I have a concern about the Shanahan offensive scheme.

[DaSkinzBaby]

This is likely where we differ. I view "bend-don't-break" as a philosophical emphasis of preventing touchdowns over giving up yards and/or extended drives. There are other defenses that focus on pressuring an offense into mistakes in an effort to get off the field or generate turnovers.

I think of the Tampa-2 as the pre-eminent bend-don't-break defense.

I think of the Buddy Ryan 46 (and most derivatives of the 46 like Rex Ryan's version of the 3-4) as the polar opposite of the bend-don't-break philosophy.

Even though Belichick runs a 3-4, I view his philosophy as much more similar to the Tampa 2 than I do the Buddy Ryan derivatives. You're right, his emphasis is on taking away the strength of an opponent, but with the aerial proficiency league-wide in the modern NFL, that most often translates into locking down the opponents' primary receivers. Anecdotally, I can remember seeing clips of Belichick telling his defense on the sideline to not let Cruz-Nicks beat them (against NYG in the SB), not let B.Edwards/K.Winslow beat them (when both were actually good with Cleveland), and not let Steve Smith and Muhsin Muhammad beat them (against Carolina in the SB). The usual result of that is to allow a lot of the smaller plays to lesser players. Historically, Belichick's defenses have consistently ranked higher in points per game than they were in yards per game. To me, that supports the idea that he is bend-don't-break.

Isn't the "bend but don't break" defense pretty much a dead dinosaur now? I mean really the NFL and it's rules are pretty much designed to favor the offense. You can't hit a "defenseless" receiver, no cut blocks while someone is engaged, no touching after 5 yards but yet it's obvious so many receivers push off after 5 yards. Hell you pretty much can't even hit a QB now. I think also the fact that any offense that gets into the red zone since the end zone is only so big that cuts off many plays, or it does in theory so what is the percentage that any offensive team that get's in the red zone comes away with points right? So I think the bend but don't break is a myth, unless you classify giving a field goal instead of the TD bending and not breaking............................

[grego]

When I read that, I think the thurst of the comments from Plummer relates to the incessant drive to improve rather than the focus on stats. He offers that up as an indication that things weren't ever good enough for MS, but doesn't cite that as the primary issue. The primary issue, according to Plummer, is that Shanny can't motivate people.

Additionally, Plummer doesn't say which stats Shanny was focused upon. It could be TOP, 1st downs, passing yards or DVOA for all we know. He does mention three things: points scored, offensive ranking (presumably overall offensive rank), and turnover creation (which is not an offensive stat).

I don't think the original quote provides enough context to confirm you suspicions of.

i wonder if it went something like this-

-mike shanahan has developed a football philosophy based on reaching certain offensive goals

-some of those goals include things like (possibly) passing at a certain completion percentage, running for a certain number of yards, having a certain amount of TOP, passing for a certain number of yards, etc

-jake plummer is interpreting his obsessing over stats as caring more about stats as opposed to being a means to an end, which is, to win the game.

this would explain to some of us (assuming kyle has adopted a similar goal-oriented system) why kyle may call a game differently than we may expect, as spectators, rather than 'just sticking with what seems to be working' on a particular day.

just a theory.

[DC9]

i wonder if it went something like this-

-mike shanahan has developed a football philosophy based on reaching certain offensive goals

-some of those goals include things like (possibly) passing at a certain completion percentage, running for a certain number of yards, having a certain amount of TOP, passing for a certain number of yards, etc

-jake plummer is interpreting his obsessing over stats as caring more about stats as opposed to being a means to an end, which is, to win the game.

this would explain to some of us (assuming kyle has adopted a similar goal-oriented system) why kyle may call a game differently than we may expect, as spectators, rather than 'just sticking with what seems to be working' on a particular day.

just a theory.

But grego, that is called the Schrodingers-Cat theory... it means nothing in an argument like this... yet... makes perfect sense and (to me anyways) sounds like it's more probable than not.

[Oldfan]

What about his play sucked for most of his career... therefore it's possible he may not understand what the hell he's talking about?

He was a self centered complainer.. sort of like Jay Cutler without the skill.

~Bang

Jake Plummer's reputation in Denver is that he's a free spirit. All I care about is that no one has ever accused him of being a liar. I don't believe that someone with an ax to grind would make up the criticism that Mike was obsessed with offensive stats. That just doesn't figure. If he was going to lie about something he should be able to come up with something more damning than that.

[DC9]

Jake Plummer's reputation in Denver is that he's a free spirit. All I care about is that no one has ever accused him of being a liar. I don't believe that someone with an ax to grind would make up the criticism that Mike was obsessed with offensive stats. That just doesn't figure. If he was going to lie about something he should be able to come up with something more damning than that.

McNabb has an ego... he criticized Shanny for having a big ego.

Haynesworth wasn't a team guy.... he criticized Shanny for team workouts

Plummer was not a top performer.... he criticized Shanny for being "obsessed" with stats....

I'm opening up microsoft paint right now to try and draw you a graph....

[Darth Tater]

Isn't the "bend but don't break" defense pretty much a dead dinosaur now? I mean really the NFL and it's rules are pretty much designed to favor the offense. You can't hit a "defenseless" receiver, no cut blocks while someone is engaged, no touching after 5 yards but yet it's obvious so many receivers push off after 5 yards. Hell you pretty much can't even hit a QB now. I think also the fact that any offense that gets into the red zone since the end zone is only so big that cuts off many plays, or it does in theory so what is the percentage that any offensive team that get's in the red zone comes away with points right? So I think the bend but don't break is a myth, unless you classify giving a field goal instead of the TD bending and not breaking............................

I'd say just the exact opposite. Its pretty much the ONLY defense that works unless you got tremendous horses.

[Bang]

Ouch!! Bang that was pretty harsh wouldn't you say?

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

[RedskinParadigm]

So I think the bend but don't break is a myth, unless you classify giving a field goal instead of the TD bending and not breaking............................

This is exactly what I view it as. A team can allow four separate 10-15 play drives that end up in the red zone, but if they only allow 12 points off of those drives, that's a huge win for the defense.

To clarify my position, I am actually NOT in favor of a bend-don't-break defense, particularly with the quick-strike, explosive offense we currently have. My original point was that I did not like what our defense did against Atlanta because even though they held Atlanta's offense in check for most of the game, they also took the ball out of Griffin's hands for far too long. That's not the recipe for success with the way we're currently built, IMO.

[pjfootballer]

The Bears 46 defense was NOT a bend but don't break. The front 7 alone broke your will, if not the front 4 itself. The busted you in the mouth, then did it again and again. Before the bounty thing, I wouldn't put it past Buddy Ryan and that defense to have had a huge bounty system. Like he did in Philly with our body bag game. Bears 46 defense primary objective was to annihilate you.

[Hitman21ST]

Jake Plummer's reputation in Denver is that he's a free spirit. All I care about is that no one has ever accused him of being a liar. I don't believe that someone with an ax to grind would make up the criticism that Mike was obsessed with offensive stats. That just doesn't figure. If he was going to lie about something he should be able to come up with something more damning than that.

Wanting more offensive production doesn't mean he's obsessed with offensive stats.

As was posted earlier, here are the outcomes of the Bronco games before Plummer was benched:

L 10-18 @STL

W 9-6 KC

W 17-7 @NWE

W 13-3 BAL

W 17-7 OAK

W 17-7 @CLE

L 31-34 IND

W 31-20 @PIT

W 17-13 @OAK

L 27-35 SD

L 10-19 @KC

Chances are, they left a lot of points out on the field. One dropped pass here, a bad read there, or whatever the cause is. For example, take the 17-7 win at Cleveland. As a coach, I'm happy it's a win, but if Plummer misses a read which led to the field goal instead of a touchdown, or threw an interception in the red zone, I'm still mentioning that we should have scored 28 instead of 17.

Now couple that with Plummer's compliaining about Mike being "concerned with offensive stats", and it gives it a little context. Plummer was essentially saying that a win is a win, so Mike should be happy, and it's crazy that he wanted more. Mike's just pointing out the areas that the team can improve (which means better stats). Someone with an ax to grind takes what Mike says out of context and portrays it as "Mike is just concerned with offensive stats" rather than "Mike is concerned about us leaving points out on the field."

[Oldfan]

...I don't think the original quote provides enough context to confirm you suspicions of.

Why do we need context? Mike's motivation is not relevant. Plummer made a very specific criticism -- he said that Mike was obsessed with the team's ranking in offensive stats. My position is that when coaches do that they are taking their eyes off the goal which is to win football games. It doesn't matter why they do it.

The Blache example illustrates my point. I'm sure Greg had pure motives, but coaching to improve his ranking on the stat took his eyes off the goal which is to win football games.

---------- Post added October-11th-2012 at 01:38 PM ----------

Wanting more offensive production doesn't mean he's obsessed with offensive stats.

No, it doesn't. But Plummer said he was and it doesn't make sense that Plummer would lie about something so trivial because he had an ax to grind. Furthermore, Mike's offenses fared better in the rankings than they did in the win column over 12 years.

[MassSkinsFan]

i wonder if it went something like this-

-mike shanahan has developed a football philosophy based on reaching certain offensive goals

-some of those goals include things like (possibly) passing at a certain completion percentage, running for a certain number of yards, having a certain amount of TOP, passing for a certain number of yards, etc

-jake plummer is interpreting his obsessing over stats as caring more about stats as opposed to being a means to an end, which is, to win the game.

this would explain to some of us (assuming kyle has adopted a similar goal-oriented system) why kyle may call a game differently than we may expect, as spectators, rather than 'just sticking with what seems to be working' on a particular day.

just a theory.

I don't think Plummer really said that Shanny was obsessed with stats above all else. When he gives examples one is a defensive topic (turnover creation), one is "stats" which is a general catch-all for what we know not, and one is points scored, which is one of the things that was identified as suffering from Shanny's obsession with stats.

I think he's saying Shanny is too tough on the guys, not that his fascination with numbers blinds him to other things (like points scored or turnover creation for instance).

The more interesting topic here is the discussion about complementary O/D.

[RedskinParadigm]

Why do we need context? Mike's motivation is not relevant. Plummer made a very specific criticism -- he said that Mike was obsessed with the team's ranking in offensive stats. My position is that when coaches do that they are taking their eyes off the goal which is to win football games. It doesn't matter why they do it.

The Blache example illustrates my point. I'm sure Greg had pure motives, but coaching to improve his ranking on the stat took his eyes off the goal which is to win football games.

I think the context is important because, for all we know, Mike was emphasizing statistical improvements in areas that would allow them to win even more games (i.e. TOP, 3rd down conversions, etc.). I actually think Shanahan's statistical philosophy is the exact opposite of what Plummer wanted to imply; on several occassions I've heard Mike indicate that defenisve turnovers were more important to him than yardage allowed. Why? Because turnover margin has a greater correlation to wins and losses than the traditional offensive and defensive rankings.

[DC9]

Oldfan... no banter for me at all? I've hit you up about five times and I get no responses?

I'm starting to feel left out, big guy!

[Hitman21ST]

Why do we need context? Mike's motivation is not relevant. Plummer made a very specific criticism -- he said that Mike was obsessed with the team's ranking in offensive stats. My position is that when coaches do that they are taking their eyes off the goal which is to win football games. It doesn't matter why they do it.

No, it doesn't. But Plummer said he was and it doesn't make sense that Plummer would lie about something so trivial because he had an ax to grind. Furthermore, Mike's offenses fared better in the rankings than they did in the win column over 12 years.

We need context because Mike saying he wanted more production in a win (i.e. fewer turnovers, turning FG drives into TD drives, etc) is completely different than saying "Mike wants the #1 offense in the league, wins be damned" (which is what Cutler is insinuating, and you are riding with). The reason his offenses have fared better than the win totals is because his defenses have been problematic.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Why do we need context? Mike's motivation is not relevant. Plummer made a very specific criticism -- he said that Mike was obsessed with the team's ranking in offensive stats. My position is that when coaches do that they are taking their eyes off the goal which is to win football games. It doesn't matter why they do it.

As usual with you, instead of trying to find the correct context of an issue, you inject your own context into the argument in order to suit your rigid ideological agenda. Your agenda from the outset was to paint Mike Shanahan as a coach who cares more about flashy numbers than about winning games, and used that quote from Jake Plummer to support it by implying that Shanahan didn't care about wins, but about stats. That is a clear agenda-driven slant that plays only to your pre-existing perceptions of Shanahan (you admit as much), while ignoring the context (Plummer was playing like ****, the offense wasn't productive, and Shanahan isn't the type of coach that will ignore bad play just because the team is winning, because the team could very easily stop winning as soon as a few bounces go the other way).

Given Plummer's track record of laziness and non-commitment everywhere he has been, what is more likely?

- That Shanahan is an ego-maniac who only cares about stats and high offensive rankings

- That Plummer, like McNabb and Haynesworth, chafed at a coach demanding - horror of horrors! - that they play up to their physical potential and maximize every bit of their talent, as opposed to letting them coast.

The 2-7 comment was actually quite telling - it pretty much shows that his old Cardinals teams largely allowed him (and the team) to coast and not put in maximum effort, and thus he felt "positive" even with a ****ty record.

Shanahan, from what I can tell, was tough on Plummer because he did not feel that the team's current performance would be sustainable in terms of winning football games. And nobody is arguing that Plummer is lying - there's a difference between "lying" and "slanting". Shanny probably said to an effect that "our offensive rankings are low despite us winning, we can't continue to win like this, so let's get back to basics" and Plummer probably got sulky, thinking "hey, we're winning, why should I sweat that open TD I missed in the end zone or that INT I nearly threw?"

[Enter Apotheosis]

Color me skeptical when it comes to Plummer even being capable of providing insight into Mike Shanahan that isn't heavily jaded.

[Jericho]

Isn't the "bend but don't break" defense pretty much a dead dinosaur now? I mean really the NFL and it's rules are pretty much designed to favor the offense. You can't hit a "defenseless" receiver, no cut blocks while someone is engaged, no touching after 5 yards but yet it's obvious so many receivers push off after 5 yards. Hell you pretty much can't even hit a QB now. I think also the fact that any offense that gets into the red zone since the end zone is only so big that cuts off many plays, or it does in theory so what is the percentage that any offensive team that get's in the red zone comes away with points right? So I think the bend but don't break is a myth, unless you classify giving a field goal instead of the TD bending and not breaking............................

"Bend, but don't break is not a strategy", it's an after-effect. No team goes out on the filed and intentionally gives up yards only to "turn it on" near the red zone to avoid giving up touchdowns. Good defenses stop the offense right away and get a three and out. They save their own energy and give the offense the ball. Bad defenses give up yards and first downs. The idea of a "Bend, but don't break" D is either a really bad defense the consciously prevents big plays and forces you to nickel and dime your way down the field (somewhat akin to a prevent defense) hoping for a mistake or a bad defense that somehow, luck or otherwise, manages to get a stop later in the drive. But it's not intentional. Every defense wants a three and out. Or a turnover prior to that.

As to the original post, it sounds like crap. Teams that gain yards and score points are going to be good offenses, period. There's no such thing as quick strike vs. ball control offenses overall. There are ball control plays. And there are quick strike plays. Every team has the capability of doing both in theory. Few teams succeed repeatedly in "quick strike" attacks, because you need talent to do so. So each individual team tries to call plays that best suit their personel. Almost all the best "quick strike" plays come from offenses with top QBs - New Orleans, Green Bay, NY Giants, etc... (note - these are also the last 4 Super Bowl winners). And on the flip side, certain types of plays run more clock (generally running plays, which ironically the Redskins are doing quite well in this season). But no offense decides we won't score quickly just because and no team willfully passes up yards just to keep nickel and diming their way down the field.

As to the FBS, I don't see any evidence that it is "boom" or "bust". Saying it is that way sounds like selective memory. Since running the ball tends to keep the clock running more, I'd figure someone that wanted "ball control" wants more running plays. Of course, if all you can do is run, you end up like the 2011 Jacksonville Jaguars. If all you can do is pass, you end up like the 2011 New York Giants (who also has an amazingly large amount of quick strike plays).

[Enter Apotheosis]

Shanahan, from what I can tell, was tough on Plummer because he did not feel that the team's current performance would be sustainable in terms of winning football games. And nobody is arguing that Plummer is lying - there's a difference between "lying" and "slanting". Shanny probably said to an effect that "our offensive rankings are low despite us winning, we can't continue to win like this, so let's get back to basics" and Plummer probably got sulky, thinking "hey, we're winning, why should I sweat that open TD I missed in the end zone or that INT I nearly threw?"

To expand on this, Plummer had been putting up great numbers in Shanahan's offense prior to the 2006 NFL Draft when they traded up to grab Cutler. The reason they decided to get Cutler in the first place was allegedly because Shanahan thought that Plummer had reached his limit in terms of winning games and didn't have what it would take to get over the hump and into the Super Bowl, largely because of his consistent unwillingness to go the extra mile to improve.

[Oldfan]

This is likely where we differ. I view "bend-don't-break" as a philosophical emphasis of preventing touchdowns over giving up yards and/or extended drives. There are other defenses that focus on pressuring an offense into mistakes in an effort to get off the field or generate turnovers.

I think of the Tampa-2 as the pre-eminent bend-don't-break defense..

I agree with the former, but not the latter in most of it's variations.

You're right, his emphasis is on taking away the strength of an opponent, but with the aerial proficiency league-wide in the modern NFL, that most often translates into locking down the opponents' primary receivers.

True, but that doesn't mean that you give them all seven yard cushions as we did with Greg Blache's bend but don't break..

[MassSkinsFan]

Why do we need context? Mike's motivation is not relevant. Plummer made a very specific criticism -- he said that Mike was obsessed with the team's ranking in offensive stats. My position is that when coaches do that they are taking their eyes off the goal which is to win football games. It doesn't matter why they do it.

LOL - we need context because you are trying to use this subjective statement to confirm your subjective suspicion.

Plummer doesn't say what stats Mike likes. He gives equal weight to two other things that are not offensive stats. Mainly though he talks about perfectionism and its effect on morale.

[Oldfan]

As usual with you, instead of trying to find the correct context of an issue, you inject your own context into the argument in order to suit your rigid ideological agenda. Your agenda from the outset was to paint Mike Shanahan as a coach who cares more about flashy numbers than about winning games, and used that quote from Jake Plummer to support it by implying that Shanahan didn't care about wins, but about stats. That is a clear agenda-driven slant that plays only to your pre-existing perceptions of Shanahan (you admit as much), while ignoring the context (Plummer was playing like ****, the offense wasn't productive, and Shanahan isn't the type of coach that will ignore bad play just because the team is winning, because the team could very easily stop winning as soon as a few bounces go the other way).

You are attacking me because you can't find fault with my argument. That's the logical fallacy known as an "ad hominem."

The rest of your points are repetitive. They have all been debated earlier.

[RedskinParadigm]

I think the discussion has devolved somewhat from Oldfan's original argument that Shanahan's offensive philosophy is less-conducive to winning than his statistical rankings suggest. Someone pointed out earlier that Shanahan's Denver teams struggled in the W-L columns because his defenses were problematic.

I think what Oldfan was suggesting was that Shanahan's defenses were problematic, at least in part, because the offenses he ran were not conducive to defensive success. More specifically, the quick-strike mentality that he possesses causes the team to suffer in consistently sustaining drives (which we see currently with 3rd down percentage), hurts the overall TOP, and puts the defense on the field more often. This inevitably causes more yards and points to be given up, provided the points-per-drive and yards-per-drive remain consistent.

Personally, I think he has a point, but I also think that this offense CAN be just as conducive to winning as a ball-control offense, provided it has a defensive philosophy that compliments it.

[KCClybun]

Jake Plummer's reputation in Denver is that he's a free spirit. All I care about is that no one has ever accused him of being a liar. I don't believe that someone with an ax to grind would make up the criticism that Mike was obsessed with offensive stats. That just doesn't figure. If he was going to lie about something he should be able to come up with something more damning than that.

Plummer may not be "lying", but his assertion that Mike was obsessed with stats prior to him getting benched seems to be directly correlated to the fact that the offense at that point kind of sucked. It suggests that the reason Mike may have focused on the team's offensive ranking or stats is because their were missed opportunities and Plummer's play at that point was bottom of the barrel and barely even mediocre.

Here's what Plummer told the Denver Post----

Plummer was the Broncos' quarterback from 2003 until he was replaced 12 games into the 2006 season by a rookie named Jay Cutler. Speaking not out of bitterness but in his relaxed, if straightforward, manner in a telephone interview from his home in Sandpoint, Idaho, Plummer indicated Shanahan seemed to become increasingly obsessed with the Broncos' NFL rank in offense or defense instead of the win-loss record.

"It's hard on a team. We were 7-2 at one point my last year and we came out of a meeting with our heads bowed and we were all just sulking around like we had just been berated for not putting up 40 points, for not leading the league in offense, for not creating enough turnovers," Plummer said.

"It was a weird style to be coached that way. It really took it out of you as a player. I've been on 2-7 teams that had better attitudes coming out of team meetings than oftentimes when we came out of team meetings after Shanahan felt a need to motivate us even more."

Read more: Plummer: Shanny firing "was past due" - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_11586720#ixzz290tSfGEn

Which, again, ignores the fact that Plummer's play at that point had sucked. The Broncos offense at that point was averaging 17.5 points a game---that's the kind of stat that around these parts would get people lining up around the corner to kick Kyle Shanahan's ass, and was down from being the 7th rated scoring offense in 2005. The only reason they finished at 17 scoring 19.9 points a game in 2006 is because...well, because Shanahan benched Plummer and they scored 20 points or more for the rest of the season.

That's why Plummer is an unreliable source. Plummer's assertion that Mike was "obsessed with stats" seems less like Mike desperately wanting to lead the league is stastical categories and more like he was telling his team that it didn't matter that they were 7-2; their play still sucked, and at that point they were (barely) 3-2 in the division. They weren't exactly running away from the league in the W-L category, and yet Plummer's assertion seems to be "we were 7-2, it didn't matte how we were 7-2, I just don't get why Mike kept hammering it into us to be better."

That's backed up by this particularly telling quote here...

“I had a coach that, regardless of how well I thought I was playing or how well the majority of fans across the country thought I was playing, it was never good enough for him,” Plummer said, not bitter but very matter-of-fact. “And that kind of gets frustrating.

“It just seemed like every game I could have completed these four more passes or these five more shots here and it would have been perfect. And that just wasn’t my personality....But Shanahan wanted perfection and he wore a lot of us down there.”

Plummer never wanted to get better. The fact of the matter is, the Broncos offense did suck. They didn't score enough points in every game. They didn't get enough turnovers---their turnover differential for the whole season was a big fat zero, meaning they created as many turnovers as the offense gave away. That team wasn't good enough.

If this were Belichick, we'd be saying it's just Belichick being Belichick. But since it's Mike, it's something entirely different.

Being "okay" wasn't good enough for Mike, and that was the biggest problem Plummer had with Mike. It may have come across as "being obsessed" to a guy who was fine coasting on a 7-2 record and a 3-2 division record while completing 55% of his passes and nearly throwing as many touchdowns as he did picks while his offense barely scored 17 points a game.

[Oldfan]

Color me skeptical when it comes to Plummer even being capable of providing insight into Mike Shanahan that isn't heavily jaded.

It isn't an insight when Plummer reports what he observed.