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.