Another good post, dgreenie.
dg is another guy, like LL56, who while always one of the more informed and interesting posters, has really stepped up their game this season and is making a lot of excellent football commentary on the board (whether various positions are agreed to or not by whoever).
And you get KDawg, NLC, Oldfan and so many others (I could rattle off a LOT of names). We are fortunate to have so many interesting and knowledgeable football posters on this site.
"Captain, it's a viewpoint--not one of ours! We're under attack!"
"I see it, ensign! Engage amygdala! Transfer all power from frontal lobes!
Suspend critical thinking field! Go to course heading of reflexive response 101 at full bias!
Now!'Enter' at will!"
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
Your evolution is essentially the basic premise of the Duck. A doubles look. 2x2. Now, the beautiful part of a 2x2 being a part of your offense (and not the whole thing) is the various personnel packages you can run with it. I don't have to run 10 personnel there (10 = 1 RB 0 TE for those unfamiliar with personnel groupings). I can run the "Doubles" formation in 12 personnel. Or 11 personnel. Or 21 personnel. There are many ways to do it, and by using SOME base formations such as twins and classic "I", you can hide your intentions with personnel groupings. Furthermore, you can come out in one type of personnel, say 21 (2 backs, 1 tight end) and align in, say, a twins look and see what kind of look the defense gives you and their personnel package. If they come out in a traditional defensive package and not nickel, you can shift to a doubles look if you have tight ends that can align outside like the Patriots do.
There's a ton of variation given a diverse group of personnel.
Love your idea of evolution. It's exactly what I would do if I were interested in running a spread look.
I have been researching and studying the Chip Kelly offense for a few weeks so I love this thread I started out thinking he was a 2012 version of Spurrier but the more I learn the more impressed I am with him as a offensive mind rather than "Gimmicky coach" .
I have been so impressed that I have changed my stance from " Hell no he wears a visor" to " I would roll the dice and partner him with a strong personnel guy"
I know a few posters know about the spread offense but a majority of the posters don't really "know" the offense. I'm using this thread to post the Chip Kelly Oregon Offense info to 1. teach people about the zone spread since Redskins are running it 2. Teach people about Chip Kellys offense.
.. Props Kdawg for the perfect thread to do this in..
First up Is Chip Kelly coaching clinic used as the basis for the Grantland article
Tutorial #1 Inside Zone Read
Tutorial #2 Outside Zone Read
Tutorial #3 The Power Play
Tutorial #4 The Straddle Triple option
How Chip Kelly defeats the "Cover O"
---------- Post added November-17th-2012 at 04:01 AM ----------
Passing game reads
If Oregon loses tonight the nay sayers will all over this thread.
One of the best things about Kelly's offense is that he does it with a pile of reject recruits and guys that nobody else wanted. How many Oregon players can you name in the NFL right now?
I'd love to see him as a OC, not necessarily a head coach. Just the tempo and concepts are worth bringing to the NFL.
I don't think he's received enough targets to know.
---------- Post added November-17th-2012 at 10:26 AM ----------
I just wish we ran the spread option more. The 2x2 especially but even the 3x1 offer a lot of versatility both through peronnel as KD mentioned and conceptually. You can run the spread option plays from either set and the traditional NFL shotgun passing game.
seems strange to me that the outside backers would always be considered outside the box.
Interesting article, I really like the lens grantland views sports through.
Regarding some points brought up in the article specifically.
-I do find his method of practice very appealing and believe it will be interesting to see if it catches on in the NFL. I understand the blaring music, but think it could be someone counter-productive in instances, but I love his ideas regarding tempo of practice.
-I am also largely in favor of running more spread looks, and in my opinion as we gain depth/talent at the WR position we'll see more of these looks.
There was another grantland article I posted in a thread a few weeks back that broke down defenses and more specifically fumbles. The article projected that the Redskins defense/offense, who at the time had been very lucky recovering fumbles, would regress as the season continued on.
It's worth a read if you have the time.
"The Hidden Factor for Winning in the NFL"
Meanwhile, the Washington Redskins soldier on as the league's luckiest team with regard to fumbles, having recovered 11 of the 13 opportunities they've had across their season so far. The context of those fumbles has also been enormous: Remember that the Redskins forced a Marques Colston fumble just as the Saints receiver was about to cross the goal line, eventually producing a touchback and a turnover, as well as managing to recover a RG3 fumble in the end zone on offense for a touchdown in Week 4. You may note that the Redskins won those two games by a combined 10 points when thinking about how important fumble recoveries are, even if they're mostly random.
The Redskins have produced a recovery rate of 84.6 percent, while no other team is yet above 72.7 percent this season. The other teams in the top five are the Raiders (72.7 percent), Steelers (71.4 percent), Falcons (70.0 percent), and the Cardinals and Patriots are tied (68.8 percent). All of these are in samples of between 10 and 16 fumbles, so it really doesn't have much predicative value.
Last edited by Mahons21; November-17th-2012 at 10:27 AM.
---------- Post added November-17th-2012 at 11:27 AM ----------
One of the challenges with any college coach coming into the NFL is that he's no longer able to recruit from a talent base of hundreds of thousands of athletes to fill his team needs. Professional coaches are given a roster to work with, and barring a few maneuvers in free agency coupled with 7 alotted draft picks, that's the roster they're going into the season with. As we've seen with Shanahan, it's very difficult to turn over an entire roster quickly and effectively in this league. Either you have to make your system work with the talent you already have, or everyone involved with the franchise (owner, coaches, players, and fans) will have to be really patient with the rebuilding efforts.
With a system as specialized as Kelly's, will he be able to find the necessary players that are athletic enough, diverse enough, and intelligent enough to run his scheme the way it needs to be run to be successful in the NFL? Do we have players that are system-ready for Kelly? That would be my major concern.
Of course, the flipside of that concern is that, with such a unique system, Kelly may place an emphasis on different types of players than traditional schemes. As a result, the types of players that Kelly covets may be more readily available than your average incoming coach. A great comparison to this idea was Alex Gibbs and his zone blocking scheme, particularly in the '90s. When everyone else was looking for the 300+ lb power-blockers, Gibbs was able to utilize the best of the best from the athletic yet undersized crop of OL. Gibbs ended up consistently producing dominant lines for what he wanted to do, even though few other teams coveted a number of individual linemen that he was successful with.
I'm still in on the Shanahan plan, but if we were to move in another direction, I would absolutely be down with bringing in Chip Kelly. I still have concerns, but I believe the potential reward is worth the risks.
Last edited by RedskinParadigm; November-17th-2012 at 11:04 AM.
The more I see of Kelly's offense, the more I think it could possibly work in the NFL with a couple tweaks. I think we'd have to have to hook him up with one hell of a personnel guy, but with some tweaks, and a little flexibility, it could work in the NFL.
Part of me still says if we ever did make a switch, I'd want to go with someone in the West Coast Offense coaching tree and continue to developer RG3 as a dropback passer, because I feel like that's what he wants to be----the next Aaron Rodgers. I'm not wild about running him as much as we have past this season. But Chip's offense looks like it could work in the NFL. I just have to watch more tape of it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)