Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

It's a passing league, but...


Burgold

Recommended Posts

I don't see Tebow's success lasting long-term in Denver. Stopping him is like stopping Michael Vick, if the defense can shut down the run game or the offense can get a lead and force him pass, then he's going to struggle.

Which is why you wouldn't want that type of limited QB here (any more than you'd want a Sanchez/Flacco type). It's fun to watch on another team though.

We want a QB that can win games when the D plays bad, WRs drop catches and the running game doesn't show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is a lesson for NFL teams in Tebow's success, to me it seems to be that a team can have success by molding it's system around the available players, rather than trying to find players that fit what a coach wants to do. I think that teams in the NFL can have a lot of success by picking up superior athletes who are undervalued because they don't fit the typical NFL schemes. One of the success stories of the Redskins defense is Ryan Kerrigan, and the team took a lot of flack for selecting him, because supposedly we already had an elephant in Brian Orakpo and a 3-4 team can only use one. In that case, the Skins took the best player available and changed their scheme a bit to make him a better fit. There are many examples of great players who were undervalued early in their careers because they were too short or too small or too big to play the position they played in college.

Spread option quarterbacks coming out of college are one really obvious example of athletes that, I believe, are currently undervalued by NFL teams because they don't fit NFL schemes. Spread option quarterbacks are many times the best athletes on their teams and are frequently undrafted or drafted much lower than they would have been if they played a different position in college. A coach that can come up with a scheme to use these quarterbacks has a great choice of athletes using low draft picks on very affordable contracts. Denver is having some success running a hybrid option, but there are other possibilities. One possibility would be as a dual threat tailback. One of the problems with a pitch at the NFL level is that the outside pitch puts the ball far behind the line of scrimmage. If the outside defender gets loose, a team can end up losing a lot of yards on a running play. If that tailback has a quick enough run/pass read, he can either throw the ball away or complete a forward pass to the receiver who is supposed to be blocking the outside defender. It seems like this would put a lot of pressure on the defender who is supposed to be keeping the pitch from getting to the corner.

Another possibility would be to find a use for faster more athletic offensive linemen who are too small to play in the NFL. I think that one of the reasons that zone blocking was successful is that it uses these players who were undervalued, but there are still college players who are too small for those schemes. A team might be able to use them in sort of a utility blocking role, much like a specialized tight end/half back. They could specialize in blocking from motion or blocking from the outside edge particularly against a blitzing linebacker or DB. These types of players could also excel at getting to the second level, where they would match up well against line backers or safeties, instead of blocking every down against bigger defensive lineman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the old saying? "You pass to score."

I think it can be said that now, you pass to win titles.

There is still a place for the run the ball/play great defense and special teams formula in the NFL. And you can absolutely win division titles doing that. At some point though, the 49ers are going to be on the road in the playoffs with Alex Smith under center. I don't like what happens then.

The issue that will kill the 49ers and Broncos is that they don't have a margin for error. The Steelers were down 14 to the Ravens in the playoffs last year but could score enough to come back. I don't think either team can make up that kind of deficit in the playoffs.

It's basically the reason why Marty Schottenheimer never won a title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And San Fran is winning because of their defense.

Same with recent SB teams like the Steelers x3, Bucs, Ravens, Patriots x3, Bears, Giants, Panthers. MOST SB teams have the #1 defense that year lately, or at least top 3. Right now the 49ers have the #1 defense, it's not surprising that they are very close to being undefeated right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the old saying? "You pass to score."

I think it can be said that now' date=' you pass to win titles.[/quote']Actually that quote is imcomplete.

The full saying is: "You pass to score and run to win"

I believe it comes from Ron Erhardt and its a belief of 2/3 of the major offensive philosphies in the league: E&P and Coryell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same with recent SB teams like the Steelers x3, Bucs, Ravens, Patriots x3, Bears, Giants, Panthers. MOST SB teams have the #1 defense that year lately, or at least top 3. Right now the 49ers have the #1 defense, it's not surprising that they are very close to being undefeated right now.

The Giants weren't a top 5 defense when they won the SuperBowl by points or yards, and you've left other recent winners out recent winners (the Saints and the Colts).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Giants weren't a top 5 defense when they won the SuperBowl by points or yards, and you've left other recent winners out recent winners (the Saints and the Colts).

Somewhere it appears that you missed the word MOST, but even though the Saints defense ranked low in points and yards they did lead the league in takeaways which probably helps a guy like Drew Brees, right? The Colts didn't have a good defense and they are the only SB winner the past decade+ to win with a bad defense, it also didn't hurt that they were facing Rex Grossman the year they won a SB, the ONLY year they won a SB with arguably the best QB in NFL history(and they still came close to losing).

So once again, great defenses seem to be much more important than great QB's, otherwise Roethlisberger and his 9/21 120 yards 2Ints 0Tds wouldn't have won him a SB and Brady wasn't an ELITE QB in any of his SB seasons, yet now that he is and he has better offensive weapons as well, he can't seem to win one. What's the difference? Maybe its the fact that the Pats defense is no longer ranked #1-3 every year, which it was their SB winning seasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somewhere it appears that you missed the word MOST, but even though the Saints defense ranked low in points and yards they did lead the league in takeaways which probably helps a guy like Drew Brees, right? The Colts didn't have a good defense and they are the only SB winner the past decade+ to win with a bad defense, it also didn't hurt that they were facing Rex Grossman the year they won a SB, the ONLY year they won a SB with arguably the best QB in NFL history(and they still came close to losing).

So once again, great defenses seem to be much more important than great QB's, otherwise Roethlisberger and his 9/21 120 yards 2Ints 0Tds wouldn't have won him a SB and Brady wasn't an ELITE QB in any of his SB seasons, yet now that he is and he has better offensive weapons as well, he can't seem to win one. What's the difference? Maybe its the fact that the Pats defense is no longer ranked #1-3 every year, which it was their SB winning seasons.

Is a turnover really any different than punt? Does it matter how you get Brees the ball?

(The answer is not really.)

Roethlisberger is an ELITE QB irregardless of how he played in any single game.

The Patriots were a good to very good offense (3rd, 4th, and 12th on offense vs. 2nd, 1st, and 6th on defense) when compared to when they were winning SuperBowls and, except for maybe the first one, Brady was considered an elite (QB)

To say they were a BAD or even not GOOD offense most of the year they won is simply not correct.

MOST years a team that is near the top in BOTH categories win. MOST recently if the team hasn't been pretty balanced, the team that has won has been MUCH better on offense than defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who pick on the Broncos comparison... that's one more notch in their belt for the running team. For the record, didn't watch the game so I don't know how the Broncos won, but I'm guessing it wasn't a Joe Montana/Tom Brady passing fest.

It wasn't even a John Beck versus Cary Conklin passing fest. That might have been the worst exhibition of passing offense I have seen from two NFL teams. It was a game won by defense, running the ball and capitalising on opponents mistakes. Nothing wrong with that - but your not going to win championships with that formula.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roethlisberger is an ELITE QB irregardless of how he played in any single game.

The Patriots were a good to very good offense (3rd, 4th, and 12th on offense vs. 2nd, 1st, and 6th on defense) when compared to when they were winning SuperBowls and, except for maybe the first one, Brady was considered an elite (QB)

To say they were a BAD or even not GOOD offense most of the year they won is simply not correct.

MOST years a team that is near the top in BOTH categories win. MOST recently if the team hasn't been pretty balanced, the team that has won has been MUCH better on offense than defense.

Roethlisberger the Elite QB in his SB seasons:

2005 2300 yards, 17tds 9ints but most importantly was his 3rd ranked defense that gave up 16 points a game and the 2200 rushing yards and 21td's. Yes, the team ran for almost as many yards as he passed for.

2008 3300 yards 17tds 15ints but the defense was #1 easily and gave up under 14 a game.

2010 (lost SB) 3200 yards 17tds 5ints, defense once again ranked #1 and the games he didn't start Batch and Dixon wen't 3-1

All 3 of his SB years he wasn't elite but his defense was ranked top 3 and #1 2 of the 3 seasons. The 2 years of his career that their defense wasn't ranked top 10 and he put up much more "elite" qb numbers, the Steelers were 8-8 and 9-7. So much for the Elite QB theory. Elite QB's dont pass for 120 yards and throw 2ints and 0tds in the SB either.

And about the Pats offense, they weren't a great offense because Brady was an elite qb throwing 4500-5000 yards and 40+ tds like he does now. Their offense was balanced and the difference is now their defense isn't even close to as good even though they put up 30-40 a game. Brady won SB's when he was passing for 3000ish and 20tds with a top 5 defense. Now he can't win a playoff game despite having 2x the stats and scoring 10+ more points a game.

---------- Post added November-18th-2011 at 01:24 PM ----------

Is a turnover really any different than punt? Does it matter how you get Brees the ball?

(The answer is not really.)

Is this a serious question? Then why do teams with negative turnover ratios lose? Do you think its the same thing to get the ball at your 10-15 yard like as to get it at the other teams 30 or have an Int returned for 6?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is a turnover really any different than punt? Does it matter how you get Brees the ball?

(The answer is not really.)

Very much it is. You do realize that after ability to hit the big play, the next most important thing to scoring is the number of short field drives? That Brees very much has relied on short fields?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roethlisberger the Elite QB in his SB seasons:

2005 2300 yards, 17tds 9ints but most importantly was his 3rd ranked defense that gave up 16 points a game and the 2200 rushing yards and 21td's. Yes, the team ran for almost as many yards as he passed for.

2008 3300 yards 17tds 15ints but the defense was #1 easily and gave up under 14 a game.

2010 (lost SB) 3200 yards 17tds 5ints, defense once again ranked #1 and the games he didn't start Batch and Dixon wen't 3-1

All 3 of his SB years he wasn't elite but his defense was ranked top 3 and #1 2 of the 3 seasons. The 2 years of his career that their defense wasn't ranked top 10 and he put up much more "elite" qb numbers, the Steelers were 8-8 and 9-7. So much for the Elite QB theory. Elite QB's dont pass for 120 yards and throw 2ints and 0tds in the SB either.

The Steelers were still top a top 10 offense in 2005, and they were 3rd and yards/pass attempt, which is probably the most important offensive statistic in terms of winning (which generally means a good passing team) (http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_889_A_passing_). The 2010 team is similar. The 2008 team is one of the recent cases where the team had a good defense and an average offense, but it was still better than the defense of the Saints or Colts.

In 1998 against the Redskins, John Elway was 14-38 with 267 yards 1 TD and 3 INT for a passing rating of 36.8.

Interstingly, in that SuperBowl Rothlesberger had more yards/attempt.than Hasselbach, who I bet you think had a much better game.

And about the Pats offense, they weren't a great offense because Brady was an elite qb throwing 4500-5000 yards and 40+ tds like he does now. Their offense was balanced and the difference is now their defense isn't even close to as good even though they put up 30-40 a game. Brady won SB's when he was passing for 3000ish and 20tds with a top 5 defense. Now he can't win a playoff game despite having 2x the stats and scoring 10+ more points a game.

I'm not claiming a team with an average/bad defense WILL win the SuperBowl. I am not claiming that any particular team with an average/bad team WILL win the SuperBowl. I am saying that generally a team with a good defense AND a good offense will win.

BUT if you want to look at recent history and say you were going to excel at offense or defense based on recent SB history, it would offense.

Just because his absolute numbers have gotten better doesn't mean he wasn't elite before. A guy that throws 10 passes a game and averages 100 yards a game is better than a guy that throws for 200 yards on 30 passes.

Is this a serious question? Then why do teams with negative turnover ratios lose? Do you think its the same thing to get the ball at your 10-15 yard like as to get it at the other teams 30 or have an Int returned for 6?

Because teams that get turnovers generally have good defenses. They don't give up a lot of yards, and they don't give up a lot points. The Saints were an anomally.

On the otherside, teams that turn the ball over tend to NOT have good offenses. QBs that are inaccurate tend to throw interceptions, they also tend to just be BAD QBs.

But you've forgotten the Saints defense gave up lots of yards. I didn't say it didn't matter WHERE Brees got the ball, but a team that allows the team to drive for 50 yards and then gets turnover isn't better than a team that gives up 20 yards, but than forces a punt.

Was the Saints defense better than an equivalent defense in terms of yards and points and DIDN'T get turnovers, yes, but in terms of giving the Saint a short field, were they better than even an average defense. NO!

The Saints were 26th in average starting LOS on offense. The turnovers did NOT generate better field starting position over an "average" team.

---------- Post added November-19th-2011 at 08:35 AM ----------

Very much it is. You do realize that after ability to hit the big play, the next most important thing to scoring is the number of short field drives? That Brees very much has relied on short fields?

I don't think this is true. The Saints had some of the worse starting field position and on average had a large number of yards/drive on offense.

Giving up a bunch of yards and then getting a turnover is not better than giving up fewer yards and then forcing a punt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Looks like the team from the 1950's made it into the second round bettering a modern era team.

Really wish when they showed the Broncos they shot that team in black in white while their opponenets would be in color. It does speak though to how a good team... a running, hard nose defensive team, with just a little big play passing can still get it done.

Is Denver the exception that makes the rule? To me, it just shows that if you do something well you can get it done. That, and lines are very important. The QB has always been a major piece of the puzzle, but Tebow's success ironically shows us that the game isn't all about the passer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like the team from the 1950's made it into the second round bettering a modern era team.

Really wish when they showed the Broncos they shot that team in black in white while their opponenets would be in color. It does speak though to how a good team... a running, hard nose defensive team, with just a little big play passing can still get it done.

Is Denver the exception that makes the rule? To me, it just shows that if you do something well you can get it done. That, and lines are very important. The QB has always been a major piece of the puzzle, but Tebow's success ironically shows us that the game isn't all about the passer.

And if anyone paid attention to Saturday night, one of the big keys to the Saints win was their ability to run the ball with Pierre Thomas and Sproles. Lions couldn't keep a balance in their offense. Saints could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you have two movements in the NFL right now, the run hard playaction (Bengals, SF, Denver, Texans) and the spread/pass happy off. (Saints, Packers, NE).

There also some teams who switch or combine the two (Eagels).

We are probally setting up for the first one, run hard playaction. We don't have the depth at WR to spread things out and it's against Shanahan's nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, the 49ers have a pro bowl running back and a solid O-line built through the draft. They have a number 1 overall pick as a QB who finally has a coach who believes in him and can now build on stability. They also have skilled players to help this QB out. And a defense who smacks people around.

This is much closer then giving the Broncos props.

The way the Broncis play will catch up with them. People have not seen this offense on film, and teams will soon figure out how to stop it. Tebow has to learn to throw or he will be sitting on the bench soon. I can not believe a QB can keep succeeding with that kind of game plan. Dont get me wrong he is a "winner", a leader and seems like a good dude, but there is no way this 1930's brand of football will be able to keep up.

Give the 9ers props, but lets not forget their defense is winning them games as well.

After last night and they way Tebow and the Broncos handled one of the best D in the league all i got to say? What says you my friend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tebow's performance is almost exactly like Matt Flynn's performance, and just as fraudulent. You simply cannot assume that an NFL team is going to blow coverages left and right like they're a high school team, which is what the Steelers did.

And the ironic thing for all of the "RUNNING OFFENSE IS BACK BABY" people is that the game was won because Tebow threw for 300 yards on a ridiculous YPA. Not because the team ran for 250 yards or something.

Also, Troy Polamalu really got exposed last night. Without Ryan Clark to cover for his constant cheating towards the run (and he sucks in deep coverage anyway), he suddenly looks very ordinary.

Remember when Steve Jackson or somebody compared Landry to Polamalu and we thought it was nuts? It's an accurate comparison really, and we saw flashes of that when Landry was healthy last year. Great playmaker and run stopper, mediocre in coverage.

And also, LeBeau called a *horrid* gameplan. They were terrified of losing contain on Tebow. Why? He's not Vick speed-wise. He's not even McNabb speed-wise. The DLs assumed that they could give him a day to throw and he couldn't chuck it deep and hope for the best.

Basically, if you look at their scheme, it was 8 in the box and keep contain. Rex Grossman probably could have thrown 300-400 (on better accuracy!) against that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't help noticing that two of the biggest turnarounds and successes in the league this year seem to be be the 49ers and Tebow's Broncos. From what I understand, Tebow is practically playing a brand of football not seen in the NFL since the 1930's... and it's working. Likewise, the 49ers are a running team, a hard running team.

It's about more than the running game.

Alex Smith threw 445 passes. He threw 5 picks. They only turned the ball over 10 times. They created 38 turnovers. Both of those numbers are league bests.

They definitely ran the ball successfully, too, though. And yes, that has something to do with it. But it's about total team play, and a lack of turnovers and a knack for getting them.

The first thing we need to improve is the rate at which we're giving up the football. And that starts with replacing the quarterback.

Did you know that only four of our 35 turnovers can be directly placed on someone that didn't play quarterback for us? Helu had two fumbles, Davis had a fumble and Gaffney had a fumble.

Our quarterbacks combined for 35 turnover opportunities (fumbles/picks) and that's not counting dropped picks (although, to be fair, balls tipped by receivers, or a receiver not coming back/etc probably evens out that number a bit).

Those two had 35 opportunites. Alex Smith had 12. That's a QB differential of 23 TO opportunities.

Remember, with a good running game and a stout defense, Grossman was a Superbowl calibre quarterback.

It's my opinion that Grossman has never been a Super Bowl caliber quarterback. He simply was the quarterback of a Super Bowl team. I think if the Bears had a less turnover prone QB during that run, they would have been Super Bowl Champions. But that's pure conjecture, and I digress I can't intelligently debate that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The total team play is really what the thread's about kdawg. It was originally written in response to the qb myopia that has saturated ES.

But total team play, was helped almost entirely, by having a QB that didn't turn the ball over. That's my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But total team play, was helped almost entirely, by having a QB that didn't turn the ball over. That's my point.

Nahhhh.... because a qb isn't the only person who can turn a ball over. If you want to make the argument that turnovers are still one of the key differences to winning and losing a football game, I'm with you.

It's not a key element to this particular argument which is that you don't have to have an elite A+++ QB to have any chance at winning in the modern NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nahhhh.... because a qb isn't the only person who can turn a ball over. If you want to make the argument that turnovers are still one of the key differences to winning and losing a football game, I'm with you.

It's not a key element to this particular argument which is that you don't have to have an elite A+++ QB to have any chance at winning in the modern NFL.

Our QBs combined for 35 turnover opportunities, Burg.

That's a huge number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Denver/Pitt was an anomaly in several ways, but the Broncos had the psychological edge, one of those indefinable things that is so readily dismissed by so many but matters so often. They got up early on a couple very close plays, if it had been a constant back-n-forth slugfest the outcome may have been different. Getting and keeping that ephemeral advantage again against the Pats will be much harder, they will not be playing against a QB trying to play on one leg.

But there is something to be said for a team that is all on the same page, without lockerrom distractions and divas, and a QB that doesn't have a slow leak in his head like ours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...