Can teams win with a run-first approach?

[-X-]

During Fisher's last three years in Tennessee, the Titans had the 2nd most rush touchdowns, the 4th most rushing yards and the 8th most rushing attempts. During Fisher's last three years, the Titans had a record of 27-21 with 2008 being the last playoff appearance which resulted in a first round loss to Baltimore. They went 13-3 that year, but were 2nd in the league in turnover ratio. Chris Johnson obviously skews some of these rushing totals and numbers all by himself too.

Conversely, last year the Giants were 32nd in rushing, the Packers were 27th and the Patriots were 20th. They combined to go 37-11 in the regular season and the Giants and Patriots played in the Super Bowl. The Packers only lost one game and were bounced from the playoffs by the Giants in the first round while Eli proceeded to drop 330 yards & 3 TD's on them (and the team rushed for 85 yards and 1 TD).

So I ask.

Can a run-first team succeed in the NFL? I'm not interested in what else it takes to win (like a stout defense). I'm simply wondering if that particular offensive philosophy is a sound one in this day and age. And yes, a strong running attack can set up the pass. That's the only solace I take from those statistics.

 

[cfin5256]

I think you can if you have a good defense. Having a quarterback that can take advantage of an 8 man box is helpful. The Ravens, Steelers, and Giants have all won titles with similar approaches.

 

[Anonymous]

During Fisher's last three years in Tennessee, the Titans had the 2nd most rush touchdowns, the 4th most rushing yards and the 8th most rushing attempts. During Fisher's last three years, the Titans had a record of 27-21 with 2008 being the last playoff appearance which resulted in a first round loss to Baltimore. They went 13-3 that year, but were 2nd in the league in turnover ratio. Chris Johnson obviously skews some of these rushing totals and numbers all by himself too.

Conversely, last year the Giants were 32nd in rushing, the Packers were 27th and the Patriots were 20th. They combined to go 37-11 in the regular season and the Giants and Patriots played in the Super Bowl. The Packers only lost one game and were bounced from the playoffs by the Giants in the first round while Eli proceeded to drop 330 yards & 3 TD's on them (and the team rushed for 85 yards and 1 TD).

So I ask.

Can a run-first team succeed in the NFL? I'm not interested in what else it takes to win (like a stout defense). I'm simply wondering if that particular offensive philosophy is a sound one in this day and age. And yes, a strong running attack can set up the pass. That's the only solace I take from those statistics.

Sure it can...provided it has a strong defense.

And therein lies the problem, for 2012 anyway. It's not clear where this defense stands.

But for the future--a running offense with a good qb is a good thing.

For example, imagine Bradford stabilizing at a high level. Like for example in the Ravens game, except against 1s.

Now take that qb and put him on last year's 49ers.

Last year's 49ers with that qb would still be a run first team but when they did pass it would be that much more potent and dangerous.

Now, Fisher has had more pass oriented offenses---mostly when McNair matured. Even then btw they were still low in attempts, relatively speaking. In any event, if Bradford matures to be a consistent top passer, Fisher will evolve the offense with him. But it's not going to start out that way.

The key to how far they go will be the defense, though.

With one exception, in all of Fisher's playoff years he had a top defense.

The exception was 99.

In 2000 they were ranked first.
In 2002 they were ranked 10th.
In 2003 they were ranked 12th.
In 2007 they were ranked 5th.
In 2008 they were ranked 7th.

 

[Angry Ram]

Sound one? Yeah. A running game takes pressure of the QB, makes PA possible, and can help keep turnovers down. BSPN might get collective boners every time Brady/Brees/Rodgers throws for a millions yards, but those teams have no respectable running games. Or at least consistent ones. Like the Giants, they had no running game in the season but when it was playoff time, they got one.

 

[brokeu91]

During Fisher's last three years in Tennessee, the Titans had the 2nd most rush touchdowns, the 4th most rushing yards and the 8th most rushing attempts. During Fisher's last three years, the Titans had a record of 27-21 with 2008 being the last playoff appearance which resulted in a first round loss to Baltimore. They went 13-3 that year, but were 2nd in the league in turnover ratio. Chris Johnson obviously skews some of these rushing totals and numbers all by himself too.

Conversely, last year the Giants were 32nd in rushing, the Packers were 27th and the Patriots were 20th. They combined to go 37-11 in the regular season and the Giants and Patriots played in the Super Bowl. The Packers only lost one game and were bounced from the playoffs by the Giants in the first round while Eli proceeded to drop 330 yards & 3 TD's on them (and the team rushed for 85 yards and 1 TD).

So I ask.

Can a run-first team succeed in the NFL? I'm not interested in what else it takes to win (like a stout defense). I'm simply wondering if that particular offensive philosophy is a sound one in this day and age. And yes, a strong running attack can set up the pass. That's the only solace I take from those statistics.

Sure it can...provided it has a strong defense.

And therein lies the problem, for 2012 anyway. It's not clear where this defense stands.

But for the future--a running offense with a good qb is a good thing.

For example, imagine Bradford stabilizing at a high level. Like for example in the Ravens game, except against 1s.

Now take that qb and put him on last year's 49ers.

Last year's 49ers with that qb would still be a run first team but when they did pass it would be that much more potent and dangerous.

Now, Fisher has had more pass oriented offenses---mostly when McNair matured. Even then btw they were still low in attempts, relatively speaking. In any event, if Bradford matures to be a consistent top passer, Fisher will evolve the offense with him. But it's not going to start out that way.

The key to how far they go will be the defense, though.

With one exception, in all of Fisher's playoff years he had a top defense.

The exception was 99.

In 2000 they were ranked first.
In 2002 they were ranked 10th.
In 2003 they were ranked 12th.
In 2007 they were ranked 5th.
In 2008 they were ranked 7th.

I remember when Fisher was hired, all of these arguments came out. Someone asked Fisher about it and Sam's development and he mentioned that McNair won the MVP. If Bradford lives up to his talent level and we have an improved line/WR core I think you'll see Fisher let it loose a bit more. I don't think Fisher's had a QB like Bradford. When Sam has time and a WR who can get open he is deadly accurate. With all due respect to Steve McNair (who was a great QB), he didn't have Sam's ability to sling the ball. I think Fisher already realizes this, and if not he will soon realize it.

That being said, it does appear that all of the "best" teams tend to be strong passing teams. Other than the Steelers, I can't think of a run-first team that's won recently. The Giants might have had a good passing attack, but they were a more balanced team. Also teams with good defenses tend to have better statistical offenses than their talent would suggest. If the defense forces a lot of 3 and outs, then the offense will have the ball more, giving them more time to get into a rhythm and more opportunities to gather yards and put points on the board.

Fisher wants a team like the Steelers: run first, hard-nosed defensive squad that's tough and willing to do whatever it takes to win. It can work, but like any system you have to have the pieces. It relies on controlling the line of scrimmage and until I see a marked improvement with the O-line I don't think we have the pieces yet.

 

[Faceplant]

During Fisher's last three years in Tennessee, the Titans had the 2nd most rush touchdowns, the 4th most rushing yards and the 8th most rushing attempts. During Fisher's last three years, the Titans had a record of 27-21 with 2008 being the last playoff appearance which resulted in a first round loss to Baltimore. They went 13-3 that year, but were 2nd in the league in turnover ratio. Chris Johnson obviously skews some of these rushing totals and numbers all by himself too.

Conversely, last year the Giants were 32nd in rushing, the Packers were 27th and the Patriots were 20th. They combined to go 37-11 in the regular season and the Giants and Patriots played in the Super Bowl. The Packers only lost one game and were bounced from the playoffs by the Giants in the first round while Eli proceeded to drop 330 yards & 3 TD's on them (and the team rushed for 85 yards and 1 TD).

So I ask.

Can a run-first team succeed in the NFL? I'm not interested in what else it takes to win (like a stout defense). I'm simply wondering if that particular offensive philosophy is a sound one in this day and age. And yes, a strong running attack can set up the pass. That's the only solace I take from those statistics.

Sure it can...provided it has a strong defense.

And therein lies the problem,
for 2012 anyway. It's not clear where this defense stands.

But for the future--a running offense with a good qb is a good thing.

For example, imagine Bradford stabilizing at a high level. Like for example in the Ravens game, except against 1s.

Now take that qb and put him on last year's 49ers.

Last year's 49ers with that qb would still be a run first team but when they did pass it would be that much more potent and dangerous.

Now, Fisher has had more pass oriented offenses---mostly when McNair matured. Even then btw they were still low in attempts, relatively speaking. In any event, if Bradford matures to be a consistent top passer, Fisher will evolve the offense with him. But it's not going to start out that way.

The key to how far they go will be the defense, though.

With one exception, in all of Fisher's playoff years he had a top defense.

The exception was 99.

In 2000 they were ranked first.
In 2002 they were ranked 10th.
In 2003 they were ranked 12th.
In 2007 they were ranked 5th.
In 2008 they were ranked 7th.

I remember when Fisher was hired, all of these arguments came out. Someone asked Fisher about it and Sam's development and he mentioned that McNair won the MVP. If Bradford lives up to his talent level and we have an improved line/WR core I think you'll see Fisher let it loose a bit more. I don't think Fisher's had a QB like Bradford. When Sam has time and a WR who can get open he is deadly accurate. With all due respect to Steve McNair (who was a great QB), he didn't have Sam's ability to sling the ball. I think Fisher already realizes this, and if not he will soon realize it.

That being said, it does appear that all of the "best" teams tend to be strong passing teams. Other than the Steelers, I can't think of a run-first team that's won recently. The Giants might have had a good passing attack, but they were a more balanced team. Also teams with good defenses tend to have better statistical offenses than their talent would suggest. If the defense forces a lot of 3 and outs, then the offense will have the ball more, giving them more time to get into a rhythm and more opportunities to gather yards and put points on the board.

Fisher wants a team like the Steelers: run first, hard-nosed defensive squad that's tough and willing to do whatever it takes to win. It can work, but like any system you have to have the pieces. It relies on controlling the line of scrimmage and until I see a marked improvement with the O-line I don't think we have the pieces yet.

I wouldn't call the current Steelers a run first team. Thet sling it around quite a bit. That said, I think the Rams can win with a run first, ball control offense, but ss others have mentioned, you need a good defense...particularly in the secondary. I think we will have that defense....next year.

 

[Angry Ram]

During Fisher's last three years in Tennessee, the Titans had the 2nd most rush touchdowns, the 4th most rushing yards and the 8th most rushing attempts. During Fisher's last three years, the Titans had a record of 27-21 with 2008 being the last playoff appearance which resulted in a first round loss to Baltimore. They went 13-3 that year, but were 2nd in the league in turnover ratio. Chris Johnson obviously skews some of these rushing totals and numbers all by himself too.

Conversely, last year the Giants were 32nd in rushing, the Packers were 27th and the Patriots were 20th. They combined to go 37-11 in the regular season and the Giants and Patriots played in the Super Bowl. The Packers only lost one game and were bounced from the playoffs by the Giants in the first round while Eli proceeded to drop 330 yards & 3 TD's on them (and the team rushed for 85 yards and 1 TD).

So I ask.

Can a run-first team succeed in the NFL? I'm not interested in what else it takes to win (like a stout defense). I'm simply wondering if that particular offensive philosophy is a sound one in this day and age. And yes, a strong running attack can set up the pass. That's the only solace I take from those statistics.

Sure it can...provided it has a strong defense.

And therein lies the problem,
for 2012 anyway. It's not clear where this defense stands.

But for the future--a running offense with a good qb is a good thing.

For example, imagine Bradford stabilizing at a high level. Like for example in the Ravens game, except against 1s.

Now take that qb and put him on last year's 49ers.

Last year's 49ers with that qb would still be a run first team but when they did pass it would be that much more potent and dangerous.

Now, Fisher has had more pass oriented offenses---mostly when McNair matured. Even then btw they were still low in attempts, relatively speaking. In any event, if Bradford matures to be a consistent top passer, Fisher will evolve the offense with him. But it's not going to start out that way.

The key to how far they go will be the defense, though.

With one exception, in all of Fisher's playoff years he had a top defense.

The exception was 99.

In 2000 they were ranked first.
In 2002 they were ranked 10th.
In 2003 they were ranked 12th.
In 2007 they were ranked 5th.
In 2008 they were ranked 7th.

I remember when Fisher was hired, all of these arguments came out. Someone asked Fisher about it and Sam's development and he mentioned that McNair won the MVP. If Bradford lives up to his talent level and we have an improved line/WR core I think you'll see Fisher let it loose a bit more. I don't think Fisher's had a QB like Bradford. When Sam has time and a WR who can get open he is deadly accurate. With all due respect to Steve McNair (who was a great QB), he didn't have Sam's ability to sling the ball. I think Fisher already realizes this, and if not he will soon realize it.

That being said, it does appear that all of the "best" teams tend to be strong passing teams. Other than the Steelers, I can't think of a run-first team that's won recently. The Giants might have had a good passing attack, but they were a more balanced team. Also teams with good defenses tend to have better statistical offenses than their talent would suggest. If the defense forces a lot of 3 and outs, then the offense will have the ball more, giving them more time to get into a rhythm and more opportunities to gather yards and put points on the board.

Fisher wants a team like the Steelers: run first, hard-nosed defensive squad that's tough and willing to do whatever it takes to win. It can work, but like any system you have to have the pieces. It relies on controlling the line of scrimmage and until I see a marked improvement with the O-line I don't think we have the pieces yet.

I wouldn't call the current Steelers a run first team. Thet sling it around quite a bit. That said, I think the Rams can win with a run first, ball control offense, but ss others have mentioned, you need a good defense...particularly in the secondary. I think we will have that defense....next year.

You're right, they aren't. And it's annoying and often infuriating.

 

[Memento]

The Steelers, Ravens, and Giants (even with Nicks and Cruz, they focused on setting up the pass by runs and play-action) are all examples of winning teams with run-first approaches, but even they were good in the passing game. You can't win if you go one way or another; even the Packers, Patriots, and Saints committed to the run in the postseason, albeit by setting it up with the pass. Fisher knows that balance and a great defense is the key to winning Super Bowls. Always has been, and until proven otherwise, always will be.

 

[Ram Quixote]

During Fisher's last three years in Tennessee, the Titans had the 2nd most rush touchdowns, the 4th most rushing yards and the 8th most rushing attempts. During Fisher's last three years, the Titans had a record of 27-21 with 2008 being the last playoff appearance which resulted in a first round loss to Baltimore. They went 13-3 that year, but were 2nd in the league in turnover ratio. Chris Johnson obviously skews some of these rushing totals and numbers all by himself too.

Conversely, last year the Giants were 32nd in rushing, the Packers were 27th and the Patriots were 20th. They combined to go 37-11 in the regular season and the Giants and Patriots played in the Super Bowl. The Packers only lost one game and were bounced from the playoffs by the Giants in the first round while Eli proceeded to drop 330 yards & 3 TD's on them (and the team rushed for 85 yards and 1 TD).

So I ask.

Can a run-first team succeed in the NFL? I'm not interested in what else it takes to win (like a stout defense). I'm simply wondering if that particular offensive philosophy is a sound one in this day and age. And yes, a strong running attack can set up the pass. That's the only solace I take from those statistics.

You can play run-first and win. But you need 3 things to be successful in addition to the workhorse RB:

--An Oline that allows you to match up with any defensive front.

--A strong QB that helps you play catch up when you do fall behind late. This was Fisher's problem when he was stuck with Collins, and why they lost in the playoffs when they had the best record.

--A dominant defense.

At this point, I can't say we have any of these, though I expect the team to approach 2 out of 3 by season's end. Can't say which ones though.

 

[Username]

You need a balance between passing and running, and you need a balance between offense and defense. Nothing has changed.

You'll find arguments for needing an "explosive" pass happy offense all over. It's just fucking dumb. The Rams need to play to their strengths, whatever they be considering the match up. If we can run the ball against someone, fucking run it.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/co ... sics/7416/

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/co ... out/14266/


There's also this

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/co ... ive/14904/