No running lanes

[fredtoast]

I'll admit that we have not seen a lot of our number one offense yet this year, but I seem to see a difference in our running game.

The blocking has not been great by any standard, but last year "no running lane" meant RB hit at the line of scrimmage for zero or one-yard gain. This year "no running lane" means a 2-3 yard gain.

I usually post stats to back up an argument like this, but just one game into the season they are meaningless. And although I felt I saw this in preseason, it would be too complicated to try and break down the play-by-play while deciding how many first team players were in.

I do know that last year about a third (32.4%) of our rushing attempts gained only one yard or less. I don't care if we don't break off a lot of long runs, but we have to be able to consistently get at least 2-3 yards per rush.

[Au165]

(09-15-2021, 04:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I'll admit that we have not seen a lot of our number one offense yet this year, but I seem to see a difference in our running game.

The blocking has not been great by any standard, but last year "no running lane" meant RB hit at the line of scrimmage for zero or one-yard gain.  This year "no running lane" means a 2-3 yard gain.

I usually post stats to back up an argument like this, but just one game into the season they are meaningless.  And although I felt I saw this in preseason, it would be too complicated to try and break down the play-by-play while deciding how many first team players were in.

I do know that last year about a third (32.4%) of our rushing attempts gained only one yard or less.  I don't care if we don't break off a lot of long runs, but we have to be able to consistently get at least 2-3 yards per rush.

The outside zone has a lot to do with it. Mixon had a couple runs where the edge got sealed really well and he went for 8-15 yards because of it. The other thing we saw Sunday is him putting his foot in the ground and cutting into a backside gap on over pursuits. A lot of times those gaps don't look clean but they do provide more of those 2-3 yard pick ups than slamming into a more traditional stuffed gap. 

[Dr.Z]

Those handoffs for negative yards are crippling, allowing the defense to pin it’s ears back on long conversion attempts. So far, we seem to be able to move forward more consistently. It opens up the playbook so much when you can gain 2.5-3 yards on a relatively congested/contested run on early downs.

[fredtoast]

(09-15-2021, 04:11 PM)Au165 Wrote:  The other thing we saw Sunday is him putting his foot in the ground and cutting into a backside gap on over pursuits. 

This.

And it is not even always "over pursuit".  Sometimes it is just a seam opening up due to a good backside or trailing block.

And the outside zone scheme should become even better now that we have a set five taking every snap on the o-line.  Teamwork is crucial in any zone scheme.

[WeezyBengal]

(09-15-2021, 04:11 PM)Au165 Wrote: The outside zone has a lot to do with it. Mixon had a couple runs where the edge got sealed really well and he went for 8-15 yards because of it. The other thing we saw Sunday is him putting his foot in the ground and cutting into a backside gap on over pursuits. A lot of times those gaps don't look clean but they do provide more of those 2-3 yard pick ups than slamming into a more traditional stuffed gap. 

Yep, the scheme allows Mixon to do what he does best - use his vision to cut back when there are "no running lanes". 

There were plays where he literally cut to the back side of the line 10 -15 feet and took it for a 10 yard pop. 

[*Synric*]

I know everyone is ragging on Drew Sample because of the sack and no targets but he was excellent in the run game. Until that sack he was making Danielle Hunter look very bad.

[Joelist]

And interesting stat - the ONLY run play where we lost yards was the Jet Sweep with Chase that Ziim was expecting and overloaded.

[GreenCornBengal]

(09-15-2021, 04:56 PM)Joelist Wrote: And interesting stat - the ONLY run play where we lost yards was the Jet Sweep with Chase that Ziim was expecting and overloaded.

Even on that play I felt that if Chase had cut up he could’ve made a few yards. Instead he tried to bounce out around the tackler… but these guys are NFL speed haha

[PAjwPhilly]

(09-15-2021, 04:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I'll admit that we have not seen a lot of our number one offense yet this year, but I seem to see a difference in our running game.

The blocking has not been great by any standard, but last year "no running lane" meant RB hit at the line of scrimmage for zero or one-yard gain.  This year "no running lane" means a 2-3 yard gain.

I usually post stats to back up an argument like this, but just one game into the season they are meaningless.  And although I felt I saw this in preseason, it would be too complicated to try and break down the play-by-play while deciding how many first team players were in.

I do know that last year about a third (32.4%) of our rushing attempts gained only one yard or less.  I don't care if we don't break off a lot of long runs, but we have to be able to consistently get at least 2-3 yards per rush.

That is a killer stat. Almost rather have a hold or false start penalty.

[SunsetBengal]

(09-15-2021, 04:11 PM)Au165 Wrote: The outside zone has a lot to do with it. Mixon had a couple runs where the edge got sealed really well and he went for 8-15 yards because of it. The other thing we saw Sunday is him putting his foot in the ground and cutting into a backside gap on over pursuits. A lot of times those gaps don't look clean but they do provide more of those 2-3 yard pick ups than slamming into a more traditional stuffed gap. 

That's what I noticed, as well.  I'm hoping that the trend continues, and we get to see Mixon break off a couple of long gainers this year.  The lack of inside push in short yardage situations was pretty much expected, but still a bit unnerving to witness.

[fredtoast]

(09-15-2021, 08:41 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote:   The lack of inside push in short yardage situations was pretty much expected, but still a bit unnerving to witness.

We punched in a TD on two carries from the 3 yard line.

[Frank Booth]

(09-15-2021, 08:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We punched in a TD on two carries from the 3 yard line.

I guess that means all is well...

[fredtoast]

(09-15-2021, 08:50 PM)Frank Booth Wrote: I guess that means all is well...

Just as much as getting stopped one time the entire game on a short yardage situation means all is doom and gloom.  You have spent the entire off season crying about our O-line.  Not surprised that you try to ignore anything that contradicts your position.

[Frank Booth]

(09-16-2021, 09:10 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Just as much as getting stopped one time the entire game on a short yardage situation means all is doom and gloom. 

one time..

The Vikings do have an alright d-line though, so maybe I shouldn’t be too concerned

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(09-15-2021, 04:11 PM)Au165 Wrote: The outside zone has a lot to do with it. Mixon had a couple runs where the edge got sealed really well and he went for 8-15 yards because of it. The other thing we saw Sunday is him putting his foot in the ground and cutting into a backside gap on over pursuits. A lot of times those gaps don't look clean but they do provide more of those 2-3 yard pick ups than slamming into a more traditional stuffed gap. 

Yes and the O-lineman seem to love the scheme as well. I was honestly surprised at how good they looked as I thought our 
biggest weakness this year on Offense was going to be run blocking. Most of the guys we brought in Reiff, Spain and Hopkins
the dude who was already here are supposed to be much better pass protectors than run blockers. Hop I don't think is healthy
or somethin'. He was our one weakness on the OL and it was in pass protection.

Overall very pleased with our outside zone that Pollack has implemented and the way Mixon runs behind it.