Morris time. For several reasons.

[micks113]

Well, I'll only speak for myself here, but I don't think anyone is "blaming Alfred" for our running game woes.

It's pretty clear defenses are keying on our run game, and our blocking--OL, TE's, WR's--is having a hard time clearing lanes against stacked lines.

What I WILL say, and have been saying since early in the year, is that Alfred looks to me like he's not running the ball as well as in previous years. We're hearing that same thought echoed now by a lot of observers.

Can't we acknowledge both apparent truths? That the run game overall is struggling, AND that Alfred doesn't look right?

Or have we devolved around here to the point everything gets reduced to a simple either/or?

You are exactly right OM. Thank you for exposing the narrow mindedness. What I can't understand is why the folks that want to "dig deeper" on the run game and blame Gruden have yet to assign any kind of blame on the opponent. They act like the opponent had nothing to do with it. Huh?? Last I looked they strap it on in the locker room the same way our players do. Morris is not Walter Payton, he will get stuffed his fair share of the attempts. That's just football folks, you certainly aren't going to give all the credit to the Bears head coach as Jim Brown runs over and through defenses. ergo, blaming the coach for Morris getting stuffed is ridiculous. And folks, don't go there thinking I'm comparing Brown to Morris (shaking my head in advance.)

 

[Henry]

We were very good in 2012 with RG3. He was unable to adapt to a new scheme.

Alfred was very good years ago. We'll see if he can adapt to a new scheme.

You can't cross a desert without losing a few ponies.

At the end of the year, if Scot believes that he was coached poorly, then he'll fire the coaches. If he believes that Alfred doesn't fit his scheme then Alfred will be gone.

Only time will tell.

Alfred was good last year. Under the current coach and the current coach's offense.

What is different this year? Well, we drafted another RB. We've asked Morris and Jones to split time. Now, suddenly, the running backs looks lost and our running game looks like crap. I don't think it's some stunning coincidence. If it were just a matter of Morris not looking right and just having the proper player for the scheme, Jones would be tearing it up right now. But he's averaging 2.58 yards a carry over the past four weeks. A whopping .04 yards a carry higher than Morris.

Even so, Om may be right. Maybe Morris is hurt, or confused, or lonely. I don't know. I don't care. I'm not obsessed with Morris. I've only said about half a dozen times that if Morris ain't The Guy, make Jones The Guy. But for the love of All That is Holy, pick someone.

RB by committee is not working. That is the only significant different between this year and last year. Our OL continues to suck. Our passing game is ... meh. We have the same RB as last year, plus a few other guys. The big difference is how we run the ball. Again, focussing on the guy who got 1000 yards last year as the problem doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Om]

What is different this year? Well, we drafted another RB. We've asked Morris and Jones to split time. Now, suddenly, the running backs looks lost and our running game looks like crap. I don't think it's some stunning coincidence.

Now, Om may be right. Maybe Morris is hurt, or confused, or lonely. I don't know. I don't care. I'm not obsessed with Morris. I've only said about half a dozen times that if Morris ain't The Guy, make Jones The Guy. But for the love of All That is Holy, pick someone.

RB by committee is not working. That is the only significant different between this year and last year. Our OL continues to suck. Our passing game is ... meh. We have the same RB as last year, plus a few other guys. The big difference is how we run the ball. Again, focussing on the guy who got 1000 yards last year as the problem doesn't make sense to me.

At this point, the only horse in this conversation still with a faint pulse is ... why? Is there a chapter in the NFL Handbook that says to have an effective run game, you have to feature one back?

Certainly through history some great coaches haven't ... Shula won acclaim for Csonka, Morris and Kiick ... after Riggo, Gibbs rotated guys all the time, winning Super Bowls riding the "hot hand" with Rogers/Smith and then Byner/Ervins. Saint Genius-Of-All-Things Belichick has thrown so many guys in the backfield from week to week over the last 15 years you can't even begin to keep track.

I think "you have to pick one guy" is an NFL bromide.

In our case, we have an offense struggling to get going on the ground. None of the three backs have separated themselves. If I'm coaching an offense going through a spell like that, I'm going to keep tweaking the blocking and playcalling as best I can within the framework of what I have to work with offensively, and throwing any and all running backs I have out there hoping to find a spark.

 

[Henry]

At this point, the only horse in this conversation still with a faint pulse is ... why? Is there a chapter in the NFL Handbook that says to have an effective run game, you have to feature one back?

Well, I would say that if a team is successful running one back, and then switches to a 'hot hand' approach which then produces one of the worst running attacks in the league, the switch was probably not a good idea.

Certainly through history some great coaches haven't ... Shula won acclaim for Csonka, Morris and Kiick ... after Riggo, Gibbs rotated guys all the time, winning Super Bowls riding the "hot hand" with Rogers/Smith and then Byner/Ervins. Saint Genius-Of-All-Things Belichick has thrown so many guys in the backfield from week to week over the last 15 years you can't even begin to keep track.

I think when you have a hall of fame QB like Shula or Belichick you can get away with a lot you normally couldn't get away with. There is no way Belichik gets away with the shuffling he does without Brady. A few weeks ago the Patriots rushed for 16 total yards against the Jets. Their running backs rushed 5 times for 1 yard. They were up by ten points with a minute to go. One does not look at that game and assume it's ok to completely ignore the running game and have Cousins throw 55 passes. The Patriots get away with it because Brady.

Gibbs? Yeah he used more than one back. He was great at that. But he almost always settled on a primary guy. The two years he really didn't were 1988 and 1989, two of the worst years of his first go-round.

I think "you have to pick one guy" is an NFL bromide.

In our case, we have an offense struggling to get going on the ground. None of the three backs have separated themselves. If I'm coaching an offense going through a spell like that, I'm going to keep tweaking the blocking and playcalling as best I can within the framework of what I have to work with offensively, and throwing any and all running backs I have out there hoping to find a spark.

I think that's a bad strategy. I think if you are going to use the season to audition backs you let one shoulder the load for a game. If he can't cut it you try the other guy. This 'each guy gets 10 carries' is a terrible idea. Our running game looks like a Bunch of Plays, not an actual plan. Not any sort a strategy. And it produces like one.

Hell, even if it looked like each guy was getting carries within the framework of some sort of game plan it might make sense. That's why Thompson isn't mentioned much in these discussions. He clearly has a specific role in the offense. That's great. Jones and Morris have no apparent roles. They are just sort of guys who get the ball at random times.

Maybe I'm completely wrong here. Maybe it just seems that way to me.

Then again, our run offense does totally suck, so maybe it's not me after all.

We will see. Big game coming up this weekend.

 

[Goaldeje]

The only challenge I would throw out to that Om is that Alfred got his carries early in the year, and produced very well with those carries. If, as you say, Morris has not looked as good since the Rams game, why would Gruden not lean more on Jones then? If the coaches see something you see (but I do not) then why are they still evenly splitting the carries (aside from the injury issues with Jones)?

At this point, I think we can all agree the run game isn't working. So why keep splitting the carries evenly? What's the point in doing that? We've been doing that to poor results. As Henry has said, why not pick Jones and give the kid 22+ carries? Bring Morris in for relief and let's see how the kid does.

Or, we could keep doing what we've done lately that hasn't worked at all.

Also a viable option.

 

[MikeSr619]

is ladell betts or trung candidate available?

 

[McD5]

The answer to the above seems pretty simple to see.

How are you going to know if Alfred is worthy of an extension if he doesn't get some carries?

If Alfred isn't performing well, how can you not try someone else to win a game? How does the rookie develop without some carries?

It's not that complicated.

 

[Goaldeje]

Apparently, it IS that complicated.

 

[McD5]

Apparently, it IS that complicated.

Lol. It shouldn't be. Both guys need carries.

What's the problem? Or why is that so hard for a small group to understand?

 

[MikeSr619]

Lol. It shouldn't be. Both guys need carries.

What's the problem? Or why is that so hard for a small group to understand?

Just because we don't agree doesn't make us narrow minded or unable to understand. THAT shouldn't be too hard to understand

 

[Goaldeje]

Gruden's focus should be on winning games. He needs to figure out the back that gives us the best chance of winning, right? Can we agree on that?

If we agree with that, I would hope we can also agree that the time-sharing approach has not worked so far. Certainly, we can debate scheme and injuries and everything else, but I think it's safe to say that regardless of WHY it hasn't work, we can all agree it has not worked.

At this point, if he gives Matt Jones 23+ carries a game and Jones crushes it, great! Then we know going forward that Alfred isn't in team plans moving forward. If he gives Alfred 23+ carries and he crushes it, we probably need to try to get to some middle ground for an extension. If either of them get a bunch of carries and suck, give it to the next guy. Hopefully one of them will catch fire at some point. If not, we need to take a serious look at scheme.

But at this point, Gruden seems committed to time-sharing. And that hasn't worked. If he cares about winning, he needs to pick a horse and ride it. And if that doesn't work, ride another horse. And if that doesn't work, change something else.

 

[Om]

Well, I would say that if a team is successful running one back, and then switches to a 'hot hand' approach which then produces one of the worst running attacks in the league, the switch was probably not a good idea.

He switched to a "hot hand" approach when his hand went cold.

And only because you brought it up, and because you know I love ya ... when was the offense successful running one back, again? Last year going 4-12? The year before, going 3-13?

I think when you have a hall of fame QB like Shula or Belichick you can get away with a lot you normally couldn't get away with. There is no way Belichik gets away with the shuffling he does without Brady. A few weeks ago the Patriots rushed for 16 total yards against the Jets. Their running backs rushed 5 times for 1 yard. They were up by ten points with a minute to go. One does not look at that game and assume it's ok to completely ignore the running game and have Cousins throw 55 passes. The Patriots get away with it because Brady.

I know. The bastard. But you can bet if he had a guy who WAS producing regularly on the ground, that's the guy he's going with. He's smart that way. Right?

The Shula one stands. I was proud of coming up with that.

Gibbs? Yeah he used more than one back. He was great at that. But he almost always settled on a primary guy. The two years he really didn't were 1988 and 1989, two of the worst years of his first go-round.

I think that helps my case, not yours. If any of the three guys he had those years (Jamie Morris, Kelvin Bryant, Gerald Riggs) had produced better than the others, had separated himself, wouldn't Gibbs have made that guy the primary?

I think that's a bad strategy. I think if you are going to use the season to audition backs you let one shoulder the load for a game. If he can't cut it you try the other guy. This 'each guy gets 10 carries' is a terrible idea. Our running game looks like a Bunch of Plays, not an actual plan. Not any sort a strategy. And it produces like one.

Hell, even if it looked like each guy was getting carries within the framework of some sort of game plan it might make sense. That's why Thompson isn't mentioned much in these discussions. He clearly has a specific role in the offense. That's great. Jones and Morris have no apparent roles. They are just sort of guys who get the ball at random times.

Maybe I'm completely wrong here. Maybe it just seems that way to me.

Then again, our run offense does totally suck, so maybe it's not me after all.

He's not using the season to "audition backs." He's using the backs he has to try to compete during the season. t

Your position assumes that because the running game is struggling, the plan---the rotation, scheme, calls---is either at fault or doesn't exist at all. Okay, that's fair. But it's only one way of looking at it.

Another could be that NO plan for running the ball, given the myriad factors at play, is going to be effective with the personnel we're fielding.

Another could be that the plan would be, if not excelling, at least working but for one missed block here or there, or one missed cutback here or there, or a good defensive play here or there, all on an offense still very much trying to find its way with a young QB, young HC, new OL coach, missing top WR, shaky TE position, etc.

Another could be ... never mind. If I haven't made the point by now, I'm not gonna.

We will see. Big game coming up this weekend.

Have to ask ... we'll see what? If Saint Genius-of-All-Things Belichick shuts Alfred and our whole run game down our from the opening gun, or we're trailing 40-0 after at the half because Brady, and we end up passing 60 times, is that an indictment of Gruden for not picking a primary RB and sticking with him no matter what?

I haven't done this in a long time, H. Be gentle.

 

[McD5]

Really, it's not that difficult.

Morris needs carries to determine an extension. Or do we just guess wildly based upon practices?

We spent a 3rd on Matt Jones. Not to ride the bench. He needs carries to not only develop, but also to give Morris a breather. He's been injured, so he's not getting every carry.

Scot needs to see both play to know where to go.

/topic closed

 

[Goaldeje]

Really, it's not that difficult.

Morris needs carries to determine an extension. Or do we just guess wildly based upon practices?

We spent a 3rd on Matt Jones. Not to ride the bench. He needs carries to not only develop, but also to give Morris a breather. He's been injured, so he's not getting every carry.

Scot needs to see both play to know where to go.

/topic closed

You're really not coming off in a positive light here. I might suggest, respectfully, that you tone it down a little. Your point is getting lost in your tone which is... not great.

Anyway, I don't think it's that simple. We have three years' worth of history to judge Alfred. Judged in that light, he's been a great RB. Not good. Not very good. GREAT. If Gruden now thinks that Jones, because of his size, strength, draft status, whatever, is the better fit for his offense, well... he has a funny way of showing it.

Personally, I'd be a little hesitant to throw away the production that Morris has given us in favor of an unproven rookie. Personally, I'd give Morris a few more games with 20+ carries to see if he can right the ship. Mainly because we know from history what he can do. You can still evaluate Jones if he gets 6-11 carries a game.

 

[MikeSr619]

Nevermind

 

[Om]

We have three years' worth of history to judge Alfred. Judged in that light, he's been a great RB. Not good. Not very good. GREAT. If Gruden now thinks that Jones, because of his size, strength, draft status, whatever, is the better fit for his offense, well... he has a funny way of showing it.

Personally, I'd be a little hesitant to throw away the production that Morris has given us in favor of an unproven rookie. Personally, I'd give Morris a few more games with 20+ carries to see if he can right the ship. Mainly because we know from history what he can do. You can still evaluate Jones if he gets 6-11 carries a game.

Seems like a good place to say it again ... I don't think Alfred IS the same guy with all that wonderful history. I haven't seen that guy since the Rams game, when I first noticed he wasn't showing the ... Alfredness ... I remember. Which sucks, because I'm a big fan of that guy. If we ever get our downfield passing game going so defenses can't key on the run and short passes, and if our OL, TE's and WR's get better over time as a unit and open some clearer lanes, I hope he comes back and runs some mother****ers over again.

 

[Primus Porcus]

Morris has been trending in the wrong direction, but even dropping 30% since 2012, he's still posted 3 consecutive 1K yard seasons... behind what most would argue, one of the worst offensive lines in football. This year we started out 'better' but he never was able to completely get his legs. He has shown to be lacking that same 'burst' we've seen in the past, but he's also been running behind Chris Chester and Josh Leribeus... He has always appeared to be a rhythm type, 2nd half back who gets better as the game goes along.. something he hasn't been able to do this year. I wish we'd give him 2 - 3 full games, using Jones as a sub instead of as an equal, to take a look at if we want to keep him around. He's a lot more then the yardage when it comes to locker room, example setting, positive type player who is essential when it comes to having stability in a locker room.

 

[Chris]

Why do you guys keep continuing at this? Didn't you see that the /topic has been closed?

 

[Elephant]

This isn't rocket science.

Teams are stacking the box. Kirk isn't perceived as a guy who can beat you with his arm.

When the box is stacked, no running back is going to look good.

There are no cut back lanes. There are no gaping holes.

There is no running game.

But this is not entirely true either, there ha been film, shared on this site, that has shown running lanes that were open. Yes, they're stacking the box against us, but we are opening lanes.

 

[Henry]

He switched to a "hot hand" approach when his hand went cold.

Yeah. I don't like that. Sorry.

I see a lot of calls for patience on the board these days. I think that applies from game-to-game within a season as well as over the course of a few seasons, for the same reasons.

Hey, that rhymes.

And only because you brought it up, and because you know I love ya ... when was the offense successful running one back, again? Last year going 4-12? The year before, going 3-13?

Indeed. I find it unfortunate that we take one of the very few players that was actually able to produce during those putrid seasons and dump him on a committee, only to see the one bright spot of the team become a very very dark spot. And then, seeing that same player have the blame heaped on him for it.

I know. The bastard. But you can bet if he had a guy who WAS producing regularly on the ground, that's the guy he's going with. He's smart that way. Right?

Belichick has not had to worry about his ground game during basically his entire tenure in New England. I have no idea what he'd do, and I don't think it matters.

The Shula one stands. I was proud of coming up with that.

Take it. Enjoy.

I think that helps my case, not yours. If any of the three guys he had those years (Jamie Morris, Kelvin Bryant, Gerald Riggs) had produced better than the others, had separated himself, wouldn't Gibbs have made that guy the primary?

I think if any one of those guys had been coming off three straight 1000-yard seasons Gibbs would have made that guy the primary back. And he would have figured out how to make the running game work for that guy. Morris, Bryant and Timmy Smith were all basically projects and/or third down-types, none of whom had ever proven capable of being a full time starter. Riggs was years removed from his prime and already had 1500+ carries under his belt.

Your position assumes that because the running game is struggling, the plan---the rotation, scheme, calls---is either at fault or doesn't exist at all. Okay, that's fair. But it's only one way of looking at it.

Another could be that NO plan for running the ball, given the myriad factors at play, is going to be effective with the personnel we're fielding.

Another could be that the plan would be, if not excelling, at least working but for one missed block here or there, or one missed cutback here or there, or a good defensive play here or there, all on an offense still very much trying to find its way with a young QB, young HC, new OL coach, missing top WR, shaky TE position, etc.

Another could be ... never mind. If I haven't made the point by now, I'm not gonna.

Yes, I have a position and I'm forwarding that position. It could be something else but I don't think it is. That's why we have this board, right?

For the record, I didn't start this thread. I didn't start talking about Morris or the running game. My opinion is merely one of many opinions on what the hell is wrong with the running game. Some of those opinions are a lot stronger than mine.

Have to ask ... we'll see what? If Saint Genius-of-All-Things Belichick shuts Alfred and our whole run game down our from the opening gun, or we're trailing 40-0 after at the half because Brady, and we end up passing 60 times, is that an indictment of Gruden for not picking a primary RB and sticking with him no matter what?

I think the obvious strategy in playing the Pats is to run the ball, maintain a heavy time-of-possession advantage, keep the defense as fresh as possible and the game as close as possible. We will see if the Redskins can pull that off. If not, I suspect we will see a 40-0 type half. I think that would be yet another nail in the coffin of this team's running game philosophy, yes.

I haven't done this in a long time, H. Be gentle.

It's time for another beer.