Offensive Scheme

Posted by: Versatile Dog

Offensive Scheme - 09/10/19 08:15 PM

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
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/10/19 08:25 PM

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
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/10/19 08:34 PM

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.
Posted by: PDXBrownsFan

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/10/19 08:50 PM

Credit where credit is due. This is a very good post Vers. I am opening the link now.
Posted by: THROW LONG

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/10/19 08:52 PM

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).
Posted by: lampdogg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/10/19 10:19 PM

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)?
Posted by: Baker_Dawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/10/19 10:59 PM

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.
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/11/19 05:08 AM

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
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/11/19 06:11 AM

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.
Posted by: Ballpeen

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/11/19 06:23 AM

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.
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/11/19 06:57 AM

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
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/11/19 07:02 AM

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.
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/11/19 07:31 AM

Okay, my fault ... Iíll shift that discussion to another thread
Posted by: WSU Willie

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/11/19 08:44 AM

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.
Posted by: Rishuz

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/11/19 08:57 AM

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.
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/11/19 08:59 AM

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
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/11/19 10:20 AM

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.
Posted by: willitevachange

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/11/19 10:33 AM

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??
Posted by: Rishuz

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/11/19 10:47 AM

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.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/11/19 10:57 AM

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
Posted by: FATE

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/11/19 11:11 AM

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.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/11/19 11:16 AM

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.
Posted by: OldColdDawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/11/19 11:58 AM

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.
Posted by: Niolen

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/11/19 11:59 AM

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.
Posted by: PitDAWG

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/11/19 12:25 PM

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.
Posted by: bonefish

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/11/19 06:04 PM

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.
Posted by: Ballpeen

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/11/19 07:01 PM

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.
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/11/19 07:03 PM

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
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/11/19 07:20 PM

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.
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/11/19 07:23 PM

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
Posted by: cfrs15

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/11/19 07:31 PM

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.
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/11/19 07:33 PM

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
Posted by: cfrs15

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/11/19 07:34 PM

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.
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/11/19 07:40 PM

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.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/11/19 07:41 PM

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.
Posted by: oobernoober

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/12/19 08:50 AM

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.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/12/19 09:17 AM

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?
Posted by: Knight_Of_Brown

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/12/19 09:46 AM

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!
Posted by: PitDAWG

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/12/19 11:42 AM

You know, at first I completely dismissed this idea you had. But I'm beginning to give more thought to it.
Posted by: oobernoober

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/12/19 02:23 PM

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.
Posted by: drobs

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/12/19 03:45 PM

J/C - I'v not posted or read much at all since that car wreck Sunday.

The posts on here are spot on. We ran the ball really effectively against TEN (over 5ypc) and I understand we were always playing catch-up. However, when we were went 2 scores down in the 4th, we abandoned the run completely.

We still had time to take chunks on the floor and set up PA. We did neither.

Freddie orchestrated the offensive turnaround last year and I expect us to run and run some more on the Jets. As evidenced here, GW defenses can be run on - and I like him as a coach, it's not a slight on him. I would also say that the long developing plays we say Sunday need to go - GW will play for the turnovers despite them having a not great secondary.

Run Chubb, max protect Baker, take the small gains and sprinkle in the odd, I won't call trick play (like the Landry runs last year), but make it simple and quick.

If only Joe T could have made this season. Man....
Posted by: drobs

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/12/19 03:48 PM

I will add - with our receiving talent, ww should excel at maximising the returns out of PA or a RPO offense. They won't stack the box because they wil be terrified OBJ will rip them over the top but if we continue to take 4, 5,6 yards a run, they will have to.

I want us to dictate what happens when the offense is on the field. It was the other way around on Sunday.
Posted by: SuperBrown

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/13/19 11:36 PM

Offensive Scheme??

You mean we have one?

News to me.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/16/19 09:45 AM

I know most of the board doesn't think the scheme and personnel packages are a big deal, but there are some former NFL guys who agree w/me.

I was listening to the show w/Rex Ryan, Tedi Bruschi, Moss, and M. Hassleback yesterday and they were discussing how the scheme really hurt the Browns last Sunday. The plays were slow-developing and that is what caused a lot of the pressure on Baker. They were talking about how OBJ and Landry were actually open and that we should get them the ball quicker and let them do their thing. Rex said there was a lot of pressure on Freddie to get this fixed.

Moss was sent to Cleveland to have a sit-down w/OBJ and Landry. They showed a brief clip and that is what got the discussion started. They are going to show the full interview tonight. I think coverage starts at 6:00, if anyone is interested.

Freddie will take the heat and he is the HC. But, I think this change in philosophy is from Monken. I just don't think our OL and Baker are ready for such a scheme. And I also believe this will be one of the most important decisions we make in regards to our success this season.
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/16/19 10:15 AM

Good point about the QUICK passing game ... IMO, get it to OBJ right away. Slants, screens, quick outs, etc ... no need to always wait for him to get open deep
Posted by: cfrs15

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/16/19 10:42 AM

We are definitely running different personnel versus last year. But who comes off the field and who goes on? We have no depth at tight end and no fullback on the roster.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/16/19 10:45 AM

Good point about the TEs and FB. And the fact that they moved on from guys like Fells and Charles and don't even have a FB, is scaring me.

I could be wrong, but I really don't think we are a better team by relying so much on the 11 Personnel package.
Posted by: WSU Willie

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/16/19 10:45 AM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
I know most of the board doesn't think the scheme and personnel packages are a big deal...


rolleyes

And you KNOW this how? Exactly? You KNOW it. Whatever.

Or is this akin to Baker having thrown a hissy fit?
Posted by: bonefish

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/16/19 11:23 AM


These are good points regarding the scheme.

I don't know if it is Monken?

Last year although it was the Haley offense Freddie made adjustments to get the ball out quickly.

IMO. Playing under center and establishing play action through the run game is critical.

We can not succeed IMO running all plays from shotgun. We have to show the ability to be able to run the ball. Under center off play action the defense has to honor the run. The linebackers have to momentarily look to the gaps. It opens up pass play options.

Freddie ran some interesting plays last year. The offense was potent. The ball came out fast. We also ran the ball with Chubb.

Lot of things were out of whack last week.

Hopefully we will get it together.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/16/19 11:29 AM

Good points.

I worry because Monken's offense in TB was a big-play, high-risk offense that didn't run the ball much and gave up a lot of QB pressures and committed too many turnovers.

I hope we go back to doing more of what we did last year.
Posted by: Ballpeen

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/16/19 11:34 AM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
I know most of the board doesn't think the scheme and personnel packages are a big deal, but there are some former NFL guys who agree w/me.

I was listening to the show w/Rex Ryan, Tedi Bruschi, Moss, and M. Hassleback yesterday and they were discussing how the scheme really hurt the Browns last Sunday. The plays were slow-developing and that is what caused a lot of the pressure on Baker. They were talking about how OBJ and Landry were actually open and that we should get them the ball quicker and let them do their thing. Rex said there was a lot of pressure on Freddie to get this fixed.

Moss was sent to Cleveland to have a sit-down w/OBJ and Landry. They showed a brief clip and that is what got the discussion started. They are going to show the full interview tonight. I think coverage starts at 6:00, if anyone is interested.

Freddie will take the heat and he is the HC. But, I think this change in philosophy is from Monken. I just don't think our OL and Baker are ready for such a scheme. And I also believe this will be one of the most important decisions we make in regards to our success this season.



No doubt Monken has had input. He isn't calling plays, so he has to be doing something else.

Just because we have OBJ doesn't mean he needs to be the focus of the O. We need to do a better job of taking what is given.

It is critical about what we plan to do because we MUST win this game because winning 1 of the next 2 is going to be a chore.
Posted by: bonefish

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/16/19 11:51 AM


As the season unfolds at least from my perspective; I see lots of good players on every team. Parity is a fact. Yes there will be bottom feeders. Teams in transition or looking for a quarterback. But there are a lot of teams that are not separated by much.

A team has to execute. The first week saw many teams playing sloppy ball. Lots of penalties not just in our game.

Pre-season is a joke. Coaches are paranoid of injury. And they have a right to feel that way. So come the first week most teams are not ready. The ones who have continuity (which often means success) are ahead of the others.

We need to win some of these early games and improve along the way.
Posted by: FATE

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/16/19 12:14 PM

Just my opinion, but I could see this as a logical way things may have progressed to this point.

In short...
Monken is pretty well respected for his offensive "prowess". Freddie hires him with the caveat that he will be calling plays. The compromise is the agreement to install Monken's offense. The offense stalls week one and the NFL applies a sense of urgency like no other league. Freddie says things need to be "dialed back" immediately to put Baker and the OLine in a position to succeed. He assures Monken that nothing is being scrapped but a happy medium is needed until we see the consistent, high-powered offensive output that the talent dictates we should expect.

We'll find out how true this may or may not be in a few hours. wink
Posted by: bonefish

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/16/19 12:54 PM


Good take.

I just want the team to eliminate mistakes. Play a clean game.

You expect some mistakes especially the way the refs are calling some of the new rules? Sometimes I feel like "what is going on"?

What I expected to see was defensive pressure on the quarterback.

Offensive unpredictability. Based upon multiple offensive options.

At least that is what I want to see.
Posted by: Niolen

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/16/19 01:04 PM

Salient point.

Like I said in a previous post, I think the likeliest culprit for the Rams-esque reliance on 11 personnel is a lack of trust in the tight ends, and I canít really fault the coaching staff for that. I donít trust Demetrius Harris or Pharaoh Brown, either.

But I think the blending of Kitchenís and Monkenís philosophies could be part of the problem, too. In 2018, the Buccaneers spent 70% of their time in 11 personnel. And, out of 11 personnel, they had a 70-30 pass-run split with 8.4 YPA and 4.4 YPC. They spent only 17% of their time in 12 personnel and 2% of their time in 13 personnel despite having O.J. Howard and Cameron Brate as options at tight end.

Once Kitchens took over, the Browns spent 55% of their time in 11 personnel. Out of 11 personnel, the Browns had a 72-28 pass-run split with 8.6 YPA and 5.2 YPC. But the Browns spent 18% of their time in 12 personnel and 16% of their time in 13 personnel. In such scenarios, the Browns were more effective than the Buccaneers at running the ball, and much more effective passing the ball. The Browns were 44-of-57 for 585 yards with 4 touchdowns and 1 interception in heavy formations.

That said, I expect we will know more about our offensive scheme after tonight. I anticipate Gregg Williams is going to dial up frequent blitzes/man coverage and challenge our offensive line and receiving options. Weíll see how Kitchens and Monken respond. If itís heavier personnel or faster-developing route combinations.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/16/19 01:37 PM

Thanks for providing the personnel percentages. I love stats like that.
Posted by: Spiritbro77

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/16/19 03:39 PM

I hope Baker doesn't throw more than 25 times. We need to run the ball early and often. With Baker under center. Then hit them with the play-action. I hope we give them a huge dose of Chubb tonight. Just line up and punch them in the mouth. But we have an OC that loves the air-raid so I don't expect to see that.
Posted by: THROW LONG

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/16/19 03:44 PM

I want to see 30+ combined running plays, even if they're going for 1.x years per carry.

Get back to fundamentals, and fundamental #1 is run the ball,


If they can do that, they'll have a chance to win the game, slow the game down, get greater time of possession, and eliminate the two bad possible outcomes of a passing play,

If they can't do that, or make progress toward it, then it's time to consider taking offensive playcalling duties away from the head coach.

The 2 minute offense is called that for a reason, it's only supposed to be gone to in the last 2 minutes of a game or half.


If they come out, and run the 2 minute offense in the first 5 minutes of the first quarter tonight, and every game,

then this team will lose 10 times.

3rd and 7, Run the ball
3rd and 8, Run the ball
3rd and 16, Run the b-play action pass.

1st and 25, RUN THE BALL!
Posted by: SuperBrown

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/16/19 04:08 PM

I hope this weeks offensive scheme is not another clown show:

Posted by: leadtheway

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/16/19 04:12 PM

Originally Posted By: SuperBrown
I hope this weeks offensive scheme is not another clown show:



sign that cart immediately.. Look at those broken tackles and yards after contact
Posted by: bonefish

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/16/19 04:26 PM


General comment. Not directed at anyone.

Some of what I hear from "analysts" and read from a variety of sources including this Board makes my head spin.

The Ravens have won two games. Lamar has looked good. Now, he might be the best quarterback in the 2018 draft. And will be in the MVP discussion this year.

The Ravens played the Dolphins and the Cardinals.

One example of many over reactions. The list is long.

It isn't just things like that. It is also the consistent misunderstanding of what actually takes place.

I completely understand how head coaches cringe about responding to questions from the media.

I am not involved in professional football in any capacity. I don't pretend to be a genius. I did play. I have coached baseball. However, I have watched football for over 60 years. It is not nuclear physics. You don't need a Phd. to play the game.

Yet, some of the stuff that comes out makes me wonder how in the world do people see things.
Posted by: SuperBrown

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/16/19 04:33 PM

Originally Posted By: bonefish

Lamar has looked good. Now, he might be the best quarterback in the 2018 draft.


Hold on there little doggy.
Posted by: bonefish

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/16/19 06:04 PM


You did read I used that as an example of things I have heard and that was what I felt to be a over reaction?

You understand that correct?
Posted by: mgh888

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/16/19 09:58 PM

Need better balance. Still pass happy at the half way mark.
Posted by: PastorMarc

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/16/19 10:20 PM

Run Chubb
Posted by: PastorMarc

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/16/19 10:23 PM

This what happens when our offense doesn't move the ball
Posted by: s003apr

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/16/19 10:25 PM

I think the safety we took last week says it all.
1st and 11 on the 2 yard line.
Every receiver runs straight up field past the 15 and out of camera.
Posted by: PastorMarc

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/16/19 10:25 PM

Stopped
Posted by: PastorMarc

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/16/19 10:27 PM

Come on move the ball run Chubb
Posted by: PastorMarc

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/16/19 10:29 PM

TOUCHDOWN BROWNS!!!!!!!!
Posted by: PastorMarc

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/16/19 10:29 PM

OBJ
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 08:11 AM

Interested to see the percentage of the personnel packages. We mixed it up more last night, but I still want to see the breakdown.
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 08:16 AM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
Interested to see the percentage of the personnel packages. We mixed it up more last night, but I still want to see the breakdown.
Yeah, I noticed us mixing it up too .. I tried to keep track of how many TEís we were using. I think itíll be a bit more evened out this week (especially without Higgins probably).

Obviously the big drawback is our TEís are quite bad, and itís even worse when Njoku came out
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 08:20 AM

I noticed that we had 3 TEs in the game at the same time late in the game.
Posted by: cfrs15

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 11:32 AM

Posted by: cfrs15

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 11:34 AM

Presnap motion is like getting some answers to the test prior to the test. It often reveals whether the defense is in man or zone and/or who is blitzing.

I feel like we haven't used much presnap motion so far this season. Has anyone noticed anything?
Posted by: BustkeviousMingo

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 11:37 AM

It's hard to use pre-snap motion when we are constantly getting to the line late in the play clock and snapping the ball with 1 second left on the play clock
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 12:14 PM

Bingo .. Baker canít even freaking get 2 seconds most time .. heís hurrying, hurrying ... snapping, then just reacting lol
Originally Posted By: BustkeviousMingo
It's hard to use pre-snap motion when we are constantly getting to the line late in the play clock and snapping the ball with 1 second left on the play clock
Posted by: DCDAWGFAN

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 12:24 PM

Originally Posted By: cfrs15
Presnap motion is like getting some answers to the test prior to the test. It often reveals whether the defense is in man or zone and/or who is blitzing.

I feel like we haven't used much presnap motion so far this season. Has anyone noticed anything?

Like others, I've noticed that we are getting to the line with :05 on the play clock.. no time for motion, no time to get a good presnap read, no time to change the play...
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 01:20 PM

Originally Posted By: cfrs15
Presnap motion is like getting some answers to the test prior to the test. It often reveals whether the defense is in man or zone and/or who is blitzing.

I feel like we haven't used much presnap motion so far this season. Has anyone noticed anything?


Good point. I remember one of the announcers during the preseason pointing out how much motion Freddie ran last year after he took over. And you are right, we haven't seem it much this year.

I have concerns over Monken's influence and I don't think we're built for 11 Personnel considering our OTs and QB.

I'm still hoping someone will post the percentages on last nights game. It was better than week one, but I would like to see the specifics.
Posted by: Ballpeen

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 01:41 PM

J/C

Why are we getting to the line late?
Posted by: PrplPplEater

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 01:51 PM

Ya know, I never thought to pay attention to that. My guess is that the plays are slow coming in.


As an aside, what I would have liked to have seen is an interim scheme change. I think it would have been prudent to start the season with something that was more akin to what we ran last year and over the course of the season morph things into what they're wanting us to become. Start with what was known to work and let the guys grow into what they want to do.

If we had last year's offense last night, this would have been an utter blowout.
Posted by: WSU Willie

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 01:52 PM

Originally Posted By: DCDAWGFAN
Originally Posted By: cfrs15
Presnap motion is like getting some answers to the test prior to the test. It often reveals whether the defense is in man or zone and/or who is blitzing.

I feel like we haven't used much presnap motion so far this season. Has anyone noticed anything?

Like others, I've noticed that we are getting to the line with :05 on the play clock.. no time for motion, no time to get a good presnap read, no time to change the play...


I agree. What's even more odd to me is how effective we are in hurry-up or no-huddle...then...when we take our time to decide what to do...we take too darned long. It doesn't make sense.
Posted by: WSU Willie

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 01:54 PM

Originally Posted By: PrplPplEater
Ya know, I never thought to pay attention to that. My guess is that the plays are slow coming in.


As an aside, what I would have liked to have seen is an interim scheme change. I think it would have been prudent to start the season with something that was more akin to what we ran last year and over the course of the season morph things into what they're wanting us to become. Start with what was known to work and let the guys grow into what they want to do.

If we had last year's offense last night, this would have been an utter blowout.



It's almost like...in an effort to out-smart the opponent, we ended up outsmarting ourselves...at least I hope not.
Posted by: PrplPplEater

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 01:55 PM

It feels like WE are still trying to figure out our offense.
Posted by: PastorMarc

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 02:02 PM

Just let Baker play his way ...
Posted by: Ballpeen

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 02:04 PM

When watching last night before falling asleep, I didn't notice a problem in the huddle. They didn't seem to take extra long to call the play and line up.

Freddie is calling plays. Maybe he doesn't understand the Monken O all that well at this point and has to mill over each play in his mind.

If we expect the QB to read the D and realign some people, or out and out change the call, we need to be up there with 10-12 seconds. As others have mentioned, we are getting there with 5 on the clock.
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 02:21 PM

I wonder if it might be so the defense canít react to US either? Donít let them communicate much based on our formations
Posted by: archbolddawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 02:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Ballpeen
J/C

Why are we getting to the line late?


I missed the first quarter and a half due to a church obligation/meeting.

My wife knew, when I got home, she'd have to back up the dvr so I could watch from the beginning. She mentioned it to me on the first drive, so I paid attention to that the rest of the game.

My answer? The plays are coming in way too late. Exactly WHY that is, I don't know. Freddie not sure what to run? Freddie waiting to see who/what the d subs in? Freddie not certain who/if he wants to sub?

But, it seems most of the game, the ball wasn't snapped until less than 2-3 seconds on the play clock, and many times with just 1 second left.
Posted by: WSU Willie

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 02:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Dawgs4Life
I wonder if it might be so the defense canít react to US either? Donít let them communicate much based on our formations


I hope not. I don't think we are THAT team yet.
Posted by: PrplPplEater

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 02:55 PM



Originally Posted By: WSU Willie
Originally Posted By: Dawgs4Life
I wonder if it might be so the defense canít react to US either? Donít let them communicate much based on our formations


I hope not. I don't think we are THAT team yet.


Agreed. I think that would be pie-in-the-sky level hopes of a reason.
Posted by: Brown to the Bone

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 05:47 PM

Originally Posted By: WSU Willie
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.



You nailed it continuity is this teams greatest challenge, its really that simple.
Posted by: kwhip

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 06:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Ballpeen
J/C

Why are we getting to the line late?


Did Monkem do any Motion last year in Tampa?
Posted by: Ballpeen

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 06:45 PM

I was going to pose this to Vers in a PM, but then decided to includse all.

I am not sure what O we are using. Is this the Monken O or is it some sort of blending with Freddie ideas?

Does Freddie even have a offense? I am not saying he doesn't understand O. He clearly does from playing at a high level and coaching on O for a long time.

Does he have what he would call his playbook? I assume Monken brought in a playbook he would call his own.

I am not sure we have had a meeting of the minds here.
Posted by: Ballpeen

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 06:58 PM

I found this article to be interesting. It is from May. I know I didn't read it then, but maybe it has already been posted, but it is still good.

https://www.dawgsbynature.com/2019/5/10/18512991/what-to-expect-from-todd-monken-stats-overview
Posted by: Rishuz

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 07:10 PM

Here's what I guess happened.

1. Freddie hired Monken. They share the same philosophy to be explosive, but Monken's scheme is not what Freddie implemented last year.

2. They trade for Odell.

3. They start minicamps and training camps and begin installing Monken's offense. He is the offensive coordinator after all. Rumors that there was some head butting were probably true at some point but my guess is Freddie acquiesced to Monken. That's why he brought him here.

4. Throughout camp Baker most likely demonstrated he was ready for this and thereby validating Monken's system.. That's what practicing against the same team every day over and over will do. Probably led to some false positives.

5. So the wheels were in motion and between trading for Odell and getting rid of every blocking fullback and tight end there is almost no choice but to stick with what you implemented all camp.

6. They overestimated Baker and the team being ready for this. I think Freddie saw the writing on the wall in the third preseason game which is why he tried to turn Devalve into a fullback. That plan failed.

7. Once the real bullets started flying, it was obvious this is currently a bad fit. They dialed it back a bit in game 2 but I think there's only so much they can dial back at this point. Baker needs to grow in a hurry.

8. Baker and Freddie were very frustrated in their post game pressers after a WIN. I think they realize they're are going to be scrambling for answers.

9. In hindsight, Freddie should have pulled a McVay and been the offensive coordinator himself.

We could not have asked for a worse outcome if we wanted to legit compete this year. It's really almost too late to do anything other than 1) Freddie takes over the offense and/or fires Monken or 2) continue down this path. The problem with choosing option 1 is we no longer have the personnel for it.

Baker is going to have to grow up in a hurry. At this point he almost just needs to be a game manager with the occasional strike until he starts processing faster.
Posted by: s003apr

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 07:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Ballpeen
I found this article to be interesting. It is from May. I know I didn't read it then, but maybe it has already been posted, but it is still good.

https://www.dawgsbynature.com/2019/5/10/18512991/what-to-expect-from-todd-monken-stats-overview


Great article!
It basically validates what we have been seeing on the field: increased turnovers, increased yards through the air, increased tight window throws...

I would say that this definitely appears to be the Monken influence.
Posted by: Ballpeen

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 07:37 PM

I don't know if it is a matter of processing or not. He processed pretty well last year, even if some say it was a half field process....and it could have been. Not questioning opinions here.


I don't mind game managers. When you get down to it, that is a QB's job. All good QBs were good game managers. I don't see being a good game manager as a bad thing. Who wants a BAD game manager?

I do think it is Monken who has us trying to strike deep
Posted by: Ballpeen

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 07:42 PM

Good....somebody read the article.
Thanks
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 07:48 PM

j/c:

Some good thought in the last few to several posts. All our related to scheme. Getting the play in late is not related to scheme. LOL

For those of you discussing Monken and Freddie, and I think that is a very legit conversation in regards to our scheme, think about this question.

Do you remember Silver's report about things not going smoothly w/the new install of the offense? A lot of people blew that off for reasons I don't want to get into, but it made me go "hmmmmmmm" at the time, because Monken's offense didn't seem to mesh w/what Freddie did last year.

I am not a fan of that offense. Yes, they get a lot of big plays and it can be dynamic, However, it leads to a ton of sacks and turnovers. It also leads to more penalties and puts a ton of pressure on your D because it can put them in too many bad situations.

Think about it. Let me know your thoughts. I think it is an interesting topic.
Posted by: Ballpeen

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 08:03 PM

My thoughts are I agree, being late to the line isn't scheme, but it can hurt the scheme. The conversation turned that way so I made comment. Sorry to break the rules.



I do remember the article.. we will see where this goes.


I can live with 1-3 because if we meld, we can wins games late in the season.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 08:06 PM

You didn't break any rules. I was just trying to clarify things. And my post wasn't to you. I actually liked your comments about Monken. I did put "j/c" when I clicked on your post. At least I hope I did.
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/17/19 09:55 PM

J/c

I just read that Kitchens said we were taking the playclock down by design, especially since we were up such a large amount ... not sure itís believable, but thats his stance

Also, I think we need more presnap motion to reveal defensive assignments, JMO
Posted by: Rishuz

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/18/19 07:26 AM

Kitchens also said Baker is taking too many hits and he needs to get the ball out of his hands faster.

Basically he's going to start slowly pulling the offense away from Monken. So from my earlier post, he's choosing option 1.

We are beating the Rams. Team is going to come out loose, having fun, and executing much better.
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/18/19 07:43 AM

Originally Posted By: Rishuz
Kitchens also said Baker is taking too many hits and he needs to get the ball out of his hands faster.

Basically he's going to start slowly pulling the offense away from Monken. So from my earlier post, he's choosing option 1.

We are beating the Rams. Team is going to come out loose, having fun, and executing much better.
If we all (mostly) agree that our issues are not personnel/talent and that we have enough of that to win on offense ... then I find it idiotic that we wouldnít use WHAT WORKED so well last year as a base for this season ... of course weíd add to that, but the offense seems so different than last season.

In fact, one of the only plays that seems similar is the 90 yard touchdown to OBJ lol
Posted by: Rishuz

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/18/19 08:01 AM

I don't think it's a big mystery. They thought Baker was ready for more. He's not. But the whole off season was built around thinking he was. How do you undo an entire off season of work once you find out it's not working when the real bullets start flying?
Posted by: rastanplan

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/18/19 08:49 AM

Originally Posted By: Rishuz
I don't think it's a big mystery. They thought Baker was ready for more. He's not. But the whole off season was built around thinking he was. How do you undo an entire off season of work once you find out it's not working when the real bullets start flying?


No running game will make it harder for any QB... Baker is OK, just don't ask the impossible from him.

Improve the running game and use the screens to beat the blitz,and we should be good to go.

No screens and no running and Baker is going to end in IR...
Posted by: WSU Willie

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/18/19 09:04 AM

j/c

Without regard to what the coaches say - NOT saying they are being untruthful - there is no doubt that the play on the field looks out-of-whack...maybe even forced (discombobulated per Milk Man is also good description).

Is there a disconnect with Monken prepping the gameplan during the week and then Freddie making the playcalls on gameday?
Posted by: Rishuz

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/18/19 09:43 AM

Originally Posted By: WSU Willie
Is there a disconnect with Monken prepping the gameplan during the week and then Freddie making the playcalls on gameday?


I would seriously doubt this. That speaks to incompetence, and I don't think these guys are anywhere close to incompetent.

I think it's much simpler. Too much, too soon. Intentions were good. You have a young, dynamic gun slinging QB who is accurate, likes to go downfield, and demonstrated these traits his rookie season. You then add playmakers. I don't think there was anything wrong with what they were trying to do. But it's like anything else in life, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It's what they do moving forward that matters now. How do they adjust?

I think we are going to see big time adjustments in the Rams game. Freddie and Baker looked distraught after the Jets game. After a win. These guys know it isn't working. I don't get the impression they will be stubborn about it.
Posted by: mac

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/18/19 09:46 AM

jc...

What was it that John Dorsey said before the first game of the season?....


Quote:
Dorsey knows the schedule is demanding, especially the first eight games. He also knows heís added a lot of new players and coaches.

It takes some time for it to blend together.ďI ask the fans to exercise a degree of patience,Ē he said. ďWe are building this thing to last 10 years, not just have one good year.Ē



Oh how quickly some fans forget...

Dorsey's comment was not an excuse..he was stating the facts and asking Browns fans to consider all the changes that have occurred in the off-season.

Some fans seem to be under the impression that the 2019 Browns would perform like a well oiled machine right out of the box and that the changes and new additions to the coaching staff, the new playbooks and the many changes in player personnel...

...it appears that some of our Browns fans seem to believe that none of these factors apply to the 2019 Browns.

Those fans would be wrong...it does take a bit of time for everything to gel...try to remember and try to be patient!
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/18/19 10:38 AM

You could be right about all of this. But, here is food for thought.

I posted Baker's league rankings awhile ago. Of course, there were the usual replies about me hating Baker, but the best argument was made by YTown and a couple of other dudes. That argument was that Baker's stats under Haley's direction were bad, but they were outstanding once Freddie took over. Someone then projected those stats over the course of the season and they were very impressive.

So here is what I am asking you to consider. Bake did not fare well under Haley in his offense that was more similar to what we are doing this year than what Freddie did once he took over. Thus, there is some history there.

I think we should also include the OL in this discussion. Under Haley, our line gave up a lot of sacks. Yet, under Freddie, I believe the OL gave up the fewest sacks in that span of games.

Btw---------I wish I would have put this thread in the Pure Football Forum because I think the topic is going to be an ongoing "thing" this season.
Posted by: Rishuz

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/18/19 11:11 AM

Vers, I think we are saying the same thing, no?
Posted by: Referee00

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/18/19 11:14 AM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog

Btw---------I wish I would have put this thread in the Pure Football Forum because I think the topic is going to be an ongoing "thing" this season.


thumbsup
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/18/19 11:18 AM

Originally Posted By: Rishuz
Vers, I think we are saying the same thing, no?


Pretty much. I was just saying that they did have some information on whether switching to so much 11 Personnel was a good idea given what happened w/Haley last year. I think it might have been wiser to add those packages in smaller doses.

BTW-----------Thanks to the ref who moved this thread to this forum. I really appreciate it.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/18/19 11:19 AM

Originally Posted By: Referee00
Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog

Btw---------I wish I would have put this thread in the Pure Football Forum because I think the topic is going to be an ongoing "thing" this season.


thumbsup



Thank you very much!!! thumbsup
Posted by: DCDAWGFAN

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/18/19 11:27 AM

Quote:
Does Freddie even have a offense? I am not saying he doesn't understand O. He clearly does from playing at a high level and coaching on O for a long time.

Does he have what he would call his playbook? I assume Monken brought in a playbook he would call his own.

As far as I know, Freddie has never been in a position to have an NFL "offense" of his own. Last year he inherited Todd Haley's offense, simplified it, and made it better to fit the personnel he had but it wasn't HIS offense. Then this offseason he hired Monken as OC but retained play calling.

I'm sure he has ideas and a philosophy but I don't think there is a "Freddie Kitchens Playbook"

Maybe they need to go back to that Todd Haley playbook and see what they can incorporate that was working so well.
Posted by: cfrs15

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/18/19 11:28 AM

Last year under Todd Haley (weeks one through eight) we were in 11 personnel 68% of the time, 12 personnel 15% of the time, 21 personnel 2% of the time, and 13 personnel 12% of the time (the rest were less than 1%).

This year week one we were in 11 personnel 94% of the time, 12 personnel 5% of the time, and we ran one play with 01 personnel (four receivers one tight end). Week two has not been updated to include our game yet.

Overall I think the sample is too small to make any conclusions. Maybe we are trying a matchup based offense? Maybe we are playing different personnel groupings because of depth issues? I think we just don't know yet.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/18/19 11:35 AM

Thanks for the percentages.

I agree that it's too early to draw summative conclusions, but I also think it is worthy of discussion and watching closely.

I also don't believe it based on match-ups. I do think that roster decisions are something to consider.
Posted by: cfrs15

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/18/19 11:40 AM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
I also don't believe it based on match-ups. I do think that roster decisions are something to consider.


I don't think it's matchup based either. My point was that we don't know.

I think we are playing more 11 personnel for two reasons. 1) Our tight ends after Njoku stink 2) Monken's influence.

In the end I think kinks will get worked out and everything will be fine. Kitchens and Monken are both very smart offensive coaches, I would hope that if they identify a problem they will fix it instead of forcing something that isn't working.
Posted by: willitevachange

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/18/19 11:44 AM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
Thanks for the percentages.

I agree that it's too early to draw summative conclusions, but I also think it is worthy of discussion and watching closely.

I also don't believe it based on match-ups. I do think that roster decisions are something to consider.
I don't think its matchups either. Would you agree if it was based on matchups with Mosley out we would have ran more intermediate patterns over the middle instead of longer developing plays on the outside, if that was the case?
Posted by: cfrs15

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/18/19 12:01 PM

Originally Posted By: willitevachange
Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
Thanks for the percentages.

I agree that it's too early to draw summative conclusions, but I also think it is worthy of discussion and watching closely.

I also don't believe it based on match-ups. I do think that roster decisions are something to consider.
I don't think its matchups either. Would you agree if it was based on matchups with Mosley out we would have ran more intermediate patterns over the middle instead of longer developing plays on the outside, if that was the case?


I think we did run intermediate plays over the middle but the QB didn't throw the ball to those receivers.
Posted by: PitDAWG

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/18/19 12:15 PM

The QB has to be able to go through his reads quickly to find the open man. If your primary WR is that outside guy and you focus on that, you may never see the open guy in the middle of the field until it's too late.
Posted by: willitevachange

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/18/19 12:18 PM

Originally Posted By: cfrs15
Originally Posted By: willitevachange
Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
Thanks for the percentages.

I agree that it's too early to draw summative conclusions, but I also think it is worthy of discussion and watching closely.

I also don't believe it based on match-ups. I do think that roster decisions are something to consider.
I don't think its matchups either. Would you agree if it was based on matchups with Mosley out we would have ran more intermediate patterns over the middle instead of longer developing plays on the outside, if that was the case?


I think we did run intermediate plays over the middle but the QB didn't throw the ball to those receivers.
I don't believe those where the first reads tho. The first read for just about every play has been a 20 yard route downfield.

By that time, the rush is on baker and hes scrambling to find his second read. He needs to be better at this, yes.

Im talking about those intermediate plays being the first read. I know of one, the quick hitter to OBJ, and from I understand, that was an option play to begin with.
Posted by: DiamDawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/18/19 05:29 PM

Oooops ...
Posted by: DeputyDawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/18/19 10:41 PM

Dorsey might be building for 10 years of winning, but I'm worried about our QB making it through 4 games right now.

The mix of our current scheme, QB's mindset, and o-line is not conducive to a healthy QB at the end of the season.

We need more Chubb and more quick passes in this offense for right now. Keep the QB upright so he can live long enough to grow into the offense.
Posted by: Rishuz

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/18/19 11:06 PM

I'm convinced we are going to see a different football team on Sunday.
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 05:04 AM

Originally Posted By: Rishuz
I'm convinced we are going to see a different football team on Sunday.
fingerscrossed
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 07:27 AM

Originally Posted By: DeputyDawg
Dorsey might be building for 10 years of winning, but I'm worried about our QB making it through 4 games right now.

The mix of our current scheme, QB's mindset, and o-line is not conducive to a healthy QB at the end of the season.

We need more Chubb and more quick passes in this offense for right now. Keep the QB upright so he can live long enough to grow into the offense.


I think 11 Personnel is a good package for our many dynamic receivers, and I am counting Callaway in that group.

However, I don't think it fits our QB and OL right now. We ran a lot of 21 last year and we got rid of all our guys who could line up at FB. We haven't been running much 12 or 13 personnel, but I did see more of them in our second game vs the Jets.

Btw----------does anyone know the name of the site that contains the information on the percentages of personnel packages? I would like to look them up for myself and not have to rely on others to provide that information for me.
Posted by: DevilDawg2847

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 07:28 AM

Originally Posted By: leadtheway
Originally Posted By: SuperBrown
I hope this weeks offensive scheme is not another clown show:



sign that cart immediately.. Look at those broken tackles and yards after contact


Hey can someone take this video and overlay the SPanish announcer's play call from Chubb's 92 yrd TD from last year? Or at least Jimmy Donovan's?
Posted by: Niolen

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 09:02 AM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
Originally Posted By: DeputyDawg
Dorsey might be building for 10 years of winning, but I'm worried about our QB making it through 4 games right now.

The mix of our current scheme, QB's mindset, and o-line is not conducive to a healthy QB at the end of the season.

We need more Chubb and more quick passes in this offense for right now. Keep the QB upright so he can live long enough to grow into the offense.


I think 11 Personnel is a good package for our many dynamic receivers, and I am counting Callaway in that group.

However, I don't think it fits our QB and OL right now. We ran a lot of 21 last year and we got rid of all our guys who could line up at FB. We haven't been running much 12 or 13 personnel, but I did see more of them in our second game vs the Jets.

Btw----------does anyone know the name of the site that contains the information on the percentages of personnel packages? I would like to look them up for myself and not have to rely on others to provide that information for me.


I donít think thereís going to be a noticeable shift toward 12 and 13 personnel without Njoku.

Whether itís a function of design, personnel, or a combination of the two, itís become clear that weíre going to base out of 11 personnel. And weíre likely going to have a heavy pass-run split in it.

So it becomes a matter of improving from within (Baker, the offensive line) and reducing the exposure to the aforementioned areas in the meantime.

Some possible solutions:

- More RPOs.

- Clear, defined, half-field, high-low concepts and reads. Dagger, Flood, Level, Mesh, Spacing, Spot, Switch, etc. Quick decisions to relieve the stress on the offensive line.

- Condensing the formation. Use Landry as a ďcrackĒ blocker from the slot on occasion. Also serves to expand Landryís route tree.

- Use swing tackle McCray as a pass-blocking tight end.

- More 01 personnel. More 3x1 receiver formations.

- More pre-snap motion, but that necessitates faster huddling and signaling procedures.

- Going uptempo when catching the defense with disadvantaged personnel.

And the link to the personnel groupings:

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

Still hasnít updated for MNF.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 09:20 AM

Good points and options. Also, thank you for the link. I really like the Landry option and using more motion. We did both successfully last year.

I still think we could run more 12 and 13 packages. I'm not convinced that we need great receivers at TE when we have so many other weapons at WR and RB. I do think we need more protection because Baker holds the ball a bit too long and because our OTs are not the best.

I also wouldn't mind if we signed a FB so we could run some 21 like we did last year. Orson Charles is still available.
Posted by: Milk Man

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 09:50 AM

Regarding the Browns running so much 11 personnel....

Posted by: OldColdDawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 10:05 AM

Originally Posted By: Rishuz
I'm convinced we are going to see a different football team on Sunday.


Yep, we play the Rams. wink
Posted by: FORTBROWNFAN

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 10:49 AM

I have been reading this thread off and on but can't swear I read every post so I apologize if this is a repeat observation.

We seemed to take a lot of snaps Monday night with the play clock at 1 or 2 seconds and I think we even had a delay of game at a time where it did not make sense to.

Are the plays getting in too slow or is Baker taking too long getting the team set? Combination of both could be possible. It just seemed to be consistently close to the end of the play clock.
Posted by: Ballpeen

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 10:55 AM

Originally Posted By: Milk Man
Regarding the Browns running so much 11 personnel....



That is the Monken influence.

I am not saying that is bad, but it might be best to work in to that. As of now we have a unsettled line, and a TE group that even with Njoku is the weakest unit on the team.

I can see doing that once Dorsey pays some attention to the OL and TE group.
Posted by: oobernoober

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 11:00 AM

I'm surprised we didn't have more delay of game calls. In fact, there were at least 2 snaps that I think came after '0' that weren't called.
Posted by: OldColdDawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 11:04 AM

I don't like any coach that tries to make the players fit his scheme vs. scheming to the strengths of your players.
Posted by: cfrs15

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 11:20 AM

Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
I don't like any coach that tries to make the players fit his scheme vs. scheming to the strengths of your players.


Wouldn't play less talented players be forcing players into a scheme the doesn't work?
Posted by: Hammer

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 11:32 AM

Now that is some funny Sh#@t. Love how the guy tried steering with his left hand, then decided to bail. Tuck and roll, grandma, tuck and roll.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 12:40 PM

Originally Posted By: cfrs15
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
I don't like any coach that tries to make the players fit his scheme vs. scheming to the strengths of your players.


Wouldn't play less talented players be forcing players into a scheme the doesn't work?


I'm confused. What scheme doesn't work? It appears you are talking about last year's scheme under Freddie or am I reading it wrong?

I think this offense looked good under that scheme. Better than what we have seen before Freddie took over for Haley and better than what we have seen this year.
Posted by: cfrs15

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 12:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
Originally Posted By: cfrs15
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
I don't like any coach that tries to make the players fit his scheme vs. scheming to the strengths of your players.


Wouldn't play less talented players be forcing players into a scheme the doesn't work?


I'm confused. What scheme doesn't work? It appears you are talking about last year's scheme under Freddie or am I reading it wrong?

I think this offense looked good under that scheme. Better than what we have seen before Freddie took over for Haley and better than what we have seen this year.


Sorry for my poorly worded response.

What I meant was that forcing a certain position onto the field just to play a certain personnel is not a great idea.

I think we are playing 11 personnel so much because we have/had one good tight end and no fullback. That would mean we are scheming to the strengths of our players.

Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 12:59 PM

Perhaps.

We chose our personnel during free agency and who we cut/kept.

I think what we are seeing has more to do w/philosophical beliefs.

With that said, I could be wrong about what suits us best. Perhaps the OL will start blocking great w/out any help from TEs, backs, and quick plays? Perhaps Baker will start reading coverages better and getting rid of the ball quicker? Perhaps we will start lighting it up and all this angst will be for nothing?

But............as of right now, I do not think we are not utilizing our personnel correctly. I could very well be wrong. Just discussing...
Posted by: cfrs15

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 01:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
Perhaps.

We chose our personnel during free agency and who we cut/kept.

I think what we are seeing has more to do w/philosophical beliefs.

With that said, I could be wrong about what suits us best. Perhaps the OL will start blocking great w/out any help from TEs, backs, and quick plays? Perhaps Baker will start reading coverages better and getting rid of the ball quicker? Perhaps we will start lighting it up and all this angst will be for nothing?

But............as of right now, I do not think we are not utilizing our personnel correctly. I could very well be wrong. Just discussing...


Then the question goes back to which players should be on the field?
Posted by: rastanplan

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 01:37 PM

My 2 cents, if I can..

One of the problems I see, and one of the major differences, is that last year we got the run game going first, and that helped a lot when Baker started.

Now we don't have a running game, and even with all the weapons, and specially an OL that was not built to protect the QB, Defenses are making Baker beat them... which is not a simple thing to do in the NFL, specially in a consistent base.

But all things in consideration, I think the O will do good, just don't ask them to carry all the weight. Balance is what we need,so if D plays well, O will do the job.
Posted by: PitDAWG

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 01:58 PM

Originally Posted By: cfrs15

Then the question goes back to which players should be on the field?


Since we don't have better OT's or TE's sitting on the bench, maybe it's not who is on the field but the scheme we're running.
Posted by: cfrs15

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 07:49 PM

Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 07:54 PM

Originally Posted By: cfrs15
This speaks to the poor game plan AND Bakerís struggles
Posted by: SunDawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 08:13 PM

Well, this is all good conversation, but it simply boils down to this; if Freddie isn't happy with how the offense strategy is unfolding than he needs to put his foot down as the head coach and say this isn't working and we are going to do it this way! You don't like it Monken? There is the door....
Posted by: leadtheway

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 08:25 PM

Originally Posted By: SunDawg
Well, this is all good conversation, but it simply boils down to this; if Freddie isn't happy with how the offense strategy is unfolding than he needs to put his foot down as the head coach and say this isn't working and we are going to do it this way! You don't like it Monken? There is the door....
monken is the OC in title only. Itís Freddieís offense heís calling the plays. Poorly at that
Posted by: leadtheway

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 08:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Dawgs4Life
Originally Posted By: cfrs15
This speaks to the poor game plan AND Bakerís struggles


The jets game was a perfect example. By nfl standards baker had days to throw and still couldnít get it done. Heís been the biggest disappointment on the team easily. FK a close second
Posted by: Rishuz

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 08:57 PM

Originally Posted By: leadtheway
Originally Posted By: SunDawg
Well, this is all good conversation, but it simply boils down to this; if Freddie isn't happy with how the offense strategy is unfolding than he needs to put his foot down as the head coach and say this isn't working and we are going to do it this way! You don't like it Monken? There is the door....
monken is the OC in title only. Itís Freddieís offense heís calling the plays. Poorly at that


I don't think this is true at all.

It's Monken's offense. Plenty of evidence of that.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 09:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Dawgs4Life
Originally Posted By: cfrs15
This speaks to the poor game plan AND Bakerís struggles


This will largely ignored by the majority of the board and they will continue to act like our OL is the major problem w/this team.
Posted by: leadtheway

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 09:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Rishuz
Originally Posted By: leadtheway
Originally Posted By: SunDawg
Well, this is all good conversation, but it simply boils down to this; if Freddie isn't happy with how the offense strategy is unfolding than he needs to put his foot down as the head coach and say this isn't working and we are going to do it this way! You don't like it Monken? There is the door....
monken is the OC in title only. Itís Freddieís offense heís calling the plays. Poorly at that


I don't think this is true at all.

It's Monken's offense. Plenty of evidence of that.


Thereís no evidence of that. This looks nothing like the Tampa offense he ran. Plenty of articles that said in camp it was Freddieís offense and actually Monken was struggling to get it installed as quick as they wanted
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 09:20 PM

I think you are wrong about it's nothing like TB's offense. Actually, it looks nothing like what Freddie ran last year.

I am not excusing Freddie, because he is sticking w/this crap that doesn't fit our QB, but to say Monken has no influence is wrong.
Posted by: Hamfist

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 09:29 PM

To be honest, it looked to me like they were tweaking the scheme back to what we saw last year, as a good staff should. See what is working do more of that. See what isnít, do less of that.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 09:38 PM

What?

I am not asking that harshly. I just don't know what you mean. Can you please expound?
Posted by: superbowldogg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 09:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
I think you are wrong about it's nothing like TB's offense. Actually, it looks nothing like what Freddie ran last year.

I am not excusing Freddie, because he is sticking w/this crap that doesn't fit our QB, but to say Monken has no influence is wrong.


Freddie said last year that he only modified Haley's offense and let the players insert plays into the offense.

He also said something along the lines that he would install his offense and run the offense he wants and that him and Monken run the same type of offensive scheme.

This appears to be FK's offense.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 09:56 PM

If that is true, this sucks and it's worse than I thought.
Posted by: leadtheway

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 11:04 PM

Originally Posted By: superbowldogg
Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
I think you are wrong about it's nothing like TB's offense. Actually, it looks nothing like what Freddie ran last year.

I am not excusing Freddie, because he is sticking w/this crap that doesn't fit our QB, but to say Monken has no influence is wrong.


Freddie said last year that he only modified Haley's offense and let the players insert plays into the offense.

He also said something along the lines that he would install his offense and run the offense he wants and that him and Monken run the same type of offensive scheme.

This appears to be FK's offense.


Indeed , thatís what I was referring to. And by all accounts I believe the scheme changes and game plan was zampese. When I say it looks nothing like TB itís because even TB wasnít monken. Monken has never called plays. It was koettners offense down here. I think FK should have just hire zampese as his OC . Maybe even tried to keep the whole offensive staff together
Posted by: OldColdDawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 11:37 PM

I think we saw a little bit of a shift to what worked last year Monday night. I think this week will feature much more of that. I am surprised by that report on the line. I would never had thought they were good at all.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/19/19 11:47 PM

I've tried to bring this point up many times over the years, but how most folks judge the OL is often related to how long the qb holds the ball whether it be due to recognition or scheme.
Posted by: YTownBrownsFan

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/20/19 01:53 AM

Originally Posted By: leadtheway
Originally Posted By: superbowldogg
Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
I think you are wrong about it's nothing like TB's offense. Actually, it looks nothing like what Freddie ran last year.

I am not excusing Freddie, because he is sticking w/this crap that doesn't fit our QB, but to say Monken has no influence is wrong.


Freddie said last year that he only modified Haley's offense and let the players insert plays into the offense.

He also said something along the lines that he would install his offense and run the offense he wants and that him and Monken run the same type of offensive scheme.

This appears to be FK's offense.


Indeed , thatís what I was referring to. And by all accounts I believe the scheme changes and game plan was zampese. When I say it looks nothing like TB itís because even TB wasnít monken. Monken has never called plays. It was koettners offense down here. I think FK should have just hire zampese as his OC . Maybe even tried to keep the whole offensive staff together


Monken called plays for Tampa for much of the year last season. Dirk Koetter took back play calling duties for one game, and they completely fell apart ... so he turned it back over the Monken again.

Dirk Koetter gives play-calling duties back to coordinator
https://sports.yahoo.com/fast-one-game-b...-231624120.html

In that one game, the team scored 3 points .... the only time all season they did so ... or scored in single digits.

If any of that other drivel were true, I don't think that Dorsey would have put his own head on the chopping block by hiring Freddie. Either that or you think that Dorsey is an absolute idiot who had no idea what was going on in his own locker room, and on his own sideline, so he hired the wrong guy, for the wrong reason. rolleyes
Posted by: Ballpeen

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/20/19 05:59 AM

Originally Posted By: leadtheway
Originally Posted By: SunDawg
Well, this is all good conversation, but it simply boils down to this; if Freddie isn't happy with how the offense strategy is unfolding than he needs to put his foot down as the head coach and say this isn't working and we are going to do it this way! You don't like it Monken? There is the door....
monken is the OC in title only. Itís Freddieís offense heís calling the plays. Poorly at that



I disagree. Freddie is calling the plays, but this a Monken O.
Posted by: Ballpeen

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/20/19 06:04 AM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
I've tried to bring this point up many times over the years, but how most folks judge the OL is often related to how long the qb holds the ball whether it be due to recognition or scheme.



I agree. I don't know if it is Baker holding the ball or the plays are slow to develop. I take that back...he didn't have a problem holding the ball last year, so there is something about the system that is holding us back. As for the line, I don't think they are playing poorly.
Posted by: mgh888

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/20/19 08:07 AM

Originally Posted By: Ballpeen
Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
I've tried to bring this point up many times over the years, but how most folks judge the OL is often related to how long the qb holds the ball whether it be due to recognition or scheme.



I agree. I don't know if it is Baker holding the ball or the plays are slow to develop. I take that back...he didn't have a problem holding the ball last year, so there is something about the system that is holding us back. As for the line, I don't think they are playing poorly.


I heard Baker is holding on to the ball for 3+ seconds ... which is too long. I am a bit underwhelmed with the OL in the running game, but with so little running game to judge or get into a rhythm with that's a little tough to know ... but in pass protection I think it is more Baker and the plays than the OL.
Posted by: leadtheway

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/20/19 08:48 AM

Originally Posted By: Ballpeen
Originally Posted By: leadtheway
Originally Posted By: SunDawg
Well, this is all good conversation, but it simply boils down to this; if Freddie isn't happy with how the offense strategy is unfolding than he needs to put his foot down as the head coach and say this isn't working and we are going to do it this way! You don't like it Monken? There is the door....
monken is the OC in title only. Itís Freddieís offense heís calling the plays. Poorly at that





I disagree. Freddie is calling the plays, but this a Monken O.



despite the 1000 articles coming out of camp that this is freddies offense and actually Monken was struggling getting acclimated....right..
Posted by: Niolen

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/20/19 08:54 AM

Originally Posted By: mgh888
Originally Posted By: Ballpeen
Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
I've tried to bring this point up many times over the years, but how most folks judge the OL is often related to how long the qb holds the ball whether it be due to recognition or scheme.



I agree. I don't know if it is Baker holding the ball or the plays are slow to develop. I take that back...he didn't have a problem holding the ball last year, so there is something about the system that is holding us back. As for the line, I don't think they are playing poorly.


I heard Baker is holding on to the ball for 3+ seconds ... which is too long. I am a bit underwhelmed with the OL in the running game, but with so little running game to judge or get into a rhythm with that's a little tough to know ... but in pass protection I think it is more Baker and the plays than the OL.


Per Next Gen Stats, Baker owns the third-highest average time-to-throw at 3.07 seconds.

When he throws within 2.5 seconds, Baker's completed 74% of his passes with 2 touchdowns and 1 interceptions. When he exceeds 2.5 seconds, Baker's completed 55% of his passes with 0 touchdowns and 3 interceptions.

The bottom-line: Baker needs to be more decisive, but he's struggling with pre-snap identification and/or post-snap verification.
Posted by: leadtheway

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/20/19 08:54 AM

Originally Posted By: YTownBrownsFan
Originally Posted By: leadtheway
Originally Posted By: superbowldogg
Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
I think you are wrong about it's nothing like TB's offense. Actually, it looks nothing like what Freddie ran last year.

I am not excusing Freddie, because he is sticking w/this crap that doesn't fit our QB, but to say Monken has no influence is wrong.


Freddie said last year that he only modified Haley's offense and let the players insert plays into the offense.

He also said something along the lines that he would install his offense and run the offense he wants and that him and Monken run the same type of offensive scheme.

This appears to be FK's offense.


Indeed , thatís what I was referring to. And by all accounts I believe the scheme changes and game plan was zampese. When I say it looks nothing like TB itís because even TB wasnít monken. Monken has never called plays. It was koettners offense down here. I think FK should have just hire zampese as his OC . Maybe even tried to keep the whole offensive staff together


Monken called plays for Tampa for much of the year last season. Dirk Koetter took back play calling duties for one game, and they completely fell apart ... so he turned it back over the Monken again.

Dirk Koetter gives play-calling duties back to coordinator
https://sports.yahoo.com/fast-one-game-b...-231624120.html

In that one game, the team scored 3 points .... the only time all season they did so ... or scored in single digits.

If any of that other drivel were true, I don't think that Dorsey would have put his own head on the chopping block by hiring Freddie. Either that or you think that Dorsey is an absolute idiot who had no idea what was going on in his own locker room, and on his own sideline, so he hired the wrong guy, for the wrong reason. rolleyes


actually yeah, i do think he hired the wrong guy for the wrong reason. Nothing freddie has done currently or in the past qualifies him to be HC other than his relationship with mayfield. Dorsey took a gamble on FK...Oh btw...FK was Dorseys first HC hire...so its not like he's got a proven track record hiring coaches...players yeah. God forbid someone question the almighty Dorsey. I'm a fan of Dorsey on the personnel side. Jury is still out on the coaching side
Posted by: willitevachange

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/20/19 09:01 AM

Originally Posted By: leadtheway
Originally Posted By: SunDawg
Well, this is all good conversation, but it simply boils down to this; if Freddie isn't happy with how the offense strategy is unfolding than he needs to put his foot down as the head coach and say this isn't working and we are going to do it this way! You don't like it Monken? There is the door....
monken is the OC in title only. Itís Freddieís offense heís calling the plays. Poorly at that
Really? Care to share how you know that? I highly doubt Monken would be here if he wasn't running his offense.

We are running the exact same playbook they ran in Tampa. Watch Games 1 and 2, compared to Tampas games last year with Monken.

Then watch our games last year, and compare them to games 1 and 2.

Theres my proof. Where is yours?

You are completely speculating, as am I - but at least I have the eye test and plays to back me up.

Freddie is calling the plays yes, but it seems to be Monkens plays and offense.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/20/19 09:04 AM

Quote:

Per Next Gen Stats, Baker owns the third-highest average time-to-throw at 3.07 seconds.

When he throws within 2.5 seconds, Baker's completed 74% of his passes with 2 touchdowns and 1 interceptions. When he exceeds 2.5 seconds, Baker's completed 55% of his passes with 0 touchdowns and 3 interceptions.

The bottom-line: Baker needs to be more decisive, but he's struggling with pre-snap identification and/or post-snap verification.


I noticed this last year. When Baker's first read was open [especially after Freddie took over,] he was very effective. If that read wasn't open, it looked to me that Baker was too slow going through his progressions. He was/is sometimes confused by what he was seeing.

I did notice that his pre-snap reads really improved as the season progressed.
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/20/19 09:05 AM

J/c

Iím not sure whoís calling plays or has the most influence .. all I know is our offense right now looks nothing like what we saw in weeks 8-17 last year. And Baker looks like a shell of himself.
Truthfully, Baker looks like he did during weeks 3Ė7 last year with Hue when he was regressing ... hesitant, inaccurate, skittish feet, emotionless.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/20/19 09:08 AM

You mean.......under Haley, right?
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/20/19 09:09 AM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
You mean.......under Haley, right?
Yes, Haley was the OC ... and Hue was the HC. Everything falls under the HC, of course.
Posted by: Rishuz

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/20/19 09:17 AM

Originally Posted By: Dawgs4Life
J/c

Iím not sure whoís calling plays or has the most influence .. all I know is our offense right now looks nothing like what we saw in weeks 8-17 last year. And Baker looks like a shell of himself.
Truthfully, Baker looks like he did during weeks 3Ė7 last year with Hue when he was regressing ... hesitant, inaccurate, skittish feet, emotionless.


Dude, could you be anymore dramatic?

It's 2 games.

Let's give it a little time.
Posted by: PitDAWG

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/20/19 10:54 AM

j/c

Here's what I do know. A HC isn't paired up with an OC or DC he doesn't approve of. He wouldn't be forced into being paired up with someone whose O scheme is opposed to his own when coaching a team.

So I believe debating whether it's Freddie's scheme or Monken's scheme is more a matter of semantics than substance. I believe that it's a scheme they both want to run or Freddie would never have been paired up with Monken to begin with.
Posted by: Mourgrym

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/22/19 09:16 AM

I dont have a big issue with the coaching. Thus far Baker has sucked. It's not scheme or coaching, Baker is missing open guys, holding the ball to long and hasn't been close to what we saw down the stretch.

Blueprint is out and it's up to our young qb to adapt. The quick options are open but he is not pulling the trigger waiting for something better then missing his target.

Coaching has been far from perfect but players are paid to make plays when the opportunity is there.

Let's just see how everyone responds. We arent there yet but we are young and it's a long season.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/22/19 09:39 AM

You could be right, bro. It's a long season and things can change. I just think we are asking Baker to do some things he isn't really good at. I would prefer we scheme to his strengths.
Posted by: Mourgrym

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/22/19 10:03 AM

Oo I agree that there are things we can do to help him but man he is missing a lot of easy throws.

I would run 6 OL. Our te position sucks so why even use one. Extra ol on the right side and open up the run game.

In practice make baker work the short game. Teams are playing on their heels against us. Take what's given.

Anyway, I have concerns but have more optimism. Year2 for qbs especially early year 2 is often a struggle. This team unlike most has the potential to be be elite. Use the backs more in the pass game and just work that short to mid game if hey are going to give it.
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/22/19 10:43 AM

I suggested using 6 OL as well ... if our 2nd TE sucks anyways, might as well sure up the blocking
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/23/19 10:18 AM

Once again, thanks to the ref who moved this thread to the PFF. I said earlier that I wanted to keep an eye on this topic and his flexibility has allowed it.

I think it's becoming increasingly evident that the 11 personnel package and deeper routes are not a great fit for our QB and to a lesser extent--our offensive line.

I did see some 12 and even 13 personnel last night, but we can't run 21 because we don't even have a FB.

I wonder if we will make adjustments? If not, I think our offense will continue to struggle.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/23/19 10:35 AM

Ryan Clark was just talking about Monken being a problem for the Browns because of him having control of the offense as the OC and how are scheme isn't working.

I get that the goal for Baker would be to have to see the whole field instead of half the field. I get that we would want to take advantage of his plus arm and gun-slinger style. I get that we would want to take advantage of our superior talent at WR and an explosive TE.

However, it's become painfully evident that Baker is really struggling w/his post-snap reads of coverages. His decision making has been poor and I think his confusion is adding to accuracy issues.

Thus, I think we should make a roster decision and bring back Charles or someone like him. I think we should go w/more 12 and 13 personnel and bring back some 21 personnel.
Posted by: YTownBrownsFan

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/23/19 10:35 AM

We also don't have a TE we can trust to both block and receive.

According to the broadcast, we started Ratley in place of Njoku last night. crazy

This team really needs an adjustment to play-calling, (and schemes) and to somehow find a T and a TE. (and maybe a Guard)

Has Baker thrown a back shoulder throw to anyone this year except Higgins? (before he got hurt?) That was a staple throw.
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/23/19 10:37 AM

J/C

It was interesting to listen to Collinsworth basically flabbergasted that Baker is SO BAD when the ball is held for even an instant. Itís so true though. If his first, initial, quick read isnít there ... we have like a 10% chance of completion
Posted by: PeteyDangerous

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/23/19 10:52 AM

Originally Posted By: Dawgs4Life
J/C

It was interesting to listen to Collinsworth basically flabbergasted that Baker is SO BAD when the ball is held for even an instant. Itís so true though. If his first, initial, quick read isnít there ... we have like a 10% chance of completion


But this wasnt the case last season. Thats what is so frustrating! This offensive scheme isnt the same. Baker clearly doesnt get it, so change the scheme/playcalling!
Posted by: s003apr

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/23/19 10:57 AM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
Ryan Clark was just talking about Monken being a problem for the Browns because of him having control of the offense as the OC and how are scheme isn't working.

I get that the goal for Baker would be to have to see the whole field instead of half the field. I get that we would want to take advantage of his plus arm and gun-slinger style. I get that we would want to take advantage of our superior talent at WR and an explosive TE.

However, it's become painfully evident that Baker is really struggling w/his post-snap reads of coverages. His decision making has been poor and I think his confusion is adding to accuracy issues.

Thus, I think we should make a roster decision and bring back Charles or someone like him. I think we should go w/more 12 and 13 personnel and bring back some 21 personnel.


Agree, I think an H-back or Fullback is the simplest and most straightforward solution to start seeing some immediate changes. Of course, you have to have the right set of plays to go with it.

I am not completely on board with everyone criticizing Baker's reads. I think he is well above par vs most 2nd year QBs. When the camera angle allows us to see the routes, I have been seeing an excessive number of vertical routes with poor spacing between receivers and DBs in good coverage. Against the Rams, we saw Baker bailing from the pocket and throwing it away. If there is nobody open, then this is the right read. Not throwing interceptions kept the Browns in the game against the Rams.

It is on the coaches to install a scheme to create more opportunities, keep defenses guessing, and not expect the 2nd year QB to thread the needle on every throw.
Posted by: mgh888

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/23/19 11:18 AM

Originally Posted By: s003apr

I am not completely on board with everyone criticizing Baker's reads.


I honestly don't know. I think his accuracy and running from the pocket early are obvious struggles. I thought his accuracy was a little better last night.... reading the overages, I don't know ... he missed wide open check down options game 1 and 2 but last night I didn't see that so much. When I see him holding the ball too long last night - I don't know that I saw open receivers - mostly good D or routes that took too long to develop. I'm not saying he can or can't read coverage post snap - but I am not sure we have enough tape to know. Game 1 and 2 my impression was he was 'always' looking for the deep pass to OBJ which doesn't mean he can't read coverage as much as he was trying to force the ball to his shiny new toy.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/23/19 11:29 AM

There have been open receivers all over the field. I don't really want the focus of this thread to be about criticizing/defending Baker. I would prefer that we keep the focus on the scheme.
Posted by: BpG

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/23/19 11:51 AM

Baker is really struggling with post snap progressions this season. Whether that's a function of new personnel, new scheme (which I hate the air raid FYI) or his own struggles, he is holding the ball a whole lot.


As far as the scheme, I hate it, constant shotgun, running out of shotgun with regularity, running out of weak sets. The lack of emphasis on the play action passing game, I hate all of it right now. Very few if any deep shots somehow, how that's possible when we are in shotgun the entire game who the hell knows.

I hate that we threw 4 times 1st and goal, which is another function of the scheme. I hate that when we threw it was to a backup TE and the last play of the game went to Damion friggin Ratley. 4th and 9 draw, I have never in my life seen such a misguided attempt at using your playmakers in the appropriate situations.
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/23/19 12:20 PM

J/c

Also, I look at some of our routes ... and I see WAY too many examples of WRs too close to each other ... in some cases, even 3 WRs within 3-4 yards .. thatís just plain dumb
Posted by: BpG

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/23/19 12:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Dawgs4Life
J/c

Also, I look at some of our routes ... and I see WAY too many examples of WRs too close to each other ... in some cases, even 3 WRs within 3-4 yards .. thatís just plain dumb


I also noticed this as well. Flood concepts have existed forever but the execution isn't even close, they have 3 WRs within 5-10 yards of each other.
Posted by: PitDAWG

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/23/19 12:41 PM

It seems to me that we saw some of the things we were looking for earlier in the game and spread somewhat throughout the game. We saw more quickly ran plays. The run game was being deployed and quick hitting pass plays. When that was being called it seemed we moved the ball pretty well. But then we would revert right back to what we have all seen simply doesn't work.

Now I will say that I agree with those that claim this isn't the Baker we saw last year. It most certainly isn't. It's obvious to me that he isn't comfortable with this new scheme and from the pressure it has created on a consistent basis, who could blame him? Being a young QB, that has a negative impact. I believe building on the scheme from last year and adding to it as we go would have been a far better avenue to move forward with.

However, I won't use that as an excuse for terrible accuracy and escaping the pocket too early. I won't use it as an excuse for him refusing to scramble when there are obvious yards being left on the field when everyone can see that. I will say that throwing the ball away rather than forcing the ball down the field and turning it over is a positive and not a negative.

What I'm seeing is the perfect storm.

I tried to explain before the season began that with a new HC and new coordinators on both sides of the ball things would take time. But even I didn't see how poorly this would begin. And the D seems to have gelled even quicker than I expected. But the O is a disaster when they try to stretch out long plays.

The quick hitters and the run game seemed to be working. I thought Freddie was old school. Old school dictates that, "If it ain't broke don't fix it".

Not only did he do that from last season to this season, he did the same thing last night.
Posted by: TrooperDawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/23/19 12:44 PM

s003apr:
Quote:
When the camera angle allows us to see the routes, I have been seeing an excessive number of vertical routes with poor spacing between receivers and DBs in good coverage.


THIS! My coaches in high school and college would have read the riot act to receivers running routes so close together. It amazes me to see this is a routine for the Browns. It doesn't excuse Baker for poor reads, but it could certainly account for indecisive reads.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/23/19 12:57 PM

Wasn't exactly sure where to put this, but according to NEXT GEN STATS, Baker's Completion percentage when throwing in 2.5 seconds or less is 73% and his TD/Int Rate is 3-1. When he holds it for 2.5 seconds or more, his completion percentage is 48% and his TD/Int Rate is 0--4.

That's rather telling.
Posted by: oobernoober

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/23/19 01:08 PM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
Wasn't exactly sure where to put this, but according to NEXT GEN STATS, Baker's Completion percentage when throwing in 2.5 seconds or less is 73% and his TD/Int Rate is 3-1. When he holds it for 2.5 seconds or more, his completion percentage is 48% and his TD/Int Rate is 0--4.

That's rather telling.




I saw that as well. I think it's incredible enough on the surface to warrant more detail. Is he seeing more pressure as plays take longer to develop (I would think that answer here is yes). I would imagine that, if he were able to hold the ball longer and not have defenders in his face, his numbers would look better.

That wasn't intended to be a Captain Obvious statement. The longer this goes on, the more it seems like Freddie/Monkin had a very distinct vision for this offense that does not fit some key personnel and that doesn't fit Baker and where he's at right now in his development.
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/23/19 01:43 PM

Yep, it seems like square peg in a round hole type thing ... thereís just not much that has made sense to me ... and Iím really not one whoís bashed coaches before on here
Posted by: leadtheway

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/23/19 02:55 PM

I think one of things i noticed is our Oline doesn't get much movement, They end up getting pushed around alot instead of the Oline pushing Dline around to create throwing windows and allowing Baker to slide into different lanes. So no throwing windows and short qb its def. going to make it harder
Posted by: WSU Willie

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/23/19 03:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
There have been open receivers all over the field. I don't really want the focus of this thread to be about criticizing/defending Baker. I would prefer that we keep the focus on the scheme.


Do you not see the irony in that OPINION?

All over the field? rofl
Posted by: Spiritbro77

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/23/19 04:28 PM

The air-raid sucks. Period. We were in shotgun almost every down last night and that is not an exaggeration. We have a really good RB in Chubb and we aren't even trying to establish the run. We have the Ravens next week then the Niners and the Seahawks. It is looking like we will be 1-5 to start out. If Kitchens doesn't get us back to the offense we ran last year where Baker was under center more and we had a good balance of run/pass he isn't going to survive the season. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the offense Kitchens ran last year. He should have added to it instead of scrapping it for the damned air-raid crap.
Posted by: DeputyDawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/23/19 05:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
Once again, thanks to the ref who moved this thread to the PFF. I said earlier that I wanted to keep an eye on this topic and his flexibility has allowed it.

I think it's becoming increasingly evident that the 11 personnel package and deeper routes are not a great fit for our QB and to a lesser extent--our offensive line.

I did see some 12 and even 13 personnel last night, but we can't run 21 because we don't even have a FB.

I wonder if we will make adjustments? If not, I think our offense will continue to struggle.


We can run 21 personel now the same way that we'll run it when Hunt can play, with Chubb in the FB spot. CHubb's pass blocking has looked much better this year and he knows how to run block already.
Posted by: YTownBrownsFan

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/23/19 05:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Spiritbro77
The air-raid sucks. Period. We were in shotgun almost every down last night and that is not an exaggeration. We have a really good RB in Chubb and we aren't even trying to establish the run. We have the Ravens next week then the Niners and the Seahawks. It is looking like we will be 1-5 to start out. If Kitchens doesn't get us back to the offense we ran last year where Baker was under center more and we had a good balance of run/pass he isn't going to survive the season. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the offense Kitchens ran last year. He should have added to it instead of scrapping it for the damned air-raid crap.


We were in shotgun because it moves Baker away from the LOS right away. A team can still run out of the shotgun, and in fact, some RBs excel at it.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/23/19 06:41 PM

I want to thank folks for trying to stay on topic. This thread is five pages long and only one poster has tried to derail it w/personality comments. That's pretty impressive.

So, thanks guys for keeping this thread about football.
Posted by: Glw12

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/23/19 08:09 PM

I have watched the 49ers play twice this season and I love their offense. They lead the NFL in rushing attemps with 38 a game while using multiple backs and a fullback.
Lots of play action passing as well.
Garopalo has committed his share of turnovers but they are still 3-0.
I really like the way Shanahan calls a game with each play setting up the next play. If you can't stop the run he will run it 50 times.
You can say they haven't played anyone yet but it's still the NFL and they are 3-0.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/23/19 08:20 PM

I did not like the Kyle Shannahan hire when we first announced it, but I quickly changed my tune after I watched this guy's route trees and play calling. I remember a lot of posters making fun of me because I mentioned the route tree so many times.

I think Shanny is the best offensive mind in professional football and a lot of people who are in the league feel the same way.

And to think............Farmer and crew were trying to tell him which plays to run. rofl
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/23/19 09:16 PM

Iíve said this many times, but I love Kyle Shanahan as a play caller .. he made us look GOOD for a stretch with Homer. He has great zone blocking schemes and can really use misdirection
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/23/19 09:16 PM

Oops, Hoyer I meant sorry
Posted by: tru_dawgs

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/23/19 11:02 PM

Originally Posted By: Dawgs4Life
Iíve said this many times, but I love Kyle Shanahan as a play caller .. he made us look GOOD for a stretch with Homer. He has great zone blocking schemes and can really use misdirection


I love watching a team use misdirection flawlessly...it's a sight to behold.
Posted by: Spiritbro77

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/23/19 11:15 PM

Originally Posted By: YTownBrownsFan
Originally Posted By: Spiritbro77
The air-raid sucks. Period. We were in shotgun almost every down last night and that is not an exaggeration. We have a really good RB in Chubb and we aren't even trying to establish the run. We have the Ravens next week then the Niners and the Seahawks. It is looking like we will be 1-5 to start out. If Kitchens doesn't get us back to the offense we ran last year where Baker was under center more and we had a good balance of run/pass he isn't going to survive the season. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the offense Kitchens ran last year. He should have added to it instead of scrapping it for the damned air-raid crap.


We were in shotgun because it moves Baker away from the LOS right away. A team can still run out of the shotgun, and in fact, some RBs excel at it.


Name one running back in history that won a rushing title running exclusively out of the gun? The back has to stand there and wait for the ball. Yeah, you might get a couple good runs out of it. You might even get a couple of good games running the ball exclusively out of the gun. What you won't do is get a consistent running game out of the gun every single play. You will also get a defense pinning their ears back on EVERY play when you NEVER put your QB under center. I'm not saying scrap the gun but trying to play every single play out of the gun effectively tells the D you are GOING to pass the ball and they can come after you. If you do hand the ball off once in a blue moon you can get the RB on the way to the QB. He will be standing there anyway, waiting for the ball. It also ends any thought of the play-action. Baker is going to get killed like this. He won't survive the season playing out of the gun every stinking play. The air-raid is a college system. It won't work in the NFL and it DAMNED sure won't work in OUR division. In this division, you BETTER be able to run the damn football or your QB is going to get destroyed.
Posted by: Spiritbro77

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/23/19 11:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Dawgs4Life
Iíve said this many times, but I love Kyle Shanahan as a play caller .. he made us look GOOD for a stretch with Homer. He has great zone blocking schemes and can really use misdirection


He also ran the ball. Always. He never abandoned the run. We could be down by 20 and he was still running the football. That way, the D very rarely knows what you are going to do. Of course, 3rd and long or 4th and long was a passing down, but in general, he never gave up on running the ball. Unfortunately, this offense has given up on even trying to run the ball before the game starts.
Posted by: YTownBrownsFan

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 12:25 AM

We don't run enough for a RB to win a rushing title.

Cook is running away (ahem) with that thus far. He is on a very run heavy Vikings team. (only behind the Ravens, and a good part of that is Jackson)
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 05:04 AM

Originally Posted By: tru_dawgs
Originally Posted By: Dawgs4Life
Iíve said this many times, but I love Kyle Shanahan as a play caller .. he made us look GOOD for a stretch with Homer. He has great zone blocking schemes and can really use misdirection


I love watching a team use misdirection flawlessly...it's a sight to behold.
i agree ... even the Rams, while I hated it, had a few great plays against us in this regard
Posted by: rastanplan

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 05:34 AM

Originally Posted By: Spiritbro77
Originally Posted By: Dawgs4Life
Iíve said this many times, but I love Kyle Shanahan as a play caller .. he made us look GOOD for a stretch with Homer. He has great zone blocking schemes and can really use misdirection


He also ran the ball. Always. He never abandoned the run. We could be down by 20 and he was still running the football. That way, the D very rarely knows what you are going to do. Of course, 3rd and long or 4th and long was a passing down, but in general, he never gave up on running the ball. Unfortunately, this offense has given up on even trying to run the ball before the game starts.


Last year Todd Haley made our running game work after more that 9 years and most of the posters hated him...

They were calling for more Baker, more shotgun, more QB movement...

Well, now we have it in Kitchen's O, and people are criticizing....

I personally hate this type of Hue Jackson Offense...which is honestly what it resembles now.
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 06:54 AM

Yes , the offense right now looks pretty similar to what it looked like last year the weeks leading up to Hueís departure ... if we remember, Baker was regressing, the offense was too slow developing and our OL was struggling. Same stuff as now
Posted by: rastanplan

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 07:12 AM

Originally Posted By: Dawgs4Life
Yes , the offense right now looks pretty similar to what it looked like last year the weeks leading up to Hueís departure ... if we remember, Baker was regressing, the offense was too slow developing and our OL was struggling. Same stuff as now


I don't think Baker is regressing, we are just asking too much from the kid.

Play to his strengths, and give him a running game, and I'm sure he will excel.
Posted by: Ballpeen

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 07:29 AM

I think so as well. He looked good on the last drive.

When we get it out in 2.5 he looks great. Longer than that, we just don't have the tackles to hold up on plays designed for a more vertical game.

We miss Zeitler. When we can stone wall in front of Baker, he has room to step up. When not and he has to flush out, you know that tackle is going to be beat to the outside.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 08:11 AM

I don't know why you keep saying this, but we did not run Hue's offense last year. It was Haley's. Hue and Haley ran different offenses.
Posted by: superbowldogg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 08:21 AM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
I don't know why you keep saying this, but we did not run Hue's offense last year. It was Haley's. Hue and Haley ran different offenses.


Yep, last year our offense was base on the high power offense that Pittsburgh had been doing for years with the killer B's.

This year, Freddie decided to install his offense and we have been watching that.

I bet he starts to go back to the old offense that we used last year. It worked much better than what we have today.
Posted by: willitevachange

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 08:25 AM

Originally Posted By: superbowldogg
Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
I don't know why you keep saying this, but we did not run Hue's offense last year. It was Haley's. Hue and Haley ran different offenses.


Yep, last year our offense was base on the high power offense that Pittsburgh had been doing for years with the killer B's.

This year, Freddie decided to install his offense and we have been watching that.

I bet he starts to go back to the old offense that we used last year. It worked much better than what we have today.
This has been discussed, that most believe its Monkens offense. Freddie ran an adjusted Haley offense last year. ITs been noted he worked with the players to adjust what they liked and didn't like out of the offense and they went with it.

This year, if you watch ANY football from Tampa last year, you can see it is the exact same type offense Monken ran down there.

Freddie is calling the plays in Monkens game plan.

I believe (and some others) believe that he needs to change this, and fast.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 08:27 AM

I don't know if this is a big deal or not, but I wonder if this is Freddie's offense? Or, is it the type of offense he always wanted to run? Or, is it Monken's offense and Freddie is just calling the plays that are in that offense?

I can't help but think back to earlier this summer when Silver reported that there was friction between Freddie and Monken.
Posted by: willitevachange

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 08:32 AM

I think you have mentioned it before, and I may agree after 3 weeks of the season.

I don't think Freddie has an offense.

Last year he modfified Haley's O to what the players like and worked.

THis year its completely different and looks JUST LIKE Tampas O from last year, and Baker looks a lot like [ahem] Winston so far.
Posted by: willitevachange

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 08:33 AM

FYI, I am trying to cross the tracks with you lately - and keep the bickering between us in the past.

I may disagree or argue, but I am done the other stuff. Its Browns football season - we all need to come together. That was offseason stuff smile
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 08:34 AM

Yeah, I think I agree. I really don't know the answer and I was wondering. Posters have said that this is Freddie's offense. Others have said it was Monken's. I just don't know.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 08:35 AM

Cool. Sounds great to me.
Posted by: Swish

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 08:39 AM

jc

since this is indeed monken's offense, i think its safe to say he should probably be the one calling plays.
Posted by: CapCity Dawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 08:41 AM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
I don't know if this is a big deal or not, but I wonder if this is Freddie's offense? Or, is it the type of offense he always wanted to run? Or, is it Monken's offense and Freddie is just calling the plays that are in that offense?

I can't help but think back to earlier this summer when Silver reported that there was friction between Freddie and Monken.


I think it is a huge deal. Good questions you have, and the answers are extremely important for this team to figure out.

This is all speculation, but I have a feeling that last year was a modification of Haley's playbook, to ease the transition. And what we are seeing now is Freddie's offense. Nothing to back that up.

Whatever it is, it is not ideal. We see some things that work, but we seem quick to move away from that. Is it trying to be clever? Is it trying to out think the other side? Is it stubbornness, wanting to stick to his plan because it is his plan and he is convinced it will work?
Posted by: CapCity Dawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 08:42 AM

Originally Posted By: CapCity Dawg
Good questions you have,


LOL. I did not mean to channel Yoda.
Posted by: willitevachange

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 08:43 AM

Originally Posted By: Swish
jc

since this is indeed monken's offense, i think its safe to say he should probably be the one calling plays.
Possibly, but I didn't like his play calling in Tampa. He would run even less if you go by what he did down there.

I think Freddie started to input more of his style last week against the rams (More quick reads, RPO style plays) and those were working. I think you will see more of that trend going forward.

If that's the case, and I am right (I am speculating btw), but I would have to question why Monken is even here then.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 08:47 AM

I didn't like the Monken hire from the get-go.
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 08:48 AM

I never said it was Hueís offense, I said it looks similar to the offense looked weeks before Hue was fired.
Posted by: Swish

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 08:58 AM

i dont like the guy either.

but if this is the style we're running, then let the guy who designed the damn thing to run the plays.

i wish we would've just kept the same offense from last year, and we wouldnt even be having this convo. but alas, it is not so.
Posted by: willitevachange

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 09:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Swish
i dont like the guy either.

but if this is the style we're running, then let the guy who designed the damn thing to run the plays.

i wish we would've just kept the same offense from last year, and we wouldnt even be having this convo. but alas, it is not so.
Agreed. IDK why we didn't. WE hired Freddie based on his Offense last year and what we did. WTH would we change that. That is why I am now question John and Freddie.
Posted by: Rishuz

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 09:07 AM

Originally Posted By: Swish
i wish we would've just kept the same offense from last year, and we wouldnt even be having this convo. but alas, it is not so.


We have coaches who are putting their philosophies before the team. Look at the Rams. They did not ask Goff to do one single complicated thing. Hell, half the plays they cut the field in half.

Until the coaches put the team before their own needs nothing is likely to change. We are going against a world class coaching staff this week who put the team before their own desires. I don't expect much to change unfortunately.
Posted by: Swish

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 09:08 AM

to you and Rish:

i think it might be safe to say that even Dorsey became a prisoner of the moment with the FK hire.

the hype seem to affect the entire organization from the top down.
Posted by: rastanplan

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 09:11 AM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
I don't know why you keep saying this, but we did not run Hue's offense last year. It was Haley's. Hue and Haley ran different offenses.


Its well established that we started running Haley offense and then Hue changed it to the absolute garbage it was at some time before he was fired.

Then we got back with Kitchens running, IMHO, a tweaked "Haley" offense.

To me it was clear what was Haley goal in offense, and I agree with him, specially in a team with so low success in the past.

Keep it simple,don't try to overcome the D failures, don't make D have to overcome your failures. Establish the running game, and if you have a shot and a close game, open it up in the 4th quarter.

Don't rely in a rookie or expect your QB to be Aaron Rodgers and bail you out.

Making the running game work was a massive improvement, IMHO.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 09:14 AM

Quote:
Hell, half the plays they cut the field in half.


Freddie did that w/Baker last year. It's not an uncommon thing for the playcaller to do that w/young qbs. It actually makes some sense, especially for guys who were not asked to go through a lot of progressions in college.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 09:16 AM

It's not "well established." In fact, it is false. Will you please just give it a rest?
Posted by: rastanplan

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 09:20 AM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
Quote:
Hell, half the plays they cut the field in half.


Freddie did that w/Baker last year. It's not an uncommon thing for the playcaller to do that w/young qbs. It actually makes some sense, especially for guys who were not asked to go through a lot of progressions in college.


And that's what I was expecting from the Rams game, honestly. Why did he decided to continue I don't understand.

Lets see this next game, maybe by now everyone in the team is convinced that we should scale back, simplify, improve executions and them move from that.
Posted by: willitevachange

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 09:24 AM

Originally Posted By: rastanplan
Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
I don't know why you keep saying this, but we did not run Hue's offense last year. It was Haley's. Hue and Haley ran different offenses.


Its well established that we started running Haley offense and then Hue changed it to the absolute garbage it was at some time before he was fired.

Then we got back with Kitchens running, IMHO, a tweaked "Haley" offense.

To me it was clear what was Haley goal in offense, and I agree with him, specially in a team with so low success in the past.

Keep it simple,don't try to overcome the D failures, don't make D have to overcome your failures. Establish the running game, and if you have a shot and a close game, open it up in the 4th quarter.

Don't rely in a rookie or expect your QB to be Aaron Rodgers and bail you out.

Making the running game work was a massive improvement, IMHO.
IIRC, we started the year with Haley offense, and when things were not going good, Hue said "ill step in, I am the HC and have that right" or something to that nature I am paraphrasing.

There really is no way to confirm that Hue took over and we started running his O.

I despise hue, many know that. But its not a fact he took over, he said he wanted too, said he could as the HC (and that's what started I feel a lot of the discourse), but its not proven he did.
Posted by: rastanplan

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 09:25 AM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
It's not "well established." In fact, it is false. Will you please just give it a rest?


Make up your mind, in a post you say you say we were not running Hue offense but Haley's, and when I say that, you say its false?

The well established part was regarding the start of the season.

Although its also general knowledge that Hue started messing with Haley's O.

And many think that after Hue left we continued with a tweaked Haley offense...

Don't think I said anything false or even questionable. Ok I'll give you that calling the O before Hue's firing garbage,can be questionable for some people.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 09:30 AM

Please read this and then will you please drop it so we can keep this thread on topic? Thanks.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...wns-playcalling
Posted by: Rishuz

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 09:32 AM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
Quote:
Hell, half the plays they cut the field in half.


Freddie did that w/Baker last year. It's not an uncommon thing for the playcaller to do that w/young qbs. It actually makes some sense, especially for guys who were not asked to go through a lot of progressions in college.


I agree, and I expected to see it in the Rams game which is why I was so optimistic about the game. Seeing them unable or unwilling to adjust was very frustrating. It does not give me hope as the season moves along.

Really wish Baltimore would have fired Harbaugh. I would have personally went and picked him up and drove him to Cleveland.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 09:34 AM

I like John Harbaugh. Dude will change his schemes to fit his talent. Underrated coach in my opinion. I do think he was wrong for going for two last week. That did not make any sense.

Edit: I hope we make some changes this week. Baltimore will get after the qb and they have an excellent secondary. If Baker holds the ball as long as he has been thus far this year, it could be a very long day.

Time to make some schematic adjustments.
Posted by: oobernoober

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 09:59 AM

Originally Posted By: Rishuz
Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
Quote:
Hell, half the plays they cut the field in half.


Freddie did that w/Baker last year. It's not an uncommon thing for the playcaller to do that w/young qbs. It actually makes some sense, especially for guys who were not asked to go through a lot of progressions in college.


I agree, and I expected to see it in the Rams game which is why I was so optimistic about the game. Seeing them unable or unwilling to adjust was very frustrating. It does not give me hope as the season moves along.

Really wish Baltimore would have fired Harbaugh. I would have personally went and picked him up and drove him to Cleveland.


I think (hope) that Freddie is not so caught up in who's scheme we're running. I think he has a good head, he can see when things just aren't working. I hope he eventually comes around and makes good decisions about the offense.

I am also not a fan of this type of offense, but if that's what the coaches think we should run, then so be it... but there are personnel issues that we've created. We've got to get at least 1 legit tackle, and at least 1 good receiving TE. Whether or not the line is responsible for the poor play of the offense and the pressure on Baker is actually irrelevant.... if they want to keep this offense, they need a line that's much better... at least until Baker develops his post-snap brains and decision making a little more.

This offense wasn't going to be a finished product out of the gate. There was going to be a tough learning curve. Apparently, we've decided to make it harder by going away from the things we did well last year and adding/removing personnel, contributing to some unfamiliarity.


And regardless of all that, give Chubb the f'ing ball. Dude has been the lone, consistent bright spot in the offense so far. Keep the big guys happy by having them run-block more, and take some focus off of Baker.
Posted by: Bard Dawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 10:40 AM

Chubb. And shorten some routes. Time to take up some of the slack in BM's leash. Almost always rolls right when flushed because of tackles or Bitonio. Just roll him; unload the ball somewhere rather than the sack again. Taking the blame for the loss is admirable as it is worthless. It's a winning business. We should be about that.
Posted by: superbowldogg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 10:46 AM

JC
https://www.espn.com/blog/cleveland-brow...innovative-look

According to Freddie Kitchens:


The Browns will keep the same system and terminology; that continuity is key for a team that for so long has relied on restarts. Monken will learn the system Kitchens used, as opposed to the team learning Monkenís.

"He understands that him learning something new is a hell of a lot better and easier than 90 other guys learning what to do," Kitchens said.


Monkenís approach mirrors what Kitchens did with the Browns last season: spread the field; use horizontal-vertical routes and multiple groupings and formations to put pressure on the defense; get the ball out quickly; produce big plays. This offseason, Monken interviewed for head coach openings with the Packers, Bengals and Jets. He also interviewed for other coordinator jobs before choosing the Browns, where he knew he would not be calling plays.

"He came in and made the decision for what he was going to be surrounded with and the environment that is going to be created moving forward," Kitchens said.




meanwhile:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/rep...ator/ar-AACQZW8


https://clutchpoints.com/browns-news-freddie-kitchens-playing-bigger-role-in-offensive-installation/
Brownsí Freddie Kitchens playing Ďbigger roleí in offensive installation


According to Cleveland.comís Mary Kay Cabot, Kitchens hasnít been extra involved in offensive meetings because first-year offensive coordinator Todd Monken is acclimating to his new team more slowly than expected, but due to his role as overseer of the Browns at large.

Kitchens has been doing more in offensive meetings the past few weeks, but only because heís been gathering input from all the assistants and must make decisions on how the scheme will ultimately play out, a source told cleveland.com.





Posted by: FATE

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 11:04 AM

Originally Posted By: Swish
i think it might be safe to say that even Dorsey became a prisoner of the moment with the FK hire.

the hype seem to affect the entire organization from the top down.

This deserves repeating. How this translates to the entire "search party" falling head over heals (he was the unanimous decision), I don't know.

Prisoner of the moment is one thing, playing like you're handcuffed to a set of plays or an offensive philosophy is mind-boggling to me. Didn't Freddie just sit down and draw up a few crazy plays on a napkin last year with "Baker and the boys"? That's what it seemed like... that's the way it was reported.

Now we're watching a team that looks like changing things up would be harder than a speed-skater making a right turn.
I. Do. Not. Get it. It cannot be this complicated.

I'm not blessed in the X's and O's department like many of you. The personnel packages we've discussed make perfect sense to me though. I know we've screwed up the entire TE dept since last season, but won't Demetrius Harris block better than, say, NOBODY?

We better do something quickly, Baker looks like he may be getting a bad case of anxiety disorder and a mild case of "the yips".
Posted by: Hammer

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 11:31 AM

Except during the SB against the Pats in the 2nd half.
Posted by: PitDAWG

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 12:08 PM

j/c

I must say I think the speculation about whose system we are running here seems a little disjointed. Freddie was named the HC and had the freedom to hire his own coaching staff. So I guess my question to my fellow posters is why would he hire someone who runs a system that isn't much like the system he wants to run?

I mean let's face it, the film on Monken was there. The Tampa Bay O was on full display for anyone and everyone to see. It wasn't some hidden surprise to Freddie.

So it's my contention that the system Freddie wished to employ is the mirror image of what Monken was running in Tampa Bay. That a Freddie O and a Monken O are pretty much one in the same.

To me, trying to say who is responsible for the scheme we are running falls squarely on Freddie. He hired, wanted and approved of Monken's O or Monken would have never been hired in the first place.

I mean how much sense would it make to hire someone who runs an O that you don't want to run? To hire a person that will have to change what he does to fit into what you are trying to accomplish?

The math on that just doesn't add up to me. I believe Freddie hired someone who had the playbook he preferred to begin with and what we're seeing is a product of that.

I think Freddie felt he had the personnel to run this O and is finding out that our OT's and Mayfield simply aren't ready to make that leap. Now we all have to sit back and see how Freddie adjusts to that reality.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 12:24 PM

Interesting.
Posted by: mgh888

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 12:50 PM

I'd love to see a poll done, I'd do it but don't know how - choose your top two from each group that represent your highest priority ... I think most would say it's a combination in many ways - but what are the biggest factors?

- Baker is the main reason the team is struggling offensively
- The O scheme is the main reason the team is struggling
- The Play calling is the main reason the team is struggling
- The fact that Freddie is a rookie HC is the main reason the team is struggling
- The fact that we have a new coaches, schemes and playbook and we are only into week 3 the team is struggling
- The OL is the main reason we are struggling
- The lack of establishing the run is the main reason the team is struggling
- Lack of playing time for starters in pre-season is the biggest reason the team is struggling

- I am a little concerned with Baker
- I am very concerned with Baker
- It'll be fine - give Baker time
- He's toast, we need a replacement 4 Baker
- I am a little concerned with Freddie
- I am very concerned with Freddie
- It'll be fine - give Freddie time
- He's toast, we need a replacement for Freddie
- Freddie needs to stop calling plays
- Freddie needs to change the playbook and have more from last year's scheme
- Dorsey is somewhat responsible for not having a better OL and a blocking option at FB or TE
- Dorsey has put together a team that should be able to compete if our coaching was better
Posted by: DevilDawg2847

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 01:15 PM

Originally Posted By: PitDAWG
j/c

I must say I think the speculation about whose system we are running here seems a little disjointed. Freddie was named the HC and had the freedom to hire his own coaching staff. So I guess my question to my fellow posters is why would he hire someone who runs a system that isn't much like the system he wants to run?

I mean let's face it, the film on Monken was there. The Tampa Bay O was on full display for anyone and everyone to see. It wasn't some hidden surprise to Freddie.

So it's my contention that the system Freddie wished to employ is the mirror image of what Monken was running in Tampa Bay. That a Freddie O and a Monken O are pretty much one in the same.

To me, trying to say who is responsible for the scheme we are running falls squarely on Freddie. He hired, wanted and approved of Monken's O or Monken would have never been hired in the first place.

I mean how much sense would it make to hire someone who runs an O that you don't want to run? To hire a person that will have to change what he does to fit into what you are trying to accomplish?

The math on that just doesn't add up to me. I believe Freddie hired someone who had the playbook he preferred to begin with and what we're seeing is a product of that.

I think Freddie felt he had the personnel to run this O and is finding out that our OT's and Mayfield simply aren't ready to make that leap. Now we all have to sit back and see how Freddie adjusts to that reality.


You put out a nice buffet of food for thought!

I have a thought I'd like to add on, but I'm hesitant to do so because it doesn't paint Freddie very positively, and I'm not trying to purposefully put the man on blast.

It's like "Hmm... do I or don't I bring a jello mold to Vers' BBQ"?

I guess I'll type it out and see how it reads..

When we announced Freddie as our HC I was fairly neutral in my feelings about it. I wanted to know more about his philosophy, his systems, and his scheme. He had a great relationship with Baker and he was considered part of this up and coming crop of fresh, innovative coaches in the league, someone who was not likely going to be our OC for more than this year. He had some street cred because our offense was night and day last year. To me it looked like he was creating whole game plans on a weekly basis. Seeing it was actually just adapting Haley's offense to me isn't any less impressive.

But what if that's the extent of Freddie Kitchens?

Is it possible he isn't the kind of person who establishes systems and processes, he just makes established systems and processes better? (Like those BASF commercials "We don't make a lot of the things you buy, we make a lot of things you buy better"

Let's say instead of being retained here Freddie became the OC somewhere else? What does his offense look like?
Posted by: ExclDawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 01:27 PM

Might have to take you up on that and make some polls. The first one is more of a ranking though, as I feel it's a combination of all of that.

Originally Posted By: mgh888

6 - Baker is the main reason the team is struggling offensively
1 - The O scheme is the main reason the team is struggling
2 - The Play calling is the main reason the team is struggling
4 - The fact that Freddie is a rookie HC is the main reason the team is struggling
3 - The fact that we have a new coaches, schemes and playbook and we are only into week 3 the team is struggling
7 - The OL is the main reason we are struggling
5 - The lack of establishing the run is the main reason the team is struggling
8 - Lack of playing time for starters in pre-season is the biggest reason the team is struggling


Freddie being a rookie Head Coach, thinking he had all the answers, and scrapping an offense that was working fine last year for an offense that doesn't really fit to your QB's (or other players') strengths is right at the top of the list. And that sort of ties into everything. The scheme is terrible. We have a great back in Chubb, but want to go shotgun/no back and take him out of the equation half of the time. We have a QB that plays best with quick reads and throws, but we ask him to run a confusing offense. We want to go long developing routes with a patchwork line. The play-calling isn't much better. We have plays that work, as we've seen. But we keep going away from them, and go with things like empty backfield passes 4 times in a row on the goal line. Baker needs to improve and hasn't played well at all, but they haven't exactly played to his strengths either. The O-line has done what it can. It could improve quite a bit, but it's not like guys are slipping through untouched every play.

Quote:

X - I am a little concerned with Baker
- I am very concerned with Baker
- It'll be fine - give Baker time
- He's toast, we need a replacement 4 Baker

- I am a little concerned with Freddie
X - I am very concerned with Freddie
- It'll be fine - give Freddie time
- He's toast, we need a replacement for Freddie

- Freddie needs to stop calling plays
X - Freddie needs to change the playbook and have more from last year's scheme

- Dorsey is somewhat responsible for not having a better OL and a blocking option at FB or TE
X - Dorsey has put together a team that should be able to compete if our coaching was better


Where's the option for "Dorsey is partially responsible because he signed up for Kitchens when he knew his plan was to scrap the offense". That right there is what drives me the craziest.

Continuity and familiarity is what make offenses work. Constantly switching up your offense on a rookie QB is just asking to ruin him. We HAD an offense that worked. Freddie's biggest selling point is that he ran an offense that actually worked last year. Why in the world did we scrap that and bring in a whole new system? Worse yet, a system that minimizes Chubb's impact, and asks Baker to do things he doesn't seem ready for? Dorsey had to know this, and he still went along with it.
Posted by: PitDAWG

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 01:32 PM

I must say that IMO it's far too early to say what Freddie is or isn't. At least for me anyway. But your hypothesis is as good as any.
Posted by: mgh888

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 01:40 PM

A ranking would be good/more appropriate ... yes agree.
Posted by: SuperBrown

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 03:15 PM

Here is a new scheme for us against the Rats:

Posted by: DevilDawg2847

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 03:20 PM

Originally Posted By: PitDAWG
I must say that IMO it's far too early to say what Freddie is or isn't. At least for me anyway. But your hypothesis is as good as any.


I appreciate that, and point taken.

Whatever Freddie may be, I hope this is just a matter of needing to sync everything and not him trying to be someone he isn't.
Posted by: FORTBROWNFAN

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 03:56 PM

Reading some of the posts I think there is a little bit of everything probably wrong.

Saying that, going into the season with all the hype I was worried about a few factors, most of which were our head coaches inexperience plus the fact we had not only a young team, but the team's roster had been drastically changed the past 2 seasons. Add to that critical players did not log many minutes in pre-season the early struggles do not surprise me.

Basketball teams with only 5 players struggle to gel so I assume 11 players who need to perform their individual tasks in sync with precision timing it should not surprise anyone we have struggled. The real question is how long will the solution take.

I do think we have talent and expect the play to start reflecting that talent by at least mid-season.
Posted by: OldColdDawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 04:41 PM

The next few weeks will be 'getting better', after the bye I expect to see much better game planning and scheme. I think the best thing we could do today is get back to what we did late last year.
Posted by: DeputyDawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 07:13 PM

Originally Posted By: mgh888
I'd love to see a poll done, I'd do it but don't know how - choose your top two from each group that represent your highest priority ... I think most would say it's a combination in many ways - but what are the biggest factors?

- Baker is the main reason the team is struggling offensively
- The O scheme is the main reason the team is struggling
- The Play calling is the main reason the team is struggling
- The fact that Freddie is a rookie HC is the main reason the team is struggling
- The fact that we have a new coaches, schemes and playbook and we are only into week 3 the team is struggling
- The OL is the main reason we are struggling
- The lack of establishing the run is the main reason the team is struggling
- Lack of playing time for starters in pre-season is the biggest reason the team is struggling



Yes
Posted by: mgh888

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/24/19 10:41 PM

I see what you did there
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/25/19 07:01 AM

Nice point about our team needing time to gel with new circumstances, and thatí s definitely true ... you just worry that weíll be 1-6 before that happens ... and at that point, nobody will be happy or patient
Posted by: MemphisBrownie

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/25/19 10:33 AM

Posted by: ExclDawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/25/19 11:16 AM

Well there you have it ...
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/25/19 01:16 PM

Those stats are fairly revealing. A lot of the stats regarding the offense that have been posted in the last week are so are painting a pretty clear picture.

So, do we change or do we trust the process and believe that we'll get better once we have more time invested in the changes?
Posted by: PitDAWG

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/25/19 01:36 PM

I think the smart choice would be a combination of the two. Go back to what worked last year while slowly injecting the new system. It seems pretty obvious that implementing it all at once isn't working.

What a lot of people seem to overlook is that a lot of money and hype was invested into this season. While a lot of us view this as a sport and our passion, bottom line is that it's a corporation and a business. With this much of an investment, I don't believe a lot of patience will be employed.

For this to work it has to be given a chance. For it to be given a chance we have to compete and win some games.

If we go back to what we know will work while gradually implementing the new scheme as time goes on, we cab compete, win some games and over time run the scheme the coaching staff has in mind.

A lot of us understand that we're going to need to get away from not having better blocking TE's and an Hback to run these long developing plays. That we can't keep refusing to have max protection packages on those plays.

It seems like they're trying to build Rome in a day and lack enough stone masons to pull off the job.
Posted by: Bard Dawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/25/19 03:22 PM

Seems they might lack the stones for the job, irony intended. Be less exotic because the route folks aren't even cutting downfield before Mayfield has flushed right and hung onto it too long. Are we loafing routes? Hatching the ball? Some of this requires a priority fix IMO,and it doesn't take a lot of film and stats to get there. Who is giving up pressures? Sweep some; screen some. But a draw for nine yards at the goal line is stupid.
Posted by: WSU Willie

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/25/19 03:37 PM

j/c

As the pain of the last loss starts to fade away, I wonder how we'd 'feel' right now had we not laid such a big, stinky egg on Opening Day...not saying had we WON...just not looked so inept and ill-prepared.

Maybe it'll end up being a good thing once the schedule softens up and we tweak (hopefully) what isn't working. Before the year began, I was hoping we'd be around .500 at the midpoint...that's still doable.

Imagine how we'd feel right now if the schedule started out 'softer'...we looked like crap early on...and then knew that a harder schedule was coming. Yikes.
Posted by: WSU Willie

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/25/19 03:38 PM

That makes sense...we'll see if enough pride can be swallowed to go there.
Posted by: Bard Dawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/25/19 04:21 PM

Thought provoking. I was amazed at how unprepared we looked, and also hated the penalties so far. Maybe more prep in preseason games might have helped. Just noe worth much wondering. Confront, solve, resolve. "Do not fix blame; fix problems." Not all of this fixing has to be rocket science. Mental toughness might help a bunch. Especially with penalties.
Posted by: Hamfist

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/25/19 10:07 PM

Been reading a lot of the linked materials in this thread and others, and I just donít understand why we are running this scheme.

The scheme from last year seemed so appropriate and effective, allowing Mayfield to play to his strengths, giving Chubb a lot of touches, and giving the WRs space to move.

I donít want to bring it up, since itís in the past, but this reminds me a lot of what Hue was scheming with Keizer. Long downfield looks, that took time to develop. The concerns I saw with that scheme are the same Iím starting to develop with this one. The major one being the 2.5 seconds and less versus the 2.6 seconds and more, and the effectiveness of each.
Posted by: Attack Dawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/26/19 09:38 AM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
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


This is interesting(good work) because it tells whats going on ..the $$$$$$$ question is , regardless of whether this is Monken's scheme (which for some reason I feel he has input) or not, it's not working because of the use of the personnel ..it's not playing to Mayfield's strength and covering his weaknesses.
Posted by: PrplPplEater

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/26/19 09:44 AM

This could well just be the expected painful part of the learning curve where Baker takes his lumps and begins to grow into a full-blown NFL QB.

Afterall, Experience is that thing you get right after you needed it.
He's getting it now.
Posted by: Attack Dawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/26/19 10:08 AM

Originally Posted By: PrplPplEater
This could well just be the expected painful part of the learning curve where Baker takes his lumps and begins to grow into a full-blown NFL QB.

Afterall, Experience is that thing you get right after you needed it.
He's getting it now.


The foremost improvement for him is post snap reads of shifting coverages..when it looks like man at first but then then the D shifts into cover zones..they are confusing him when he has to throw to longer pass routes.
The other thing is for him not to always roll to the right side of the field which is being cut off..stay in the pocket a bit longer .
Posted by: rastanplan

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/26/19 01:11 PM

Originally Posted By: PrplPplEater
This could well just be the expected painful part of the learning curve where Baker takes his lumps and begins to grow into a full-blown NFL QB.

Afterall, Experience is that thing you get right after you needed it.
He's getting it now.


Not all NFL QB are alike... Mayfield needs high 60 -70's % completion to have good games..

He is more a "system/high tempo QB" than a virtuoso, I know I'm going to take heat from this, but its not even a critic...

I actually think the kid is good in the right environment...
Posted by: Hamfist

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/26/19 01:29 PM

Originally Posted By: rastanplan
Originally Posted By: PrplPplEater
This could well just be the expected painful part of the learning curve where Baker takes his lumps and begins to grow into a full-blown NFL QB.

Afterall, Experience is that thing you get right after you needed it.
He's getting it now.


Not all NFL QB are alike... Mayfield needs high 60 -70's % completion to have good games..

He is more a "system/high tempo QB" than a virtuoso, I know I'm going to take heat from this, but its not even a critic...

I actually think the kid is good in the right environment...


I like to use a baseball analogy for this. Was Smoltz better than Maddox? Nope. Just different. If Baker is more of a Maddox, then, so be it. Give him the scheme to win.
Posted by: lampdogg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/26/19 08:32 PM

Originally Posted By: PrplPplEater


.... Experience is that thing you get right after you needed it.


Nice. I'm going to borrow that and use it someday, without giving you credit. Hope you don't mind. wink
Posted by: DevilDawg2847

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 08:10 AM

Originally Posted By: PitDAWG
I think the smart choice would be a combination of the two. Go back to what worked last year while slowly injecting the new system. It seems pretty obvious that implementing it all at once isn't working.

What a lot of people seem to overlook is that a lot of money and hype was invested into this season. While a lot of us view this as a sport and our passion, bottom line is that it's a corporation and a business. With this much of an investment, I don't believe a lot of patience will be employed.

For this to work it has to be given a chance. For it to be given a chance we have to compete and win some games.

If we go back to what we know will work while gradually implementing the new scheme as time goes on, we cab compete, win some games and over time run the scheme the coaching staff has in mind.

A lot of us understand that we're going to need to get away from not having better blocking TE's and an Hback to run these long developing plays. That we can't keep refusing to have max protection packages on those plays.

It seems like they're trying to build Rome in a day and lack enough stone masons to pull off the job.



This is the part that frustrates me the most I think. The fact that we're at the point we're saying "go back to what worked last year and implement from there" is problematic. You are 100% correct.

But why weren't we doing that in the first place? I'm just so tired of this string of coaches that come through here and NONE of them have the confidence or chutzpa to take what we are successful at and say to their opponent "we're gonna cram it down your throat until you figure out how to beat it".

But no, we instead simply assume our opponents are going to be able to beat it and we don't even bother trying.

I find myself strangely impatient this year and I'm not so sure it's simply being spoiled because of what we have on paper. I guess I'm just tired of seeing other teams with new coaches or new schemes actually having consistent success, but then looking at our own team and saying "well, we just need time to gel".

I don't know. Maybe it's really just a grass is greener kind of deal.
Posted by: DevilDawg2847

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 08:13 AM

Originally Posted By: rastanplan
Originally Posted By: PrplPplEater
This could well just be the expected painful part of the learning curve where Baker takes his lumps and begins to grow into a full-blown NFL QB.

Afterall, Experience is that thing you get right after you needed it.
He's getting it now.


Not all NFL QB are alike... Mayfield needs high 60 -70's % completion to have good games..

He is more a "system/high tempo QB" than a virtuoso, I know I'm going to take heat from this, but its not even a critic...

I actually think the kid is good in the right environment...


Baker + this roster + Kyle Shannahan' system????? it'd be killer
Posted by: Bull_Dawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 08:47 AM

J/c

It's been mentioned that Baker struggles against zone coverage. This appears to be true on the surface. Are our receivers struggling as well against it, though, complicating the problem?

We miss a reliable TE to sit down in holes in zones in the middle of the field. We miss Higgins who can somewhat do the same thing.

Ratley came to us a rather raw receiver. He missed a lot of time during camp. Is he seeing things the same way as Baker? Is he settling in the right spots and making good decisions during scramble drills?

Are teams tilting coverages to take OBJ away? Is he coming back to Baker when the initial play isn't there?

Landry for all his savvy and ability to shake a man doesn't really threaten zones with speed.

We're not using much play action to suck up LBs and open up the middle of the field behind him.

While Baker Is struggling, he hasn't gotten much help.
Posted by: oobernoober

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 08:48 AM

Originally Posted By: DevilDawg2847
Originally Posted By: rastanplan
Originally Posted By: PrplPplEater
This could well just be the expected painful part of the learning curve where Baker takes his lumps and begins to grow into a full-blown NFL QB.

Afterall, Experience is that thing you get right after you needed it.
He's getting it now.


Not all NFL QB are alike... Mayfield needs high 60 -70's % completion to have good games..

He is more a "system/high tempo QB" than a virtuoso, I know I'm going to take heat from this, but its not even a critic...

I actually think the kid is good in the right environment...


Baker + this roster + Kyle Shannahan' system????? it'd be killer


Ugh... and there it is. I was thinking that as well, with the hot start that San Fran has had this year. I didn't want to put it to paper (err... keyboard). We had him here.
Posted by: oobernoober

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 08:50 AM

Originally Posted By: DevilDawg2847
Originally Posted By: PitDAWG
I think the smart choice would be a combination of the two. Go back to what worked last year while slowly injecting the new system. It seems pretty obvious that implementing it all at once isn't working.

What a lot of people seem to overlook is that a lot of money and hype was invested into this season. While a lot of us view this as a sport and our passion, bottom line is that it's a corporation and a business. With this much of an investment, I don't believe a lot of patience will be employed.

For this to work it has to be given a chance. For it to be given a chance we have to compete and win some games.

If we go back to what we know will work while gradually implementing the new scheme as time goes on, we cab compete, win some games and over time run the scheme the coaching staff has in mind.

A lot of us understand that we're going to need to get away from not having better blocking TE's and an Hback to run these long developing plays. That we can't keep refusing to have max protection packages on those plays.

It seems like they're trying to build Rome in a day and lack enough stone masons to pull off the job.



This is the part that frustrates me the most I think. The fact that we're at the point we're saying "go back to what worked last year and implement from there" is problematic. You are 100% correct.

But why weren't we doing that in the first place? I'm just so tired of this string of coaches that come through here and NONE of them have the confidence or chutzpa to take what we are successful at and say to their opponent "we're gonna cram it down your throat until you figure out how to beat it".

But no, we instead simply assume our opponents are going to be able to beat it and we don't even bother trying.

I find myself strangely impatient this year and I'm not so sure it's simply being spoiled because of what we have on paper. I guess I'm just tired of seeing other teams with new coaches or new schemes actually having consistent success, but then looking at our own team and saying "well, we just need time to gel".

I don't know. Maybe it's really just a grass is greener kind of deal.


We've had a string of coaches that say that they're going to adjust the system to the players, and then cram their own systems down the roster's throat.

This situation is slightly different. We DID adjust the system to the roster, and THEN crammed a different system down the roster's throat.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 09:03 AM

I don't know if Baker struggles against zone coverages. I think that most folks [not on this board] are saying that he is becoming confused by teams changing their coverages from the pre-snap look to the actual coverage post-snap.

Some are saying he is a "one-read" qb and he is struggling to go through his progressions quickly enough.

There have been open receivers, but Baker is either bypassing them looking for the big play or not seeing them due to his confusion.

Hopefully it clicks. Either that or change the scheme back to the personnel packages from last year and ask Baker to read half the field again.
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 09:04 AM

Thatís a fair question: i donít know if our WRs prefer man or zone. I do know that a good TE (not even a play maker) like WItten, Heath Miller, etc is fabulous to have in zone offense. Thatís a piece we sorely miss
Posted by: Homewood Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 09:04 AM

Agreed. Also, it's amazing to me that with the talent on O that we are putting on the field we should be even having this conversation. We had what, 4 months to develop an offense? We still have our starting TE out, Higgins out, Calloway out, not to mention Kareem Hunt waiting in the wings. How many OC out their would love to have this embarrassment of riches? No D should be able to cover what we have. The sheer weight of talent should be pushing the ball down field. Ridiculous.
Posted by: DevilDawg2847

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 09:06 AM

Originally Posted By: oobernoober
Originally Posted By: DevilDawg2847
Originally Posted By: rastanplan
Originally Posted By: PrplPplEater
This could well just be the expected painful part of the learning curve where Baker takes his lumps and begins to grow into a full-blown NFL QB.

Afterall, Experience is that thing you get right after you needed it.
He's getting it now.


Not all NFL QB are alike... Mayfield needs high 60 -70's % completion to have good games..

He is more a "system/high tempo QB" than a virtuoso, I know I'm going to take heat from this, but its not even a critic...

I actually think the kid is good in the right environment...


Baker + this roster + Kyle Shannahan' system????? it'd be killer


Ugh... and there it is. I was thinking that as well, with the hot start that San Fran has had this year. I didn't want to put it to paper (err... keyboard). We had him here.



We did at that, but we'll never know lol

I just look at how we ran the ball, how Hoyer was supposed to get the ball out quickly, and how those two aspects combined helped the play action which gave us some big play opportunities.

Yes Bake has a big arm, but we shouldn't be basing our offense on being able to throw it deep a la what Hue did. You still have to be able to set those plays up. At times during the Rams game I felt like we were beginning to do that a little bit.
Posted by: Bull_Dawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 09:25 AM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
I don't know if Baker struggles against zone coverages. I think that most folks [not on this board] are saying that he is becoming confused by teams changing their coverages from the pre-snap look to the actual coverage post-snap.

Some are saying he is a "one-read" qb and he is struggling to go through his progressions quickly enough.

There have been open receivers, but Baker is either bypassing them looking for the big play or not seeing them due to his confusion.

Hopefully it clicks. Either that or change the scheme back to the personnel packages from last year and ask Baker to read half the field again.


But are our receivers also "confused?" Could that be a factor?

I'm not sure how specific our offensive system is with WRs' adjustments to different coverages.

Don't both the thrower and pass catchers have to adapt to the post-snap changes?

Receivers could be open, but not where they're expected.

If we can string some things together and start running tempo, it should simplify things for both.

I wonder how big a factor our taking so long to get to the line is in allowing defenses to show such exotic looks.It has seemed like we're getting to the line with the play clock running out fairly often.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 09:30 AM

I haven't seen any breakdowns on the WRs being confused, so I don't know if they are or not. I don't think they are because both OBJ and Landry are quality WRs who have had a ton of success w/other teams and other qbs. They have beat zone coverages over and over and over in the past.

I haven't posted all the articles and breakdowns about what's ailing the Browns, but there are a ton out there. Almost agree that the troubles thus far are w/the coach and qb.

It's early, so hopefully they can get this figured out.
Posted by: Rishuz

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 09:32 AM

My favorite time of year...

...the searching for answers.
Posted by: Bull_Dawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 10:04 AM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
I haven't seen any breakdowns on the WRs being confused, so I don't know if they are or not. I don't think they are because both OBJ and Landry are quality WRs who have had a ton of success w/other teams and other qbs. They have beat zone coverages over and over and over in the past.

I haven't posted all the articles and breakdowns about what's ailing the Browns, but there are a ton out there. Almost agree that the troubles thus far are w/the coach and qb.

It's early, so hopefully they can get this figured out.


Unfortunately, with "analysts" unaffiliated with the team, they can only comment on what happened rather than what should have happened. They don't know the playbook/"rules".

Like most things related to football coverage, they tend to become QB-centric and occasionally lose sight that 11 parts all have to work together in synch.

I'd love to hear someone like Reggie Wayne's thoughts on what our WRs have been doing. During the broadcast of the GB v. PHI game there was an anecdote given where Rodgers sent Adams to the bench for a series earlier in his career for not doing what he was supposed to do when a play broke down. That lit a fire and he's since been very productive. It made me wonder if something similar could be in play.

Do you have any thoughts on the play clock side? Are the added responsibilities throwing off Freddie's playcalling Feng Shui?
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 10:22 AM

Originally Posted By: Rishuz
My favorite time of year...

...the searching for answers.
The good news: most years we know there arenít any lol ... at least we have some hope there are this year
Posted by: PrplPplEater

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 11:14 AM

Originally Posted By: lampdogg
Originally Posted By: PrplPplEater


.... Experience is that thing you get right after you needed it.


Nice. I'm going to borrow that and use it someday, without giving you credit. Hope you don't mind. wink


Please do, because I don't recall which comedian I heard it from tongue
(Steven Wright, maybe?)
Posted by: PitDAWG

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 11:23 AM

Originally Posted By: Bull_Dawg
J/c

It's been mentioned that Baker struggles against zone coverage. This appears to be true on the surface. Are our receivers struggling as well against it, though, complicating the problem?

We miss a reliable TE to sit down in holes in zones in the middle of the field. We miss Higgins who can somewhat do the same thing.

Ratley came to us a rather raw receiver. He missed a lot of time during camp. Is he seeing things the same way as Baker? Is he settling in the right spots and making good decisions during scramble drills?

Are teams tilting coverages to take OBJ away? Is he coming back to Baker when the initial play isn't there?

Landry for all his savvy and ability to shake a man doesn't really threaten zones with speed.

We're not using much play action to suck up LBs and open up the middle of the field behind him.

While Baker Is struggling, he hasn't gotten much help.


What I think is missing here is that the QB, RB and WR's run the plays that are called. You can use both slot WR's and RB's to run in those soft spots in the zone. Yes, we have had TE's do it in the past and teams do have TE's do that job as well, but there are other ways of doing it.

And on the surface it may seem like Baker isn't getting much help, but there are open WR's that he's simply either not seeing or deciding to go with the big play instead. I'm not sure which one it is. It could very well be that the play that's being called requires the WR running the long route is hid first read. And by the time he looks off of that WR the zone coverage is confusing him. That's anybodies guess at this point.

Hopefully, when Higgins comes back some of this will be resolved. It seems he's to some degree Baker's security blanket. Someone Baker trusts and looks for when things break down.

It isn't confusion on the part of the WR's. They run the plays and routes that are called. It's up to the coaching staff to call the plays and routes to exploit the zone. As Vers mentioned, both Landry and OBJ have played against the zone throughout their careers. This is nothing new to them.
Posted by: DevilDawg2847

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 12:34 PM

That's a great question DC... just who is Baker's primary read (and what is the order he's supposed to make his reads) on any given play?

Whatever the issue is, Baker doesn't look comfortable or confident running this offense at all. Last year we heard about all this collaboration and input from the players. Is anyone else getting a sense that this is still the case because I honestly don't.

Filed under the heading "Thing's We'll Never Know for Sure" is what is the process for the implementation of this offense? I think it's safe to assume Monken is doing the heavy lifting, if not near all of it. Does he allow as much input from the players as Freddie did last year? How much of an opportunity does Freddie have to put his influence on things? If we go with "very little", it could explain some of the deficiency on play calling we've seen so far. That kind of thing would be expected from a guy calling an offense that isn't really his own.
Posted by: Bull_Dawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 01:13 PM

Originally Posted By: PitDAWG

What I think is missing here is that the QB, RB and WR's run the plays that are called. You can use both slot WR's and RB's to run in those soft spots in the zone. Yes, we have had TE's do it in the past and teams do have TE's do that job as well, but there are other ways of doing it.

And on the surface it may seem like Baker isn't getting much help, but there are open WR's that he's simply either not seeing or deciding to go with the big play instead. I'm not sure which one it is. It could very well be that the play that's being called requires the WR running the long route is hid first read. And by the time he looks off of that WR the zone coverage is confusing him. That's anybodies guess at this point.

Hopefully, when Higgins comes back some of this will be resolved. It seems he's to some degree Baker's security blanket. Someone Baker trusts and looks for when things break down.

It isn't confusion on the part of the WR's. They run the plays and routes that are called. It's up to the coaching staff to call the plays and routes to exploit the zone. As Vers mentioned, both Landry and OBJ have played against the zone throughout their careers. This is nothing new to them.


I'm not sure our offense is as simple for our receivers as you present there.

Here's an article that touches on what I'm talking about:

Link: Film Review- Adjusting routes to coverage

I'll see if I can find a better article as well.
Posted by: PitDAWG

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 01:38 PM

Many NFL teams run a zone scheme. Some mix it up between man and zone coverage. It's nothing new to either OBJ or Landry. Actually even our younger WR's have seen it in games.

Now there's a difference between a zone being simple and players being familiar with it. Point being, trying to say that our WR's do not know how to react to zone coverage isn't a legitimate argument. Now the QB having a problem reading zone coverage might be. I've seen a lot of times where opposing D's have shown man and at the last second ran zone. That seems to be the problem.

And I'll tell you why. If we didn't have WR's getting open, I would be far more willing to look at your theory. But that's not what's happening. What's happening is we are having WR's getting open and Baker can't seem to see them.

That's not a WR issue.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 01:44 PM

I guess we are just going to have to disagree on the QB/WR thing. That's fine. I will respond to the following, though:

Quote:

Do you have any thoughts on the play clock side? Are the added responsibilities throwing off Freddie's playcalling Feng Shui?


I noticed the play clock being an issue in game 2, but was it in the other two games? I don't remember anything significant, but I could be wrong. I don't think having extra responsibilities are affecting Freddie's play calling, but I could be wrong about that, too.

For me, this seems fairly simple. The new personnel packages are a problem for a qb who is having trouble reading coverages.
Posted by: myka

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 02:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
I guess we are just going to have to disagree on the QB/WR thing. That's fine. I will respond to the following, though:

Quote:

Do you have any thoughts on the play clock side? Are the added responsibilities throwing off Freddie's playcalling Feng Shui?


I noticed the play clock being an issue in game 2, but was it in the other two games? I don't remember anything significant, but I could be wrong. I don't think having extra responsibilities are affecting Freddie's play calling, but I could be wrong about that, too.

For me, this seems fairly simple. The new personnel packages are a problem for a qb who is having trouble reading coverages.


Agree on all counts!

People get really mad at me when I say Baker has been struggling, but watching the games you can see open WRs, running lanes, decent pocket/protection, etc.

I hope he can learn and get going again, since he has the arm talent for sure.
Posted by: Niolen

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 04:28 PM

I donít expect the offense to change at this point.

The coaching staff spent months deliberating and installing this offense. Itís quite possible the current iteration just doesnít feature heavy personnel packages. If thatís the case, expanding a personnel grouping is easier said than done during the season. You might add something here or there Ė especially around the bye week Ė but youíre constrained to what youíve installed, to a large degree.

Also, Kitchens has intimated the offense is close to performing as expected, which isnít the kind of language you hear from someone thatís preparing to scrap scheme.

So, for better or worse, I believe the Browns are going to be a team that bases out of 11 personnel, trusts Baker, and then lives with those results.

If thatís the case, the question becomes solving the current issues from 11 personnel with a sprinkle of 12 and 13 personnel.

Which means doing:

- More clear, defined reads.

- More half-field, high-low, and mesh concepts.

- More pre-snap motion.

- More 3x1 receiver sets.

- More RPOs.

- More action off outside zone.

This offense is fixable, even within its current framework.

But it starts with self-improvement from Baker and Freddie.
Posted by: Bull_Dawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 04:56 PM

Originally Posted By: PitDAWG
Many NFL teams run a zone scheme. Some mix it up between man and zone coverage. It's nothing new to either OBJ or Landry. Actually even our younger WR's have seen it in games.

Now there's a difference between a zone being simple and players being familiar with it. Point being, trying to say that our WR's do not know how to react to zone coverage isn't a legitimate argument. Now the QB having a problem reading zone coverage might be. I've seen a lot of times where opposing D's have shown man and at the last second ran zone. That seems to be the problem.

And I'll tell you why. If we didn't have WR's getting open, I would be far more willing to look at your theory. But that's not what's happening. What's happening is we are having WR's getting open and Baker can't seem to see them.

That's not a WR issue.


Here's another article that explains option routes, sight adjustments, and other NFL offense complexities.

Option Routes and Sight Adjustments Link

A receiver can be open, but if he's not where he's expected to be when he's expected to be there, it doesn't really matter if he's open. This isn't Madden where you instantly throw to open receivers no matter whether your QB is scrambling the opposite direction. A QB often has to throw to where a WR is going to be. If he isn't confident in where that will be, it's a problem.

I'm not arguing that Baker isn't struggling. He's struggling. My question is why? I have a feeling it's a bit more complex than he simply can't read defenses.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 05:00 PM

Are you really going to put the blame on our WRs not being in the correct places? Seriously?
Posted by: DevilDawg2847

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 05:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
Are you really going to put the blame on our WRs not being in the correct places? Seriously?


I interpreted his post to mean the problem with the offense is a combination of things, not just Baker or not just the WR's or not just the O Line.
Posted by: DCDAWGFAN

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 05:10 PM

Quote:
Now there's a difference between a zone being simple and players being familiar with it. Point being, trying to say that our WR's do not know how to react to zone coverage isn't a legitimate argument. Now the QB having a problem reading zone coverage might be. I've seen a lot of times where opposing D's have shown man and at the last second ran zone. That seems to be the problem.

I agree with this but the part that is missing is.. yes, the WRs have to recognize the coverage and adjust the routes as necessary... the QB has to recognize the coverage and adjust... but the QB needs to have the confidence that he and the WRs are seeing the same thing and making the same adjustments... Because he has to throw to the open spot and TRUST that the WR is going to do what he expects...

If he's waiting to SEE if the WR is making the adjustment, then that would explain why he is holding the ball too long all the time and lacking the confidence to step in and make the throw...

And considering that Landry and OBJ both have 5 or 6 years of experience.. if somebody is hesitating, I would assume it's Baker.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 05:15 PM

Okay. I'm saying the WRs are not part of the problem. These guys are known for what good route runners they are. They have succeeded in the past w/great route running. I don't think they suddenly forgot how to run routes against zone coverages.
Posted by: Bull_Dawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 05:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
Are you really going to put the blame on our WRs not being in the correct places? Seriously?


All the blame, No. Some of the blame, perhaps.

Are you going to put all of the blame on Baker? (Asking for an honest consideration, not trying to be combative)

Ratley missed most of camp. OBJ missed time as well and is new to the team. Harris is new to the team.

How many reps do they get together on specific plays where the defense shows one defense pre-snap and then switches to another post snap? When our defense hasn't run those looks? How well is he really supposed to know how guys will react in those situations? Are the receivers following rules where he should always see the same thing in specific situations? On multiple occasions, Baker and his receivers seemed to be on different pages.

If Baker's wondering where his receivers are going to be as well as trying to read the D, it complicates things.
Posted by: OldColdDawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 05:18 PM

I think the players, coaches, and scheme are all to blame. Baker will be fine if he doesn't get killed trying to figure this all out.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 05:24 PM

I did not put all the blame on Baker. I am saying that I don't think the WRs are part of the problem. Whatever, this is an argument I can't win, though. The crowd will probably soon be here to get on me about hating Baker.
Posted by: DevilDawg2847

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 05:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
I did not put all the blame on Baker. I am saying that I don't think the WRs are part of the problem. Whatever, this is an argument I can't win, though. The crowd will probably soon be here to get on me about hating Baker.


It's wholly possible for the WRs to be a part of the problem, but not be a problem themselves.

This is where I agree with OCD that scheme is a factor here as well. We can have the best route runners, but if the routes don't compliment each other, how crisp they run it doesn't matter. The seams they exploit don't matter.

Running 3 WR's in identical routes in close proximity is straight up dumb. I saw it multiple times last week.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 05:40 PM

There are a lot of articles out there like this one. I'll post this because it jibes w/my feeling on the situation. Which is that right now Freddie and Baker are the main reasons for our struggles. There are many stats cited in this article to support this position.

Quote:

Baker Mayfield Is Holding Onto the Ball and Holding Cleveland Browns Offense Back

By
Sam Penix -
September 27, 2019


The Cleveland Browns currently sit at 1-2 ahead of a key divisional matchup against the Baltimore Ravens this weekend. It isnít time to panic yet, but the offense has struggled mightily thus far. There are multiple reasons for this, but the main one is quarterback Baker Mayfield, who needs to play much better if Cleveland wants to enter the playoff race.

Cleveland Browns Offense Held Back by Baker Mayfield, Who is Holding Onto the Ball for Too Long

The Browns offense has scored just 49 points in three games despite being one of the most talented units in the NFL. The group hasnít gotten into a rhythm or found its identity yet. Starting tight end David Njoku is on injured reserve, offensive linemen have been ejected, injured, and switched positions, and receiver Rashard Higgins hasnít played since early in Week 1. The situational playcalling is subpar. But none of these reasons are good excuses for Mayfieldís underwhelming play; heís thrown three touchdowns to five interceptions thus far, and his issues go beyond the box score.

Many are blaming Clevelandís offensive line for not giving Mayfield enough time to survey the defense. This is happening, but it isnít the lineís fault. According to ESPN Analytics, the Browns rank first in the NFL in pass block win rate at 66%. A pass block win is defined as when the offensive lineman holds his block for at least 2.5 seconds. Dating back to his rookie season, Mayfield has been excellent when throwing the ball in under 2.5 seconds. When he holds onto it for longer, he takes unnecessary sacks, hits, and forces the ball into tight coverage.

Quick-Release Passing

At one point in last weekís game against Los Angeles, Mayfield was 13/15 on passes under 2.5 seconds and 3/21 otherwise. There are two takeaways from this; the first is that Kitchens must do a better job of scheming quick passes for Mayfield. The second is that the Browns have a problem. If Mayfield isnít able to sit in the pocket and read defenses, he wonít be a starter for very long. Nearly every positive play Mayfield has made this year has come on his first read, and thatís concerning. Weíve seen Mayfield progress to his second, third, and fourth read and make plays before, so perhaps he just needs more reps in new offensive coordinator Todd Monkenís system.

But itís more than just Mayfield not reading defenses well. Heís paranoid about taking hits. He is fading from clean pockets for no reason instead of stepping up and delivering a strong throw. The loss of Kevin Zeitler may have something to do with this, although his replacement, Eric Kush, has been solid, aside from his reps against game-wrecker Aaron Donald.

Per Pro Football Focus, Mayfieldís average time to throw is 2.74 seconds, and his average time to scramble is 2.80 seconds. That time to scramble explains the discrepancy between PFFís TTT number and NFL Next Gen Statsí, which is 3.03 seconds, third-highest in the NFL.

Whether itís getting more comfortable in the offense, trusting his lineman more, or something different, Baker Mayfield must get the ball out quicker. As he goes, so does Clevelandís offense, and they need to start going better, and fast. The Browns had playoff expectations for this season and canít afford to wait for the offense to click. Mayfield shouldnít shoulder all of the blame for the teamís scoring issues, but he is responsible for a large portion of them. Itís time for Mayfield to prove that his record-setting rookie season wasnít a fluke.

https://lastwordonprofootball.com/2019/09/27/baker-mayfield-holding-cleveland-browns-offense/

Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 05:41 PM

Quote:

This is where I agree with OCD that scheme is a factor here as well



I started the thread because I thought there was a problem w/the scheme.
Posted by: Baker_Dawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/27/19 10:12 PM

Versatile Dog is a thinly veiled Baker hater. Check out everyone one of his posts they are regarding either the performance or some imaginary trait of Baker holding us back.

Like the statement that Baker only reads half the field. Completely false, but he says it so much on this board people act like it is actually true. Or the falsehood that guys are streaking down the field wide out open and Baker chooses to hold the ball and not throw to them.

The truth is the play calling which has focused on big downfield plays has failed because:, people can get pressure with 4 men and drop 7 in to coverage, since our oline is poor and we refuse to consistently run the ball. Baker is throwing out of empty sets with no threat of the run to make the defense honest like we have the Cowboys oline. He played an entire game in 2nd and 3rd and 20 because of non-stop penalties. He is playing without his favorite receiver and his tight end. You think its not likely the receivers are making some mistakes too? Give me a break. Is Baker playing great? No, but he is far from the sole reason why the O is struggling. Baker will improve with the rest of the team if the coach calls a smarter more balanced game. I think they will, probably this week.

Setting the rookie TD record and leading the Browns out of the gutter is not an aberration. You can pile on with the rest of hyperbolic media in this tough stretch, but soon the Baker and Browns will be rolling again. But then you'll still be unhappy because it happening with Baker. Sorry VD.
Posted by: DevilDawg2847

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/28/19 06:55 AM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
Quote:

This is where I agree with OCD that scheme is a factor here as well



I started the thread because I thought there was a problem w/the scheme.



I'd submit that the scheme is biggest issue more than it is Baker. From what I'm seeing I don't think the scheme or the plays are structured in a way to help him make more efficient and correct reads.

Freddie may have the same O philosophy as Monken, but he doesn't strike me as a guy calling plays that have hismark on them.

I think his problem with the Oline isn't a lack of time. I think it's that they aren't creating throwing lanes for him on a consistent basis.This could be that height issue rearing its head. He's had a number of balls batted pretty early inn the year so if consistent throwing lanes aren't being opened up I don't blame him for bailing on the pocket. Even that wouldn't be a problem I don't think if he was maintaining good footwork like he did last year. But he's not and it's a mystery to me as to why not.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/28/19 08:25 AM

Over the years, I have often taken the time to explain coverages, blocking schemes, pre and post-snap reads, alignments, etc. I have done so to help educate others and have been fairly thorough when describing these things and have been open to answering questions. After years of such posts, you still think I don't know what I'm talking about....well, maybe we shouldn't talk.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/28/19 08:27 AM

Great post. Very objective and truthful.
Posted by: WSU Willie

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/28/19 08:48 AM

Quote:
I think his problem with the Oline isn't a lack of time. I think it's that they aren't creating throwing lanes for him on a consistent basis.This could be that height issue rearing its head. He's had a number of balls batted pretty early inn the year so if consistent throwing lanes aren't being opened up I don't blame him for bailing on the pocket. Even that wouldn't be a problem I don't think if he was maintaining good footwork like he did last year. But he's not and it's a mystery to me as to why not.


That is an excellent observation. For example, I don't regularly see Kush getting 'beat', but he gets very little push and is regularly near where Baker is supposed to step-up. Hubbard is wildly inconsistent and his backup is a G. I think Baker has no confidence in the OL or the scheme and that is contributing to his own problems.

Look at what's changed since last year:

Scheme - different
RG - downgraded
TE - downgraded
FB - eliminated
Posted by: superbowldogg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/28/19 10:00 AM

Originally Posted By: Baker_Dawg
Versatile Dog is a thinly veiled Baker hater. Check out everyone one of his posts they are regarding either the performance or some imaginary trait of Baker holding us back.

Like the statement that Baker only reads half the field. Completely false, but he says it so much on this board people act like it is actually true. Or the falsehood that guys are streaking down the field wide out open and Baker chooses to hold the ball and not throw to them.

The truth is the play calling which has focused on big downfield plays has failed because:, people can get pressure with 4 men and drop 7 in to coverage, since our oline is poor and we refuse to consistently run the ball. Baker is throwing out of empty sets with no threat of the run to make the defense honest like we have the Cowboys oline. He played an entire game in 2nd and 3rd and 20 because of non-stop penalties. He is playing without his favorite receiver and his tight end. You think its not likely the receivers are making some mistakes too? Give me a break. Is Baker playing great? No, but he is far from the sole reason why the O is struggling. Baker will improve with the rest of the team if the coach calls a smarter more balanced game. I think they will, probably this week.

Setting the rookie TD record and leading the Browns out of the gutter is not an aberration. You can pile on with the rest of hyperbolic media in this tough stretch, but soon the Baker and Browns will be rolling again. But then you'll still be unhappy because it happening with Baker. Sorry VD.


is that you Baker!?!?
Posted by: Baker_Dawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/28/19 11:29 AM

Nope just sick of reading Versatile's one-sided Baker hate post's. It's fine if he wants to post unprovable lies like Baker can't read a defense, but does he have to do it on every post?

Is there room on the Browns board for people that like and believe in our QB among the "fans" that want to trash our QB after a slow start with all new coaches, a rebuilt oline, and lots of other new pieces?
Posted by: DiamDawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/28/19 12:19 PM

Originally Posted By: superbowldogg
Originally Posted By: Baker_Dawg
Versatile Dog is a thinly veiled Baker hater. Check out everyone one of his posts they are regarding either the performance or some imaginary trait of Baker holding us back.

Like the statement that Baker only reads half the field. Completely false, but he says it so much on this board people act like it is actually true. Or the falsehood that guys are streaking down the field wide out open and Baker chooses to hold the ball and not throw to them.

The truth is the play calling which has focused on big downfield plays has failed because:, people can get pressure with 4 men and drop 7 in to coverage, since our oline is poor and we refuse to consistently run the ball. Baker is throwing out of empty sets with no threat of the run to make the defense honest like we have the Cowboys oline. He played an entire game in 2nd and 3rd and 20 because of non-stop penalties. He is playing without his favorite receiver and his tight end. You think its not likely the receivers are making some mistakes too? Give me a break. Is Baker playing great? No, but he is far from the sole reason why the O is struggling. Baker will improve with the rest of the team if the coach calls a smarter more balanced game. I think they will, probably this week.

Setting the rookie TD record and leading the Browns out of the gutter is not an aberration. You can pile on with the rest of hyperbolic media in this tough stretch, but soon the Baker and Browns will be rolling again. But then you'll still be unhappy because it happening with Baker. Sorry VD.


is that you Baker!?!?



Iíd imagine the truth lies somewhere in the middle as usual ...

U can divide it up any way u like but IMO ...

Freddies STUNK ..
Bakeís STUNK ..
The OL has STUNK ...

There all responsible for their OWN STINKINESS and canít glom it off on anyone else .... and when u combine all their STINKINESS together u get the result weíve seen ... CRAP!!!

The OL has been hurt by injuries but that doesnít mean there not a part of the problem ... we also knew theyíd struggle coming in ... Freddie and Bake being this bad regardless of why or who gets what % of the blame is irrelevant ... they both simply have to improve or its gonna be a long next 5 weeks ...

There was improvement last week ... lets hope it continues and the few glaring dumb ass play calls by Freddie go out the window .... he canít have STUPID SPELLS!!!
Posted by: keithfromxenia

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/28/19 12:23 PM

i wonder how great the effect of baker losing Higgins, Calloway and then Njoku. This has alllowed defenses to focus on Jarvis and obj and taken away three starters and replaced them with backups. That has to hurt.
Posted by: PitDAWG

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/28/19 01:11 PM

j/c

I think Baker HAS to trust both OBJ and Landry. He is also already familiar with Landry after last year. It has been proven that there are open WR's Baker is simply not seeing.

If it's a lack of confidence in his WR's to do their job, that's on Baker. Each layer is responsible to do their own job and finding the open WR and delivering the ball to them is Baker's job.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/28/19 01:14 PM

I ignored your crap earlier, but this is the second time you called me a liar. You are misrepresenting my claims. I have also provided multiple links w/stats, videos, charts, analytics, etc to support every freaking claim I have made.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/28/19 01:58 PM

Quote:

Iíd imagine the truth lies somewhere in the middle as usual ...


I'm not sure I get this quote, bro? It's reading that Baker Brown is excluding Baker from any blame and I am putting all the blame on Baker. Am I reading that wrong? Before you answer, I want to say this.

I have blamed Baker for some of it.

I have blamed the OL for some of it.

I have blamed the scheme/coaching for some of it.

Not sure how that is different from what you are saying?
Posted by: WSU Willie

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/28/19 02:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
I ignored your crap earlier, but this is the second time you called me a liar. You are misrepresenting my claims. I have also provided multiple links w/stats, videos, charts, analytics, etc to support every freaking claim I have made.



Oh please...there is a HUGE difference between someone saying you are wrong and someone calling you a liar.
Posted by: BustkeviousMingo

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/28/19 02:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Baker_Dawg
It's fine if he wants to post unprovable lies


That seems like being called a liar to me
Posted by: DiamDawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/28/19 03:43 PM

That wasnít meant the way u took it ... as soon as i typed it i was hoping u wouldnít bring t up ... *L* ... it was pretty bad phrasing by me ....

Your football evals of Bake are spot on where as Baker Brown sounds like device is typing them out ... *L* ...

I also think your way to harsh on him personally ... and the way u defend the OL leads many to believe you think bake stinks even though thats not true at all ... kinda like they say u loved Hue cause u wanted him to get a fair shake ... it was about others perception of u as opposed to the reality of how u feel .... make sense? ...

Iíll just shut up now ... *L* ...


Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/28/19 05:09 PM

It's okay. I remember talking to you and you said you only skimmed this thread, so I wanted to make sure you didn't miss my earlier claims.

I have backed off of the OL a bit after seeing their grades about how often they are winning their blocking match-ups, which was 3rd in the entire league last time I looked. I was harder on them when I first started this thread, but they have played better the past two games.
Posted by: DevilDawg2847

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/28/19 05:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
Over the years, I have often taken the time to explain coverages, blocking schemes, pre and post-snap reads, alignments, etc. I have done so to help educate others and have been fairly thorough when describing these things and have been open to answering questions. After years of such posts, you still think I don't know what I'm talking about....well, maybe we shouldn't talk.


And curiously you still don't think anyone else knows what they are talking about. I was gone for a few months and when I came back I took you off ignore because I saw a number of posts from you that were reasonable and respectful.

But you did what Vers always does. Its always just a matter of time. God forbid anyone see something just a little bit different than you or posit an alternative. It's just so strange how bent you get when people aren't even telling you that you're wrong tongue

Whatever dude. Enjoy your "genius" LOL I'm just glad the odds of ever sitting next to you during a game is virtually none. I'll go back to sitting in the cheap seats with the other undesirables.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/28/19 05:56 PM

I'm not participating in this fight. Have a good one.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/28/19 06:43 PM

I'm hoping that we make some adjustments this week in regards to scheme. It's fairly certain that we won't be 21 or 22 personnel. It's looking like 11 personnel will be far more prevalent than 12 and 13 personnel.

I don't agree w/these decisions, but what can we do given the packages our staff prefers?

--Run more motion. The reason for that it helps identify the coverage. The qb can read what the safeties do and if the corner trails the receiver in motion. That's an advantage. We ran a ton of motion last year. We have not repeated that tendency thus far this year.

--Throw more to the running backs on either screens or into the flat.

--Flood zones w/receivers and throw to the underneath guy.

--Keep the defense honest by throwing deep passes down the sidelines.

--Try to implement more one-read plays. Baltimore has been pressuring the qb and Earl Thomas is great at picking off passes. That's a bad combo for us. We have to try and game-plan against their strengths.
Posted by: Bard Dawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/29/19 06:05 PM

I thought the screens and ground pounding went well. I did not know, but saw it today, that Master Chubb has some breakaway speed. It was a beautiful thing! Run him some more!
Posted by: cfrs15

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/29/19 07:04 PM

A ton of 12 personnel today against the Ravens.
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/29/19 07:06 PM

Originally Posted By: cfrs15
A ton of 12 personnel today against the Ravens.
its what you want
Posted by: cfrs15

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/29/19 07:10 PM

Originally Posted By: Dawgs4Life
Originally Posted By: cfrs15
A ton of 12 personnel today against the Ravens.
its what you want


If Jarvis Landry is out next we'll get even more with Higgins and Callaway rotating opposite OBJ.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/29/19 07:40 PM

Yes, it helped. So did the emphasis on getting the ball out quickly. Glad to see the adjustments.
Posted by: FrankPitts

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/29/19 08:59 PM

Gotta give a dog his day. Freddie fixed some things on scheme today, and Baker and the rest of the O responded. Gotta keep it rolling now.
Posted by: Bard Dawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/30/19 08:32 AM

I think a bunch of things got cleaned up. For the most part, I would grade us as playing more focused mentally, and being mentally tougher overall than I have seen us. We didn't just battle; we executed. Chubb rocked. Baker mayfield had himself a day, and looked ready to play this week for a change.
Posted by: cfrs15

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/30/19 09:37 AM

Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/30/19 09:42 AM

Boom .. keep that trend
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/30/19 10:17 AM

This is awesome. We were so much more physical today than we were in game one. I'm impressed that Freddie has made adjustments. Now, bring back a FB and run a little 21 and 22 personnel. Not a ton, but we were pretty good at that last year.
Posted by: WSU Willie

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/30/19 10:24 AM

j/c - mostly

I wonder what was/is the impetus to get back to that particular scheme.

Wss is realization? Was it getting two, new TEs up-to-speed? Did it come from above? Had they fallen in pre-mature love with the weapons at their disposal?
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/30/19 10:27 AM

I give Freddie credit for realizing what he needed to do.

Like I said earlier, I understand why they wanted to go to 11 Personnel. It wasn't working. Gotta give Freddie credit for adjusting.
Posted by: WSU Willie

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/30/19 10:52 AM

I agree. I think the scheme was holding everyone/everything back and exposing some shortcomings that our guys couldn't deal with/handle.

If you were having a beer with FK, I'd love to hear his opinion as to why the other scheme(s) weren't working and what they expected vs what the GOT out of that 'other' scheme(s).

QB? I think gonna be special...but still young/inexperienced

Injured TE? Two new guys

OL? Ejection, injury, injury, new guy playing out of position, ability

Higgins? Missing safety blanket

Whatever the reason(s)...yesterday looked pretty good and I hope we keep that up.
Posted by: Bard Dawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/30/19 11:53 AM

Good call by Paul. These numbers do not lie, and are a shocking improvement. A little more chest pounding and knuckle dragging, if you please, FK!

Excited to see more of this team we saw yesterday.
Posted by: oobernoober

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/30/19 12:19 PM

As long as we don't revert back, I'm good with just calling it a learning opportunity and moving on.
Posted by: cfrs15

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/30/19 02:06 PM

Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/30/19 02:09 PM

More good information. Thanks.

Kudos to Freddie.

I thought the scheme topic was big. And it was getting bigger and bigger. Glad that Freddie made adjustments. It's only one week, but I think the adjustments were for the better.

Much better.
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/30/19 02:16 PM

Beautiful .. get Chubb down hill fast
Posted by: superbowldogg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/30/19 02:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
I give Freddie credit for realizing what he needed to do.

Like I said earlier, I understand why they wanted to go to 11 Personnel. It wasn't working. Gotta give Freddie credit for adjusting.


I agree 100% we were out of the gun significantly less and oddly enough, Baker looked more comfortable.
Posted by: oobernoober

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/30/19 03:03 PM

Originally Posted By: superbowldogg
Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
I give Freddie credit for realizing what he needed to do.

Like I said earlier, I understand why they wanted to go to 11 Personnel. It wasn't working. Gotta give Freddie credit for adjusting.


I agree 100% we were out of the gun significantly less and oddly enough, Baker looked more comfortable.


I hope this was a lesson learned, and not just something they did for the Ravens. It would be so 'Browns' of them to switch the scheme back for the next games.
Posted by: PrplPplEater

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/30/19 03:59 PM

Originally Posted By: oobernoober
Originally Posted By: superbowldogg
Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
I give Freddie credit for realizing what he needed to do.

Like I said earlier, I understand why they wanted to go to 11 Personnel. It wasn't working. Gotta give Freddie credit for adjusting.


I agree 100% we were out of the gun significantly less and oddly enough, Baker looked more comfortable.


I hope this was a lesson learned, and not just something they did for the Ravens. It would be so 'Browns' of them to switch the scheme back for the next games.


Don't be TOO upset if it seems this way.

I say that because there isn't a single answer to it all; they will modify things week-to-week as the offense grows and as things need to be depending upon who we're facing.
Posted by: cfrs15

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/30/19 04:27 PM

I have to say that I love that they said that they were going to make adjustments and then made the adjustments. How many coaches have we had that just do the thing they want to do no matter the fit?
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 09/30/19 04:43 PM

Originally Posted By: cfrs15
I have to say that I love that they said that they were going to make adjustments and then made the adjustments. How many coaches have we had that just do the thing they want to do no matter the fit?
I thought of this yesterday, too ... it was very nice to see them NOT be stubborn and get things corrected. IMO, thatís a great sign for things to come becaus we should see this improve even more
Posted by: DeputyDawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 10/01/19 07:42 PM

As far as the first week of adjusting, they did well. There is more adjusting to go though and Baker still doesn't look comfortable.

More Chubb, more quick passes, more practice.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 10/01/19 08:21 PM

Agreed. And more 12 personnel.

I thought I would copy and paste the write-up about 12 personnel from the link that was in the OP since we ran more of it last week.

Quote:
This isnít the most popular personnel grouping in the league, but Iíd guess that if most NFL teams could base out of 12 personnel, they would. The formational versatility that having two viable tight ends on the field provides would entice any play-caller. A team can line up in a condensed, run-first look one down and then spread things out the next down ó and doing so without huddling doesnít give the defense a chance to sub. If a team wants to operate out of a no-huddle, 12 personnel is the best way to do it in the NFL. The two tight ends create eight run gaps to defend while still maintaining four immediate vertical threats in the passing game. That makes the decision to drop a safety into the box to defend the run a difficult one.


I do wish we would bring in a FB and run more 21 personnel like last year, but that doesn't look like it is going to happen. I was encouraged by what we did in 12 personnel last week. We won the LOS.
Posted by: DeputyDawg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 10/01/19 08:52 PM

Agreed and more different personnel packages period!

Heck! Bring back some wishbone too!
Posted by: cfrs15

Re: Offensive Scheme - 10/01/19 10:28 PM

Originally Posted By: DeputyDawg
Agreed and more different personnel packages period!

Heck! Bring back some wishbone too!


Based on what we saw last week (the option shovel pass to Jarvis Landry and the double reverse pass with OBJ) I think the creativity from last year is going to start reappearing. I think it's probable that it just took Freddie Kitchens a few weeks to start feeling himself.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 10/01/19 10:30 PM

Perhaps. Although I think that the use of trick/gimmicky plays are best utilized on a random basis and not a staple of the offense from week to week.
Posted by: cfrs15

Re: Offensive Scheme - 10/01/19 10:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
Perhaps. Although I think that the use of trick/gimmicky plays are best utilized on a random basis and not a staple of the offense from week to week.


I agree about gimmicks but the creativity is a different thing. Creativity meaning different formations, personnel packages, concepts, etc.
Posted by: cfrs15

Re: Offensive Scheme - 10/01/19 10:34 PM

Posted by: cfrs15

Re: Offensive Scheme - 10/01/19 10:35 PM

I had been thinking the same thing about the RPO/slant tendency. At some point OBJ is going to pop deep on one of those.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 10/01/19 10:38 PM

Originally Posted By: cfrs15
Originally Posted By: Versatile Dog
Perhaps. Although I think that the use of trick/gimmicky plays are best utilized on a random basis and not a staple of the offense from week to week.


I agree about gimmicks but the creativity is a different thing. Creativity meaning different formations, personnel packages, concepts, etc.


???

Whatever.
Posted by: Versatile Dog

Re: Offensive Scheme - 10/01/19 10:47 PM

Originally Posted By: cfrs15


A good play caller calls his plays like building blocks and it's why I think Shanny is the best in the business.

Think about this for an example.

Remember the play where RSG scored the TD that some of us talked about in the Game Day forum? We ran a vertical route from the slot. We had OBJ running a drag across the middle from the left side. RSG ran underneath him from the right side. That is two rub/pick routes on one play. Very effective in the red zone.

Now, build upon that. Following me? What's the next step if we run that same play from around our 30 plus to around their 40?

From that field position, the idea would be to run OBJ off of the TE's rub and the vertical rub. The defenders are going in one direction and w/OBJ's speed, he crosses their faces and catches the ball and is off to the races.
Posted by: lampdogg

Re: Offensive Scheme - 10/01/19 11:42 PM

Great post, I was thinking the exact same things this morning. wink

Give Chubbs the ball, don't worry about deep passes too early. Be ready to get dirty. We're going on a run here.
Posted by: Dawgs4Life

Re: Offensive Scheme - 10/02/19 05:05 AM

I agree w/that ... I keep thinking that weíll build off the RPO slant