Simple and hard nosed is good - to a point. You still need some flexibility either with an option or audible to get out of plays that are clearly defended well. I assume there will be some ability to do that in the simplified offense.
Seems like Sparano believes in chunk yardage (or that's "big play" for us laymen) as well. So he is not trying to string 15-play drives all game long. (That's a start, no?)
Cover 2 wasn't the point. The point was that predictability in the passing game is not like predictability in the running game. The latter is fine if you execute (see: all zone running schemes). The former is not.
I couldn't agree more. Remember that game in 2009 when we couldn't stop the phins wildcat? We saw that philosophy there in full force, and they just kept throwing it at us, because we hadn't shown we can defend it effectively. How many times last year did we see a play work to perfection and then not used for the rest of the game? I noticed that with the running game last year. It wasn't that we couldn't run the ball, we couldn't establish it early enough in games because so many other plays were thrown in the mix. It definitely had its moments and worked well when properly used. But every time I saw LT do a power run up the middle into a stacked line I just shook my head. When I saw run plays set up for Greene to run up the side, I smiled, but then they were rarely used again. Greene is beastly when he gets a head start.
The frustrating this is, we heard these sentiments back when Favre was here, and people wanted to dismiss it because Favre didn't have time to learn the scheme etc. It's a shame it took until now to figure out something that was right under their noses for so long. If you listen to players and coaches (both former and present), they'll tell you that many teams have similar plays so there isn't a major element of surprise -- especially Division games. So, what it ultimately comes down to - over the long term like an entire game - is having talented players who execute better than the other team. IMO, that's what this article is saying.
Everyone has to execute consistently and beat their man one on one. This puts pressure somewhat on the offensive line in run-blocking and for receivers to run precise routes. You still need to switch out of obvious bad plays though at the line if the M linebacker comes down into the box and you need to audible. Sparano was a talented head coach imo, he just was held back by bad ownership.
My point in reply was just that every defense is giving some option to the offense. To say the offense may be predictable is outside of the conversation. If the routes are static at the start of the play, that doesn't mean the defense knows what the route will be; it just means Sanchez and the receiver will be on the same page. It doesn't mean Holmes will only run one route, he will run them all. But it will be based upon a play call rather than a read option. I don't see that as an issue so long as the play calls provide different options to Sanchez in terms of points of the field to find a receiver - say long, middle and in the flat as three reads.
I've always been of the belief that judgement of Sanchez should be reserved until he was under a new OC. I think we are going to see a more productive Sanchez and thus, a more productive offense.
I like it. If you can execute a good number of plays in your sleep, you force the defense to stop you. If the opposing defense doesn't have to do anything for the offense to stall, it's that much harder to win football games.
Yep I remember. A lot of times our run game was working fine and ripping off decent gains of 5,6,7 yards and then we would go away from it by going into an empty backfield. I understand going away from it with play action, or at least running a passing play with the threat of the run. But we would go completely away from it for series of plays and not even threaten to go back to it. It was frustrating
Defenses are smart. They read tendencies and formations. They're taught to recognize route combinations. What you are doing is rationalizing that somehow a simple passing game can = good. Why do you think offenses run sight adjustments and option routes? Seriously, I want to know why you think they do that.
Whether or not Schotty sucked they basically saying they couldnt handle the play book and needed it dumbed down NO? This is all in Hind Sight but what if a QB of top caliber came here to play like a Peyton Manning or a Drew Brees etc those type of QB's change the calls at the line Multiple times depending on what the defense is showing. To say hey we gonna run at you and dare you to stop us is kind of foolish when you dont have the Offensive Line who can play Smash Mouth football at the moment. Hopefully there is Audibles
The biggest upside to simplifying it like this is how easy it will be to spot who's not doing their job or who's to blame that the play fucked up. It will be glaringly obvious if you're the one throwing the monkey wrench in a play, and it should be easy to adress and fix between games, or even between drives. I think the overall performance over a season will benefit massively from this alone, compared to Schotty's assumption-based offense where eg. Holmes would hope, pray and asume that Sanchez read the defense the same way he read it, and every time they didn't see the same thing the clusterfuck was just waiting to happen even before the ball is even snapped. It also becomes more and more evident, that Schotty was putting his own ambition and legacy-building of being some sort of playbook Yoda, ahead of moving the chains efficiently. Which actually makes me feel a bit sorry for St Louis. Godspeed.
To the first point, the goal of an Erhardt offense is to use formations to diguise the play. And I do think a simple passing game can be good. Its just a question of how you define "simple." For as complicated as it looked, Tom Moore said once that Peyton Manning ran the same play something like 40% of the time - the slant. To the second part - an OC would install those routes because he believes his QB and WRs can perform with those routes, and the OC perceives them as an advantage in certain situations. Here, we have a QB that doesn't make his reads very well. We also have a new offense being installed. Add to that a 2nd round pick who is very raw with route running. And that makes me OK with a more simplified offense. As long as we move the ball, I don't care how thick the playbook is.
During the press conference after the Miami game last year, all Tone would say was "It's week 17". I took that to mean that after 17 weeks he was still not on the same page as his QB; possibly he and Sanchez not seeing the same sight reads, thus throwing off the passing game. Taking that sight read away could actually increase the chemestry between them. They will always be on the same page, there is only one page to be on. I guess we will see when the season starts. Can't Wait!
This is great to hear. The fact that one of the Jets offensive players is saying publicly that the whole O is relieved to see Sparano's simplified playbook is definitely a good thing. Obviously there will still be audibles, it just sounds like he won't be pulling a Schotty by calling wacky plays for the sake of throwing off the D, he'll be sticking with what works until it stops working, which I think is exactly what a lot of us were screaming for last season - at least I was. So far I'm liking everything I've heard from the players regarding the switch to Fistpump, but of course we'll have to wait and see. In any case, it seems like Rex finally has an OC that's not only a better compliment to his own personality but also a better fit for the Jets offensive players.
All offenses run similar plays or a few base plays out of multiple formations. It's not just an Erhardt/Perkins thing. But that's not the point. Running the same play out of multiple formations and running a play whether the look given to you by the defense is going to kill that play or not are two different things. What you're talking about with the Colts' offense is their seam/slant route combination that they did run often. But they mostly ran it against certain kinds of zone coverages since it attacks the play side linebacker. It's sort of how levels and smash attack the corner in Tampa 2. It wasn't something they ran just because it was what was called in the huddle. They ran it because they had Dallas Clark and Marvin Harrison/Reggie Wayne and the seam/slant is a great way to make that linebacker chose which one of them to cover. At least you acknowledge that Sanchez is part of the issue here, if not the biggest issue. That's kind of what I was getting at. Teams add these wrinkles because they help. If the Jets aren't going to do it, it's not because there's something wrong with the scheme, it's because they recognize that they don't have players (meaning, the quarterback) to run it. People want to act as if simple is a better (in other words, optimal) way to go, when the reality is that limitations are almost always forced on an offense. The only exception I can think of is the Texans' offense, which bases just about every throw it seems on half field reads off of bootleg action on their lethal outside zone running play. Me neither. Unfortunately, I can't think of too many dumbed down passing attacks that have won a Super Bowl recently.
I was just taking an opportunity to bash the wildcat because I don't like it. Nothing more. Just a personal prejudice.
