I have a concern about the Shanahan offensive scheme.

[Oldfan]

Joe Bugel ran the ZBS.

Bugel added the stretch play for Portis and subsequently added more ZBS, but it was against his religion. He was a good soldier.

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.

See my Post 297

[KDawg]

Bugel added the stretch play for Portis and subsequently added more ZBS, but it was against his religion. He was a good soldier.

Bugel's running attack has always centered around the ZBS, even from the Gibbs I days.

70 CHIP and 50 GUT were zone rushing plays. Counter Trey and Power O were also zone based plays.

He's always had his running game rooted by the ZBS.

[Oldfan]

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.

If the offense grade out equally; for example, if they are both grade A in quality, the ball control offense will usually win over a quick strike offense by keeping it off the field.

[darrelgreenie]

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.

Its not my exxageration, again I'm responding to the statement about aiming to use 3 plays to gain 10 yards.

In general terms, since we're all speaking in broad strokes, a 12 play drive has greater risk then a 6 play drive. Risk isn't just a fumble, risk is a tackle for loss, a false start, a holding penalty, an illegal block, illegal formation etc.

[Oldfan]

Bugel's running attack has always centered around the ZBS, even from the Gibbs I days.

70 CHIP and 50 GUT were zone rushing plays. Counter Trey and Power O were also zone based plays.

He's always had his running game rooted by the ZBS.

You have invented your own meaning for "ZBS." What I mean by it refers to the Alex Gibbs's version with the stretch, cut-blocking etc. I think that's what most fans are talking about.

[KDawg]

You have invented your own meaning for "ZBS." What I mean by it refers to the Alex Gibbs's version with the stretch, cut-blocking etc. I think that's what most fans are talking about.

No I haven't. Watch Bugel's Gilman video on the counter.

The counter and power schemes have always been steeped in zone blocking tradition.

[Oldfan]

Its not my exxageration, again I'm responding to the statement about aiming to use 3 plays to gain 10 yards.

In general terms, since we're all speaking in broad strokes, a 12 play drive has greater risk then a 6 play drive. Risk isn't just a fumble, risk is a tackle for loss, a false start, a holding penalty, an illegal block, illegal formation etc.

Well, we don't agree again. The quick strike offense involves deeper pass plays which involve more risk than runs or short passes on a per-play basis.

---------- Post added October-14th-2012 at 01:14 PM ----------

No I haven't. Watch Bugel's Gilman video on the counter.

The counter and power schemes have always been steeped in zone blocking tradition.

I never argue about definitions. We are all free to use words anyway we like. All that matters here is that we are not talking about the same thing when we use the term "ZBS."

[Darth Tater]

No I haven't. Watch Bugel's Gilman video on the counter.

The counter and power schemes have always been steeped in zone blocking tradition.

While Alex Gibbs may have termed the blocking scheme as a ZBS, the ZBS itself has been around since at least the middle of the 1920s. Hell, the Lombardi run scheme was had the zone block concept at its core.

[RandyHolt]

If the offense grade out equally; for example, if they are both grade A in quality, the ball control offense will usually win over a quick strike offense by keeping it off the field.

Good rebuttal.

More often than not though, the 2 offenses are not equal. The offense that is not as good, is going to struggle to score. That is the usual scenario when you hear a coach attempting to keep the other team's O off the field. That seems like a core example to use.

Expecting the less superior O to still score but at a slower pace limits what they can do. That should be easier to defend.

At some point, it would advantageous for a defense to simply let teams score quickly, be extremely aggressive, bring 10 if offense TOP is the key to winning.

[Oldfan]

While Alex Gibbs may have termed the blocking scheme as a ZBS, the ZBS itself has been around since at least the middle of the 1920s. Hell, the Lombardi run scheme was had the zone block concept at its core.

Zone blocking has been around forever, but the term ZBS was not used until we needed something to describe the Alex Gibbs scheme which was a unique application of zone blocking. To apply the term otherwise is pedantic, IMO.

[Darth Tater]

Zone blocking has been around forever, but the term ZBS was not used until we needed something to describe the Alex Gibbs scheme which was a unique application of zone blocking. To apply the term otherwise is pedantic, IMO.

No, you are the one choosing to be pedantic. FACT is that it is wrong to think that a ZBS is a finesse system. Bugel ran what Alex Gibbs ran except for the cut block. The cut block is the least finesse thing there is.

[Pride]

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.

Eh, true enough

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

Oldie, I disagree wholeheartedly with the idea that Shanny places a higher importance on stats than wins. Coaches are paid to win games, if they don't win they are gone.

[SWFLSkins]

Oldie, I disagree wholeheartedly with the idea that Shanny places a higher importance on stats than wins. Coaches are paid to win games, if they don't win they are gone.

The only stat that matters. We can second guess strategies over and over, but really winning is all that matters, that said you have to build a team to win. And you have to have patience to build a team.

[Oldfan]

Oldie, I disagree wholeheartedly with the idea that Shanny places a higher importance on stats than wins. Coaches are paid to win games, if they don't win they are gone.

Coaches use stats to try to win, but are misled when they use stats they don't understand.

Coaches can achieve job security when their units rank highly on a stat because most people are misled by deceptive rankings.

You might recall that Joe Gibbs harped on the turnover stat almost as a mantra. I think his preference for a game manager QB and his conservative approach were the result of the turnover stat which he did not actually understand. I authored a thread analyzing the misunderstood turnover stat several months back.

I explained in the OP how Greg Blache was misled by a stat.

Belichik and Jim Schwartz majored in Economics. They understand stats and use them to help win games. There are probably a few others I'm unaware of, but most coaches are at a disadvantage when they use stats they don't understand.