Offensive Scheme: Ball Control vs. Big Play

[Oldfan]

darrelgreenie: Okay, if you are refering to a boom-or-bust big play offense then i see your point.

But, i don't think any offense in the league runs a boom-or-bust big play offense.

The type of offense you describe sounds like a team that only runs the hail mary.

I gave you several examples of teams with inconsistent, big play offenses.

Imo if we had either the Cowboys or the Eagles offense, specifically their passing game, we would have won more games.

We won three of four from those teams and our offense was just in its vanilla phase.

[Oldfan]

.... I would rather win 42-39 each week, than 3 - 0 ..... give me wins AND points and if you cant give me wins at least give me points !

You left out the option I prefer -- more wins. I don't really care about the score.

[skinny21]

Every football strategy is a matter of weighing advantages v. disadvantages. However, ball control v. big play is very one-sided.

You don't need to come from behind as often with a good, ball control offense. If you do, using four downs to do it is more likely to succeed than trying to hit big plays -- especially when your team is better built to convert fourth and short situations.

You have to mix it up some to keep defenses honest, of course.

No, it doesn't work that way. There's no free lunch in football. You can't call lots of high risk plays and move the chains consistently at the same time.

Sure, if you're trying to get big plays, you'll get more big plays. But, can you get enough to make it a consistently effective strategy?

We were #5 in the NFL in fewest turnovers. I don't have the penalty stats, do you?

No, I won't grant that. A ball control offense doesn't have only four-yard plays in its arsenal.

We disagree. A 50/50 balance would mean that you couldn't do either very well.

It seems to me that you two are not all that far apart. Ball control doesn't mean you never take a chance. I personally agree that ball controlling offense is the way to go, but you've got to take a few chances downfield to keep them honest - both the deep bomb type of throws and the 20 yd variety. I think you do have to strike a balance, just not a 50/50 balance.

Oldfan, you've disparaged the Cowboys offensive scheme (for its lack of ball control), which I agree with. However, the one thing they do often that I like is take a deep shot once they get towards midfield. They're in a position to help themselves in field position even if they have to punt. I would almost never take a shot closer to our own goalline - this seems to go against the overall theory.

[fansince62]

interesting, thought provoking post Old....how would your scheme capture the relative effectiveness of offensive systems in scoring when down by 4 points with less than 2 minutes to play?

who would have the advantage....a Skins ball control offense or the Pats big strike offense?

[Oldfan]

...Oldfan, you've disparaged the Cowboys offensive scheme (for its lack of ball control), which I agree with. However, the one thing they do often that I like is take a deep shot once they get towards midfield...

We agree that a team can get more aggressive once it gets into plus territory. I would be more inclined to take a shot deep with a lead to protect since an interception can end up often as good as a punt and the last thing I want to do is leave my opponent in good field position by going for it on fourth down and being stopped.

Behind on the scoreboard, this is four-down time for me. With my ball control offense, there's a higher probability of keeping the chains moving, so I'm as aggressive as Belichick on fourth downs.

[Oldfan]

fansince62: ...interesting, thought provoking post Old...

Thank you, Sir.

..how would your scheme capture the relative effectiveness of offensive systems in scoring when down by 4 points with less than 2 minutes to play?...who would have the advantage....a Skins ball control offense or the Pats big strike offense?

First, I'll quibble. The Patriots don't have a big-play offense. I looked it up on NFL.com to confirm what I saw. They were in a three-way tie for 19th in 40+ plays. Moss is their only big play guy.

To answer your question... both offenses have to open it up, and speed it up, of course. The ball control offense is going to be more proficient in using four downs to drive the ball, but the big play offense obviously has the big play guys.

But with two minutes to play --my guess is that the big play team would have the advantage if the starting point was deep in their own territory; they'd probably be on a par if the stating point was on the 35, but the advantage would swing to the ball control team at the 50.

I also think that, if the talent on both teams was equal, the big play offense is more likely to be the team down by four with two minutes to play.

[MassSkinsFan]

There may be more chances for mistakes, but overall a lower probability rate exists. Differences in play calling between the two styles of offense can offset the probability rate of mistakes.

Finally!!! Someone using some risk assessment concepts - not only do you need to look at probability of a risk happening, but its impact as well.

Under an O that is more ball-control oriented, the frequency of risk chances is higher, but the severity of their occurence is lower since the targeted number of yards is less. Conversely, with a more big-play O, the number of potential risks is lower, but you stand to lose more (e.g. a 70-yard TD pass called back due to holding). Additionally, it seems to me (I have no data on this) that the goals in a ball-control offense tend to be more attainable (a short gain) than in a big-play (a completion deep for example). So, your probability of the risk triggering is lower too.

I am enjoying this thread, but it is distracting that many of our assumptions about the meaning of "ball control" and "big play" offenses are apparently different.

When I read OF's OP, I assumed it was a black/white distinction - he cleared that up later by saying that each needs to have an element of the other.

For my money, I agree with OF that a ball-control (using his definition ) offense is the way to go. With a higher level of consistency you reduce the risk of failure over the season. However, as with any risk scenario, the riskier the situation, the lower the probability of success, but the bigger the payoff (generally). So, it's back to strategy - low-risk and decent to good performance, or high-risk and ??? performance. :2cents:

[Thinking Skins]

We don't have the talent of the old 70s era Steelers, nor does any other team in the NFL. So, we can't plan an offense that can do everything well. We can't plan to run the ball well and build a dynamic passing game that will stretch the field both horizontally and vertically. It can't be done.

What do you mean "It can't be done"? I mean look at the Saints as a team that does it well. Look at what the Cowboys did in 2007. Look at how the Colts mix in the running game as well as Dallas Clark. There are lots of teams that run the ball well as well as build a passing game that can stretch the field vertically and horizontally. Stretching the field horizontally is all about utilizing your checkdowns and throwing it to different WRs. But when teams KNOW you're going to do that, they can design their defense to prevent those type of plays - either by not allowing the QB time for check-downs, or by just playing a nicely disguised zone.

When we last faced the Patriots up in Foxboro, everyone realized that our only hope of winning was to control the ball and keep Brady and Co. on the sidelines. That's the way you beat better teams -- with ball control.

Now you're talking about something completely different. If you were to ask the best offense to help a defense stop a good offense, then you're on to something when you say that a ball control offense is good at that. But good teams can be beaten just as well with some big plays, look at how Arizona beat teams on its way to the Super Bowl. That was full of big plays to Fitzgerald. As a matter of fact, one can argue that they lost the SB because they tried to play ball control too long (running Edgerran James :doh:).

Now, I'm asking you to take the next step and ask yourself: if ball control is a good strategy AGAINST superior teams, isn't it likely to be an equally good strategy FOR a superior team? Lombardi and Walsh thought so.

I'm not knocking ball control as a good strategy. Your OP makes it seem as if ball control is THE ONLY GOOD STRATEGY. You provided a very one-sided analysis in your comparison of the two things. If you're talking about a 2000 Ravens like offense or a 1999 Rams like offense, and you're telling me that you'd prefer to have the 2000 Ravens offense over the 1999 Rams offense because one is ball control focused and the other is big play focused, then you're probably unique in that opinion.

But I'm not saying that either extreme is right. I'm saying that the best option is somewhere in the middle, and having the talent to play ball control and make big plays. You seem to be agreeing with me sometimes (like when you say that ball control teams need to have the ability "to mix it up to keep defenses honest"), but disagreeing with me at other times (like when you say that "We can't plan to run the ball well and build a dynamic passing game that will stretch the field both horizontally and vertically").

If we're going to be able to keep defenses honest, then we need to have a component of our offense that scares the defense enough to keep a (or both) safety back. Some teams have more talent than others at that and thus are able to do this more often. If we'd have gotten the results we were expecting from Thomas, I think that we'd have seen more of this from the Redskins this year.

[Oldfan]

I am enjoying this thread, but it is distracting that many of our assumptions about the meaning of "ball control" and "big play" offenses are apparently different.

When I read OF's OP, I assumed it was a black/white distinction - he cleared that up later by saying that each needs to have an element of the other.

Since absolutes, black or white, always or never, are rare I always assume that an author's statements are not meant as absolutes unless he attaches words like always or never to them.

Similarly, since rules that don't have exceptions are rare, I always assume that an author's statement is meant as a general rule unless he tells me that it's an absolute rule.

These assumption save a lot of needless postings and don't require one to write like a lawyer in order to avoid misunderstandings.

[Oldfan]

Oldfan: We can't plan to run the ball well and build a dynamic passing game that will stretch the field both horizontally and vertically. It can't be done.

Thinking Skins: What do you mean "It can't be done"? I mean look at the Saints as a team that does it well. Look at what the Cowboys did in 2007. Look at how the Colts mix in the running game as well as Dallas Clark.

None of those teams do it all well, in my opinion. Why do you want to cherry-pick 2007 for the Cowboys? The Saints and Colts have average to below average running games, and the Cowboys are very inconsistent running the football, nor do they stretch the field horizontally very well.

Oldfan: When we last faced the Patriots up in Foxboro, everyone realized that our only hope of winning was to control the ball and keep Brady and Co. on the sidelines. That's the way you beat better teams -- with ball control.

Now you're talking about something completely different.

No, it only reads differently because you clipped off the point I made right in the middle.

Oldfan:Now, I'm asking you to take the next step and ask yourself: if ball control is a good strategy AGAINST superior teams, isn't it likely to be an equally good strategy FOR a superior team? Lombardi and Walsh thought so.

I'm not knocking ball control as a good strategy. Your OP makes it seem as if ball control is THE ONLY GOOD STRATEGY.

I think it's the best strategy as a foundation for an offense because of the consistency factor which so many people either don't understand or underestimate.

You seem to be agreeing with me sometimes (like when you say that ball control teams need to have the ability "to mix it up to keep defenses honest").

Why do you not understand that our difference of opinion is about a matter of degree? You seem to favor a 50/50 mix. We don't need a 50/50 mix to keep defenses honest. The greater the percentage of big play attempts mixed in, the less likely you are to build an effective ball control team. That's purely a logical deduction. It's also logical that playing ball control half the time will reduce a team's big play ability. So, a 50/50 split pretty much guarantees an average offense in this era of NFL parity.

[darrelgreenie]

I gave you several examples of teams with inconsistent, big play offenses.

We won three of four from those teams and our offense was just in its vanilla phase.

As i read this thread it seems your definition of 'big play' and 'ball control' offenses are changing.

The way i see it a good offense is dynamic.

But, the number one element i think is the vertical threat or as you say big play ability.

It keeps defenses honest and forces them to suffer the consequences.

Imo the offense you describe as ball control takes away this threat.

An agressive offense that strecthes the field doesn't have to be inconsistent.

A smart and aggressive offense takes what the defense gives them and at times can appear to look like a ball control offense.

But, imo static definitions of ball control vs big play offense do not exisit.

A fully dimensional passing game should include, in varying degrees, several types of passes. Not only does having several forms of passing in the passing scheme give a team a variety of offensive weapons, it also enhances the ability of the team to handle each contingency condition and situationsd it occurs.

-Bill Walsh

'Finding the winning edge'

[DexterSackMachine]

+1,000,000

Unfortunately, our Offense can do neither big plays nor control the ball very well. I just want points. Don't care how they're made.

I'm with you. Trevor Matich said it best, they need to keep a system, any system in place and let it become second nature.

I was frustrated by their lack of big plays as others, but if they keep getting people to try and stop the run/short passing game, the big plays should come.

The one question I have is did Zorn never call deep throws or did Campbell simply not throw them for fear of INTs/Sacks?

[KDawg]

I found myself saying much of the same things as Darrell did earlier in the thread.

I like the fact the Oldfan researches everything and puts time and thought into each post, you can't argue with the guys effort and ability to create compelling threads. But I just can't follow this one.

[Oldfan]

darellgreenie: As i read this thread it seems your definition of 'big play' and 'ball control' offenses are changing.

Can you supply quotes from my posts to prove your assertion?

But, the number one element i think is the vertical threat or as you say big play ability.

Let's be clear. The term"vertical threat" tells us that the offense wants to send receivers deep on a regular basis. Walsh's WCO did not do that, the typical Coryell scheme does. The term is NOT synonymous with "big play" or "quick-strike" in describing an offense but vertical offenses are usually big play teams. A big play team has big play-makers. Most fans know the difference between a big play receiver and a possesion receiver. Darren sproles is a big play RB.

An aggressive offense that strecthes the field doesn't have to be inconsistent.

The longer the throw, the less likely it is to be completed. It's a fact. If it weren't, teams would throw deep on every play.

A smart and aggressive offense takes what the defense gives them and at times can appear to look like a ball control offense.

We are not talking about how an offense can look like"at times." We are talking about what they want to do most of the time.

But, imo static definitions of ball control vs big play offense do not exisit.

Like most football terms, there is some vagueness. Still, these terms convey to people knowledgeable about football two basic strategies at the opposite ends of a spectrum. For example, nine of the first ten hits on Google's first page associate "Walsh" "WCO" and "ball control." There's no mystery.

[Oldfan]

I found myself saying much of the same things as Darrell did earlier in the thread.

I like the fact the Oldfan researches everything and puts time and thought into each post, you can't argue with the guys effort and ability to create compelling threads. But I just can't follow this one.

I would appreciate your take on the consistency factor (See post #35).

[Oldfan]

Darrell, I forgot to ask earlier. Did you offer this quote as relevant to our discussion. If so, will you explain its relevance?

A fully dimensional passing game should include, in varying degrees, several types of passes. Not only does having several forms of passing in the passing scheme give a team a variety of offensive weapons, it also enhances the ability of the team to handle each contingency condition and situationsd it occurs.

-Bill Walsh

'Finding the winning edge'

[Mooka]

I've made some points about the Redskins offense before in scattered threads that I've collected together here for emphasis.

Jim Zorn appears to be trying to build an effective ball control offense. I see this as a good foundation to build on. I don't want an offense built like that of the Eagles or Cowboys.

Good analysis, but I'm not sure if this is the offense we're trying to build or just the type of offense we are. :2cents:

[darrelgreenie]

Darrell, I forgot to ask earlier. Did you offer this quote as relevant to our discussion. If so, will you explain its relevance?

A fully dimensional passing game should include, in varying degrees, several types of passes. Not only does having several forms of passing in the passing scheme give a team a variety of offensive weapons, it also enhances the ability of the team to handle each contingency condition and situationsd it occurs.

-Bill Walsh

'Finding the winning edge'

*warning long answer to a short question*

I put that quote in b/c i think its shows that your idea of a ball control offense is not in keeping with a Bill Walsh WCO or a fully dimensional passing game.

The components are:

o 3-step drop which he warns thusly, "....the coaching staff should guard against being "seduced" by the relative ease of completing 3-step drop passes"

"A key factor to consider when using the 3 step drop pass is how much yardage is gained relative to the number of times the play is run. An offensive scheme using 3-step drop passes which doesn't produce relatively significant yardage, despite numerous opportunities, may be serving the defense more than the offense."

o 5-step drop

o 7-step drop

o Play pass

o Action pass

o Screen pass

Let's be clear. The term"vertical threat" tells us that the offense wants to send receivers deep on a regular basis. Walsh's WCO did not do that, the typical Coryell scheme does. The term is NOT synonymous with "big play" or "quick-strike" in describing an offense but vertical offenses are usually big play teams. A big play team has big play-makers. Most fans know the difference between a big play receiver and a possesion receiver. Darren sproles is a big play RB.

This is where i think you are off. Bill Walsh's WCO does send receivers deep on a regular basis. Looking at the actual pass plays in his book i would say that at least 70% of them have at least 1 receiver going deep.

The vertical threat forces the defense to cover every blade of grass. When a defense covers the vertical threat/s it opens up the underneath, horizontal or 'check down' routes.

We are not talking about how an offense can look like"at times." We are talking about what they want to do most of the time.

A Bill Walsh WCO would throw the ball deep if it was open every time. Bill Walsh wanted to attack with the passing game.

When a defense covers the deep stuff a smart qb/offense will take what the defense gives them. Situations like this are when a 'big play' offense looks or acts like a 'ball control' offense.

As i have said before i think our passing game became focused on the 3-step drops routes not by design but by adjustment. It was Zorn's response to declining pass-pro. Imo the passing game we saw, especially in the second half of the season, isn't the passing game Zorn would have ran if there was better pass-pro. *(Basically, i disagree with most of this thread but i enjoy the discussion.)

http://www.espn980.com/audiovault/

Rough quote from Zorn talking about early in the game........"I [Zorn] didn't know what kind of protection we were gonna have. So I tried to throw quicker rhythm throws not 3 step drops but 5 step, that could get us the 1st or near the 1st down but we kept getting tackled at the catch.........I could have gone the other route and tried to get deeper routes going and risk protection and I wasn't willing to do that at that particular time"

Below are some typical WCO pass plays notice the vertical component to each play..

[darrelgreenie]

Let's be clear. The term"vertical threat" tells us that the offense wants to send receivers deep on a regular basis. Walsh's WCO did not do that, the typical Coryell scheme does. The term is NOT synonymous with "big play" or "quick-strike" in describing an offense but vertical offenses are usually big play teams. A big play team has big play-makers. Most fans know the difference between a big play receiver and a possesion receiver. Darren sproles is a big play RB.

Below is a clip of Jerry Rice talking about the 49ers WCO

*after watching this clip its no wonder that no receiver has gone into the hall of fame 1st ballot....

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d8008fcc1

[Oldfan]

A fully dimensional passing game should include, in varying degrees, several types of passes. Not only does having several forms of passing in the passing scheme give a team a variety of offensive weapons, it also enhances the ability of the team to handle each contingency condition and situationsd it occurs.

-Bill Walsh

'Finding the winning edge'

darrelgreenie: I put that quote in b/c i think its shows that your idea of a ball control offense is not in keeping with a Bill Walsh WCO or a fully dimensional passing game.

Both the Coryell and Walsh's WCO are "fully dimensional" passing games. As to our discussion, the key words in the Walsh quote are "...in varying degrees." An effective WCO offense mixes runs with lots of quick, short passes to keep the chains moving. That's "ball control."

DEFINITION: The term 'West Coast Offense' has a two-fold meaning:

1. it describes a ball control offensive system that uses the timed, short passing game AND

2. it also describes the entire offensive structure from play schematics, preparation, installation, implementation, game planning, execution, and attention to every detail of this offensive system.

http://www.westcoastoffense.com/intro.htm

The majority of West Coast Offense routes occur within 15 yards of the line of scrimmage. 3-step and 5-step drops by the quarterback to take the place of the run and force the opposing defense to commit their focus solely on those intermediate routes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_offense

Coryell Offense / Air Coryell / Vertical Offense

Pioneered by Don Coryell in the late 60s and into the early 70s, the vertical offense is a combination of deep passing and power running.

Criticisms: The Vertical offense often focuses so much on the big play versus the safe run that it fails to attack with short passes and outside running plays. As a result, it often depends upon a largely low-attempt/high-risk/high-reward passing game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_philosophy_(American_football)

[Oldfan]

Good analysis, but I'm not sure if this is the offense we're trying to build or just the type of offense we are. :2cents:

With Zorn's background, and from what I saw, I'm not in doubt on his intent. How well will it work is the question, and of course, that starts with the QB play.

[MassSkinsFan]

Since absolutes, black or white, always or never, are rare I always assume that an author's statements are not meant as absolutes unless he attaches words like always or never to them.

Similarly, since rules that don't have exceptions are rare, I always assume that an author's statement is meant as a general rule unless he tells me that it's an absolute rule.

These assumption save a lot of needless postings and don't require one to write like a lawyer in order to avoid misunderstandings.

Ah but you DO write like a lawyer and based on feedback from several other posters I'd say your assumptions are not universally shared, in which case I ask where is the OF operating manual?

[Oldfan]

Ah but you DO write like a lawyer and based on feedback from several other posters I'd say your assumptions are not universally shared, in which case I ask where is the OF operating manual?

I know my assumptions aren't universally shared, but they should be (unless a poster simply wants to be argumentative). <sticks tongue out>

Ah but you DO write like a lawyer...

No I don't. The lawyer writes stuff like "in the event of." I write "if."

[MassSkinsFan]

I know my assumptions aren't universally shared, but they should be (unless a poster simply wants to be argumentative). <sticks tongue out>

So, I'm not seeing many people comment one way or the other on the notion of consistency. I agree that this is the key factor here, and that eating up the clock and the yards by moving the chains again and again is a huge advantage for the offense and allows the defense to rest.

Additionally, sustained drives that recur throughout a game have the effect of establishing and maintaining momentum and demoralizing an opponent.

Not to say that a quick-strike big play doesn't take the wind out of your sails either - I just think with long slow drives the doom factor is higher, and you have more time to think about it.

:2cents:

[MassSkinsFan]

No I don't. The lawyer writes stuff like "in the event of." I write "if."

WHEREAS

Oldfan does not write like a lawyer; and

MassSkinsFan has unjustly accused Oldfan of such conduct;

LET IT BE DECREED

That MassSkinsFan acknowledges

THUSLY

Oldfan does not write like a lawyer