The Flaw in the Shanahan Offensive Scheme

[Goaldeje]

That's what I love about this place. Just when you think people are going to come to blows... diareha of the mouth comes up (or out).

Now we're all laughing.

Or puking. Whatever.

 

[Henry]

That's some funny stuff there.

But I did mean fluid BS. As in the saying, "diarrhea of the mouth".

And, come on Mike, think chocolate smoothie.

I stand corrected.


.... nice recovery.

 

[Oldfan]

...I am pretty sure most NFL scouts, General Managers and coaches have their own methods too...

Yes they do, and on the rare occasions when they share their opinions truthfully on QBs, we can learn from them.

For example, we were told by Joe Gibbs that Jason Campbell's accuracy coming out of Auburn was first rate. He mentioned his 70% completion rate as evidence. I couldn't see how that was possible given Jason's sloppy mechanics. It wasn't until Al Saunders told us that Jason needed an overhaul of his mechanics in 2006 that my suspicions were verified.

Jim Zorn verified my theories on Campbell and quarterbacks in general nearly every time he spoke on those topics.

My very high opinion of Jay Cutler was verified in an ESPN article in 2007 when he was put head and shoulders above all the other young QBs by a collection of scouts and NFL execs who expressed the same reasons that had convinced me.

The scouts, GMs and coaches generally have a more intelligent approach to grading QBs. Mike Shanahan has repeatedly told us that QBs, their schemes, and their supporting cast all figure into the grading problem. That supports what I've been saying here.

 

[Oldfan]

...Besides, as Lanky said, unless, and until, a QB is on the field playing by himself, your formula can't exist. Though I eagerly await your explanation of how it can, and does.

Where did you get the idea that I have a formula?

 

[Neophyte]

Yes they do, and on the rare occasions when they share their opinions truthfully on QBs, we can learn from them.

For example, we were told by Joe Gibbs that Jason Campbell's accuracy coming out of Auburn was first rate. He mentioned his 70% completion rate as evidence. I couldn't see how that was possible given Jason's sloppy mechanics. It wasn't until Al Saunders told us that Jason needed an overhaul of his mechanics in 2006 that my suspicions were verified.

Jim Zorn verified my theories on Campbell and quarterbacks in general nearly every time he spoke on those topics.

My very high opinion of Jay Cutler was verified in an ESPN article in 2007 when he was put head and shoulders above all the other young QBs by a collection of scouts and NFL execs who expressed the same reasons that had convinced me.

The scouts, GMs and coaches generally have a more intelligent approach to grading QBs. Mike Shanahan has repeatedly told us that QBs, their schemes, and their supporting cast all figure into the grading problem. That supports what I've been saying here.

Which is all great but if you go with just the measurables, you end up with Jeff George and Todd Marinovich as two of the greatest QB's in NFL history.

They are proof that you CANNOT grade a quarterback by measurables alone.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Yes they do, and on the rare occasions when they share their opinions truthfully on QBs, we can learn from them.

For example, we were told by Joe Gibbs that Jason Campbell's accuracy coming out of Auburn was first rate. He mentioned his 70% completion rate as evidence. I couldn't see how that was possible given Jason's sloppy mechanics. It wasn't until Al Saunders told us that Jason needed an overhaul of his mechanics in 2006 that my suspicions were verified.

Now, take what you know about 1) Gibbsspeak and 2) Gibbs' general view of the QB position, and you should be able to come to the right conclusion about Jason Cambell.

My very high opinion of Jay Cutler was verified in an ESPN article in 2007 when he was put head and shoulders above all the other young QBs by a collection of scouts and NFL execs who expressed the same reasons that had convinced me.

The scouts, GMs and coaches generally have a more intelligent approach to grading QBs. Mike Shanahan has repeatedly told us that QBs, their schemes, and their supporting cast all figure into the grading problem. That supports what I've been saying here.

Ohhhh, a reference to an obscure 2007 ESPN article with no link. Well then, that proves everything! Why didn't you just say you read a 2007 ESPN article?

In case you missed the sarcasm, I was being sarcastic.

1) I can pull up a dozen articles written in 1998 proclaiming Ryan Leaf as the next great QB. Probably most of them written by ESPN. That proves nothing.

2) I will guarantee you, 100% that if you got all the scouts from that article into a room, and asked them who they want on their team, Drew Brees or Jay Cutler, 99% would take Drew. Guaranteed!

 

[Oldfan]

The Bandwagon thinkers scoff at my conclusion that Peyton would be only a slight improvement over Rex just as ES posters scoffed when my thread predicted early in 2010 that McNabb would be only a slight improvement over Jason Campbell.

In a companion thread, I got more specific on what to expect from McNabb, predicting a lot of yardage on big pass plays, lots of three and outs and an inability to run a ball control offense when needed, and a suckish 40% conversion in the red zone. All of that came to pass.

In reality, my prediction was a bet that McNabb would play just as well as he had played for the Eagles in 2008 and 2009. He hadn't played much better than Jason Campbell in those years. He had simply played with a scheme that had been built for him and with a better supporting cast.

So, about Peyton in the Shanahan scheme:

When Eli's rookie season went bad, Archie Manning suggested the Giants pare down their passing game to the plays that Eli felt most comfortable with. This is part of the Manning Bros. program. Matt Bowen tells us that the Colts have just 50 passing plays in their offense. Peyton probably has thousands of practice hours logged into those 50 plays. This explains why he can mix in one-third wobblers and still maintain a high completion percentage.

Kyle has told us that the Shanahan scheme has 150 passing plays. It isn't realistic to expect Peyton to execute those mostly unfamiliar 150 plays with the same precision that he has executed his Favorite 50. Depite Rex's limitations, I can't see Peyton running the offense much better than Rex in 2012.

In the Colt's offense, Peyton excels at selecting the right play from a limited playbook that he knows cold. That's why the scheme had success.

He doesn't know the Shanahan playbook. Rex knows it better.

If the Shanahans were to allow the 36 year-old Peyton to install the Colts playbook, our receivers would have to be retrained. That's risky. Remember when the Colts suffered a rash of injuries at the receivers position? The timing was screwed up. Peyton threw 11 INTs in three games.

McNabb was a misfit. Peyton would be even more misfit for our offense.

 

[Oldfan]

Which is all great but if you go with just the measurables, you end up with Jeff George and Todd Marinovich as two of the greatest QB's in NFL history.

They are proof that you CANNOT grade a quarterback by measurables alone.

I grade on the tangibles alone because no one is capable of grading the intangibles until you put a QB in the line of fire.

Then, you can say that Tom Brady can run an offense and Jeff George could not.

Mike Shanahan said the same thing about John Beck. The tangibles are good enough to make him an NFL starter. But, no one can predict how he would react to the speed of the game. I liked Beck for the same reasons Mike liked him, but he just couldn't do it in the bright lights.

Here's the BS part: The Bandwagon thinks of Football as a quarterback competition, not a team sport. So, if they can't persuasively argue that Joe Montana's tangibles are great, they will hype his intangibles to the point of nausea rather than admit that Joe had the greatest support system ever.

 

[Oldfan]

...Ohhhh, a reference to an obscure 2007 ESPN article with no link. Well then, that proves everything! Why didn't you just say you read a 2007 ESPN article?

In case you missed the sarcasm, I was being sarcastic.

I figured that...and you think sarcasm is funny, right?

ESPN.com granted anonymity to two pro scouts, one personnel director, a defensive coordinator and a defensive backs coach in exchange for unvarnished evaluations.

"The kid in Denver, to me he is the future of this league," an AFC pro scout said.
"I would jump on that boat," an NFC personnel director said. "He isn't quite there, but you see those flashes of a guy who, once he has the whole playbook in his mind and he's made all the mistakes he needs to make in learning it, man, he's going to be a special player."


http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=sando_mike&id=3142771

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Here's the BS part: The Bandwagon thinks of Football as a quarterback competition, not a team sport. So, if they can't persuasively argue that Joe Montana's tangibles are great, they will hype his intangibles to the point of nausea rather than admit that Joe had the greatest support system ever.

Once again, you are completely off-base. I think you will find more than an ample amount of posts that say "QB X will never do anything until we beef up the OL," or "QB Z will never do anything unless we get him a playmaker at WR." You are so incredibly wrong with this post, its not even worth discussing this further.

 

[Ax]

Where did you get the idea that I have a formula?

Well, let me think...

I made it clear that the basis of my method versus the bandwagon method is the basic math concept that, in order to measure anything, it must first be isolated.

If you can understand why you can't figure out the width of a room if you were given L + W + H = 100 feet. Then you should be able to figure out why all QB stats are useless in grading QBs.

I think an intelligent seventh grade student would understand me. I don't understand why you are having such difficulty.

The underlined, is another place you've mentioned math as being the method you use.

The red highlighted text is a math formula.

Now, I don't know where you went to school in the 7th grade, but if you're having trouble understanding what you're saying, just think how confused us poor dumb bandwagoneers are.

 

[Goaldeje]

Yep. You can't out-acerbic Ax. Just ain't gonna happen.

 

[Oldfan]

Once again, you are completely off-base. I think you will find more than an ample amount of posts that say "QB X will never do anything until we beef up the OL," or "QB Z will never do anything unless we get him a playmaker at WR." You are so incredibly wrong with this post, its not even worth discussing this further.

You can generally spot debate weakness when a poster can't quote his opponent and counter a reasonable interpretation of what he actually said. Unless, you come up with some far-fetched interpretation, your post has nothing much to do with the comment quoted.

 

[Goaldeje]

You can generally spot debate weakness when a poster can't quote his opponent and counter a reasonable interpretation of what he actually said. Unless, you come up with some far-fetched interpretation, your post has nothing much to do with the comment quoted.

What are you talking about? The last sentance of your quoted (by Lanky) post talked about intanglibles and support system. Lanky then talked about people here saying we need better Oline and WRs and other support systems.

I'd say he was pretty well on target there.

 

[Oldfan]

Well, let me think...

The underlined, is another place you've mentioned math as being the method you use.

The red highlighted text is a math formula.

Now, I don't know where you went to school in the 7th grade, but if you're having trouble understanding what you're saying, just think how confused us poor dumb bandwagoneers are.

I mentioned a "math concept" being the basis for my argument. There was never a mention of a math formula.

That which you highlighted in red is not a math formula for anything. It's an example of a useless number, similar in construction to QB stats.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

What are you talking about? The last sentance of your quoted (by Lanky) post talked about intanglibles and support system. Lanky then talked about people here saying we need better Oline and WRs and other support systems.

I'd say he was pretty well on target there.

Eh, I'm moving on. This argument is a joke anyway.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

I mentioned a "math concept" being the basis for my argument. There was never a mention of a math formula.

That which you highlighted in red is not a math formula for anything. It's an example of a useless number, similar in construction to QB stats.

Uhh, actually it is most certainly a math formula. I think we have found the root of the problem - you don't know anything about math!

 

[Oldfan]

Yep. You can't out-acerbic Ax. Just ain't gonna happen.

Making more sense than he does is pretty easy, though.

 

[Oldfan]

Uhh, actually it is most certainly a math formula. I think we have found the root of the problem - you don't know anything about math!

You're wrong, Amigo. Formulas solve problems; they involve rules

 

[Ax]

The length + height + width of a room = 100 feet. How wide is the room?

That which you highlighted in red is not a math formula for anything.

http://www.basic-mathematics.com/basic-math-formulas.html

Find here a comprehensive list of basic math formulas commonly used when doing basic math computation

Volume of a box: l × w × h
l: length
w: width
h: height

Here endeth the lesson.