Alridge and Dorsey, The Wrong Way to Diversify an Offense

[The Full Monty]

I think the "change of pace" idea is a myth in a one-back offense. Defenses adjust to the personnel the offense puts on the field. The only reason that Darren Sproles is a threat is that he's versatile and very good.

I totally agree. You'd think Stephen Davis never played for this team with the fixation that some have with "speed" and "change of pace".

Running backs are supposed to "run" - not catch a 60 yard swing pass for a TD. It's nice if they can do this, a la Sproles, but last time I checked that's why we drafted 2 wide receivers in the 2nd round last year and why we pay Santana Moss the big bucks.

[Oldfan]

You said to bring in guys that fit the system unless they are Hester or Sproles quality. You can't find that out unless you bring guys in.

Can you not see the difference between bringing in players like Alridge or Dorsey in only as exceptions to a rule rather than part of an overall stategy? It is assumed by most fans, including me, that the Skins brought these players in as part of a strategy to diversify the offense.

[Thinking Skins]

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.

But what exactly is "our scheme"? Last year Zorn played with Gibbs's run game in there, so I'm not sure whether or not they fit into our scheme. And the statement in your OP is a bit misleading. You seem to be ignoring the hole we have at PR, which is the need we seemed to be addressing this offseason - at least with the addition of Dorsey.

You're limiting guys too much. They shouldn't be just described by one word. I mean Aldridge is not Trung Candidate. Neither is Dorsey. Sure, all three are speedy backs, but so is Sproles. How do we know who is a Trung Candidate and who is a Sproles? Having a football team is about putting the best 53 men on the team. You're acting as if we shouldn't have signed these guys because you can psychically tell us how well they'll perform.

I've heard some impressive things about Aldridge's camp, although the fumbles he's had have kinda soured him in my mind, as well as the statement that he's probably not going to be a punt returner. But I want to have a team thats full of talent. I don't want to turn down a talented guy simply because he doesn't fit into some 'formula' for what makes a perfect team. Lets just sign the best 80 guys we can and keep the best 53.

[Oldfan]

If it had been just about speed, we might as well have signed an Olympic sprinter.

Did anyone say that it was just about speed? I missed it if they did.

[HBnotBlades]

There's no contradiction because my argument does not rule out a Devin Hester who was brought in as a receiver by the Bears. His talent as a returner was just a happy discovery. If he's a bargain in the draft, or a UDFA, I'm not proposing that we should NEVER, under any circumstances, try out a speedster.

Hester was drafted solely as a returner, he was a corner in college, but not a particularly good one.

He's a draft pick that simply has "it", as in, he's a better player than the sum of his parts would indicate. If we find a player that has "it", I believe we find a way to fit them into the offense no matter what style of player they are. We won't find out if there skills mesh with our offense without bringing them in.

Why should I be bothered by a change of pace?

I don't buy the idea that a defense can adjust equally no matter what type of back you put in the game. Different teams have different weaknesses and having more tools to attack them with is a good thing. If a defensive coordinator has to adjust to counter a speed back, he may be forced in to a situation where his defense is not as effective and is susceptible to other plays.

[Oldfan]

But what exactly is "our scheme"? Last year Zorn played with Gibbs's run game in there, so I'm not sure whether or not they fit into our scheme.

Zorn installed what appears to be a WCO, one designed to move the chains as Walsh's did.

And the statement in your OP is a bit misleading. You seem to be ignoring the hole we have at PR, which is the need we seemed to be addressing this offseason - at least with the addition of Dorsey.

I ignored punt returning because it isn't relevant to the discussion.

You're limiting guys too much. They shouldn't be just described by one word. I mean Aldridge is not Trung Candidate. Neither is Dorsey. Sure, all three are speedy backs, but so is Sproles.

I didn't do that. I used Trung to illustrate my point that we need more than speed at the RB position.

I don't want to turn down a talented guy simply because he doesn't fit into some 'formula' for what makes a perfect team.

Neither do I. But, we should not be out looking for guys who don't fit our scheme as a rule. My argument is that these players were brought in to diversify the offense -- and that intent is a mistake.

[Thinking Skins]

I think the "change of pace" idea is a myth in a one-back offense. Defenses adjust to the personnel the offense puts on the field. The only reason that Darren Sproles is a threat is that he's versatile and very good.

not necessarily. Defenses may adjust to who's on the field, but all you need to do is remember game 1 last year when Laron Landry got trucked by Brandon Jacobs to know that sometimes defenses can know what's coming for them and still be unable to stop it.

If Dorsey or Aldridge can be a guy who comes into the game and compliments Portis better than Betts or Rock, then whats the problem with them coming into the game? Many teams have this "thunder and lightning" type of backfield, it wasn't created by Zorn. If it gets used by Zorn its probably because its been successful lately. But who is to say that these guys won't also be able to break tackles or run it up the middle? Thats what the game is all about.

[addicted]

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.

Damn you nailed it on the very first reply to this thread. Scoring too quickly is a problem I'd love for us to have. The point the OP misses about a home run threat is how you can use other role players around this person making them more explosive. The NFL is no longer a 1 RB per team league, teams that use explosive style backs next to massive brusing up the gut runners are having a lot of success. Last season NY used running backs like this but the real team that scares the hell out of me right now is the Pukes. If Felix Jones is healthy and explosive as he showed flashes of, mixed with Choice and Barber defenses are going to struggle mightly trying to stop that. We need to have a change of pace back and most importantly stick with using them. Using Betts makes no sense and honestly I think we don't need him. When you've got Portis you just need a fast back to go with him. Sure Betts is ok catching the ball but he's never going to be more then a poor man's Portis. If it came down to it, I'd have no problems dumping Betts for an upgrade.

[Oldfan]

Hester was drafted solely as a returner, he was a corner in college, but not a particularly good one.

My comment came from a Bears unofficial website. I'm not certain they knew what they were talking about.

We won't find out if there skills mesh with our offense without bringing them in.

That's not true in most cases. Scheme fit was one of Walsh's primary goals when drafting. Belichick learned from him. I think most teams have an idea what they're looking for. That's why they say that the BPA for one team might not be the BPA for another.

I don't buy the idea that a defense can adjust equally no matter what type of back you put in the game. Different teams have different weaknesses and having more tools to attack them with is a good thing. If a defensive coordinator has to adjust to counter a speed back, he may be forced in to a situation where his defense is not as effective and is susceptible to other plays.

If your "change of pace back" is a Darren Sproles, the defense will have a tough time adjusting because he's versatile and very good, not because he's a change of pace back.

[Thinking Skins]

Zorn installed what appears to be a WCO, one designed to move the chains as Walsh's did.

But teams have run the west coast offense with speedy backs as well as power backs. So we don't know if Zorn wants to add this feature to his offense. Point being, if these guys are good enough, then we'll find a package to use them in. We'll find a way to get them on the field. We shouldn't look at our offense as something set in stone and have a player like Lavar sitting on the bench because we refuse to adjust our scheme to the players we have.

I ignored punt returning because it isn't relevant to the discussion.

But it is. You talked about the assumptions behind why they were brought in, but there was a large discussion in hopes and prayers that one of these guys will be able to unseat ARE as the primary punt returner. You mention the Jason Reid quote as if its the only opinion that matters on the subject. I'm much more concerned about the PR position than I am with who's the third running back.

I didn't do that. I used Trung to illustrate my point that we need more than speed at the RB position.

But if we only use 'speedy' as the only characteristic to describe out running backs we have no way of knowing if a player is closer to Trung or Chris Johnson or Brian Westbrook or Felix Jones or a bunch of other speedy running backs.

Neither do I. But, we should not be out looking for guys who don't fit our scheme as a rule. My argument is that these players were brought in to diversify the offense -- and that intent is a mistake.

And again, I say that we shouldn't be so caught up in our 'scheme'. We should thrive to have the best 53 men on the field. And if these guys turn out to be players that can help us, then its to our advantage to find ways to put them on the field. Plus, we may be able to use them as Punt Returner, which I still see as another possible reason we may have brought them in (they're both taking reps back there in training camp).

[HBnotBlades]

If your "change of pace back" is a Darren Sproles, the defense will have a tough time adjusting because he's versatile and very good, not because he's a change of pace back.

Completely agreed. I'd just argue that we didn't bring in Alridge and Dorsey only for speed, but to see if they could be versatile. If they prove not to be versatile or show something beyond pure speed, they simply won't make the team.

[Oldfan]

not necessarily. Defenses may adjust to who's on the field, but all you need to do is remember game 1 last year when Laron Landry got trucked by Brandon Jacobs to know that sometimes defenses can know what's coming for them and still be unable to stop it.

How does this point support the idea that the "change of pace" has some inherent value?

If Dorsey or Aldridge can be a guy who comes into the game and compliments Portis better than Betts or Rock, then whats the problem with them coming into the game?

What do you mean by "complement Portis better?" That phrase is just as mysterious to me as the "change of pace" idea.

Many teams have this "thunder and lightning" type of backfield, it wasn't created by Zorn. If it gets used by Zorn its probably because its been successful lately. But who is to say that these guys won't also be able to break tackles or run it up the middle? Thats what the game is all about.

The Thunder and Lighting phrase orginated back in the days of the two-back set when a good FB (Thunder) ran a lot inside and a good halfback (Lightning). ran outside because there was deception involved. There's no equivalent in the one-back offense.

In other words, Thunder AND Lightning makes sense. Thunder OR Lightning does not.

[jkypoo]

Did anyone say that it was just about speed? I missed it if they did.

You said in the OP, "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." Which implies that you are assuming these players offer nothing but speed. And your whole argument comes back to this idea. Just because a guy is fast doesn't mean his is not other things as well, which is a fallacy you seem to be sticking to. Then you say, "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." So you assume that neither Alridge nor Dorsey can be these things, even when that is the reason that they are in camp to begin with, to judge whether they can be these things.

And as far as influencing the scheme, I don't buy it. I think guys were brought in to see what they have to offer overall, and if they are special enough to warrant influencing the scheme, then so be it. No matter what you assume, I doubt very much that any part of our '09 offensive scheme is going to be dictated by either Alridge or Dorsey, unless they are, in fact, Hester or Sproles caliber. And if they are aren't, then this conversation is mute.

It seems ridiculous to begrudge a team for bringing in prospective talent. I could see the validity of such a conversation if we kept them on the team, but right now they are attempting to win a spot. And even if they do make the team, their worth will be proven between the chalk on Sundays.

[TheLongshot]

The Giants do not have a speed demon like Sproles either and everyone was gushing over their running attack last year. Those RBs move the chains and are competent blockers.

I'm sure Ahmad Bradshaw would love to hear that he isn't a speed demon. :doh:

[The Full Monty]

I'm sure Ahmad Bradshaw would love to hear that he isn't a speed demon. :doh:

Ahmad Bradshaw is no "speed demon like Darren Sproles", like I said. He has nowhere near the impact of Darren Sproles and doesn't touch the ball nearly as much. Maybe this year with Ward gone. But up until now I would never compare the two.

[TheLongshot]

Ahmad Bradshaw is no "speed demon like Darren Sproles", like I said. He has nowhere near the impact of Darren Sproles and doesn't touch the ball nearly as much. Maybe this year with Ward gone. But up until now I would never compare the two.

Um, you might want to check their stat lines before you say that:

Sproles: 61 carries 330 Yards 5.4 YPC Longest run: 37 1 TD

Bradshaw: 67 carries 355 Yards 5.3 YPC Longest run: 77 1 TD

Looks pretty close to me. The only reason why Sproles got more attention was because of the extra playing time he got in the playoffs because of injuries.

[Thinking Skins]

How does this point support the idea that the "change of pace" has some inherent value?

A 'change of pace' back isn't always necessary, but it shouldn't be frowned upon as many other teams have used them successfully. I don't see why we should frown on that either. But the ultimate judgement should be how well they perform on the field.

The example I gave you though should dispel your theory that in a one back setting, defenses will adjust to who's on the field. The good players are the ones who - even if the defense knows that the ball is going their way - always get the yards when you need em.

Portis has shown to be that kind of guy many times in the past. Jacobs did this when he trucked Landry. Chris Johnson was doing this when the Texans l to the Ravens. The problem was that when he got hurt, the Texans couldn't do anything else. Thats exactly our problem. When Clinton goes down, or comes out, or gets banged up late in a season, we have nobody who can come in and move the chains, or get the offense moving on a regular basis. Betts did it that one season, but since then he's been invisible - either by lack of faith from coaches or lack of production in games.

What do you mean by "complement Portis better?" That phrase is just as mysterious to me as the "change of pace" idea.

The idea of 'complimenting' Clinton Portis just means that they carry the ball when Clinton's not carrying it. Clinton is our primary RB. But if there is a question of who will be the primary backup to Clinton, then one is a better compliment to Clinton if they're better able to keep drives gong without Clinton. If putting Betts in there, our offense with Betts goes 3-and-out vs putting Aldridge in there gets us a TD, I'd be inclined to argue that Aldridge may be a better compliment to Portis than Betts (I know this is an oversimplified example, but its just how well they're playing in the game whem Portis isn't playing).

The Thunder and Lighting phrase orginated back in the days of the two-back set when a good FB (Thunder) ran a lot inside and a good halfback (Lightning). ran outside because there was deception involved. There's no equivalent in the one-back offense.

In other words, Thunder AND Lightning makes sense. Thunder OR Lightning does not.

Thunder and Lightning works today the same way it worked before. You use one to set up the other. So we can use Stephen Davis to get 4 and 5 yard runs and then use Skip Hicks to take it to the house. It doesn't matter that only one of them is in the game at a time. What matters is that the defense is tired of the pounding that Stephen Davis just put on them that they're exhausted and hence when we put a fresh back in there its harder for them. The idea that the new back is also speedy contributes to the idea of a home run threat because once he gets past the safeties there's little chance of him being caught from behind.

But thats not to say that thunder and lightning is the only way to take advantage of a two back setting. Thunder and lightning is only one example of it. But what we need are two backs who are both moving the chains, and thats something that Betts wasn't doing last year.

[Thinking Skins]

The "change of pace" idea is a mystery to me. As a defensive coordinator, I'm going to adjust my "packages" to your offensive packages. If your package includes a speedster in the one-back offense, I'll have my D force him inside. If he's more of a power runner, I'll have my guys force him wide.

Why should I be bothered by a change of pace?

Because some teams have the talent to stop a speedster, but not a big back. Some teams have the talent to stop a big back, but not a speedster. Some teams can stop both. Some teams can stop neither. And sometimes the players who can stop the speedster aren't the same ones who can stop a big back.

You're awefully dismissive of this concept as if it didn't work for many teams in 2008.

[Oldfan]

But teams have run the west coast offense with speedy backs as well as power backs. So we don't know if Zorn wants to add this feature to his offense.

I don't need to know what Z is thinking. My argument is a) that a move-the-chains offense is the best strategic option; Z appeared to be headed that direction in 2008 and c) considering a and b, it is not wise as a strategy to look for the "change of pace back" that everyone is talking about.

Point being, if these guys are good enough, then we'll find a package to use them in. We'll find a way to get them on the field..

Walsh disagreed. Belichick and I disagree also. Scheme fit is very important.

But it is. You talked about the assumptions behind why they were brought in...

No, I talked about the assumption that they were brought in as part of the offensive strategy. If they were brought in ALSO for other reasons, it's not relevant.

But if we only use 'speedy' as the only characteristic to describe out running backs we have no way of knowing if a player is closer to Trung or Chris Johnson or Brian Westbrook or Felix Jones or a bunch of other speedy running backs.

What does your remark have to do with the line you quoted which was ..."I used Trung to illustrate my point that we need more than speed at the RB position."

Did I say that speed was all they had to offer? I haven't heard of Alridge offering anything but speed, but who knows?

[Oldfan]

You said in the OP, "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." Which implies that you are assuming these players offer nothing but speed.

My remark implies nothing of the sort. You have created a strawman.

Then you say, "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." So you assume that neither Alridge nor Dorsey can be these things, even when that is the reason that they are in camp to begin with, to judge whether they can be these things.

No, I haven't assumed that either. My argument has to do with strategy and the assumption that the Post writer and most ES members have made and that is that we need a Darren Sproles type player in this offense. That's a false premise in my opinion.

And as far as influencing the scheme, I don't buy it. I think guys were brought in to see what they have to offer overall...

So, basically you are arguing that the premise that they were brought in to diversify the offense, as the Post article and most ES members speculate, is wrong.

That's fine. It doesn't matter to me. My argument stands that whether you are right or wrong. I can settle for -- IF they were brought in for the reason most of us have assumed,the strategy is unsound.

It seems ridiculous to begrudge a team for bringing in prospective talent.

Another strawman.

[Oldfan]

Um, you might want to check their stat lines before you say that:

Sproles: 61 carries 330 Yards 5.4 YPC Longest run: 37 1 TD

Bradshaw: 67 carries 355 Yards 5.3 YPC Longest run: 77 1 TD

Looks pretty close to me. The only reason why Sproles got more attention was because of the extra playing time he got in the playoffs because of injuries.

Your stats lie. Bradshaw isn't the homerun threatr that Sproles respresents. One factor -- San Diego's O line did not compare with the Giants O line which I understand hasn't suffered a significant injury in three seasons.

[Oldfan]

Because some teams have the talent to stop a speedster, but not a big back. Some teams have the talent to stop a big back, but not a speedster.

You can scheme to stop any average back -- speed or power.

You're awefully dismissive of this concept as if it didn't work for many teams in 2008.

Most teams use two backs because the 16-game grind takes its toll on one. My impression is that the "change of pace back" concept is something for the guys in the booth to talk about to fill dead air space.

[TheLongshot]

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.

You seem to be speculating that the idea of bringing in small, speedy backs is mostly on Dan and Vinny and not on Zorn. Yet, when Zorn talks about Alridge, he's almost in awe of his speed. What was his reaction in the post-scrimmage PC about his fumble? He talked about having him get a better handle on the ball. It is pretty clear that Zorn is excited about Alridge and his potential.

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.

Actually, they are probably more common than you think. I think about guys like Bradshaw, Norwood, and Cribbs also fits in those category, and there are probably more that I don't know about.

What is rare is to find a guy like that who can do it every down. A guy like Westbrook or Wynn or Barry Sanders. More often than not, you have to be a bit bigger and probably a bit less elusive to hold up to the daily grind.

The idea of adding versatility to your offense is fine, but it's a mistake to try to do it with specialists because the offense 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.

I shake my head at the fact that you are using Trung Candidate to defend your point, a guy who was probably considered a bust in all ways.

Here's the facts: in this day and age, there are fewer and fewer teams who are doing it with one back. Even those who do have a main back have a guy behind them who can give them relief. Sometimes it is a similar type of back, but often they are not. Adrian Peterson is a speed back so far in his career, but Chester Taylor gets a lot of carries and he's probably more of a pounder. Felix Jones was always considered to be a change-up type of back, and no one doubts his effect on the game when he's in.

Having two backs is becoming more of the norm. You find those backs wherever you can. In the end, it doesn't matter if Alridge or Dorsey are small, speedy backs who can also return kicks, they have to prove that they can do the job. Their size, tho, also is not a hindrance in itself and should not be held against them. Right now, you are limiting them to "specialist" status, without even seeing them play on the field.

[Thinking Skins]

You can scheme to stop any average back -- speed or power.

But the point is that the scheme doesn't always work. And the better the back is, the less likely the scheme will be able to stop him. Thats why it was so hard to scheme against Barry Sanders - it took disciplined players staying in their lanes and not allowing that cut-back lane. Thats why Emmit Smith was so productive - he had an O-Line, FB and TE that were so powerful that he didn't get touched until he got to the safety.

You're acting like ANY defense can stop our RBs. Thats just not true. I mean even Trung Candidate had his good games (2003 against Atlanta and New Orleans).

And that was as a feature back. The idea behind this two back combo/double headed monster/change of pace/thunder and lightning/etc is that our version of Trung Candidate would be coming in for a few plays after they've been grinding it out with Portis all day. That makes for some mismatches, particularly if they lack the speed in their LBs to catch him as he runs the sweep, or if Aldridge/Mason/Dorsey can hit the hole before a LB can fill it up, or if it takes a safety/nickel CB to cover our RB because he's too fast for a LB.

Most teams use two backs because the 16-game grind takes its toll on one.

Exactly. And we don't need Clinton getting another 300 carry season. A two back system will keep him fresh later in the season. If that second back is a speedy guy, then I've got no problem with it. If that second guy is Betts, he should win the spot. It shouldn't just be handed to him.

[Oldfan]

You seem to be speculating that the idea of bringing in small, speedy backs is mostly on Dan and Vinny and not on Zorn. Yet, when Zorn talks about Alridge, he's almost in awe of his speed. What was his reaction in the post-scrimmage PC about his fumble? He talked about having him get a better handle on the ball. It is pretty clear that Zorn is excited about Alridge and his potential.

No, I don't know what Zorn is thinking. I said that. But, his comments on Alridge don't convince me that he's in awe of anything but his speed -- which ewveryone is in awe of.

I shake my head at the fact that you are using Trung Candidate to defend your point, a guy who was probably considered a bust in all ways.

You didn't quote me. Read the Trung quote again and get back to me if you find fault with it.

Here's the facts: in this day and age, there are fewer and fewer teams who are doing it with one back.

Not relevant. Two backs are needed because the 16-game schedule is too demanding for one. Zorn said that in explaining his plans to get Ladell more touches.

Right now, you are limiting them to "specialist" status, without even seeing them play on the field.

I referred to them as "specialists" in a move-the-chains WCO offense because they would be brought in primarily to offer the homerun threat. They are not built to be power runners or possession receivers. As good as he is, even Darren Sproles would be a specialist in our offense.