Let's Talk Offensive Scheme

[Oldfan]

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.

I hope you're right, but let's not forget that our personnel and K.C.'s personnel cannot be compared. Will Jason have what it takes to make it run? We don't know yet. Is the offensive line good enough? It's hard to say.

[SlobberKnockinFootball]

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

Well, we all know Brunell can't throw that dart into a tight spot... That's why alot of those routes were eliminated from the playbook.

If Brunell wanted to throw into a tight spot he would have to drop back 15 yards and take a couple crow steps to throw it.

I guarantee you'll see more diversity in the playcalling with Campbell at the helm.

[PeterMP]

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.

Again, this is an over-simplification based on the early teams with Riggins. The 1991/1992 teams were not running alot of counter trey against the Cowboys and the Eagles. Their fronts were to fast and to atheletic for it to work. People talk about the "Gibbs" offense like it was a static thing.

The other thing that always irks me is the talk of the H-back. The definition of the H-back and the role he played on the team changed as time went on. For example, in 1985 and 1984, Didier was third in catches and had more catches than anybody listed as a RB. In 1984, even Warren had more catches than any RB (so you had two players traditionally listed as TE's catching more balls than any player listed traditionally as an RB). In 1992 and 1991, the leading TE reciever, Terry Orr, was sixth on the team with catches, and their were two RB's (Byner and Ervins) that had more catches than him.

This adapation was in fact Gibbs' strength the first time around.

To me, the Giants actually are a "modern" equivalent of the 1991/1992 offense. Gibbs did perfer to run inside (but you can run inside and not run counter trey). Despite being small, Tiki runs inside alot, but he is also versatile and very active in the passing game. They have a big QB who likes to throw the ball deep. Rypien was very similar. In fact, they both have the same weakness- the tendancy to throw interceptions. With a few modifications, I think the Giants could easily run the 1991/1992 Redskins offense and be pretty successful.

The Saunder's offense is very different. It is designed to utilize the skills of backs like Faulk and Holmes. They tend to run wide. Also Faulk and Holmes, sometimes would end up on the line of scrimmage like a WR and would run down the field pass patterns like a WR.

Ervins, Byner, and Tiki, were/are active in the passing game, but as traditional RB's not running down the field like Homes and Faulk. I actually think this is one of the problems we are having w/ running this offense. Portis is essentially non-exsistent in the passing game, and Betts certainly is not Faulk or Holmes when it comes to receiving and making plays.

[Oldfan]

PeterMP: Again, this is an over-simplification based on the early teams with Riggins. The 1991/1992 teams were not running alot of counter trey against the Cowboys and the Eagles. Their fronts were to fast and to atheletic for it to work. People talk about the "Gibbs" offense like it was a static thing.

Except for the above, I have no problem with the comments in your post.

An "over-simplification?" Does that mean that you think that Joe Gibbs offense featured power running only in the Riggins years? If so, you are mistaken.

Yes, of course, the Gibbs scheme evolved and there were game to game adaptations but the basics didn't change. Smashmouth set up play action. Smashmouth wore down the opponent mentally and physically over the course of a game. That strategy never changed.

[DCsportsfan53]

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

I just don't think that's the case. If it is the case, Portis ain't worth the money he's being paid. If NOTHING else, you have to mix some counters in to hold the defense and keep them from filling the gaps. That's why the up the middle runs are so terrible this year. The D knows at the start of the play either A) Brunell pitches it, get outside or Brunell hands off, jam the middle. When are we going to make teams pay for committing so heavily to the initial run action? And don't tell me defenses are too fast today because ALL the successful running teams set up their running games with the counter and it produces a lot of big plays

[PeterMP]

Except for the above, I have no problem with the comments in your post.

An "over-simplification?" Does that mean that you think that Joe Gibbs offense featured power running only in the Riggins years? If so, you are mistaken.

Yes, of course, the Gibbs scheme evolved and there were game to game adaptations but the basics didn't change. Smashmouth set up play action. Smashmouth wore down the opponent mentally and physically over the course of a game. That strategy never changed.

Gibbs teams have always run between the tackles. Does that define Smashmouth football? Not in my opinion. Byner (especially once he came to the Redskins) and Ervins were not smashmouth RB. I don't think of Tiki being a smashmout back, but he is very effective runninng inside, but he does not run anybody over.

In addition, when you have 3 guys that have over a 1,000 yrds recieving (which Gibbs did in Washington and as a coordinator in SD), I think by definition you are not playing smashmouth offense. In those situations, you are essentially a pass first team because you must be thinking pass first to get that many receptions.

I think at his heart Gibbs would perfer to go 2 TE and give the ball to a big back and take the ~4 yrds/carry that the proper personal would get you, but that is not the way his teams have always played because he did not always have the personal for that to work.

[Oldfan]

I just don't think that's the case. If it is the case, Portis ain't worth the money he's being paid. If NOTHING else, you have to mix some counters in to hold the defense and keep them from filling the gaps. That's why the up the middle runs are so terrible this year. The D knows at the start of the play either A) Brunell pitches it, get outside or Brunell hands off, jam the middle. When are we going to make teams pay for committing so heavily to the initial run action? And don't tell me defenses are too fast today because ALL the successful running teams set up their running games with the counter and it produces a lot of big plays

It seems to me that there are only a handful of teams running the ball with any consistency. I was suprised to learn that the Skins are eighth in yards per game. That's not bad when you consider that Clinton has been dinged up so much.

[PeterMP]

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

Saunders' offense is an offense the perfers to run wide. He coached under Martz w/ the Rams and Faulk and then went to KC where they had Holmes. These were guys with the speed to get wide and so they ran wide. They also had mobile OL's that were able to get out and block.

I think Portis also perfers to stretch from his days in Denver. I think he thinks it is physically less taxing then running inside with a designated hole. I think last year he proved he could be effective running inside.

[fansince62]

"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."

at one level you are correct - sounds very much like the offense/defense dynamic that characterizes warfighting systems over the centuries: innovations on both sides tipping the balance until there is a counteracting technical/operational development.

I would only add that offensive success is only in part determined by scheme. The real genius, and very often success, comes in the guesswork of calling the right play against an expected defense. There was an excellent demonstration of this on NFL network this moring as they reviewed the Jets game.

And, of course, having the talent to execute it all helps!

[Oldfan]

Gibbs teams have always run between the tackles. Does that define Smashmouth football? Not in my opinion.

Ah, we need to define terms. Smashmouth and power running to me are not defined by the size of your back necessarily or running off tackle. It has to do with the way your offensive people block. Bugel was quoted as saying that the word 'finesse', referring to influence blocking, made him puke. Zone blocking is not smashmouth. Smashmouth is vertical blocking and bringing lots of force to the point of attack ...like having Joe Jacoby pulling around to knock a puny defensive back on his ass.

[Oldfan]

I would only add that offensive success is only in part determined by scheme. The real genius, and very often success, comes in the guesswork of calling the right play against an expected defense. There was an excellent demonstration of this on NFL network this moring as they reviewed the Jets game.

Patriot players were saying after the game that the Jets were outguessing them all day. Sure, you might have a great system and good players, but you still have to be smart with your game plan.

[PeterMP]

Ah, we need to define terms. Smashmouth and power running to me are not defined by the size of your back necessarily or running off tackle. It has to do with the way your offensive people block. Bugel was quoted as saying that the word 'finesse', referring to influence blocking, made him puke. Zone blocking is not smashmouth. Smashmouth is vertical blocking and bringing lots of force to the point of attack ...like having Joe Jacoby pulling around to knock a puny defensive back on his ass.

Okay, I would agree that is certainly part of the Gibbs offense, but it is also how most teams block so most teams, including the Giants and the current Redskins, are a smashmout team. There are very few zone blocking teams.

[aqq]

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.

Jason Campbell can run but is more of a pocket passer. Plus Saunders has had success with this offense when he had no WR whatsoever in KC. Lets give Campbell a chance to run this offense and see how effective it is.

[Oldfan]

Jason Campbell can run but is more of a pocket passer. Plus Saunders has had success with this offense when he had no WR whatsoever in KC. Lets give Campbell a chance to run this offense and see how effective it is.

An experienced Jason Campbell would be a much better fit for the Saunders scheme than Mark Brunell. Until he gets that experience we will see a stripped down version of Al's plan. But that's okay.

[DCsportsfan53]

It seems to me that there are only a handful of teams running the ball with any consistency. I was suprised to learn that the Skins are eighth in yards per game. That's not bad when you consider that Clinton has been dinged up so much.

It is when you factor in all the yards off screen plays that start behind the line and WR reverses. Moss and EL have 165 combined rushing yards. Therein lies the problem I see. Saunders is trying to use trickeration too much instead of counters and misdirection to keep defenses honest. The result is that defenders aren't stopping and thinking, they're reacting to the initial run action. Bringing back a few counters, especially early in games, would help cause that hesitation and create room to run up the middle and toss it outside.