DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Offensive Scheme PT 2

Rewatched the game twice (love the condensed version with NFL game pass). The first time I was thinking, "man, Baker hardly goes downfield at all". The second time I charted his passes.

Wow. 342 yds passing and only 5 went more than 15 yards past the line of scrimmage... 4 of those were INC or resulted in a penalty. The two huge plays to Landry... a 7 yd pass for 65 and a -4 yd pass for 29. Obviously - SCHEME has changed dramatically, with astounding results. What's amazing is all the single digit passes that resulted in large chunk-plays.

First number is yards past (or behind) LOS, in parenthesis is the total yards gained or result of play...

3 (aprox - batted down)

10 (15)

17 (INC)

5 (10)

15 (INC) PENALTY - DEF

-3 (13)

7 (17)

0 (4)

2 (19)

0 (9-TD)

5 (11)

-3 (6)

0 (8)

13 (18)

8 (INTERCEPTION)

7 (INC)

7 (65)

25 (INC) PENALTY - DEF

2 (INC)

-3 (INC)

3 (9)

3 (aprox - batted down)

6 (INC)

20 (60)

10 (INC)

12 (13)

-4 (17) PENALTIES - OFFSETTING

4 (11)

-4 (29)

-2 (3) PENALTY - OFFENSE

25 (INC)

17 (17)

Was OBJ taking defenders deeper off the shorter routes? I'm just wondering if this was "scheme" against the Ravens...intentional decoy. He didn't get many targets.

Interesting. Further confirmation about an emphasis on getting rid of the ball quick and not asking Baker to have to make a lot of reads. We have some playmakers on offense. I approve of the strategy.

J/c

I’m not an expert or X and O guy in football, but I’d assume we can also use these quick hitters and add counters to them? LIke that fake bubble screen ... and hit the blocker up the sideline

Our rediscovered and revamped scheme will obviously be something sf will be prepared to face now that it is back on film.

Freddie will have to keep them guessing. The chess match and scheme challenges do not stop for our new HC

I think it has more to do w/scheming to fit your personnel rather than coming up w/new schemes each week. I think that it's now about execution and calling plays that exploit one's advantages.

For example, Chubb's long TD run was the same play we ran in the 3rd quarter. I think we gained around 18-20 yards on that particular run. We knew we had an advantage w/the 12 personnel and our pulling guard and we exploited them because the 8-hole was wide open.

Each week presents a different challenge. Last week maybe we did use OBJ more as a decoy. Now with Callaway back, he can be the over the top threat.

I like a controlled passing game. Much like hitting Jerry Rice on short routes time after time, bring the D up, then BOOM, lob one over the top for 65 yards, 45 in the air.

aight I didn't read this just wanted to make a statement.

The disappearaonce of the Quarterback running plays of the 2018 Browns offense.

The Qb running the ball for positive yards threat that the Browns have in their arsenal, is totally not to be found in 2019.

The Qb's both Tyrod and Baker that may have taken off and ran the ball out of, out of whatever, I mean times they ran the ball and it was running for a gain, not just running for their lives in the backfield.

The Quarterback run plays are at about absolute zero for the 4 games of the 2019 season, for better or worse,

They existed last year, they existed in 2018,

It may be by design, but I don't like it,

Oh, technicality, the QB sneak/dive on 4th and 1. Those ain't the same.

Bring back the quarterback running threat, wai-- don't get your head taken off by a big hit,

Who is stopping it, is the QB thinking too much, is the coach forcing him to not run, is it by design.

... could I name another Qb in the league who is a threat to run? , uh I think everbody could, meaning, I think they're all over the place.

You should check out Baker's 40 time before wishing for more qb runs.

OBJ, and Callaway, ... I'm thinking, lets put it this way, maybe OBJ is at a different point in the apex of his career, he's aleady a known superstar,

Maybe, Callaway in only year 2, is still in the point of that apex where he wants to prove his superstardom on over the top catches, with a "slight" bit more motivation than OBJ still has,

Therefore I'd say, maybe, even if his skill to come down with the catch might be =, or < OBJ's, that his desire to get that extra half step deep down the field to be in position also known as "open", might be > OBJ's at this point.

Callaway, just get him the ball.

I see your point, about sprint time it's not, it's not always relavant.
A slow 40 time is not always going to hinder a QB run, well "any" run, sometimes there's just holes, and space, and the threat to run is a part of the game.

They rarely ask guys to,
Not counting DB's, we rarely see,
I see the necessary speed of a running back, I remember not liking Hillis'.

It's not all the time,
It's not "every" play they ask these guys to run "40" yards, I think "the QB deciding to run" is still something they have, (would want), to have part of the offense.

If everybody is covered and Bakers has a open field in front of him, sure, run the ball.

I wouldn't incorporate "designed" runs for Baker. He isn't a runner like some other QB's.

If we had Tebow, I'd run him 10 times a game.

Baker heard the chatter and tried to make a run for it on that one play. I've never seen open grass close so fast for a player like they did for Mayfield. It made me think there was no way he was punching that one in against the Rams the week before.

I agree 100 on the play against the Rams. No way he was getting in the zone.

Yep, I agree. I know many talking heads and people on twitter were bashing him and showing the opening, but he was 12 yards back and on his heels ... I mean, MAYBE Russell Wilson or Lamar gets that sure, but not Baker

As usual, there wasn't much on TV yesterday that I was interested in so I re-watched the Browns-Ravens game. I noticed exactly what you describe in your post. Freddie ran that exact play maybe twice before Chubb gashed them for the 88 yarder. I see what you're saying, and it appears to line up with how Kitchens describes what we're doing offensively. We design and install our offense, get input from the players about what they believe they do best then the play-caller decides when and where to make those calls. The players are accountable for executing the plays. The gameplan is more on the Browns and what they do and less on concocting something exotic for each opponent.

Good post Vers.

Thanks. You too. I like your elaboration.

Here is a link to Warren Sharp's site that show the percentage of all the Personnel Packages for each NFL team.

For those who are new to this topic and for those who missed the description in the previous thread, here is a simple explanation of personnel packages.

The first number indicates the number of RBs. The second number reveals how many TEs are on the field. For example, 11 Personnel has 1 RB and 1 TE; 12 Personnel has 1 RB and 2 TEs, 21 Personnel has 2 RBs and 1 TE, etc, etc.

https://www.sharpfootballstats.com/personnel-grouping-frequency.html

1st, I want to thank you and everyone that have laid that out. I didn't know that nomenclature, and now I do. And it's important for some of us that you guys do repeat it a couple times. Some of these topics can be dense for those of us that didn't play, so it takes a couple times to really sink in.

One thing I noticed in the SF game, particularly on the drive leading up to the Calloway INT, was that they ran a couple clever plays out of those 3WR sets. Whereas in the Titans game those formations usually meant longer, slower plays; that drive had several quicker plays out of the same groupings. I hope this is an indicator of the offense slowly changing into something that fits our roster.

Thanks and you're welcome.

We are definitely a work in progress. I am wondering if we have too much going on w/our offense. Our qb is certainly confused and we have a lot of new parts. I think scaling things back might help. Simplify things. Do a lot more 1 read things where we try and get the ball out quickly. You can then add one or two new things a week.

I know that people want things done yesterday, but this is a work in progress and I believe that scaling back and simplifying things might be best for our qb and our team in the long run.

A cursory glance yields an interesting observation...

Look at the teams running that 11 grouping. Other than the Rams (obvious why they like to run this) the other teams that run it similarly or more frequent than us are Cinci, Pitt, Dallas, Jax, and Washington (and AZ with their 4WR%). Through the lens of the struggles we see with the Browns, I don't understand why most of those teams would want to do that.

Think about the last two years and how so many teams want or wanted to be like the Rams?

I do want to add that Pittsburgh and Dallas have great OL's and the Steelers had a great qb and tons of skilled players. The Cowboys have some good weapons, as well.

Question. If a team lines up a TE at FB, then motions him out, does he counted as a TE or RB? In other words, if the player counted as what position he usually plays, where he lines up, or where he winds up at the snap after motion?

I'm very curious as well. During the game they showed a stat for snaps with a FB in the NFL... showing that the 49ers led the league at 56%. I remember thinking KJ is definitely in on more than 56% and assuming that all of these stats for personnel packages must be at the snap of the ball.

But then, reading this article:
https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/06/nfl-personnel-groupings-11-personnel-12-personnel-21-personnel

It points out this:
"(To be clear, we’re looking strictly at *which* players are on the field here, not *where* they’re lined up.)"

Good question. I'm not sure how the analytic guys determine that. My guess would be which players are on the field for a particular play rather than where they are lined up at the snap. But again, I'm not sure.

So it all depends on which two letters a guy has next to his name?

So a guy like KJ for SF could really muddy the waters, in terms of Sharp's breakdown.

I think most people would agree with that. The issue is that Freddie has said that numerous times as well...but he keeps NOT doing it...or it appears he's not doing it.

Like I said, I don't know the answer. I was speculating.

Don't get hung up on the numbers or where they end up, bro. Teams run motion all the time. They move players across formations. They shift to the other side of the line. They may start out wide and then motion to the backfield and vice versa. That's part of play design.

You brought up Kyle Juszczyk. Why is he in there? To block and catch passes, right? He doesn't run very often. So, the package is still the same, but you are looking for a competitive advantage when you line him up in different places.

I don't think I did a good job of explaining that. Sorry about that.

Clearly the offense should go through Chubb!

I do not understand why we do not use him more in the passing game and to set up play-action.

Two of my favorite RB's to watch have been Marshall Faulk and Leveon Bell.
Obviously they are great at running the ball, what they bring to the passing game is a wrinkle that teams just struggle to stop.

How many times has it looked like we have the Steelers stopped on third down only to see #26 leak out of the backfield and go for the conversion.

I have seen it discussed on posts, that we do not have an underneath target or dump off. Why not????? And the one time against the Jets when we did have it open, Baker missed him badly as he was wide open. On another occasion where there was an open Chubb out of the backfield, Baker went for the homerun and threw an incomplete pass.

Utilizing more underneath routes, as well as dump off to the RB's out of the backfield would be huge for injecting some spark into the offense.

I think I have seen PA on 1st down once the entire season, 14 yard 1st down. This play was against the Ravens where we clearly had our most success offensively.

Commit to the run, utilize play-action and get the ball to the RB's out of the backfield.

We saw glimpses of this in one out of five games. Chubb has been good in every game, it is frustrating to not see him involved as much as he should be.

While I would love to see it work that way, that can't be your only tactic. If and when your opponent loads up against the run, you have to be able to pass the ball to open up the run.

That strategy can change depending on how your opponent plays you on defense. Sometimes you can use the run to open up the pass. Sometimes you use the pass to open up the run.

I have seen that being discussed, too. However, it isn't true. I am not getting on you for believing that. It just galls me at times when people make-up claims about play calling and schemes when they really have no idea what they are talking about. I know that sounds mean and I am trying to soften it, but we have guys at all levels of the field and we do have player[s] we can check down, too.

Our qb is:

A. Not seeing the field well enough
B. Seeing it, but wanting to force it deep
C. Both A and B

It reminds me of the dumb comments from time gone by when the popular saying was "Metcalf up the middle." It infuriated football people because there are dozens and dozens and dozens of plays that call for you back to run up the middle. It's just nonsense by fans trying to get on the coaches.

Vers, do you think we use our RB’s enough out of the backfield?

If so we are probably watching two different games. I am not saying we don’t have underneath routes, I am saying we do not do it enough.

I mentioned both points A & B of yours in my post and you drop it like I do not even acknowledge it happened.

I brought up what I saw other people discuss as I would like to hear more about it.

If you think that my post is to alleviate any wrong by our QB you are severely mistaken.

But this thread is about scheme, that is why I mentioned it.

I am not a hater, just interested in the conversation.

Yeah, I get that. It just kinda muddies the waters a little bit for me trying to get my arms around the whole thing.

I wish we would use more screens, especially when the opposing team is getting pressure on the QB. We do have some fairly mobile OL, who can get out and block.

I probably did not communicate very well. I thought I mentioned that I read the same posts as you have and that I wasn't getting on you.

I'll say it again.........I was not getting on you. I was getting on the guys who are putting false information out there. I feel bad when guys like you read their posts and believe things. I have had it happen to me, too.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear and I do not think you were absolving our qb at all. That never entered my mind. I was just using your post to gripe about others who put out false narratives.

I think the coaches deserve part of the blame. It's why I started the Offensive Scheme thread in the first place.

I do think Baker gets most of the blame for the lack of short game, though. There have been numerous articles, charts, TV segments, videos, etc about how Baker passes up the easy throw and tries to force it downfield. Guys like Steve Young and Trent Dilfer have talked about it.

I imagine you will talk about how I hate Baker and blow off what I am saying, but you did ask and I am trying to talk football.

Don't let it confuse you, bro. I love how you really do like to learn. That's impressive.

Hmmmm........let me try this. Let's say we have 11 Personnel [remember...that is 1 RB and 1 TE.] We are in shotgun and we bring one of our 3 receivers in motion and we snap the ball while the WR is still behind the offensive line. That WR helps the OL w/the blocking and we run our RB behind him. You've seen that play many times over the years. It's still 11 personnel, but we are utilizing one of the WRs as a blocker at the point of attack in the running game.

Things like that distinguish play callers. It's how you utilize your personnel to give you an advantage and create building blocks w/that personnel and play design.

The story below supports my viewpoint concerning the dilemma that the Kitchens is faced with concerning Beckham and what it takes to make OB happy.

Freddie needs to focus on improving the short game.


Odell Beckham’s frustration will make it even harder for the Browns to win games

Posted by Mike Florio on October 9, 2019, 10:26 PM EDT 
link  

The Odell Beckham experiment in Cleveland hasn’t gone as well as expected. And he’s getting frustrated.

That characterization didn’t come from Beckham on Wednesday but from quarterback Baker Mayfield, who addressed Beckham’s lack of offensive production with reporters on Wednesday.

“He is frustrated when he is not getting the ball and we are losing,” Mayfield said. “Why not be? He feels like he could help us win if we get the ball in his hands. When we are winning, that is the thing about it is he is a team guy. He is helping us win in any way he can, and he understands how teams are going to play him. It is frustrating when he is not getting the ball and we are losing. You can’t blame him. He is one of the best receivers in the league, and when he is not getting the ball, he always has it in the back of his mind of, ‘What if I did get the ball and changed this game?'”

The football-watching world got a glimpse of that mindset on Monday, with a Benny Hill-style punt return from Beckham, who was trying to singlehandedly turn the game around at a time when the cause was lost. He backtracked and eventually fumbled.

Beckham had only two catches against the Ravens in Week Four, which created no problems because Cleveland emerged with the victory. On Monday night, two receptions coupled with a loss has made Beckham’s lack of involvement an issue.

Beckham isn’t the only one frustrated by his lack of involvement.Mayfield is frustrated by the extent to which opposing defenses are taking him out of games.

“It is frustrating when teams take him out of the game,” Mayfield said, “but it is also an opportunity for other guys to make plays. We have to do our job of getting him the ball as many times as we can. He is a game changer. That is why he is here. He is one of the best in the league. We will do our part, and we expect him to do his as well.

”That’s fine, but it’s still not working. Although the Browns are drawing up plays aimed at getting Beckham involved, it feels too forced and contrived, not part of the natural flow of the game. And as defenses focus on taking him away, the Browns are getting even more frustrated.

“I think it is about seeing how teams are going to play, and if there are one on ones, we have to be able to take advantage of it,” Mayfield said. “If not, he has to be patient and we do too of not forcing the ball to him and taking advantage of defenses and making them adapt before we can get the ball to him.”

A passing game works best when the quarterback focuses only on throwing the ball to the open man. And if a defense insists on taking one specific player away, the offense needs to pivot to others who will enjoy mismatches. But Beckham still wants the ball, and his desire to get the ball creates stress and pressure for the coaches and for Mayfield, potentially forcing him to spend too much time hoping Beckham springs open before moving on to the next man in the progression, because Mayfield knows that, if Beckham doesn’t get the ball, he’ll become frustrated.

That’s the price of having a great receiver. He knows he’s a great receiver, and he wants to continuously prove his greatness. He won’t concede that maybe he’s not so great that he can beat double teams, that he’s not open when he thinks he is, that pursuing victory isn’t about how many passes he catches.

So while it sounded great back in March to add Beckham to the Browns roster, the Browns are now working through the challenge that comes from having Beckham on the Browns roster — and his frustration will serve only as an invitation for teams to continue to do whatever they have to do to shut him down, since they know that his frustration and the efforts to alleviate it will make it easier to shut the entire offense down, too.