The "defend Kyle S." Thread

[Rufus T Firefly]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/wp/2013/11/12/why-the-fourth-down-pass-to-santana-moss-against-the-vikings-was-a-good-call/

There's some decent info in there, and I like the pics, but overall really questionable writing.

 

First he seems to be setting up straw men so he can knock them down (Really? 'a lot of people' wanted us to run the ball in the last minute with no timeouts? Glad you pointed out the problems with that plan) or some strange kind of non-answers (we had already thrown passes toward Reed and Garcon, but he does say "I guess" we could have tried it again. Gee, thanks for that) to some really bizarro reasoning (everyone was one on one, but there is some kind of big advantage to throwing to the receiver that the Vikings weren't expecting it to go to?).

 

Basically, with the game on the line, I'm not a huge fan of pinning it all on the QB's ability to loop the ball over the DB and get it down before the sideline the way we tried it. And yeah, throwing it to our shortest WR does make that harder to execute. Not to mention, he is at best our 4th best receiver. The fact that the guy points out the play was technically called a fade doesn't make me want to jump up and scream "OMG, then it was GENIUS!"

 

And the writer falls all over himself to praise the throw from Griffin. So the execution was great, yet the play didn't work anyway. And from this we are to conclude that it was a great call. Alrgihty, then.

[garyclarkforhall]

Seriously, people need to actually watch the games instead of placing the blame on Polumbus for the OL issues. Dude has been a real surprise this season. He has only given up 1 sack all season long and only has 2 penalties (1 false start and 1 holding). I posted the half-season stats for him (https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2013/11/06/midseason-all-division-team-nfc-east/). He has graded out 96.0 on pass protection efficiency (18 hurries in 343 attempts). That ranks him 14th among ALL tackles (Trent Williams came in 11th). So, I'm not sure what you guys expect from him.

 

If you watched the game Thursday, you'd noticed that Kyle Williams had ZERO sacks 1st half when the offense dominated. When they moved him to the DT position going against the awful interior, he came up with 3 sacks. But I guess that's also Polumbus' fault.

The question was what we would have done with cap space last offseason, not whether he's played well this year.  Based on the rent-a-wrecks we brought in to compete, I think they would have preferred another RT this past offseason.  I think Polumbus HAS done a pretty good job this year.  I also think as the season has progressed, the bigger question is do we need more interior line help this offseason since Ribs can't even dress on game day...

 

So again, I was addressing what would have happened with salary space, not the quality of performance this season.

[Lavarleap56]

They didn't "get away" from running the ball in Minnesota.

They ran the ball with roughly the same ratio in the second half as they did in the first.

21 Passes to 19 Runs in the first half.

20 Passes to 17 runs in the second half.

1.1:1 ratio both halves.

To suggest they "Got away" from the run in the second half is to suggest they were running it correctly in the first half. Well, in the Minnesota game, the amount of running in both halves were amazingly similar.

 

Well they got away from Alfred in the 2nd half..But yes they had a balanced run/pass ratio

[knowledge316]

The question was what we would have done with cap space last offseason, not whether he's played well this year. Based on the rent-a-wrecks we brought in to compete, I think they would have preferred another RT this past offseason. I think Polumbus HAS done a pretty good job this year. I also think as the season has progressed, the bigger question is do we need more interior line help this offseason since Ribs can't even dress on game day...

So again, I was addressing what would have happened with salary space, not the quality of performance this season.

Apologies

[Lavarleap56]

There's some decent info in there, and I like the pics, but overall really questionable writing.

 

First he seems to be setting up straw men so he can knock them down (Really? 'a lot of people' wanted us to run the ball in the last minute with no timeouts? Glad you pointed out the problems with that plan) or some strange kind of non-answers (we had already thrown passes toward Reed and Garcon, but he does say "I guess" we could have tried it again. Gee, thanks for that) to some really bizarro reasoning (everyone was one on one, but there is some kind of big advantage to throwing to the receiver that the Vikings weren't expecting it to go to?).

 

Basically, with the game on the line, I'm not a huge fan of pinning it all on the QB's ability to loop the ball over the DB and get it down before the sideline the way we tried it. And yeah, throwing it to our shortest WR does make that harder to execute. Not to mention, he is at best our 4th best receiver. The fact that the guy points out the play was technically called a fade doesn't make me want to jump up and scream "OMG, then it was GENIUS!"

 

And the writer falls all over himself to praise the throw from Griffin. So the execution was great, yet the play didn't work anyway. And from this we are to conclude that it was a great call. Alrgihty, then.

 

It's factually wrong as well because the officials said he didn't secure the catch when he went out of bounds. 

[CrabR]

we had the number 5 offense last year as well as this year. I see no reason to get rid of him. Haslett is the one and the 3-4

[Hooper]

Glad I'm not alone in the "defend Kyle" crowd.

[ZRagone]

Well they got away from Alfred in the 2nd half..But yes they had a balanced run/pass ratio

 

I would agree with the "Got away from Alfred" part.

 

As I had previously said in the thread...my point of contention with the play calling was going with runs with Griffin in the 2nd half, and going with the Fullback Dive at 3rd and 1 coming off a week where we ran that for 3 touchdowns.

 

Now, to be fair to Kyle...I don't know if any of those runs by Griffin were CALLED QB keepers, or if they were read option and Griffin decided to keep and run instead of handing off.

 

If it's the latter, then I can't blame Kyle for that. While I'm all for feeding Alfred even if it's against a stacked box, I can't fault a team for taking what the defense gives them.

 

If it's the former, then yeah...I don't like the call. I get the desire to spread it out a bit so they don't know it's Alfred every time, but they weren't doing a good job of stopping him so keep putting it in his gut.

 

The runs during the last series when we went into hurry up....I believe a couple by RG3 and a couple by Helu...I have no issue with, as Alfred generally isn't in there for those drives.

 

So ultimately, there were probably 3 to 4 runs in the second half that I think should've gone to Alfred that didn't. I can't really argue with anyone who suggests we went away from Alfred too much. My issue is with those who say we abandoned the ground game. We absolutely did not.

[Voice_of_Reason]

I was watching a little bit of the second half of the Vikings game. Something became incredibly clear: Helu and Morris are not good in pass-pro.

 

On 2 of the sacks on Griffin, they were in position to make a block on a blitzer, and just flat goobed it up. If I remember correctly, Morris wiffed and fell down, and Helu took a bad angle and glanced off him sideways. 

 

So, I have a very simple question: Who's most responsible for the EXECUTION of the offense? We'll never know if those plays could be succesful.  But it looks like a player was in position to make a block, failed, and thus the play failed.

 

So, who should get crushed for that? Kyle? Because it's his offense, and he's ultimately responsible? Position Coach? Player, because he was in the place to make the play and didn't?

 

And this is just an example.  It could be applied to any number of execution goofs. 

[cahones01]

There's a great picture in this post (4th photo) just before RGIII releases the ball on fourth down.  Again, I will harp on reads... it's zero coverage and Jordan Reed is matched up with a linebacker.  Reed is calling for the ball as his LB coverage is stumbling behind him... no Viking in site.  This is a touchdown.  Ugh...

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

Interestingly, I'm busy researching deep into Shanahan, his career O-line's/ the cap et all so I'll let you debate that there if and when I finally format it. 

 

FWIW, I don't think this line would much of any different if we'd had the $ 36 million. 

 

Hail. 

 

I think there are 5 starters who wouldn't be starting, and 5 other players who wouldn't be on the team if they had the extra $36M. 

 

Polumbus would be one of them for sure.  The entire defensive secondary would look different.  Not sure about the middle of the OL.  I'm guessing that Chester or Monty would not be here.  Remember, the first part of the hit came BEFORE last season.  I'm not sure that Monty had shown enough prior to then to be THE answer.

 

They would also probably not have gone after Morgan.  Remember that they found out about the penalty almost at the same time that FA began, so they had to change things up.  It's possible they would have gone after Garcon and maybe another one of the top-flight receivers.

 

It's not an excuse.  But the Bill Polian, who has no stake in this game, said that $36 Million over 2 years could be 9 players and 4-5 starters.  That's an entire secondary and a RT. 

 

That, coupled with Robert missing the entire off-season and recovering from knee surgery, and the lack of a first round pick ...

 

That's a lot for this team to overcome this year. They basically had the triple whamo.  And it shows.  

[Voice_of_Reason]

 

 

What I believe Robert said after the game is that based on the defensive look, the decision was made pre-snap to go to Moss.  

 

And, the design of the play is pretty good.  Moss goes out, and there's a natural pick as the outside defender crosses.  Which means Moss is open.

 

One thing that the media and fans have completely missed on is that this wasn't a back corner jump-fade type route.  This was a timing route.  You don't have to be tall to catch this route.  You just have to have good ball skills and a good throw. 

 

Robert waiting half a tick to long to get the ball in the air, and threw it about a 3 feet too far.  A tick earlier and 3 feet shorter, and that's a TD.  Moss was open, the defender was irrelevant to the play. They were in trail position. It was almost like a 7-7 drill. 

 

So, for me, and me only, I see no criticism on this play.  The play call was fine.  The way they talked about it after the game, they had options that turned into a hot-read based on the blitz by Minn.  

 

Even the hot read was fine, because the guy was open. Moss ran a good route. And caught the ball, he was just out of bounds. 

 

It was a tough throw. And it was really, really close.  3 feet, and it's a different result. 

 

Keep in mind that Moss and Robert hooked up on a play very similar to this last year in Philly.  Except the throw just dropped right into the bread basked, right on time.  They can execute that play.  They have done it before.  They did it last year for a TD.  They didn't do it this year. But it was very close. It was just a bit off.  

 

Just like a lot of the passing game much of the season. 

 

The real shame is that Reed should have caught the ball on second down that hit him in the hands, and all of this would be moot.  Holding call or not, he should have caught that ball. 

[planter]

Well, part of that goes on the QB too...

Speaking of pass pro, I don't know if I buy the notion that ZBS OL aren't built to pass protect, which always seems like the excuse for the difficulties in pass pro.  Like you HAVE to trade off success running the ball at the expense of pass blocking.  I don't think that's really the case.

It' s less about ZBS and more about good pass pro schemes executed by superior athletes. Remember that ZBS is less effective in the red zone.

[Riggo#44]

He's a terrible play caller after 4 years, but we're supposed to imagine that he'll become great in year 5 just because?

 

No thanks.

 

Top 10 offense. Top 10. Stop it with the "he's a terrible play caller!" non-sense. Yes, he makes mistakes. No, he's not perfect. We have a top 10 and improving offense with gaping holes on the interior line and marginal #2 (which is a step up from what it was with Hank's improvement the last two weeks.) We have a 2nd year QB, who is really looking good.

 

We put up 450 yards and 27 points on the Vikings. Did they sputter? Yes. But they scored on 5 straight possessions. That is more than enough to win that game. Morris is averaging 5.2 a carry. Garcon has become one of the best WRs in the league. Jordan Reed is emerging as a top TE talent. Do you think that just happens?

 

Denver was a terrible game, but even still there were plenty of opportunities that our offense didn't execute--and that is straight from Garcon. Griffin missed a number of open receivers.

[Riggo#44]

What I believe Robert said after the game is that based on the defensive look, the decision was made pre-snap to go to Moss.  

 

And, the design of the play is pretty good.  Moss goes out, and there's a natural pick as the outside defender crosses.  Which means Moss is open.

 

One thing that the media and fans have completely missed on is that this wasn't a back corner jump-fade type route.  This was a timing route.  You don't have to be tall to catch this route.  You just have to have good ball skills and a good throw. 

 

Robert waiting half a tick to long to get the ball in the air, and threw it about a 3 feet too far.  A tick earlier and 3 feet shorter, and that's a TD.  Moss was open, the defender was irrelevant to the play. They were in trail position. It was almost like a 7-7 drill. 

 

So, for me, and me only, I see no criticism on this play.  The play call was fine.  The way they talked about it after the game, they had options that turned into a hot-read based on the blitz by Minn.  

 

Even the hot read was fine, because the guy was open. Moss ran a good route. And caught the ball, he was just out of bounds. 

 

It was a tough throw. And it was really, really close.  3 feet, and it's a different result. 

 

Keep in mind that Moss and Robert hooked up on a play very similar to this last year in Philly.  Except the throw just dropped right into the bread basked, right on time.  They can execute that play.  They have done it before.  They did it last year for a TD.  They didn't do it this year. But it was very close. It was just a bit off.  

 

Just like a lot of the passing game much of the season. 

 

The real shame is that Reed should have caught the ball on second down that hit him in the hands, and all of this would be moot.  Holding call or not, he should have caught that ball. 

 

I thought the throw was there, Moss got one foot in and bobbled the catch....but I could be wrong. He drags the toe and catches it cleanly...

 

What really is chaffing my chicken is that non-call on the holding on Reed. That's 1st and goal at the one. That opens up play action, honestly.

[Smurf85]

Lol Kyle is a bum he comes in with a good game plan and then the defense of the opposing team makes adjustments. Then Kyle starts sucking his thumb and doesn't know what to do. I mean 3 points in 2ND half last week compared to 24 points in the first half.

[Voice_of_Reason]

I thought the throw was there, Moss got one foot in and bobbled the catch....but I could be wrong. He drags the toe and catches it cleanly...

 

What really is chaffing my chicken is that non-call on the holding on Reed. That's 1st and goal at the one. That opens up play action, honestly.

 

Throw was a hair, and I mean, a hair over-thrown.  3 feet, max. And a beat, and I mean maybe .3 seconds late.  And Robert had the room (I think, to be JUST shorter on the throw. But it wasn't a bad throw. Would have been a fantastic catch.

 

They've hooked up on the play before. They almost hooked up on it again.

 

I really don't want to hear about your chicken chafing, but yeah, the non-hold on Reed was ridiculous. BUT.  it still hit him in the hands.  And he still should have caught it. Would have been a tough catch.  To me the non-call is just piling on. 

 

It also shouldn't have EVER come down to that.  Cooley said on the radio that a dropped pass on 3rd and 3 should not have changed the entire completion of the game.  But it did.  

 

Here's the problem:

 

The 'Skins were up 27-14 after scoring on their 5th consecutive drive, on the opening drive of the third quarter. They never had the ball up 27-14.  As soon as they scored, the Vikings went right down the field and scored a TD. 

 

Now the score is 27-21.

On this drive, the 'Skins open with a Morris run for 5 yards, a Garcon screen pass for 2 yards. And then a Garcon drop on 3rd down.  (Can't really fault the play calling on a drop.)  Punt. 

 

It's worth noting that the LOS on 4th down was the Washington 30.  After the punt, the return, and a (If I remember correctly legitimate) Personal Foul call, the Vikings took over at the Washington 41.  So, that whole exchange netted 11 yards.  Worst Special Teams in the history of the world.

 

The Vikings then took the ball right down the field and scored.  All of a sudden, it's 28-27 Vikings.  

 

On this 'Skins next drive, they started at their own 20.  Immediately got a 10 yard holding penalty.  (Great.)

 

Then Griff hit Garcon for 18, Morris ran for the first down.  WOOHOO! We're in business.

 

1st and 10 at the Washington 33.  Morris run for 4 yards.  

Then the wheels came off.  back to back sacks.  Now, I'm going to be honest, I can't remember which sacks was who's fault.  But on 2 sacks, Morris and Helu did their best Matador impersonation. They were in position to just slow down the rusher, and they completely wiffed. Ole!!!  On 2 other sacks, the pressure was immediate, from the DT Williams, who just moved Monty and Chester out of his way.  Robert tried valiantly to get out of trouble, but there was nothing he could do. 

 

And from there, it was just a mess. I give Kyle credit for sticking with the run.  They continued to run effectively until the end of the game.  The last drive had everything but the TD.  

 

But the fault of this game rests with the defense and with ST.  The offense was great for a half. But they have to be PERFECT.  And I think that they put so much pressure on themselves to be PERFECT, every now and then they aren't.  And then everything comes falling down around them.  

[IrepDC]

With that said, it should be obvious that I am with the crowd that believes that Kyle and his overall play calling are NOT the problem with this team. Have I questioned his calls in certain situations? Damn right I have. Have I hurled obscenities at my TV bc of some of his calls. Damn right I have. But....... Do I believe Kyle and his offense have FAR AND AWAY been the overall best part of this team since the beginning of 2012 season? Damn right I do. Everyone that is looking for the OC that is perfect with every call in every game will continue to be disappointed until the end of time bc that coach DOES NOT EXIST.

 

 

The bolded portion is why I personally have Kyle on thin ice. I agree with your overall sentiment that the offensive playcalling is not one of this teams biggest problems, but in my mind, it has been one of the problems in our games.

 

As I stated before, my reasoning comes from those moments when Kyle blows a playcall, gets too fancy with a playcall, or seemingly gets lazy with a playcall.

 

An example of blowing playcalls would be the Cowboys playing press man coverage an entire game with pressure coming up the middle of our weak interior OL: Kyle calling routes that don't take advantage of the Cowboys aggression and leave Griffin in the pocket like a sitting duck are blown calls.

 

An example of Kyle getting too fancy would be our team having a lead in the second half of a game with our running game picking up; and Kyle calling a bunch of passing plays.

 

An example of being lazy with playcalling would be the first half of nearly every game this season where we continually come out  with run, run, pass nearly every drive resulting in predictably limited first half offensive success.

 

Now Kyle has had his bad moments this year, but in addition, he's had his moments where I see a glimpse of hope. The past few games he has mixed up the playcalling some and been less predictable. He's gameplanned to get the ball into Garcon and Reed's hands more, and he seems to be bringing along Hankerson nicely into the #2 WR role. He still has to get better at playcalling with a lead, but I have seen some improvement.

 

I'm eager to see if the signs of hope that I've seen recently lead to improved playcalling over the rest of the season.

[Hooper]

I'm curious what offensive coordinator the Kyle is terrible crowd would want right now if they had their druthers.

[Voice_of_Reason]

 

An example of being lazy with playcalling would be the first half of nearly every game this season where we continually come out  with run, run, pass nearly every drive resulting in predictably limited first half offensive success.

 

 

I think that's actually not really true.  In most games, we have come out passing first. Hell, in the SD game, we were throwing from our won 1, on 2 consecutive drives.  

 

I got curious to see whether this was true to not. So I looked at all of the first drives of games played so far:

Phily: Catastrophe.  Started with a Run, which Morris Fumbled.  Second drive started with a Morris run for -3 yards, then Pass, Pass Interception. And I couldn't bear to go further than that. 

GB: Pass (1st down), Run, Run, Pass (Inc), Punt

Detroit: Run (Garcon End-Around), Run, Pass (1st down), Run (Griffin), Pass (Inc), Pass (Inc), Punt. 

Oakland: Run, Run, Pass (Inc), Punt. 

Dallas: (I'm not going through the entire drive, they actually moved the ball and scored. But they started Pass, Run(Griffin), Run, Run, Pass ... and they basically alternated runs and passes the remainder of the drive. 

Chicago: Run, Run (Griffin, 1st down), Pass, Pass (Sack, fumble, 'Skins recover 2nd and 27), Pass, Pass, FG.

Denver: Pass attempt (Griffin scramble), Pass (Inc), Pass (Griffin Scramble) Punt.

SD: (Again, this was a long drive.) It started Pass (Inc), Pass, Pass, Triple Option, Run, Pass, Pass, and then sortof went run and pass from there.

Vikings(Again, this was a long drive) It started Run, Run, Pass, Pass, Run ...

 

Now, these are just the first drives of games.  But, there's only one game, the Oakland game, where we went Run, Run, Pass (Inc) Punt.  So, I'm not exactly sure where the comment that we often go Run, Run Pass, Punt early in games comes from.  As a run-first team, there's no question that we're going to run the ball, and at times, we might run the ball on consecutive plays.  

 

I think that some myth has come into the discussion, and it's not really based on specifics anymore, just general ideas and feelings. And people keep repeating the same thing over and over, and so eventually it just becomes assumed it's true.  

 

And bad execution has made very, very good play calls look bad. 3 examples are:

 

In the Denver game, when they were up in the 3rd quarter, they called a PA Pass, had Morgan open, and combination of bad throw and bad catch, lead to an incomplete on first down.  They tried a pass on 2nd and 10, failed, and then 3rd and 10, and failed.  The PA on first down was there for the taking.  That's why you run.  To set up the deep ball.  But they missed it.  2nd and 10 is generally a passing down, and they missed that, and 3rd and 10 is always a passing down. Then they get the criticism that they abandoned the run.  Well, if Robert and Morgan connected, that whole conversation goes away.  I could almost guarantee that the next play after the completion to Morgan would be a run.  

 

Similar situation in San Diego.  3rd quarter, 1st play of a drive, they go PA, and have Moss running wide open.  Again they miss.  This time, they recover a little better, but still there are questions.

 

And exactly the same thing happened against the vikings.  First play of a drive in the 4th quarter, they go PA, have Reed down the middle on a seam route for a large gain. Something they've been setting up against the Tampa 2 all day.  And Robert throws it so high that Shaquille O'Neil couldn't have caught it.  And that drive stalls out.

 

Those are just examples.  But there are a lot of times when the play call is fine, it should work, but the execution is just not there. Which makes the play-calling look bad.

 

There are obviously times when Kyle could do something different than what he did.  But, we all have the benefit of hindsight.  They've got to make the decision in something like 6 seconds. Nobody's perfect. But, of all of the things that's wrong with this team right now, Offensive Scheme isn't in the top 10.  Offensive play calling isn't in the top 10.  Offensive execution definitely is.

 

Though #1 - 6 are probably ST related (Punt Coverage, Punting, Kickoffs, Kickoff Coverage, Punt Returning, Kickoff Returning.) 7, 8 and 9 are probably Defense related: Defensive Play Calling, Pass Rush, Secondary), and then Offensive Execution. 

[Rufus T Firefly]

Top 10 offense. Top 10. Stop it with the "he's a terrible play caller!" non-sense. Yes, he makes mistakes. No, he's not perfect. We have a top 10 and improving offense with gaping holes on the interior line and marginal #2 (which is a step up from what it was with Hank's improvement the last two weeks.) We have a 2nd year QB, who is really looking good.

 

We put up 450 yards and 27 points on the Vikings. Did they sputter? Yes. But they scored on 5 straight possessions. That is more than enough to win that game. Morris is averaging 5.2 a carry. Garcon has become one of the best WRs in the league. Jordan Reed is emerging as a top TE talent. Do you think that just happens?

 

Denver was a terrible game, but even still there were plenty of opportunities that our offense didn't execute--and that is straight from Garcon. Griffin missed a number of open receivers.

I'll admit, "terrible" is an overreaction. Some of what we're doing is very good. But there are too many weak decisions for my taste.

 

For the first half of the season (so far) many of us were waiting for the roll-outs and moving pockets. Griffin's strength is being allowed to move and create in space. OK, the first couple of games he wasn't moving well, I get that. But after he was? Took a number of games before we saw much use of moving Griffin from the pocket. Then against Chicago, there it was. The offense clicks, the QB isn't getting hit, awesome. Then vs. Denver? Nope, we abandon it, Griff's getting pounded all game long and the offense is anemic. But we go back to using it against San Diego and the first half of Minnesota, everything seems to be totally clicking and then.... second half we stop it again. RG3 is sacked 4 times and the offense goes from a 24 point first half to a 3 point second.

 

No, I don't see this as brilliant coaching.

[darrelgreenie]

RandyHolt/MartinC-

Got busy couldn't respond to the good convo you guys had going but i wanted to chime in on a few things...

 

RE:Bootlegs

 

I also read/heard on radio that 'they' don't like bootlegs vs 34 and I thought that was odd because I've seen plenty of effective bootlegs against 34 teams. Then comes the Chargers game and we bootlegged against their 34 with no problems.

 

(add) EDIT : Also neither here nor there love the idea calling a bootleg to the wide side of the field when the offense is lined up on the far hash. I think Griff will out 'athlete' whomever the backside contain person is when there is that much field to deal with.

 

RE:Backside contain and offensive philosophy

 

When we drafted Griff and reports of changes to the offense began to sprout many people discussed how the offense might look.

And I would have bet dollars to doughnuts that because of the Denver/Houston zbs+bootleg concepts it was a no brainer that offense would have zone-read concepts. Imo Zone read is the next evolution of the zbs+bootleg because it combines the two separate plays stretch run and bootleg into the same play. Instead of having to guess at how the backside contain will play bootleg the zone-read allows the QB to read the backside contain in real time and make his decision to stay with the stretch run for the RB or to 'bootleg' with the QB. But instead we borrowed more from Nevada's offense rather then Baylor's offense. We chose condensed dive read-option over zone-read.

 

 

Overall thoughts on Kyle and the offense:

 

I don't believe we can have meaningful discussions about the offense when we argue over run, run, pass vs pass, run,run or whatever.

To talk about playcalls/gameplans you have to discuss the type of play not whether it was simply a run play vs a pass play. I think we have to talk about play design to have any type of sensible discussion about playcalling.

 

My issue with offense (which has since been satisfied) was two fold: efficiency (or lack thereof) and management of Griff through playcalling (which is linked to efficiency). At the start of the season when Griffin was shaking off the rust we needed to protect him through playcalling in the passing game. We were asking a QB that didn't build chemistry with the receivers to execute a rhythm progression read drop back passing game and what's more the playcalling in the passing game often geared towards hitting chunk yardage off play-action. It wasn't working and we didn't adjust. Now our opening passing game concepts manage Griffin more through high efficiency playcalling: screens, roll-outs/bootlegs, short/quick reads/throws to the TE.

 

In a larger context I was dissappointed by Griff's development as a progression read QB. Griffin was a very good pocket passer at Baylor, that was the reason he was such a highly regarded prospect. Griffin was both a good passer and a dangerous runner. But the offense last year (which we discussed at times) had a very simple passing game which was largerly based on playaction (iirc more so then any other team) and but it had a very simple progression read passing game. Other QBs from spread systems like Baylor (a variant of the air raid) made the transition to making progression reads as rookie QBs (Bradford, Cam, Dalton, Tannehill, Geno). I was concerned about Griff's growth but that was easily swayed by having a top 5 offense in both yards and points.

Fast forward to the start of the season and we're asking our QB that we didn't develop as a progression read QB to execute full field progression reads early in games early in the season.

I hoped that we would borrow some passing concepts from Baylor as the basis of helping Griff make the transition but save for the Saints game and a few sprinkles here and there we haven't seen much in terms of Baylor spread/air raid concepts.

I think Griffin could be dynamic running a traditional WCO quick rhythm throws etc. But in my eyes you gotta crawl before you walk.

And it seems like we threw him out there and expected him to run before we ever showed him how to crawl.

Another way to look at it we need to cater the passing game to allow Griff to win with his arm before we can ask him to win with his mind.

 

All that being said I have noticed clear changes within the offense over the past couple/3 weeks that give me hope for the rest of the season. It also leaves me with the suspicion that the HC is taking a more active hand in the gameplan and maybe even the playcalling at times.

Now we just need consistency over the course of a game then game to game.

[IrepDC]

I think that's actually not really true.  In most games, we have come out passing first. Hell, in the SD game, we were throwing from our won 1, on 2 consecutive drives.  

 

I got curious to see whether this was true to not. So I looked at all of the first drives of games played so far:

Phily: Catastrophe.  Started with a Run, which Morris Fumbled.  Second drive started with a Morris run for -3 yards, then Pass, Pass Interception. And I couldn't bear to go further than that. 

GB: Pass (1st down), Run, Run, Pass (Inc), Punt

Detroit: Run (Garcon End-Around), Run, Pass (1st down), Run (Griffin), Pass (Inc), Pass (Inc), Punt. 

Oakland: Run, Run, Pass (Inc), Punt. 

Dallas: (I'm not going through the entire drive, they actually moved the ball and scored. But they started Pass, Run(Griffin), Run, Run, Pass ... and they basically alternated runs and passes the remainder of the drive. 

Chicago: Run, Run (Griffin, 1st down), Pass, Pass (Sack, fumble, 'Skins recover 2nd and 27), Pass, Pass, FG.

Denver: Pass attempt (Griffin scramble), Pass (Inc), Pass (Griffin Scramble) Punt.

SD: (Again, this was a long drive.) It started Pass (Inc), Pass, Pass, Triple Option, Run, Pass, Pass, and then sortof went run and pass from there.

Vikings(Again, this was a long drive) It started Run, Run, Pass, Pass, Run ...

 

Now, these are just the first drives of games.  But, there's only one game, the Oakland game, where we went Run, Run, Pass (Inc) Punt.  So, I'm not exactly sure where the comment that we often go Run, Run Pass, Punt early in games comes from.  As a run-first team, there's no question that we're going to run the ball, and at times, we might run the ball on consecutive plays.  

 

I think that some myth has come into the discussion, and it's not really based on specifics anymore, just general ideas and feelings. And people keep repeating the same thing over and over, and so eventually it just becomes assumed it's true.  

 

And bad execution has made very, very good play calls look bad. 3 examples are:

 

In the Denver game, when they were up in the 3rd quarter, they called a PA Pass, had Morgan open, and combination of bad throw and bad catch, lead to an incomplete on first down.  They tried a pass on 2nd and 10, failed, and then 3rd and 10, and failed.  The PA on first down was there for the taking.  That's why you run.  To set up the deep ball.  But they missed it.  2nd and 10 is generally a passing down, and they missed that, and 3rd and 10 is always a passing down. Then they get the criticism that they abandoned the run.  Well, if Robert and Morgan connected, that whole conversation goes away.  I could almost guarantee that the next play after the completion to Morgan would be a run.  

 

Similar situation in San Diego.  3rd quarter, 1st play of a drive, they go PA, and have Moss running wide open.  Again they miss.  This time, they recover a little better, but still there are questions.

 

And exactly the same thing happened against the vikings.  First play of a drive in the 4th quarter, they go PA, have Reed down the middle on a seam route for a large gain. Something they've been setting up against the Tampa 2 all day.  And Robert throws it so high that Shaquille O'Neil couldn't have caught it.  And that drive stalls out.

 

Those are just examples.  But there are a lot of times when the play call is fine, it should work, but the execution is just not there. Which makes the play-calling look bad.

 

There are obviously times when Kyle could do something different than what he did.  But, we all have the benefit of hindsight.  They've got to make the decision in something like 6 seconds. Nobody's perfect. But, of all of the things that's wrong with this team right now, Offensive Scheme isn't in the top 10.  Offensive play calling isn't in the top 10.  Offensive execution definitely is.

 

Though #1 - 6 are probably ST related (Punt Coverage, Punting, Kickoffs, Kickoff Coverage, Punt Returning, Kickoff Returning.) 7, 8 and 9 are probably Defense related: Defensive Play Calling, Pass Rush, Secondary), and then Offensive Execution. 

 

You'd need to look at more than just the first drives of games to see my point about run, run, pass. I'm not sure exactly how often it happens, but I commentate on it as it happens sometimes in the gameday threads so I know I'm not making it up.

 

I don't mind that we lean on the running game; however, it's being predictable that I have a problem with. Teams know we are built on the PA pass, but we can use that to our advantage. We don't always have to run Morris into brick wall defenses that are stacked to stop him or even regular fronts where the defense is still expecting the run. When we do this, we end up in 3rd and long, and our offense has struggled to convert those.

 

The past few weeks we've seen Kyle sometimes run play action passes before the run game has been established, and just because teams expect us to come out and run, we've had good success.

 

This small variation makes our offense that much more difficult to stop for defenses. Defenses study playcalling tendencies all week, and when a OC gets to set in the same gameplan week after week, it makes a DC's job a lot easier.

 

I just want Kyle to be on his toes and ready to adjust his gameplan and take what's there so we don't have the slow starts on offense that we had eary on in the year. I'll note that those slow starts can also be attributed to Griffin regaining confidence in his knee. If everyone keeps improving, coaches and players, our offense should be in pretty good shape. The defense will still need work, though. 

[darrelgreenie]

-One last note on play design in the passing game: we need to rely less on stop routes or routes where a receiver runs a certain distance then stops and turns to face the QB hitches, comebacks. Against man to man, which we see often now, it gives Griffin no options if the receivers don't win because the route is over once the receiver completes the route or if Griff is late with the throw or the read. This is especially true on short stop routes. Instead we should feature routes where Griff is hitting a receiver in motion and routes where there are multiple windows/opportunities to for the QB to connect e.g. outs, digs, slants, drags, shallow crosses, cross formations posts and corners.

[darrelgreenie]

....I don't mind that we lean on the running game; however, it's being predictable that I have a problem with. Teams know we are built on the PA pass, but we can use that to our advantage. We don't always have to run Morris into brick wall defenses that are stacked to stop him or even regular fronts where the defense is still expecting the run. The past few weeks we've seen Kyle sometimes run play action passes before the run game has been established, and just because teams expect us to come out and run, we've had good success.

 

This small variation makes our offense that much more difficult to stop for defenses. Defenses study playcalling tendencies all week, and when a OC gets to set in the same gameplan week after week, it makes a DC's job a lot easier.

 

I just want Kyle to be on his toes and ready to adjust his gameplan and take what's there so we don't have the slow starts on offense that we had eary on in the year. I'll note that those slow starts can also be attributed to Griffin regaining confidence in his knee. If everyone keeps improving, coaches and players, our offense should be in pretty good shape. The defense will still need work, though. 

I agree and disagree. Even if Kyle was in a run, run, pass rhythm or whatever. That in itself wouldn't make the plays predictable.

Again it goes back to play design. Which goes back to my belief that Kyle doesn't embrace the running game and imo lack of diversity in the running game is an example. If you stay with the same type of run whether its the toss/picth, outside zone, inside zone whatever. Teams will catch-up. Its the variety and mix of different runs that keeps teams off balance against the run. The possibility of toss/pitch or outside zone or inside zone or FB dive gives the running game diversity. Its why I believe the FB dives worked, especially in conjunction with the read option (triple). That's not even to mention pulling/trapping plays we used to run in Helu's rookie year where Lichtensteiger would pull.