Running the ball is tough in any situation. It’s physically demanding, and there are lots of moving parts. You have the offensive line, the tight ends, the backs and even the wide receivers. The entire unit must function as one against some bad men trying to defeat you.

Where things get really tough for the rushing unit is in short yardage situations, either in the field or down on the goal line. It’s clearly a run situation, and the defense reacts accordingly. The offense brings in extra blockers, and the defense counters with an extra defensive lineman or an extra linebacker. We all know what’s about to go down — it’s smash mouth football time.

There are various reasons why teams succeed in these situations, and it’s hard to pinpoint one reason that’s better than the rest. Winning individual matchups is supremely important in such close quarters. So is the scheme. If the scheme doesn’t account for a down safety, then it doesn’t matter if the big boys win up front; it will be a tackle for a loss.

How effective the running backs are at breaking tackles and reading a defense is also a factor that goes into close quarters rushing attacks.

There’s no correlation between general rushing success and short yardage success. If we look at Football Outsiders, which does an excellent job of tracking these types of stats, it shows New Orleans and New England as the two most efficient rushing attacks (adjusted rushing yards), yet those two teams are 27th and 15th, respectively, in a “power situation” which FO describes as a “percentage of runs on third or fourth down, 2 yards or less to go, that achieved a first down or touchdown. It also includes runs on first-and-goal or second-and-goal from the 2-yard line or closer. This is the only statistic on this page that includes quarterbacks.

On the flip side, the Dolphins are 30th in adjusted rushing yards but second in power situations. The Kansas City Chiefs are 18th in adjusted rushing yards but first in power situations. The Chiefs have converted on 13-of-14 rushing attempts on third downs with 1-2 yards to go, even though they get stuffed at a higher rate of normal runs than the average.

When you dive further into the formational stats to try to find a pattern for the cause of success or failure, there really isn’t one. The top three teams in power success use base personnel (at least two tight ends and/or two running backs) on third-and-1 randomly: the Chiefs, 67 percent, the Dolphins, 50 percent, and the Cowboys, 33 percent.

The worst team in this situation, and I’ll dive deeper into this coming up, the Detroit Lions, use base personnel just under 50 percent on third-and-1.

The most fascinating stat I found doing the research is that third-and-2 is considered a normal down and distance now. Most teams stay in 11 personnel during this down, which is just the way the league has moved.

This article started as a look into why the Detroit Lions have struggled so much in these short yardage and goal-to-go situations. The Lions are 32nd in adjusted run yards and also 32nd in power success, so these stats align. I often get asked why the Lions don’t run the ball better, and I don’t have a great answer.

They should be better. They have two backs who are similar in skill set, so when they switch between Ameer Abdullah, who gets the majority of reps, and Theo Riddick, there isn’t a change in scheme. The Lions have upgraded their offensive line with free agency and draft additions. I spent one offseason in Detroit where I loved the line coach. He gets the most from his players.

So in a situation when there isn’t a clear reason for a struggle, it makes me default back to a long list of issues that all culminate into poor play in the run game. These struggles aren’t exclusive to the Lions.

Identity in a run game can shift throughout a game and a season, and that can lead to struggles. You enter a game and the season with a plan, the plan doesn’t go as well early on for a variety of reasons, and the offensive coordinator defaults back to the bread and butter, which might not be ideal for these situations. Over the years I’ve learned that most coordinators get skittish about calling runs that have failed earlier in the game or earlier in the season. And it takes only one negative run to throw that concept or play out. Offensive coordinators LOVE to throw the ball.

The Lions have a good example of this. In 22 personnel (two tight ends and two backs), which is tough for the Lions without a true fullback on the roster, they are 3-for-3 on third-down runs.

Early against Carolina, the Lions hit a G lead play for a long gain on third-and-short. I’m a huge fan of G lead in these situations. It allows the offense to cut the defense and pour to the wide side of the field:

However, they are 0-for-1 in the same personnel group on fourth down. That play was a disaster. The Panthers moved late, and the left tackle gets confused and doesn’t work a double team with the left guard. The tight end has no chance against Peppers, and it’s a terrible loss on fourth-and-1.

And after this disaster, this personnel group is out. And it makes sense. Why run out a personnel group that you don’t major in when you can run bread-and-butter plays?

Other issues in these power situations are the usual ones. Injuries up front, individual matchup losses, too many players in the box, tight ends and receivers not blocking the proper guys, and for the Lions, they don’t have a power back.

Because not all of these happen each time in this situation, it makes game-planning around an issue tougher because you don’t know which issue might show up. So you run bread-and-butter plays and hope for the best.

Let’s start against Pittsburgh. Third-and-goal at the 2. The Lions are running a duo type run play, where everyone is double teaming someone. The tight end and right tackle get split late which allows the linebacker to play over the top. There’s also an unblocked safety, who the receiver is trying to block, who needs to be accounted for by someone in a position to block him. The running back is blindly lowering his shoulders into the gap, which I don’t mind as much because there was a big hole to start the play.

It’s a negative run in a situation where they needed a touchdown:

Moving right along to the New Orleans game. This is a wham play, where the fullback is trapping the nose tackle. The fullback misses with his aiming point, allowing the nose tackle to get inside of him. The right tackle is impeded by a block to the linebacker. Lastly, the running back is slow to pour through the hole. This play is supposed to run in the A gap, and he should lower his shoulder and get a yard. Running backside is not where this play should go:

Now let’s explore what got this article going: the goal-line stand by the Packers against the Lions on Monday Night Football.

The Lions went with 11 personnel for this play, and the Packers played zero and brought the house. I don’t know their injury situation, so it’s possible they were down certain players. But you will notice with all these plays, the Packers have way too many players in the box for the Lions to block.

On the first run, the tight end is sliding back to block the first outside the left tackle. He misses that defender, and the guy he’s supposed to block is unblocked and makes the play. Even if Eric Ebron blocks the right defender, there are too many guys in the box for the Lions to block them all:

The Lions are actually in 12 personnel, one running back and two tight ends, but they split Ebron out to the wide side, hoping to get a favorable look and throw him a fade. Instead, they run another dive and there’s just too many Packers in the box to make it work.

It’s blocked well. The receiver does a decent enough job on his defender, but the Packers have funneled this play outside where they have unblocked defenders.

The next play, the third play in a row, is the quarterback sneak. This is the first one of these plays that I’d say is on the offensive line. It’s because of a miscommunication that allows a free rusher directly up the middle. Ugh.

Either the center or the right guard have that free rusher up the middle. Either way, someone must block him. Stafford has no chance.

So how do the Lions fix it?

Well, for one, I’d start trying to run to the edges more with a fullback, which they don’t really have on the roster. So that could be tough to do, but it’s worked for them. They are predictable in the sense they are always running inside, especially in 11 personnel, which by the way, is sort of the only place you can run the ball.

I know people have said it’s always toward the tight end, but that’s common for most run games in this situation. You can build in more double teams at the point of attack this way. The Lions need to improve their blocking at tight end and wide receiver and with the running back being more aware of trying to get 1 yard.

They don’t need a change at running back, at the moment, but the Lions need to enter a bigger back in the rotation next season. I think it’s unfair to ask Dwayne Washington or Zach Zenner to be that power back with the limited touches they get. “Hey dude, you haven’t played much this week; go get us a yard.” It’s not happening, especially with younger players.

It’s going to take a total unit effort for the Lions to correct this problem. I have faith they can do it.

Geoff Schwartz's Most Disrespectful Blocks of the Week