I have a concern about the Shanahan offensive scheme.

[Oldfan]

True, but you can't just dismiss someone's argument because you don't like it or disagree with it, as you have had a tendency to do. Not here and now, but we have had many a debate where you have just simply dismissed what I said because it didn't jive with what you were saying. Personally, that's what pissed me off - you just assuming you are right and dismissing what I had to say because it was automatically wrong, at least to you, and despite any evidence I had to support it.

I dismiss your posts and those of others when you include personal attacks just as you are doing right now and for no other reason. I dismiss others who can't take the time to read the OP or those who make the same argument that has been made seven times before.

---------- Post added October-12th-2012 at 10:45 AM ----------

The standards that you can tell what kind of system teams run by watching them.

No, because no pro team runs the spread no huddle that Oregon does.

It really doesn't matter if there is a pro team or not I can use as an example, because your statement about basing ball control on the number of plays a team runs can be applied to any level of football. Ball control means you control the ball more than the other team, so the biggest determiner of that is TOP - granted, you can't use any single game as an example, but if over the course of 8 games, 1 season, multiple seasons, your offense regularly has a significant advantage in TOP, that offense can be described as "ball-control"

The TOP stat doesn't work in identifying a ball control offense because the defense influences the stat by 50% Greg Blache's bend but don't break defense allowed opponents to play ball control which lowered our offenses' TOP.

[Hitman21ST]

The TOP stat doesn't work in identifying a ball control offense because the defense influences the stat by 50%

I could make the same argument for total number of plays though, with just as much poigniancy as TOP.

If it had to be just one stat, then the closest would be run/pass ratio. That is as independent of the defense's performance as you're going to find. Teams that run the ball more generally have more of a "ball control" mindset than teams that rely on the pass.

[Oldfan]

I could make the same argument for total number of plays though, with just as much poigniancy as TOP.

I don't see how, but it doesn't matter. I don't use stats to determine a ball control offense.

Jim Zorn's strategy was basic Walsh WCO. It's a ball control philosophy regardless of the stats it generated.

[Hitman21ST]

I don't see how, but it doesn't matter. I don't use stats to determine a ball control offense.

Jim Zorn's strategy was basic Walsh WCO. It's a ball control philosophy regardless of the stats it generated.

If a defense allows the other team to stay on the field and convert on third down, the other offense is running more plays, and your offense is running less. Same principle you would use for your TOP argument.

Just out of curiousity, what do you use to determine it?

[Hitman21ST]

Any offense that is designed to keep the other team off the field and score after a long drive can be defined as ball control. WCO, ZBS, whatever. We use the ZBS but also have a quick strike ability which makes our offense even more dangerous. Brady and the Pats don't have a ball control offense-they are just trying to outscore he other offense. Thy don't care how log it is on the field.

[Oldfan]

Just out of curiousity, what do you use to determine it?

I study schemes just as I did in the Zorn example I gave you.

[Hitman21ST]

I study schemes just as I did in the Zorn example I gave you.

Ok, but what are you looking for? There have to be objective indicators. If it's entirely subjective, you can't really expect people to just go along with you just because.

[Oldfan]

Any offense that is designed to keep the other team off the field and score after a long drive can be defined as ball control. WCO, ZBS, whatever. We use the ZBS but also have a quick strike ability which makes our offense even more dangerous. Brady and the Pats don't have a ball control offense-they are just trying to outscore he other offense. Thy don't care how log it is on the field.

The only thing we agree on is your first sentence. But my OP offers my reasons why I don't consider Shanahan's offense a ball control offense. Included in that was my reason for not considering the ZBS an effective tool for ball control.

If you will read the exchange between MartinC and myself beginning with Martin's Post 182, you will have an example of the way to debate my claim. He attacked my main premise that running games that grind out first downs were better at ball control than the ZBS which produces more big plays.

In the above quote, you are simply claiming that I'm wrong. That's not debate.

---------- Post added October-12th-2012 at 11:34 AM ----------

Ok, but what are you looking for? There have to be objective indicators. If it's entirely subjective, you can't really expect people to just go along with you just because.

Your definition works: Any offense that is designed to keep the other team off the field and score after a long drive can be defined as ball control.

I have limited time, so I can't explain how that is done. As I said in the OP, Lombardi did it one way, Walsh another....

How I do it is not relevant anyway. In the OP, I gave you an argument to attack. If it isn't about that argument, it's not relevant.

[Hitman21ST]

The only thing we agree on is your first sentence. But my OP offers my reasons why I don't consider Shanahan's offense a ball control offense. Included in that was my reason for not considering the ZBS an effective tool for ball control.

If you will read the exchange between MartinC and myself beginning with Martin's Post 182, you will have an example of the way to debate my claim. He attacked my main premise that running games that grind out first downs were better at ball control than the ZBS which produces more big plays.

In the above quote, you are simply claiming that I'm wrong. That's not debate.

Not once in that quote did I say you were wrong. Nor did I even imply that. Now you are resorting to personal attacks by implying that I don't know how to debate. What I did say was that our the Redskins offense can be a ball control one, then I used the patriots as an example of what I don't consider to be a ball control offense.

To clarify, the ZBS can be a ball control offense, despite its penchant for big plays. A RB who goes for 2, 2 then 8 is just as effective as one who goes for 4, 4, 4. This is taken from my personal experience as a coach. The grinder gets the yards, sure. But stop him one or two times and you can get off the field. The 2, 2, 8 guy can break one at any time, so defenses can't just rely on one or two stops.

[GhostofAlvinWalton]

The 2008 Broncos made me suspicious. #2 on offense, #31 on defense with eight wins.

2011 NE Patriots: #2 Offense, #31 Defense.

Guess Belichick is just interested in stats and not wins as well.

[Darkstarr]

I read and understand your argument OF but I would argue the best offense that resembles the Redskins in philosphy is Houston. For me Houston is one of the best ToP offense in the NFL. This article sorta backs this theory up.

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/...r-time-offense

[Oldfan]

Not once in that quote did I say you were wrong. Nor did I even imply that. Now you are resorting to personal attacks by implying that I don't know how to debate. What I did say was that our the Redskins offense can be a ball control one, then I used the patriots as an example of what I don't consider to be a ball control offense.

I didn't mean that you literally told me that I was wrong. I can read.

To clarify, the ZBS can be a ball control offense, despite its penchant for big plays. A RB who goes for 2, 2 then 8 is just as effective as one who goes for 4, 4, 4. This is taken from my personal experience as a coach. The grinder gets the yards, sure. But stop him one or two times and you can get off the field. The 2, 2, 8 guy can break one at any time, so defenses can't just rely on one or two stops.

Your experience as a coach has no value here. What I'm talking about is a math concept that applies to the game of football. You either understand the concept or you don't.

The link I provided in my response to Martin explains it.

There are lots of coaches, even at the pro level, lacking high math aptitudes who don't understand statistics. They lose games because of it.

[GhostofAlvinWalton]

Isn't the "bend but don't break" defense pretty much a dead dinosaur now?..........................

Kinda........but the Bears (Lovie Smith from TB) and the Vikings (Leslie Frazier from TB) still run the "Tampa 2" which is of course the shinning example of "bend don't break" defense in the NFL.

[Oldfan]

2011 NE Patriots: #2 Offense, #31 Defense.

Guess Belichick is just interested in stats and not wins as well.

I would be suspicious of Belichik also if I had only those stats. But I know Belichik's strategy well, so I'm not. However, the 2008 Broncos got me suspicious and I came up with a different impression.

[GhostofAlvinWalton]

The Bears 46 defense was NOT a bend but don't break. The front 7 alone broke your will, if not the front 4 itself. The busted you in the mouth, then did it again and again. Before the bounty thing, I wouldn't put it past Buddy Ryan and that defense to have had a huge bounty system. Like he did in Philly with our body bag game. Bears 46 defense primary objective was to annihilate you.

You are correct that the 46 is not bend don't break.....but bend don't break doesn't mean you don't hit hard and go after the QB...just ask the 2002 TB Bucs. Bend don't break means you don't give up "big plays" at the cost of allowing some underneath stuff. The goal is to make the Offense drive the lenth of the field with short plays (not giving them chucks of yards). The reasoning is that most teams will make a mistake (throw into coverage due to impatience, fumble, penalty, drop pass, etc) and never complete those long drives.