Deceased Equine Flogging...

[hammb]

I know that I sound like a broken record on this subject, but I wanted to address it again due to a conversation on here in an unrelated thread. I think it was SchadenFreude who said something along the lines of the fact that passing has been working for us why run. I responded with the reasons why we should run, and he came back by saying that we haven't been effective in the running game. I wanted to take a look at our stats to see if that was the case, so here are the stats for those that want to know.

Looking at our season stats it seems to me that if we WANTED to run, we would be able to do so, with some semblance of success. It is my personal opinion that our #1 RB should be Chris Bullock and in his limited duty he does actually lead our team in carries. On the year he has managed a 4.4 yards per carry average. This is down from his 4.7 of last year, but this is still respectable and can be built upon if you want to create a ground game. Our current #1 RB (Geter) has even fewer carries but an even better average of 5.4 yards. Turner is even averaging 4.5 yards when he comes in and everyone knows he's going to run it. Now, unfortunately, these sample sizes are so small that the averages really don't mean a whole lot, but it does show that we've been reasonably effective thus far when we have chosen to run the ball, which begs the question of why don't we run more often?

I know that we're a passing team. I know that is our identity, but there is no reason we cannot move to at least a 70/30 or even better a 60/40 split between passing/rushing. Glaud & Sheehan have currently combined to throw 256 passes on the year. Take away Glaud & Sheehan's carries and we've only run the ball 94 times on the season. That puts us at a 74/26 split or so. When looking at how our running backs have actually been fairly effective when we've given them a chance this year, I don't see any reason why we cannot move this percentage a little towards the middle ground.

I'm sure many will ask why we should run the ball when we've been so effective moving it through the air, and I think this Saturday's game was a perfect example of how a running game can help a young QB. We have already seen multiple 3rd & shorts this year that we should've run the ball to convert and instead we tried to pass. Running the ball is a great asset near the redzone as well. More than that though, running the ball is a great way to take some pressure off the shoulders of a young QB who is still learning the position. Saturday he made a couple bad throws and rather than be able to come out running the ball our entire offense was to have him continue chucking the rock. He doesn't appear to be lacking in the confidence department, but he was clearly rattled.

To take this a little further I was thinking yesterday about our offensive scheme. I was thinking back to when Urban was first hired he talked about how he always wanted to run the option because it would spread a defense horizontally and allow a lesser talented team to compete. Rather than go with the option though he went to a spread which serves the same purpose. Like the option this offense is nearly indefensible when it's executed properly. That is the beauty of the system. No matter what the talent differential may be this system (like the triple option) can move the ball on good defenses if the execution is there. Basically what this scheme does is lessen the dependence on elite talent, and instead makes you rely on execution; the theory being that execution can be taught.

So that takes us to today. This is why we are usually the best MAC team when matching up with the BCS big boys. We've beaten a lot of lower tier BCS teams and stayed in games against the powerhouses, mainly because our execution was at a high enough level that our scheme could not be stopped. That's wonderful when we're competing against these teams, but is it the best concept for winning the MAC? I ask because it is my opinion that this scheme is still very execution heavy, even if you are not going against a more talented team.

This brings me back to my point about running the ball. What we've created is a system that relies on execution by the QB & WRs. We don't have that much margin for error, if we choose not to run the ball. My thinking is that the pass heavy system is great for helping us keep a game close against a team that is more talented than us (although we saw Saturday it can still get ugly if we don't execute). However, now that we're entering the MAC portion of our schedule I think that we should start to run the ball more, and not put so much pressure on a young QB & WR corps to be nearly perfect. I'm certainly not advocating some 3 yards & a cloud of dust philosophy, but there is no reason why we cannot run from our spread formations and be successful. A commitment to running the ball from our spread formations should also serve to open up the passing game even further as well. Play action could become a deadly weapon used to hit some bigger plays.

All I'm really saying is that it is a given that every player has an off day. It happens to the greatest players. What I'm afraid of is that we're creating a situation where a bad day by our QB takes us completely out of the game. I just think committing more to the run would equalize some of that to the point where we could survive our MAC schedule even if Tyler were to have another off day.

[Falconfreak90]

Good post, hammb. We definitely need to run the ball a little more, IMO. We have the talent to do so...I hope we see more of a running game now that we're heading into the most important game of the year.

[Dayons_Den]

Great post, as I have stated before I feel for Bullock this year.

I think we could impliment more of a WVU spread that runs to open up the pass.

I was watching the 2003 Motor City Bowl and was somewhat surprised to hear that the Falcons led the league in rushing in 2003. Now I know we had Josh Harris and running QB but we ran a pretty open offense that utilized the receivers quite a bit that season. Instead of using the QB running plays why not use that '03 mentality with our RBs- Geter and Bullock can be very effective out of the backfield. Pope and Lane were deadly because they could catch the ball well, but they also were very effective on draws and delayed hand offs as well.

[Warthog]

Good thoughts hammb. You make a lot of sense and I agree with most of what you say.

I don't understand why we line up Winovich in the backfield when that could be Bullock. The defense knows that Pete is not going to run the ball. Yes he is a good blocker, but the defense knows it will be a pass. Bullock is big enough to do some blocking, so why not use him back there. He would at least keep the defense honest as he is a legitimate threat to run the ball.

Another question is why do we line a RB up at a WR? If you are going to throw it, why not put all WRs out there? Or is it more true to say that Geter really is a WR, but in order to appear as a somewhat traditional offense, we have to label someone a RB even though he never lines up in the backfield? Is that how we attempt to keep the defense honest, by saying we have a RB on the field, even though he is a WR?

Finally, I know Tyler isn't a Josh Harris type runner by any means, but I really think we need to run a few (two or three a game, not two or three a series) QB draws to keep the defense honest as well, especially if we are going to refuse to line a RB up in the backfield.

[1987alum]

Good post, hammb. We definitely need to run the ball a little more, IMO. We have the talent to do so...I hope we see more of a running game now that we're heading into the most important game of the year.

The optimist in me says that we've been "saving" the running game for the guts of the MAC schedule that starts Saturday. I hope I'm right and we return to a more balanced attack.

[eRichFalcon]

Excellent post, Hammb, I agree whole-heartedly.

-4.4 yards a carry is a very respectable number, and something that could easily get higher playing more small MAC defenses instead of BC's and MSU's (even Minny had better size then most of what we'll face).

- With recievers all over the place like we have, there should be some decent running lanes in the middle of the field.

-Slowing things down once and while to give the defense more of a rest is not such a bad idea. Remember the Colts team where Manning set the TD record? The D was getting worn out because the Colts were marching up and down the field so fast. They commited to run more in subsequent years, and beat my beloved Bears in the Super Bowl last February. Winning is the name of the game.

-Why not bring Turner AND Sheehan in the backfield sometimes? Use turner as a decoy, run a draw snapping it to Turner, have Sheehan hand it off to Turner, send Turner out to catch a pass, let Turner throw it to Sheehan...With Partridge and Winovich on the field as well, we could have situations where 4 different players should be able to complete a trick pass...that possibility should make defenses wet themselves if we could execute it.

-Bullock has excellent size and Geter has excellent speed. I see no reason why we can't have a thunder and lightning situation, running the ball 1/3 of the time.

-Running the ball should ALWAYS be a higher percentage play in short yardage. I never want to feel like we CAN'T pick up a yard or two on the ground on 3rd down. Right now, I feel like we could, but won't, and that won't do either.

[AZZZZ]

-Why not bring Turner AND Sheehan in the backfield sometimes? Use turner as a decoy, run a draw snapping it to Turner, have Sheehan hand it off to Turner, send Turner out to catch a pass, let Turner throw it to Sheehan...With Partridge and Winovich on the field as well, we could have situations where 4 different players should be able to complete a trick pass...that possibility should make defenses wet themselves if we could execute it.

Agreed, I've been saying this for the last 5 games.

[Falcon137]

I'de also like to see Turner take some direct snaps or catch a few balls. I hope that Turner is keeping his head up and not refusing a position change. He is a big athletic guy and would make a great target.

[factman]

I think that there a couple of things that you have to take into consideration, when you are talking about our running backs, and those are
catching ability and blocking, in addition to their running ability. I think it is very hard for most of us to judge those things in only a "game" situation, and that is exactly why Mr. Winovich gets alot of the time at the RB spot, because of those abilities. We do not have a PJ Pope this year that excels at running the ball, catching the ball and blocking or pass protection, but two or three different backs that excel in one or two of these abilities, but not all. Until we find that person, or one improves in "other" areas, we will see RB by committee, which tends to tip our hand. Maybe we will see a more diverse offense now that we are into the MAC schedule.

[Falconfever]

Excellent post, Hammb, I agree whole-heartedly.

-4.4 yards a carry is a very respectable number, and something that could easily get higher playing more small MAC defenses instead of BC's and MSU's (even Minny had better size then most of what we'll face).

- With recievers all over the place like we have, there should be some decent running lanes in the middle of the field.

-Slowing things down once and while to give the defense more of a rest is not such a bad idea. Remember the Colts team where Manning set the TD record? The D was getting worn out because the Colts were marching up and down the field so fast. They commited to run more in subsequent years, and beat my beloved Bears in the Super Bowl last February. Winning is the name of the game.

-Why not bring Turner AND Sheehan in the backfield sometimes? Use turner as a decoy, run a draw snapping it to Turner, have Sheehan hand it off to Turner, send Turner out to catch a pass, let Turner throw it to Sheehan...With Partridge and Winovich on the field as well, we could have situations where 4 different players should be able to complete a trick pass...that possibility should make defenses wet themselves if we could execute it.

-Bullock has excellent size and Geter has excellent speed. I see no reason why we can't have a thunder and lightning situation, running the ball 1/3 of the time.

-Running the ball should ALWAYS be a higher percentage play in short yardage. I never want to feel like we CAN'T pick up a yard or two on the ground on 3rd down. Right now, I feel like we could, but won't, and that won't do either.

eRichFalcon I couldn't agree with you more about bringing Anthony Turner into the backfield with Tyler Sheehan. I know that AT has been somewhat succesful when he goes in for Sheehan and runs off-tackle but when I see him go onto the field it just makes me cringe because everyone knows what's coming. My girlfriend, I repeat, my girlfriend, not exactly a football expert, asked me why Brandon doesn't put both AT and Sheehan in the backfield. I'd like to optomistically think that we've been saving some special plays for MAC play. I think that having AT in the backfield next to Sheehan would really keep defenses more honest. The direct snap to AT could be huge. It has already had mild success when everyone and their grandma knows it's coming.

[doughash]

Based on this response from the Coach at today's media session it sounds like we may see a little more offensive balance the rest of the season:


Now that you're entering the MAC, do you show anything else now or is what we've seen, as far as offense, what we're going to get the rest of the year?

"[The offense is] pretty much what it is, but we have a few wrinkles here and there. We are who we are right now. Hopefully we can rush the ball better. A lot of the games, Michigan State, Minnesota, Boston College, we weren't working on running the football. We thought our best chances to win the game were to throw the ball 50 to 60 times. The [offensive] lines and [defensive] front sevens on those teams were very much built for the Big Ten and the ACC."

[Flipper]

I think that there a couple of things that you have to take into consideration, when you are talking about our running backs, and those are
catching ability and blocking, in addition to their running ability. I think it is very hard for most of us to judge those things in only a "game" situation, and that is exactly why Mr. Winovich gets alot of the time at the RB spot, because of those abilities. We do not have a PJ Pope this year that excels at running the ball, catching the ball and blocking or pass protection, but two or three different backs that excel in one or two of these abilities, but not all. Until we find that person, or one improves in "other" areas, we will see RB by committee, which tends to tip our hand. Maybe we will see a more diverse offense now that we are into the MAC schedule.

Exactly...you also have to consider how much of the ofefnse is built around the RB having the skill set that Eric Ransom has and Willie Geter will have when he matures a bit. Bullock is a bit of a square peg for that hole...that's not to say that he has no place in the offense, but you have to install plays that can take advantage of his skills...when you do that you run the risk of becoming, as factman pointed out, more predictable

[Jacobs4Heisman]

I think that there a couple of things that you have to take into consideration, when you are talking about our running backs, and those are
catching ability and blocking, in addition to their running ability. I think it is very hard for most of us to judge those things in only a "game" situation, and that is exactly why Mr. Winovich gets alot of the time at the RB spot, because of those abilities. We do not have a PJ Pope this year that excels at running the ball, catching the ball and blocking or pass protection, but two or three different backs that excel in one or two of these abilities, but not all. Until we find that person, or one improves in "other" areas, we will see RB by committee, which tends to tip our hand. Maybe we will see a more diverse offense now that we are into the MAC schedule.

Exactly...you also have to consider how much of the ofefnse is built around the RB having the skill set that Eric Ransom has and Willie Geter will have when he matures a bit. Bullock is a bit of a square peg for that hole...that's not to say that he has no place in the offense, but you have to install plays that can take advantage of his skills...when you do that you run the risk of becoming, as factman pointed out, more predictable

Bullock was very successful running out of the spread sets last year. I'm pretty sure those plays are still in the playbook. Bullock didn't show any noticeable deficiencies last year blocking or catching the ball out of the backfield. I hope he's just been absent as a gameplan type thing, and not a permanent type thing. He was a Freshman All-American. At our level, we can't afford not to have talent like that on the field making plays.

I still think we can run the ball if we want to. I wonder sometimes if our OL struggles aren't stemming from the play selection. Sometimes those big boys up front just want to push some people around in the run game. Maybe they're getting discouraged that they aren't getting that chance, and their pass-blocking is suffering because of it. We know it isn't a talent issue.

[MACMAN]

imagin...run the no huddle pass attack for the first half...the score is 24 to 14. then after halftime, coming out and lining up in the wishbone and pounding the ball, or the i I see nothing wrong with it...and I know we will never again see at BG a QUALITY FOOTBALL GAME like last years mud bowl...but dam if we had spent time on the run, we would have won.
Passing will put the points on the board, our fast paced no huddle passing game is proven to that (why we dont see it more this year is beyond me...well no its not its GB) a running game will allow us to control the clock, the passing game is not a way to control the clock, it just doesnt work and your dead right, we can run the ball with O line and these backs.

[BGSUFootballFan]

Hammb I'm with you on most of your points. You probably value running the ball a tiny bit more than I do and I probably value just sheer getting points on the scoreboard a tiny bit more than you do. Other than that I agree with you.

Something that I was saying all day and even in the Chat on this site during the game is why don't we call the same plays with Sheehan as we do when Glaud is in the game? I swear as soon as he came in we really started mixing up the runs & passes like it was our job. Also the style of runs & passes varied A LOT, not just same crossing route until they stop it, or same run up the middle until they stop it. I just went and looked up the play-by-play just to see if was really going nuts or if our offense runs entirely different plays when Glaud is in the game. Sure enough I found 15 Passes and 11 Runs while AG was in the game. DONT FORGET WE WERE DOWN 52-10 and trying to pull a Temple in doctoring up the score when he took over at QB.

That means the ratio was 57% pass - 43% run, while in a sort of "catch-up" offense with Glaud in there. Not only was the ratio this way, but we saw runs by Glaud, Turner, Bullock, and Macon. All on DIFFERENT PLAY calls. Also a deep ball to Freddie Barnes? When have we ever seen TS hand it off to 3 diff RB's, using 3 diff mis-direction plays and then chuck a deep ball? None that I can remember.

I highly doubt it has anything to do with TS or the coaching staffs belief in his abilities. However, if that actually is the truth then I'd rather see Glaud play QB just so we can run this offense. I actually value this type of offense enough that I'd be willing to let AG play QB. However, it would be my dream come true to see TS run this exact offense because I think it would be unstoppable for opposing MAC defenses.

I guess I value balance more than I ever thought. But what I truly like to see a good mix or variety. One play that sets up another. Ooo look we faked something on this play, but 3 plays from now going to fake something else and actually use what we just faked. As opposed to same out routes, crossing routes, and runs up the middle until they are stopped. Those plays don't feed off of each other in any way in which you can drive the ball down the field. We were just lucky against Minnesota because the plays would break open for a BIG gain and we wouldn't need to drive the ball. Also we mixed in some nice fake handoffs to the motion WR and then actually handed it CP once, only to have him throw it back to Sheehan for a TD! BRILLIANT! I love it, I want to see more of it! Not necessarily trick plays, but the same verison of a certain play, using different fakes and variations to set up the D the way we want them!