The role of the running game in an Air Raid offense
Bear with me, this is a rough, in-progress look at the role our running game has played in the past and a question of what role it should play in the future. I feel that we should start with finding out what has worked and what hasn't worked in the running game so we can, as an inconsequential online entity, point out the direction that we feel Mike Leach should take in the further development of the running game. Yes, I say we because I'm hoping for input. Most of my thoughts on the matter are anecdotal (though I suppose I could look up old game footage, I'm not going to do that right this instant), so feel free to correct me and I will adjust.

First, I'd like to characterize our running game as of last year: a few draws, but mostly off-tackle handoffs out of the shotgun, what amounts to running the zone read without any of that read part. A majority of the handoffs go directly up the middle, what I see as either a homerun or a 2 yard loss if the runningback can't avoid the end that's come to get him. There was a set with two TE's that often managed to pick up a couple of yards, but it never seemed to get quite the push needed to pick up consistant yardage.
Now, of course, I'm going to tell you the 2 reasons why I think that was:
1) There is next to no motion on the line. Run blocking last year was very similar to pass blocking. The idea of standing your man up and not letting him get to the running back is a great though, but it doesn't open up any running lanes. A scheme that pulls a guard, runs the defense along itself (in a zone blocking scheme), even one that has a fullback leading the way will open up running lanes. I remember that one of the most consistent plays last year was the "student body left/right". Everyone's going one direction and at some point there's a cutback lane for the running back.
2) No misdirection. This can really be 2 part: basic runs without fear of counters or delayed draws or the like; and absolutely no play action. The first is pretty self explanatory. The second you may ask why play action would help the running game. With the lack of play action, a defense can read run as soon as they see the quarterback go for the handoff. The linebackers can attack the line at will or stuff up the mid-field passing lanes without having to make a choice between run and pass.
There's the one claim I think I can back up with statistics. I hope I'm not the only one that remembers talk in 2004 (I think it was some tv announcer in our opening game) about the addition of play action to the playbook. And true enough, I remember a much greater presence of play action during games. That year, our top two running backs gained the most yardage in the modern leach era (Henderson had more yards individually in 2005, but he and Mack combined for more the year previous. Yards per carry were down in 2004 vs 2003 and 2005, though. Not sure how to explain that except to point out that yards per carry were way down in 2007).
Ok, so much for part 1 of this running game look. I think next time, if there is one, I think I might look at touches vs running game as an indicator of success. Part 3 would be thoughts about what sort of running mentality might work with the Air Raid.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Double-T Nation's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Double-T Nation's writers or editors.
3 recs |
37
comments
Read Related
Comments
thoughts
The idea of standing your man up and not letting him get to the running back is a great though, but it doesn’t open up any running lanes.
A split-T coach would disagree with you. Of course, in a split-T offense, you have to be willing to accept that a gain of 4 yards running the ball is a good play.
A scheme that pulls a guard, runs the defense along itself (in a zone blocking scheme), even one that has a fullback leading the way will open up running lanes.
I’ve seen Tech pull their linemen, even out of those wide splits. A lack of pulling is not the problem. Those wide splits do make running an outside zone running scheme (what I think you’re referring to here, ala Denver Broncos or Atlanta Falcons w/Vick) pretty much impossible.
by Beergut on Jul 8, 2008 1:34 PM CDT 0 recs
will see if there’s a set of youtube videos that i can show. It could be that TTU has been pulling guards around and such all this time and I’ve missed it, but I feel it’s more likely that you caught a few of the exceptions to the rule.
And I agree, the wide splits make an outside zone scheme unlikely to be a fit in the system. I wasn’t planning on getting into what sort of ground philosophy I would like to see incorporated into the system until part 3, but I will say now that I’ve felt for a while that it runs best when the 2nd back is leading the way, helping to open up holes, preventing a defender from crashing in on the handoff, or taking a linebacker out to help our runner get through the 2nd level.
by kayakyakr on
Jul 8, 2008 2:29 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Hmm...
I’d like to comment, but I think I’ll wait until I see what else you have to say.
Well written.
Wes Welker can't be stopped.
by 10forTech on Jul 8, 2008 6:41 PM CDT 0 recs
feel free to comment as we go, it may not be for a bit that I post again and this is a very open thread of discussion. Any input, even if it is premature, is very appreciated.
I think tonight I’ll be trying to find youtube examples of what our running game has done. (Seth, you have any running highlights sitting around?)
by kayakyakr on
Jul 8, 2008 6:54 PM CDT
up
0 recs
ok
give a little time to gather my thoughts
Wes Welker can't be stopped.
by 10forTech on
Jul 8, 2008 7:48 PM CDT
up
0 recs
I'm thinking
about where I can find some running plays.
Go Raiders . . .
by Seth C on
Jul 8, 2008 8:27 PM CDT
up
0 recs
i’ve got a list of highlights. Sadly, the best source i found for runs that did not work was highlights for other teams. I’m pretty tired of looking at highlights, but i’m gonna post up the quick list with rough thoughts. Of all the highlights I found, there are few of what i would consider “draw” plays.
Here’s the list:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvLJprQDiSQ
1:06 – Blitz, Center/Guard fail to pick it up. LB reacts to handoff without hesitation,
1:30 – Zone blocking package? Line completely fails to stop… anyone,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyerwEmutpI
runs that work:
5:00 – lead blocker
5:05 – lead blocker
5:15 – SMU
5:22 – Huge push, danny puts an awesome block on the OLB
5:34 – lead blocker, baylor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC0guzCtZ7U
chris long vs ttu (god dropped passes killed us early in that game. the christ long fappery almost killed me):
1:06 – happy with the push on this
1:30 – play action!
3:13 – no blockers?
4:55 – lewis went the wrong way/the linebacker got too much penetration
5:30 – no great outside block
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLaUxNioHFM
1:22 – TD, but look how quickly the sooners react. the corner is immediately moving to the line, 95 already moving down to plug any hole.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM-liZfGL_Y
0:31 – lead blocker misses the linebacker, OU’s LB’s are on it immediately.
0:52 – play action!
1:22 – just no push, actually happy with this short gain.
3:05 – nice seal block – bit of a counter
5:20 – good push, good seal
5:30 – TD above, different angle
6:25 – Lead blocker
7:20 – good push, line moves as a group here
8:38 – LB’s reacting to the handoff
8:46 – ?? I think the line hates the RB’s
9:00 – Actually happy with all of these. The third one could have been better, though. Call a delayed draw a-la Kansas a few years back?
by kayakyakr on
Jul 8, 2008 8:32 PM CDT
up
0 recs
The best place I’ve found for actual Texas Tech footage, that easily accessible, are the posted clips from the Red-Black scrimmage. You’ll notice all of those things mentioned above.
Go Raiders . . .
by Seth C on
Jul 8, 2008 9:00 PM CDT
up
0 recs
just not easily identifiable (i.e. minutes:seconds)
Go Raiders . . .
by Seth C on
Jul 8, 2008 9:02 PM CDT
up
0 recs
god the offense looked horrible at the start of that game.
by kayakyakr on
Jul 8, 2008 9:18 PM CDT
up
0 recs
yes, the offense looked absolutely horrible during that scrimmage. Remember, I don’t think Vasquez or Reed played, which cause the line to be shuffled quite a bit. If anything, it makes me a little concerned about the current offensive line depth (long-term I think it’s fine). Yes, the guards do pull quite a bit on running plays.
Go Raiders . . .
by Seth C on
Jul 8, 2008 9:54 PM CDT
up
0 recs
In the highlights of the spring game the guards are pulling a fair amount. I haven’t seen one of those running plays that makes me cringe in the set when a guard whips around the center and the center actually hits his man proper. I have seen 2 running plays without a lead blocker or pulling guard that fell apart behind the line and I’ve seen a couple of the “straight ahead” type of runs work out.
The key to those straight ahead runs working: the running back was going full speed at handoff and hit the wedge formed by the two guards and the center before a linebacker could crash in on the center or around the guards. The biggest busted play was an obvious handoff in which the running back took the ball with his feet planted and tried to counter from there. Looked more like the RB forgot the play than it being a designed counter: there was no move to seal the WLB and DE inside and the “wedge” was set up in the middle.
by kayakyakr on
Jul 8, 2008 10:14 PM CDT
up
0 recs
reply
Agree with your takes on the first highlight video.
Regarding the second:
1:30 – play action!
It looks like Tech needs to do more self-scouting, b/c they may have a strong tendency towards that screen pass on 1st and 10 from that area. If you look at the LBs for UVA, none of them bite hard on the play-action, but they flow quickly to stop the screen pass. It looks like they expected it.
3:13 – no blockers?
Poor read of blocks by the RB. If he had cutback for a counter, he would have gained significant yardage. The Center takes his man out, and the guard moves to the second level; he would have been able to spring the back for big yardagfe, but he went for the left side, which was quickly bottled up, despite being temporary daylight provided by the line.
4:55 – lewis went the wrong way/the linebacker got too much penetration
The whole line and his lead blocker is going one way, back goes the other. He was lucky to make the yards he did.
5:30 – no great outside block
This is an inside run in the A gap, so outside blocking is not as crucial. They should have pulled the backside guard and let him trap anything coming into the A-gap, and blow it out.
by Beergut on
Jul 12, 2008 6:40 PM CDT
up
0 recs
This is an inside run in the A gap, so outside blocking is not as crucial. They should have pulled the backside guard and let him trap anything coming into the A-gap, and blow it out.
The “no great outside block” is a reference to a similar run in the previous video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyerwEmutpI
runs that work:
5:22 – Huge push, danny puts an awesome block on the OLB
Danny cut inside the linebacker real quick and then turned out and took him out of the play. It was a very good block. In the one that didn’t work, the same linebacker was, if i can remember (i’ve slept since then), the key man on making the stop.
And I do agree on most the other comments. The problem is that the solution is to have a better running back and I don’t buy into that: the run needs to be redesigned to be a counter or we need to put in more repetition on the play so the back doesn’t go the wrong direction.
by kayakyakr on
Jul 12, 2008 11:48 PM CDT
up
0 recs
sorry. I rewatched and the play without the outside block is one in which chris long manages to overpower toward the middle. Still, the OLB was in on the play.
rewatching the play action: the linebackers do a hop step, but the D-Line is already flowing left because the offensive line immediately takes off hard to the left (while the running back is heading right.). The WOLB is frozen completely, but that’s not surprising since the runningback was heading toward his area. With the way the offensive line flowed, i’m not certain that play action would ever be wholly successful. the end is pushed by his own blocker into the play, the safety on the side of the screen has the opportunity to take his time since a run would be heading the other way.
In short, while it did have play action (and i want to see more play action for the sake of play action, so a team like OU won’t jump on our running plays so quickly, not to open up any passing game), It wasn’t actually a good play.
by kayakyakr on
Jul 13, 2008 12:00 AM CDT
up
0 recs
Running game in an Air Raid offense
The Raiders are indeed missing a grind it out rushing attack. I have often thought a 600 to 1000 yard individual rusher or even a committee of 2 or 3 backs able to beat down a defense in 3- 5 yard pushes with an occasional 20 – 25 yard scamper – would render our Big 12 opponents senseless. The beef package gave me some hope ie a tackle in the slot receiver position – yet even this formation in last years campaign didn’t appear very productive. During the spring practice I saw a few mentions of an I formation for the Raiders. The well documented QB sneaks seem to be rather predictable. During last years Texas game the fake sneak direct snap to Crawford failed miserably. The change of pace inflicted on a defense with a back like Batch or Crawford creating a routine 2nd and 3 would keep the opponents defensive coordinators from lining up linebackers in the gaps or conversely putting the 5 or 6 defensive backs on the field. The Gator Bowl showed the lack of a rush could cripple the Raiders. Virginia was effective against our short passing attack result we punt 5 or 6 times- with a near disaster on one – saved only by monster effort by Lacour and the defense. More deception perhaps greater rewards on offense – so run play action. Knowing Leach’s tendency to focus on rep’s which equals excellence in execution (i.e. Practice what you are good at – pass) I believe it’s unlikely the Raiders will become good at 3 plus yards and a cloud of dust running attack. They simply run out of practice time.
by centexraider on Jul 8, 2008 8:38 PM CDT 0 recs
I like that you bring up excellence in execution by practice reps. Leach has already compartmentalized the passing playbook: there aren’t many plays in the book, but by combining routes and progressions, the scheme that a defense has to prepare for becomes quite complex. Perhaps it’s time he did that with the running plays: 3 blocking schemes (wedge, pulling guard, seal end), 2 backfields (empty, 2 backs, 3 possible scenarios, 1 back, 2 back with lead, 2 back with flare/quick handoff), 2 run routes plus play-action. 18 possible plays with each position needing to learn no more than 3. (add in a DELAYED draw that I missed so much last season and the end-around, because 20 is a nice number).
Or do you think that Leach already has it done?
(man, i’m gonna wind up filling out part 3 before discussion on part 1 is complete).
by kayakyakr on
Jul 8, 2008 10:30 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Are you referring to Ninja?
The beef package gave me some hope ie a tackle in the slot receiver position – yet even this formation in last years campaign didn’t appear very productive.—--X-OT-—--OG-OC-OG-—-—OT-Y-—
—-—-H-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-Z--—-
—-—-—-—-—T-—-Q-—-—-—-—-—-—
Or are you referring to something else?
by Beergut on
Jul 12, 2008 6:47 PM CDT
up
0 recs
- X —-OT – OG – OC – OG – OT --- H --—-
-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-Y--—-—-Z
—-—-—-—-—T-— Q —-—-—-—-—-—
by kayakyakr on
Jul 13, 2008 12:04 AM CDT
up
0 recs
where is the tackle in the slot receiver position?
y’all putting an OT at H?
by Beergut on
Jul 13, 2008 8:01 PM CDT
up
0 recs
a “TE”. so either an eligible tackle or one of the few TE/FB’s we have on the roster.
Last year David Schaefer (#29) would have been at Y and Adrianne Reese (#80) in the H.
Forgive me if i mislabel the positions, I’ve watched a lot of football, but am unfamiliar with the rules of labeling receivers in TTU’s offense.
by kayakyakr on
Jul 13, 2008 8:13 PM CDT
up
0 recs
you have them correct
Forgive me if i mislabel the positions, I’ve watched a lot of football, but am unfamiliar with the rules of labeling receivers in TTU’s offense.
X, H, Y, and Z are the labels for the WRs in the Air Raid offense, going left to right.
The tailback is usually listed as F, but I often use T.
by Beergut on
Jul 13, 2008 8:47 PM CDT
up
0 recs
- X —-OT – OG – OC – OG – OT — Y -—
—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-H-—-—-Z
—-—-—-—-—T-— Q —-—-—-—-—-—
then in the proper format. Thanks for clearing that up.
In the air raid i’d prefer using T for the RB since he really is a tail. F indicates full in most offenses. H would be the other in a 2 back set.
by kayakyakr on
Jul 13, 2008 10:17 PM CDT
up
0 recs
run the ball punish the defense
I would like to believe Mike Leach has a stockage of running formations it is after all what he and Seth Littrell do i.e. move the ball against opposition. One factor which would seem to limit the # of run plays executed is the lack of productivity. Leach is notorious for ditching stuff that doesn’t work.. A talented running back would have to be an above average performer routinely to get “noticed” enough to demand more touches. The 2nd and 3rd order effects of taking the clock back by running forces the opposing offense out of their rhythm – i.e. got to pass to keep up. Or better yet to catch up. I heard Sonny Cumbie say ” ... the Raiders (Harrell) is/are breaking tendencies … when the Raiders ran “effectively” against TAMU. Result a 28 point win. The 100 plus yards on the ground drove A&M crazy.
by centexraider on Jul 9, 2008 9:50 AM CDT 0 recs
Talent
One factor which would seem to limit the # of run plays executed is the lack of productivity.
I agree. Beergut made some interesting comments as well, but I think this one is the most revealing:
A lack of pulling is not the problem.
Let me take it a step further. The problem isn’t next to no motion on the line, or no misdirection, or any of the reasons you mentioned. The problem, in my opinion, is a lack of a talented running back. We’ve had talented running backs in the past (Ricky A. Williams), and we will in the future (Harrison Jeffers), but we don’t right now, unless one of our guys shows a lot of improvement in the fall.
Wes Welker can't be stopped.
by 10forTech on
Jul 9, 2008 11:06 AM CDT
up
0 recs
Harrison Jeffers video
Parental guidance suggested. (just put it on mute)
Wes Welker can't be stopped.
by 10forTech on
Jul 9, 2008 11:21 AM CDT
up
0 recs
I have to be honest: I disagree. In looking through all of those highlights yesterday, it remained apparent to me that the running back, when stuffed or limited to a 2 yard gain or any other of the less than ideal results, for the most part had no where to go. Additional talent may have been able to take those situations and turn them into something more by breaking 2 or 3 extra tackles, but it wouldn’t have made much of a difference in the overall sense.
Only Barry Sanders regularly made a habit of being a spectacular running back without any holes to run through. Even supreme talent like AP was regularly given a free ride to the secondary and Darren McFadden was easy to shut down if you could stop up the running lanes before he started making your secondary look silly.
Are Brandon McAnderson and Jake Sharp any better talents than we’ve had? How about Savage and Kendall Hunter?
by kayakyakr on
Jul 9, 2008 12:16 PM CDT
up
0 recs
kayakyakr
Leach is notorious for ditching stuff that doesn’t work.. A talented running back would have to be an above average performer routinely to get "noticed" enough to demand more touches.
All I’m saying is that we didn’t have a routinely above average performer. I mean, didn’t we have a running back controversy last season? I may be a homer but I’m no expert; I could be wrong, but IMO we would have had a lot more yards on the ground if this guy (or someone like him) had been in the backfield.
Wes Welker can't be stopped.
by 10forTech on
Jul 9, 2008 9:06 PM CDT
up
0 recs
http://texastech.rivals.com/boxscore.asp?Game=28551&Team=TEXASTECH
A&M was not a good defense.
McAnderson is a pretty good back, good vision, hits the hole fast, can break a tackle. But I see a lot of room to run in those highlights. Our less good running backs would still pick up 4-10 yards with space like that, If not more. Lewis did so much better last year when he was getting the ball out in space where he could make a few people miss and fight for extra yards instead of trying to punch through tight spots in the line.
by kayakyakr on
Jul 9, 2008 9:41 PM CDT
up
0 recs
I disagree with this
I heard Sonny Cumbie say " … the Raiders (Harrell) is/are breaking tendencies … when the Raiders ran "effectively" against TAMU. Result a 28 point win. The 100 plus yards on the ground drove A&M crazy.
I doubt the 3.7 yds per carry on 29 carries “drove A&M crazy”; I’m sure their defense was more concerned with the 425 yds passing gained on 30 completions.
The A&M game was over the minute Fran decided to abandon the game plan in the first half, and decided to try to pass the ball all over the place.
Generally, when playing Tech, you want them to run the ball. They aren’t very good at it, and it keeps the clock moving.
by Beergut on
Jul 10, 2008 3:42 AM CDT
up
0 recs
OK
Beergut, let’s here what you have to say about it. You’ve been beating around the bush about it for 2 posts now. I want you to give us your honest, “no homer” opinion.
I’m not being sarcastic. I don’t always agree with you (obviously) but I respect your football knowledge, and your point of view.
Wes Welker can't be stopped.
by 10forTech on
Jul 10, 2008 4:24 PM CDT
up
0 recs
I've considered the problem of having an effective running game in an Air Raid offense before.
I need to do some research to see if some theories of mine are correct, but I’ll post everything I find when it is finished.
by Beergut on
Jul 13, 2008 12:06 AM CDT
up
0 recs
you looking at stats for this? if so, i’d ask you hold off for a few days on posting the research as the next post (vvvv) is about just that: when the running game has worked, is the entire offense better for it, and vise versa.
Probably tomorrow if i get bored.
by kayakyakr on
Jul 13, 2008 12:11 AM CDT
up
0 recs
stats are a very, very small part of what I want to address
I’m looking more at the approach of having an effective running game with such wide splits in the line, so I’m considering scheme and personnel questions.
by Beergut on
Jul 13, 2008 12:19 AM CDT
up
0 recs
Part 2
Working on part 2 of this series today. It’ll be up when it’s up.
by kayakyakr on Jul 12, 2008 12:21 PM CDT 0 recs







