I have a concern about the Shanahan offensive scheme.

[pjfootballer]

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.

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,

Maybe he's talking about the High to Low reads that the offense is based on. First read in this offense is usually a deep pass, then the progressions go down in yardage.

[Jericho]

I think the simple fact here is Jake Plummer was never a particularly good QB. He had his best years in Denver, but even those years were flawed. It was either he was throwing too many interceptions (2004 or 2006) or he was asked to be more of a game manager (2003 and 2005) then a game changer. Shanahan was limited by Plummer and if you're too worried about your QB, you either play call conservatively or you risk the fact your QB will make too many mistakes.

This reminds me yesterday of John Madden's comments on the Jets QB situtation. He suggested the long term answer for them was neither Tebow or Sanchez. Which is probably true (my personal opinion). Yet, I heard a major ESPN personality argue how that wasn't true because the Jets have already proven they could win with Sanchez. It's true that Sanchez was the QB of two teams that went to the AFC Championship. I don't think that's the same as "proving someone can win". First off, Sanchez did not win a Super Bowl. And unless your goal is not to win the Super Bowl, there's no evidence to suggest Sanchez is good enough. But the other fact is that Sanchez has been a below average QB every year of his career, The mere fact the rest of team played really well and managed to get to the AFC title game doesn't make Sanchez individually any better. He's flawed an you want improvement on those flaws.

For similar reasons, Jake Plummer winning games doesn't mean there were not flaws in his game. Something tells me Plummer might be a little bit biased since he was benched by Shanahan for a rookie. Wins aren't everything. Both Tebow and Sanchez have more playoff wins individually than Matt Ryan. Which one of the three do you want QBing your team?

[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.

All of this is conjecture on your part.

I know you like to be particular and make people prove their claims.

So, prove to me no one ever called Plummer a liar, and that he feels the way you're projecting he does.

(It's not a real challenge. You can't.. it's a feel and an impression, and you're entitled to it.)

Plummer's rep as a free spirit also carried with it a tinge of "uncoachable".. at least it did in Arizona. When Shanny signed him, I was very surprised.

~Bang

[RedskinParadigm]

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

An aggressive defense that focuses on getting off the field and causing turnovers is one that compliments this offense, even if it compromises the ability to stave off yardage and/or points (to a degree).

This offense scores points and it picks up chunk yards, but it does so at the expense of 3rd down conversions and extensive drives. In other words, it sacrifices a bit of efficiency (on a per-drive basis) for its explosiveness. Other examples of offenses that had similar philosophies were the Rams during the Vermeil/Martz era and the Saints during the Payton era. Both had issues with efficiency (though theirs were more from attempting high-degree of difficulty passes, resulting in high numbers of interceptions).

What both of those teams needed was a defense that put the ball back into their offense's hands. Even if they allowed more points than the average defense, that was okay (again, to a degree) because they could outscore their opponents. The 2009 New Orleans Saints illustrated this perfectly. Obviously, they had an explosive offense, but their defense, statistically-speaking was weak (in the traditional sense). They were ranked 24th in yards allowed and 20th in points allowed. However, they were great at getting off the field and putting the ball back into Drew Brees' hands. The 2009 Saints were 13th in third down stop percentage and 2nd in turnovers generated. Even though that defense gave up yards and gave up points, they got off the field and Drew Brees as many drives as possible to score.

That's the model I think the Redskins should strive for - and one that, up until last week, the Redskins had been building to. Obviously, we were too cavalier with the aggressiveness early on and left our secondary in compromising positions, but I did not think an entire philosophical flip was necessary. We don't need Greg Blache's defense with this offense. We need a pressure defense that gets off the field, even if it's not the best at limiting yards and/or points.

[Bishop Hammer]

The article presents an interesting theory but I think Shanahan wants to keep his HC positon first and foremost. If the Skins can't produce a winning record Mikeys getting fired. Having a top scoring O won't get him another head coaching job, just consideration as a coordinator. Its pretty obvious MS wants to be a coach for the rest of his career. Mike is going to go for the win in any gane he coaches.

[Oldfan]

That's not the whole quote though...

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.

I have granted that Jake Plummer has an ax to grind. It isn't necessary for you to prove that Plummer had an ax to grind. You are proving what I have already granted.

The other statements in that article are not relevant. They do not tell us anything about the truth of the one relevant statement.

We are not concerned with motives. It doesn't matter that Shanahan wanted perfection. The only thing that is relevant to my argument is whether or not Plummer lied about his observation. I think it is not likely for the reason that I've stated repeatedly.

My argument is that IF IT IS TRUE that Mike coached with an eye on the statistical rankings of his offense, then he took his eyes off the goal of winning games just as Greg Blache did in my example. Seven top ten rankings in 12 seasons while winning just 8.5 games suggest that he might have.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Maybe he's talking about the High to Low reads that the offense is based on. First read in this offense is usually a deep pass, then the progressions go down in yardage.

I don't believe so. Remember, he characterized Mike's offense as a ball-control offense and Kyle's as a chunk yardage offense. The read progression is something the two have in common (hell, most things they have in common as Kyle has been immersed in WCO derivatives from day 1 of his NFL coaching career and earned his first positional coaching job under Mike's old OC).

[Jericho]

I think the bottom line in all this is that there's a strong correlation, although no specific causation, between top offenses and winning. Here's the top offenses by simple yardage (the below rankings are eveyone that finished above average, which was 354.9 yards per game or 5549.3 total yards):

1) New Orleans Saints - 7474

2) New England Patriots - 6848

3) Green Bay Packers - 6482

4) Philadelphia Eagles - 6386

5) Detroit Lions - 6337

6) San Diego Chargers - 6290

7) Carolina Panthers - 6237

8) New York Giants - 6161

9) Oakland Raiders - 6072

10) Atlanta Falcons - 6026

11) Dallas Cowboys - 6008

12) Pittsburgh Steelers - 5957

13) Houston Texans - 5954

14) Buffalo Bills - 5624

That's 8 of 12 playoff teams, 4 teams that were within 1 game of the playoffs (Dallas, Philly, Oakland, and SD), and Carolina and Buffalo. Yards is a very simplistic and flawed statistic, but teams that get yards tend to win. The correlation is strong. Wanting yards is not bad.

[RedskinParadigm]

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:

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).

Wholeheartedly agree w/ you regarding the ZBS; it's primary goal is to eliminate negative plays, not pick up chunk yards.

As for KS' passing scheme, to me it's not a matter of pass/run ratio; it has to do with the philosophical ideal of picking up as many yards as possible on every down. I know that sounds silly and seems obvious, but on certain scenarios (like 3rd & short or 4th & short) the differences between KS and other philosophies become evident - on a number of occassions, he'll sacrifice the easy first down if there's a chance for a bigger play down the field. It's not about extending the drive; it's about hitting a defense when they're most vulnerable.

And it's not just 3rd or 4th downs either. KS is also a big believer in stretching the field on first down. That affects his ability to control the ball because (1) it's a higher degree of difficulty play than most other traditional first down plays, (2) a higher degree of difficulty means a greater chance at zero or negative yards, and (3) a negative or neutral play on 1st down inevitably leads to a higher frequency of 3rd & long scenarios.

I think the statistics this season bear this out.

Now, you're right that his scheme allows the Redskins to attack all levels of the defense, but inherent in that is the desire to stretch the defense often. And to be sure, I'm not saying KS's scheme CANNOT be a ball-control offense; I'm merely saying that his philosophies don't emphasize that over picking up big plays, particularly in the passing game.

[pjfootballer]

I don't believe so. Remember, he characterized Mike's offense as a ball-control offense and Kyle's as a chunk yardage offense. The read progression is something the two have in common (hell, most things they have in common as Kyle has been immersed in WCO derivatives from day 1 of his NFL coaching career and earned his first positional coaching job under Mike's old OC).

Well, that's kind of what I meant. He said Kyle is a chunk yardage kind of guy, so the premise is to look for the big play first in the passing game, but I'm not sure of the running game.

[MassSkinsFan]

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?

Yes I will.

It seems to me your argument is that Plummer's comments confirm your suspicion that Mike is obsessed with stats to the point of allowing the obsession to impact W/L. Did I get that right?

If that's the case, then Shanahan's motives are what are in question. Either he uses stats as a means to achieve better W/L ratio, or he only cares about stats.

Therefore, I think his motives matter.

[Skins Wingman]

unless your team wins every game 42-0, your qb is 30/30 300yds 6 tds, your offense is 100% on 3rd down, defense is 100% on 3rd down, theres always room for improvement. a coach will never be satisfied with anything less than perfection, which will never happen. all coaches want to win every game, and be 1st in every category. who gives a **** about what jake plummer thinks?

[Oldfan]

An aggressive defense that focuses on getting off the field and causing turnovers is one that compliments this offense, even if it compromises the ability to stave off yardage and/or points (to a degree).

This offense scores points and it picks up chunk yards, but it does so at the expense of 3rd down conversions and extensive drives. In other words, it sacrifices a bit of efficiency (on a per-drive basis) for its explosiveness. Other examples of offenses that had similar philosophies were the Rams during the Vermeil/Martz era and the Saints during the Payton era. Both had issues with efficiency (though theirs were more from attempting high-degree of difficulty passes, resulting in high numbers of interceptions).

What both of those teams needed was a defense that put the ball back into their offense's hands. Even if they allowed more points than the average defense, that was okay (again, to a degree) because they could outscore their opponents. The 2009 New Orleans Saints illustrated this perfectly. Obviously, they had an explosive offense, but their defense, statistically-speaking was weak (in the traditional sense). They were ranked 24th in yards allowed and 20th in points allowed. However, they were great at getting off the field and putting the ball back into Drew Brees' hands. The 2009 Saints were 13th in third down stop percentage and 2nd in turnovers generated. Even though that defense gave up yards and gave up points, they got off the field and Drew Brees as many drives as possible to score.

That's the model I think the Redskins should strive for - and one that, up until last week, the Redskins had been building to. Obviously, we were too cavalier with the aggressiveness early on and left our secondary in compromising positions, but I did not think an entire philosophical flip was necessary. We don't need Greg Blache's defense with this offense. We need a pressure defense that gets off the field, even if it's not the best at limiting yards and/or points.

I wouldn't call the offense you describe as a ball control offense. So, we're back to the problem of defining our terms differently.

As for the defense, I'd look for it to be aggressive when we are behind, passive when we have a lead to protect, and cautiously agressive when the score is tied.

[KCClybun]

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 or my biases are not relevant.

Okay, so, just to clarify---

You're premise is that the goal of coaching is to win football games. That the statistical rankings do not matter, and that focusing on the statistical rankings is the wrong way to go about it. You say that the main problem with Mike Shanahan's scheme, in your estimation, is that it places an undue focus on putting up an inflated offensive ranking rather than on winning football games. And that one of the best ways to win football games is with a ball control oriented offense designed to control time of possession and keep a weak defense off the field. You feel the system, by it's very nature of being a more vertical version of the West Coast Offense based around the Zone Blocking Scheme, is naturally going to be more focused on putting up better stats than winning football games.

And to confirm this theory, you point to Jake Plummer---a known malcontent who has personal issues with Mike---saying something three years ago about how Mike seemed obsessed with stats. In fact, Jake Plummer is not even quoted in the article as saying that.

peaking 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.

But fine. You are using Plummer's quote to prove a pre-conceived notion.

You also telegraphed the one potential thing people could use against you; the fact that while Plummer was with Shanahan, they ran the ball a ton and very much managed Jake Plummer's time an mitigated his turnovers by playing ball control. You negate this by saying that the Zone Blocking Scheme is nothing but a gaudy stat producer that is not condusive to grinding out the first downs necessary for a ball control offense.

So you ignored the evidence that the Broncos did run a ball control offense by saying that the way they run the ball, somehow, means they can't actually have a ball control scheme. You say it doesn't really matter how much or how little Plummer through the ball (for the record, the run-to-pass ratio with Plummer was about as close to 50/50 as you can possibly get, which jives well with the old Bill Walsh 50/50 run pass ratio you talk about), the fact is that the scheme just is not a ball control offense.

We then tried to provide context as to why someone like Jake Plummer may say Mike Shanahan was obsessed with the stats, but once again, you moved the goal post, saying that the context doesn't matter, that all that matters is what Plummer said.

We point out that Plummer probably isn't an unbiased source of information, and you move the goal post once more, saying that it doesn't matter if Plummer likes Mike Shanahan or not, he has no reason to lie. We point out that he's not exact lying but he's not completely telling the truth, and all that matters is the quote.

I'm sorry, but if we bend anymore backwards trying to explain why your assumption isn't justified we're going to hit Mexico.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

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.

Sorry, that just made me laugh so I wanted to include it.

OF, glad to be back in one of your threads. I have to say though, if you're actually going to attempt to argue that Shanahan would crack open a Monday paper and care more about where his team ranked than where it stood in the NFL standings, I think you're being ridiculous. If that's not necessarily the focus but just an introduction to your point that you believe his scheme is flawed and not conducive to winning, I believe that's possible.

[RedskinParadigm]

I wouldn't call the offense you describe as a ball control offense. So, we're back to the problem of defining our terms differently.

I never described it as a ball-control offense. I characterized it as an offense designed to pick up chunk yards (particularly in the passing game). And I think it is conducive to winning provided it has a complimentary defensive philosophy to go with it.

I'm always reminded of the Remember the Titans quote:

Coach Yoast: "I run the defense..."

Coach Boone: "...as a part of my team strategy"

The two should not be run independent of each other.

[Oldfan]

Yes I will.

It seems to me your argument is that Plummer's comments confirm your suspicion that Mike is obsessed with stats to the point of allowing the obsession to impact W/L. Did I get that right?

If that's the case, then Shanahan's motives are what are in question. Either he uses stats as a means to achieve better W/L ratio, or he only cares about stats.

Therefore, I think his motives matter.

Okay, now I understand. I probably should have figured that out.

I'll refer you back to the Blache example: If Greg thought that coaching for a high ranking on the NFL points stat was the best way to help the team win, then his motive was pure but he was wrong. The stat is deceptive and misled him to the wrong strategy.

If Blache's motive was self-serving -- he coached for a high ranking for his unit only for job security. Then his motive was impure.

But either way, the team suffers when coaches lose sight of the goal which is to win games.

The same reasoning would apply in Shanahan's case.

---------- Post added October-11th-2012 at 04:23 PM ----------

I'm going to take a break to watch that Nats play. I'll respond to all posts when I return.

[KCClybun]

But either way, the team suffers when coaches lose sight of the goal which is to win games.

The same reasoning would apply in Shanahan's case.

So are you implying that it was wrong of Mike Shanahan to get on his team's back because their offensive output was rather mediocre and their defense wasn't much better because they were winning and had a winning record?

[Bang]

Okay, now I understand. I probably should have figured that out.

I'll refer you back to the Blache example: If Greg thought that coaching for a high ranking on the NFL points stat was the best way to help the team win, then his motive was pure but he was wrong. The stat is deceptive and misled him to the wrong strategy.

If Blache's motive was self-serving -- he coached for a high ranking for his unit only for job security. Then his motive was impure.

But either way, the team suffers when coaches lose sight of the goal which is to win games.

The same reasoning would apply in Shanahan's case.

And your belief that these coaches may coach for stats is based in.... ?

Maybe blache's numerical stats were just a coincidental part of what happened as a reult of the scheme he devised to make use of an under-talented unit.

(This is the only reason you ever run a "bend but don't break" scheme predominantly.. because you can't do anything else. Ideally, the defense exerts it's will on an opposing offense. When it can't, it reserves to making sure everything stays in front of them so they don't get stomped. "Bend but don't break". Rely on the condensation of the field as they get closer. Play for the field goal being the worst outcome. You'll also note that teams who do use this approach never win the Super Bowl. They don't because in sports you can only hide weakness for so long.)

I very much doubt there's many coaches who worry too much about piling up stats.

for coaches stats are a measuring stick as to what they must improve or build upon. For fans they mean a whole hell of a lot more.

I'd go so far as to say that if there is or has been a coach who is more interested in stats than a win, he doesn't coach for long, because he'll be a loser.

I think the entire premise that coach's with the level of success Shanahan has achieved are motivated by something as insignificant as the stats is preposterous.

~Bang

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

My argument is that IF IT IS TRUE that Mike coached with an eye on the statistical rankings of his offense, then he took his eyes off the goal of winning games just as Greg Blache did in my example. Seven top ten rankings in 12 seasons while winning just 8.5 games suggest that he might have.

And nobody would argue with you on that IF IT IS TRUE. However, up until now, you were arguing as if it was true. Your entire critique of Shanahan's offense was based on and buttressed by that contention - that Shanahan cared more about racking up yards than winning ball games. Now you are suddenly, for the first time in the thread, adding a caveat that it may not be true. Which means the entire contention is significantly weakened.

[elkabong82]

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.

Except that bashing Shanahan has been Plummer's MO, so I find it completely believable. Even if others refute it, Plummer can say that they don't know. I think you're simply willing to believe it, despite Plummer's disgruntled past and obvious bias, because you want it to be true.

[Going Commando]

Every year it's the same thing. It doesn't matter if we look good or look bad. Some fan thinks he knows more about coaching, or about players he has never seen practice in person much less watched and graded every day by coaches with decades of ACTUAL NFL coaching experience and decides this forum is the place to be recognized for their "undeniable football godhood."

You're right. I guess we should never talk about anything that we're not tremendously qualified for? We should restrict our comments to how red Shanahan's skin looks today, and how much we like the gold pants?

Give me a break.

Any comments on what was actually in the OP?

[Bang]

You're right. I guess we should never talk about anything that we're not tremendously qualified for? We should restrict our comments to how red Shanahan's skin looks today, and how much we like the gold pants?

Sometimes his hair actually looks green.

~Bang

[BleedBNG]

Wish he was more obsessed about the teams defensive statistics because they're taking a nose dive from last year.

[Skinsinparadise]

If a team is abysmal at 3rd downs, tough to win the ball control game. Stats wise the Skins are one of the best in the league at rushing. I don't see Rg 3 throw the ball deep much even though he has a cannon. And I've heard Shanny talk about ball control before and thinks its a problem when the other team dominates that end of it. In my view if there is an attack at Shanny's offense is find a way to be more creative with third down plays -- if I recall they were bad at it last year, too. And lets finally get a RT who can play, he's wiffed at that position 3 years in a row.

The guy that seems to not buy into ball control this year is Belichick -- he is running a lot of no huddle/quick score style play.

Edit: I've read enough about Shanny to be convinced his bottom line is winning. Maybe he likes to have high ranking offenses but doubt it supersedes or impinges on his desire to win. Shanny is no dummy he knows his legacy is on the line to see if he can build a winner with the Redskins, and that's not going to happen if they go 6-10 every year regardless of where his offense is rated. it's different IMO with assistant coaches, there its their unit that's on the line. With a head coach, the whole team is their responsibility so i don't think having a highly ranked offense gives shanny an out during a bad season especially when he is in charge of personnel.