xs and os Stop Making Sense: A Post-Super Bowl Conversation with Eric Stoner

[vel]

***Mods, I know this is an article about the SB between the Pats and the Rams, but at it's essence it's about football and I think it applies to the Falcons. Given it's the offseason and things will be fairly slower, please don't move this unless nobody reads/interacts.

Now that that is out of the way, Matt Waldman is one of my favorite Twitter follows when it comes to breaking down film and digging into the game of football. He's smart and understands it and knows how to give it to the casual fan so they can truly digest the game. He sat down with one of the contributors to his site and I think the conversation is one of the best I've read and I think it would be beneficial for this place as a whole. I also believe part of it applies to the Falcons and how we can/should look at this offseason and the related moves. 

Quote

Quote

 

The game itself was not entertaining. It was an ode to the fundamentals. While not stimulating, it proved to be refreshing.

It was refreshing in the way sobriety is for a bing alcoholic. We all “drank” too much. We needed this.

– Mark from Madison, WI from “Ask Vic [Ketchman]“

 

Stoner: Vic Ketchman will forever be my spirit grandpa. Hightower and Gilmore played their ***** off. Great defense is not always sacks and turnovers. I feel bad for Wade Phillips and the Rams defense.

Waldman: The Rams confused Brady, too. The Patriots defensive game plan forced more errors than the Rams’ plan. Folks want to blame Goff but we’ll get to that later because it is a simplistic conclusion and often rooted in a couple of plays, especially when one of them was arguably a bad no-call that could have tied the game late.

Stoner: The Rams mostly played a great game on defense. Ray Ratto was dead-on about the Patriots with the important exception of his final sentence below.

[Belichick] has known more ways to win a game than most of us have learned to watch on, and with every trend int eh sport going toward offensive pyrospectaculars and playbooks powered by dilithium crystals, he decided to force-feed America a three-hour tutorial on Chuck Noll and Don Shula and George Allen and Bud Grant. It was the early 1970s, and you were there.

It is a lesson America didn't enjoy and one it will hate all the more in years to come, but Belichick, who has adapted to changing mores in the sport as much as any coach, dragged us all by our slackened eyelids back to a time when we though presidents didn't come worse than Richard Nixon and sports was designed solely as a lesson in denial of pleasure and a repudiation of style.

This was him saying, “This is a game you’re too young to remember, but I’m not, and I know how to make you sit at this table and eat it until it’s gone.”

“You’re ******* right. Every other coach is like: “this is the scheme we use” and Belichick is like: “this is the scheme that this situation calls for.” How can no one else get this?”

Stoner: I see this criticism all of the time. It’s valid on some level, yes. I also think people underestimate the amount of knowledge necessary to do this. It’s like what you wrote in your “Can He Make Music,” piece. You need to be able to speak the language of whatever country you’re in and ALSO need to know how to communicate things lost in translation on the fly.

Waldman: I know scouts who understand less scheme than I. And to think a coach trained in one language can adapt to another so fast is not realistic. I wish I were 20 years younger and had the kind of time I had 20 years ago, too.

Stoner: Ray Ratto’s Deadspin piece is great, you’ll like it a lot. I keep going back to the Pepper Johnson piece, too. Especially when he said Bill literally signed Mike Vrabel just to pick his brain on LeBeau’s defense.

And nobody else really does that, LMFAO!

Going back to the scheme, it’s not just about knowing where the X’s and O’s are supposed to go.  The techniques for each can be so different. Adjustments are so different.

You know this but the example of zone versus gap have WAY different micro-adjustments just in the angles you take to reach the second level. Let’s look at stretch versus one-back power.

What blow ups both of these plays? A strongside, tilted nose tackle and weakside linebacker gap exchange.

These are WAY different rules to simply run the ball to the strong side and this is just for the offensive line, not the backs. Now imagine every team using vastly different terminology for this ****!

Waldman: Good point.

Stoner: Then you have to teach the technique. A scoop and a double-two LB has way different footwork and second-level aiming points. Then only after considering the scheme and technique, consideration of the opponent’s personnel creates even more changes.

Does your opponent have a stud nose tackle? If so, you need to cut him down because he’s going to hold up the double team and well never reach the linebacker.

Is the nose tackle soft? Then we can ride him the direction he wants to go.

Are the linebackers slow? If so, we can double the nose and put him in the lap of the linebacker.

Guess what? All of this goes out the window if the defense decides not to really run this NT-WLB gap exchange.

All of these considerations are all focused on just one offensive adjustment to the most common defensive adjustment used against the two most heavily used run plays.

That’s a lot of shlt to know and that’s high school football 101 knowledge versus an extremely basic even front.

Waldman: Football is an elegant game. There are so many elements at play but fans are continually trying to simplify and second-guess what’s happening. When I listen to a lot of analysts these days, their analysis often sounds like:

“We understand that there are a lot of variables to take into account…yadda, yadda, yadda…but seriously, my emotional reaction to one play outweighs all of those variables and I have stats to back it up!”

You’ve taken us in the weeds with one in-game adjustment that’s fundamental to almost all levels of football but there are folks out there who don’t understand this when they criticize a team for not altering its zone blocking scheme to account for a back that it had little intention of using this year who is better at gap.

They aren’t seeing that it’s a consideration of the demands on  5-7 players versus 1.

Stoner: I get why so many teams run zone instead of Gap. The rules for Zone are more consistent play-to-play for the offensive line. Gap schemes require a lot of memorization simply from the volume of options. Every run play is trying to accomplish something a little different.

Waldman: Right. And for the backs, Gap is diagnostically easier on the back because the line is handling the diagnostic burden while Zone is more conceptually demanding for the runner because the scheme is designed to be easier for the line.

Stoner: I agree. This game comes down to a really bad performance by Sean McVay — it was bad planning, bad game management, and McVay didn’t stick to his own offense.

If Bill gives you something — in this case, the jet sweep — he is daring you to run it 10 times in a row until he stops it. Bill knows you won’t try it because offensive coordinators and good quarterback are often impatient.

Waldman: The Seahawks knew Peyton Manning would be too impatient to nickel-and-dime his way downfield in its Super Bowl matchup. They gave Julius Thomas to Manning early, betting that physical play against Thomas would lead to mistakes and Manning would begin forcing the ball downfield.

It’s exactly what happened and the Seahawks stifled and blew-out one of the most prolific offenses in football history.

https://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2019/02/04/stop-making-sense-a-post-super-bowl-conversation-with-eric-stoner/

There is more to the article, but it focuses in more on Goff, Brady, and is truly not related to the Falcons. But the parts I highlighted I think absolutely do. Especially about the zone running. People here still complain about not being able to be a physical zone running team. That's just not true. But this also speaks to why some RBs struggle with zone running concepts, something that isn't discussed enough. 

You see once we started losing OL, the continuity is paramount in a heavy zone based running game. But once they have that continuity, they can pick it up quicker. Hence why Shanahan's have leaned on later round OL because it's more about consistency than true talent. It's also why you can take RBs later, so long as they truly understand the rules of zone based running and follow them to a T. 

Also, the first/last bolded parts are why I'm excited about DQ going back to being DC and why I was never a fan of Manuel. Belichick is good because he isn't so focused on relying on his "scheme" but instead looking at each opponent and figuring out what needs to be done to stop that particular opponent. That's what made DQ great. He didn't live and die with the 4-3 Under in Seattle. He dusted off the bear fronts that gave the Niners fits. As you see with the last bolded part, DQ can figure out great offenses. He's got the reigns now.

Overall, don't cry over us sticking with the zone running scheme. Also, with the additions of Koetter, Mularkey, and Knapp, this gives the offense the variability that you see from the Pats (hopefully). Being able to match up and run schemes each week is key going forward. One offense doesn't beat every defense. One defense doesn't beat every offense. You have to be ready to beat that week's opponent. Even if it means going back to 1970s football and making it boring and ugly. At the end of the day, if that's what it takes to win the SB, do it. 

[Lethal]

Good read, Vel.  Thank you.  Hope folks take the time to read through this.

[vel]

And as a bonus, the first quote is from a Q&A with Vic Ketchman, but there was a couple other gems that I think are valuable:

Quote

How did the Patriots neutralize the Rams' high-powered offense?
They stopped the run. For all of the Rams' high-flying ways and their coach's reputation for calling great plays, their success was built on something as simple and as time-honored as the ability to run the football.

Vic, recently I read an article that talked about Matt LaFleur wanting Green Bay to run the ball more often, and lots of commentators loved the idea. Haven’t we heard this before? What’s different now?
Every coach wants to run the ball, but it's about more than calling running plays. Mostly it's about having a strong enough defense that permits a coach to have the patience to commit to the run and stick with it despite early-game failures. If you go scoreless, your defense allows a touchdown drive, you go scoreless again and your defense allows another touchdown, your patience is in jeopardy. The 2014 Packers had a defense that allowed Mike McCarthy to commit to the run, and he did. Since then, defense has been a problem. Even last season, during which most Packers fans think the Packers made strides on defense, the defense ranked 18th overall, up only four spots from the defense that got Dom Capers fired. The Packers often found themselves trailing in games and being forced to abandon the run. Matt LaFleur comes from a Titans team that was No. 7 in rushing. He'll run it, if his defense allows him to have the patience to commit to the run. Nothing's different now.

https://www.askvic.us

Yes, it's a passing league. But running the ball is still important. Look at the Patriots rushing stats in the post season. It's all married. You can't win without running the ball and stopping the run. You'll get close, but it's still a foundational piece to football. 

[vel]

3 minutes ago, athell said:

Good read, Vel.  Thank you.  Hope folks take the time to read through this.

Yea it's definitely a lot and I tried to cut out a good chunk that wasn't related. But I think the bolded was the most important stuff and wanted this place to see it. 

[Wjcorner]

11 minutes ago, vel said:

And as a bonus, the first quote is from a Q&A with Vic Ketchman, but there was a couple other gems that I think are valuable:

Yes, it's a passing league. But running the ball is still important. Look at the Patriots rushing stats in the post season. It's all married. You can't win without running the ball and stopping the run. You'll get close, but it's still a foundational piece to football. 

The stopping the run point is strong...because like the article states, every team WANTS to run it on you early. Now some offenses may expand into some shot plays off the run game they’ve been giving you early(or even put on tape through the year) but fundamentally everybody wants to come out and show you they can run it down your throat if they want. So when people say ‘stopping the run isn’t important it’s *insert low percentage* of all plays called’ people are missing the forest for the trees. If you want our wolves to start running upfield with a lead built with our offense, we have to show the offense they aren’t beating us on the ground. Otherwise you have a defense who always seems to be a yard short of stopping down conversion after down conversion.

 

I’m intrigued by the sheer amount of chefs we have in the kitchen now, and for all I dislike about Koetter, he is a very intelligent offensive mind who was flexible enough to take a 2011 Mularkey offense that was meh, and using parts of his playbook and terminology, turn it into one of our better offenses of all time...minus the run game. 

[Flying Falcon]

Tl:dr

[Francis York Morgan]

Fantastic article. Hope it clears things up for people. I'm so excited for Quinn to run this defense. I don't think people really understand just how good he is as a defensive playcaller. Shoot, he practically shut out every playoff team in 2016 in the first half - I blame Shanahan for exhausting our defense with awful playcalling. It's like Andy Reid vs the Patriots in the NFCCG.

This could be a great year.

[Francis York Morgan]

10 minutes ago, Flying Falcon said:

Tl:dr

This kind of attitude is why the majority of TATF (and other football fans) are so football-ignorant while thinking they know what's up. It's called the Dunning-Kruger effect. Look it up homie.

Also, this part of the article is addressed to you:

When I listen to a lot of analysts these days, their analysis often sounds like:

“We understand that there are a lot of variables to take into account…yadda, yadda, yadda…but seriously, my emotional reaction to one play outweighs all of those variables and I have stats to back it up!”

You’ve taken us in the weeds with one in-game adjustment that’s fundamental to almost all levels of football but there are folks out there who don’t understand this when they criticize a team for not altering its zone blocking scheme to account for a back that it had little intention of using this year who is better at gap.

[Godzilla1985]

Thank you for an excellent read & opinion!  You an PMF really make this place great!

[vel]

31 minutes ago, Francis York Morgan said:

This kind of attitude is why the majority of TATF (and other football fans) are so football-ignorant while thinking they know what's up. It's called the Dunning-Kruger effect. Look it up homie.

Also, this part of the article is addressed to you:

 

 

I don't even get the point of coming in a thread, seeing it's a long post, and just posting tl;dr. It's basically just saying "I have the attention span of a five year old". 

Too many people want to talk about football but not understand football.

[kiwifalcon]

2 minutes ago, vel said:

I don't even get the point of coming in a thread, seeing it's a long post, and just posting tl;dr. It's basically just saying "I have the attention span of a five year old". 

Too many people want to talk about football but not understand football.

Oh well Vel if that’s the type of response your going to get to try and be productive around here says alot really.

Theres a few posters on here I feel I learn a lot off of and your one of them.Keep fighting the good fight.

[vel]

51 minutes ago, Wjcorner said:

The stopping the run point is strong...because like the article states, every team WANTS to run it on you early. Now some offenses may expand into some shot plays off the run game they’ve been giving you early(or even put on tape through the year) but fundamentally everybody wants to come out and show you they can run it down your throat if they want. So when people say ‘stopping the run isn’t important it’s *insert low percentage* of all plays called’ people are missing the forest for the trees. If you want our wolves to start running upfield with a lead built with our offense, we have to show the offense they aren’t beating us on the ground. Otherwise you have a defense who always seems to be a yard short of stopping down conversion after down conversion.

 

I’m intrigued by the sheer amount of chefs we have in the kitchen now, and for all I dislike about Koetter, he is a very intelligent offensive mind who was flexible enough to take a 2011 Mularkey offense that was meh, and using parts of his playbook and terminology, turn it into one of our better offenses of all time...minus the run game. 

The bolded is the best part and what I've tried to explain a number of times. Yes, stopping the pass is more important in the grand scheme of things. But when it's crunch time, those leaky conversions that didn't matter early on now suddenly happen repeatedly. 3rd & 3 becomes a LOT harder to stop when you're giving up 4 ypc. 

Running the ball is crucial because the longer in a game you can continue to run the ball, the better positioned your offense is. I think Koetter's passing acumen is top tier. Mularkey is a master running game technician. Knapp is the well balanced coach who knows the language. I'm not overly worried. I'll be worried once we see how they've addressed the OL. 

[kschreck]

TGTNR - too good to not read

Thanks for posting

 

[Summerhill]

1 hour ago, vel said:

The bolded is the best part and what I've tried to explain a number of times. Yes, stopping the pass is more important in the grand scheme of things. But when it's crunch time, those leaky conversions that didn't matter early on now suddenly happen repeatedly. 3rd & 3 becomes a LOT harder to stop when you're giving up 4 ypc. 

Running the ball is crucial because the longer in a game you can continue to run the ball, the better positioned your offense is. I think Koetter's passing acumen is top tier. Mularkey is a master running game technician. Knapp is the well balanced coach who knows the language. I'm not overly worried. I'll be worried once we see how they've addressed the OL. 

It's the difference between making the playoffs and doing something in the playoffs. In the playoffs almost every team has a good QB and almost every team has some element of a good pass defense (pass rush/turnovers) so other factors that don't make that much of a difference in the regular season become bigger in the playoffs. 

[vel]

1 minute ago, Summerhill said:

It's the difference between making the playoffs and doing something in the playoffs. In the playoffs almost every team has a good QB and almost every team has some element of a good pass defense (pass rush/turnovers) so other factors that don't make that much of a difference in the regular season become bigger in the playoffs. 

Yep. Things get magnified. If a game consists of ten possessions per team, those leaky conversions because you couldn't stop the run on a 3rd & 3 hurt way worse. When it's time to put games away and you can't run the ball, it leaves the door open for comebacks.

[JDaveG]

2 hours ago, vel said:

(quoting Ketchman):  "Every coach wants to run the ball, but it's about more than calling running plays. Mostly it's about having a strong enough defense that permits a coach to have the patience to commit to the run and stick with it despite early-game failures. If you go scoreless, your defense allows a touchdown drive, you go scoreless again and your defense allows another touchdown, your patience is in jeopardy."

Boy, this right here is a mouthful....

[Mr.11]

3 hours ago, vel said:

Waldman: The Seahawks knew Peyton Manning would be too impatient to nickel-and-dime his way downfield in its Super Bowl matchup. They gave Julius Thomas to Manning early, betting that physical play against Thomas would lead to mistakes and Manning would begin forcing the ball downfield.

It’s exactly what happened and the Seahawks stifled and blew-out one of the most prolific offenses in football history.

I remember when some "analyst" or whatever made a comment after the AFCCG that no coach other than Belichick would have the balls to play man against the Chiefs most of the game, even with a UDFA cornerback on Tyreek Hills with a safety over the top.

I immediately thought "nope, he's wrong." DQ would have done it too.

I said it in another thread--for all the struggles DQ may have in game management, he more than makes up for it with his defensive chops. The guy is a top shelf defensive coach, and I believe the team will be much better served with him calling the shots on that side of the ball.

[JDaveG]

Just now, JerseyNo11 said:

I remember when some "analyst" or whatever made a comment after the AFCCG that no coach other than Belichick would have the balls to play man against the Chiefs most of the game, even with a UDFA cornerback on Tyreek Hills with a safety over the top.

I immediately thought "nope, he's wrong." DQ would have done it too.

I said it in another thread--for all the struggles DQ may have in game management, he more than makes up for it with his defensive chops. The guy is a top shelf defensive coach, and I believe the team will be much better served with him calling the shots on that side of the ball.

The only potential issue I think Quinn would have is if you run man, you're basically begging Mahomes to gash you in the run game.  But you can correct that with a spy, which is likely what he'd have done.

[vel]

3 minutes ago, JerseyNo11 said:

I remember when some "analyst" or whatever made a comment after the AFCCG that no coach other than Belichick would have the balls to play man against the Chiefs most of the game, even with a UDFA cornerback on Tyreek Hills with a safety over the top.

I immediately thought "nope, he's wrong." DQ would have done it too.

I said it in another thread--for all the struggles DQ may have in game management, he more than makes up for it with his defensive chops. The guy is a top shelf defensive coach, and I believe the team will be much better served with him calling the shots on that side of the ball.

 

1 minute ago, JDaveG said:

The only potential issue I think Quinn would have is if you run man, you're basically begging Mahomes to gash you in the run game.  But you can correct that with a spy, which is likely what he'd have done.

Very true. The man is very good at coming up with defensive schemes. Fully taking that over is going to be fun to watch. 

[Atl Falcon]

4 hours ago, vel said:

***Mods, I know this is an article about the SB between the Pats and the Rams, but at it's essence it's about football and I think it applies to the Falcons. Given it's the offseason and things will be fairly slower, please don't move this unless nobody reads/interacts.

Now that that is out of the way, Matt Waldman is one of my favorite Twitter follows when it comes to breaking down film and digging into the game of football. He's smart and understands it and knows how to give it to the casual fan so they can truly digest the game. He sat down with one of the contributors to his site and I think the conversation is one of the best I've read and I think it would be beneficial for this place as a whole. I also believe part of it applies to the Falcons and how we can/should look at this offseason and the related moves. 

There is more to the article, but it focuses in more on Goff, Brady, and is truly not related to the Falcons. But the parts I highlighted I think absolutely do. Especially about the zone running. People here still complain about not being able to be a physical zone running team. That's just not true. But this also speaks to why some RBs struggle with zone running concepts, something that isn't discussed enough. 

You see once we started losing OL, the continuity is paramount in a heavy zone based running game. But once they have that continuity, they can pick it up quicker. Hence why Shanahan's have leaned on later round OL because it's more about consistency than true talent. It's also why you can take RBs later, so long as they truly understand the rules of zone based running and follow them to a T. 

Also, the first/last bolded parts are why I'm excited about DQ going back to being DC and why I was never a fan of Manuel. Belichick is good because he isn't so focused on relying on his "scheme" but instead looking at each opponent and figuring out what needs to be done to stop that particular opponent. That's what made DQ great. He didn't live and die with the 4-3 Under in Seattle. He dusted off the bear fronts that gave the Niners fits. As you see with the last bolded part, DQ can figure out great offenses. He's got the reigns now.

Overall, don't cry over us sticking with the zone running scheme. Also, with the additions of Koetter, Mularkey, and Knapp, this gives the offense the variability that you see from the Pats (hopefully). Being able to match up and run schemes each week is key going forward. One offense doesn't beat every defense. One defense doesn't beat every offense. You have to be ready to beat that week's opponent. Even if it means going back to 1970s football and making it boring and ugly. At the end of the day, if that's what it takes to win the SB, do it. 

Don’t tell me Bill B is better than the great Sean McVay

[JDaveG]

1 hour ago, Atl Falcon said:

Don’t tell me Bill B is better than the great Sean McVay

Neither is as good as Matt LeFleur.

[Mr.11]

4 hours ago, JDaveG said:

The only potential issue I think Quinn would have is if you run man, you're basically begging Mahomes to gash you in the run game.  But you can correct that with a spy, which is likely what he'd have done.

Yep. It's how he keeps beating Rodgers (well, up until this past season). Beasley usually spies.

[Tandy]

Great read.    I am truly excited about Q taking over defense.    I'm more than a little nervous about our offense until I see what they do with the line, and while I want to hope  they will have a little room to get in sync, there is also a time factor for a defense to gel.

With the number of coaching changes, and the number of players that need to be changed, it may be something we have to give time before we get major results.

While I think they are making positive moves for the future, it's rare to see the coaching staff gutted and instant results occur simultaneously.  

I am hoping though.

 

[VTCrunkler]

5 hours ago, vel said:

Yep. Things get magnified. If a game consists of ten possessions per team, those leaky conversions because you couldn't stop the run on a 3rd & 3 hurt way worse. When it's time to put games away and you can't run the ball, it leaves the door open for comebacks.

...or offsides penalties....

[OilFuturesTrader19]

I never understood why other coaches never did what Belichick did. Adjust your game plans to the other teams weakness. Seems pretty common sense but I guess you need a certian coach like Belichick to do it, with the right knowledge and experience. 

I hope Quinn does this on Defense and I hope Koetter does it on offense. Players need to be intelligent and adaptable for this to work. If so, could be an exciting year.