Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 31 to 40 of 40
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Way far away.
    Posts
    1,236
    Quote Originally Posted by CanDB View Post
    Record breaking WR draft (first 2 rounds for sure). A number of speedsters. Say The Broncos, are we trying to be more like KC? Is Oakland? Is Dallas loading up on O? Is there more initiative to also have receiving RBs? Or is this just the way of the football land?

    Of course teams want a good O, as they do a good D. But is this a case of being like the winner? If San Fran would have won, would teams be stocking up on Dliners?? Maybe the run game gets a boost.

    I like our O. I think it gives our young QB a load of support, and this after a poor O season (make that more than one!). And I admit, I wish we would have added an OT as well.

    But though the current champs have a track meet going on, and an athletic, mobile, pass throwing QB, and I would argue that the 3 best QBs last season were described similarly....does winning in future have to look like winning of late? I would argue that a new trend will emerge at some point. I find it interesting that teams like Indy found the secret with KC earlier in the year (steady diet of run), as did The Titans with The Ravens. Not saying it's sustainable, but heck, we won our last SB mainly with D.

    Interesting to me, Carolina went 7 for 7 D this draft, but that could be more about lots of need than anything.

    This is just a lazy take on my part, with time on my hands, but I suggest that there are more ways to win then one. And teams should be careful not to try to copy the current winner, unless they have the tools, including coaching, to do so.

    BUT...if that's our direction, and it fits us, and we suit it, I'm game. But I think we can be a multi faceted winner....pass, run, D. A nice balance.d

    SO GANG....do you think most of the O I mention is about need more than other thing? Is The KC model worthy of notice, but not necessarily the way you'd go? And sure, is there some more merit to match fire with fire?

    Have fun with this!

    Personally I believe the talent coming from college to the NFL dictates the product of the NFL. I think a lot of teams "loaded up" on wide receivers because there were a lot of talented wide receivers. I think that defenses turn out more potent pass rushes follow drafts with a lot of edge talent, and more potent run defenses following drafts with a lot of interior line and linebacker talent. I guess it seems pretty silly to make the point as it seems common sense when I see it in writing, but I think the league, as a whole, is evolving to the point where more and more coaching staffs adjust their schemes to fit the talent instead of trying to force the talent to fit the scheme.
    All it takes to win is doing whatever it takes to win: COMMITMENT

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    36,017
    Quote Originally Posted by Letswinplz77 View Post
    Personally I believe the talent coming from college to the NFL dictates the product of the NFL. I think a lot of teams "loaded up" on wide receivers because there were a lot of talented wide receivers. I think that defenses turn out more potent pass rushes follow drafts with a lot of edge talent, and more potent run defenses following drafts with a lot of interior line and linebacker talent. I guess it seems pretty silly to make the point as it seems common sense when I see it in writing, but I think the league, as a whole, is evolving to the point where more and more coaching staffs adjust their schemes to fit the talent instead of trying to force the talent to fit the scheme.
    I don't think it is silly to say at all. It's an interesting point, that teams are adjusting to the talent, and not forcing the issue. Maybe not all teams, and maybe in varying degrees, but it's cool to maximize player talent/skills instead of squishing square pegs into round holes if you will.

    Which leads me to another thought (thanks to you), and it too may be silly as you say, from my perspective this time, but that does sound like the colleges have a bigger role on NFL teams then we may think. Those crucial years of coaching and mentoring and so on, make the players what they are going into the draft. So with that, is college changing The NFL? Maybe that's far too obvious to most of you. I'm so dense, and because I don't watch a lot of college ball, it just hit me that way!

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Way far away.
    Posts
    1,236
    Quote Originally Posted by JvDub95 View Post
    I don't look at it as a copy cat approach. I look at it as a team that averaged 17 points per game last year that's trying to score more. As it stands today, we have a better defense than the chiefs and raiders. We could make the argument that we have the best defense in the division but I will give the nod to LA. If we can score...24? 27? A game is that enough to push for the division?

    It's obvious the Chiefs are the top team in the league..... offensively. We NEED to be able to match them score for score and have the defense that can slow them down. I think we have that and I wouldn't be surprised if we won the division because of that.
    I'm super excited for them to pay Mahomes so we can see what their offense looks like when he's eating up 20% of their salary cap. I would be STUNNED if they could keep Kelce, Hill, Mahomes and their line in tact while holding on to Frank Clark, Mathieu, Chris Jones, Breeland, etc.
    All it takes to win is doing whatever it takes to win: COMMITMENT

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    15,116
    Quote Originally Posted by myoung View Post
    I think it is an interesting perspective but I disagree.

    The NFL rules are changing to protect the QB and receivers. The rules are eliminating big hits and preventing coverages from being as aggressive.

    Offenses are being encouraged to pass the ball because of the advantage. I donít believe the rules will ever change back the other direction. Not only is the game safer but scoring is more entertaining to the average fan.

    I think the Baltimore example is one of a team being creative with the player they have. We will likely see more of it but I donít believe it is because passing is becoming less important. It has more to do with using the tools they have. I think it is far more likely that Jackson gets hurt and everyone says ďI told you soĒ.

    Yes I think it is a copy cat league, it always has been teams are trying to add weapons and pay the passing positions. It is decreasing the value of the other positions. The RB position has been degraded significantly over the past decade.

    I believe there is almost zero chance that Belichick comes out with a full triple option. It doesnít match their personnel nor would he risk his key player getting blown up over and over again.

    I think it is an interesting thought, but I see the exact opposite occurring
    Fair enough. But what do you do when defences switch to nothing but smaller coverage players and really go after shutting down the pass? I'm very big on Isaiah Simmons, but he's not taking on a block from an o-line and he wasn't drafted 8th because of his prowess shutting down the run.

    Teams will always do what gives them an advantage, and when defences become all about stopping the pass, you'll see teams investing heavily in the run.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Way far away.
    Posts
    1,236
    Quote Originally Posted by CanDB View Post
    I don't think it is silly to say at all. It's an interesting point, that teams are adjusting to the talent, and not forcing the issue. Maybe not all teams, and maybe in varying degrees, but it's cool to maximize player talent/skills instead of squishing square pegs into round holes if you will.

    Which leads me to another thought (thanks to you), and it too may be silly as you say, from my perspective this time, but that does sound like the colleges have a bigger role on NFL teams then we may think. Those crucial years of coaching and mentoring and so on, make the players what they are going into the draft. So with that, is college changing The NFL? Maybe that's far too obvious to most of you. I'm so dense, and because I don't watch a lot of college ball, it just hit me that way!
    I think college has both good AND bad influences on pro football, maybe now more than ever. Line play at the NFL level has decreased steadily over the last couple of decades. One of the main reasons, according to people who actually know (Louis Riddick, for example), is the advent or wide implementation of the spread offense in college football. Apparently the spread offense requires less technically sound tackles, or requires them to be less technically proficient. Conversely, you've seen the shotgun all but disappear from the NFL game because of the prolific production from the spread offense and use of the shotgun, whereas in the 90's and early 2000's snaps from under center were common.

    Now you have these multitool defenders coming into the league from college, almost positionless, and it seems to be changing the way teams address their nickel and dime packages. While I DO watch a lot of college football, I have almost no qualification to say my opinion means anything. It's entirely possible the influence flows in the other direction and I'm completely wrong. Well, me and Louis Riddick.
    All it takes to win is doing whatever it takes to win: COMMITMENT

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    15,116
    Quote Originally Posted by samparnell View Post
    You could be right about trends, but the rules are an obstacle to breaking it. Football history provides many run heavy offenses from which to choose without reinventing the wheel. I read a review of Coverdale and Robinson's book on Bunch written by a Wing-T HS coach who retained its rushing attack and just installed the Bunch passing attack. That's like Shanahan combining WCO passing attack with Alex Gibbs' Zone Series rushing attack.

    Vince Lombardi was once asked what he thought would happen if the Single Wing returned. He said, "It would embarrass the hell out of us." In a way the Single Wing has never left because that's where Gun comes from. So called "Wildcat" is just a watered down Single Wing package of plays for a change of pace. Spread Formation football originated at TCU with Dutch Meyer in the 1930s & 40s. He wrote a book about it called Spread Formation Football. He took the Single Wing and spread the eligible receivers. Sammy Baugh was his most famous QB who later said that Dutch taught him the three Ss of passing: short, safe and sure. Sounds like a precursor to Walsh's WCO.

    It took years before Halas was able to install the T Formation offense because there were only a few college coaches who ran it (i.e., Shaughnessy, Bible, Leahy, Faurot) It took time to get the players who understood the T which eventually replaced the Single Wing in the NFL. Bringing the Single Wing back today would be real hard because it's not used at any major colleges, so players don't know it. It's almost that extreme for Wing-T, Veer, Bone and Power I/Option I.

    Belichick used to spend his offseason with Urban Meyer studying the Spread Option. He used that knowledge to smother Denver's rushing attack in the Divisional Round of the 2011 playoffs. Denver had lost their Fullback and couldn't use their I formation plays. They were stuck with the Spread Option, so Belichick took a page from the Oklahoma 50 D, and used it to stop Denver's rushing attack. He had been victimized by the "Wildcat" before and wasn't going to let it happen again.

    There is much to be said for series oriented, run heavy offenses. They have rich history and can be effective if the O-Linemen are well coached in the execution of all the blocks. The last O like that in the NFL that I can remember was Joe Gibbs Counter Series rushing attack in Washington. You may be right that Belichick or someone like him might try the contrarian approach and reach into history to bring back something that would exploit weaknesses current defenses would face if they had to defend it. It would be interesting to say the least.
    I pick Belichick to do it for two reasons: 1. Because he's a student of the game, well versed in history, and he's very very close to the Naval Academy. 2. Belichick was the very first victim of the wildcat, when Miami went in and embarrassed them with it. I could see him wanting to do that to teams by making them completely change how they prepare.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    13,727
    Quote Originally Posted by CanDB View Post
    Record breaking WR draft (first 2 rounds for sure). A number of speedsters. Say The Broncos, are we trying to be more like KC? Is Oakland? Is Dallas loading up on O? Is there more initiative to also have receiving RBs? Or is this just the way of the football land?

    Of course teams want a good O, as they do a good D. But is this a case of being like the winner? If San Fran would have won, would teams be stocking up on Dliners?? Maybe the run game gets a boost.

    I like our O. I think it gives our young QB a load of support, and this after a poor O season (make that more than one!). And I admit, I wish we would have added an OT as well.

    But though the current champs have a track meet going on, and an athletic, mobile, pass throwing QB, and I would argue that the 3 best QBs last season were described similarly....does winning in future have to look like winning of late? I would argue that a new trend will emerge at some point. I find it interesting that teams like Indy found the secret with KC earlier in the year (steady diet of run), as did The Titans with The Ravens. Not saying it's sustainable, but heck, we won our last SB mainly with D.

    Interesting to me, Carolina went 7 for 7 D this draft, but that could be more about lots of need than anything.

    This is just a lazy take on my part, with time on my hands, but I suggest that there are more ways to win then one. And teams should be careful not to try to copy the current winner, unless they have the tools, including coaching, to do so.

    BUT...if that's our direction, and it fits us, and we suit it, I'm game. But I think we can be a multi faceted winner....pass, run, D. A nice balance.d

    SO GANG....do you think most of the O I mention is about need more than other thing? Is The KC model worthy of notice, but not necessarily the way you'd go? And sure, is there some more merit to match fire with fire?

    Have fun with this!

    I do think the AFC West is going to have to score more points to compete with the Chiefs.

    With that said the exact approach at how to do that will not be known until the 2021 season is about 6-8 weeks old.

    Every year teams look at teams who won the division, teams that won playoff games, look at their schedule and do the best they can to make the playoffs. Sometimes that means copying something they think will work for their team. I do not think the Broncos coaches are stopping at the Chiefs to try and find ways to score more points. Sometimes that means coming up with ways to stop/beat/outscore teams in their division. Sometimes they try to innovate/re-innovate something new into the league. Every once in a while coaches look to the colleges ranks for something to throw at opponents. Sometimes they look at things used in previous NFL seasons that maybe went of "style".

    What are the Broncos plans? Outside of scoring more points I think that is still a mystery at this point....probably a closely guarded mystery as the Broncos do not want an opponent to get ideas of their plans.

    I do think we plan on surrounding Lock with lots of explosive players hoping he can deliver the ball into their hands and get big plays. Who in detail we plan to do that? At this point I have no idea but I am very excited to find out!

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    15,116
    Quote Originally Posted by myoung View Post
    The dynamic I find really interesting is the running game. Clearly the Ravens have a unique way they have approached it, which I am also a fan of. I think that style is much more difficult to copy because Lamar Jackson is a bit of a unicorn at this point. While I think Vick and Newton have provided similar situations, I think the Ravens took it to the next level. I like what they did. Personally I get nervous about a big dollar guy taking that many hits but time will tell.

    More interesting to me, is watching teams like the 49ers and Titans. Clearly the running game is not dead and critical to success. Although it is more common for teams to use multiple backs. Watching the Titans hesitate to go big with Henry is a very real indication of the perceived value of that position vs the other elements of the offense that lead to a great running game. The Titans seem as willing to invest in WRs and the 49ers have clearly felt the need to add dynamics to their offense. Even though they are primarily running teams.

    While I still believe the league is heading in a passing direction, I think a good running game is key to beating teams like the Chiefs. It is doubtful anyone is going to win a straight shootout (consistently) against the Chiefs. But with a little better D, that can slow them down a little and a running game that keeps them off the field I think they are beatable.

    Bottom line is that I don't think most QBs are Mahomes so I don't think a straight copy cat is a good solution. I think we need a real rounded team to have a shot. I think we need some sustained drives and the ability to score TDs instead of FGs.

    I am probably rambling but just some observations that I find interesting in the league right now.
    I don't necessarily think it's the style that's difficult to copy, but the commitment to it. Once you become a run team like that you have to commit to it. You have to bring in a backup QB that plays the same style, you need to spend a big portion of your practice time working on it, and you have to be okay with your QB taking some hits.

    The one benefit a triple option team would have in the NFL (aside from how unique it is and a massive challenge for teams to prepare for) is that a lot of NFL players playing other positions were option QBs in HS.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    15,116
    Quote Originally Posted by Letswinplz77 View Post
    I think college has both good AND bad influences on pro football, maybe now more than ever. Line play at the NFL level has decreased steadily over the last couple of decades. One of the main reasons, according to people who actually know (Louis Riddick, for example), is the advent or wide implementation of the spread offense in college football. Apparently the spread offense requires less technically sound tackles, or requires them to be less technically proficient. Conversely, you've seen the shotgun all but disappear from the NFL game because of the prolific production from the spread offense and use of the shotgun, whereas in the 90's and early 2000's snaps from under center were common.

    Now you have these multitool defenders coming into the league from college, almost positionless, and it seems to be changing the way teams address their nickel and dime packages. While I DO watch a lot of college football, I have almost no qualification to say my opinion means anything. It's entirely possible the influence flows in the other direction and I'm completely wrong. Well, me and Louis Riddick.
    Yep. Too many college coaches decide it's easier to have their OTs cut block their guy in most pass protection rather than actually teaching them to pass protect. It and QB play are the biggest reasons the NFL should create a minor league.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    36,017
    Quote Originally Posted by Letswinplz77 View Post
    I think college has both good AND bad influences on pro football, maybe now more than ever. Line play at the NFL level has decreased steadily over the last couple of decades. One of the main reasons, according to people who actually know (Louis Riddick, for example), is the advent or wide implementation of the spread offense in college football. Apparently the spread offense requires less technically sound tackles, or requires them to be less technically proficient. Conversely, you've seen the shotgun all but disappear from the NFL game because of the prolific production from the spread offense and use of the shotgun, whereas in the 90's and early 2000's snaps from under center were common.

    Now you have these multitool defenders coming into the league from college, almost positionless, and it seems to be changing the way teams address their nickel and dime packages. While I DO watch a lot of college football, I have almost no qualification to say my opinion means anything. It's entirely possible the influence flows in the other direction and I'm completely wrong. Well, me and Louis Riddick.
    You know way more about college ball than I.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •