If Ware ends up with 5 sacks?

[AbeBeta]

I think the key term was "correctly". Washington ran it, but they did not run correctly. Of course, they didn't have Aikman, Irvin, Smith, Novacek and a very good o-line.

Can't you say that about any system? I'm pretty sure there isn't an offense in the league that is designed to suck if you run it right.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Can't you say that about any system? I'm pretty sure there isn't an offense in the league that is designed to suck if you run it right.

That may be true but, just because you have a good offense, does not mean it can't be stopped. If you have the right kind of QB, if you have the right kind of WR, if you have the right kind of RB and a good OL, you can't stop that offense.

Perhaps this can be said for other offenses as well. Name a few of the good ones and lets see how they grade out.

 

[AbeBeta]

That may be true but, just because you have a good offense, does not mean it can't be stopped. If you have the right kind of QB, if you have the right kind of WR, if you have the right kind of RB and a good OL, you can't stop that offense.

Perhaps this can be said for other offenses as well. Name a few of the good ones and lets see how they grade out.

But the Cowboy offense in the 90s could be stopped -- if it were unstoppable we would have been 16-0 every year with every game a blowout.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

OK, well, this is starting to degenerate into so much BS.

If you watched the Cowboys of the early 90s, I think you know that Norv's offense was not stopped very often. There are always things that happen, such as Emmitt's hold out in 93 or key injuries, TOs, etc. Nobody is perfect but then, you know this.

I really enjoy serious discussion of football.

 

[AbeBeta]

ABQ - my point is that you don't have a strong point. You argue that Norv's offense is unstoppable. Any offense executed to perfection is going to be highly successful (but not unstoppable). It is kind of a non-point you are making and, respectfully, I do not see it as a serious discussion of football. All you are saying is that if you execute an O right you will have a good outcome. That is, again respectfully, a big "duh" in my book.

 

[Nors]

Unstoppable to me is an offense like that Dallas team. I called it pick your poison.

You want to take Emmitt Smith out - Aikman would kill them all day throwing to Novacek and Irvin. You double Irvin its Novacek. And vice versa. It was virtually impossible to combat that.

Different animal but I think this years offense can mirror some of that. Big armed QB that is accurate. JJ can run it down your throat. You have Witten the TE target and Key and Glenn are proving to be weapons that can make you pay for loding up on JJ/Witten....

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

ABQ - my point is that you don't have a strong point. You argue that Norv's offense is unstoppable. Any offense executed to perfection is going to be highly successful (but not unstoppable). It is kind of a non-point you are making and, respectfully, I do not see it as a serious discussion of football. All you are saying is that if you execute an O right you will have a good outcome. That is, again respectfully, a big "duh" in my book.

Your point is that if you have stars everywhere on offense, the point I'm making is a given. I do not agree with this. WC, stretch, Run and Shoot, Conventional Pro Style, they all have weakness' that can be exploited if you have the personel on defense to do so. Not so with the timing offense. If you have the right kind of players, on offense, it doesn't matter what defense you play and who you have. That offense can succed against any defense.

Never the less, my original statement was that, if it is run correctly, that offense can not be stopped. If you can prove this statement wrong, then by all means, do so.

I would expect more then just a game here or there type answer. You would have to illustrate that a specific scheme is effective against it on a consistant basis.

Here is what that offense was able to produce with the right people running it as it should be run.


1992 Season:

Wash W 23 points
NYG W 34 points
Cards W 31 points
Philly L 7 points
Seattle W 27 points
KC W 17 points
Raidas W 28 points
Philly W 20 points
Lions W 37 points
Rams W 27 points
Cards W 16 points
NYG W 30 points
Denver W 31 points
Skins L 17 points
Atlanta W 41 points
Bears W 27 points

Div Champ
Philly W 34 points

Conf Champ
SF W 30 points

SB Champ
Bills W 54 points


1993 Season:

Skinz L 16 points
Bills L 10 points
Cards W 17 points
Packers W 36 points
Colts W 27 points
49rs W 26 points
Philly W 23 points
NYG W 31 points
Cards W 20 points
Atlanta W 27 points
Miami W 16 points
Philly W 23 points
Vikes W 37 points
Jets W 28 points
Skins W 38 points
Giants W 16 points

DIV Champ
Packers W 27 points

Conf Champ
49rs W 38 points

SB Champ
Bills W 30 points



1994 Season:

Steelers W 26 points
Oilers W 20 points
Lions L 17 points
Skinz W 34 points
Cards W 38 points
Philly W 24 points
Cards W 28 points
Cincy W 23 points
NYG W 38 points
49rs L 14 points
Skinsz W 31 points
Packers W 42 points
Philly W 31 points
Browns L 19 points
Saints W 24 points
NYG L 10 points

DIV Champ
Packers W 35 points

Conf Champ
49rs L 28 points



1995 Season

NYG W 35 points
Denver W 31 points
Vikes W 23 points
Cards W 34 points
Skinz L 23 points
Packers W 34 points
Chargers W 23 points
Atlanta W 28 points
Philly W 34 points
49rs L 23 points
Raidas W 34 points
Chiefs W 24 points
Skinz L 17 points
Philly L 20 points
NYG W 21 points
Cards W 37 points

Div Champ
Philly W 30 points

Conf Champ
Packers W 38 points

SB Champ
Steelers W 27 points


In the 1992 season, that offense averaged just under 26 points a game. 39 in the post season.

In the 1993 season, that offense averaged 24 points a game. Over 31 in the post season.

In the 1994 season, that offense averaged 26 points a game. Again, over 31 in the post season.

In the 1995 Season, that offense averaged over 27 points a game. Over 31 in the post season.

In a span of 75 games, from 92 thru 95, that offense was held to less then 10 points one time. 4th game of the 92 season, Philly held us to 7. In that same time span, that offense was held to 14 or less, only 3 times.

IMO, these numbers are a powerful representation of my previous statement. When the timing offense is run correctly, it can not be stopped.

 

[Justis]

I for one despise the timing offense. While it can succeed, inevitably flawed players will get off rythm and that's when things start to hurt you. Whenever you lose momentum start to make penalties, you can watch your offense fall apart.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I for one despise the timing offense. While it can succeed, inevitably flawed players will get off rythm and that's when things start to hurt you. Whenever you lose momentum start to make penalties, you can watch your offense fall apart.

Well, this goes back to one of the earlier statements. It must be run correctly. Discipline is the biggest key to that offense. The earlier poster asked me, why it wasn't succeesful in Washington? It has to run correctly. You have to have the right type of players. Not the most talented but the right type.

 

[AbeBeta]

Your point is that if you have stars everywhere on offense, the point I'm making is a given. I do not agree with this. WC, stretch, Run and Shoot, Conventional Pro Style, they all have weakness' that can be exploited if you have the personel on defense to do so. Not so with the timing offense. If you have the right kind of players, on offense, it doesn't matter what defense you play and who you have. That offense can succed against any defense.

Never the less, my original statement was that, if it is run correctly, that offense can not be stopped. If you can prove this statement wrong, then by all means, do so.

You've listed a considerable # of games. This tells us is that we were really good for 4 years using that offense. Sadly, it neither confirms nor disputes your claims. There is absolutely nothing in your data that support that claim that this offense cannot be stopped OR that it is any better than other offensive styles. Yes we were awesome -- but that doesn't mean we wouldn't have been awesome running another form of offense.

My point is any O, run as designed with personnel that fit, will be unstoppable.

Let me ask this though - if the timing offense is the best offense possible why do so few teams run it? Why would someone choose WC over timing based if it was clear to those in the NFL that timing was the best?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You've listed a considerable # of games. This tells us is that we were really good for 4 years using that offense. Sadly, it neither confirms nor disputes your claims. There is absolutely nothing in your data that support that claim that this offense cannot be stopped OR that it is any better than other offensive styles. Yes we were awesome -- but that doesn't mean we wouldn't have been awesome running another form of offense.

My point is any O, run as designed with personnel that fit, will be unstoppable.

Let me ask this though - if the timing offense is the best offense possible why do so few teams run it? Why would someone choose WC over timing based if it was clear to those in the NFL that timing was the best?

Your confused. I never said it was better. I said, run correctly it could not be stopped. I gave you an example. Now, you can provide evidence to refute my position. That's the way it works.

Provide another offensive scheme and I feel confident that I know the defensive counter. For the timing offense, I don't know of one.

I answered your question before. The reason people don't use the timing offense very much is that it takes special skills to make it work. Not many QBs can throw with the kind of velocity needed and the type of accuracy it takes to make that offense work. Not many receivers have the type of size, strength and catching ability to work in that offense. Obviously, you have to have a good running game. It does not have to be an Emmitt Smith but they do have to be good. The OL, as in any great offense, must be good. As I said earlier, you have to be physically tough to run that offense and you have to be mentaly disciplined. Brett Favre or Terrell Owens could not play in that offense, IMO.

 

[FRDRCK]

not only do i think that ware will get more than 5 but also marcus spears and chris canty will have at least 3

 

[AbeBeta]

Your confused. I never said it was better. I said, run correctly it could not be stopped. I gave you an example. Now, you can provide evidence to refute my position. That's the way it works.

My issue here is that there is no way to either support or refute your position -- the only evidence that would make any sense is if you were able to compare two evenly matched teams with players that fit the offensive scheme perfectly -- and I don't think that information exists. I can't provide evidence to refute the position just as you cannot provide evidence to support it - because your claim is untestable.

Regarding whether one offense is better or not, if you claim that timing is unstoppable and others are not then you are saying timing is better.

I think that what I would accept is some explanation of the theory behind several offenses and why the timing outperforms them -- this would be a meaningful exercise because an offense correctly executed should be performing at or near its theoretical goals.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

My issue here is that there is no way to either support or refute your position -- the only evidence that would make any sense is if you were able to compare two evenly matched teams with players that fit the offensive scheme perfectly -- and I don't think that information exists. I can't provide evidence to refute the position just as you cannot provide evidence to support it - because your claim is untestable.

Regarding whether one offense is better or not, if you claim that timing is unstoppable and others are not then you are saying timing is better.

I think that what I would accept is some explanation of the theory behind several offenses and why the timing outperforms them -- this would be a meaningful exercise because an offense correctly executed should be performing at or near its theoretical goals.

Ahh, yeah. OK, from the top. Pick your offense and we can discuss it. I will tell you what defenses counters it. On the timing offense, thats your part. I have already told you that I don't know of a defensive scheme that can stop it.

Start when you want.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Ahh, yeah. OK, from the top. Pick your offense and we can discuss it. I will tell you what defenses counters it. On the timing offense, thats your part. I have already told you that I don't know of a defensive scheme that can stop it.

Start when you want.

OK, 6pm here. Gotta go home. Perhaps we can pick this up in the morning.

If I have time, I will log on this evening to see if you have posted.

 

[AbeBeta]

Ahh, yeah. OK, from the top. Pick your offense and we can discuss it. I will tell you what defenses counters it. On the timing offense, thats your part. I have already told you that I don't know of a defensive scheme that can stop it.

Start when you want.

Maybe if you could describe the timing offense as you understand it that would clarify things.

Let me throw this out though. Why wouldn't a scheme that bumped receivers off routes not slow down a timing offense? You make it sound like the only thing that can stop the timing O is poor execution.

 

[Nors]

Can you guys book a room.

 

[DipChit]

Tell me how many times you saw the early 90s offense of the Cowboys stopped?

Whats that supposed to mean.. whats the definition of stopped? Certainly they didnt score on every possession of every game.

If they scored less than say 24 points in a given game they must have been stopped some.. unless you wanna say they stopped themselves every time that happened. I'm sure we averaged more than 4 posessions per game, didnt we?

And we scored less than, say, 24 points over 20 times in the 3 years from '92-'94. For comparisons sake, the Niners did that 15 times in that period.

But it didnt really necessarily matter much when it did happen to us because we only allowed *over* 24 points like a half dozen times over the same period.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Maybe if you could describe the timing offense as you understand it that would clarify things.

Let me throw this out though. Why wouldn't a scheme that bumped receivers off routes not slow down a timing offense? You make it sound like the only thing that can stop the timing O is poor execution.

Yes, absolutly. If you can take WRs out of there routes, it makes it more difficult to run a timing offense. That is why I said it takes special skills to run the offense. You have to have a big physical WR that is willing to run short, crisp, very precise routes. The QB is essentially throwing the ball to a spot in that offense. If the WR is not there, the best thing that happens is an incompletion. The worst is a TO. You take a great deal of physical abuse, as a WR in that offense. You have to have a certain frame of mind to play WR in a timing offense. If you want to catch long TDs or your not discplined enough on your route running, you'll not make a good WR in that offense. You also have to have the ability to catch the ball in traffic. Teams who defense timing offenses often use LBs or Safeties againt WRs. Obviously, the idea is to make WRs running a slant or skinny post (whatever the route) pay for it. Not a lot of guys will run right into the contact and catch the ball. To me, WR in the timing offense is a bit thankless. Your not going to catch the kind of passes, for the most part, that put you on ESPN. But, if run correctly, the defense can only watch. It really is a great offense but it is certainly not easy to find players who will work in it. You have to be pretty selfless, IMO, to make it work.

 

[AbeBeta]

So you can stop the timing passes -- provided that a defense plays it correctly. You are saying the O can't be stopped if run correctly -- except for when a defense is able to jam the receivers. I think you are equating offense "run correctly" with "defense not performing correctly." The timing passes can be defended -- and when they are defended properly you can have a disaster. I'm sure it is tough to do this on D every down -- just like it is tough to run the O perfectly on every down.

I'm sorry but I just don't agree the offense is unstoppable or more effective than any other. Jamming the receivers does seem to be an effective strategy -- when done correctly -- for stopping this O.