I thought...

[wileedog]

I'm not sold on the system we are running. In fact I think it is a formula for failure if you want to know the truth. I'm not too interested in shoring it up. If Parcells and his minions can make me eat my words I'll gladly do it. I'll relish the bitterness.

Our offense is the Warner Rams compared to what Pittsburgh is riding to the SB this year.

Denver has an "imaginative" blocking scheme, but basically they've scaled everything way back to limit Plummer's mistakes.

Honestly I have no problem with our scheme or approach. I think we need to execute better, especially running the ball. We had WAY too many negative or no yardage runs this year, and can only think of a couple of games off the top of my head that we really established the ground game to a point that it opened up the passing game and took the pressure of Bledsoe and the tackles.

Plus I think what a lot of people are judging is an offense that for several games late in the season actually had a WR (Key) in pass protection - in other words, max protect to the point of ridiculousness. I would find it hard to argue that this was a scheme any of our coaches would choose to run given better Oline play.

All that said I'm not saying we should be fitting SB rings because Palmer was hired. I just think given the alternatives, SP is right that continuity is probably the best way to go, along with a healthy dose of new offense line talent.

And like you, I'm more interested in building that dominating defense first anyway.

 

[superpunk]

Our offense is basically designed to keep us in games. It lacks imagination other than the occasional trick play. I can't name one play that we run that is executed so well that it would give opposing teams a sleepless night. Can it win games? Sure, I'm not saying it can't. Is it going to get us to the next level? I don't think so.

That's why I am a strong advocate of going hard at finishing the defense in this off season. In my opinion that is our only shot at glory at this juncture. To build a defense that no one can move the ball on. If we do that, then none of this stuff bothers me.

Hitting the defense hard is the best option, I'm in agreement there.

The biggest problem with our run game IMO is our atrocious run game. We run a ball control offense, and admittedly we do that with the best in the league - see our TOP this year for evidence there. The problem is, our run game isn't nearly as effective as it should be. We were 26th in the league in ypc this year. It's because of that, I have a very specific reason to be hopeful for this offense.

Consider this for a moment;

The top 5 teams in the NFL, in terms of TOP for 2005 were as follows.

1. Denver
2. Dallas
3. Kansas City
4. San Diego
5. Washington

All of those teams, save the Cowboys, are in the top 10 in terms of ypc in the NFL. The lowest is Washington, at 4.2. The rest, range from 4.5 to 4.7 ypc. The Dallas Cowboys ypc for 2005? A measly 3.6 ypc. That is a full yard less than the other teams in the top 5 TOP. Let's say the Cowboys can improve their run game to the point where it is like Washington's, 4.2 ypc. That would put our rushing total for the year at 2,188 yds, a full 320 yards better than it was this year. The meaning, or at least how I take it? Drives are extended. Comebacks like Washington, Seattle, Carolina, etc...do not happen. There is no time, because we can actually run the ball effectively. The domino effect of having that success in the run game? I think we all know what happens to your passing and play-action game with an effective run game.

So, that is the difference I am hopeful for this year. I believe that continuity is extremely important, particularly in terms of run blocking and the run game. That's where the improvement needs to come from. If having Palmer here frees Parcells up to focus more on that than the passing game, then it's a successful hire in my book.

 

[hockix]

You have good points guys.
Your posts are really interesting.

Different point of vue explained with class act.

That's why I enjoy this forum so much...

 

[Hostile]

Our offense is the Warner Rams compared to what Pittsburgh is riding to the SB this year.

If we had a Jerome Bettis for the hard yards and a Ben Roethlisberger to build around I'd be more comfortable with our scheme. I've always preferred the battering ram style RBs. We don't have one.

Denver has an "imaginative" blocking scheme, but basically they've scaled everything way back to limit Plummer's mistakes.

True, but I'm not sure that has to do with my desire to open up our offense. Forgive me if I'm being dense.

Honestly I have no problem with our scheme or approach. I think we need to execute better, especially running the ball. We had WAY too many negative or no yardage runs this year, and can only think of a couple of games off the top of my head that we really established the ground game to a point that it opened up the passing game and took the pressure of Bledsoe and the tackles.

I wouldn't have a problem with it if I felt our personnel fit it. I don't think they do. Keyshawn comes closest, and even he doesn't seem to fit it.

You can pass to set up the run. We ran to set up the run. Aren't you tired of Draw Plays on 3rd and long? What about 4 yard pass routes on 3rd and 7? Now before you tell me we have to block better to pass deeper, I know this. But you can also take the occasional chance and throw deep so defenses have to respect it. Our style draws defenses in tight to the areas we look to attack giving blitzes more angles to come at our statue of a QB. This is my beef with our Offense.

Plus I think what a lot of people are judging is an offense that for several games late in the season actually had a WR (Key) in pass protection - in other words, max protect to the point of ridiculousness. I would find it hard to argue that this was a scheme any of our coaches would choose to run given better Oline play.

I don't disagree with this at all, but by throwing it 5 or 6 yards every time do we spread the defense out enough to open more run lanes?

All that said I'm not saying we should be fitting SB rings because Palmer was hired. I just think given the alternatives, SP is right that continuity is probably the best way to go, along with a healthy dose of new offense line talent.

I'll politely disagree.

And like you, I'm more interested in building that dominating defense first anyway.

I hope we do this.

 

[Hostile]

Hitting the defense hard is the best option, I'm in agreement there.

The biggest problem with our run game IMO is our atrocious run game. We run a ball control offense, and admittedly we do that with the best in the league - see our TOP this year for evidence there. The problem is, our run game isn't nearly as effective as it should be. We were 26th in the league in ypc this year. It's because of that, I have a very specific reason to be hopeful for this offense.

Consider this for a moment;

The top 5 teams in the NFL, in terms of TOP for 2005 were as follows.

1. Denver
2. Dallas
3. Kansas City
4. San Diego
5. Washington

All of those teams, save the Cowboys, are in the top 10 in terms of ypc in the NFL. The lowest is Washington, at 4.2. The rest, range from 4.5 to 4.7 ypc. The Dallas Cowboys ypc for 2005? A measly 3.6 ypc. That is a full yard less than the other teams in the top 5 TOP. Let's say the Cowboys can improve their run game to the point where it is like Washington's, 4.2 ypc. That would put our rushing total for the year at 2,188 yds, a full 320 yards better than it was this year. The meaning, or at least how I take it? Drives are extended. Comebacks like Washington, Seattle, Carolina, etc...do not happen. There is no time, because we can actually run the ball effectively. The domino effect of having that success in the run game? I think we all know what happens to your passing and play-action game with an effective run game.

So, that is the difference I am hopeful for this year. I believe that continuity is extremely important, particularly in terms of run blocking and the run game. That's where the improvement needs to come from. If having Palmer here frees Parcells up to focus more on that than the passing game, then it's a successful hire in my book.

I agree with every word of this. It supports what I've been saying this off season.

1. Tony Sparano's blocking schemes, especially in the run game, do not fit our personnel. There would be a whole lot less griping about our young Tackles and max protect schemes if he had a better scheme. JMO.

2. We don't have pound it down your throats RBs, so using the pass to set up the run (Al Saunders' philosophy is an example) would make more sense.

3. Opening up the passing game would move defenders out and away from our QB and RBs thus opening up more options.

I'm not suggesting we adopt a run and shoot here. Football is chess with human pieces. I just want an offense that can make a defense pay for what they are doing instead of an offense that tries to prevent a defense from making us pay for what we are doing. In defense of Chris Palmer he did that in Bledsoe's early years. He hasn't done it since. Hence my reticence.

Like I said, nothing would make me happier than to eat my words. Right now, I worry that we're basically standing pat when the status quo was hardly enough. I don't see fixing the OL as the solution to the kind of scoring we all dream of. Changing philosophies can.

 

[Hostile]

You have good points guys.
Your posts are really interesting.

Different point of vue explained with class act.

That's why I enjoy this forum so much...

Thanks Hockix. I've enjoyed my recent debates with Wileedog immensely. This is my first with Superpunk but it is equally enjoyable for me.

 

[superpunk]

I agree with every word of this. It supports what I've been saying this off season.

1. Tony Sparano's blocking schemes, especially in the run game, do not fit our personnel. There would be a whole lot less griping about our young Tackles and max protect schemes if he had a better scheme. JMO.

2. We don't have pound it down your throats RBs, so using the pass to set up the run (Al Saunders' philosophy is an example) would make more sense.

3. Opening up the passing game would move defenders out and away from our QB and RBs thus opening up more options.

I'm not suggesting we adopt a run and shoot here. Football is chess with human pieces. I just want an offense that can make a defense pay for what they are doing instead of an offense that tries to prevent a defense from making us pay for what we are doing. In defense of Chris Palmer he did that in Bledsoe's early years. He hasn't done it since. Hence my reticence.

Like I said, nothing would make me happier than to eat my words. Right now, I worry that we're basically standing pat when the status quo was hardly enough. I don't see fixing the OL as the solution to the kind of scoring we all dream of. Changing philosophies can.

It all sounds good. I'm not familiar with Palmer in Jax, so I don't know the extent of their offensive prowess, or how different the scheme was from his time in NE. I do remember that Fred Taylor and Mark Brunell were a hell of a tandem, and haven't duplicated that sort of success since.

I remember early in the season, all the cries from Drew & co. to open it up. And that seemed to work when we went up against some inferior defenses. But, it caught up with us when we brought our sorry offensive line against teams like the Giants, The Skins, to a certain extent the Seahawks (although I think weather caused us to play it a little closer to the vest.) There is a conception about Bledsoe that he is immobile, that he WILL not move. From what I've seen, that's completely bogus. Bledsoe is quite adept at shifting within the pocket, his pocet awareness isn't the best, but he will sidestep, step up, etc, to avoid the rush. It just happens that there was absolutely nowhere to go half the time.

I think one of the major ways that can be fixed is improvement from the Center. It seemed there were alot of misses up the gut on our line. Which one of the three interior linemen was it? I'd say a combination. Johnson/Gurode's inexperience seemed to cost us in blitz pickups, LA's lateral movement seemed inadequate at times, and Rivera was just an unbearable load on the whole line. I don't see any way to compensate, scheme or otherwise, for that ineptitude. (The other option is that it's actually the scheme causing the problem, and if that's the case....ugh. I just can't pin it on either, and it's most likely a combination of the two. Things are seldom ALL one thing, or ALL another.) It's already been mentioned how often Key was held in - ON THE LINE, lol - that happened entirely too much, and it needs to stop.

Another way I see, is the development of a third reciever. I have high hopes for Crayton, his hands are great and he seems to run nice routes. If there was at least another threat at 15-20 yards besides Glenn, I think that would force teams to be a little more honest. As good a possession reciever as Keyshawn is, teams are NEVER going to dedicate more than one defender to him. Witten needs to be utilized better, as well. More routes like the seam route he ran against the Chiefs, for a TD. Running him in the 8-10 yard range is fine and dandy, but we all know how Bledsoe feels about 8 yard completions.

If they can do that, and get us above 4 ypc in the run game, I think this team can have success. It's still going to be pretty boring, but it can also be pretty darn effective.

 

[superpunk]

Thanks Hockix. I've enjoyed my recent debates with Wileedog immensely. This is my first with Superpunk but it is equally enjoyable for me.

Likewise.:thankyou:

 

[wileedog]

2. We don't have pound it down your throats RBs, so using the pass to set up the run (Al Saunders' philosophy is an example) would make more sense.

Our run/pass ratio was almost identical to KC's this year. Like within 1 run and 2 passes.

Now they did average more per attempt, but that's mostly because they could afford to take a 7 step drop once in awhile. Plus with Larry Johnson giving them lots of 2nd and 3's they could afford to take more shots.

But I don't see any statisitical evidence at all that they used the pass to set up the run. Looks to me like they used 5 bruising O-lineman to set up the run.

Saunders is from the same school as Gibbs, and any Commander fan will tell you everything Gibbs does starts with a power running game.

 

[Woods]

Our run/pass ratio was almost identical to KC's this year. Like within 1 run and 2 passes.

Now they did average more per attempt, but that's mostly because they could afford to take a 7 step drop once in awhile. Plus with Larry Johnson giving them lots of 2nd and 3's they could afford to take more shots.

But I don't see any statisitical evidence at all that they used the pass to set up the run. Looks to me like they used 5 bruising O-lineman to set up the run.

Saunders is from the same school as Gibbs, and any Commander fan will tell you everything Gibbs does starts with a power running game.

But to set up the power running game, which I believe BP would LOVE to do, what pieces do we still need?

Let's assume that Flo comes back healthy. Is LA still good enough for 1 more year? I think we need to replace A. Johnson. If Gurode could make the correct calls, I think he's got the necessary girth. But Gurode just isn't consistent. And we definitely need to improve the RT play.

We're potentially talking about replacing at least 2 guys on the OL (A. Johnson and RT). That's going to take an effort in both FA and the Draft.

The problem is that if we try to sign a guy like Bentley in FA, we probably aren't going to pay for a RT, and if we sign a RT in FA we aren't going to pay for Bentley.

The Draft pick we will have to use would likely have to be in the first 2 rounds if we want a rookie to step in immediately. And if we're talking about a rookie RT stepping in on Day 1, we are likely talking about a round 1 pick.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Palmer is predictable and IMO boring.

I heard he ran complex and aggressive schemes

 

[Hostile]

Our run/pass ratio was almost identical to KC's this year. Like within 1 run and 2 passes.

Now they did average more per attempt, but that's mostly because they could afford to take a 7 step drop once in awhile. Plus with Larry Johnson giving them lots of 2nd and 3's they could afford to take more shots.

But I don't see any statisitical evidence at all that they used the pass to set up the run. Looks to me like they used 5 bruising O-lineman to set up the run.

Saunders is from the same school as Gibbs, and any Commander fan will tell you everything Gibbs does starts with a power running game.

This is why I always say Stats don't tell the whole story. How many runs left? How many right? How many sweeps? How many from I formation? How many slants? How many posts? How many crosses?

Number of plays run doesn't have anything to do with similarity of scheme.

If it did, wouldn't these numbers indicate that my preference of Al Saunders to any other candidate had valid reasoning? I was led to believe earlier in this thread that he would be a far cry from where we are trying to go. I politely disagree. I think that is exactly where we need to go.

How many offensive series did each team have? If one team had 24 (pulled out of thin air as an example only) more offensive touches on the season than the other would that be significant? I think it would be.

Let's look at offensive scoring between the 2 teams. 403 for KC and 325 for Dallas. What does that indicate to you taking into consideration your contention of 1 run play and 2 pass plays difference?

Here's what it says to me. They were more explosive and thus more effective. What contributes to that? Personnel and scheme. They have the personnel advantage, especially at OL. Without looking it up, name me all 5 of KC's starting OL. Not exactly legenday names at 3 of the 5 positions, IMO. They have a clearly superior scheme. See my comments on Sparano's scheme earlier.

The point is they can have virtually identical pass and run plays, but please don't tell me we were anywhere near as effective. You can't lay all of that 78 point discrepency at the feet of the OL and the Kicker. Somewhere in there you need to make concessions for the effectiveness of plays called.

FYI, I do not see KC as a pass to set up the run team with Larry Johnson, I did when Vermeil first got there and used Priest as he did Faulk in KC. The point is they were adaptable.

 

[superpunk]

Here's what it says to me. They were more explosive and thus more effective. What contributes to that? Personnel and scheme. They have the personnel advantage, especially at OL. Without looking it up, name me all 5 of KC's starting OL. Not exactly legenday names at 3 of the 5 positions, IMO.

And there's the deal. Continuity, baby. Here's a list of the starting 5 (they've used two players at RG, not sure why, but it's been mostly Welbourn. Injury?) and their years of starting experience within the Chiefs organization and scheme.

Roaf - 4 years
Waters - 4 years
Wiegmann - 5 years
Welbourn - 3 years
Shields - 13 years

They've been playing together, as a unit, for 3, 4, 5 years. They know their blocking scheme like the back of their hand, and it can't be stopped. Flip the coin, and check out the Boys experience together.

Flo-8 years
Allen - 12 years
Johnson - 2 years starting
Rivera - 1 year
Pettiti - 1 year.

Our entire right side was brand spankin new. Time and continuity are necessary.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

and HOstile, when you say imaginative, isn't a flea-flicker imaginative? the problem with that is though, it's the only imaginative play we can run that doesn't require our Offensive line to hold their blocks for more than 2 seconds, as the flea-flicker uses the art of suprise to freeze the defenders, while imaginative plays need time to set up, which needs lineman to hold their blocks, which we haven't had in awhile, this also ties into what my friend superpunk just posted above me, about the continuity of the Oline

see, this is why I'm not so concerned with who our assistant coaches are, I want to see this team add talent

 

[Bob Sacamano]

And there's the deal. Continuity, baby. Here's a list of the starting 5 (they've used two players at RG, not sure why, but it's been mostly Welbourn. Injury?) and their years of starting experience within the Chiefs organization and scheme.

Roaf - 4 years
Waters - 4 years
Wiegmann - 5 years
Welbourn - 3 years
Shields - 13 years

They've been playing together, as a unit, for 3, 4, 5 years. They know their blocking scheme like the back of their hand, and it can't be stopped. Flip the coin, and check out the Boys experience together.

Flo-8 years
Allen - 12 years
Johnson - 2 years starting
Rivera - 1 year
Pettiti - 1 year.

Our entire right side was brand spankin new. Time and continuity are necessary.

and don't forget, the Chief's Oline is filled with mobile guys, we dont' have that luxury, it's half and half

 

[Hostile]

It all sounds good. I'm not familiar with Palmer in Jax, so I don't know the extent of their offensive prowess, or how different the scheme was from his time in NE. I do remember that Fred Taylor and Mark Brunell were a hell of a tandem, and haven't duplicated that sort of success since.

I remember early in the season, all the cries from Drew & co. to open it up. And that seemed to work when we went up against some inferior defenses. But, it caught up with us when we brought our sorry offensive line against teams like the Giants, The Skins, to a certain extent the Seahawks (although I think weather caused us to play it a little closer to the vest.) There is a conception about Bledsoe that he is immobile, that he WILL not move. From what I've seen, that's completely bogus. Bledsoe is quite adept at shifting within the pocket, his pocet awareness isn't the best, but he will sidestep, step up, etc, to avoid the rush. It just happens that there was absolutely nowhere to go half the time.

I think one of the major ways that can be fixed is improvement from the Center. It seemed there were alot of misses up the gut on our line. Which one of the three interior linemen was it? I'd say a combination. Johnson/Gurode's inexperience seemed to cost us in blitz pickups, LA's lateral movement seemed inadequate at times, and Rivera was just an unbearable load on the whole line. I don't see any way to compensate, scheme or otherwise, for that ineptitude. (The other option is that it's actually the scheme causing the problem, and if that's the case....ugh. I just can't pin it on either, and it's most likely a combination of the two. Things are seldom ALL one thing, or ALL another.) It's already been mentioned how often Key was held in - ON THE LINE, lol - that happened entirely too much, and it needs to stop.

Another way I see, is the development of a third reciever. I have high hopes for Crayton, his hands are great and he seems to run nice routes. If there was at least another threat at 15-20 yards besides Glenn, I think that would force teams to be a little more honest. As good a possession reciever as Keyshawn is, teams are NEVER going to dedicate more than one defender to him. Witten needs to be utilized better, as well. More routes like the seam route he ran against the Chiefs, for a TD. Running him in the 8-10 yard range is fine and dandy, but we all know how Bledsoe feels about 8 yard completions.

If they can do that, and get us above 4 ypc in the run game, I think this team can have success. It's still going to be pretty boring, but it can also be pretty darn effective.

Very good post.

I want to touch on the 3rd WR aspect because I think that is highly significant to what I have been saying. How did you like the Peerless Price experiment? What about when Crayton was healthy, in your opinion did we look at him enough? How about Witten. Enough looks?

IMO, this is exactly where we are predictable and thus vulnerable. This year Indianapolis went away from Brandon Stokley as a 3rd WR that could hurt defenses. The question is, what did they do to compensate? IMO they went to the TE more and threw to the RBs more. They also threw deep more often to keep teams spread.

Okay, how does that translate to Dallas and what we did? Witten was used less than last year. Granted part of it was taken up as a blocker. We threw very little to the RBs. We threw very little to a 3rd WR option. If we ran 4 WR sets it had to be awfully few.

What effect did this create for the defenses assigned to stop us? It gave them at least one extra pass rusher because they could play zone 10 to 15 yards deep with anywhere between 4 and 6 players. This provides several blitz packages. Where did we struggle? Picking up the blitz.

There are at least a couple of ways to make the 10 to 15 yards they have to cover be dangerous to them. 1 is to have a smashmouth running game that causes them to cheat LBs and safeties up for run support. We don't have that. A 2nd way would be to run screens. We suck at them. A 3rd way would be to make them extend the Zone deeper. We didn't do this near enough and when we did it was usually with 1 WR. We simply didn't do enough to make teams play us honest.

Basically our offensive scheme put defenders right where they needed to be most of the time to stop us short of where we needed to be. That is my gripe with our offense.

We tried to compensate for this with flea flickers and reverses. Exciting when they work, rather bush when they don't. We need to develop a screen pass badly IMO if this offense is going to make a quantum leap forward. Teams simply do not have to defense for that very often. I refer you to the Landry days of Preston Pearson for how dangerous it can be. For recent examples please see St. Louis with Faulk and KC with Holmes.

No matter how hard we try, Julius is not going to become a battering ram RB. He will be most effective in space or out of the I formation on occasional sweeps. If we'd throw it to him more it would add a wrinkle to the picture. That is what I mean by passing to set up the run.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Basically our offensive scheme put defenders right where they needed to be most of the time to stop us short of where we needed to be. That is my gripe with our offense.

We tried to compensate for this with flea flickers and reverses. Exciting when they work, rather bush when they don't. We need to develop a screen pass badly IMO if this offense is going to make a quantum leap forward. Teams simply do not have to defense for that very often.

see, this is why we need to fix the Oline, screens need Olineman to hold their blocks and get up the field, we haven't had that in forever, and the only imaginative plays we can run are flea-flickers and reverses, because those plays don't need the Oline to hold up their blocks for very long

btw, we also need more receiver who can seperate from corners quickly

 

[Hostile]

And there's the deal. Continuity, baby. Here's a list of the starting 5 (they've used two players at RG, not sure why, but it's been mostly Welbourn. Injury?) and their years of starting experience within the Chiefs organization and scheme.

Roaf - 4 years
Waters - 4 years
Wiegmann - 5 years
Welbourn - 3 years
Shields - 13 years

They've been playing together, as a unit, for 3, 4, 5 years. They know their blocking scheme like the back of their hand, and it can't be stopped. Flip the coin, and check out the Boys experience together.

Flo-8 years
Allen - 12 years
Johnson - 2 years starting
Rivera - 1 year
Pettiti - 1 year.

Our entire right side was brand spankin new. Time and continuity are necessary.

I absolutely agree with this. So, why is there such a rush to replace Al Johnson and Rob Petitti? If you'll notice I haven't been on that bandwagon.

In fairness to the team the rush to replace C and RT has been fan motivated. I haven't seen this same rush from Valley Ranch.

 

[Hostile]

and don't forget, the Chief's Oline is filled with mobile guys, we dont' have that luxury, it's half and half

Yet Sparano uses pulls all the time.

Hmmm.

 

[Nors]

Most expansion teams suck for awhile.


Our Offense clearly needs to upgrade Oline and in particular woefull Tackle play last year.

Maybe then we can talk about establishing a running game. That Bledsoe threw for2nd most yards in Team history amazing with nill protection or running game.

Our Young 3-4 Defense is on the rise! Things are looking great for our future.