Thoughts after rewatching Dallas preseason game - 1st half

[kearly]

Hey Kearly, would you say that the Cowboys GM drafted on offense many pieces of the puzzle to attack the Seahawk D (just like Baalke is on a 3 year plan to Get To Wilson)?

In the past couple years, Seattle has had some struggles against teams with upper tier OL. Jerry didn't know that when he was drafting his OL though.

 

[kearly]

I'm going to take this a step further. As a coordinator, if you're watching tape or watching a game unfold from the sidelines, and you see a weakness you can exploit, you try exploiting it. If the play doesn't work, you think its a flukey result. So you try it again. Doesn't work. You do the math again. Yep, it should work, call it again. I could be very stubborn in that way in my coaching days. When we are facing a single safety as often as we do, we should be getting some big plays in the screen game. They're out there. I know it. So does Bevell. It's flukey that we rarely make them happen. I think.

My issue isn't with the tactics in a vacuum, it's with the personnel. If you have Tyler Eifert leading the way for AJ Green, you'll have the size advantage to make it an easy 5-10 yard play until you force the defense to commit to stopping it. If you have Paul Richardson lead blocking for Doug Baldwin, you're going to have the size disadvantage and you'll be depending on the defense to screw up.

 

[kearly]

They've stacked the box for years against Marshawn, and the play has still sucked.

That's not the point though. If you're showing you're willing to throw it and you're showing that hand to the defense and they have to react, it positively impacts the run game. Maybe all those bubble screens sucked -- and maybe that Beast Mode long TD-drive was a consequence of being prepared to call two bubble screens on the last drive.

I don't know if I buy into this narrative all that much. Why should a defense go take defenders out of the box to prevent a play that is actively helping them get off the field? The constraint play theory makes sense if these screens are getting 5-10 yards a pop. But not when they are getting 2 yards a pop.

Even the best NFL rosters are forced to make concessions at a few spots. For Seattle, it's left tackle, 3rd linebacker, and the ability to run a bubble screen. We just don't have the personnel to be very good in those areas. At least in the case of the bubble screen we can call it less often to minimize the issue.

It's like the analogy I gave before with the Redskins or Lions running game. The run sets up the pass, but when your pass offense is so good and your rush offense is so bad like theirs are, it makes sense to call those run plays the absolute minimum you need. If the Redskins or Lions decided to run the crap out of the ball all year, it would be a ticket to a top 5 pick in the draft.

Similarly, it's not a coincidence that Seattle's offense has always labored when Bevell goes heavy on the bubble screen calls. Doing 2-3 of them a game to keep a defense honest is fine, but doing six in a half and all six being totally ineffective is just shooting oneself in the foot with your playbook.

After Malcolm Butler's pick, Bevell blamed Lockette for not being good enough. It was a dick move, but Bevell was correct, Lockette should have never been the guy trusted in that situation. But poorly utilizing personnel to its strengths still falls at the feet of the coaching staff. It's not necessarily a play calling issue, it's really about failing to optimize personnel.

That said, this is preseason and maybe they are just trying to get a feel for how their current personnel are running these plays and that's all it is. Past history with Bevell makes me skeptical, but it's a reasonable hope to have.

Last season proved to me that Bevell is capable of being a good OC. He appeared to regress against the Cowboys last Thursday. Hopefully it's just preseason and nothing to worry about.

 

[pcbball12]

I'm going to take this a step further. As a coordinator, if you're watching tape or watching a game unfold from the sidelines, and you see a weakness you can exploit, you try exploiting it. If the play doesn't work, you think its a flukey result. So you try it again. Doesn't work. You do the math again. Yep, it should work, call it again. I could be very stubborn in that way in my coaching days. When we are facing a single safety as often as we do, we should be getting some big plays in the screen game. They're out there. I know it. So does Bevell. It's flukey that we rarely make them happen. I think.

My issue isn't with the tactics in a vacuum, it's with the personnel. If you have Tyler Eifert leading the way for AJ Green, you'll have the size advantage to make it an easy 5-10 yard play until you force the defense to commit to stopping it. If you have Paul Richardson lead blocking for Doug Baldwin, you're going to have the size disadvantage and you'll be depending on the defense to screw up.

I get what you are saying here, but the whole point of a constraint play is not necessarily to get 5-10 yards a pop. It is to make sure the backers, safeties, etc aren't cheating too far in the box. If they are, that is when you see the 5, 10, 15 yard bubbles. Most of the time they are playing sound defense and it results in a 1 or 2 yard gain. It doesn't mean that play was unsuccessful in the grand scheme of things though. You have to keep the defense honest, you have to show constraint plays if you want to be able to run the ball consistently (especially when everyone knows you want to run the ball). The unsuccessful bubble screens early in the game help the run game throughout the game, it isn't necessarily even a part of the passing game if you look at it like that.

 

[kearly]

I get what you are saying here, but the whole point of a constraint play is not necessarily to get 5-10 yards a pop. It is to make sure the backers, safeties, etc aren't cheating too far in the box. If they are, that is when you see the 5, 10, 15 yard bubbles. Most of the time they are playing sound defense and it results in a 1 or 2 yard gain. It doesn't mean that play was unsuccessful in the grand scheme of things though. You have to keep the defense honest, you have to show constraint plays if you want to be able to run the ball consistently (especially when everyone knows you want to run the ball). The unsuccessful bubble screens early in the game help the run game throughout the game, it isn't necessarily even a part of the passing game if you look at it like that.

I understand what a constraint play is. Seattle ran for a whopping 22 yards in the first half while doing them. Dallas never adjusted their defense to react to the bubble screen calls. Why would they? Two yards per play helps you off the field.

And like I said before, if you run this play poorly, it's okay to run it a minimal amount. In the Lions/Redskins analogy, they still have to run the ball, just don't run it TOO much.

Interestingly enough, Seattle completely stopped calling bubble screens and flat passes in the 2nd half. Which makes me think Tical might be right about them testing things out in the first half.

 

[pcbball12]

I get what you are saying here, but the whole point of a constraint play is not necessarily to get 5-10 yards a pop. It is to make sure the backers, safeties, etc aren't cheating too far in the box. If they are, that is when you see the 5, 10, 15 yard bubbles. Most of the time they are playing sound defense and it results in a 1 or 2 yard gain. It doesn't mean that play was unsuccessful in the grand scheme of things though. You have to keep the defense honest, you have to show constraint plays if you want to be able to run the ball consistently (especially when everyone knows you want to run the ball). The unsuccessful bubble screens early in the game help the run game throughout the game, it isn't necessarily even a part of the passing game if you look at it like that.

I understand what a constraint play is. Seattle ran for a whopping 22 yards in the first half while doing them. Dallas never adjusted their defense to react to the bubble screen calls. Why would they? Two yards per play helps you off the field.

And like I said before, if you run this play poorly, it's okay to run it a minimal amount. In the Lions/Redskins analogy, they still have to run the ball, just don't run it TOO much.

Interestingly enough, Seattle completely stopped calling bubble screens and flat passes in the 2nd half. Which makes me think Tical might be right about them testing things out in the first half.

Maybe this last pre-season game was a bad example of it, but I stand by it. Seattle barely ran the ball at all in the 1st half, so just stating yardage is kind of misleading. I agree, continually running bubble screens (as if a legitimate part of your offense) is a mistake for Seattle...we have seen that. But, I do get why they run them here and there throughout the game. Also a small part of why run game tends to open up later in the game as well.

 

[Mr.Crayola]

I have only watched this game once so I probably didn't get as good a look as you guys and I have to rely on my memory so I am going to ride that excuse if I say something real stupid.

I agree Tical I think they are just practicing what they need to in preseason. Kearly I like your thoughts on the screen game in regards to out starting three receivers being ill-equipped to run them. I think if we keep Tanner McEvoy or Douglas McNeil (heck maybe both) then they and Kearse could block effectively and still retain the threat to keep CBs honest with hopefully Lockett catching the screen pass.

Dallas seems crazy talented on offense to the point where the defense just needs to be average to win the division. Rod Marinelli can probably make my roommates and I a league average defense. The Cowboys offensive line with Zeke behind them should allow for them to have at least 40 minutes of possession (I am trying to be very conservative with my time of possession guess), which helps make the defense less important. Losing Tony Romo hurts because I think he had one more good season in him and Dak Prescott is likely to turn it over at the beginning of the season in the most optimistic of cases at a much higher rate than Romo. Still should be a team to watch and one I would not want to meet in the playoffs.

Really enjoyed the initial post Kearly, and thanks to all who posted and added to the discussion.

 

[HawkGA]

If you're trying to stop teams stacking the box, a bubble screen is virtually a dare to keep doing it.

I'm going to take this a step further. As a coordinator, if you're watching tape or watching a game unfold from the sidelines, and you see a weakness you can exploit, you try exploiting it. If the play doesn't work, you think its a flukey result. So you try it again. Doesn't work. You do the math again. Yep, it should work, call it again. I could be very stubborn in that way in my coaching days. When we are facing a single safety as often as we do, we should be getting some big plays in the screen game. They're out there. I know it. So does Bevell. It's flukey that we rarely make them happen. I think.

It's flukey with the right personnel, its expected when we have smaller wr's trying to set screens against bigger db's while our biggest WR is the one catching the bubble screen which Bevell has done at times. If we are running a bubble screen throw it to Lockett or even Baldwin, not Kearse.

I didn't see many plays last year, but I did see a WR screen to Graham. WTF?

 

[Ad Hawk]

Graham can block for a screen, manageably...

 

[DocHawk]

Thank you Kearly! Love your posts!!