Yes, I hate it, take it out of the play book.

Put two running backs in the backfield and then pass the ball or?

Need to get more unpredictable

Yep that's why I pointed out in the previous blog

I read the article a week ago...
Dave of Steeler Depot puts out some great stats to analyze!!!

and while you are there.... check out the 2012 CAP issues!!! HUGE.
I said this last year... the redoing of contracts in 2011 where they pushed salary into bonus therefore spreading it out over future years.... will hurt Steelers in 2012 and beyond...
and there is it...
they need to make certain decisions (cuts) in 2011.

I only hated it when it was used in the "wrong" situation. Used on 1st and 10 or 2nd and 10 (to get some yards for a more manageable 3rd down) was always fine with me.

I just hated it when it was used on 3rd and 8 (or similar).

I kinda figured the comments on the bubble screen would invoke a response. Watching the Steelers games, I have seen the bubble screen fail. And work. I have seen the bubble screen called in the right situation, but also on the wrong situation. I have seen the bubble screen not run to perfection by the players.


Point is, Coach Arians got hung up on bad plays and kept trying them to they worked. Conversely, when a play was successful, he rarely went back to it.

I understand Coach Arians coached 2 Super Bowl winning offenses. He also coached 1 non-playoff team and 2 playoff-losing squads.

Change is okay. Change can sometimes be good. I think it was evident this year, injuries or not, the offense needed a change. Will it be better? Perhaps. Will it be worse? Perhaps. I don't think the Steelers will disband because Arians was not retained. Just like the Steelers didn't disband because Chuck Noll retired or Bill Cowher moved on.

At the end of the day, it's time to move forward. You can beat your drum and post all the positives about Bruce Arians. They can easily, EASILY, be countered with negatives.

I am looking forward to the changes. I only wish the team would make more changes, i.e. not re-signing Ike Taylor in 2011.

Good luck to Coach Arians. Thanks for helping with 2 Super Bowl victories.

Time to move on.

johnny it was not used on third down the whole regular season

The play is fine if you got the right personel. Dont throw to Hines and expect good blocks from Wallace or Brown. Wallace does great with the screen.
But it comes down to the QB reading the coverage.

Most of the complainers have no idea what they are talking about?

Who knew!

I think the biggest problem with the bubble screen was that at least 25% of them looked initially like it might go for a TD...for the other team. It became too easy to diagnose. Many time when yards were gained it was the result of individual effort by Wallace or Brown not play design.

What I'd like to see is the ability to just run a plain old RB screen. I can't tell if it is the design or the QB but those rarely work for the Steelers.



I cannot believe in the face of the information presented in this story there are still complaints about the bubble screen. -- Bob Smizik

Here is a reason for not running the bubble screen. None of the 12 playoff teams, other than the Steelers ran the bubble screen. None of the teams in the NFC and AFC Championship games ran the bubble screen. If it is such a great play, why is it not going to be the featured play in the Super Bowl?


No one said it was a great play. It is a play that Super Bowl teams in the past have used. Your logic is off kilter. -- Bob Smizik

I always felt the bubble screen was a reaction to not being able to run the ball as well as they wanted, or not being able to complete simple/shorter routes when needed.

These stats are interesting to me as I did think they ran it a little bit more (and I understand the reasoning of running certain plays for the sole purpose of keeping the defense honest) but the bottom line for me is that they need to design plays with better protection, better/possibly shorter routes that allows their 3 young, fast, talented wide outs the ability to move the chains, run after the catch and score TD's in the red zone.

Their WR core is too talented for the lack of overall production among the offense, especially last year.

Bubble screen or no bubble screen.

Do some of you people have difficulty reading the article. The writer has gone to great detail to enlighten us on a play that people perceive as being a failure.

The play gains over 6 yards per attempt, much more than any rushing attempt.

There are QBs in the NFL that can't get much over 6 yards per attempt passing down the field.

Now I don't have all day to dig up stats but this Bryan guy does.

Thank You Dave


Some people can look at facts and still stick with their pre-conceived notions, even when they are proven wrong. -- Bob Smizik

I had no problem with Arians as the OC. However, I look forward to hearing the complaints about the new one when the Steelers don't score a touchdown every time they get into the "Red Zone".

written by Vinqtin, January 25, 2012 - 10:55 AM
I think the biggest problem with the bubble screen was that at least 25% of them looked initially like it might go for a TD...for the other team. It became too easy to diagnose. Many time when yards were gained it was the result of individual effort by Wallace or Brown not play design.

That's just it, though. The play is designed to put the ball in the hands of the players best capable of a superior individual effort.

I can't really defend the fact that Ward received the most targets of that play, though.

Did you ever notice that when the Steelers defense prevents a team from scoring after they have reached the Red Zone, that it is the Steelers defense making great plays and not the failure of the other teams Offensive Coordinator?

I don't really care about the bubble screen and I do understand it is a safe, run alternative that can be broken for a big play but...

If Mendenhall wouldn't dance around and lose yardage on MANY first down plays the bubble screen wouldn't be as necessary. The one thing I like about Redman is that he is always picking up a few yards.

I kind of forgot what it was like to have a running back that picks up yardage on almost every play, similar to Bettis.

Of all the bloggers who read that article, they fall into one of the three categories below:

Those who thought the BS was worse than it actually was and now admit they were wrong.

Those who thought the BS was worse than it actually was and still won't admit to it although the facts are right there in their faces - in denial.

And all of the others who never complained about the BS whether it worked or not.

I've always said 'give me the facts' to support what you're saying and the facts above do support the bubble screen as a viable option to a run. It did seem that teams recognized the play more quickly later in the year, which seems to indicate it was being used a little too often. Maybe it should be used 1 or 2 times a game it would be more effective. Regardless, the stats show it wasn't as bad as we thought.

Re: my earlier suggestion that the Steelers new O-Coordinator hire an assistant who can focus entirely on red-zone production (what works around the league, what works for and against certain teams, etc.), I'm not surprised that someone as set in their ways as you would dismiss it (I think your response was 'what's next, a specialist between the 20-yard lines').

Red-zone production and turnovers are the two biggest elements to success or failure, other than team personnel. The Steelers have finished 21st, 14th, 17th and 22nd the last four years in that category. The Steelers shouldn't be content about that. And frankly if you can't understand why plays inside the 20 yard line are more important than between the 20's, there's no sense explaining it.

Suggesting that the Steelers (like a certain other successful team) think outside the box and have the OC hire an assistant who can solely analyze red-zone production around the league, including that of the Steelers, make total sense to me. I can guarantee you that the O-Coordinator doesn't have time to do it.

Maybe the team could actually score a few points if they analyzed - like the article does above - why their plays inside the 20 yard line weren't working and why plays of other good red-zone teams were. The assistant could also look at the red-zone tendencies of the opponent. It doesn't seem like rocket science to offer the new OC more resources in this area. But hey, as you suggest - the suggestion is silly...red-zone production to you is no different than plays between the 20 yard lines.

I am unable to access the attached. Is it 6 yards per attempt (including incompletions)?

I cannot believe in the face of the information presented in this story there are still complaints about the bubble screen. -- Bob Smizik

I never said the play didn't have some success. I'm just pointing out that I'd go into full-pucker mode a lot of the time when they ran it. It was obvious that they were going to run it. Phil Simms and others were seeing it right away. I wish they would've faked it a few times and hit one of the "blockers" down field.

First let me say;

I find it a bit disingenuous that Bob is going back as, IMO, a Arians' apologist at this point.

It was Bob that called for Arians' retirement before it happened. Ironically I gave Arians credit for improvement and in a email Bob told me that obviously I was one of those blame it all on Arians people and that he was wasting his time with me.

The fact is that Arians did improve and he did need to go for more than one reason and IMO the "bubble screen" has nothing to do with any of it.

However since that is the pressing topic... ek hemm... I give Arians credit for improving the bubble screens they ran. How so?

When they ran it with the WR all the way to side line on the LoS it took way to long with Ben's lofty and somewhat slow passes to get there and more often than not it was blown up. Arians moved the WRs in (mostly Hines at the time) and the success rate improved quite a bit as I recall. My complaint was that they didn't tweak it like say... Yes I know... The Cheatriots do and have the WR actually go 6, 7 yards up and stop and rec the pass and at a minimum get that yardage. You need a ultra accurate QB and maybe... Technically that isn't a bubble screen.

Again, IMO, It's moot point.

I like the banana bunch formations and credit Arians for that too.

The problem with Arians is that he was a rhythm killer. (see Elaine Benes dance on You Tube)

He and Ben got pretty good with the 15 play script to start games we've heard so much about but when those scripted plays exposed a glaring weakness in a team's D Arians would not stick with it/ Red Zone O was horrible at ties and Arians shouldn't get credit for the majority of the broken school yard plays that Ben made because he put him in a empty set way to much IMO

Ben regressed in more than one way this year. His decision making with the ball was horrible at times and his ongoing battle (friendly) with Arians on when to use the no huddle (not necessarily the hurry up) was huge problem because apparently Arians saw it as a emergency situational ploy while Ben saw it as a great strength... I side with Ben.

Note to the Steelers staff: See Bills, Early 90's O.

Ben needs a good working relationship with the new O-Cord but he needs to improve... At his age it's not as easy to go new... Sure but somewhere between Arians & He whom hunted the Whis is a plan that could make this O the best in the NFL. Better O-Line, Did I mention the Bills O? and of course the whole team needs to respect the BALL more and Tomlin needs these guys to have clock management situations down when they come out of camp.



I did not criticize Arians' play-calling, and the bubble screen would fall into that category. I also have defended him against charges he is predictable.
I said the Steelers would be better off for Ben to hear a different voice. That -- and not his play selection -- is why I called for a change. --- Bob Smizik

@pghsportsfan: I'm fairly certain I remember the Patriots running a bubble screen to one of their tight ends early in the Baltimore game.

written by pghsportsfan, January 25, 2012 - 11:03 AM
Here is a reason for not running the bubble screen. None of the 12 playoff teams, other than the Steelers ran the bubble screen. None of the teams in the NFC and AFC Championship games ran the bubble screen. If it is such a great play, why is it not going to be the featured play in the Super Bowl?

Facts. Those darn facts!And STILL some of the expert coordinators who post comments here STILL know better. It would be laughable if wasn't so pathetic. At least the Rooneys have at least 1,000 candidates (just on this blog) to replace a coordinator that got them to 3 Super Bowls and a championship. So much for the "knowledgeable" Steeler fans. What a joke.

am unable to access the attached. Is it 6 yards per attempt (including incompletions)?

YES YPA IS EVERY THROW

*t's unbelievably comical how this article completely ignores the bubble screen called in Denver that was thrown backwards and was fumbled but the officials completely screwed up the call.

It would have ended their season right there instead of the game going into overtime.

Wow!!!!

My head is spinning here, I'm reading this bloggers stuff from here on out.

Don't understand why it's so hard to decipher.
I guess people hate to admit they were mistaken.

Those numbers are misleading. Two words: SAMPLE SIZE. Anyone with a smidgen of statistical training knows that N=45 just doesn't cut it.

Add the numbers from '09 and '10 and then we can have a meaningful discussion about its effectiveness.

Never had a problem with the bubble screen. I thought the Steelers usually ran it pretty well.

The problem is, when it works it's a nice, but not spectacular looking, play that can pick up 4-10 yards. But when it doesn't work, it looks awful, thus prompting a response from fans.

I've seen it work, and I've seen it not work. The same can be said for a slant, a post, a long bomb, a run to the outside, a run up the middle... etc etc etc.

It wasn't a terrible play for the Steelers, now for the Wannstedt-era Pitt Panthers it was usually a disaster!

written by ItsMyLife, January 25, 2012 - 12:04 PM
*t's unbelievably comical how this article completely ignores the bubble screen called in Denver that was thrown backwards and was fumbled but the officials completely screwed up the call.

OMG OMG OMG!!!

Let's throw out a season's worth of data bc they screwed the play up once in the playoffs!!!!

Bruce Arians had problems, the bubble screen wasn't one of them.

My biggest problem with Arians was not the bubble screen. It was piling up yards but not points.

But I am clearly an idiot yinzer homer who doesn't know anything about football because I think scoring points are more important than gaining yards.

Bruce Arians had problems, the bubble screen wasn't one of them.

Sure it was. Nobody is blaming the bubble screen for all of his failings, but it's an example of calling a play that had cost them a game earlier in the season and then calling that very same play again when they were backed deep in their own territory.

Context. Something so many of you can't grasp.

It's very similar to their horrendous goal line play calling last year that hurt them in the regular season and then killed them in the Super Bowl.

Arians has shown a propensity for not learning from his mistakes and/or insisting on doing things his way even when they've been shown not to work.

The Steelers have had worse offensive coordinators, but very few of those we'd consider terrible had HOF QBs to work with.

This book won't be fully written on Arians until we see how the next guy does.

The most damning indictment of Arians is the many many times we've seen the Steelers simply need to maintain posession of the ball to close out a game and yet couldn't manage to get a 1st down to save their lives.

I did not criticize Arians' play-calling, and the bubble screen would fall into that category. I also have defended him against charges he is predictable.
I said the Steelers would be better off for Ben to hear a different voice. That -- and not his play selection -- is why I called for a change. --- Bob Smizik

And I never "blamed it all on Arians".

Of course you didn't criticize Arians' play-calling because that would require the admission that much of the success you credit him with was because of busted play - school yard heroics by Ben and the O. Not to mention that most of the failure was due to players not executing.

Figuring out that % would have been ll but impossible unless Bruce had you down to Georgia not that I'm implying you peven play a fiddle Bob



Your original premise about me was incorrect. I was not being disingenuous in posting the article from Steelers Depot. I don't post stories based solely on whether I agree with them. I thought it brought to light a significant point. It had nothing to do with my thoughts on his play-calling.

Now you are changing the goalposts to something about ``the admissions of much of the success you credit him for . . . '' I am on record as giving little success to coordinator and believe what transpires on the field is mostly the result of players. --- Bob Smizik

Rooney saw what we all saw: An offesnive coordinator that either wouldn't or couldn't adapt throughout the season, an OC who cont'd to falter by jamming an ineffective Rashard Mendenhall down our throats on the goal line, an OC who couldn't figure out how to score TD's, an OC who quite frankly was so predictable that my 13 year old son knew what was often coming before the ball was snapped, an OC who allowed his surrogate son in BR to call the shots on the field and regress in his play. Okay, we won 12 games and then we were one and done. Meanwhile in the shadows Mike Tomlin lay quivering in fear of actually having to make a real decision. you can only ride the coattails of others for so long and then sooner or later you'll be exposed.

written by rey13, January 25, 2012 - 12:18 PM

Those numbers are misleading. Two words: SAMPLE SIZE. Anyone with a smidgen of statistical training knows that N=45 just doesn't cut it.

---

Of all the totally in denial comments above...and there are many...this is my absolute favorite.

First off, 45 passes is more than enough of a sample size at face value.

That said, as a former auditor I can assure you that we often tested $10 Million balances with sample sizes less than 45.

Its the same reason they can figure out that 50 Million people watched the Super Bowl by having a few thousand respond to a Neilson survey.


This is just another example of what I said before. Whether you like Arians or not the simple fact is that a certain portion of the fanbase has decided he's awful and they will use any argument against him...even when not supported by facts.

The FACT remains...comparable in points for, wins, and points against the entire BBR era, over two H/Cs and two O/Cs.

written by AHab35, January 25, 2012 - 12:55 PM
First off, 45 passes is more than enough of a sample size at face value.

No, it is not. Let me explain: the Steelers ran 1,015 offensive plays during the season. To be 95% confident that we are observing the TRUE value of the "bubble screen" (with a 3% confidence interval), we need a sample size of 520. Do the math.

That said, as a former auditor I can assure you that we often tested $10 Million balances with sample sizes less than 45.

Well, you were vastly overconfident in whatever estimates you came up with. Maybe that is why you are a "former" auditor.

Its the same reason they can figure out that 50 Million people watched the Super Bowl by having a few thousand respond to a Neilson survey.

See above. The population size is much larger and, consequently, a smaller proportion is needed to yield an unbiased estimate.

Bottom line, don't come here trying to patronize me with your "knowledge". I know what I am talking about when I say 45 plays is not a sufficiently large sample size to jump to conclusions.

Mike Tomlin lay quivering in fear of actually having to make a real decision. -chippedham

Mr. Eisley?

I don't think it's fair or accurate to suggest Mike Tomlin is "quivering in fear".

That said he knew when he was hired he wasn't calling the shots on personel for his staff and this sends a bad message to the team in how it was handled IMO.

Then again maybe the players aren't inaware that Mike Tomlin was told who he was going to keep from the previous staff... yah think?

I've yet to hear one argument against using the Bills No Huddle O.

Do you really think that going to and losing 4 Super Bowls in a row disqualifies it?

Surely not.

Ben is superb in it and not using it (no huddle not necessarily the bills O) more is yet another of arians shortcomings as the Cord.

Q. Whom, if anyone, from that staff or team is coaching now and could be considered for the position?

They ran it.

They threw it.

They had a gutsy tough QB

I think they even had a TE or 2 and a FB

unaware even...

*t helped Hines get 1,000 catches

Does it qualify for "irony" that his 1000th catch went for a loss?

Gee, I guess Bryan has never criticized a coach before. After all everyone else are so-called offensive coordinators. I could do without the smugness while trying to prove a point. All those bubble screens enabled the Steelers to rank 21st in scoring. Now go ahead Bryan and try to come up with reasons why that stat wasn't a big deal.


He made one very clear point, which you seem to have trouble accepting. He said nothing about the team's point total. -- Bob Smizik

I never understood the term "bubble screen". I kept hearing about it but couldn't figure out where the "bubble" came from.
To me it's a simple screen pass to your wide receiver while the other receiver blocks for you.
Now, I don't understand why there has to only or always be a screen pass to the wide receiver?
Why not try some screen passes to your running backs?
All this article told me is that if Bruce Arians felt that the "bubble screen" was such a successful play call then why didn't he use it more often? and why not to Wallace more often? And why did he not use it when with 29 seconds left in the game at the Broncos 45 yard line- all we needed was to get 10 more yards and kick a field goal to win the game in regulation time!!!

I don't care what anyone says about the "bubble screen", it is still a horrible play, and in my opinion should be banned from the NFL. I hate the play with a passion, just as much as Bruce Arians obviously loved the play.

I still think that one play had as much to do with his firing as any other single point. Even though every time it was called it tempted disaster, and despite the statistics, it failed miserably most of the time, yet Bruce continued to call it as if he were getting a commission from the "bubble screen" Society of America.

If I never see another "bubble screen" it will be too soon for me. Hopefully Bruce will take it with him to his next coaching destination, never to be seen in Pittsburgh again, and hopefully Art Rooney II will ban it from the new OC playbook.



So you are against play that average six yards an attempt? -- Bob Smizik

I think if the offense has a failing it was obviously red zone production and that is most definitely more a function of player execution than it is play-calling. Fault Arians for not coaching-up his players' techniques, but all coordinators on D and O make either high-percentage calls or calls based upon the perception of tricking the opponent. Execution is always the hidden variable in a play's success.

When the Steelers had dominate o-lines, they used to line up and run playes the defense saw coming but couldn't stop the majority of the time because they would be out-played.

Linemen need to block, backs need to find the hole, receivers need to get seperation, and quickly, and qb's need to make quick and decisive reads.

Our line is not consistent and I think it showed a lot in Arians play-calling. He couldn't count on high-percentage plays to work all of the time because defenses playing conservatively or stacking the box would blow those plays up. Hence, bubble screens and the like.

Our receivers are fantastic but I think they will develop a better sense as to how to find the open spots and position their bodies better in tight spots.

I think people are more down on Mendenhall than is fair. Compare his touchdowns historically against other backs. Having said that, I would like to see Redman a lot more.

I am a fan of 7's play in general, but one area I think that is open for criticism in his game is his ability to make quick and accurate reads on a consistent basis.

I think the real issue here is that Ben convinced Rooney to keep Arians. I am sure that Rooney expected to see some development in Ben's play to reflect that continued relationship, like developing more into a pure pocket passer to take care of his body. The quotes that I've heard confirm this. Rooney wants an OC that is going to protect his investment. I hope it works out. It sure could go the opposite way, especially if they hire in-house.

Once again, the facts are what they are. I seriously doubt even Mr. Smizik went through the article posted to see if everything was completely, 100 precent correct. As a fan, I saw the bubble screen fail. I thought it was called at the wrong time. THIS IS MY RIGHT AND MY OPINION. What Mr. Bryan did was write a story in support of the bubble screen and his facts seemingly prove his point. By linking the story, you have shown support for this belief and given the other side of the story.

Even with these "facts", the bubble screen is not the reason why Bruce arians was not retained. Instead of disecting the bubble screen (although this is fodder for the rabid Steeler fan), it might have been better to do a story where Art Rooney, Mike Tomlin, the entire offense, and Coach Arians were questioned about the issue. From those interviews, perhaps the fan could determine why a change was needed. Or see if all parties were on the same page. Of course, this would be journalism which again, may be too hard.

I said before, let's move on. Coach Arians is no longer the OC. the Steeler fans will have another OC to applaud, critic, etc. What will not change is the Pittsburgh media's attempt to always contradict the fan's view. And say it as gospel, like just because it is written we have to believe it.Things like Ray Lewis being one of the greatest inside LB (not true). Or that the Patriots would never, ever cheat (not true).



You are free to believe what you wish just as I am free to offer my opinion. If you are suggesting it was written here that Patriots would never cheat, I'd like to see some proof of that.
As for Ray Lewis, my opinion on his greatness is based o the words of Jack Ham. --- Bob Smizik

Loved your bubble screens, Bruce. Too bad you couldn't generate enough points.

Now clean out your desk and get lost.

Sincerely,

Art Rooney II

And Muhammad Ali once said Mike Tyson was a greater fighter than he.

As a fan, I saw the bubble screen fail. I thought it was called at the wrong time.

And how many Irons had you consumed at the time?

I am one of the people that felt like I was watching the same plays over and over. And the bubble screen was one of those plays.

Knowing that the Steelers led the NFL in TOP but were 27th in points per offensive yard gained, so what if the bubble screen gained yardage? If you started at your one yard line and threw bubble screens all of the way down the field but didn't score, what did you accomplish?

Points, baby, points!

I'd toss out Ben and Bruce's whole dumbed down playbook for one that maximizes points scored!

Isn't that the bottom line?


Another person who won't admit he's wrong so he changes the subject. -- Bob Smizik

What I find absolutely appalling is that over FIFTY people in the USA actually have an opinion on something called a bubble screen. Talk about hard-up.

@Rey13...

That's really impressive textbook stuff you have above. I guess if Arians ran another 500 bubble screens we would all feel confident.

In the meantime, I'll stick with 45 passes being enough to get me comfortable.

And those sample sizes I used are prepared by the group that sets samples for just about every middle market audit performed in the U.S. So nice try...but wrong.

As most of us do, I have many many Steeler-fan friends. And we probably spend way too much time talking Steeler football..LOL.

But I have heard none of them even mention bubble screens in any of our conversations this season.

So it would be my assertion (based on an admittedly small sample set) that perhaps Mr. Bryan is setting up a straw man so that he can present the results of his research.

That being said...I am still very impressed with the quality of his research. Thanks for the interesting read.

I see that Cryin' Ryan Clarke made the Pro-Bowl. They must really be hard up for players to invite him. Why doesn't anyone want to play in that game anymore? Ed reed opted out because of a hang-nail.

Another person who won't admit he's wrong so he changes the subject. -- Bob Smizik

Bob, In your own words

"In fact, it was a rather useful play."

So define useful. Useful in what way? Useful for gaining yards? Useful for keeping the ball and increasing your TOP? Useful for making first downs?

Hey, that's all great, but it doesn't mean anything if you don't score enough.

Maybe Arians should have used the bubble screen to score points instead of just gaining yards. Maybe I would have liked it better.

BTW Bob, I was a huge fan of the bubble screen when it came down to getting Hines Ward his 1,000 catches.

I'm probably on record somewhere on the blog for not being a fan of it otherwise. The fact that bubble screens gain yardage has nothing to do with whether or not I like them, though.

BORING!

Now, that is a writer who took the time to check the facts..almost as much as Bob does!

Nice article.

Full disclosure: I irrationally hated the bubble screen and was surprised by the facts in the article. I modified my opinion after reading it. I think the key issue with a football play, as the writer mentions, is how it sets up the defense in addition to how well it works.

It also must be looked at in terms of the opportunity cost of the play - I.e. what play was not run because this one was. And, what was the risk versus the upside. You would also have to look at down and distance. Overall, I think the bubble screen was better than I thought. However, I would love to see someone with an even greater excess of time on their hands go oven deeper.

Now I want to see stats on the success rate of the screen pass to the runningback.

you can pretty much see the direction nfl offenses will take in the future by watching the pats. the days of specialists are coming to an end. in the new nfl teams will turn toward skill players who can not only run and catch, but run, catch block and pass. blocking is crucial to successful offensive production. in the future, teams will begin to run out of passing formations and pass out of running formations. that will depend on running backs being able to run routes and catch passes and wideouts being able to block. and of course as many tight ends as teams can get on the field. note how often teams are on the half yard line but can't run the football into the end zone, but play action or bootleg works. wallace on that end around for example. ben and the no huddle offense is poised to take full advantage of what is coming. just putting a blocking back in front of a running back is not the answer unless the blocking back can do more than just block. we all know that the league continues to favor offensive production in its regulations and this will continue. the league in addition to protecting star qbs also wants to make it easier for teams to put points on the scoreboard. fans don't want to see great defense; they want to see tds and what tomlin calls "splash plays".

Regardless of whether the bubble screen is a viable play or not, to me, it is just boring. Any pass where a WR catches the ball within a few yards of the line of scrimmage is boring. These guys are hired for their speed and agility and you're happy with frequent a 4-yard gains? A result of the death of the two-running-back offense?

My fickle fan/armchair quarterback statement of the day. “I hate the bubble screen when it doesn’t work.”

@Poz...you wrote:

...you wrote that as the last of the 61 comments on this topic.

I think that sums up the topic so well that we should just delete the 1st 60 comments (mine included up there) as unnecessary verbosity!

OMG...you've got me laughing out loud here hahahahaha!

oops...your quote didn't take: Here it is again:

I hate the bubble screen when it doesn’t work.