Kyle Shanahan's comments on the 2010 offense

[Oldfan]

DG ~ The rest of the post is more structured then the part you quoted.

I talk in detail about the differences between Mike and Kyle as playcallers especially in the types of runs called and how the commitment to the run regardless of the effectiveness helps drive the offense.

I have a high regard for your knowledge of the game, but I don’t think you recognize your limitations.

You can’t take statistics from different years and different teams and draw conclusions from them to compare the play-calling tendencies of Mike and Kyle. You are talking about a very complex problem, one with many variables. You’re drawing conclusions from insufficient evidence.

How would Mike have called plays for the 2010 Redskins? The only thing certain is that looking at the stats of the 1995, 2002, 2005 or any other Broncos year would offer no clues to the answer. Not only are the rosters completely different as well as the players' familiarity with the scheme, but the game is continually changing as are Mike’s opinions on strategy.

[darrelgreenie]

I have a high regard for your knowledge of the game, but I don’t think you recognize your limitations.

You can’t take statistics from different years and different teams and draw conclusions from them to compare the play-calling tendencies of Mike and Kyle. You are talking about a very complex problem, one with many variables. You’re drawing conclusions from insufficient evidence.

How would Mike have called plays for the 2010 Redskins? The only thing certain is that looking at the stats of the 1995, 2002, 2005 or any other Broncos year would offer no clues to the answer. Not only are the rosters completely different as well as the players' familiarity with the scheme, but the game is continually changing as are Mike’s opinions on strategy.

And I you, and maybe you're correct about the limitations.

But, I never claimed I was right.

I was just talking about the differences I see between Mike and Kyle as playcallers.

The focus was about the differences in the types of runs they call and how the commitment to the run effects the play-action passing games.

You might not agree but you don't even address the points I mentioned.

Which were originally posted in response to your query IIRC.

[TheMatt28]

Off topic but how would you describe the Houton/Kyle's offense?

And how familiar are you with Mike Shanahan's Denver offenses?

Well the Houston/Kyle's offense has better passing concepts than Mike's Denver teams did. There is more down field passing in Kyle's offense but not just from bootlegs/rollouts but from 5 to 7 step drops as well. In Houston Kyle would use all kinds of screens, like Flanker screens, TE Screens, etc...

[Also I don't think the Texans ever had a great rushing attack under Kyle because Slaton was hurting for a lot of that season and Ryan Moats took over as Starter, which wouldn't scare any defense. Look at the last 2 games when Arian Foster arrived they averaged around 130yds per game. With Kyle calling the plays]

Mike's is a more traditional West Coast passing philosophy. For example a common play I saw Mike's Denver teams run was "Solo Rt 2-Jet Thunder" Which simply is X & Z both run curl routes at a 5 to 10yd depth, while the TE (Y) and the T (Tiger) would run to the flat. Things like that, more short passing concepts. A lot of their big passing plays would come out of the Play-action game. Although in 2008 they ran more and more deep patterns. I don't need to speak about his rushing game because it's great.

So if the Redskins can have Kyle's passing attack, with Mike's rushing attack, it should be fun to watch.

[Oldfan]

...The focus was about the differences in the types of runs they call and how the commitment to the run effects the play-action passing games.

You might not agree but you don't even address the points I mentioned.

Which were originally posted in response to your query IIRC.

I don't recall the exchange and it's certainly possible I overlooked your points.

However, I don't need to be persuaded that an offense built to have the run establish the pass needs to have an effective running game. Nor do I need to be persuaded that an offense designed for balance, is more effective when balance can be achieved. if those were your points, I grant them.

[Enter Apotheosis]

I agree with your thought process and would agree completely if it wasn't for Kyle having a similar pass/run ratio w/ Houston.

What makes you say that?

• When Kyle was splitting playcalling duties with Kubiak in 2008 and the Texans had a respectable rushing attack the split was about 55/45 pass/run.
  
• With full reign over the playcalling and a completely ineffective running game in 2009 Kyle sat at about 58/42 pass/run.
  
• Last season Kyle was 63/37 pass/run. For comparison purposes, Kubiak's Texans remained at 58/42 despite having a dramatically improved rushing attack.
  

Personally, I wouldn't call 63/37 and 58/42 similar beyond the fact that both favor the pass. That 5% difference represents a large shift towards the pass that is difficult to understand when you look at the Skins' effectiveness on the ground compared to the '09 Texans. The fact that the '09 Texans fielded a better defense than the '10 Skins in addition to having a vastly superior passing game with Schaub at the helm has to factor in to the equation somehow.

All-in-all, the data we have on Kyle's tendencies is just too limited and the controls too weak to really be sure what his split would be under ideal circumstances. I get the feeling that if our team is firing on all cylinders we'll be close to 55/45 pass/run and I'd be absolutely thrilled with the number. My guess is little better than anyone else's, though.

For me the reasons why are less important then the actuality: we didn't run ball enough and there is supposedly a recognition and a desire to change/improve.

That's fair. I am just bothered by the fact that people tend to dramatically oversimplify the reasons that we were so pass heavy last year. It does not all boil down to the playcaller, there are some things you simply can't do in certain situations with certain players.

[darrelgreenie]

What makes you say that?......Personally, I wouldn't call 63/37 and 58/42 similar beyond the fact that both favor the pass.

Well, that is my point he was imbalanced towards the pass in both places.

I don't see the problem is accepting that Kyle pass/run ratio suggests that he favors the pass.

That 5% difference represents a large shift towards the pass that is difficult to understand when you look at the Skins' effectiveness on the ground compared to the '09 Texans.

I agree and my belief is that Kyle got a bit carried away for whatever reason.

All-in-all, the data we have on Kyle's tendencies is just too limited and the controls too weak to really be sure what his split would be under ideal circumstances. I get the feeling that if our team is firing on all cylinders we'll be close to 55/45 pass/run and I'd be absolutely thrilled with the number. My guess is little better than anyone else's, though.

I agree that its nothing but specualtion to guess what ratio Kyle would have under ideal circumstances.

But, judging from his history I think its safe to say that the ratio would be imbalanced towards the pass to some degree.

My guess would be somewhere in 55/45 ballpark as well.

That's fair. I am just bothered by the fact that people tend to dramatically oversimplify the reasons that we were so pass heavy last year. It does not all boil down to the playcaller, there are some things you simply can't do in certain situations with certain players.

I guess this is where we disagree because imo the OC has always has a choice.

It might not all boil down to the playcaller but I think its also wrong headed to divorce the playcaller from any culpability because of various plausible rationals.

e.g.

A smash-mouth playaction will run the ball into a brick wall if they have too.

They'll run the ball against 8 man fronts (many run focused coaches actually like running against 8 man fronts because of the big play potential).

They know that even when a defense is stopping the run it still sets them up to get beat by playaction.

On the flip side I think its safe to say that no matter what happens a Andy Reid, Josh McDaniels or Martz led offense will never have a 50/50 or a 51/49 split regardless of how their running game is clicking that season.

e.g.

3rd and short tendencies; for some playcallers 3rd and short is a passing down for other coaches its either, for a vanishing breed its a run down

---------- Post added August-9th-2011 at 09:06 PM ----------

.....There is more down field passing in Kyle's offense but not just from bootlegs/rollouts but from 5 to 7 step drops as well. In Houston Kyle would use all kinds of screens, like Flanker screens, TE Screens, etc...

This is pretty close to my take.

I think Kyle/Houston has a greater emphasis on straight drop back full progression read passing and Mike's (Denver w/Elway and early Cutler) was heavily play-action and movement dependent.

So if the Redskins can have Kyle's passing attack, with Mike's rushing attack, it should be fun to watch.

Indeed and that is my hope going forward.

But, I wonder how much establishing one takes away from the other?

In my view both phases require establishing a rhythm and that takes some commitment.

[KokoMike]

Nothing personal, but the OP sent me a PM, I responded, and he sent me a PM to never send him a PM again. That said, I agree with Oldfan.

[Hitman21ST]

I have a high regard for your knowledge of the game, but I don’t think you recognize your limitations.

You can’t take statistics from different years and different teams and draw conclusions from them to compare the play-calling tendencies of Mike and Kyle. You are talking about a very complex problem, one with many variables. You’re drawing conclusions from insufficient evidence.

How would Mike have called plays for the 2010 Redskins? The only thing certain is that looking at the stats of the 1995, 2002, 2005 or any other Broncos year would offer no clues to the answer. Not only are the rosters completely different as well as the players' familiarity with the scheme, but the game is continually changing as are Mike’s opinions on strategy.

Agreed that you can't extrapolate on this team how he would call plays. You can infer, though, their tendencies - Kyle likes to throw a significant amount more than Mike, and Mike likes to run and use the run to develop the pass.

I think what we're seeing on the Skins is an attempt to merge the two styles, with Kyle trying to incorporate Mike's ideas into his repertoire. From the one year sample size (which is admittedly too small to form a complete analysis, but it's the only thing to go on), would you agree that our offense is a majority of Kyle's ideas, but Mike's running philosophy is being incorporated? Hence the pass-run ratio that is more Kyle's (if I read the previous posts on ratios correctly), but the running backs and plan of attack that is Mike's.

[Oldfan]

DG ~ I think Kyle/Houston has a greater emphasis on straight drop back full progression read passing and Mike's (Denver w/Elway and early Cutler) was heavily play-action and movement dependent.

If I were the OC, I'd have more drop-backs than movement passes for Matt Schaub than I would for Elway-Plummer-Cutler also. So, I don't think you can say with certainty that you have spotted a fundamental difference between the Kubiak scheme and the Shanahan scheme. It's more likely a tweak to fit the QB.

[VRIEL1]

Well since someone thought it wise to close the "Grossman Prediction" thread, I'll put my opinion of both KS's and Grossman's here......

I'm not as shocked about their statements as some fans seem to be. Has it not been said by many of players around the league that if you really don't think your team has a shot at making the SB then you might as well stop playing because you've already defeated yourself. I would be suprised to hear any player or coach say...." well see our team is not that good and I don't expect them to even break 8-8 but if they do then I'll be estatic because it's more then I expect for them to do."

No, your going to hear everyone from the HC to the water boy saying the Skins have a good chance this year. But let me say I don't think they are too far off their in their opinions. Personally, I think the OL will be better with the deletions and additions and will perform a lot better now that they are in their second year along with knowing the scheme and zone blocking better. I simply think giving the QB (no matter who is there) more time will make this team 10X better. I think the additions to the defense is going to suprise everyone. We now have actual young healthy DL who are and will be able to get penitration. Having said all that..... I don't think Dallas has done enough to fix their problems they have had, and part of the reason was because they were over the CAP. I think the media is putting a big heaping pile of crap on everyone in regards to the Eagles, I think they might make second place in the division but all the Skin fans know that all those fancy pieces they purchased have to mesh together like a fine oiled machine which I don't see happening. To me the Giants are the ??? Have they lost too much? Will they come out and perform well or will they fail?

But some could say the same things about the Skins..... will the OL hold up? will the DL be able to get penitration causing turnovers? Will Grossman or Beck suprise? .... I think too many people are really negative for no reason about the QB position. Grossman did a fine job at the end of the year. Clearly he did better then McNoodle. I know I'll expect some flack from the McNabb fans but Grossman had a better understanding of how the scheme was supposed to be run, a better idea of the progressions, a better idea of when to use the check down.... instead of throwing dirt balls and sideline passes.

---------- Post added August-9th-2011 at 11:44 PM ----------

Agreed that you can't extrapolate on this team how he would call plays. You can infer, though, their tendencies - Kyle likes to throw a significant amount more than Mike, and Mike likes to run and use the run to develop the pass.

I think what we're seeing on the Skins is an attempt to merge the two styles, with Kyle trying to incorporate Mike's ideas into his repertoire. From the one year sample size (which is admittedly too small to form a complete analysis, but it's the only thing to go on), would you agree that our offense is a majority of Kyle's ideas, but Mike's running philosophy is being incorporated? Hence the pass-run ratio that is more Kyle's (if I read the previous posts on ratios correctly), but the running backs and plan of attack that is Mike's.

I think they had the idea of blending the two styles (MS's- running first and KS's- passing first) but in the end the team had to deal with the hand they were dealt. Between starting a zone blocking scheme, an OL of misfits who were more of a power blocking style OL, and learning the play calls created too much for this team to handle some of the time. I think KS realized that the team was better prepaired to pass the ball vs. run the ball so he leaned heavily on the pass. Now with better zone blocking OL with better and faster feet if the OL holds up then I think the sky is the limit.

[Hitman21ST]

If I were the OC, I'd have more drop-backs than movement passes for Matt Schaub than I would for Elway-Plummer-Cutler also. So, I don't think you can say with certainty that you have spotted a fundamental difference between the Kubiak scheme and the Shanahan scheme. It's more likely a tweak to fit the QB.

What about the Skins? By all accounts, Beck is a "mobile" QB - not on the level of Elway or Plummer, but certainly more than Schaub or Grossman. I know it's hard to make a certain statement, but assuming Beck starts the season, how easy would it be to tweak the scheme to fit Grossman if Beck goes down or Grossman outplays him?

Would you advocate installing a more drop-back friendly no matter who our QB is - since Beck isn't as mobile as Elway or Plummer - or alter it for the QB?

[Floodzone004]

If Kyle's statements are true, it sounds like him and Mike sat down this offseason and really hashed out what this offense should be and it sounds like Mike got through to him some. I'm not saying that they conceded that last years offense was a mistake or anything, but that they're gonna tweak it a bit and try a more balanced approach maybe. Seems like a perfect time to me to do so too, we've got some depth in the RB core, potentially better oline, and probably an inexperienced QB under center.

This is why I want to see Beck out there more than Grossman. If Beck truly is the prototypical Kyle Shanahan QB, I want to see how this offense runs with him. There was a obvious difference in how the offense operated going from McNabb to Grossman and if Beck fits the offense even more ideally, than we can really start evaluating the offense appropriately.

[Destino]

Kyle is under much more scrutiny than any coach. Snyder and Allen are business men and as such must know hiring family is risky. They also know Mikes offense made monsters of nobody backs and ran decently with Jake the snake at QB. Kyle can't afford media battles with QBs this season or an offense that looks lost. I doubt very much that Allen and Snyder will be thrilled if Mcnabb is starting in Minny and both Grossman and Beck fail badly.

[addicted]

How do you know what the plan was last year?

You can guess based on Kyle's previous tendency but those tendencies don't support your opinion because he was imbalanced towards the pass even when he was Houston's OC/playcaller.

I can guess

Or I can look at the feel of the games we played

Do you really think all teams are 50-50 split Run/Pass?

Looking only at the RB production to start the year here's what we actually did here on this team, to me Texans matter not

Last year game one we run the ball 22 times for 72 yards (3.2 yard per carry average)

Last year game two we run the ball 17 times for 18 yards (no mistake look it up)

Last year game three we run the ball 15 times for 91 yards (6 yard average, (Torains first game)

Last year game four we run the ball 29 times for 135 yards (4.6 yards per carry)

Last year game five we run the ball 17 times for 41 yards (2.4 yards per carry)

Last year game six we run the ball 22 times for 112 yards (5.0 yards per carry)

Last year game seven we run the ball 22 times for 125 yards (5.6 yards per carry)

Last year game eight we run the ball 15 times for 35 yards (2.3 yards per carry)

Up down

Up down

Up down

Up down

Get the picture? If you review the first half of last season because we were at first trying to use bad players (Portis, Williams, Larry Johnson) we were completely ineffective. When Ryan Torain hit the field our numbers went back to respectable. As he went so did our rushing.

When it was going well we ran more, when it wasn't we didn't.

Your looking for some magical 50-50 split between rushing and passing and here's the win loss records for those games:

Week 1 - Win

Week 2 - Loss

Week 3 - Loss

Week 4 - Win

Week 5 - Win

Week 6 - Loss

Week 7 - Win

Week 8 - Loss

On some of the wins we ran the ball like crap.

In week 2 we scored the third most points in all 16 games yet it was our worst rushing production on the year\\

In week 3 we had the best rushing average on the season and lost by 14 points

I'm looking for a connection here that says "equal offense means greater success" and I just am not finding it

I believe the reason we were not rushing the ball on a 50-50 ratio last year is it took us a while to find a running back that deserved that many carries.

If the RB's aren't getting it done who the hell cares about a 50-50 split between passing and running?

That's my point with this argument

You give the ball to the hot hand and what is working on the offense

You don't need to be stubborn and simply give the ball to the QB who could be ineffective

Just like you don't need to be stubborn and simply give the ball to the RB who could be ineffective

And depending on who we are playing any given week should change that every single game we go on the field

Again, I don't think there is a magical mathematical formula to success

But I do think the easiest way to lose is to try and force something that isn't working

---------- Post added August-10th-2011 at 12:54 AM ----------

You can always find rationals for why a team didn't run the ball more.

But, when you claim that we didn't run the ball more because we weren't good at is an easy out in my opinion.

There were many teams that ran the ball at a lower YPC clip but ran the ball far more often then the Skins.

Our YPC was middle of the pack.

It was our Rushing Attempts that was the second lowest in the league.

Another indicator of our chosen imbalance towards the pass manifests itself in 1st down tendency.

As of week 9 the Skins were tops 5 in the league in 1st down pass attempts.

First downs are typically playcallers choice and we chose to pass the ball a lot on 1st down.

Your taking too broad of a look at this question

You need to look at things like our opponents strengths on defense

And break it down per game, per week

Show me an offense that runs a 50-50 every game if there is one

I'm sure you can show me a stat that says a team ran/pass 50-50 over the course of a year

But you can't show me any team that does that week to week

I also think that since it showed last season that our only viable running back that was any good was Torain

That since he didn't get on the field at all until Week 3

Then he didn't get his first start until Week 5

Then he missed Games 9, 10, 11, and 12

I think that has a whole lot to do with why last years ratio was crappy and not so much that the coaches aren't looking for balance

[darrelgreenie]

I can guess

Or I can look at the feel of the games we played

I know you can guess or go by your opinion of the 'feel' of games.

My point was that there is no way to know wether or not we didn't plan to pass that much.

We didn't plan to pass that much more last year

It kinda happened and fell into our laps

Do you really think all teams are 50-50 split Run/Pass?

Nope.

I'm not sure why you think our carries breakdown would look any different from what you listed.

We're not some how some abberration when it comes to carries; of course there will be some tough running early on in some games.

But, to steal from Herman Boone the running game is like novocaine, just give it time.

But seriously running the ball successfully requires the patience to stay with the run even when its not 'working'.

When it was going well we ran more, when it wasn't we didn't.

I agree that the above is a true indication of what happened at times but I don't agree that its the right decision.

But, there were also times that we we're running the ball well but didn't stay with it.

Your looking for some magical 50-50 split between rushing and passing

Really that's what I'm looking? Funny I don't see where I've said that.

C'mon addicted lets not start your whole strawmen thing.

I'm looking for a connection here that says "equal offense means greater success" and I just am not finding it

Ok.

If you don't think being balanced is more correlated to winning then being unbalanced I'm not gonna try to convince you.

I believe the reason we were not rushing the ball on a 50-50 ratio last year is it took us a while to find a running back that deserved that many carries.

That's plausible as are numerous other reasons.

But, if it took them awhile to find a back that "deserved" carries then whose fault is that? Afterall they chose the RBs.

Either way the fact remains that the OC has spoken about the need to run the ball.

Show me an offense that runs a 50-50 every game if there is one

I'm sure you can show me a stat that says a team ran/pass 50-50 over the course of a year

But you can't show me any team that does that week to week

You realize that none of this represents anything I've said?

I also think that since it showed last season that our only viable running back that was any good was Torain

Maybe to your eye.

Keiland Williams ran the ball well, I actually like Keiland more then I like Torain.

James Davis remains an unknown quantity.

...and not so much that the coaches aren't looking for balance

Your phrasing is wierd and changes the meaning of my point a bit.

I never said they were looking for imbalance which is what you imply above.

But there is no doubt the end was result was heavily imbalanced.

Imo you cannot divorce the playcaller from the on the field decisions by saying in essence the playcaller was forced to do things that way because situation or circumstances.

Unless coaches always make the right decisions then I don't see how one can claim that the playcaller didn't have a hand in the imbalance.

Judging by our offensive ranking and win loss record its hard to claim that our offense was beyond critique.

Moreover Kyle's statements, at least to me, suggest that he recognizes the imbalance and will effort to become more balanced.

---------- Post added August-10th-2011 at 06:44 AM ----------

If I were the OC, I'd have more drop-backs than movement passes for Matt Schaub than I would for Elway-Plummer-Cutler also. So, I don't think you can say with certainty that you have spotted a fundamental difference between the Kubiak scheme and the Shanahan scheme. It's more likely a tweak to fit the QB.

Never said it was with certainty only that its a noticable difference between the 2 playcallers that I can see.

Could the difference come from catering to their respective QBs? Sure.

But, the difference remains.

[addicted]

I know you can guess or go by your opinion of the 'feel' of games.

My point was that there is no way to know wether or not we didn't plan to pass that much.

Strawman much?

Seriously I put forth results and this is how you respond?

Come on man!

You just like to think your right is that it?

Nope.

I'm not sure why you think our carries breakdown would look any different from what you listed.

We're not some how some abberration when it comes to carries; of course there will be some tough running early on in some games.

But, to steal from Herman Boone the running game is like novocaine, just give it time.

But seriously running the ball successfully requires the patience to stay with the run even when its not 'working'.

Your ignoring the results

Your wishing for more 3 and outs

I disagree completely with that but I think your minds made up about this and the actual reality be damned

I don't get that

I agree that the above is a true indication of what happened at times but I don't agree that its the right decision.

But, there were also times that we we're running the ball well but didn't stay with it.

Please show when this ever happened last year?

If you point to that the Rams game while the average might be productive truth is that wasn't the case at all. I'm waiting to hear your reply to that?

Really that's what I'm looking? Funny I don't see where I've said that.

C'mon addicted lets not start your whole strawmen thing.

I knew you wouldn't disappoint with your silly graphics and pictures

Not that Kobe has a damn thing to do with your silly arguement but I guess that doesn't matter with you huh?

Ok.

If you don't think being balanced is more correlated to winning then being unbalanced I'm not gonna try to convince you.

And that's not at all what I was saying or showing here

A blind man could see this

When the rushing games not working then we abandoned it hoping that the pass would work

And depending on who our opponent was any given week that was the correct thing to do

Like this year when we play the Beagles

Think we should just stick to the pass attack since we need "balance"

Of course not when they have those corners...

But hey lets make up some fairy tale argument, ignore reality, and argue about a fantasy....

That's the gist of your argument.

For someone who has such an interest in the pass run ratio you should have something to backup your claim we used the wrong approach last year

Or at least be able to explain why you think we should have run more since we didn't outside of "It gives us the best chance of success"

When at times its clear we didn't have the personnel to do what you wanted

That's plausible as are numerous other reasons.

But, if it took them awhile to find a back that "deserved" carries then whose fault is that? Afterall they chose the RBs.

Either way the fact remains that the OC has spoken about the need to run the ball.

What's being left out here is that we need a RB who deserves carries and can produce with the ball. You said this sillyness

Maybe to your eye.

Keiland Williams ran the ball well, I actually like Keiland more then I like Torain.

James Davis remains an unknown quantity.

To you maybe

To the rest of the world James Davis was a terrible rusher with his 2 game audition of 19 rushes for 60 yards

And the coaches have said he isn't good at run blocking

How's about Williams?

65 rushes, 241 yards over 11 games with his best one game output of 23 rushes for 68 yards....

And you wonder why the coaches have him at FB this year....

In the end dude it comes down to not having the right personnel in order to run a balanced attack which I think we both want

The difference is you refuse to understand more then your point of "balance attack"

My point is that with the wrong guys we can't just do that

And taking that approach is bad for the team

Imo you cannot divorce the playcaller from the on the field decisions by saying in essence the playcaller was forced to do things that way because situation or circumstances.

Unless coaches always make the right decisions then I don't see how one can claim that the playcaller didn't have a hand in the imbalance.

Judging by our offensive ranking and win loss record its hard to claim that our offense was beyond critique.

Blame Kyle if you want

Truth is we had a bunch of busters rushing the ball last year and only one of them was any good at it

I guess the fact that Portis, Williams, Davis, Parker, and Johnson all sucked because of Kyle to you right?

To me that's just insane. Put the blame where it deserves to be which is at the feet of the players

[darrelgreenie]

Strawman much?

Huh?

Allow me to remind you how the conversation started.

YOU said you that we didn't plan to pass the ball that much.

I said there is no way for you/us to know that.

You responded with you with: 'you guess or judged by 'feel' of the game'

Seriously I put forth results and this is how you respond?

You put forth stats that support the point that YOU are arguing against.

But, the points your arguing against have nothing to do with my point.

I knew you wouldn't disappoint with your silly graphics and pictures

Not that Kobe has a damn thing to do with your silly arguement but I guess that doesn't matter with you huh?

Whenever you create a strawman that has nothing to do with my point of view your gonna get a Kobe.

When the rushing games not working then we abandoned it hoping that the pass would work

If that's your opinion, cool.

But hey lets make up some fairy tale argument, ignore reality, and argue about a fantasy....

That's the gist of your argument.

You have no idea what my argument is, probably because you were too busy constructing strawmen arguments.

For someone who has such an interest in the pass run ratio you should have something to backup your claim we used the wrong approach last year

Again, I'm not gonna attempt to explain balance to someone that doesn't accept it.

If you think balance is uneccesary, its cool.

Or at least be able to explain why you think we should have run more since we didn't outside of "It gives us the best chance of success"

When at times its clear we didn't have the personnel to do what you wanted

I've already stated my opinion and addressed this question earlier in the thread.

Look it up.

Hail

[Hitman21ST]

Please show when this ever happened last year?

If you point to that the Rams game while the average might be productive truth is that wasn't the case at all. I'm waiting to hear your reply to that?

The Bucs game. 150+ rushing yards in the first half, only to basically abandon the approach in the second half.

[Oldfan]

Hitman ~ Agreed that you can't extrapolate on this team how he would call plays. You can infer, though, their tendencies - Kyle likes to throw a significant amount more than Mike, and Mike likes to run and use the run to develop the pass.

Disagree. Here’s your argument:

Premise: In similar situations, evidence has shown that Kyle has passed more than Mike.

Conclusion: Therefore, Kyle is inclined to pass more than Mike.

Your premise is flawed because you cannot establish that Kyle and Mike have ever been in similar situations. Every year and every team is a different situation.

I think what we're seeing on the Skins is an attempt to merge the two styles, with Kyle trying to incorporate Mike's ideas into his repertoire. From the one year sample size (which is admittedly too small to form a complete analysis, but it's the only thing to go on), would you agree that our offense is a majority of Kyle's ideas, but Mike's running philosophy is being incorporated? Hence the pass-run ratio that is more Kyle's (if I read the previous posts on ratios correctly), but the running backs and plan of attack that is Mike's.

No, that’s not my perception at all. The zone stretch almost guarantees play-action and lots of Denver movement passes unless the QB is Schaub or another without the mobility to handle much movement. I think Kyle added a concept or two, but it’s Mike's offense founded on Alex Gibbs’s running game, especially the zone stretch. The play-action and movement passes follow from it.

What about the Skins? By all accounts, Beck is a "mobile" QB - not on the level of Elway or Plummer, but certainly more than Schaub or Grossman. I know it's hard to make a certain statement, but assuming Beck starts the season, how easy would it be to tweak the scheme to fit Grossman if Beck goes down or Grossman outplays him?

Would you advocate installing a more drop-back friendly no matter who our QB is - since Beck isn't as mobile as Elway or Plummer - or alter it for the QB?

It’s probably not that hard to tweak the system in the Beck-Grossman situation. The playbook already contains the dropback plays. The gameplan just has to have more of them in mind for Grossman.

[Mahons21]

The Bucs game. 150+ rushing yards in the first half, only to basically abandon the approach in the second half.

You're assuming Kyle chose to abandon the rush, and that TB didn't just adjust their strategy at the half.

On our very first drive in the 2nd half we rushed the ball on 1st and 2nd down, only to gain a single yard. This suggests to me that TB is get doing a lot more run-blitzing or bringing a safety into the box consistently, either way the manner in which they're playing should be attacked would be via the pass. I should mention though I don't remember the game perfectly, and this of course is just a theory of mine, but I think it holds more logic than believing an OC who has proven himself would abandon what is working. He didn't abandon it when it was working early on, why would he abandon it later?

[Oldfan]

The Bucs game. 150+ rushing yards in the first half, only to basically abandon the approach in the second half.

Kyle smartly pounded the run in the first half because TB wasn't defending the ZBS well. In the second half TB made the necessary adjustments and began stuffing the run, so Kyle smartly stopped pounding it.

[Hitman21ST]

Kyle smartly pounded the run in the first half because TB wasn't defending the ZBS well. In the second half TB made the necessary adjustments and began stuffing the run, so Kyle smartly stopped pounding it.

I'm not trying to say he didn't adjust well, but Torain had 18 carries in the first half, and 6 in the second. To me, anyway, that looks like an abandonment of the run. We had five possessions in the second half and 6 rushes. We had a 13 play drive at the end of the game (from our 46 yard line), with 3:47 to go, with one rush. Granted, it's the final drive of the game, but we still had two timeouts, the two minute warning, and just over half the field to go. There was at least one drive in the second half where we didn't rush at all.

I'm not saying don't adjust, but that does seem like an abandonment to me.

[Oldfan]

I'm not trying to say he didn't adjust well, but Torain had 18 carries in the first half, and 6 in the second. To me, anyway, that looks like an abandonment of the run. We had five possessions in the second half and 6 rushes. We had a 13 play drive at the end of the game (from our 46 yard line), with 3:47 to go, with one rush. Granted, it's the final drive of the game, but we still had two timeouts, the two minute warning, and just over half the field to go. There was at least one drive in the second half where we didn't rush at all.

I'm not saying don't adjust, but that does seem like an abandonment to me.

I won't debate that position. You could be right.

Your first statement omitted a reason for the adjustment, so on this end, it sounded like you didn't realize there was a reason.

[Koolblue13]

I'd be surprised if we carried more than 3 RBs, because I think we'll carry 6 WRs. Moss, AA, Gaffney will make it. I don't think we can PS Paul or Hank, so I think Banks is the bubble guy, depending on his WR skills and Pauls return skills.

I'm mostly excited for Young and Montgomery on the offensive side of the ball personally. I expect a lot more ball pounding, if those two really anchor themselves as legitimate starters.

[Hitman21ST]

I won't debate that position. You could be right.

Your first statement omitted a reason for the adjustment, so on this end, it sounded like you didn't realize there was a reason.

Fair enough. I can see where there could be cause for confusion. I was coming from the viewpoint that while TB did adjust their defense, which caused Kyle to adjust his playcalling, after those first two or three runs that didn't really net anything, it appeared that he had the mindset of pass first, pass second, pass third, and maybe run; which seems a little off to me - more Madden-esque than anything else.

I probably should have elaborated though earlier.