An Offensive Argument

[budski]

Everybody,

I think what we are looking for here is a balanced attack which would incorporate everything everyone has brought up and every team strives for. The one exception

is the H-back that we employ which is something that todays defences are not use

too. Which is why cooley is always wide open.

[Oldfan]

How can you say that play-action gives the defense an advantage...are you kidding?

Didn't say that exactly.

I said that, having been around for 65 years, play action schemes are now old hat which gives the defense the advantage.

[Oldfan]

Tell that to Bill Cowher, Joe Gibbs, Shaun Alexander, or Ladanian Tomlinson. Or Edge James, whose team is finally undefeated because they shifted to a clock control, run oriented offense, even when they had the best QB in history.

The two best offenses in the NFL are Seattle and Indianapolis. I think it's a major stretch to call either a run-oriented offense.

[budski]

Oldfan,

Could it be that Teams are not as good at selling the play-action as they use to be?

[Oldfan]

you can't just get rid of the offensive goal of stretching the field

sure, it makes no sense in the red zone, but how are you gonna get to the red zone without stretching the field?

If an offense is effective in the red zone, why would it not be even more effective elsewhere on the filed with more room to operate?

Stretching the field with fast, little receivers isn't the only way to move the football. That isn't the basic idea in the West Coast schemes for example.

[budski]

You want outdated the end around or the reverse. Defenses smell those out before they even get started.

[Oldfan]

Oldfan,

Could it be that Teams are not as good at selling the play-action as they use to be?

I think the old cliche about first establishing the run is true if your scheme is based on play action. Offenses are having difficulty establishing the run for several reasons. Defenses, like our own, make it damn difficult to do.

[Oldfan]

You want outdated the end around or the reverse. Defenses smell those out before they even get started.

I didn't follow this. Who wants end arounds and reverses?

[iheartskins]

I know next to nothing when it comes to the intricacies of various coaching schemes. With that said, I'm curious how many fundamentally different schemes are there out there? Oldfan, you mentioned that Gregg Williams is drawing from Buddy Ryan and George Allen. To what extent does his current scheme differ? Are they really fundamentally comprable schemes that are only separated by the players executing them and various wrinkles integrated by Williams?

[budski]

I think the old cliche about first establishing the run is true if your scheme is based on play action. Offenses are having difficulty establishing the run for several reasons. Defenses, like our own, make it damn difficult to do.

Agreed, but the play-action part is only a small part of the whole offense.

The running part will always demoralize and eat the clock up.

[regularjoe]

<i>The two best offenses in the NFL are Seattle and Indianapolis. I think it's a major stretch to call either a run-oriented offense.</i>

How many championships have they won? While big TEs like Gates or H-Backs like Sellars or Cooley are hard to tackle and punish defenders, the fact is you're only get the ball in their hands 6-10 times a game at best.

A good running back, you can guarantee 20-25 touches. Sure, he may be stopped half the time, but the clock still runs ensuring the other team's defense spends more time on the field and yours stays fresh. Miss a pass and the clock stops.

At the highest levels of pro football, it's usually not about outsmarting the other guy so much as lining across from him and smacking him in the mouth.

The O-line argument is an interesting observation and I agree in the salary cap era, it's harder to keep a good O-line together, but you need a good O-line for pass protection as much as you do for run blocking.

[hiswadeness]

I believe the offences of the future will be the same as they are now, not in scheme but in necessity. A team that can adapt to exploit their opponents weaknesses on def. will be more successful than a team with a specific scheme that it cannot waiver from. just my thoughts.

[TheLongshot]

Who would you think might be more punishing on tacklers? Antonio Gates or Ladainian Tomlinson? Jeremy Shockey or Tiki Barber? Chris Cooley or Clinton Portis?

Actually, I think a back is more "punishing" because there are usually more players involved in stopping a back. On a pass, you may have a couple of defenders, but on a run, usually 5-6 defenders can be involved, especially if the back gets past a few layers

Are any of these backs more punishing when they take a handoff rather than a swing pass?

They can be. Depends on the back.

If an offense is designed for red zone effectiveness, isn't it fair to assume that it will do a good job of controlling the clock as well? Isn't it harder to control the clock when you have to take shots (with speedy little receivers) downfield if only to keep the defense honest?

It depends on what you mean by "red zone effectiveness". It seems like you want to escew the run and use big receivers to go after the ball. Problem is, it is hard to do that on a regular basis, especially when the opposing team knows that you aren't going to run. The threat of a run affects the whole defense, and can open up things deep when effective.

Also, don't discount the mental effect of an O-line who can shove it down your throat. Catching a big pass doesn't quite have that effect.

The two best offenses in the NFL are Seattle and Indianapolis. I think it's a major stretch to call either a run-oriented offense.

Note, tho, that they do have great running games as well.

Jason

[KillaCam21]

This thread is a change of pace in this forum and might interest fans who enjoy discussing or debating game strategies.

1. After putting their QBs under center for 65 years, football coaches have wrung out all the advantages of play-action schemes giving defenses the edge (assuming equal personnel). Therefore, future QBs will be in the shotgun.

2. Since the field compresses in the red zone, and since it is difficult to design an offense and acquire personnel to both stretch the field and operate effectively in the red zone, stretching the field is not a good strategy. Therefore, the offense of the future will be designed specifically for the red zone with the expectation that it will work even more effectively in other areas of the field with more room to operate.

3. Some of the colleges might opt for run-dominant schemes with a QB running from the shotgun, but NFL rules favor pass-dominant schemes. Therefore, the Shotgun Spread is the offense of the future in the NFL.

If my premises are correct, running backs and speedy little receivers are endangered species. Five receivers who can use their size to shield off defenders and bull their way forward after the catch (Antonio Gates) are more effective in the red zone than those who can separate.

Centers will become more important. Sharp, accurate snaps will be emphasized, run-blocking skill deemphasized.

Most pass plays will be quick (2.5 seconds) to discourage blitzing.

Tall QBs with a high, quick release will be prized. Mobility will be less of an advantage.

Am I mistaken? Do you have different ideas?

NOPE! Red zone offense is important, but scoring from the Redzone is the most difficult thing to do. If you can't spread the field, defenses will play your offense like it is in the redzone the entire game. You said that it was more difficult to move the ball in the redzone than anywhere else, so why would you want to an offense built for just the redzone?

[Oldfan]

I know next to nothing when it comes to the intricacies of various coaching schemes. With that said, I'm curious how many fundamentally different schemes are there out there? Oldfan, you mentioned that Gregg Williams is drawing from Buddy Ryan and George Allen. To what extent does his current scheme differ? Are they really fundamentally comprable schemes that are only separated by the players executing them and various wrinkles integrated by Williams?

As coaches go, Gregg Williams is one of the more interesting interviews, often more forthcoming on his scheme than most. Still, he has to compete, so he doesn't give away anything that isn't apparent to other NFL teams.

He has credited his basic intent, trying to dictate to the offense what they can run, to Ryan. He has mentioned George Allen in connection with triangulating the defensive player (Don't ask).

My sense is that he has adopted ideas that made sense to him from a variety of sources. I'm getting the feeling that his distinct advantage is that he's the consummate gambler. Knowing when to take calculated risks is perhaps more a factor in his success than the scheme itself.

[Eparadox]

I believe the most successful offenses will always be determined by the character and skills of it's key players. If you have a strong armed gunslinger, you don't stick him in a WCO. If you have big, slower recievers with a big, strong runner, you don't them in a run and shoot. When it comes down to it, you should mold your offense around your key skill players.

[iheartskins]

Oldfan, or anyone else for that matter, do you know of a comprehensive listing (online preferably) of offensive and defensive schemes that's available with descriptions?

[The Sisko]

What happens when the defenses adjust? Rushing 2 and dropping 9?

I see it being forever a game of balance. Speedy receivers to stretch the field, running back by committee to keep the defenses 'off-balance'. Any time you get one-dimensional, you give the defense an advantage.

I believe the offences of the future will be the same as they are now, not in scheme but in necessity. A team that can adapt to exploit their opponents weaknesses on def. will be more successful than a team with a specific scheme that it cannot waiver from. just my thoughts.

In these two responses is the answer to Oldfan's question/comment. That is, your hypothesis holds water as long as one assumes that both offensive/defensive coordinators will simply line up and play a vanilla scheme like in preseason. Instead what actually happens is that offensive coordinators (at least the good ones;) )use formations and motion to dictate favorable matchups that they then exploit. Defensive coordinators OTOH counter this by trying to disguise what they're actually doing until the last moment as well as formulating schemes to mitigate defensive weaknesses. The end result is a lot more like a chess match that would make Sun Tzu proud.

A good example of this is the NFC south. All the teams there have big, tall WRs with varying levels of speed. Some of them (Bucs and Falcons) are even WCO teams. So in order to compete in their division what do they all do? They go out and get bigger CBs to counter the threat. Then, a speedy and, more importantly very quick WR (S. Smith) steps on the scene and all of a sudden the big CBs are at something of a disadvantage because if the CB doesn't pay close attention to bumping him and redirecting him off his route every single time, there's a good chance he's going to get burned for six.

OTOH if you go out and get a bunch of smaller, quicker CBs to counter guys like Smith and Moss then offenses will counter that with taller WRs and so on and so on. As altair4 said, it's about balance and adjustments.

My point in all this is that the days of defenses knowing what an offense is going to run and being unable to stop it are pretty much over in the NFL. Defensive tackles today are often as fast as LBs used to be during Gibbs 1.0. Therefore, offense nowadays is more about gaining and exploiting an advantage over a defense that is often faster than you are.

[Oldfan]

NOPE! Red zone offense is important, but scoring from the Redzone is the most difficult thing to do. If you can't spread the field, defenses will play your offense like it is in the redzone the entire game. You said that it was more difficult to move the ball in the redzone than anywhere else, so why would you want to an offense built for just the redzone?

Well, first, let's be specific. Will you agree that you CAN spread the field in the red zone? What you can't do is stretch it.

One of my premises is that, if you build it for the redzone, there isn't any reason why an offense won't be even more effective elsewhere on the field where there is more room to operate. Do you have a reason to doubt this?

Now, I'm not saying that stretching the field isn't more effective elsewhere on the field. I'm pointing out that the personnel you need to make this strategy work almost guarantee that you will be less effective in the red zone where speed is a non-factor and smallish size is a liability.

[The Sisko]

Well, first, let's be specific. Will you agree that you CAN spread the field in the red zone? What you can't do is stretch it.

One of my premises is that, if you build it for the redzone, there isn't any reason why an offense won't be even more effective elsewhere on the field where there is more room to operate. Do you have a reason to doubt this?

Now, I'm not saying that stretching the field isn't more effective elsewhere on the field. I'm pointing out that the personnel you need to make this strategy work almost guarantee that you will be less effective in the red zone where speed is a non-factor and smallish size is a liability.

But why not give yourself the option of either stretching or spreading the field in any given situation? It just makes life harder for the defense. You have guys to stretch the field when needed, then you bring in a different offensive package or you motion into a different formation etc. when you get into the redzone.

The idea is to force the defense to defend the whole field at all times. Not doing so outside the redzone means you probably won't get there. If you don't believe me, take a look at our games from last season. Defenses knew we couldn't hurt them deep so they simply took away all the underneath stuff and the run and dared us to beat them deep. We couldn't do it and 10 close losses were the result.

[Oldfan]

I believe the most successful offenses will always be determined by the character and skills of it's key players. If you have a strong armed gunslinger, you don't stick him in a WCO. If you have big, slower recievers with a big, strong runner, you don't them in a run and shoot. When it comes down to it, you should mold your offense around your key skill players.

You are correct but, in long term planning, the scheme is selected first since it will dictate the skill sets of the players you will draft or pick up in free agency.

[budski]

I think it all boils down to scoring more points than the other guy.

[Oldfan]

But why not give yourself the option of either stretching or spreading the field in any given situation? It just makes life harder for the defense. You have guys to stretch the field when needed, then you bring in a different offensive package or you motion into a different formation etc. when you get into the redzone.

You have a 53 man roster and a salary cap. This allows you a limited expenditure for your offensive skill players. You can't have a talented group of speedy little receivers who can be replaced by another equally talented group of bigger receivers in the red zone. You are forced to choose.

[Oldfan]

<i>The two best offenses in the NFL are Seattle and Indianapolis. I think it's a major stretch to call either a run-oriented offense.</i>

How many championships have they won? While big TEs like Gates or H-Backs like Sellars or Cooley are hard to tackle and punish defenders, the fact is you're only get the ball in their hands 6-10 times a game at best.

A good running back, you can guarantee 20-25 touches. Sure, he may be stopped half the time, but the clock still runs ensuring the other team's defense spends more time on the field and yours stays fresh. Miss a pass and the clock stops.

At the highest levels of pro football, it's usually not about outsmarting the other guy so much as lining across from him and smacking him in the mouth.

The O-line argument is an interesting observation and I agree in the salary cap era, it's harder to keep a good O-line together, but you need a good O-line for pass protection as much as you do for run blocking.

Most championships have been won by teams with balance. The reason for that is that all the teams have been putting their QBs under center and the advantage of doing that is play action in which it is necessary to run effectively in order to establish the passing game.

But there isn't any rule in football requiring that you put your QB under center. So, while you're remarks are true, they are only true because, in the past, all the teams have chosen to run similar offensive schemes.

[China]

The two best offenses in the NFL are Seattle and Indianapolis. I think it's a major stretch to call either a run-oriented offense.

You do realize of course that Shaun Alexander and Edgerrin James are #1 and #2 in the league respectively in rushing yards? (http://www.nfl.com/stats).

Also, Indianapolis has attempted 261 rushing plays to 247 passing plays (51.5% rushing to 48.5% passing). Seattle on the other hand has a 240/262 ratio (47% rushing/53% passing).

One thing you can't tell from these stats is whether they rush first to set up the pass or pass first to set up the run, or whether they build a lead by passing and then sit on it with their rushing game. What you can tell is that both of these teams seem fairly balanced in their attack. As to your point then, I wouldn't call either of them rush-oriented, but then neither would I call either pass-oriented. I think that mixing it up is the key (as it keeps the other team's defense off balance) rather than focusing more on rushing or passing.

EDIT: Ha ha. I didn't see your post above before submitting mine. Great minds think alike.