Post by Funkytown on Aug 9, 2017 18:04:23 GMT -6
Wasn't quite sure where to put this, but I thought it was interesting so I wanted to share. Anyway, I remembered this lovely thread, so I thought I'd bump it! Boom!
YOUR RUN GAME IS A MATH PROBLEM, NOT A SKILL PROBLEM
...
Link: coveragecheck.wordpress.com/2017/08/07/your-run-game-is-a-math-problem-not-a-skill-problem/
YOUR RUN GAME IS A MATH PROBLEM, NOT A SKILL PROBLEM
I can just about guarantee, no matter the age, that you grew up in an era of football where teams set up one part of their run game… with another part of their run game. You run dive to run trap, you run inside zone to run power and counter, etc. This is how your youth and high school coaches called plays, and how commentators credited game planning.
This is not to discredit the entire sport’s ethos about what makes for a successful rushing attack. You do run zone so that you can run power, or inside zone to run outside zone. Teams throw short to throw deep, and there’s an entire list of teams doing X to set up the success of Y down the road.
What I am saying, though, is that the premise that the sleight of hand style of calling plays has less to do with which runs work, and which ones don’t.
If you’re a fan of running backs, you’re familiar with the degree of difficulty that came with Adrian Peterson’s production. If you like to scout, you know this story mirrors the worries about Leonard Fournette. If you enjoy college ball, you watch in awe at how teams that run Briles-ball to Bielema-ball find running lanes snap after snap.
The single most important factor, before the consideration of talent or any other on field circumstance, is the math of the box – the space from one TE/OT to the other. If you’re a coach, or studied fan, you’re aware of numbered personnel – the two digit system that corresponds to running backs and tight ends in the box.
This is not to discredit the entire sport’s ethos about what makes for a successful rushing attack. You do run zone so that you can run power, or inside zone to run outside zone. Teams throw short to throw deep, and there’s an entire list of teams doing X to set up the success of Y down the road.
What I am saying, though, is that the premise that the sleight of hand style of calling plays has less to do with which runs work, and which ones don’t.
If you’re a fan of running backs, you’re familiar with the degree of difficulty that came with Adrian Peterson’s production. If you like to scout, you know this story mirrors the worries about Leonard Fournette. If you enjoy college ball, you watch in awe at how teams that run Briles-ball to Bielema-ball find running lanes snap after snap.
The single most important factor, before the consideration of talent or any other on field circumstance, is the math of the box – the space from one TE/OT to the other. If you’re a coach, or studied fan, you’re aware of numbered personnel – the two digit system that corresponds to running backs and tight ends in the box.
...
The great equalizers vs. an even box is a mobile QB and horizontal spacing. Teams that utilized the zone read to freeze a box defender, and teams that aligned from sideline to sideline had the best chances to find running lanes in a defense.
The takeaway from this is straightforward – the best way to ensure success is to gain a numbers advantage in the box. If there’s anything to set up the run game, it’s attacking a team along the seams, backing up apex defenders until they’re out of the box.
The takeaway from this is straightforward – the best way to ensure success is to gain a numbers advantage in the box. If there’s anything to set up the run game, it’s attacking a team along the seams, backing up apex defenders until they’re out of the box.
Link: coveragecheck.wordpress.com/2017/08/07/your-run-game-is-a-math-problem-not-a-skill-problem/
... and neither is this Chris guy.
