DO NFL OFFENSES NEED FIXIN'?
By Leo Hand
Irvin High School
El Paso, Texas
The old timers used to say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Do the offenses that are
presently being used in the NFL need some fixin'? Are they really explosive, wide-open,
high scoring, and exciting (synonyms often given to it by the so-called media experts),
or have they become like an old pick-up truck that is in desperate need of an engine overhaul?
Let's consider some facts:
In 2000, the running game was 46% and the passing game was 54% of the average NFL
team's total offense. In1999, the running game was 45% and the passing game was 55%
of its total offense. In '98 the running game was 47% and the passing game was 53%
of its total offense.
In 2000, the average NFL team scored 0.8 touchdowns (rushing) per game. In 1999,
it scored 0.7 touchdowns (rushing) per game, and in '98 it scored 0.8 touchdowns
(rushing) per game.
How did the great run offenses that were once the trademark of excellence in the NFL
become so unproductive and weak? Some might argue that this pathetic situation was
offset by great pass offense, but the facts are:
In 2000, the average NFL team scored 1.3 touchdowns (passing) per game. In 1999,
it scored 1.3 touchdowns (passing) per game, and in '98 it scored 1.4 touchdowns
(passing) per game.
That means that in 2000, the average NFL team scored12.6 points per game (with its
run/pass offense), In1999, it scored 12.4 points per game, and in '98 itscored 13.2
points per game!
Also consider these facts:
In 2000, it took the average NFL team 29 offensive plays to score an offensive
touchdown. In 1999, it took 30 plays, and in '98 it took 28 plays.
Every field goal attempt is a failure to score a touchdown. During the past three
years, there have been 2,770 field goal attempts in the NFL.
Only 4 offensive touchdowns were scored in Super BowlXXXIV, and 88 offensive
plays were run before either team was able to score a touchdown.
Some people may argue that great defensive play has stymied NFL offenses, but is it
really that difficult to play defense in the NFL anymore? Let's think about it. About
70%-80% of the time, NFL defenders are confronted by only two different blocking
schemes - pass blocking and zone blocking. When the play is a run, a defensive player
usually only has to worry about tackling one running back, and everyone in the stadium
knows exactly what kind of play that one running back is attempting to run after he's
taken two or three steps. Misdirection? False keys? Double binding? One hardly ever
sees these things in the NFL anymore. Have offensive coaches made playing run defense
incredibly easy by simplifying play recognition? Are NFL defenders afforded the luxury
of lining up, winding up, and kicking gluteus maximus because no one messes with
their minds anymore? Although they are running the ball about 46% of the time, are
NFL coaches lining up in formations that enhance their ability to run the ball, or are
they treating the running game like an unwanted step-child without actually realizing it?
Is it also possible that the once potent pass offenses of the NFL have become impotent
through a process of overkill? I've seen a number of weightlifters that became obsessed
with upper body development; consequently, they totally neglected their legs. After a
couple of years of intensive training, these weight lifters ended up looking like cartoon
caricatures. They were built like Superman from the waist up, but their legs looked like
twigs. Are NFL offenses starting to resemble top-heavy weightlifters? Since the average
NFL team spends almost asmuch time running the ball as it does passing it, is it time to
start lining up in formations that enhance both aspects of the game?
Anyone who objectively considers the facts must logically conclude that the average NFL
offense is indesperate need of some fixin''. Unfortunately, Viagra won't cure offensive
impotency. If a cure is to take place, innovative thinking must replace status quo thinking
and a new type of offense that is a departure from the standard, corporate style presently
being played in the NFL must emerge. There are many offensive innovations that could help
bring about acure; In this article I'd like to suggest a few by asking some "Why Nots?"
1. Why not make more than one player responsible for46% of a team's total offense? It's
almost suicidal trying to play running back in the NFL anymore, and many careers are being
cut short because of the wear and tear that the position puts on one's body. Most teams
have gone to a type aceback formation in which one man is responsible for about 90% of
a team's running game. The Aceback is expected to carry theball approximately 4 out of
every 10 offensive plays and then block and catch passes the other 6 plays. In many
instances, he doesn't even have a great trigger-man backing him up. Because many teams
use zone blocking most of the time and real misdirectionis almost nonexistent, playing run
defense has been simplified and defensive aggressiveness and gang tackling have become
intensified. These factors havenot only taken their toll on running backs; they have made
NFL running games weak and unproductive. Would a coach expect to have a great passing attack
using onlyone wide receiver? Isn't it reasonable then that coaches who run the ball 46%
of the time should havemore than one running back in the backfield?
2. Why not consider getting rid of the tight end andputting three running backs in the backfield
some ofthe time? Just for a moment, consider the following offensive formation:
Imagine Orlandis Gary and Terrell Davis at the two halfback positions and someone like Ron Dayne
at fullback. Now, imagine Ed McCaffery and Rod Smith at the two split end positions. Whom would
the defense key on? Do you seriously think that a tight end will be missed in this lineup? The
formation looks a lotlike Tiger Ellison's Run and Shoot formation doesn't it? Therefore, it probably
wouldn't hurt the passing game very much, but it would certainly do wonders to help the running
game. Still miss the tight end? OK, let's consider some more facts. In recent years Wesley Wells
has been one of the most productive tightends in the NFL. 1999 was one of his most productive
years. In 1999, he caught 63 passes for 882 yards and 12 touchdowns. That averages out to about
3.9 receptions, 55 yards, and 0.75 touchdowns per game. Do you think that any three of the
running backs mentioned would have difficulty matching Wesley Walls'. He won't be missed as a
blocker either because as blockers, both halfbacks will have the advantage of using a cut block
in addition to a three-or four-yard running start when they block #1 or #2. They can also be sent
into motion or shifted into a slotback position if they are needed to double team.
3. Why not put some real misdirection back into NFLOffenses? One of the key ingredients missing
from most NFL offenses in recent years has been misdirection. NFL defenders don't get fooled
when an Aceback takes one or two steps to his right before going left. However, imagine the
confusion that would exist if a backfield made up of players like Orlandis Gary, Terrell
Davis and Ron Dayne made each running play look like a labyrinth.
4. Why not prevent defenders from lining up and winding up by returning to some of the traditional
blocking schemes that spawned the most powerful running games in the history of football? Zoneblocking
has simplified offensive line play, but it's also made playing defense incredibly easy. Let's consider the
following blocking scheme:
Who's getting the ball? The Fullback or the Right Halfback? Or, is the play a run action pass?
Whereare the defensive keys? They're gone aren't they? Versus this play and similar plays, NFL
defenders wouldn't be able to line up and wind up any more. Infact, they wouldn't even be able
to rely upon their keys any more; consequently, playing defense in the NFL might quickly
become a real job.
5. Why not have the quarterback set up behind the offensive tackle? In recent years, there were
an alarming number of quarterbacks who sustained disabling injuries. When the quarterback drops
straight back, pass rushers have two good pass rush lanes, and the quarterback is surrounded
on both sides by tall pass rushers. When the quarterback sets up behindthe tackle, he runs away
from half of the pass rush. This tactic also improves the quarterback'svision and arm strength toward
his roll. It also makes pass blocking easier since offensive linemen know exactly which pass-rush
lane is defensively most desirable. It also takesits toll on defensive linemen because now they're
forced to chase the quarterback. Furthermore, it enhances the ability of a mobile quarterback.
Although we are starting to see more mobile quarterbacks in the NFL, most of the coaches aren't
utilizing their speed. If mobilequarterbacks are allowed to attack the corner, a lot of big plays will
result. Setting up behind thetackle also gives a shorter quarterback a chance to play because he
isn't surrounded by tall pass rushers; he's running away from them.
6. Why not return to more traditional pass protection schemes?
During the '90's, the proliferation of pass patterns that released five receivers was evident at every
level of competition. Recently, we've started to see more defensive teams holding their offensive
opponents accountable for all of the defenders in the box by utilizing zone blitzes and illusion stunts.
This has not only impaired pre snap reads, but it has also prevented quarterbacks from going to their
hot receivers. The results have been more sacks and quarterback injuries. Coaches need to go back
to those old school patterns that make certain all defenders in the box are initially accounted for.
7. Why not have an option quarterback on the roster? Most option quarterbacks are great athletes.
Most of them are capable of playing wide receiver, defensive back, and/or running back. Because
most option quarterbacks have been running the option all of their lives, an NFL team could run five
or six option plays a game with very little additional time spent practicing these plays. The remainder
of the time, the option quarterback could be used as a backup orstarter at another position. An offense
that possessed the ability to run the option would put tremendous pressure on NFL defenses.
8. When a run-action pass is employed, why not insist that the quarterback makes a great fake? Most
NFL run-action pass fakes are not very convincing. Run-action passes put the quarterback at a
disadvantage because they force him to take his eyes off the coverage. Why run them if they're
not going to fool anyone?
9. Why not employ the same offense everywhere on the field? Most NFL teams run one offense all the
way to their opponent's ten-yard line, but once they arrive at the ten-yard line, they switch to an entirely
different offense. The offense that most teams switch to at the ten-yard line is usually contrary to its
basic offensive philosophy, totally unsuited for its personnel, and pathetically unimaginative and
predictable. Why not develop offenses that would accommodate either grass basketball or smash mouth?
I know that many of these ideas may seem radical, but something has to be done. I work with kids, and
every day I hear more kids say that they think pro football is BORING, and that they'd rather watch pro
wrestling. Remember where this is being said. It's being said in Texas, and football is a religion here!
Americans like high scoring games. That's why football replaced baseball as the National Pastime and
soccer never became popular in this country. Twelve or thirteen points a game simply isn't cutting it!
BACK TO ARTICLES PAGE
BACK TO MAIN PAGE
E-mail us:
Coaches Services