Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A question about running the ball

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    A question about running the ball

    The Carolina Panthers allow 121 rushing yards per game and 4.0 yards per attempt. The Arizona Cardinals allow 142 rushing yards per game, and 4.8 yards per attempt.

    How then, do you think, Arlen Harris in his first ten rushes gained 30 yards against statistically a tougher defense than Marshall Faulk did in his ten total rushes for 22 yards against a weaker defense in Arizona?
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: A question about running the ball

    Well the obvious answer is that Harris is a young healthy and hungry RB ............

    But I think we have to look deaper ........

    Martz, I dont think he has a refusal to buy into the running game but he definatly does not like it LOL

    Our Oline is just plain sorry ............

    __________________________________________________________
    Keeping the Rams Nation Talking

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: A question about running the ball

      How then, do you think, Arlen Harris in his first ten rushes gained 30 yards against statistically a tougher defense than Marshall Faulk did in his ten total rushes for 22 yards against a weaker defense in Arizona?
      You seem to be implying something but I don't want to guess at it. If you think 10 rushing attempts illustrates anyting other than a total lack of interest in running the ball though, I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: A question about running the ball

        Originally posted by moklerman
        You seem to be implying something but I don't want to guess at it. If you think 10 rushing attempts illustrates anyting other than a total lack of interest in running the ball though, I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
        I'm looking for alternate explanations. This isn't a thread about whether or not the Rams ran the ball enough. It's about looking at two running backs and what they were able to accomplish over ten carries, and see why that is the case. I'd prefer it to not be the answer you feel is being implied, which is why I asked the question - to find alternate answers.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: A question about running the ball

          So, you want answers as to why the Rams didn't get 50 yards on those 10 carries as opposed to 22? To what end? Why they only rushed 10 times against the 30th ranked rush defense seems like a much more pertinent question.

          If you're trying to focus on how poorly the o-line is performing in the running game I refer you back to the repetition argument. Even the Giants, which I'm convinced have a less talented line than the Rams, are able to get the running game going by continuing to use it.

          Just like so many of the Martz criticism's, this goes back to balance. Running backs and o-lineman, just like qb's, have to develop some kind of rhythm and in the case of the line, cohesion as well. The Rams rarely run so how are the lineman expected to have any kind of fluidity or anticipation of their teammates movements?

          Look at Washington this year. Gibbs is in love with the running game and it's taken most of this year, with tons of attempts for the Redskins line to start run-blocking like a unit. Pass blocking is the hardest part of an offensive lineman's job and that's under "normal" NFL circumstances. Most teams at least offer the possibilty of the defense not knowing what's coming. To put injured, old, inexperienced, waiver-wire, practice squad o-lineman in the position of pass blocking 40-50 times a game is just too much responsibility. Add to that, the few times they "get" to run block they still have to run stunts and rely on timing instead of smash-mouth, straight ahead, one on one matchups that all the lineman I've heard interviewed seem to prefer. Should I even mention the empty backfield, 4 and 5 wr sets?

          So, while I agree that our lineman are not the cream of the crop (except Pace), I think they are being put at a huge disadvantage by their coach, moreso than any defense that they face. Martz does this with his qb's and rb's too. I truly believe that the Rams would benefit from some protection from their mad leader. Remember how the Rams and the offense looked when Bulger got his first start in 2002? Remember watching that MNF game and going, YES! This is how we should be doing things. Martz was forced to incorporate a more traditional attack due to Bulger not knowing the entire playbook (often mistaken for the entire phone directory of the western hemisphere) and what happened? Faulk prospered. Bulger prospered. The defense played better. The Rams won.

          The more Bulger's learned, the more the offense has struggled. Just like Warner. It all goes back to Martz.

          Comment

          Previous template Next

          Related Topics

          Collapse
          • HUbison
            Ineffective running game???
            by HUbison
            I'm not sure where the notion is coming from that our running game has been so blatently ineffective that Martz has to pass on 80% of the plays as he did against the 'aints. Our running game is 7th in yards per attempt at 4.7 yards per carry. We are one of only five teams that have no runs for more than 20 yards. (Translation: there aren't a couple of 60,70, or 80 yard anomaly runs skewing that yards per carry average.) Yet we are dead last in runs per game. And we have the lowest run-pass ratio in the NFL. Why must our run-pass ratio be so low?

            Some teams that are traditional passing teams, like Green Bay (who run 45.9% of the time, 3.9 ypc) you can understand. Or teams like Dallas (36.3%, 4.0 ypc) & Cincinnati (41.5%, 3.8 ypc), who are new-found passing teams. For that matter, there are the teams that are forced to pass more because of suspect RBs like Arizona (42.0%, 3.3 ypc), Philly (37.3%, 4.6 ypc), Miami (38.5%, 2.1 ypc), Tampa (35.2%, 3.5 ypc) or Detroit (43.7%, 3.5 ypc).

            And yet, with Faulk & Jackson and their combined 4.7 ypc (which is higher than every team mentioned above), we run less (34.5%) than any of them.

            Again I ask, why are we not running the ball?
            -09-27-2004, 08:56 AM
          • RamWraith
            How do you...
            by RamWraith
            ...go back to Faulk after a performance like that of Jackson's against one of the best run defenses in the league.
            -12-05-2004, 12:43 PM
          • ramsanddodgers
            Okay, Jackson ran for 1,042 yards
            by ramsanddodgers
            and only 16 Running Backs had more than 1,000 while another 4 had 900+.

            The question is, is 1,000 yards still the goal that it used to be?

            I realize that in today's NFL where the passing game is so much more relied upon that it may be harder to get enough carries to get the yards but one need only average 62.5 yards a game to get the 1,000.

            Averaging 75 yards a game will get one 1,200 yards and 93.75 will garner 1,500.

            Is it time to set a loftier goal for "premiere" runners or is 1,000 yards still going to be the 'magic number?
            -01-02-2009, 10:10 PM
          • HUbison
            Was the run D really THAT bad?
            by HUbison
            It's easy to be qualitative in our assessment of last week's run D. We can dispense various phases including palabras like "suck", "awful", "porous", "red-headed stepchild", and "government mule", and be accurate. Overall, that was not a good performance on the whole.

            But let's peel back a layer or two, and look at some numbers. You know, just for funsies.

            Excluding Martin's 3 kneel downs, the run D gave 343 yards on 40 attempts for a whooping 8.6 per attempt. Ouch with a capital O.

            But if we look at Linehan's suggestion that the "big plays" being allowed was the true downfall of the night, we come up with some surprising stats. Each unit gave up at least one big run. Maybe it was a missed assignment, maybe it was a missed tackle, but at any rate each unit has a black eye. The starters have Young's 35 yarder; the backups have the 66 yard run by Johnson; and the camp fodder got hit twice by Ganther (45 & 30). Those 4 runs make literally more than half of the Titans run game.....176 of the 343 yards. If each unit shuts off the mistake valve on their respective play, the numbers change to 36 attempts for 167 yards and 4.6 yards per attempt. Again, not great, but not suicidal either.

            Let's take it one step further. Had the late game D shut down the next level of mistakes, the 5 attempts over 10 yards each, you take out another 67 yards. That moves the run D to 31 attempts for 100 yards and a very nice 3.2 yards per game.

            At which point the question becomes, "Well HUb what makes us think they are capable of correcting those mistakes and actually stopping the run?"

            Fair question. The answer is that almost half of the Titans rushing attempts ended in 3 yards or less! Who knew, right?

            Remember the Titans ran 40 times for 343 yards. However, 19 of those attempts garnered only 26 yards, including......

            3 yard runs - 5
            2 yard runs - 6
            0-1 yard runs - 6
            neg yard runs - 2




            It's not that the run D got run over all night. In fact, the numbers bear out that every other time the Titans tried to run......they actually got stonewalled by this D!

            Is there a lot of work to be done? You bet there is! Those 4 big mistakes HAVE TO STOP! That next level of big plays (the 5 for 67) have to get cut back. The 48% of the runs that stopped at, near, or behind the LOS needs to get extended upwards by nearly double, hopefully.

            They didn't do it a lot last week...............but at least they showed they CAN do it.
            -08-14-2008, 07:08 AM
          • Yodude
            Interesting stats that raise a question...
            by Yodude
            Granted the Eagles didn't show up to play, but there were some interesting stats from last nights game that raise a question in my mind.

            Running plays - 44

            Passing plays - 28

            Time of possession: Rams - 41:44 ; Eagles - 18:16

            Penalties - 7 for 55 yards (well below what we've had in our really bad performances)


            Let me say again that I know the Eagles didn't show up, but to me this still raises a question. And that question is, knowing how much trouble the O-line has had with pass protection this year, and knowing what a liability our defense has been this year, what kind of difference do you guys think this kind of game plan would have had on our record this year. I know there are some games where we got destroyed and nothing would have made a difference, but I think there were some games where it could have meant victory instead of defeat.

            At the least I think we wouldn't be praying for devine intervention to make the playoffs.
            -12-28-2004, 09:53 AM
          Working...
          X