Running Game/First Downs/Spikes

[satz]

After thinking over the loss and how Mangini attacked this offence and defence i see more of what happened .

1)We cannot run on first down for more than 2-3 yds. This kills 2nd down plays and downfield low % passes ,as now you are thinking more in the term of managable 3rd down than taking a shot .The few times we had a big gain brady tried to go deep but this starts on first down. I do not care if you run or pass need to get 5+ on first down for this offence to operate.

2)Deion is not 100% and mangini put 1 CB knowing deion does not have the leg to run away or create saperation. Need another WR who can run ,either deion gets healthy or get someone who can run decent till that point.

3)Wes was being chipped by LB and Safety before release .This is happening ofcourse because the Safeties are in the box for run support and the LB were more in targetting Wes and defending the LOS knowing the safety is there to help.

4)Starks said that they doubled Vince and Made sure some one picked up Mayo and ran at Spikes. Spikes need to stepup or else we will the same thing again and again. In this scenario i would now try feltcher or guyton if spikes craps again.Chung high tackle numbers made more sense watching this game as he was covering up the other guys by flying around.


5)We cannot run the streach play plain and simple .Benny is not that kinda of RB .He does not have the top gear to get out and what clevland did is put 2 NT type in middle and rushed both the A gaps. forcing the offence to bounce outside knowing very well benny does not have that speed to bouce out and let the perimeter guys to catch him and in sometimes the back side pursuit was there behind the LOS. Browns Played with no fear that Benny will bounce outside for a big run.


Mangini defintely exposed some weakness in the running game and weakness of the WR to be phyical with opposing CB. I see more of the same .Also, in 3 wide when a LB can get physical and know Wes can be beat out of his route and the Outside WR guys get no saperation ,look for less and less Nickel packages from opposing defences. Before browns the other teams automatically went to nickel in 3 wide helping benny`s production. Not any more

Yesterday bengals ran with 3 WR as this moved casey hampton from the field to open up running lanes. But i expect the steelers to keep him in knowing that the WR cannot beat single coverage next week.

We need 2 things now
1)Talent at RB ,time to sign someone who can run .woodhead is fast and hence been more effective but his strength not to run at a 300 LB DL.I think time to sign someone back who can run and has speed. We suprisingly had a guy who is now playing for colts and scored a TD last week. I know blitz pickup is important to play in our system but right now we need speed.
2)WR- at this point we need someone who can catch and run. seems like having your top 2 WR with knee and hamy issue is not an answer.Some one who can run routes and be a bit bigger to play outside will help.



We are 1 draft away from fielding a very good team.Big WR,3-4 DL/warren and a Strong RB.

 

[BradyManny]

Pretty solid points all around. With Spikes, I think it also starts up front. If we had a Richard Seymour, he and Mayo would have a little more room to get free and make tackles. Look at what Spikes & Mayo did when Vince was at end v. Baltimore & then in the Minny game, those two were absolute beasts.

As for the offense - I agree our issues begin on first down.

Where has the short passing game gone? That's what we need. Short passes on 1st down, setting up manageable down & distances, which right now, we do not have as often as we are accustomed to.

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

We are 1 draft away from fielding a very good team.

Not to predict doomsday, or to write off the 2010 season, but this is the reality. Not only will the next draft fill a couple of last holes, but with one more year all of the guys will have more experience. This is a rebuilding year and we have rebuilt very fast. I am not complaining.

With 2 big guys in the A Gaps, and BJGE struggling to bounce it out, where are the bubble screens to Edelman?

 

[satz]

Pretty solid points all around. With Spikes, I think it also starts up front. If we had a Richard Seymour, he and Mayo would have a little more room to get free and make tackles. Look at what Spikes & Mayo did when Vince was at end v. Baltimore & then in the Minny game, those two were absolute beasts.

As for the offense - I agree our issues begin on first down.

Where has the short passing game gone? That's what we need. Short passes on 1st down, setting up manageable down & distances, which right now, we do not have as often as we are accustomed to.

You forget that against baltimore cunningham had his best game , oher was struggling so much they had to move help over to him . Vince/warren/mayo/spikes shut the middle of other end down. The RB could not get past the LOS.

Short passing games needs open areas underneath. When you have 3 No2 capable WR it gets going. Deion , Givens, Patten and Fauria might not be the No1 WR/TE but they were all No 2. So you always putting 4 players on the field to cover.

Now deion with his hammy is not a No 2 dieon of years past. Wes is a No 2 for sure but then Tate is not a No 2 receiver. He does not kill you if you left him room to work with . Our TE are okay but do rookie mistakes.

I think its unfair to compare that group to what we have.also the RB in those years were alot better. they gave you 4-5 yds not like now.

 

[satz]

With 2 big guys in the A Gaps, and BJGE struggling to bounce it out, where are the bubble screens to Edelman?

When your outside WR cannot beat there man CB/Safeties get more effective in run blocking. the NFL is too fast to let a unblocked defensive back with in 10 yds of LOS . The safeties lined up oh the 10 yd fromLOS at the edge.
any screen or RB getting through was there responsiblity. As both the safeties are at the edge screens do not work.

what we are facing is over crowding , when you have 6 defenders and 4 receivers in such a tiny space its is a mess.

 

[emoney_33]

Pretty solid points all around. With Spikes, I think it also starts up front. If we had a Richard Seymour, he and Mayo would have a little more room to get free and make tackles. Look at what Spikes & Mayo did when Vince was at end v. Baltimore & then in the Minny game, those two were absolute beasts.

As for the offense - I agree our issues begin on first down.

Where has the short passing game gone? That's what we need. Short passes on 1st down, setting up manageable down & distances, which right now, we do not have as often as we are accustomed to.

How much DE vs. NT did Wilfork play against Cleveland?

 

[letekro]

With 2 big guys in the A Gaps, and BJGE struggling to bounce it out, where are the bubble screens to Edelman?

Edelman has no explosion after injuring his foot.

 

[JMarr]

We need 2 things now
1)Talent at RB .

I took a break from this board for a week, came back and was amazed at how inane and pompous a lot of the posters here are, with posts complaining about complaining posters, people arguing for separate game-day threads for the "knowledgable" posters, and a curious lack of posts concerning what the loss of Moss has done to passing game (looks like the board nazis have succeeded in that goal as well), and I just want to thank you for showing me that there are still sane and smart people that post on here.

Lack of a running threat is the huge elephant in the room for the NEP. Not sure much can be done at this point except try to scheme around it. But it just amazes me how many bigtime posters around here can't see the obvious, and would rather talk about the defense, rookie mistakes, and Brady's hair.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

I took a break from this board for a week, came back and was amazed at how inane and pompous a lot of the posters here are, with posts complaining about complaining posters, people arguing for separate game-day threads for the "knowledgable" posters, and a curious lack of posts concerning what the loss of Moss has done to passing game (looks like the board nazis have succeeded in that goal as well), and I just want to thank you for showing me that there are still sane and smart people that post on here.

Lack of a running threat is the huge elephant in the room for the NEP. Not sure much can be done at this point except try to scheme around it. But it just amazes me how many bigtime posters around here can't see the obvious, and would rather talk about the defense, rookie mistakes, and Brady's hair.

I don't know if a running threat is really that big of a deal. I mean our short yardage running has been good when called upon. And we've won Super Bowls with less. I'm not suggesting we should air it out 50 times a game. I'd like to see us run the ball more, and more effectively, for better balance and also to take advantage of play-action, something I wish we did more. But I don't think the lack of a run game is a major factor.

Don't forget in 2001 we averaged 3.8 yards per carry while finishing 13th in the league in yards. We finished 28th in 2002 and missed the play-offs, but we finished 27th in 2003 (averaging 3.4 YPC) and won the Super Bowl. With Corey Dillon, we jumped up to 7th in rushing in 2004 on our way to another Super Bowl. So we've won a Super Bowl while being one of the top 10 rushing teams, while being a middle-of-the-pack rushing team, and one of the worst rushing teams.

This team has won with and without solid rushing numbers. In 2005, we were 24th. In 2006, we were 12th. In 2007, we were 13th. In 2008, we were 6th. In 2009, we were 12th. While our running performance has been inconsistent during this stretch, the end results have been very consistent: 10+ wins per season, top 10 finishes in points per game, top 10 finishes in yards per game every year but one (finished 11th in 2006).

So the presence or lack of a running game isn't really a major issue one way or another.

BTW, some very good observations in the OP.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

Pat Chung didn't play, he was out.

The defense wouldn't have been so porous if Chung played.

 

[mgteich]

If you're suggesting that Green-Ellis is as dependable as Antowain Smith, I disagree.

I don't know if a running threat is really that big of a deal. I mean our short yardage running has been good when called upon. And we've won Super Bowls with less. I'm not suggesting we should air it out 50 times a game. I'd like to see us run the ball more, and more effectively, for better balance and also to take advantage of play-action, something I wish we did more. But I don't think the lack of a run game is a major factor.

Don't forget in 2001 we averaged 3.8 yards per carry while finishing 13th in the league in yards. We finished 28th in 2002 and missed the play-offs, but we finished 27th in 2003 (averaging 3.4 YPC) and won the Super Bowl. With Corey Dillon, we jumped up to 7th in rushing in 2004 on our way to another Super Bowl. So we've won a Super Bowl while being one of the top 10 rushing teams, while being a middle-of-the-pack rushing team, and one of the worst rushing teams.

This team has won with and without solid rushing numbers. In 2005, we were 24th. In 2006, we were 12th. In 2007, we were 13th. In 2008, we were 6th. In 2009, we were 12th. While our running performance has been inconsistent during this stretch, the end results have been very consistent: 10+ wins per season, top 10 finishes in points per game, top 10 finishes in yards per game every year but one (finished 11th in 2006).

So the presence or lack of a running game isn't really a major issue one way or another.

BTW, some very good observations in the OP.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

If you're suggesting that Green-Ellis is as dependable as Antowain Smith, I disagree.

If I traveled back in time to the year 2001 and told a younger version of me that in the future, we would be saying certain RBs weren't in the same class as Antowain Smith, I think the younger me would have died laughing, which would have created some sort of time travel paradox because then I wouldn't exist. But that's a different concern I suppose :bricks:

That's not to rip on Smith. I've come to appreciate what he gave us, a solid but unspectacular workman's performance every time out. And I'm not suggesting Lawfirm is anything to anyone. Just simply saying the lack of a top running game isn't critical to our success. We've done well with it and without it.

 

[satz]

I don't know if a running threat is really that big of a deal. I mean our short yardage running has been good when called upon. And we've won Super Bowls with less. I'm not suggesting we should air it out 50 times a game. I'd like to see us run the ball more, and more effectively, for better balance and also to take advantage of play-action, something I wish we did more. But I don't think the lack of a run game is a major factor.

Don't forget in 2001 we averaged 3.8 yards per carry while finishing 13th in the league in yards. We finished 28th in 2002 and missed the play-offs, but we finished 27th in 2003 (averaging 3.4 YPC) and won the Super Bowl. With Corey Dillon, we jumped up to 7th in rushing in 2004 on our way to another Super Bowl. So we've won a Super Bowl while being one of the top 10 rushing teams, while being a middle-of-the-pack rushing team, and one of the worst rushing teams.

This team has won with and without solid rushing numbers. In 2005, we were 24th. In 2006, we were 12th. In 2007, we were 13th. In 2008, we were 6th. In 2009, we were 12th. While our running performance has been inconsistent during this stretch, the end results have been very consistent: 10+ wins per season, top 10 finishes in points per game, top 10 finishes in yards per game every year but one (finished 11th in 2006).

So the presence or lack of a running game isn't really a major issue one way or another.

BTW, some very good observations in the OP.

You are being unfair is comparing position to position. The WR in 01 and SB era was very good. Troy,Deion,givens and patten were very productive. Wes with his knee , Deion with his hammy , Tate a rookie cannot be compared to those guys. We offence was predicated on using smaller faster quicker WR. Wes,Deion are limited to be quick now.Tate is learning his job and i do not even see the growth we saw from givens. Also given had size .

Offence as a combo is struggling. our TE are good but rookies and also we really do not have a big physical presence outside. Price had the size but sadly we suck at drafting them for some reason.

 

[Mack Herron]

If I traveled back in time to the year 2001 and told a younger version of me that in the future, we would be saying certain RBs weren't in the same class as Antowain Smith, I think the younger me would have died laughing, which would have created some sort of time travel paradox because then I wouldn't exist. But that's a different concern I suppose :bricks:

That's not to rip on Smith. I've come to appreciate what he gave us, a solid but unspectacular workman's performance every time out. And I'm not suggesting Lawfirm is anything to anyone. Just simply saying the lack of a top running game isn't critical to our success. We've done well with it and without it.

BJGE gets the most of his abilities and always runs hard. He is not in the same league as Smith, who was stronger, faster, and occasionally spectacular. He can fill a back up role, but they need Taylor back to compete with the Jets, Steelers, etc.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

You are being unfair is comparing position to position. The WR in 01 and SB era was very good. Troy,Deion,givens and patten were very productive. Wes with his knee , Deion with his hammy , Tate a rookie cannot be compared to those guys. We offence was predicated on using smaller faster quicker WR. Wes,Deion are limited to be quick now.Tate is learning his job and i do not even see the growth we saw from givens. Also given had size .

Offence as a combo is struggling. our TE are good but rookies and also we really do not have a big physical presence outside. Price had the size but sadly we suck at drafting them for some reason.

Maybe I'm being unclear. I'm just saying that we can win with or without big numbers from the running game. It obviously would help but it's not essential as some have made it out to be.

BJGE gets the most of his abilities and always runs hard. He is not in the same league as Smith, who was stronger, faster, and occasionally spectacular. He can fill a back up role, but they need Taylor back to compete with the Jets, Steelers, etc.

Smith was incredibly consistent. I didn't realize it at the time, but I've come to appreciate it over the years. I like Lawfirm, but agree, a healthy Taylor is our best back and we could really use him for the big games coming up.

 

[satz]

Maybe I'm being unclear. I'm just saying that we can win with or without big numbers from the running game. It obviously would help but it's not essential as some have made it out to be.



Smith was incredibly consistent. I didn't realize it at the time, but I've come to appreciate it over the years. I like Lawfirm, but agree, a healthy Taylor is our best back and we could really use him for the big games coming up.

Its not the production but the threat of a big run that holds this offence. When a real threat exist play action works. if you cannot run the ball play action is out of the whole play book. When you have 2nd and Long deep shots or play actions on low % throws decrease too as if they fail you are in third and long with WR who cannot run.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Its not the production but the threat of a big run that holds this offence. When a real threat exist play action works. if you cannot run the ball play action is out of the whole play book. When you have 2nd and Long deep shots or play actions on low % throws decrease too as if they fail you are in third and long with WR who cannot run.

We used play-action passes a lot earlier in the decade, even with a mediocre run game in 2001 and 2003. The Colts finished 31st in run attempts last season and 32nd in rushing yards while averaging 3.5 yards per carry, yet used play-action quite a bit with great success.

Having a big-time running back helps, no doubt in a lot of different areas, but it's by no means a necessity, and it doesn't mean you have to throw it out of the playbook.