I have a concern about the Shanahan offensive scheme.

[Oldfan]

...

I read recently in a USA Today article that Jake Plummer has told the Denver Post that the Mike Shanahan he played for was obsessed with the team's ranking in offensive statistics. I found the comment credible because I have suspected that for some time.

The goal of coaching is to win football games. When coaches have concern for their statistical ranking, they have gone in a different direction. Greg Blache did that with his full-time, passive, bend-but-don't-break strategy. Greg had his eye on the points rankings. He told us that several times. His strategy was a sound one for achieving a high ranking for his unit, but a lousy one if winning football games is the goal. Blache's strategy provided few short-field opportunities for the offense and made it easy for the opponent to play ball control and keep our offense off the field.

Ball control has been a useful strategy since the game was invented. Ball control can be achieved by running the football (Lombardi's Packers), by a 50/50 run-to-pass ratio (Walsh's WCO) or by passing out of the shotgun (Belichik's Patriots). Teams have been successful using a dynamic passing game to grab the lead and then holding it with a ball control running game (Gibbs's Riggo Drill).

A very good ball control offense will do well winning football games, but its effectiveness will not show up in the stats rankings because the strategy results in fewer drives for both teams -- fewer drives equals less points and less yardage.

Mike Shanahan's offense has not been good at ball control. The ZBS achieves its gaudy stats by breaking long runs, not by grinding out first downs. Mike's passing game uses some WCO elements but it is more Coryell than Walsh in its vertical game. It seems to me that the overall design of his offense is better at achieving high rankings than winning games.

Mike has had full control of a football team for 12 seasons prior to this one. His offense achieved top ten rankings (yardage) seven times while winning 8.5 games on the average.

In fairness, I need to point out that my argument rests on the premise that a ball control strategy will continue to be as effective in the future as it has been in the past. If I'm wrong about that then it is possible that the Shanahan offense can be so dynamic that it will lead the NFL in both stats and wins. Al Davis's Oakland Raiders won back-to-back Super Bowls with Jim Plunkett and a keep-the-pedal-to-the-metal offense. So, it is possible, but I think not likely.

[DC9]

Jake Plummer was a quiter.

[Audible_Red40]

I highly doubt that his offense is designed to look good on the stats sheet rather then win games, that's absurd.

[Probos]

Valid enough argument. Ball control for this team would be the way to go consider how bad the defense is,....keep them off the field and the opposing teams offense. Would be nice to have another horse in the back field to spend Morris some,...maybe Grant can be slowly worked in more as time goes on.

Not sure if Shanny is "obsessed" with offensive rankings/stats -- all I know is this. Skins are 2-3,..Vikes are up next but right after it's @the Giants then @the Steelers. They don't get this win on Sunday it's gonna get ugly real fast. I'm not sure what can be done to help this atrocious defense,...but, if ball control can help I'm all for it. Problem is,...you gotta hope the Shanahans are thinking the same thing.

[SWFLSkins]

Hard to verify if true or not, but I agree in premise. If the D is on the field more than the offense the other team has more scoring opportunities. It's that simple, if TOP is sacrificed for an offensive speed game the chances are that you're D is susceptible to fatigue. The stats that matter are W-L, and that is out of whack at this point.

[MartinC]

Worth noting though that this year we have been good in terms of time of possession - we rank 13th right now and were much higher before the last game in which we only had the ball for about 22 minutes. We also rank 8th in terms of scoring. Then again the offense we are running now is a hybrid of the Shanny's version of the WCO passing game with a ZBS running game onto which we have grafted some read option concepts to take advantage of what RGIII was doing at Baylor. With this new offense the play calling has also been much more balanced run/pass than in previous years with Kyle - he has typically been 60/40 pass run in previous years.

Its worth watching but I really dont feel like offense is or is going to be an issue as long as we keep RGIII upright. Defense is the concern along with the special teams breakdowns for me.

[WhoRUSupposed2Be]

Worth noting though that this year we have been good in terms of time of possession - we rank 13th right now and were much higher before the last game in which we only had the ball for about 22 minutes. We also rank 8th in terms of scoring. Then again the offense we are running now is a hybrid of the Shanny's version of the WCO passing game with a ZBS running game onto which we have grafted some read option concepts to take advantage of what RGIII was doing at Baylor. With this new offense the play calling has also been much more balanced run/pass than in previous years with Kyle - he has typically been 60/40 pass run in previous years.

Its worth watching but I really dont feel like offense is or is going to be an issue as long as we keep RGIII upright. Defense is the concern along with the special teams breakdowns for me.

This is where the problem lies.

Also, keep in mind of our third down conversion rates, field position and as well as points left on the board (thanks to Cunwhiff). All of these things go hand in hand when you're talking about ball-control and scoring.

[Oldfan]

Hard to verify if true or not, but I agree in premise. If the D is on the field more than the offense the other team has more scoring opportunities. It's that simple, if TOP is sacrificed for an offensive speed game the chances are that you're D is susceptible to fatigue. The stats that matter are W-L, and that is out of whack at this point.

Worth noting though that this year we have been good in terms of time of possession - we rank 13th right now and were much higher before the last game in which we only had the ball for about 22 minutes. We also rank 8th in terms of scoring. Then again the offense we are running now is a hybrid of the Shanny's version of the WCO passing game with a ZBS running game onto which we have grafted some read option concepts to take advantage of what RGIII was doing at Baylor. With this new offense the play calling has also been much more balanced run/pass than in previous years with Kyle - he has typically been 60/40 pass run in previous years.

Its worth watching but I really dont feel like offense is or is going to be an issue as long as we keep RGIII upright. Defense is the concern along with the special teams breakdowns for me.

The time of possession stat is not an accurate measure of an offense's ball control capability because the defense's ability to get the offense off the field has an equal effect. Moreover, on a five-game sample, the way we match up with our opponents is in play.

---------- Post added October-11th-2012 at 08:41 AM ----------

This is where the problem lies.

Also, keep in mind of our third down conversion rates, field position and as well as points left on the board (thanks to Cunwhiff). All of these things go hand in hand when you're talking about ball-control and scoring.

Those things might ALSO be concerns, but they aren't the concern I'm writing about.

[RedskinParadigm]

Ball-control offenses are important, but quick-strike offenses can be equally as effective provided it works in concert with a defensive philosophy that compliments it.

I criticized the bend-don't-break strategy this past week against Atlanta because that philosophy does NOT compliment a quick-strike offense; it compliments a ball-control offense. A bend-don't-break philosophy allows the opposing team to control the clock, keep this offense off the field, and keep the score low. When we scored on a 77-yard TD pass - yes, it was a great thing - but it also gave the ball directly back to Atlanta to work on our increasingly-fatigued defense. In a way, that was the best of a negative situation for Atlanta; they didn't want to allow a score, but if they did, it was better that it happened quickly as opposed to a 10-15 play drive.

Now if you're going to rely on an explosive offense capable of striking from anywhere on the field (NYG last year, New England's record-setting year with Randy Moss, Green Bay last year) you want a pressure defense that is capable of getting off the field either by forcing turnovers or by forcing punts, even if it means you've given up a few more points than with another strategy. Before the Atlanta game, that's what this defense was actually good at; they were top 10 in 3rd down conversion percentage and #2 in takeaways. Yes, they gave up way too many points, but they were getting the ball back into Griffin's hands and allowing this offense to go to work. Against Atlanta, that strategy flipped, and it affected the offensive output. Personally, I did not like that.

I think either offensive philosophy can be effective, provided the entire team's philosophy meshes together. Time of possession is a critical component to success, and if one side of the ball isn't placing an emphasis on that, then the other side of the ball must. A quick-strike offense and bend-don't break defense don't work well together, IMO, just like a ball-control offense doesn't work as well with a super-aggressive defense focused more on turnovers and big plays than points-allowed.

Of course, the best of both worlds is to have an offense and a defense capable of both philosophies, but those teams are almost completely erased from history since FA gained traction.

[Mad Mike]

Oh dear god. :doh:

Every year it's the same thing. It doesn't matter if we look good or look bad. Some fan thinks he knows more about coaching, or about players he has never seen practice in person much less watched and graded every day by coaches with decades of ACTUAL NFL coaching experience and decides this forum is the place to be recognized for their "undeniable football godhood." At some level it's a natural thing. we are all fans. All proud of our football IQ. And we all want the respect of our peers for it. But EVERY YEAR some one, or several people exhibit new levels of hubris with outlandish diatribes against the their coach of choice for some perceived mismanagement of the team.

This year has reached new levels of absurdity. I thought the thread asking if Kyle's "run, run, run" offense got RG3 injured even though the play was clearly a pass that RG3 decided to run on and then made the bad decision to not get out of bounds or slide. And questioning Shanahan's "nepotism" even though it's constantly been show that being the son of a coach or player is a great advantage in the NFL because they begin learning the game so completely at such an early age. An Kyle proved himself in Texas as an OC before coming here. But this thread takes the ******* cake and just throws it against the wall.

Evidently, now our stats are "too good.". Apparently our Head coach with multiple superbowls doesn't care about winning as much as padding stats. and putting up lots of points is not a good way to win games (has oldfan even heard of the patriots?) It's a position so patently stupid, it hurts my brain.

Please people. Give it a rest. We have a great, probably Hall of Fame coach with proven success developing great QB's and an actual franchise quarterback. Sit back and enjoy the ride.

[Oldfan]

Ball-control offenses are important, but quick-strike offenses can be equally as effective provided it works in concert with a defensive philosophy that compliments it.

I criticized the bend-don't-break strategy this past week against Atlanta because that philosophy does NOT compliment a quick-strike offense; it compliments a ball-control offense. A bend-don't-break philosophy allows the opposing team to control the clock, keep this offense off the field, and keep the score low. When we scored on a 77-yard TD pass - yes, it was a great thing - but it also gave the ball directly back to Atlanta to work on our increasingly-fatigued defense. In a way, that was the best of a negative situation for Atlanta; they didn't want to allow a score, but if they did, it was better that it happened quickly as opposed to a 10-15 play drive.

Now if you're going to rely on an explosive offense capable of striking from anywhere on the field (NYG last year, New England's record-setting year with Randy Moss, Green Bay last year) you want a pressure defense that is capable of getting off the field either by forcing turnovers or by forcing punts, even if it means you've given up a few more points than with another strategy. Before the Atlanta game, that's what this defense was actually good at; they were top 10 in 3rd down conversion percentage and #2 in takeaways. Yes, they gave up way too many points, but they were getting the ball back into Griffin's hands and allowing this offense to go to work. Against Atlanta, that strategy flipped, and it affected the offensive output. Personally, I did not like that.

I think either offensive philosophy can be effective, provided the entire team's philosophy meshes together. Time of possession is a critical component to success, and if one side of the ball isn't placing an emphasis on that, then the other side of the ball must. A quick-strike offense and bend-don't break defense don't work well together, IMO, just like a ball-control offense doesn't work as well with a super-aggressive defense focused more on turnovers and big plays than points-allowed.

Of course, the best of both worlds is to have an offense and a defense capable of both philosophies, but those teams are almost completely erased from history since FA gained traction.

How does bend-but-don't-break compliment a ball control offense when it allows the opponent to play ball control and keep your offense off the field? It doesn't compliment a quick-strike offense either. I think such a strategy makes sense only when you have a two score lead to protect and you are perfectly happy with an opponent helping you to milk the clock.

The Giants match up well against the Patriots who are more talented. The Giants have been better at controlling the ball against the Patriots defense, thus keeping the Patriot offense off the field. The Giants pass rush is good at keeping the Patriots passing game from controlling the clock.

[MartinC]

The time of possession stat is not an accurate measure of an offense's ball control capability because the defense's ability to get the offense off the field has an equal effect. Moreover, on a five-game sample, the way we match up with our opponents is in play.

I agree with you the sample size this year is small which is why I said its something worth watching as the season progresses.

[Pride]

I understand that your eye should be on the wins, but it would be foolish to ignore stats in comparison with the rest of the league. I kind of view it like metrics in the corporate world. I want to see where I'm weakest so I can bolster it

[Oldfan]

I understand that your eye should be on the wins, but it would be foolish to ignore stats in comparison with the rest of the league. I kind of view it like metrics in the corporate world. I want to see where I'm weakest so I can bolster it

One would hope that the metrics used in the corporate world are not as deceptive as the offense and defense rankings based on yardage or points.

[MartinC]

One would hope that the metrics used in the corporate world are not as deceptive as the offense and defense rankings based on yardage or points.

You hope in vain for the most part ......

[zCommander]

Interesting thread OF. Your argument is lost to me because how padding one's stats going to get one to win a SB? Which looks better - Look everyone I had awesome offensive stats when I was a coach or look everyone I have 4 SB rings!!! Do you think Andy Reid is going to be remembered as to how good his offense stats were with the Eagles or the fact that he never won a SB with them?

[Oldfan]

You hope in vain for the most part ......

I know. That's why I didn't assert that corporate stats are less deceptive.

[Bang]

Well, so far Mike would seem to be following your line of thinking.

We are rushing the ball on average 32 times per game... 7th in the league, and we're 4th in rushing yards.. with a long run of only 39. I've seen a lot of 6-12 yard runs.. good hard runs into traffic... so it's been effective. I do agree the ZBS racks up stats with long cutback runs, but this offense, not so much. a lot of grinder yards are piling up.

In reading what OF said above about the defense's inability to get off the field having an effect on this stat, i agree, but I think what the offensive stats do show is that even though the 'bend but don't break' defense is also allowing the opponent to rack up TOP, we've done the same to try and limit their opportunities. We have attempted, and been somewhat successful at ball control. So far, on average, we hold the ball about 2 minutes longer than the opponent. Not long, but good for 7th in the league in the TOP stat.

I think the relatively conservative approach we saw last weekend has something to do with trying to keep the defense off the field.

However, given the defense's proclivity to give up the quick strike as well as the long drive, I'd like to see us try to get a little more electric in grabbing and increasing a lead early. Give the defense some cushion to play with.

~Bang

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Forgive me for getting off topic Of, but shy of a PM or a bump I didn't know how to bring this up.

Did you read/ hear the HC yesterday more or less saying the ST Coach is the one that indentifies, scouts and picks his specialists? Just adds a different slant to your theory on where his personnel comes from the next time the topics at hand.

Hail.

[Dallsux]

Our OLine has not always allowed for us to maintain drives by running the ball effectively for long sustained drives.

The biggest breakdowns have been on defense & special teams.

Those 3 areas are a big problem.

Also, bare in mind that just because some hasbeen/neverwas QB that played for our current coach years ago made a comment in a national publication doesn't make it true or current. It is possible, but highly unlikely that ANY coach in this League is or was concerned with statistical rankings over winning games.

The only people I've ever heard be concerned with stats is the media & the fans. Other than players breaking particular records (ie. Walter Payton's rushing record or Dan Marino's passing record), most of the time players & coaches appear to be oblivious to stats & rankings. And half the time they even have to be told.

Don't put your trust in Jake Plummer. The Broncos couldn't do it. The Cardinals couldn't do it. You shouldn't either. :no:

[Oldfan]

Interesting thread OF. Your argument is lost to me because how padding one's stats going to get one to win a SB? Which looks better - Look everyone I had awesome offense stat when I was a coach or look everyone I have 4 SB rings!!! Do you think Andy Reid is going to be remembered as to how good his offense stats were with the Eagles or the fact that he never won a SB with them?

Your comment confuses me. You say my argument is lost to you. Then you continue with remarks that seem to agree with me; winning should be the goal not achieving high rankings. Right?

[Oldfan]

Well, so far Mike would seem to be following your line of thinking.

We are rushing the ball on average 32 times per game... 7th in the league, and we're 4th in rushing yards.. with a long run of only 39. I've seen a lot of 6-12 yard runs.. good hard runs into traffic... so it's been effective. I do agree the ZBS racks up stats with long cutback runs, but this offense, not so much. a lot of grinder yards are piling up.

In reading what OF said above about the defense's inability to get off the field having an effect on this stat, i agree, but I think what the offensive stats do show is that even though the 'bend but don't break' defense is also allowing the opponent to rack of TOP, we've done the same to try and limit their opportunities. We have attempted, and been somewhat successful at ball control.

I think the relatively conservative approach we saw last weekend has something to do with trying to keep the defense off the field.

~Bang

I wrote the OP based on the Shanahan offense seen over 12 seasons. I wasn't thinking of the stats on a five-game sample this season at all. I hadn't noticed a push toward ball control.

---------- Post added October-11th-2012 at 09:37 AM ----------

Our OLine has not always allowed for us to maintain drives by running the ball effectively for long sustained drives.

The biggest breakdowns have been on defense & special teams.

Those 3 areas are a big problem.

Also, bare in mind that just because some hasbeen/neverwas QB that played for our current coach years ago made a comment in a national publication doesn't make it true or current. It is possible, but highly unlikely that ANY coach in this League is or was concerned with statistical rankings over winning games.

The only people I've ever heard be concerned with stats is the media & the fans. Other than players breaking particular records (ie. Walter Payton's rushing record or Dan Marino's passing record), most of the time players & coaches appear to be oblivious to stats & rankings. And half the time they even have to be told.

Don't put your trust in Jake Plummer. The Broncos couldn't do it. The Cardinals couldn't do it. You shouldn't either. :no:

I believed Plummer's comment because he wasn't making a general comment about Shanahan's coaching. His criticism was very specific. In addition, I had suspected that Mike was focused on offensive stats based on other evidence as I noted.

---------- Post added October-11th-2012 at 09:41 AM ----------

Forgive me for getting off topic Of, but shy of a PM or a bump I didn't know how to bring this up.

Did you read/ hear the HC yesterday more or less saying the ST Coach is the one that indentifies, scouts and picks his specialists? Just adds a different slant to your theory on where his personnel comes from the next time the topics at hand.

Hail.

I didn't hear him say that. You mean Danny has the final say?

[KCClybun]

Jake Plummer is what one would call an "unreliable source."

[rk3025]

Would like to bring Bill Cowher as consultant on looking at 3rd down plays. If he was the opposing coach, what plays would he call against our offense and defense by watching film and seeing our tendency for defense and offense?

We would be a lot better if we could make third downs and stop others on 3rd downs.

[DaSkinzBaby]

Your comment confuses me. You say my argument is lost to you. Then you continue with remarks that seem to agree with me; winning should be the goal not achieving high rankings. Right?

It should unless there are other circumstances like the main reason for you coming back to coach is so your son gets more experience, or making sure it takes 5 full years to turn a team and organization around when it takes other franchises 2 at most.