Repetition, Repetiton, Repetition...

[KDawg]

We have played an extra game though compared to most of the teams around us.

Interestingly, if you pull Paulsen then we are above avg. as far as the TE/WR position.

And if you remove RG3's rushing stats we're nowhere near as impressive on the ground, either

[daveakl]

And if you remove RG3's rushing stats we're nowhere near as impressive on the ground, either

Sure, but to be fair, RGIII is our starter and was designed to be from the start. Paulsen has a much more increased roll then was planned and the new CBA strictly limits how much practice he can get at it after losing Davis.

[Oldfan]

...Interestingly, if you pull Paulsen then we are above avg. as far as the TE/WR position.

Why is that interesting? If you pull the worst out of any group, the average goes down. That's why we don't do it if we want a useful stat.

[Skinsinparadise]

Your definition of simplicity settles for a lower standard than mine. You are giving our poor receivers twice as much to think about pre-snap than absolutely necessary.

looks like the problem based on stats just shown on the thread is with the TEs and O line so those are more blocking related.

[pjfootballer]

Granted that Gabbert would not run the Indy scheme as well as Peyton.

But, my argument is that any QB would be better off running a smaller scheme like Peyton's than running a much larger playbook because far more repetition makes for better execution -- and execution is more important than having a bigger selection of plays to throw at the defense.

Better execution = fewer mistakes, fewer penalties (offenses don't beat themselves).

Oh absolutely. That I agree with. I was just going a little beyond what KDawg was saying.

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

There will be a certain amount of "physical" penalties that will happen over the course of a game, but the mental mistakes have been a major concern.

I'm old school. The best way to eliminate this type of stuff is to run those repeat offenders until they puke.

I could be wrong, but this is somewhat of an anomaly for a Shanny coached team, is it not? I don't remember him having a reputation for coaching highly penalized teams.

[Oldfan]

looks like the problem based on stats just shown on the thread is with the TEs and O line so those are more blocking related.

That doesn't work. False starts are common on the O-line. That number might be low. False starts on receivers are less common. You shouldn't need stats to know that Paulsen has had a problem that goes beyond the TE position.

[darrelgreenie]

Robinson started last game, maybe he's number 5 when everyone is healthy but they are not, so am talking present, and right now he's arguably the only "potential" deep threat. But, I got no problem subbing Hankerson for Robinson. I have as much less faith in him. Morgan and Santana are ok but aren't IMO #1 receivers. Morgan doesn't stretch the field and Santana does just on occasion. You responded to my point so am following up on my own point and elaborating on it, that's all. if Cosell who we both like is saying this offense is super simple but just disguised some with formations. I just wonder what a simple offense with less disguise and more predictability would do with IMO mediocre players.

Recall some of the 80s Skins players saying the opponents would know they would running 40 gut but they couldn't stop it anyway. To that point, I do think having marquee or at least above average Wrs affect the point in hand. The Skins know Manning is likely going to target Victor Cruz in a key spot but can they stop him, are they going to win that matchup? I don't think there is any guy on this team that the opposing defense is scared of -- if you likely know based on the formation that Hankerson is going to run a post route and the ball is headed his way, IMO he isn't that hard to stop conversely if its Reggie Wayne or an above average WR, different story.

You seem bent on having a discussion about the WR corps rather then about the OP which is about doing fewer things well as opposed to having more variety at the expense of execution.

You're also taking a specific Xs and O's discussion and generalizing simplicity to equal predictability. You're also inadvertantly arguing against one of the base concepts in Mike Shanahan's offense which is the boot/swap.

[Oldfan]

This discussion somehow reminded me of the best line I've heard from a coach.

John McKay, 1976 Tampa Bay Buccaneers, first year in the league as expansion team, 0-14 record. He was asked what he thought of his teams execution and he said "I'm in favor of it."

[darrelgreenie]

If there is hyperbole it isn't directed at you. Am just VERY frustrated at the Wr crew. More disappointed in Mike not finding a good WR in the draft than am worried about Kyle's playcalling. Hank and Robinson still have time to show they got it, but am running out of patience. Morgan to me is a decent but not a great possession Wr, with inconsistent hands though better hands than the others. I can't fault Santana much for his age he's doing OK. But IMO its really an abysmal bunch without Garcon and Davis.

Well this is a different argument. And, surprise, I disagree with you about the quality of our WRs and don't share your frustration.
The group had a bad game against the Steelers and Robinson had a bad start/game against the Panthers.

But outside of those games the unit hasn't been a problem. They're not world beaters but our WRs are productive league average players, you're banging on them like they're our secondary. You have to take a look at our scheme, we're currently a run focused offense, when you consider the 'stats' of our WRs and if you look at the offense as a unit its hard to make an argument against any part of the offense based on production:

We have the 17th ranked passing offense.
We're 6th in YPA at 7.7
Total team offense by Football Outsiders is 11th.
(BTW our YPA is ahead of both the Steelers and the Packers; we're 1 spot behind the Packers in points scored and ahead of the Steelers; we're ahead of both the Steelers and Packers in yards per game)

Outside of Moss (who imo is still a viable deep threat against man-to-man coverage and may still right now be the best deep threat) they're a young group that should only get better as they get a season's worth of targets under their belt. The coaching staff has also shuffled the line-ups a great deal which imo breaks up the continuity. I think they were so concerned with developing Hankerson that they looked right past Moss and Morgan (77% catch rate). Yet the offense and the passing game is still productive and in comparison to the secondary/coverage unit they've been far more productive. And that's without Pierre Garcon the obstensible #1 WR.

But, I digress from the OP

---------- Post added November-6th-2012 at 01:41 PM ----------

Granted that Gabbert would not run the Indy scheme as well as Peyton.

But, my argument is that any QB would be better off running a smaller scheme like Peyton's than running a much larger playbook because far more repetition makes for better execution -- and execution is more important than having a bigger selection of plays to throw at the defense.

Better execution = fewer mistakes, fewer penalties (offenses don't beat themselves).

In essence it the no huddle concept. Its the same concept colleges now borrow during in the spread air raid offense that only use a few formations and run all the plays from those formations, often with the players never leaving the line of scrimmage between huddles. The irony is the one word play calls that the media jumped on Cam Newton about are now being borrowed by teams like New England. Fewer players, simpler play calls, faster pace, better exection.

---------- Post added November-6th-2012 at 01:42 PM ----------

[Oldfan]

...In essence it the no huddle concept. Its the same concept colleges now borrow during in the spread air raid offense that only use a few formations and run all the plays from those formations, often with the players never leaving the line of scrimmage between huddles. The irony is the one word play calls that the media jumped on Cam Newton about are now being borrowed by teams like New England. Fewer players, simpler play calls, faster pace, better exection.

Well, sure. If you are going to run no huddle, you are forced to simplify. Even small things, like abandoning the complex WCO terminology for something simpler means you can bring in a new player and have him up to speed much faster. But the main advantage is better execution.

Vince Lombardi's Green Bay Sweep couldn't be stopped for several years. There was nothing tricky about it. There was no deception. It was simply run with such precision that it was tough to stop.

[pjfootballer]

This discussion somehow reminded me of the best line I've heard from a coach.

John McKay, 1976 Tampa Bay Buccaneers, first year in the league as expansion team, 0-14 record. He was asked what he thought of his teams execution and he said "I'm in favor of it."

Funny, but I just used that same quote about an hour ago in another thread in here. I love it. In the Mike Shanahan post game comments thread:

I had to at that. I think it's combination of both bad play calling and bad execution.

Reporter: "What do think of your teams execution?"

Former Buccaneers head coach John McKay: "I'm in favor of it!"

[Koolblue13]

Funny, but I just used that same quote about an hour ago in another thread in here. I love it.

That's one of the best football quotes.

[daveakl]

Why is that interesting? If you pull the worst out of any group, the average goes up. That's why we don't do it if we want a useful stat.

Because your thought that the offense needs to be simplified seems to revolve around the penalties that Paulsen is committing. By taking him out of the equation we are par for the league. Add him in and all of a sudden we have a problem. Should we simplify the offense because it seems Paulsen can't get it? Or should we maybe play Cooley more and get Paulsen out of that spot that he filled when Davis went down.

[Oldfan]

Because your thought that the offense needs to be simplified seems to revolve around the penalties that Paulsen is committing. By taking him out of the equation we are par for the league. Add him in and all of a sudden we have a problem. Should we simplify the offense because it seems Paulsen can't get it? Or should we maybe play Cooley more and get Paulsen out of that spot that he filled when Davis went down.

The problem isn't limited to Paulsen, IMO. That's why I began the OP with: Why are Skins receivers creating drive-killing false start penalties?