I have a concern about the Shanahan offensive scheme.

Allow me to contribute this very relevant headline (and accompanying story):

The Patriots Are Revolutionizing The NFL By Doing Things College Teams Have Done For Years

(This Boston Globe article, which the above article links to, digs a bit deeper into what the Pats are doing.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veteranskinsfan

I heard the old former ball coach Herman Edwards on ESPN radio on Monday morning talk about mistakes head coaches make. He stressed that all head coaches should take good players and fit their skills into their "system" and not vice versa. Shanahan changed around our defense to a 3-4 and look how long it took to draft players who played well in the changed defense and we still are not set on defense at all. Part of Oldfan's argument that the Shanahans rely on offensive stats also means they believe "their" system is really important and they do not believe in the Herm Edwards approach which is to really look at your best players and see what they do well first before installing the "system". This year the Shanahans claim they are molding RGIII by being flexible and not being as rigid as they had been in previous years with our less than successful string of bad quarterbacks. At least Oldfan threads makes us all think a lot more about what is happening with the direction of our team regardless of our wins and losses each year.

---

And Herm Edwards has how many rings?

Have you even looked at how our offense has changed from last year to this one? We ran the damn TRIPLE OPTION a few weeks ago. To even hint that the Shanahans haven't changed the offense to fit RG3 is ludicrous beyond ludicrous. We have essentially taken plays straight from Baylor's offense. As for the 3-4, we have the players to fit it (it only took 2 years to find the players for it, by the way), we just don't have the depth to make up for injuries to the starters.

Herm Edwards is coaching a desk at ESPN.
After never winning anything.

~Bang

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bang

Herm Edwards is coaching a desk at ESPN.
After never winning anything.

~Bang

---

Hello!?!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hubbs

The Patriots Are Revolutionizing The NFL By Doing Things College Teams Have Done For Years

(This Boston Globe article

---

Pretty soon, someone is going to write a similar piece about the Redskins offense. Hello, option.

No need to attack Herm Edwards. I was just pointing out his comment rather than taking his idea and restating it as my own idea as some folks have a tendency to do. You missed my point about this year and how the Shanahans have changed to run plays that help RGIII. In previous years, Shanahan was less flexible and more rigid about his system. This year he knows that he needs to notch more victories than last year.

I seem to recall a qb named manning that was an expert at no huddle while in indy.....sure we will be running that as well, when rgiii has some more experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hubbs

Allow me to contribute this very relevant headline (and accompanying story):

The Patriots Are Revolutionizing The NFL By Doing Things College Teams Have Done For Years

(This Boston Globe article, which the above article links to, digs a bit deeper into what the Pats are doing.)

---

Jon Philbin/Mike Sherman have this same intent.

"They must have dumbed down the play calls to one word because Tom Brady couldn't handle the verbiage."-Cam Newton /sarc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedskinParadigm

Pretty soon, someone is going to write a similar piece about the Redskins offense. Hello, option.

---

Hopefully, they'll be writing about how the Reskins offense is becoming more and more like the Baylor offense i.e. up-tempo, spread shotgun passing.

Responding to the original post without having read the comments yet:

I generally agree that you need ball control on offense. This can be quantified somewhat by the third down conversion percentage and time of possession stats. I think if you look at the numbers you will find a pretty high correlation on those two.

I also think that you will find that teams that do well in those categories, 3rd down % and TOP, win most of their games, whereas teams that do poorly do not. Perhaps the only statistic that is a better indicator of success than these is the turnover margin. Although things like red zone offense are crucial too, I think controlling the pace of the game is fundamental.

All that being agreed upon then, I might nitpick OF a bit.

First, I'm not sure that I buy the premise that Shanahan does not care about ball-control, as such an offense is exactly what won him and Elway those Super Bowls. I can think of times this season and last we have done well in this area, and times when we have not. Last week we certainly did poorly, but we were actually doing well in our two wins.

Second, assuming Shanahan really is a stat-monger, sacrificing a tried-and-true plan to assure good numbers, I don't think it would be an awful thing. Usually teams that do well on the stat sheet do well on the scoreboard. Stats and wins do correlate most of the time. You remember that year when the 'skins lead the league in total offense and finished second in total defense? Stats don't tell the whole story, but they do tell part of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bang

All of this is conjecture on your part.

I know you like to be particular and make people prove their claims.

So, prove to me no one ever called Plummer a liar, and that he feels the way you're projecting he does.

(It's not a real challenge. You can't.. it's a feel and an impression, and you're entitled to it.)

Plummer's rep as a free spirit also carried with it a tinge of "uncoachable".. at least it did in Arizona. When Shanny signed him, I was very surprised.

~Bang

---

When we make arguments, the conclusion is the claim. We should provide proof for those claims. Asking someone to prove every claim they make would be ridiculous.

As for conjecture -- there's nothing wrong with that in its place. We all do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedskinParadigm

Pretty soon, someone is going to write a similar piece about the Redskins offense. Hello, option.

---

well, seems like they started limiting option plays to keep rg3 from getting hurt. and the option isnt what got him hurt. i got a fever, and i need more option

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s0crates

Responding to the original post without having read the comments yet:

I generally agree that you need ball control on offense. This can be quantified somewhat by the third down conversion percentage and time of possession stats. I think if you look at the numbers you will find a pretty high correlation on those two.

I also think that you will find that teams that do well in those categories, 3rd down % and TOP, win most of their games, whereas teams that do poorly do not. Perhaps the only statistic that is a better indicator of success than these is the turnover margin. Although things like red zone offense are crucial too, I think controlling the pace of the game is fundamental.

All that being agreed upon then, I might nitpick OF a bit.

First, I'm not sure that I buy the premise that Shanahan does not care about ball-control, as such an offense is exactly what won him and Elway those Super Bowls. I can think of times this season and last we have done well in this area, and times when we have not. Last week we certainly did poorly, but we were actually doing well in our two wins.

Second, assuming Shanahan really is a stat-monger, sacrificing a tried-and-true plan to assure good numbers, I don't think it would be an awful thing. Usually teams that do well on the stat sheet do well on the scoreboard. Stats and wins do correlate most of the time. You remember that year when the 'skins lead the league in total offense and finished second in total defense? Stats don't tell the whole story, but they do tell part of it.

---

I disagree that the third down stats or TOP stats are good indicators of a ball control offense. I don't think we need stats, but if you do then counting the number of plays on the average drive over a season would probably do it.

My premise, stated in the OP, is that the ZBS is not designed to grind out first downs. It's YPA relies on breaking big gains. I associate power rushing with ball control. Furthermore, his passing game is more vertical than that of Walsh, not conducive to ball control.

I didn't say Mike didn't care about ball control. I said his offenses were never good at it.

---------- Post added October-12th-2012 at 08:40 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy

When you're losing, people tend to have plenty of time to drag out all kinds of stats and quotes from a QB that Shanny turned into a freaking Pro Bowler. Shanahan made Plummer, and if he can't see that, then that's on him.

I understand the thread's premise, but I think the reasoning is flawed. Pick on Shanny for personnel moves, in game coaching, etc., but to say that he is padding his stats for some ego related reason is quite a stretch. I'm not saying he doesn't have a huge ego, he does...but the only way he can stroke it is to get us to the Superbowl.

This may not belong here, but I still think Shanny takes a lot of flack for not getting us far enough along without the true recognition of how old/awful/stank/musty/putrid/disgusting/unbearable/nauseating/inept/full retard our team was when he arrived. Seriously people, can you please remember where we were when he got here? People say that they can, but I can tell by a lot of threads that many posters cannot. :)

---

I did not speculate on Mike's motive for focusing on the rankings stats. I didn't speculate on Greg Blache's motive for doing it either. Their motives don't matter to my argument.

We know Blache did it because he told us. Plummer told us that Shanahan did it.

My best guess is that they believe that those stats are an accurate metric and can be used to help form strategy.

What those stats don't show in the interaction between offense and defense. An offense can better help the defense via ball control -- which will result in lowering the rankings of the offense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oldfan

I disagree that the third down stats or TOP stats are good indicators of a ball control offense. I don't think we need stats, but if you do then counting the number of plays on the average drive over a season would probably do it.

My premise, stated in the OP, is that the ZBS is not designed to grind out first downs. It's YPA relies on breaking big gains. I associate power rushing with ball control. Furthermore, his passing game is more vertical than that of Walsh, not conducive to ball control.

I didn't say Mike didn't care about ball control. I said his offenses were never good at it.

---

What do you consider good indicators of a ball control offense then, if two of the three stats that show how much your offense is on the field aren't? Those three categories being T.O.P., 3rd down %, and total first downs?

Total number of plays wouldn't be a good indicator either. Look at Oregon's offense-they run something like 80-90 plays on offense per game, but more often than not, they trail in T.O.P.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hitman21ST

What do you consider good indicators of a ball control offense then, if two of the three stats that show how much your offense is on the field aren't? Those three categories being T.O.P., 3rd down %, and total first downs?

---

Read the second sentence of the first paragraph you quoted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oldfan

I disagree that the third down stats or TOP stats are good indicators of a ball control offense. I don't think we need stats, but if you do then counting the number of plays on the average drive over a season would probably do it.

My premise, stated in the OP, is that the ZBS is not designed to grind out first downs. It's YPA relies on breaking big gains. I associate power rushing with ball control. Furthermore, his passing game is more vertical than that of Walsh, not conducive to ball control.

I didn't say Mike didn't care about ball control. I said his offenses were never good at it.

---

I finally did get around to reading the rest of the thread, and I think I have a better idea of what your saying now, although I still think my post was relevant.

You say 3rd down % and TOP stats are not good measures of whether a team is successfully controlling the ball, and I must disagree. You say the number of plays would be a better measure, and that is fine, except I would bet that high 3rd down conversion percentage and time of possession likely mean that you ran a lot of plays. To me the indicators I recommend and you dispute are closely related to the indicator that you recommend.

Really though, that is beside the point. As you say, your main contention is that a power running scheme or a traditional short-passing WCO would be better than a ZBS and a quick strike passing game. It seems like you are basically saying it is better to sustain long drives than to score quickly and send your defense right back out on the field.

I would certainly agree with the general claim that long sustained drives are to be preferred, but we might quibble over some specifics. For one thing, I am not sure the blocking scheme in the running game makes a big difference either way, as long as the running game is setting up make-able third downs and getting first downs. For another thing, I think that no matter what your offensive philosophy, you need a vertical passing game to keep the defense honest, not necessarily as your primary approach, but at least as a weapon in your arsenal.

I would also dispute the claim that Shanny's offenses were never good at ball control. Again I would point to his Super Bowl teams which were exceedingly good at it, to take an easy example.

I noticed you didn't address the last part of my post, where I said I think that a concern for offensive stats is fine because stats really are indicators of performance, not perfect indicators of course, but at least a way to quantify how your team is doing. I have no problem with a coach focusing on stats, as I think good stats correlate with wins. The idea of focusing on stats at the expense of wins does not really hold water with me, because I think they are clearly related.

I don't mean to seem like I disagree with you entirely, because for the most part I think we would agree. I would like to see more sustained drives than quick strikes, as I think controlling the pace of the game is key to success, as it seems to me you do. I think we also agree that this is something we need to get better at. Where we disagree, I guess, is that I think Shanny's offense is suited to accomplish that, although this is something that admittedly needs more work. A good place to start, in my opinion, would be on that third down efficiency.