It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 2:07 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Billick on running the ball....
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:53 pm 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 5032
Running the ball: Is it that important?
Brian Billick, Fox Sports
Dec 5, 2012

The modern history of football — roughly the first decade of the Super Bowl era — was shaped by the old school running attacks that dominated the game in the ’60s and ’70s. The relentless nature of Vince Lombardi’s Packers — and their simple power sweep elevated to brutal perfection — along with Don Shula’s Dolphins and the early incarnation of the Steelers’ dynasty under Chuck Noll all shared the crucial qualities of a punishing, efficient running game and a suffocating defense. (It didn’t hurt, of course, that this was also the beginning of the cinematic documentation and celebration of those same teams through the seminal work of NFL Films.)

Though we are now 35 years into a new era, marked by the liberalized passing rules put through in the ’70s and refined since then, it’s amazing how people are still swayed by those indelible images of Larry Csonka bulldozing up the middle or Franco Harris slicing through gaping holes in the line. Pundits still talk about how important it is to establish the running game and, in turn, stop the run.

Of course, the diminished need for a powerful running game has been well documented in recent years. Of the past four Super Bowl champions, only New Orleans was a top 10 rushing team the year they won it all. In fact, the others were not simply mediocre — they were more like dreadful: the Giants ranking last in the NFL in rushing yards in 2011, Green Bay ranking 24th in 2010 and even the Pittsburgh Steelers finishing 23rd in the league in rushing in 2008.

Even in the case of the Saints, the running game was a byproduct of the prolific passing attack; with future Hall of Fame quarterback Drew Brees at the helm, the rushing game was just an adjunct to the offense that allowed them to close out games once Brees had passed them into a big lead.

When you look at the top teams in the NFL in rushing so far this year, you see a few that do that one thing well, but little else. Minnesota, Buffalo and Kansas City rank 3rd, 4th and 5th, currently in rushing yardage in the NFL, and none have winning records. Meanwhile, at the top of the standings, several Super Bowl contenders — Green Bay, Denver, Baltimore, Atlanta — rank in the bottom third of the league in rushing yards. When James Starks ran for a touchdown for the Packers Sunday, his teammates (and many Packers fans) reacted like they’d just won a championship. It was understandable: Green Bay hadn’t scored a rushing touchdown in seven games.

But as smart fans know, rushing yardage is an overrated stat, largely shaped by circumstance. Defensive stats against the run are also a little sketchy. Tampa Bay currently leads the NFL in rush defense only because they are so bad at pass defense no one bothers to try and run on them. Denver ranks up there as well, but because Peyton Manning is having another MVP year the Broncos get ahead and everyone has to pass to try to keep up.

Still, there’s hardly a coach alive who doesn’t preach the importance of running the ball and stopping the run, because the ability to do those two things — if not well, then at least credibly — gives you so many more options in the rest of your attack and defense. Take Baltimore: The Ravens aren’t a dominant running team, but the ability to have a back like Ray Rice keeps defenses somewhat honest. Without him, the Ravens become a largely one-dimensional team, relying too much on Joe Flacco to fuel the passing attack.

Among the handful of teams that are in the top 10 in both categories, you will find some legitimate Super Bowl contenders. Behind Arian Foster, Houston is sixth in rushing yards, and also second against the run. San Francisco is second in rushing yards (with an impressive 5.3 per carry), and third against the run, allowing just 90 yards per game and just 3.6 per carry. New England is less impressive, but remains in the top ten in both rushing yardage (8th) and against the run (9th).

These three teams have been among the most consistent in the league this year, and that bodes well for the playoffs. And these teams offer game-plan headaches. It’s not enough to stop one mode of attack, since most of these teams can hurt you in multiple ways.

And a team that has been getting better in those categories as the season goes along — like Washington, where the Redskins are an RG3-assisted first in rushing offense but also fourth in rushing defense — will be a tough out if and when it qualifies for the playoffs.

It could be that we’re in the midst of a throwback year, in which running the ball and stopping the run are given renewed significance. If that’s the case, a team like the 49ers or Texans would fit the classic mold of a tough, punishing, unspectacular team that wears down its opponents at the line of scrimmage, then knocks it out with the big strike. Just like the Packers, Dolphins and Steelers did in the first decade of the Super Bowl era.

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Billick on running the ball....
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:15 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26026
Location: North Carolina
The No. 1 priority for the team this off-season on offense will be improving the ground game.

Billick mentioned the 2009 Saints as a team that ran the ball well. And that should be the sort of model that the Falcons hope to develop in the coming years offensively. You want a team that is a pass-first attack like we're seeing currently in Atlanta, but also when they want to the run the ball, they can do so effectively. That is largely due to the Saints O-line, particularly their investment in plus run blockers on the inside (Nicks, Evans, Grubbs). The Falcons need that at right guard, which is not currently on the roster.

You also need good backs, better backs than the Falcons have.

It'll be a win for the Falcons this upcoming off-season if they make a major upgrade at right guard and also get a new lead back to take over Turner.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Billick on running the ball....
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:23 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:15 pm
Posts: 4303
Ideally, I'd like to see the Falcons use their 1st round pick on a RG. We will be drafting low in the 1st, and that's typically where the good guards go. That said, I don't want us to reach. We could also use that 1st pick on a DT, DE, or TE. I wouldn't want to use a 1st on a RB.

When drafting RB's, it seems that you can get pretty good value for the first 3 rounds, especially if you have a good offensive line. As such, I would either wait till the 2nd or 3rd to draft a RB. Or I would look to free agency. Free agency has been very kind to Atlanta in terms of RBs.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Billick on running the ball....
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:50 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26026
Location: North Carolina
True, generally speaking you don't have to invest highly in a RB. But people also have to realize that if you don't have a great O-line, it is beneficial to invest in a quality RB because that player can make your line so much better.

You also have to determine whether you can get a good player in Round 3 or so based on the draft class. Last year, you had a pretty good crop of RBs with good players like Robert Turbin, Lamar Miller, and Bernard Pierce not likely to be high picks.

Will you have that this year? Who knows at this point, although I haven't been wowed yet by the depth of this RB class.

I agree the ideal value in late Round 1 is getting a good, Pro Bowl-caliber guard that can lock down the RG spot for the next 7 years. But if not, then you should not spurn a very good RB just because of the position he plays. Look, if you could get a player as good as Doug Martin with roughly the same pick, you'd probably take that wouldn't you? Now, I think he'll probably be long gone before the Falcons pick, but if Giovanni Bernard is there when we pick, I'd snatch him up in a heartbeat.

It all comes down to maximizing value, by determining which player(s) have the best chance of blossoming into elite talent on your team. You don't want to draft a guy that just goign to be another Justin Blalock late in Round 1 either.

In the end you want to get Sean Weatherspoon/Julio Jones type of value in Round 1, where within a 1.5 years he's going to be one of the best players on your roster and making impact plays on a weekly basis. If that player or someone very close to it is not available in Round 1, then that's when you trade back.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  


cron