question about the offense (dated?)

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

so over in the thread about portis' comments there plenty of debate about our offense and why its not working and whether its playcalling or execution, and i keep seeing comments like "our offense is dated" and that it worked well in the 80s but wont work now. im obviously too young to have remembered what went on in that time, but obviously gibbs' offense worked back then.

what id like to know is, when some of you guys claim its dated, why did it work then and it wont work now? whats different about the defenses that we could move the ball with ease back then but now its like this constant grind match? obviously the WR/CB rules have changed, but is that really enough to see this drastic of a difference in our current offense? any thoughts/comments are welcome, im just trying to get a better understanding of why something that was so dominating back then seems to be so futile now.

[Parker]

I wouldnt know, but when seeing clips of the older days. The offensive line use to murder the other teams.

[radagast5]

what id like to know is, when some of you guys claim its dated, why did it work then and it wont work now? whats different about the defenses that we could move the ball with ease back then but now its like this constant grind match? obviously the WR/CB rules have changed, but is that really enough to see this drastic of a difference in our current offense? any thoughts/comments are welcome, im just trying to get a better understanding of why something that was so dominating back then seems to be so futile now.

It worked for two primary reasons back in the 1980s:

1. The Redskins offensive line was not only excellent, they dwarfed the opposing DL. The reason you saw SO many excellent second halves in Gibbs' first tenure was that the OL just flat-out wore the DL down. The Hogs were five guys who probably outweighed their opponents by anywhere from 20-50 pounds each.

2. Defenses back then rarely attacked. They were much more read-and-react. Now, there are tons of blitzes, disguised coverages, and an overall approach that defenses will dictate to the offense, not vice-versa.

[Campbell's_da_man]

Back then there was no salary cap and Jack Kent Cooke stocked the team with more high priced players than other teams could afford, or were willing to spend. So we always had a few more superior players than our opponents. Thus, we were the only team whose offensive line was averaging over 300 lbs. (the hogs). Not so anymore, the league has limited what we can spend and the other teams can now field teams that can match our talent. Now that the salary cap has closed the gap, ramming the ball down your opponents throat is no longer an advantage.

To be successful in today's NFL, the good teams are employing an aggressive attacking style on both offense and defense, utilizing the element of surprise to the fullest extent. Disquising what you are doing is key on defense; and staying balanced on offense is very important. The defense doesn't want to show it's hand; and the offense wants to force the defense to cover the entire field, not just the line of scrimmage.

[jeronimobrat]

It worked for two primary reasons back in the 1980s:

1. The Redskins offensive line was not only excellent, they dwarfed the opposing DL. The reason you saw SO many excellent second halves in Gibbs' first tenure was that the OL just flat-out wore the DL down. The Hogs were five guys who probably outweighed their opponents by anywhere from 20-50 pounds each.

2. Defenses back then rarely attacked. They were much more read-and-react. Now, there are tons of blitzes, disguised coverages, and an overall approach that defenses will dictate to the offense, not vice-versa.

Thread closed now!

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

It worked for two primary reasons back in the 1980s:

1. The Redskins offensive line was not only excellent, they dwarfed the opposing DL. The reason you saw SO many excellent second halves in Gibbs' first tenure was that the OL just flat-out wore the DL down. The Hogs were five guys who probably outweighed their opponents by anywhere from 20-50 pounds each.

2. Defenses back then rarely attacked. They were much more read-and-react. Now, there are tons of blitzes, disguised coverages, and an overall approach that defenses will dictate to the offense, not vice-versa.

good points, and id agree i think size plays into it. in the current NFL you have some dlineman that outweight the OL at times, and guys with brute strength that probably didnt exist back in those days. and obviously the hogs were one of if not the best oline ever, so that always helps.

your second point, about defenses dictate the offense, if this is true, why dont we see campbell running any audibles? i saw manning call audibles numerous times after reading our defense last sunday, and it creates problems for a defense because they have to adjust. i dont think we've run a single audible this year (correct me if im wrong)

[Oldfan]

This offense isn't "dated." We're zone blocking in the run game for the most part now. Bugel and Gibbs used vertical, power blocking in their first tour and they had the Hogs to make it work.

The passing game then could put three and four receivers in the pattern and still protect the passer, partly because they didn't have to face so many blitz packages then. Now, we are keeping backs in, and using TEs to pass protect, so we cannot open up the passing game.

With Wade and Fabini, and a still-raw Jason Campbell, the coaching options are limited.

[zoony]

This offense isn't "dated." We're zone blocking in the run game for the most part now. Bugel and Gibbs used vertical, power blocking in their first tour and they had the Hogs to make it work.

The passing game then could put three and four receivers in the pattern and still protect the passer, partly because they didn't have to face so many blitz packages then. Now, we are keeping backs in, and using TEs to pass protect, so we cannot open up the passing game.

With Wade and Fabini, and a still-raw Jason Campbell, the coaching options are limited.

:thud:

Stop the presses, I agree with Oldfan :paranoid:

I think as Campbell progresses, we'll be able to press NFL defenses more, sending more receivers out on routes and keeping less people in to block. But you can't do that with just any QB.

Campbell will get there. I hope

[DonkeyTeeth]

Agree with all. We have a workable offensive line, but its far from dominant. We have the WRs to run 4-wide sets, but whenever we do our QB seems to end up on his back or running for his life.

All this talk about schemes is just cover for the reality that we really don't have a team that outclasses its opponents at anything game-in and game-out. Look at the teams that have won SBs recently - none of them claim its because of some whiz-bang, 21st century scheme. Solid talent and consistent play can still win in this league running even the most basic plays.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

so if theres more blitzing and more attacking, instead of leaving our TEs in to block all day, why dont we have routes designed for quick passes to make them pay for blitzing? where are the slants over the middle? where is cooley over the middle when all the LBs come flying in? it seems like instead of adjusting, were just trying to prevent them from coming at us, instead of making them pay for coming at us.

[Oldfan]

:thud:

Stop the presses, I agree with Oldfan :paranoid:

I think as Campbell progresses, we'll be able to press NFL defenses more, sending more receivers out on routes and keeping less people in to block. But you can't do that with just any QB.

Campbell will get there. I hope

Crap, zoony. I wonder where I went wrong.:laugh:

[zoony]

so if theres more blitzing and more attacking, instead of leaving our TEs in to block all day, why dont we have routes designed for quick passes to make them pay for blitzing? where are the slants over the middle? where is cooley over the middle when all the LBs come flying in? it seems like instead of adjusting, were just trying to prevent them from coming at us, instead of making them pay for coming at us.

I think most of your questions come from having what amounts to a still-learning (and right now not very good) NFL QB.

..

[monkforhall]

Lachey, Bostic, Jacoby, Grimm, Mark May. They just owned the game. Rypien or whoever used to just sit back in the pocket forever. The holes were huge. Has anyone ever had an oline like that?

[Oldfan]

so if theres more blitzing and more attacking, instead of leaving our TEs in to block all day, why dont we have routes designed for quick passes to make them pay for blitzing? where are the slants over the middle? where is cooley over the middle when all the LBs come flying in? it seems like instead of adjusting, were just trying to prevent them from coming at us, instead of making them pay for coming at us.

The other option is the shotgun spread. Brady used it on 66% of his passes while completing 79 of his first 100 throws this year. Green Bay knocked off San Diego with Favre in the spread for most of the game.

Neither Gibbs nor Saunders have been proponents of the shotgun in the past. They both favor the two-TE set for pass protection with more emphasis on the run.

[DiscoBob]

so if theres more blitzing and more attacking, instead of leaving our TEs in to block all day, why dont we have routes designed for quick passes to make them pay for blitzing? where are the slants over the middle? where is cooley over the middle when all the LBs come flying in? it seems like instead of adjusting, were just trying to prevent them from coming at us, instead of making them pay for coming at us.

Same question I was going to ask….we have a fairly mobile and hard to bring down quarterback….If they are going to bring the house, make them pay with short passes. We have a four receiver route, we can still keep a blocking TE or a back to help with protection….

I’m not a coordinator by any stretch, but if there is one short route on each side of the field, quick slants or square-ins/outs should be open on one side or the other…..

Obviously the coaches know a WHOLE lot more than I do, but even in light of that, I still feel like our game planning indicates that we are scared to pass without a blocking TE and a RB in the backfield. This leaves you with 3 receiving options…..the teams out there with good passing offenses seem to run a lot more 4 receiver patterns….

Even when they don’t blitz on a 4 receiver pattern, we are guaranteed to have a player in single coverage, or if they are in a zone, we should be able to easily exploit it with overloads in one area of the field…..

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

The other option is the shotgun spread. Brady used it on 66% of his passes while completing 79 of his first 100 throws this year. Green Bay knocked off San Diego with Favre in the spread for most of the game.

Neither Gibbs nor Saunders have been proponents of the shotgun in the past. They both favor the two-TE set with more emphasis on the run.

so how did saunders have trent green racking up over 4000 yards in 05 with twin TE sets? having only 2 WR going out doesnt seem like a way to accumlate a ton of yards, and hardly stretches the field.

[Oldfan]

so how did saunders have trent green racking up over 4000 yards in 05 with twin TE sets? having only 2 WR going out doesnt seem like a way to accumlate a ton of yards, and hardly stretches the field.

I wasn't very clear. The two-TE set is one response to pressure when you can't protect with your O line. When Willie Roaf went down in 2005, Saunders kept Gonzalez in to pass protect on most plays.

Saunders also favors using the RB as an outlet rather than a blocker if I read him right. I don't think Gibbs likes that idea.

[Dick Edds]

so how did saunders have trent green racking up over 4000 yards in 05 with twin TE sets? having only 2 WR going out doesnt seem like a way to accumlate a ton of yards, and hardly stretches the field.

I think alot of his passes were short dump off's, screens and passes to Priest Holmes ... but that is just a guess from watching their highlights and few games here and there. Priest was so damn good that they would beat you with play-action late in the games too.

I agree though, we need to exploit the numbers games ... leaving more people in to block also reduces the yards after the catch for our smallish WR's.

[SkinsFTW]

so how did saunders have trent green racking up over 4000 yards in 05 with twin TE sets? having only 2 WR going out doesnt seem like a way to accumlate a ton of yards, and hardly stretches the field.

Gonzales and Holmes were the primary receivers. Kennison usually had 50-60 catches a year and under 1000 yards.

For Portis to do what Holmes did he would have to carry the ball over 300 times, block on pass downs a lot, and also catch 60-80 balls. Portis isn't durable enough, I guess thats why we have Betts.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Gonzales and Holmes were the primary receivers. Kennison usually had 50-60 catches a year and under 1000 yards.

in 2005, holmes and johnson accounted for a total of 54 catches. gonzalez had 78, being the go to guy. but their 4 receivers (kennison/parker/hall/horn) had a combined 156 catches for 2258 yards. they had other receivers and TEs catching balls, but gonzalez accumulated the most catches, but their WRs played a major role in the passing game. i wouldnt claim that holmes was the main receiver.

[KevinthePRF]

2. Defenses back then rarely attacked. They were much more read-and-react. Now, there are tons of blitzes, disguised coverages, and an overall approach that defenses will dictate to the offense, not vice-versa.

Skipped all the Giants games from the 80s, eh?

[BKSkinsFan]

KC's 2004 offense is being mentioned as a comparison to what we should be doing. Gonzalez and Kennison were averaging nearly 80 yards/game. I believe the key to their success was the consistency that Gonzalez brings to the passing game. Keeping drives going by picking up key 3rd downs, where you KNEW Gonzalez would either be open, or make a tough catch in coverage is key to getting everyone else their oppurtunities to make plays.

It seems as though we are beginning to have more success this year on 3rd downs, however IMO we just do not have a proven guy who we can consistently depend on to get open and make huge first down plays for us. This perhaps is why veteran receivers like Caldwell & McCardell are here.

[pjfootballer]

It worked for two primary reasons back in the 1980s:

1. The Redskins offensive line was not only excellent, they dwarfed the opposing DL. The reason you saw SO many excellent second halves in Gibbs' first tenure was that the OL just flat-out wore the DL down. The Hogs were five guys who probably outweighed their opponents by anywhere from 20-50 pounds each.

2. Defenses back then rarely attacked. They were much more read-and-react. Now, there are tons of blitzes, disguised coverages, and an overall approach that defenses will dictate to the offense, not vice-versa.

Gibbs would keep it close in the first half, make adjustments that other coaches wouldn't and then wear them down with Riggo Drill. Both of your assessments are spot on.

[pjfootballer]

so if theres more blitzing and more attacking, instead of leaving our TEs in to block all day, why dont we have routes designed for quick passes to make them pay for blitzing? where are the slants over the middle? where is cooley over the middle when all the LBs come flying in? it seems like instead of adjusting, were just trying to prevent them from coming at us, instead of making them pay for coming at us.

Hit the nail on the head. Gibbs used to adjust for other teams. Now other teams adjust for him and he doesn't make a counter mover.

[pjfootballer]

Skipped all the Giants games from the 80s, eh?

But Gibbs put Warren on Jacoby's side to help out against Taylor and the Giants defense was the exception, not the norm.