Doctor Kildare

Sark makes a U of Tenn OC hot board!

65 posts in this topic

Just now, k-train said:

If Sark is so terrible he needs to be fired, why on Earth would we stick to his playbook?

Because it's Shanahan's playbook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, k-train said:

If Sark is so terrible he needs to be fired, why on Earth would we stick to his playbook?

I keep seeing this sort of thing on this board and I think it misstates how NFL offenses work. 

Quality coordinators, on both sides of the ball, aren't calling plays the way people did in Tecmo Bowl. It's not about the "playbook" so much as its about how a given coordinator actually calls the game and is able to anticipate and create adjustments. In that respect its really about the play-caller, not the plays being called, if that makes sense. 

Said differently: if you gave Kyle Shanahan's playbook to Offensive Coordinator X, he's not going to all of a sudden be Kyle Shanahan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Geneaut said:

Because it's Shanahan's playbook.

It's really not though. 

The verbage etc. is similar because a lot those things are WCO terms/concepts. To that end, you'd like to keep the same verbage so you dont have to teach guys a whole new set of terminology. But Sarkisian's offense isnt Kyle Shanahan's offense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Geneaut said:

Because it's Shanahan's playbook.

Other than the fact they stayed with the outside zone run game, Kyle & Sark's playbook are very different. Sark absolutely loves tossing the ball for some reason, hardly ever uses a FB & we barely ever use play action with him calling the plays (even when the run game is working). Shanahan was constantly shifting guys around at the line to keep opposing Ds guessing, used play action a ton, and had designed roll outs for Ryan a bunch.

I know there was a lot of talk when Sark came in about keeping things the same, but an actual look at the two should make it crystal clear that the two offenses have a ton of differences.

In this AJC article from last year, DQ even says they can't just dust off the old playbook, tell the players "Here ya go" & six months later everything's great.

“How do you take something that’s really good and try to get it better?” Quinn said. “It’s the same exact challenge that we do the players that are playing and we go, ‘OK, now you go to here.’ It’s not like we just going to play that out, it’s not like we just going to playbook-up and dust it off and six months later, we’re ready to go again. We’re always about what could be better.”

I also don't think it's likely that is the same verbiage that Shanahan used, which was kinda long & complicated. I actually know they don't because in that same article in the AJC last year they were talking about how Sark immediately changed it to try to simplify things.

“(Sarkisian) made it a little more friendly, verbiage-wise, to shorten things so we can get to the line and play faster, dictate to the defense,” Schaub said. “… He’s really dove headfirst into it and started fast with knowing what we’re doing.”

jay1k2 and FalconsIn2012 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

I keep seeing this sort of thing on this board and I think it misstates how NFL offenses work. 

Quality coordinators, on both sides of the ball, aren't calling plays the way people did in Tecmo Bowl. It's not about the "playbook" so much as its about how a given coordinator actually calls the game and is able to anticipate and create adjustments. In that respect its really about the play-caller, not the plays being called, if that makes sense. 

Said differently: if you gave Kyle Shanahan's playbook to Offensive Coordinator X, he's not going to all of a sudden be Kyle Shanahan. 

100 times, that

If it wasn't true then you could just throw certain plays into down and distance envelopes and randomly reach in and pull one out each time.

That however is not how it works, although at times I have had the impression that was Sark's methodology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dem Birds said:

God, you induce the hardest eye rolls I've ever experienced. 

Oh ok same way how Takk deleted his like on the Sark tweet.  Same way how Campbell had to get disciplined for his Browns Game comment.  Ok, your right, EVERY Falcon is speaking their true feelings on every media press.  MAN , you got it down so easily

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, falcons007 said:

I am on fence at this moment, I hate another brand new OC for Ryan. But again DK was great right off the bat in 2012. If Sark leaves, they better hire a **** good NFL west coast guy in NFL and not some college buddy of DQ.

Insert something here about tigers and how often they change their stripes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

It's really not though. 

The verbage etc. is similar because a lot those things are WCO terms/concepts. To that end, you'd like to keep the same verbage so you dont have to teach guys a whole new set of terminology. But Sarkisian's offense isnt Kyle Shanahan's offense. 

Yeah, I keep waiting for the 49ers to run that jet sweep at the 1 yd line, but it never happens :ninja:

citsalp likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Falconsin2012 said:

His name was LaFleur.  But we were not impressed and refused to let him stay on as QB coach let alone promote him to OC

Or he may have wanted to leave. Remember when Ryan would curse up a storm at the sideline during his MVP 2016 season? That was LaFleur on the receiving end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MilleniumFalcon said:

Or he may have wanted to leave. Remember when Ryan would curse up a storm at the sideline during his MVP 2016 season? That was LaFleur on the receiving end.

No.  These are direct quotes from Quinn & TD.  LaFleur asked to stay on in his current role and they said no.

 

Falcons were unimpressed with Matt LaFleur’s work, and let him walk before hiring Steve Sarkisian

Now that the wheels have completely fallen off of the Falcons offense, we’ve been wondering why Dan Quinn didn’t just promote Matt LaFleur.

by Matthew Chambers@FalcoholicMatt  Oct 23, 2017, 5:53pm ED
 
usa_today_9666867.0.jpg
 
Thanks to their long Super Bowl run, the Atlanta Falcons did not have a whole lot of options for offensive coordinator. They knew they were losing Kyle Shanahan. In fact, the only two names from outside of the organization that popped up were Chip Kelly and Steve Sarkisian.

It was odd the Falcons did not seem to seriously consider promoting Matt LaFleur, the quarterback coach for Matt Ryan’s MVP season. He spent years with Shanahan running the offense, and honestly, was the most sensical replacement for Shanahan.

LaFleur may not be calling plays in Los Angeles, but is the offensive coordinator for another prolific offense.

Yikes.

How did the Falcons let him get away? LaFleur was under contract with the team, and could not leave the Falcons for any position but a head coach job without the team’s blessing.

The team, of course, allowed the move. And now we know why.

It would be tough to bungle a situation worse than this. The Falcons happily let the offensive staff leave for other positions so they could hire Sarkisian, who never coordinated in the pros. It is tough to say what the team did not like about LaFleur, but I don’t think it could be worth the offensive drop off. The offense has imploded so quickly that you have to blame the decision makers, starting with Dan Quinn.

steve-sarkisian-eatin-boogers-at-peach-b

Edited by Falconsin2012

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Falconsin2012 said:

No.  These are direct quotes from Quinn & TD.  LaFleur asked to stay on in his current role and they said no.

 

Falcons were unimpressed with Matt LaFleur’s work, and let him walk before hiring Steve Sarkisian

Now that the wheels have completely fallen off of the Falcons offense, we’ve been wondering why Dan Quinn didn’t just promote Matt LaFleur.

by Matthew Chambers@FalcoholicMatt  Oct 23, 2017, 5:53pm ED
 
usa_today_9666867.0.jpg
 
Thanks to their long Super Bowl run, the Atlanta Falcons did not have a whole lot of options for offensive coordinator. They knew they were losing Kyle Shanahan. In fact, the only two names from outside of the organization that popped up were Chip Kelly and Steve Sarkisian.

It was odd the Falcons did not seem to seriously consider promoting Matt LaFleur, the quarterback coach for Matt Ryan’s MVP season. He spent years with Shanahan running the offense, and honestly, was the most sensical replacement for Shanahan.

LaFleur may not be calling plays in Los Angeles, but is the offensive coordinator for another prolific offense.

Yikes.

How did the Falcons let him get away? LaFleur was under contract with the team, and could not leave the Falcons for any position but a head coach job without the team’s blessing.

The team, of course, allowed the move. And now we know why.

It would be tough to bungle a situation worse than this. The Falcons happily let the offensive staff leave for other positions so they could hire Sarkisian, who never coordinated in the pros. It is tough to say what the team did not like about LaFleur, but I don’t think it could be worth the offensive drop off. The offense has imploded so quickly that you have to blame the decision makers, starting with Dan Quinn.

steve-sarkisian-eatin-boogers-at-peach-b

Where are the direct quotes from TD & DQ there? I only see a Twitter statement from Ledbetter.

Flying Falcon likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MilleniumFalcon said:

Where are the direct quotes from TD & DQ there? I only see a Twitter statement from Ledbetter.

There are only a handful of people who can talk for the Falcons, and only 2 make decisions on coaches

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Falconsin2012 said:

There are only a handful of people who can talk for the Falcons, and only 2 make decisions on coaches

But there have been a lot of cases where Ledbetter "makes things up." He just said #Falcons weren't too impressed and didn't mention any direct people as well (DQ said / TD said).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

I keep seeing this sort of thing on this board and I think it misstates how NFL offenses work. 

Quality coordinators, on both sides of the ball, aren't calling plays the way people did in Tecmo Bowl. It's not about the "playbook" so much as its about how a given coordinator actually calls the game and is able to anticipate and create adjustments. In that respect its really about the play-caller, not the plays being called, if that makes sense. 

Said differently: if you gave Kyle Shanahan's playbook to Offensive Coordinator X, he's not going to all of a sudden be Kyle Shanahan. 

Exactly. HOW & WHEN you call plays is as big a part of it as WHAT plays you call.

And in the case of Shanny vs Sark, they really aren’t all that similar in any of those three things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, MilleniumFalcon said:

But there have been a lot of cases where Ledbetter "makes things up." He just said #Falcons weren't too impressed and didn't mention any direct people as well (DQ said / TD said).

LaFleur was under contract and could not leave unless it was a HC joc.  Quinn/TD let him walk. If they valued LaFleur do you think they’d simply let him walk?  Ledbetter didn’t make this up.  You can’t do that as a journalist.  If he printed “Falcons not impressed with LaFleur’s work ethic” without a firm source, he’d never be allowed in Flowery Branch again...and LaFleur would sue Ledbetter’s employer  for defamation

Edited by Falconsin2012

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, k-train said:

Other than the fact they stayed with the outside zone run game, Kyle & Sark's playbook are very different. Sark absolutely loves tossing the ball for some reason, hardly ever uses a FB & we barely ever use play action with him calling the plays (even when the run game is working). Shanahan was constantly shifting guys around at the line to keep opposing Ds guessing, used play action a ton, and had designed roll outs for Ryan a bunch.

I know there was a lot of talk when Sark came in about keeping things the same, but an actual look at the two should make it crystal clear that the two offenses have a ton of differences.

In this AJC article from last year, DQ even says they can't just dust off the old playbook, tell the players "Here ya go" & six months later everything's great.

“How do you take something that’s really good and try to get it better?” Quinn said. “It’s the same exact challenge that we do the players that are playing and we go, ‘OK, now you go to here.’ It’s not like we just going to play that out, it’s not like we just going to playbook-up and dust it off and six months later, we’re ready to go again. We’re always about what could be better.”

I also don't think it's likely that is the same verbiage that Shanahan used, which was kinda long & complicated. I actually know they don't because in that same article in the AJC last year they were talking about how Sark immediately changed it to try to simplify things.

“(Sarkisian) made it a little more friendly, verbiage-wise, to shorten things so we can get to the line and play faster, dictate to the defense,” Schaub said. “… He’s really dove headfirst into it and started fast with knowing what we’re doing.”

A coordinators tendency to run a specific play doesn't mean the playbooks are different.  Shanahan had toss plays in his playbook too.  I would also like to point out how outdated that reasoning is, Sark ran ZERO toss plays vs Green Bay.  We don't have a FB worth using honestly and if you noticed offenses like the Rams and cheifs, using heavy packages to run the ball is becoming obsolete.  We also don't have a good FB to justify running those packages.  Shanahan did not use PA every game, because each game is different.  Your memories of Shanahan are based on the "perfect" games where the Oline was clicking and run game allowed him to be "unpredictable".  Check out his games where those weren't the cases.  

Geneaut likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Phillup11 said:

A coordinators tendency to run a specific play doesn't mean the playbooks are different.  Shanahan had toss plays in his playbook too.  I would also like to point out how outdated that reasoning is, Sark ran ZERO toss plays vs Green Bay.  We don't have a FB worth using honestly and if you noticed offenses like the Rams and cheifs, using heavy packages to run the ball is becoming obsolete.  We also don't have a good FB to justify running those packages.  Shanahan did not use PA every game, because each game is different.  Your memories of Shanahan are based on the "perfect" games where the Oline was clicking and run game allowed him to be "unpredictable".  Check out his games where those weren't the cases.  

Of course some concepts are going to be similar because they did not overhaul the entire scheme... but as has been said several times now, the way those plays are run & when they are run during the games is the difference. When Sark got here, he looked over the film from before he arrived, kept what he liked, but adapted those plays to his preference.

As far as FB goes... FB usage is not always about running the ball. Also, the specific times when you actually chose to put the FB on the field can be a huge difference maker. It can help sell run to the D & give you a better opportunity to make something happen with play action, can give you an extra blocker in the backfield to help buy the QB time in the pocket, which allows the WRs & TEs more time to get open, and frees up the HB to sneak out of the backfield for a pass. Shanahan knew how to use that to his advantage, Sark clearly does not. I mean, when you keep running goal to go plays with an empty backfield, you are doing half the opposing DC's job for them.

As for the toss plays... much like using Coleman in the passing game, it's one of those things Sark took waaaaay too long to figure out. Running a toss play once in a while isn't the issue, it's that they failed far more often than not, and yet he kept right on calling them rather than making an adjustment.

Shanahan is not without fault. The dude could get arrogant/cute with his play calling at times and would ultimately outsmart himself. But at least he could figure out how to move on to something different if what he first had in mind wasn't there.  There's a reason Ryan set a record for hitting so many different players with a TD in 2016. Shanahan adjusted & could get everyone involved. Sark cannot seem to do those things, and so just because they both called a handful of the same plays, does not mean he's using Shanny's playbook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same 'playbook' or not Knapp knows Matt, knows our current offense, knows the WCO, worked for Kubiak, 'played' for Shanahan Sr. Short of a guy straight from the Shanahan tree or Kubiak he might be the closest facsimile in the market.

That said he never super impressed me as a play-caller when he was here before ( So. Many, Curls and Comebacks ) except he did like to emphasize the run. That may have been more about Vick than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now