How can you have a good running attack w/o a FB

Even though we are not much of one.

If you have 3WR, then they can only put 6 guys in the box (assuming 3CB and 2 Safeties), unless they move up a safety. If they move up a safety, then you know some of your WRs will have favorable matchups.

would sure as hell help the cause, and being in 11 personnel group the majority of the time is not creative enough.
Move some people around, pre-snap.
Run to the left side more often.

That have a FB that use it regularly?

but i've never seen a team run a bunch package with no FB and 2 WRs on the wing. we've done that at the goalline with Shepard and Harris as wing blockers.

Run up the gut, with Rainey.

That, to me, is just unbelievable stupidity. While you've got backup OL on the bench.

It might be more directly relevant to the Giants than in the past, with Coughlin out of the picture, no fullback on the roster and Solari taking over the line.
Inside zone read play in Chip Kelly's spread. - ( New Window )

...is that the zone blocking design aims to level the odds on the play side by shifting your (outnumbered) blockers a half-gap in the direction of the play. As the article notes, this increases the likelihood of negative plays by tipping off the direction and making each blocking assignment more difficult than a basic "down" block. The payoff is that it opens up bigger holes when it works, either because every blocker wins his matchup or because the defense overreacts and vacates a cutback lane.

The Giants have a back in Paul Perkins who is well-suited to this style of play and has experience running it. On the other hand, our QB doesn't have great ball-handling skills, and obviously he's no threat to pull the ball back and take it the other way.

Sure isn't working for us, huh?

3 WR's, none of whom is all that big (for a WR) or good at blocking, constantly lining up in shotgun formation and handing the ball off to a RB at basically a stand-still position while going mostly up the middle behind a less than powerful C.

My view is that it's simple numbers ...

There are 5 guys on the OL ... Basic defense is a 4-3 or a 3-4 but in either case you got 5 guys you have to block at the point of attack ... Considering there's most always someone who needs to be double teamed, you have to have a 6th blocker to get thru to the second level. It's worse when you're in the red zone and the defense can pack it in.
The only way around this is if you have a back that can consistently make the first guy miss.

Not having the 6th blocker is killing the Giants run game.

didn't the Redskins run that in the 80/90s? I believe counter trey was run without a FB.

And spread offenses are made to run w/o a FB, esp out of shotgun.

You need a good OL, and blocking TE's.

We don't have an blocking TE's. And our OL is still in a finesse state IMO.

The real issue is when he one FB/blocking player in Johnson we t down they opted for none with an crappy run blocking group. I think they prayed Reichberg was going to get better and Flowers as well. Both have been ok at best and without a TE who doesn't absolutely suck on this team at blocking it's a crap shoot at best.

Bottom line is the defense needs to carry this team as the offense is really hit or miss