Mickey Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 McGahee finished 10th in rushing but among the top 20 backs in the league, he was tied for last in yards per carry, 3.8, with Lamont Jordan. He had 325 attempts which was more than Warrik Dunn and Thomas Jones, both of whom had more yards than Willis. Willie Parker had only 45 yards less than Willis but did that on only 255 carries. That is 70 fewer attempts than Willis had. We ran Willis plenty, we just didn't run very well is all, especially over the last 8 games. He had 195 carries (24 per game on average) and 790 yards over the first half of the season and we went 3-5. To put that in perspective, 24 carries per game comes out to 384 carries for the year which is 14 more than Shaun Alexander who led the league in attempts and 24 more than Edgerrin James who had the second most attempts. Thus, we ran Willis more often than any team in the league ran their backs by far over the first half of the season and the result was a horrendous record of 3-5. Over the second half of the season, we still tried to run Willis plenty but we simply were not gaining yards. No first downs means fewer attempts. Over the second half, Willis had 130 carries but only 457 yards. That is a miserable 3.5 yards per carry. The Miami game I think is emblematic of our situation. We ran Willis 27 times which is a lot of carries by any measure but gained only 81 yards, that is a lousy 3 yards per carry. In contrast, we threw 27 times for 227 yards, that is over 8 yards per throwing attempt. In the Bengal game, we ran him 23 times for a lousy 66 yards, that is a very poor 2.8 yards per carry. We threw the ball 31 times for 308 yards, that is 9.9 yards per throw. Despite the drop in carries from freakishly plenty (24 per game) to a more pedestrian figure (16+ per game), we simply went from 3-5 to 2-6. Sorry folks but simply running the ball more was and is not a cure-all for this team. We ran plenty, especially when we were actually gaining some yards, not a lot but some and we sucked anyway. Later in the season we threw more and we still sucked. I really think that teams that score more points, win more often. I know, shocking revelation isn't it? Equally shocking, good teams can move the ball on the ground and thus they run more than teams who aren't so good. We were not a good team and part of that is because we were not able to run the ball well. It wasn't for lack of trying. We ran the crap out of Willis for 8 games and we stunk up the field. We tried something different and still stunk up the field. The common denominator here is the offensive line. No offensive system has ever been conceived that can succeed without effective blocking. The problem is not our rushing attempts. Teams that run well, run. Teams that don't run well, don't run. Pretty obvious which one we are, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2003Contenders Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 Excellent post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 It still does come down to the blocking and the play-calling however, IMO. I was watching the game yesterday and one of the runs Willis had for 10 yards or so to the left, I remarked to Mark VI next to me, in all sincerity, that "there was an actual hole there." It wasn't truck-sized but big enough to get a large sized RB through untouched for five yards. It was almost surprising to me. I also noted that in Willis' entire career here, I am not sure he has EVER had a run that he ran through a big hole and wasn't touched until he was 10 yards down the field. You see that on other teams all the time. He virtually NEVER has a huge hole up the middle that he can accelerate to. He virtually never gets a pitchout or off tackle handoff where the lineman all just handle their man so he can get a full head of steam and into the secondary. He rarely, rarely gets a call for a draw after a couple passes where the other team is on its heels and he gets a wide open lane to run through. It's absolutely phenomenal that in two years these things have extremely rarely if ever happened for a back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 McGahee finished 10th in rushing but among the top 20 backs in the league, he was tied for last in yards per carry, 3.8, with Lamont Jordan. He had 325 attempts which was more than Warrik Dunn and Thomas Jones, both of whom had more yards than Willis. Willie Parker had only 45 yards less than Willis but did that on only 255 carries. That is 70 fewer attempts than Willis had. We ran Willis plenty, we just didn't run very well is all, especially over the last 8 games. He had 195 carries (24 per game on average) and 790 yards over the first half of the season and we went 3-5. To put that in perspective, 24 carries per game comes out to 384 carries for the year which is 14 more than Shaun Alexander who led the league in attempts and 24 more than Edgerrin James who had the second most attempts. Thus, we ran Willis more often than any team in the league ran their backs by far over the first half of the season and the result was a horrendous record of 3-5. Over the second half of the season, we still tried to run Willis plenty but we simply were not gaining yards. No first downs means fewer attempts. Over the second half, Willis had 130 carries but only 457 yards. That is a miserable 3.5 yards per carry. The Miami game I think is emblematic of our situation. We ran Willis 27 times which is a lot of carries by any measure but gained only 81 yards, that is a lousy 3 yards per carry. In contrast, we threw 27 times for 227 yards, that is over 8 yards per throwing attempt. In the Bengal game, we ran him 23 times for a lousy 66 yards, that is a very poor 2.8 yards per carry. We threw the ball 31 times for 308 yards, that is 9.9 yards per throw. Despite the drop in carries from freakishly plenty (24 per game) to a more pedestrian figure (16+ per game), we simply went from 3-5 to 2-6. Sorry folks but simply running the ball more was and is not a cure-all for this team. We ran plenty, especially when we were actually gaining some yards, not a lot but some and we sucked anyway. Later in the season we threw more and we still sucked. I really think that teams that score more points, win more often. I know, shocking revelation isn't it? Equally shocking, good teams can move the ball on the ground and thus they run more than teams who aren't so good. We were not a good team and part of that is because we were not able to run the ball well. It wasn't for lack of trying. We ran the crap out of Willis for 8 games and we stunk up the field. We tried something different and still stunk up the field. The common denominator here is the offensive line. No offensive system has ever been conceived that can succeed without effective blocking. The problem is not our rushing attempts. Teams that run well, run. Teams that don't run well, don't run. Pretty obvious which one we are, isn't it? 548507[/snapback] good post. the eagles have had very effective offenses in the recent past without running much. having a great qb helps, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted January 2, 2006 Author Share Posted January 2, 2006 It still does come down to the blocking and the play-calling however, IMO. I was watching the game yesterday and one of the runs Willis had for 10 yards or so to the left, I remarked to Mark VI next to me, in all sincerity, that "there was an actual hole there." It wasn't truck-sized but big enough to get a large sized RB through untouched for five yards. It was almost surprising to me. I also noted that in Willis' entire career here, I am not sure he has EVER had a run that he ran through a big hole and wasn't touched until he was 10 yards down the field. You see that on other teams all the time. He virtually NEVER has a huge hole up the middle that he can accelerate to. He virtually never gets a pitchout or off tackle handoff where the lineman all just handle their man so he can get a full head of steam and into the secondary. He rarely, rarely gets a call for a draw after a couple passes where the other team is on its heels and he gets a wide open lane to run through. It's absolutely phenomenal that in two years these things have extremely rarely if ever happened for a back. 548623[/snapback] Funny, my brother was visiting from Pittsburgh and we went sledding with the kids all day, I DVR'd the game and we watched it afterwards. On the same play you are talking about, which we rewound and watched several times, my brother said that "Willis never has any open space to make a move in or get up some steam, he has to stutter step his way in between penetrating lineman just to get back to the line, that shows what he can do with some space." I'd love to see what Willis could do with the quality blocking you see in Pittsburgh, Seattle and Denver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted January 2, 2006 Author Share Posted January 2, 2006 good post. the eagles have had very effective offenses in the recent past without running much. having a great qb helps, of course. 548636[/snapback] Lots of ways to skin a cat but you still need a knife, ie, an offensive line. The only other "answer" besides an improved line I can think of is having a good TE. They can be game changers in that you can't cover a good one with a LB or a zone and if you go nickle to have an extra DB to handle him, you are vulnerable against the run if he can block. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts