RandyHolt Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 Pump fake check down to Morris / Hurry up! I am stunned 2 things I wanted to see on the first play; I wasn't expecting to see either all night. And there is that secret weapon Williams Then we tried a QB sneak.... and you can see why we don't call it. Yikes Pass to Davis. What seemed like a lot of quick snaps. First TD to open the game. Giants D sucking wind. Seems so simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 Wonders never cease. FINALLY we hit the ground running. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 Turbo as often as our offense can pull it off. Make these games all about development of the passing game. Great start...don't abandon it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 We should try turbo to open the game. Might keep the Giants off balance and get off to a good start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 I wonder if our O could evolve into a high-tempo attack if Shanahan stays? Why couldn't we copy some of Chip Kelly's concepts with a Shanahan twist? We should have the personnel to pull it off with lighter OL, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinny21 Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 HIT ELI. HIT ELI. HIT ELI SOME MORE. Then we can run whatever we'd like. He will give us the ball. Last week our front 7 opened up with some creative pass rushes and harrassed kaepernick pretty well for the first fe series, and then seemingly got back to the same ol' same ol'. I want pressure on Eli tonight to be so tight that he pops like a pimple. Hang down your HEAD TOM DOOLEEEYY ~Bang Lol, Hang down your head and cryyy For as many WR screens as we run a fake WR screen or a pump screen and go would be a nice constraint play when defenses play the WR screen hard. Right now I'm not a fan of our play action game in general and pairing PA with rub could mess up the quick throw timing...meaning a receiver could come open off a rub while Griffin is still doing the play-action and he could be late on the throw. Might not have any choice tonight, lol. Right on, figured the timing might be thrown off. And yeah, the fake WR screen would be after running one or two and after Griffin got in a groove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyHolt Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 It is becoming a recurring theme with no end in sight, where Kyle is pulling the plug on things that work before defenses are adjusting and stopping it. I was happy with the opening script. Hurry up once again had our offense marching. Once again, he pulled the plug on it. It is mind boggling how bad the play calling becomes, once we get a lead. Kyle just seems to lose focus. I don't know how else to describe it. The pocket collapsed, the team collapsed, and the rest is history. History does tend to repeat itself. See you next week! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted December 2, 2013 Author Share Posted December 2, 2013 Best opening script of the season as evidenced by our first opening possesion scoring drive of the season. (if that alone isn't an indictment on the OC I don't know what is)Turbo offense, easy high percentage throws and voila Robert is magically in rhythm! Overall I thought the play calling was decent, good enough to win. In the second half drops i.e. execution were a killer.Questions though:The rhetoric out from Kyle/Mike is about the need to develop Griffin as a pocket passer but then why run so much read-option (even triple option) when Griffin is finally in rhythm on quick timing throws? What are the answers to teams that build an 8-man box? Why not make it impossible for a team to create an 8-man box by formation i.e. spread formations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 The rhetoric out from Kyle/Mike is about the need to develop Griffin as a pocket passer but then why run so much read-option (even triple option) when Griffin is finally in rhythm on quick timing throws? danny and holden were just talking to grant paulsen about this exact thing. danny believes they were running griff alot in an attempt to win the game, even though long term, it doesnt help his development as a pocket passer, and thats why he objects to the coach being the guy that buys the groceries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADF Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 Every time they run the triple option, they lose all credibility (with me) when they talk about Robert protecting himself. The play is dangerous on multiple levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 danny and holden were just talking to grant paulsen about this exact thing. danny believes they were running griff alot in an attempt to win the game, even though long term, it doesnt help his development as a pocket passer, and thats why he objects to the coach being the guy that buys the groceries. To play devil's advocate, I would propose that maybe they were running him so much to sustain drives. The only way he can have opportunities to throw the ball is if we get first downs. With the Giants keying on Morris, we almost had to run Griffin in some spots just to get a fresh set of downs. He won't develop much if we're constantly going 3-and-out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggosMohawk Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 The rhetoric out from Kyle/Mike is about the need to develop Griffin as a pocket passer but then why run so much read-option (even triple option) when Griffin is finally in rhythm on quick timing throws? Can't say it any better myself, and the broadcast crew 100% agreed with you. Rob looked very very good in the first half last night. Amazing what a clean pocket, quick hitters and some creative playcalls (lots of pass targets for AlMo) can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 why does kevin sheehan keep saying the offense 'did enough' to win the minnesota game? because we scored on the first 5 drives- which is great, btw- thats enough? what about not scoring a point over the last 25 minutes vs the worst defense in football? and the 27 we did score is below the average of what they give up? this is the problem with our entire team this year- we play well for a quarter, or even a half, either offensively or defensiively- then we do nothing the rest of the game. we were held scoreless in the first half of both philly games (3 quarters scoreless in the second game), and the green bay game, we were held scoreless for three quarters last night. (no i dont count the FG in favor of the offense). we scored 6 in the second half vs detroit, 6 in the first half vs dallas coming off a bye week. i'm sure im forgetting some games. we cant put a complete game together. how is not scoring a point the final 25 minutes vs the worst D in football 'doing enough'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingBack Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 Every time they run the triple option, they lose all credibility (with me) when they talk about Robert protecting himself. The play is dangerous on multiple levels. Agreed. And why don't we ever drop RG3 straight back to pass? EVERY pass attempt is off of play-action. I don't like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyHolt Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 I had high hopes for our offense this year. Yes, even with a knee brace on RG3. I am very very disappointed. With the same players on offense, I continue to pin the blame on Mike and his one dimensional approach to building the OL since the year seems all about RG3 improving in the pocket. He wants mobile OL, but then totes around a guy that has no chance of playing, who balloons up to 400 every other year. He must be the least mobile guy on the field. Yet wants to limit 3 to the pocket to learn, as the mobile line is getting blown up. The kicker, he doesn't dare make a move of any sort to improve the OL all year. Not a single snap to a backup. I don't like the option much at all, in part because it looks like pickup game grade. I have never seen a college option looks as ugly as our has, yet we stick to it. Another sand lot play, the deep ball to Robinson. Yikes, that one is ugly. Kyles play calls have gotten a little better but quickly and predictably he seems to become discombobulated and his game plan always falls apart. His O is good for about 1.5 good series per game. I wish it was easy to do a study on his changes in approach after scoring, and trying the same thing over and over when its not working. I am too dejected to see what we did after our good drives last night. One thing I do know, if anytime hurry up looks good, which is almost every time, he buries it to maybe use once next week. Maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyHolt Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 One play that I have been wondering about, is that back shoulder throw that seems all the rage across the league. It is the counter to tight man. We never call that play, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted December 3, 2013 Author Share Posted December 3, 2013 One play that I have been wondering about, is that back shoulder throw that seems all the rage across the league. It is the counter to tight man. We never call that play, correct? I don't think its a 'play' more like something teams rep in practice situationally. Some teams refer to it as a 'throw to position' meaning the on certain plays on certain routes the QB throws the ball to different spots based on the body position of a given defender. Imagine an X WR running a go route against a CB playing man to man. Some teams just look for the WR to beat the CB deep. But a throw to position means based on whether the WR is in front or behind the CB determines the type of throw. If the WR is ahead of the CB lob-lead if the WR is underneath the CB throw it short 'put it on them' i.e. backshoulder. edit: A lot of teams do it on the goal line fade, lob vs backshoulder If that makes sense^^, either way its a throw we don't execute in gametime and I assume its not something we work on. *shrugs* It certainly something some teams work on though, (WCO) Packer, Seahawks, Dolphins, others Pats, 49ers, Colts, Broncos. Its high level coaching in the passing game though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted December 3, 2013 Author Share Posted December 3, 2013 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyHolt Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Its high level coaching in the passing game though That sounds about right. If we don't practice it, we don't need it. I get the feel that Kyle does not like to copy what other teams do. But I do not consider that play mandated by a high level of coaching. It seems a very simple play. Dumbing it down to more my level to make sure we agree.... the play I am not seeing, is the WR running down the sideline in tight man, and he simply stops / spins back ~ 10yds downfield; the ball is well on its way as he spins. It seems largely unstoppable and it seems a very safe and quick throw. The pocket doesn't have time to collapse, easy read; I never see passes defended nor INT's. We have all seen deep coverage get burned on the grossly underthrown ball. Never the grossly overthrown, of course. After seeing it happen time and time again over the decades, I have long thought that OCs would be foolish to not make that a designed play. Instead of banging your (read: Aldrick's) head against the wall trying to hit the guy in stride but missing horribly, on both over and under thrown, over and over. At least design the under. Or, on a more simple scale with less turnover / sack risk, the back shoulder sideline throw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted December 3, 2013 Author Share Posted December 3, 2013 high level in as much as its something that a coaching staff has to consciously emphasize anyhow here's a nice little blurb vid/article: http://www.packers.com/media-center/videos/Anatomy-of-a-play-Back-shoulder-throw/7c011922-79f0-4243-954d-418c5e167861 http://blogs.greenbaypressgazette.com/blogs/gpg/insider/2011/09/15/the-art-of-the-back-shoulder-throw/ why does kevin sheehan keep saying... Kevin is incapable of being critical about this coaching staff's offense/gameplan/playcalling. To play devil's advocate, I would propose that maybe they were running him so much to sustain drives. The only way he can have opportunities to throw the ball is if we get first downs. With the Giants keying on Morris, we almost had to run Griffin in some spots just to get a fresh set of downs. He won't develop much if we're constantly going 3-and-out. No need to play devil's advocate just for the sake of argument. We didn't 'almost have to run Griffin' they chose to run Griffin. And if the Giants were keying on Morris there are several way to move the ball without read-option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinny21 Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 high level in as much as its something that a coaching staff has to consciously emphasize anyhow here's a nice little blurb vid/article: http://www.packers.com/media-center/videos/Anatomy-of-a-play-Back-shoulder-throw/7c011922-79f0-4243-954d-418c5e167861 http://blogs.greenbaypressgazette.com/blogs/gpg/insider/2011/09/15/the-art-of-the-back-shoulder-throw/ Kevin is incapable of being critical about this coaching staff's offense/gameplan/playcalling. No need to play devil's advocate just for the sake of argument. We didn't 'almost have to run Griffin' they chose to run Griffin. And if the Giants were keying on Morris there are several way to move the ball without read-option. So what did you see DG vis-a-vis crossing routes, slants, running back screens, WR screens, rhythm throws etc.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 high level in as much as its something that a coaching staff has to consciously emphasize anyhow here's a nice little blurb vid/article: http://www.packers.com/media-center/videos/Anatomy-of-a-play-Back-shoulder-throw/7c011922-79f0-4243-954d-418c5e167861 http://blogs.greenbaypressgazette.com/blogs/gpg/insider/2011/09/15/the-art-of-the-back-shoulder-throw/ Kevin is incapable of being critical about this coaching staff's offense/gameplan/playcalling. No need to play devil's advocate just for the sake of argument. We didn't 'almost have to run Griffin' they chose to run Griffin. And if the Giants were keying on Morris there are several way to move the ball without read-option. My only point was that Griffin gets fewer passing reps if we run Morris into the line more often and are in 3rd-and-long. He was able to get more opportunities (which is what we all want for his development) based on us getting first downs with his legs. But again, I could be giving them too much credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted December 3, 2013 Author Share Posted December 3, 2013 ...I am very very disappointed. With the same players on offense, I continue to pin the blame on Mike and his one dimensional approach to building the OL since the year seems all about RG3 improving in the pocket. He wants mobile OL, but then totes around a guy that has no chance of playing, who balloons up to 400 every other year. He must be the least mobile guy on the field. Yet wants to limit 3 to the pocket to learn, as the mobile line is getting blown up. The kicker, he doesn't dare make a move of any sort to improve the OL all year. Not a single snap to a backup. I don't like the option much at all, in part because it looks like pickup game grade. I have never seen a college option looks as ugly as our has, yet we stick to it. Another sand lot play, the deep ball to Robinson. Yikes, that one is ugly. I'm with you 1000% I had high hopes for the offense, especially after the innovation from last season. I thought we would expand the offense in a different direction. I hoped more spread air-raid passing attack with some zone-read mixed in. I thought that was the naturally evolution from Pistol read-option. But instead of expansion we got more of the same....... we tried to reap the benefits of read-option play-action from last year except: o we didn't call (and imho shouldn't call) as much read-option as last year o defenses are covering the play-action pass off read-action very well and have been doing it since week 1. I have my personal likes and dislikes on offense but I don't care what we run as long as it works. And our passing games reliance on last year's offense based on read-option play-action hasn't worked. I am not even that upset with the OL. I accepted long ago that under Shanahan this OL will be about as good as it will get. I am bothered by the fact that the gameplan and playcalling don't reflect the quality of the OL we have. A typical Shanny offense, knowing that his OL isn't stout enough for high reps of drop back passing, would throw quick, move the pocket and establish an efficient play-action passing game (ala Jake Plummer, Jay Cutler). Our current passing game does not. I don't mind the read-option but its hypocritical for the staff Mike/Kyle to talk about Griffin's lack of development as a pocket passer (which is BS btw because THEY chose not to develop him as a pocket passer) so how can you complain about his lack of development as a pocket passer then choose to call a heavy dose or read-option in a game where Griffin was actually in a passing rhythm? I believe we are using the wrong type of read-optoin anyway. Imho we should be using ZONE-READ instead of read-option. The zone-read seems like the logical evolution of Mike Shanahan's Denver stretch zone bootleg scheme but I digress....Something else that bothers me about the offense is how Kyle spent all that time at Baylor yet copied an entirely different scheme Baylor is a spread 'air'raid' offense on steriods with a dash of zone read and somehow we eneded up with Nevada Pistol read-option EDIT: withOUT the spread passing concepts. I feel like Kyle missed the meat and potatoes of the offense i.e. the passing game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyHolt Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 ....Something else that bothers me about the offense is how Kyle spent all that time at Baylor yet copied an entirely different scheme Baylor is a spread 'air'raid' offense on steriods with a dash of zone read and somehow we ended up with Nevada Pistol read-option with the spread passing concepts. I feel like Kyle missed the meat and potatoes of the offense i.e. the passing game. Quoted for Truth I see high scoring games left and right, the NFL is an air raid league more than ever. I think its a good question to ask, if we took important components of the Baylor offense, why does our offense..... suck? Something is not right. Either Kyle got caught copying their homework and aborted, has too big an ego to copy their offense outright, or is just not as bright as we all hoped when we brought him here. Our offense has been healthy. We have the same core. We have the horses to get up and go. RG3 was slow out of the gate sure, but he can throw the ball standing still. Our passing offense is so anemic, one has to question Kyle when doing a review in deciding if this is the guy we want developing Robert going forward. It's not all Robert. And this OL can block for 1.5 seconds. Lord knows what they are asking Robert to do, to read, etc. But I saw far too much running on Sunday night. Speaking of running, when Robert gets flushed out of the pocket, do we game plan for that? Do we practice that? I cant remember who planted that seed in my head (poster here, maybe Cooley) but it sure looks like there is no practicing Robert flushed. So he runs even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted December 3, 2013 Author Share Posted December 3, 2013 ...I think its a good question to ask, if we took important components of the Baylor offense, why does our offense..... suck?... .....Lord knows what they are asking Robert to do, to read, etc. But I saw far too much running on Sunday night. Speaking of running, when Robert gets flushed out of the pocket, do we game plan for that? Do we practice that? I cant remember who planted that seed in my head (poster here, maybe Cooley) but it sure looks like there is no practicing Robert flushed. So he runs even more. In regards to Baylor I think the answer is simple we only used the Baylor concepts in week 1 (Saints) to get Griffin comfortable. The offense they developed for the rest of the season didn't use Baylor concepts. Judging by our current offense's lack of execution I doubt they have a lot of spare time to work on back shoulder throws or scramble drills. So what did you see DG vis-a-vis crossing routes, slants, running back screens, WR screens, rhythm throws etc.? I gotta take a look at the game again when I get home, but did notice some quick rhythm throws to the RB out of the backfield and WR hitches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.