading people out and trying to mismatch; defenses are trying to hold up and confuse while developing athletic Paul-pierce type DEs that can get pressure.

Then, the response to THAT is that someday teams start seeing that defenses are not monsters upfront like they used to be and teams start to think "with the right running attack, we could push teams all over the field. They don't have the big bodies and LBers to stuff us. But we don't have big road-grater O-linemen anymore either."

So, what we end up with are teams that feature the run by zone blocking and play action passing and can run on anyone. In other words, the Houston Texans.

So, to answer the question, Yes, I think there will be a "return" to the run and it will be done sucessfully, but, like all things in the copycat NFL, it takes a while to evolve and it takes a while for teams to get the right players. But I think it can/will be very effective. The texans have a perfect combination of RBs that can do all the things they want to do. They have the big WR. THey have the play-action QB (real shame Shaub got hurt or we may have seen just how effective this could be THIS year).

So, it may take 3-4 more years for teams to get those kind of coaches in multiple places and for players to be drafted into those types of systems, but I really think its going there. We have seen how a team (using the texans again as an example) can do a lot of things that coaches like: They can run on anyone (the Texans really had no problem at all running on the Steelers or Ravens this year..two teams most would use as a measuring stick). They can use-play action and zone running to slow down the defensive pressure. They can control time of possession against the teams that are chucking the ball all over the field. And they can emply a "bend, don't break" philosophy pretty succesfully with the right personnell.

 

[stbugs]

I have quite a bit of coaching experience and that has allowed me many opportunities to learn the game. One of those opportunities was a few months learning from a major college conference Offensive Coordinator through an internship. I asked him any and every question I could in regards to football. One of the discussions led to how Fullbacks aren't recruited often and how offenses are evolving. I asked if they would ever be in use again. He said that football cycles and they will come around again.

Football doesn't cycle. It evolves."Fullbacks" may indeed become valuable again, but the new and improved fullbacks will only bear a small resemblance to the likes of Bronco Nagurski and Lorenzo Neal.

I didn't say it, it is someone that knows much more about football than any of us in here.Are fullbacks important in the NFL now?

Arian Foster with Vonta Leach in 2010: 4.9 YPC

Arian Foster without Leach in 2011: 4.4 YPC

Ray Rice without Vonta Leach in 2010: 4.0 YPC

Ray Rice with Vonta Leach in 2011: 4.7 YPC

While interesting, hard to say Vonta Leach is the only difference. Rice was 53-216 (4.0) against Pittsburgh and Cincy in 2010 and in 2011 he was 81-445 (5.5) against them in 2011. Heck, based on those 4 games alone, that might equate to Rice's improvement. Pittsburgh's run defense got worse (3.0 ypc in 2010 to 4.0 ypc in 2011) and were very bad early on when Rice had 107 yards in week 1. Rice also got 191 yards (8.0 ypc) against Cincy in week 17 when Cincy had nothing to play for since the Titans won/Jets lost at 1pm. Once the Steelers D starting getting its act together, Rice was bottled up like 2010.Look at Foster as well, he was gimpy to start and definitely got better as the season went along. Look at the playoffs, 5.6 ypc against two good run defenses, without Leach.

Leach is very good, but this is a case where the stats are misleading at best.

 

[smackdaddies]

I have quite a bit of coaching experience and that has allowed me many opportunities to learn the game. One of those opportunities was a few months learning from a major college conference Offensive Coordinator through an internship. I asked him any and every question I could in regards to football. One of the discussions led to how Fullbacks aren't recruited often and how offenses are evolving. I asked if they would ever be in use again. He said that football cycles and they will come around again.

Football doesn't cycle. It evolves."Fullbacks" may indeed become valuable again, but the new and improved fullbacks will only bear a small resemblance to the likes of Bronco Nagurski and Lorenzo Neal.

I agree - more important skills are blitz pick up and receiving it seems on many teams rather than run blocking and short yardage rushing (although that is important also). Almost more of the H Back concept

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

Love the topic, and whether we want to say the NFL "cycles" or "evolves", I think the real answer may be that, like nature, it "adapts".I see it going more like this:Teams will start looking for taller DBs to be able to deal with the WRs and TEs that are simply just reaching up and taking the ball. All the coverage skill in the world means little when a DB is wearing a guy like a coat but the answer is that an accurate QB can simply throw the ball a foot higher..coverage doesn't matter at that point.The short term result to that will be that receivers who have the time to run double moves will be able to exploit the bigger defenders that can't cover as well. To have that extra time means you need better o-lines suited for pass blocking. So you don't need the bulky guys; you need the athletic o-linemen.This then leads to defenses developing these bigger DBs, but at the same time, not relying on the big thumping LBer behemoths. And because they don't have guys that can naturally cover as well, they will need more schemes that feature move coverage. So, enter the hybrid guys that can do "some" run support but also cover. The defense gets smaller in the front, bigger in the back, and teams play more pass defense. The rules currently favor passing. It allows players to play the slot with far less fear (small guys can actually go across the middle now without getting de-cleated). Offenses are spreading people out and trying to mismatch; defenses are trying to hold up and confuse while developing athletic Paul-pierce type DEs that can get pressure. Then, the response to THAT is that someday teams start seeing that defenses are not monsters upfront like they used to be and teams start to think "with the right running attack, we could push teams all over the field. They don't have the big bodies and LBers to stuff us. But we don't have big road-grater O-linemen anymore either."So, what we end up with are teams that feature the run by zone blocking and play action passing and can run on anyone. In other words, the Houston Texans. So, to answer the question, Yes, I think there will be a "return" to the run and it will be done sucessfully, but, like all things in the copycat NFL, it takes a while to evolve and it takes a while for teams to get the right players. But I think it can/will be very effective. The texans have a perfect combination of RBs that can do all the things they want to do. They have the big WR. THey have the play-action QB (real shame Shaub got hurt or we may have seen just how effective this could be THIS year).So, it may take 3-4 more years for teams to get those kind of coaches in multiple places and for players to be drafted into those types of systems, but I really think its going there. We have seen how a team (using the texans again as an example) can do a lot of things that coaches like: They can run on anyone (the Texans really had no problem at all running on the Steelers or Ravens this year..two teams most would use as a measuring stick). They can use-play action and zone running to slow down the defensive pressure. They can control time of possession against the teams that are chucking the ball all over the field. And they can emply a "bend, don't break" philosophy pretty succesfully with the right personnell.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

I have quite a bit of coaching experience and that has allowed me many opportunities to learn the game. One of those opportunities was a few months learning from a major college conference Offensive Coordinator through an internship. I asked him any and every question I could in regards to football. One of the discussions led to how Fullbacks aren't recruited often and how offenses are evolving. I asked if they would ever be in use again. He said that football cycles and they will come around again.

Football doesn't cycle. It evolves."Fullbacks" may indeed become valuable again, but the new and improved fullbacks will only bear a small resemblance to the likes of Bronco Nagurski and Lorenzo Neal.

I didn't say it, it is someone that knows much more about football than any of us in here.Are fullbacks important in the NFL now?

Arian Foster with Vonta Leach in 2010: 4.9 YPC

Arian Foster without Leach in 2011: 4.4 YPC

Ray Rice without Vonta Leach in 2010: 4.0 YPC

Ray Rice with Vonta Leach in 2011: 4.7 YPC

While interesting, hard to say Vonta Leach is the only difference. Rice was 53-216 (4.0) against Pittsburgh and Cincy in 2010 and in 2011 he was 81-445 (5.5) against them in 2011. Heck, based on those 4 games alone, that might equate to Rice's improvement. Pittsburgh's run defense got worse (3.0 ypc in 2010 to 4.0 ypc in 2011) and were very bad early on when Rice had 107 yards in week 1. Rice also got 191 yards (8.0 ypc) against Cincy in week 17 when Cincy had nothing to play for since the Titans won/Jets lost at 1pm. Once the Steelers D starting getting its act together, Rice was bottled up like 2010.Look at Foster as well, he was gimpy to start and definitely got better as the season went along. Look at the playoffs, 5.6 ypc against two good run defenses, without Leach.

Leach is very good, but this is a case where the stats are misleading at best.

He's the best run blocking FB in the league and it was the first example off of the top of my head. While he obviously(looking at your stats) isn't the only difference...I would think he is at least a chunk of it.

 

[stbugs]

I have quite a bit of coaching experience and that has allowed me many opportunities to learn the game. One of those opportunities was a few months learning from a major college conference Offensive Coordinator through an internship. I asked him any and every question I could in regards to football. One of the discussions led to how Fullbacks aren't recruited often and how offenses are evolving. I asked if they would ever be in use again. He said that football cycles and they will come around again.

Football doesn't cycle. It evolves."Fullbacks" may indeed become valuable again, but the new and improved fullbacks will only bear a small resemblance to the likes of Bronco Nagurski and Lorenzo Neal.

I didn't say it, it is someone that knows much more about football than any of us in here.Are fullbacks important in the NFL now?

Arian Foster with Vonta Leach in 2010: 4.9 YPC

Arian Foster without Leach in 2011: 4.4 YPC

Ray Rice without Vonta Leach in 2010: 4.0 YPC

Ray Rice with Vonta Leach in 2011: 4.7 YPC

While interesting, hard to say Vonta Leach is the only difference. Rice was 53-216 (4.0) against Pittsburgh and Cincy in 2010 and in 2011 he was 81-445 (5.5) against them in 2011. Heck, based on those 4 games alone, that might equate to Rice's improvement. Pittsburgh's run defense got worse (3.0 ypc in 2010 to 4.0 ypc in 2011) and were very bad early on when Rice had 107 yards in week 1. Rice also got 191 yards (8.0 ypc) against Cincy in week 17 when Cincy had nothing to play for since the Titans won/Jets lost at 1pm. Once the Steelers D starting getting its act together, Rice was bottled up like 2010.Look at Foster as well, he was gimpy to start and definitely got better as the season went along. Look at the playoffs, 5.6 ypc against two good run defenses, without Leach.

Leach is very good, but this is a case where the stats are misleading at best.

He's the best run blocking FB in the league and it was the first example off of the top of my head. While he obviously(looking at your stats) isn't the only difference...I would think he is at least a chunk of it.

I am sure he helped, but I remember the thread about Foster losing Leach and there were splits in there where Foster averaged more per carry as the lone back. If Foster doesn't hurt his hammy in pre-season, there is no doubt that he would have done as well as 2010. Did Rice even have a FB in 2010? If they changed schemes, that could be as responsible for his improvement even if they don't bring in Leach. Why not bring in the best if you change schemes and no one else values him as much?Anyway, I hate isolating stats and trying to show it means one thing when there are so many variables. Heck, take away week 17, where Cincy has nothing to play for and Rice has 4.4 ypc. I know you can't just do that, but Cincy let up less than 4ypc on the year, so letting up 8ypc was an anomaly, and with the 1pm games, they had nothing to play for at 4pm. Just trying to show that 0.3 of his entire 0.7 ypc improvement was based on one game that meant a lot for the Ravens and nothing for Cincy.