How Kyle's Future and the Skins' Read-Option Future Are Linked

[Lavarleap56]

The real number is 3, 3 times RG ran a designed RO run up the middle in 2012.

Saints- 1 on 3rd & 2

Bengals- 1

Carolina- 1 - after confusion at the mesh point

He was sacked/tackled at the mesh point vs Philly .Sacked on the RO after the mesh that resulted in a fumble, design was outside tho. He cut towards to the middle off of a designed RO run.. All of these would've been charted for stats purposes as " Inside runs", but you get the point.

I didn't watch the whole video, but from what I did watch, I did somethings that I had questions on. I think the CIncy game will probably clear it up.

Which do you not consider a RO up the middle, the first Cincy play on the video (about the 1:30 mark) or the one at the 2:06 mark?

I also saw a few up the middle draws not inside the 15 yard line in the part that I watched (till the play at the 2:06 mark).

RO is self explanatory, also have to differentiate between called inside or called off-tackle & cut inside. He ran a lot of inside draws that weren't RO but those wouldn't/shouldn't be lumped in with RO inside runs because they're basic draws.

[Lavarleap56]

Re: Swap/Boot

 

Seems like there would be enormous cut-back lanes, and ample opportunities to run counters if DE/OLBs are cheating that far into the backfield on an every down basis.  Have to make teams pay for that.

 

Furthermore, you've accomplished the same goal with the swap/boot that you're intending to achieve with the r/o by taking away the numerical advantage the defense has. 

 

R/O you've got 11 on 11

 

boot action you've made it 10 on 10 by taking the DE/OLB out of the play

The big difference is the effect it has on the intermediate to deep passing game. You still get after it vertically off RO pa. Swap action with a rashing defender makes the ball come out quick, still plus play but not as explosive unless you get yac from the wr. The hits off swap action are pretty vicious as well.

 

PeterMP: In the end, the data supports the idea that the difference between RGIII getting hit more on called runs vs. scrambles beyond the LOS is likely large enough that is it non-random, while getting hurt is completely consistent with it being random.

So, the data support the idea that Robert is more likely to get hit on designed runs than on scrambles.

However, while the data doesn't support it, logic supports the idea that there is likely a correlation between hits and injuries. But, more to the point of my thread, it is unlikely that the counter-intuitive claim of the Shanahans that the read-option is safer for a QB than pass plays (on a per-play basis) will ever be supported by data.

20% hits on pass plays

70% hits on designed runs

Would you agree?

Leading question based on half of the facts.. Shannys are correct that the Read Option play keeps the QB safer as they've stated. They also stated immediately after that Robert has to do a better job protecting himself. Kyle also specifically spoke about the Read Option play pass being safer & the cleanest pockets he's ever seen, and he's correct. Robert took hits in the traditonal pass game all year as the stats show in the OP, but he stayed clean passing out of the RO for most of the season.

It will be interesting to see how defenses react to that this year. We had a thread recently about defenses attacking the RO to hit the QB as a way of slowing down our offense. I don't think thats going to work personally but what it will do is make it less easy to get that clean pocket for the PA pass.

 

However it will by the same token open up the flat for passes behind the edge rusher and quick developing throws.

 

I think we will see more 'package plays" with RGIII having two run options - the HB dive and him on the keep, a passing option into the flat on the read side to counter a hard edge rush and two down field passing options if the defense does not rush. Going to be fun to watch how this develops.

 

Also posters need to bear in mind that the read option was about 13% of our offense last year and many times when we showed looks that seemed to be read option they were actually inside or outside zone stretch plays or called play action looks.

Agree, posted some breakdowns in the RO thread showing that point.

[Lavarleap56]

NLC: It's not off-topic.

 

You keep talking about how Shanahan utilized Jay Cutler's mobility and moved him to protect him. LL goes into detail about how and why the same kind of offensive concepts you're advocating --- moving the pocket, bootlegs, that kind of thing --- are less successful than with a quarterback like Robert.

 

In order to make sense of the above, I'll assume you meant to say that Robert would be less successful than Cutler on the stretch-boot. If that's what LL meant to say, I missed it since there were previous comments about returning to the 2011 playbook.

 

However, since you made that connection, let's go with it. 

 

1) The stretch-boot is just one play. Even if correct, LL's point would have no bearing on rolling the protection or the QB's ad lib rolls.

 

2) When the stretch was run with Cutler, the defense had to use the back-side edge rusher to contain him. What could the defense do differently with Griffin that would make sense? Do you have something in mind?

 

Like me bringing up that the starting offensive line only gave up 15.5 sacks.

 

I ignored that because 1) I usually ignore your posts and 2) unless you could provide a similarly-based stat for the 2008 Broncos line for comparison, it was useless in this discussion.

 

You ignore those things (twice), and then declare them off-topic because they directly conflict with your original point.

 

You've been quick to accuse me of cheating, here and in previous threads. In this thread, Lavarleap accused me of shifting my positions. You two need to understand that debate is like Poker, it's a game of skill. If you are good at it, you don't have to cheat to win. I don't need to cheat to beat you at this game. You both stink at it.

2011 playbook is still being run.

Teams were not containing/crashing on Cutler as much as you think. Backside rushers responsibility to always take the QB just in case of pa. Defenders tend to execute that assignment more vs a mobile run threat at QB. There is hours of film available to help illustrate that point.

Not saying your cheating but you do shift the puzzle a lot. Not a big deal, it's a football discussion not life or death.

[Lavarleap56]

LL: 1. Rhetoric? I wouldn't say that's true. I would say a majority of the forum has learned a lot about the RO this offseason from the abundance of information that has come out about it via print media, blogs, radio, NFL shows, etc.. Everything is a piece to the puzzle.

 

Knowledge of the read-option itself is not our topic. Our topic is injury exposure and the responsibility for it in the Skins organization -- and the only information that our membership has on it started with Mike and Kyle.

 

2. It matters because it adds to the RO equation. Kaep ran a lot of RO, barely hit. Wilson ran a lot of RO, barely hit, so if the RO is at fault then why aren't they taking the same hits that RG has? Because they get what they can & protect themselves. RG is better than both at the read option until he's on the run & his competitivness over rules self preservation.

 

How many times must I say it? Griffin bears some of the responsibility. He needs to protect himself better. That has never been contested.

 

The issue on the table is the coaches' responsibility to protect our Grade A QB. Do you have anything new to offer on that topic?

Knowledge on the RO is needed to draw a accurate conclusion about Shanny protecting/not protecting RG. Earlier in the discussion you used MIke & Kyle's "RO keeps the QB safer" comment as a negative, basically said it was propoganda & ego driven. You have to determine is the RO scheme safe/unsafe first imo..

QB's in Houston & DC have taken kill shots off swap boot.... does that mean Kubiak & Shanny are being irresponsible? Imo no.. Irresponsible would be Steve Spurrier never adjusting to A gap blitzes while getting Ramsey killed in the process.

[Oldfan]

LL: 2011 playbook is still being run.

 

Of course, but the discussion was about whether the offense would or should give up the read option and return more emphasis to the 2011 playbook.

 

Teams were not containing/crashing on Cutler as much as you think. 

 

Now how would you know that? 

 

I would not expect defenses to treat the 2008 version of Jay Cutler and Griffin any different on the stretch-boot. While Robert is a tad faster as a runner, Jay was more elusive. He was dual-threat in college.

 

Robert's talent on the read option does not rest on his talent as a runner. It's on his talent to run the strategy -- a talent which would not help him running the stretch boot. So, I can't see a reason for the defense to be more concerned with him than they were with jay Cutler.

 

Not saying your cheating but you do shift the puzzle a lot. Not a big deal, it's a football discussion not life or death.

 

It's cheating. That's a big deal for me and it's a false accusation. In this thread, you misinterpreted what I wrote, then you misinterpreted my clarification of what I wrote. Then you accuse me of shifting positions. This kind of thing has happened before when you and I exchange posts. If I had this problem with others, I would consider the possibility that I don't write clearly enough; but that's not the case. The problem is with you not with me. 

[Mahons21]

LL,

You make a valid point re: the hits on boot-action since the QB is blind, but the rest of your post is in my opinion direct conflict with other posts you've made about stopping the r/o.

It seems you've implied that sending the weakside DE/OLB on every stretch/boot is a successful strategy, but in essence it is the exact same strategy as having the DE/OLB go after the QB every time on r/o, which you've said would not be successful.

In both scenarios the offense has created a 10 v 10 game for the running back, and there should be giant lanes, until teams adjust and then you'll be able to work the passing game.

In both scenarios if you send the DE/OLB the QB will not have an opportunity to work the intermediate-deep passing game, and plays will require YAC.

Why, IMO, the r/o is more successful is the QB is allowed to make a read post-snap. In the boot/swap game the QB is blind, and doesn't know where the weakside DE is going, and it's predetermined whether the play is PA/run. It in essence becomes a chess game between coordinators. This is not the case in the r/o, in the r/o allows the QB to see what that weakside player is doing, and then do the opposite, the chess match element is removed, and the offense wins everytime so long as the QB makes the right read.

In short, the r/o is a more evolved version of the stretch/boot, that allows the offense to accomplish the goal of taking away the defenses numerical advantage on literally every play. But just like sending the DE/OLB everytime at the QB is not a sound strategy to stop the r/o, it is also not a sound strategy to stop the boot/swap, you have to mix it up or the offense will take advantage of the giant holes you've created.

The only disadvantage the r/o brings is your QB may take more hits through the course of the year, if the risk can be mitigated with a smart QB knowing when to get down, then the r/o is the new and improved version of the boot/swap.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Oldfan, I don't understand this point:

 

Of course, but the discussion was about whether the offense would or should give up the read option and return more emphasis to the 2011 playbook.

 

We can emphasize the 2011 playbook and reduce the read option plays without giving them up entirely, can't we? If nothing else, shouldn't we continue to make teams believe that Griffin might run (even if he has strict instructions never to do so)?

[Oldfan]

TDWR: We can emphasize the 2011 playbook and reduce the read option plays without giving them up entirely, can't we? If nothing else, shouldn't we continue to make teams believe that Griffin might run (even if he has strict instructions never to do so)?

 

Well, sure. That might have a little value in week one or two, but after that, the scouting catches on. I just wouldn't bother spending practice time on it.

[PeterMP]

The big difference is the effect it has on the intermediate to deep passing game. You still get after it vertically off RO pa. Swap action with a rashing defender makes the ball come out quick, still plus play but not as explosive unless you get yac from the wr. The hits off swap action are pretty vicious as well.

 

But isn't part of the objective of the boot action is to freeze and slow down that edge defender.

 

If on every handoff, he's staying very wide to defend the boot action hasn't he essentially taken himself out of most running plays and drastically decreased the effectiveness of any pash rush?

 

And then by running a straight PA haven't I opened up the deep and intermediate passing game by greatly decreasing the effectivness of the other teams best (in most cases) pash rusher and giving my QB more time?

 

How many boot actions do I have to run a game to get the effect (the ends aggresively playing it) you are describing?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

 

TDWR: We can emphasize the 2011 playbook and reduce the read option plays without giving them up entirely, can't we? If nothing else, shouldn't we continue to make teams believe that Griffin might run (even if he has strict instructions never to do so)?

 

Well, sure. That might have a little value in week one or two, but after that, the scouting catches on. I just wouldn't bother spending practice time on it.

 

That's why I think running our base offense out of the pistol helps. If we give the same look and run the read option enough to keep defenses honest (with Griffin keeping once or twice per game), I don't believe we need to scrap it entirely.

[PeterMP]

LL,

You make a valid point re: the hits on boot-action since the QB is blind, but the rest of your post is in my opinion direct conflict with other posts you've made about stopping the r/o.

It seems you've implied that sending the weakside DE/OLB on every stretch/boot is a successful strategy, but in essence it is the exact same strategy as having the DE/OLB go after the QB every time on r/o, which you've said would not be successful.

In both scenarios the offense has created a 10 v 10 game for the running back, and there should be giant lanes, until teams adjust and then you'll be able to work the passing game.

In both scenarios if you send the DE/OLB the QB will not have an opportunity to work the intermediate-deep passing game, and plays will require YAC.

Why, IMO, the r/o is more successful is the QB is allowed to make a read post-snap. In the boot/swap game the QB is blind, and doesn't know where the weakside DE is going, and it's predetermined whether the play is PA/run. It in essence becomes a chess game between coordinators. This is not the case in the r/o, in the r/o allows the QB to see what that weakside player is doing, and then do the opposite, the chess match element is removed, and the offense wins everytime so long as the QB makes the right read.

In short, the r/o is a more evolved version of the stretch/boot, that allows the offense to accomplish the goal of taking away the defenses numerical advantage on literally every play. But just like sending the DE/OLB everytime at the QB is not a sound strategy to stop the r/o, it is also not a sound strategy to stop the boot/swap, you have to mix it up or the offense will take advantage of the giant holes you've created.

The only disadvantage the r/o brings is your QB may take more hits through the course of the year, if the risk can be mitigated with a smart QB knowing when to get down, then the r/o is the new and improved version of the boot/swap.

 

This makes sense.

 

To put it in other words, on the same play where Ware smacks RGIII if the offensive play caller would have guessed differently and called a non-boot PA, the Redskins would have "won" (i.e. Ware was pretty neutralized w/ respect to a normal PA).

 

The question becomes in the RO how many hits is your QB going to take and what is the effect of those hits.

 

And there I think you have to start looking at other variables:

 

1.  How good is your QB/team w/o the RO (is your team/QB good enough to run a real effective traditional offense)?

 

I'm not sure what the answer to that is w/ respect to the Redskins and RGIII.

 

2.  How likley are the hits going to affect your QB?

 

I'll ignore the knee (because I think they are getting really good with knee injuries, and I'm not sure if any more injuring the knee is really predictive of future knee injuries) and focus on the head.  I'm worried that RGIII is already somewhat susceptible to concussions (i.e. the once you have a concussion it is easier to get another one issue).  The other thing is more research is showing the idea of a single hit causing a concusion is flawed:

 

http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=9&SubSectionID=9&ArticleID=14780

 

By taking what even seem to be "okay" hits are you increasing the probability that another hit later will cause a concusion?

 

3.  What you have invested in the particular player?

If the guy is a 4th round QB and likely won't be a valid NFL QB w/o the RO (related to the first point), then it probably makes sense to run RO with him.  If injuries wipe out his career after a few years, a 4th round pick is gone, but that's not a huge issue.  But if you have a bunch invested in the guy, then I think it makes much less sense.

 

When I see a lot of designed QB runs (no just RO), the message I get is that we invested a lot into a guy and aren't good enough (as a team) to win w/o those plays, and they really want to win now and/or don't think the team will be good enough in the near term (their likely coaching time in DC) to win w/o them.

[Mahons21]

PeterMP,

 

In your example the OC would have "won" if they had called the stretch instead of the boot action, since the DE is crashing hard on the QB.  If we have the stretch called then it's now 10 v 10 football with the ball in the backs hand (ideal scenario for offense).

[KCClybun]

Jared Allen talked about how difficult it was to defend Robert with all the different plays that come out of the same formations on the Top 100.

The threat of the read-option rents head space in a defenses head. You might only run the read-option 5 times, and the quarterback may hand it off all five times. But the threat of the read-option makes play action passing more effective, it freezes defenders in their tracks...

Things like swap boots, rollouts, waggles are solid offensive concepts, but they have disadvantages in the passing game too. More mobile quarterbacks are always going to command a back side defender like a DE/OLB who is going to come up and try to hit the quarterback. Aaron Rodgers runs a lot of heavy play action boot, and he's got wheels, but he never commands the kind of defender that Robert did.

It also limits your reads to half the field. You also have to turn your back to the defense. And of course it leaves you wide open for shots with zero protection.

People get caught up in Robert running the football and forget/ignore that he doesn't have to run the ball to be perceived as a threat. Teams are still going to commit a lot of time to defending the read-option, and the thing that will benefit will be the passing game.

[Oldfan]

TDWR: That's why I think running our base offense out of the pistol helps. If we give the same look and run the read option enough to keep defenses honest (with Griffin keeping once or twice per game), I don't believe we need to scrap it entirely.

 

It's a matter of personality.

 

Some coaches base their strategy on deceiving opponents. You would fall into that category and so would Mike Shanahan. So, he will likely agree with you.

 

I'm in the other camp. I like the basics underlying the Tom Moore/Colts/Manning scheme. Focus the practice time on a smaller playbook in order to execute with precision. Give the QB the chance to audible at the LOS. Run the same scheme every Sunday. Tip your hat to the defense if it can stop you.

[Jumbo]

Gentlemen: (from the first page)

 

 

http://es.redskins.com/topic/368582-how-kyles-future-and-the-skins-read-option-future-are-linked/?p=9508165

 

 

Such threads are a particularly fertile bed for notably different levels of knowledge, critical thinking skills, personality traits, and ability to form argument.

 

 

 Avoid negative generalized "personality comments" or assessments of character, or motive, unless you can really make a case for it, and stick with responding directly to the actual words actually posted by others).

 

 

Thanks in advance. We don't want to lose the passion, applying accountability for what's been posted when fitting,  the "fun feisty", or even a little real heat, but I also point out the need to avoid derailing via extended (and too-self-indulgent) personality clashes for their own sake (and the patterns standout clearly  to us) and I certainly want to avoid any penalties.

 

OF: I think "not trusting" Mike's ego is perfectly justifiable given human nature and his history. My best educated guess, is just that--as with most things, I consciously filter much through the lens of behavioral sciences. I think he has become more committed to the value in governing his ego more consciously, and listening to others, but that's based on limited observation and information. I don't have "confidence", I am just picking what I think is more likely, and that's basically that at this stage his cerebral cortex has more of a chance to override his amygdala . He's still Mike, but I don't think he's going to "break" RG3. Actually, what I am worried about on that angle, is simply whether RG3 can hold up for a full NFL season at this point, period. It does look good for now by all reports.

 

 

I also think this will be a fun thread to look back at after the season, not really based on the main premise of the OP (Kyle tied to RG3 health) so much, but more on how many of the tangential football-detail posts seem to be supported by what happens on the field. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

 

TDWR: That's why I think running our base offense out of the pistol helps. If we give the same look and run the read option enough to keep defenses honest (with Griffin keeping once or twice per game), I don't believe we need to scrap it entirely.

 

It's a matter of personality.

 

Some coaches base their strategy on deceiving opponents. You would fall into that category and so would Mike Shanahan. So, he will likely agree with you.

 

I'm in the other camp. I like the Tom Moore/Colts/Manning scheme. Focus the practice time on a smaller playbook in order to execute with precision. Give the QB the chance to audible at the LOS. Tip your hat to the defense if it can stop you.

 

That makes sense and is a good way of looking at it. It also makes sense which side of the fence you and I sit.

 

In my opinion, what Manning/Moore did in Indy is somewhat of a throwback to how I've read the old NFL was. QBs controlled the game by calling their own plays and having some flexibility at the LOS. Back then, it was probably a little more basic, but the buck stopped at the QB more often than not. Given your, ahem, experience in studying the game, you probably enjoy that type of football. You can correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

 

I believe that the coaching role has expanded over the past couple decades with systems becoming much more sophisticated. I believe that it is the job of the coaches to not leave any stone unturned when it comes to game-planning, scheming against specific defenses, deception, etc. I believe they are responsible for putting all 11 men in the best possible position to succeed. I grew up with a batch of much more cerebral coaches who were innovating the game in that way.

 

So, in my opinion, anything our coaches can do to buy our QB another second to make his decisions is something I'd be interested in exploring. There are limits for sure (like risking the health of our #1 asset). But that balance is for Mike Shanahan to strike, not me. Personally, as I stated, having the RO in the backs of defenders minds gives our offense an edge. I'm sure we could do fine running the 2011 offense, but why not do even better by sprinkling in (not relying on) an extra variable?

 

I hope that made sense...

[Oldfan]

Jumbo: I think "not trusting" Mike's ego is perfectly justifiable given human nature and his history. My best educated guess, is just that--as with most things, I consciously filter much through the lens of behavioral sciences. I think he has become more committed to the value in governing his ego more consciously, and listening to others, but that's based on limited observation and information. 

 

I'm an expert on egotism. I'd rather not discuss how I came to be an expert on the subject. But, I think you understand that I'm not being judgmental when I mention Mike's problem. For me, it's a factor that must be considered when we discuss his decision-making.

 

If any of the reports I've read from his early days in Denver are true, Mike is much less hampered by a flaming ego now that he was then. 

[PeterMP]

PeterMP,

 

In your example the OC would have "won" if they had called the stretch instead of the boot action, since the DE is crashing hard on the QB.  If we have the stretch called then it's now 10 v 10 football with the ball in the backs hand (ideal scenario for offense).

True.  I watched it yesterday and misremembered the play and thought it was more of Ware stayed very wide and was there when RGIII tried to roll.

 

But it isn't so much that he was wide as he came up the field to the QB.

 

It is still a matter of which cordinator or player (depending on how much flexibility the players have) guesses right pre-snap if you aren't running RO.

[Jumbo]

I know, OF. And we're agreed, other than which side of a close bet we're taking. 

[Oldfan]

TDWR: In my opinion, what Manning/Moore did in Indy is somewhat of a throwback to how I've read the old NFL was. QBs controlled the game by calling their own plays and having some flexibility at the LOS. Back then, it was probably a little more basic, but the buck stopped at the QB more often than not. Given your, ahem, experience in studying the game, you probably enjoy that type of football. You can correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

 

You're right that the Indy scheme is a throwback in that it's simple. But, I don't like it because it's a throwback. I like it because I prefer systems that are simple but elegant.

 

I think that over-coaching runs rampant in every sport. Rather than let the players play, coaches want to control the action with their brilliant, complicated schemes. In the NFL they create schemes that take three years to master when the roster is turning over completely every four years. 

[KCClybun]

The necessity of it taking three years for new players to "master" an offense has been slowly fading away as the high school and college games become more pro like, and young players are exposed to NFL concepts at younger and younger ages.

 

It used to take three years because the jump from college to the pros was so extreme, and coordinators were a lot more stubborn about forcing their players to play by their rules. Now, I'd doubt that was the case.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

 

TDWR: In my opinion, what Manning/Moore did in Indy is somewhat of a throwback to how I've read the old NFL was. QBs controlled the game by calling their own plays and having some flexibility at the LOS. Back then, it was probably a little more basic, but the buck stopped at the QB more often than not. Given your, ahem, experience in studying the game, you probably enjoy that type of football. You can correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

 

You're right that the Indy scheme is a throwback in that it's simple. But, I don't like it because it's a throwback. I like it because I prefer systems that are simple but elegant.

 

I think that over-coaching runs rampant in every sport. Rather than let the players play, coaches want to control the action with their brilliant, complicated schemes. In the NFL they create schemes that take three years to master when the roster is turning over completely every four years. 

 

Shanahan went to Denver in 1995 and by 1997 their offense was among the best in the league. It took Moore just about as long to get the Colts to the same position with Manning. I'm not sure that it's fair to characterize all simple/elegant schemes as quick-impact and all complicated ones as slow.

[Oldfan]

The necessity of it taking three years for new players to "master" an offense has been slowly fading away as the high school and college games become more pro like, and young players are exposed to NFL concepts at younger and younger ages.

 

It used to take three years because the jump from college to the pros was so extreme, and coordinators were a lot more stubborn about forcing their players to play by their rules. Now, I'd doubt that was the case.

 

It isn't just the rookies who are faced with the complexity problem. Veterans who move to another team or whose coach is replaced, all have to deal with it. 

[Oldfan]

TDWR: Shanahan went to Denver in 1995 and by 1997 their offense was among the best in the league. It took Moore just about as long to get the Colts to the same position with Manning. I'm not sure that it's fair to characterize all simple/elegant schemes as quick-impact and all complicated ones as slow.

 

Please read my signature.

 

Alex Gibbs said it took three years to become proficient in his ZBS. He began in 1995 and hit it right on the nose. He was also fortunate to have sixth round pick Terrell Davis land in his lap. But that line was long in the tooth and had to be replaced by 1999 --2000 as I recall.

 

I don't recall Indy's situation. Was the talent there early on?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

 

TDWR: Shanahan went to Denver in 1995 and by 1997 their offense was among the best in the league. It took Moore just about as long to get the Colts to the same position with Manning. I'm not sure that it's fair to characterize all simple/elegant schemes as quick-impact and all complicated ones as slow.

 

Please read my signature.

 

Alex Gibbs said it took three years to become proficient in his ZBS. He began in 1995 and hit it right on the nose. He was also fortunate to have sixth round pick Terrell Davis land in his lap. But that line was long in the tooth and had to be replaced by 1999 --2000 as I recall.

 

I don't recall Indy's situation. Was the talent there early on?

 

Damn...the signature that I commented on LAST WEEK has jumped up and bit me in the butt. I only picked Indy since you mentioned that offense specifically.

 

The talent in Indy was there with Moore/Manning in 1998. If you recall, they had Marshall Faulk there for only Manning's rookie year before drafting James/trading Faulk. Marvin Harrison and Marcus Pollard were also there in 1998.

 

In the end, I think you're correct that I'm drawn to more complicated schemes that (in my opinion) are less dependent on talent. The schemes should run longer-term than the players running them and give you a sense of organizational identity. I sleep better at night if I know that we'll have a successful offense here year in and year out because our staff is always going to be tricking defenses, countering punches, etc. To me, it's more comforting than hitching your wagon to a simpler scheme that depends on exceptionally bright/gifted athletes to execute it well.

 

It must be my PTSD from the past two decades of Redskin football changing directions every 3 years.