Posts
The return of the Browns' running game
Kyle Shanahan said all the right things a few days ago when
introduced as the Browns' newest offensive coordinator.
“You see a lot of talent on a team here and an organization
committed to winning,” he said. “. . . I feel this is as good of a situation as
any. I think it’s a good situation. . . . This is my first time working for a
defensive coach . . . There’s a lot of talent on this roster and I’m looking
forward to the challenge.”
Of course it’s a good situation for the young man. After
all, the Browns were the first team to offer him a contract since he was fired
in Washington. That right there makes it a good situation.
And you know he’s not going to come in and bash the talent
on board. As for the club’s commitment to win, isn’t every team in the National
Football League committed to win? In Cleveland’s case, what’s taking so long?
All the right things.
As for coaching for the first time with a defensive-minded head
coach, that shouldn’t be a problem. Chances are rather strong Shanahan will coach
unfettered. The offense will be his baby with no outside interference.
There will be one major difference between last season’s
offense and Shanahan’s version of how to matriculate down the field. The 2014
Browns will run the ball much more often than the embarrassing product they put
out last season.
Shanahan’s Redskins had a running game. That’s because he
recognized the talents of Alfred Morris as a rookie two seasons ago and relied
heavily on him to help balance the attack. When you have someone like Morris as
a weapon, you use him.
Morris is one of those late-round draft gems teams love to
unearth. A relatively unknown out of Florida Atlantic, the sixth-round
selection ran for 1,613 yards (101 a game) and 13 touchdowns in his rookie
season and put up 1,275 more yards and nine TDs last season.
As a result, the Redskins had a nice 57.5-42.5 pass-to-run
ratio last season. The Browns’ pass/run ratio was 63.2-36.8. That’s because
offensive coordinator Norv Turner was forced to call a pass-heavy game due to no
running attack.
The Redskins rushed for 2,164 yards this past season. The
Browns’ infantry churned out just 1,383. That’s a difference of 781 yards, or
49 yards a game.
Overall, the Redskins were ninth on offense in the NFL;
fifth when running the ball, 16th throwing it. The Browns wound up
18th on offense overall; 11th passing and 27th
(tied with Pittsburgh) running.
So now that Shanahan is on board and he loves to run the
ball, who is going to be the Browns’ Alfred Morris? Right now, that player is
not on the roster.
Forget about Dion Lewis when he comes back from an
injury-plagued 2013 season. He’s more of a third-down back. And while Edwin
Baker looked good in the final stages of the season, he is not the answer. Too
short for the pounding he’ll take. He’s a nice backup.
It will be interesting to see how the front office helps
Shanahan in this area. Whether it’s through free agency (Ben Tate?) or getting
lucky in the college draft, the Cleveland running game will take on a new look
this season. If that new guy is a rookie, Shanahan will not hesitate to play
him.
“Any time you
bring in a rookie and play them right away,” he told the Cleveland media, “you
have to find out what they do well . . . You don’t want to make it too
complicated for them .. . The most important thing is to ask them to do what
they’re great at and then work to improve other aspects of the game.”
That’s the kind of progressive thinking this coaching staff
needs.
With a renewed effort to reestablish the run, a part of the
game that traditionally used to be a staple of a Cleveland offense, the passing
aspect of the Browns’ offense this season should benefit greatly. No longer
will the opposition be able to disdain the run and concentrate on shutting down
the aerial game.
In theory, the Kyle Shanahan offense should be much more
versatile than the ones Browns fans have been subjected to the last several
seasons. If successful, it portends good times ahead.
It does sound so much better then the train wreck from last year. Does anyone else think Banner and company set Chud, and Turner up for failure?? I know they signed McGahee, and said he was the best running back available, but he was anything but that. I could see them using Baker or Lewis when they do run the zone read, or read option.
ReplyDeleteOf course they set them up for failure. Failure is Haslam's goal in life. And, by the way, the Mafia killed Kennedy with gunmen on the grassy knoll.
DeleteCareful, South. You're beginning to sound like me.
ReplyDeleteBelieve it or not, that's not all that bad! ;o)
DeleteOh yes it is.
ReplyDeleteI seem to recall Norv having some RBs over his years as a coach that had pretty good seasons under him (Emmett, etc) - but he had no choice but to pass this past year. No RB talent whatsoever, along with the two worst starting guards in the league (which was a known quantity going into the season and the FO did not address at all) - I don't think it's fair to pin the lack of running attempts on Norv. If the FO ignores the dreadful O-line again this off-season, while at the same time allowing one of the quality members of that unit to leave, why would anyone think Shanahan's going to do any better with the run game than Norv did? Without a talent upgrade, all Shanny will get trying to establish a running game is a whole barrel full of third-and-longs, and just like Norv, he'll eventually have no other choice but to abandon any attempt at establishing a run game. Many writers and posters are saying Shanahan will do a better job with the run game than Turner/Chud, but in order for him to do that, the FO *MUST* provide him with better talent in those areas, which is something they absolutely did not do for Turner/Chud.
ReplyDeleteDW
First of all, DW, I have never criticized Turner for not running the ball. I have written countless times that he had no choice since the Browns had no running game.
ReplyDeleteAnd I have criticized this front office and the ones before them that ignoring the offensive line is a mistake. Outside of Mack and the two tackles, it is less than mediocre.
If this current FO does not sign Mack and/or address the guard position, it will be the same old, same old all over again this season.
I'm basing the possibility of Shanahan's success in this area on his ability to convince Banner, The Ghost and Farmer that this is the way to roll. If he is unsuccessful, then all bets are off with regard to the return of the running game.
I think you are taking "DK" as being on the attack as far as this post goes, Rich. The only thing I got out of his observations is the fact that the FO did nothing to help a known coach with a known penchant for running the ball. If you feel like you are being called out for being a homer, that's all on you.
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm being defensive because it appears as though I'm being accused of pinning the lack of a run game on Turner. I am not. That wasn't his fault. Blame for that rests with the front office.
ReplyDeleteAs far as me being a homer, that would be an oxymoron. Reporting something positive with this team is not necessarily being a homer. My style is much more subjective than objective. I leave objectivity to the beat writers.
Mad Elf pegged that one, Rich - I wasn't meaning to get on your case in any way, and in fact am a big fan of how clearly you see the Browns issues and are one of the few not afraid to call the emperor out for wearing no clothes. I suppose when I said 'many writers', I should have clarified that you weren't one of the ones I was referring to, but I assumed, perhaps presumptuously, that it was a given that you weren't one of the standard hacks writing the standard company prose. From my viewpoint, I just felt that it was so obvious to anyone who reads this site, that I didn't feel it required mentioning. I think I mentioned in a post here a month or two ago that my only beef with you is you don't write often enough! Sorry for the misunderstanding,
ReplyDeleteDW
No problem, DW. My skin is usually a lot thicker than that. A momentary slip, I guess. Won't happen again.
ReplyDeleteIs the love-fest over? Its amazing how many GMs-in-waiting come out of the woodwork this time of year. It just floors me how many NFL experts are just wasting away behind their keyboards. Rich, you admit that the great majority of your writing is subjective but on the other hand you claim it is "the truth as you see it" which is the mother of all oxymorons. In 2013, this FO could not address all areas of need so it would appear that they were setting up a future overhaul of the OL by hording developmental players such as Faulk, Fragel, Gilkey and Wallace. We started the year with a supposed stable of RBs, then injuries and the total ineffectiveness of Richardson wiped that out. What I want to know is who exactly was available on the open market at that point? Let's not forget that it was Chud and his guru Turner who put all their eggs in the Brandon(The Snail) Weeden basket. But then again, I guess that's the FO's fault too?
DeleteYou, sir, are the quintessential sycophant. You glom onto anything they spew out of Berea. You buy their nonsense hook, line and . . . And to that, I say good for you. The last 15 years have been absolute fun, haven't they?
ReplyDeleteBefore it's too late, wake up and don't give these guys a pass with every move they make. There's a good reason this franchise has been the NFL's worst the last 15 seasons. And it starts with the front office.
Maybe the current regime will eventually halt that ineptitude. Then again, maybe not and we move on once again. It is not off to a good start. What these guys do for the 2014 season will be their ultimate litmus test.
Banner & Co. already has one strike with the Chudzinski fiasco. If they get another, we'll find out just how quick Haslam's trigger finger is.
One thing is certain, tho, South. You sure are predictable. I say yin, you say yang. I say day, you say night. Yep, predictable.
If I felt like you, I would have gotten rid of my gear long ago and picked another team to follow. The Saints are only two hours away. There's something to be said for loyalty as opposed to the hypocrisy of following a team only to constantly bash it with a never-ending stream of negativity. Yes, the past 15 years have been the result of FO ineptitude, but its not all on this FO. To saddle these guys with the sins of the past makes no sense(IMHO). When you start to clean out a sh_thouse, you're not going to smell very good for a while.
DeleteVisited New Orleans about a year ago. Great place. So much to do and so little time in which to do it. That said . . .
ReplyDeleteYou call it hypocrisy. I call it telling it as it is. I do not turn a blind eye to what's going on in Berea. The truth lies in how the team is run and performs. Not acknowledging how badly the Browns have played would be journalistically irresponsible.
If the Browns had played well, or at least representative football, I guarantee you the venom (that's probably what you would call it) that would have poured forth from me would have been minimal.
I see things as they are, not as I would like them to be. I am a realist, not an idealist.
OK, you get the last word if you want it and then we move on. This fight has lasted long enough.
I guess Farmer's "bill of goods" wasn't all that bad after all! Now that Banner and Lombardi are gone, does this mean you're out of material?
DeleteYou wish.
ReplyDelete