FuriousD Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 So much has already been made of a couple of Kyle's play calls. You already know the ones so I won't bore you with the details.... link http://www.redskins.com/media-gallery/videos/Mike-Shanahan-10-3/d4218ce6-fde5-47c2-87c5-3624884f0f66 Yesterdays press conferance with Mike Shanahan kicks right off with a question about one of these calls, namely the first and 10 (up 17-0) that resulted in the second INT. Mike's answer is slow to get going as he seems to take issue right off the bat but he settles down and eventually says,(paraphrasing): "sometimes you have to look at a running play compared to a quarterback keep. We need to keep a defense honest. And sometimes we consider a quarterback keep just like a running play and make sure the defense plays honest". Just for the record,we know that a quarterback keep is not what it sounds like. No one in their right mind would want a QB slower than the second coming of Christ running the ball. So "keeping the defense honest" is obviously important enough for Mike to mention it twice in the same breath but what does it mean? And more importantly, does it explain throwing on 1-10 with a 17-point lead and throwing on 3-1 late in the game with a 7-point lead? Disclaimer> I have no football experience whatsoever. None. Here's my take: regardless of down and distance, you have to keep the opposition guessing run or pass. 1-10 or 2-5 or 3-1 ... it's imperative that the defense be aware that you might go either way. And the only way to drive that point home is to prove it to them. Therefore, keeping a defense honest boils down to running and equal mix of run and pass REGARDLESS of down and distance and more importantly, REGARDLESS of the quarter. But sooner or later (more often later), your going to have to dial up something that goes against your natural instinct ... something counter-intuitive. Something like a pass on 3-1 with a lead in the 4th. A call like that takes balls. Because if you don't, and you start to get conservative (and folks, we've seen this before!),... well, you're just tipping your hand. Giving the defense an advantage of loading the box and tightening up is counter productive when attempting to work the clock. (Gibbs in Tampa Bay, anyone?) I would appreciate insight from anyone with their explaination of keeping the defense honest and feel free to shoot down my theory if I've got it all wrong. hail. :helmet: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Nostril Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Essentially what he's saying is that if a defense absolutely knows that the next play is going to be a run, they can stop it. There's nothing to prevent them from 8, 9 or even 11 in the box theoretically. And even if the score, time left in the game, down, distance and recent success indicate that a run is the better move, some level of strategic mixing of strategies is necessary. Also, he's basically saying nothing. Most football fans know that basic concept, the question asked was more of a "Why did you chose that particular moment as the time to use your strategically mixed passing play?" not "explain to us the concept of strategic mixing." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCClybun Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Keeping the defense honest essentially means making them accountable for every player and every possible play. If you're in a running situation---short yardage or something---you might want to keep the defense honest by running a naked bootleg. On 3rd and 1, if they're expecting one, and they're trying to drop a guy in the box, it might be good to run play action and try to take a shot deep. Even if it's incomplete, the defense will be a little less likely to stack the box against the run in that situation. On what's typically a passing down, like a 3rd and 7, you might want to run the draw. Maybe it doesn't gain you everything you want, but if you can break one for a big gain, then they're a lot less likely to drop 6 dudes into coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuriousD Posted October 5, 2011 Author Share Posted October 5, 2011 Had a feeling I was over simplifying. So it's more than just down and distance, pass verses run. The defense must be made to account for the field, side to side as well as deep. Is that the reason Kyle opened with the bootleg alot? He did it 2-3 times early on.... play rolls one way... Rex goes the other and the weakside 'backer is shown quickly that he can't get too involved in plays going away from him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCClybun Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Had a feeling I was over simplifying. So it's more than just down and distance, pass verses run. The defense must be made to account for the field, side to side as well as deep. Is that the reason Kyle opened with the bootleg alot? He did it 2-3 times early on.... play rolls one way... Rex goes the other and the weakside 'backer is shown quickly that he can't get too involved in plays going away from him. Basically; the idea and thinking had to be that the Rams were expecting us to run, and running the bootlegs were designed to take advantage of that... The problem was, we didn't have the run game established, and those naked bootlegs are a key principal in our offense. Also, the Ravens torched them with it, so Spags wasn't going to have them get destroyed by them again, especially with our best deep threat out with a Hamstring injury. Had we started the game by running the ball and then getting a decent gain, and the Rams dropped a safety in the box to keep it from getting out hand again (worse run defense in the league), and THEN we play action bootleg, not only do we have a better chance of someone getting open deep, we also "keep the defense honest" by forcing them to account for our deep passing game, getting the safety out of the box, and therefore letting our team run with more success. That would be keeping the defense honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Therefore, keeping a defense honest boils down to running and equal mix of run and pass REGARDLESS of down and distance and more importantly, REGARDLESS of the quarter.Formations have multiple plays that can be run from each set.Keeping a defense honest is about forcing the defense to account for all possibilities within a given personnel grouping/formation. E.g. Dive-Off Tackle-Toss-Outisde zone stretch Play-action-Dive-Play-action Off tackle-Fake Pitch- Naked bootleg swap off zone stretch run Play action bootleg QB option (run/pass) etc. Something like a pass on 3-1 with a lead in the 4th. A call like that takes balls. Because if you don't, and you start to get conservative (and folks, we've seen this before!),... well, you're just tipping your hand. Giving the defense an advantage of loading the box and tightening up is counter productive when attempting to work the clock. (Gibbs in Tampa Bay, anyone?)Kinda sorta but in our case running the ball on 3rd and 1 is more likely to catch a defense off guard because teams are smart and have watched every 3rd and 1 call we've made not just this year but last year and they'll know that X amount of time on 3rd and 1 we called X amount of passes vs X amount of runs.They'll know which formations and how many times we've used them and which route combinations were used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Kinda sorta but in our case running the ball on 3rd and 1 is more likely to catch a defense off guard because teams are smart and have watched every 3rd and 1 call we've made not just this year but last year and they'll know that X amount of time on 3rd and 1 we called X amount of passes vs X amount of runs. They'll know which formations and how many times we've used them and which route combinations were used. Right, thats why with a 17 point lead with 10 minutes left in the game, on the road, it's even more of a head scratcher. It'd be keeping them honest to actually RUN on 3-1, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destructis Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 It's just one of those situations that if the play works, it's a genius call and if it doesn't, it's an idiot call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins island connection Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 There are some plays that have all but disappeared from the playbook. Screens are a rarity, counter-sweep hasn't been used [ if thats what its called], and it seems that Kyle has a situational play in mind before the previous play has been run at times. Face it, the offense is nowhere smooth yet, but its settling in piece by piece; its going to be a matter of Kyle getting more experience in playcalling and the team being a unified working group on the field, which means the receivers and backs who aren't getting the ball has to do a better job of selling their routes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terryb101 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 So much has already been made of a couple of Kyle's play calls. You already know the ones so I won't bore you with the details....link http://www.redskins.com/media-gallery/videos/Mike-Shanahan-10-3/d4218ce6-fde5-47c2-87c5-3624884f0f66 Yesterdays press conferance with Mike Shanahan kicks right off with a question about one of these calls, namely the first and 10 (up 17-0) that resulted in the second INT. Mike's answer is slow to get going as he seems to take issue right off the bat but he settles down and eventually says,(paraphrasing): "sometimes you have to look at a running play compared to a quarterback keep. We need to keep a defense honest. And sometimes we consider a quarterback keep just like a running play and make sure the defense plays honest". Just for the record,we know that a quarterback keep is not what it sounds like. No one in their right mind would want a QB slower than the second coming of Christ running the ball. So "keeping the defense honest" is obviously important enough for Mike to mention it twice in the same breath but what does it mean? And more importantly, does it explain throwing on 1-10 with a 17-point lead and throwing on 3-1 late in the game with a 7-point lead? Disclaimer> I have no football experience whatsoever. None. Here's my take: regardless of down and distance, you have to keep the opposition guessing run or pass. 1-10 or 2-5 or 3-1 ... it's imperative that the defense be aware that you might go either way. And the only way to drive that point home is to prove it to them. Therefore, keeping a defense honest boils down to running and equal mix of run and pass REGARDLESS of down and distance and more importantly, REGARDLESS of the quarter. But sooner or later (more often later), your going to have to dial up something that goes against your natural instinct ... something counter-intuitive. Something like a pass on 3-1 with a lead in the 4th. A call like that takes balls. Because if you don't, and you start to get conservative (and folks, we've seen this before!),... well, you're just tipping your hand. Giving the defense an advantage of loading the box and tightening up is counter productive when attempting to work the clock. (Gibbs in Tampa Bay, anyone?) I would appreciate insight from anyone with their explaination of keeping the defense honest and feel free to shoot down my theory if I've got it all wrong. hail. :helmet: keeping them honest means , keeping them from keying on either the run or the pass..keep em guessing as to what you are going to do next,that way they wont be able to either crowd the line or drop more back in coverage, they will have to play straight up, which gives you the advantage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 It's just one of those situations that if the play works, it's a genius call and if it doesn't, it's an idiot call. First off great thread,and I love the disclaimer. Second Destructis is right.............however when the something is working well why do anything else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 It's just one of those situations that if the play works, it's a genius call and if it doesn't, it's an idiot call. Yep and if you look at the break down, it was a beautiful call. ---------- Post added October-5th-2011 at 11:08 AM ---------- First off great thread,and I love the disclaimer. Second Destructis is right.............however when the something is working well why do anything else? Because, when you are up 17-0 and your defense is absolutely smothering the opposition, it is time to lay wood and also give future opposition something to think about. That specific play was a GREAT call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gortiz Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 bottom line ... I rather be ****ing about the skins bering too aggresive and being to wreckless with their play calling ... as opposed to, ****ing about us playing prevent on D, doing the run, run, checkdown shuffle, and not showing any stones at all. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS PEOPLE. H:helmet:IL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 [/color] Because, when you are up 17-0 and your defense is absolutely smothering the opposition, it is time to lay wood and also give future opposition something to think about. That specific play was a GREAT call. No that play sucked, it was an INT remember? hahhaaa just as Destructis said, if it works it is a great play, if it don't than it was a terrible idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 No that play sucked, it was an INT remember? hahhaaa just as Destructis said, if it works it is a great play, if it don't than it was a terrible idea. Hello? Play and call are different things. In this situation, a FG only makes the final score "pretty" while a TD had strategic value (if we'd been up by less than 17 than the call should have been a run). That the play is not well executed does NOT make the call bad. The results DO NOT make a call good or bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Hello? Play and call are different things. In this situation, a FG only makes the final score "pretty" while a TD had strategic value (if we'd been up by less than 17 than the call should have been a run). That the play is not well executed does NOT make the call bad. The results DO NOT make a call good or bad. Hello mkay, your preaching "AT" the choir. I only brought up that the run was working so why go against that. I don't have a problem with the team finally going for the jugular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IS guhn RAIN Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Whats frustrating is I dont think they have done a very good job keeping the defense honest. Too many times I have known exactly what is coming. Every 2nd and 10 is a run. And my biggest problem so far has been in probable running situations, they have motioned the RB out of the backfield out wide as a receiver. The play that comes to mind was the interception against Dallas where the Linebackers all dropped deep into coverage once they saw Helu motion out of the backfield, and what do you know, interception by a lineback cheating back and covering the middle 20 yards down the field. Thats not keeping the defense guessing. They know its pass all the way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Whats frustrating is I dont think they have done a very good job keeping the defense honest. Too many times I have known exactly what is coming. Every 2nd and 10 is a run. And my biggest problem so far has been in probable running situations, they have motioned the RB out of the backfield out wide as a receiver. The play that comes to mind was the interception against Dallas where the Linebackers all dropped deep into coverage once they saw Helu motion out of the backfield, and what do you know, interception by a lineback cheating back and covering the middle 20 yards down the field. Thats not keeping the defense guessing. They know its pass all the way Motioning out the running back may take away the threat of a run but the design of the play is to create mismatches in coverage. We have some good pass-catching, very athletic RBs and TEs that are not easy for LBs to handle and by splitting the back out wide we effectively have a 4 or 5 wide set matched up against a base defense. The passing routes in that kind of play are generally going to be designed to exploit the mismatch in some way, whether or not the defense drops everyone back, bitzes, plays man coverage, or plays zone coverage is irrelevant unless our offense badly fails to execute. Grossman's pick against Dallas was an example of an iffy decision made much worse by a late throw with a terrible trajectory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 bottom line ... I rather be ****ing about the skins bering too aggresive and being to wreckless with their play calling ... as opposed to, ****ing about us playing prevent on D, doing the run, run, checkdown shuffle, and not showing any stones at all. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS PEOPLE. H:helmet:IL That is my general opinion as well. For years, spanning countless coordinators, we've complained that we tried to sit on a small lead on offense or played too passively on defense. We read more threads than I can remember about how you can't win that way "in the modern NFL". Now we have two coordinators who try to finish teams off. It's going to fail sometimes, but overall I love the philosophy and mentality. Of course there are limits and caveats in every situation so I'm not really ready to defend every call Kyle or Haslett has made. But, as a general rule I love this change and I'm glad my favorite team is employing these tactics now. Both strategies are destined to fail sometimes...neither one will work 100% of the time. So, if I had to choose, I'm all in on my team being all in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 I still hate to see an offense go empty backfield on less than 10 for a first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuriousD Posted October 6, 2011 Author Share Posted October 6, 2011 That is my general opinion as well. For years, spanning countless coordinators, we've complained that we tried to sit on a small lead on offense or played too passively on defense. We read more threads than I can remember about how you can't win that way "in the modern NFL". Now we have two coordinators who try to finish teams off. It's going to fail sometimes, but overall I love the philosophy and mentality. Of course there are limits and caveats in every situation so I'm not really ready to defend every call Kyle or Haslett has made. But, as a general rule I love this change and I'm glad my favorite team is employing these tactics now. Both strategies are destined to fail sometimes...neither one will work 100% of the time. So, if I had to choose, I'm all in on my team being all in. Couldn't agree more! I think that's why we got so excited in the preseason about the possibilities. We saw both offense and defense have some successes and they looked dangerous! Opening day against the Giants bore that out and expectations rose even further ... maybe too high. Defense is definately nasty and I'm loving it. But with that comes risk and we've witnessed first hand being on the short end of that. Same can be said of the offense but we havn't enjoyed the same level of execution from the offense recently. But it will come and we need to keep reminding ourselves that this team is still very "new". I'm pumped about where this team is headed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.