Offensive Scheme: Ball Control vs. Big Play

[skinny21]

Blah, that came out like nonsense, I think I should retire from the 'bridging the gap' business as no one asked me and I'm doing a poor job anyway. Good thread though OF.

To address your desire debate ("whether or not the ball control strategy as a foundation was the best the Skins could do"), I'd say no. I think the WCO is a good one, particularly since it does focus on ball control (which has numerous intrinsic advantages that you've already cited), but I don't think it fits our team best at this point. Hopefully that will change, but we'll see.

Some of my reasons are the following:

Defense - Our bend but don't break D nullifies the benefit of our O keeping the opposing D on the field.

Personnel - Our #1 wr is too small for the WCP, our FB is too big, our RB is not a proficient pass catcher, our qb is not a quick enough decision-maker.

Our strength as a team is our run game, yet this goes against the pass first mentality associated with the WCO.

A hybrid WCO is perhaps our better bet, somewhat like last year when Zorn recognized our ability to run the ball. I just hope our passing game will be less vanilla and can open things up a bit.

I'm far from an expert in the game, but these are my impressions, for what its worth.

[skinny21]

The best offenses are completely balanced, and able to attack a defense wherever their weakness is.

You get into problems when your personnel dictates that you can only do certain things. Then you are forced into doing those things, and the defense, which gets paid also, knows what's coming.

This is why I think that you have to have the ability to throw the ball sideline to sideline, endzone to endzone, and be able to run the ball both for grinding out "3 yards and a cloud of dust" but also be able to break a 20+ yard run ~1 out of every 10 rush attempts. Running the ball 10 times for 30 yards is just not going to scare anybody.

I think I agree with oldfan, and I would prefer an offense that is consistent, and able to eat up clock and yardage. But I also think that taking your shots down the field is a very important thing to do.

Also, I believe that your offensive game plan, NOT PHILOSOPHY, can change every game. You're playing a team that stinks in the defensive secondary, air it out a bit more, make them stop you. You're playing a team that can't stop the run, run the damn thing down their throats.

In Gibbs I, I think that generally everybody can agree that was a ball control, run first type offense. However, in 1983, they set every offensive record in the book, and in the SB against the Broncos, scored 35 points, mostly through the air, in 1 quarter.

That's what you're looking for: the ball control type offense that can come up with 3-5 big plays per game. Do that, and you score ~30 points per game and win a ton.

Good post, I totally agree. And my "blah, that came out like nonsense" was referring to my previous post... just to be clear!

[darrelgreenie]

I think I should retire from the 'bridging the gap' business as no one asked me and I'm doing a poor job anyway. Good thread though OF.

No worries bro, i appreciate the attempt.

I understand, but the real gap between us is that Darrel does not believe that the conventional WCO is a ball control offense. When I started this thread, I didn't expect anyone to contest that. I expected the debate to center on whether or not the ball control strategy as a foundation was the best the Skins could do.

I didn't expect the consistency factor to be that difficult to explain either. Of those who responded on that point, only a few posters seemed to understand the concept and appreciate its value.

This is where we disagree...

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'

you replied...

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

I strongly disagree with the bolded underlined statement.

[Oldfan]

VOR: Voice_of_Reason: The best offenses are completely balanced, and able to attack a defense wherever their weakness is. ..You get into problems when your personnel dictates that you can only do certain things. Then you are forced into doing those things, and the defense, which gets paid also, knows what's coming.

If a team was capable of being so well balanced that they could do everything well, then of course you are right. However, my position is that it isn't possible, given the NFL's success in achieving parity, to acquire enough talent to do everything well, so a choice has to be made.

Let's use the receivers as an example. If we're going to keep eight receivers (TEs and WRs), four smaller big play guys and four bigger possession types to maintain balance, we can't be exceptional at ball control or moving the chains. With average receiver talent on our roster, aiming for balance almost guarantees mediocrity.

I think I agree with oldfan, and I would prefer an offense that is consistent, and able to eat up clock and yardage. But I also think that taking your shots down the field is a very important thing to do.

Sure. The concept is very similar to the play-action pass in theory. The ball control offense dictates that the defense has to draw in, to compress the field, and when they do, you go deep. With the defense drawn in, a Devin Thomas can go deep and get separation. You don't need a burner like DeShaun jackson.

Also, I believe that your offensive game plan, NOT PHILOSOPHY, can change every game. You're playing a team that stinks in the defensive secondary, air it out a bit more, make them stop you. You're playing a team that can't stop the run, run the damn thing down their throats.

By using both the pass and run to achieve ball control, the WCO is more flexible in adjusting to the defense than most other schemes.

In Gibbs I, I think that generally everybody can agree that was a ball control, run first type offense. However, in 1983, they set every offensive record in the book, and in the SB against the Broncos, scored 35 points, mostly through the air, in 1 quarter.

The Coryell emphasized power running and lots of deep throws. In Gibbs Two, the passing game never flew.

That's what you're looking for: the ball control type offense that can come up with 3-5 big plays per game. Do that, and you score ~30 points per game and win a ton.

If the ball control team is efficient enough, it can dominate weaker opponents and win a few from more talented teams.

[Oldfan]

skinny21: Blah, that came out like nonsense, I think I should retire from the 'bridging the gap' business as no one asked me and I'm doing a poor job anyway.

Your intentions were good, but you know what they say about the road to hell.

Good thread though OF.

Thank you.

To address your desire debate ("whether or not the ball control strategy as a foundation was the best the Skins could do"), I'd say no. I think the WCO is a good one, particularly since it does focus on ball control (which has numerous intrinsic advantages that you've already cited), but I don't think it fits our team best at this point. Hopefully that will change, but we'll see.

Some of my reasons are the following:

Defense - Our bend but don't break D nullifies the benefit of our O keeping the opposing D on the field.

Blache is gonna have to change his passive ways in 2009.

Personnel - Our #1 wr is too small for the WCP, our FB is too big, our RB is not a proficient pass catcher, our qb is not a quick enough decision-maker.

The personnel group we had didn't fit anybody's system. The O line should benefit when the WCO is fully operational and those big rookie receivers are a nice fit. [Now, if they can only play.]

Our strength as a team is our run game, yet this goes against the pass first mentality associated with the WCO.

Our strength will swing to the passing game if Jason improves significantly in year two of the WCO and Zorn puts bigger and better pass catchers on the field.

A hybrid WCO is perhaps our better bet, somewhat like last year when Zorn recognized our ability to run the ball. I just hope our passing game will be less vanilla and can open things up a bit.

I think a hybrid is almost a sure thing eventually, but it will be pass oriented, still based on a ball control foundation if my read on JZ is correct.

I'm far from an expert in the game, but these are my impressions, for what its worth.

There are no experts here -- only varying degrees of cluelessness. Throwing this stuff out there makes the whole Skins experience more interesting for all of us.

[skinny21]

Your intentions were good, but you know what they say about the road to hell.

There are no experts here -- only varying degrees of cluelessness. Throwing this stuff out there makes the whole Skins experience more interesting for all of us.

Recent estimates say my four lane highway is halfway there.

Amen to the no experts here(although I've read from several standouts) and that this sort of discussion makes things more interesting, Lord knows I'm incredibly bored w/ 90% or more of the current threads/topics.