The Definitive Guide To The Run & Shoot

[Dr Death]

Trust me. They know what it looks like. That's almost a bit insulting for you to think you're going to post a video and teach EA how the bubble screen should look.

The problem with getting it to look/work right is programming (in this case, very specifically, limitations). I have not been able to make any of the trips to the studio this year, so I don't know if there is any change with the bubble screen, but I wasn't given the impression (last year) that this was an easy fix (if it can be done at all). The issue has nothing to do with them not knowing what the play looks like.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk

Believe me Steelerfan, it's not meant as an insult. When a company makes a claim - in this case - to have a certain play in their game, and that play is, in my experience, very broken, then I have to wonder what is the problem? Did they only look at one or two Bubble Screens? I don't know. So providing a video w/ multiple shots of that play would, I feel, have to help.

If the problem is programming and EA knows there is a limitation, then why put the play in the game at all? It's very frustrating when you run a very specific offense and yet that offense is rendered almost useless because certain staples of that offense are either not in the game or broken or - as Marlowe puts it - limited.

The demo last year had the play working correctly. I even posted about it. It may have been on OS or here, or both, I can't recall, but I did comment on them getting the play right. Then - the game came out and the play was back to where it was the year before; which was a broken mess.

So if it is programming, why did the demo work almost perfectly yet the final version had so many flaws???

[steelerfan]

All I can tell you is that one of the Game Changers and I spent probably half an hour going over this play with one of the Game Play guys last year. We ran the play over and over and watched the replays. There was a specific limitation to how they could program the blocking that was preventing them from being able to get the play to work exactly the way they wanted it to work. There wasn't a lack of knowledge on their part, they just simply didn't have a direct way to make the blockers do what they wanted them to do.

I, honestly, don't remember how it ran in the demo last year so I can't really comment on that. However, in the 3 trips I made to Tiburon last year, I don't recall ever thinking it was working properly, so I'd be surprised if there was a drastic difference in the demo. If it's possible, I'll see if I can re-download the demo and take a look at some point.

As for putting the play in, and this is just a guess, I'd think that the heat they took from not having it in would be worse than having it be mostly ineffective. I'm really not sure.

In any event, I'm hoping that have been able to find a way to make the play more effective.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk

[gigemaggs99]

Can someone explain the concept of a "system QB"?

I used to hear that about Colt Brennan when he played under the RNS at Hawaii.

Doesn't the RNS QB have to know a lot of plays? Doesn't he have to know how to read the defense?

I'm just confused as to why it's looked down upon?

If a QB is good at reading the defense and has all the throws does it matter what "system" he is in?

Sure Brennan didn't become a super hall of fame QB in the NFL but there are a lot of QBs that don't make it in the pros, or let alone make it into the hall of fame.

What about Andrew Luck, isn't Stanford's offense similar to the "west coast offense"? Isn't that a "system" too?

I'm just not sure why when an offense is good or produces numbers it's considered a gimmick.

To me it seems like these teams that run this "gimmick systems" aren't good until they get a good defense. Hawaii just outscored their opponents, forced the other to throw to try and catch up. SMU does the same thing....ttu is another example they were throwing the ball all over the place with their airraid but didn't start winning a lot until their defense got better and shut the other team down.

So, I guess I'd like to know what it means to be a system QB. Or why is the RNS considered a lower level offense, seems like people say it's used when you don't have the personnel to run something else. I guess that argument doesn't' make sense to me, I thought you get the players or put them in the positions to make your system work. No?

I like watching SMU play. I like the RNS. It does seem like any other offense to me though, if it's not clicking it doesn't work. But I don't seem to lump it in a "less than" category for an offense. I watch Alabama too and sometime they will score less than 10 points a game. Their offense has an off day, the opponents defense shuts them down, but I don't just assume Alabama's offense is chump change.

I guess this discussion could fit in with Army/Navy/GT too. Their Flexbone/option attack. Some days it works great other days it doesn't.

I'm just trying to figure out how these offenses are categorized. I know we (A&M) had some "pro-style" offense last year, but our season had nothing to do w/ the offense. We lost MULTIPLE 2nd half leads most by A LOT and it didn't have much to do w/ the offense. It seemed like in the 2nd half the defense didn't make the adjustments that the other offense DID make and we continued to play the same as we did prior to 1/2 time. They found the weaknesses and just ran/passed all over us. It was like 2 quarters of good football, 1 quarter of not so good football and finally the 4th we were scratching our heads thinking the F?

Hopefully we'll see something better with the Air Raid shows that's coming to town, only time will tell. I also hope the "system" of the air raid can work against the SEC defenses. I worry about this as the RNS looks good against lesser defenses but for example Hawaii vs Georgia in the Sugar Bowl (GA 41- HI- 10) it didn't look so good.

Just wanted to put my thoughts out there as I can't wait for NCAA 13 to arrive.


EDIT: P.S. that video of the H/S team running the bubble screen, that guy had some serious YAC. He was running away from guys and breaking tackles like a beast. Thanks for posting the video. I like seeing stuff like that.

[JeffHCross]

The concept of "system QB" has, unfortunately, very little to do with the actual skills of the quarterback in question. When someone says that a QB is a system QB, the implication (and, in some cases, sole intention) is to diminish that QBs accomplishments by saying that his statistics are a result of the system he plays in, rather than actual skill. In my admittedly less knowledgeable opinion, it came as a result of seeing guys like Andre Ware and David Klingler tear up the record book, and then suffer catastrophically at the next level. The concept was then further stereotyped when several consecutive Texas Tech QBs were put into that system and were undeniably successful at gaining yardage.

Personally, I don't buy completely into the concept. As you said, the RNS QBs have to make a lot of reads and have above-average ability to read defenses. Otherwise the option routes are dead on the table. Similarly, I didn't hear Joe Montana dismissed as a "system QB" when he had all his success, which, I think, was as much due to Bill Walsh's incredible offense (and Montana's unique capabilities in that offense) as it was Joe Montana being a great QB.

I think Sumlin's offense will work in the SEC, but he'll have to make some adjustments, not because of any weaknesses in the Air Raid, but because otherwise coaches like Nick Saban will adjust to him and find his weaknesses. IMHO, the advantage of "big-time" schools like Alabama, LSU, etc, is not a schematic advantage, but instead that their coaches are extremely adept at adjusting to their opponents. Just look at Alabama's dominance in the MNC game. Obviously they have a talent advantage over lesser competition as well, but a talent advantage doesn't just go out and win games by itself.

[baseballplyrmvp]

gigs, system quarterback can refer to anything, but its most often associated with the pass heavy qb's. they've only gotten their recognition because of the numbers they put up and that was due to the "system" they played in. imo, every qb can be labelled as a system quarterback. andrew luck is as much of a product of the pro style/west coast offense as what tim tebow was from a spread option system.

personally, the reason for the lack of success that air raid/rns qb's have had in the pros is due to the nfl teams' stubbornness of trying to make a "pass heavy" qb fit their under center offense. i think the colt brennan's/graham herrell's of college football would be way more successful if the nfl teams would change their offenses rather than trying to change the qb. we kind of saw how successful tebow was this past year when denver changed its offense to something similar to what florida ran. he wasnt required to do things denver's way from the start; denver changed to what tebow already knew (if that makes sense?).

the rns is actually a fairly simple offense. a lot of the "plays" that you'll see, are more passing concepts thrown together that are designed to get one defender to bite, which will free up a different receiver. does the qb need to be able to read the defense? yes and no. the qb and wr's identify one of 5 or 6 defensive concepts pre play and just after the snap, and then adjusts their progression/routes based on what they read. its a high risk in that everyone has to be on the same page by reading the same defense, but assuming the receivers arent retarded, everyone should be fairly close to guessing right. if a qb can make all of the throws and read the defense well, he'll do well in the rns.

i think its a lower level offense, mostly because its easier to make it work successfully when the athleticism of the other team isnt as high. its also easier for teams to move the ball at the lower levels too, as their isnt as much responsibility placed on the qb. imo, the higher up you go, the harder it'll be to run the rns. georgia completely killed us in the 08 sugar bowl because their front 4 was so big and so fast that they could rush 4 and drop 7 every play AND they were causing enormous pressure on every play. however, it has been proven that an nfl team can have success with the rns. the obvious problem with it though, is that it cant really sustain a lead (as evidenced by houston oilers blowing a huge lead over buffalo in 1993).

[gigemaggs99]

I couldn't agree more.

Seems like the NFL is stubborn. I guess the end "goal" is to make it to the pros and get paid to play (legally). I see a lot of good/great college QBs that will never make it at the next level b/c they are labeled system QBs and the pro scouts say their throwing mechanics are off. I guess the NFL wants a pocket passer that throws a perfect over the shoulder delivery. I understand they need to be able to get it over the D-line, etc...

And maybe the NFL teams have their "system" put in place so if the starter gets hurt the 2nd or 3rd string QB can step in and pick up the torch. If Denver practiced and tailored their gameplan around Tebow and then he got knocked out of the game I guess it would be a waste of practice.

I understand NFL is one thing and college is different. I guess this is why I enjoy college football more. To me there is a HUGE difference between college teams, styles, "systems" but in the NFL it all looks about the same....they all seem to run a Pro-style offense...whatever that really means I don't know but they all look the same.

I also agree that the better teams seem to be the ones that make the adjustments. As much as I don't like texas being an AGGIE and all Mac Brown to me is one of the better coaches out there. He wins with the players he has, he makes adjustments, they will be getting killed in the 1st half and in the second half they look like a different team and it's usually for the better.

We looked horrible last year. I work the home games (usher) so I get to see all the snaps and it was just silly how they would have a handful of plays, then they would come out in the 2nd half and it's like they had 15 plays in the first half, so the 2nd half they just shook up the order but still ran the same plays. I'm no coaching expert but I saw it so the other team HAD TO. They did and we would be shut out in the 2nd half. Same went for Defense, we did pretty good in the 1st half, then in the 2nd we ran the same blitzes, same coverages and the other team would torch us in the 2nd half.

Back to the college vs pro thing. I don't care if they go pro or not. I don't think that makes that big of a difference. I enjoy college football, if they are good enough to go pro they will, I say play your 4 years and play hard, break records, worry about the pros when that time comes. If you aren't good enough to play in the pros but can light up the scoreboard and break records in college I'm all for it.

I guess in the end I could care less about the "system" they are using. I tune in to see them play. I grew up watching Montana w/ the 49ers and I turned the game on just to see what magic he was going to do, similar to Barry Sanders, Michael Jordan, etc...so I also watched Colt Brennan w/ Hawaii b/c I wanted to see him torch the field.

With the RNS I still have no clue why June Jones pulled Kyle Pardon, I thought he was good. Maybe there was more to the story, but now I see he's gone to Eastern Washington. I know he threw some bad picks but like ya'll are saying the Qb AND the Wrs have to be on the same page, so I figure in the RNS it's not always the Qbs fault. If he "sees" the curl route and the Wr sees the GO route, well that just isn't going to work out.

Anyways, thanks for the good conversation about the RNS. I'm excited to get NCAA 13, traded in NCAA 12 a few weeks back, will be nice to have a football game soon.

EDIT: p.s. Dr. Death I see your avatar, I can't wait to see what Mike Leach does at WSU. I dislike ttu and it was hard when he was there, I like his style, but again being an AGGIE it was hard to cheer for ttu. When he was out of coaching I liked listening to his broadcasting of games on the CBS network, he has a strange sense of humor but it's different and that is nice. Now that he's back to coaching I just hope we get more WSU games televised here so we can see the AIR RAID in action. I also read somewhere that he highered the Pistol guru so it will be interesting to see how he works the Pistol into the Air Raid. Maybe something similar to ok. st.

It will be interesting to see what type of playbook they put in for WSU. I wonder if we'll have to wait for NCAA14 to get the "more complete" version.

[steelerfan]

A big factor that is often overlooked is that the pro game is played up the middle while the college game is played on the edges. This is a direct result of the location of the hash marks.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[Dr Death]

Wow! This thread jumped back to life... reading through some of the recent posts I'll give you some info that will hopefully shed some light on the R&S, the "System QB" label, what a R&S QB has to do, how Bill Walsh actually borrowed from it and some other things... This may take a while, so get comfortable...

First, not trying to argue w/ a fellow Hawaii fan, but the QB in the R&S has a TON of burden on him every single game, every single play. Go listen to Warren Moon, who ran it for 4 seasons in the NFL and hear how he explains it: "I can't be off ever! I cannot have a bad day for us to be successful." The QB in the R&S has plays where his reads can be as high as 16 different routes depending on what the D is doing. There is video of Colt Brennan on You Tube explaining this.

I always hear that this offense is successful for "lower level" schools but here's what people are missing... the big time schools have "systems" in place and a wealth of talent and they stick w/ what works for them. Put June Jones at or and he would probably never lose a game. Another thing to consider... in the early 1990's the NFL had 3 teams use the R&S: The Oilers - Falcons and Lions. All made the playoffs w/ it and all were top ten offenses. Now that's the highest level we have in football and the R&S was successful at that level. In 1995, the Atlanta Falcons became the first team ever to have:

A QB throw for over 4,000 yards {Jeff George}
A RB rush for over 1,000 yards {Craig "Ironhead" Heyward}
3 WR's to have over 1,000 yards receiving {Eric Metcalf, Bert Emanuel, Terrance Mathis}

All of those teams lacked talent in certain areas, particularly defense, yet all made the playoffs.

The "System QB" tag. As has been stated, David Klingler and Andre Ware did more harm to the R&S than anybody alive, because both failed miserably as pro's. Ware even went to a team {Detroit} that was running the R&S, so there's just no excuse for that. But too many people took those two QB's failures and unfairly labeled every QB after that as a product of being in a "system" and not being a quality QB.

To take this even further, consider this: Klingler had set the NCAA record for TD passes in a season w/ 54. He did this in 1990. That year he threw 643 passes and had 20 interceptions. In 2006 when Brennan broke the record by throwing 58 TD passes he only threw 559 and only had 12 interceptions. That's 84 fewer passes. Considering the fact that Brennan averaged a TD pass in less than every 10 attempts - 58 divided by 559 passes - give him another 84 passes and he would have been around 65-70 TD passes had he thrown as many as Klingler did. Brennan also completed 72.6% to Klingler's 58.2%.

In the NCAA, Brennan is currently 4th on the all time TD Passes list for a career. Here is the breakdown of the guys ahead of him and how many more passes they threw than Brennan did:

1 - Case Keenum - 155 TD's - 2,229 attempts {645 more passes than Brennan - 24 more TD's}

2 - Kellen Moore - 142 TD's - 1,658 attempts {74 more passes than Brennan - 11 more TD's}

3 - Graham Harrell - 134 TD's - 2,010 attempts {426 more passes than Brennan - 3 more TD's}

4 - Colt Brennan - 131 TD's - 1,584 attempts

Brennan is also the career leader in completion percentage at 70.4%

And, the year Brennan threw those 58 TD passes he set the QB Rating record of 186.0, which stood until this past season and he also did it playing at , at as well as games against - and

Brennan has all the intangibles you could want. He's deadly accurate, led Hawaii to numerous come-from-behind wins - some that seemed nearly impossible and his first year w/ the Redskins he was the highest rated QB in the preseason. Now I get that he was playing against 3rd string players, but he was also playing WITH 3rd string players. He also led 3 come-from-behind wins that preseason. He is currently in the CFL w/ the Saskatchewan Rough-Riders.

The NFL is very slow in adapting to change, particularly when it comes to wide-open offenses. When the R&S was in the league teams that had to defend it absolutely hated it. Rod Woodson, the All-Pro CB for the Steelers was so relieved when Houston finally dropped the R&S that he was saying how he was going to send Bud Adams, the Oilers owner some sort of thank you gift.

Bill Walsh is known for being the West Coast innovator. However, in the America's Game show on the 1981 SF 49ers and their Super Bowl win that year, wide receiver Dwight Clark talks about how Walsh implemented the ability for the WR's to adjust their routes AFTER the snap - prior to that the only offense doing this was Mouse Davis and the R&S - and Clark says that single adjustment changed everything for the 49ers and made their offense almost impossible to defend. They went from 6-10 in 1980, to 13-3 and SB Champs in 1981 and this adjustment, borrowed from the R&S, was a big part of that turn-around.

Today, the NFL is starting to open up to the spread offense and the spread QB's. The year the Patriots went 18-1, a lot of what they did was R&S based. In 1994 when Belichick was coaching the Cleveland Browns he scrimmaged against the June Jones coached Falcons and wanted to learn as much as he could about that offense. Years later, in New England, he applied a lot of the R&S principles to his scheme.

Now we also have guys like Cam Newton, RG III and Brandon Weeden being drafted in the first round, which shows the NFL is slowly adapting to a more spread QB. The Saints run a lot of spread offense and it wouldn't shock me at all if they use some of the R&S ideas in their scheme.

Suffice to say; running this offense, the R&S, takes a lot for the QB. Yes, you can take an average QB and make him better, but you can take a very good QB and make him great provided he's willing to put in the work to get the reads down and he is accurate. And as Warren Moon proved, when you have a great QB in this system, as well as Jim Kelly w/ the Houston Gamblers in the USFL, the offense can be nearly unstoppable.

Much more to come...

[Dr Death]

the obvious problem with it though, is that it cant really sustain a lead (as evidenced by houston oilers blowing a huge lead over buffalo in 1993).

This is something that I disagree w/ 150%. I have that Oilers/Bills game on DVD and Houston was a force in that game. Moon was 36 of 50 for 371 yards, in the first half they had the ball 4 times, scored on all 4 drives, including two 80 yard drives, and held the ball for over 22 minutes. Once the lead went to 35-3 it was the defense that let up. The Bills also benefited greatly by two major breaks: One, they did a surprise onside kick, which the Oilers weren't prepared for, and the other was a TD the Bills scored where their WR stepped out of bounds and ran about 3 steps out of bounds before coming back in and catching the ball and scoring. The TD should have never been allowed and should have been a penalty, but the ref never saw it.

That kick-started the momentum and as in any game, momentum plays a huge part. Moon also had one pass hit a wide open receiver and it went right through his hands for an interception, setting the Bills up for another short field and resulting TD.

The Oiler offense wasn't to blame that day; their D was. And their special teams. And a missed call by a ref.

[baseballplyrmvp]

wrong choice of words on my part Dr D. "sustain a lead" should have been "a good end of the game offense." unless you have both an above average o-line and a stud rb, you're not gonna have a strong running presense in this offense. what i meant was that it's not a good offense to milk the clock at the end of the game, as typically the running game is greatest thing in the world.

[Dr Death]

wrong choice of words on my part Dr D. "sustain a lead" should have been "a good end of the game offense." unless you have both an above average o-line and a stud rb, you're not gonna have a strong running presense in this offense. what i meant was that it's not a good offense to milk the clock at the end of the game, as typically the running game is greatest thing in the world.

It feels weird to me to be "arguing" w/ another fan! But I'll say this - in the 2006 Insight Bowl when had a 38-7 lead over and rallied for a 44-41 OT win, it was against a pro style offense that was great at running the ball and controlling the clock. Name me an offense and I can name you times where they "failed to hold a lead." So that's why I am so vehemently in disagreement on that aspect.

I can also name plenty of times when the R&S did hold leads... like when kicked the crap out of in the 2006 Hawaii Bowl... And I'm not really "arguing" w/ you... just pointing out how the O wasn't to blame that day in Buffalo. Any fan is a friend of mine!!!

[steelerfan]

I disagree that the Oilers "lacked talent in certain areas, particularly defense." Their defense was very good. In 1992 they were #3 in the league and all 4 years they were in the top half of the league (3, 9, 11, 14 - not in that order).

I also disagree that the Oilers offense takes no blame for the collapse in Buffalo. They were unable to chew the clock and had numerous extremely short drives which kept Buffalo alive (3 and out, 3 incompletions).

I live in Houston and I did in the 90s. It was the same thing over and over with that offense. It could move the ball between the 20s, including running on defenses who were spread out expecting the pass. But, as soon as the field shortened, the running game disappeared. They may have put up great statistics, but they never broke any scoring records.

The debate every year down here was whether they would keep a TE or FB so they could try to pound it in when need be. That's part of the problem with that offense in the NFL. The 53-man roster, and having just 45 active on gameday, doesn't allow you to have luxuries like TEs and FBs who play only 3 snaps a game.

I'm not trying to be argumentative at all. Seriously. I just read all of what you say about the offense and you make it sound like every coach in the world is dumb for not running it. It has it's warts too.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[Dr Death]

I disagree that the Oilers "lacked talent in certain areas, particularly defense." Their defense was very good. In 1992 they were #3 in the league and all 4 years they were in the top half of the league (3, 9, 11, 14 - not in that order).

I also disagree that the Oilers offense takes no blame for the collapse in Buffalo. They were unable to chew the clock and had numerous extremely short drives which kept Buffalo alive (3 and out, 3 incompletions).

I live in Houston and I did in the 90s. It was the same thing over and over with that offense. It could move the ball between the 20s, including running on defenses who were spread out expecting the pass. But, as soon as the field shortened, the running game disappeared. They may have put up great statistics, but they never broke any scoring records.

The debate every year down here was whether they would keep a TE or FB so they could try to pound it in when need be. That's part of the problem with that offense in the NFL. The 53-man roster, and having just 45 active on gameday, doesn't allow you to have luxuries like TEs and FBs who play only 3 snaps a game.

I'm not trying to be argumentative at all. Seriously. I just read all of what you say about the offense and you make it sound like every coach in the world is dumb for not running it. It has it's warts too.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

What you have to understand is that the Lions and Falcons had both sucked for years. Neither had been in the playoffs for a long time and they go to the R&S and both make the playoffs. The Oilers were obviously the most talented team of the three, but the fact that two basement dwellers both made the playoffs - the Lions made it all the way to the NFC Championship Game - says a lot.

And while I can't provide you a link to prove the Oilers ability to score in the red-zone, I do have several games on DVD that show they were in the top 10 amongst red-zone scoring teams during that era. But - back to the main argument - that 1992 playoff loss, was on their defense. When an offense was as efficient as theirs was - Moon was 19 of 22 in the first half w/ 4 TD's and they controlled the clock for over 22 minutes and their defense just started to coast... one TD, followed by a surprise onside kick which led to another TD, followed by an illegal TD... suddenly 35-3 became 35-24... and that's where the momentum changed heavily.

Every offense has its good and bad. But no offense has been has heavily criticized as the R&S and for all the wrong reasons. If people listened to those who defended it - or tried to - it was a nightmare, and I feel it has been given an unfair label. The numbers - stats and Wins vs Losses - speak for their selves - and yet people still have this bias against it.

[steelerfan]

I'm not saying the Oilers' defense wasn't responsible. I'm saying the offense (or, arguably, the playcalling) shares that blame. Three-and-out, with 3 incompletions takes less than :30 off the clock. If they had run the ball three times, they'd have burned 2:30.

Yes, the Lions had some moderate success. They also had, arguably, the most prolific back in the history of the game. And, when they reached the NFC Championship, they lost 41-10.

The Falcons were never a huge threat, on a league-wide scale, in those days, imo.

If anything, I think that the fact that only bad teams that have severe talent deficiencies have typically employed the Run & Shoot speaks for itself.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[Dr Death]

I'm not saying the Oilers' defense wasn't responsible. I'm saying the offense (or, arguably, the playcalling) shares that blame. Three-and-out, with 3 incompletions takes less than :30 off the clock. If they had run the ball three times, they'd have burned 2:30.

Yes, the Lions had some moderate success. They also had, arguably, the most prolific back in the history of the game. And, when they reached the NFC Championship, they lost 41-10.

The Falcons were never a huge threat, on a league-wide scale, in those days, imo.

If anything, I think that the fact that only bad teams that have severe talent deficiencies have typically employed the Run & Shoot speaks for itself.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

Well Moon was 36 0f 50, so he didn't have too many 3 & outs... I can re-watch the game tonight and count how many he had, if any. And Lorenzo White had 75 yards on 19 carries, almost 4.0 per... so it wasn't like they had no ground game. I'll go back and watch it and report back to you.

I disagree that the Oilers "lacked talent in certain areas, particularly defense." Their defense was very good. In 1992 they were #3 in the league and all 4 years they were in the top half of the league (3, 9, 11, 14 - not in that order).

I also disagree that the Oilers offense takes no blame for the collapse in Buffalo. They were unable to chew the clock and had numerous extremely short drives which kept Buffalo alive (3 and out, 3 incompletions).

Now that quote above you say the Oilers didn't lack talent yet you say that only teams that had/have severe talent deficiencies use the R&S! So, here I am just a little confused. FWIW, I have a ton of the 1990-93 Oiler games on VHS and/or DVD, so I do have a good grasp of what I am talking about and not just going from memory of 20+ years ago. I can pop in any game and watch it.

I'll let you know on the 1992 Bills playoff game how many 3 & outs they had. I know they also had one missed FG when the holder dropped the snap... yet people want to blame the offense. If Montgomery - their punter - gets that snap down, they probably get 3 points and win the game.

EDIT: From some quick research I see they had one 3 & out in the game. ONE!

[steelerfan]

I said "typically". I agree that the Oilers were talented. But your argument that the Lions and Falcons achieved success (along with Hawaii, SMU, UH etc.) supports exactly what you are refuting: that the Run & Shoot, for the most part, is a gimmick offense used by teams with talent deficiencies to try and compete with more talented teams. And I'm not saying that I fully support that argument. I'm just saying that parts of what you say support it.

Also, if Moon was 36-50, that means he was 17-28 in the second half. Throwing 28 times with that kind of lead is insane. That is extending the game and asking for trouble. Regardless of the 3 and outs, which wasn't the gist of my point, their unwillingness to run more in the second half is what gave Buffalo a chance to have such a comeback.

How many teams won a championship with the Run & Shoot?

Oilers - 0
Lions - 0
Falcons - 0
U of H - 0
Hawaii - 0
SMU - 0
Gamblers - 0
etc. - 0

If it was the great offense that is purported, everyone would try it. Hell, Kevin Gilbride (who just won a Super Bowl) gave it up after Pardee wasn't looking over his shoulder.

While I know it has had it's moderate successes, and is fun to watch, I can't buy that it is the best thing since sliced bread.

I also write off the "elements of it are in so-and-so's offense" arguments too. That same argument can be made for virtually any system. (not that you made that argument, but I've heard it before).

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what you and I think. I will continue to believe that it is marginal, and you will idolize it. No big deal.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[steelerfan]

Differences of opinion aside, let's try and get this thread back on topic. I'm waiting for the "Definitive Guide".

Like I said early on, I'd love to know more about the offense, but so far all we have is a generic list of what we need to use this offense effectively (a list that could be plugged in for most offenses).

I don't mean that in a shitty way either. I know you know alot about the Run & Shoot, and I'd like to have you break things down for us. I'm sure we could all stand to learn something and many of the core elements are applicable to several other systems.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[Dr Death]

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what you and I think. I will continue to believe that it is marginal, and you will idolize it. No big deal.

It's not that I idolize it, I just remember before this offense if you were a WR and your route was a 12 yard hook route, and the D was playing Cover-3, you were not going to get the ball because your route was running right into the strength of what the D was doing on that play... This offense changed all that. Cover-3? Okay, now I'll run this and be open. To me - it was and still is brilliant - in that it allows for your team to adjust on the fly. Football is game of adjustments and in this offense those adjustments happen every play just after the snap of the ball.

Differences of opinion aside, let's try and get this thread back on topic. I'm waiting for the "Definitive Guide".

Like I said early on, I'd love to know more about the offense, but so far all we have is a generic list of what we need to use this offense effectively (a list that could be plugged in for most offenses).

I don't mean that in a shitty way either. I know you know alot about the Run & Shoot, and I'd like to have you break things down for us. I'm sure we could all stand to learn something and many of the core elements are applicable to several other systems.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

As far as the Definitive Guide, if memory serves I wanted to write it for those who use it in the game. What I could do is go through the offense and explain all the details, then once the game comes out go back and explain to people the aspects that are actually in the game. I am hoping for more this season. I know that since they bragged about having the R&S in the game, there are really only a few true R&S plays in the game.

[JerzeyReign]

As a 'Power I' coach, I have to admit, I love reading Dr. Death's posts on the R&S. I learn something new every time.

[classic]

i def want to run the shoot in both ncaa and madden this year...i have been a compression set guy but on ncaa there isnt many playbooks like houston and washington books from madden ...so i want to change things up a bit i will def stay tune to this thread as ncaa approaches to get my knowledge of the offense up to par