The Texas Running Game, here we go again

Popular demand (1 person) has pushed me to follow up the last post and introduce my next subject with a couple of homemade diagrams illustrating exactly what I’m talking about. So we’ll start with some diagrams of the following 3 plays:

A quick key: O's=offense C: corner T: defensive tackle E: defensive end M: Middle linebacker W: weakside linebacker S: strongside linebacker FS: Free safety SS: strong safety N: Nickelback (an extra corner or safety)


First we have the Wildcat which came up in the post on how an NFL team should rebuild themselves. This is how the Arkansas Razorbacks originally ran the play with Darren McFadden (at QB) and Felix Jones as the green receiver. The key to the play is the E (defensive end)that is starred, he is unblocked. The green circle, here Felix Jones usually another RB or good running WR, runs past the quarterback (also played by a Running back). The QB puts the ball in his stomach and reads the unblocked end, if he stays in position the quarterback hands the ball off. He if follows the runner, the QB keeps it and runs around him.


Now the inside zone, Colt hands the ball off to the RB (whomever that ends up being) who picks a crease between the center and right tackle. The blocking technique is important here, the offensive lineman move in the direction of the play and double team the defensive lineman. The lineman to the left takes over the block while his teammate to the right advances to the next level and seals off a linebacker. None of the blocks have to be powerful, just the lineman getting to guys and holding them in place to open gaps.


The Zone-read, a mixture between the wildcat and the inside zone. Instead of handing the ball off to a sweeping WR like the wildcat, the quarterback uses the running back. The play runs like the wildcat with the quarterback choosing to keep it or hand it off based on what the starred end does.

Obviously all these plays are very similar, relying on leaving the backside end unblocked and either using the numerical advantage to the right or making him pay for crashing down on the play by going across him. It would seem that the wildcat and the zone-read are the 2 better plays because they have a built-in feature that punishes teams that pursue hard after the play. Either your running back or Vince Young will run around the defense to the left and leave Matt Leinart with a looser grip on reality.
Nevertheless, the primary running play for the Texas Longhorns is….the inside zone. And, you might be unsurprised after learning how these plays work that it has been less successful for us than the zone-read and less successful than is the wildcat for the teams that have employed it. However, the inside zone isn’t a faulty play, it is built on sound principles and when executed properly has been the backbone of great running teams. On the Longhorn interwebs and in print the zone play has been attacked and the major question for the Longhorn offense heading into 2009 has revolved around “how the Longhorns fix the running game?”
I’ve written on this several times (on facebook) and read multiple takes and believed most of them at some point regarding the flaws with the Texas running game and how to fix them. Again you’ll be unsurprised to find that I have a new take.
The criticisms of our running game are as follows, and there is definitely some truth to all them. First is that the zone runs we use (inside and outside stretch are our 2 main plays) are “horizontal” running plays where the running back follows the line to the sideline and waits forever to move upfield. Indeed, the play does call for patience from the running back while waiting for a crease to open, and then exploding through it. The proposed answer is more “downhill” running plays. We’ve even heard this from the coaching staff and they’ve done a couple of things to address this mentality. First they drew up some “downhill” running plays for the fiesta bowl where our lineman blocked downfield instead of zone-blocking (none of these plays were particularly successful or impressive) secondly, they’ve been working on the I-formation in the spring. The I-Formation is all about hitting guys and driving the defense backwards. It relies on a strong O-line and a good fullback.
Another criticism concerns the players we have running the inside zone. We have a mix on the line of guys more suited for driving players downfield (man-blocking) and guys better at moving laterally and reaching linebackers (zone-blocking). And in fact our line is primarily designed to keep Colt upright thus understanding and executing pass protection is more important for our lineman because throwing the ball is how we won 12 games last year and how we can win 14 next year. The running backs don’t escape criticism here either as it has been noted that they fail to plant and cut and burst through the creases, or find the cutback. When the defense pursues hard after the inside zone, the running back can stop and cut up field very quickly down the middle. This is even preferred, when the zone forces the defense to over pursue is when the most damage can be done . However, we don’t see this often from the Texas runners.
A final criticism is of our playbook, which I’ve repeatedly attacked, and the lack of variety in the running game. The concern is that if teams always know what we’re doing when we run the ball they’ll always crash to the side where we are running and swallow it up.
Well, I’m here now saying the Inside zone (and the zone run playbook in general) should be the primary running play for the 2009 Texas Longhorns and it can be more than adequately effective. Really there isn’t a better option to build the offense around because of our philosophy: We are at our best when we have 3 or 4 wide receivers on the field together (hopefully 3 with the emergence of someone at TE). The combinations that put our best players on the field do not include formations with 2 TE or with a fullback. When we run plays with 2 TE or with a Fullback on the field we are sitting our better players. Of course, what Colt McCoy does best is operate the spread game with multiple receiver sets and what McCoy does best should always be our concern. This has great relevance for the style of running plays you use because if you don’t have multiple tight ends or a running back you don’t have enough blockers for the I-formation and most “downfield” or more accurately “man-blocking” plays. The zone allows you to handle 7 or even 8 man fronts (when that number of defenders crowd up to the line of scrimmage before the play) while still having 3 receivers on the field. This is a main competitive advantage which Offensive Coordinator Greg Davis has commented on that demands that we stick with the zone game.
For many this is untenable. The writers at the Austin American Statesman (you’ll find very little football knowledge there) always echo what they hear from the internet or the coaches and point out that the running game was flawed because it let down Texas when it was needed most, the Tech game. This is false. They point to the numbers, Texas “ran” 28 running plays for 80 yards. These 80 yards, or really the 50 or so yards we didn’t get, are blamed for the loss. Again, this is false. There are a few things we need to look at here to understand what was going on. First of all, the lack of yardage is due largely to the 4 sacks incurred on Colt McCoy. It’s not really fair to blame the inside zone for Colt getting sacked. Additionally, the main running play that failed was the first play ran. Texas, stuck inside their own 5 yard line tried to run an I-formation (our savior!) play with Cody Johnson as fullback and got stuffed for a safety. The 2 places people point in order to illustrate the failure of the running game don’t tell the story. For the duration of the game I was almost screaming for Texas to run the ball. Even on a passing play that went for a 91 yard Touchdown my first reaction was to yell “no!!” when Colt didn’t make a hand-off. On the final drive however, Texas did run the ball with Fozzy Whittaker and this was his line: 6 rushes, 42 yards for 7 yards per carry. Those are winning numbers.
It would be dishonest, and counterproductive to my main point, to not explore an important feature of the final drive that almost won the game, the no-huddle offense. Despite an abysmal first half against OU, Texas ran the ball very well in that game by utilizing the no-huddle offense in the 2nd half. Suddnely, OU wasn’t quickly diagnosing and attacking the zone plays but getting run over for chunks of yards by Chris Ogbonnaya… Chris Ogbonnaya. For all his strengths on the football field the man was something less than Earl Campbell with the ball in his hands. Against Ohio St, who is also well coached like OU to diagnose a running play and stuff it with great tackling and technique, we started using some no-huddle and ran the ball with some effectiveness in the 2nd half while Ohio St. wore down shockingly quickly. Obviously my point is this, Texas should run more no-huddle next year, run up to the line of scrimmage and quickly run our zone-plays down teams throats.
The other criticisms don’t really add up. The lack of variety with the zone-running game is not problematic for the following teams that have offenses built on the zone-play; the Mike Shanahan Superbowl Broncos, The Peyton Manning Indianapolis Colts, the resurgent Atlanta Falcons, the repeated Rosebowl losing Michigan Wolverines, the 2008 Texas Longhorns. Texas actually has several constraint plays built off the inside zone in the offense which punish teams that overload to stop the runs. The hated bubble screen is one, the play-action passes are another. Greg Davis loves to run his basic zone play and see if teams respond to it as he suspects. When they do, he punishes them with something else and fans say “hey! We should be doing more of that instead of the horizontal running game”.
I won’t say that the 08 running game was great, or that the 09 one shouldn’t seek to improve vastly. I even have some suggestions that I suspect the coaches are already after: first the teams needs to pick one running back to be the starter and give him more reps so he understands the line’s tendencies and where to look for holes and cutback lanes. Vondrell McGee is a great option. Fozzy might be better, but he’s always hurt. On plays where McGee has planted and cut upfield he’s shown a lot of power and acceleration, and the man doesn’t fumble. Additionally, the offensive line needs to spend some more time practicing the main plays. We have 3 senior starters so the answer is not starting over with another type of running play but to hone their experience and cohesiveness to build the running game. Texas can stay the course with the Inside Zone and give teams more than enough trouble while keeping Jordan Shipley, Malcolm Williams and Brandon Collins/James Kirkendoll on the field with Colt to put the rest of the Big 12 in the ground.

Avoiding being Blindsided in the NFL

The average NFL starting quarterback makes 5 million per year. Consequently, the average backup makes 1.6 million per year. In his book “Blindside” Michael Lewis highlighted that the starting Left Tackle, who holds down the job of keeping the quarterback upright and healthy, is now the 2nd highest paid position player in the NFL.
The meaning of all this, is that the NFL has become focused primarily on the quarterback. Finding the next Tom Brady or Peyton Manning and building your offense around him consumes the league. However, despite increased spending on left tackles in an attempt to protect the most valuable assets, quarterbacks still get injured and ruin seasons. Brady went down last year in game one and dealt a death blow to the Patriots superbowl hopes. Carson Palmer was on the rise as one of the league’s best signal callers and took a similar knee shot that has slowed him down and cost a season and those playoffs. Teams are becoming particularly adept at finding guys like Julius Peppers or James Harrison and unleashing them on the league’s franchise players.
Meanwhile, Jake Delhomme just signed a contract this offseason worth 42.5 million over 5 years, including 20 million guaranteed. The new contract helped free cap room for the panthers in 09, but still amounted to an average of 8.5 million per year invested in a player whose last outing was one of the most putrid playoff performances I’ve seen in my life in any sport.
The fact is, finding an elite drop-back talent at quarterback, nurturing it to its potential, and then protecting that asset is overly difficult and a different approach should be taken by those squads that haven’t already invested their franchise hopes into such massive contracts.
Another approach can be found in the “gimmicky” new trend in NFL running games, the Wildcat formation.
Keep reading, I’m not suggesting that NFL teams shelve their playbooks in favor of an all-Wildcat offense. However, the reason for the success of the Wildcat and the principles behind it can hold the answer for teams that want to build offenses without first finding a diamond in the rough or using the 1st pick on the draft on a dice roll.
The reason the Wildcat is so successful is because it creates a numerical advantage for the offense. After Peyton Manning hands the ball off, even on the stretch zone play where he runs parallel to the line to deliver the ball to the running back, he is no longer a part of the play. It becomes a game of 10 on 11.
The zone-read play, used by Texas with Vince Young and countless other college and high school programs, utilizes the principles of the old Veer-option game, picks a player on defense and makes him wrong every time.
In this particular play, the offensive line fires out and blocks in one direction while leaving the backside defensive end unblocked. The quarterback reads the end while putting the ball in the stomach of the running back (running away from the end). If the end pursues the running back, the quarterback keeps the ball and runs around the end against the grain of the play. If the end stays at home, the quarterback hands off the ball and the play is a typical running play.
The wildcat is built off the same principles of the zone read, and ultimately the veer-option. In fact, the Steelers used the zone-read last year and were credited for also having “implemented the wildcat” into their offense.
Misunderstandings by ESPN aside, these plays and formations in which the quarterback is as likely a running threat as the running back, should be the building block for an NFL offense.
The reason that NFL teams don’t use these plays, or use the wildcat which utilizes a 2nd running back to take the snap instead of the quarterback, brings us back to the beginning of this post. A team which has invested 5 million in a starter, 1.5 million into a backup, and perhaps 3 million into a left tackle, will not be interested in running an offense in which their quarterback might take 8-15 hits per game running the ball.
I propose that these numbers can be dramatically altered by investing the team’s resources differently and ultimately changing the quarterback position into something new.
The Steelers 2 years ago signed Dennis Dixon, after selecting him in the 2nd round, for 425,000 dollars. The Dolphins, a bit ahead of the curve in this realm thanks to Bill Parcells, drafted Pat White in the 2nd round of the 2009 draft. College football has embraced the spread offense and the spread to run offense and will be cranking out these players every year. Juice Williams of Illinois comes to mind, and to a lesser extent, Tim Tebow for next year’s draft. What’s more, they can be had in later draft rounds for less money.
So, here’s what implementation of this offense might look like:
1). Hire an offensive coordinator with an understanding of the modern veer-option offenses. This should be easy, just get an Urban Meyer or Rich Rodriquez disciple. Maybe get somebody interested in the no-huddle as well since they mix very well.

2). Sign or draft these college quarterback/athletes who other teams don’t have obvious uses for. Instead of converting Matt Jones to receiver, try him out in the option offense (or maybe someone without a history with crack but you get the idea). These players, who don’t have obvious value in the NFL can be had at discount or with cheaper draft picks. Additionally, guys in college with little or no NFL projection now have value for your team. Players who thrive in these offenses in college like Percy Harvin or Jeremy Maclin are now NFL sure things instead of guys who will have to adjust to new offenses and roles. Anyone who has athleticism has more upside.
Now, in addition to taking these players who are used to running option offenses for colleges, you have a monopoly on certain talent and can derive greater value from others. You will miss out on the Matthew Staffords though…so you may be missing out on the next Ryan Leaf. If you can handle that kind of pressure…

3). Sign multiple quarterbacks. Teams are afraid of these running plays because of injury to the quarterback. But if you make the quarterback like every other position and have 2 or 3 Dennis Dixons on your squad you have turned the quarterback into a position like running back. You can run it by committee and not worry that a broken ankle or busted knee will ruin your season and all your playoff hopes. You could even have one higher end running quarterback (like Vince Young) with a larger salary and still find a player who can back him up and run the spread-option offense at value.

4). Build up the rest of your team with the freed up financial assets you have procured from not paying 1/6 of your cap to one player. Having an elite left tackle is still not a bad idea, but you may just want to settle for a really good left tackle and also a great Center, Guard, Right tackle etc. Ultimately an offense’s ceiling is set by the offensive line. No matter how great your split end receiver is, if you don’t have enough time to throw he’s wasted. Any solid running back can look great behind a great run-blocking line (see Denver Broncos in Mike Shanahan era). Both Mannings and Brady all benefit from having great offensive lines. If you have, say, Pat White and Juice Williams at quarterback behind an awesome offensive line you’re in business.
Additionally great teams are built through investment in the trenches. 2 great to elite Defensive tackles can make an entire defense. Investing in your lines at the expense of spending money at the skill positions is much more feasible if you are drafting your skill players in later rounds with an eye towards option weapons including at quarterback and avoiding signing enormous contracts to skill players (a new rookie cap might help as well, we’ll see if that happens).

5). The passing game still needs to exist, obviously. However, the simple passing games mastered by these players at the college level can work in the NFL level with great complexity and versatility. If teams have to load up 8 defenders in the box to stop your running game it doesn’t take Peyton Manning to punish them in the passing game and it doesn’t take a playbook with multiple volumes. NFL teams have almost infinitely more time to practice than college teams and can afford to spend time developing athletic college stars into competent enough passers.

Now, there are many people who will think that because the NFL doesn’t run offenses like this it won’t work. These are probably the same people who told us that Urban Meyer’s spread offense couldn’t handle “SEC speed!!!”. Piercing analysis which also tells us how the Dolphins went to the playoffs last year after going 1-15 in 2007 utilizing the Wildcat formation. Here are some of the likely objections to implementing this offense:

1). The option doesn’t work in the NFL because a). the defenders are faster b). the quarterbacks get injured c). the coaches figure it out
These are all similar in presuming that NFL defenders will punish teams that run the option by swallowing up plays after working out the “gimmick” and injuring your stars. Well, we’ve partially addressed this by simply having more quarterbacks and running backs (everyone already does this) on the roster to handle injuries. The notion that the option plays won’t work in the NFL is absurd. We’ve seen them work. If you think that teams struggle defending the option because it’s a gimmick that just needs to be worked out you aren’t paying attention to what other teams are doing. Most NFL teams have playbooks built around 4 main types of running plays. It isn’t the great complexity of running plays that makes teams great, it’s personnel and execution. If you have one NFL team with an option game seasoned with practice and great personnel you will have success in the running game against NFL teams. It is my contention, again, that the option running plays are better than the 4 main plays used in the NFL due to the numerical advantage of having 11 on 11 every play.

2). If this would work teams would do it.
Every year we see teams hire the same fired coaches over and over again. We see washed up quarterbacks get re-signed and old guys get another chance. The idea that teams would automatically do something that would work assumes a level of perfection achieved in the NFL that ignore previous innovation and is rather naïve. Additionally, we see teams, like the Dolphins, starting to employ these principles and finding success. Teams are afraid to be the first to try something and face ruin if it doesn’t work out. Bill Parcells doesn’t give a crap and has been ahead of the curve before in building teams (like finding Lawrence Taylor and spawning the creation of all the Julius Peppers, Shawn Merrimans, and Brian Orakpos we see today). I don’t know if we’ll see a team go as far as I’ve described but we will see more of the wildcat and some of the 11 on 11 principles are sure to finally catch hold in the NFL (whereas they’ve been staples in the high school and college game for decades).

3). You need a leader at quarterback and not another interchangeable skill position player:
I kind of made this one up myself and but it seems a likely objection and also the best one I can think of because most teams are led by their quarterback. In addition to relying on him as the focal point of the offense, he must run the offense and lead the team. If you are counting on a couple of guys to do this, or are running a greater risk of the no. 1 guy getting hurt, you will still damage the team’s chemistry.
I object somewhat to the idea that running quarterbacks will get hurt particularly more. I think that a quarterback motionless in the pocket getting sacked over and over will be injured more often than a running quarterback (see Donovan MacNabb). Certainly I must concede that they will probably wear down like running backs do and the committee approach is necessary. Due to greater practice time for NFL teams it is possible to have multiple quarterbacks (as it is running backs) who can master the system and run the team effectively. As far as overall leadership goes, I would rather roll my dice that players on the team can handle themselves professionally and that leaders would emerge then count on one guy to lead the team in every facet of the game and cross my fingers every year that he doesn’t get hurt.

This Blog

This is a new blog that will feature posts by me on strategies and trends in the sports world. My predominant concern is with Texas football, however that sport has not quite reached the full-year level necessary to keep me occupied with interesting thoughts so it is more than likely that I will branch into the NFL, NBA and other collegiate concerns.
My approach is to fill the role created by Bill Simmons for the VP of Common Sense. Or rather, call me the Assistant to the VP of Common Sense. I want to demystify the complexities of football for the average fan, explain or analyze trends in sports, and still be willing to call out what I consider to be boneheaded mistakes by people in sports.
The next post will likely cover a trend in the NFL that has interested me recently, but it could just as easily be part of a huge sweeping preview I'll do for the upcoming Texas football season, should be fun...
-Ian Boyd