Short yardage question?

[El Duderino]

I'm watching the Bears/Eagles and the Eagles got stuffed multiple times from inside the two yard line trying to run it in. We all know how poor the Packers have been in those 3rd/4th and one situations. I see it happen a lot in both college and pro football.

The thing that i've wondered for awhile is why all teams who want to run on 3rd/4t and one, they nearly always bring in 8-9 guys on the line to block, especially at the goal line where nobody on defense has to stay back? The defense reacts in kind by bringing in tons of big bodies and linebackers, thus you end up with around 18-20 big bodies all clogged into one area.

Why not bring in an extra WR or two and spread the defense out a bit so they can't put 9-10 guys in one small area of the field? The defense can't leave the receivers uncovered, they have to remove a linebacker or two and the middle then isn't filled with quite as many bodies.

I'm not talking about going 4 wides, but when you bring in say three tight ends, you just end up with such a mass of humanity in one area that often it's are to find many openings without a big body in the way somewhere.

[Kerb Hohl]

I agree with you for the most part. At least do something like you say some of the time.

This is why I have no problem with going to the gun on these short situations once in a while.

Spread them out for the reasons you have stated. Going to the shotgun leaves you margin for error if your lineman loses a battle in space or the bring a massive blitz since there aren't a ton of blockers in for you and there is little margin for error while your QB makes his drop or moves to the handoff. You still can run the ball just as easily and you also leave even a better possibility for a shovel pass or screen.

As for the Bears/Eagles play tonight on 4th down, it is hard to call in a huge pile up and you don't want to have a tough to see call decide the outcome of the game, but the Bears got away with a massive facemask that stopped Buckhalter's momentum.

[eagle13]

I see your point but coaches often feel run is surer and safer so why not have more blockers since O has advantage of knowing which hole to hit. Back in the day when we ran U71 w/ Kevin Barry as 3rd TE we were unstoppable. But that was when we used power blocking - not this zone blocking ****.

ZBS may have value in open field but its useless in short yardage up the gut.

I still maintain the ZBS was a crappy choice. In its 3rd season we still cannot run consistently. Last half of last year the run improved when Grant came in. Its not the Oline magically improved like some believe. This year grant looks average so far. The Oline is not doing anythinng.

In 4 off seasons Tt has FAILED to replace 2 Gs. Whats the chance he'll be able to replace our two aging OTs?

[El Duderino]

Yea the ZBS scheme may have issues in short yardage, but i see it so often where teams need a yard and they bring in 2-3 tight ends and have one or no receivers in the game. Then you have around 20 big bodies in one area of the field.

Put two or three receivers in the game and you remove 4-6 bodies from the line of scrimmage area. Plus, if you aren't by the end zone and instead by say around the 50 yard line, the defense has to keep at least one safety back if multiple receivers are in the game.

I understand that college and NFL coaches know vastly more about football than i'll ever, but ths issue is something i've wondered about for awhile. You're trying to run right up the gut to gain a yard, but you choose to put 9-10 guys on the line of scrimmage so the defense does the same and that middle is just packed with a million bodies? Put a couple receivers in the game, there is less congestion in the area you intend to run the ball.

[paulpressey25]

I think it works if your line is better than their line. And then having 8-9 guys push is better than having only 5-6 guys make the push. Again assuming your guys are better.

On a side note, the Packers need to get that zone blocking scheme working again. Otherwise, I'm thinking I much preferred the Mike Sherman three yards and a cloud of dust approach from 2001-2004.