Official Game Thread - Week 4 - Commanders @ Falcons

[Voice_of_Reason]

I get all that, and recognize the playoffs aren’t made in September.

But he’s already missed 2 of 4 games with a knee injury and his top weapon of whom he already was rusty with, has no timetable for return from injury.

And on the other side of the ball we still can’t rush the passer or defend the forward pass. I’d feel better if we were waiting on guys to heal up on this side of the ball but unfortunately there’s no saviors rehabbing.

Just for clarity, I was answering the question "I don't see the solution to all of these myriad of problems," and my answer was JD5 is basically the only possible answer.

However, it's absolutely not a given it's going to work out that way. He has the ability to put the team on his back and carry them, basically all by himself. But will that happen? Complete unknown. And at some point he'll need people to catch passes, block, and maybe make a tackle from time to time.

Even a top 5 QB in their prime can't always solve every problem on a team. Sometimes they can. Elway got some REALLY average Broncos teams to the SB based on his considerable will, later Brady got some very average Patriots teams andt, Tampa Bay teams to the SB because he is a GOAT.

Drew Brees was a top 5 QB in his prime, and had 3 7-9 seasons in a row while he was throwing for 5,000 a season and 40 TDs. Because the rest of the team was just THAT bad even he couldn't overcome it while he was having MVP like seasons.

Does it always happen a top 5 QB can lift their team? No. But it can happen.

And all we can hope for is for it to happen. Because barring the complete unexpected, the defense isn't going to get appreciably better overnight. So JD5 is the only possible answer.

 

[skinsinparadise]

I’ve seen a lot of chatter about Kliff not running enough, but what I saw yesterday were multiple opportunities for Marcus to scramble and instead he tried hanging in the pocket to no avail. Not sure why he was so apprehensive to take off yesterday.

Yeah I was making the same comments during the game. Felt like he got some Heinicke in him where Heinicke after having success running, just stopped doing it. Even the one good Mariota run, he seemed reluctant to do it.

 

[Simeon]

The bottom line is we scored 27 points on the road, the offense with Mariota and depleted WRs was not the problem. That part is actually encouraging. Last year the secondary, featuring players like BSJ and Forbes was still middle of the pack in stats because teams realized they could just run over us, and did.

This year we spent a lot of resources on stopping the run by beefing up the line so now they are finding ways to attack the secondary. Even with injuries we should be better there personnel wise. Not great, just NFL credible.

Anytime I see receivers wide open several times a game I think coaching. Sometimes a player just screws up, and last year I was more open to the idea we just needed more players who were smart enough to make fast decisions. Not so much now. If teams are in fact realizing that we get confused by motion or bunching up receivers then that’s a problem that should have been addressed in camp, not something we are still struggling with in game 4.

OK so here we are. They can fix it now and better, but it’s still a bad look for Whitt as a DC. This should be a make or break year for him, just because he was a good position coach doesn’t mean he’s a good DC. Will see.

My nightmare is that he doesn’t improve and Quinn sticks with him out of personal loyalty. I think that was one of his problems before coming here.

And I don’t have a problem with APs drafting. Most of the picks people are criticizing, like Luke and Sinnot last year do seem to be developing. Same for Josh C this year.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

Kliff did it again.

He ran a lot more in a 4q drive than in most previous drives. Drive result: Td. It’s annoying and it has happened many times dating back to last year. For those who say we scores “enough” let’s all admit something: last year, this year, the O needs to carry this team. That is where most of the investment is. It’s skewed heavily there.

So the D needs to make timely stops and the O needs to not turn the ball over and make the most of its drives.

One of the simple differences between the Packers/Cowboys and Packers/Commanders is the Cowboys were more consistent throughout the game with the run as far as I could tell (just saw box score sometimes, bur they typically are and I saw the final line so making an assumption there).

At points in our game there was a pretty decent skew towards pass and meanwhile the Falcons sat at 50-50.

Their D isn’t bad, but when you become more predictable you make good DCs look better. Last year the Comms knocked them out of the playoffs so this was a revenge game of sorts. Hopefully we get an opportunity to knock them our again, even if indirectly!

I'll be honest, I don't know that any of this is really true, at least the parts about how the game unfolded.

If you look at the first 2 drives of the game as an example:

Drive 1 (starting down 0-3)
Play 1: Run - Deebo end-around for -3 yards.
Play 2: Pass - Sack. You kindof have to pass on 2nd and 13.
Play 3: Pass - Incompletion. You kindof have to pass on 3rd and 16.

Drive 2 (Starting down 0-10)
Play 1: Run - CRod for 3 yards
Play 2: Run - CRod for 48 yards
Play 3: Run - CRod for 2 yards
Play 4: Pass - Complete to Ertz for 7 yards
Play 5: Run - CRod for 0 yards
Play 6: Pass - Complete to Deebo for 4 yards (This was a 4th down and 1 conversion)
Play 7: Run - McNichols on a direct snap for 1 yard
Play 8: Pass - Complete to McCaffrey for a TD.

Sadly, immediately following that, the Falcons went right down and scored again, so it was 7-17.

It's easy to forget, after the defense let Atlanta score on their first 2 possessions, we did go right back down the field and score. And in the second drive, there were 5 runs and 3 passes. The first drive was 1 run and 2 passes, but after losing 3 yards on the first play and a sack on second down, that sortof just happens.

There might be nits to pick on the offensive side of the ball, but given what they were working with, I think they did a really admirable job. I actually think Kliff called a hell of a game. He knew he had to be a bit creative to manufacture offense at times, because when you our down the number of players you are down, you have to try to manufacture stuff. Some say it's "getting cute." But we're not in 1963 anymore, you don't just line up and 3 yards in a cloud of field turf dust all the way down the field.

I think there are some folks who just want to pick at Kliff because they want to pick at Kliff and I'm not entirely sure why. Unlike any OC we've had since McVay left, Kliff tries stuff. He's not infallible, and at times he will get out-coached. Which is true for just about every coach from time to time. But he'll do his share of out-coaching as well.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

Yeah I was making the same comments during the game. Felt like he got some Heinicke in him where Heinicke after having success running, just stopped doing it. Even the one good Mariota run, he seemed reluctant to do it.

Galdi brought something up, and I'm not sure if it is true or not, but Mariota did not leave Atlanta on good terms. They REALLY don't like him down there because they thought he quit on the team. Whether he did or did not, I guess that's up for debate. He's been great here as a teammate, which is really all that matters to me.

But Galdi brought up the fact that it's possible MM was either nervous, or emotional, or at least somewhat distracted by the environment, and therefor didn't play as well as he normally does. And honestly, that would be extremely "human" if that was the case. Not everybody can compartmentalize everything at an exceptionally high level.

MM did NOT have his best game by a mile. He probably could have run more, the intentional grounding was awful, and the interception was probably both a bad throw and a bad decision. (I can't tell if he didn't over-throw the ball if he could have gotten it in to Lane. I don't think he saw the Safety covering. Could vintage Brady/Manning/Brees dropped that one right into Lane? Maybe. But not sure. Regardless, it was a bad throw even if it wasn't a bad decision.)

He also didn't scramble when he could have a few times.

I dunno the cause. He didn't play great. But I would argue he played well enough to win, and certainly as well as you can expect from a backup QB.

 

[skinsinparadise]

Only good thing that happened on Sunday is the Chargers O line likely is going to be banged up for this Sunday.

Otherwise the Giants might be better than the first time they faced them. Cam Skattebo looking like the real deal at RB and sets a tone. And Jaxson Dart is being celebrated. Not bad beating the undefeated Chargers in your debut.

Washington couldn't move the ball against GB. Dallas put up 40 points against them and seemed to have a better plan against them. Do we know that Washington >> Dallas at this point?

Eagles look as strong as last year, off to a better start and beating big teams.

NFC is doing so well against the AFC that you might need to win 11 games again to make the playoffs.

I think this offense will rise. It's been good aside from the GB game. But the secondary is horrendous, oddly maybe worse than last year which shocks me. it needs to be fixed. Yeah Forbes and St. Juste were really bad last year. But Lattimore might be just as bad. And Sainristil has been bad, he's regressed. And ditto Quan. So how can it be worse. Probably bad coaching along with two really bad corners -- the current version of Sainristil and Lattimore might be as bad as St. Juste, Forbes, or close enough and Quan has regressed from a solid safety to a really bad one. Now my optimism is that maybe J. Jones when he comes back can replace Lattimore. Sainristil refinds his form. Ditto Quan.

 

[SkinsNumberOne]

I'll be honest, I don't know that any of this is really true, at least the parts about how the game unfolded.

If you look at the first 2 drives of the game as an example:

Drive 1 (starting down 0-3)
Play 1: Run - Deebo end-around for -3 yards.
Play 2: Pass - Sack. You kindof have to pass on 2nd and 13.
Play 3: Pass - Incompletion. You kindof have to pass on 3rd and 16.

Drive 2 (Starting down 0-10)
Play 1: Run - CRod for 3 yards
Play 2: Run - CRod for 48 yards
Play 3: Run - CRod for 2 yards
Play 4: Pass - Complete to Ertz for 7 yards
Play 5: Run - CRod for 0 yards
Play 6: Pass - Complete to Deebo for 4 yards (This was a 4th down and 1 conversion)
Play 7: Run - McNichols on a direct snap for 1 yard
Play 8: Pass - Complete to McCaffrey for a TD.

Sadly, immediately following that, the Falcons went right down and scored again, so it was 7-17.

It's easy to forget, after the defense let Atlanta score on their first 2 possessions, we did go right back down the field and score. And in the second drive, there were 5 runs and 3 passes. The first drive was 1 run and 2 passes, but after losing 3 yards on the first play and a sack on second down, that sortof just happens.

There might be nits to pick on the offensive side of the ball, but given what they were working with, I think they did a really admirable job. I actually think Kliff called a hell of a game. He knew he had to be a bit creative to manufacture offense at times, because when you our down the number of players you are down, you have to try to manufacture stuff. Some say it's "getting cute." But we're not in 1963 anymore, you don't just line up and 3 yards in a cloud of field turf dust all the way down the field.

I think there are some folks who just want to pick at Kliff because they want to pick at Kliff and I'm not entirely sure why. Unlike any OC we've had since McVay left, Kliff tries stuff. He's not infallible, and at times he will get out-coached. Which is true for just about every coach from time to time. But he'll do his share of out-coaching as well.

Kliff had a huge effect in the Gb loss in my opinion, and potentially a big effect on the year. JD’s chances of getting injured skyrocket with the playcalling in that game.

In this game you took the first two drives out. Now count their last TD drive out. I think the skew of the meat of the game, Q2 and 3, end up with a really heavy slant.

Do I think it is horrible? No, not in this game. Do I think it is ideal? No.

I get it is just an opinion and there are many ways to win and lose games but the Raiders game, we did a lot of run dictation. 6 OL on the field. Some said we would do it again here. I had my doubts. Kliff always does this, down 1 or two scores, in the 1st through 3rd the run disappears until the fourth. The final stats look close to 50/50 so many analysts just looking at the box score tend to say he called an even game, but there is a heavy skew for a large chunk of the game.

It has happened before, multiple times. I can only assume it will happen again.

When I look at some offenses I admire in structure and playcalling (not in personnel), hate to say it but stupid Cowboys and Eagles are there. They tend to dedicate to run throughout the game. They don’t forget, even when down one or two scores. Running isn’t an afterthought.

I don’t want to harp on it too much. This game was lost by the D but many games will be. This team is structured to win with O as they did last year. For me, to reduce the reliance on number Jayden 5 (movie reference), we would ideally be calling the game differently, and more consistently. The way the D played yesterday? We probably lose no matter what, but it could have been closer. It wasn’t horribly called by any stretch, but in my opinion with MM at the helm, could have been better.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

That number looks worse in q1-q3 and that is a problem that has shown up more than many people realize I think.

Again, I don't think you're right. Look at my previous post which breaks down the first 2 drives.

Games ebb and flow. There is context to everything.

If you want more evidence, look at Drive 3, which started mid 3rd quarter after the long kickoff return:

Play 1: Pass - Complete to Lane (1st and 10)
Play 2: Run - Bill for 5 yards (2nd and 3)
Play 3: Pass - this was the intentional grounding penalty. (1st and 10)
Play 4: Pass - Complete to Samuel for 6 yards, but he fumbled and then got it back (2nd and 20)
Play 5: Pass - Complete to Samuel for 11 yards to get into FG range. (3rd and 17)

Could Kliff have called a run on 1st and 10 when Mariota got the intentional grounding penalty? Sure. He could run on literally every single first down just like Jay did for 4 years when he was the play caller and Scott Turner did for the 3 years he was the play caller, and they would run for an average of 1.2 yards and be in 2nd and 8+ every single time.

Again, we ended up almost even in run/pass, and it wasn't just all in the 4th quarter. And there were situation, clock, penalties, losses on plays, which dictated some "known passing" situations.

 

[skinsinparadise]

Galdi brought something up, and I'm not sure if it is true or not, but Mariota did not leave Atlanta on good terms. They REALLY don't like him down there because they thought he quit on the team. Whether he did or did not, I guess that's up for debate. He's been great here as a teammate, which is really all that matters to me.

But Galdi brought up the fact that it's possible MM was either nervous, or emotional, or at least somewhat distracted by the environment, and therefor didn't play as well as he normally does. And honestly, that would be extremely "human" if that was the case. Not everybody can compartmentalize everything at an exceptionally high level.

MM did NOT have his best game by a mile. He probably could have run more, the intentional grounding was awful, and the interception was probably both a bad throw and a bad decision. (I can't tell if he didn't over-throw the ball if he could have gotten it in to Lane. I don't think he saw the Safety covering. Could vintage Brady/Manning/Brees dropped that one right into Lane? Maybe. But not sure. Regardless, it was a bad throw even if it wasn't a bad decision.)

He also didn't scramble when he could have a few times.

I dunno the cause. He didn't play great. But I would argue he played well enough to win, and certainly as well as you can expect from a backup QB.

Yeah Mariota quitting on that season with Atlanta was pretty well documented at the time. He was pissed that he was benched and then bailed.

I think Mariota was OK. But did seem timid as to running oddly. And it was noticeable from the previous game where he if anything was a ballsy runner. Makes me wonder if Kliff told him not to because of the fumblein that game and or they can't lose him.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

This year we spent a lot of resources on stopping the run by beefing up the line so now they are finding ways to attack the secondary. Even with injuries we should be better there personnel wise. Not great, just NFL credible.

I really think it's the LB corps. Wagner looks slower, Luvu has dissapeared, and I don't even know who's playing the third LB spot.

Butler played a lot of the sortof hybrid LB/Safety, but he was out.

Reeves and Martin played safety for the most part. I think we were basically one guy short the entire game because our 4th safety and 3rd LB are basically ghosts.

The DL seems to be ok, they are doing their job for the most part. The LB/Safety crew needs to clean up the plays and make tackles.

What they really need is for Lattimore to actually not suck and be able to hold up on one side of the field so they don't have to double his guy all the time, and that would help the run defense.

 

[skinsinparadise]

When I look at some offenses I admire in structure and playcalling (not in personnel), hate to say it but stupid Cowboys and Eagles are there. They tend to dedicate to run throughout the game. They don’t forget, even when down one or two scores. Running isn’t an afterthought.
I don’t want to harp on it too much. This game was lost by the D but many games will be. This team is structured to win with O as they did last year. For me, to reduce the reliance on number Jayden 5 (movie reference), we would ideally be calling the game differently, and more consistently. The way the D played yesterday? We probably lose no matter what, but it could have been closer. It wasn’t horribly called by any stretch, but in my opinion with MM at the helm, could have been better.

The team at its best and worst feels like a replica of last year.

Very good offense. And a bad defense that doesn't cause turnovers. In 2012 for example, they had a bad defense but that did cause turnovers.

The question is can the same formula work against a much tougher schedule and the team is much more banged up than last year.

I think the only thing we can say with confidence is the running game is better. All these backs are better than Robinson. And while Ekeler is missed, I still think they are stronger with his group than last years group.

The pass rush is better. But I am not sure if its by leaps and bounds. and I guess the run stopping is better up the gut but sees equally vulnerable on crack-tosses, outside zone.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

Yeah Mariota quitting on that season with Atlanta was pretty well documented at the time. He was pissed that he was benched and then bailed.

I think Mariota was OK. But did seem timid as to running oddly. And it was noticeable from the previous game where he if anything was a ballsy runner. Makes me wonder if Kliff told him not to because of the fumblein that game and or they can't lose him.

The story is he was injured and stayed away. At least that's the other side of the story.

I really, honestly, and truly don't care. He went to Philly and was a model citizen, then he came here and he's been great. So whatever happened in Atlanta happened.

I wouldn't be surprised if they were trying to protect him a bit with the running since literally nobody wants to see Josh Johnson play football except his parents. (I can't find if he has a wife/kids, but I'm assuming he has parents. )

 

[SkinsNumberOne]

Again, I don't think you're right. Look at my previous post which breaks down the first 2 drives.

Games ebb and flow. There is context to everything.

If you want more evidence, look at Drive 3, which started mid 3rd quarter after the long kickoff return:

Play 1: Pass - Complete to Lane (1st and 10)
Play 2: Run - Bill for 5 yards (2nd and 3)
Play 3: Pass - this was the intentional grounding penalty. (1st and 10)
Play 4: Pass - Complete to Samuel for 6 yards, but he fumbled and then got it back (2nd and 20)
Play 5: Pass - Complete to Samuel for 11 yards to get into FG range. (3rd and 17)

Could Kliff have called a run on 1st and 10 when Mariota got the intentional grounding penalty? Sure. He could run on literally every single first down just like Jay did for 4 years when he was the play caller and Scott Turner did for the 3 years he was the play caller, and they would run for an average of 1.2 yards and be in 2nd and 8+ every single time.

Again, we ended up almost even in run/pass, and it wasn't just all in the 4th quarter. And there were situation, clock, penalties, losses on plays, which dictated some "known passing" situations.

I think one of the things you are probably missing is the Eagles and Cowboys have at least 50% fewer “known passing plays” than you and Kliff have. That is probably the difference.

Penalties happen. 1st-15, 2nd-15, almost any 2nd, it’s all on the table for some teams.

Again the playcalling wasn’t horrible like GB, but against the Raiders it was a different dedication and this isn’t about dropping 40 and judging on a win. It is what it is- maybe I missed it but I didn’t see the same formations Sunday. Instead it looked like we played to their Ds strengths more than we should have.

That’s a strong D but number ONE against pass and number 10 against run going into week 4.
Number 2 overall

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

I think one of the things you are probably missing is the Eagles and Cowboys have at least 50% fewer “known passing plays” than you and Kliff have. That is probably the difference.

Penalties happen. 1st-15, 2nd-15, almost any 2nd, it’s all on the table for some teams.

Again the playcalling wasn’t horrible like GB, but against the Raiders it was a different dedication and this isn’t about dropping 40 and judging on a win. It is what it is- maybe I missed it but I didn’t see the same formations Sunday. Instead it looked like we played to their Ds strengths more than we should have.

That’s a strong D but number 2 against pass and number 10 against run going into week 4.

Yeah, with respect, I honestly think you're seeing what you want to see. I don't think it's there.

If Kliff abandoned the run, that would really have shown up in the 3rd and 4th quarters when they were still down 2 scores and trying to come back. But he never did. We ran a variety of different things, including a wildcat with McNichols, 2 end-arounds, a variety of different styles of running plays.

We also had bone-headed penalties.

It is what it is. I don't think it was play calling.

You have to be able to win in the passing game, at least to some extent. As Jaws said back in the 90's, and he was right then and right now, "points come out of the passing game." The exception being MAYBE the Eagles. But even they have a good complementary passing game.

The other absolute run-first team, the Ravens, are now 1-3.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

The team at its best and worst feels like a replica of last year.

Very good offense. And a bad defense that doesn't cause turnovers. In 2012 for example, they had a bad defense but that did cause turnovers.

The question is can the same formula work against a much tougher schedule and the team is much more banged up than last year.

I think the only thing we can say with confidence is the running game is better. All these backs are better than Robinson. And while Ekeler is missed, I still think they are stronger with his group than last years group.

The pass rush is better. But I am not sure if its by leaps and bounds. and I guess the run stopping is better up the gut but sees equally vulnerable on crack-tosses, outside zone.

I REALLY think, IF, and this is a big IF, but IF JD5, McLaurin and Bates are healthy, this offense could absolutely hum. Could be better than last year, and maybe a lot better depending on the OL.

You and I were in agreement on this (I think) that the OL was going to be a work in progress for the first quarter + of the season because of the way they handled pre-season and the injuries.

But IF, and again IF, they have a healthy McLaurin and Deebo, they have a very scary pair of receivers. The running game is better for sure. Bates is a beast as a blocker. Even without Noah Brown, I think they're a matchup nightmare everywhere because of JD5's running ability.

They just need to do it. The question is, will they all be healthy at the same time? That's entirely unclear.

If they are, then that side of the ball can be better, and the defense needs to not be worse.

My concern is the defense seems to be worse, and I'm not entirely sure why. I think the personnel is actually better, if not slightly. So what's going on? I get they are missing Harris and Wise, and they are big losses, but THIS big? I don't think so. Something just aint right in Denmark.

 

[Chris 44]

Turnovers are still an issue for this D. We did get a pick yesterday, Sanistrill. Re watching the throw from Penix was a real headscratcher, receiver was wide open down the right sideline but Penix made a very bad underthrown attempt.

 

[Chris]

Expecting Wagner to cover athletic TEs (like in GB) or running backs in the passing game is an obvious mistake, to be kind. Yet it happens and leads to explosive gains.

 

[SkinsNumberOne]

Yeah, with respect, I honestly think you're seeing what you want to see. I don't think it's there.

If Kliff abandoned the run, that would really have shown up in the 3rd and 4th quarters when they were still down 2 scores and trying to come back. But he never did. We ran a variety of different things, including a wildcat with McNichols, 2 end-arounds, a variety of different styles of running plays.

We also had bone-headed penalties.

It is what it is. I don't think it was play calling.

You have to be able to win in the passing game, at least to some extent. As Jaws said back in the 90's, and he was right then and right now, "points come out of the passing game." The exception being MAYBE the Eagles. But even they have a good complementary passing game.

The other absolute run-first team, the Ravens, are now 1-3.

Fair criticism, and I ask myself the same thing. One day I may do a very deep dive into the analytics and see, because I think there are certain interesting data points that are uncaptured on tendency that a) may be there and b) may be very present in some DC's minds. Your point about formations is also something I needed to hear as well; *100% agree* that formation variety was higher yesterday than it was in many games last year, which is good news.

I can't be too specific on it; I can only say that there are teams that are much bigger threats to run all game than this team. I have 0 complaints about how the Raiders game was called or how last year's Titans game was called, but those are anomalies in a sea of "other" games that have a much more distinct flow of calling. It's a great passing offense. Kliff isn't a bad coordinator. I just think there is something off in how the calls are made, I think a deep dive would reveal specific tendencies that don't exist in the best offenses in the league.

For those who complain the defense lost this game, though - again, that's actually just what's going to happen in most of our Ls this year, just like last year. Our offense needs to carry this team. That doesn't excuse the defense; they need to play better. However, our expectations have to be higher for the offense as that is where more attention has gone.

At any rate, yesterday's game - the defense was way over the top bad. I only highlighted that I did feel like I saw some of that same tendency that rankles me; it looked like down 1-2 scores in Qs1-3, we saw Kliff shift his percentages. Then, in Q4, his percentage shifted the other way, and that included a TD scoring drive. That simple description has played out quite frequently. I'm not saying we would win if he did X/Y/Z, but I also don't see a strong argument to not employ something closer to what he did against the Raiders against the #1 passing defense in the league.

 

[SkinsNumberOne]

Expecting Wagner to cover athletic TEs (like in GB) or running backs in the passing game is an obvious mistake, to be kind. Yet it happens and leads to explosive gains.

Then doesn't that mean Wagner is a problem, or Luvu is a problem? It seems that if you can't command a double-team or two on the DL, you are going to end up with a potential scheme that gets Wagner or Luvu on a TE (and of those, I guess it's Wagner). So they get a gift-wrapped mismatch.

Also it sounds like teams are just mimicking what was reported by GB; flood zones with skill players and the QB finds the open WR. To me, this one looked a little more scripted though - I don't know, but it seemed a little less like Penix finding the open guy than it did with Love. It looked more like Penix knew who would be open. Better plan perhaps. Same putrid result (for us).

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

Fair criticism, and I ask myself the same thing. One day I may do a very deep dive into the analytics and see, because I think there are certain interesting data points that are uncaptured on tendency that a) may be there and b) may be very present in some DC's minds. Your point about formations is also something I needed to hear as well; *100% agree* that formation variety was higher yesterday than it was in many games last year, which is good news.

I can't be too specific on it; I can only say that there are teams that are much bigger threats to run all game than this team. I have 0 complaints about how the Raiders game was called or how last year's Titans game was called, but those are anomalies in a sea of "other" games that have a much more distinct flow of calling. It's a great passing offense. Kliff isn't a bad coordinator. I just think there is something off in how the calls are made, I think a deep dive would reveal specific tendencies that don't exist in the best offenses in the league.

For those who complain the defense lost this game, though - again, that's actually just what's going to happen in most of our Ls this year, just like last year. Our offense needs to carry this team. That doesn't excuse the defense; they need to play better. However, our expectations have to be higher for the offense as that is where more attention has gone.

At any rate, yesterday's game - the defense was way over the top bad. I only highlighted that I did feel like I saw some of that same tendency that rankles me; it looked like down 1-2 scores in Qs1-3, we saw Kliff shift his percentages. Then, in Q4, his percentage shifted the other way, and that included a TD scoring drive. That simple description has played out quite frequently. I'm not saying we would win if he did X/Y/Z, but I also don't see a strong argument to not employ something closer to what he did against the Raiders against the #1 passing defense in the league.

One thing, and I completely acknowledge this bias, over the past 20-some odd years, I've moved from a "run first" theory of offense to a "pass first" theory of offense.

I have loved studying the original West Coast Offenses as developed by Bill Walsh, what the philosophy was, how they tied routes to footwork, used the short pass as a replacement of the run. Then the Shanahan (Mike) variation which brought in the stretch-zone running game, and married it with WCO principals. The Holmgren variant, which was more classic WCO, but also took more deep shots. The Reid variant, where at times he basically forgot you could hand a ball to a running back, but was so creative in the ways he used screens, protections, quick game, it really didn't matter.

I really like a pass-first approach. Mike Leach once said "I want all of the positions to touch it. There's nothing balanced about 50 percent run, 50 percent pass, because that's 50 percent stupid. Now, what is balanced is when you have five skill positions ... if all five of them are contributing to the offensive effort in a somewhat equal fashion, then that's balanced. But this notion that, if you hand it to one guy 50 percent of the time and then you throw it to a combination of two guys the other 50 percent, that you're really balanced ... you probably pat yourself on the back and tell yourself that, and people have been doing that for decades. Well, you're delusional."

I think every offense is going to be a little different, based on personnel, offensive scheme, etc. If Reid had outside weapons + Mahomes, he would run the ball 6 times a game. He's adapted because he hasn't had the weapons. The Ravens and Eagles are going to run the ball down your throat as their identity. The Bills are somewhere in the middle, but they are generally a pass-first team, with Allen adding to the running game.

Kliff's offense will be more pass oriented than the Eagles or Ravens, and maybe the Cowboys. I'm personally fine with that. I think yesterday you saw him stay mostly balanced. A lot of different people touched the ball, we had a relatively even run/pass ratio, and some of the passing was dictated by situations.

If they go off and run the ball 40 times and score 35 points, I'm fine with that. But I'm equally fine if they spread the ball around a lot. Especially if they are using the short pass as an extension of the run game, where they get the ball out quickly and in space to allow a ball carrier to make one guy miss and get into the open field with less traffic.