Ax
Guest
I think these might be a bit misleading, though I'm not sure.
How many were runs by Robert, or the coach's pet squirrel, verses runs by the RUNNING BACK?
I think that's what most of us mean by saying we abandon the run to often.
 }})
The unpleasant truth
- Thread starter Rymanofthenorth
- Start date
How many were runs by Robert, or the coach's pet squirrel, verses runs by the RUNNING BACK?
I think that's what most of us mean by saying we abandon the run to often.
tshile
Guest
Read the link yourself. They were mostly by banks and morris.
Majority of the plays were designed runs, even the ones where Griffin ran. When we were down by two scores in the 3rd quarter.
Thats not abandoning the run. At all. In any way. It's just a fictitious statement made up because you're frustrated that we lost the game.
I specifically mentioned when the runs were scrambles, ie: designed pass plays that broke down (the last 2 drives)
Majority of the plays were designed runs, even the ones where Griffin ran. When we were down by two scores in the 3rd quarter.
Thats not abandoning the run. At all. In any way. It's just a fictitious statement made up because you're frustrated that we lost the game.
I specifically mentioned when the runs were scrambles, ie: designed pass plays that broke down (the last 2 drives)
Exactly, T. Also we didn't give the ball to Banks that much. He was the third option on the triple option and if he was getting the ball it was Griff that was making that call. At the end of the day Banks only rushed it three times. I suppose we could call for the team to stop running the triple-option altogether, but that was our bread-and butter play that got us back into the game in the second half.
Ax
Guest
Well excuse me. I thought since you put everything else in there, you might of done that too.
Sorry to bother you.
tshile
Guest
It's not bothering me Ax.
My main complaint was that people are just making stuff up and not looking at the numbers or the actual facts of the game.
Your response was to not even click the linked I provided and continue with exactly what I was talking about
I apologize, it probably came off quite rude. I didn't intend for it to be that way at all
My main complaint was that people are just making stuff up and not looking at the numbers or the actual facts of the game.
Your response was to not even click the linked I provided and continue with exactly what I was talking about
I apologize, it probably came off quite rude. I didn't intend for it to be that way at all
Ax
Guest
It's all good. I didn't really think we blatantly abandoned the run. Was just trying to guess how others saw it that way. For myself, though, I'd rather see a straight up run with the back, instead of off the option, which seemed to get Robert crushed more often than not. Whether he ran it, or pitched it.
tshile
Guest
Here's a break down of the runs in the 2nd half by number of touches per person:
morris: 11
royster: 1
banks: 3
griffin designed run: 5 (1 was a 2 yard touch down, no huddle, griffin called the play, 2nd to last drive of the game)
griffin scrambles - ie: broken down pass play: 3
What these numbers don't show is how many times we ran a zone-read option and griffin decided to keep the ball instead of dumping it to banks/helu/royster/morris coming out of the backfield.
those scrambles were mostly on the last drive.
1 of those 'designed runs' was a QB sneak griffin called on the 2nd to last drive to get the TD in a no huddle situation. So while it was a designed run, and it was a run by Griffin, it was a QB sneak in no huddle. Not entirely sure it counts...
edit:
so 15 runs by running backs and a guy they're trying desperately to get involved more than just returning kicks (as they should...)
5 by griffin.
morris: 11
royster: 1
banks: 3
griffin designed run: 5 (1 was a 2 yard touch down, no huddle, griffin called the play, 2nd to last drive of the game)
griffin scrambles - ie: broken down pass play: 3
What these numbers don't show is how many times we ran a zone-read option and griffin decided to keep the ball instead of dumping it to banks/helu/royster/morris coming out of the backfield.
those scrambles were mostly on the last drive.
1 of those 'designed runs' was a QB sneak griffin called on the 2nd to last drive to get the TD in a no huddle situation. So while it was a designed run, and it was a run by Griffin, it was a QB sneak in no huddle. Not entirely sure it counts...
edit:
so 15 runs by running backs and a guy they're trying desperately to get involved more than just returning kicks (as they should...)
5 by griffin.
Goaldeje
The Legend
Sorry T, I disagree. That third drive of the third Q? The one after we scored twice in a row by running the ball a lot? That third drive never saw a running back touch the ball. Not once. Banks right end for no gain, then Griff gets sacked. No attempt to run at all, after, as you pointed out we ran 14 times total on the previous two drives, and scored.
So we punt there, hold them to a three and out, and then run the ball twice, get a 4th and 1, and... punt. Then the next series (when we get the ball back) we run the ball twice to get a first down and set up a 2nd and 6, and then pass twice and we punt.
I realize that stats and plays can be skewed both ways in any discussion. I also realize that, as Henry said, I am down today because we played like crap. My concern, as stated in another thread, is that I firmly believe Kyle likes to believe he is the smartest guy in the room and has some young-guy complex. When he overcomes those problems, he can be a brilliant playcaller. My problem is that he gets too cute, imo.
So we punt there, hold them to a three and out, and then run the ball twice, get a 4th and 1, and... punt. Then the next series (when we get the ball back) we run the ball twice to get a first down and set up a 2nd and 6, and then pass twice and we punt.
I realize that stats and plays can be skewed both ways in any discussion. I also realize that, as Henry said, I am down today because we played like crap. My concern, as stated in another thread, is that I firmly believe Kyle likes to believe he is the smartest guy in the room and has some young-guy complex. When he overcomes those problems, he can be a brilliant playcaller. My problem is that he gets too cute, imo.
tshile
Guest
The 3rd drive was a 3 and out, and the second play was an 8 yard loss on a sack:
Washington Redskins at 02:53
1-10-CIN 47
(2:53) (Shotgun) 16-B.Banks right end pushed ob at CIN 47 for no gain (55-V.Burfict).
2-10-CIN 47
(2:28) 10-R.Griffin sacked at WAS 45 for -8 yards (93-M.Johnson).
3-18-WAS 45
(1:56) (Shotgun) 10-R.Griffin pass incomplete deep left to 85-L.Hankerson [96-C.Dunlap].
4-18-WAS 45
(1:49) 6-S.Rocca punts 41 yards to CIN 14, Center-54-J.Snow, fair catch by 19-B.Tate.
Did you want us to run on 2nd and 10, or on 3rd and 18?
The stuff with banks was working up until that point, and was clearly an adjustment made by the coaching staff to try to get some offense going after an abysmal first half.
It didn't work on that play. But it worked otherwise... To criticize that call, when it worked in every other situation, is a bit ridiculous in my opinion.
tshile
Guest
Oh and I don't know what to think about the 4th and 1 punt
When we were going for it I was hesitant... when they then put the punt unit on the field after the cinci time out i was still hesitant.
So I can't really comment one way or the other. Obviously downing them inside the 5 is better than not converting the 4th down. But what we got was a touchback and net field position change of 24 yards. I think if Mike knew that was going to happen he would have gone for it. I think he counted on our special teams unit being able to down it inside the 5.
When we were going for it I was hesitant... when they then put the punt unit on the field after the cinci time out i was still hesitant.
So I can't really comment one way or the other. Obviously downing them inside the 5 is better than not converting the 4th down. But what we got was a touchback and net field position change of 24 yards. I think if Mike knew that was going to happen he would have gone for it. I think he counted on our special teams unit being able to down it inside the 5.
Goaldeje
The Legend
That's where I disagree. I think using Banks a couple of times a game has the ability to catch teams off guard. But most defensive coordinators (Haz aside, who pretty much just stands on the sidelines in shock as near as I can tell) will make adjustments to gimmick plays pretty quickly. Hell, we saw that against NO; even their putrid D managed to figure out the Griff runs eventually. To keep going back to Banks when he is at best a gimmick player at this point is ridiculous.
And to answer your question, a run on 2nd and ten would have been great. Perhaps a draw play to slow the D down? Maybe even a short screen pass to give them something to think about.
And to answer your question, a run on 2nd and ten would have been great. Perhaps a draw play to slow the D down? Maybe even a short screen pass to give them something to think about.
Lanky Livingston
Guest
T, I don't care what you say or what stats you post, but if the primary RB carries the ball 17 times, its not enough (EDIT: ESPECIALLY when he's averaging over 4.5 yards per carry!).
We ran the ball 34 times, 12 of which were from Griffin. Morris got half the total "carries" in the game. Banks got 3 carries. Griffin cannot run the ball 12 times a game - its just not sustainable.
You can tell me 100 times that we didn't abandon the run, and I'll answer "17 carries for the primary RB are not enough" 100 more. Just a difference in philosophy, I imagine.
We ran the ball 34 times, 12 of which were from Griffin. Morris got half the total "carries" in the game. Banks got 3 carries. Griffin cannot run the ball 12 times a game - its just not sustainable.
You can tell me 100 times that we didn't abandon the run, and I'll answer "17 carries for the primary RB are not enough" 100 more. Just a difference in philosophy, I imagine.
tshile
Guest
They called the banks run one more time on the drive after the one you have a problem with, and he got 8 yards.
I don't think it's a gimmick play. I think it's a tripple option with a very speedy guy set up to turn the corner. I think it worked on all but one play where it went for no gain.
banks officially has 3 carries for 29 yards. 3 carries.
i just don't agree that we over used him. i'll take 3 carriers for 29 yards from a guy who otherwise returns kicks and puts for living every single week
I don't think it's a gimmick play. I think it's a tripple option with a very speedy guy set up to turn the corner. I think it worked on all but one play where it went for no gain.
banks officially has 3 carries for 29 yards. 3 carries.
i just don't agree that we over used him. i'll take 3 carriers for 29 yards from a guy who otherwise returns kicks and puts for living every single week
Lanky Livingston
Guest
OMFG, you have the answer in front of you. Instead of grinding out runs with Morris, they did some stupid run play to Banks, got no yardage, then lost 8 more on a sack. The answer to your question: RUN IT ON FIRST DOWN.
tshile
Guest
15 of those 17 carries came in the 2nd half.
thats not abandoning the run. thats turning to the run.
thats all i'm arguing. they didn't 'abandon' the run. they turned to it because they couldn't get anything through the air. you have your time table backwards.
tshile
Guest
thats armchair coaching with the benefit of hindsight.
congrats, after a play doesn't work you're capable of declaring it a mistake.
3 carries, 29 yards. for a guy championing the run you're spiting in the face of a pretty solid running play
Lanky, you know what the option is. I know you know this.
In that triple-option, Morris is the primary guy. If he's getting keyed on, Griff runs it. If Griff is covered, banks gets the pitch.
We called that play a ton. The play where Morris is the primary option. We called it like 20 times in the second half. Unless you want to abandon the option altogether ... the play that single-handedly got us back into this game ... Banks and Griffin are going to get the ball a few times too. That's the nature of our offense, which is built to accentuate the strengths of our QB.
Like I said earlier in the thread, if we don't want to run this type of offense we should have drafted a different QB. This is what gets us points and keeps us in games.
Sorry.
Lanky Livingston
Guest
Talk about fabricating stats. Morris carried the ball 11 times in the second half, 8 of which came on the first two drives of the second half. That means, he ran the ball 3 times for the remainder of the 2nd half. Or, as some might put it, abandoning the run.
Lanky Livingston
Guest
thats armchair coaching with the benefit of hindsight.
congrats, after a play doesn't work you're capable of declaring it a mistake.
3 carries, 29 yards. for a guy championing the run you're spiting in the face of a pretty solid running play
You know full-well what I mean. Grind it out, between the tackles running by a primary back.
Yes, I understand what the option is. I also understand that we can run straight up running plays from that formation. I also understand that Banks is not an ideal running option. Part of this is game-planning.
So because Griffin is an option QB, he can't hand the ball off normally? Come on.
tshile
Guest
Ok, i got the total 15 runs mixed up with morris's total runs. My mistake.
He ran the ball 11 times, and royster ran it once.
Thats 12 total runs by actual running backs.
Thats not a fabricated stat, it's a mistake.
I think you need to look at the drive log. You're twisting the truth. We had 3 drives that started in the 4th quarter. Two of them came down 2 scores with less than 8 minutes to go and no timeouts.
we didn't have the luxury of running the ball at that point and you know it.
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)
You haven't joined any rooms.