Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

ESPN.com: Sean McVay: Run game will be similar


Califan007 The Constipated

Recommended Posts

http://espn.go.com/blog/washington-redskins/post/_/id/4951/mcvay-run-game-will-be-similar

 

 

 

“I don’t think it will change a lot,” new Redskins offensive coordinator Sean McVay said. “The foundation and base principles will remain the same. Jay does a great job of adjusting to his players. He doesn’t make the player adjust to his scheme.”

 

That means bootlegs, or keepers, and the outside-zone run game that benefited running back Alfred Morris. He rushed for 2,888 yards in his first two seasons under Shanahan – the Redskins ranked third in yards per carry this season and second in 2012. He’ll continue to be a big part of the offense.

“He’ll be the same guy,” McVay said. “The run game will be very similar.”

 

 

 

[...]There is not yet a detailed plan for Griffin’s offseason work. But, obviously, working on fundamentals will be a big part.

“With any player, especially at quarterback, I don’t care if you’re talking Tom Brady or Peyton Manning or Drew Brees,” McVay said, “you want to make sure to continue to hammer down the fundamentals and it all starts with your feet. Everything starts with footwork.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how McVay is already empowered to talk about the offense and be forthright.

I am glad we'll keep the base of our running game.

Our running game is the best aspect of our offense and as the saying goes if it ain't broke...

Keeping our running games also maintain the scheme fit of our current OL and it delays the urgency for wholesale changes along the OL.

He will undoubted add some of his own run concepts from Cinnci but that is a good thing imo our running game lacked diversity.

I hope they are at least as committed to the running as the last regime though, Grudes likes to sling it around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only concern is that the team made M.Shanahan HC with the understanding the Bronco's offense was coming with him. Instead I think we got K.Shanahan's offense from Houston. After 2 yrs we got a hybrid K.Shanahan/college offense.

 

Now we hire (in my opinion) Gruden to come in here and I would presume bring the offense he had in Cinci. Now we hear that part of the offense will remain the same. I guess that means less of a learning curve but I hope another transformation of the offense does not ruin it.

 

I also think McVay was retained because he knows the system we have now really well so he can coach up Gruden on it and then maybe both of them can incorporate Grudens pass offense. Hopefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure the offense will be fine. Gruden and McVay will come up with something to make the 5-6 very talented players we have on offense look good.

 

The defense is another story. Good Lord, I'll be thrilled if we crack the top 20.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm but doesn't this mean we need the same type/size offensive lineman? That means no drop back passing like last year or Griffin will get killed again. Anyways, it's not really the offense I'm worried about and a part of the team I'm excited to see. If Griffin is healthy and can at least pose a threat to run the offense will get that extra second of the defense freezing and everything will be open again. Ill probably watch the defense with a hand over my eyes peeking through my fingers like always though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how McVay is already empowered to talk about the offense and be forthright.

I am glad we'll keep the base of our running game.

Our running game is the best aspect of our offense and as the saying goes if it ain't broke...

Keeping our running games also maintain the scheme fit of our current OL and it delays the urgency for wholesale changes along the OL.

He will undoubted add some of his own run concepts from Cinnci but that is a good thing imo our running game lacked diversity.

I hope they are at least as committed to the running as the last regime though, Grudes likes to sling it around.

See I think we do need significant change on the OLine - at least two new starters IMO and ideally 3. I agree with your point about our run game being the strength of our offense but that's at the expense of our drop back pass game which is something we have to develop if we want to be a championship team, again IMO.

There are two problems with our running game in my view - first it's not good in short yardage or goal line situations. When we get in those situations we have to do so something off script like hand off to the FB or use misdirection. We can't just line up and run it off tackle. Second problem is we struggle to hold up in pass pro without the benefit of play action and that's at least partly to do with us being too small upfront with lineman suited to the ZBS (as is the short yardage issue).

I think we should keep some of the ZBS elements in our game but I'd like to see us get bigger up front and add some power concepts as well. As you mention above we need to diversity our run game in any case. I think Morris is a good enough back to be successful running power as well as ZBS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good news. Thing is...peeps wont see how bad our oline is until we reach the next level...if we do.

People can factor alot of variables of teams that have won a SuperBowl despite (bad defense, passing team, average qb, etc.) One thing I have not seen is a team with a average to poor oline win a Super Bowl and thats the goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good news. The offense was never a problem. At worst, there was some dubious playcalling. But schematically I always liked the Shanahan offense. Obviously it will change quite a bit, especially the passing game, but I'm glad they're not completely blowing up a perfectly functional offensive system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm but doesn't this mean we need the same type/size offensive lineman? 

 

No. It doesn't. A zone scheme isn't a finesse scheme. Shanahan preferred smaller guys in the way he wanted to run it, but zone doesn't require small guys. See: Williams, Trent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. It doesn't. A zone scheme isn't a finesse scheme. Shanahan preferred smaller guys in the way he wanted to run it, but zone doesn't require small guys. See: Williams, Trent.

I would argue we ran it as a finesse scheme with smaller guys who could move laterally and use leverage and backside cut blocks to develop holes. It was a very effective scheme in terms of running. You can run zone with bigger guys - though they still have to be able to move - and be more physical. I'd like to see us do that and also add some power concepts to diversify the run game along with getting bigger and better up front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The line about Coach Jay, like any coach worth his salt, adapting to the players at his disposal please me greatly.

Such a refreshing change from what we've just suffered through the past 4 years. No more square pegs in round holes down to stubborn ass people who refuse to accept anyone is right but them and refuse to compromise.

10 must be SO excited again.

Hail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good news. Thing is...peeps wont see how bad our oline is until we reach the next level...if we do.

People can factor alot of variables of teams that have won a SuperBowl despite (bad defense, passing team, average qb, etc.) One thing I have not seen is a team with a average to poor oline win a Super Bowl and thats the goal.

 

2008 Steelers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Garcons monster year, the emergence of Reed, the introduction of a hands back, coupled with seeing our run game not as dominant as years past makes me think our run game was not quite the strength that it was in 2012. It still may be THE strength but the spread is trending towards less so. 

 

It appeared to me that defenses attacked our mobile OL in the run game in 2013, and the methodical stretch run from years past was largely gone, or looked really messy. For some reason we ran it inside a LOT more including that odd pitch play. Morris was rarely brought down on first contact in 2012 because the stretch was clean and he had speed. But he had fumble issues and seemed to rarely get 20 carries. Helu had a couple nice games and tough inside runs. After RG3s monster run numbers in 2012 they cooled in 2013 and I actually don't want him to run like its 2012 as much going forward. That was our run game.  

 

I want changes. Everyone wants Haslett gone, well I want some OL gone. Other teams can run the ball AND jam down opponents throats in short yardage and give their QBs a pocket. There really is no need to be one dimensional like Mike wanted us. Building lines like he did seems short sighted in that he is chasing and projecting specific OL for his system. I more want a coach to design his offense around his OL the GM gets him, less vice versa. Enter Gruden that will need to keep some run concepts until Allen does his GM thing. 

 

We struggle in short yardage and I question running "being a strength" when short yardage requires almost reinventing the offense. We may literally run the leagues ugliest and worst QB sneak. 

 

IIRC I am encouraged that Gruden told the linemen to beef up and that at minimum needs to happen for our team to have basic preparation and QB protection for teams not buying play action once again in 2014. 

 

It seems Allen wants some consistency in staff, we are not rebuilding, which leads to the same play calls, but please bury the option play, McVay. And figure out how we can run QB sneaks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would argue we ran it as a finesse scheme with smaller guys who could move laterally and use leverage and backside cut blocks to develop holes. It was a very effective scheme in terms of running. You can run zone with bigger guys - though they still have to be able to move - and be more physical. I'd like to see us do that and also add some power concepts to diversify the run game along with getting bigger and better up front.

 

I think that's pretty much what I said when I said it's what Shanahan preferred. I haven't seen many teams that are as OZ heavy in their scheme as we are. Our run game is in a VERY large part made up of OZ/Zone Read with other run game variations sprinkled in. 

 

I'd argue though, that no matter what scheme you run, your OL has to be able to move in the NFL. You can't survive with statues. Not with the stunts and blitzes that NFL DCs devise, and the necessity for being able to block second level.

 

Aside from that, I know that Foerster wants his guys to displace the DL northwest/northeast, but once they cross the T he allows the knockout for the back to read and cut inside. The goal is, and always should be, to remove the DL from the LOS first and foremost. Foerster prefers running to the blocks on OZ, but not everyone does. Trent does it well, and he's a large mammal of a man.

 

Art Kehoe, OL coach for the Miami Hurricanes doesn't even teach his guys to come off on the combo. He believes that if the OL takes care of business at the first level, the LB won't be able to make the play anyways. There's a ton of different ways to run it, but the biggest thing, whether inside, outside, whatever, the primary goal is to get movement off of the LOS.

 

As far as cuts backside, many coaches let that depend on whether they are playing a penetrating or read/react front. The 'Skins have changed what they do backside as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read with interest people make the statement that they are not worried about the offense.  I am not sure what context that statement is being made.  I would hope it is a feeling based on the talent we think we have rather than results. 

 

If you look at some of the statistics they look pretty good.  The offense in 2013 ranked 9th in total yardage, 5th in rushing, and 16th in passing.  Would not expect a 3 win season and 31st worst team in the league with those stats.  Part of the reason for that however was they were so far behind by halftime they got a lot of garbage stats in the second half.  Some of that was a bad defense but a lot was because of an inconsistent offense. 

 

So lets look a little closer at the offense.  Really bad in the first half of the season.  Essentially no down the field passing game.  Running game was pretty good but inconsistent at times.  Also was not able to use it often because they were playing from behind so often.  With the exception of Garcons great year, especially after Hankerson got hurt, no other receiver stepped up and had an impact.  Well you say how about Jordan Reed.  He is a tight end so I look at him in that capacity.  He did step up and played well from that position.  But then when he got hurt, the tight end position was essentially non existent in the passing game. These two injuries I believe point to either a talent depth issue or a coaching staff unable to use the talent they have in place beyond the starters.  Then we have line the OL.  Not sure how many sacks they gave up but I know on one stretch it was like 25 sacks in four games.  Not to mention how many times Griffin was hit.  Now that seemed to get better when Cousins was in there primarily due to quicker decision making so some of that is on Griffin but that points out another issue.  The majority seems to think an offseason without recovering from injury will be the answer.  Well maybe so but we don't know the answer yet.

 

So then people say well the offense suffered because of the poor defense.  Not so fast.  In terms of yardage given up per game, Dallas was last in the league, Redskins were 16th better than the Broncos by the way who are like 18th.  Dallas played for the NFC eastern division championship on the final game of the year.

 

To go deep in the playoffs you have to have all three phases of your team playing reasonable well.  I would say that for this team in 2013, the special teams were the worst.  This team would have probably had 3 more wins in 2013 if special teams had been better in all facets of the special teams part of the game.  So the point of all of this is I think there is plenty to be concerned about on offense.  I just hope that hopefully a change in coaching will move this team forward and in the right direction.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd argue though, that no matter what scheme you run, your OL has to be able to move in the NFL. You can't survive with statues. Not with the stunts and blitzes that NFL DCs devise, and the necessity for being able to block second level.

Agreed.

Aside from that, I know that Foerster wants his guys to displace the DL northwest/northeast, but once they cross the T he allows the knockout for the back to read and cut inside. The goal is, and always should be, to remove the DL from the LOS first and foremost. Foerster prefers running to the blocks on OZ, but not everyone does. Trent does it well, and he's a large mammal of a man.

Art Kehoe, OL coach for the Miami Hurricanes doesn't even teach his guys to come off on the combo. He believes that if the OL takes care of business at the first level, the LB won't be able to make the play anyways. There's a ton of different ways to run it, but the biggest thing, whether inside, outside, whatever, the primary goal is to get movement off of the LOS.

But here's the thing I think far too often last year we failed to get movement off the LOS. We were moving laterally at best or worse allowing penetration. Morris was often having to make guys miss or break contact before he got to the LOS. Whatever the scheme or coaching principles we need to get better and bigger upfront.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Whatever the scheme or coaching principles we need to get better and bigger upfront.

 

Agreed.

 

I think that has more to do with personnel than it does with his ideal scheme. It's not one of those things that you change your approach for, because the knock out is a "last resort" in teaching. If you can't move them off the LOS and they start to cross the T play side, you have no choice but to wash them laterally. I've gone back and watched bits and pieces, and I'll watch ALOT more film over the next few weeks, but I don't think our OL was really good at getting to the landmark, or able to get a push. The lateral stuff works because the scheme allows for it.

 

But with a lack of ability to drive, there's no way the OL is going to be able to anchor in pass pro, which is where we struggled quite a bit at times. Our sacks were a combination of Griffin and the OL not doing what they were supposed to, in my estimation. 

But I keep thinking about this wonderful scenario...

 

We have an OL that can get to the landmark and get the push necessary in the run game, which enables the OL to anchor/stand up the defender in the pass game. I think if we get that our running game actually improves. Plus, if Gruden brings some of his gap scheme stuff with him, with a more powerful front we'll be a heck of a lot more dangerous.

 

An improved OL improves the whole offense.

 

We can get by with what we have at receiver (I'm not saying don't address it. We could use a guy there, but we could win with the guys we have). We can win with our QB. We can win with our backfield. An upgrade or two across the OL makes the offense very dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can get by with what we have at receiver (I'm not saying don't address it. We could use a guy there, but we could win with the guys we have). We can win with our QB. We can win with our backfield. An upgrade or two across the OL makes the offense very dangerous.

Given the holes we have on defense I'd be happy if the only moves and cap resources we spend on the offense were bringing in a RT and RG and hoping someone like a Gettis can win the LG spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See I think we do need significant change on the OLine - at least two new starters IMO and ideally 3. I agree with your point about our run game being the strength of our offense but that's at the expense of our drop back pass game which is something we have to develop if we want to be a championship team, again IMO.

The running games was #5 in yards and #3 in YPA with the current OL. Despite the other weaknesses this type of running success is enviable and is likely the reason for keeping the base of the current rushing offense. I to would love to get stronger at the POA as I've always believed the easiest route to success in football is superiority at the POA. And in an ideal world with less holes to fill and more cap space I would want immediate upgrades at RT and both OGs. But again keeping our current base run game reduces the urgency to make those immediate wholesale changes that we all want and allows us to address more urgent areas via FA.

And I agree that our pass protection wasn't the best but imo it wasn't bad enough to require immediate upgrades to both RT and RG. To my eye I thought RG was the biggest weakspot and at a minimum I think we 'need' an immediate upgrade there. But even though RT wasn't great (i've been critical of Tyler in the past myself) but this year I thought his play was passable and maybe I'm misguided but I still view Compton as a potential in house upgrade.

Also, from watching some Bengals games on NFL rewind and doing a little research I come away feeling that Grudes style of offense will reduce the pass protection requirements up front. Grudes passing game used a lot of quick game passing to the extent that Andy Dalton (of all people) led the NFL in time in pocket from when the ball is snapped to when the ball is thrown at 2.24s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good news. Thing is...peeps wont see how bad our oline is until we reach the next level...if we do.

People can factor alot of variables of teams that have won a SuperBowl despite (bad defense, passing team, average qb, etc.) One thing I have not seen is a team with a average to poor oline win a Super Bowl and thats the goal.

How about the steelers?  I remember Ben's line being average. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...