Assessing how the Commanders defended Daniel Jones as a runner
Taking a closer look at where the Commanders succeeded and struggled against Giants quarterback Daniel Jones when he was used as a runner.
Playing the Giants either side of the bye week provides the Commanders a unique opportunity to rest up while evaluating both the game just played and game planning for the next one against the same opponent. The Giants had to spend this past week planning for the Eagles on Sunday while the Commanders had a week of rest while watching the film to see what worked and what didn’t against the Giants.
From a defensive standpoint, the Commanders will undoubtedly be assessing how the team defended Daniel Jones as a runner. When you look back at the stats from the game in New York, the Giants run game looked solid on paper. The team had 30 carries for 134 yards and a touchdown at 4.5 yards per carry. However, when you break it down, running back Saquan Barkley managed just 63 yards and a touchdown on his 18 carries at 3.5 yards per carry. There were a couple of outliers in that group of carries too, with a 21-yard run on a draw play and the 13-yard touchdown run accounting for 34 of his 63 total yards. Take away those two carries and Barkley managed just 29 yards on 16 carries at an average of 1.8 yards per carry.
So in general, Washington’s run defense held up well against Barkley. Quarterback Daniel Jones, however, ran for 71 yards on just 12 rushes, good for 5.9 yards per carry. Jones has a history of picking up lots of yards on the ground against Washington, so we can isolate that as the bigger issue for the Commanders to look at going into this weekend.
That being said, we can further isolate the issues with how Jones picked up his yards. Not all of his 12 rushes were on designed quarterback runs. Half of them came from scrambles on plays that were designed passes that happened to break down. So lets dive into those two different types of runs from Jones to see how the Commanders handled both the scripted and unscripted runs from Jones and what needs to be fixed before this coming Sunday.
Designed QB runs
In this section, I’ll focus on the designed quarterback runs. Washington’s success on these was mixed, with Jones not necessarily picking up huge gains on any of them, but he did manage to convert some key third downs.
This was the first designed quarterback run. It’s a scheme that’s very commonly run in college football. The right guard and tackle both pull from their side of the line and work as lead blockers to the left side of the line. Typically this scheme would be called a counter trey with the running back carrying the ball behind the pulling lineman. A traditional read-option scheme would have the running back working inside and the quarterback pulling the ball to the edge if the unblocked defender crashes inside on the run. But here, the Giants flip the roles of the quarterback and the running back, with the quarterback working inside and the running back working to the edge.
This confuses the read for the defenders as they see the back working outside and follow him. That tells Jones to pull the ball and run it himself inside. The Giants actually get a very favorable look as a result, with not enough defenders in position to defend Jones’s run, but fortunately for Washington, Jamin Davis beats his blocker and Jonathan Allen spins out of his block and the pair combine to make the tackle and force a fumble which the Commanders recover.
The Giants never really went back to this scheme after Jones fumbled while running inside, but in terms of actual schematics, it worked pretty well. That look could have been more troublesome had the offensive linemen prevented Allen from spinning back outside after his down block. I suspect the Giants might consider trying this scheme a few more times on Sunday.
One of the schemes I was worried most about was the basic read-option play with an arc block. The Falcons had some success with that scheme the week before, but the Giants didn’t go to it often. When they did, the Commanders played it better than they did against the Falcons.
Here, the Giants pair an inside zone run with a quarterback keep option. The tight end also sifts back across the line and arcs around the unblocked defensive end, while the receiver tight to the formation cracks inside. Typically, the Commanders handle this by trying to use the scrape exchange, with the unblocked defensive end crashing inside on the running back and a linebacker scraping to replace him on the edge. But the arc block is a good counter for that. So the Commanders anticipate that and have another linebacker scrape over too.
As the play progresses, you can see how the unblocked defensive end crashes inside, telling Jones to pull the ball and keep it himself. Both linebackers than scrape to the edge, expecting Jones to keep the ball, which he does. Jamin Davis beats the crack block and gets into the backfield, but misses the tackle on Jones. Fortunately, cornerback Christian Holmes does a nice job with a crack-replace assignment after his receiver went to block and he makes the tackle for a minimal gain.
This was an encouraging play by the Commanders having struggled against this system the week before. By having the end crash, they force Jones to keep the ball, where both linebackers can then position themselves to make the play.
As I mentioned earlier, while the Giants didn’t rip off any long runs with Jones on designed quarterback runs, they did manage to convert a couple of third and shorts.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Bullock's Film Room to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.