Mike knows offense, but....

[daveakl]

This is the most obvious example and one which happens several times a game: When running QBs run, they are likely to get tackled by bigger people -- which adds risk when compared to QBs who don't run.

But those are the exact type of plays that he is learning to avoid. Taking the big hit off the run. The act of tackling (or being fallen on by a larger man) happens in the pocket also. Outside the pocket you can throw it away, run out of bounds, slide, or take the hit. RGIII is showing vast improvement in doing the first three instead of the fourth. But really that is neither here nor there in relation to this thread.

---------- Post added October-26th-2012 at 07:02 PM ----------

If that was the case, then yes -- he could have had even greater success had his defense averaged a ranking of 4-6 on the DVOA over the same span.

Would it surprise you to know his ranking was 15?

[Oldfan]

But those are the exact type of plays that he is learning to avoid. Taking the big hit off the run. The act of tackling (or being fallen on by a larger man) happens in the pocket also. Outside the pocket you can throw it away, run out of bounds, slide, or take the hit. RGIII is showing vast improvement in doing the first three instead of the fourth. But really that is neither here nor there in relation to this thread.

RG3 takes the same risk in the pocket as a pocket passer. You can't play the NFL game as a QB and take less risk. that's the minimum. Running QBs take far more risk. Those risks can be mitigated a little but they can't be avoided.

Would it surprise you to know his ranking was 15?

It's a little surprising, but not shocking. I'll hazard a guess that that average has been on the rise over the last five or six years. The Giants beat them twice in Super Bowls because they had no problem playing ball control against the Patriot's D -- keeping the Pats offense on the sideline.

[daveakl]

It's a little surprising, but not shocking. I'll hazard a guess that that average has been on the rise over the last five or six years. The Giants beat them twice in Super Bowls because they had no problem playing ball control against the Patriot's D -- keeping the Pats offense on the sideline.

Kind of, last year was the worst (30) and 2010 was (21), but they really are all over the map year to year:

14,2,7,27,7,11,17,14,21,30

SB years they were 30 (L), 11 (L), 14 (W), 7 (W), 2 (W)

Even with those numbers being everywhere 4 of the 5 SB's were a 3 point game and the other was a 4 point game.

What it kind of amazing is that the New England Patriots, for as great as everyone thinks they are over the last 10 years, are a FG away from being the Bills (0 for SB's) and just as close to being 5-5 and no doubt one of the best decades ever.

I guess my main point is that while yes I can see the logic that the low DVOA on defense while the offense has a high DVOA should bring down the quality of a team, is there an actual example of a team that had a high DVOA on both sides of the ball and how did they do? Is it even possible in the Salary Cap age to create a team that is high on both sides.

[Oldfan]

...

I guess my main point is that while yes I can see the logic that the low DVOA on defense while the offense has a high DVOA should bring down the quality of a team, is there an actual example of a team that had a high DVOA on both sides of the ball and how did they do? Is it even possible in the Salary Cap age to create a team that is high on both sides.

I use the DVOA only because it is far more intelligently compiled than the NFL rankings on points or yardage. I don't trust its accuracy in any given year. But, let's for the moment assume its rankings are perfectly accurate:

Since offense and defense are equally important, a team ranking #3 on offense and #5 on defense is as good as a team ranking #5 on offense and #3 on defense.

The team with the lowest combined ranking should be favored to win all their games and favored to win the Super Bowl. However, in a given season, luck is a major factor, especially with injuries. So, those rankings can change week to week and the best team doesn't always win.

Since it's a ranking, the salary cap, which affects all teams equally, should not prevent a team from achieving a high ranking on both offense and defense. It's just tough to do because it requires a truly great organization.

[Skinsinparadise]

Aside from the RB position, and one WR (Brandon Marshall) -- I can't, off the top, think of a high caliber starter, found by Shanahan in his drafts below the first round.

He's found plenty of good players after the first round. Thom Loverro from the Examiner wrote an article about it over a year ago, couldn't find it but found the thread on it. We have a bunch of starters on this team outside of the first round too.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?340698-Thom-Loverro-%28Wash-Examiner%29-For-Shanahan-no-rough-draft

You say the 2013 draft will be deep in safeties. But, how often do NFL scouts agree with the draftniks who create the mocks?

Safety isn't a position where the typical starter comes from the first round for starters. lets say the draft geeks are wrong and its not a good draft for safeties but a terrible one. Between having 6 picks between round 2 and 5 and a decent looking free agent crop at the moment -- its not a stretch to think we can fill that position. The Eagles and Giants in recent years helped cleaned up their issues with the secondary in free agency ditto Dallas this year when they signed Carr.

Shanny's offense might be partly responsible for the lower ranking defense. The opening drive against the Giants was 19 plays of ball control. That's unusual for Mike's teams.

Unusual, really? I don't mean this sarcastically. I haven't read through the whole thread, were their stats that show his Denver's team rarely edged in time possession? Based on interviews with him and watching our games -- seems to be that dominating time of possession is part of the game plan. But yeah it would definitely get my attention if Denver's run oriented team and our current one gets beat with time possession regularly. The one game this year that went that way was Atlanta -- and the reaction at the time from the team wasn't a shrug your shoulders, we don't care that it happened but instead we can't let that happen again. In other words, their were strong comments about the context of the loss in terms of time of possession as opposed to that's how we roll, we live and die by the sword of our quick strike offense or something to that effect.

I think your critique of Shanny not hiring good D coordinators definitely has merit. As for his offense being a part of the defensive failures because its quick strike driven as opposed to time possession, i don't see it, but if I missed stats thrown in this thread, am open to change my mind.

Edit: I rarely take a coaches biggest critic and in Shanny's case Jake Plummer and Donovan McNabb too seriously. Its pretty well documented that Jake in particular has a big time axe to grind with Shanny so if he can go out of his way to make him look bad he will do it. I take guys like Mike Lombardi more seriously. Lombardi who worked as you know with both Shanny and Belichick, said again recently Shanny is a great coach and he expects him to win with the Redskins.

His critique of Shanny is in terms of personnel he tends to overestimate what's he got. And i think that's true. My big hit on Shanny in terms of defense is him talking up they have top 10 talent on defense. Clearly, that's ridiculous. The personnel on secondary is laughable IMO. Hopefully, this offseason he doesn't think that canning Haslett fixes all ills. They need some talent. I get teams don't have stars at every position. but if you have 2 below average cover corners, and 2 below average safeties -- its just not good.

[Oldfan]

He's found plenty of good players after the first round. Thom Loverro from the Examiner wrote an article about it over a year ago, couldn't find it but found the thread on it. We have a bunch of starters on this team outside of the first round too.

I didn't find a single player on Loverro's list who I would I describe as a high-caliber starter and a non-RB as I specified in the paragraph you quoted. Who are the non-RB starters on our team picked in the second round or below who aren't just warm bodies or backups at their positions because we could not find anyone better?

Safety isn't a position where the typical starter comes from the first round for starters. lets say the draft geeks are wrong and its not a good draft for safeties but a terrible one. Between having 6 picks between round 2 and 5 and a decent looking free agent crop at the moment -- its not a stretch to think we can fill that position. The Eagles and Giants in recent years helped cleaned up their issues with the secondary in free agency ditto Dallas this year when they signed Carr.

Granted.

Unusual, really? I don't mean this sarcastically. I haven't read through the whole thread, were their stats that show his Denver's team rarely edged in time possession? Based on interviews with him and watching our games -- seems to be that dominating time of possession is part of the game plan. But yeah it would definitely get my attention if Denver's run oriented team and our current one gets beat with time possession regularly. The one game this year that went that way was Atlanta -- and the reaction at the time from the team wasn't a shrug your shoulders, we don't care that it happened but instead we can't let that happen again. In other words, their were strong comments about the context of the loss in terms of time of possession as opposed to that's how we roll, we live and die by the sword of our quick strike offense or something to that effect. I think your critique of Shanny not hiring good D coordinators definitely has merit. As for his offense being a part of the defensive failures because its quick strike driven as opposed to time possession, i don't see it, but if I missed stats thrown in this thread, am open to change my mind

ToP is not actually an offensive stat since it is influenced just as much by the defense's ability to stop the drives of the opponent.

A ball control offense grinds out first downs - by running or by short passes. It hits singles. That has never been Mike's game. His offense is more dynamic, more quick strike. That's why Mike, unlike Bill Walsh, prefers strong-armed QBs who can throw deep.

Even the run game achieves those gaudy stats with the occasional homerun.

Those smaller, more athletic ZBS linemen are not ideal for keeping drives alive on short yardage downs either. The big boys and the power-blocking game do it better.

[Skinsinparadise]

I didn't find a single player on Loverro's list who I would I describe as a high-caliber starter and a non-RB as I specified in the paragraph you quoted. Who are the non-RB starters on our team picked in the second round or below who aren't just warm bodies or backups at their positions because we could find anyone better?

Perry Riley, Jarvis Jenkins. Leonard Hankerson is mostly a wait and see guy but he's starting and has had flashes. Guess we are about to see what we got with Niles Paul. Tough to ignore the Rb position considering they had really 2.5 drafts (his draft 1 was depleted, 2 picks via Vinny) and they drafted a bunch -- Helu, Royster, Morris. Coaches are raving about K. Robinson, he played some last week, perhaps will see more of him if Fletcher doesn't play. As you say, you have to let the young players play some to get a read. And nope i don't recall coaches raving about guys like D. Thomas in camp but do recall for example Fred Davis getting hype.

A ball control offense grinds out first downs - by running or by short passes. It hits singles. That has never been Mike's game. His offense is more dynamic, more quick strike. Even the run game achieves those gaudy stats with the occasional homerun.

if there is no stat to back this, you are being anecdotal, which is OK. Likewise, I am being anecdotal too -- am watching his offense too, and no I don't see this as a quick strike. Heck the few critic stragglers who say don't believe the RG 3 hype cite specifically about how he's making safe short passes and not going down field like others. As for what Mike is like if he really doesn't believe in ball control he must experience a lot of cognitive dissonance because he does talk about it at times. He doesn't characterize himself as a Mike Martz quick strike guy.

[Oldfan]

I don't see Riley, Jenkins or Hankerson as high-caliber starters nor do I have much hope that they ever will be. Of the three RBs you mentioned only Morris stands out and he's not much of a receiver. In today's game that's a significant shortcoming.

About the ball control issue, you say I'm being "anecdotal." I'm not sure what you mean. I think I'm being analytical. In Mike's offense, I don't see evidence of the pattern that ball control teams demonstrate.

[Skinsinparadise]

About the ball control issue, you say I'm being "anecdotal." I'm not sure what you mean. I think I'm being analytical. In Mike's offense, I don't see evidence of the pattern that ball control teams demonstrate.

Anecdotal meaning if i am reading you right, you aren't backing it with empirical evidence or stats. If time of possession doesn't mean anything in judging this and likewise I presume stats that indicate the number of short passes aren't significant either, etc then don't how you can prove or disprove your theory. I'll see if i can find it but recall reading an article recently with stats that indicate that we throw a lot of short passes with RG 3 and we get down-field thanks to YAC -- if that doesn't eat and breathe and sound like a WCO, am not sure what does. Shanny talks about ball control, granted not like crazy but from time to time.

In short, I think you got something cooking with how good is he at evaluating defensive talent drill? But I think its difficult to prove that his offenses have been helping lead the defensive demise.

[Oldfan]

Anecdotal meaning if i am reading you right, you aren't backing it with empirical evidence or stats.

I didn't back it with anecdotal evidence either. It's backed by analysis based on the premise that you are as familiar as I am on the historical evidence of such as the Walsh WCO which was designed for ball control. I explained the differences between the two schemes. For example, Walsh didn't figure on going deep with weak-armed Joe Montana as his QB and his WRs were selected for size not speed. Shanahan's vertical passing game is more dynamic, much more like Coryell than Walsh.

If time of possession doesn't mean anything in judging this and likewise I presume stats that indicate the number of short passes aren't significant either, etc then don't how you can prove or disprove your theory.

If you have a stat showing the number of short passes with a comparison to other teams in the NFL, that would be a factor. A high third-down conversion percentage would also be an indicator of a good ball control team.

[planter]

Of course in modern NFL few DC's have success on pass defense...

How about a former Skins all pro secondary: Champ Bailey, Carlos Rogers, Ryan Clark, and Ron Landry SS.

[Oldfan]

Of course in modern NFL few DC's have success on pass defense....

"Success' is a relative term. The fourth best pass defense is still the fourth best even if it gives up more ground and more points than the fourth best of yesteryear.

[braindx]

I use the DVOA only because it is far more intelligently compiled than the NFL rankings on points or yardage. I don't trust its accuracy in any given year. But, let's for the moment assume its rankings are perfectly accurate:

Since offense and defense are equally important, a team ranking #3 on offense and #5 on defense is as good as a team ranking #5 on offense and #3 on defense.

The team with the lowest combined ranking should be favored to win all their games and favored to win the Super Bowl. However, in a given season, luck is a major factor, especially with injuries. So, those rankings can change week to week and the best team doesn't always win.

Since it's a ranking, the salary cap, which affects all teams equally, should not prevent a team from achieving a high ranking on both offense and defense. It's just tough to do because it requires a truly great organization.

That's not how DVOA works...

There can be a large disparity from the #1 to #2 DVOA, and #1 DVOA from year to year will have different values as would #2, #3, etc.

A team could b #1 ranked defense in DVOA at say -30.0% and there could still be 5 teams with >30.0% on the offense DVOA side. Total DVOA from O, D, and special teams are additive to get a full picture of the team, but the rankings of #1, #2, etc in the league aren't.

Check out hte 1991 Redskins season and see how it stacks up against the 2007 Patriots for example:

www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2012/1991-dvoa-ratings-and-commentary

And even in the comparison it depends on what the "averages" are in the league year. So it's still may not give an accurate representation of comparisons from league year to league year.

[Oldfan]

That's not how DVOA works...

There can be a large disparity from the #1 to #2 DVOA, and #1 DVOA from year to year will have different values as would #2, #3, etc.

A team could b #1 ranked defense in DVOA at say -30.0% and there could still be 5 teams with >30.0% on the offense DVOA side. Total DVOA from O, D, and special teams are additive to get a full picture of the team, but the rankings of #1, #2, etc in the league aren't.

Check out hte 1991 Redskins season and see how it stacks up against the 2007 Patriots for example:

www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2012/1991-dvoa-ratings-and-commentary

And even in the comparison it depends on what the "averages" are in the league year. So it's still may not give an accurate representation of comparisons from league year to league year.

I could agree with you if I could regard the DVOA as a precision instrument where it mattered whether the #1 DVOA was -30.0% in 2010 and -20% in 2011. I just don't hold the formula in such high regard. For my purposes, I treat the #1 ranking in 2010 and 2011 as equal.

I'm not even convinced that those rankings are fair. I just don't have a better tool to use.

[planter]

"Success' is a relative term. The fourth best pass defense is still the fourth best even if it gives up more ground and more points than the fourth best of yesteryear.

My point: Pass defenders are getting beat more often. See NE and Green Bay last year's pass defense stats.It's

More imp'to have hi powered pass offense.

[braindx]

I could agree with you if I could regard the DVOA as a precision instrument where it mattered whether the #1 DVOA was -30.0% in 2010 and -20% in 2011. I just don't hold the formula in such high regard. For my purposes, I treat the #1 ranking in 2010 and 2011 as equal.

I'm not even convinced that those rankings are fair. I just don't have a better tool to use.

Yeah, that's the big problem with statistics anyway. There's always players entering and exiting the league so there's not a lot of consistency between players playing together. And heck, there's not even consistency in the same player as health, age, etc. all play factors.

For general purposes I think I would agree with your assessment though.

I'm not super high on DVOA but it does seem like one of the better tools out there at the moment.