Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Redskins Offensive Identity


redskins55

Recommended Posts

For as long as I've been a Redskins fan I've observed that when we won games it was because we had our own identity on offense.

 

We started out in a strict air coryell offense in the early 80's under Gibbs but we wern't successful with the offense that Gibbs brought from San Diego. So he changed to a power running team in his 2nd year with Riggins. In the late 80's and 90's. Gibbs put his own twist on the Air Coryell offense by shifting pre-snap. You'd see multiple positions shifting before the snap. TE, HB, WR all shifting. It was so awesome to see. You knew that Gibbs was a step ahead of defenses and it showed with the offensive results. 

 

In 1999 Norv Turner finally established an identity with running the ball with Stephen Davis. He spent several years prior trying to install his Dallas offense without the Cowboys personnel. No TE, no WR and no QB.

 

In 2012 we finally witnessed Shanahan adopt an identity. For three years prior we recycled the west coast offense. An offense that Jim Zorn attempted to run for two years before that with no results. In 2012 the Redskins were a step ahead of everyone else. Defenses were confused and unable to plan for our attack. A thing of beauty.What truly made Shanahan abandoned this we will never know. I know many people say its because Griffin wanted to be a pocket passer but I find that hard to believe.  As a head coach I'm going to run the offense that best yields results from the personnel. I'm not going to scrap everything that succeeded to go back to something that didn't work three years prior because one player wants to be something that he never was in college.Which brings me to this point.

 

Gruden is starting out just like his predecessors in my opinion. Instead of creating his own identify for the Redskins he has tried to recycle his offense from Cincinnati.  Gruden will have to change his philosophy in the off season to put an identity on the Redskins. He must do it in year two like Gibbs and not wait several years like Turner and Shanahan if he wants to build a legacy here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're exactly right about Gruden bringing in the same type of offense he ran in Cincy. A good coach works to his players abilities and he needs to realize this. We didn't have an identity on offense at all this year, but that's what happens when you go through 3 different starting QB's. Gruden and this FO needs to figure out right away what kind of offense will be run next year. We have so many weapons on offense that it's extremely sad we don't produce more points.

 

We have the receivers, a stud TE, workhorse RB and FB, and a premier LT. RG3 should be back as our starting QB and I expect him to play much better. He will never be the same as he was in 2012, but if we ask him to put everything on his shoulders again then we as a franchise have bigger problems. We just need him to be decent and not turn the ball over.

 

Draft strong, big offensive lineman to create a power running game. I've said this before the season started to sprinkle in the read-option, but use it very sparingly. Just enough to keep defenses honest. Establish a ground game early then open it up with PA bootlegs. RG3 seems more comfortable when throwing on the run and also by doing this, you already have Griffin's legs moving so he can easily run to get a few yards if nothing's there.

 

This should be our identity. A little bit of 2012 mixed in with the Riggins era.

 

*Note* By no means am I comparing Morris to Riggins. However, Morris is a high-caliber RB that we need to keep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the issue with this... how can a coach create an identity when the personnel is so mis-matched and disharmonious that anything you try to be good at or focus on becomes too difficult?

 

Let's say we want to be known for our power running and play action off of that. Welp, can't do that, don't have the Oline for it... we've got ZBS guys there.

 

Okay, so let's be a ZBS team that runs a bunch of bootlegs. Welp, tough to do that, our best WR isn't a good blocker and you need that for the outside zone runs. Teams also like to commit a player to spy our QB because he's known to escape the pocket, which leads to him being smashed often. That means you have to commit one more guy to block instead of run routes, which makes the options fewer in the passing game. This is a reason why Cousins and McCoy are more successful on bootlegs than Robert, as well. Teams don't worry about them running as much, but then you have the lack of a threat in terms of their running ability.  

 

Plus, there may be only two coaches in the NFL great at that style, Mike Shanahan and Gary Kubiak. We just fired one and didn't ask for the other. 

 

Alright, let's just be a traditional drop back passing team. Oops, Oline has trouble anchoring in pass-protection because their smaller. Get pushed back too quickly into our QBs faces. QBs stink at eluding guys behind the LOS. One of them will just throw the ball to whoever to avoid getting smashed (Cousins), the other will allow himself to be smashed while trying to make a play (Robert), and the one who's best at it is just average at everything else (McCoy).

 

Fine then, let's be a college-spread fast paced no huddle team. Welp, that'll make it really tough to run any ZBS runs, negating the strength of our Oline and our best RB. Helu would automatically become the no. 1 runner since he's the only one who can catch and is reliable in other phases. Teams can just press man with their CBs to take away quick screens and keep a Safety over the top of Desean. They won't have to worry much about the threat of the run as their Dlinemen should be able to penetrate anything up the middle. Any adjustment to that where we try to get long developing routes to beat their press would mean our Oline would be left to block on an island. Remember Spurrier?     

 

This is why having a legitimate GM would make a world of a difference. Figure out what the coach wants his offense to be mainly and get the guys who will fit that. Right now, we have too many moving pieces that just don't mesh. Same can be said for our defensive personnel. 

 

Could the coaches have done better in finding the right identity and sticking to it sooner? Absolutely. But it's just not that easy with this smorgasbord of one-dimensional type players who fit different types of schemes better than others.   

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think the Redskins identity is extremely offensive. And I'm not even talking about the team name, just that they have sucked giant hairy donkey balls for more than 20 years and somehow a fat little dwarf has overseen 15 years of it, got rich AS **** on the proceeds and continues to sell this crap to legions of seemingly unthinking buffoons who lap it up every year with the "almost turned it round" crap, and then piling on to the press and experts who every year say we suck, and the experts here tell everyone what an idiot Peter King is for example. Ironically Peter King IS an idiot, but you know, him and everyone else who says every year that we suck is dead right.

 

so yeah, very offensive.

 

no need to get defensive about it.

 

not so much "special teams" as "special needs"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Maybe the OP got the last 2 words crossed.

 

 Identity Offensive. Pretty much sums it up.

 

 The team has for the most part been a ground-n-pound team, as with most teams, running the ball is crucial to an offense's success. The biggest goal of the coaching staff is to re-build the o-line; we can be either/or, being we do have the QBs to do it, the RBs to pound it, and the WR corp to catch it.

 

Alot of us would be surprised to see how effective and adaptive the offense can be with proper protection. Not to harp on 2012, but we had a high profile rookie QB who was agile and could zing the ball, but opponents, nor US, expected Morris to be such a huge impact on the team. Couple that with what Mike was scheming, it was hard for defenses to figure out, at least at first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the issue with this... how can a coach create an identity when the personnel is so mis-matched and disharmonious that anything you try to be good at or focus on becomes too difficult?

 

 

 

I like to think Gibbs was a good example of this blue print esp. in terms of identity.  He didn't have a tremendous amount of talent in 81 -82 and so, with the mismatched offense, he built a team centered around a power running game with short to medium passing.  That's what the Smurfs, Theismann and Riggins were about, but he still wanted Air Coryell... even being run based he had one of the most prolific offenses of his era in 83.  Now, when we get to 87 - 91, are we a power run team?  No, we are a stretch the field dynamic passing team with a strong ground game based on shifty runners.  Earnest Byner was not a John Riggins.  So, did the Redskins of GIbbs I have an identity... yeah, but it was not in playcalling it was in the soul.  We were a blue collar team who fielded no superstars. That's why despite being statistically one of the best ever, people kept trying to deny Monk into the HOF and Clark, Jacoby, etc. still haven't sniffed it.  Three Superbowls and less than one hand's worth of elite players??? Is that possible?

 

So, I don't quite by the identity argument as much as the core argument. The identity is the personality of the team not the plays called. Gruden came in wanting to adapt to what we did well which he thought was the run game.  He tried to steal from that, but believed his passing philosophy was superior.  So, he has tried to adapt... I think he can and should have gone further, but I don't think he tried to Xerox his Cinci game plans and just yelled go.

 

We've had coaches like Norv that scream "What we do works" and was inflexible.  I don't get that sense from Gruden, but I also don't get the sense that he's creative or a mad scientist either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Offensive Identity???

 

Outside of the smoke and mirrors 2012 season they have none,...and haven't for a long time.  The entire team has no identity.  Well,..I guess if you consider the consistent losing culture and FO ineptitude an "identity" then, sure,....that would be it.

 

Gruden is, and will continue to be overwhelmed by past,..meaning, what Danny boy has put in to motion since he's taken over the team.  I guess there's always a sliver of hope that things could get better, but, why are we suppose to think he can fix things when so many have failed? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Offensive Identity???

 

Outside of the smoke and mirrors 2012 season they have none,...

I think the identity is iron pyrate... fools gold.  We are a team that talks very loudly and has a glass jaw. It's been that way for the most part (I think Gibbs II was an exception) since Westbrook and Connell were our receivers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...So, did the Redskins of Gibbs I have an identity... yeah, but it was not in playcalling it was in the soul.  We were a blue collar team who fielded no superstars...

 

Having called plays for 30 years I find that the best identity for an offense today is to be adaptive. That is what Joe Gibbs was successful with and what I believe Jay will be successful with.  The comment that most sold me on the Jay Gruden hiring was that when he was asked about his philosophy his response was "I like plays that work."  That tells you that his focus is to take the talent he has and to build an attack based on their strengths.

 

It's obvious that many of you who post about how important an 'identity' on offense is haven't done much coaching.  There are pitfalls to every style.  If you want to be power and play action then you better stay ahead of the sticks and you better not get too far behind.  If you're a spread, quick-strike team then you better be way ahead and avoid turn overs because your defense will be gassed and you may find yourself struggling to prevent a come back. 

 

I like for an offense that can be diverse so that you can tweak your plan of attack to take advantage of the weakness of the defense you will face each week.  Take the outside zone and bootleg attack that Shanahan is famous for.  Works great vs a 4-3 front but when a team gives you a 3-4 look those boots and stretch plays aren't as effective.  Especially when you don't have a good blocking Tight-end who is also a dynamic receiver; as Shannon Sharpe was. 

 

Every defense gives away something to take away something.  A 4-3 is traditionally stronger vs inside runs but weaker on the perimeter; unless you run wide 9's then you're weaker up the middle.  The 3-4 is generally stronger vs outside runs and weaker vs inside runs since you have to count on a MLB to win vs a Guard. A team that likes to keep a safety in the box for run support and to blitz will be susceptible to the deep ball.  A team that likes to play a Tampa two with a MLB covering a TE will be vulnerable to a team with a good pass-catching TE. 

 

The offense I admire the most is New Englands.  Yeah, they have Tom Brady but there's more to it than that. He's not a great athlete but he's very smart.  Since he is so adaptable they can pound you with power and take some shots with play action or if you have a very sturdy defense vs the run they can spread you out and pick you apart.  An offense like that is very portable.  It can play in any weather and can adjust to anything the defense throws at them. 

 

Identity is over rated and a true Historian of the Redskins will recognize the genius of Gibbs was that he was able to adjust his game plan to whatever gave him the best chance of success against the defense they were facing that week. The best example I can think of for a team who has a single-minded identity is Seattle.  Now, here's the problem with them.  Take away number 24.  Where's their identity then?  Nobody is going to respect the play action and fakes so they will sit on the bootlegs and make Wilson beat them from the pocket with average receivers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gibbs never abandoned his power run/throw-it-to-toy-with-them approach.  In 1991, the Skins led the league in rushes and were 7th in yards.  Rypien only threw for 3,564 yards -- Jason Campbell could do that.  However, Rypien could hit the big one ("he could hit that deep thing there" - Joe Gibbs) and was clutch that year (which is how a journeyman wins SB MVP).  Gibbs was also clutch in adapting small (half-time) and large (changes in the league from year-to-year) but one thing he *always* focused on, no matter what, was his offensive line.  That's how he won 3 SBs with 3 QBs, 3 starting RBs, and so on.  On offense that is working, has stayed together for awhile, and has a good QB can survive an OL downturn.  Building up an offense to top 1/4 w/o an OL?  Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gibbs never abandoned his power run/throw-it-to-toy-with-them approach.  In 1991, the Skins led the league in rushes and were 7th in yards.  Rypien only threw for 3,564 yards -- Jason Campbell could do that.  

 

1991 was a different time though.  Rypien was 4th in passing yards that year behind Moon, Marino, & Kelly...Jason Campbell couldn't sniff that kind of production...even behind the Hogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like to think Gibbs was a good example of this blue print esp. in terms of identity. He didn't have a tremendous amount of talent in 81 -82 and so, with the mismatched offense, he built a team centered around a power running game with short to medium passing. That's what the Smurfs, Theismann and Riggins were about, but he still wanted Air Coryell... even being run based he had one of the most prolific offenses of his era in 83. Now, when we get to 87 - 91, are we a power run team? No, we are a stretch the field dynamic passing team with a strong ground game based on shifty runners. Earnest Byner was not a John Riggins. So, did the Redskins of GIbbs I have an identity... yeah, but it was not in playcalling it was in the soul. We were a blue collar team who fielded no superstars. That's why despite being statistically one of the best ever, people kept trying to deny Monk into the HOF and Clark, Jacoby, etc. still haven't sniffed it. Three Superbowls and less than one hand's worth of elite players??? Is that possible?

If it were that easy, Gibbs would've done it again himself when he came here the second time.

I think Gibbs had the guys to change the identity successfully his first stint because the personnel wasn't so wildly mis-matched. It's not so easy to adapt to your personnel when you've got way too many guys who do one thing well and suddenly don't fit any other direction you try to go in.

We need a legit GM, period. One with a clear vision that can see all the moving parts properly and acquire those who fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to see a run first offense with powerful linemen that can open up holes and keep a pocket.

 

If we can run successfully then it opens up play action with the deep threats.

 

If defenses start crowding the box the line needs to hold so we can pass or be quick to block so the team can use screens

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to see a run first offense with powerful linemen that can open up holes and keep a pocket.

 

If we can run successfully then it opens up play action with the deep threats.

 

If defenses start crowding the box the line needs to hold so we can pass or be quick to block so the team can use screens

 

Stop thinking like this is the 1980s. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having called plays for 30 years I find that the best identity for an offense today is to be adaptive. That is what Joe Gibbs was successful with and what I believe Jay will be successful with.  The comment that most sold me on the Jay Gruden hiring was that when he was asked about his philosophy his response was "I like plays that work."  That tells you that his focus is to take the talent he has and to build an attack based on their strengths.

 

It's obvious that many of you who post about how important an 'identity' on offense is haven't done much coaching.  There are pitfalls to every style.  If you want to be power and play action then you better stay ahead of the sticks and you better not get too far behind.  If you're a spread, quick-strike team then you better be way ahead and avoid turn overs because your defense will be gassed and you may find yourself struggling to prevent a come back. 

 

I like for an offense that can be diverse so that you can tweak your plan of attack to take advantage of the weakness of the defense you will face each week.  Take the outside zone and bootleg attack that Shanahan is famous for.  Works great vs a 4-3 front but when a team gives you a 3-4 look those boots and stretch plays aren't as effective.  Especially when you don't have a good blocking Tight-end who is also a dynamic receiver; as Shannon Sharpe was. 

 

Every defense gives away something to take away something.  A 4-3 is traditionally stronger vs inside runs but weaker on the perimeter; unless you run wide 9's then you're weaker up the middle.  The 3-4 is generally stronger vs outside runs and weaker vs inside runs since you have to count on a MLB to win vs a Guard. A team that likes to keep a safety in the box for run support and to blitz will be susceptible to the deep ball.  A team that likes to play a Tampa two with a MLB covering a TE will be vulnerable to a team with a good pass-catching TE. 

 

The offense I admire the most is New Englands.  Yeah, they have Tom Brady but there's more to it than that. He's not a great athlete but he's very smart.  Since he is so adaptable they can pound you with power and take some shots with play action or if you have a very sturdy defense vs the run they can spread you out and pick you apart.  An offense like that is very portable.  It can play in any weather and can adjust to anything the defense throws at them. 

 

Identity is over rated and a true Historian of the Redskins will recognize the genius of Gibbs was that he was able to adjust his game plan to whatever gave him the best chance of success against the defense they were facing that week. The best example I can think of for a team who has a single-minded identity is Seattle.  Now, here's the problem with them.  Take away number 24.  Where's their identity then?  Nobody is going to respect the play action and fakes so they will sit on the bootlegs and make Wilson beat them from the pocket with average receivers. 

 

I get your point. I think you are exaggerating a bit with the notion that having an identity means you cant do anything else. Having an identity simply means there is something you do better than anything else and you can always go to it. All good teams have this.  Take your Patriots for example.. Outside of the years they had Randy Moss and Wes Welker, New England has always been a team that relied on running the ball. That's their identity. But they have shown that they can pass as well. Ironically, the years they neglected to run the ball consistently was the year they lost the super bowls.They changed their identity.  Take Denver this year, they have started to run the ball more but Manning looks out of place. He's not comfortable slowing down the offense and handing the ball off to C.J Anderson early in games. The coach's like it because it gives the defense a rest but that's not Manning's strength, nor is it Denver's identity.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the flipside of the ball, the defense.  I think we rely way to much on linebackers covering WR's. Not sure if it is merely the 3-4 to blame or Haslett not making good substitutions on obvious passing downs, but I don't see very many other teams who seem to feature linebackers trying to catch a WR from behind so much throughout the course of a game.  I am sure there are situations on every defense where a linebacker ends up on a WR for a play or two, but with our defense it seems to be a constant thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...