Doubts About the ZBS

[scott.sharrer]

That isn't what I said.

I said that a scheme that takes three years to sink in is too complex and I gave reasons.

And he gave reasons to support his argument against you.

Now do I find your argument valid? Of course. But my spin on it is that if you have the right players then it wouldn't take as long or be as difficult. You take a player who has played in a power running game scheme since HS and then expect him to convert to a ZBS scheme, it will be difficult. But if you take a player who has become accustomed to the ZBS (either on the college or pro level) then their learning time will be lower. So you have to take in consideration all factors that effect the outcome and not pick and choice for your own liking

[daveakl]

Not trying to discredit you, but Austin Collie said during the offseason that they Indy O system is the easiest he ever had to learn. Yes there are 2-4 plays called each huddle, but they all have a code word or whatever you want to call it. When lined up, Manning sees what the Defense is giving them and at that point calls out which play their are going to run. The hardest part for the rest of the offense is remembering what plays were called in the huddle. This is because Manning uses the same termonology at the line each down. So they have to remember which plays are associated with which signals each down. That part yes can be difficult because it is constantly changing, but Caldwell also has one of the smallest offensive play books. Most of their pass plays are very similar, the biggest difference is in who is running what route. Simply, they can have 3 wide receivers on the field for 18 straight plays and only have 3 routes being ran in total but the different route ran by each receiver each play changes the play from the previous. Indy did this once against in 2006. If you watch the tape of that game, in 1 offensive series, they ran 9 plays (all passes) in the hurry up offense, but because the 3 receivers on the field switch where they lined up and which of the 3 routes (post, out, seam) each play was different but basically the same. The D just never knew which route each receiver was going to run. Basically making the offense easy for Indy and defense hard for NE

I think the problem is how we are looking at a system. As far as learning the play book it is not terribly hard, but learning where to line up, what the different audibles are, where each person is expected to be, etc. takes a ton of game planning. Oh, also the Colts run a ZBS so for the original poster to say that the ZBS is too complicated and then to say Indy has an easy offense to learn doesn't seem to fit.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I'm not following you at all.

The poster I replied to claimed that the Denver ZBS was not as big play oriented as I claimed (even though Shanahan's quote in the Op admits as much). By showing that Clinton had alsmost as many long runs in two years in Denver as he has had in more than seven years as a Redskin, I supported my claim.

He was refuting that it was based on ONLY big plays. Of course an offense that has big plays is always good. The only claim that could make it not as good is if those big plays are the only factor in a decent yards per carry. I removed the 6 longest runs CP had in Denver in 2002 that I could find (6 carries for 225 yards) and he still carried the ball for almost 5 yards per carry (4.9 to be exact).

So, my question to you is this: If you're still getting 4+ yards per carry during your non-big play runs, why is it a bad thing that big runs inflate your rushing stats even more? I would see your point if Portis averaged 2 yards per carry when you strip away the big runs, but that isn't the case. The statistics show that the Broncos were able to move the chains AND hit you with a big play when using the ZBS. That seems to be contrary to what you're arguing.

[Oldfan]

Plea for patience is relevant because he is making an arguement against the idea of giving up on the ZBS. Is any statement that is different from your irrelevant?

Quote me. Where did I write that we should give up on the ZBS?

[scott.sharrer]

The same player has far more long runs per year in scheme A than in scheme B. That doesn't prove to you that scheme A produces more long runs than in scheme B? Come on, now. This isn't rocket science.

No one said it doesn't produce more long runs. Your point also stated earlier that they do not have a consistent number of runs between 4-6 yards. But some RBs have and Tatum Bell was an example

[Shanahanigans]

That's nice to hear, but your statement conflicts with the quote I gave you from Mike in the OP. He acknowledges the ZBS big play element. So, that 4.5 average in Denver has an asterisk. It's not going to be as adept at moving th chains as a 4.5 average with power blocking.

You are exaggerating now. I'd like to see the context of that quote if you can provide a link.

Yes, we'd get some nice runs off the edges, but it's not like we had a highlight reel every game. The ZBS provides a consistent run game... as consistent as it will ever get. Most of the time we'd hit 4-6 yards through the A or B gap. It's also not just the blocking scheme. It's the running. There's no dancing or juking or running east to west. It's one cut and go. That's the other half of the system. If a lane is open, the runner hits the gap, if he gets through, YES, he may even breakaway if he hits the right lane.

[KDawg]

We gave up a 3rd (lets say we don't win 9) and got a RT and a 5th round pick. Thats not a bad trade for 5th year player (his 6th year now)

It's really bad for a player that doesn't fit our system.

[Ryman of the North]

great OP.

I think its ok to move to the ZBS because a lot of coaches would be able to use it even if Shanny gets canned. it is a big play oriented system where they depend on a dlineman not filling the proper gap leaving a cutback lane and getting an RB loose in the secondary where he can get some serious yardage.

btw the complexity in the colts system has nothing to do with the formations or base plays, its based on reads, any receiver can change his route based on what he reads but it does depend on a player making the same reads as Manning (when they dont you have the superbowl winning play by Porter).

[TD_washingtonredskins]

No one said it doesn't produce more long runs. Your point also stated earlier that they do not have a consistent number of runs between 4-6 yards. But some RBs have and Tatum Bell was an example

Exactly...see my post (#78) that shows just that. The Broncos of 2002 (the only season I bothered to look at) ran the ball at a 4.9 YPC clip even when removing the 6 longest runs Portis had (all well over 20 yards).

[scott.sharrer]

Re: Doubts About the ZBS

Quote Originally Posted by dsciambi View Post

I'm tired of coaches saying it takes x years to grasp their system. If it's that inefficient, YOU are the problem, not the players.

Originally posted by OldFan That's my feeling also.

So you are tired of the idea that the ZBS may take X years, but you are not saying you want to give up on it? No that makes no sense

[Ryman of the North]

and I do agree with old fan, a true 4.5 yard average not skewed by huge plays is far better than negative negative 60 yarder. ask the lions how well it worked for them lol. however a good ZBS will get a decent average without huge plays if it has any sort of passing game.

[daveakl]

It's really bad for a player that doesn't fit our system.

How do you know that? Remember from the original post it must take three years to learn the system

[scott.sharrer]

Exactly...see my post (#78) that shows just that. The Broncos of 2002 (the only season I bothered to look at) ran the ball at a 4.9 YPC clip even when removing the 6 longest runs Portis had (all well over 20 yards).

But we can't remove those, don't get it? We are not allowed to refute anyone's claims against the ZBS because 1 player proves their claims right so who cares if all the other RBs stats show different?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

and I do agree with old fan, a true 4.5 yard average not skewed by huge plays is far better than negative negative 60 yarder. ask the lions how well it worked for them lol. however a good ZBS will get a decent average without huge plays if it has any sort of passing game.

OK, but who arbitrarily came up with two 4.5 YPC systems? If I recall, TD and CP were running for 5 - 5.5 YPC in Denver. So, are you also saying that a grind-it-out 4.5 YPC is better than a 5.5 YPC offense that features more big plays?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

But we can't remove those, don't get it? We are not allowed to refute anyone's claims against the ZBS because 1 player proves their claims right so who cares if all the other RBs stats show different?

That's the joke...CP doesn't even prove them right. He averaged well over 4.5 yards per carry even when you start taking away his long runs.

[scott.sharrer]

How do you know that? Remember from the original post it must take three years to learn the system

It has taken an average of 3 years to learn because they are trying to accomplish it with players who are not accustomed to it. If the argument would be that the ZBS is a bad idea for the skins because we can not find the players to make it work, I would be 100% in agreement. But to refute the system because of the stats of 1 player from 2 seasons in the system is faulty.

[scott.sharrer]

That's the joke...CP doesn't even prove them right. He averaged well over 4.5 yards per carry even when you start taking away his long runs.

I know, and I was going along with you, hint the smiley at the end of my post

[Oldfan]

He was refuting that it was based on ONLY big plays. Of course an offense that has big plays is always good. The only claim that could make it not as good is if those big plays are the only factor in a decent yards per carry. I removed the 6 longest runs CP had in Denver in 2002 that I could find (6 carries for 225 yards) and he still carried the ball for almost 5 yards per carry (4.9 to be exact).

So, my question to you is this: If you're still getting 4+ yards per carry during your non-big play runs, why is it a bad thing that big runs inflate your rushing stats even more? I would see your point if Portis averaged 2 yards per carry when you strip away the big runs, but that isn't the case. The statistics show that the Broncos were able to move the chains AND hit you with a big play when using the ZBS. That seems to be contrary to what you're arguing.

Who said it was a bad thing? I didn't.

Denver's ZBS averaged 4.5 YPC over Shanahan's years. My position is that , because it contained a high percentage of long runs that average is deceptively high when compared to a 4.5 YPC of a power running scheme.

Portis's numbers prove that the Shanny scheme produced many more long runs per year than the Skins running game.

[scott.sharrer]

Look, it is simple, to argue against any system in the game of football because of 1 players stats is unrealistic. Arguing against the ZBS because we do not have the OL to make it as good as it was in Denver is a fair argument. My point throughout this thread has been if you are going to talk down a system, you are talking down the coach. If you are tired of a system, you want to give up on the system. A car is not a good comparison to the game of football, in any sense you try to spin on it, and 1 players stats do not speak for a system in general. You need the right type of players to make any system affective. Not dissing Carlos, but I will bet anything the Steelers would never want to sign him because his strengths do not fit their system. And that is what I have been trying to explain all day on here. Anyone who doesn't see the big picture with that, is looking at our team with blinders on and only seeing what they want to see

[Oldfan]

So you are tired of the idea that the ZBS may take X years, but you are not saying you want to give up on it? No that makes no sense

I'm debating several posters at once. I don't have the time to respond to things that you read into my posts.

[scott.sharrer]

Who said it was a bad thing? I didn't.

Denver's ZBS averaged 4.5 YPC over Shanahan's years. My position is that , because it contained a high percentage of long runs that average is deceptively high when compared to a 4.5 YPC of a power running scheme.

Portis's numbers prove that the Shanny scheme produced many more long runs per year than the Skins running game.

And if you take out his long runs over those 2 years, his average would be 4.2. Is that average not good enough?

[scott.sharrer]

I'm debating several posters at once. I don't have the time to respond to things that you read into my posts.

It isn't reading into anything. If I am tired of something and don't like how it is working out, I want rid of it. That is basic human nature. So my question is still not answered.

Are you saying you are tired of the ZBS system and how it is going to take up to 3 years to be effective and wish they would run a different system or not?

[Enter Apotheosis]

Do you understand the point I made earlier -- that all 4.5 YPCs aren't equal. Judging from this post, you don't.

Clinton Portis had 33 long runs (20+) in his two seasons with the Broncos. He had only 37 in seven-plus years with the Skins.

Come on, Oldfan, we went over this in the offseason. Denver's running game was never big play oriented even if it did occasionally feature RBs who were big play threats. It's essentially designed to be a downhill running scheme that favors gains of between 2 and 6 yards to boom or bust running.

Aside from his big 2000 yard season, Terrell Davis had surprisingly few carries of over 20 yards in his career. Mike Bell, Mike Anderson, Olandis Gary, and Travis Henry were very much the same in that regard. That some guys (basically just Clinton Portis, Tatum Bell, and arguably Selvin Young) did have a knack for breaking the big one was just a bonus. Hell, just look at the two most successful Shanahan backs still getting significant playing time. Ryan Torain and Peyton Hillis are perfect examples of guys whose style is really more conducive to getting tough yardage than breaking the big one yet both have still had a good bit of success in that regard.

[Oldfan]

OK, but who arbitrarily came up with two 4.5 YPC systems? If I recall, TD and CP were running for 5 - 5.5 YPC in Denver. So, are you also saying that a grind-it-out 4.5 YPC is better than a 5.5 YPC offense that features more big plays?

Shanahan's ZBS averaged 4.5 YPC for his years in Denver (WP article). A 4.5 YPC would be better if a high percentage didn't come from long runs.

[scott.sharrer]

Come on, Oldfan, we went over this in the offseason. Denver's running game was never big play oriented even if it did occasionally feature RBs who were big play threats. It's essentially designed to be a downhill running scheme that favors gains of between 2 and 6 yards to boom or bust running.

Aside from his big 2000 yard season, Terrell Davis had surprisingly few carries of over 20 yards in his career. Mike Bell, Mike Anderson, Olandis Gary, and Travis Henry were very much the same in that regard. That some guys (basically just Clinton Portis, Tatum Bell, and arguably Selvin Young) did have a knack for breaking the big one was just a bonus. Hell, just look at the two most successful Shanahan backs still getting significant playing time. Ryan Torain and Peyton Hillis are perfect examples of guys whose style is really more conducive to getting tough yardage than breaking the big one yet both have still had a good bit of success in that regard.

Thanks for the info on Terrell Davis, I couldn't remember if he a significant number of long runs or not.