Power running game to win the Superbowl??
by VBJohnson on Feb 1, 2009 10:58 PM PST
52 comments
One thing about this game was obvious and gives me great concern about the future of the Seahawks.
I don't see any power running games winning the Superbowl since the Dolphins in the 70's. Mora recently said that he wants to make a running team that can run even when the defense has eight in the box, but that just doesn't work in the playoffs. Both of these teams today had offensive success pretty much only passing. Without a great passing game neither one of these teams would have been able to do anything. Great defenses stop great running games, but they don't stop great passing games. The great passing game is King of the NFL.
Unless Mora is just talking run and is really going to create a power passing game, how in the F is he doing to succeed??
A place to bury strangers.
0 recs |
52 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Wow
Without seeing a snap of the “new offense” you REALLY won’t stop cramming this issue down everyone’s throats. What makes you think this is going to turn into a Baltimore Ravens type run only team?
Even the Ravens were searching for “that one QB” all of the 2000’s, hoping Kyle Boller could be the guy. The reason they had a run and don’t pass offense was because THEY HAD NO PASSER. No team in the modern NFL runs a power offense and doesn’t pass unless they CAN’T. The Giants were an AWESOME power running team this year…Eli Manning also threw the ball well enough to win for most of the year.
Having a run game that CAN run against 8 in the box is a good thing. No one said we are going to run the game against 8 in the box no matter what, that the forward pass is now pronounced dead in Seattle. We have a former pro bowl QB that supposedly is going to be healthy and in the best shape of his career(according to him) after rehab workouts that are making him stronger than before. We have one of the better backups around…who can at least keep the play alive long enough to find an open guy…and there is a decent chance we are going to draft the best WR our team will have had in a long time. Without doing that, we still have Deion Branch, John Carleson, and some other decent WRs, and a GM who SAID he doesn’t want to go into next year with the same WR situation as before. Does that sound to you like a GM that doesn’t care about the passing game?
Your rant is baseless…seizing a few key words the HC said and making a big deal out of them. It’s media coverage of what a coach says…what % of what a team does is that worth? Less than nothing IMO.
by cashless on Feb 1, 2009 11:13 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
You must have missed the last sentence in the post
Apparently you don’t think he really means he is going to rely on the running game to be able to run against 8 in the box. If you watch him say it, it sure looks like he means exactly that. But I hope you’re right. What I saw in this Superbowl was basically two worthless running games (that weren’t worthless during the season btw). Both of them had to rely on their passing games to work even when the defense knew they were going to pass.
What I’ve seen from Ruskell so far is a steady decline in the WR corps. Every year since 06 a good WR was lost and no good player was acquired or developed to replace him. The last attempt to get a good WR was Burleson in 06. He talks now like he is going to seriously bolster the WR corps. I hope he does and I hope Mora’s power running game was just talk and what they are reallly going to have is just as strong of a passing game. Without it they won’t win a championship in today’s NFL.
by VBJohnson on Feb 1, 2009 11:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's a little too early to be drawing conclusions about next year's offense based off of a handful of media soundbites.
by BrianL on Feb 1, 2009 11:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not if you saw Mora say what he said about the running game
He looked and acted about as serious and emphatic and excited about it as a guy can look. Did you see the press conference?
by VBJohnson on Feb 1, 2009 11:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No, I use seances to figure out what next year's offensive scheme is going to look like.
by BrianL on Feb 1, 2009 11:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
made*
Good think I wasn’t drinking coffee.
by LantermanC on Feb 2, 2009 8:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And what's not to be excited about?
He has full reins of the team, hired a young and promising coaching staff, and is passionate about improving our running game. Honestly, I think it’s best because it will let Hasselbeck ease back into his role and playaction will work better.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 2, 2009 9:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So anyway,
I take it you both agree that the proposition of relying heavily on the run game and putting a lower priority on the passing game would be the wrong way to try to win a championship?
by VBJohnson on Feb 1, 2009 11:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
How does 50/50 mean we're only relying on the run?
That’s the ratio Knapp has always shot for in his playcalling.
What Mora said in his PC is that we would strive to be more effective running the ball, and that there would be a greater emphasis on it than before – NOT that we were going to become “Ground Chuck 2.0”
The passing game is still going to be a huge part of our offense.
by jteckmann on Feb 1, 2009 11:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd be happy with 50/50.
And I guess you would too. But Holmgren has been pretty much 50/50 too hasn’t he? And Mora is going to decide the ratio, not Knapp.
BTW, I think the main question about run vs pass has as much to do with when you call them as how often you call them. If you run 80% of the time on first and ten, you’re relying on the run. If most of your passing is on second or third and long, you’re relying on the run.
by VBJohnson on Feb 2, 2009 7:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Um...
I believe running better and more efficiently, taking pressure off of the passing game is exactly the right way to win a championship. Right now, we have(or hopefully have) a good QB. Giving him a running game that is good is the best way to help him take us all the way.
The Steelers could just rush the QB because the Cards couldn’t run well, they just pass well. They’ve run better recently, and did alright in the SB…but that’s partially because they were running draws to counter the speed rushers coming at them. If the Cards had a running game that the Steelers had to respect…imagine what a playaction pass from Warner to any one of their three WRs could add to their already amazing pass offense.
I believe that TR gambled and lost, in a system that Holmgren has always run that takes WRs who are not stars and makes a great system. It was Holmgren’s system that underemphasis the WRs(taken from the first WCO designed for a QB with a lack of armstrength) and it backfired when a slew of injuries I’ve never heard of to one position happened. I think Deion Branch, Bobby Engram, and Nate Burleson are good enough to play a WCO with Matt Hasselbeck at the helm, just like TR did this season. Having two of them hurt but coming back led him to not do something about it. Hindsight is 20-20, but I can’t say I’d do much different. If Branch wasn’t PRP’d, it means the docs thought he had at least a chance of coming back early, and probably a pretty decent chance.
Losing Hasselbeck before getting our WRs back kinda doomed the season.
by cashless on Feb 1, 2009 11:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
.
I believe running better and more efficiently, taking pressure off of the passing game is exactly the right way to win a championship
I’m posting this post now exactly because that is exactly what didn’t happen in the Superbowl, or really anywhere in the playoffs. The Cardinals really really squashed the Steelers running game too. Neither one of them got their running games going enough to take the pressure off anything, and the Steelers won the championship
by VBJohnson on Feb 2, 2009 7:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So? The Steelers never had a good running game to begin with.
Despite what you may have heard to the contrary, the Steelers o-line is trash. I’d liken it to the crap that San Francisco fields. And Willie Parker is arguably one of the worst starting RBs in the league. It was their vice-grip defense that got them where they are, not Rofflebooger’s arm. And the Cardinals are an exception because how often do you have a trio of 1000 yard receivers, with arguably one of the best WRs of this decade leading them?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 2, 2009 9:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So your sample size is 1 single superbowl?
And based on that 1 superbowl, you believe that teams with strong running games can’t run in the superbowl because the opposing teams always have great run defense? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it seems like that’s what you’re saying. And that’s just not always true.
Here are the previous 7 superbowl winners. Just about every one of them had a strong running performance, and 3 of them actually ran more times than they passed.
2007, Giants 91 yards rushing 3.5 yards per carry,
Total Rushing/Passing Plays (includes Sacks) 63 and that broke down to 26 runs 37 pass
2006, Colts 191 yards rushing 4.5 yards per carry,
Total Rushing/Passing Plays (includes Sacks) 81 and that broke down to 41 runs 40 pass attempts.
2005 Steelers 181 yards rushing 5.5 yards per carry,
Total Rushing/Passing Plays (includes Sacks) 56 and that broke down to 33 runs 23 pass attempts.
2004 Pats 112 yards rushing 4.0 yards per carry,
Total Rushing/Passing Plays (includes Sacks) 63 and that broke down to 28 runs 35 pass attempts.
2003 Pats 127 yards rushing 3.6 yards per carry,
Total Rushing/Passing Plays (includes Sacks) 83 and that broke down to 35 runs 48 pass
2002 Bucs 150 yards rushing 3.6 yards per carry,
Total Rushing/Passing Plays (includes Sacks) 76 and that broke down to 42 runs 34 pass
2001 Pats 133 yards rushing 5.3 yards per carry,
Total Rushing/Passing Plays (includes Sacks) 54 and that broke down to 25 runs 29 pass
by Mind of no mind on Feb 3, 2009 2:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
When you put it that way
it sure looks like running games dominate the Superbowl. My counter argument is reduced to two things.
First, these stats don’t really tell the story. For example, if you look just at the 05 Steelers, a game with which we are all probably very familiar, I don’t think anyone would characterize that game as being won by the Steelers with a strong running game. They had one long run, were shut down for most of the rest of the game, and then ran out the clock a lot in the fourth quarter with rushing plays to compile all those yards. On the other hand, their passing game was even worse, so that game isn’t really one for my side of the argument.
Some of the other games also were skewed, as could be seen by what went on in the game. The 03 Pats had 127 yds rushing but obviously won with the 354yds passing, for example.
My second argument, is that this is more of a trend in the last two years playoffs and Superbowls Last year the Giants won with 91yds rushing and 247 passing. And of course the Steelers just won with 58 and 234.
Here are the run/pass totals for the entire playoff winners this year:
Phi: 67/283 Balt: 151/135 AZ: 86/271 SD: 167/190
Pitt: 165/177 Phil 59/217 Balt: 50/161 AZ: 145/215
Pitt: 52/223 AZ: 102/267
Pitt: 58/234
Here’s 07:
SD 68/282 NY 100/177 JAC: 135/104 SEA 77/227
NY 90/140 SD 99/312 NE 145/258 GB 235/173
NY 134/246 NE 149/198
NY 91/247
The Superbowls both required strong passing efforts to win. Out of the 22 victories, there were 11 out of 22 with rushing totals under 100yds. There were 13 out of 22 with passing totals over 200yds. Out of the 9 victories with passing totals under 200yds only two were by teams not at the top of the league in defense (GB and NE).
So pretty much the only way you could win in the playoffs in the last two years without a strong passing game was to be in the top one or two in defense.
by VBJohnson on Feb 3, 2009 11:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I've been reading the transcript from Knapps media session yesterday..
And I think it might help alleviate some of your concerns. This is a direct quote from Knapp.
We will be a balanced offensive attack. At some places, it’s probably been heavier one way or another. I do feel strong enough to say, based on what I’ve seen on tape, we’re going to be strong in both areas: the passing game and the run game. I think that’s the toughest way for a defense to defend it. If we can stay balanced—which may mean one week, we’re hopefully throwing for 300 [yards], but the next week, we’re running for 150 plus [yards] because that’s what the defense is giving us—that causes more problems for the next coordinator or two down the line that say, ‘Okay, we got to do this, but now we got to handle that look as well.’"
When he talks about how at some places it might have been “heavier one way or another”, I think he’s talking about in Atlanta where the play calling reached as high as 54% run vs 46% pass.
Here is another quote from yesterday…
You got to adjust. You got to be able to handle…the playbook, but make sure that the personnel fits what stuff you like. Take from that and apply it.’ That really was challenged to me when I left San Francisco, where I had Jeff Garcia, Terrell Owens, JJ Stokes, Garrison Hearst, Brent Jones at the beginning of it—I had a lot of good talent outside—to a personnel group in Atlanta, where maybe we weren’t quite as pass-happy or strong in the passing game, but we were pretty strong in the run game.
And this is supported by the fact that in his 1 year of calling plays in SF, he was passing 51% of the time, and running 49%. I would say that Seattle’s personel is closer to that SF group than it is to his Atlanta group.
Also, I looked up the Mora quote your refering to, and I think if you read the whole quote, that might also explain a little better what he was talking about when he says he wants to run even when they have 8 men in the box.
But In order to win on the road, you have to do some critical things. We have to be able to run the football on the road. When you run the football on the road, you take the crowd out of the game. It’s a deflating feeling, and they sit up there, they’re sitting on their hands and there isn’t anything to cheer about. ‘Oh, there’s another first down on the run. There’s another first down on the run.’ It’s a deflating feeling for your opponent. You’ve got to be able to run the football to win on the road. It sucks the life out of your opponents when you do that. You have to be able to run the football when they’re loading up the box and they’re putting eight men up there and nine men up there in a four-minute situation, where they know you’re committed to running the football. You got to be able to run the football. Along with trying to figure out the best schedule for our players to get them performing at their peak performance on the road, we’re going to be a team that can go into a stadium and silence the crowd and make it quiet.
So he’s not talking about running the football all the time no matter what. I think he’s totally correct in stressing the importance of being able to run on the road. But the situation where he’s saying that you need to be able to run with 8 men in the box, is in the 4 minute situation. I’m not 100% certain by what he means by a 4 minute situation, but my guess would be that it’s talking about the end of the game when you’re trying to protect a lead with 4 minutes or less left, and you need to be able to run the ball and get some first downs to eat up the clock. I know the Hawks under Holmgren seemed to struggle with that, and we’d sometimes see Holmgren go with a few incomplete passes or no gain runs and we’d go 3 and out without eating up any of the clock.
So I agree with you that you have to be able to throw the ball in the playoffs, but I also think that the new coaches will run a balanced offense that will be able to throw when it’s needed.
by Mind of no mind on Feb 4, 2009 2:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I like Knapp's first paragraph above
They want to be able to throw for 300 when the defense warrants and run for 150 when they give you that.
And now that I see what you quoted here again from Mora, it does seem like the end of the game thing.
Okay, I’m less worried. :-)
by VBJohnson on Feb 4, 2009 9:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, this was a good discussion,
I had my worries too, but that Knapp interview was great for giving us a clearer picture of what the offensive philosophy will be like this year. :)
by Mind of no mind on Feb 4, 2009 11:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you have something with your run theory.
Though I’ll say this. In the regular season, it’s easier to have success through a great run game. And it’s also easier. There are arguable 25 great rbs or more, but perhaps only 15 QBs. You’re never going to take a RB to lead you through the playoffs though, because another consistent mark of a great team is a good run defense (usually), and so usually teams don’t seem to bother running the ball as much. I still maintain the Giants and Titans losing so early was kind of fluky, but even so, I’m not so sure they’d both make it to the Superbowl if they had won their first game.
by LantermanC on Feb 2, 2009 8:14 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Look, VBJohnson...
You’re blowing this out of proportion. This game skewed towards passing offense, but the Steelers got to the Superbowl as the 15th ranked Running Offense by DVOA and the 20th ranked passing team. With a healthy Willie Parker, they would have been even more run-biased. However, the Steeler offense didn’t get them to the Superbowl, their defense did. Last year, the Giants won the Superbowl as a run-first offense with a strong defense, and many people would argue that they were the best team in the league again this year. Sample size matters. The league will not pattern their whole offensive scheme after seeing how the Superbowl plays out.
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Feb 2, 2009 8:49 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I don't disagree
about what got them to the Superbowl during the season, I disagree about what works in the playoffs and Superbowl. Yes, the Steelers D played a big role, but without being able to pass the ball down the field at the end of the game, when the D knew they were going to pass, they would have lost, great D or not.
by VBJohnson on Feb 2, 2009 8:58 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
This is true at the end of any game. Two minute drills are conducted almost exclusively via the pass.
Teams would be idiotic to plan their whole offensive scheme / approach to roster building based on the hope that they are in the same situation (last two minutes of a Superbowl against one particular team). One score games will always come down to the ability to put together a scoring drive. Saying you are going to be a running team doesn’t mean you will find a QB with a torn labrum in his throwing shoulder just so you can force the run game. A team can be run first, but still have a capable quarterback. The Giants are a running team. The Titans are a running team. The STEELERS are a running team (kiss the rings, bitch). The point isn’t to assemble a team specifically to “pass the ball down the field at the end of the game” but rather to put a team on the field that has the greatest chance of success overall.
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Feb 2, 2009 9:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm going to make this as clear as I can. One game. Uno. 1. 0<2.
One game doesn’t mean anything. The point is that you can’t take one game’s worth of data to evaluate anything meaningful. Please read through what other people write before just belligerently replying with your original (flawed) argument.
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Feb 2, 2009 1:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course you would do that, SBN. 0 < x < 2
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Feb 2, 2009 1:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There's been no belligerence
and there has been no repitition of my original argument without new arguments or information to go along with it.
by VBJohnson on Feb 2, 2009 2:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
To be fair,
he didn’t reply either. He just started it off with ‘I don’t disagree’ as the subject heading in response to nothing.
by LantermanC on Feb 2, 2009 4:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That is because...
This is a quarterback league. Football and success in football comes from having a smart, reliable, good QB, and as much other talent as you can get, in the best schemes you can find. That’s as simple as you can make it.
The team that was the most pass oriented, with the best QB and best WRs in that one game, lost. What does that tell you? Absolutely nothing.
by cashless on Feb 2, 2009 11:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Did you know that the Steelers
had 58 yds rushing and 234 yds passing in the game? That tells you that the team with the second best QB and WRs had to have a successful passing attack to win the Superbowl because their running game was stopped cold.
by VBJohnson on Feb 2, 2009 12:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Steelers won.
So you’re telling me that they have the better passing game?
by djafrot on Feb 2, 2009 1:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, they have a horrible run game.
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Feb 2, 2009 1:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes I did know.
Did you know, the team with the worse running game and lesser defense lost the SB? That tells you the team with the better defense and better running game has what it takes to win a SB.
By your focused logic, since Arizona had 33 yards rushing and 374 yards passing, they obviously would be the winners of a SB. That’s even more passing and less rushing than the Steelers!
by cashless on Feb 2, 2009 1:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're the one using (mis) focused logic
I never said that all any NFL team needs to win the Superbowl is the best passing game in the NFL. I said teams aren’t winning playoff games with good running games but with good passing games.
by VBJohnson on Feb 2, 2009 2:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I have never gotten the impression
that Mora’s offense will be anything other than balanced. The shift may come from the manor is which that balance is achieved, but in no way does that mean he’s necessarily abandoning the passing game. Then again, I missed the seance.
by Dukeshire on Feb 2, 2009 10:10 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'm somewhat missing the point here
So apparently you need to be able to pass, run, and play defense to win in the NFL.
Ummm… okay?
Seriously, what is the argument? That we need to ditch the WCO and adopt a spread? That we need to hit some arbitrary pass/run percentage in our play calling? Is it anything other than “don’t run the ball too much”?
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Feb 2, 2009 12:58 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
That's the sound of you hitting the nail on the head.
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Feb 2, 2009 1:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
cha-ching!
but don’t forget special teams. ;)
by Misfit74 on Feb 2, 2009 2:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The argument is that the Seahawks passing game is not good enough as it stands
and so more attention and resources devoted to the running game, if that’s what they’ve got planned, is not going to work in the playoffs. Why? Because good defenses beat good running games, but good passing games beat good defenses, as the Superbowl and rest of the playoffs this year showed.
by VBJohnson on Feb 2, 2009 2:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Have you ever played tennis against a wall?
Walls are fucking RELENTLESS.
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Feb 2, 2009 3:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No, but I once had a staring contest with a National Geographic portrait of Sharbat Gula.
by BrianL on Feb 2, 2009 3:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Apropos of nothing
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Feb 2, 2009 4:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 2, 2009 8:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Resources
shouldn’t we look at the resources of the teams then.
I get the impression that you are arguing the Seahawks should be expending more resources on wide receiver (specifically on one, actually great WR). But shouldn’t a look at the Steelers WR core (since we’re using data from this one Super Bowl only) show us that this isn’t necessary? Ward and Holmes are good but they’re not great. Is the Steelers passing resources better than the Hawks resources? (QB, WR and TE).
I would say most definitely not.
by Snuffleupagus on Feb 3, 2009 11:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, as some have said
we can’t just look at one thing. If you have the number one defense in the NFL, you can get away with offensive weaknesses. Maybe the Seahawks can do that. That surely is one way to win the Superbowl.
But I have been noticing a trend lately in the NFL playoffs, particularly the last two years, where strong running games and mediocre defenses (like Atlanta) just don’t cut it in the playoffs. Teams gear up to stop the run and somehow manage to, and then the offense either has to rely on their defense or come up with a passing game to score points.
by VBJohnson on Feb 3, 2009 10:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
