Do you Feel the cause of R3G getting hurt is due to Kyles game plan, run run run.

[darrelgreenie]

Griffin needs to be smarter about when and where and how to get down.
Despite Newton's size advantage, he's also much more judicious with when he chooses to take hits vs getting down.
Russell Wilson a smaller QB then Griffin is also very good in this regard.
Conversely, Jake Locker despite being bigger then Wilson and Griffin is just as if not more reckless then Griffin.

But, football is a game of attrition where virtually everyone gets hurt; QBs are no different.
For whatever reason Vick seems to get hurt a lot and people correlate that to his playing style.
Even though his most recent injury causing hits have been from within the pocket.
But, similarly Matt Schaub gets hurt a lot yet people don't blame his injuries on his playing style.
QBs get hurt, football players get hurt.

[NewCliche21]

Total offensive ranking is a completely flawed statistic because it is based on nothing more than yards from scrimmage, but trot it out there if you like. I guess it makes you feel better. The Saints and the Chiefs are in the top five in total offense. They are a combined 2-8. Total points--you're right--we have scored a lot of points so far this season. An excellent trend. If only we could play good offensive and defense during the same game. 1st downs per game? The Saints, the Chiefs and the Lions are all in the top ten. The offensive statistics can be used to make almost any argument you'd like--they are too unreliable and don't show enough to really be relevant. I focused particularly on 3rd down conversion rate because it's such a glaring inconsistency with the argument that Kyle is a good OC. Good OCs don't finish at or near the bottom in 3rd down conversions year after year.

Shanahan was hired by his dad at the age of 28 to run the Skins offense. He was and probably still is the youngest OC on the job. Maybe one day he will be the best OC of all time, but he is learning on the job. And the team will have to suffer through his growing pains. That's not the type of position that a head coach should put a team in. He hasn't even had 10 years of coaching experience, AT ANY LEVEL let alone the NFL.

---------- Post added October-8th-2012 at 11:20 AM ----------



I didn't realize you were the all-seeing, all-knowing oracle of football. I never presumed to know the specifics of his gameplan--we can only comment on the plays we see called on the field. But, as I've said many times, there was seemingly no rhyme or reason to his playcalling. The toss plays to Morris were incredibly effective, but they weren't used to set anything up. Instead of rolling RGIII out of the pocket, which we should do every single game, we had him stationary in the pocket, and it's part of the reason that he got destroyed on a corner blitz early in the game which was a drive killer. The reverse to Hankerson was really one of the worst play calls I've seen in a while. Most likely an example of Kyle sayin--"Let's go with the reverse to our slowest WR--they'll never expect that." Kyle gets way too cute with the play calling when what he should be doing is pounding the rock with Morris and playing old school smash mouth football, and then letting RGIII work out of PA. There's no need for the razzle-dazzle with this team. But, he seeming cannot help himself. On the 3rd and 2 in the redzone he calls a slow moving off tackle toss to Morris. A run up the gut, or a read option to RGIII would have been much better calls. Yes, this is partly an analysis done with the benefit of hindsight, but the playcalling just isn't anywhere close to where it should be.

Why, when someone agrees with you, are you so antagonistic? It isn't personal until you make it personal.

You're randomly selecting third down conversion rates; why? We're going to score 30-something points per game because we're efficient on first and second downs. I don't give a **** about third down conversions unless we're not scoring points, and even then it's just part of it. Being pissed off about that is just asinine.

You're also talking about him having "not even 10 years of experience", but you're not complaining about putting RGIII out there when he hasn't, either. I'm also wondering where you got your experience in play calling, since experience is vital to your argument.

Growing pains? With a top offense? I don't know where you're coming up with this.

You're criticizing a toss to Morris? Did you watch Morris on tosses? No, you didn't, because all that you noticed was his 10+ yard gashes that he made with, wait for it, tosses.

You're complaining to complain.

Believe it

[Hitman21ST]

I focused particularly on 3rd down conversion rate because it's such a glaring inconsistency with the argument that Kyle is a good OC. Good OCs don't finish at or near the bottom in 3rd down conversions year after year.

Ah, so ignore the good stuff and focus on the one thing he needs to improve on. Got it. Can I try it? Peyton Manning isn't a good QB because he can't run the ball. Sure, he can do everything else, but because he can't run the ball, he's not a good QB.

Shanahan was hired by his dad at the age of 28 to run the Skins offense. He was and probably still is the youngest OC on the job. Maybe one day he will be the best OC of all time, but he is learning on the job. And the team will have to suffer through his growing pains. That's not the type of position that a head coach should put a team in. He hasn't even had 10 years of coaching experience, AT ANY LEVEL let alone the NFL.

And he was hired at 26 to run the Texans offense, they didn't seem to have a problem with him.

I didn't realize you were the all-seeing, all-knowing oracle of football. I never presumed to know the specifics of his gameplan--we can only comment on the plays we see called on the field. But, as I've said many times, there was seemingly no rhyme or reason to his playcalling. The toss plays to Morris were incredibly effective, but they weren't used to set anything up. Instead of rolling RGIII out of the pocket, which we should do every single game, we had him stationary in the pocket, and it's part of the reason that he got destroyed on a corner blitz early in the game which was a drive killer. The reverse to Hankerson was really one of the worst play calls I've seen in a while. Most likely an example of Kyle sayin--"Let's go with the reverse to our slowest WR--they'll never expect that." Kyle gets way too cute with the play calling when what he should be doing is pounding the rock with Morris and playing old school smash mouth football, and then letting RGIII work out of PA. There's no need for the razzle-dazzle with this team. But, he seeming cannot help himself. On the 3rd and 2 in the redzone he calls a slow moving off tackle toss to Morris. A run up the gut, or a read option to RGIII would have been much better calls. Yes, this is partly an analysis done with the benefit of hindsight, but the playcalling just isn't anywhere close to where it should be.

Never said I knew everything, but I do coach, so I know a good amount.

RG3 wasn't in in the 4th Quarter. For all we know the toss play could have been setting something up for the 4th, or next week - like the way we used the option in week 3 to set up week 4. You know that Hankerson is one of the faster receivers on our roster, right? He's just about as fast as Garcon. The difference is he's a long strider, so he looks slower. He still runs around a 4.3. The end around (not a reverse) to Hankerson sets up plays like the one Hank caught the TD on. Morgan faked the end-around and Hank was wide open.

You also contradicted yourself in that paragraph. You start out by saying the toss play was effective for Morris, but then got upset when we ran the toss play on 3rd and 2. The runs up the gut weren't really that effective, yet you wanted him to run one there. Like when we ran it up the gut on 3rd and 1 at midfield and got stuffed. And I bet if he had called the read option you wouldv'e been mad that "he put RG3 in harm's way" or some BS like that. The playcalling is infinitely better than you or I could do, but you have no problem criticizing him after the fact, because you must know the perfect call in every situation, right?

[skins4eva]

Never said I knew everything, but I do coach, so I know a good amount.

RG3 wasn't in in the 4th Quarter. For all we know the toss play could have been setting something up for the 4th, or next week - like the way we used the option in week 3 to set up week 4. You know that Hankerson is one of the faster receivers on our roster, right? He's just about as fast as Garcon. The difference is he's a long strider, so he looks slower. He still runs around a 4.3. The end around (not a reverse) to Hankerson sets up plays like the one Hank caught the TD on. Morgan faked the end-around and Hank was wide open.

You also contradicted yourself in that paragraph. You start out by saying the toss play was effective for Morris, but then got upset when we ran the toss play on 3rd and 2. The runs up the gut weren't really that effective, yet you wanted him to run one there. Like when we ran it up the gut on 3rd and 1 at midfield and got stuffed. And I bet if he had called the read option you wouldv'e been mad that "he put RG3 in harm's way" or some BS like that. The playcalling is infinitely better than you or I could do, but you have no problem criticizing him after the fact, because you must know the perfect call in every situation, right?

Never said I knew the perfect call in every situation...I really can't believe you're defending the Hankerson reverse. First of all, he doesn't run a 4.3. At least not on this planet. 4.5 maybe. Second of all, like you said, whatever speed he has is long stride speed, not the type of quick hitch acceleration you need for a reverse to be successful. The toss on 3rd and 2 put Morris in a position where he had to run 6 yards to pick up 2 to the short side of the field. There's a lot more we could be doing in the running game. It's just not creative enough for my taste. And, when it's working, Kyle abandons it. Look--I get it--you coach football and think Kyle is doing a great job. I disagree.

[Hitman21ST]

The toss on 3rd and 2 put Morris in a position where he had to run 6 yards to pick up 2 to the short side of the field.

So just forget that he was averaging over 6 yards per carry on those exact plays and go with plays that have gotten stuffed at the line? Got it.

It's just not creative enough for my taste.

Wait, what?

Kyle gets way too cute with the play calling when what he should be doing is pounding the rock with Morris and playing old school smash mouth football.

So he's too "cute", but not "creative" enough? You know those two terms mean the same thing, right? So which is it?

[NLC1054]

Never said I knew the perfect call in every situation...I really can't believe you're defending the Hankerson reverse. First of all, he doesn't run a 4.3. At least not on this planet. 4.5 maybe. Second of all, like you said, whatever speed he has is long stride speed, not the type of quick hitch acceleration you need for a reverse to be successful. The toss on 3rd and 2 put Morris in a position where he had to run 6 yards to pick up 2 to the short side of the field. There's a lot more we could be doing in the running game. It's just not creative enough for my taste. And, when it's working, Kyle abandons it. Look--I get it--you coach football and think Kyle is doing a great job. I disagree.

Again, I'll point to this play...



Kyle fakes the end around to someone slower than Hank. And Hank gets deep in a hurry off the stutter and go.

You don't always run the end around with the fast guy. Brandon Marshall is a 4.5 guy and Mike and Jeremy Bates would run the end around with him.

I said this in the other thread; your perception is your reality. The last four weeks don't matter to you; you found the example of a game you need to say that Kyle was simultaneously too uncreative and way too cute (which are two ideas that are in direct conflict with each other).

[skins4eva]

So just forget that he was averaging over 6 yards per carry on those exact plays and go with plays that have gotten stuffed at the line? Got it.



Wait, what?



So he's too "cute", but not "creative" enough? You know those two terms mean the same thing, right? So which is it?

Are you really trying to be this dense? They mean different things depending on the context. A "cute" play is what I consider a trick play--like a direct snap, or the Brendan Banks option from a few weeks ago, or the Hankerson reverse. Creativity is completely different and has to do with the breadth of our running attach--the formations out of which we run, and the types of runs we utilize.

[skins4eva]

So just forget that he was averaging over 6 yards per carry on those exact plays and go with plays that have gotten stuffed at the line? Got it.



Wait, what?



So he's too "cute", but not "creative" enough? You know those two terms mean the same thing, right? So which is it?

Are you really trying to be this dense? They mean different things depending on the context. A "cute" play is what I consider a trick play--like a direct snap, or the Brendan Banks option from a few weeks ago, or the Hankerson reverse. Creativity is completely different and has to do with the breadth of our running attach--the formations out of which we run, and the types of runs we utilize.

---------- Post added October-8th-2012 at 12:24 PM ----------

Are you really trying to be this dense? They mean different things depending on the context. A "cute" play is what I consider a trick play--like a direct snap, or the Brendan Banks option from a few weeks ago, or the Hankerson reverse. Creativity is completely different and has to do with the breadth of our running attach--the formations out of which we run, and the types of runs we utilize.

I'd like to see us run out of the I-formation more often with RGIII under center to set up PA--just one idea. We seem to always run out of the one back set in the pistol formation. That's what I'm referring to when I reference creativity.

[SkinsCrushCowboys]

I thought that they really limited his running on Sunday to keep him healthy. I was sure we would see a a QB run when we were around the 10. He jog injured because he made a bad decision and did not throw the ball away or get out of bounds. He had no chance to score or get a first down. just an unfortunate mistake.

[Hitman21ST]

Are you really trying to be this dense? They mean different things depending on the context. A "cute" play is what I consider a trick play--like a direct snap, or the Brendan Banks option from a few weeks ago, or the Hankerson reverse. Creativity is completely different and has to do with the breadth of our running attach--the formations out of which we run, and the types of runs we utilize.

Oh, you mean the Banks option that opened up the offense the next week? Right, that had no benefit. Or the fake reverse to Morgan (slower than Hankerson) which opened up Hankerson deep? Yeah, I'd hate to see more of that.

We use essentially one type of run - zone runs. The toss and stretch are both out of the zone blocking concept. We don't run up the middle well, because that's not the strength of the run game. The zone blocking game is designed around offensive flow (get the line flowing one direction, and then have the RB find the hole the develops naturally and cut into it), not the Joe Gibbs ground and pound, where holes are forced open. So, in being more "creative", you want us to go away from what works well and do the stuff that doesn't work?

You're not making much sense.

[skins4eva]

Why, when someone agrees with you, are you so antagonistic? It isn't personal until you make it personal.

You're randomly selecting third down conversion rates; why? We're going to score 30-something points per game because we're efficient on first and second downs. I don't give a **** about third down conversions unless we're not scoring points, and even then it's just part of it. Being pissed off about that is just asinine.

You're also talking about him having "not even 10 years of experience", but you're not complaining about putting RGIII out there when he hasn't, either. I'm also wondering where you got your experience in play calling, since experience is vital to your argument.

Growing pains? With a top offense? I don't know where you're coming up with this.

You're criticizing a toss to Morris? Did you watch Morris on tosses? No, you didn't, because all that you noticed was his 10+ yard gashes that he made with, wait for it, tosses.

You're complaining to complain.

Believe it

Not true. I thought this board was about debating and discussing the Skins with fellow fans. That's what I've been doing here for the last 8+ yrs. I get it that you and others disagree with my criticism of Kyle, but I didn't make anything personal until posters started in with the "you have an agenda" bs. That's weak sauce. If you disagree with the argument, fine. But, wouldn't ever presume to think that posters on this board have an agenda about anything other than the fact that they are diehard fans.

You guys can support Kyle until you are blue in the face. Our record over his tenure as our offensive coordinator doesn't lie. And five weeks into a new season, we have a losing record yet again and are 4-14 at home. I'm not calling for his head--I never suggested that he be fired. What I am saying is that he is not above criticism, and he should be called out when he makes mistakes. In a game at home against the Falcons where our defense played basically lights out for an entire half, our offense did absolutely nothing.

[MartinC]

I'd like to see us run out of the I-formation more often with RGIII under center to set up PA--just one idea. We seem to always run out of the one back set in the pistol formation. That's what I'm referring to when I reference creativity.

So you are saying running play action off the I formation is creative? Maybe in 1930 .....

[Hitman21ST]

Not true. I thought this board was about debating and discussing the Skins with fellow fans. That's what I've been doing here for the last 8+ yrs. I get it that you and others disagree with my criticism of Kyle, but I didn't make anything personal until posters started in with the "you have an agenda" bs. That's weak sauce. If you disagree with the argument, fine. But, wouldn't ever presume to think that posters on this board have an agenda about anything other than the fact that they are diehard fans.

You guys can support Kyle until you are blue in the face. Our record over his tenure as our offensive coordinator doesn't lie. And five weeks into a new season, we have a losing record yet again and are 4-14 at home. I'm not calling for his head--I never suggested that he be fired. What I am saying is that he is not above criticism, and he should be called out when he makes mistakes. In a game at home against the Falcons where our defense played basically lights out for an entire half, our offense did absolutely nothing.

And you're just going to ignore the games where we score 40, 28, 31, and 24 points?

When you ignore the good just to point out the bad, that means you have an agenda.

[skins4eva]

Oh, you mean the Banks option that opened up the offense the next week? Right, that had no benefit. Or the fake reverse to Morgan (slower than Hankerson) which opened up Hankerson deep? Yeah, I'd hate to see more of that.

We use essentially one type of run - zone runs. The toss and stretch are both out of the zone blocking concept. We don't run up the middle well, because that's not the strength of the run game. The zone blocking game is designed around offensive flow (get the line flowing one direction, and then have the RB find the hole the develops naturally and cut into it), not the Joe Gibbs ground and pound, where holes are forced open. So, in being more "creative", you want us to go away from what works well and do the stuff that doesn't work?

You're not making much sense.

How do you know it doesn't work? Have you seen us do it? Have we even tried it? You can't assume it away simply because it doesn't fit in to the traditional zone blocking scheme. Go back and look at the zone running scheme from Denver. They ran out of the I formation all the time with a lead blocker. The zone blocking scheme we employ in no way limits our ability to run out of different formations other than the single back set. I'm surprised you'd even make that argument.

[MartinC]

What I am saying is that he is not above criticism, and he should be called out when he makes mistakes. In a game at home against the Falcons where our defense played basically lights out for an entire half, our offense did absolutely nothing.

Thats fair. I thought the gameplan against the Falcons was too conservative. I get we wanted to run the ball and control the clock but we almost too the ball out of RGIIIs hands ourselves.