AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 There will be a certain amount of "physical" penalties that will happen over the course of a game, but the mental mistakes have been a major concern. I'm old school. The best way to eliminate this type of stuff is to run those repeat offenders until they puke. I could be wrong, but this is somewhat of an anomaly for a Shanny coached team, is it not? I don't remember him having a reputation for coaching highly penalized teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted November 6, 2012 Author Share Posted November 6, 2012 looks like the problem based on stats just shown on the thread is with the TEs and O line so those are more blocking related.That doesn't work. False starts are common on the O-line. That number might be low. False starts on receivers are less common. You shouldn't need stats to know that Paulsen has had a problem that goes beyond the TE position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Robinson started last game, maybe he's number 5 when everyone is healthy but they are not, so am talking present, and right now he's arguably the only "potential" deep threat. But, I got no problem subbing Hankerson for Robinson. I have as much less faith in him. Morgan and Santana are ok but aren't IMO #1 receivers. Morgan doesn't stretch the field and Santana does just on occasion. You responded to my point so am following up on my own point and elaborating on it, that's all. if Cosell who we both like is saying this offense is super simple but just disguised some with formations. I just wonder what a simple offense with less disguise and more predictability would do with IMO mediocre players. Recall some of the 80s Skins players saying the opponents would know they would running 40 gut but they couldn't stop it anyway. To that point, I do think having marquee or at least above average Wrs affect the point in hand. The Skins know Manning is likely going to target Victor Cruz in a key spot but can they stop him, are they going to win that matchup? I don't think there is any guy on this team that the opposing defense is scared of -- if you likely know based on the formation that Hankerson is going to run a post route and the ball is headed his way, IMO he isn't that hard to stop conversely if its Reggie Wayne or an above average WR, different story. You seem bent on having a discussion about the WR corps rather then about the OP which is about doing fewer things well as opposed to having more variety at the expense of execution.You're also taking a specific Xs and O's discussion and generalizing simplicity to equal predictability. You're also inadvertantly arguing against one of the base concepts in Mike Shanahan's offense which is the boot/swap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted November 6, 2012 Author Share Posted November 6, 2012 This discussion somehow reminded me of the best line I've heard from a coach. John McKay, 1976 Tampa Bay Buccaneers, first year in the league as expansion team, 0-14 record. He was asked what he thought of his teams execution and he said "I'm in favor of it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 If there is hyperbole it isn't directed at you. Am just VERY frustrated at the Wr crew. More disappointed in Mike not finding a good WR in the draft than am worried about Kyle's playcalling. Hank and Robinson still have time to show they got it, but am running out of patience. Morgan to me is a decent but not a great possession Wr, with inconsistent hands though better hands than the others. I can't fault Santana much for his age he's doing OK. But IMO its really an abysmal bunch without Garcon and Davis.Well this is a different argument. And, surprise, I disagree with you about the quality of our WRs and don't share your frustration.The group had a bad game against the Steelers and Robinson had a bad start/game against the Panthers. But outside of those games the unit hasn't been a problem. They're not world beaters but our WRs are productive league average players, you're banging on them like they're our secondary. You have to take a look at our scheme, we're currently a run focused offense, when you consider the 'stats' of our WRs and if you look at the offense as a unit its hard to make an argument against any part of the offense based on production: We have the 17th ranked passing offense. We're 6th in YPA at 7.7 Total team offense by Football Outsiders is 11th. (BTW our YPA is ahead of both the Steelers and the Packers; we're 1 spot behind the Packers in points scored and ahead of the Steelers; we're ahead of both the Steelers and Packers in yards per game) Outside of Moss (who imo is still a viable deep threat against man-to-man coverage and may still right now be the best deep threat) they're a young group that should only get better as they get a season's worth of targets under their belt. The coaching staff has also shuffled the line-ups a great deal which imo breaks up the continuity. I think they were so concerned with developing Hankerson that they looked right past Moss and Morgan (77% catch rate). Yet the offense and the passing game is still productive and in comparison to the secondary/coverage unit they've been far more productive. And that's without Pierre Garcon the obstensible #1 WR. But, I digress from the OP ---------- Post added November-6th-2012 at 01:41 PM ---------- Granted that Gabbert would not run the Indy scheme as well as Peyton.But, my argument is that any QB would be better off running a smaller scheme like Peyton's than running a much larger playbook because far more repetition makes for better execution -- and execution is more important than having a bigger selection of plays to throw at the defense. Better execution = fewer mistakes, fewer penalties (offenses don't beat themselves). In essence it the no huddle concept. Its the same concept colleges now borrow during in the spread air raid offense that only use a few formations and run all the plays from those formations, often with the players never leaving the line of scrimmage between huddles. The irony is the one word play calls that the media jumped on Cam Newton about are now being borrowed by teams like New England. Fewer players, simpler play calls, faster pace, better exection.---------- Post added November-6th-2012 at 01:42 PM ---------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted November 6, 2012 Author Share Posted November 6, 2012 ...In essence it the no huddle concept. Its the same concept colleges now borrow during in the spread air raid offense that only use a few formations and run all the plays from those formations, often with the players never leaving the line of scrimmage between huddles. The irony is the one word play calls that the media jumped on Cam Newton about are now being borrowed by teams like New England. Fewer players, simpler play calls, faster pace, better exection.Well, sure. If you are going to run no huddle, you are forced to simplify. Even small things, like abandoning the complex WCO terminology for something simpler means you can bring in a new player and have him up to speed much faster. But the main advantage is better execution.Vince Lombardi's Green Bay Sweep couldn't be stopped for several years. There was nothing tricky about it. There was no deception. It was simply run with such precision that it was tough to stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 This discussion somehow reminded me of the best line I've heard from a coach.John McKay, 1976 Tampa Bay Buccaneers, first year in the league as expansion team, 0-14 record. He was asked what he thought of his teams execution and he said "I'm in favor of it." Funny, but I just used that same quote about an hour ago in another thread in here. I love it. In the Mike Shanahan post game comments thread: I had to :ols: at that. I think it's combination of both bad play calling and bad execution. Reporter: "What do think of your teams execution?" Former Buccaneers head coach John McKay: "I'm in favor of it!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Funny, but I just used that same quote about an hour ago in another thread in here. I love it. That's one of the best football quotes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Why is that interesting? If you pull the worst out of any group, the average goes up. That's why we don't do it if we want a useful stat. Because your thought that the offense needs to be simplified seems to revolve around the penalties that Paulsen is committing. By taking him out of the equation we are par for the league. Add him in and all of a sudden we have a problem. Should we simplify the offense because it seems Paulsen can't get it? Or should we maybe play Cooley more and get Paulsen out of that spot that he filled when Davis went down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted November 6, 2012 Author Share Posted November 6, 2012 Because your thought that the offense needs to be simplified seems to revolve around the penalties that Paulsen is committing. By taking him out of the equation we are par for the league. Add him in and all of a sudden we have a problem. Should we simplify the offense because it seems Paulsen can't get it? Or should we maybe play Cooley more and get Paulsen out of that spot that he filled when Davis went down.The problem isn't limited to Paulsen, IMO. That's why I began the OP with: Why are Skins receivers creating drive-killing false start penalties? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 The problem isn't limited to Paulsen, IMO. That's why I began the OP with: Why are Skins receivers creating drive-killing false start penalties? Right, but after seeing that Paulsen is the reason we have more false starts from our WR/TE players compared to the rest of the league I thought you may want to alter your original statement when given all the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted November 6, 2012 Author Share Posted November 6, 2012 Right, but after seeing that Paulsen is the reason we have more false starts from our WR/TE players compared to the rest of the league I thought you may want to alter your original statement when given all the facts.No, that doesn't make sense. I realize that if you take the highest number out of any set, you can bring the average down, but that's self-deception. You haven't actually solved a problem.If the rest of the group was pretty much fault-free, I would suspect that Paulsen is the only problem. That's not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 No, that doesn't make sense. I realize that if you take the highest number out of any set, you can bring the average down, but that's self-deception. You haven't actually solved a problem.If the rest of the group was pretty much fault-free, I would suspect that Paulsen is the only problem. That's not the case. The rest of the group is par with the rest of the NFL. Are you saying that this is an NFL problem, a Redskins problem, or a Paulsen problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted November 6, 2012 Author Share Posted November 6, 2012 The rest of the group is par with the rest of the NFL. Are you saying that this is an NFL problem, a Redskins problem, or a Paulsen problem?I think I've made my position perfectly clear to impartial readers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Well this is a different argument. And, surprise, I disagree with you about the quality of our WRs and don't share your frustration.The group had a bad game against the Steelers and Robinson had a bad start/game against the Panthers. http://httr24-7.com/?p=3382 Wide Receivers Aldrick Robinson Overall #60 (0.6) Receiving 0.2, Run Block 0.7, Targets 16, Caught 9 , Catch % 56.4 Leonard Hankerson Overall #62 (0.4) Receiving -0.3, Run Block 0.4, Targets 39, Caught 26 , Catch % 66.7 Santana Moss Overall #76 (-1.5) Receiving -0.7, Run Block -0.6, Targets 37, Caught 24 , Catch % 64.9 Josh Morgan Overall #79 (-1.6) Receiving -2.0, Run Block +1.6, Targets 40, Caught 29 , Catch % 72.5 Yet the offense and the passing game is still productive and in comparison to the secondary/coverage unit they've been far more productive. And that's without Pierre Garcon the obstensible #1 WR. Never said the Wrs are worst than our secondary. In another thread I defined the secondary as a train wreck. The Wrs clique to me are overall below average at best and I worry about them going forward post Fred Davis (we haven't really scored points in the subsequent games) and if Garcon is still out. I've held out hope for Hankerson and Robinson but for me I've not seen enough flashes to think of either one becoming a good WR, but i acknowledge its still early to rule them out, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinny21 Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 What if I told you this:Logan Paulsen has 3 false starts Niles Paul has 2 Fred Davis has 1 Hankerson has 1 Moss has 1 (OL has the other 6) As a team we have less then 4 other teams, the same as 1, and 7 other teams are within 2 of us. Seeing this makes me think we are putting a lot of stress on the TEs (to get off the line in a hurry), which makes some degree of sense given the amount of play action and option reads we run. The line might be overly penalized, though 6 between 5 guys doesn't seem too bad. Of course, this is just false starts... other penalties are a different animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 I think I've made my position perfectly clear to impartial readers. Let me make sure I am understanding it correctly then. You said that the Redskins WR/TE's are responsible for a large number of false start penalties that are killing drives and causing close games to be lost. You then said that this is a result of the offense being to complicated and it should be simplified. What I am pointing out is that one person is skewing the stats of our team. If you remove that one person then our offense has no more or less false starts then other teams in the NFL from the WR/TE position. That one person is also playing a roll in our offense that was unexpected. Due to the limited practice time that the new CBA allows there also is only so much room to get him up to speed so that he is not over thinking his assignment and causing these penalties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted November 6, 2012 Author Share Posted November 6, 2012 ...What I am pointing out is that one person is skewing the stats of our team...Sure. You can take the highest number out of any above-average set and make it average.That one person is also playing a roll in our offense that was unexpected. Due to the limited practice time that the new CBA allows there also is only so much room to get him up to speed so that he is not over thinking his assignment and causing these penalties.This is Paulsen's third year. If the new CBA limits practice time, that's all the more reason to simplify the scheme. Isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsCrushCowboys Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 It would seem that we get a lot of calls due to the shifting and movement prior to the snap. This seems to me nagnified by the TE's which so much of the motion and setting prior to the snap. That would seem to suggest that maybe we limit some of that to have them set and not moving which could decrease the probability of a penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 The Wrs clique to me are overall below average at best and I worry about them going forward post Fred Davis (we haven't really scored points in the subsequent games) and if Garcon is still out. I've held out hope for Hankerson and Robinson but for me I've not seen enough flashes to think of either one becoming a good WR, but i acknowledge its still early to rule them out, Okay, but I don't see how you can consider our WRs 'below average at best view' when our passing game and offense are average and above average.Even going by pro football focus metric (ironically enough) the 2 receivers I currently considered the least productive on the roster but the greatest upside) are ranked #60 A.Robinson and #62. That would make them starting caliber WRs (based on their being 32 teams with 2 starting WRs per team). I consider the Steelers game to be a clear outlier, (10 drops in one game). I think its inacurate to attribute the low point total in the Panthers game to poor play from the WRs. Playcalling/decision making and injury to Tana were imo far greater factors then overall WR play. Just for the sake of comparison here's football outsiders: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/wr Moss is ranked #48 in DYAR and #42 DVOA Morgan is #50 and #51 respectively ahead of: Dez Bryant Stevie Johnson Santonio Holmes DeSean Jackson A.Brown (steelers) D. Bowe M. Manningham N. Burelson M. Wallace (steelers) Heyward Bey Larry Fitzgerald M. Floyd Robert Meachum I think if we ran a regular passing offense or the passing offense from last year their numbers would be higher and you wouldn't have such a high level of frustration or opinion of them. Moss and Morgan are imo are not the worst tandem of WRs in the NFL and the our offensive production and their production support that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted November 6, 2012 Author Share Posted November 6, 2012 It would seem that we get a lot of calls due to the shifting and movement prior to the snap. This seems to me nagnified by the TE's which so much of the motion and setting prior to the snap. That would seem to suggest that maybe we limit some of that to have them set and not moving which could increase the probability of a penalty.Did you mean decrease in the last sentence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Sure. You can take the highest number out of any above-average set and make it average.This is Paulsen's third year. If the new CBA limits practice time, that's all the more reason to simplify the scheme. Isn't it? Would you say we should simplify the scheme so that Paulsen stops committing false starts or should we replace Paulsen and keep the scheme as is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted November 6, 2012 Author Share Posted November 6, 2012 Would you say we should simplify the scheme so that Paulsen stops committing false starts or should we replace Paulsen and keep the scheme as is?No, what I would say is that it appears that you have a problem with reading comprehension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 The rest of the group is par with the rest of the NFL. Are you saying that this is an NFL problem, a Redskins problem, or a Paulsen problem? Think about it like this, if you pulled the player w/ the most fals starts in the group from every other team, their numbers would go down too. Where would the Redskins group minus Paulson be with respect to every other team w/ their highest player removed? If you do that and the Redskins aren't high any more, then Paulson might REALLY be the problem. If not, then you have a problem beyond Paulson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsCrushCowboys Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Did you mean decrease in the last sentence? yes, fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.