Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

ggp · 09-28-2011, 04:57 PM

You are absolutely right. My suggestion to move Baker to RT was an effort to maximize the quality of our OL. Our interior OL would improve drastically with Clabo at RG. Of course, my hypothetical requires an upgrade at LT.

Not sure there is an answer for that problem this season.

**Radical** · (This post was last modified: 09-28-2011 06:43 PM by Radical.)

The "move the LT to RT" tactic works only when the LT has the physical ability to succeed at the tackle position, but doesn't have the lateral agility/footwork to deal with faster edge rushers. In case you haven't noticed, Baker has been destroyed in every fashion you can think of while run blocking and in pass protection. Coming out of college, he was known more as a finesse tackle. So far, he's been a finesse tackle without any kind of finesse whatsoever. I don't see a move to RT being any kind of improvement for him.

***phocis850*** · 09-29-2011, 01:28 AM

(09-28-2011 06:42 PM)Radical Wrote: The "move the LT to RT" tactic works only when the LT has the physical ability to succeed at the tackle position, but doesn't have the lateral agility/footwork to deal with faster edge rushers. In case you haven't noticed, Baker has been destroyed in every fashion you can think of while run blocking and in pass protection. Coming out of college, he was known more as a finesse tackle. So far, he's been a finesse tackle without any kind of finesse whatsoever. I don't see a move to RT being any kind of improvement for him.

It'd be helpful to Matt so he knows when to duck and cover.
Guy is getting blindsided 3-4 times a game.

Beef · (This post was last modified: 09-29-2011 01:24 PM by Beef.)

I said this in another thread too, but what irks me most is that there are plenty of plays you can run that don't rely on great blocking and actually kill defenses who over-rush and continually try to exploit your weaker and poorly playing OL, yet we don't hardly run them.

We're not calling plays that take pressure off the OL and help restore balance. We're instead being more predictable by continually trying to force being less predictable. And then when that's not working and we're now behind, THEN it's let's just try last years two-dimensional vanilla that got us 13-3.

We're trying to play catch up with ball-control dink n dunk in the 2nd and 3rd quarters and it's more counter-productive than anything.

I know it seems like people always turn to the OCs when they need someone to blame, but in this instance, I'm not seeing the proper scheme or play calling to compensate for an under-performing OL or the types of plays that take advantage of some of our talent. Nor do I see the proper adjustments that should be made when playing from behind.

We had to make some ridiculously incredible catches to come back and win that Eagles game. But the thing is, Ryan still got beat the he'll up that game and we didn't do any adjustments to the play calling to help that. We shouldn't have been forced to rely on spectacular catches in triple coverage as Matt's getting pounded into the ground to squeak out a win.

We DO have an offensive scheme problem right now whether we like it or not. Plays that penalize defenses for over-rushing and under-utilization of certain players who can help balance the offense and really make us less predictable are not being called. And lame excuses are being made for why, like our OL isn't quick enough to move latterally or quick enough to pull into the flats or we are supposed to be a pound the ball inside the hashes clock-control team, etc etc. That's BS. We're just not even trying. And that's a coaching problem.

Paulitik · 09-29-2011, 01:11 PM

(09-29-2011 12:40 PM)Beef Wrote: I said this in another thread too, but what irks me most is that there are plenty of plays you can run that don't rely on great blocking and actually kill defenses who over-rush and continually try to exploit your weaker and poorly playing OL, yet we don't hardly run them.

We're not calling plays that take pressure off the OL and help restore balance. We're instead being more predictable by continually trying force being less predictable. And then when that's not working and we're now behind, THEN it's let's just try last years two-dimensional vanilla that got us 13-3.

We're trying to play catch up with ball-control dink n dunk in the 2nd and 3rd quarters and it's more counter-productive than anything.

I know it seems like people alwYs turn to the OCs when they need someone to blame, but in this instance, I'm not seeing the proper scheme or play calling to compensate for an under-performing OL or the types of plays that take advantage of some of our talent. Nor do I see the proper adjustments that should be made when playing from behind.

We had to make some ridiculously incredible catches to come back and win that Eagles game. But the thing is, Ryan still got beat the he'll up that game and we didn't do any adjustments to the play calling to help that. We shouldn't have been forced to rely on spectacular catches in triple coverage as Matt's getting pounded into the ground to squeak out a win.

We DO have an offensive scheme problem right now whether we like it or not. Plays that penalize defenses for over-rushing and under-utilization of certain players who can help balance the offense and really make us less predictable are not being called. And lame excuses are being made for why, like our OL isn't quick enough to move latterally or quick enough to pull into the flats or we are supposed to be a pound the ball I side the hashes clock-control team, etc etc. That's BS. We're just not even trying. And that's a coaching problem.

Great post.

Beef · 09-29-2011, 03:31 PM

This made me think even a little more and I went back and looked at all the games from last year. Other than the Arizona game and the Baltimore game, I don't remember any others where we actually won the game because of scheme and play calling. Carolina, St. Louis, and Seattle were just bad teams, our talent simply beat theirs no matter what the play calling was on either side of the ball. But the majority of games we won were purely because we had incredible talent making incredible plays.

And so far this year, it's the same thing. It would be nice to actually win a game because the other team simply had no clue what we were doing next while we appeared to know exactly what they were doing every step. And like I said, other than maybe Ari and Bal last year, I don't remember the last time I saw us win a game because we just out-schemed them rather than out-talent.

Right now, if I'm a DC, I'm finding it extremely easy to game-plan against the Falcons because all I'm doing is playing the percentages. When I see X formation, I know that Y or Z is going to happen so I'm stacking against those possibilities in that order.

For example:

I-formation set with Ovie in front of Turner = 100% run to either LG or RG.
4-WR, 1-RB set = 2% chance of run, 3% chance of screen/draw, 10% chance of time to go deep, 85% chance of check-down inside 10 yards.
2-TE, 2-RB in T form, 2-WR = 10% chance of < 10 yard seam pass to TE or sideline pass to WR, 10% chance of RB inside tackles, 80% chance of run off either TE end, or if TE goes in motion it's 100% run to motion side behind TE.
Matty in shotgun with 1-RB, 3-WR, 1-TE = 1% chance of draw, 1% chance of screen or dump to RB, 3% chance of quick slant to slot receiver, 10% chance of 3-step drop skinny post pass, 20% chance of Matt rolling into flat on wide side hoping for open WR 5-10 yards away, 20% chance of seam pass to TE, 55% chance of check-down inside 10 yards.

Either way, on all of those I'm bull-rushing no less than 6, covering the 2nd layer with 3-4 and 3rd layer with 1-2 no more than 15 yards deep and cheating up. Fully willing to give up the 10-20% chance you burn me for the 80-90% chance I stuff you.

And if I wanted to seperate out the down and yardage and maybe even quarter and if we're behind or ahead I could probably be even more precise. But I'm just trying to make a simplified point.

We just aren't unpredictable at all. We have very very little dynamic, complexity, and variance to our plays. When you see us in a given formation and you stack against the percentages, you're going to stop us more times than not. I watch NE, GB, and NO games and I see opposing defenses looking stupid a lot. Like half of the plays called, the defense is out of position and looked like they had no freaking clue what might be coming at them. But when I watch our games, I see that on maybe, MAYBE, 10-20% of the plays tops. The vast majority of the time, the opposing defense looks like they know exactly what we were about to run or they sorta know so they shade a couple different possibilities and end up being right. I almost never see defenses against us look like we just flat out-schemed them into complete foolishness.

I would love to see us win a game without Roddy, Gonzo, Julio, Turner, and/or Ryan having to make some incredible play (or combination of plays) to beat the other team. It would be really nice to see our defense stop the other team from beating us because they're in position to make plays and/or our offense is beating the other defense because they can't figure out at all WTF play we're going to run next and we just make them look stupid.

Imagine if we lined up in the I-formation with Ovie and Turner, but Matt took a 7-step drop, Ovie and Turner actually blocked, and we threw a latteral to Julio or Roddy who are now 1v1 on a CB. Or we faked a handoff to Turner who actually turned around once he broke through the DL and caught a dump pass while Matt is backpeddling away from a charging DL and LB corps.

Or imagine while in the shotgun with Quizz in the back and 3-WR set, we pull 2 OL's while Matt backpeddles and tosses a screen to Quizz in the flat on the stacked WR side and he gets to run his little ass behind 2 big OL's and a couple WR's. Or maybe we just finally run multiple short crossing routes from a formation we normally run from and cause some confusion out there for a change.

When that starts happening and it looks like our plays are winning us games rather than our players making incredible plays, THEN I won't put this on our OC and DC. Until then, IMO it's on them.

**papachaz** · 09-29-2011, 06:41 PM

(09-29-2011 03:31 PM)Beef Wrote: This made me think even a little more and I went back and looked at all the games from last year. Other than the Arizona game and the Baltimore game, I don't remember any others where we actually won the game because of scheme and play calling. Carolina, St. Louis, and Seattle were just bad teams, our talent simply beat theirs no matter what the play calling was on either side of the ball. But the majority of games we won were purely because we had incredible talent making incredible plays.

And so far this year, it's the same thing. It would be nice to actually win a game because the other team simply had no clue what we were doing next while we appeared to know exactly what they were doing every step. And like I said, other than maybe Ari and Bal last year, I don't remember the last time I saw us win a game because we just out-schemed them rather than out-talent.

Right now, if I'm a DC, I'm finding it extremely easy to game-plan against the Falcons because all I'm doing is playing the percentages. When I see X formation, I know that Y or Z is going to happen so I'm stacking against those possibilities in that order.

For example:

I-formation set with Ovie in front of Turner = 100% run to either LG or RG.
4-WR, 1-RB set = 2% chance of run, 3% chance of screen/draw, 10% chance of time to go deep, 85% chance of check-down inside 10 yards.
2-TE, 2-RB in T form, 2-WR = 10% chance of < 10 yard seam pass to TE or sideline pass to WR, 10% chance of RB inside tackles, 80% chance of run off either TE end, or if TE goes in motion it's 100% run to motion side behind TE.
Matty in shotgun with 1-RB, 3-WR, 1-TE = 1% chance of draw, 1% chance of screen or dump to RB, 3% chance of quick slant to slot receiver, 10% chance of 3-step drop skinny post pass, 20% chance of Matt rolling into flat on wide side hoping for open WR 5-10 yards away, 20% chance of seam pass to TE, 55% chance of check-down inside 10 yards.

Either way, on all of those I'm bull-rushing no less than 6, covering the 2nd layer with 3-4 and 3rd layer with 1-2 no more than 15 yards deep and cheating up. Fully willing to give up the 10-20% chance you burn me for the 80-90% chance I stuff you.

And if I wanted to seperate out the down and yardage and maybe even quarter and if we're behind or ahead I could probably be even more precise. But I'm just trying to make a simplified point.

We just aren't unpredictable at all. We have very very little dynamic, complexity, and variance to our plays. When you see us in a given formation and you stack against the percentages, you're going to stop us more times than not. I watch NE, GB, and NO games and I see opposing defenses looking stupid a lot. Like half of the plays called, the defense is out of position and looked like they had no freaking clue what might be coming at them. But when I watch our games, I see that on maybe, MAYBE, 10-20% of the plays tops. The vast majority of the time, the opposing defense looks like they know exactly what we were about to run or they sorta know so they shade a couple different possibilities and end up being right. I almost never see defenses against us look like we just flat out-schemed them into complete foolishness.

I would love to see us win a game without Roddy, Gonzo, Julio, Turner, and/or Ryan having to make some incredible play (or combination of plays) to beat the other team. It would be really nice to see our defense stop the other team from beating us because they're in position to make plays and/or our offense is beating the other defense because they can't figure out at all WTF play we're going to run next and we just make them look stupid.

Imagine if we lined up in the I-formation with Ovie and Turner, but Matt took a 7-step drop, Ovie and Turner actually blocked, and we threw a latteral to Julio or Roddy who are now 1v1 on a CB. Or we faked a handoff to Turner who actually turned around once he broke through the DL and caught a dump pass while Matt is backpeddling away from a charging DL and LB corps.

Or imagine while in the shotgun with Quizz in the back and 3-WR set, we pull 2 OL's while Matt backpeddles and tosses a screen to Quizz in the flat on the stacked WR side and he gets to run his little ass behind 2 big OL's and a couple WR's. Or maybe we just finally run multiple short crossing routes from a formation we normally run from and cause some confusion out there for a change.

When that starts happening and it looks like our plays are winning us games rather than our players making incredible plays, THEN I won't put this on our OC and DC. Until then, IMO it's on them.

another great post in this thread, thanks for backing up what i said about having people who DO know something about football spelling out why our co-ordinator appears to be the problem.Plus one

**Radical** · 09-29-2011, 06:43 PM

(09-29-2011 06:41 PM)papachaz Wrote: another great post in this thread, thanks for backing up what i said about having people who DO know something about football spelling out why our co-ordinator appears to be the problem.Plus one

Trying to say something about me papa?

The Don™ · (This post was last modified: 09-29-2011 09:04 PM by The Don™.)

Incredible two posts there, Beef....Those are my big problems with the OC and the offense...Innovation and ability to scheme effectively are lacking...My problems with Mularkey started coming up during the 2009 season and have pretty much gotten worse over these two years...

**papachaz** · 09-30-2011, 09:46 AM

(09-29-2011 06:43 PM)Radical Wrote: Trying to say something about me papa?

what? not at all. in my first response to ggp, who said he's sees complaints about the co-ordinators all the time without salient reasons, i said that there are tons of posts throughout the board about why are co-ordinators fail by people with some football knowledge who backup what they say. MHO is that Beefs post just backed me up.