View Single Post
Old 03-26-2012, 07:38 PM   #23
30gut
Playmaker
 
30gut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,323
Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GMScud View Post
I never said I didn't want him running the ball at all, I just don't want to see it all the time for health reasons. My worry is they'll run a ton of boots, and until RGIII gets really comfortable with NFL defenses, he'll be too quick to exercise that run option, increases his chances of getting hurt on the run.
Right on.
I just wanted to point out that I wasn't suggesting that Griffin should run all the time either or that adding spread concepts doesn't equate to designed QB runs.

I agree that whichever style offense they run shouldn't have too many of designed runs either.
I also think Griffin needs to be exercise much better judgement in knowing when to get down and avoid a hit versus when to try and gain that extra yardage and exposing his body.
Imo fearlessness is one of the traits that Griffin shares with Locker.
These guys made some breathtaking runs and also exposed their bodies and took many unneccessary hits.

If there is one area where I wouldn't mind seeing more designed plays with QB runs as an option is the read zone.
That is one area where I think the risk is worth the reward.

Back to your OP, truth be told any option that involves a return of balanced playcalling is the least likely scenario in my mind.
Regardless of whether there are more spread concepts or the offense concepts/formations remains unchanged from last year I doubt Kyle will ever have the run balance that was the staple of the DWCO.

I'm not saying that as a value judgement either; just an observation of the trend in Kyle's pass/run ratio both here and in Houston.
Although I prefer balanced playcalling there are plenty of great offenses in the league that lack balanced playcalling but are still highly productive.

Last edited by 30gut; 03-26-2012 at 07:46 PM.
30gut is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
 
Page generated in 1.50496 seconds with 10 queries