Can a run and shoot with 4 WRs be deployed for our offense?

[chad72]

I was looking at the NFL Network's top 10 innovations and one of those innovations was Air Coryell's run and shoot offense with 4 WRs spread out symmetrically on both sides. The downfall of it was when you ran it with smaller speedy wideouts without TEs or just a receiving TE (in case of 3 WR, 1 TE), the blocking suffered and the QB was more susceptible to the pass rush.

Dick Vermeil stated that a lot of the Rams' offense during the fastest show on turf was borrowed from Air Coryell, the quick cuts in the middle, the spreading out of defenses, making the RB a pass catcher. It did help that they had a quick release accurate QB like Warner and a HOF RB like Faulk.

Now that the rules have evolved and favor passing again, will the Air Coryell offense work for us if we have both Avery and Hilton on the field at the same time? Or do we need to gauge how well our OL and RB do in protecting the QB before using more of the 4 wideout formations? Having Fleener to me is basically the same as another wideout, so if Fleener is in the line up in a technically 3 WR, 1 TE formation, it is still like using a 4th wideout to me.

Is that something we can deploy occasionally, especially if we get behind? Do we need to have both a quick release accurate QB and versatile RB to make it work?

People who saw Dan Fouts operate it may have more input on this as well. Discuss.

[21isSuperman]

It's all dependent on the blocking. The Air Coryell offense has a lot of deep options: corners, posts, and gos. It takes time for those to develop and if you are going to spread the defense out with 4 WRs and even have your RB run a route, you only have 5 blockers. And if the defense does a blitz or a stunt, you could be in big trouble if your O-line misses it. You need a very strong pass blocking offensive line to be able to successfully run the Air Coryell. And even if you do have a strong O-line, if the defense rushes with 6 against your 5, it's even worse for your offense/QB.

[Narcosys]

Not likely. Maybe in time, but the O'line i think is still just breaking par and we don't have the WR corp like the rams did. The RB position is in no way close the what Marshall Faulk accomplished for the rams during that time period. The RB was a pass catcher, but he was a RB first. Remember he broke Barry Sanders record for single season rush yards. Plus we still need to see Luck in action with this team. Definitely would not be something we would use within the next 3 years.

[Superman]

I think we're going to do a lot of different things on offense, and if the receivers we drafted are any indication, we'll be using some 4 wide formations from time to time. I don't think it will be a primary formation for us, more situational or based on opponent (for instance, if we want to get the Texans linebackers off the field and pick on their secondary). I am very interested in how good our young receivers will be, and I think that Avery can contribute if healthy. But we'll probably use two tight end sets more than we use 4 wide sets.

[DarkHorse]

I fully agree with 21is. Everything comes down to the Oline. I think in time we can run a few plays with a 4 spread, but I would wait until next year. If we do you run the 4 wide receiver spread I would do it in quick slants with a quick release. Andrew luck is very good at reading defense formations it is possible we could do with this year but a few plays.

[LightninMax]

The strongest benefit of 2 good, quick pass catching TE's that can get down the field is the versatility of simply spreading out the TE's into what becomes 4 wideouts or getting into the downfield route from the traditional TE position. In any case, this dictates coverage by a safety and a linebacker. Out run the LB and out muscle the safety!

[jvan1973]

I was looking at the NFL Network's top 10 innovations and one of those innovations was Air Coryell's run and shoot offense with 4 WRs spread out symmetrically on both sides. The downfall of it was when you ran it with smaller speedy wideouts without TEs or just a receiving TE (in case of 3 WR, 1 TE), the blocking suffered and the QB was more susceptible to the pass rush.

Dick Vermeil stated that a lot of the Rams' offense during the fastest show on turf was borrowed from Air Coryell, the quick cuts in the middle, the spreading out of defenses, making the RB a pass catcher. It did help that they had a quick release accurate QB like Warner and a HOF RB like Faulk.

Now that the rules have evolved and favor passing again, will the Air Coryell offense work for us if we have both Avery and Hilton on the field at the same time? Or do we need to gauge how well our OL and RB do in protecting the QB before using more of the 4 wideout formations? Having Fleener to me is basically the same as another wideout, so if Fleener is in the line up in a technically 3 WR, 1 TE formation, it is still like using a 4th wideout to me.

Is that something we can deploy occasionally, especially if we get behind? Do we need to have both a quick release accurate QB and versatile RB to make it work?

People who saw Dan Fouts operate it may have more input on this as well. Discuss.

Coryell didnt run the run and shoot offense. I think the last team to run the run and shoot in the NFL with some success was the warren moon oilers.. The university of Hawaii runs the run and shoot, or at least they did recently.

[FireJimCaldwell]

Coryell didnt run the run and shoot offense. I think the last team to run the run and shoot in the NFL with some success was the warren moon oilers.. The university of Hawaii runs the run and shoot, or at least they did recently.

I was about to post something similar. Jerry Glanville's Falcons were another that tried to run it.

You'd have to have a star studded OL to even begin to start to implement that into the NFL.

[chad72]

I was about to post something similar. Jerry Glanville's Falcons were another that tried to run it.

You'd have to have a star studded OL to even begin to start to implement that into the NFL.

So, what is the main difference between a run and shoot with 4 WRs vs an offense that spreads you out with 4 WRs with 2 on either side? What makes it the run and shoot?

[FireJimCaldwell]

So, what is the main difference between a run and shoot with 4 WRs vs an offense that spreads you out with 4 WRs with 2 on either side? What makes it the run and shoot?

The run and shoot popularized in college had deeper routes which was hard to adapt to the pros.

Spreading someone out with 4 wide and dinking and dunking like the Air Raid offense is far different than the deep routes of a true run & shoot offense.

Coryell used an ace set with a TE. Gibbs in Washington ran this offense as well with at times using an H-back instead of a tight end.

I'll see what I can dig up for a bit of a comparison or to illustrate it better.

If you want to say a 15 yard post is a 15 yard post, that is true in any offense, but the collection of routes/protections is a key difference in the two.

[TKnight24]

Wow, I never thought of this offense. I thought we were gonna run an Offense similar to the West Coast Style Luck had at Stanford. We let Peyton run his style of Offense, so why not let Luck. But idk, this Run & Shoot could be a Possibility

[Smonroe]

Even when it's run well it has obvious flaws, specifically ball control. It puts a lot of pressure on your D since they're on the field so much. O-line work is tough for a good one, and you get your QB killed if its a bad one.

No one has ever had lasting success with it, but I'm glad I had Moon on my fantasy team when they ran it.

[HtownColt]

Wow, I never thought of this offense. I thought we were gonna run an Offense similar to the West Coast Style Luck had at Stanford. We let Peyton run his style of Offense, so why not let Luck. But idk, this Run & Shoot could be a Possibility

Aw your wayy off if your thinking a Stanford type offense. Just watch a couple of steelers games and you will see we are going to way different than Stanford. Bruce Arians loves to let it fly sometimes a little too much with a lot of 3 to 5 receiver sets(that came from Donnie Avery who has a playbook so I trust him on this)

With tight ends split out sometimes of course

[DarkHorse]

I would say we run a lot of I formation but we need a full back for that. With this being andrew luck's first year and our offensive line not being fully tested I would believe that our main concern all season is to protect andrew. Do you think that 1 of our tight ends will play the full back position on some plays?

[NewColtsFan]

I was looking at the NFL Network's top 10 innovations and one of those innovations was Air Coryell's run and shoot offense with 4 WRs spread out symmetrically on both sides. The downfall of it was when you ran it with smaller speedy wideouts without TEs or just a receiving TE (in case of 3 WR, 1 TE), the blocking suffered and the QB was more susceptible to the pass rush.

Dick Vermeil stated that a lot of the Rams' offense during the fastest show on turf was borrowed from Air Coryell, the quick cuts in the middle, the spreading out of defenses, making the RB a pass catcher. It did help that they had a quick release accurate QB like Warner and a HOF RB like Faulk.

Now that the rules have evolved and favor passing again, will the Air Coryell offense work for us if we have both Avery and Hilton on the field at the same time? Or do we need to gauge how well our OL and RB do in protecting the QB before using more of the 4 wideout formations? Having Fleener to me is basically the same as another wideout, so if Fleener is in the line up in a technically 3 WR, 1 TE formation, it is still like using a 4th wideout to me.

Is that something we can deploy occasionally, especially if we get behind? Do we need to have both a quick release accurate QB and versatile RB to make it work?

People who saw Dan Fouts operate it may have more input on this as well. Discuss.

Are you sure the NFL Network was giving credit to Coryell for the run and shoot? I'm 55 and I don't recall his offense ever being called that. First I heard of it was Mouse Davis at Portland State with Neil Lomax. Lomax went in the 1st round to St. Louis. Think Davis became a HC in the USFL.... maybe Houston with Jim Kelly before he went to Buffalo. Does that sound right?

Coryell was not just smart, he was brilliant. Scary genius. He also had unbelievable people come across his path. Coaches like Walsh and Gibbs... there's a long list... and his offenses with the Chargers in the late 70's and early-mid 80's were so, so good. I just never heard them called the Run and Shoot.

Anyone else?

NewColtsFan

[TKnight24]

Aw your wayy off if your thinking a Stanford type offense. Just watch a couple of steelers games and you will see we are going to way different than Stanford. Bruce Arians loves to let it fly sometimes a little too much with a lot of 3 to 5 receiver sets(that came from Donnie Avery who has a playbook so I trust him on this)

With tight ends split out sometimes of course

Wow, shows how much I know about Football. I was certain that Luck was taking over & we Protect him. What better way to Protect a QB, then by having a Successful Run Game?

[Qwiz]

Wow, shows how much I know about Football. I was certain that Luck was taking over & we Protect him. What better way to Protect a QB, then by having a Successful Run Game?

Well you still gotta let the kid air it out. In any case I still don't see this happening for the first two seasons, but I still don't see a lot of run-oriented plays either.

[chad72]

Are you sure the NFL Network was giving credit to Coryell for the run and shoot? I'm 55 and I don't recall his offense ever being called that. First I heard of it was Mouse Davis at Portland State with Neil Lomax. Lomax went in the 1st round to St. Louis. Think Davis became a HC in the USFL.... maybe Houston with Jim Kelly before he went to Buffalo. Does that sound right?

Coryell was not just smart, he was brilliant. Scary genius. He also had unbelievable people come across his path. Coaches like Walsh and Gibbs... there's a long list... and his offenses with the Chargers in the late 70's and early-mid 80's were so, so good. I just never heard them called the Run and Shoot.

Anyone else?

NewColtsFan

Yep, it is possible that both Air Coryell's offense and the run and shoot offense were discussed in the top 10 innovations on NFL Network and I got them mixed up. It did refer to Warren Moon specifically on the run and shoot, like most folks on here suggest. Like FJC hinted, yes, it was the deep routes that made the KEY difference. That also was the downfall of that offense according to analysts on NFL Network. I wondered why just having 4 WRs would make the QB more susceptible to the pass rush, it was not the number of WRs but the routes, because the routes were longer in the run and shoot, and took time to form, that was obviously not the case with the Air Coryell offense (now I am interested to learn more about the Air Coryell offense then since it lasted way longer than the run and shoot according to the analysts on there).

Since I caught glimpses of it while flipping between that channel and the NBA playoffs, I obviously got a bit confused . Thanks for all the input clarifying the key differences. You guys are the best.

[OZOC01]

The Run & Shoot was effective in the NFL for a short time in the 80's back when most teams did not have more than two decent cornerbacks and defensive ends were more well-round and not pass-rushing specialists like now. Also when rebuilding a OL, the last thing you want is to require them to pass block for the 3 or 4 seconds 75% of the time it takes for WRs to get into their routes. Also those R&S offensives featured bigger RBs to help pass block (Lorenzo White, Gary Brown, Mike Rozier, etc...).

I could possibly see Ballard as that type of back, but this OL as is would be more appropriate for power running. Power running NEVER goes out of style, IMO.

[dgambill]

Let me keep this short...can it...yes...will it..no. Arians has his own offense that he will run...it is very diverse at times but run and shoot primarily...no.