What have we learned, Charlie Brown?
This past weekend marked the launch of Paramount+, yet another streaming service to add to your growing list of content outlets. As any well-adjusted, middle-aged man would do, the launch of Paramount+ led to me catching up with a movie I loved as a kid: “Bon Voyage Charlie Brown! (And Don’t Come Back).”
The premise of this movie is that Charlie Brown and a few of his friends, including Linus van Pelt and of course his beloved dog Snoopy, travel to France as exchange students. Along the way hijinks ensue, such as Snoopy playing tennis at Wimbledon — where he is apparently a member in “good standing” — Snoopy renting a car in France, Snoopy slugging root beers in a bar…basically a lot of Snoopy getting into mischief.
The creators of the movie, including Charles M. Schultz, left the ending somewhat open-ended. To allow for a potential sequel or other content. In 1983 that was realized with a prime-time event that aired that Memorial Day. In that network special Charlie Brown tells his sister Sally about what happened after the events of the movie, as the group traveled home. With stops at Omaha Beach and others, Linus educated the young children about events of World War II and World War I.
The title? “What Have We Learned, Charlie Brown?”
In that spirit, what have we learned today, other than I like to make random references when writing?
Well, we learned that defensive coordinators from Friday nights to Monday nights, and all the days and nights in-between, are trying to force offenses to run the football. Why? Because the numbers have told us that the passing game is much more efficient, particularly when viewed through the lens of EPA. When even the worst passing games are still better off when they throw the ball, you know that passing is — and might remain — king.
As such, defenses are using a variety of means to force the offense to run the football, and turn the quarterback into a spectator. Teams are using 3-3-5 looks and playing with light boxes. They are also showing two-high safety looks before the snap and giving the offense the advantage up front, daring them to run the ball. Sure they might “sling the fits” as Kyle Cogan describes it, or do some other things post-snap as outlined by Seth Galina, but the premise is the same: Make them run.
So offenses, as they always do, will adjust. We’ve walked through a variety of ways that teams might attack in the passing game, from trying to throw backside on RPOs — away from the direction the quarterback opens in case the defense is trying to game the QB — to attacking downfield in a few different ways. Of course, as an offense you’ll want a Plan B built into those designs, in case the defense does spin the safeties at the snap, but you can still be effective downfield in the passing game.
Provided you have a good quarterback. Perhaps this clash of schemes is the undercurrent to the current QB carousel.
But then there is this idea: Maybe these offenses should in fact take the bait? Maybe, just maybe, they should run the ball. If the defenses are going to play light up front, maybe exploit the numbers advantage after all…and go all in by relying on the QB as a runner, to really make the most of your advantage up front. Especially if teams are going to adapt on defense by going lighter and more athletic to cover the receivers and tight ends that offenses are using and trying to target in space.
In a fast and small world, perhaps strong and big becomes king.
After all, what we might have learned is really that football is indeed that cyclical game, and the schematic reaction to the current action is about to be upon us. Maybe not this season, or the season after, but some day the running game might just be king again.