Anyone know about Play design?

[vlad]

Does anyone here have experience or advanced knowledge on play design? I've always wondered whats up with ours, I feel like its downfield routes or nothing for years, going back to TO and not using his ability to cross the field, which results in some interesting results - bad and good.

Are our plays desinged well, and are they called at the best times?
Can't recall who said this, but someone said something like "i feel like we have zero schematic advantage and just rely on perfect execution by Triplet like talent' I have my opinions, but any experts got a take on that?


thanks

 

[jday]

Does anyone here have experience or advanced knowledge on play design? I've always wondered whats up with ours, I feel like its downfield routes or nothing for years, going back to TO and not using his ability to cross the field, which results in some interesting results - bad and good.

Are our plays desinged well, and are they called at the best times?
Can't recall who said this, but someone said something like "i feel like we have zero schematic advantage and just rely on perfect execution by Triplet like talent' I have my opinions, but any experts got a take on that?


thanks

I'm not an expert, but I don't think you need to be an expert to see that play calling at times can be suspect with Redball.

 

[CATCH17]

I know about play design but the camera angle we get doesn't always give us enough info.

Garrett sucks as a Coordinator. That is for certain. No other team would give him that title.

 

[jobberone]

Not sure I'm qualified to give an answer but I'd like to hear the answers.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not an expert, but I don't think you need to be an expert to see that play calling at times can be suspect with Redball.

I know about play design but the camera angle we get doesn't always give us enough info.

Garrett sucks as a Coordinator. That is for certain. No other team would give him that title.

You two get a big ole

 

[vlad]

I wonder about things like the routes we run, the combinations, the strategies, are they tailored to certain players, and if so how much? example of the last one was my TO example - for years I've though Miles Austin would be a monster on something like that.

In the running game I assume its not so intricate but that probably also shows my lack of knowledge.


Can we not do it because we have zero pocket to think of?
Have we adjusted our routes to the fact that we have no pocket?
How much of Romo's missed throws this year (which are uncharacteristic) are just bad plays or are the results of the David Carr syndrome (always thinking you're going to get plastered) and how does that impact routes that get him off quickly...

For example, I've always thought Romo would be amazing in a Shannahan type offense...

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I wonder about things like the routes we run, the combinations, the strategies, are they tailored to certain players, and if so how much? example of the last one was my TO example - for years I've though Miles Austin would be a monster on something like that.

In the running game I assume its not so intricate but that probably also shows my lack of knowledge.


Can we not do it because we have zero pocket to think of?
Have we adjusted our routes to the fact that we have no pocket?
How much of Romo's missed throws this year (which are uncharacteristic) are just bad plays or are the results of the David Carr syndrome (always thinking you're going to get plastered) and how does that impact routes that get him off quickly...

For example, I've always thought Romo would be amazing in a Shannahan type offense...

There's a couple of guys around that used to coach, play, etc at high levels. They are around and may see this. I am not one of them or I would help you. I am curious myself.

 

[Future]

"i feel like we have zero schematic advantage and just rely on perfect execution by Triplet like talent'

I think that statement is spot on.

In terms of play design, I think JG's will work great if the WRs are beating corners consistently. He uses a lot of route combinations that are meant to find single coverage (like the seam/in routes with Witten and a WR that they highlighted in the Bears game). I think it's pretty obvious that JG doesn't do anything schematically to get guys open easily, which is why every yard this team gets looks so difficult, especially in the passing game.

 

[Cowboy Brian]

I am offensive coordinator for a flag football team that takes it way too seriously (bunch of friends from my HS team) and played QB before getting injured in my senior offseason. Neither of which qualifies me to judge a NFL team accurately but if I was to render a guess I would say Garrett tries to call this offense to be unpredictable so much so that he overthinks and over complicates simple things.


Look at the Ravens game - TD to Bryant, then he runs the same route same design and same throw to Bryant again. My thinking behind that is a defensive coordinator would not be expecting the exact same play again. I remember I think it was during the 2010 season when Garrett called a fade to Bennett in the endzone on 3 plays in a row... All incomplete.

Which is what I think plays a big role in us not doing things people would expect as Garrett presumes the defense can see it coming and he avoids that at all costs.

 

[erod]

It's complicated and not complicated at the same time.

Generally, you're trying to get 2-3 options for a QB within his field of vision at the same time. One route might just be to clear a lane for an underneath route, or you might be trying to create two routes at varying depths for a quarterback to see. Usually there's a last resort option in the flat or just beyond the line of scrimmage.

If you see two receivers standing five yards from each other, one of them screwed up and ran the wrong route. Interceptions happen because one receiver will run his defender into an area where he can defend a receiver he's not even covering.

Likewise, for shorter QBs like Brees or Romo, the offensive line blocks to create lanes of vision, but that doesn't always work.

So much of the options are entirely Romo's decision. He can check off to different plays, or change routes at the line of scrimmage. That's why the constant complaining about Garrett's playcalling is kinda silly and hollow. The QB has a lot of say-so these days. That's often why we go down to the last second on the snap so often.

Some people think it would be better to just call plays and run them regardless of what the defense shows. I do think we should do more of that, but also take advantage of Romo's experience, too.

 

[Neverhood]

We run very basic route combinations that have been around for decades (as do all teams). But we also run very basic formations. These two combined makes it easier for a defense, and in turn makes it look like the yards we get are fought for tooth and nail. We rarely run bunch formations, we rarely run tight snug formations, we literally do nothing special. Watch a saints broncos pats packers game hell even a chargers game who run similar concepts to the cowboys and they all run those formations multiple times a game. I know this isn't very detailed but someone will go into detail with pictures and diagrams I'm sure

 

[erod]

We run very basic route combinations that have been around for decades (as do all teams). But we also run very basic formations. These two combined makes it easier for a defense, and in turn makes it look like the yards we get are fought for tooth and nail. We rarely run bunch formations, we rarely run tight snug formations, we literally do nothing special. Watch a saints broncos pats packers game hell even a chargers game who run similar concepts to the cowboys and they all run those formations multiple times a game. I know this isn't very detailed but someone will go into detail with pictures and diagrams I'm sure

The most basic offense of all time was the early 90s Cowboys.

And no one could stop it.

 

[rickjameschinaclub]

The most basic offense of all time was the early 90s Cowboys.

And no one could stop it.

Wrong... Norv ran out of multiple different formations like he does today, and used plenty of play-action, which is predicated on keeping the opposing defense off-balance. Plus, he had one of the most accurate passers in the game with the timing-based routes. They were precise...

 

[Mr Cowboy]

I'm not a play designer expert, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night!

This offense was at its best when TO and Crayton were here. Do you see any of those routes that Crayton or TO ran?

Nope, the vast majority of routes by our WRs are outside the hash marks. It makes it very easy for the DC to defense, because they don't much worry about crossing routes or routes in the middle of the field. TO was deadly motioning to the slot and running seam routes against safeties. Crayton ran crossing routes and got a lot of seperation running away from defenders.

I have no idea why that is, and there is very little motion in our offense anymore. Garrett's offense has changed dramatically in the past 3 years.

 

[StarBoyz83]

Jg doesnt

 

[Little Jr]

The most basic offense of all time was the early 90s Cowboys.

And no one could stop it.

Yes and that was one of the if not the most talented team ever in the nfl. We aren't that anymore nor is any other team. Our offensive scheme sucks. Jg thinks we r the 90 cowboys but we aren't. Ray lewis said in 08 and nothing has change. Our offense isn't very hard to figure out

 

[MapleLeaf]

Wrong... Norv ran out of multiple different formations like he does today, and used plenty of play-action, which is predicated on keeping the opposing defense off-balance. Plus, he had one of the most accurate passers in the game with the timing-based routes. They were precise...

...to agree with Erod.

It was typically I-back set, single TE. Very little play action because he had Irvin, Harper, Novacek, Johnston and Smith who could catch the ball.

It was the weapons that kept the defences off balance not the plays.

I remember reading once that one of the 90s Cowboys stated that they would run plays where everyone in the stadium knew the ball was going to Smith, but no one could do anything about it.

They weren't about unusual formations such as 3WR sets. They beat you with their superior talent. The defence had no idea where the ball was going because so many players in their standard set could beat you for the first down.

 

[rickjameschinaclub]

...to agree with Erod.

It was typically I-back set, single TE. Very little play action because he had Irvin, Harper, Novacek, Johnston and Smith who could catch the ball.

It was the weapons that kept the defences off balance not the plays.

I remember reading once that one of the 90s Cowboys stated that they would run plays where everyone in the stadium knew the ball was going to Smith, but no one could do anything about it.

They weren't about unusual formations such as 3WR sets. They beat you with their superior talent. The defence had no idea where the ball was going because so many players in their standard set could beat you for the first down.

Here is a quote about the Coryell offense:

The offense did not have any set formations, as receivers could line up anywhere on any given pass play.[4] Passes were thrown to a spot before the receiver even got there, allowing defenders no hint where the pass was being targeted.[10] Each receiver had two or three different route options they could adjust depending on the coverage during the play.[11] Throwing a deep pass was the first option on each play.[8] Coryell's offense had more progressions than Gillman's, with backup options for screen passes and underneath routes.[12]

This is not a simple offense nor is it predictable. When I meant multiple formations, I actually meant the countless formations out of the basic pro-sets. Gruden himself made this point in the San Diego game against the Broncos in terms of Norv, running multiple different formations out of these sets. As far as Norv's version of Coryell, let's just go to Wiki:

Norv Turner learned the offense from longtime Coryell assistant, Ernie Zampese. As offensive coordinator with the Dallas Cowboys, Turner ran Coryell's offense a greater emphasis on sideline throws than the Chargers used.[20] Turner's take on the Coryell system turned around the career of Hall of Fame QB Troy Aikman and has proven to be very successful with talented high draft picks struggling with the complexities of the NFL, such as Alex Smith. Turner' variant is not the most robust flavor of Coryell offense. It is a very sound, QB friendly scheme that favors taking controlled chances, like quicker midrange post passes to WRs off play action rather than slower developing passes that leave QBs exposed. It is almost exclusively run out of the pro set. Turner favors a more limited palette of plays than Coryell and most other Coryell disciples, instead insisting on precise execution. His offenses are usually towards the top of the league standings, but are often labeled predictable. His offenses tend to include a strong running game, a #1 WR who can stretch the field and catch jump balls in the end-zone, a good receiving TE to attack the space the WRs create in the middle of the field and a FB who fills the role of a lead blocker and a final option as an outlet receiver. In Dallas, Turner made RB Emmitt Smith & WR Michael Irvin Hall of Famers, and TE Jay Novacek a five time pro bowler. As head coach of the San Diego Chargers, Turner's system helped quarterback Philip Rivers set new franchise records for single-season quarterback rating and touchdown passes in 2008.

So to point out:

1. Turner doesn't use long-developing pass plays, like Garrett and likes to target the intermediate range. On the other hand, our beloved Red-Headed Genius likes to have everybody go long, with Romo running for his life
2. Turner uses plenty of play-action, unlike Garrett, meaning Garrett never freezes the safeties over the top, while still having his WRs run long all day.
3. The Coryell offense, which implicitly includes Norv, introduced the concept of motion and WRs lining up essentially anywhere. That is unlike Garrett, who doesn't use plenty of motion at all.

As far as predictability, again, I believe it's a misnomer, especially because it's predicated on play-action. During the 90s, the predictability of the Cowboys was that by the end of the 3rd and into the 4th quarter, Emmitt use to get the dose of carries, because Norv was systematic having the big OL wear down the DL. That is when they new they were going to Emmitt, meaning they broke the will of the opposing team with a systematic approach to offense. That doesn't mean they were necessarily predictable in their offense.

 

[rickjameschinaclub]

To add to the point:

Dave Schula was horrendous with this offense, despite having Aikman and Irvin. When Ernie Zampese took over after Norv left, problems started surfacing and Dallas started having problems getting into the red-zone. Part of this was Novacek's injury, but this decline started even when he was here and healthy.

If it was simply about execution, the difference between Norv and Ernie, into the mid to end of the 90s wouldn't have been as dramatic.

 

[Zman5]

...to agree with Erod.

It was typically I-back set, single TE. Very little play action because he had Irvin, Harper, Novacek, Johnston and Smith who could catch the ball.

It was the weapons that kept the defences off balance not the plays.

I remember reading once that one of the 90s Cowboys stated that they would run plays where everyone in the stadium knew the ball was going to Smith, but no one could do anything about it.

They weren't about unusual formations such as 3WR sets. They beat you with their superior talent. The defence had no idea where the ball was going because so many players in their standard set could beat you for the first down.

Either you didn't watch the 90s Cowboys or don't remember. Most of Aikmans big plays came off of the play-action. Go lookup some of the big passes he threw. Aikman to Harper against the SF comes to mind.