Chalk Talk Discussion: The Fragile Ecosystem that is a Football Organization

[KDawg]

In life, you can throw teams together to perform minute tasks, such as cleaning up friend's yard, jump starting a vehicle, going door to door to sell cookies. You can even throw together a group of kids to play a game of pickup football in the backyard with relative ease. However, running a competitve football organization at any level of football is slightly more complicated. In a post a few days ago, I noted that maintaining a football team is akin to keeping an elaborate salt water aquarium set up running appropriately. Your pH must be on track, your live rock must be cured appropriately, you must make sure your cycles are appropriate and you can't mix certain species of fish with others for fear of eating each other or disease.

A football team is an extremely delicate system. When people use the term "football team" they often imagine players and coaches in uniform standing on a green field marching a football up and down the field. However, that is just the final product and production piece of a football team. The real identity of a team is forged during the offseason and during each and every day at the office.

If there is a perceived lack of respect between players and coaches, a team can and will nose dive extremely quickly. This isn't the old days of sport where your coach was essentially your God to never be questioned. Society has evolved, for better or worse, and the ways of yesteryear don't work as they used to. Players are more sensitive than ever (in general sense). Players no longer want to fight for their coaches respect, many feel they've already earned the right to be respected. There are still throwback players, to be sure. London Fletcher being a prime example. But I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of players don't feel public scrutiny is the method that needs to be utilized to reach them. I agree with them in a way. Coaches must use some tact with today's athletes. But athletes also need to understand that they must be held accountable for their own mistakes and actions. The moment someone rocks the ship, equilibrium is deeply effected and winning becomes a much more difficult task.

When that happens, though, people react different. Some fans call for the coaches heads. Some say the players need to be responsible. Some sit in between. But for the sake of conversation, let's talk about team building. It's not as easy as saying, "Alright, well, the 3-4 tanked so let's just shift on over to the 4-3!" or saying, "The zone blocking scheme stinks, I want old school Redskin football (which was actually zone, by the way ) let's go to angle blocking!"

The ecosystem is too fragile to just move on. First off, is the way a team approaches its own players. The Eagles see a kid with talent and they lock him up. Even if they are in year two of a rookie deal, they pay their own to stay with the team. When a player is drafted by the Eagles they know that if they prove their worth they will get extended and welcomed.

The Patriots cut ties with older veterans who demand too much money. Why did your Mike Vrabels and Tedy Bruschi's stick while your Ty Law's didn't? Simple: A cost/effectiveness ratio. Vrabel and Bruschi didn't want much money and were a better choice than the alternatives, so they stayed. Ty Law would have cost the team entirely too much money for his effectiveness, in the Patriot's eyes, so they cut ties.

The Ravens want first right of refusal. Newsome sits down with the players and says, "Look, we think you should be allowed to go get what you're worth. Test the free agency waters. The only thing we ask is that you allow us to match any deal that you're offered, and we're going to assume that being a Raven is important to you and you'll sign if we match". The players love the Raven model. They either get paid big bucks to go elsewhere, or they resign with a team that has grown together over the years.

I'm not going to say which I prefer, it's not important to the context of the conversation. But all three of the models I listed look to achieve balance. So acquiring the players necessary is a big part of things, and they all have a plan. But once players are acquired, they still have to fit together.

There has been a ground swell of people who would like to see Chip Kelly take his high octane Oregon offense to D.C. and RG3. Here's the premise of that offense:

Speed kills. Extreme conditioning matters. Sacrifice size in the name of speed and out athlete the opposition

To be fair, Chip Kelly has a brilliant football mind and could probably run any number of systems, but a team who brought Kelly in would undoubtedly be hanging their hat on the hope that the "Duck" offense would make their team dangerous. And it's likely it would leave a lasting mark on the NFL for a period of time until other teams figure out the finer nuances. Speed can kill in the NFL, RG3 is a prime example. However, look at the Raiders. They always value "fast" players. They haven't fielded a competitve squad in quite some time.

In order to run the high octane "Duck" offense, teams would need to mold their roster to a high octane roster. Smaller, shiftier guys. Which means they'd have to build their defense, at least in part, to match that tempo. At a clinic a few years ago, Oregon's defensive line coach spoke and he said that the first few practices in Oregon he thought Kelly was crazy. The offense wants to run a play once every 15 seconds. He said the defense had to get smaller and more athletic to accomplish being able to defend them. Therein lies a problem... Do you mold your defense to give your offense a quality look in practice, which is invaluable to an offense...? Or do you mold your defense to stop other NFL teams (which is the purpose of a defense, is it not?) at the expense of giving your offensive football team a good look? It's quite a trade off. But now your scout offense is also effected. Facing a bruising back this week? You likely don't have many guys who can play that "role" in practice because you have a team of LeMichael James and Varners.

That's part of the ecosystem. You must find balance. Both in what your opponents do and what you do. You must have a plan. You must execute trades and drafts and free agent signings. Draft day trades may look like they are born out of no where, but I'm willing to put money on the fact that those trades are spoken about weeks in advance. There always needs to be a plan, and everyone, including your own team must be constantly evaluated.

The director of pro personnel has a job to rank EVERY player in the league by position. Including his own. When free agency rolls around, if an upgrade is available, they know it. It's run in a similar fashion to a draft board. At the same time, the director of college scouting is compiling a list of pretty much every prospect, and who fits and who doesn't. They also have to try to find comparisons to current pros in order to figure out a ceiling or a floor. Then all of the information goes back to your GM, who has to compile it and make complex decisions all the while trying to plug holes, fill the team for the future, dealing with contract disputes, etc.

In season, teams aren't quick to sign free agents with no familiarity to the system. It's too hard to bring a guy in from another system in mid season and get them acclimated quickly enough. That's why you often see guys who were cut brought back. They have some familiarity. And occasionally you'll see guys brought in with a background in a similar system to what you run.

Now factor in having a coaching turnover in any way, on either side of the ball. You now have guys meant for one system trying to play in a new system that doesn't necessarily fit their strengths. Which means a learning curve and a building curve. That's why teams tend to stick with "tradition" when hiring new coaches. Pittsburgh has remained a 3-4 team for years, and Mike Tomlin was smart enough to resist the urge to change from a 3-4 team to the 4-3, which is what his background was in.

It's all part of the ecosystem. It's fragile. And the slightest change can throw a team into a catastrophic death cycle. I've read some, at least in my opinion, very good thoughts and analysis on matters from coaching changes, to scheme changes, to why a coach should be kept around or not. I've also read some fairly ill informed rhetoric compiled out of haste, which was the mistake of the early years in the Dan Snyder era.

Keep in mind how fragile a football ecosystem is

[LD0506]

I've also read some fairly "ill informed rhetoric compiled out of haste", which was the mistake of the early years in the Dan Snyder era.

My, that was an incredibly diplomatic way to describe some of the ghak posted here lately

[TSO]

Excellent thread, KDawg, and I recently posted something (in one of the meltdown/existential threads on the front page) as to why I like what Mike has done thus far that has a lot to do with your topic here:

I simply can not subscribe to this way of thinking. Period. Except maybe on the defensive side of the ball. Let me explain.

What, exactly, has Mike done to "lose control" of this team?

1- He's cut loose aging, under performing players who have went on and done nothing. Had any of them went elsewhere and succeeded, you could say maybe the players have a right to be disloyal.

2- He's given players who have performed in practice since he's been here a chance. Guys like Lichtensteiger, Montgomery, Banks, Armstrong, Riley, Alexander, Rob Jackson, Alfred Morris, Barnes etc... and no one they took over for could complain they were wronged as they were clearly out-performed. Again, that should only generate loyalty from the players as they all have equal chances to become someone in the NFL and make a living some of us only dream of doing.

3- He's been loyal towards his coaches, giving them ample time to prove themselves. They need to show the same back to him and get their units in gear.

4- He and his son have created one of the most innovative offense's utilizing one of the most impressive rookie QBs to play the game. We all forgot that now cuz our offense hasn't been as explosive the last couple games, but it remains the truth for anyone looking with objectivity. Even with our recent struggles, respected analysts like Jaws and Gruden have stated this is one of the most impressive and unique offense's they've ever seen.

Now, I can understand if some of the guys on defense are frustrated because they don't believe in Haslett. Maybe that's something they can have against Mike for sticking with him. But, other than that, any player or anyone on this staff who has a problem should get the heck out. Mike doesn't have to "prove" he hasn't "lost control". If he has lost anyone, then good, now we can filter out some snakes like we did in 2010. Good riddance.

To say Mike needs to show he has a handle on things is simply ridiculous to me right now. I refuse to be so short-sighted about this situation. I will say it again, 5 full years.

Some of that might have little to do with your points here, but I think it alludes to what Mike is building here. We've seen how Free Agents come here now not looking for a big pay day already. The reasons I mentioned above are why... they understand they can really make a name for themselves here and will get paid accordingly. The contracts we hand out are incentive based and players understand we can and are willing to let them go if they don't perform, yet they still sign.

To me, I see a lot of evidence that Mike is building a competitive atmosphere where players are rewarded for producing and are given every chance TO produce. He's building this ecosystem. It's just taking longer than we thought due to external conditions (2010 unrestricted FA pool, 2011 lockout, 2012/2013 capgate) beyond his control.

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

That post was something serious KDawg (Every time I see your name, I wanna go watch old NWO video lol)

That point about Kelly was good. That's a good piece of food for thought. I personally am over the college coach thing though

[TD_washingtonredskins]

That was a great read...what are you doing for the next decade? Want to run a pro team?

[Voice_of_Reason]

Kdawg, great read. Since I was the author of the meltdown/existential thread that thesubmittedone referenced, (which actually it really wasn't intended to be), let me ask a question: At what point do you say, "ok, this didn't work out quite like we expected, we've got to change something?" And then, how do you do it without tipping over the apple cart?

What terrifies me about any change to the offensive side of the ball is that the 'Skins have spent 3 off season getting guys that fit this scheme. The OL, RBs, and to some extent TEs and WRs are built to run this scheme. Starting over with another coach/scheme, there is no guarantee that the OL, which is actually playing pretty well, especially in the run game, would hold up. Then we're back to looking for OL all over again. Morris is a perfect fit for this offense. Gibbs took another perfect fit for this offense, Portis, and tried to jam him into a different philosophy, and while he was good, he wasn't the same as he was in Denver. I kindof think that RGIII could run anything, given some experience, so I'm not as concerned with him.

At the same time, you also have to look at the team, the record over the past 2.5 years, and say, "well, that's not that good." So, I think you have to evaluate and determine if the cause is just "bad luck" and you have no real recourse from that. If you can honesty say what has sunk the 'Skins this year was the inability to add players to the secondary because of the $18M salary cap hit, and then the rash of injuries/bad luck at the same positions, then ok. I get that the 'Skins are down 4 out of 11 defensive starters (T. Jackson for the drugs, Merriweather, Orakpo and Carriker) and their 2 best down field weapons on offense are also both out.

If an honest evaluation is that is what has caused the team to struggle this year, then so be it. Get folks healthy as best you can, plug in players as best you can in the off season, and try again next year. If the evaluation is that it's something deeper, and you've decided that you need to make a change, then how do you do that without blowing the whole thing up.

Without question, the 'Skins are in better shape now from a cap perspective, and they have a philosophy, and they are sticking to it. Question is, what can they legitimately do to get more wins? At some point, bad luck or not, you've got to win.

[TSO]

^^lol, not just you Voice, there's like ten of them on the front page. All having to do with something to the effect of "where do we go from here"?

[GWinSkins83]

11. Please do not use the “Quote” feature to quote any large sections of text. It unnecessarily extends and clutters threads and is annoying. If you would like to respond to the contents of a particular post, simply quote the sentence or idea that you're commenting upon, not the entire post if it's lengthy.

Note: the typical one week bans for such are becoming lengthier as this rule is being repeatedly ignored, lately. Be aware.

Why can't regular NFL players practice the Kelly way. Wouldn't it get them in better shape? Why couldn't the Texans defense keep up? Or Bears defense? Or 9ers defense? Wouldn't we be the most conditioned team in the league right. I see no reason for getting small players on defense just because of our offense.

For you, this is the 3rd time you have been penalized for the same rule violation (not to mention other penalties in your user notes). We'll make it a month off for each time. See you in 2013.

[Jumbo]

My, that was an incredibly diplomatic way to describe some of the ghak posted here lately

It's a great OP. Even a few of the quite smart posters will sometimes present as though very complex matters with many variables are clear cut enough to yield fully to their level of discernment, information, and analytical skills here on the ole message board. I like it when some poster suggests they know exactly how this stuff ----especially on matters like being a GM or owner or coach or play-calling---hell, now we have have the latest fad of hundreds of sports medicine experts here----could be done right or should be done right.

Few things at this level of this game are simple other than the mind of the many fans, and the smart ones often have their egos to level the playing field by offsetting their intellect. :evilg:

Then you get the rare guys like LD0506 or KDawg, who are smart, informed, excellent analysts, and yet also pretty humble (KDawg), or at least prudent in managing themselves (LD :pfft:--kidding, luv ya man).

Don't get me wrong, now. The truth that exists in what I note doe not mean conversation arising from that stuff isn't often fun and even educational or of real value to "we happy (demented) few (many)." And sometimes people really are on the money about all kinds of things, in my experience/to the best of my own limited amateur knowledge.

The truth of this all (referring back to the main theme) is not one, or even two/three/four sided. It's like a great mirrored disco-ball. So many little facets reflecting little pieces of the truth at times, and distorted images at others, spinning merrily around.

[KDawg]

Why can't regular NFL players practice the Kelly way. Wouldn't it get them in better shape? Why couldn't the Texans defense keep up? Or Bears defense? Or 9ers defense? Wouldn't we be the most conditioned team in the league right. I see no reason for getting small players on defense just because of our offense.

Well, I realize you got a little timeout, but I'll answer. I explained it in the post. It's about "look". Nothing says that you can't practice with your regular players against it. But then your offense is going to have a major advantage, and your scout defense or defense in general will be completely exhausted. Have you ever tried to run a football play every 15 seconds? It's an exhausting pace. And once they're exhausted, injuries become more of a concern and your depth gets tested. Guys naturally, when running around like that, will start to slow themselves down and your look won't be as good as it could have been. Go ahead and tell a 320 pound defensive lineman he has to be on the field against a no huddle, spread, hurry up offense for 15 minutes.

Good luck. He may deck you

The truth of this all (referring back to the main theme) is not one, or even two/three/four sided. It's like a great mirrored disco-ball. So many little facets reflecting little pieces of the truth at times, and distorted images at others, spinning merrily around.

This is an excellent, excellent analogy. Even knowing the basic gists of the nuances of an NFL ecosystem, you never know the entire picture. Day to day conversations and limitations. There's a million different variables to running a NFL team and you can never accurately state what should or has to happen from our couches. It always seems so simple, but it rarely is. Maybe it's because I've walked the sidelines and know that people in the stands don't have a clue about the inner workings of the team. Everyone has an answer, very few understand the total scope. I don't blame them, its natural. Humans always want to "fix" things. And there are certainly things they see that need to be fixed. But going about fixing them is never simple

Thanks everyone for the kudos. Really appreciate it.

[LetThePointsSoar]

Awesome OP, Coach. ES needs some sanity like yours this week...

Have you ever tried to run a football play every 15 seconds? It's an exhausting pace. And once they're exhausted, injuries become more of a concern and your depth gets tested. Guys naturally, when running around like that, will start to slow themselves down and your look won't be as good as it could have been.

This is when I start to doubt Chip Kelly's system for the NFL altogether...it's a lot different going from a college roster to the 66 of the NFL, I'm not certain you could maintain it for a 16 game season...

[Chump Bailey]

Great stuff KDawg...

We really should switch to the 4-3 though - like yesterday

[KDawg]

Awesome OP, Coach. ES needs some sanity like yours this week...

This is when I start to doubt Chip Kelly's system for the NFL altogether...it's a lot different going from a college roster to the 66 of the NFL, I'm not certain you could maintain it for a 16 game season...

A college roster has 100+. an NFL roster is infinitely smaller. Great addition. Thanks!

[my_friend_goo]

Ah, the voice of reason and rational thought....

It's a tricky situation the team is currently in and every bit as finely balanced as pointed out. If, as some have reason to believe, Mike S is in danger of losing the locker room, it should really be up to Bruce Allen (and not Dan Snyder) to fix it - either with Mike or without him. The reason for it not being Dan is quite simple - he gives the impression of not truly understanding how football works and can be guilty of letting his excitement overrule logical thinking. We all know this.

Keeping Mike offers continuity, most importantly in scheme. Currently, the team is arguably a guard and tackle away from a decent line, in Mike's ZBS. Bringing in a coach with a significantly different offensive strategy means that asides from Trent, the whole line may have to be retooled, which would be disastrous given the number of holes the team already has and the restrictions going into the next offseason. But, if Mike loses the locker room, how can you justify keeping him on if it can't be won back? Bruce should be able to identify a suitable head coaching candidate capable of picking up this team and, with a few tweaks, carry them along the path (or a similar one) to which they are already (or rather, should be) headed. I am not advocating giving Mike the boot here, that's a decision the front office needs to make based on the real situation behind closed doors..

For certain, though, this offseason really needs to be about improving the D. A better coordinator is top of the list, one who has a wealth of experience operating a 3-4 defense which suits the key talent we already have. Coupling that with adding some talent in the secondary for definite and assessing both the nose tackle and middle linebacker positions carefully will go quite some way to making this team better. We want both units to function, not one to have to rely on the other to make up for their deficits on a weekly basis.

However, a full turnover of coaching staff runs the risk of requiring too much to change to be successful. If a replacement head coach only gets three years to justify their existence, then they would already have their hands tied with the cap issue and lack of first round picks for two years. In three years' time, we could find ourselves back to square one again. Unless, of course, that coach was chosen wisely.

As described, it's simple. But with the way everything is so finely balanced, an incredibly difficult decision to make.

[Oldfan]

...It's a tricky situation the team is currently in and every bit as finely balanced as pointed out. If, as some have reason to believe, Mike S is in danger of losing the locker room, it should really be up to Bruce Allen (and not Dan Snyder) to fix it - either with Mike or without him. The reason for it not being Dan is quite simple - he gives the impression of not truly understanding how football works and can be guilty of letting his excitement overrule logical thinking. We all know this...Keeping Mike offers continuity, most importantly in scheme.

Losing the locker room is an effect of losing, not a cause. There will be finger pointers in every losing locker room. The problem can only be corrected by winning.

I really doubt that Bruce Allen will be given the power to fix anything. Mike is his boss. Bruce has never had much responsibility in his football career beyond contracts and managing the cap. I assume that he has not impressed owners enough to trust him with anything more.

As things stand, the desire to stick with his scheme on offense requires that we stick with Mike having full control. It isn't likely that he would be willing to remain as offensive coordinator. However, it's possible that Kyle could be retained in his current position while firing Mike. Another possibility would be to fire Mike and Bruce and give the HC job to Kyle and the GM job to someone with a strong resume for personnel.

[my_friend_goo]

I did not imply losing the locker room was the cause of the losing. However, as an effect, it could help to escalate the problem and you certainly can't fix losing without regaining the locker room first. It becomes a deep-rooted thing that's hard to shake off otherwise.

The extent of Bruce's responsibilities are largely speculated as far as we are concerned. However, if he can't be given the responsibility of dealing with the coaching staff, he shouldn't be there at all. If it's not currently his responsibility, he should be given it (as I've said before, we all know how Dan has failed in this role over the length of his ownership). If he isn't suited to those responsibilites, then sure, somebody else needs to have them, of that I can't and don't argue. Of course, that's a change which affects the whole organisation from top to bottom, but somebody with a strong history of personnel decisions should be capable of assessing the right coaching staff to lead the talent that we have now, rather than what we could have in the future following extensive turnover. Continuity in one form, but not the form some people are insistent on.

[SWFLSkins]

I'm not going to say which I prefer, it's not important to the context of the conversation. But all three of the models I listed look to achieve balance. So acquiring the players necessary is a big part of things, and they all have a plan. But once players are acquired, they still have to fit together.

_________________________________________

But all three plans offer up a level of respect with a level of expectation up front, something where guys know how it is going to work and either deal with it or make other arrangements. We lose the players that should stay and have brought in the players someone else choose to lose. That hopefully was in the past and this is just the pains of implementing a system of accountability. The first recognizable move would be to move on at DC at seasons end. WE the team have seen enough to know that.

[PeterMP]

I find it hard to believe that somebody innovative couldn't come up w/ a way for a fast pace offense to practice against a "normal" defense.

You see this in basketball. You want to run on offense, but your defense has to be prepped against normal teams.

One thing you see in basketball is to give the "defense" an extra player where he is not allowed to cross the half court line and so doesn't affect the offense, but he's in a good position to help defensively on a fast break so every time the "offense" does run they are seeing a team "committed" to getting back and playing defense, and your second team center doesn't have to run the floor every time for defense.

The 2nd team center can save his energy some and be more of a force on the offensive side.

The other thing you see in basketball is running 3 on 5 drills and things like that.

I suspect that there are ways of running an offense like that and getting good practice for the defense and offense by doing things like using extra players. I suspect it is mostly a matter of time and innovation and this issue is more of a function of the minimal efforts that people have made to run Kelly's offense.

And essentially the same argument could be made for every offensive and defensive innovation.

How did the 49ers in the early 1980's get good practice against the 49ers defense when the defense had to prepare to stop teams that were mostly running power running plays, play action passes, and long, but low percentage passes?

How did the heavily flavored wild cat Dolphins of a few years ago (a team that was surprisingly good) or even the Broncos of last year (which won a playoff game) get good practive for their defense and their offense?

[KDawg]

How did the 49ers in the early 1980's get good practice against the 49ers defense when the defense had to prepare to stop teams that were mostly running power running plays, play action passes, and long, but low percentage passes?

How did the heavily flavored wild cat Dolphins of a few years ago (a team that was surprisingly good) or even the Broncos of last year (which won a playoff game) get good practive for their defense and their offense?

Not even remotely the same situations.

The wildcat is a simple offense. Very simple. The problem came with it due to the personnel that was in the game. Defenses change their personnel based on offensive personnel. With keeping the QB in the game, you never really knew if they were going to be in wildcat. And the offense could always shift to a normal set if the opposing defense set up personnel wise for the wildcat.

The defense itself during practice didn't have to do much different. They played the wild cat the same as they would any other offense. It's just a single or double wing set with the textbook power read play. It's OLD school football in a prettier package.

The Bill Walsh scheme was innovative in the fact that they passed to set up the run, but the premise was based on using the players they had to attack. There was nothing innovative about a short pass in and of itself. The way the system was composed, taught and executed was where the innovations were. Corners had to practice against short routes anyways, because teams did in fact run those.

The Duck offense is different. It's high paced. A play run every 15 seconds is NOT easy. NFL players aren't built for that right now. Mistakes happen when guys are tired and with the roster limit in the NFL it becomes difficult to run practice and game situations due to how much running and moving is done. The big guys that are currently on NFL rosters can't keep up with the pace. Our offensive line, namely Trent Williams, would struggle moving that fast and that often. Our defensive line would struggle, because remember, running plays so quickly means teams can't substitute.

Chip Kelly is an incredibly smart man. If he were brought somewhere with the intent to implement elements of the Duck offense but run a more balanced offense in general I think his addition could work somewhere in the league quite well. If he's brought in to run the Duck offense, I think we're hurting ourselves quite a bit.

Basketball and football are different animals. The contact on the field alone makes it a total different breed. Sure, there are strategic elements that crossover between goal oriented sports, but each game is different. Putting extra defenders on defense against the offense could work decently, but that's just another guy running around. And besides that, adding extra players screws with blocking rules and assignments quite a bit. That's a recipe for disaster.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but I'm saying there is a trade off. Quite a large one. And bringing guys in to fit in that offense would take quite some time as well.

[Ghost of]

Just to lay down some org theory on you, the football organization is an organism within the larger football ecology. There are feedback channels which tend to impose evolutionary pressures on the organism to adapt. One might even apply life cycle to football teams, if not the franchise's history, then a coach's tenure.

[KDawg]

Just to lay down some org theory on you, the football organization is an organism within the larger football ecology. There are feedback channels which tend to impose evolutionary pressures on the organism to adapt. One might even apply life cycle to football teams, if not the franchise's history, then a coach's tenure.

Agree wholeheartedly. However, my post was already extremely long winded and I didn't want to delve further in the anatomy of a football team. A team is a microcosm. Different cities and different fan bases influence the decisions a team makes, whether they admit it or not.

I touched on the history of the franchise element. Teams run very similar elements that they always have unless they take part in a true rebuild. A 4-3 team builds their team for that purpose. Changing defenses just to change them and not because you see a shift in your personnel that may benefit a switch is never the answer. If you also change offensive strategy at the same time, you're in for a rough few years. Expansion teams struggle for that reason. The continuity isn't there and they have to start from scratch when it comes to building the roster, an identity and a mindset.

Look at the teams who are "in it" year in and year out. Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Green Bay (they changed defenses, but the personnel they had fit that change. And while they struggled at first they remained aggressive and attacking and made plays when they had to), New England, etc. They have identities and they stay true to them unless the shift benefits them and their current personnel. It's a novel thought, shifting defenses or offenses based on your personnel and not personal preferences. New England has done it, and while their transition hasn't been smooth, it also hasn't been the crippling experience we've had. When there is continuity on at least one side of the football it becomes easier to slightly change things, given proper personnel. But their mission statements have in large part stayed the same.

Baltimore is an attacking, in your face defense. 3-4 or 4-3. The playcalls are similar and the terminology has largely stayed in place. Tomlin kept Pittsburgh as a 3-4 because that's what they were built for. He's a 4-3 guy but he knew better than to mess with years of roster building by fitting a square peg into a round hole. Tradition does matter.

Great addition. Thanks.

[PeterMP]

Not even remotely the same situations.

The wildcat is a simple offense. Very simple. The problem came with it due to the personnel that was in the game. Defenses change their personnel based on offensive personnel. With keeping the QB in the game, you never really knew if they were going to be in wildcat. And the offense could always shift to a normal set if the opposing defense set up personnel wise for the wildcat.

The defense itself during practice didn't have to do much different. They played the wild cat the same as they would any other offense. It's just a single or double wing set with the textbook power read play. It's OLD school football in a prettier package.

The Bill Walsh scheme was innovative in the fact that they passed to set up the run, but the premise was based on using the players they had to attack. There was nothing innovative about a short pass in and of itself. The way the system was composed, taught and executed was where the innovations were. Corners had to practice against short routes anyways, because teams did in fact run those.

The Duck offense is different. It's high paced. A play run every 15 seconds is NOT easy. NFL players aren't built for that right now. Mistakes happen when guys are tired and with the roster limit in the NFL it becomes difficult to run practice and game situations due to how much running and moving is done. The big guys that are currently on NFL rosters can't keep up with the pace. Our offensive line, namely Trent Williams, would struggle moving that fast and that often. Our defensive line would struggle, because remember, running plays so quickly means teams can't substitute.

Chip Kelly is an incredibly smart man. If he were brought somewhere with the intent to implement elements of the Duck offense but run a more balanced offense in general I think his addition could work somewhere in the league quite well. If he's brought in to run the Duck offense, I think we're hurting ourselves quite a bit.

Basketball and football are different animals. The contact on the field alone makes it a total different breed. Sure, there are strategic elements that crossover between goal oriented sports, but each game is different. Putting extra defenders on defense against the offense could work decently, but that's just another guy running around. And besides that, adding extra players screws with blocking rules and assignments quite a bit. That's a recipe for disaster.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but I'm saying there is a trade off. Quite a large one. And bringing guys in to fit in that offense would take quite some time as well.

1. Certainly, one thing you saw against those teams is that people changed their base personal. Heck, today a lot of teams base defensive packages is a some sort of nickle package.

2. Teams didn't throw nearly as many short passes so right off the bat the ratio of practice has to change, but more important it wasn't just short passes to the WR, but to other players (RB and FB were emphasised as compared to other offenses), and the types of passes that were different (the slant) and the timings. In addition, the types of runs (more sweeps) was different. There's a reason defenses changed (the zone blitz) the advent and the spread of the WCO. The old defensives were not affective. If Walsh's contribution had simply been we are going to throw more short passes, then there would have been minimal impact.

3. Williams isn't a practice issue or an issue in preparing agaisnt other teams. He'd either have to get into better shape in the offseason, or he'd have to be replaced.

In terms of defense, I think (I'm not a football coach) you could address that issue by putting extra people on the field essentially. You have a DT that isn't part of the play, but is on the field (standing in the area where a ref does now or however far behing the O that they need to stand). Then you have a swap w/o people running back and forth to the side line because they are staying on the field.

The other thing I could see doing is running practice, where you chang the situation, but the offense never "moves". You use the same LOS on every play. Your DL don't have to worry about running up to the new LOS after every play (or maybe you make it so they never move by more than 5 yards or something small like that).

Again, I don't think in terms of defensive pracitce this would be much of an issue. The issue would be figuring out the best way to do it.

[KDawg]

2. Teams didn't throw nearly as many short passes so right off the bat the ratio of practice has to change, but more important it wasn't just short passes to the WR, but to other players, and the types of passes that were different (the slant) and the timings. In addition, the types of runs (more sweeps) was different. There's a reason defenses changed (the zone blitz) the advent and the spread of the WCO. The old defensives were not affective. If Walsh's contribution had simply been we are going to throw more short passes, then there would have been minimal impact.

Which is why I never said that the short pass was the only innovation. As I stated, the innovation was in how the system was composed, taught and executed. LeBeau used the zone blitz in order to fool the quarterback into false reads, which gave the West Coast Offense a new issue to contend with. I've never once said that teams wouldn't, couldn't or shouldn't adapt to new concepts, but the concepts that Walsh ran were not entirely new in and of themselves. Each had been seen and run previously. The combination of how they were run and joined together, and called and taught was entirely innovative. He put them together in order to build an extremely effective offense.

3. Williams isn't a practice issue or an issue in preparing agaisnt other teams.

Explain this, please. Williams isn't a practice issue right now, correct. Because we're running a system he fits in. He wouldn't fit in the Duck offense.

He'd either have to get into better shape in the offseason, or he'd have to be replaced.

I think you'd find yourself saying "he'd have to be replaced" a lot with our current roster. Is that the right direction to trend towards?

In terms of defense, I think (I'm not a football coach) you could address that issue by putting extra people on the field essentially. You have a DT that isn't part of the play, but is on the field (standing in the area where a ref does now or however far behing the O that they need to stand). Then you have a swap w/o people running back and forth to the side line because they are staying on the field.

Not a bad thought, actually. But I'll play devil's advocate: What are they wearing? Their practice jersey? How does the quarterback know they're not in? Memory? You're asking the quarterback to see a guy and understand he's not involved, but that's something else for a quarterback to think about presnap, which could screw up his presnap reads and timing. Besides that, seeing a helmet there is extremely confusing for blockers and route runners. Everyone would have to understand that guy isn't a part of the play.

An answer could be having the defensive subs standing about 5 yards behind the offense in order to sub in and out. That would be more efficient. But now what are you doing with your large offensive linemen?

The other thing I could see doing is running practice, where you chang the situation, but the offense never "moves". You use the same LOS on every play. Your DL don't have to worry about running up to the new LOS after every play.

But they'd still have to hustle back to the old LOS. Which takes energy. And they'd have to do it quickly. Which takes more energy.

Again, don't forget that college teams have 100+ guys that are on their roster, much of which were recruited to fit their system. They can sub and keep within their systems.

[PeterMP]

Which is why I never said that the short pass was the only innovation. As I stated, the innovation was in how the system was composed, taught and executed. LeBeau used the zone blitz in order to fool the quarterback into false reads, which gave the West Coast Offense a new issue to contend with. I've never once said that teams wouldn't, couldn't or shouldn't adapt to new concepts, but the concepts that Walsh ran were not entirely new in and of themselves. Each had been seen and run previously. The combination of how they were run and joined together, and called and taught was entirely innovative. He put them together in order to build an extremely effective offense.

Explain this, please. Williams isn't a practice issue right now, correct. Because we're running a system he fits in. He wouldn't fit in the Duck offense.

I think you'd find yourself saying "he'd have to be replaced" a lot with our current roster. Is that the right direction to trend towards?

Not a bad thought, actually. But I'll play devil's advocate: What are they wearing? Their practice jersey? How does the quarterback know they're not in? Memory? You're asking the quarterback to see a guy and understand he's not involved, but that's something else for a quarterback to think about presnap, which could screw up his presnap reads and timing. Besides that, seeing a helmet there is extremely confusing for blockers and route runners. Everyone would have to understand that guy isn't a part of the play.

An answer could be having the defensive subs standing about 5 yards behind the offense in order to sub in and out. That would be more efficient. But now what are you doing with your large offensive linemen?

But they'd still have to hustle back to the old LOS. Which takes energy. And they'd have to do it quickly. Which takes more energy.

Again, don't forget that college teams have 100+ guys that are on their roster, much of which were recruited to fit their system. They can sub and keep within their systems.

1. Let's be clear. I'm not arguing that we should bring in Kelly. I essentially watch no college football. I don't think in TOTAL I've watched a whole Oregon game. My point was in general innovations in D or O end up w/ the other side practicing against something that is different and despite that such innovations happen.

2. In terms of the roster, you have to make the same decisions that were made in terms of Spurrier and is Fun and Gun, and Shanhan and the 3-4 and his WCO/ZBS scheme. If it can be long term successful in the NFL, then the short term pain of going through a roster over haul to match the new scheme is worth the long term gain.

If your current large OL can't practice the scheme, they won't be able to play the scheme, and you are going to have to replace them (if the decision is made that the scheme is worth adapting).

No different than we brought in Trung Candidate to play for Spurrier and different people have been let go and brought in based on what we are doing now.

[KDawg]

No different than we brought in Trung Candidate to play for Spurrier and different people have been let go and brought in based on what we are doing now.

And none of that worked.