---------- Post added November-8th-2012 at 02:58 PM ----------
---------- Post added November-8th-2012 at 02:58 PM ----------
Last edited by Skinsinparadise; November-8th-2012 at 02:04 PM.
Strength of schedule is a more likely explanation for the downturn in Offensive stats. Atl, Min, NYG and PIT combined were more formidable defensive opponents than were NO, STL, CIN and TB were when we played them in the first four games.
Last edited by Oldfan; November-8th-2012 at 02:07 PM.
Last edited by Skinsinparadise; November-8th-2012 at 02:08 PM.
Davis's long 29, Paulsen's long 31
The quality of our receivers overall is below average, but they could be doing better if the penalties could be minimized. I think that's coaching as I explained in the OP.
Last edited by Oldfan; November-8th-2012 at 03:23 PM.
And Keim's point (which btw uses an aggregate metric) shows the YPP. But it doesn't say anything directly negative about the WRs because the +6.3 YPP gained in some games was with the exact same WRs we have now. Imo an honest assessment of the Steelers game shows that we could move the ball. The loss of Fred Davis isn't what hurt the offense, but rather drops and pass protection.
I don't care how people perceive the WRs corps, I just look at production.
And as I've said before I use the aggregate passing offense metric because until they invent a measure of the passing game as unit that excludes TEs I don't see another snapshot stat-view of team's WRs as a unit. (YPP or YPA)
---------- Post added November-8th-2012 at 04:20 PM ----------
---------- Post added November-8th-2012 at 04:40 PM ----------
I think a good way to boost the WR unit is to swap Moss with Hankerson.
Without Fred Davis and Pierre Garcon -- I think we got the worst receiving corp in the league, only wiggle room I gave is maybe if not the worse its close to it.
---------- Post added November-8th-2012 at 05:52 PM ----------
Last edited by Skinsinparadise; November-8th-2012 at 04:55 PM.
I think a teams aggregate numbers are an accurate measure for the unit. I don't consider it an opinion.We've covered this, individually their production isn't good. But that's not the operative thing for me, I watched games and form impressions (i am not an expert but who doesn't form impressions from watching games) and I am not impressed with our receivers. It's not like i've been watching them liking how they are playing and was just shocked by their mediocre stats and then changed my mind. if you think the teams aggregate numbers tells the story and you like
what you see, you are entitled to that opinion.
When I watch the WRs I see a group that for the most part has been making the plays that are available for them, (except for Hankerson). I don't see a unit that is holding back the offense in anyway. But, ultimately impressions don't matter. Did the unit have a bad game against the Steelers with drops? Yes. But, they are a contributing unit in a top 10 offense.
When did this become a coaching vs talent discussion?As for coaching versus talent -- if you are saying the scheme is
what's limiting the Wrs -- isn't that about coaching?
I don't think there is anything wrong with the production from our WRs.
I don't consider a play run from a different formation a different play.
4 plays from 3 formations is 4 plays.
2 plays from 6 formations is 2 plays.
However, you still have things to learn as you have more or less formations. In the 4 plays from 3 formation example you have to learn four plays and three formation alignments, so 7 total. In the 2 play from 6 formation example, you have to learn 8 total.
Re-reading through the thread, from your initial post, through mine, to the one I'm replying to: It seems I misread things a bit and that you actually agree with me. You can't be overly simple in formations, but you can't be too complicated in the number of formations you run, either. At the same time, you don't want too few plays, but you don't want too many, either.
To illustrate that point further (which I'm actually sure you understand, but I want to illustrate anyways) I'll use a number scale.
On a 1-10 scale, the numbers in the extremes are not advisable.
1-3 and 7-10 you'd want to stay away from. You want to stick in that 4-5-6 area.
To illustrate that further, more to the way you were:
I'd rather run 5 plays from 5 formations than 3 plays from 7 formations.
I think we're on the same page.
Last edited by KDawg; November-8th-2012 at 05:57 PM.
Someone like Davis can command a double team, or at least more attention from the defense, while someone like Paulsen is an after thought.
Davis' production comes from far different circumstances than Paulsen is what I'm trying to get at.
I view Davis as a player that allows others to get open due to the attention he commands, I view Paulsen as someone who gets production because better players ahead of him command more attention.
I think where I got lost is 4x3 = 12. 6x2 = 12. You mentioned a team having 12 plays. So I was thinking you meant that a play run out of a different formation is a different play.
Now the question is, in my mind, how big of an exception is it? You think it's not nearly as significant as I do. That's why my team would be better coached and beat yours.
Zorn did have Portis running the ball exceptionally well though in 2008, which is my point about talent allowing you to be simple. We were pathetic under Zorn for most of 2009 while Portis declined. If you don't have the talent, masking deficiencies becomes key which basically forces creativity as well as complexity.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?
But I will admit that's surprising to see. Watching Zorn's offense made my eyes bleed at times. Watching the Shanahan's offense since they'be been here hasn't been as frustrating... but I'll concede that maybe that's all in my mind. I still remember every friggin pass play called by Zorn had all of our WRs running a short stick route or curl. Ugh.
I think it does matter, a lot. For instance, if you have a defensive roster (I know, we're talking about offense but I feel the point remains) made up of JJ Watt, Casey Hampton and Justin Smith on your Dline; Demarcus Ware, Patrick Willis, Brian Cushing and Casey Mathews at LB; Bailey and Revis at CB; and Ed Reed and Troy Polamalu at Safety... seriously, what would you ever have to call other than man underneath with a cover 2 shell? Heck, you can have both Safeties just do what they want, lol. Send the weakside OLB on a blitz every time with the rest of the Dline and you'll get pressure as well as stuff the run every down.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. [COLOR="Gold"]
To me, talent is essentially the determining factor of how creative you have to get. With studs at every position you don't have to do much. Otherwise, you have to confuse more.
I think a better question, Oldfan, would be how much does having more plays confuse an opposing team? Or, how much does keeping it simple and perfecting execution really affect how well the opposing team can guess your plays?
If you can keep it simple with the emphasis on perfect execution, yet still keep an opposing defense off balance because they're unsure of what's coming... I think that's what every coach should strive for.
---------- Post added November-8th-2012 at 06:26 PM ----------
Last edited by thesubmittedone; November-8th-2012 at 07:33 PM.
Originally Posted by Mike Shanahan
My view is that running plays from many different formations, with shifts and motions may do more to hurt your own execution then it creates confusion for the defense.
If you run many plays from the same formation it increases the defenses chances of guessing wrong. Having fewer formations, motions and shifts may actually do more to confuse a defense and maximize your own level of execution. The fewer pre-snap moving parts from shifts to cadence increases decreases the risk of procedure penalties while allowing the offense to play fast.
Kyle Shanahan also alluded to this recently when he said that we do the same things out of the pistol as we do from under center, there are just slight pros and cons associated with each look.
Hankerson looked pretty good to me on his one deep attempt against the Panthers. He located the ball well and went up for it but the DB made a hell of an athletic play to put himself in position to jump over Hank and break it up. He's looked iffier on one or two other occasions but we'll have to wait and see.
Based on how little we know of this offense in reality, I actually think it's kind of dumb to say that the number of looks we use is problematic or is a primary cause of some of these penalties.
---------- Post added November-9th-2012 at 02:57 AM ----------
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)