I have a concern about the Shanahan offensive scheme.

[RedskinParadigm]

if the corners press in a bend but don't break scheme, they put themselves at a disavantage if the front line can't get pressure.

Give a QB 4 unmolested seconds, and he'll carve up press coverage on almost anybody.

~Bang

Hence Matt Ryan's 34/52 day against us.

[Oldfan]

Do I really have to?

How are you going to rack up any time of possession if you can't convert a first down?

This is just being obtuse.

~Bang

How is the opponent going to rack up any time of possession if our defense makes them go three and out?

[Oldfan]

So long as help is over the top, no, it would not matter. In fact, after the second 3rd down opportunity for Atlanta, I noticed that we had only rushed 3 or 4 both times; I immediately tweeted that the Redskins were going bend-don't-break. The Redskins had, in fact, played a bit of press-coverage underneath with significant coverage over the top. To me, that's still bend-don't-break.

Well, I'm just curious about your terminology so that we can communicate. I don't use the term as you do, but I won't debate definitions.

[Mahons21]

Maybe I'm missing something. I'm not coming up with a way that the defense can influence the plays per drive average.

Strong defense/special teams will shorten the field. Shorter field = less plays.

[Bang]

How is the opponent going to rack up any time of possession if our defense makes them go three and out?

Well, see, there's this egg.

And out of it comes a chicken.

But how did it get here?

Such mysteries plague mankind.

~Bang

[Oldfan]

Strong defense/special teams will shorten the field. Shorter field = less plays.

Ah crap..you're right.

[Bang]

Ah crap..you're right.

the Patriots so far this year.. the Buffalo game 2 weeks back in particular.. a back and forth battle in the first half... second half turnovers allowed the Pats to run away with it, but because they ran the ball predominantly, they won the TOP battle (by a few seconds) even though for the game they were only 4/11 on 3rd down. They ran 40 rushing plays (!!), and rolled up over 500 yards of offense.

Buffalo on the other hand did well on 3rd down,, over 50%... but got smoked on the scoreboard.

Someone brought up the 46 defense a few pages ao,, and that same principal is what it stood on.. harrass the QB and create turnovers, shorten the field.

~Bang

[Oldfan]

the Patriots so far this year.. the Buffalo game 2 weeks back in particular.. a back and forth battle in the first half... second half turnovers allowed the Pats to run away with it, but because they ran the ball predominantly, they won the TOP battle (by a few seconds) even though for the game they were only 4/11 on 3rd down. They ran 40 rushing plays (!!), and rolled up over 500 yards of offense.

Buffalo on the other hand did well on 3rd down,, over 50%... but got smoked on the scoreboard.

Someone brought up the 46 defense a few pages ao,, and that same principal is what it stood on.. harrass the QB and create turnovers, shorten the field.

~Bang

You quoted me responding to Mahons about the average plays per drive stat.

As near as I can tell, your post has nothing to do with the plays per drive stat.

My claim that the offense and defense have an equal influence on the TOP stat stands. An offensive three and out and a defensive stop (three and out) have an equal influence on the TOP stat.

[Darkstarr]

You quoted me responding to Mahons about the average plays per drive stat.

As near as I can tell, your post has nothing to do with the plays per drive stat.

My claim that the offense and defense have an equal influence on the TOP stat stands. An offensive three and out and a defensive stop (three and out) have an equal influence on the TOP stat.

Wrong the offensive that ran 3 times will have a greater ToP then an offense that went 3 and out with 3 incompletes. The offense dictates ToP not a defense more.

[Bang]

You quoted me responding to Mahons about the average plays per drive stat.

As near as I can tell, your post has nothing to do with the plays per drive stat.

My claim that the offense and defense have an equal influence on the TOP stat stands. An offensive three and out and a defensive stop (three and out) have an equal influence on the TOP stat.

Wellllll.. not exactly. the clock stops on some plays, and does not stop on others.

a 3 and out could only take a few seconds off the clock.. in fact, when a team is passing to catch up, it happens all the time.

as to the point between you and mahons.. you're right. but this thread has me thinking in a lot of different angles, and these Pats are showing themselves to be a real enigma.

sorry if it's distracting. Sometimes I just think out loud when a good discussion is going on.

~Bang

[Oldfan]

Wrong the offensive that ran 3 times will have a greater ToP then an offense that went 3 and out with 3 incompletes. The offense dictates ToP not a defense more.

Your point proves that runs take more time off the clock than passes, but your offense and the opponent's offense both have equal control of how many times they pass or run.

Here's the bottom line: You can't make the case that an offense that can average six-minute drives influences the TOP stat more than a defense that can prevent that offense from making six minute drives.

[Taylor 36]

Your point proves that runs take more time off the clock than passes, but your offense and the opponent's offense both have equal control of how many times they pass or run.

Here's the bottom line: You can't make the case that an offense that can average six-minute drives influences the TOP stat more than a defense that can prevent that offense from making six minute drives.

And you can't factually make the case of the reverse.

[Oldfan]

And you can't factually make the case of the reverse.

What's the reverse?

[Darkstarr]

Your point proves that runs take more time off the clock than passes, but your offense and the opponent's offense both have equal control of how many times they pass or run.

Here's the bottom line: You can't make the case that an offense that can average six-minute drives influences the TOP stat more than a defense that can prevent that offense from making six minute drives.

U are making my point, as you pointed out the offenses control if they run or pass, if they choose to run hurry up or take the entire play clock to run a play. The defense does not choose if the play will be run in 10 sec. or 30 sec. so no by definition the defense does not influence the top remotely as much as the offense.

A perfect example is "4 minute offense at the end of games" The offense dictates how long between plays, they dictate if a play will take 40 sec. or 4 sec. the defense just stands there and waits.

[Oldfan]

U are making my point, as you pointed out the offenses control if they run or pass, if they choose to run hurry up or take the entire play clock to run a play. The defense does not choose if the play will be run in 10 sec. or 30 sec. so no by definition the defense does not influence the top remotely as much as the offense.

A perfect example is "4 minute offense at the end of games" The offense dictates how long between plays, they dictate if a play will take 40 sec. or 4 sec. the defense just stands there and waits.

It does not matter whether the offensive team decides to hurry up or to slow things down. The defense opposing them has an equal influence on the TOP stat.

[Hitman21ST]

It does not matter whether the offensive team decides to hurry up or to slow things down. The defense opposing them has an equal influence on the TOP stat.

Not really.

The defense forces a three and out on three run plays in a row. If a run play takes 4 seconds, and a hurry up offense takes 15 seconds in between plays, that's a total of 19 seconds from one snap to another. That's 57 seconds of TOP until the punt. Now, same defense forces a three and out on a team that uses the whole play clock, for a total of 43 seconds (snapping the ball with one second left on the play clock). That's 2 minutes and 9 seconds of TOP until the punt. How did the defense have an equal influence?

[Bishop Hammer]

No, not really. it's not personal, i have no grudge against Plummer,, the fact he beat Dallas in the playoffs with the Cards means he's OK by me.

but overall he was not really a very good QB. he was OK at best. When Shanny picked him up, I made fun of it incessantly..

( here's a cartoon I made back then about that broncos offseason... introduced Bronco billy, who has become one of my more popular characters over the years.

http://www.bangcartoon.com/2005/broncobilly.htm )

Shanny did a brilliant thing for Plummer... gave him a run game,, and brought back Shannon Sharpe to be there whenever Plummer needed an outlet.

The fact he got Plummer to an AFC title game is a flat miracle.

~Bang

My god...bloody good show Bang. Bloody good show.

[s0crates]

How did you determine that Shanny's Super Bowl teams were good at ball control?

We disagree that the stats are useful to coaches. If the coach is Belichik or Jim Schwartz who understand them, that is true. But for other coaches, football statistic are deceptive. I gave you an example of how Blache's strategy was good at achieving a higher ranking on the points stats, but a poor one for helping his offense win games.

I always like posting in your threads, I can always count on feedback and a discussion from you.

We may not always agree, but at least there is a logic to what you say and we can therefore dialogue about it.

Anyway, getting back to the matter at hand, first Shanny's Super Bowl teams:

From 1996-1998, Shanahan's Broncos were easily the best team in football, recording the most ever wins over a three-year period in NFL history (46), and obviously there were those two championships. Shanny became famous for his run-heavy variety of Walsh's WCO, featuring an aging John Elway and the best running back in the NFL, Terrell Davis.

I cannot spare the effort to figure the TOP, 3rd down %, and number of plays for those teams. But in the absence of those numbers I will use another number that I think might help in this regard: Total first downs. I think how many first downs you convert and allow will give you a pretty good idea of who has control of the football.

In 1996 the Denver Broncos converted 336 first downs while allowing only 261.

In 1997 they converted 340 and allowed 258.

In 1998 they converted 346 and allowed 283.

Your have to be impressed by that, and I would say it goes a long way towards explaining why that team was so good. They ran the ball exceptionally well and had a quick-hitter west coast passing game, and so they were able to keep the chains moving and control the pace of games. I think those teams had just the type of ball-control mentality you advocate.

Shanahan has obviously not enjoyed that kind of success since then, and you might still make the case he has gotten away from that mentality at times, although I still do not think stat-mongering is the issue. One problem has been how many poor defenses he has had since then. Another problem has been that he simply has not had such talented teams.

From what I've seen of Shanahan in Washington, I have seen glimmers of the coaching style that won him those championships, admitting they have only been fleeting glances and not prolonged success. What we are doing this season has actually reminded me a bit of that at times. We just have not done it consistently.

To get more specific: Here are the numbers for our total first downs compared to our opponents week by week:

NO: 22-24

StL: 18-23

CIN: 31-22

TB: 27-16

ATL: 12-28

I think we might safely conclude from this that we controlled the ball well against Cincy and Tampa, but not so much in the other three games, with Atlanta obviously being the worst in this regard.

I guess I would say that the issue is not so much with Shanahan's philosophy as it is with putting it together every week. I would certainly like to see more weeks like Cincy and Tampa from our offense, and less like last week. I imagine our coach would too.

There are obviously grounds to criticize Shanny when it comes to ball control as we have not been very good at it in his time here. For example, Kyle the younger Shanny has certainly shown a tendency to abandon the run during his tenure. I just don't think Mike the elder Shanny's philosophy is the problem (nor do I think the fact he cares about stats is, although that is a separate matter).

[Dirt]

Under the 2012 Redkins, it would appear the Shannahan ZBS has been more for stats and less for wins, but the lack of wins is clearly not on the offense. Unless we're talking about the poor 3rd down percentage, which could be attributed to 'make or break' runs that either get a first down ON first down or leave us in 3rd and long. Perhaps there's something to that, but I'll take the course of continuing the ZBS, perfecting it, being dominant with it, putting the pedal to the medal, being aggressive, and most importantly, scaring defenses, or at least putting them on their heels.

I like the premise of the OP, Oldfan, but I think the big variable here is RG3. You're probably more savvy to the intricacies of running the ball, and the ZBS than I am, but the way I see it: these 'complicated' blocking schemes are made 200% easier when defenses fear RG3 faking and throwing directly on target, which they should, because he does.

My idea of the Shannaplan is this: his bread and butter is this style of running the ball, he's going to the well, he has his 'gem' Alfred Morris, and let's face it, we have other RBs that I believe would do well also. So although he's been here a few years, we're truly in the first year of this offense's growth. The passing game under RG3 is basically something no one's ever seen before, and it's even more complicated paired with the run game. Teams know, bashed on TV or not, Mike Shannahan is capable of presenting a dangerous run game. It, alone, demands the attention of coordinators. Meanwhile they forget this kid RG3 ought to demand a lot of their attention as well. We've lost this season because we're working things out, figuring things out. Our opponents have been much more set in their ways than we are and, still they've all been forced to play us to the last minute.

Shanny's offense may show stats and not wins, and in certain situations that could ring true to a disappointing detail, but this RG3 situation is very unique. This offense is dangerous. We're unpredictable, potentially explosive, and we have the 'basics' down with a top running game. So I'm willing to brush off bad 3rd down % this season, bad TOP, a few losses, etc. I think it's truly building because I think RG3 is smart like that. He won't ever do a dumb slide back into play again like last week, he already ISN'T throwing interceptions...he showed in the very first game how to get some TOP with short passes that were his idea as options. Next series, he spends 15 seconds throwing an 88 yd TD pass to Garcon.

So if this offense is truly going to grow and be effective, we have to forget about TOP and 3rd downs, and do what we may do best. Blow everyone out early with explosive plays from this new, unpredictable QB and offense. While folks are figuring it out, everything actually started on what Shanny knows best: a good running game. We're already getting big leads early in almost every game so far, and we're ready to go to Shanny's bread and butter and run the game out, but the defense keeps giving it up. As far as I'm concerned, the offense is A+, and not just because of stats. It's putting us in the best chance to win, as Shanny would say.

[Koolblue13]

Those old Shanny SB teams were so fun to watch. You could watch them put their foot on the throttle as they got into a rhythm.

[Oldfan]

Not really.

The defense forces a three and out on three run plays in a row. If a run play takes 4 seconds, and a hurry up offense takes 15 seconds in between plays, that's a total of 19 seconds from one snap to another. That's 57 seconds of TOP until the punt. Now, same defense forces a three and out on a team that uses the whole play clock, for a total of 43 seconds (snapping the ball with one second left on the play clock). That's 2 minutes and 9 seconds of TOP until the punt. How did the defense have an equal influence?

It's obvious that the offense of both teams has control over the kind of plays it calls. They can hurry up or slow down and take time off the clock. Your example confirms that. But that isn't what I meant in saying that the defense had equal influence on the TOP stat.

My point is that whatever the offense tries to do, the opponent's defense is going to try to stop it, and their success or failure will impact the TOP stat accordingly. If the offense is trying to control the ball and milk the clock, the opponent's defense can stop them -- which influences the TOP stat for their team. If the defense can't stop them, it influences the TOP stat for their team in the opposite direction.

---------- Post added October-13th-2012 at 08:53 AM ----------

Under the 2012 Redkins, it would appear the Shannahan ZBS has been more for stats and less for wins, but the lack of wins is clearly not on the offense. Unless we're talking about the poor 3rd down percentage, which could be attributed to 'make or break' runs that either get a first down ON first down or leave us in 3rd and long. Perhaps there's something to that, but I'll take the course of continuing the ZBS, perfecting it, being dominant with it, putting the pedal to the medal, being aggressive, and most importantly, scaring defenses, or at least putting them on their heels.

I like the premise of the OP, Oldfan, but I think the big variable here is RG3. You're probably more savvy to the intricacies of running the ball, and the ZBS than I am, but the way I see it: these 'complicated' blocking schemes are made 200% easier when defenses fear RG3 faking and throwing directly on target, which they should, because he does.

My idea of the Shannaplan is this: his bread and butter is this style of running the ball, he's going to the well, he has his 'gem' Alfred Morris, and let's face it, we have other RBs that I believe would do well also. So although he's been here a few years, we're truly in the first year of this offense's growth. The passing game under RG3 is basically something no one's ever seen before, and it's even more complicated paired with the run game. Teams know, bashed on TV or not, Mike Shannahan is capable of presenting a dangerous run game. It, alone, demands the attention of coordinators. Meanwhile they forget this kid RG3 ought to demand a lot of their attention as well. We've lost this season because we're working things out, figuring things out. Our opponents have been much more set in their ways than we are and, still they've all been forced to play us to the last minute.

Shanny's offense may show stats and not wins, and in certain situations that could ring true to a disappointing detail, but this RG3 situation is very unique. This offense is dangerous. We're unpredictable, potentially explosive, and we have the 'basics' down with a top running game. So I'm willing to brush off bad 3rd down % this season, bad TOP, a few losses, etc. I think it's truly building because I think RG3 is smart like that. He won't ever do a dumb slide back into play again like last week, he already ISN'T throwing interceptions...he showed in the very first game how to get some TOP with short passes that were his idea as options. Next series, he spends 15 seconds throwing an 88 yd TD pass to Garcon.

So if this offense is truly going to grow and be effective, we have to forget about TOP and 3rd downs, and do what we may do best. Blow everyone out early with explosive plays from this new, unpredictable QB and offense. While folks are figuring it out, everything actually started on what Shanny knows best: a good running game. We're already getting big leads early in almost every game so far, and we're ready to go to Shanny's bread and butter and run the game out, but the defense keeps giving it up. As far as I'm concerned, the offense is A+, and not just because of stats. It's putting us in the best chance to win, as Shanny would say.

Dirt, you may recall that, in my OP, I wrote:

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.

I was impressed with your post. You made an articulate argument that, with RG3 at the QB position, the offense could be dynamic enough to lead the NFL in wins and to hell with the stats. I hope you are right, but I see it as unlikely because of my strong preference for a ball control offense. I do agree, though, that the stats should be disregarded.

I like the fact that our offense makes life difficult for defensive coordinations. I like that it's fun to watch. What bothers me is that in the playoffs I can foresee our grade A big play offense on the sidelines watching an opponent's grade A ball control offense grind out first downs.

[zoony]

I have long had a concern about the ZBS and it's inability to wear down defenses. Despite Morris's stats I don't think we've seen a tired defense in the 4th quarter yet this year. If a Joe Gibbs back had 100 yards against a defense, that was a death sentence. If Shanahans back has 100 yards, we're still no closer to picking up a 3rd and 1.

It's crazy to me the overall rushing stats this Team has produced over the past 2 seasons when compared against our win loss record. ZBS feels like smoke and mirrors, not a method to grind out wins.

[Oldfan]

I have long had a concern about the ZBS and it's inability to wear down defenses. Despite Morris's stats I don't think we've seen a tired defense in the 4th quarter yet this year. If a Joe Gibbs back had 100 yards against a defense, that was a death sentence. If Shanahans back has 100 yards, we're still no closer to picking up a 3rd and 1.

It's crazy to me the overall rushing stats this Team has produced over the past 2 seasons when compared against our win loss record. ZBS feels like smoke and mirrors, not a method to grind out wins.

A few years back, some posters were debating Betts v. Portis. One poster wrote that, although both had identical YPC averages at that point, Portis was a homerun hitter. The poster didn't realize that he had made an argument against his man Portis.

Because of the rule that gives a team a fresh set of downs if they gain ten yards, consistency is an important factor in average gain stats on both rushes and passes. Someday soon, a math whiz will come up with a formula to adjust those averages so they will be less deceptive. Almost all football stats giving averages have the same defect.

You can't intelligently compare the effectiveness of the ZBS with a power rushing team based on YPC; nor can you rank them on yardage without an adjustment for consistency,

[zoony]

A few years back, some posters were debating Betts v. Portis. One poster wrote that, although both had identical YPC averages at that point, Portis was a homerun hitter. The poster didn't realize that he had made an argument against his man Portis.

Because of the rule that gives a team a fresh set of downs if they gain ten yards, consistency is an important factor in average gain stats on both rushes and passes. Someday soon, a math whiz will come up with a formula to adjust those averages so they will be less deceptive. Almost all football stats giving averages have the same defect.

You can't intelligently compare the effectiveness of the ZBS with a power rushing team based on YPC; nor can you rank them on yardage without an adjustment for consistency,

I definitely agree. There are many on ES who don't.

In baseball it wasn't until about a decade ago until GMs started valuing hitters who could wear down opposing pitchers by extending their at-bats. Football needs a similar stat. Shanny is producing a running game that is hitting a lead off single on the first pitch. Stats look great, but the pitcher is as fresh as a daisy in the 8th.

[Bang]

It's obvious that the offense of both teams has control over the kind of plays it calls. They can hurry up or slow down and take time off the clock. Your example confirms that. But that isn't what I meant in saying that the defense had equal influence on the TOP stat.

My point is that whatever the offense tries to do, the opponent's defense is going to try to stop it, and their success or failure will impact the TOP stat accordingly. If the offense is trying to control the ball and milk the clock, the opponent's defense can stop them -- which influences the TOP stat for their team. If the defense can't stop them, it influences the TOP stat for their team in the opposite direction.

.

This is like saying the zebra influences the lion's hunger. It does not, it is subject to the lion's hunger.

If a defense can't stop the offense, they are not influencing anything. They are being subjected to the offense's deisres.

Influence is the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of others

And if they can't do that, then they are not an influence. Much like a pebble does not influence a river, even if the river flows over and around it.

~Bang