Cover1 - Brian Daboll’s offense

[hondo in seattle]

51 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

What does EP have to do with roster decisions?   My understanding is that all NFL teams run more or less the same plays, regardless of nomenclature.   They run the same routes.   Receivers have same opportunity to get open or not.   What does EP have to do with it?

 

I've said this before:  If EP were so obviously better, why doesn't every team use it?   Until someone has explained it better, I don't see what the big deal is.   

 

Because it's not obviously better.   This is from a Grantland article:

 

To an almost shocking extent, NFL offenses are homogeneous....    “Everyone’s running the same plays, and it’s a matter of some running one concept more than another team is.  It all boils down to the same thing.”  [Mike McCoy]...   There are essentially three main offensive systems in the NFL: West Coast, Coryell, and Erhardt-Perkins. Given that every NFL team runs basically the same plays, each of these NFL offensive families is differentiated mostly by how those plays are communicated.

 

http://grantland.com/features/how-terminology-erhardt-perkins-system-helped-maintain-dominance-tom-brady-patriots/

 

I really like Cover1's stuff.  It's always informative.  But in this article he looks at Charlie Weis's playbook to get an insight into what Daboll will do.  In fact, we don't know what offense Daboll will run.  We can only speculate.  It might be EP.   It might be some hybrid of his own design.  

 

In the end the system doesn't matter as much as the players, team execution, preparation (film study, etc) and play-calling.  

Edited May 15, 2018 by hondo in seattle

[Drunken Pygmy Goat]

57 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

What does EP have to do with roster decisions?   My understanding is that all NFL teams run more or less the same plays, regardless of nomenclature.   They run the same routes.   Receivers have same opportunity to get open or not.   What does EP have to do with it?

 

I've said this before:  If EP were so obviously better, why doesn't every team use it?   Until someone has explained it better, I don't see what the big deal is.   

 

I don't think its necessarily "better" than other offenses, but there are certain advantages to it that factor in. Its "simple" in comparison to other styles, making the learning curve, or transition to the pros easier. Given the current state of the roster (youth/inexperience at QB, lack of WRs), it probably makes more sense to run an EP style of offense instead of more complicated West Coast or Air Coryell offenses. 

 

When it comes to roster decisions, my understanding is that players are a bit more interchangeable in EP, WRs specifically. In Air Coryell, it's very route tree dependent in order to maximize its effectiveness, but not many WRs excel in running every route in the tree perfectly, therefore finding the perfect WRs for the scheme is more difficult, to some extent. And after that offense is completely built, an injury to one or two of those top WRs has a major impact on your playbook. Obviously the same can be said for all offenses, but I assume that the impact of a WR injury or two wouldn't cripple the effectiveness of an EP offense quite as much as would an offense that truly depends so much on total utiliazation of the route tree. EP is very much "take what the defense gives you", while AC (with a properly built roster) is more "we're going to take what we want, try to stop us". 

 

With a WC offense, you probably want more shifty, elusive WRs, as opposed to taller, "slower" guys.  

 

All teams do run the "same plays", but not totally. Certain teams will run certain plays more than other teams, based on talent and scheme. An EP offense that runs more "ghost/tosser" concepts probably isn't running as many "689"s as AC offenses will. One of the advantages you get with EP is that you can run generally the same plays (concepts/reads) out of multiple formations. Its a way of making things complicated for defenses, without getting too complicated yourself as an offense. Its just window dressing, really, that keeps defenses on their toes, and doing more thinking than reacting.

 

With all that said, this doesn't mean you can't make things work without the perfect personell at WR. I just think that, in order to fully maximize the potential of those schemes, you look for those types of players. Maybe that forces teams to reach just a bit in the draft at times???

 

Of course, there are so many other variables that come into play in football, and "success" isn't only dependent on scheme. 

 

I don't want it to sound like I think that's something more than it is, or that I'm thinking into it too much, just trying to explain myself with little time to do so.

 

When I read posts here, I appreciate the open minded, football knowledge mixed with logic and common sense posts, and that's what you provide. I try to do the same, and hope that I don't come off as condescending. Rick Dennison has forgotten more football knowledge than I'll ever learn... I just try to be a solid contributor here. If I'm wrong or off, it wouldn't be the first time...

Edited May 15, 2018 by Drunken Pygmy Goat

[H2o]

The OL chemistry with having at least two, if not possibly 4, new starters will be key to how things go on offense. If AJ, Josh, or Nate can't get 3 seconds back there and if they aren't opening holes up for Shady then it is going to be tough to watch this year. The defense will keep us in most games, but you have to execute, sustain drives, and put points on the board. 

[hondo in seattle]

21 minutes ago, H2o said:

The OL chemistry with having at least two, if not possibly 4, new starters will be key to how things go on offense. If AJ, Josh, or Nate can't get 3 seconds back there and if they aren't opening holes up for Shady then it is going to be tough to watch this year. The defense will keep us in most games, but you have to execute, sustain drives, and put points on the board. 

 

The OL concerns me almost as much as the QB position.  I'm not convinced the OL will be bad but there are not a lot of compelling reasons to believe it will be good.  

 

But again, it'll be interesting to see what Daboll can do.  Chan - for all his flaws - was able to manufacture offensive production with a weak OL and a comparatively talent-poor roster in general.  

[Buffalo716]

EP is just the system used for terminology...realistically it doesn’t have to do with pushing the pace or doing this or that...

 

that is all on the weekly game plan...

 

I hope Daboll has improved a lot since his last stints because we need some innovation and play to our strengths 

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

What does EP have to do with roster decisions?   My understanding is that all NFL teams run more or less the same plays, regardless of nomenclature.   They run the same routes.   Receivers have same opportunity to get open or not.   What does EP have to do with it?

 

I've said this before:  If EP were so obviously better, why doesn't every team use it?   Until someone has explained it better, I don't see what the big deal is.   

 

You are correct and we had this talk before ...

 

football is 100 years old everybody runs the same stuff generally.

 

its all about terminology and making it easier on players

[Drunken Pygmy Goat]

3 hours ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

The OL concerns me almost as much as the QB position.  I'm not convinced the OL will be bad but there are not a lot of compelling reasons to believe it will be good.  

 

But again, it'll be interesting to see what Daboll can do.  Chan - for all his flaws - was able to manufacture offensive production with a weak OL and a comparatively talent-poor roster in general.  

 

We lost a couple of good linemen, so its easy to assume they won't be as good as a unit. I guess we'll have to wait and see how their replacements do before coming to conclusions there, but I think what will be more of an issue early on will be the lack of chemistry between a lineman and the man next to him. Offensive lines always take a few games to gel, but Richie and Wood played many games next to each other. Dawkins is still young, but he'll have someone new next to him as well. There's been a few moving parts on the line from 2016 to 2017, and they did alright, so maybe that continues and improves over time, but losing those two guys will probably be evident for a while.