Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Demarco is a better option to pick up pass rush than Freeman or Coleman. Blocking is the one thing Demarco was decent at

Not every formation includes a FB. Very few formations do not include a RB. A RB who can not be counted upon to reliably pick up a blitz limits playcalling and is, in that regard, a liability.

I'm a RB snob.

When it comes to RB, FB, Pass rusher, DT, CB, SS, and FS I am very specific on what I like. If I don't like it I will never like it.

Such irrational, illogical stubbornness is unbecoming. Things change. Players grow beyond their limitations, or fall well short of their potential. I refuse to believe that such an intelligent, knowledgable poster is truly so limited, so inflexible, and for no rational reason.

You are better than that.

Or at least, I had thought you were.

I hope you are not an example of a poster falling well short of their potential.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Simple solution really..... Just slide Colin Mooney back there. I mean really have Yall watched that man? He does it all. He is another Snelling!

If he actually makes the team, you mean. I do hope he does.

In the west coast offense pass catching is more important for an RB than pass blocking.

Which does not make pass blocking UNimportant.

Also, how many WCO rb's have had an o-line this unreliable, this horrendously bad in front of them to keep them from having to fill the breach in order to keep their QB alive?

People talk about the ZBS as a panacea? I do believe it will be beneficial, and will pay dividends: in 2016. It typically takes a year or more for a line to learn it, to gel, and to become truly effective when converting over. This year can very well be full of growing pains. Anyone expecting a miracle turn-around is likely in for a huge letdown. I have said elsewhere that I do like and approve of the changes made, the direction the franchise is being led; I have also said that I am prepared for us to win as many games or even FEWER games than last year as the young talent we have added gain experience and the team in general gains comfort in the new offense, the new defense, and the new blocking scheme.

I would be far less apprehensive if Jaquizz Rodgers were still available to patch some of the leaks as our line learns and improves and gels. I can only imagine Matt Ryan is likely to agree with me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not every formation includes a FB. Very few formations do not include a RB. A RB who can not be counted upon to reliably pick up a blitz limits playcalling and is, in that regard, a liability.

Such irrational, illogical stubbornness is unbecoming. Things change. Players grow beyond their limitations, or fall well short of their potential. I refuse to believe that such an intelligent, knowledgable poster is truly so limited, so inflexible, and for no rational reason.

You are better than that.

Or at least, I had thought you were.

I hope you are not an example of a poster falling well short of their potential.

You may be right about me, or maybe I'm right about the player. Either which way won't matter for us unless we play them and Quizz shreds us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be right about me, or maybe I'm right about the player. Either which way won't matter for us unless we play them and Quizz shreds us.

Incorrect. It will matter if Ryan gets hurt because of a RB missing a blitz pick-up.

Rodgers is not the "shred you" type of back. He is the guy who is good enough to spell the #1 back, fill in when and where needed and never be a liability to his offense type of back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Incorrect. It will matter if Ryan gets hurt because of a RB missing a blitz pick-up.

Rodgers is not the "shred you" type of back. He is the guy who is good enough to spell the #1 back, fill in when and where needed and never be a liability to his offense type of back.

Run the ball more, he will get hit less. I blame the OL far more than a tiny RB who could block real good. Reminds me a run stopping DE's and run blocking WR's. This is also a shorter drop back with shorter routes. Not going to be the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a fan of anything he did. I thought pretty much any old RB could do basically what he was doing. I would rather we didn't worry about pass pro in a short drop back and short route offense. ;)

Really good point about pass protection in the new offense. I thought quiz made some fantastic cuts, but better running backs wouldn't even have needed most of them.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Run the ball more, he will get hit less. I blame the OL far more than a tiny RB who could block real good. Reminds me a run stopping DE's and run blocking WR's. This is also a shorter drop back with shorter routes. Not going to be the same.

I don't care about blame; I care about solutuons to problems. Rodgers solved, to some degree, a problem that no back currently on the roster has proven capable of reliably solving.

Shorter routes and dropbacks? How much shorter can they get? Matt Ryan was already releasing the ball in 1.9 seconds according to a stat announced in one of the games late last year. Any quicker and he'll have to use the VCR from "Spaceballs" and fast-forward to throw the ball before it's snapped.

Not every player, certainly not every back, can be an elite difference-making HoF type player. You need to come off of your elitist high horse and realize that role players are a very important part of every successful team.

Roger Craig was an elite back. Did that make Bill Ring worthless? Barry Sanders is a HoF back, but did that make Tommy Vardell worthless? No: Ring and Vardell were important pieces of their team's success.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care about blame; I care about solutuons to problems. Rodgers solved, to some degree, a problem that no back currently on the roster has proven capable of reliably solving.

Shorter routes and dropbacks? How much shorter can they get? Matt Ryan was already releasing the ball in 1.9 seconds according to a stat announced in one of the games late last year. Any quicker and he'll have to use the VCR from "Spaceballs" and fast-forward to throw the ball before it's snapped.

Not every player, certainly not every back, can be an elite difference-making HoF type player. You need to come off of your elitist high horse and realize that role players are a very important part of every successful team.

Roger Craig was an elite back. Did that make Bill Ring worthless? Barry Sanders is a HoF back, but did that make Tommy Vardell worthless? No: Ring and Vardell were important pieces of their team's success.

I didn't say worthless. Why does it matter so much anyways. Who cares what I think about a RB who plays for another team?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say worthless. Why does it matter so much anyways. Who cares what I think about a RB who plays for another team?

This is a message board. The purpose is to share, discuss, compare, and often to learn from other people's ideas and thoughts. If no one's opinions are of any importance at all, if no one cares what anyone else says, then these forums serve no purpose whatsoever.

So yes, I do have some measure of care about what you think about players, coaches, schemes, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always liked Quizz, he was the type of situational player I'm very fond of.

That being said, hopefully we won't have to rely on our RB to save Ryan's life going forward... at least not from a pass pro standpoint. I agree with KoG when he says running the ball more/better will help protect Ryan more than a good blocking RB would.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always liked Quizz, he was the type of situational player I'm very fond of.

That being said, hopefully we won't have to rely on our RB to save Ryan's life going forward... at least not from a pass pro standpoint. I agree with KoG when he says running the ball more/better will help protect Ryan more than a good blocking RB would.

And what leads you to think we will run the ball more effectively THIS SEASON? I have pointed out the fact that most lines, when converting to a ZBS, struggle for a year or so before gelling.

Also, the only real change was replacing an aging vet with an aging vet from another team. While I do like and approve of the signing of Chester, he is not going to transform this line into The Great Wall of Atlanta with his mere presence.

A lot will have to go improbably right for our line to be substantially improved. Health, assimilation into the new scheme instantly, Schraeder and Matthews both improving and avoiding the sophomore jinx, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a message board. The purpose is to share, discuss, compare, and often to learn from other people's ideas and thoughts. If no one's opinions are of any importance at all, if no one cares what anyone else says, then these forums serve no purpose whatsoever.

So yes, I do have some measure of care about what you think about players, coaches, schemes, etc.

Its one thing to care about what I THINK about the team, its another thing to get ruffled about it. Don't let things work you so much man. Its not worth it. You're a good poster and a lot of the people who give you a hard time give me a hard time too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And what leads you to think we will run the ball more effectively THIS SEASON? I have pointed out the fact that most lines, when converting to a ZBS, struggle for a year or so before gelling.

Also, the only real change was replacing an aging vet with an aging vet from another team. While I do like and approve of the signing of Chester, he is not going to transform this line into The Great Wall of Atlanta with his mere presence.

A lot will have to go improbably right for our line to be substantially improved. Health, assimilation into the new scheme instantly, Schraeder and Matthews both improving and avoiding the sophomore jinx, etc.

You and some others consistently try to make it sound like the ZBS is some radical deep incredibly difficult and entirely new concept. And, something that all our OL has to learn from scratch.

That's simply not close to true.

Man-blocking = pre-assignment blocking

Zone-blocking = snap-assignment blocking

It's really not difficult, and all of our OL's have played in a ZBS before.

The problem with man-blocking is that you're defender is virtually pre-assigned to you. And this can put OL's at a disadvantage with bad angles and pre-designed double-teams on defenders that want to be double-teamed because they're masking a blitz or stunt, where maybe a DL is pulling and creating a space and this pulls an OL out of a gap because he's required to block a specific assignment. And when you have defenders opening gaps simply by making OL's chase them, then all sorts of bad things can be exploited by the defense.

ZBS simply doesn't do this. There is no pre-assignment. The determination on who's blocking whom happens only once the OL and DL set their hands in the dirt and line up across from each other seconds before the snap.

If it's an inside play, covered OL's block whomever is straight-up or just inside them, and uncovered OL's chip or double-team away from the play, and maybe float to the second layer after the chip. If it's an outside play, the covered OL's block whomever is straight-up or just outside them, and the uncovered OL's again just chip or double-team away from the play, and float to the outside second layer after the chip.

The difference is, no more bad blocking angles, no more chasing blocking assignments, and no more set double-teams that cause other areas of the line to possibly become vulnerable and exploitable.

In the ZBS, chip block assists are happening on virtually every play. Double-teams only happen where and when it makes sense (when no defender enters the lineman's zone). And OL don't usually get out of position because they are simply blocking whomever is in a patch of ground and not a specifically assigned defender.

It's actually an easier blocking scheme than man-blocking, because in man-blocking you can have 30+ different run plays and you have to know your blocking assignment on every single play. In the ZBS, this isn't the case because you only have to know your inside and outside blocking zone, which is the same probably 90% of the time. If the play is to the outside, your zone isn't really going to change from play to play unless it's some kind of counter and you're pulling to block the backside.

It's actually quite ignorant to assume this OL will have a learning curve. Memorizing man-blocking assignments for each play is way more difficult than memorizing a blocking zone for just inside and outside plays.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And what leads you to think we will run the ball more effectively THIS SEASON? I have pointed out the fact that most lines, when converting to a ZBS, struggle for a year or so before gelling.

Also, the only real change was replacing an aging vet with an aging vet from another team. While I do like and approve of the signing of Chester, he is not going to transform this line into The Great Wall of Atlanta with his mere presence.

A lot will have to go improbably right for our line to be substantially improved. Health, assimilation into the new scheme instantly, Schraeder and Matthews both improving and avoiding the sophomore jinx, etc.

I didn't say I think it will happen, I said I hope it does. I'm hopeful because I believe the entirety of our line is much better suited to a ZBS than our power scheme last year. Will it pay off year one? Who knows.

Just FYI Schraed was a sophomore last year, not this year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's actually quite ignorant to assume this OL will have a learning curve. Memorizing man-blocking assignments for each play is way more difficult than memorizing a blocking zone for just inside and outside plays.

The "ignorance" is in ignoring how many offensive lines converting to a ZBS do have a learning curve.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say I think it will happen, I said I hope it does. I'm hopeful because I believe the entirety of our line is much better suited to a ZBS than our power scheme last year. Will it pay off year one? Who knows.

Just FYI Schraed was a sophomore last year, not this year.

I agree, that the scheme fits our personnel better. Even so, like the old Red Gun passing game required the QB and the WR's to make the exact same reads each time to be effective, the ZBS requires the line to be comfortable with both the scheme and their line-mates as well. They have to know instinctively, without having to worry or think, what everyone else on the line is doing, what they are reading, and how they are reacting.

I am perfectly ok with an understandable learning curve and growing pains, as long as Matt doesn't get hurt, and as long as I see more comfort with the system and with each other as the season progresses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The "ignorance" is in ignoring how many offensive lines converting to a ZBS do have a learning curve.

First of all, the word "ignorance" isn't an insult unless clearly used in a derogatory manner. Otherwise it just means someone appears unaware or not knowledgable about some detail or information about the topic.

Second, please tell us of an offense that switched to a ZBS and had a statistically bad year directly afterwards.

I mean you make it sound like this happens all the time and you've kept track of it. Where exactly did you acquire such knowledge of ZBS learning curves that allows you to make a definitive statement like this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, that the scheme fits our personnel better. Even so, like the old Red Gun passing game required the QB and the WR's to make the exact same reads each time to be effective, the ZBS requires the line to be comfortable with both the scheme and their line-mates as well. They have to know instinctively, without having to worry or think, what everyone else on the line is doing, what they are reading, and how they are reacting.

I am perfectly ok with an understandable learning curve and growing pains, as long as Matt doesn't get hurt, and as long as I see more comfort with the system and with each other as the season progresses.

That's what I'm expecting. Both the offense and defense will definitely have a learning curve to some degree. It usually takes two offseasons to get 100% comfortable in a new scheme, imo. They'll get better though as things go this year, and I'm thinking that maybe half-comfortable in a good scheme will still be better than all-comfortable in a bad one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, the word "ignorance" isn't an insult unless clearly used in a derogatory manner. Otherwise it just means someone appears unaware or not knowledgable about some detail or information about the topic.

Second, please tell us of an offense that switched to a ZBS and had a statistically bad year directly afterwards.

I mean you make it sound like this happens all the time and you've kept track of it. Where exactly did you acquire such knowledge of ZBS learning curves that allows you to make a definitive statement like this?

2010 Redskins (with our OC)

2011 Seattle Seahawks

2012 Oakland Raiders (although they struggled with every other scheme too)

2012 Miami Dolphins

2013 Cowboys

2013 Arizona Cardinals

2013 Jacksonville Jaguars (see: Raiders)

2013 Pittsburgh Steelers

Enough of a sample size?

Link to post
Share on other sites

2010 Redskins (with our OC)

2011 Seattle Seahawks

2012 Oakland Raiders (although they struggled with every other scheme too)

2012 Miami Dolphins

2013 Cowboys

2013 Arizona Cardinals

2013 Jacksonville Jaguars (see: Raiders)

2013 Pittsburgh Steelers

Enough of a sample size?

The Redskins in 2010 had McNabb and they threw the ball 600x and only ran it 350x. And when they ran it, they averaged 4.2 ypc. And their lead RB was Ryan Torain. They were the #8 passing offense in the league that year and the #17 overall offense.

That doesn't sound like a "learning curve" to me if you're a passing team and your terrible RB's still averaged 4.2 ypc.

If I spend the time to look at the rest of these, am I going to find similar stats? If so, then I'm not buying it.

I've coached football long enough to know which scheme is more difficult than the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...