Repetition, Repetiton, Repetition...

[Oldfan]

While agree with the basic premise of your thread Oldfan, wasn't Zorn's offense basically predicated on this very idea? It goes to show that having a minimal amount of plays isn't always the best way to go about things, especially if your talent level isn't up to snuff.

I would venture to say that, if you have awesome talent at the majority of your spots, then keep it simple and let the talent take over. I think that's what we were doing, for instance, when Pierre Garcon was healthy that first game of the season against the Saints. Our offense was simple and our passing game was basically to look for Garcon. If the CB played off of him, throw it out to him fast. If the CB was tight, run the option with two reads. In fact, during the offseason, Kyle said exactly this when he was posed the question "... is it easier to be more creative with the talent you now have on offense", or something to that effect. He then stated that it's actually the opposite, that it's easier to call plays when you have great talent at the skill positions because creativity is not necessary in those instances and it's just all about getting the ball in your player's hands.

Pointing out an exception would not disprove a general rule even if you were right about Zorn's offense. However, using the DVOA unit rankings, Zorn's offense over 2008 and 2009 ranked higher (19 average) than Shanahan's in 2010 and 2011 (22.5 average). You aren't going to argue that Vinny gave Zorn more talent to work with than Shanahan gave himself are you?

I don't think it matters whether the coach is working with talent graded A, B, C, D or E. The execution level should rise at the same rate when you apply a given amount of practice time to a smaller playbook. The Manning brothers both benefited from smaller playbooks. Their physical skillsets are barely above average.

The key question is whether it is generally smarter to attack defenses with better execution or with a wider variety of plays. I favor better execution.

---------- Post added November-8th-2012 at 05:49 AM ----------

You have personal experience with those old crank cars, of?

I remember them. There were a few real old Fords still around in the early 40s.

Execution is far more important that the type of scheme you run. Shanahan is way too full of himself to ever admit it, he's the type of guy that wants to be remebered as some type of innovator. Too bad all he'll be remembered for in washington is having a worse winning % than Spurrier or Zorn.

If Snyder let's him stick around, Mike will pick up his game some, but I want better teams than he's capable of building.

[KDawg]

See, this is exactly what I disagree with because it doesn't acknowledge the difference in talent and it's correlation to creativity/simplicity. Gibbs could call 50 Gut a hundred times a game because he had an Oline that was ridiculously more athletic than pretty much any front it faced. The question is, do you think Kyle would be calling the same plays if he was in the same exact position as Gibbs back then? If you're answer is no, you're severely under-estimating both Kyle and his father's abilities to coach an offense and overlooking everything they've said on the subject as well.

There's two schools of thought here:

1) Put as many plays in as the players can absorb and try to confuse defenses by out formationing them and running various looks.

2) Install fewer plays, but perfect them. Run them perfect against almost any kind of look. Take your time installing and running them.

I think the answer is somewhere in the middle, like with all things. However, I think the lean needs to be towards number 2. Addition by subtraction.

[Oldfan]

There's two schools of thought here:

1) Put as many plays in as the players can absorb and try to confuse defenses by out formationing them and running various looks.

2) Install fewer plays, but perfect them. Run them perfect against almost any kind of look. Take your time installing and running them.

I think the answer is somewhere in the middle, like with all things. However, I think the lean needs to be towards number 2. Addition by subtraction.

Would you agree that deception is more useful at below-NFL levels since NFL defenses, both players and coaches, have pretty much seen it all before?

[KDawg]

Would you agree that deception is more useful at below-NFL levels since NFL defenses, both players and coaches, have pretty much seen it all before?

Yes. I agree.

Caveat being, and I'm sure this is implied in the statement I'm quoting here, but I feel it necessary to add the disclaimer for the masses: There still needs to be some kind of deception in a NFL playbook. Even NFL defenses can be lulled to sleep and caught off guard.

However, largely, I think deception as a whole is much more useful as a base in lower levels of football than the NFL.

[darrelgreenie]

Lets say a team has 12 plays. I think its more deceptive to run 4 plays from 3 formations then 2 plays from 6 formations.

[Mahons21]

Lets say a team has 12 plays. I think its more deceptive to run 4 plays from 3 formations then 2 plays from 6 formations.

I totally agree. The more formations a team uses the more predictable there offense becomes, in most instances.

[Oldfan]

Lets say a team has 12 plays. I think its more deceptive to run 4 plays from 3 formations then 2 plays from 6 formations.

Some machines look very complex until you understand how they work, then you find that they are actually very simple. Ideally the OC wants his scheme to have that effect. It looks complex to defenders, but it's actually very simple for his players to understand and execute.

[Skinsinparadise]

I'm not sure which WRs you refer to when you say 'these' and how you intend to compare them with the rest of the league. If you're comparing Aldrick to other 5th WRs then how can you judge him or them? They're simply unknown. Hankerson is also still basically a rookie WR after basically having his rookie year wiped out due to injury. I agree that you can't call them good...yet but imo you can't call them bad yet either. There unknown or developing. I'm not gonna judge Aldrick Robinson or any other WR on the 1st 17 targets of his career. Nor am I gonna write Hankerson off after his small handful of targets. And if the don't pan out I wouldn't blame Kyle either.Now if by 'these' you mean Moss and Morgan then I would say they compare very well to they're league wide counterparts as #2,#3 WRs.

If your top 2 receivers, is a typical #2 and #3 on other teams that = below average. I don't expect Santana to emerge as a #1 receiver now at 33. So my focus is on the young unproven guys who are getting playing time -- Robinson, and Hankerson. But again if we pretend these young guys aren't part of the mix, IMO when the Redskins come to town, you won't find the opposition talking about the dynamic duo of Santana and Morgan -- more likely IMO the opponent is thinking lets stop the run, those guys aren't anything to sweat. I get that you agree that these guys aren't studs but our disagreement seems to be about how these guys are ranked compared to the rest of the league, I say at the bottom or close enough, you seem to be saying no way.

I mention the deep passing/ball control because you seem to target the lack of deep passing game as critical to your negative perception of the WRs. Which you do again above in regards to Hankerson, and 'looking bad' might have little bearing on Hankerson productivity on the deep ball. He might have a great deep ball catch rate or it could be terrible. Point being is that without some support; Hankerson looking bad on the deep ball to you is an empty statement.

Ok let me clarify. I don't think our Wrs are above average at anything. I think Morgan and Santana are both OK #2 receivers. As for Hankerson and the deep ball, its not an empty statement as you say, I watch how Larry Fitzgerald for example expends effort to grab a ball in traffic, likewise I've watched Hankerson and I've been unimpressed, I don't think I need to know what route he was running to judge. I saw him in preseason on a nicely thrown deep ball where he strangely slowed down with the ball in the air and got reamed on the sideline for Kyle about it, saw one game where the ball was likely going to be caught if he just stretch out his arms a little bit --- am not the only guy noticing this -- so am not going out on a limb on this point. Actually Morgan is fairly feisty going for balls. I haven't seen that much from Hankerson.

In general you pay for what you get in terms of player production and draft expense. Our division rivals have invested far more high round draft picks on young WRs then Shanny. Dez, DeSean, Macklin, Nicks, Rueben Randle.

They got richer but not just striking with high draft picks but also lower ones. Austin - undrafted. Cruz -- undrafted. Manningham was better than any guy we had last season -- 3rd rounder.

Football Outsiders ranks the pass offenses: Gaints #1--4th, Dallas #2--8th, Redskins #3--18th**, Eagles--28th.
**And if we had Garcon I'm sure our ranking would be some degree higher which would make it competitive with our division rivals
Right now here's where the division passing games rank by YPA: Redskins #1--7.7, Giants #2, Dallas #3, Eagles distant 4th. (not bad imo)


http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamoff

I've answered this point in three exchanges already -- Rg 3, Morris are part of the equation, we haven't seen this played out over time without both Davis and Garcon which was my original point.

[KDawg]

Lets say a team has 12 plays. I think its more deceptive to run 4 plays from 3 formations then 2 plays from 6 formations.

Be forewarned, here comes a semantics "argument":

I don't count a play being run from a different formation as a different play. It may have different assignments, but the premise of the play (if a run, the kickout, alley and lead blockers are all identified) is still the same. If you can teach a concept, you can run a play out of many formations.

[Chanhillbilly]

The team as a whole is missing the attention to detail they need to win. You can't tell me the WR's TE's and RB can't count to 2. The issue is they are sloppy and lining up in the wrong spot, moving forward at the snap etc. I've noticed this kind of thing when at training camp. There are those players in the stretching line that are doing what they are supposed to be doing. Then there are those that are just sitting or standing around lollygagging (that makes them lollygaggers). Derrell Green and Charles Mann spoke of it this week when they said the player on D have bad technique. Good technique is attention to detail needed at this level vs just going through the motions. You hear the writters harp on it all summer for the O and D lines. Same is true at WR. Crisp route running, being in the right spot.. The team lacks it right now and it is usually the sign of a bad team.

[darrelgreenie]

I get that you agree that these guys aren't studs but our disagreement seems to be about how these guys are ranked compared to the rest of the league, I say at the bottom or close enough, you seem to be saying no way.

We look at the WRs differently. Apart from the terrible case of the drops against the Steelers and the lose of Moss against the Panthers I see an effective WR unit. I don't care about the perception only the production as unit.

Re: Hankerson deep ball
I don't think Hankerson tracks the deep ball well right now. But, without the stats to back it up, its just a hunch not something to build an argument around.

I've answered this point in three exchanges already -- Rg 3, Morris are part of the equation, we haven't seen this played out over time without both Davis and Garcon which was my original point.

But every teams scheme, OL, experience in the system, compelmentary players (QBs, RBs other WRs/TEs) are all part of the equation that makes up their passing game just as Rg 3 and Morris for us. And when it comes to scheme I would argue that the simple design of our passing game is actually limiting their production.

---------- Post added November-8th-2012 at 02:04 PM ----------

Be forewarned, here comes a semantics "argument":

I don't count a play being run from a different formation as a different play. It may have different assignments, but the premise of the play (if a run, the kickout, alley and lead blockers are all identified) is still the same. If you can teach a concept, you can run a play out of many formations.

Lets say a team has 12 (different) plays. I think its more deceptive to run 4 plays from 3 formations then 2 plays from 6 formations.

[Skinsinparadise]

DG

http://washingtonexaminer.com/redski...8#.UJvFA2-HKSo

The Redskins have averaged 4.5 yards per play the past two weeks (they ran 75 plays vs. Carolina and gained 337 yards). In their previous seven games, the Redskins averaged 6.3 yards or more per play six times. And their lowest average during this time was 5.1 vs. Cincinnati.

Part of that stems from a lack of consistent playmakers with receiver Pierre Garcon and now tight end Fred Davis sidelined. Perhaps that's why they have scored touchdowns on only two of their last six trips in the red zone, where playmakers are at a premium.

[darrelgreenie]

DG

http://washingtonexaminer.com/redski...8#.UJvFA2-HKSo

The Redskins have averaged 4.5 yards per play the past two weeks (they ran 75 plays vs. Carolina and gained 337 yards). In their previous seven games, the Redskins averaged 6.3 yards or more per play six times. And their lowest average during this time was 5.1 vs. Cincinnati.

Part of that stems from a lack of consistent playmakers with receiver Pierre Garcon and now tight end Fred Davis sidelined. Perhaps that's why they have scored touchdowns on only two of their last six trips in the red zone, where playmakers are at a premium.

Excluding the Panthers game where Moss was hurt they've had the same WRs all season. Garcon has been out since the 1st qtr of the Saints game. They have the same WRs during the 6.3+ YPP as they did in the Steelers game except in that they game the receiving corps had a terrible case of the droppsies.

We can speculate all game about the lack of scoring in the RZ. I think its a playcalling issue more then a personnel issue.

[Oldfan]

The team as a whole is missing the attention to detail they need to win. You can't tell me the WR's TE's and RB can't count to 2. The issue is they are sloppy and lining up in the wrong spot, moving forward at the snap etc. I've noticed this kind of thing when at training camp. There are those players in the stretching line that are doing what they are supposed to be doing. Then there are those that are just sitting or standing around lollygagging (that makes them lollygaggers). Derrell Green and Charles Mann spoke of it this week when they said the player on D have bad technique. Good technique is attention to detail needed at this level vs just going through the motions. You hear the writters harp on it all summer for the O and D lines. Same is true at WR. Crisp route running, being in the right spot.. The team lacks it right now and it is usually the sign of a bad team.

If you blame poor execution on the players, and stop there, you won't get to the primary cause. If you don't get to the primary cause, you can't correct the problem. If we are simply collecting lazy or dumb players, then Mike Shanahan has to tighten up on our scouting and player selection.

If it's a coaching problem, then what are they doing wrong? My OP suggests a plausible source of the problem which is correctable without the expense of replacing players. It should be tried. If it doesn't work, you go to plan B.

[pjfootballer]

I've been hearing alot from listening to talk sports that alot of fans are not happy with the tackling of their defense. Alot of the former jocks that are now on the radio have been saying the limitations of pad practice is one culprit of this. One guy said that every week they had time in pads to work specifically on proper tackling technique. So I imagine it might have somewhat of an effect on the offense too.