Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Jim Zorn vs. Sherm Lewis: 6 games each


No_Pressure

Recommended Posts

Hard to argue with results like this.

4s194m.png

Why is it hard for you to challenge the impilcation driving that graphic? Does your reasoning go as far as "Lewis's playcalling is better than Zorn's" and stop without moving on to other potential explanations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lewis called plays for Portis. Nothing much good happened until Portis left with a concussion and Betts replaced him. Levi Jones was a factor in the run game also.

Only for one game...and that was Lewis' first game having any effect on the playcalling. I think even you would agree that you can't reach any conclusions about Lewis' playcalling effect on the rushing attack off of his first game doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it hard for you to challenge the impilcation driving that graphic? Does your reasoning go as far as "Lewis's playcalling is better than Zorn's" and stop without moving on to other potential explanations?

What implication would that be? :hysterical:

Sherman Lewis' prior experience as an OC and playcaller.

2dw91mo.png

Jim Zorn's prior experince as an OC and playcaller.

2jcys2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only for one game...and that was Lewis' first game having any effect on the playcalling. I think even you would agree that you can't reach any conclusions about Lewis' playcalling effect on the rushing attack off of his first game doing so.

Agreed.

I was actually making more of a judgment about Portis based on watching him run since the Giants' game. He looked out of shape to me. I think getting him out of the lineup was a positive factor in the run game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed.

I was actually making more of a judgment about Portis based on watching him run since the Giants' game. He looked out of shape to me. I think getting him out of the lineup was a positive factor in the run game.

You're right about Portis...might be a combination of removing Portis from the running game and whatever benefits Lewis brought to the table with his playcalling input. I just refuse to believe it's all coincidental and that Lewis has been more or less irrelevant to the offensive improvement we've all seen...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I just refuse to believe it's all coincidental and that Lewis has been more or less irrelevant to the offensive improvement we've all seen...

Why does it have be all or nothing? If it's a factor, it's probably a minor factor because playcalling itself is not that important compared to execution. Most games are won because the players are better than their opponents on that given day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See posts #9 an #22 for nine likely contributing factors. I'm sure there are others.

From post #22:

I estimate that the quality of the players is an 80% factor in determining the success of a football team

How has Lewis had a better quality of players at his disposal than what Zorn had?...So that right there is negated.

-- the quality of the overall strategy

-- the game planning (including personnel packages)

-- training the players

-- playcalling

Three of these four, the only positive thing Lewis had at his disposal that Zorn did not is Lewis himself lol...he's part of the overall strategy, part of the game planning and obviously part of the playcalling. So those three are negated because Lewis himself is the only thing different.

You'll have to show how Lewis had a better advantage in terms of "training of the players" than Zorn had.

-- better execution by the replacements playing for starters who were not performing well because of injuries

Did Zorn have access to these "replacements" earlier in the season?...If so, then once again Lewis is not getting the benefit of something Zorn did not have. Maybe Levi Jones and Ganther...but if you're wanting to believe those two players played a more significant role in the offense's improvement than the guy effecting the playcalling, I'd ask you to rethink that conclusion lol. And it would be hard to make the argument that all we needed to improve the offense was to bench Samuels, Thomas, Portis, Cooley, Betts and Rinehart lol...

-- defense not allowing opponents so many clock-eating drives after Blache "threw himself under the bus

I assume you're meaning that the defense put the offense on the field more often, thus leading to more offensive production?...Kind of like the argument that "the only reason Portis racks up so many yards is because we give him the ball so much"...

If so, you show absolutely nothing to prove that "more time on the field/offensive drives" = "more points and more yards". So this is not a "KNOWN" advantage that Lewis had but Zorn did not have.

I'm not gonna go in and read the play-by-play to see just how many "lengthy" drives the defense allowed in the games under Zorn as compared to the games under Lewis, but let's look at some stats:

1st downs allowed by defense:

6 games w/Zorn - 105

6 games w/Lewis - 96

That averages out to the defense allowing only 1.5 more 1st downs per game with Zorn than with Lewis. How many more "lengthy drives" can a team have by receiving one extra 1st down per game? lol...

-- game plan pared down to eliminate deep drops and slow-developing pass patterns

Again, how exactly is this something lewis had access to that Zorn did not?...

-- better execution in the red zone due to random luck: two great catches versus two drops

Red zone passing TDs:

6 games w/Zorn - 4

6 games w/Lewis - 9

You can't really chalk that difference up to nothing more than "luck". Something concrete has changed to make the offense far more productive in the red zone than they were during the first 6 games of Zorn-only playcallling. You claim it's nothing more than luck. Sorry, but that's a very unconvincing case you're making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does it have be all or nothing? If it's a factor, it's probably a minor factor because playcalling itself is not that important compared to execution. Most games are won because the players are better than their opponents on that given day.

Playcalling is extremely important...this is probably where your theories fall apart the most.

If playcalling was unimportant, then the offense could give the defense their playbook before each game and it would barely effect the outcome of the game. Let the defense listen in on the radio signal where the coach is calling in the next play...hardly matters, because the play being called is neglible in terms of whether or not the play is a success.

Playcalling is FAR more than x's and o's, as I'm positive you know. It's strategy as much as it is anything. A playcaller who has the ability to catch a defense off guard tends to be more effective than a playcaller who is predictable. A play designed to exploit a defense's weakness and take advantage of the offense's strength will net better results than a play which ignores both. A play that cleverly disguises its intentions will have a better chance at success than a play that is obvious in its intentions.

A good playcaller sees the entirety of plays called during a game as a whole unit...a bad playcaller sees each play that's called as an individual act irrelevant to what has proceeded it and what will come next.

To dismiss all of that as trivial to the success of an offense is hard to comprehend. And based on the observations of about a seasons's worth of Zorn playcalling, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to reach the conclusion that an experienced playcaller like Lewis seems to be bringing more of that into the mix than Zorn was doing on his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playcalling is extremely important...this is probably where your theories fall apart the most.

If playcalling was unimportant, then the offense could give the defense their playbook before each game and it would barely effect the outcome of the game. Let the defense listen in on the radio signal where the coach is calling in the next play...hardly matters, because the play being called is neglible in terms of whether or not the play is a success.

Playcalling is FAR more than x's and o's, as I'm positive you know. It's strategy as much as it is anything. A playcaller who has the ability to catch a defense off guard tends to be more effective than a playcaller who is predictable. A play designed to exploit a defense's weakness and take advantage of the offense's strength will net better results than a play which ignores both. A play that cleverly disguises its intentions will have a better chance at success than a play that is obvious in its intentions.

A good playcaller sees the entirety of plays called during a game as a whole unit...a bad playcaller sees each play that's called as an individual act irrelevant to what has proceeded it and what will come next.

To dismiss all of that as trivial to the success of an offense is hard to comprehend. And based on the observations of about a seasons's worth of Zorn playcalling, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to reach the conclusion that an experienced playcaller like Lewis seems to be bringing more of that into the mix than Zorn was doing on his own.

As Ron Jawarski pointed out (and I'm sure he's more knowledgable than anyone in this thread) that the players weren't executing and the playcalling wasn't the issue...

Now, I am not discrediting the importance of play-calling, but the players were not executing the plays... Perhaps Jim Zorn has more time on his hands to coach the guys up now that he is not calling the plays.

Perhaps their recent "success" is due to the fact that the defenses are not used to the tendancies of Sherm Lewis' play-calling. Remember when Zorn coach his first eight games, the Redskins were 6-2... until the rest of the league caught on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it that NEITHER of these men can get the running game going? lol...only 3 TDs by running backs all season. That's pathetic beyond words.

Because the line stinks at run blocking and is a little bit better at pass blocking. I agree that hanging onto campbell might not be a bad move as long as zorn isn't calling the plays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Ron Jawarski pointed out (and I'm sure he's more knowledgable than anyone in this thread) that the players weren't executing and the playcalling wasn't the issue...

Now, I am not discrediting the importance of play-calling, but the players were not executing the plays... Perhaps Jim Zorn has more time on his hands to coach the guys up now that he is not calling the plays.

Perhaps their recent "success" is due to the fact that the defenses are not used to the tendancies of Sherm Lewis' play-calling. Remember when Zorn coach his first eight games, the Redskins were 6-2... until the rest of the league caught on.

Then wouldn't that indeed indicate that playcalling is pretty damn important? lol...Part of playcalling is knowing how to make your playcalling unpredictable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any chance that since Zorn is now removed form the play-calling duties he has more chance to coach, especially spending time with JC? Any chance that that the fact that Lewis is in a win-win situation (doesn't matter if the team loses, doesn't matter if the team does nothing, it's not coming back on him) that he can loosen up the offense a bit?

I don't pretend to know, just curious about others thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any chance that since Zorn is now removed form the play-calling duties he has more chance to coach, especially spending time with JC? Any chance that that the fact that Lewis is in a win-win situation (doesn't matter if the team loses, doesn't matter if the team does nothing, it's not coming back on him) that he can loosen up the offense a bit?

I don't pretend to know, just curious about others thoughts.

1) I doubt that there's anything Zorn could have done with Campbell in whatever extra time he might have now that would result in Campbell suddenly playing so well...he would have done that a long time ago if so lol.

2) Lewis is probably a professional when it comes to his role with the team, and realizes that the entire organization wants to win...he's most likely just giving them options that he feels will give the offense their best chance to succeed on any given play. However, it could maybe possibly maybe be said that fear WAS dictating too much of Zorn's playcalling decisions for the reasons you mentioned. But I don't think Lewis is calling anything out of the ordinary on those plays in which he does indeed call it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stand by my statements when we hired Sherm. I think Zorn was a horrible playcaller and that in particular he wasn't utilizing our youth. That said, I thought that Vinny was stupid for the way he handled the firing of Zorn as playcaller, the hiring of Sherman Lewis, and the lack of any experience WCO or playcalling on the coaching staff when Zorn was initially hired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playcalling is extremely important...this is probably where your theories fall apart the most.

If playcalling was unimportant, then the offense could give the defense their playbook before each game and it would barely effect the outcome of the game. Let the defense listen in on the radio signal where the coach is calling in the next play...hardly matters, because the play being called is neglible in terms of whether or not the play is a success.

Playcalling is FAR more than x's and o's, as I'm positive you know. It's strategy as much as it is anything. A playcaller who has the ability to catch a defense off guard tends to be more effective than a playcaller who is predictable. A play designed to exploit a defense's weakness and take advantage of the offense's strength will net better results than a play which ignores both. A play that cleverly disguises its intentions will have a better chance at success than a play that is obvious in its intentions.

A good playcaller sees the entirety of plays called during a game as a whole unit...a bad playcaller sees each play that's called as an individual act irrelevant to what has proceeded it and what will come next.

To dismiss all of that as trivial to the success of an offense is hard to comprehend. And based on the observations of about a seasons's worth of Zorn playcalling, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to reach the conclusion that an experienced playcaller like Lewis seems to be bringing more of that into the mix than Zorn was doing on his own.

Actually, defenses know their opponents playbooks very well. Play calling is important for that very reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it that NEITHER of these men can get the running game going? lol...only 3 TDs by running backs all season. That's pathetic beyond words.

Might have something to do with the fact that the OL has pretty much been in shambles the whole season. And of course we know who to blame for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then wouldn't that indeed indicate that playcalling is pretty damn important? lol...Part of playcalling is knowing how to make your playcalling unpredictable.

Perhaps it would... I said it was important, but if the players don't execute Sherm's plays... what good is it... It was evident in Dallas... and was New Orleans missing their THREE best DBs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...