The Official QB Thread- JD5 taken #2. Randall 2.0 or Bayou Bob? Mariotta and Hartman forever. Fromm cut

[mojo]

1 hour ago, Koolblue13 said:

Outside of the Eagles game, we haven't seen the offense try and establish a rhythm, before going Rexy Grossman. 

This I totally agree with. The Eagles game was the one game that we actually played like we have an identity on offense. And people will say its the only game which we weren't behind but the Bills game was close for 3 quarters and the few times we ran the ball we got chunks of yardage, but we called plays like we were down by 30.

[kingdaddy]

I have mixed thoughts on EB, some positive, some disappointing and some of it being out of his control:

- Howell is on a good track and looks legit, EB gets some credit for that

- The offensive play calling is nowhere near as creative as I thought it would be. Maybe there are good reasons for this?

- The defense has been almost a total liability for the development of a balanced offense.

- Abandoning the running game and putting everything on Howell doesn't seem right. 

- Failure to get the ball to Terry and Dotson is a big minus for EB thus far. 

- We're on pace to shatter the NFL single season sack record....

[tomwvr]

8 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

I have mixed thoughts on EB, some positive, some disappointing and some of it being out of his control:

- Howell is on a good track and looks legit, EB gets some credit for that

- The offensive play calling is nowhere near as creative as I thought it would be. Maybe there are good reasons for this?

- The defense has been almost a total liability for the development of a balanced offense.

- Abandoning the running game and putting everything on Howell doesn't seem right. 

- Failure to get the ball to Terry and Dotson is a big minus for EB thus far. 

- We're on pace to shatter the NFL single season sack record....

I think eb being a first time play caller is part of the issue. I think it will improve. 

[Llevron]

2 hours ago, Conn said:

Here are a couple easy examples from just last year:

 

Justin Herbert in Joe Lombardi’s offense

Sam Howell in Scott Turner’s offense 

 

I could go on.

 

I’m not sure where I fall yet with EB, but just on principle—it’s very possible to be happy with a QB’s growth and general play and yet be unhappy with the offensive scheme they’re stuck in, or the play calling they’re operating with. 

 

Yea I guess you are right its obviously possible. @FootballZombie @Koolblue13

 

Most of you have the some of same thoughts so ima just throw my ignorance out there hoping that one of you will chime in and help me understand. Honest questions, cause I just don't know. And I know myself well enough to know I'm rooting for EB just because I like him and I'm enough of a basic **** to want the 'KC was good with him so he will be good here' thing to actually happen. And im not ready to give up on that possibility after only 5 games (his first five too, btw)

 

- So is the locking onto TEs not more of a Sam thing? I assume we are not running many sets with the TE being his only read. So how do we know that's a function of the offense and not Sam just throwing it to the TEs? That seems more likely to me

 

- We have big deficits early due to miscues of one kind or another. I feel like that is expected to a degree in a new offense. Doubly so with a new QB. I don't know exactly where the line is between making excuses and being realistic is here, but if you can agree that we expect some growing pains, then does it not strike you as really difficult to have balance - specifically running the ball when down a billion? This is one of the criticisms that ring most hollow to me. The only time we were IN a game, we played that way. 

 

- The not moving the pocket, no motion thing is valid and I don't really understand it. You would think he would know that by now and I think he implemented it in the eagles game right? I'm not sure about the Bears as I had to turn that off for the sake of my family by the half. 

 

- I feel like offensive Identity is rarely found in the literal first five games of installation but I have nothing other than my own (possibly biased) feelings to pull that from. Are we really expecting that by now? 

 

- That stat yall are referencing about the WRs lacking separation (and for some reason attributing solely on play design and call?) is from week 2. Do we not have anything more recent to reference? Maybe with a dramatically bigger sample size of 3 or possible 4 total games? Lol ok im being facetious here but seriously. 2 games in a new offense and you are sticking with that stat? You know thats not fair. 

 

- EB did say he made the call to keep the kid in there and that he still thinks it was worth it. I think its stupid cause if he gets hurt then what? But he seems to think the experience is worth it. 

 

As you answer, please don't box me in as an EB apologist. I expect him to be gone regardless at the end of this season. And as much as I like his personality and leadership style, the only reason I even give a **** about his existence is because because Sam looks good and I worry another offensive system in 3 years is a recipe for having the dude confused as **** out there. And the only reason I care about Sam is because I think him being successful is the fastest way for the Skins to be and ultimately that's the point. It is unnecessary to attack my motivations lol. 

 

 

 

23 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

- We're on pace to shatter the NFL single season sack record....

 

Yall keep saying this but there is no way dude stays up long enough to set that record. The way he is getting hit he is done long enough that. 

[FootballZombie]

30 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

 

I can take a stab at some of that.

 

-While it is certainly possible and likely that Sam plays some role in the targeting TEs, many have pointed out recently and over the summer that this is a significant part of the KC's O design, and considering that is where EB came from, it was expected that we would carry over many of its tent poles. I don't think its unreasonable to think that our O operating in a manner that is aligned w/ the primordial essence of its parental tree is being majorly effected by the scheme being implemented. Thusly we are targeting TEs mainly because EB schemes us to target TEs. So for me, I believe a good OC has to put his players in the best position to succeed, and designing an O that does not showcase your best position groups is counter-intuitive to that. We knew going into the year that the OL and TEs were likely poor, and that QB was a ?. We have a scheme that mandates the most from those three groups.

 

-Growing pains are expected. Play calling balance is hard. If it wasn't everyone would have it. That is not carte blanche or free-reign to have none however. Passing a lot because of blowouts is not the only problem on display here. All games are close at the start and our struggles utilizing the run game in the first half have been well documented.  I believe after the Buffalo game we were passing on over 80% of our first half snaps. We just had a game with 6 called runs total. We just saw the longest recorded stretch of consecutive called passes in PFF history... You have to make some attempt to have balance. That is neither growing pains nor lack of knowledge, Its just willingly not trying.

 

-And as for leaving the players in at the end to gain XP, and a whole offensive system pilling up sacks at light speed, its a self defeating prophecy. What good is the extra XP if Sam is in a wheelchair? I don't think you will find ANYBODY that thinks it is very likely that Sam's body is able to withstand a record-breaking number of sacks... So how can an offensive philosophy that practically demands it to be successful be justified? It cant. Its tremendously dumb and likely ends w/ Howell either Ramsey'd or in a body cast.

 

 

It is perfectly fine to root for EBs success. I'm doing it every Sunday. It should also be the expectation that he will improve, just like any young player. I wanna see him get better moving forward. I want to see an OC learn from his mistakes and do more of the stuff he put forward vs Philly.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

4 hours ago, kingdaddy said:

- We're on pace to shatter the NFL single season sack record....

We are epically bad in this area but not bad enough to shatter the record of 104. We’re on pace for about 99 with an extra game.

[MartinC]

Where has this idea come from we are over targeting TEs? 
 

We have targeted TEs 47 times out of 179 targets. Thats 26%.

 

I checked Dallas at random to do a comparison. Their TEs have 36 out of 161 targets. So 22%. 

[FootballZombie]

28 minutes ago, MartinC said:

Where has this idea come from we are over targeting TEs? 

 

I believe somebody posted a graphic two or so weeks ago that showed offensive TE dependence and how it changed from 2022. If I remember correctly we were ranked 2nd highest % of TE targets in the NFL this year at the time... I think. That's where it started.

 

From there having a TE lead our team in targets most weeks probably only fed into the idea.

 

[MartinC]

25 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

 

 

From there having a TE lead our team in targets most weeks probably only fed into the idea.

 

 

That’s probably a mathematical impossibility given 47 targets for TEs out of a season total of 179. 
 

if it was red zone targets only that might be more possible.

[Thinking Skins]

I've got nothing but praise for EB right now. I do wish he was using Terry and Johan better but things come with context. 

- in the Denver game we were moving the ball and got the sacks and turnovers and things went out of hand. But we started off with an 18 yarder to Dotson. Then 5 to Terry. 

- in the Bills game we were moving the ball, and got the turnovers

 

- let's not forget that Terry is getting DPIs called against him too. Those don't count as yards but they should because they're targets and they move the ball just the same. And he's getting like one a game. 

 

- I'd chalk it up to they don't have their deep ball in sync yet. That Dallas game was fools gold whereas it's not as easy to hire these guys in stride. 

 

- the other thing is that BRob is a guy I'd love to depend on and I don't want to give up on him but it's hard to because he has so little wiggle. But those 27 and 15 yard runs are so nice to see. But the 3rd and 1 stops? Consistently? 

 

- but Howell is my QB

 

[FootballZombie]

11 minutes ago, MartinC said:

That’s probably a mathematical impossibility given 47 targets for TEs out of a season total of 179. 
 

if it was red zone targets only that might be more possible.

 

Logan led us in targets vs Bears n Cards.

Cole Turner led us in targets vs Bills.

 

Its prolly safer to say we target TE1 rather than TE in general.

[Conn]

16 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

That’s probably a mathematical impossibility given 47 targets for TEs out of a season total of 179. 
 

if it was red zone targets only that might be more possible.

I haven’t checked the numbers yet, but it’s still possible in your scenario because Howell is spreading the ball around a ton. Each week I feel like I see a stat that says Howell completed passes to like 9 guys. So Thomas could generally lead the team in targets each week and still only end up having a plurality lead in targets over everyone else rather than a majority of all targets. Or as @FootballZombiesaid, the starting TE each week if that’s not Thomas. 

Edited October 14, 2023 by Conn

[Thinking Skins]

 

 

[Thinking Skins]

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

Standig

 

 

[Going Commando]

The five man protections feel like training wheels protections for Howell and the backs and the OL.  But it's getting Howell hit.  You can't be throwing 50 times in a game and running like two protections the vast majority of those snaps.  That's a big part of why DLs are having get right games on us, and padding their season stats.  I don't know if they're running such simplistic protection schemes to try and water down the reads for Sam or for the OLs, but at the end of the day it's causing too many losses for both of them.

[Going Commando]

If I had to guess, the five man protections are all about trying to simplify responsibilities for an OL with too many new pieces on it, and to give Sam as little information to read at the LoS as possible so he can use that bandwith on his coverage reads.  It's just not working.  Maybe this kind of focus on a singular part of development over short term functionality would be OK for year one of a building process, but in Year 4, we should be running a full offense.

[zCommander]

3 minutes ago, Going Commando said:

...but in Year 4, we should be running a full offense.

 

But in reality it is year 1 of new OC and QB with meh OL. 

[Darrell Green Fan]

I just want to see Howell being able to perform with adequate protection. If he stood there like Jalen Hurts I think we would see similar results.  But with  a good OL we will able to tell just how many of these sacks are on him. Obviously he is holding the ball too long but on many plays the other option was to throw into coverage.  

[Going Commando]

Just now, zCommander said:

 

But in reality it is year 1 of new OC and QB with meh OL. 

 

And that's why this regime will fail.  You have to get this stuff planned and settled year one, at the very latest heading into year two.  It'll take too long to play out otherwise.

[zCommander]

12 minutes ago, Going Commando said:

 

And that's why this regime will fail.  You have to get this stuff planned and settled year one, at the very latest heading into year two.  It'll take too long to play out otherwise.

 

But not with the owner we had though. He wanted to spend money on Wentz instead of on the OL. This should have been done last year at the latest. This year is a transition year but still I was expecting 10 wins because of the D and now not so much. I am not happy about it though. Hopefully a better year next year.

[skinny21]

38 minutes ago, Going Commando said:

 

And that's why this regime will fail.  You have to get this stuff planned and settled year one, at the very latest heading into year two.  It'll take too long to play out otherwise.

Relating to this point, it’s interesting (to me anyway), but I feel like on one hand, we might look a lot more steady/consistent on offense if we’d retained Turner (even if I wasn’t a fan of his).  Less pressure on the oline to pass protect, less pressure/fewer hits on Howell.  On the other hand, with EB I think we’re seeing sped up development from Howell, and a much more explosive offense (mostly).  Bit of a question though as to which would have been better in the long run.  Howell under Turner might not have prevented the next regime from chasing a qb, but who knows.

 

Semi-sidenote: Turner’s offense (including Howell being further along in it vs learning a new O) might have meshed better with our D from last year, but given how much our D is struggling, EB’s might be a better fit.  Of course maybe the consistency under Turner would have put less pressure on the D this year.  Worth noting that Turner was pretty pass happy until we made the shift(s) midseason to a ground and pound attack.

[KDawg]

Five man protections actually make it much harder on the OL. Now they are in binds based on gameplan/base scheme, etc.

 

They have 5 to block whatever comes. If they send six someone is free. Who? Depends on where pressure comes, how well disguised it is and gameplan assignment. But if just one blitzer comes they can’t double anyone. That allows DL to be 1 on 1 with our meh at best OL.

 

It’s just not a great plan to do all the time. I don’t think it’s a big deal to have them and use them. Hell, I don’t think it’s a big deal to use them on most pass plays. But we need to use more of a mix of horizontal protections (slides with backside chips/blocks from the backs) and umbrella protections with additional blockers.

 

In theory we have the receivers to get open with 6 or even 7 man protections. That could also simplify reads and get the ball out even quicker. 
 

I’m fascinated by the decisions we make. As a coach I’m sure there is something behind the scenes that is causing this, but theorizing on causation is really interesting to think about. 
 

I assume it’s because they think more receivers means an easier hit for Howell if the defense blitzes. But the pocket is collapsing too fast for that around Howell and he can’t see. 

[Going Commando]

27 minutes ago, KDawg said:

They have 5 to block whatever comes. If they send six someone is free. Who? Depends on where pressure comes, how well disguised it is and gameplan assignment. But if just one blitzer comes they can’t double anyone. That allows DL to be 1 on 1 with our meh at best OL.

 

Very true.  But it also means less moving parts if you just match up one hat on one hat.  Less places for someone to make the wrong read and have the protection fail that way.  I just meant that it's conceptually simpler, even if it's more technically difficult.  I guess the plan is just for Sam to find the quick throw when they bring six.

 

Regardless, we are losing too many of our one on one match ups and it's disrupting the passing game.  It's just too easy for defenses to tee off on simplistic protections when they can just guess between A or B.  We're also so unbalanced toward the pass that we're tipping our snap counts, our protections, pretty much everything and making it easy for edges to get off the line with so much explosion that they have run by our tackles multiple times in the first five games, even when they aren't special players and our guys are getting decent depth on their sets.  It feels like we're running a college offense and NFL defenses are just too good for that.  Same for our defensive schemes, and that's not even remotely fooling bad offenses/QBs who normally struggle to read the field.

 

I'm blown away by how bad a job our coaches have done over the first five weeks.  They've mailed it in this year.  The players won't admit this, but Del Rio has already lost his buy-in from his players.  I have a feeling this is going to snowball.

[MartinC]

2 hours ago, Going Commando said:

 You can't be throwing 50 times in a game and running like two protections the vast majority of those snaps.  

Steve Spurrier says Hi! 
 

(With similar results in terms of (not) protecting the QB).

2 hours ago, Going Commando said:

If I had to guess, the five man protections are all about trying to simplify responsibilities for an OL with too many new pieces on it, and to give Sam as little information to read at the LoS as possible so he can use that bandwith on his coverage reads.  It's just not working.  Maybe this kind of focus on a singular part of development over short term functionality would be OK for year one of a building process, but in Year 4, we should be running a full offense.

Have we got any stats on 5 versus 6 versus max protects? 
 

In a WCO most common protection is a 6 man ‘Jet’ protection. If we are running a ton of 5 man ‘scat’ that actually puts more pressure on the QB to read hot and receivers to be ready to break off routes etc. 

 

With a young QB and first year in the offense the conventional thing to do would be run more 6 and 7 man protections and give him easier reads and more protection. Especially with an iffy at best O’line.