x

Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 ... 9 10 >
Topic Options
#1660952 - 09/10/19 08:15 PM Offensive Scheme
Versatile Dog Offline

Legend

Registered: 03/03/13
Posts: 43012
I hope the Browns adjust their packages and change their schemes this week.

As most of us know, Baker and the OL struggled when Haley was running the offense. After he was fired, Freddie came in and simplified the offense. Some changes were:

--Baker only having to read half the field
--Mass protection on many plays
--Plays designed to get the first read open quickly
--Having multiple TEs to help w/blocking
--Keeping a back in to help w/blocking
--Trickeration to keep D's off-balance

It's a bit gimmicky and I don't know if it can hold up over the long run, but it was effective last year.

Fast forward to opening day and we ran a lot of 11 personnel. This can be a high-powered offense that highlights your skilled personnel. [Note: I will look for a link that describes the different personnel groups. I'll try to find one that is easy to read. That will keep this post shorter.]

The problem that we saw early on last year and in our opener against the Titans this year is that our OL was struggling a bit w/out any help from backs and TEs. Also, the routes were taking more time. The second problem is that Baker now had to read the entire field and he looked confused. That led to him holding the ball too long and making some really poor reads and decisions.

At this point in time, I don't know if Baker and our OL is ready for this type of offense. They may be eventually, but it sure didn't look good in the games we have watched.

I would hope that we go back to some of the things we did last year when Freddie took over. Quick reads. See half the field. More max protection.

I'm worried about the dude we brought in from Tampa Bay. Yes, their offense scored a lot last year w/many deep passes, but they gave up a lot of sacks and had too many turnovers. I didn't get that hire from the get-go.

Well, I mean I get that they want to utilize our great talent w/OBJ, Landry, Njoku, and Callaway..........but, I don't think the OL and Baker are ready for this.

Do you guys think that we should stick w/what we did in week one or go back to the things that Freddie brought in when he took over last year?

Here is a link for the personnel packages: https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/06/nfl-personnel-groupings-11-personnel-12-personnel-21-personnel


Edited by Versatile Dog (09/10/19 08:18 PM)
Edit Reason: Forgot link
_________________________
#GotRealPlayers

Top
#1660955 - 09/10/19 08:25 PM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Versatile Dog]
Dawgs4Life Offline

Legend

Registered: 09/11/06
Posts: 45739
Loc: Edinboro, PA
Thanks for the breakdown. I stated something similar in the postgame thoughts, but youíve summarized it perfectly.

We need to get back to our strengths and whatís simpler
_________________________
"First down as we threaten again. A score here puts us in the Super Bowl. Odell is far to the left as Landry settles into the slot. Njoku is flanked out wide to the right. Chubb and Hunt are split in the backfield as Baker takes the snap ... Here we go."

Top
#1660958 - 09/10/19 08:34 PM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Dawgs4Life]
Versatile Dog Offline

Legend

Registered: 03/03/13
Posts: 43012
I read that post and I thought it was very good. It really got me to thinking and I'm hoping we make some adjustments.
_________________________
#GotRealPlayers

Top
#1660968 - 09/10/19 08:50 PM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Versatile Dog]
PDXBrownsFan Offline
Hall of Famer

Registered: 12/17/14
Posts: 3642
Loc: Portland, OR (originally Lakew...
Credit where credit is due. This is a very good post Vers. I am opening the link now.

Top
#1660969 - 09/10/19 08:52 PM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Versatile Dog]
THROW LONG Offline

Hall of Famer

Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 7027
Three tight ends, a fullback and runningback, power sweep.

Next play, I formation, play action post with a Te delayed release.

.. My mind is distracted,

...

Do you think, in 2017, if the Falcons had tried the Field goal on First down, when what's his name caught that big pass to (about) the 25, on the right sideline, while they were up so many in the Super Bowl,

Mathmatically, with the time remaining, Those 3 points if they made it, I don't remember the score, I think those 3 points would have given Atlanta the Ring.

The next snap, The exact next snap was a sack for a significant loss of yards.

Even, Even calling a timeout and getting a made FG on first down, would have sealed it, ( I believe that), but it's so unconventional everybody would have griped, until they won the game.

.. 3rd play,

Two Receivers wide to the wide side, run the ball to the narrow side,

Punt. ( if you haven't turned it over by then).

Top
#1660993 - 09/10/19 10:19 PM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Versatile Dog]
lampdogg Offline

Legend

Registered: 09/11/06
Posts: 10752
Loc: east coast Canada
Yes I do think we need to get the ball out faster. Great post btw.

One thought: did the the coaches want to play with a new toy (OBJ)?
_________________________


gmstrong

-----------------

2019: The Browns take the North.

Top
#1661004 - 09/10/19 10:59 PM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Versatile Dog]
Baker_Dawg Offline
Rookie

Registered: 09/02/19
Posts: 43
I would say when completely healthy on oline is maybe 25th best in the league. So yes they need help from tight ends and running backs in blocking. That being said our tight ends could not block for 2 seconds without holding against a pretty weak Titans pass rush. D. Harris looked looked cut worthy in the Titans game.

Freddy could help the oline a lot by committing to run first, then play action, then open it up. I believe we can run block better than pass block and Chubb is a difference maker and accounts for some less than optimal blocking. I think Freddy panicked when all the penalties and 2 and 20's started, causing him to abandon the run and exacerbate the problem. Nothing wrong with punting and regrouping, especially against a weak offensive team. Going pass happy and causing your oline to lose even more confidence and get our QB killed is no answer.

I don't buy for a second that Baker can only read half the field or things have to be simplified for him. He put up nearly 300 yards against a top 5 secondary throwing the kitchen sink of coverages against him. His problem is learning patience. With all the penalties and the defense imploding for 75 yards he tried to play hero ball in the 4th quarter and got burnt (I also think he had an arm injury that contributed to the INTs). The reality was he was only down by 8 and even if they went down by 15 with their firepower they could have made a come back. He needs to let the game come to him and trust in himself and the offense.

I also think two other things contributed to the offense's lack of success. 1. The missed extra point. It immediately made me feel, if this game is close we are going to lose, so we better score it up. I wonder if subconscientiously Freddy felt that as well, and pressed from the start going pass happy. 2. It was also apparent early on the "worlds greatest pass rush d-line" was all hype. Again I think that caused the offense to press thinking they were not going to be able to lean on the D as much as originally thought.

Overall, them team has enough talent they just need to concentrate on doing their job, not press, trust each other, and let the game come to them.

Top
#1661025 - 09/11/19 05:08 AM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Versatile Dog]
Dawgs4Life Offline

Legend

Registered: 09/11/06
Posts: 45739
Loc: Edinboro, PA
I think the analyst mentioned it during the game, but sometimes when youíre the favored/hyped team you start to feel pressure when itís a close game (or youíre down) ... and that feeling gets worse and worse as the game goes on. IMO, we had that suffocating/pressure feeling from mid-2nd quarter onward and it affected everything as well
_________________________
"First down as we threaten again. A score here puts us in the Super Bowl. Odell is far to the left as Landry settles into the slot. Njoku is flanked out wide to the right. Chubb and Hunt are split in the backfield as Baker takes the snap ... Here we go."

Top
#1661030 - 09/11/19 06:11 AM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Versatile Dog]
Versatile Dog Offline

Legend

Registered: 03/03/13
Posts: 43012
Grateful posted this in another forum and I think it highlights what I was talking about in my OP on this thread.

Here is the link. https://twitter.com/SharpFootball/status/1171510626725683200

I want to highlight this part of it, because it shows the discrepancy between what Freddie did last year and what we did on Sunday.

Quote:


On early downs in 2018, the Browns used:
11 pers: 56%
12 pers: 21%

In the preseason, Kitchens completely changed:
11 pers: 85%
12 pers: 12%

What did we see in 2019?
11 pers: 92%
12 pers: 6%

Note: Baker dominated from 12/13 in 2018. I expect Kitchens to modify this, read below:



You will have to click on the link to read how Baker did because I can't copy and paste it.

I think this is a very big deal. I am hoping that Sharp is right and that Freddie modifies this.
_________________________
#GotRealPlayers

Top
#1661033 - 09/11/19 06:23 AM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Versatile Dog]
Ballpeen Offline

Legend

Registered: 09/11/06
Posts: 27693
I agree.

We seemed to be looking for chunk yards. Maybe some of that was because we kept giving up ground because of penalty. If we start getting in to 2nd and 5 situations, chunk plays will happen.

We made a decision to go after OBJ....cool, but it did weaken our Oline...no doubt about it, and the guys we hoped to take over look more like stumble bums then they look like good NFL linemen.

I agree. We probably need to play more 2 TE sets. Those TE's can simply stay in to block, or delay their route long enough to chip the DE's to help direct them back in to our OT's.
_________________________
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.

GM Strong





Top
#1661035 - 09/11/19 06:57 AM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Ballpeen]
Dawgs4Life Offline

Legend

Registered: 09/11/06
Posts: 45739
Loc: Edinboro, PA
J/c

In a weird way, the drafting of Corbett and his subsequent inability to play has really hurt our offense. Additionally, the signing of Hubbard looks quite bad right now too. He was shaky last year and looked to be a weak link last Sunday
_________________________
"First down as we threaten again. A score here puts us in the Super Bowl. Odell is far to the left as Landry settles into the slot. Njoku is flanked out wide to the right. Chubb and Hunt are split in the backfield as Baker takes the snap ... Here we go."

Top
#1661037 - 09/11/19 07:02 AM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Dawgs4Life]
Versatile Dog Offline

Legend

Registered: 03/03/13
Posts: 43012
No offense, but I was hoping we could focus on the scheme in this thread. I think it's very, very important. And interesting.

If you check out the link, it's hard to deny that we were much more effective when we weren't in 11 personnel.
_________________________
#GotRealPlayers

Top
#1661040 - 09/11/19 07:31 AM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Versatile Dog]
Dawgs4Life Offline

Legend

Registered: 09/11/06
Posts: 45739
Loc: Edinboro, PA
Okay, my fault ... Iíll shift that discussion to another thread
_________________________
"First down as we threaten again. A score here puts us in the Super Bowl. Odell is far to the left as Landry settles into the slot. Njoku is flanked out wide to the right. Chubb and Hunt are split in the backfield as Baker takes the snap ... Here we go."

Top
#1661050 - 09/11/19 08:44 AM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Dawgs4Life]
WSU Willie Offline

Hall of Famer

Registered: 09/23/06
Posts: 5173
j/c

It did feel like we came into the game wanting to do things our pre-planned way - and a way much different than last year - and doubled down on that desire as the game went on. The 'ole...do-what-the-coaches-think-will-work and not what we actually do well.

We looked like an Offense that hadn't played much together...maybe because they simply hadn't. They should have played togethr much more in pre-season.

Lastly, my memory only goes back so far at times...but...we had Weeden sit out PS#4...when the whole O I should have played more. We had Kizer sit out PS#4 when the whole O should have played more...and Taylor (I think)...and then Baker. Not just about the QBs... but about the entire Offense. HOw many Opening Day games will we have to play that way before we see that the time not-playing (not time off) contributes to our not looking ready for the game?

Last year we had TEs who seemed to be limited but made since in the whole max-protect scheme...I'm not sure we have ONE TE on the team who fits well in that scheme. I fear we have gotten away from what we want to do over what we do well. Hopefully it's just one game and they learned from that mistake.
_________________________
My New Year's resolution...forget the past...except for the spot in the Raider's game...the inexplicable decision to not give Baker ANY 1st team reps in camp...and not playing Chubb until it was forced upon them. I'm sure I'll let more slip in here tho.

Top
#1661052 - 09/11/19 08:57 AM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Versatile Dog]
Rishuz Offline

Legend

Registered: 10/08/06
Posts: 11678
Loc: Las Vegas
Maybe the change in offense has to do with an evolving QB and team. Baker is in his second year. We added skill position players. And we adopted Monken's style of play. Maybe that was just the plan all along.

Then when the real bullets started flying it exposed the fact that maybe the team and Baker weren't ready for it. Now it's time for adjustments.

Game 2 is an absolute must win. If we lose due to penalties and scheme with no adjustments at all, that won't be a good look for Freddie. His job is to win the game no matter what, not force something that doesn't appear to be working.

Step back, reassess, reevaluate, and make the appropriate corrections.

I am expecting a dominant performance by the Browns on Monday night if the team is as competent as I think they are.

Top
#1661053 - 09/11/19 08:59 AM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Rishuz]
Dawgs4Life Offline

Legend

Registered: 09/11/06
Posts: 45739
Loc: Edinboro, PA
Yeah, Iím expecting (or at least hoping) for a WIN on Monday night ... anything less than that is an abject failure, regardless of performance.

Ideally we come out and play very well and get to 1-1 ... and feel like ďokay, here we goĒ

If we go to 0-2 against the Titans and Jets ... it could get ugly
_________________________
"First down as we threaten again. A score here puts us in the Super Bowl. Odell is far to the left as Landry settles into the slot. Njoku is flanked out wide to the right. Chubb and Hunt are split in the backfield as Baker takes the snap ... Here we go."

Top
#1661076 - 09/11/19 10:20 AM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Rishuz]
Versatile Dog Offline

Legend

Registered: 03/03/13
Posts: 43012
Quote:
Maybe the change in offense has to do with an evolving QB and team. Baker is in his second year. We added skill position players. And we adopted Monken's style of play. Maybe that was just the plan all along.


I think you are right. I also don't think it was a dumb plan. I do think we need to make adjustments because the OL struggled w/out any help and Baker did not do a good job of reading coverages.

I know this thread isn't getting a lot of attention, but it might be one of the most important factors in terms of our success moving forward.
_________________________
#GotRealPlayers

Top
#1661079 - 09/11/19 10:33 AM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Versatile Dog]
willitevachange Offline
Hall of Famer

Registered: 09/07/17
Posts: 7447
J/C

Its just a thought, not saying it was what I saw, but maybe we were running 11 trying to score chunk yards because I think it was like 15 out of the 20 first downs were 1-20 or something like that I heard. I cant remember that exact stat.

Its possible that we were behind 8 ball so often, they tried to get big chunk plays to make up for the penalties??

Top
#1661083 - 09/11/19 10:47 AM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: willitevachange]
Rishuz Offline

Legend

Registered: 10/08/06
Posts: 11678
Loc: Las Vegas
Originally Posted By: willitevachange
J/C

Its just a thought, not saying it was what I saw, but maybe we were running 11 trying to score chunk yards because I think it was like 15 out of the 20 first downs were 1-20 or something like that I heard. I cant remember that exact stat.

Its possible that we were behind 8 ball so often, they tried to get big chunk plays to make up for the penalties??


I don't think this is it. All signs in camp and preseason pointed to this.

Now it's up to the coaches to adjust. Your move, Freddie.

Top
#1661087 - 09/11/19 10:57 AM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Rishuz]
Versatile Dog Offline

Legend

Registered: 03/03/13
Posts: 43012
Yeah, the link that Grateful originally posted gives some good information on this. I know people don't like to click on links sometimes, but again, there is good info there.

https://twitter.com/SharpFootball/status/1171510626725683200
_________________________
#GotRealPlayers

Top
#1661096 - 09/11/19 11:11 AM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Versatile Dog]
FATE Online   content

Dawg Talker

Registered: 03/02/13
Posts: 2179
Loc: Champion, OH!
https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/06/nfl-personnel-groupings-11-personnel-12-personnel-21-personnel

Thanks Vers, that link was very helpful in understanding the different personnel groupings, particularly because it broke down teams that had success with each, and how they achieved it.

I think this team sold itself early on making the jump due to the early success of Mayfield, the hiring of Monken and the addition of OBJ. Monken wouldn't be calling plays, but this was to be his offense. Our offense's success late last year took our focus away from the inevitable, ongoing broken-record as Browns fans... We, once again, had a QB and offense trying to learn it's third offense in less than one year.

Mid June we heard of "discord" between Monken and Kitchens. Freddie said he would be spending more time working with assistants and determining how the scheme would play out. Monken expressed confidence on how the first 5 of 8 installs were going. Obviously it wasn't all "peaches and cream", or we wouldn't have been talking about it. Our #1 receiver was still "vacationing", there were probably too many personnel and coaching changes for all of this to come together and look like it would flourish by week one. "A lot of moving parts" don't just fall into place when you spend little time arranging the chess board. Players didn't practice, players didn't work much together in the off-season (not that it would help them learn a new offense), and everything seemed rather nonchalant in approach.

That said, we stuck to our guns Sunday, I don't have a problem with that as there may not have been much choice... And we were in the game until it all unraveled in the 4th. NOW, I hope our coaches understand the things that you pointed out. We've seen success with Mayfield -- truth be told, some of the statistics over the last few games in 2018 were simply mind-boggling for a rookie QB. I'm not sure if they think things were too "gimmicky", and unsustainable, but a quick about-face is in order after what we watched Sunday afternoon.

I think you hit the nail on the head... "Well, I mean I get that they want to utilize our great talent w/OBJ, Landry, Njoku, and Callaway..........but, I don't think the OL and Baker are ready for this." I have confidence that they will be, but not as quickly as the coaching staff had hoped. I also don't think it's that necessary. Over the years we've watched many a team execute very simple schemes and have great success.

In my eyes, three of the four biggest truths about our loss on Sunday revolve around "scheme"...

A more "prolific" offensive scheme looked too complicated, and yet more predictable, than a simplistic approach.

Baker, our WRs, and OLine did not have enough experience in this offense to make it a success. Maybe they didn't or couldn't know that until they faced real NFL action. Maybe they should have - and taken advantage of the four "free" games before the season.

The lack of extra help protecting the QB exposed a glaring weakness in this offense, our offensive line, and particularly our depth. Not blaming them, just saying that scheme and talent need to go hand in hand. If this continues, Baker won't wake up feeling dangerous, he'll wake up feeling damaged.

My questions... Is it difficult to dial this back in one week's time and (re)institute some of the things we had success with last season? Does it create a dysfunctional demeanor between players, Kitchens and Monken?

I've agreed with you 100% about "getting out of the gate" this year. We flushed a golden opportunity and are now feeling the pressure (at least a little) of a must win game. 0-2, with the Rams up next, could be a very lonely place for a first year HC.
_________________________
HERE WE GO BROWNIES! HERE WE GO!!

Top
#1661097 - 09/11/19 11:16 AM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: FATE]
Versatile Dog Offline

Legend

Registered: 03/03/13
Posts: 43012
Awesome post. I don't want to ruin it by addressing it right now. I would rather people read it and let it soak in. I will add comments later on after others speak [hopefully] on the situation.
_________________________
#GotRealPlayers

Top
#1661110 - 09/11/19 11:58 AM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Versatile Dog]
OldColdDawg Online   content

Legend

Registered: 09/28/06
Posts: 16902
Loc: Lancaster, Ohio
I was underwhelmed by both of our coordinator hires and promoting Kitchens, but they are here and I still trust Dorsey to bring in the right people. I can't imagine that anyone thought there would be no growing pains with this team. I'm hoping last week was a perfect storm and not a new norm. With this talent we should still be much better than last year even with taking our lumps. Time will tell.


Edited by OldColdDawg (09/11/19 11:59 AM)
_________________________
#gmstrong

Top
#1661111 - 09/11/19 11:59 AM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Versatile Dog]
Niolen Offline
Rookie

Registered: 12/17/18
Posts: 56
I agree.

The Brownsí offensive game plan against the Titans was the antithesis of their late 2018 game plans. We spent an obscene amount of time in 11 personnel. While I expected an uptick in spread sets with the addition of OBJ, I didnít expect it to become the foundation of the offense.

The three likeliest reasons for the sudden changes, in order:

One, the offensive staff has zero trust in Demetrius Harris and Pharaoh Brown.

Two, Todd Monken had more influence on the 2019 offensive installation than reported.

Three, Freddie Kitchens had less influence on the 2018 offensive turnaround than reported.

Either way, the Browns need to compromise on their concepts or find better options at tight end. Options that are capable of executing chips or doubles. Because they just donít have the offensive line to absorb pressure on five-and-seven-step drops when spread out. They need more protection, especially if the tackles are going to act like turnstiles.

Maybe Ricky Seals-Jones can be part of the solution once heís more familiar with the offense. I believe Iíve read positive reviews of his blocking ability before.

Offenses can still generate explosive passing plays from heavy formations. Itís not choosing to be conservative. We saw advanced passing from running formations last season. We even saw advanced passing from running formations last Sunday. Tennessee dialed up 12 and 13 personnel quite a bit and manufactured some explosive gains with A.J. Brown.

As an example, the Titans played a lot of Cover 3 against the Browns. Cleveland opted to put the deep corners/safeties in conflict with clever route combinations from 11 personnel. To be clear, Todd Monken is an Air Raid disciple and those concepts are perfectly valid Cover 3-beaters. But you need the offensive line to maintain their blocks through slow-developing patterns.

If you canít do that, an alternative might be 12 personnel, running a trailing concept to attack the deep outside zone. One receiver aligns wide and the opposite receiver aligns tight to the formation. The wide receiver runs a vertical route, carrying the corner with him. The tight receiver runs a crossing route, clears the underneath linebackers, and then enters the zone vacated by the deep outside corner. Itís a simple two-man route, but it puts a defender in confusion and presents an explosive opportunity from a ďconservativeĒ formation.

Top
#1661116 - 09/11/19 12:25 PM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Versatile Dog]
PitDAWG Offline

Legend

Registered: 09/10/06
Posts: 35598
Loc: Smyrna, TN.
I don't believe there's a lot I can add to this that hasn't already been said. I certainly agree with what has been said about the drastic difference between the last half of last season and what we ran on O in our first game this season.

The only thing I will add is that to run what they ran against the Titans you need a pretty good OL to do that. We simply don't have the personnel on the OL to do that. In saying that, it still doesn't address all of the other points you and other posters have correctly stated previously in this thread.

We need to get back to what worked last year and insert this new scheme in increments as the O is ready to execute it. Right now they certainly are not and that should be easy for them to see in the film room. The worst thing that could happen at this juncture is that they become stubborn and insist on following the same approach without making adjustments.
_________________________
"You know what? You've got to get (Hue Jackson) players. And you know what? I'll come straight out with it. The guys who were here before, that system, they didn't get real players.'' - John Dorsey

#gmstrong

Top
#1661250 - 09/11/19 06:04 PM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: PitDAWG]
bonefish Online   content

Hall of Famer

Registered: 04/03/07
Posts: 5499
Loc: Reno, Nevada
Good discussion.

IMO. The change from last year to this year is most likely due because of the addition of OBJ to a degree. That and the perceived advantage in matchups.

The groupings will to a degree be dictated by what they feel can be exploited as well as down and distance.

I doubt in the Titan game that they foresaw what ended up happening in regards to losing their starting LT and his backup four plays later.

The first series went well. After that there were multiple and consistent breakdowns. When you consistently start a series with 1st and 20; that changes things.

This sounds simplistic but you have to execute no matter what scheme is run.

It will be interesting to see what groupings are run against the Jets. There is a frame of reference from last years game.


Edited by bonefish (09/11/19 06:18 PM)

Top
#1661260 - 09/11/19 07:01 PM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Versatile Dog]
Ballpeen Offline

Legend

Registered: 09/11/06
Posts: 27693
Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
Quote:
Maybe the change in offense has to do with an evolving QB and team. Baker is in his second year. We added skill position players. And we adopted Monken's style of play. Maybe that was just the plan all along.


I think you are right. I also don't think it was a dumb plan. I do think we need to make adjustments because the OL struggled w/out any help and Baker did not do a good job of reading coverages.

I know this thread isn't getting a lot of attention, but it might be one of the most important factors in terms of our success moving forward.




I agree.

Last year we moved to more max pass protect and looked for Higgins more or less underneath.

Last week it looked like we were looking for all the medium and deep tree routes, with a weakened line with less OL help.
_________________________
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.

GM Strong





Top
#1661261 - 09/11/19 07:03 PM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Versatile Dog]
Dawgs4Life Offline

Legend

Registered: 09/11/06
Posts: 45739
Loc: Edinboro, PA
J/c

I donít mind trying to mix in some new stuff or more aggressive looks on O ... but for us to go to like 85% 11 personnel is a bit much IMO.

Maybe it was penalty-driven or matchup-driven, but just because we have 3 GOOD WRs and only 1 GOOD TE, I still donít think we should just fall into that as a default
_________________________
"First down as we threaten again. A score here puts us in the Super Bowl. Odell is far to the left as Landry settles into the slot. Njoku is flanked out wide to the right. Chubb and Hunt are split in the backfield as Baker takes the snap ... Here we go."

Top
#1661270 - 09/11/19 07:20 PM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Dawgs4Life]
Versatile Dog Offline

Legend

Registered: 03/03/13
Posts: 43012
j/c:

There have been some very good posts on this thread. I appreciate it.

I wonder how much of this is on Monken? We heard the report that the transition was not going smoothly early on. I want to be clear that I am not blaming him. I'm just wondering.

I didn't like the hire to begin with. I hate high risk offenses. They can work, but you need a great OL and a QB who can quickly go through his progressions. We have neither.

Play to your strengths.
_________________________
#GotRealPlayers

Top
#1661274 - 09/11/19 07:23 PM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Versatile Dog]
Dawgs4Life Offline

Legend

Registered: 09/11/06
Posts: 45739
Loc: Edinboro, PA
I think a lot of it is due to Monken honestly .. itís what TB did with Winston, Evans, Howard, Jackson, Godwin ... it produced some big plays, but not nearly enough to counter balance the sacks, turnovers, negative plays, etc
_________________________
"First down as we threaten again. A score here puts us in the Super Bowl. Odell is far to the left as Landry settles into the slot. Njoku is flanked out wide to the right. Chubb and Hunt are split in the backfield as Baker takes the snap ... Here we go."

Top
#1661281 - 09/11/19 07:31 PM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Dawgs4Life]
cfrs15 Offline

Legend

Registered: 01/20/09
Posts: 34413
Loc: Monrovia, Ca
Originally Posted By: Dawgs4Life
I think a lot of it is due to Monken honestly .. itís what TB did with Winston, Evans, Howard, Jackson, Godwin ... it produced some big plays, but not nearly enough to counter balance the sacks, turnovers, negative plays, etc


So you'd rather have Harris on the field more? Which receiver is coming off the field and which tight end is going on?

I don't think the problem is the personnel groupings but the way in which they were used. Long developing plays need to be called less.

Top
#1661283 - 09/11/19 07:33 PM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: cfrs15]
Dawgs4Life Offline

Legend

Registered: 09/11/06
Posts: 45739
Loc: Edinboro, PA
Definitely not Harris, which is why I stated elsewhere that the 2nd TE is a huge problem we have right now. You suggested RIcky S-J as a possibility .. so maybe him.

But we have to find the right guy for that spot. Iím kinda wishing Dorsey woulda swallowed his pride and kept Fells
_________________________
"First down as we threaten again. A score here puts us in the Super Bowl. Odell is far to the left as Landry settles into the slot. Njoku is flanked out wide to the right. Chubb and Hunt are split in the backfield as Baker takes the snap ... Here we go."

Top
#1661284 - 09/11/19 07:34 PM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Dawgs4Life]
cfrs15 Offline

Legend

Registered: 01/20/09
Posts: 34413
Loc: Monrovia, Ca
Originally Posted By: Dawgs4Life
Definitely not Harris, which is why I stated elsewhere that the 2nd TE is a huge problem we have right now. You suggested RIcky S-J as a possibility .. so maybe him.

But we have to find the right guy for that spot. Iím kinda wishing Dorsey woulda swallowed his pride and kept Fells


So at this point going with 11 personnel is probably the best choice.

Top
#1661287 - 09/11/19 07:40 PM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: cfrs15]
Dawgs4Life Offline

Legend

Registered: 09/11/06
Posts: 45739
Loc: Edinboro, PA
Or get creative somehow. Heck, iíd Rather just bring in another OL and make him eligible
Originally Posted By: cfrs15
Originally Posted By: Dawgs4Life
Definitely not Harris, which is why I stated elsewhere that the 2nd TE is a huge problem we have right now. You suggested RIcky S-J as a possibility .. so maybe him.

But we have to find the right guy for that spot. Iím kinda wishing Dorsey woulda swallowed his pride and kept Fells


So at this point going with 11 personnel is probably the best choice.
_________________________
"First down as we threaten again. A score here puts us in the Super Bowl. Odell is far to the left as Landry settles into the slot. Njoku is flanked out wide to the right. Chubb and Hunt are split in the backfield as Baker takes the snap ... Here we go."

Top
#1661288 - 09/11/19 07:41 PM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: cfrs15]
Versatile Dog Offline

Legend

Registered: 03/03/13
Posts: 43012
Speaking of the TEs and FBs.

There has been some thought on this thread about whether or not we ran so much 11 Personnel because we were trailing and/or in long yardage situations.

I don't think that is the case for multiple reasons, but I will just focus on the TE/FB thing in this post. We got rid of our better blocking TEs and didn't keep a FB. Instead, we kept guys we thought might be better receivers.

This is indicative of the team planning on switching to the 11 Personnel Package all along. That Sharp guy is actually pretty sharp and if you read his article, you will note that we have been running that package during the preseason, as well.

It blows my mind that I really didn't catch it. I definitely should have noted it game 3 when we look discombobulated.

I think this is something that we should keep an eye on. Do we adjust or do we dig our heels in the ground. It will tell us a lot about the coaching staff.

Then again, maybe it will magically start working and the OL will block perfectly w/out any help and Baker will suddenly start going through his whole-field progressions quickly.
_________________________
#GotRealPlayers

Top
#1661361 - 09/12/19 08:50 AM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Versatile Dog]
oobernoober Offline

Hall of Famer

Registered: 11/24/08
Posts: 4334
Loc: San Diego, CA
I see it a slightly different way. I think Kitchens and Monkin really want to transition over to a more wide-open scheme (hence us seeing it in the preseason). They want to take advantage of our shiny new toys on offense, and making explosive plays and scoring early and maybe even often will also help feed the big boys on D. However, I have a hard time believing that Freddie thinks they can just flip that switch. I do think that all the bad down and distance situations we were constantly in played a role. We needed those chunk plays just to catch up and get us back on schedule. When we had the chance to be patient, I saw us attempting to run the ball with Chubb, and not doing a half bad job of that (mostly early on).

I do agree with you that Freddie and Monkin want to take the O in a certain direction that's very different from what was successful last year, but I also think our penalties served to draw more of that type of offense out of our gameplan.
_________________________
Somebody think of something
-ThrowLong

Top
#1661366 - 09/12/19 09:17 AM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: oobernoober]
Versatile Dog Offline

Legend

Registered: 03/03/13
Posts: 43012
I have no problem w/you disagreeing, but I am not sure how much you really disagreed w/me. I think we said a lot of the same things.

Two points of contention:

1. Not sure why you brought up the running game? I've been trying to think of reasons why and I can't put my finger on it. Will you clarify this point for me?

2. I'll ask you a few questions to get you to think about your contention that down and distance situations contributed to us running more 11 Personnel.

Do you think the Titans expected us to throw when we had a lot of yards to gain in order to make a first down?

If so, do you think they would send more rushers after our QB because they knew we were going to pass and didn't have to worry as much about the run?

If so, would it make sense to provide Baker w/more protection and allow our very skilled receivers time to get open?
_________________________
#GotRealPlayers

Top
#1661371 - 09/12/19 09:46 AM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Versatile Dog]
Knight_Of_Brown Offline

Dawg Talker

Registered: 09/26/06
Posts: 2518
I am not sure we will change schemes.

I am 100% certain the offensive system we ran last year was Ken Zampese's system. Zampese coached under both the West Coast Offense in Green Bay and Philly under Ray Rhodes, Mike Sherman, and Mike McCarthy, and he also worked under Mike Martz, Hue Jackson and Bob Bratkowski whom are all Air Coryell guys.

Our offense completely changed after we fired Haley. Anyone who watched any Cincy games from 2016 when Zampese was the OC would recognize most of the plays we ran. Zampese is the only guy in the league that mixes Air Coryell and WCO concepts into his offense. All the under neath quick stuff, 3 back sets, etc is all classic Walsh WCO going back to the 80's, Zampese just put a twist on it.

Kitchens was just calling the plays off the sheet Zampese put together. It was Zampese designing the plays, the blocking schemes, the game plan, Kitchens was just calling the plays from those game plans.

We saw the same thing last Sunday, that was 100% Todd Monken downfield throwing O we saw against the Titans, again it seemed Kitchens was just calling the plays Monken drew up.

This is not a slight, dig, or rip on either Monken nor Kitchens. The system they are using, even though it is different, is just as able to work as Zampese's did last year. We just may need more time and reps with it since its new and requires more from your QB than Zampese's. Zampese's O was very QB friendly system, the guy has been in the league since 98 and coached in college before that so it makes sense Williams would have leaned on his experience in designing gameplans for Kitchens to call the plays. Gotta use all the resources available to you right?

the system we are running now can be EXPOLSIVE when its clicking, and I think we will get there sooner than later..its going to be quite a show when we are laying 35+ a game on people and Baker is throwing for 350+ yards a game and Chubb/Hunt are 120+ on the ground...there will be some growing pains, but thats what we got to look forward to in the future from this Kitchens/Monken system. Hopefully it starts Monday night!
_________________________
The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. - Patrick Henry

Top
#1661432 - 09/12/19 11:42 AM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Knight_Of_Brown]
PitDAWG Offline

Legend

Registered: 09/10/06
Posts: 35598
Loc: Smyrna, TN.
You know, at first I completely dismissed this idea you had. But I'm beginning to give more thought to it.
_________________________
"You know what? You've got to get (Hue Jackson) players. And you know what? I'll come straight out with it. The guys who were here before, that system, they didn't get real players.'' - John Dorsey

#gmstrong

Top
#1661487 - 09/12/19 02:23 PM Re: Offensive Scheme [Re: Versatile Dog]
oobernoober Offline

Hall of Famer

Registered: 11/24/08
Posts: 4334
Loc: San Diego, CA
Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
I have no problem w/you disagreeing, but I am not sure how much you really disagreed w/me. I think we said a lot of the same things.

Two points of contention:

1. Not sure why you brought up the running game? I've been trying to think of reasons why and I can't put my finger on it. Will you clarify this point for me?

2. I'll ask you a few questions to get you to think about your contention that down and distance situations contributed to us running more 11 Personnel.

Do you think the Titans expected us to throw when we had a lot of yards to gain in order to make a first down?

If so, do you think they would send more rushers after our QB because they knew we were going to pass and didn't have to worry as much about the run?

If so, would it make sense to provide Baker w/more protection and allow our very skilled receivers time to get open?


We do (mostly agree). That's why I added the 'slightly'.
1. I brought up running the ball because that, to me, felt that they were cognizant that airing out the ball wasn't working well, and they were trying to compensate. From what I was seeing, there was a significant shift in playcalling a couple drives after our TD drive, when things were starting to go sideways. I bring that up because I interpret that as them not so much being hard-headed about having this explosive offense, but simply trying to slowly move in that direction in order to take more and more advantage of the talent we have at certain positions on the field.

2. With the benefit of hindsight, what I think you're trying to get at makes sense. I dunno, we didn't seem to do a great job of protecting him anyway. Our extra blockers were doing a poor job as well. Might as well throw a couple extra receivers out there to give the D something to think about, right? I'll concede this second part to you, though. Especially as the week goes on and my recollection of individual plays is going away...

I appreciate you giving me extra things to think about, though.
_________________________
Somebody think of something
-ThrowLong

Top
Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 ... 9 10 >