Repetition, Repetiton, Repetition...

[Skinsinparadise]

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.

You got upset when I for emphasis put the word without in caps to make the point that I was including not just Garcon but Davis. Keim in this article does the same thing I did, he mentions Garcon and Davis. Davis = anywhere between stud and very good player IMO. Without him and Garcon on the field IMO and i know am not alone on this there is not a single serious threat -- doubt teams worry about double covering Santana. But Davis you can't sleep on. Keim backs my point that statistically they have not been the same without Davis. You keep throwing me stats that mostly factor Davis as part of the passing offense which if anything makes my point as opposed to refutes it, especially in context of Keim's stats.

---------- Post added November-8th-2012 at 02:58 PM ----------

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.

As DG and Oldfan are headed on this point is it the coaching or the players? -- I think its on Shanny for player selection but am not overly hard on him because i do think this is a different receiving crew by leaps and bounds with Garcon and Davis in the lineup. My only issue with Shanny is i'd like to see him develop a young WR like he does with RBs -- so far IMO he hasn't done it. I don't blame him for Morgan being a middle of the pack #2 WR. He's never been more than that, that's what he was expected to be.

[Oldfan]

You got upset when I for emphasis put the word without in caps to make the point that I was including not just Garcon but Davis. Keim in this article does the same thing I did, he mentions Garcon and Davis. Davis = anywhere between stud and very good player IMO. Without him and Garcon on the field IMO and i know am not alone on this there is not a single serious threat -- doubt teams worry about double covering Santana. But Davis you can't sleep on. Keim backs my point that statistically they have not been the same without Davis. You keep throwing me stats that mostly factor Davis as part of the passing offense which if anything makes my point as opposed to refutes it, especially in context of Keim's stats.

Since Paulsen has been productive, your argument on Davis is weak.

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.

[Skinsinparadise]

Since Paulsen has been productive, your argument on Davis is weak.

Strength of schedule is a more likely explanation for the downturn in Offensive stats. Atl, Min, NYG and Pit were more formidable defensive opponents than were NO, STL, CIN and TB were when we played them in the first four games.

Davis is unique for a TE because he's fast and can actually get relatively deep for a TE. Paulsen isn't fast, IMO he's been ok not fantastic. If other teams are worried about Paulsen they sure aren't talking about it. Guys that study film like Greg Cosell have said Davis is one of the top 5 or so best TEs in the league, Cooley has said the same, I doubt Paulson is considered in that category.

[Oldfan]

Davis is unique for a TE because he's fast and can actually get relatively deep for a TE. Paulsen isn't fast, IMO he's been ok not fantastic. If other teams are worried about Paulsen they sure aren't talking about it. Guys that study film like Greg Cosell have said Davis is one of the top 5 or so best TEs in the league, Cooley has said the same, I doubt Paulson is considered in that category.

I thought we were talking about production this season. Davis 47 yards per start, Paulsen 59 per.

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.

[darrelgreenie]

You got upset when I for emphasis put the word without in caps to make the point that I was including not just Garcon but Davis. Keim in this article does the same thing I did, he mentions Garcon and Davis. Davis = anywhere between stud and very good player IMO. Without him and Garcon on the field IMO and i know am not alone on this there is not a single serious threat -- doubt teams worry about double covering Santana. But Davis you can't sleep on. Keim backs my point that statistically they have not been the same without Davis. You keep throwing me stats that mostly factor Davis as part of the passing offense which if anything makes my point as opposed to refutes it, especially in context of Keim's stats.

You made several different points, some of which have shifted and changed, so I'm not sure which point you think Keim's article backs.

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)

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.

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 04:20 PM ----------

As DG and Oldfan are headed on this point is it the coaching or the players?

I did not know this discussion was about coaching vs players.

---------- 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.

[Skinsinparadise]

You made several different points, some of which have shifted and changed, so I'm not sure which point you think Keim's article backs.

Which of my positions have changed? In our exchanges you took some points in a different direction and I responded to them. I never deviated from my original point which is very simple:

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.

I don't care how people perceive the WRs corps, I just look at production.

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.

I think a good way to boost the WR unit is to swap Moss with Hankerson.

Hankerson showed a little last game. I was at the game against Miami last year where he was great. Been disappointing by him thus far but am not ruling out him coming through, we need him to. As for coaching versus talent -- if you are saying the scheme is what's limiting the Wrs -- isn't that about coaching?

---------- Post added November-8th-2012 at 05:52 PM ----------

I thought we were talking about production this season. Davis 47 yards per start, Paulsen 59 per.

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.

I got to see a larger sample size of Paulsen to go with the idea that he's close to apples to apples with Davis. He doesn't have his speed. Davis had a 90 yard game this season, not sure i see Paulsen having a game like that but maybe he did have one big game. I think for example Morgan isn't bad but he doesn't seem to stretch the field, ditto Paulsen, if we don't have one guy who is a threat to stretch the field, you can keep the safeties closer to the line of scrimmage regularly and i think that affects the totality of the offense. If you got the safeties and linebackers playing close, Davis can burn you, I don't think Paulsen can. but am open minded, he might become that guy but not sure if you can without the speed.

[darrelgreenie]

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.

How do you think Keim's article supports your 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.

I think a teams aggregate numbers are an accurate measure for the unit. I don't consider it an 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.

As for coaching versus talent -- if you are saying the scheme is
what's limiting the Wrs -- isn't that about coaching?

When did this become a coaching vs talent discussion?

I don't think there is anything wrong with the production from our WRs.

[KDawg]

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.

This is the same thought I addressed above, although I may not have been clear so I apologize.

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.

[Mahons21]

I thought we were talking about production this season. Davis 47 yards per start, Paulsen 59 per.

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.

Production doesn't account for the total impact a player has.

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.

[darrelgreenie]

I don't consider a play run from a different formation a different play.

Maybe you missed it in my reply but I added 'different' to clarify my point and to avoid a needless semantics argument. In my post I meant different plays. For example: play (1) all hitch (2) all go (3) drags (4) smash (5) double post (6) zone-read (7) lead iso (8) counter (9) dive (10) stretch (11) boot-swap (12) speed option

[KDawg]

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.

[thesubmittedone]

Pointing out an exception would not disprove a general rule even if you were right about Zorn's offense.

Pointing out an exception to a general rule, however, points out that there ARE exceptions to general rules. That was my point in pointing that out. See my point?

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.

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?

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.

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 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"]

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.

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 ----------

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.

Agreed.

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?

I agree with this, too.

[darrelgreenie]

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.

Again I think part of the problem with this conversation is based on loosely or undefined terms. What is keeping it 'simple'?

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.

[Enter Apotheosis]

I agree that we should keep things simple....and from the looks of it based off of the plays we have been calling i THINK (dont know for sure) we are. Shanny said it take 3 years to master his system yet we are not running the same system we were running the last two years. Maybe the run game is the same but the passing game isn't. It seems to me we just run the same play over and over again. Read-option play...and the slot WR/TE up the seem. Of course we are running more plays than that but those plays are called a lot.

I also think Peyton/Eli had a hell of a lot more talent at WR/TE than we do. I dont think our WR's or TE's are very good. Which would prove your point that we should be using the KISS principle.

With the D.....i have no idea what is going on there. Everyone on the field looks lost. We cant generate any pressure and we cant cover anyone.

The passing concepts appear to be roughly the same now as they always were and a lot of the routes we run are similar to what the Texans run.

according to Greg Cosell studying the offense for NFL Matchup, the Skins are running a very simple offense right now, they just cover the simplicity up with multiple formations

This is actually something I've seen said about Shanahan's Denver offenses as well. They appear to be more complex than they are because they do the same things out of a wide variety of looks.

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.

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.

It is very unusual. Shanahan's teams are rarely even in the top half of the league in penalties.

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.

Incidentally, the ZBS we employ is heavily influenced by that play.

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.

The perception of the unit is heavily skewed by the last two games, where we've not looked so hot. Before that there was reason to feel pretty good about each of our receivers. If you decide that we're on an unstoppable downward spiral as a team then, sure, we're a bottom third unit. If you instead assume that our second half of the season will transpire in similar fashion to the first with ups and downs, then we've got an average unit (which is not too bad considering who we've been missing). If Garcon's foot mysteriously regenerates over the bye and he lights the world on fire then there may even be reason to say that we have a top third unit by the end of the year. We'll see what happens...

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.

Again I think part of the problem with this conversation is based on loosely or undefined terms. What is keeping it 'simple'?

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.

It's all about trade-offs. You remove motioning and you make things more simple for your receivers and less simple for Griffin, who can use how the defense reacts to the motion as a tell for what they're running.

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.

[darrelgreenie]

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.

I don't understand what you mean by with how little we know of this offense. I think we know quite a bit about this offense to include that WR/TE procedure penalties are a recurring issue.

---------- Post added November-9th-2012 at 02:57 AM ----------

The perception of the unit is heavily skewed by the last two games, where we've not looked so hot. Before that there was reason to feel pretty good about each of our receivers. If you decide that we're on an unstoppable downward spiral as a team then, sure, we're a bottom third unit. If you instead assume that our second half of the season will transpire in similar fashion to the first with ups and downs, then we've got an average unit (which is not too bad considering who we've been missing).

Agreed, and well said. Much more concise then mine.