I have a concern about the Shanahan offensive scheme.

[RedskinParadigm]

True, but that doesn't mean that you give them all seven yard cushions.

Ah, see, I think this is another difference in our definitions (or assumptions). I don't view bend-don't-break as automatically giving up those cushions or yards.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

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.

I'm just pointing out that you're rarely ever objective with your posts, nor with the "evidence" you use, but it's all in the name of some pre-existing belief, for example, proposing the absolute merit of "ball control offenses" or saying a given scheme is not conducive to winning football games.

You're latching on to the opinion of a guy who didn't want to work hard and used a fluky 7-2 record as a cover for his crappy play. That 7-2 was essentially the 6-2 of the 2008 Zorn year - everyone knew it was fool's gold.

[Hitman21ST]

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.

...and there's the Oldfan that we all missed. "You don't agree with me, so obviously you're wrong."

Plummer has an ax to grind with Shanahan. He skewed something Mike said and made it sound like all he's concerned with is stats, winning be damned - when all that Shanahan was trying to point out was that despite the record, the offense could be playing better.

[DC9]

...and there's the Oldfan that we all missed. "You don't agree with me, so obviously you're wrong."

Plummer has an ax to grind with Shanahan. He skewed something Mike said and made it sound like all he's concerned with is stats, winning be damned - when all that Shanahan was trying to point out was that despite the record, the offense could be playing better.

At least he's answering you... he answered me a week ago and we haven't talked since... so I know he hasn't turned me off yet.

[Enter Apotheosis]

I think the discussion has devolved somewhat from Oldfan's original argument that Shanahan's offense 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, which inevitably will cause more yards and points to be given up, provided the points-per-drive and yards-per-drive remains 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.

Mike Shanahan's teams routinely won the TOP battle every year he was in Denver up until the 2006-2008 seasons. That was the period where they lost Trevor Pryce (signed with Baltimore), Al Wilson (retired after a neck injury), Ian Gold (hit a physical wall and retired), and Darrent Williams (murdered)... basically all of their best defensive players short of Champ Bailey. They also dedicated a lot of draft resources to rejuvenating the offense (and were wildly successful in that regard) and didn't yet have the opportunity to devote proper care and attention to the defense. Also they had a ton of backs cycle in and out due to injury during those last few seasons.

All of these things happening at once simply wasn't very conducive to a ball control/clock control offense.

[Oldfan]

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.

Plummer reported an observation. He was there. That observation isn't subjective. The only thing I care about is whether or not he would lie about what he experienced. Since it makes no sense that someone with an ax to grind would lie about such specifics, I believe him. My analysis of the evidence is subjective, but so what? Most analysis is subjective.

I don't understand why you think Shanahan's motives for coaching with an eye on the stats matter with respect to my argument. Will you elaborate on that?

[Enter Apotheosis]

Plummer reported an observation. He was there. That observation isn't subjective. The only thing I care about is whether or not he would lie about what he experienced. Since it makes no sense that someone with an ax to grind would lie about such specifics, I believe him. My analysis of the evidence is subjective, but so what? Most analysis is subjective.

However, the observation is also not detailed enough to fully support your original post nor is it out of the question for Plummer to be misrepresenting the truth (perhaps an honest mistake) or to exhibit certain recollective biases.

[Oldfan]

...and there's the Oldfan that we all missed. "You don't agree with me, so obviously you're wrong."

The post you quoted didn't say that at all. What you did was pile an ad hominem on top of an ad hominem. One logical fallacy on top of another.

[Hitman21ST]

I don't understand why you think Shanahan's motives for coaching with an eye on the stats matter with respect to my argument. Will you elaborate on that?

Let's say you win a game 17-7. It's a win, so that's all you should concern yourself with, right?

Wrong.

If your QB made a bad read and threw a pick in the end zone, that's 7 points you should have had. If a receiver dropped a ball on 3rd down that made you kick a field goal, that's another 4 points you probably could have had. If your QB throws two more INTs in the middle of the field, that's leaving another possible 14 points out there. As a coach, you point out those mistakes and say we need to complete those passes.

Now let's say the coach brings up those three INTs to a disgruntled QB. All the QB hears is "you should have been perfect, we needed better stats" when he's thinking "we got a win, you should be happy".

The coach's eyes are on the stats, because if those mistakes are made against a team with a better offense, that game isn't won. You have an eye on the stats because you want maximum production every game. If you don't get that, you say the team needs to improve.

Said disgruntled QB relays that to the media as "he's only concerned with stats" rather than "he wants us to be the best we can be".

[RedskinParadigm]

Mike Shanahan's teams routinely won the TOP battle every year he was in Denver up until the 2006-2008 seasons. That was the period where they lost Trevor Pryce (signed with Baltimore), Al Wilson (retired after a neck injury), Ian Gold (hit a physical wall and retired), and Darrent Williams (murdered)... basically all of their best defensive players short of Champ Bailey. They also dedicated a lot of draft resources to rejuvenating the offense (and were wildly successful in that regard) and didn't yet have the opportunity to devote proper care and attention to the defense. Also they had a ton of backs cycle in and out due to injury during those last few seasons.

All of these things happening at once simply wasn't very conducive to a ball control/clock control offense.

I agree. I think Mike Shanahan's offensive philosophy, particularly with his running game and West Coast roots, is very much a ball control offense. Kyle Shanahan's is a little different, though. His offense puts an emphasis on picking up chunk yards. How many times have we seen Griffin this year pass up the easy first down completion to attempt a more difficult downfield throw? Not that he's been wrong most of the time...I just think those plays illustrate the mentality of KS. Our third down conversion percentage will suffer here because moving the chains isn't the primary goal; it's moving down the field as efficiently as possible. If that means taking a shot on 3rd & short instead of picking up 1-yard, then we'll take that risk.

[Hitman21ST]

The post you quoted didn't say that at all. What you did was pile an ad hominem on top of an ad hominem. One logical fallacy on top of another.

Yet you completely ignore the other part of my response that tells you why context is important and how Plummer - while telling the truth - twisted the meaning of it to give a bad impression of Shanahan.

You try to state your points here using arguments that would fly in a courtroom - ad homimens, etc. You say things like "that's not what I said" when you very carefully choose your words so whenever someone argues with you and disagrees with what you say, you can wordplay them to death. No one here really cares if it's an ad hominem argument or not, it's valid, as is what we say about Plummer. He had an ax to grind with Shanahan, and you're using what he said to back up your dislike of Shanahan.

[Oldfan]

However, the observation is also not detailed enough to fully support your original post nor is it out of the question for Plummer to be misrepresenting the truth (perhaps an honest mistake) or to exhibit certain recollective biases.

How much detail would you need? Jake Plummer was there. You don't doubt that do you? Is he lying or is he mistaken about what he saw? It's not "out of the question" as you put it. Anything is possible. But, we make judgments based on what is likely not what is possible. It just doesn't seem likely that Plummer would lie about such a specific which could easily be verified or denied by other players.

---------- Post added October-11th-2012 at 02:43 PM ----------

Yet you completely ignore the other part of my response that tells you why context is important and how Plummer - while telling the truth - twisted the meaning of it to give a bad impression of Shanahan.

You try to state your points here using arguments that would fly in a courtroom - ad homimens, etc. You say things like "that's not what I said" when you very carefully choose your words so whenever someone argues with you and disagrees with what you say, you can wordplay them to death. No one here really cares if it's an ad hominem argument or not, it's valid, as is what we say about Plummer. He had an ax to grind with Shanahan, and you're using what he said to back up your dislike of Shanahan.

Attacking me rather than my argument is the logical fallacy known as an ad hominem.

Since you persist, I have no choice but to ignore your posts.

[Hitman21ST]

Attacking me rather than my argument is the logical fallacy known as an ad hominem.

Since you persist, I have no choice but to ignore your posts.

I tried attacking your argument, you decided to ignore it. Which is your M.O. But you know, it's cool. I just know that when you start doing that, it means you have no argument against my point. Considering you completely ignored my post above that which had no personal attacks in it whatsoever.

Besides, saying that you use clever wordplay to try to get your point across isn't attacking you. It's making an observation.

[Oldfan]

...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.

Elaborate on this please. What kind of defense? How might it become a ball control offense?

---------- Post added October-11th-2012 at 02:59 PM ----------

I tried attacking your argument, you decided to ignore it. Which is your M.O. But you know, it's cool. I just know that when you start doing that, it means you have no argument against my point. Considering you completely ignored my post above that which had no personal attacks in it whatsoever.

If you will give me the post number I will reply.

Bear in my that debating several people at the same time isn't easy, so I might have missed it.

[Enter Apotheosis]

How much detail would you need? Jake Plummer was there. You don't doubt that do you? Is he lying or is he mistaken about what he saw? It's "out of the question" as you put it. Anything is possible. But, we make judgments based on what is likely no what is possible. It just doesn't seem likely that Plummer would lie about such a specific which could easily be verified or denied by other players.

I think it's likely that Plummer is misrepresenting the Mike Shanahan Experience and that what he perceived was perceived differently by other QBs Mike coached. Plummer almost NEVER has anything positive to say about Mike... but if you ask Steve Young about him:

“Well first of all, no one is doubting my love affair with Mike Shanahan,” Young said. “I mean, the two of us, for three of four years, the guy was unbelievable. He can call plays like no one I’ve ever seen. He was just amazing in my professional career. So first of all, when you talk about quarterbacks and who could really do something with Peyton Manning, in my mind it’s Mike Shanahan....It’s one of those places where it seems like it’s all in place.”

I agree. I think Mike Shanahan's offensive philosophy, particularly with his running game and West Coast roots, is very much a ball control offense. Kyle Shanahan's is a little different, though. His offense puts an emphasis on picking up chunk yards. How many times have we seen Griffin this year pass up the easy first down completion to attempt a more difficult downfield throw? Not that he's been wrong most of the time...I just think those plays illustrate the mentality of KS. Our third down conversion percentage will suffer here because moving the chains isn't the primary goal; it's moving down the field as efficiently as possible. If that means taking a shot on 3rd & short instead of picking up 1-yard, then we'll take that risk.

I would disagree with you on Kyle Shanahan. His offense is typically viewed as being more pass-oriented because of his days in Houston but he's actually been more balanced when he's had dependable runners. In the handful of games where the Texans had Foster starting with Kyle calling the shots, they were remarkably more balanced than they were at any other time that season and they weren't excessively pass happy the year before when Steve Slaton was looking okay (65/45 split). This year we have actually run more than we've passed as a team. That's not very common in this day and age at all.

I also disagree wholeheartedly with the notion that this offense is designed to pick up yardage in chunks. Ideally you want to take whatever the defense gives you and our offense is set up well to do that. In the passing game, that means you attack the field at all depths and for the most part we've done that, although I'd argue that so far we've exhibited a strong bias towards short completions (definitely not big chunks). On the ground, Oldfan has long argued that the ZBS works by getting yardage in chunks and I have always pointed out that it is not designed to operate that way and that improving down and distance is more important to the core philosophy of the running style (even pulling old Alex Gibbs quotes in the process). It's a tough thing to prove one way or another when you look at the wide variety of runners in the system but in DC we've seen our staff actively favor guys with great vision and consistency (Morris, Royster) over guys who got yardage in chunks but don't see the field well and have a lot of zero or negative plays (Torain, Hightower).

[Hitman21ST]

If you will give me the post number I will reply.

Bear in my that debating several people at the same time isn't easy, so I might have missed it.

109

I do understand. It appeared as if you were selectively choosing which to reply to. If that's not the case, I apologize.

[joeknows]

this argument goes into the crapper if we had a defense that could perform

[Oldfan]

I'm just pointing out that you're rarely ever objective with your posts, nor with the "evidence" you use, but it's all in the name of some pre-existing belief, for example, proposing the absolute merit of "ball control offenses" or saying a given scheme is not conducive to winning football games.

You're latching on to the opinion of a guy who didn't want to work hard and used a fluky 7-2 record as a cover for his crappy play. That 7-2 was essentially the 6-2 of the 2008 Zorn year - everyone knew it was fool's gold.

Learn to debate if you would like a response from me. Stick to my argument. Your opinions of me or how I debate are not relevant. Your opinions or my motives of my biases are not relevant.

[Oldfan]

Let's say you win a game 17-7. It's a win, so that's all you should concern yourself with, right?

Wrong.

If your QB made a bad read and threw a pick in the end zone, that's 7 points you should have had. If a receiver dropped a ball on 3rd down that made you kick a field goal, that's another 4 points you probably could have had. If your QB throws two more INTs in the middle of the field, that's leaving another possible 14 points out there. As a coach, you point out those mistakes and say we need to complete those passes.

Now let's say the coach brings up those three INTs to a disgruntled QB. All the QB hears is "you should have been perfect, we needed better stats" when he's thinking "we got a win, you should be happy".

The coach's eyes are on the stats, because if those mistakes are made against a team with a better offense, that game isn't won. You have an eye on the stats because you want maximum production every game. If you don't get that, you say the team needs to improve.

Said disgruntled QB relays that to the media as "he's only concerned with stats" rather than "he wants us to be the best we can be".

Your example doesn't work. All coaches point out mistakes and might use a stat to reinforce it game to game. Plummer was coached the way you describe from college to the pros. That isn't what he was talking about.

"Plummer indicated Shanahan seemed to become increasingly obsessed with the Broncos' NFL rank in offense or defense instead of the win-loss record."

[elkabong82]

Plummer reported an observation. He was there. That observation isn't subjective. The only thing I care about is whether or not he would lie about what he experienced. Since it makes no sense that someone with an ax to grind would lie about such specifics, I believe him. My analysis of the evidence is subjective, but so what? Most analysis is subjective.

I don't understand why you think Shanahan's motives for coaching with an eye on the stats matter with respect to my argument. Will you elaborate on that?

Sorry Oldfan but the "he only cares about rankings" line does indeed sound like something a disgruntled ex-player would make up. To me it makes perfect sense that Plummer would make such an accusation. It's not one that seems all that far-fetched, it's easy to make up, and is definitely something a person with an axe to grind would say. Plummer may just have a false, biased impression of Shanny, which also would not be a reach to say, and so he looks for things to feed that bias. People on this very site make stuff up about the Shanahan's when criticizing them (not everyone, but some), and you are relying on the word of perhaps the MOST disgruntled ex-player. Tell me, have you found quotes from other players that back up what Plummer suggested?

[Oldfan]

109

I do understand. It appeared as if you were selectively choosing which to reply to. If that's not the case, I apologize.

I try to respond to every poster who is respectful and sticks the debate topic.

[DaSkinzBaby]

Regardless of what Plummer says we can debate this till we are all dead. Was there any clear reason why Shanny was fired from Denver? I mean anything other than what was reported? It seems to me that Shanny got control over every aspect and that was his demise. Or am I incorrect? I know he and the Raiders had a history for what I don't recall, but for reason when he was hired here remember doing some reading and I could have sworn things started to take a tumble for Shanny when Kubiak left, when Shanny wanted more say so for trades and drafts and all the ownership type things. When he received all that and still couldn't produce as he once did he was fired. It seems to me that Shanny got a lot of Kudo's coming from the Bill Walsh 49er tree, but he did nothing with the Raiders and got thrown out of there, had a good run in Denver with Elway and Davis but after they retired and Kubiak left he never was able to reach those wins again..........

[Bang]

Plummer reported an observation. He was there. That observation isn't subjective.

Yes it is,, it is completely subject to Plummer's interpretation of what he thinks he sees... which is completely subject to his own failings and paranoias and whatever else forms his opinion into what it is.

your premise rests on the notion that what Plummer says is a pristine truth simply because he said it from first person experience, when given almost all of Plummer's professional history, it's probably quite far from it.

I have recorded evidence from a punter (Andy Groom) who played for DannySmith calling him a know-nothing clown .. would that be enough to convince you he is?

~Bang

[Hitman21ST]

Your example doesn't work. All coaches point out mistakes and might use a stat to reinforce it game to game. Plummer was coached the way you describe from college to the pros. That isn't what he was talking about.

"Plummer indicated Shanahan seemed to become increasingly obsessed with the Broncos' NFL rank in offense or defense instead of the win-loss record."

That's not the whole quote though...

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."

...

“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.”

First off, to say it "seems" like something doesn't make it so, especially coming from Plummer's POV.

The underlined portions tell a lot - he's basing his remarks on a self-evaluation or fan evalution, as opposed to a coach's.

The colored part goes to my earlier statement - Shanahan wanted perfection (as every coach does), and it wasn't in Plummer's personality to work on being perfect. He just was trying to get by on his talent, and not work to improve his craft. He looks at the end result, and that justifies the means of how they got there. If he threw 5 picks but the team won, he was happy. Meanwhile, Shanahan saw the room for improvement and would get on Plummer for that, which upset him, and ultimately led him to the "Shanahan is more concerned with stats" remark.

[Oldfan]

Sorry Oldfan but the "he only cares about rankings" line does indeed sound like something a disgruntled ex-player would make up. To me it makes perfect sense that Plummer would make such an accusation. It's not one that seems all that far-fetched, it's easy to make up, and is definitely something a person with an axe to grind would say. Plummer may just have a false, biased impression of Shanny, which also would not be a reach to say, and so he looks for things to feed that bias. People on this very site make stuff up about the Shanahan's when criticizing them (not everyone, but some), and you are relying on the word of perhaps the MOST disgruntled ex-player. Tell me, have you found quotes from other players that back up what Plummer suggested?

I didn't search for any other quotes from others players. It seems unlikely to me that Plummer just made that up though because it is a specific that other players could easily refute if it never happened. I can't imagine Plummer lying to a newspaper about something that ex-players could refute especially when he could hammer Mike's egotism and nobody would doubt him.