Let's Talk Offensive Scheme

[Oldfan]

Let's first define a few terms. A great offensive scheme gets better results than one might reasonably expect from the personnel it uses (Rich Rodriguez has a great offensive scheme at WVa). A good offensive scheme gets the results one might reasonably expect from the personnel it uses. A poor offensive scheme gets worse results than one might expect from the personnel it uses.

We don't have to be serious students of the game to learn from its history that every offensive scheme has a shelf life, some longer than others. Defensive adjustments causes them to decay. As they decay, they need better players to achieve the same results. Therefore, one criterion of a great offensive system is that it must be innovative, something new and different yet still sound.

Joe Gibbs came to Washington in 1981 with a great offensive scheme. His version of the Coryell offense, set up by a power running game, was innovative. 1981 rookies Russ Grimm, Mark May and Joe Jacoby generated the power to run it for a decade. But, on his return to the NFL, Joe's first hire was Joe Bugel. I took that as an ominous sign that Joe was going to try to repeat his success with the same scheme he used in his first tour of duty.

Except for a four-game stretch in 2005: Seattle, Denver, Kansas City and San Francisco, the Joe Gibbs offense has underachieved. In that four-game stretch, one player, a single-covered Santana Moss, ran wild. The solid running game to close out the 2005 season can be considered an anomaly since it came primarily at the expense of the Rams, the Cards and an injury riddled Giants defense. So, it's not unfair to say that the tweaked Coryell-Gibbs offense got poor results for two seasons given the personnel on hand. When Joe abandoned it, he did the right thing. But, did he make the right move in hiring Al Saunders?

Did Al Saunders get great results in Kansas City because he had a great scheme or did he have a good scheme with great personnel? I go with the latter explanation because I don't believe that an offensive system can be a great one unless it is innovative. The Coryell schemes have been around too long. The same is true for the Walsh West Coast schemes. If there is an innovative offensive mind in the NFL, I'm not sure who it is. For coaches, it's a copycat league.

The Al Saunders plan is best when a Trent Green clone is playing the QB. Customizing his system for Jason Campell makes more sense than customizing it for a 36 year-old QB, but it's not the ideal situation either.

For 60 years now, offenses have been designed primarily beginning with the QB under center (play-action as the main advantage). I suspect that the NFL very soon will follow the colleges where all the innovative schemes begin with the QB in the shotgun. It would be fun to watch our wrinkled old coaching staff come up with something innovative: the new and different Redskin Offense. It could be installed first as a special package of plays and then added to each week.

I don't think it's possible to have a great offensive scheme that is not innovative. Consequently, I don't think a football coach can be great unless he is always at the cutting edge of innovation. A good coach wins championships with great personnel. A great coach wins championships with good personnel.

What are your thoughts on this topic?

[budski]

Dont you think we have a little of all it? Good Coach, great players. Great coach good players, etc etc. On both sides of the ball there is a good mixture of everything you said. Why isn't it working? They only added a few players last year the core of the squad is there on both sides of the ball. This team should be good real good.

[DiscoBob]

I definitely agree with you, but don't know how to solve the problem. I have wondered how defenses would react if Saunders and Gibbs traded off play calling during the same game, quarter, even series....

It may sound crazy, but it would force a level of unpredictability into their offensive play calling, because they both have a definite style.

I would like to see the Redskins get comfortable with the offense, and then begin to add new plays, formations, etc. on a weekly basis. However, as I said above, it is difficult to get a coordinater/coach to think outside of the scheme that he has been running for years. You may have to get more people involved in order to achieve this level of diversity.

[Oldfan]

Dont you think we have a little of all it? Good Coach, great players. Great coach good players, etc etc. On both sides of the ball there is a good mixture of everything you said. Why isn't it working? They only added a few players last year the core of the squad is there on both sides of the ball. This team should be good real good.

Saunders has a good scheme but it's not innovative. I think it needs an experienced Grade A pocket passer in the Trent Green mold to make it run as designed. We don't have one.

[70th Week]

Do you think Duckett will start sun.?

[PlayAction]

We learned this season that the most innovative offensive schemes aren't worth much if the team can't execute the plays. A scheme can break down regardless of whether you have great players - it only takes a mistake from one player. In the Eagles game, Randel El would have connected on a TD pass to Cooley if one blocker hadn't allowed an Eagle to get penetration into the backfield. As it was the pass was a half second too late.

[Oldfan]

DiscoBob: However, as I said above, it is difficult to get a coordinater/coach to think outside of the scheme that he has been running for years. You may have to get more people involved in order to achieve this level of diversity.

Innovators are always thinking outside the box. There haven't been many in the ranks of football coaches where conservatism rules.

[Oldfan]

Do you think Duckett will start sun.?

I hope they use Ladell the way Andy Reid uses Westbrook. But I've been saying that since Spurrier.

[Oldfan]

We learned this season that the most innovative offensive schemes aren't worth much if the team can't execute the plays. A scheme can break down regardless of whether you have great players - it only takes a mistake from one player. In the Eagles game, Randel El would have connected on a TD pass to Cooley if one blocker hadn't allowed an Eagle to get penetration into the backfield. As it was the pass was a half second too late.

You can pick out one play to prove any point you'd like to make.

Do you think the offensive coaching staff has maximized the results given the talent of our current personnel?

[Warpath11]

I just hope we see more then 5 routes ran by our WR. I would love to see a crossing route or a drag route by anbody out there Im tired of the outs, hooks, screens, or fly routes as those are the only things in our arsenal under MB (everything to the sideline). Hopefully with JC in there we will utilize the middle of the field with some crossing routs

[Oldfan]

I just hope we see more then 5 routes ran by our WR. I would love to see a crossing route or a drag route by anbody out there Im tired of the outs, hooks, screens, or fly routes as those are the only things in our arsenal under MB (everything to the sideline). Hopefully with JC in there we will utilize the middle of the field with some crossing routs

The Saunders scheme is not a conservative one designed to be run by a game manager at QB.

I'll be happy if Jason can get to page 35 in the 700 page playbook.

[skins4eva]

Oldfan--

I think that up to this point, it is almost impossible to evaluate Saunders' scheme, at least as it pertains to the skins. I think Brunell was so unconditionally terrible at the QB position that we really have no idea what our offense should or could look like. We've played 9 games without a downfield passing attack. 9 games!!!! As a consequence, we make most defenses look like the 85 Bears because all they have to do is key in on the flats and bring up the extra man to stop the run. We've used play-action with Boonell under center maybe twice. Everything about our offense moves in slow-motion with Brunell, which is why I'm convinced that Gibbs made the switch at this point in time only because Saunders must have been privately calling for it for weeks. I can only imagine Saunders' disgust at watching Brunell run this offense. I truely belive that the real evaluation of this offense will begin this weekend. Only with a QB with an nfl-caliber arm, with an arm that can throw the ball 15 yrds downfield with a qb that defenses respect can we evaulate this offense.

[PeterMP]

To describe the Gibbs scheme as only a power running scheme is inaccurate. For the 1991 and 1992 seasons, the #1 back was an aging Ernest Byner and the #2 back was Ricky Ervins. Neither of them would be considered power running backs. In the SB, Ervins, who was known for his lack of size, was the leading rusher (72 yards on 32 carries).

[budski]

Maybe the problem is a clash of innovators Gibbs/Saunders, and players are being overloaded with both schemes.

[Jethrodsp]

I think all of your points are valid, but time and time again the most tried and true predicators of success in the NFL are the same. Stop the run, generate points with the passing game, and run the ball effectively when you are ahead.

Although Joe Gibbs had a grasp on these concepts and executed them very well in his first tenure, you are correct in your assertion that his antiquated methods to accomplishing these things no longer work.

Al Saunders is not necessarily an innovator in today's NFL in the traditional sense of the word, however his schemes have proven flexible enough to generate success offensively at his every stop. My hope for the offense is that Jason Campbell will allow Saunders to have success with a more aggresive approach, even if it is not as comprehensive as it was with Trent Green under center. That comprehensiveness only comes with time, something Green had in abundance under Saunders.

So while I agree with your points on Gibbs and his methodology in his offense, I think that Saunders possesses more than enough ability and creativity to have continued success in the NFL. Hopefully Jason can help him facilitate that because maybe he will be able to do more things physically than Mark Brunell could.

[Oldfan]

Oldfan--I think that up to this point, it is almost impossible to evaluate Saunders' scheme, at least as it pertains to the skins.

As I said, I think Saunders has a good scheme but I don't think we will ever see it run as designed without an experienced Grade A pocket passing QB since he is expected to attack the entire field with quick reads, timing and accuracy.

[skins4eva]

As I said, I think Saunders has a good scheme but I don't think we will ever see it run as designed without an experienced Grade A pocket passing QB since he is expected to attack the entire field with quick reads, timing and accuracy.

Perhaps that's true, but we should have a much better idea of what it looks like with Campbell.

[Jino]

I don't think Saunders has one set of plays. It probably evolves like most playbooks do. Personally, I think scheme is the most underrated aspect of football. I think in terms of abilities, most of the players are of similar abilities with the few exceptions like Manning, LT etc... and the scheme always trumps overall team abilities. Having said that, Saunders' playcalling is not the issue. I don't think he designed for us screen 50 million times like the last few weeks. Brunell just didnt have the guts to go downfield.

[Oldfan]

To describe the Gibbs scheme as only a power running scheme is inaccurate. For the 1991 and 1992 seasons, the #1 back was an aging Ernest Byner and the #2 back was Ricky Ervins. Neither of them would be considered power running backs. In the SB, Ervins, who was known for his lack of size, was the leading rusher (72 yards on 32 carries).

I said the Gibbs version of the Coryell began with a power running game to set it up.

The signature play of the Gibbs attack was the counter trey with guard and tackle pulling ala Lombardi's Green Bay Sweep. The size of the back is less a factor than the ability to run inside with power.

[Oldfan]

Maybe the problem is a clash of innovators Gibbs/Saunders, and players are being overloaded with both schemes.

I think we have seen the Saunders scheme customized for Gibbs's QB. We'll see what happens now.

[Oldfan]

I don't think Saunders has one set of plays. It probably evolves like most playbooks do. Personally, I think scheme is the most underrated aspect of football. I think in terms of abilities, most of the players are of similar abilities with the few exceptions like Manning, LT etc... and the scheme always trumps overall team abilities. Having said that, Saunders' playcalling is not the issue. I don't think he designed for us screen 50 million times like the last few weeks. Brunell just didnt have the guts to go downfield.

I don't think Saunders' playcalling has been the problem either. The perfect QB has yet to be born. The offensive coordinator always has to adapt to his QB somewhat but Brunell's 'game management' style is not a good fit for the Saunders scheme.

[DCsportsfan53]

I'll tell you one thing I've found questionable about the offensive scheme. Where have the counters gone? Why no misdirection or counter action at all? When you use those, the defenders start to hesitate on the up the middle and outside runs. You make them think instead of immediately flowing to the ball. I keep watching highlights of LT and LJ busting off big runs off counter plays and I'm baffled as to why we don't do any of it. Instead, we try and keep a defense honest by running WR reverses and reverse passes Come on Saunders, lay off the trickeration. Run the damn ball, and not just tosses and dives. Run the FB, run the good ol counter trey.

Besides, I think it's clear that our line is at it's best running those counter plays. It really does suit this line well. Saunders said before the season that he intended to keep the power and counter parts of Joe Gibbs' running game. Well, let's ****ing see it.

[Oldfan]

Jethrodsp: I think all of your points are valid, but time and time again the most tried and true predicators of success in the NFL are the same. Stop the run, generate points with the passing game, and run the ball effectively when you are ahead.

The strategies you list were axioms in an era when offenses began with the QB under center and everyone used the run to set up play-action passes. They are not true with the West Coast offenses and they aren't true in the shotgun schemes in the college game.

Al Saunders is not necessarily an innovator in today's NFL in the traditional sense of the word, however his schemes have proven flexible enough to generate success offensively at his every stop. My hope for the offense is that Jason Campbell will allow Saunders to have success with a more aggresive approach, even if it is not as comprehensive as it was with Trent Green under center. That comprehensiveness only comes with time, something Green had in abundance under Saunders.

I share your hopes. I don't know what to expect.

So while I agree with your points on Gibbs and his methodology in his offense, I think that Saunders possesses more than enough ability and creativity to have continued success in the NFL. Hopefully Jason can help him facilitate that because maybe he will be able to do more things physically than Mark Brunell could.

I think Al Saunders is probably somewhere in the top third of current OCs. It's just that I'd like to see our offensive guru out in front alone and breaking away from the pack.

[SC3]

You can't really judge the effectiveness of Saunder's offensive schemes in the first year. Kansas City finished a miserable season with a 6-10 record in Saunder's first year. They definately did not look anything like the high powered Rams offense, at least until following year. Next year should be very promising.

[Oldfan]

I'll tell you one thing I've found questionable about the offensive scheme. Where have the counters gone?

My guess is that the coaches think Portis is better at running the stretch plays. Not sure, though.