I have a concern about the Shanahan offensive scheme.

[Darth Tater]

He was old, and there was a little more to this thinking on "why", but it too is dated. I was just being illustrative. And I think aggressiveness in approach (in many endeavors) is an asset (if the skills are there of course---aggressive incompetence is no fun) if well-reigned by proper strategical analysis of circumstance. Where's that Cap'n Obvious icon.....? :pfft:

The reason you try to stop the run, even against a pass oriented offense, has to do with variability. Runs have very low variability and don't always stop the clock. Even the best passing teams have drops and misfires, they won't consistently complete more than 75% while even the worst pass defenses will get a sack or a great PD now and again. If you tackle well, many of the completed passes in today's game will fall short of the goal anyway. The other reason is that turnover percentage is slightly higher in the passing game (probably not enough to be significant though).

[Oldfan]

The reason you try to stop the run, even against a pass oriented offense, has to do with variability. Runs have very low variability and don't always stop the clock. Even the best passing teams have drops and misfires, they won't consistently complete more than 75% while even the worst pass defenses will get a sack or a great PD now and again. If you tackle well, many of the completed passes in today's game will fall short of the goal anyway. The other reason is that turnover percentage is slightly higher in the passing game (probably not enough to be significant though).

I didn't follow that. Let's use an example of a pass-first team: Your defense is playing the 2008 Colts with Manning at QB. What are your reasons for stopping the run as your top priority?

[Darth Tater]

I didn't follow that. Let's use an example of a pass-first team: Your defense is playing the 2008 Colts with Manning at QB. What are your reasons for stopping the run as your top priority?

Please tell me why you wouldn't? How could I tell you what my reasons are when I didn't even say that?

[Oldfan]

Please tell me why you wouldn't?

I want to stop what the offense does best. Your turn.

[Darth Tater]

I want to stop what the offense does best. Your turn.

Can't answer you because your question makes no logical sense in the context of my statement.

[Utah]

[ATTACH]47361[/ATTACH]

With an idea on ball control, lets just take a look at what the chess match would be with this. This is a basic 4-3 response to a spread stack formation. Yes there are many possibilities as to what can happen, but when an offense sees 5 in the box, you run....when it sees 6+, they pass. Motion and shifts can manipulate what is shown but either way, its a chess match. Players have to execute (which I think is a no brainer) but teams have to put themselves in a position to succeed and play the odds. Which is what DH is referring too. There are many possible outcomes...which is what makes it so fun.

DH, the idea with ball control is I want to use 3 downs to get a first if ball control is my goal. Especially if I am on their side of the 50. If I see weaknesses by the defense that I can take advantage of in multiple ways, then I will. Scoring is always a good form of defense. If I want to run the clock, like it was said, I can screen quickly, dump the ball to TEs or RBs. Keep the defense spread or force them into man coverage where the offense starts to gain the advantage.

Again, all of this is predicated on information that is gathered throughout the game as to how a defense has game planned for your offense. They may have had a completely different set of rules and players who have them playing a different style....either way, its a chess match. And a fun one.

Now, we can go into details of how to attack different things but that is a long conceptual discussion and probably best for a different thread.

[Die Hard]

Agreed with taking all 3 downs to get a first. However, I disagree with scoring at will. If you`re contemplating a ball control strategy, that is an admission that your offense is unlikely to outscore the other offense with the same amount of possessions. Therefore, you want to reduce the amount of offensive possessions for the other team.... and reduce the amount of risk in your own offensive strategy to be consistently efficient (4 yards per play and moving the chains). Ultimately, the goal is to drive every time... and finish with touchdowns every time. If reduce the amount of possessions a team has... your reduce the amount of potential scores -- for both teams -- thereby, intending to play a close game.... the difference being a ``score``; which is why these games typically come down to the final drive.

We`re assuming here that the coach believes they have a somewhat efficient offense... while acknowledging that the other offense is simply superior.

If you have a coach that has no faith in his offense... then he`s not playing for ball control... but field position. That`s an offense that`s going to take a few more chances

With all this being said, no coach is going to run a ball control offense unless they believe their offense line is capable of adequate run blocking. So it`s still all about execution. You can`t run a ball control offense unless you can execute.

[Oldfan]

I see three main uses for a ball control strategy:

1) You have a big, superior run-blocking O-line and you want a scheme and strategy that will fully utilize that advantage to bludgeon your weaker opponents into submission. Example: Bud Wilkinson's use of the Oklahoma split T (47 straight Division One victories)

2) You don't have superior talent and you need to move the ball consistently for field position and to milk the clock to reduce the number of drives for your opponent's superior offense. Example: Bill Walsh's WCO which was orginally designed for that purpose

3) Your dynamic passing game got you a lead and now you want to milk the clock to keep it. Example: Joe Gibbs' Riggo Drill.

[darrelgreenie]

I get the ball control concept and the situational benefit (4 minute offense). But, I disagree that any team enters a game with the intent of using 24 play scoring drives (example based on 3 plays per 1st down).

The more plays an offense run during each scoring the drive the greater the chance of something going wrong.

---------- Post added October-14th-2012 at 10:39 AM ----------

BTW-Just read the Texan lead the league in time of possession to go along w/ the other elements of a ball control offense previously mentioned.

[Die Hard]

I disagree that any team enters a game with the intent of using 24 play scoring drives (example based on 3 plays per 1st down). The more plays an offense run during each scoring the drive the greater the chance of something going wrong.

You only go into a game with a ball-control strategy if you believe your opponents offense is clearly superior to yours. If you think you match up equally or better... you don`t employ the strategy.

And if you`re admitting that the other team`s offense is superior... then the least of your worries is losing by your own mistakes (ie. fumbles, injuries, etc) by longer drives with more plays. You`d rather control your own fate (your own mistakes). The assumption is that you`re going to play mistake-free football.

And at the pro level.. there`s a lot more that can go wrong with passing plays than rushing plays. You don`t worry about QB-center exchange fumbles, fumbles from handoffs, RB fumbles from contact, etc at the pro level... like you do in youth football And it`s far easier for linemen to run block than it is to pass block -- at either level.

Whereas passing plays have garner sacks, batted balls at the LOS, deflections into INT`s, defenders knocking down balls, receivers dropping catchable balls, QBs throwing errant passes, interceptions, fumbles after the catch by the receiver, passes caught out of bounds, wrong routes being run by receivers, etc. It`s just a higher risk/reward than rushing the football.

[darrelgreenie]

[ATTACH]47361[/ATTACH]

With an idea on ball control, lets just take a look at what the chess match would be with this. This is a basic 4-3 response to a spread stack formation. Yes there are many possibilities as to what can happen, but when an offense sees 5 in the box, you run....when it sees 6+, they pass. Motion and shifts can manipulate what is shown but either way, its a chess match.

Tangent follows.

Your diagram of the 2x2 stack formation is conceptually similar to a formation that I hope our offense uses more often:

O.............O.................T..G..C..G..T.................O..............O

.............................................................................................

.............................................Q...RB......................................

The similar rules would apply in regards to how an offense reacts to how a defense responds to this formation. 5 man box? Griffin and Alfred running zone read would destroy it. A 6 or more in the box simplifies the coverages and therefore the read and sets up fairly easy route combinations.

[Est.1974]

You only go into a game with a ball-control strategy if you believe your opponents offense is clearly superior to yours. If you think you match up equally or better... you don`t employ the strategy.

And if you`re admitting that the other team`s offense is superior... then the least of your worries is losing by your own mistakes (ie. fumbles, injuries, etc) by longer drives with more plays. You`d rather control your own fate (your own mistakes). The assumption is that you`re going to play mistake-free football.

Pretty much what we did in the NO game, where Mike chose to go for it twice on 4th

[darrelgreenie]

You only go into a game with a ball-control strategy if you believe your opponents offense is clearly superior to yours. If you think you match up equally or better... you don`t employ the strategy.

And if you`re admitting that the other team`s offense is superior... then the least of your worries is losing by your own mistakes (ie. fumbles, injuries, etc) by longer drives with more plays. You`d rather control your own fate (your own mistakes). The assumption is that you`re going to play mistake-free football.

And at the pro level.. there`s a lot more that can go wrong with passing plays than rushing plays. You don`t worry about QB-center exchange fumbles, fumbles from handoffs, RB fumbles from contact, etc at the pro level... like you do in youth football And it`s far easier for linemen to run block than it is to pass block -- at either level.

Whereas passing plays have garner sacks, batted balls at the LOS, deflections into INT`s, defenders knocking down balls, receivers dropping catchable balls, QBs throwing errant passes, interceptions, fumbles after the catch by the receiver, passes caught out of bounds, wrong routes being run by receivers, etc. It`s just a higher risk/reward than rushing the football.

I agree with all of this, in fact its pretty much sums up how the Broncos had success w/ Tebow last year. I think there's a line somewhere between running an efficient offense vs an offense that just takes a long time to score. The goal wouldn't be to run 3 plays per drive but to score efficiently while eating as much clock as you can. Maybe its too esoteric a distinction; but the risk of a drive stalling due to more plays being run is real.

[illone]

Shanahan runs a finesse offense. Always has.

I understand your concern, but it's basically like asking a leopard to change his spots. Not gonna happen.

The skins have "ball control" plays in their offense, they just don't run them with consistency because they are more of a finesse style offense.

Ultimately I think it boils down to the fact that Shanny is soft. But that's another topic all together I suppose;)

[Oldfan]

I get the ball control concept and the situational benefit (4 minute offense). But, I disagree that any team enters a game with the intent of using 24 play scoring drives (example based on 3 plays per 1st down).

The more plays an offense run during each scoring the drive the greater the chance of something going wrong...

Realistically, a 24-play drive is so rare that we can pretty much forget about that. In effect, you are exaggerating the risk.

Which has the greater risk, a 12 play ball control drive or a 6-play quick strike drive? The 12-play drive has 12 plays with lower risk than the higher risk 6-play drive, so if you don't exaggerate, it's hard to answer the question.

[KDawg]

What's with the misconception that the zone scheme is "soft"?

[Oldfan]

You only go into a game with a ball-control strategy if you believe your opponents offense is clearly superior to yours. If you think you match up equally or better... you don`t employ the strategy...

Disagree: A grade A ball control offense will consistently beat anybody. And the key word is "consistently."

---------- Post added October-14th-2012 at 12:07 PM ----------

What's with the misconception that the zone scheme is "soft"?

I think he means that it's more finesse than power-blocking.

Joe Bugel said he puked when he heard the word "finesse" associated with blocking.

[Darth Tater]

What's with the misconception that the zone scheme is "soft"?

Weirds me out.

[Utah]

KDawg...that is a misunderstanding that influencing a defender is not as sexy as pancaking him.

My concern with the point of views I am reading is that it sounds an awful lot like the offense will dictate what is done on the field. What if a defense comes with 7 in the box and mans up outside? What if a defense shows a stacked box and runs a zone-blitz? What if a defense shows man but is in zone with bailing secondary? What if a defense shows zone but rolls at snap into a press man?

Its the chess match and the need to understand that you have to prepare for multiple looks and reactions by a defense. Its what is fun and makes things the most exciting on the field.

Yes, execution is everything....but its putting your players with their strengths and their confidence in the best spots to succeed.

[Die Hard]

Disagree: A grade A ball control offense will consistently beat anybody. And the key word is "consistently."[color="Gold".

You don`t disagree.

Because earlier you said that an offense should do what it does best. And if you have a QB, receivers and offensive line that can move the ball with efficiency... you don`t run the ball (your weakness) and play ball control. You get into shoot-outs... just like the Patriots, Colts, Packers and Saints try to do.

[#BgMase76#]

I've never been a fan of Kyle's playcalling. Last week we played one of the weakest run D's in the league. Our pass D is the weakest aspect of our team. The Falcons passed the ball 52+ times. Morris had what 18-19 carries. Ryan Grant had one and Hank on a reverse. It wasn't until the end of the game that running the ball wasn't a good idea. Where were the carries? The Falcons executed a game plan. We floundered once again.

[Oldfan]

KDawg...that is a misunderstanding that influencing a defender is not as sexy as pancaking him.

My concern with the point of views I am reading is that it sounds an awful lot like the offense will dictate what is done on the field. What if a defense comes with 7 in the box and mans up outside? What if a defense shows a stacked box and runs a zone-blitz? What if a defense shows man but is in zone with bailing secondary? What if a defense shows zone but rolls at snap into a press man?

Its the chess match and the need to understand that you have to prepare for multiple looks and reactions by a defense. Its what is fun and makes things the most exciting on the field.

Yes, execution is everything....but its putting your players with their strengths and their confidence in the best spots to succeed.

If I'm reading you right, you advocate than an offense be designed to "take what the defense gives." I'm not saying that's wrong, but think there's an equal argument for designing an offense to dictate to the defense.

No matter which way you go, you are going to have to have the personnel that fits the scheme.

Looking at it from the defensive side of the ball, you have no choice but to be flexible because you are going to oppose various offenses. Your defense can't specialize, but the offense can. It can be built for a power running game, for example.

[RandyHolt]

Trying not to score too fast implies one can score at will. No team can.

Thus I always suspect that prioritizing ball control is a misleading stat. If a team can score, why not use that to every advantage, and try and get as many possessions as possible, implying if you score quicker, it doesn't matter if your D is gassed or not, as you will keep hitting home runs for them.

Later in a game once a sizable lead is in hand, then certainly, run run pass work slow, to rest the D. No defense needs to be rested in the first half, and I wonder, if ever. They are pro's in top shape being rotated. Brady is the only one running hurry up fast enough to tire a D, IMO, and then, its only temporary.

[Oldfan]

You don`t disagree.

Because earlier you said that an offense should do what it does best. And if you have a QB, receivers and offensive line that can move the ball with efficiency... you don`t run the ball (your weakness) and play ball control. You get into shoot-outs... just like the Patriots, Colts, Packers and Saints try to do.

That's a different statement than this one:

You only go into a game with a ball-control strategy if you believe your opponents offense is clearly superior to yours. If you think you match up equally or better... you don`t employ the strategy...

[KDawg]

I think he means that it's more finesse than power-blocking.

Joe Bugel said he puked when he heard the word "finesse" associated with blocking.

Joe Bugel ran the ZBS.

If I'm reading you right, you advocate than an offense be designed to "take what the defense gives." I'm not saying that's wrong, but think there's an equal argument for designing an offense to dictate to the defense.

No matter which way you go, you are going to have to have the personnel that fits the scheme.

Looking at it from the defensive side of the ball, you have no choice but to be flexible because you are going to oppose various offenses. Your defense can't specialize, but the offense can. It can be built for a power running game, for example.

Unless your personnel is vastly superior (offensively or defensively) it's difficult to dictate the pace of a game. You need to take what the opposition gives you if the talent is relatively even.