Abandoning The Run

*r8rh8rmike* · #1 (**permalink**) -14-11-2005

What happened to the balanced attack that was so effective against N.O. and Jax? In the first half when the score remained close, it was the same old pass happy offense in the 4 drive opportunities with 22 passing plays and 8 running.

I'm sure getting the big three back was a factor, but to put all the pressure on those guys was a mistake IMO, especially when it was evident that Holt and Bruce were not up to speed.

Jackson was not given the opportunity to get going like he was against N.O. and Jax, despite slow starts in both those games. For whatever reason, someone panicked and abandoned the run or refused to deviate from the game plan despite Jackson managing a 4.1 average.

*Haterade* · #2 (**permalink**) -14-11-2005

I was surprised that after half-time, the Rams didn't run the ball more. It's not like you can't put up quick scores, but it seems like your offensive play-calling is too impatient to truly exploit teams with a punishing dose of Steven Jackson.

**AvengerRam** · #3 (**permalink**) -14-11-2005

What bugged me in the first half is that it seemed that the Rams were running Jackson almost exclusively on first and 10. While I don't have a problem with that, per se, I think they needed to mix it up a bit more. Throw a quick pass on first down to get a few yards and then run Jackson from a spread formation, for example.

**Nick** · #4 (**permalink**) -14-11-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by AvengerRam

What bugged me in the first half is that it seemed that the Rams were running Jackson almost exclusively on first and 10. While I don't have a problem with that, per se, I think they needed to mix it up a bit more. Throw a quick pass on first down to get a few yards and then run Jackson from a spread formation, for example.

Exactly. Seven of Jackson's nine first-half runs came on first down, and that includes the run he had to end the half. Of his eight second-half runs, half of them were on first down. So all in all, Steven Jackson had 11 of his 17 carries on first downs in the game.

*psycho9985* · #5 (**permalink**) -14-11-2005

It seemed to me that Jackson preferred to take on 3 defensive players instead of running into the backs of his offensive linemen who could not open up holes for him.This frustrated me to no end.

*r8rh8rmike* · #6 (**permalink**) -14-11-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickSeiler

Exactly. Seven of Jackson's nine first-half runs came on first down, and that includes the run he had to end the half. Of his eight second-half runs, half of them were on first down. So all in all, Steven Jackson had 11 of his 17 carries on first downs in the game.

The same thing was happening in the game against Jax, and it is a very disturbing trend, but I still feel the key to any rushing success is to give it a chance, as painful as that process may look early. Jackson's first down runs against Jax were -2, 1, 0, 4, 36, 6 and 51. My point is, like Alexander, if you give Jackson enough chances, sooner or later he's going to break out big.

**Nick** · #7 (**permalink**) -14-11-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by r8rh8rmike

My point is, like Alexander, if you give Jackson enough chances, sooner or later he's going to break out big.

It's a fair point, because against Seattle, Jackson's first-down carries were:

3, -1, 18, 0, 4, -1, 4, 14, 4, -1, -1

So yeah, if you pound him enough, he's going to give you results. But only 6 of the 11 first down runs were for positive gains. Only two were for gains of five yards or more.

My biggest question is why do we apparently feel it necessary to pound Jackson on first down a majority of the times? I agree we should be able to keep pounding him, but I agree with Av that we should do it in a less predictable situation.

*r8rh8rmike* · #8 (**permalink**) -14-11-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickSeiler

It's a fair point, because against Seattle, Jackson's first-down carries were:

3, -1, 18, 0, 4, -1, 4, 14, 4, -1, -1

So yeah, if you pound him enough, he's going to give you results. But only 6 of the 11 first down runs were for positive gains. Only two were for gains of five yards or more.

My biggest question is why do we apparently feel it necessary to pound Jackson on first down a majority of the times? I agree we should be able to keep pounding him, but I agree with Av that we should do it in a less predictable situation.

I couldn't agree more.

*maltz88* · #9 (**permalink**) -14-11-2005

I don't know what the deal was yesterday. But Seattle apparently was doing something that was allowing them to meet Jackson in the backfield.

They've been OK against the run this year, but that was the first game that they've gotten that much penetration and were consistently dropping Jackson for a loss.

I could see why Vitt would abandon the run, it's tough to stick with something when you've not getting positive yardage and you are behind.

*talkstoangels61* · #10 (**permalink**) -15-11-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by psycho9985

It seemed to me that Jackson preferred to take on 3 defensive players instead of running into the backs of his offensive linemen who could not open up holes for him.This frustrated me to no end.

the O line is at fault here1 We need better line play to be successful! And no ones seeing this ! This baffles me to all ends!

**Nick** · #11 (**permalink**) -15-11-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by talkstoangels61

We need better line play to be successful! And no ones seeing this !

No one as in posters here? Because I know a number of people who have been critical of our O-line's run blocking.

*talkstoangels61* · #12 (**permalink**) -15-11-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickSeiler

No one as in posters here? Because I know a number of people who have been critical of our O-line's run blocking.

Nic i want talking about us in general i was talking about our coaches and the front office!

**Nick** · #13 (**permalink**) -15-11-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by talkstoangels61

Nic i want talking about us in general i was talking about our coaches and the front office!

Ah, gotcha. :up:

*r8rh8rmike* · #14 (**permalink**) -15-11-2005

The play of the O Line is relative. When Jackson has had the opportunity to get going, gain momentum and get stronger by wearing out the opposing defense, he's been effective. The game against Jax is a perfect example. Against their defense, our O Line was able to help Jackson rip it up for 179 yards.

The Rams need to have the discipline to give the run a chance. Even in a weak effort against Seattle, Jackson was able to average 4.0 yards per carry in the first half and up that to 4.3 in the second half despite only getting 8 carries, with two going for 14 and 15 yards.

This team can be effective running if they want to.

**HUbison** · #15 (**permalink**) -15-11-2005

Quote:

But Seattle apparently was doing something that was allowing them to meet Jackson in the backfield.

They were lining up across from the Doughnut Bros. As I've said, God love'em, but Timmerman and McCollum have to go. If you get a chance, re-watch the game, and see how these two get man handled pretty much all day.