From: tseng-neill@yale.edu (Neill Tseng)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Is the run-and-shoot finished?
Date: 4 Jan 93 07:06:17 GMT
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu

In article <1993Jan4.055821.22307@leland.Stanford.EDU> daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao) writes:
>
>Though this game was a rather extreme case, the key to the Bills victory
>was what detractors of the run-and-shoot have been saying all along--
>without a tight end, a team cannot have a running game to grind out
>the clock while protecting a lead.  It is a fundamental, and probably
>fatal, flaw of the run-and-shoot.
>
>Contrast the Bills-Houston game with the Vikings-Redskins game.  When
>the Redskins needed to, they simply ran the ball right at the Vikings
>in the fourth quarter taking ten minutes off the clock.  
>

	I disagree here.  The reason the Oilers lost today was not because of
	the run-and-shoot, it was because of bad defense.  The Oilers offense
	didn't even get the ball in the second half until there were only about
	four minutes left in the third quarter.  Furthermore, it still would
	have been too early to go to the running game.  Teams that get too
	conservative, offensive or defensively, have been shown to pay for it.
	No matter what offense you're running, you have to keep up the attack.
	But anyway, the run-and-shoot has shown that it can be a good
	possession-type offense.  It has evolved more away from the quick
	strike toward a more ball-control offense.  Each year, the Oilers are
	near the top in time of possession.  The Oilers could have gone into a
	more ball-control, time-consuming playcalling mode if they had
	wanted to; the key is they didn't really have the opportunity today, 
	because the momentum had shifted too greatly and the defense and 
	special teams couldn't do their jobs.  It's stupid to blame the offense
	because they built up the huge lead in the first place.  The Bills
	didn't have an answer, and personally, I don't think they ever found
	one.  The interceptions came 1)on a bad pass by Moon, who had been 
	sitting since halftime and for most of the third quarter and was
	understandably not as sharp as he had been and 2) on an obvious
	holding penalty.  I've thought long and hard about the run-and-shoot,
	and I don't think it's the problem.  Remember, the Oilers still had a
	potent running attack with Lorenzo White.  The Oilers also had one of
	the best percentages scoring inside the red zone, especially TDs.  The
	run-and-shoot can be quick strike or ball control.  And the only 
	time in the past 3 years that I've ever seen it truly stopped was last
	season in the Monday night game against the Eagles.  

>I remember that two years ago in Sports Illustrated, David Klingler
>claimed that his Houston Cougar run-and-shoot could not be stopped if
>the offense was executing it properly.  It has now been demonstrated
>that human beings are not capable of perfectly executing a run-and-shoot
>for a full 60 minutes against a talented defense.  The forward pass is
>by nature a more risky play, and by the laws an incompletion does not
>run as much time off the clock as a running play up the middle.
>
	No offense can be perfectly executed for 60 minutes.  Klingler is
	right, it CAN'T be stopped when executed properly.  I agree, though, 
	the problem is that it's not always executed properly.  But I don't
	see any empirical evidence to show that it can't be executed well
	enough to win, and win consistently.  Remember, the Oilers have made
	the playoffs the last six years, something no other team can claim
	That's consistency.  The problem with the Oilers is not the run-and-
	shoot and not even really the coaches; it's the players and their
	attitudes, and the need for a good clutch field-goal kicker.

>There is a continuum of offenses ranging from those built around the
>pass like the run-and-shoot and those built around the run like the
>wishbone.  In the NFL it has been demonstrated that championship
>teams have to be able to both come up with the key completion AND
>run out the clock.  Take away the ability to make the key completion
>and one has either the Chiefs or the Saints.  Take away the ability to
>run out the clock and one has the Oilers or the 1990 49ers.  
>
>In particular, it seems unwise to build a team's offense around a
>philosophy that lies at either extreme.  The run-and-shoot is such
>an extreme, and worse, it seems to me that it was too hastily adopted.
>The University of Houston Cougars had some small, and I mean SMALL
>success with it in the college ranks, but don't people recall how
>Texas A&M always succeeded in shutting it down?  It's OK for a 
>struggling college football team to adopt an untested offense, but
>surely the Houston Oilers, a team whose talent was among the best
>in the league, would have done better pursuing a more traditional
>strategy.  
>
>The Oilers had a coach, Jerry Glanville, who seemed out of control
>and whose teams reflected his personality.  It was clear that he
>would never be able to take them over the top to a championship.
>But why risk all by adopting the run-and-shoot?  Why did management
>have to cave in to a fad and use an offense just because some other
>Houston football teams had used it?  
>
>The Oilers have gambled, and it appears that they have lost that 
>gamble.  The run-and-shoot was a quick fix.  The quick fix
>has failed.  The Oilers seem incapable now of winning a big game
>in the cold wet weather of an outdoor stadium, a problem which
>tends to especially plague teams which play in a domed stadium.
>They also do not have the consistency to win enough games at home
>to earn home field advantage throughout the playoffs, the Oilers
>losing to Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Green Bay at home this year.

	The Oilers problem, as you stated, is with consistency.  It is not
	with the run-and-shoot, though.  The Oilers in the Glanville years
	still could not win with running backs like Rozier, Highsmith, White,
	and Pinkett.  Their problem is with the players.  They are
	inconsistent and don't have the correct attitudes.  But the system is
	not the problem ipso facto.
>
>The Oilers losses are merely the result of their breaking fundamental
>laws on how to build a championship team.  Hopefully, the Oilers loss
>to the Bills today will spell the end of the run-and-shoot in the NFL.

	That's a myopic view.  Blame the defense.  Don't blame an offense that
	put up 38 points this week and 27 last week against a very good 
	defense.  Don't blame the offense that was rated #3 in the NFL this
	year.  What happened to the Bills was a mandate from the heavens.  How
	else can anyone explain it?  I'm convinced, personally, that there's 
	some ancient curse on the Oilers.  I thought nothing could be worse
	than Elway's great comeback on them in last year's playoffs.  I guess
	I was wrong.

	I really find it hard for myself to get too far down on the defense
	though.  I know they screwed up, but they really played well the whole
	year.  The Oilers defense was ranked #3 in the NFL.  Jim Eddy did a
	great job as the year went along and had to deal with lots of 
	injuries.  For a team that lost one of the best quarterbacks to ever
	play for six weeks of the season, and also suffered through lots of
	controversy and adversity over its coaches and its system in the middle
	of the season, I can't really be too mad.  Oilers fans are obviously
	disappointed, AGAIN, but I guess we just have to wait until next year.
	In my honest opinion, though, I really don't think the best team won
-- 
Neill Tseng (neill@minerva.cis.yale.edu)
The Showdown:  Outrage 7, Whip Appeal 5
Hurt Me...The Legend Lives On (3-on-3 champs of the world)
Proud to be a Taiwanese American!
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro