Kyle Shanahan's comments on the 2010 offense

[darrelgreenie]

Gee. It’s a pretty common message board device of speaking in a generalization about a behavior often associated with a sizable group within a larger group. Such is often tricky, but not so bad when it’s fairly accurate general perception held by many informed participants. It’s also arguably more palatable than some smarmy pretension that one is reading some ordinary communicative tool that somehow "baffles" you. He also made it quite clear what he was ascribing to questionable memory.

I can't tell if you're making an actual post or issuing me a warning?

Tone is often hard to convey over the internet, but I was asking a legitmate question.

Especially since the only 'people' that post in this thread are myself and a few people here or there like oldfan/kdawg and a few other passers by.

None of which espouse the view he put forth.

So I was asking him for more detail.

I wasn't aware that was frowned upon.

I guess if you insinuate that I'm swarmy or pretentious in my posting style then the same couldn't possible apply to your bullying/slash big brother tendencies?

You sound like you're trying to play moderator with Silky ,though I'm sure you're not--it would be too funny since as you have six user notes including four rule violations involving four different moderators. Now it’s true the mods have no reserved rights to the use of "trolling" or "spamming" as terms, for instance, but we do have specific applications for those terms when it comes to rule violations.

There’s no imperative to use a quote to make a comment about someone else's post. Doing the quote has obvious usages, but one can make a related reply to someone’s post as a perfectly valid and coherent contribution to the thread with out it. And they may not have any real desire to extend an exchange with that specific poster. Also, there was absolutely zero spam element to Silky's comment whatsoever. Nor was there any "randomness."

I suggest you focus on you being the best you can be and stick with your personal football views, as you have shown to be quite capable of, and not on others posting behaviors, as you also have a history of doing.

I get the distinct feeling I'm being bullied/singled out here.

I'm certainly not trying to play mod, simply trying to guide the direction of this thread.

Silky and I have debated many times on both sides of the fence we've agreed and disagreed but have managed to have good conversations.

And if my thoughts on the appearance of his post was wrong, I'm quite certain Silky would correct me.

My intent was to invite him to join the conversation and I wasn't aware that I couldn't do so.

[KCClybun]

...I'm just going to get my "Another One Bites the Dust" YouTube clip right now...

In the meantime, I found this series a videos about quarterbacking the West Coast Offense. Interesting stuff, especially since every once in a while you get a glimpse at what we want to run.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-MfNd-SjZo&feature=bf_next&list=PL8F50F22F5BF044BC&lf=results_video

[SJValleySkinz]

I mean generally speaking, whenever the pass-to-rush ratio comes up, you'll get a group of people who are "shocked" that it's "that high", even though the pass-to-rush ration removes context and doesn't look at individual game situations and is just a crappy way to judge playcalling, offensive productivity, etc., etc,.

For example, the Jets game. For a majority of that game, we had a pretty much dead even pass-to-run ratio. The only times we "abandoned" the run were in a four-minute drill to end the first half, and when the Jets went up two scores against us late in the fourth half. Yet Kyle still got flack for "abandoning" the run, even though in the first case the pass was working to get us into field goal range until we got a penalty or something that set us back, and in the second case we literally HAD to pass because we were down two scores. But after the game, there were complaints that we "abandoned" the run and Kyle didn't run the ball enough.

For an early season example, see the Cardinals game. We ran the ball down their throats the majority of the day. But, late in the game, when we were down, we had to pass to get ourselves back in the game, simply because there wasn't a lot of time to run the ball. We, again, passed in the two minute drill.

And it certainly worked against us in the Beck games, where despite us trying, we couldn't establish any sort of run game. In those games, we REALLY got behind.

For most of the season, I think we had some good offensive balance. We may never be a 50/50 pass-to-run ratio team...but so what?

---------- Post added January-28th-2012 at 01:05 PM ----------

It also doesn't account for game situations or the stretch of games where our running production sunk like a stone due to injuries to our running backs and our offensive line, not to mention teams stacking the box versus Beck.

All that would be great if the discrepancy wasn't so high. A team with Rex Grossman and John Beck under center has no business being in the top 10 in the league in passing attempts no matter how many pretty bows you want to wrap around it. If you want to look at situation let's look at game by game when the running game was working.

Week two vs the Cards: Tim Hightower goes 20 for 96 and Roy Helu has 10 for 74, Rex puts it up 43 times. Redskins eek still have to eek out a win because Grossman throws two interceptions in a game where he had no business putting it up more than 20 times.

Week 4 vs the Rams: Ryan Torain goes 19 for 135 but. Rex puts it up 29 times. Redskins eek out another win in a game they dominated because of turnovers through the air (one wasn't Grossman's fault)

Week 7 vs the Panthers: Tim Hightower goes 17 for 88, avareging 5.2 YPC, Beck puts it up 37 times, Redskins lose and have the ball 11 minutes less despite the running game working.

Week 10 vs the Dolphins: Roy Helu goes 6 for 41 and Ryan Torain a poor 10 for 20, Grossman puts it up 32 times and turns it over twice. Redskins lose, running game had moderate success but only 16 carries in the entire game vs 32 passes.

Week 12 vs the Seahawks: Roy Helu goes 23 for 108, Grossman puts it up 35 times and turns it over twice. Redskins eek out a win in a game they dominated.

Week 13 vs the Jets: Roy Helu goes 23 for 100, Grossman puts it up 47 times (completed a staggering 19 of those) Running game deserted in the second half, Redskins lose.

Week 14 vs the Patriots: Redskins run the ball 34 times for 170 yards, Grossman puts it up 32 times, Redskins lose.

Week 16 vs the Vikings: Evan Royster goes 19 for 132, Grossman puts it up 41 times, Redskins lose.

Week 17 vs the Eagles: Evan Royster goes 210 for 112, Grossman puts it 45 times, Redskins lose.

How you don't put a majority of that on the offenseive cordinator rather than making excuses for him is beyond me. Even when the running game was effective he insisted on putting the ball in Grossman's hands. Heck, when the running game was working and the defense couldn't make any stops, he STILL insisted on putting the game in Grossman's hands. Like I said, no excuse in the world could ever justify the amount of times we put the ball in the air, point blank, end of story.

[darrelgreenie]

I mean generally speaking, whenever the pass-to-rush ratio comes up, you'll get a group of people who are "shocked" that it's "that high", even though the pass-to-rush ration removes context and doesn't look at individual game situations and is just a crappy way to judge playcalling, offensive productivity, etc., etc,.

But who in this thread is doing the above?

And it certainly worked against us in the Beck games, where despite us trying, we couldn't establish any sort of run game. In those games, we REALLY got behind.

It depends on which game you're talking about in the Beck games.

Each game was different and its too easy to make broad stroke generalizations.

IIRC the Bills game was the only game where we 'really' got behind and the in that game I don't recall any attempt to establish the run.

Posted earlier in this thread about the Beck games:

A couple of interesting facts in this Redskins.com notebook, including the fact that Washington Redskins running back Roy Helu's rushing touchdown Sunday was the first against the Seahawks since the second quarter in Week 4. Helu had a remarkable day and was probably the main reason the Redskins snapped their six-game losing streak. The rookie had 23 carries and the Redskins ran the ball on 29 of their 65 plays.

Here's why that last bit matters: It means they ran on 44.6 percent of their offensive plays, which is their second-highest such figure of the season. Only the Week 4 victory in St. Louis, in which they ran on 40 of their 69 plays (58.0 percent) ranks higher. Sunday was also the fourth game of this season in which at least 40 percent of Washington's offensive plays were run plays. You want to take a guess what the 4-7 Redskins' record is in those games?

Yeah, it's 4-0.

Which means they're 0-7 when they don't run it at least 40 percent of the time. I did that little bit of higher math right there so you didn't have to. I'm looking out for you guys. I'm helpful like that.

Point is, the Redskins' offense only works when it's able to commit to the run. Even as Helu was getting 2 and 3 yards a carry in the early going, they stuck with the run Sunday. Even against one of the stingiest run defenses in the league, the Redskins kept running the ball in the hopes that it would pay off, and when Helu jumped over that dude and ran 28 yards for a touchdown, it had.

During their six-game losing streak, only 29.7 percent of the Redskins' offensive plays were run plays. There were three games -- Eagles, Bills and 49ers -- in which they failed to run the ball at least 30 percent of the time. The bottoming-out came (no surprise) in Week 8, when quarterback John Beck took 10 sacks and the Redskins got shut out. They ran on just 11 of their 54 plays that game -- 20.4 percent.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/33210/in-praise-of-roy-helu-and-the-run-game

For most of the season, I think we had some good offensive balance. We may never be a 50/50 pass-to-run ratio team...but so what?

From the OP:

Kyle has a strong belief in his passing concepts and for good reason he's lead some very good passing offenses.

But, having more balance will only help the explosiveness of his passing game and improve the overall offense.

Only 3 of the top 10 offenses were also top 10 in pass attempts: NO, Dallas and Houston.

Green Bay, San Diego even Philly were not top 10 in pass attempts.

I'm not saying he needs or will get close to 50/50 but even the top passing attacks had more balance.(we were 63% pass/37% run last year)

[KCClybun]

...How did we abandon the run in the second haf versus the Jets...

We called 11 run plays and 12 pass plays versus the Jets until the last 5 minutes. Rex got sacked and fumbled, the Jets took it and went up by two touchdowns. THAT'S when we started passing.

That's what I've been trying to say. You look at the pass attempts versus runs attempts and it removes the context of the game. And it doesn't help when you've got moronic commentators who will go "I just don't understand why the abandoned the run", even when you're successfully throwing the football.

We did not "run with moderate success" versus the Dolphins. We didn't run well at all. Helu's biggest runs on the day were a 21 yarder when the game was all but lost and a ten yarder in the third quarter.

His other runs?

4 yards.

3 yards.

3 yards.

No gain.

Versus Seattle, yet again, in the second half, we were down two scores. Versus the Vikings, dead even pass-to-run ratio until, guess what, we go down late in the game again. Versus the Eagles, we were down.

The situations where we passed the most was when were were down, usually by multiple scores, late in games, and we needed to throw the ball to catch up. It also doesn't account for two minute drills before the end of the half, a situation where typically you don't run the ball a ton.

It'd be nice to think we could just never have Grossman ever throw the ball ever, but that's just not the way football works. That's what I'm saying; the numbers and stats are REMOVED from the context of the games, and people's (sometimes justified, sometimes not justified) fear of Grossman ever having to throw the football makes things seem even more harsh.

Last year, I'll agree that we didn't run the ball nearly enough. This year? I ain't complaining.

[SilkyDiamonds]

I didnt intend the post to be calling out or imflamatory. I was just dropping some info on the subject I hope DG didnt take it as me trying to get at him, cuz I aint even think of it like that. Just adding info to the debate

[KCClybun]

But who in this thread is doing the above?

...Uggghh...

You asked who I was talking about when I said "Why does no one remember this?". In that same post, I DIRECTLY QUOTED SJV. When I say "why does no one remember this", I am not speaking about a specific member. I am talking about a thought I have read many times, not just in this thread, but in several threads throughout the course of the season that pertained to the idea that Kyle Shanahan was not calling enough run plays. I have also heard this on radio and seen it in television and read it on other blogs that have been critical of Kyle Shanahan not sticking to the run and "abandoning" the run during games where the run game was "working".

That's what I meant when I said "generally speaking". As in "speaking in general", as in "this is a thought process that is pravalent amongst several members on this forum", or "this is an aspect of the Redskins offense that's held without look at all facets of what they're saying". I am sorry if the concept of "generally" confuses you, or if I didn't give you an itemized and quoted list of every individual in this thread who has, in one way or another, espoused this view point.

That is what I meant.

[Jumbo]

<edit superfluous material and material ignoring directive>

I guess if you insinuate that I'm swarmy or pretentious in my posting style then the same couldn't possible apply to your bullying/slash big brother tendencies?

I get the distinct feeling I'm being bullied/singled out here.

I'm certainly not trying to play mod, simply trying to guide the direction of this thread.

<edit inconsequential material>

My intent was to invite him to join the conversation and I wasn't aware that I couldn't do so.

Here's what you were sent with your temporary ban notice and is now in your 7th user note:

Ignored moderator directive; attempted insult against moderator (with attempt at subtlety--fail) while moderator was engaged in board management and after warning to "focus on self"--fail

I also should have added "false accusation" for the "bullied" thing (rule 18 violation, but that will just also go into your user note on this one). I'm going to mainly take a pass on the innovative moderating/"big brother" deal ("Nazi" is so worn). Per your other non-edited comments; I was pointing out your appearance of "playing mod" and even made it clear I didn't think you could really be doing that---yet as you often do, you seem to ignore what someone has actually written.

More to the point, you then turn around and repeat that appearance with a comment like "[i'm]simply trying to guide the direction of this thread", which is actually what moderators do when needed. An OP does (hopefully) attempt to frame the discussion in his starting post (as you did). Later, when merited, the OP can simply ask for people to try to "stay on topic." But allowing for many digressions, especially when at least somewhat related to various posts, and not others doing the same is problematic. Some digressions are unavoidable and normal. Others aren't, hence the (real) moderator role may rise again.

More misplaced and questionable thinking is shown in: "My intent was to invite him to join the conversation and I wasn't aware that I couldn't do so" which is fatuous and arguably trolling me/being a smartass. Again. Mr. Not-a-mod-nor-trying-to-be , he doesn't need your invite, he was just fine, and that's sure not what it read like with your accusations of him spamming and being random---especially since he was neither as I stated.

I think as I am typing this and reflecting, I better add more time to your ban. In terms of how you handle it, you can either get it figured out, or go eslewhere. We're good either way, but know with your return, and given your previous bans, you are now totally out of rope.

Silky, per your last post, as I indicated, you have nothing to apologize for in any way. People hoist themselves on their own petard.

Speaking of rule 18, we all now must return to topic and football discussion.

[darrelgreenie]

Kyle's 3 years, 2 here and w/ 1 with Houston, are right around 60/40

o 2011-Washington:

60/40 pass/run

591 passing attempts (top 5 in the NFL more then every team except Detroit, New Orleans, New England and Atlanta)

300 rushing attempts (bottom 10 in the NFL ahead of only Green Bay, Buffalo, Arizona, Indy, Tennessee, Detroit and Tampa)

Texans 46 pass/53.8 run

o 2010-Washington

63/37 pass/run.

For comparison purposes, Kubiak's Texans 58/42

o 2009-Houston

Kyle's full reign over the playcalling

58/42 pass/run.

o 2008-Houston

When Kyle was splitting playcalling duties with Kubiak the Texans had 55/45 pass/run.

Mike's pass/run ratio for his career is: 48.16% pass vs 51.8% run

The above number is skewed because it wrongly includes the 2008 season where Jeremy Bates was the playcaller.

That season marked a clear depature from Mike's normal pass/run ratio with a 61.57% pass rate which was 4.12 percentage points higher then Mike's highest pass heavy season.

[KCClybun]

...So you basically just left out the part where Denver threw the ball 60% of the time because it doesn't fit your argument.

Cool.

Welcome back. Nice to see nothing's changed.

[darrelgreenie]

...So you basically just left out the part where Denver threw the ball 60% of the time because it doesn't fit your argument.

Cool.

Welcome back. Nice to see nothing's changed.

Jeremy Bates was the playcaller and if you can read those figures are included.

You're right nothing has changed...so basically you make another needlessly contentious and false claim.

And where in the post is an argument made?

Its a by year record of the pass/run ratio.

[KCClybun]

Jeremy Bates was the playcaller and if you can read those figures are included.

You're right nothing has changed...so basically you make another needlessly contentious and false claim.

And where in the post is an argument made?

Its a by year record of the pass/run ratio.

You said the numbers were skewed because it "wrongly included" when Jeremy Bates was the play-caller.

Why are they wrongfully included? If you're trying to a straight up comparison of the difference between Mike and Kyle's offenses, if there is a difference, wouldn't it be better if you simply removed Jeremy Bates from the scenario?

Why even include when Kubiak split duties with Kyle in that case. Are you going to parse out Kubiak's numbers while he was splitting duties with Mike?

[darrelgreenie]

The year Kyle split duties with Kubiac are not included as part of Kyle's pass/run ratio.

The pass/run ratio from that year is listed for reference as it shows the gradual shift away from run to pass that occured under Kyle.