Alridge and Dorsey, The Wrong Way to Diversify an Offense

[Oldfan]

"As productive as Portis and Betts have been, they are not considered home-run threats. Zorn is eager to add a back with big-play potential in an effort to diversify the offense." -- Jason Reid

The author is speculating that Zorn is eager. We really don't know how eager he is. Maybe Dan or Vinny is pushing the idea. In any case, the Darren Sproles fad is in play with the Redskins and is very much alive and well among posters in this forum. The need for a "change of pace back" is a common assertion.

I don't think much of the idea.

If we assume the other units on their teams are absolutely equal, a grade A chain-moving offense will usually whip a grade A quick-strike offense by keeping their opponent off the field while denying them good field position.

Now, Darren Sproles is a grade A quick-strike guy who can run back kicks and punts; he's a good receiver; and he can run inside for limited carries. Sure, you add a player like that if you can, but he's a rarity.

The idea of adding versatility to your offense is fine, but it's a mistake to try to do it with specialists because the defense can adjust too easily. If we put a fast RB into a one-back offense, he'd better have a lot more to offer than speed to the outside. Trung Canidate had that.

We can diversify our offense by adding versatile players. Our chain-moving scheme needs a running back whose skillset reminds us of Steven Jackson whose versatility keep defenses guessing on how he will be used.

[shoefly72]

I'd much rather run the risk of scoring too fast than run the risk of not scoring at all, which is what we did last year. I understand where you're coming from, but I'll gladly take a 70 yard TD on a screen pass over a 14 play, 70 yard drive ending in a field goal.

[Warhead36]

I'd much rather run the risk of scoring too fast than run the risk of not scoring at all, which is what we did last year. I understand where you're coming from, but I'll gladly take a 70 yard TD on a screen pass over a 14 play, 70 yard drive ending in a field goal.

Exactly.

Most NFL games are extremely close and are decided by maybe two or three big plays per game.

[wilbur58z]

both of them stink and won't make the team anyway

[Hunter_R]

both of them stink and won't make the team anyway

Exactly, I wouldn't say it's a bad idea, but those two just can't hold on to the ball, and, by extension, suck.

[tml6157]

How many times does Portis break a decent run to only be caught by a LB, CB or S? Alridge has the speed to not get caught. He just has to hang onto the ball. In the end I think Mason will earn the 3rd RB spot over Rock. I see no reason why he cant be as productive this preseason as he was last preseason and his special teams play has improved dramatically as said by the coaches.

[Oldfan]

I'd much rather run the risk of scoring too fast than run the risk of not scoring at all, which is what we did last year.

So, would I. But how did you decide those were the only two options? How about scoring with a chain-moving offense?

[THUNDERDOME]

Zorn's not gonna keep one of them if they keep coughing it up. If they look good and hold onto the ball in preseason, or have a few good returns, I could see one of them making it.

BUT, if they cough up the ball AT ALL during a game they're cut.

[jkypoo]

I thought it has also been speculated that Aldridge or Dorsey would have to push Rock for the KR spot? I haven't read anywhere that these guys are merely speed specialists. I would assume that if they make the team they possess the necessary skill set to fully contribute on offense. But if the fumbles keep coming, this may be a mute conversation. Then again, we could do much worse for our offense than to add a little more speed, assuming they can catch and eventually learn to hold on to the ball.

[SirClintonPortis]

Mmm, I would figure that the chain moving part of the offense is supposed to set up a big play here or there, be it some bubble screen, deep route, etc.

That said, both of them have a severe case of fumblitis and if it persists, then it is better to part ways with them.

[Touchdown Redskins]

If we assume the other units on their teams are absolutely equal, a grade A chain-moving offense will usually whip a grade A quick-strike offense by keeping their opponent off the field while denying them good field position.

That might be true, but you also have to take into account that with the "grade A chain-moving offense," the defense has more opportunities to force a turnover or punt. In a quick-strike offense, you cannot force a punt or turnover on one play.

For example, take the Colts-Chargers game in this past postseason. The Colts have become a chain-moving offense as Manning and his receivers have aged, while the Chargers have Darren Sproles. Sproles essentially won the game for the Chargers with his abilities, while the Chargers had many opportunities to limit the Colts because they lacked a true game-breaker.

[Oldfan]

Whether Alridge and Dorsey make the team doesn't matter. They were selected with the idea of adding diversity by adding a quick-strike specialist. That's not smart, in my opinion.

[GhostofSparta]

Dorsey or Aldridge may not be the specific answer to our problems, but a speedy scat-back type player is. Portis is no longer the burner he once was, which leaves us with 3 backs with similar styles of play. Portis is faster than Rock and Betts, sure, but when he bulked up for Gibbs he lost what made him an absolute killer, and he's yet to regain it. And Rock may be a chore to take down on kick returns, but I'm tired of seeing Rock break the group only to be dragged down between the opponent's 20 and 5 yard lines.

Try to have a defense defend against a 3 WR shotgun set with Portis and a Sproles-equivalent in the backfield. Imagine a kick returner that, once he hits a hole with nothing but daylight b/t him and the endzone, you know with confidence is going to score. I'd sure enjoy that situation.

[Oldfan]

That might be true, but you also have to take into account that with the "grade A chain-moving offense," the defense has more opportunities to force a turnover or punt. In a quick-strike offense, you cannot force a punt or turnover on one play.

For example, take the Colts-Chargers game in this past postseason. The Colts have become a chain-moving offense as Manning and his receivers have aged, while the Chargers have Darren Sproles. Sproles essentially won the game for the Chargers with his abilities, while the Chargers had many opportunities to limit the Colts because they lacked a true game-breaker.

The Chargers have a grade A quick-strike offense. The Colts don't have a grade A chain-moving offense because they were built originally for the quick strike.

[Oldfan]

Mmm, I would figure that the chain moving part of the offense is supposed to set up a big play here or there, be it some bubble screen, deep route, etc.

Of course. But, it's not smart to do it by substituting quick-strike specialists into the game.

[TheBornRedskin]

How many times does Portis break a decent run to only be caught by a LB, CB or S? Alridge has the speed to not get caught. He just has to hang onto the ball. In the end I think Mason will earn the 3rd RB spot over Rock. I see no reason why he cant be as productive this preseason as he was last preseason and his special teams play has improved dramatically as said by the coaches.

I like Mason but he can't block well in coverage. Portis get's caught because the line doesn't do a good job of sealing off blockers. That's part of break away runs as well. Don't forget he was breaking off HR runs in Denver all the time. For me Portis needs to get better at catching the ball out of the backfield or we need a guy really good at doing that.

[Touchdown Redskins]

The Chargers have a grade A quick-strike offense. The Colts don't have a grade A chain-moving offense because they were built originally for the quick strike.

Well, that's a matter of opinion. I would contend that any offense with Peyton Manning running the show is grade A. It's not like they're starving for points.

[Oldfan]

...which leaves us with 3 backs with similar styles of play...

In a one-back offense, defenses will adjust to the skillset of the back who's in the game. Northing is gained by putting a faster back into the game.

Imagine a kick returner that, once he hits a hole with nothing but daylight b/t him and the endzone, you know with confidence is going to score. I'd sure enjoy that situation.

If he's as good as Devin Hester, fine. Otherwise...

Rock is consistent. That's better than a guy who hits a homerun now and then but leaves you in poor field position by running laterally too much.

[jkypoo]

Whether Alridge and Dorsey make the team doesn't matter. They were selected with the idea of adding diversity by adding a quick-strike specialist. That's not smart, in my opinion.

Something about adding diversity by adding a specialist is disturbing and telling. However, I'm sure a lot of players who end up at camp could be argued as the "not smart" option. What is smart, though, is giving them a look. What if one of them turned out to be Barry "Quick" in disguise? In that case, counting them out or not even bothering to look would be the "not smart" option. I think who makes the team is all that should matter.

And as long as were discussing the issue of speed, the Bears made it to the Superbowl on the back of a great D, a sub-par (arguably horrible) offense, and one speedster. I'm sure they, too, would disagree that a specialist is necessarily a bad idea.

[Oldfan]

Well, that's a matter of opinion. I would contend that any offense with Peyton Manning running the show is grade A. It's not like they're starving for points.

We disagree on Peyton. The QB is very dependent on scheme and team. Marvin Harrison is sorely missed.

[Est.1974]

Whether Alridge and Dorsey make the team doesn't matter. They were selected with the idea of adding diversity by adding a quick-strike specialist. That's not smart, in my opinion.

I thought Dorsey was a probable outright return specialist, whilst Alridge did also carry that receiving threat from the backfield you noted in the Sproles reference. He appears the more rounded '#3 RB' of the two, but he seems to be performing poorly so far.

Also, I don't think anyone who's skillsets remind you of Steven Jackson would be fighting for a #3 spot, like those RB's in question here.

[Oldfan]

Something about adding diversity by adding a specialist is disturbing and telling. However, I'm sure a lot of players who end up at camp could be argued as the "not smart" option. What is smart, though, is giving them a look. What if one of them turned out to be Barry "Quick" in disguise? In that case, counting them out or not even bothering to look would be the "not smart" option. I think who makes the team is all that should matter.

The argument is that Vinny should be bring in players who fit our scheme for a look. I'm saying thses guys don't fit.

And as long as were discussing the issue of speed, the Bears made it to the Superbowl on the back of a great D, a sub-par (arguably horrible) offense, and one speedster. I'm sure they, too, would disagree that a specialist is necessarily a bad idea.

Like Sproles, Hester is a rarity. He's a grade A quick-strike guy. Sure, you add those if you can, but you don't go to Canada or scan the waiver wire to bring in specialists as part of your plan.

[Oldfan]

I thought Dorsey was a probable outright return specialist' date=' whilst Alridge did also carry that receiving threat from the backfield you noted in the Sproles reference. He appears the more rounded '#3 RB' of the two, but he seems to be performing poorly so far.[/quote']

The only comment I've read about Alridge is his speed. I haven't heard anyone say he's good at running or catching a football.

Also, I don't think anyone who's skillsets remind you of Steven Jackson would be fighting for a #3 spot, like those RB's in question here.

That's not the point. Jackson is the protoype I'd use, not Darren Sproles.

[jkypoo]

The argument is that Vinny should be bring in players who fit our scheme for a look. I'm saying thses guys don't fit.

Like Sproles, Hester is a rarity. He's a grade A quick-strike guy. Sure, you add those if you can, but you don't go to Canada or scan the waiver wire to bring in specialists as part of your plan.

These statements are contradictory. You say only to bring in players to fit the scheme, but to snag a Sproles or Hester if you can? How do you know if you don't take a look? I thought that is what training camp and preseason is all about? And you talk as though you know for fact that these guys were brought in solely for their speed and no other reason. One of them returns kicks alright (judging by the film) and it's rumored that one of them can catch. Can either of them do enough things well enough to make the team? That's what this time of the year is about.

[Oldfan]

I like Mason but he can't block well in coverage. Portis get's caught because the line doesn't do a good job of sealing off blockers. That's part of break away runs as well. Don't forget he was breaking off HR runs in Denver all the time. For me Portis needs to get better at catching the ball out of the backfield or we need a guy really good at doing that.

Mason can improve his game, given the chance.

Clinton improved his receiving ability a whole lot since he arrived here. I recall Gibbs chuckling that it appeared that no one had ever taught him how to catch a football in his entire life. But, after this much time, he's as good as he's ever going to be.