What's Ahead for NFL Offenses?

[Annonymous Source]

Doesn't matter about the speed, you're asking a player to chip a DE coming fill kilter, and then run a fly pattern? It is not likely that you will get two players who can consistently be productive in the execution of this.

In my version of the scheme the TE it is a singleback scheme with 2 WR and 2 TE. The WR's strech the field North/South while the TE provides help on the DE and runs a lot of out or slant patterns. Also the reason it is so difficult to execute is because there are not a great deal of true playmakers that fit the model. The Redskins have potentially 3 on their team with Davis Cooley and Kelly. They are all too good to be covered by a linebacker and yet too big to be covered by a safety. Also if the team starts bringing its safeties up into the box then the WR's have the speed to burn them down the field.

---------- Post added May-7th-2011 at 11:38 AM ----------

I think the emphasis on not blowing up defenseless offensive players will force NFL coaches and players to focus on actually tackling rather than using the body as a weapon and hitting. The standard of tackling in the NFL is shocking.

The reason that the tackling is so shoddy is because of the overall speed of the game. It is almost impossible to use proper tackling technique unless you have proper body position, which usually means that you have to be faster than your opponent.

Take it from me, I was a slow NT in Highschool and I got very good at arm tackles because it was the only way for me to put my body on my target. Greater speed allows for the potential to make more form tackles, but if your target is faster than you then you are just trying to make contact.

[Oldfan]

I think the traditional split for a slot receiver would be too far away from the OLB to get a good angle to pass block or chip effectively...It would probably need to be more like a traditional between wing formation then a slot, imo.

You could be right. As long as you understand that I'm writing about a formation that has no TE, and has two TE types with balanced skillsets ideally positioned in the backfield to chip on the edge rusher's outside move as his first assignment, we're good.

Actually we have the personnel to use this type of formation.

Yes, we do.

But, it also has its own limitations.

All formation have strengths and limitations. I'm saying that, at this point, I see more strengths than limitations in this formation.

[Going Commando]

I think the Chiefs, Raiders and the Jets(to an extent) and even Atlanta are examples of this style of offense, which I would consider a smash mouth/multiple offense (which used to be a traditional offense).

Personally, I would love to see more of this style offense.

There are some wrinkles to what Harbaugh did in Stanford that I don't think I've seen as much in the traditional NFL smashmouth offense. There is more running from your QB and he should be able to throw on the move like Luck and Josh Johnson did. Plus there is a lot of outside zone running from the systems like Wisconsin and Michigan State. And if it's an offense like Mich. St., then you're seeing heavy usage of trick plays and unconventional sets to further keep defenses off balance.

Another difference is in the vast number of formations and how they use motion on basically every single play. Watching Stanford dissect VT in the bowl game was eye-opening. I thought to myself, this is the future of CFB! From now on a coach who gets lucky and has a super smart QB can just out-prepare everyone else. Then I went looking for games of Kirk Cousins to see what all the fuss was about and was astounded to see them doing the same sorts of things (only even more exciting with all of the trickery). Put that together with all of the games I'd seen from Greg McElroy and Alabama this year and you've got yourself a legitimate trend. Similar offensive systems run by three of the best quarterbacks at three of the best programs in the country this year. Forget about the blur offense that Auburn and Oregon ran this year because that's never making it to the NFL. The deadly play-action motion heavy offense run by the programs I mentioned has a real shot of trickling up and working beautifully in the NFL. This is a league full of teams keyed to stop the pass right now.

You're absolutely right about KC, OAK, and NYJ being set to run this kind of offense with their personnel. The Jets started to move away from the run this year but I doubt they'll ever venture too far away from it. ATL is definitely set up on offense to run this kind of system but I still think they need some work on defense to get there. TB is another team with the right kinds of personnel on offense to implement this IMO, and I think SF is a good bet to head this direction too given how impressive their run blocking is going to be, how powerful their stable of HBs is, and how big bodied their receivers are. Plus their coach is Jim Harbaugh. Green Bay also has ideal personnel for it too IMO--heady QB, big receivers and tight ends, rapidly improving OL (Sherrod and Bulaga + established guys like Spitz and Wells), large stable of backs. The Texans are another team who could run a run-heavy play action motion based offense if they wanted to. Jacksonville probably will. Detroit could be interesting and really effective running this scheme if they ever improved the quality of their offensive line.

Basically most of the young and future power house teams in the league are set up well to run this kind of scheme.

[darrelgreenie]

You could be right. As long as you understand that I'm writing about a formation that has no TE, and has two TE types with balanced skillsets ideally positioned in the backfield to chip on the edge rusher's outside move as his first assignment, we're good.

Kinda like a Hernadez or Dustin Keller type?

Your thought process now is probably similar to the genesis that lead Gibbs to go single back double TE stack to counter act LT56.

Except in your case you want to the H-back/TE type to split a couple yards outside a traditional TE spot.

You could even motion the other H-back/TE from anywhere in the backfield to the POA at their designated pass rusher prior to releasing on their route.

[SkinsHokieFan]

There are some wrinkles to what Harbaugh did in Stanford that I don't think I've seen as much in the traditional NFL smashmouth offense. There is more running from your QB and he should be able to throw on the move like Luck and Josh Johnson did. Plus there is a lot of outside zone running from the systems like Wisconsin and Michigan State. And if it's an offense like Mich. St., then you're seeing heavy usage of trick plays and unconventional sets to further keep defenses off balance.

Another difference is in the vast number of formations and how they use motion on basically every single play. Watching Stanford dissect VT in the bowl game was eye-opening. I thought to myself, this is the future of CFB! .

Absolutely agree with this assessment.

Being at the game and in the end zone it was incredible to see how much Stanford shifted pre snap in 2 TE sets to set the exact matchup they wanted. Luck attempted only 4 passes to his WR's that game, yet his TE, who only caught 9 passes all season, scored 3 very long TD's.

The double TE set killed our smaller/faster D, and the pre snap motion was a work of art in setting the right matchup. This had such an impact on Frank Beamer that he went TE crazy in the last few weeks of recruiting season and already spring ball is showing evidence of the VT offense shifting back to this philosophy and away from the spread offense/zbs philosophy the defined the Tyrod Taylor era

I think as more defenses shift to lighter and faster 3-4 defenses, an offense like Jim Harbaugh's will find success with the 2 TE scheme.

[MartinC]

The reason that the tackling is so shoddy is because of the overall speed of the game. It is almost impossible to use proper tackling technique unless you have proper body position, which usually means that you have to be faster than your opponent.

Take it from me, I was a slow NT in Highschool and I got very good at arm tackles because it was the only way for me to put my body on my target. Greater speed allows for the potential to make more form tackles, but if your target is faster than you then you are just trying to make contact.

Speed is a factor for sure but I dont buy that it's the total reason for the poor tackling technique you see week in and week out in the NFL. Its more a mindset thing and getting on the SportsCentre highlight reel IMO.

In International Rugby Union (which is also a fast game) they outlawed use of the shoulder in a tackle a few years ago. You have to use your arms in the tackle. There was talk them about the speed of the game and this was not going to work - amazingly enough it's worked really well and tackling techniques have improved along with a big drop in contact injuries and concussions.

Rugby is a different game to football with different angles and contact but its not THAT different in some respects. If they changed the rules in the NFL to require use of the arms in a tackle coaches and players would adjust quickly and it would be a safer game.

[Oldfan]

TE's in the absence of wide-outs, are easy to cover. You can't be an offensive Juggernaut with TE's as your primary targets, not in this league. TE's are a complement to the passing game....not the main course.

The Redskins were terrible in the Red Zone in the first half of 2004. Joe Gibbs solved the problem with one play from a two TE set. Basically, it was Basketball's "post up move" run by Cooley and Robert Royal. The receiver runs to the end zone, "bodies up" on the smaller DB, just enough to set him back on his heels, spins, then breaks right or left putting the defender on his back. Patrick Ramsey, anticipating the move like a point guard, put the ball where only the receiver could get it.

In the seven games which Ramsey started at the end of 2004, he threw three TDs to Cooley on this play and four to slow-footed, hard handed Robert Royal. Royal only has 14 TDs in a nine-year career.

Typically, TEs are trained to find the soft spots in the zone. I think this is foolish since it gives the smaller, quicker DBs the chance to read, break on the ball, and even intercept.

When run well, it would take two defenders to stop Patrick Ramsey and Robert Royal even in the compressed area of the Red Zone. So, it's safe to say that that's a good play that almost every team could run as bread-n-butter anywhere on the field without exceptional personnel. It could be the signature play of the double-slot offense that I've envisioned.

[braindx]

And once defenses start to cue in on Cooley and Royal and we started running Portis more then we hit Sellers in the flat for 7+ TDs.

I'm surprised we didn't use this more after '05 though... and it seems to be still effective when we did it occasionally the years after that. Not really sure why we went away from it either.

I was really hoping Kyle would use a lot of 2 TE sets last year because we have 2 good TEs but we didn't which sucked. I hope he'll integrated Cooley and Davis into more plays together especially since we have the struggling WR corps....

[Oldfan]

I have to break off for now to attend a social event. I'll be back later today to respond to other posts.

[zoony]

Everything is cyclical. The NFL became a passing league because of the 4 and even 5 down-lineman sets that were (and many still are) ubiquitous. Some coaches went to the 3-4 to get more speed on the field and slow down opposing passing games, and that trend has grown steadily since the 1980s. I haven't bothered to check but I would bet that roughly 50% of the Teams in the league run a base 3-4 now. (anyone know?)

In addition, CB's have become more and more important... they're some of the highest paid athletes in the game. And it's not enough to have 1 or even 2 anymore... you really need 3 quality guys to effectively run the nickel. Again, in the interest of slowing down the pass.

You know what I think we'll see in the next few years? A few teams having a tremendous amount of success with a power-I or other 2-back/2-TE set and really smashing the football. Lots of jumbo packages and single WR sets, with a good mix of power sweeps and power running plays.

I think if a Team really commits to this type of offense we could see a lot of the Defenses in the league simply overwhelmed and unable to slow it down. Personnel manages and D Coordinators have been so focused on Team-speed, I think they've overlooked strength and power. A smart O-coord could take advantage of that.

Of course, they might not sell many tickets. It would be a pretty boring O to watch for the casual fan

[addicted]

Expect to see 2 TE's powered offenses to be used much more like the Pats started doing this year. Teams like the Saints and Packers I expect to see the use of double pass catching TE themed offenses to keep teams from cheating too much on the run this year.

I also expect to see more rotation of RB's. Bell Cow backs (20 carries a game) are going to thin down to next to none and the use of three RB's in an offense will become used much more.

I'm expecting some teams like the Broncos, Jacksonville, and Carolina to give a good effort in using multiple QB's in the offense at the same time.

But then again maybe none of this stuff happens. Good post

[Hubbs]

Oldfan, I couldn't agree more about the pistol formation. I've been saying for years that it's the future of NFL offense. Shanny wants to be at the forefront of the modern NFL game by converting to a 3-4 defense; I think it would behoove (that's right, behoove) him to also start implementing the pistol.

---------- Post added May-7th-2011 at 02:56 PM ----------

And once defenses start to cue in on Cooley and Royal and we started running Portis more then we hit Sellers in the flat for 7+ TDs.

I'm surprised we didn't use this more after '05 though... and it seems to be still effective when we did it occasionally the years after that. Not really sure why we went away from it either.

The biggest mistake Joe Gibbs made in his second go-round here was bringing in Al Saunders, then expecting Saunders to run his offense with Gibbs' personnel. Joe thought his scheme was the problem, but I think the next two years proved rather conclusively that in 2005, he was managing to get the most he could have gotten out of our roster.

[daveakl]

If your player can get on the hip of his opponent and use leverage to drive him to the side, he can block a man twice his size. The OT has to stay within a yard of the LOS making it very hard to get on the edge rusher's hip on that outside rush. The "TE body" in the slot can position himself anywhere in the backfield to make this block easy. All he has to do is slow up the edge rusher's second step, allow the OT to take over, then he's a pass receiver.

Sure, but a TE lined up in the slot is making his first move towards the inside of the field and also in a position to be knocked off his route by the rusher. If you are using the TE as more of a slot back and being lined up beside the T then they will be able to get the chip block but it makes a route being run back into the middle or a crossing route more difficult and the advantage would go to the defender.

---------- Post added May-7th-2011 at 07:08 PM ----------

TE's in the absence of wide-outs, are easy to cover. You can't be an offensive Juggernaut with TE's as your primary targets, not in this league. TE's are a complement to the passing game....not the main course.

NE is moving towards this. Playing a 3 WR, 2TE base set.

[Darth Tater]

On the Counter Trey outside line backers and DEs got faster and faster and are able to break up the run in the backfield with backside pursuit.

On the wider points Oldfan brings up my thoughts start with the talent available as I believe that good coaching is important but great talent is even more important. College offenses are more and more some kind of shotgun spread and option look. We are already seeing more and more of these concepts in NFL playbooks - a lot of what the Pats do is straight out of the spread and QBs like Brady and Peyton spend more time in shotgun than under centre.

The supply of QBs and receivers from College who have played in a traditional pro style offense is drying up. Look at this years QBs most of the top prospects came from spread offenses and spent almost all their time in the 'gun. NFL offenses are going to evolve to take advantage of the experience and talent of these athletes and start to look more and more like a College spread look.

In the spread the pass protection issue is dealt with by getting the ball out of the QBs hand very quickly and by spreading the defense out reducing the ability of a defense to commit edge rushers and blitzers. I think we may see TEs in the slot as Oldfan says but not so much to block more as larger inside receivers.

Its clear the NFL is a passing league and that trend will only continue as the rules on illegal contact and pass interference favour the passing game. The down valuing of running backs in the draft is a sign of this IMO.

I look then to see more spread formations, the use of the shotgun as a base formation more and more and an adaptation of running games from the traditional power game we have seen in past to set up play action to more of lead draw and outside zone based look.

Of course, those spread formations are straight out of Dutch Meyer's playbooks. With just a few small twists, the plays are basically the same that Sammy Baugh ran at TCU and probably very similar to the plays run by the little giants of Texas back in the 20s.

[Darth Tater]

And once defenses start to cue in on Cooley and Royal and we started running Portis more then we hit Sellers in the flat for 7+ TDs.

I'm surprised we didn't use this more after '05 though... and it seems to be still effective when we did it occasionally the years after that. Not really sure why we went away from it either.

That was just weird. No one seemed to be able to stop that layered boot. Action to Portis sucked in the LBs so the DB either took Cooley or Sellers and the QB just played pitch and catch with whichever one was not covered. Once it really started working, we went from one of the worst red-zone teams to one of the best (from below 30% IIRC to something like 60% by season's end).

[ThomasRoane]

It's a copy cat league. Greenbay won a SuperBowl with an accurate QB, short sets (mostly 3 step drops) and a stable of good receivers. With so many teams loading up on DB's (about 50 in this draft) look for offenses to try to load up on Receivers. It's all about match ups. If your 3rd or 4th best receiver is better than their Nickel or Dime DB then that's a win for you. You beat them often enough and they're going to have to leave your best guys 1v1. Which is another win. Eventually Defenses will become more about finesse to counter that. Then those teams with a Power running game mixed in with Play action will come back en vogue.

[darrelgreenie]

There are some wrinkles to what Harbaugh did in Stanford that I don't think I've seen as much in the traditional NFL smashmouth offense. There is more running from your QB and he should be able to throw on the move like Luck and Josh Johnson did. Plus there is a lot of outside zone running from the systems like Wisconsin and Michigan State. And if it's an offense like Mich. St., then you're seeing heavy usage of trick plays and unconventional sets to further keep defenses off balance.

Another difference is in the vast number of formations and how they use motion on basically every single play. Watching Stanford dissect VT in the bowl game was eye-opening. I thought to myself, this is the future of CFB! From now on a coach who gets lucky and has a super smart QB can just out-prepare everyone else.

I don't know.

Other then the trick plays and designed QB runs it sounds like smash-mouth/multiple formation football from either philosophy E&P or Coryell .

Its a cycle.

Neither here nor theire nut conceptually I think Mike's offense is smash mouth(WCO) but it differs in execution.

---------- Post added May-7th-2011 at 06:56 PM ----------

But, smash mouth requires a certain level of talent superiority especially up front on the OL.

[Oldfan]

I think the emphasis on not blowing up defenseless offensive players will force NFL coaches and players to focus on actually tackling rather than using the body as a weapon and hitting. The standard of tackling in the NFL is shocking.

The scouting reports on LaRon Landry coming out of LSU described him as a solid tackler who took good angles, not one who went for the big hit. He was exactly that in his rookie season. When moved back to FS, maybe he thought he had to make the highlight reels like Sean, but suddenly his game went sour. Last season, playing more under control, was his best until injured.

I think the tackling will improve league-wide as a result of the NFL's crackdown on big hits. I don't see this helping the run game in the least.

[MartinC]

I think the tackling will improve league-wide as a result of the NFL's crackdown on big hits. I don't see this helping the run game in the least.

Nor do I - better tackling will reduce yards after contact.

---------- Post added May-8th-2011 at 05:46 AM ----------

Of course, those spread formations are straight out of Dutch Meyer's playbooks. With just a few small twists, the plays are basically the same that Sammy Baugh ran at TCU and probably very similar to the plays run by the little giants of Texas back in the 20s.

I will take your word for that - a little before my time. Maybe Oldfan saw some of this though

[MrJL]

And once defenses start to cue in on Cooley and Royal and we started running Portis more then we hit Sellers in the flat for 7+ TDs.

I'm surprised we didn't use this more after '05 though... and it seems to be still effective when we did it occasionally the years after that. Not really sure why we went away from it either.

I was really hoping Kyle would use a lot of 2 TE sets last year because we have 2 good TEs but we didn't which sucked. I hope he'll integrated Cooley and Davis into more plays together especially since we have the struggling WR corps....

the Redskins have really poorly on choosing their Red Zone plays for years. I swear Jason Campbell could have walked into the endzone 20 times on QB bootlegs over the years and I think it was called once.

[LaRonDontLikeUgly]

Dual Pony Formation (I made it up when I was 16)

Two QBs in Shotgun; No RBs; 2 WRs split Wide left, TE on right, 1 WR split right

We may not see this for another 20 years.... but my theory is that as QB prospects become more and more athletic, we will begin to see more players with Cam Newton ability and Peyton Manning intangibles.

If you have two guys that can run, throw, and even catch out of the backfield, **** becomes way more difficult to coach against. As long as we don't blow each other up first, the future of the NFL could be pretty cool.

[Annonymous Source]

Speed is a factor for sure but I dont buy that it's the total reason for the poor tackling technique you see week in and week out in the NFL. Its more a mindset thing and getting on the SportsCentre highlight reel IMO.

In International Rugby Union (which is also a fast game) they outlawed use of the shoulder in a tackle a few years ago. You have to use your arms in the tackle. There was talk them about the speed of the game and this was not going to work - amazingly enough it's worked really well and tackling techniques have improved along with a big drop in contact injuries and concussions.

Rugby is a different game to football with different angles and contact but its not THAT different in some respects. If they changed the rules in the NFL to require use of the arms in a tackle coaches and players would adjust quickly and it would be a safer game.

I agree completely, and I feel that one of the ways that the adjustment would be made would be having greater team speed on defense. When I hear the phrase "poor tackling" I traditionally think of trying to arm tackle, primarily because that is what I was yelled at continuously for doing. The people going for the huge highlight style hits are not deliberately using poor technique, they are deliberately deciding to inflict pain onto the other team which instills fear. That is the mentality that defenders, especially LB's and Safeties, have been coached to have from highschool on. The way to fix the problem of people going for the huge hit is something that I havent given much thought to, but the poor technique of arm tacklers or people that dive at the knees can most often be fixed by having more speed on a player for player basis.

[Oldfan]

I agree completely, and I feel that one of the ways that the adjustment would be made would be having greater team speed on defense. When I hear the phrase "poor tackling" I traditionally think of trying to arm tackle, primarily because that is what I was yelled at continuously for doing. The people going for the huge highlight style hits are not deliberately using poor technique, they are deliberately deciding to inflict pain onto the other team which instills fear. That is the mentality that defenders, especially LB's and Safeties, have been coached to have from highschool on. The way to fix the problem of people going for the huge hit is something that I havent given much thought to, but the poor technique of arm tacklers or people that dive at the knees can most often be fixed by having more speed on a player for player basis.

I think the problem of poor tackling technique starts with poor coaching. Coaches do, as you say, love to see the hard hits that will instill fear in opponents. I don't think they realize that the price in missed tackles might be too high,

I also think that the combination of size and straight line speed has been generally overrated by coaches since the game was invented. Shorter, smarter, agile players with an instinct for leverage and angles who use solid techniques can fall to the bottom of the NFL draft -- players like London Fletcher.

I think an NFL team would do well using their late round picks on undersized defenders who have produced at the college level.

Durability would be another benefit. Fletcher's durability probably is due in large measure to his solid tackling techniques.

[Annonymous Source]

I think the problem of poor tackling technique starts with poor coaching. Coaches do, as you say, love to see the hard hits that will instill fear in opponents. I don't think they realize that the price in missed tackles might be too high,

I also think that the combination of size and straight line speed has been generally overrated by coaches since the game was invented. Shorter, smarter, agile players with an instinct for leverage and angles who use solid techniques can fall to the bottom of the NFL draft -- players like London Fletcher.

I think an NFL team would do well using their late round picks on undersized defenders who have produced at the college level.

Durability would be another benefit. Fletcher's durability probably is due in large measure to his solid tackling techniques.

First of all when it comes to Fletcher, IMO his durability is in a large part due to toughness. I remember a couple of years ago he had a high ankle sprain and didnt even miss practice. At the time I had the same injury and had to use crutches for 4 weeks. His good fundamentals certainly help reduce his injuries, but he is more impressive to me than Cal Ripkin.

With that aside, I absolutely agree that Size and Straight line speed are horribly overrated. Especially when the speed is measured without pads. Football is largely an explosive sport. It is all about how fast you can stop and how fast your 3 steps after a stop are. This is something that there is really no true way to measure (the shuttle in pads would be a good start, but lacks the random direction changes of the game) and is one of the things that is up to the discretion of the scout. That is the reason that it is undervalued, because it is difficult to measure.

[MartinC]

First of all when it comes to Fletcher, IMO his durability is in a large part due to toughness. I remember a couple of years ago he had a high ankle sprain and didnt even miss practice. At the time I had the same injury and had to use crutches for 4 weeks. His good fundamentals certainly help reduce his injuries, but he is more impressive to me than Cal Ripkin.

With that aside, I absolutely agree that Size and Straight line speed are horribly overrated. Especially when the speed is measured without pads. Football is largely an explosive sport. It is all about how fast you can stop and how fast your 3 steps after a stop are. This is something that there is really no true way to measure (the shuttle in pads would be a good start, but lacks the random direction changes of the game) and is one of the things that is up to the discretion of the scout. That is the reason that it is undervalued, because it is difficult to measure.

Just a comment on the size/speed thing. I also agree that speed at least is an overrated attribute, at least measured speed over 40 yards is. First as you say you don't run in straight lines very often in football, it's about stop, start and change of direction. The cone drill tries to measure this. Second it does not matter how fast you are if you can't anticipate what's happening and know where you should be. That's why good football players play faster than their timed speed. Jerry Rice - 4.7 in the 40 but he ran past a lot of defensive backs.

The first couple of yards are in the head.