01-12-2019, 07:18 AM
There is a big difference between putting 6 OL and a FB on the field and RRP, and using less predictable formations and personnel groupings to RRP.
I just watched some NFL Films match-up analysis of the Saints and Eagles on ESPN this morning. One of the plays was a run to Saints RB Mark Ingram. The play featured two TEs on the same side on the strong side, one down and one up. It had Alvin Kamara lined up as a slot WR who went in motion with, a fake handoff to him at the snap. This froze the defense and with proper blocking execution, allowed Ingram an outside path to gain the edge.
You can throw out of the same formation and motion, hand off to Kamara, or run the same play again. Or you could run a different play. But I would submit not being predictable, based out of formation and personnel groupings makes RRP more effective.
It seem the choice preference for offensive coordinators is:
1. A run D knows is coming, but they can't stop
2. A run D knows is coming, it may or may not stop, but if they do, will yield large plays for overcommitting (with either run or pass)
3. Keeping D off balance, never knowing what to expect on a play to play basis
Stanford got away with being able to take the first approach for the most part for a long time. But over the years defenses have made doing it difficult. Shaw seemed to go to the second choice in 2017, where Love could make such big plays it was worth getting stuffed a few times to have the opportunity for big gains. Shaw did move a lot more to the third preference in 2018.
To me, the third option is where the most effective offenses operate. You never know what is coming. The offense may pass 10 times in a row, or it may run 10 times in a row. This said, I totally agree with the Walsh philosophy that it's better to pass to set up the run than run to set up the pass, all things being equal. Even if you can mow physically inferior teams down by running, I think in the longer term and to win championships against teams with more physical defenses, it pays off to be balanced in all games and use the pass to setup the run from the start.
I just watched some NFL Films match-up analysis of the Saints and Eagles on ESPN this morning. One of the plays was a run to Saints RB Mark Ingram. The play featured two TEs on the same side on the strong side, one down and one up. It had Alvin Kamara lined up as a slot WR who went in motion with, a fake handoff to him at the snap. This froze the defense and with proper blocking execution, allowed Ingram an outside path to gain the edge.
You can throw out of the same formation and motion, hand off to Kamara, or run the same play again. Or you could run a different play. But I would submit not being predictable, based out of formation and personnel groupings makes RRP more effective.
It seem the choice preference for offensive coordinators is:
1. A run D knows is coming, but they can't stop
2. A run D knows is coming, it may or may not stop, but if they do, will yield large plays for overcommitting (with either run or pass)
3. Keeping D off balance, never knowing what to expect on a play to play basis
Stanford got away with being able to take the first approach for the most part for a long time. But over the years defenses have made doing it difficult. Shaw seemed to go to the second choice in 2017, where Love could make such big plays it was worth getting stuffed a few times to have the opportunity for big gains. Shaw did move a lot more to the third preference in 2018.
To me, the third option is where the most effective offenses operate. You never know what is coming. The offense may pass 10 times in a row, or it may run 10 times in a row. This said, I totally agree with the Walsh philosophy that it's better to pass to set up the run than run to set up the pass, all things being equal. Even if you can mow physically inferior teams down by running, I think in the longer term and to win championships against teams with more physical defenses, it pays off to be balanced in all games and use the pass to setup the run from the start.