B.C. Fan wrote:
Edmonton isn't putting up a lot of rushing yards but the Eskies are still giving their running backs 15 to 20 touches a game.
The Lions used Antonio Warren as a receiver when he was here. Smith has a different skill set but the Lions continued to throw to him last year
It's great to see you posting here B.C. Fan....you have an excellent mind when it comes to analyzing football strategy!
However, while you note that Edmonton is rushing the football 15-20 times per game, the fact is that Edmonton is last in the league in times rushing the football by a significant margin compared to other teams in the league.... and they are last in rushing yards and average yards rushing per game.
That doesn't surprise me! The Chap is a disciple of the spread offence and he prefers to use his tailback to either block or be involved in the passing attack.
In 2003 and 2004, when we had Burratto as offensive coordinator, we had the best offence in the league and we weren't in the spread offence exclusively. In fact we came second in the league in rushing in 2004, as well as having the best offence. However, some of those rushing yards could be attributed to Printers in 2004.
In 2005, when the Chap took over as offensive coordinator, we moved into the spread offence more exclusively (he still used the "I" formation at times in 2005 before completely abandoning it in 2006) we dropped from second in rushing yards to fifth, while only being seventh in rushing attempts. The same held true in 2006. Even with Smith moving into the backfield, to replace Antonio Warren, Chapdelaine still didn't rush the football a lot, as again we were seventh in the league in rushing attempts.
The pattern is almost the same in Calgary. Last season Burratto had the best offence in the league during the regular season and Calgary led the league in rushing. Cortez has taken over as offensive coordinator in Calgary this season and already Calgary has dropped to fifth in the league in rushing attempts.
That is typical of the spread formation and the tendancies of it's disciples like Cortez and Chapdelaine. They prefer to go single back set or empty backfield and focus on the pass. The tailback either blocks for the passing attack or slips out of the backfield to provide a safety valve for the quarterback.
The Lions used Antonio Warren as a receiver when he was here. Smith has a different skill set but the Lions continued to throw to him last year.
In actual fact Warren was used more as a rusher in 2004, under Burratto, in Warren's first season with our Leos. In 2004. Warren replaced Kelvin Anderson, who rushed for over 1,000 yards for our Leos in 2003. Warren rushed for 1136 yards in 2004, while catching 34 passes for 278 yards. In that season our Leos had the best passing attack in the league, while finishing second in rushing. In 2005, under Chapdelaine, Warren's rushed for 983 yards and caught 68 passes for 718 yards. Our passing attack was second in the league but our rushing attack dropped to fifth, while dropping to seventh in rushing attempts.
In 2006 we were seventh in rushing attempts again while finishing fifth in the league in rushing. Statistics can be used in a variety of ways. However, there is no question that the trend of the spread offence is to rush the football less and to pass the football a lot.
Smart and Green clearly have yet to be fully worked into the offence. I see signs of hope, though, with the increased use of the "I" formation against Winnipeg and the fake toss to Smart on the opening play of the game. Maybe next week they'll let him touch the ball.
The spread offence revolutionized offensive football in the CFL and was very successful in it's day. Like all offences, eventually defenses adapt and it becomes necessary to make offensive changes. In my view, the days of the spread offence and disciples of the spread like Chapdelaine and Cortez have to move away from it....something they are still not doing! You won't likely see a 1,000 yard rusher in the spread or see it in the top 50% of the league in rushing attempts. It's just not the way they think...they see the run as being set up by the pass and used mainly for short yardage and to keep the defense honest.
The "I" formation is only one way of adapting. It does take advantage of smaller defensive ends, tweener linebackers, and defenses that are overplaying the pass by providing a stronger running formation...and it's an excellent play action formation. However, offences may also need to go to offset backfields and split backfields as well. Motion also needs to return to CFL offences.
However, alone none of these are a great solution because defenses are so multi-formational and they can bring in specialized personell on every down to either overplay the run or the pass. The key is to be able to go multi-formational on offence without bringing in different players, forcing defenses to adjust without substitution. To do that an offence needs fullbacks that can play tight end, receivers that can play tight end, and backs that can go in motion and line up wide and be excellent pass receivers.
Like you..I agree that Smart and Green have yet to be fully worked into the offence. Last game they worked Green as both a tight end and fullback, shifting him just before the snap. However, we need to run Green more and pass to him more, and we need to utilize Smart more as a receiver. All we need to do is get him the football. in space, on passing plays and let him run.
It will be interesting, B.C. Fan, to see how we line up against Calgary and how we game plan this time!