We need a consultant...

I'd like to start a new thread here, since most of the similar ones that already exist have devolved into long, drawn-out multipage arguments and rants with everyone fully quoting long drawn-out rants from before and passionately arguing with minute little pieces of a single sentence fragment somewhere in the middle of the quote. So, here goes:

I think, with the personnel we have and a few upgrades in a starter here or there and in the O-line depth, that we could succeed as either a run-first or pass-first offense. I think that we could control the clock with either using the run to set up the pass, or using the pass to set up the run. I think that PC would like to see a continuous 50-50 mix of run/pass, and would like the ability to run when absolutely needed for ball control and/or running down the clock.

What I would like to see done differently next year isn't a change in philosophy, or a change in coaching. I'd like to see somebody brought in as a consultant to Schotty to help him with play design within his offense. I'm not talking about designing west-coast style plays in the mold of Holmgren or wing-T runs in the mold of the 1930s. I'm talking about designing plays with the same formation used for either a run or pass, or with plays that can have three layers of options with either a run, a long pass, or a quick checkdown receiver. Or other things I haven't thought of because I'm a fan and not a coach. I perceive that one of our problems on offense was that with our formations the other team knew precisely what was going to happen, and the options to audible to another play were limited due to the need to change formations which would then tell the other team what we were doing instead. We should have plays that when you audible to something else due to the pre-snap read that the D can't adjust to it. Otherwise we're spending way too much time beating our heads against a wall on O if the execution isn't 100% perfect + the other team's D makes an error.

Just a consultant to help with some play design, and Schotty being open to it. That's what we need most, methinks.

I like the idea and think using the same formations for run/pass would
work great as there is less tipping of play.

Isn’t it Pete’s philosophy that we aren’t going to try to trick you? We are going to show our hand, show you exactly what we intend to do, Then dare you to beat us. We win because we are better than you and we execute better than you.

To an extent, meaning, you know we’re going to run at you, not we’re running off left guard. I think having some kind of protection for our scheme is a great idea, and if it comes as run and pass plays out of the same formation—even better.

I’m just looking for a little bit of creativity and I haven’t seen it. We’ve proven we can be trusted as an offense to not turn the ball over, now let’s expand on that trust and become a little less garden variety.

You hear a lot about players inadvertently tipping stuff due to their stance or demeanor but I'm not aware of any teams, including us, that only use certain formations for running or passing. That being said, having more people looking at whether we are predictable or not and why is only beneficial so I certainly wouldn't object. Of course some predictability is unavoidable due to down/distance; 3rd and 14 will probably be a pass.

If anybody has a theory about a particular formation we do only run or pass out of then I'd like to hear what it is. The closest I can think of is our empty sets but Russ's ability to scramble keeps the defense honest and at least in previous seasons empty has been our most successful personnel grouping.

bigskydoc":2f6bx24a said:

Isn’t it Pete’s philosophy that we aren’t going to try to trick you? We are going to show our hand, show you exactly what we intend to do, Then dare you to beat us. We win because we are better than you and we execute better than you.

Click to expand...

On defense, yes. We tend to like to stay in 'base' personnel groupings and try to win on execution and discipline rather than trying exotic formations and fancy stunts. However, that doesn't mean they don't mix things up. We do have our nickel, and big nickel packages, and while we don't blitz a lot, we do some things up front to enhance our pass rush.

On offense, I'm not sure if a 'consultant' is what is needed. Most teams have quality control coaches, which I presume are there to monitor what we do and 'data mine' for tendencies in our own game with the idea to avoid the kind of predictability people are complaining about. Perhaps I'm wrong about that. We're in a copycat league, and as fans, we tend to look at other teams and say, "Why can't we do that" or something to that extent. One thing, of course, is personnel. Do we have the guys to do those 'trick' plays? We don't seem to have the knack to run a successful fly sweep for instance. One problem is that it is becoming a more common call around the league and teams are learning to cover it.

Me, I kind of wonder where the pistol formation went. That would seem to have possibilities we could exploit.

bigskydoc":gmg7w1xf said:

Isn’t it Pete’s philosophy that we aren’t going to try to trick you? We are going to show our hand, show you exactly what we intend to do, Then dare you to beat us. We win because we are better than you and we execute better than you.

Click to expand...

Yes it is, I agree. And the major problem with that is you lose a significant number of plays that happen from the element of surprise. Drives me nuts to be honest.

Better self scouting, period.

bigskydoc":jak216wx said:

Isn’t it Pete’s philosophy that we aren’t going to try to trick you? We are going to show our hand, show you exactly what we intend to do, Then dare you to beat us. We win because we are better than you and we execute better than you.

Click to expand...

I'm all for that but it only works if you can impose your will at the LOS from both sides of the ball.

mrt144":3pgi7a75 said:

Better self scouting, period.

Click to expand...

This. They are very poor at self scouting.

Have you thought about the fact they don't care if the defense knows what is coming in many instances, they believe if they execute it should not matter.

The problem is that doesn't work when you are not at full health or have a weak link somewhere, it works when you have a Hutch and Jones and Tobeck and a Engram and good passing option to make teams think.


When you have Gimpy Guards, not really going to do anything consistently once the defense figures out where your limitations are, you may pop a few plays till then but after that they target the weak links and over load them.


Why depth is needed to allow players to get healthy when injured, easier said then done I know, but our IR was full of our depth players as well. Why I think draft and health next year will reap good rewards.

No team goes far if they have a over abundance of injury issues. The great equalizer if you will of the league, age and more injuries break up and down teams faster then anything.

Sports Hernia":yq4hxp3s said:

mrt144":yq4hxp3s said:

Better self scouting, period.

Click to expand...

This. They are very poor at self scouting.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what that means. Does that mean knowing your own teams strengths and weaknesses? In that case I think they did a decent job. We had a big strong OL with limited pass blocking skills and a stable of young RBs. So we ran the ball. WE had a QB with a great deep ball and guys good at getting separation on deep balls. So we threw a lot of deep balls.

We have a short QB, so we didn't throw a lot of short middle routes or screens. Makes sense to me. Sounds like the OC self scouted just fine.

I'm not taking about self-scouting or knowing your own tendencies. I'm talking about helping the OC (who presumably designs the plays that get ran in his offense) to design plays that are within his scheme, but designed a bit 'differently'. Not to design a whole new scheme, not to be the new OC, just to improve things. Like a business consultant that doesn't change how you do business, but helps you change some of your processes to make your business run better.

Hmm...example.....

2 receivers, one TE, Rb in the backfield. Static condition...hike the ball. TE over the middle for 3 yd pass play.
Same personnel. Run up the middle.
Same personnel. WR button hook for 8 yds.
Same personnel. WR crossing pattern deep.

Is this what you are talking about?

Yes, that sort of thing. Call one, audible to another depending on the pre-snap read and the down-and-distance. All four permutations could be within Schotty's scheme. I think he could use a consultant to help with this sort of thing. I don't think that's what a QC person does, I think a QC person makes sure that the execution in practice is good. At least that's what QC does in the rest of the world - doesn't make sure the product is of high quality design, but makes sure the product, no matter how poorly designed, is made exactly as designed.