A few football questions

[MartinC]

I have tried to keep an open mind about the Walsh brand WCO (I've been pushing for a healthy dose of shotgun spread in the NFL since Ramsey was here). I like the idea of the intent to use the pass as the primary weapon for a ball control offense, but the level of complexity required to run the offense as originally intended has worried me.

Bear in mind that Bill Walsh had a couple of advantages in his day. His scheme was innovative, so he had a long lead time advantage over defenses. And, he didn't have the free agency roster turnover to deal with.

Using a nine-scale to explain my point -- you have the scheme's useful life decaying 9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 while the degree of difficulty in teaching the passing game to QBs and receivers remains constant at five. As you can see, there's a point where the return on the time investment isn't worth it.

If I'm right, the purists like Holmgren, Zorn and Sherman Lewis are out of touch; Holmgren's advice to Zorn to stick to his WCO principles was exactly wrong; Zorn's increase of 86 passing plays to the original 50 only made things worse; and the lack of production by the 2008 receivers could be largely the result of an overly complex scheme.

Brandon Stokely tells us that the Colts, with the most cerebral QB in the NFL, run fewer pass patterns than most teams but they run them well. Matt Bowen called the Patriots' scheme a "WCO out of the shotgun" -- ball control, YAC -- without the complexity of learning to throw on rhythm.

Great point about the complexity issue. There was a breakdown on NFL Network last Sunday during the talk about the game they were going to have with the 49ers which showed the Colts run about 6 basic running plays and maybe a dozen pass plays. They disguise with formations and movement but its basically about 20 plays total.

They run them and run them and force you to stop them - not many can.

Ultimately football is not THAT complex unless you choose to make it so. You need big boys up front who can get movement for the running game to go and who can give your QB time. You need a QB who recognise coverages and throw accuaretly and on time to the open receiver and you need receivers who can run good routes, get open and make plays when they have the ball in their hands.

Your 'system' is just about putting guys in the best position to be successful, to maximise strengths and attack defensive weakness.

[darrelgreenie]

We're seeing that with our current offensive system. It doesn't work with our personnel, or with the personnel that we're choosing to attempt to run it with. Square peg, round hole. Scheme is great... But it doesn't mean much when you don't have the players to fit it.

I'm not sure i agree with this.

I think i current offensive system is working as best it can behind a suspect OL.

Our offense(WCO) is best known for is passing attack.

Although pedestrian our passing attack is the best part of the offense (20th).

I can't think of any system that is gonna work well when the OL is having constant change with average to below average talent.

Dude, we can't run the ball (26th rush yds per game) and we can't pass protect (4th sacks allowed).

I have 2 gripes about the offense.

Lack talent along the OL.

A coaching staff mismatched to the scheme the HC wants to run.

I like the idea of bringing in Lewis but it should have been done in the off season, i think he's going to be a big help.

[KDawg]

I'm not sure i agree with this.

I think i current offensive system is working as best it can behind a suspect OL.

This goes back to square peg, round hole. Except it doesn't matter what offensive system we run with a bad OL, it's not going to work.

I have 2 gripes about the offense.

Lack talent along the OL.

A coaching staff mismatched to the scheme the HC wants to run.

I like the idea of bringing in Lewis but it should have been done in the off season, i think he's going to be a big help.

Again, a part of the issue is poor personnel. Any system can be run effectively with the correct personnel. That's kind of my point.

[darrelgreenie]

This goes back to square peg, round hole. Except it doesn't matter what offensive system we run with a bad OL, it's not going to work.

And this is where we are now.

Handcuffed by the OL and the RB/QB/playcaller ability to over come the suspect OL, regardless of scheme.

Again, a part of the issue is poor personnel. Any system can be run effectively with the correct personnel. That's kind of my point.

Okay, are you including coaching staff into the personnel equation?

I see your point therethey are part of the personnel.

But, if you're the HC/OC how can you coach a system you don't know?

Zorn imo had to go with what he knows but get some guys to help you.

[KDawg]

But, if you're the HC/OC how can you coach a system you don't know?

Zorn imo had to go with what he knows but get some guys to help you.

If that's ALL he can run, he's got WAY more problems than I originally thought he might have. Football is football. Philosophical differences in scheme are just that. Any good coach should be able to adapt to his personnel. I don't know the single wing offense very well, but when my starting QB went down, I installed it and it worked quite well. Now, I'm not at the NFL level, but a scheme is just a scheme. Like I said, a good coach needs to be able to be versatile.

[darrelgreenie]

If that's ALL he can run, he's got WAY more problems than I originally thought he might have. Football is football. Philosophical differences in scheme are just that. Any good coach should be able to adapt to his personnel. I don't know the single wing offense very well, but when my starting QB went down, I installed it and it worked quite well. Now, I'm not at the NFL level, but a scheme is just a scheme. Like I said, a good coach needs to be able to be versatile.

What else do you expect him to do?

I think its unfair to critize Zorn for running the scheme that he knows.

Not bringing in other coaches that know the scheme yes, but despite what Vinny claims i don't think it was Zorns call.

A scheme is more then just a scheme in the NFL its a coaches identity.

You wouldn't expect Mike Mularkey to run the WCO or Josh McDaniels to run smash mouth, or Holmgren to run anything other then the WCO.

You wouldn't expect Dungy to run 3-4 or LeBeau to run a 4-3.

Zorn did what any coach would do, adpated his scheme.

For example most of the Skins explosive plays come from I-Form playaction with Jason airing it out deep downfield.

But at its core the coaches and gm find the players to match the scheme that why it takes time to build a team.

Which isn't a classic staple of a WCO.

[KDawg]

What else do you expect him to do?

Use the personnel he has? Marko, Malcolm, Devin, Davis, Cooley, Moss in a slot role, El in a slot role.

He isn't using the personnel that we possess. Lewis called the plays for one game and we got Thomas and Davis involved. Granted, Davis was probably more of a case of Cooley being hurt than anything else, but the fact remains.

The West Coast Offense may have been Vinny's call, but it's also what Zorn knows. Of course we're going to run that. But modify the version you run to match with the personnel that we possess. He hasn't done that.

Seriously. Moss as a X? Are you kidding me? He's not making the most of what we have.

Sellers is useless in a WCO, but thanks to Vinny we now have him extended. Zorn is probably gone, but if not, we just extended Sellers for no reason whatsoever. Why not use Davis as a split out receiver like Indy does with Dallas Clark if our other receivers are having a tough time with the scheme?

It is on him. He's not using what we have, even if the system is forced on him (which I'm willing to bet it wasn't. He was hired with the WCO scheme in mind, that's the scheme he wanted to run).

Vinny failed at signing bodies that will help this offense thrive, which is nothing new for him.

[Going Commando]

However I would not get too hung up on the whole 4-3 versus 3-4 thing. There are lots of variations in both formations and sometimes the differences are a lot smaller than yo umight think.

For example we run a one gap 4-3 under quite a bit. That is in effect very similar to a 3-4 look.

In this alignment the weakside DE lines up outside the OT to his side, the 3 technique DT lines up in the weakside B gap, you have 1 technique DT in the A gap to either side of the centre but normally the strong side and the other DE lines up over the OT next to the TE in the C gap. You then bring down your SAM 'backer who lines up on the line of scrimmage but outside the TE in a 9 technique responsible for the D gap.

This gives you a 5 man front not disimilar to a 3-4 with both outside linebackers on the line. The only difference is in the 4-3 under you only have one player in a 2 point where the 3-4 would have 2.

The SAM and weakside DE have contain resposnibility to their sides. Your WILL and MIKE backers line up off the line and are respinsible for the strongside B and A gaps.

I think there are some significant differences between a 4-3 over/under one gap front and a two gap 3-4 defense like the Ravens run.

First, the three point stance of the weak side end is an important difference because it sells him to the OT much more clearly on a standard rush or containment assignment. Of course ends are capable of faking the rush and dropping into delayed zones or man coverage but it's difficult. Also that three point stance is really nice for your stronger pass rusher as opposed to having him take off standing up. Being able to engage that offensive tackle sooner from the 3 point stance is huge if your end has a good rip or bull rush especially if the tackle is in a 3 point stance as well. When you're standing up it's harder to get that rip or blow. From his preparation and knowing his man's tendencies, an OT is going to know what to anticipate from a guy when he's in 2 or 3 point and it's going to be a different set of expectations.

But I think the biggest difference between the 4-3 under and the Ravens style 3-4 is entirely in that two gap nose. Those gap and zone assignments for the ILBs are pretty different than they would be for our WLB and MLB in a 4-3 under. That's why the skillset and body types of a 4-3 WLB/MLB are so different than they are for 3-4 ILBs. You could use a two gap nose in a 4-3 under but I'm pretty sure this isn't typical. It's what I want us to start doing but the personnel to run it is hard to come by.

[Going Commando]

You know i think this defense will really take off if Landry takes ownership of the FS position. Reading defenses making sight adjustments taking chances while getting the defense into the right look against certain formations.

I disagree. I think Landry is far better suited to playing SS in a cover 3 scheme than he is the deep safety. I think he's got poor coverage instincts and I don't think he's mature enough in his preparation to take on that kind of responsibility in the defense. It's his third year as a starter so he's got time to develop but you've got to wonder if we are trying to force him to be something he's not.

LaRon is a dangerous player and he's not being used that way. Right now he's a safety valve and little more. He's not doing poorly in this role because opponents generally aren't testing his part of the field and we aren't giving up a ton of big plays. At least no more than any other good defense in the league anyway.

So we aren't giving up big plays but we aren't giving LaRon a chance to make them either. Doesn't that seem a tremendous waste? He was a 6th overall draft pick. You can draft a corner out of college with good coverage skills and passable strength, but who's too slow to play the position in the NFL. You'll get just as much, if not more, from him as we get with Landry in this scheme. And you can draft these guys in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th rounds. It seems like there are guys like this always available. Look at what the Bills have done with Jairus Byrd. It's remarkable.

I've kinda of lost some of my faith in Landry's physicality and tackling this year.

You don't think this is a result of how he's being used? I understand he's fast but few deep safeties are directly involved in more than a handful of passing plays a game when the rest of your defense is as good as ours is. LaRon is a physical player who thrives on being involved in the physical aspect of the game and being in the thick of things. I think he loses focus from having such a minimal role most of the game. This is not what he did at LSU and I don't think this was how he was originally intended to be used. LaRon is not Michael Griffin and he can't do the same things as him.

Troy Polamalu was the same way in college and is the same way today. He's also an unschooled safety who takes unsound angles and misses tackles too. He gambles, and tries things that he knows he can only get away with because of his elite speed and strength. His failures make you smack your forehead but his successes are spectacular. LaRon is the same player. Yet Polamalu makes pro-bowls and LaRon is obscure because Polamalu isn't wasted.

The most frustrating part of this is that we chronically try to switch positions on elite players and prospects to fit them to the goddamn scheme. Landry, Jason Taylor, Lavar, and probably now Orakpo. I understand he can play SLB at a B level which is probably better than the C to C+ you'd get from Wilson. But the guy could be giving you an A if you adjusted your scheme and made him a DE. If they don't fit your scheme well then you shouldn't acquire them in the first place. Or have some gumption and leave your comfort zone and change the way you scheme for Christ's sake. What have we got going on here? I feel like Zorn is only in control of half the damn team, if that. Does anyone think he'd stand up to Blache and force him to make a scheme change on defense?

As for his tackling, LaRon is a good open field tackler and he has to make so many of them without the chance to break down. He's been missing tackles lately but I think it's more an issue of focus than ability. Breakdowns lead to more breakdowns on bad teams with accountability problems like ours. If we started clicking on defense I'd imagine LaRon's play would look massively improved. On his own, LaRon is a strong guy and he can pull most people down with the arm tackles. No one else in our secondary can do the same.

[jtyler42]

I think there are some significant differences between a 4-3 over/under one gap front and a two gap 3-4 defense like the Ravens run.

First, the three point stance of the weak side end is an important difference because it sells him to the OT much more clearly on a standard rush or containment assignment. Of course ends are capable of faking the rush and dropping into delayed zones or man coverage but it's difficult. Also that three point stance is really nice for your stronger pass rusher as opposed to having him take off standing up. Being able to engage that offensive tackle sooner from the 3 point stance is huge if your end has a good rip or bull rush especially if the tackle is in a 3 point stance as well. When you're standing up it's harder to get that rip or blow. From his preparation and knowing his man's tendencies, an OT is going to know what to anticipate from a guy when he's in 2 or 3 point and it's going to be a different set of expectations.

But I think the biggest difference between the 4-3 under and the Ravens style 3-4 is entirely in that two gap nose. Those gap and zone assignments for the ILBs are pretty different than they would be for our WLB and MLB in a 4-3 under. That's why the skillset and body types of a 4-3 WLB/MLB are so different than they are for 3-4 ILBs. You could use a two gap nose in a 4-3 under but I'm pretty sure this isn't typical. It's what I want us to start doing but the personnel to run it is hard to come by.

The Ravens don't run a 2 gap 3-4 anymore(they did when Mike Nolan was DC)...They run an attacking one-gap 3-4/4-3...It will be very rare to see them line up in a normal 3-4, they typically will line up in over/under fronts out of the 3-4/4-3 to protect the ILB's...

The predominate 2 gap 3-4 teams are NE, MIA, DEN, GB, and PIT...The 3-4 teams that use more 1 gap principals are SD, SF, DAL, BAL, NYJ, CLE, ARI, KC...I think Jacksonville has switched to the 3-4 or at least switch between the 3-4 and 4-3 this yr too but I'm not sure what style they run...

The 3-4 normal is different b/c the 3 DL line up head up on the C, LT, and RT(pretty much has to be 2-gap b/c of the head up alignment)...The guards are left uncovered and the ILB's must account for them...Hence the need for bigger ILB's for teams that run the traditional 3-4, but teams that utilize over/under fronts out of the 3-4 can compensate for having smaller ILB's and b/c they aren't taking on uncovered OL b/c of the alignment of the DL...other than the number of DL and LB's their really isn't a difference between the 3-4 over/under and the 4-3 over/under...If you look at the defenses with the naked eye they don't look different and you could easily switch between the two as long as you're in an over/under front by simply lining up the RDE/ROLB in a 2 point stance for the 3-4 or 3 point stance for the 4-3...

To run the 4-3 under you don't need a 2 gap nose tackle...In the 4-3 under the nose tackle is lined up in a 1 technique and attacks the strong A gap, b/c of this alignment the Center can't possibly block him on his own so the G to the strong side will typically double down on him so he just needs to be able to take on double teams but he doesnt need to be able to protect 2 gaps...

[MartinC]

I think there are some significant differences between a 4-3 over/under one gap front and a two gap 3-4 defense like the Ravens run.

First, the three point stance of the weak side end is an important difference because it sells him to the OT much more clearly on a standard rush or containment assignment. Of course ends are capable of faking the rush and dropping into delayed zones or man coverage but it's difficult. Also that three point stance is really nice for your stronger pass rusher as opposed to having him take off standing up. Being able to engage that offensive tackle sooner from the 3 point stance is huge if your end has a good rip or bull rush especially if the tackle is in a 3 point stance as well. When you're standing up it's harder to get that rip or blow. From his preparation and knowing his man's tendencies, an OT is going to know what to anticipate from a guy when he's in 2 or 3 point and it's going to be a different set of expectations.

But I think the biggest difference between the 4-3 under and the Ravens style 3-4 is entirely in that two gap nose. Those gap and zone assignments for the ILBs are pretty different than they would be for our WLB and MLB in a 4-3 under. That's why the skillset and body types of a 4-3 WLB/MLB are so different than they are for 3-4 ILBs. You could use a two gap nose in a 4-3 under but I'm pretty sure this isn't typical. It's what I want us to start doing but the personnel to run it is hard to come by.

There are differences to be sure and I would not want you to think I am saying they are the same schemes just that they have more in common than people might think.

You can run the 4-3 as a 2 gap scheme as well by the way.

[Oldfan]

What else do you expect him to do?

I think its unfair to critize Zorn for running the scheme that he knows.

Like you, I think the O-line is the #1 problem, and it's making both the running game and the passing game look worse than it really is. We disagree on the play calling. I think the problem is execution and, once again, the O-line is the chief culprit.

However, I think outstanding coaches need to be innovative. A sound but different look is a tactical advantage. It's possible that Fred Davis will turn out to be an offensive weapon as good or better than Cooley. If so, Zorn will be forced to find a way to get both players on the field at the same time, a scheme change which defenses will find hard to defend.

Now, my criticism of Zorn is that he should have foreseen the possibility of this tactical advantage and pushed to make it happen. It should not take an injury to Cooley for us to find out if Davis can play.

[MartinC]

However, I think outstanding coaches need to be innovative. A sound but different look is a tactical advantage. It's possible that Fred Davis will turn out to be an offensive weapon as good or better than Cooley. If so, Zorn will be forced to find a way to get both players on the field at the same time, a scheme change which defenses will find hard to defend.

Now, my criticism of Zorn is that he should have foreseen the possibility of this tactical advantage and pushed to make it happen. It should not take an injury to Cooley for us to find out if Davis can play.

Could not agree more.

There were multiple conversation on here a few months back about the potential of using 2 TE sets more in our base offense and especially in the red zone. If we are thinking about it you would have to hope that our coaches would be alive to the possibilities.

Come the season we hardly see Davis, we continue to struggle badly in the red zone and it is not until we are forced to use Davis because of injury that it turns out he might actually be a player after all.

Having two really good receiving threats at TE who can motion or line up as receivers will cause defenses all kinds of match up problems.

You wonder how much Thomas and Kelly are being held back by a similar lack of imagination. In the one game that Zorn has not called this season Thomas was actually involved in the offense. Coincidence?

[Oldfan]

...Having two really good receiving threats at TE who can motion or line up as receivers will cause defenses all kinds of match up problems...

I can't help wondering if Davis and Cooley lined up in a double-slot formation wouldn't solve our weak O-line problem economically. The slot offers angle and leverage advantages over the edge rushers that the tackles don't have. Putting a twerp WR like ARE in the slot negates the blocking option.

[KDawg]

I've been wondering all season why we haven't used Davis/Cooley as receivers on the goal line if we're unsure that Kelly/Thomas/Mitchell can get it done.

We don't use our personnel well. It's just something we don't do a good job of doing. That needs to improve.

[Oldfan]

I've been wondering all season why we haven't used Davis/Cooley as receivers on the goal line if we're unsure that Kelly/Thomas/Mitchell can get it done.

We don't use our personnel well. It's just something we don't do a good job of doing. That needs to improve.

I'd like to ask Jim Zorn to explain why he has his little WRs on the field in the red zone. I can't come up with a rationale. You don't expect or need much separation in the RZ.

The Campbell to Davis play design for a TD in the last game was successful for five TDs in seven games, Ramsey to Royal in 2004. The same play worked for both Ramsey and Brunell to Cooley seven or eight times. All it takes is for the bigger receiver to body up on the defender and then break it off to one side or the other in a cleared area. We have the big receivers to run plays like that.

[Warpath11]

I've been wondering all season why we haven't used Davis/Cooley as receivers on the goal line if we're unsure that Kelly/Thomas/Mitchell can get it done.

We don't use our personnel well. It's just something we don't do a good job of doing. That needs to improve.

Agreed I dont understand why we dont use more 2 TE sets where BOTH are out in a pass patterns. Whenever we do it one, usually Davis, stays in to block.

Dallas utilizes their two receiving TEs all the time (Bennett and Witten) and they utilize them as pass catchers not blockers.

[darrelgreenie]

The West Coast Offense may have been Vinny's call, but it's also what Zorn knows. Of course we're going to run that. But modify the version you run to match with the personnel that we possess. He hasn't done that.

Not using personnel to the best of their ability isn't a fault of the scheme i.e. WCO its the fault of the coaching or implementaion of the scheme.

And i agree that they haven't maximized the possible contributions of the personnel.

Seriously. Moss as a X? Are you kidding me? He's not making the most of what we have.

I thought the same thing.

I figured that Devin and Malcolm would be natural fits as the X receiver, and would be groomed as such.

I remember reading Zorn's reasoning, to paraphrase he said that playing Moss at X put him one step closer to the DB in essence giving the defender less time to react, allowing Moss to be on top of them sooner.

Sellers is useless in a WCO, but thanks to Vinny we now have him extended. Zorn is probably gone, but if not, we just extended Sellers for no reason whatsoever.

Sellers still has a role because we use alot of I-Form.

And strangely enough Sellers often motions from the FB spot and stacks behind the OT or behind Cooley and goes out into pass routes.

This makes little sense to me because Cooley came into the league as an HB/FB under Gibbs.

They could've used Cooley at FB and Davis at TE if the intent were to pass, and even for a few of runs Cooley to keep from tipping their hand that a pass was coming.

And i think Cooley could handle some blocking duties; he isn't a horrible blocker just inconsistent getting more time at FB he would have likely tightened up his blocking.

Why not use Davis as a split out receiver like Indy does with Dallas Clark if our other receivers are having a tough time with the scheme?

However, I think outstanding coaches need to be innovative. A sound but different look is a tactical advantage. It's possible that Fred Davis will turn out to be an offensive weapon as good or better than Cooley. If so, Zorn will be forced to find a way to get both players on the field at the same time, a scheme change which defenses will find hard to defend.

Now, my criticism of Zorn is that he should have foreseen the possibility of this tactical advantage and pushed to make it happen. It should not take an injury to Cooley for us to find out if Davis can play.

Could not agree more.

There were multiple conversation on here a few months back about the potential of using 2 TE sets more in our base offense and especially in the red zone. If we are thinking about it you would have to hope that our coaches would be alive to the possibilities.

Come the season we hardly see Davis, we continue to struggle badly in the red zone and it is not until we are forced to use Davis because of injury that it turns out he might actually be a player after all.

Having two really good receiving threats at TE who can motion or line up as receivers will cause defenses all kinds of match up problems.

I hear you on this, i'm one of the rubes that bought into the preseason talk of getting Davis involved in the offense this year.

We have split Cooley out wide a couple of times, like in the Giants and Rams games Cooley split wide.

Why we don't do it more often or use Davis in this role is a great question for the offensive staff.

[KDawg]

Not using personnel to the best of their ability isn't a fault of the scheme i.e. WCO its the fault of the coaching or implementaion of the scheme.

And i agree that they haven't maximized the possible contributions of the personnel.

That's what I've argued for this entire thread. I know that's not the fault of the system. It's the fault of Zorn and Vinny for running a system that we don't have the people for and not modifying the personnel or some of the scheme to make it fit our needs.

I remember reading Zorn's reasoning, to paraphrase he said that playing Moss at X put him one step closer to the DB in essence giving the defender less time to react, allowing Moss to be on top of them sooner.

Which is not a very smart quote, seeing how the DB can just take an extra step back. Does that open up the WR screen? Sure. But the screen hasn't been run often or effectively this year anyways.

Sellers still has a role because we use alot of I-Form.

And strangely enough Sellers often motions from the FB spot and stacks behind the OT or behind Cooley and goes out into pass routes.

Which is why I say he's useless. The FB is supposed to be a part of the passing game in a WCO. But Sellers isn't a great receiver, despite his goal line success. He has a hard time getting open.

They could've used Cooley at FB and Davis at TE if the intent were to pass, and even for a few of runs Cooley to keep from tipping their hand that a pass was coming.

Absolutely. They probably should have gotten Davis' blocking up to speed before now as well. He looks like he makes easily fixable mistakes when setting up to block that I'm pretty sure the coaches can fix.

And i think Cooley could handle some blocking duties; he isn't a horrible blocker just inconsistent getting more time at FB he would have likely tightened up his blocking.

Yup.

I hear you on this, i'm one of the rubes that bought into the preseason talk of getting Davis involved in the offense this year.

We have split Cooley out wide a couple of times, like in the Giants and Rams games Cooley split wide.

Why we don't do it more often or use Davis in this role is a great question for the offensive staff.

Again, we don't use our personnel in the correct way at all.

[darrelgreenie]

You wonder how much Thomas and Kelly are being held back by a similar lack of imagination. In the one game that Zorn has not called this season Thomas was actually involved in the offense. Coincidence?

I'd like to ask Jim Zorn to explain why he has his little WRs on the field in the red zone. I can't come up with a rationale. You don't expect or need much separation in the RZ.

The Campbell to Davis play design for a TD in the last game was successful for five TDs in seven games, Ramsey to Royal in 2004. The same play worked for both Ramsey and Brunell to Cooley seven or eight times. All it takes is for the bigger receiver to body up on the defender and then break it off to one side or the other in a cleared area. We have the big receivers to run plays like that.

I chalk these problems as playcalling/gameplanning issues.

We could be having a different season if Zorn would dialed up the Davis or Devin RZ pass plays.

I can't help wondering if Davis and Cooley lined up in a double-slot formation wouldn't solve our weak O-line problem economically. The slot offers angle and leverage advantages over the edge rushers that the tackles don't have. Putting a twerp WR like ARE in the slot negates the blocking option.

Or even a simple double TE set, or TE stack.

Here is an example of creative thinking to solve a problem from a experienced OC:

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:54:36 -0700

Steve Wyche, of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, reports Atlanta Falcons offensive coordinator Mike Mularkey will run few formations that use three or more wide receivers. His offense was usually feature dual tight ends or an H-back, a fullback and two wide receivers. Concerns along the offensive line will create a need for extra blockers, which is why the team will use two-tight end sets with a fullback.

[Going Commando]

I'd like to ask Jim Zorn to explain why he has his little WRs on the field in the red zone. I can't come up with a rationale. You don't expect or need much separation in the RZ.

The Campbell to Davis play design for a TD in the last game was successful for five TDs in seven games, Ramsey to Royal in 2004. The same play worked for both Ramsey and Brunell to Cooley seven or eight times. All it takes is for the bigger receiver to body up on the defender and then break it off to one side or the other in a cleared area. We have the big receivers to run plays like that.

This is just conjecture but I think the reason we've gotten nothing from most of our young players so far is that Zorn and Blache have a stubborn bias against rookies and young guys. Blache especially. I understand the line of thinking that a young player simply won't understand the facets of his position as well as a veteran and will make mistakes. But to write the guy off completely and give him no opportunities because of that is the height of idiocy. By the same token, Thomas and Kelly could already do things coming into the league that Moss and El can't. I think our coaches lack the flexibility and imagination that is the mark of the great ones.

[Skinz4Life12]

kdawg pwns this thread

[Going Commando]

I chalk these problems as playcalling/gameplanning issues.

We could be having a different season if Zorn would dialed up the Davis or Devin RZ pass plays.

I agree with this. I understand the importance of running the ball in the redzone (although I question the wisdom of running long developing stretch plays) but we obviously don't have the offensive line that can consistently generate push near the endzone. What bother's me is the passing plays/formations/personnel groups we've been going to. I feel like it's the most obvious thing in the world that Davis/Kelly/Thomas should be the guys on the field in the RZ. Any 14 year old kid playing Madden would realize as much. I find it hard to believe that Zorn would so far out think himself as to ignore this.

Or even a simple double TE set, or TE stack.

Here is an example of creative thinking to solve a problem from a experienced OC:

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:54:36 -0700

Steve Wyche, of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, reports Atlanta Falcons offensive coordinator Mike Mularkey will run few formations that use three or more wide receivers. His offense was usually feature dual tight ends or an H-back, a fullback and two wide receivers. Concerns along the offensive line will create a need for extra blockers, which is why the team will use two-tight end sets with a fullback.

Tight ends are such incredible weapons when you have good ones like we do. But it almost seems like a burden for us because we can't get them involved like we should be able to. It's incredibly frustrating.

[darrelgreenie]

I disagree. I think Landry is far better suited to playing SS in a cover 3 scheme than he is the deep safety. I think he's got poor coverage instincts and I don't think he's mature enough in his preparation to take on that kind of responsibility in the defense. It's his third year as a starter so he's got time to develop but you've got to wonder if we are trying to force him to be something he's not.

I agree that he might not be mature enough in his preparation to become the leader of the defense from the FS position.

But, he certainly has the ability.

Dude has size and world class speed.

It seemed like he was coming on the end of '07 and parts of '08.

I question his preparation partially because he missed the voluntary OTAs.

And also because we don't hear about him watching film or spending extra at Redskins Park.

I live in Baltimore and all i hear about is Ray Lewis and Ed Reed watching film, Ray sometimes has mandatory film study at his house.

I digress.( He very well could be doing all the film study in the world but we don't hear about)

But, even if he doesn't become an ball-hawking Ed Reed/Darren Sharper caliber FS i think his impact on the game from the FS position is greater then it would be if he played SS.

Both Horton and Reed play imo with more physicality then Landry and i think that both are better tacklers then LaRon.

The only place i would see Landry as an improvement over Reed/Horton is pass coverage and that would come with a huge sacrifice of removing him for single deep safety coverage.

Which might not even allow the SSs the freedom to do what they do.

What i don't understand is why Kareem Moore doesn't get on the field.

If you want to talk about seeing Kareem Moore at SS i'm game.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=289151

It would give the same gain as playing Landry at SS more coverage and you wouldn't loose any physicalty, Moore has been compared to ST21 by Blache, and you wouldn't loose the deep safety protection if Landry to SS.

Right now he's a safety valve and little more. He's not doing poorly in this role because opponents generally aren't testing his part of the field and we aren't giving up a ton of big plays. At least no more than any other good defense in the league anyway.So we aren't giving up big plays but we aren't giving LaRon a chance to make them either. Doesn't that seem a tremendous waste? He was a 6th overall draft pick. You can draft a corner out of college with good coverage skills and passable strength, but who's too slow to play the position in the NFL. You'll get just as much, if not more, from him as we get with Landry in this scheme. And you can draft these guys in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th rounds. It seems like there are guys like this always available. Look at what the Bills have done with Jairus Byrd. It's remarkable.

Most teams attack deep when they see single high safety.

The fact that teams are going deep on us all the time speaks to his importance to our scheme.

And i believe that if the light bulb goes off for Landry he'll do more then prevent teams from throwing deep.

He'll make game changing INTs.

LaRon making the big play is up to him not the scheme other FS in a similiar role makes big plays.

Landry's ability as a single high FS allows our SS to operate with freedom in the box.

The same way Pro-Bowl Antoine Bethea allows Bob Sanders to roam free or Ryan Clark for Troy Polamlu.

I disagree about getting a slow corner and moving them to FS.

LaRon is faster then most CB.

Jairus Byrd is having a good season and i didn't know that he was CB in college, but this just makes him an exception not the rule.

You don't think this is a result of how he's being used? I understand he's fast but few deep safeties are directly involved in more than a handful of passing plays a game when the rest of your defense is as good as ours is. LaRon is a physical player who thrives on being involved in the physical aspect of the game and being in the thick of things. I think he loses focus from having such a minimal role most of the game. This is not what he did at LSU and I don't think this was how he was originally intended to be used. LaRon is not Michael Griffin and he can't do the same things as him.

No i think he's missing tackles because he's looking to make the big and not using good form.

A deep Safety is only gonna get a handful of chances to make an impact on the game.

He may not have been used as a single deep FS at LSU but he sure wasn't a SS either, he was a FS that got to blitz on occasion.

Troy Polamalu was the same way in college and is the same way today. He's also an unschooled safety who takes unsound angles and misses tackles too. He gambles, and tries things that he knows he can only get away with because of his elite speed and strength. His failures make you smack your forehead but his successes are spectacular. LaRon is the same player. Yet Polamalu makes pro-bowls and LaRon is obscure because Polamalu isn't wasted.....As for his tackling, LaRon is a good open field tackler and he has to make so many of them without the chance to break down. He's been missing tackles lately but I think it's more an issue of focus than ability. Breakdowns lead to more breakdowns on bad teams with accountability problems like ours. If we started clicking on defense I'd imagine LaRon's play would look massively improved. On his own, LaRon is a strong guy and he can pull most people down with the arm tackles. No one else in our secondary can do the same.

Troy is way more physical then LaRon, Troy even played some LB at USC.

I don't agree that Troy is unschooled or takes unsound angles.

I think that one of Troy's strength is his understanding of the scheme, pursuit angles and leverage.(He's coached by a HOF in Dick LeBeau)

And i don't think Troy misses as many tackles by %.

We can speculate about the reasons but LaRon is missing tackles; but, i agree that it is out of the norm for him.

No doubt LaRon is a strong dude, but if had to pick who was a stronger tackler between him or Horton i'd go with Horton.

[KDawg]

I

Most teams attack deep when they see single high safety.

The fact that teams are going deep on us all the time speaks to his importance to our scheme.

And i believe that if the light bulb goes off for Landry he'll do more then prevent teams from throwing deep.

He'll make game changing INTs.

LaRon making the big play is up to him not the scheme other FS in a similiar role makes big plays.

Landry's ability as a single high FS allows our SS to operate with freedom in the box.

Except teams see that we're generally in a cover 3 look. With the single high safety. They'd be foolish to attack deep on that. A smart coordinator would dink and dunk then call a double move, which should get the corners to fly up and out of position.

Landry's job is fairly simple. Let nothing behind you in your zone. He has allowed plays behind him. That said, we're not ONLY in a cover 3 look or a cover 1 look, we're giving a few looks. But that corner cushion is mostly thanks to our cover 3 scheme. Sometimes we seem to use a cover 3 shell and play man out of it, problem being that our corners being 10 yards off of the receiver hinders their ability to play man.

We don't need Landry to give us the freedom to use a SS in the box. We need a competent safety. The scheme allows us to bring our strong safety inside, not LaRon Landry.

Landry has incredible range, but his tackling is sub par. People that keep saying that we need to give him time are quite frankly not seeing the big picture. Landry would play much better with less area to cover. We're asking too much of him and he's not getting the job done. Let's play a cover 2 man under scheme and see how he plays. Chances are he'll be on top of most balls thrown his way.

Now, I don't know any better than Greg Blache. He's a professional, I'm a high school coach. But sometimes I wonder if he's just not seeing the big picture of things.