Thoughts about "ESTABLISHING the RUN 1st."

I read an interesting article today on teams that believe that establishing the run early and often in a game is the ebst way to win a game.  Until I read this article, I too believed that this was the best way to win a football game.

The writer sets up his argument with a conversation had with Laveraneus Coles of the NYJ Jets.

He then breaks down the Jets transition from a run-first team of the 90s to a more West- Coast offense that they sport today.

The West Coast offense was really a philosophy, not a system of plays. It's based on throwing the ball early in the game, building a lead, then running the ball to keep the lead.  This was the vision of Bill Walsh in the 80s.  Walsh wanted to take short passes and use the skill and quickness of the wideouts to run with the ball, instead of trying to design running plays that would gain the NFL average of 4.0 yards per attempt.  Allowing ATHLETES to make plays is not a bad philosophy.

Walsh wanted to build a lead, tehn allow his defense to force the mistake:

Here's a couple stats that will JUMP OUT at you and grab your attention if you are still doubting...

• Minnesota had the BEST RUN game in the league last year, but failed to make the playoffs.
• Oakland had the SECOND best RUN GAME-- HORRIBLE!
• Five of the SIX teams teams with the LOWEST runs called in the first half, were playoff teams (Colts, Patriots, Cowboys, Packers, and Seahawks).

The NFL has become a passing league, hence why the Cover Two (which was made to COMBAT the West Coast offense) is so popular now.  Teams taht come out and look for "BALANCE" are statistically set to fail. 

The Bears (and any other team) NEED a QB that can make the short and mid-range passes in order to be competitive.  Long-range passes are SEXY, but don't win ball games.

The West Coast offense was really a philosophy, not a system of plays. It's based on throwing the ball early in the game, building a lead, then running the ball to keep the lead. 

Great post CM. Actually, the '85 Bears followed this formula for the most part. Their goal was to go up 2 scores, then run the clock with the running game while unleashing their vaunted 46 defense. Their average time of posession was ridiculous, something approaching 2-1 in many of their victories. We didn't have the type of receivers for the possesion passing game last year but with the draft of Bennett and Monk, along with the progression of Greg Olsen and the other TEs

Whodathunkit!  I am certainly of the run first mindset though.

Looking at those 5 teams that made the playoffs 4 of the 5 may be a little misleading.  Seattle only made the playoffs by default b/c someone had to win the West.  The other 4 teams boast Pro Bowl QB's that finished 7th, 1st, 3rd & 4th in the league in passing yards respectively. (Hasselbeck suprisingly finished 8th) They also are teams that may not run first but certainly used stud running games to compliment their passing and/or open up the passing.

And the two teams that led the league in rushing? Two of the worst passing offenses in the league (Min 28th & Oak 31st). Jackson finished 24th in passing yards & 28th in passer rtg while Oakland did not even have a qualifying QB with enough attempts.

Statistics can be spun to either side of the arguement.

The Bears certainly are a Run First team & unless we somehow land an All World QB will continue to be that.  Our Defense is our best Offense in creating short fields & turnovers. Throw out last year & look at the previous few years.  Our success came from a bruising running game & lethal D.  I am hopeful for a much improved passing game but it will be success running the ball that will take us where we go.

True... but what is your counter argument to those statistics, friend?

Our success came from a bruising running game & lethal D.

But that style of play can only be said to have been successful ONCE in the last 20 years (Ravens 2000; and even then Dilfer wasn't that bad)!?

And the two teams that led the league in rushing? Two of the worst passing offenses in the league (Min 28th & Oak 31st). Jackson finished 24th in passing yards & 28th in passer rtg while Oakland did not even have a qualifying QB with enough attempts.

Exactly the point of the thread, bro!  haha!  You can't win just running the ball!

Listen... Yes, the Bears WILL be a "run first" offense next year, but that's because there isn't a QB that they are confident in at this point.  The post points out that teams who are successful, INCLUDING the Seahawks who were still able to win their division (do you say that about the Bears in '06?), passed the ball first and foremost and looked to move the ball down the field.

By design, the Bears offense COULDN'T do that because of the inability at QB.  This is why a QB should ALWAYS be the first piece you add to start a franchise.  That 2006 team NEEDED a QB who could move the rock and it didn't have one.

I still think that this will be a down year for the Bears unless a lightbulb pops on for one of our "veteran-rookie" QBs .  It'll be good to watch the rookies develop and see if we get any progress out of the players who should be performing (Dvoracvek, Manning, Bradley, Benson, and of course one of our QBs).

There is a magic number for rush attempts per game that are indicative of a winning team.  I read it somewhere but I do not remember the exact number.  I believe, however, it is in the 30 -35 attempt area.  And, this is regardless of effectiveness.  In other words, you do not have to have the greatest rushing attack statistically but, be willing to run it regardless of effectiveness. 

Naturally, that is dependent upon you passing the ball effectively enough to move the chains and put yourself in position to score.

The benefit is obvious.  Rushing plays and successful pass plays in bounds keep the clock moving thus robbing the opposition of time to implement and execute their offensive game plan.  Theory wise it is simple.   However, those teams Chi listed with the top rushing attack had obvious issues in their passing game.  So, if your offense has no effective balance, the defense reacts by putting 8 or even 9 in the box, shut down your abilty to posess the ball solely using the run, and have every opportunity to exploit your now exposed and fatigued defense.

Sound familiar Bears fans?

Sure does sound familiar Jazzman.  I was just watching the Bears Packers replay on the NFL network and in that game the Bears couldnt get the run established.  However the Packers knew that the Bears would run thus setting up play action. 

So, did we establish the run because the Pack over ran plays and got burned by the pass, or did we not set it up because we didnt average 3.5 a carry.

ChiMarine, stats can say what ever you want.  I could throw out a ton of stats about Rex Grossman to make him look like Peyton Manning.  Then i could throw out stats that would make him look like Rex Grossman.

Another one is that the Vikings had the best rushing D but one of the worst passing Ds.  Was it because everyone just burned them through the air?  Was that why they had the best rushing D?  Or was it that they were just flat out good against the run?

To stick with Minny, they had a great rushing attack and a bad passing attack.  Was the lack of vertical game because they never tried because they had such a good ground game?