The Running Game

[Lion Guy]

Just noting some rushing stats on the cfl site.

1. C. Roberts - 38 carries for 184 yds, 5 yd ave

2. J. Smith - 32 carries for 163 yds, 5 yd ave.

With all the emphasis on Reynolds vs Roberts the past 2 years, Joe Smith (as his name would imply) flies quietly and very efficiently under the radar. I LOVE that we have a running game now to take some heat off the pass. Nothing better for me than to run the ball down the opposition's throat for an 8 minute TD drive covering 100 yards.

[David]

Wally mentioned how pleased he is with our running game (through the media, Wally will let you know when you're doing well ....he will also let you know when you need to pick up your game!). Joe admits that he just didn't have it when he came to camp last year - although you wouldn't know it by that game in Calgary when he ran off tackle for the long touchdown run! - he felt out of shape and had lost his desire. Joe went on a cleansing diet in the off-season, dropped some weight and came to camp with renewed energy.

As much as our O-line was given credit last game for running the ball down the Esks throats in the 4th quarter, Joe made some amazing cuts at full speed to pick up extra yardage. He could be part of a new breed of CFL running backs: quick feet but a bigger, more punishing back who can run at the smaller defensive players on the field (all the nickel and dime packages).

DH 8)

[notahomer]

I have been dissappointed in all of our games in terms of the running game. The preseason one I guess doesn't matter. But I was surprised to find out that are numbers are not DOWN. I would like to see the run be something consistent. Not something you try, it gets stuffed, you quit. Or, games out of reach so you finally get the handoffs going. Our running yards may be where they should be but how many of those yards came when the near the end of the game. I was glad to watch the yards come and the clock tick. I just wanted to see the run sooner too.

[Shi Zi Mi]

IMHO, another "rock and a hard place" scenario...........

If the run isn't producing and the offense goes away from it.......you get the "why did we abandon the run so quickly?" criticism.........but if the offense sticks with it and it continues to fail, you get the "why did they continue to run when it obviously wasn't working?" criticism.

As is always the case, hindsight is 20-20.

How the run is incorporated in the gameplan is a result of scouting out the defense of the opposing team and deciding what type of offense will be the most effective.......running the ball just to appear balanced in attack is not necessarily the best plan.

[Rammer]

IMHO, another "rock and a hard place" scenario...........

If the run isn't producing and the offense goes away from it.......you get the "why did we abandon the run so quickly?" criticism.........but if the offense sticks with it and it continues to fail, you get the "why did they continue to run when it obviously wasn't working?" criticism.

As is always the case, hindsight is 20-20.

How the run is incorporated in the gameplan is a result of scouting out the defense of the opposing team and deciding what type of offense will be the most effective.......running the ball just to appear balanced in attack is not necessarily the best plan.

You may want to run the ball all game, but if you are down by 14, just about every CFL teams abandons the run completely and turns to the air to strike back. Being able to adjust as you go with what the game dictates is what the good teams do, having the ability to drive when you are killing the clock with a lead is what great teams are able to do, be thankful that we are showing that stride.

Same reasons that I don't like the reflection of stats, as each game is all about getting the two points, and not about getting this stat to win it, the run vs the air game fall into the same line of thinking. You are going to do what you think works, and if it isn't, you resort to the other, stats/run/passing are a result of trying for the W, not the other way around.

[Blitz]

You are going to do what you think works, and if it isn't, you resort to the other, stats/run/passing are a result of trying for the W, not the other way around.

Absolutely Rammer. We ran the football once in the first half against Edmonton when they were overplaying run and crowding our underneath passing attack. In the second half, with Edmonton's defensive line so tired they were having trouble getting into their stance, and with the defensive backs playing off more after being beat deep a few times (eg: Jackson, Clermont) we ran the ball down their throats and kept doing it.

Those are good signs to me. An offence should continue attacking a weakness until the defense adjusts. Too many offensive coordinators will run something that is very successful and then don't keep exploiting it, even though the defense is still giving it up!