DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Half-time Adjustments_Do we do or Do we don't

Someone in another thread mentioned that during the Lioins game, "We did not make adjustments at the half on Sunday..."

I hear this comment a lot. Especially in past seasons when we really stunk it up by starting slow, coming out flat and generally getting behind early.

It's an interesting scenario, this half-time adjustment thing. Is it over-rated? Are there coaches who are very good at it when they are losing at the half? Are there coaches who are very good at making adjustments even when they are controlling the game and the scoreboard up to that point?

Last season when we started slow and had a bad 1st half I understand the need to make adjustments at halftime. Starting off slow and bad we have to do something different in the 2nd half. So we should make adjustments. What I don't know, but something has to be done.

But when we are completely controlling the game both on offense and on defense what is there to adjust at halftime? Do our coaches anticipate what the opponent might do different in the 2nd half on both offense and defense and then adjust accordingly hoping they actually do that. Or do we keep doing what has been very successful to this point of the game?

Should our coaching staff surmise that our offense would go three-and-out and four-and-out the entire 2nd half? If they suspected that perhaps they could make some sort of adjustment for it. Are they supposed to see that coming when we go in with a 10 point lead?

Now I do understand that it's a chess match. Since we were controlling the game, by the half maybe our coaches can somewhat, only somewhat, guess at what adjustments the opponent might make since they'd been controlled up to this point. But how would our coaches know that their offense would come out attacking our ILBs with Bush and the TE's? They hadn't done anything of the sort up to now. Were they supposed to see that coming too?

Half-time is 15 minutes. In that time the team has to get off the field, take a . if they need to, separate into their respective units to make their adjustments and then get back out on the field.

If a team is doing badly I'm sure that by the half the coaches are already thinking of some things it can do different. But if a team is doing really well and controlling the game then what are they to change?

I guess they can at least figure the opponent to make some adjustments so we could decide to run more or pass more, to involve a skill player or two that has not yet been featured. I can see that. But then what happens when the team doesn't execute? Do we say we didn't make any half-time adjustments?

I guess too that our defensive coaches can see what the opponent's offense had tried so far that hasn't worked and make a wild-assed guess at what they may do differently but who can get in the mind of another? Our coaches may figure, ok, they've been throwing to this guy and that guy and that guy and it hasn't worked for them. So they might decide to try throw to two other guys and maybe run a bit more or a bit less. Still, I think there's only so much you can do in anticipation of what someone else "might" do.

I think, defensively at least, the adjustments have to be made on the fly in the 2nd half as they see what the opposition's offense is trying to do different. There's the chess match and it can't be easy. There's so much into play.

We've got some young defensive players. We've got a new defensive scheme and we've got only 6 games experience in it. Our defensive players haven't seen everything they're going to see yet from the perspective of this new scheme. There are bound to be some growing pains. There's also the talent aspect. Who is going to stick and who isn't. Those who aren't probably are helping that much. So there's that to consider as we lament having our asses handed to us. There is also the DC aspect. Do we have a DC who is good at making adjustments on the fly? Is he good at calling the right defense in every down-and-distance situation?

So what is it about this "half-time adjustment" fans talk about that I'm not seeing? I do realize that all teams and all coaches would want to do some things different, but how do they go about it?

If someone knows just what does go on during half-time and how they go about making their adjustments I'd really like to understand it better.

I don't think half-time adjustments really apply to the players themselves. It's more just what the coaches can notice.

For instance say we notice that Gordon is smoking his defender every time on deep routes, but not getting open on crossing patterns, BUT it's because they double team him on that pattern, we might try to run that to get Cameron into single coverage more on a deep strike.

Now here's the thing that I think causes the most confusion....

In order to exploit mismatches... you must first have mismatches.

Over the last 10 years this "we never adjust at halftime" comment has been made at least 100 times every game we lose when I goto the bar to watch.

The problem is if your talent is worse you can hide it with clever game planning, but after seeing a half of football a good coach can spot what you're doing and exploit it... if they have the weapons.

We can't really do it because we don't have the weapons to make it happen. Even if Norv dialed in an awesome play like a bubble screen to Gordon (Bills game), well then Gordon still dropped it.

We dialed in a deep ball to Benjamin against the Lions that was sure to be a TD because of the mismatch we got in coverage.... and then Weeden overthrew him.

It's not that we're not doing "half-time adjustments", we just aren't executing on the fly.

JMRO

Very good points. I never thought about what adjust. we would make if we were doing good. I guess the $$$ question would be, when does the DC or the OC for that matter, when they see whats different, do they try something else? just say ok lets try to hold 'em till it's over? I don't know what Horten was thinking calling off the dawgs. Maybe he was worried about Johnson and going deep, but if that was the case then you would think he would blitz more. I don't know. What was he holding back? Why was he holding back? I guess we'll never know.

Every time I hear the comments about "half time adjustments", all I think of is our one coach that said they are over stated... adjustments are something that go on constantly throughout a game.

Along the lines of what myka said about mismatches.... sometimes, the other team will find something that you just cannot stop, no matter what adjustments you try.
A chess match. You'll settle for taking a pawn every play, but when you can find a way to take a knight over and over again, and the opponent can't find a way to protect him, you're going to exploit it as much as you can.

So, their "half time adjustments" may have been as simple as a quick brainstorming session where they try to figure out who to target based upon what the players have been seeing. On defense, this may have simply forced us into a reaction mode that we were never able to recover from.

On the other side of the ball... well, pretty much everything stopped working there. No running, no passing, penalties.. getting into long down-&-distance situations on first and second down, etc..

adjustments are constant, while the D unit is on the field the O is coordinating stuff to look for, adjustments to make, coaches talking w/ players etc

They happen throughout the course of a game, yes, but the half is chunk of time when a lot of information that had to be processed on the fly can be deciphered, re-hashed, countered, etc. It's still pretty bang-bang, as it's a short amount of time. But the bullets aren't flying, which makes it easier to take a breath and evaluate.

That comment has always annoyed me. It's typically made by the fan who knows just enough to be dangerous. He watches ESPN and other sports shows. He's heard announcers talk about it. He regurgitates it w/out having a clue about it. It's similar to when Marty said "play calling is overrated," and the fans and media went crazy.

Purp said it very well. Coordinators make adjustments throughout the game. You examine match-ups. You see how they line up against certain formations. You see mismatches. You are constantly adjusting.

What typically happens in the second half is that the team w/more talent catches up to the team who perhaps had a better scheme coming in. It's not complicated. Both teams adjust and typically............the better talent wins out in the second half.

People used to slam Daboll, but the guy orchestrated opening drives very well. Great mind. Other teams adjusted. He tried to adjust, but was hampered by a lack of talent.

Halftime adjustments is part of the game, but it's another thing that people throw out there to sound smart. It's akin to the guys who knock an O-coordinator by saying "...my 8 year old daughter can call the plays." Dang, I hate that comment. They think calling the play is if the RB runs between the tackles on first down. Gee, what a great prediction. They don't say if it is an Iso, or a counter or a trap or through the 2 hole, the 5 hole, the 3 hole, or if there is a lead blocker or if motion was involved or if it was a draw, etc............Nope, it's just that the RB ran up the middle. You know, on first down. What a stretch....

j/c

how do you make half time adjustments when what your doing worked in the first half?

It's not a blanket thing. It's more situational.

The Lions did make a some very crucial half time adjustments that ultimately won the game.

1) In the first half the Lions tried to get after Weeden with their defense line. The Browns offensive line stonewalled them. Weeden was comfortable and picked their secondary apart. In the 2nd half they ran stunt after stunt against the right side of the Browns line attacking Shwartz and Lauvuo and got pressure on Weeden. This adjustment worked because Weeden does not make quick decisions and holds the ball too long. The extra pressure shut down the Browns offense.

2) On offense in the first half the Lions tried to stretch the Browns defense out with passes to their wide receivers but the dropped passes held them back and the Browns front 7 shut down their running game causing 3 consecutive 3 and outs. In the 2nd half it was clear that they decided to attack the coverage skills of the Browns middle linebackers on quick short throws to Bush and the tight ends. This kept the backers from attacking the line of scrimmage and opened up their run game.

I do not think it was a case of the Browns coaches not adjusting but rather a lack of Weeden to beat the added pressure. Our defense had a weakness that was exposed and whe the game ended they still did not have an answer for the Lions attack. Let's hope that they find answer this week because you can expect a quarterback like Rogers to make our defense prove they learned how to stop it early and often.

I do agree with Vers half time adjustments are just that an adjustment to the game plan but the players have to execute. I am sure our coaches made adjustments then the players have to make those adjustments work. Last week the Lions players made them work and ours did not.

I must admitt, I said a few times in the second half, not sure why we can't stop the Lions but its up to Horton to figure it out. That's what he's paid to do. Unfortunetely, it just never hapened. I'm sure it wasn't for a lack of trying. I believe there were just some mis-matches we couldn't over come. Cough: Robertson

Robertson certainly struggled, but Ward's poor recognition was the biggest problem.

I should edit this.........maybe not the biggest problem. This defense must generate pressure. We did not. That was a killer.

It was a very odd defense performence all around, that's for sure!

Yeah............and disappointing.

I pretty much knew that Weeden would suck, so I was ready for that. Seeing the defense struggle that much was disappointing. Detroit has a good offense and Stafford can make plays, but our lack of pressure and leaving guys like Robertson and Ward in man coverage was a killer.

So on topic, where there half time adjustments missed? In my opinion, it was more about momenum. Once we lost it, mostly on offense, couldn't get it back.
After the Skrine to Gipson deflection I thought that would do it. Unfortunetely, Weeden did his best to deflate our own defense.

As they say, its hard to fix if its not broke. Specifically, the second quarter was quite impressive. I was feeling good starting the third with the Browns getting the ball. Well the rest they say is history.

So was it about the half time adjustments? My opinoin says No It needs to be exucuted on the field!

Yeah, I pretty much agree w/you. Very astute comments.

The momentum thing was huge in this game. Huge.

The only thing I disagree with is that I never felt confident. I was pretty sure Weeden was going to gag it and I figured Stafford would light us up, especially since we were playing so much man defense and guys like Ward would be exposed.

Look..........I know Roberston got torched, but he was guarding Bush. That is unfair. Probably a mistake by Horton. I wish I could talk to him and question why he decided to play so much man, especially since Megatron was not 100%. Asking any LBer to cover Bush 1 on 1 is dangerous and Stafford is a guy who can get the job done.

I would have brought pressure in the form of blitzes and played zone behind that pressure. But, he knows more than me. I would just love to hear the "why."

So this makes , how many seasons we have discussed poor half time adjustments ??

I would say that you could look at all of our games at this point to the season and say that we weren't adjusting "on the fly" in the second half. Look, we held leads in all of the games and it was on our team to keep that momentum going into the second half. While I agree that sometimes halftime adjustments are "overrated," it's really difficult to say the same for offensive and defensive adjustments made throughout the game.

I read through the majority of responses and some want to hang the defensive struggles on a single player, or the offensive struggles on Weeden, but in reality, the adjustments were not made to help any one single unit succedd, let alone player. In this particular instance on defense, Robertson should have gotten help after he was torched repeatedly. Our front 7 never seemed to get Stafford out of a rhythm and that worries me given the Lions Oline is nothing special.Add to that they started to exploit short, middle and intermediate routes to create mismatches and nothing ever got better in the second half. Why Horton didn't start to make different adjustments in those situations is beyond me.

On offense, we moved away from the run game, which IMO, is becoming something that the Browns do EVERY game. That is problematic, regardless of who the QB is, especially when we have a lead. Our Oline did an admirable job in the first half, but then the Lions brought increased pressure in the second and we could have torched them with outside runs and/or screens, but those never materialized. The lack of Weeden not looking Cameron's way to soften things up also is worrying, and that is on Weeden. Turner has dumped a balanced attack in the second half of all the games but the Buffalo game, it seems, and that needs to be questioned.

I am sure I'll get blasted for even suggesting that we didn't lose this game wholly because of Weeden, but that's something I'll deal with. The game plan didn't evolve a bit from quarter to quarter, series to series, let alone half to half, and there's the rub. How can we expect to compete against the teams that adjust to us if we can't have game plans that are fluid and evolve with the play and tempo of the game? I LOVE our coaching staff, and I'm confident we'll see great things in the future, but for now, I think the blame has more than a few parties that can shoulder some of it and not just a player here or a player there. Lack of talent in a few key areas doesn't excuse that fact.

I tried to make that point in the postgame thread, but we all know how that and every other thread went and I'm taking my part of the blame here for that, but at least I tried a complete team review unlike most other posters.

Anyway, I said that it was pretty evident that the Lions recognized that they do not have mismatches with a hobbling Megatron vs Haden and whoever their #2 WR vs Skrine, so what did they do? They adjusted and went down the depth chart to exploit mismatches and they found them with Durham vs Owens and splitting out Bush as a WR vs our weak short/mid zone players (pretty much all our LBs and both S).

Pass rushing was not a solution, since most of those plays were of the quick hit variety, but we could have adjusted back by putting some of our better cover guys on Durham or Bush. Let them decoy Megatron vs Owens or a S, he dropped half his targets in the first half and adjust to what they're doing. We go burned by the same kind of plays time and again, to the tune of 3 copy TDs where we tried 3 different backups to cover Fauria (and here's where our lack of physicality and height hurt us. Big guys who can cover should be in horton's formula too, lol)

That said, getting Sheard back should upgrade 2 positions positively and maybe more. He was our best defender before getting injured and we're missing him everywhere.

EXTRA POINTS

Second Half Adjustments: The Browns coaching staff has been criticized for the second half play in the Browns three losses. In those games, the Browns have only scored a combined total of three points. Last week, against the Lions the Browns were outscored 24-0 in the second half. Chudzinski said earlier in the week that they were taking a look at the team's procedures.

“I’ve taken a hard look at it," he said. "Obviously, there’s a lot of different things that come up and ideas and reasons from a coach and player standpoint, and it starts with me. We need to get better in coming out and playing in the second half. We’re looking at tape and studied all the tape, and ‘What are we doing from a scheme standpoint? Offensively? Defensively? Special teams? Are there some adjustments and things that we can do differently there?’ We feel like there are some things, and we have a plan for that from a procedural standpoint at halftime of what we can do. The thing that I feel strongly about is it’s not a matter of emotions or energy coming out the in the second half because that’s there. It’s a matter of being able to jump back into the game at the same speed that you left it. We’ve been stressing that with our players, as well as just some things procedurally being able to get them going again physically, as well as what we’re going to do and some organizational things in making sure that they’re clear with on what we need to happen in the second half, as well.”

Offensive coordinator Norv Turner said there wouldn't be talk about adjustments if the Browns were to improve in one area.

"People want to talk about halftime adjustments, it is about third down conversions."

Chudzinski said that adjustments are being made the whole game.

“There’s not a lot of time when you really break it down because the coaches get together for a little bit of time to discuss going forward," he said. "A lot of those things are ongoing anyhow. As the first half is going on, you’re talking about things that you need to do, the adjustments you’re making. A lot of times, we’re already making adjustments as the games going on. Halftime kind of just gives you time to reset. Then players have a few minutes. A lot of times they’re in there getting re-taped, doing all those type of things, changing and whatever they need to do from that standpoint so you really only have a couple of minutes with them to talk and then it’s back out on the field. There’s not a lot of time that you actually have. By the time the coaches get down, have talked things over and they have to leave to get back to the (press) box and so forth, there’s not a lot of time, less than you’d expect.”

“When things are going well, you’ve already made maybe some of the adjustments in the first half already. It’s a matter of what we’re doing coming out in the second half. Maybe it’s not a matter of adjustments as it is just making sure that everybody knows where we’re going from here. Then sometimes, if you’re not playing well in the first half, maybe it’s more major, the adjustments are more major. There’s examples of us having to do some of that, not just offense, not just defense, but on special teams, as well. Personnel and adjustments, you have to make when somebody gets hurt in the first half. We’ve had a number of those type of things. It can be a lot that you’re doing at halftime; it can be not a lot based on how the game is going; but whatever it is, we’re going to do the best we can and continue to improve coming out in the second half.”

obr

Kinda on topic ... but kinda not.

I had NFL Network on and they had a segment with the Patriots and why their hurry up offense works well. The Patriots have a philosophy that any time they get a big play on offense, they keep running it over and over until the other team stops them.I thought that was really common sense. They showed the Pats run a pass play for a big play ... then they lined up and ran the same play for another big gain ..... then again for a TD. It seems like we have, throughout the years, had a play go for a big play, and then we stay away from it like the plague. Why not continue to run the same plays over and over until the other team stops it? Why not stay in hurry up mode and keep the same defensive personnel on the field when we have that kind of advantage?

On topic.The great Marty Schottenhiemer once said that half-time adjustments were way over rated.
Para phrasing here;15 min half time.5 of those will get you to and from the lockerroom.5 more for everybody to hit the head,2 min for injury status,that leaves a grand total of 3 minutes for halftime adjustments.
There are reasons for the bad 2nd half performances,and halftime adj.isn't one of them.

A lot of what Norv and Chud are saying is what I said earlier. Halftime adjustments are overrated and adjustments are ongoing. They don't want to say this, but a good game plan becomes less effective as the game wears on and pure talent and execution play a more meaningful role.

Teams who get off to good starts are the ones who are actually getting better coaching. The halftime adjustment argument of blaming our coaches is lame.

Quote:

---

Second Half Adjustments: The Browns coaching staff has been criticized for the second half play in the Browns three losses. In those games, the Browns have only scored a combined total of three points.

---

This is why a guy like Brandon Weeden is a coach killer. We couldn't even get a first down in the second half of the last game. Detroit has a powerful offense. Keep them off the field for awhile. I used observe the same thing w/Timid. It's always the fault of someone else. I'm telling you........I think cutting Weeden would be totally understandable.

Before Hoyer: Fans were bashing the OL. They were wanting to cut Little and hating on our wide receivers. They complained about the play calling. They wanted to hang Cousins outside the stadium. They blamed our pathetic running game.

Hoyer comes in and most of those things were forgotten. Interesting.

After Hoyer: Now, fans and media are blaming the coaching staff. The OL will be next, followed closely by the WRs and the FO for not having a good running back.

Guys like Weeden/Timid are cancers that eat at the core of the team. The media and many fans assign blame in other areas for the failing of one player. I am not saying that we don't have other problems, because we do. But Weeden's presence on this team is debilitating.

Vers, I would not be surprised if we dropped Weeden. Wouldn't be surprised if we didn't, either. I can see the sense in either approach.

Say we do end up "Weeding" our garden. Out of curiosity, who would you grab to replace him? Thigpen? Trade for someone, like Mallet? What would that cost? And would you start the new guy? Or roll with Campbell?

Quote:

---

Why not continue to run the same plays over and over until the other team stops it?

---

I can't remember who the coaches were in the conversation but an NFL OC told a story of being a young OC on a college team who called a running play. It went for good yardage. So he called it again. Again it went for long yardage. So he called it again. At one point his HC asked him, "Don't you know any other play?!", to which he responed, "Yeah, and I'll call it when they stop this one." It was funny then but it makes sense now.

I think I have seen us do a similar thing before. Not on any consistent basis nor can I point out where and when, but I have seen it here before. But when it doesn't work the second time it's time to move on.

Quote:

---

They don't want to say this, but a good game plan becomes less effective as the game wears on and pure talent and execution play a more meaningful role.

---

No I don't agree at all with it being pure talent. I think it has to do with having more to fall back on...

If you see what the other team is doing and you have game planned against a similar attack you can say remember this and this is how we handled it. We don't have that history to call on, and that's what works against us. Because the offense and the defense are as new as they are for this team we have difficultly adjusting on the fly...

In other words it's hard to adjust to something as a team you haven't done before, as time goes on will have more and more scheme changes to fall back on because we will have used those schemes in game situations.. It's one of the reasons new O's and D's get better as time rolls on.

Talent wise we match up well against most teams where they get the edge on us is they have more to fall back on then we do..

Quote:

---

Teams who get off to good starts are the ones who are actually getting better coaching. The halftime adjustment argument of blaming our coaches is lame.

---

Agreed....

Quote:

---

But Weeden's presence on this team is debilitating.

---

Debilitating, that's a good word.

Quote:

---

Teams who get off to good starts are the ones who are actually getting better coaching.

---

Witness our previous regimes when getting off to a bad start was the norm.

I like this coaching staff. I don't think we've seen one game day blunder like bad clock management or a play to not lose mentality.

We did have issues a couple of times on getting plays in but I think that's to be expected with a new staff until they iron out the wrinkles. Even then it hasn't been very often. Maybe only once. I just know I remember it.

But overall this staff has looked like professionals. Chud always has his head in the game and seems never to be puzzled by what's happening on the field. If the FO stays true to their word about not re-booting the staff every couple of years I think we stand a chance going forward. Keeping Horton may become an issue but other than that it looks good.

Quote:

---

I'm telling you........I think cutting Weeden would be totally understandable.

---

Understandable but a tough way to go. With only Campbell on the roster and the reports(?) that's he's merely "going through the motions", (which might be true judging by the comments by Chud on our QB's), they would be hard pressed to field a starter and find a backup who could get up to speed. Weeden my be sapping the strength and unity of the team to a degree but to replace him with "a guy" and back him up with "a guy" couldn't do much to energize them.

I don't agree with cutting him for that reason. But it sure is exhausting and detestable watching him not improve. It's made even worse by my opinion that he never will in time for any modicum of success.

I must agree with you when it comes to the QB situation.

I don't see a QB out there who we can get to come in and make us a playoff caliber team at this juncture in the season.

To me, anything short of that makes no actual sense and may be counter-productive to our long term goals.

I think it would fall into the category of "a moral victory". I really don't see how two or three more wins in a lost season really helps us in the grand scheme of things this year.

I really don't see this FO giving future draft picks to help build the future for a band aid today. And I have no idea if signing someone off the street would help at all.

Can you think of a scenario wherein a team would let their top 10 QB go?

I can't.

Hopefully the FO is using their due diligence efforts into something more probable.

Cap and Double d:

I would probably go w/Thigpin, but that wasn't my point. I don't think anyone we can bring in will make us a winner this year. I was strictly talking about removing a cancer. That is why I brought up all the negative comments by the fans and the media pre and post Hoyer. A guy like Weeden kills your team.

I am not saying we should cut Weeden. I am saying I would understand cutting him.

It gets old reading that it was the fault of the coaches for not making halftime adjustments, that the OL stinks, that the WRs stink, that our running backs stink [well, they do.......but....LOL], etc.

We aren't great and we have other faults, but when you have a hometown media and at least part of the fan base blaming everyone but the main guy responsible for your suckiness----------------well--------you have a real problem Again, it is a cancer. Cut it out before it consumes you.

Why don't you cut the BS. You didn't like Weeden before during or after the draft. That's where your opinions of Weeden begin and end. Now he's a "cancer"? Hell, I only live an hour and a half from the stadium and I don't pretend to have a clue what is going on in the lockerroom. But you know that he's a cancer from 1000 miles away? LOL

I think pretty much everyone who pays even minimal attention to the Browns fully expect them to use one or both first round picks next year to get another QB. So just why you spend so much time bad mouthing this guy is a mystery. Let the season play out and put some trust in the coaches and players.

Here's a half time adjustment, throwing the ball past the first down marker on 3rd downs.

It's really not worth it trying to debate with Vers. Anything he can dream up becomes fact to him.