Jump to content

Doug Farrar - The Match Game: How NFL Defenses Lost Their Way


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, BigDingus said:

 

But isn't it amazing how so many analysts still claim QB's like Mahomes aren't pro-ready because colleges are doing them a disservice by running so many spread offenses? 

They seem to miss how the NFL is leaning more & more into running college-style offenses. Yes, the spread offenses in the NFL aren't quite as pronounced as some of the more flagrant examples in college, but Mahomes comes from my Alma mater which is typically one of those "air-raid spread" offenses that get brought up as incompatible with the NFL.

The guy threw for friggin 734 yards in a single game in 2016! SEVEN HUNDRED AND THIRTY FOUR! And it wasn't even against some D-2 or D-3 school, it was against the ranked Oklahoma Sooners. Oh, and he managed to set the FBS record with 819 yards of total offense in that game too. People see numbers like that & end up just disregarding the person & calling them scheme-players. But when smart coaches evolve with the game & work a player's strength into their schemes, you put players in a position to succeed. 

Even though Andy Reid was working on his system before this year, you can bet your ass he was closely examining the college game and the dominant spread offenses, and evaluating who the best player for the job would be. There's a reason they were willing to give up an extra 1st round pick to take the guy...they knew damn well the strengths he possesed & identified Mahomes SPECIFICALLY for the job. Now they're reaping the rewards.

That's a really good point - though I've never particularly thought of mainstream and ESPN analysts as experts capable of accurately assessing college talent, it's true that they succumb to old adages about what translates into the NFL, and what doesn't. And for the most part, they would be right about Mahomes maybe 5, 6, 7 years ago. Not because Mahomes didn't have what it takes, but because the offensive schemes being run in the league at that time "demanded" a different type of QB. But what they don't account for is things change, and you can't hang on to every traditional approach every year if you hope to compete and win in the NFL. In the last five years, coaches like Reid have adopted a spread based offense and have tweaked it to fit NFL personnel and present coverage issues in opposing defenses. I have to admit, I was also down on Mahomes (but I'm definitely no expert) for the same reasons. But looking back how can an "air-raid" offense not translate to today's "air-raid" NFL?? That cognitive dissonance is unreal, despite that I was guilty of the same thought.

 

Reid was absolutely observing college offenses and was liking what he saw, and brought in college coaches to help develop the system with Alex Smith per the article. When he realized that, while Smith was a good QB to implement a scheme switch to a spread-based focus, he wasn't the long term answer. He went looking for a QB that could handle this offense AND develop for the future of the scheme - he found his guy in Mahomes, but after reading this, it makes all the more sense how Mahomes has had such success this year, beyond Reid, beyond the talented roster around him, it's ALL he knows. It would be the same thing as us running an entire playbook schemed for play action, short routes, and bootlegs for Allen. Kid lives off the play action because it's what he did for four very competitive years. For Mahomes to come right out of an offense in college that basically gave him a degree in the spread offense, he now had the prerequisite courses to get his graduate degree in the NFL version of that offense. I don't say this to minimize his success, quite the opposite, but this is a great example of how you can still find players to fit your scheme and do it in the right way while still fitting the scheme to maximize the talent of the players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

The Match Game, Part 3: The Mahomes Conundrum

 

gettyimages-1055538866.jpg?w=1024&h=614&

 

In this three-part series, Touchdown Wire’s Doug Farrar takes a deep dive into how NFL defenses have lost the figurative arms race – and what defensive coaches can do to recover. Part 1 revealed the liabilities inherent in current NFL defensive philosophies. Part 2 took a closer look at the coverage that could bring balance back to NFL defenses. In the conclusion, we discuss the death of defensive innovation, and how match coverage might just reverse that defeatist mentality.

Really a great three part article - and contributes heavily to many of the thread conversations on here regarding both our defense and offense within the modern NFL. I keep waiting for Sunday to see how much our defensive schemes incorporate this into their coverage. I should've read this before responding to the Mahomes comment earlier, but it does certainly highlight how the scheme he was drafted for allows him to maximize both his ability and what's familiar for him.

 

While it's hard to judge our offense in any regard at the moment, especially with our vastly limited playbook due to the QB situation. I want to equally see us implement some of these tight formation concepts that really confuse defenses and create situations like the Kupp TD. I do see us running a good amount of hank and some mesh concept routes as they seem to fit to our QBs strengths - but I remember watching the Kupp TD against the Saints (referenced in part 3) in real time and just attributing it to blown coverage and the Rams being good, but the play was schemed to be exactly what we saw without realizing; tight 11 personnel with a mesh concept crossing route called and executed at the perfect time. Sure, that explanation is most every play in the NFL and that one happened to work at that time, but seeing it explained out is rather enlightening to how the modern NFL offenses we are pining away for are actually just pretty base concepts from college and even high school, tweaked to attack an otherwise antiquated defensive philosophy of the league. Further hamstringed by the rule changes, Bowen and Riddick are right - it's only going to get worse until DCs and HCs step up and start to develop new schemes in response. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ctk232 said:

Really a great three part article - and contributes heavily to many of the thread conversations on here regarding both our defense and offense within the modern NFL. I keep waiting for Sunday to see how much our defensive schemes incorporate this into their coverage. I should've read this before responding to the Mahomes comment earlier, but it does certainly highlight how the scheme he was drafted for allows him to maximize both his ability and what's familiar for him.

 

While it's hard to judge our offense in any regard at the moment, especially with our vastly limited playbook due to the QB situation. I want to equally see us implement some of these tight formation concepts that really confuse defenses and create situations like the Kupp TD. I do see us running a good amount of hank and some mesh concept routes as they seem to fit to our QBs strengths - but I remember watching the Kupp TD against the Saints (referenced in part 3) in real time and just attributing it to blown coverage and the Rams being good, but the play was schemed to be exactly what we saw without realizing; tight 11 personnel with a mesh concept crossing route called and executed at the perfect time. Sure, that explanation is most every play in the NFL and that one happened to work at that time, but seeing it explained out is rather enlightening to how the modern NFL offenses we are pining away for are actually just pretty base concepts from college and even high school, tweaked to attack an otherwise antiquated defensive philosophy of the league. Further hamstringed by the rule changes, Bowen and Riddick are right - it's only going to get worse until DCs and HCs step up and start to develop new schemes in response. 

 

We always see innovation and borrowing in the NFL that become cyclical trends.  Defenses will eventually adjust because they will have to and then we'll see something else emerge that emanates from HS and College. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The whole under centre vs shotgun, pro style vs spread stuff is such overdone poppycock. Is there an adjustment for a guy who has never taken snaps under centre? Yes. Watch the Hard Knocks from Goff's rookie year to see what that process looks like. Is it likely to add more than a few weeks onto the development of a guy who you think can be your franchise guy for a decade? No.

 

My mantra has long been scout concepts not plays. I have reference the Mariucci and Reid interview from NFLN a few weeks ago already on this board but it was really enlightening. Mariucci said to him "Andy we grew up in the same West Coast offense at Green Bay.... where are all those plays we ran together? I don't even recognise what you're running now!" Reid's reply was "they are all still there, it's all the old plays, we just get to them a little differently" and that is the point. The Kansas City Chiefs are not revolutionising football running plays nobody has ever seen before. What they are doing is saying "look, the offensive talent coming out of college is not playing in the Bill Walsh WCO it is playing in these spread systems. How do we run the concepts behind those traditional WCO plays out of spread type formations to help these kids to pick it up and adjust?" It was the same point I made when scouting Deshaun Watson and Jared Goff. People asked whether their games would "translate". My answer was always the same.... they don't need to "translate." Deshaun Watson beat Alabama in the National Championship game on two pass concepts (the fade to Williams and then the rub play on the goalline to the tight end) that the Green Bay Packers and the New England Patriots use week in and week out. Jared Goff hit a seam route in his bowl game for a score that Drew Brees has made a living out of. The plays didn't look exactly the same... the formations were different, the timing was different, the concepts however were the same. They are the same plays..... the college teams get to them a little differently. That is what you have to scout. If a guy is just throwing bubble screens in college or just throwing on roll outs and half field reads then you can worry about his offense and whether he "translates." If guys are running NFL concepts then take your eyes off the motion, the run-action, the funky or spread formation..... focus on the way the routes interact with where the Quarterback's head appears to be looking. Does that look like a concept you recognise from the NFL? If the answer is yes and the guy is executing them well in college then he has a chance. Doesn't mean he will make it, there are plenty of other variables. But he has a chance.

Had to look up this interview after reading this. It makes more sense than not, and makes me wonder why analysts have always touted old adages with "translation." I fall victim to the same thing by watching and repeating them, too. But it makes sense the way Reid puts it out there. It's interesting how something simple can have such a drastic affect on a league that's just gotten too comfortable in traditional packages and schemes on a widespread level. 

 

What's even funnier is after having grown up in Philly, the fans basically wanted Reid to go after McNabb's run was done. They called his football schemes "antiquated" "stuck in his ways" and "old-school" and philly needed more of the new look. So they go to Chip Kelly and much more was in play there, but they seemed to have tried to do the same thing in the wrong way when all they had to do was look at what their draft talent was doing in college.

3 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

We always see innovation and borrowing in the NFL that become cyclical trends.  Defenses will eventually adjust because they will have to and then we'll see something else emerge that emanates from HS and College. 

I always find it funny how the NFL is the pinnacle of football in almost every regard, and it's treated as the ideal form of the game. Yet anytime something new is developed concept-wise, and changes the landscape of the ideal league to "modern," it comes from the HS/College ranks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, ctk232 said:

Had to look up this interview after reading this. It makes more sense than not, and makes me wonder why analysts have always touted old adages with "translation." I fall victim to the same thing by watching and repeating them, too. But it makes sense the way Reid puts it out there. It's interesting how something simple can have such a drastic affect on a league that's just gotten too comfortable in traditional packages and schemes on a widespread level. 

 

What's even funnier is after having grown up in Philly, the fans basically wanted Reid to go after McNabb's run was done. They called his football schemes "antiquated" "stuck in his ways" and "old-school" and philly needed more of the new look.

 

I do think it was time for Reid in Philly though. It had run its course. These things do happen even to really good head coaches. I think John Harbaugh (who I think is an excellent Head Coach and is yet another from the Andy Reid tree) is maybe experiencing it now in Baltimore. 

 

But I never thought Andy Reid was done because it ran its course in Philly. Kansas City were always going to be glad they made the decision to hire him. 

 

But Chip Kelly was never my cup of tea. I can tell just from his interviews that he is the kind of bloke I wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes in a room with. I never bought him as the future of football. Run the same 12 plays to different sides over and over again without huddling and call that a revolution? Come off it the Bills were doing that 20 years earlier and making Superbowls. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I do think it was time for Reid in Philly though. It had run its course. These things do happen even to really good head coaches. I think John Harbaugh (who I think is an excellent Head Coach and is yet another from the Andy Reid tree) is maybe experiencing it now in Baltimore. 

 

But I never thought Andy Reid was done because it ran its course in Philly. Kansas City were always going to be glad they made the decision to hire him. 

 

But Chip Kelly was never my cup of tea. I can tell just from his interviews that he is the kind of bloke I wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes in a room with. I never bought him as the future of football. Run the same 12 plays to different sides over and over again without huddling and call that a revolution? Come off it the Bills were doing that 20 years earlier and making Superbowls. 

Totally agree - for Philly I think it was an attempt at trying to become modern and going about it in all the wrong ways. I never liked Chip's offense and his philosophies as a coach, especially since it's nothing new, just like you said. 

 

And I agree with your point that his time was up, even then when it was happening in Philly, and now, Reid's time was likely up - I just wonder if they could've had the Andy Reid today if they approached the situation differently, but it's likely it never would've happened. I just hope what we're seeing this year for the Bills is in fact a greater reflection of the current roster, than a swing and a miss in a coaching staff attempt to stay modern. Not as though that was necessarily their intention to begin with...

Edited by ctk232
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
6 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

Thought I'd bring this up again in light of last night's game.  Also with the Saints destroying NFL defenses on a weekly basis. 

But actually - I'm not surprised it wasn't mentioned, but ESPN was touting the party line of the "modern" NFL being one in which offenses will score on every drive with a defensive play or two throwing a wrench in there to varying degrees. Whether or not you like it, that is where this is all headed without any changes on defensive scheme.

 

Weirdly enough, I brought up this article with friends watching the game yesterday - and after about a half hour of silence all were saying the same thing: if this is the solution, why is no one doing anything about it?!? I had to agree, t'was mine as well. 

 

I don't believe McVay or Reid to be this shortsighted, but with both being offensive guys, they would at least have to realize that their offenses are more or less in a way paving the road for future NFL offenses. That being said, as HCs, wouldn't it behoove them to also have an equal revolution on defense to scheme and prepare for these offenses? The same goes for Payton and the Saints. I'm not trying to start a conspiracy based off of speculation, but the question that jumps to my mind is for everyone clamoring about an offensive minded coach, are these the issues that present themselves there? I get this is also about the guys on the roster, but each team has talent on defense that one would think capable of effectively using match coverage.

 

If the same philosophy for drafting college guys to fit a scheme built to help the guys coming out of college to perform at a higher level, and adapt collegiate schemes to fit the NFL - why not then do the same thing on the other side of the ball? For those looking for new DCs - why not target the younger generation of coaches or those running some form of match coverage in college? Granted, I don't think implementing match coverage will completely halt the offensive wave, as every team will be able to do it to varying degrees of success, but it will keep the scoring down and will provide the perfect counter to create a truly enjoyable game (all of course imo).

Edited by ctk232
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/9/2018 at 4:05 AM, Buffalo Barbarian said:

As I read this it is interesting to note that when Anderson signed with the Bills he said the defenses are doing things that never happened when he started and said it was a lot easier back then. I still say not being able to crack offensive players has made it a lot easier for teams to run wide open in the middle.

 

it's funny how Rex's  defenses were super complex and would be just be the thing to stop modern offenses, but as we saw it , our defenders were confused and couldn't stop anyone . Pettine did well with that defense, makes you wonder what would have happened if he stayed here. Curious as to what Greenbay thinks about him?

 

 

 

...I'm probably remembering his tenure incorrectly, but it seems like he consistently struggled with his run defense...one week we'd be a brick wall and the next week we looked like WikiLEAKS........is was like Bi-Polar 101, not knowing which one was showing up on any given Sunday..............

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...I'm probably remembering his tenure incorrectly, but it seems like he consistently struggled with his run defense...one week we'd be a brick wall and the next week we looked like WikiLEAKS........is was like Bi-Polar 101, not knowing which one was showing up on any given Sunday..............

yep - it was part of that hybrid 3-4/4-3. Though I do remember our D markedly improving under Pettine from previous years under Gailey as HC. But it wasn't until Schwartz went back to a 4-3 that we saw more of the brick wall. Rex just came back and switched it again on them only to have it switched back again under McD.....

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ctk232 said:

yep - it was part of that hybrid 3-4/4-3. Though I do remember our D markedly improving under Pettine from previous years under Gailey as HC. But it wasn't until Schwartz went back to a 4-3 that we saw more of the brick wall. Rex just came back and switched it again on them only to have it switched back again under McD.....

 

 

 

...thanks bud.....I was fearing another senior moment......:thumbsup:

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

 

 

...thanks bud.....I was fearing another senior moment......:thumbsup:

I mean, Pettine's was the first defense I paid extra mind to given his "hybrid" approach and, at least to me, it seemed "revolutionary" enough at the time.

 

But given the amount of coaching/coordinator turnover the past decade and a half, who can honestly remember what issues belonged where under what regime?

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...I'm probably remembering his tenure incorrectly, but it seems like he consistently struggled with his run defense...one week we'd be a brick wall and the next week we looked like WikiLEAKS........is was like Bi-Polar 101, not knowing which one was showing up on any given Sunday..............

 

they were so confused. I went to Rex's last game and it was sad and embarrassing how the defenders were WAY OUT of position and pointing at each other just before the snap.

 

as far as the run goes , there was so much scheming that the players either lit the play up or ran right out were they should have been that it led to being gashed.

 

 

 

Edited by Buffalo Barbarian
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/9/2018 at 10:20 AM, GunnerBill said:

 

The whole under centre vs shotgun, pro style vs spread stuff is such overdone poppycock. Is there an adjustment for a guy who has never taken snaps under centre? Yes. Watch the Hard Knocks from Goff's rookie year to see what that process looks like. Is it likely to add more than a few weeks onto the development of a guy who you think can be your franchise guy for a decade? No.

 

My mantra has long been scout concepts not plays. I have reference the Mariucci and Reid interview from NFLN a few weeks ago already on this board but it was really enlightening. Mariucci said to him "Andy we grew up in the same West Coast offense at Green Bay.... where are all those plays we ran together? I don't even recognise what you're running now!" Reid's reply was "they are all still there, it's all the old plays, we just get to them a little differently" and that is the point. The Kansas City Chiefs are not revolutionising football running plays nobody has ever seen before. What they are doing is saying "look, the offensive talent coming out of college is not playing in the Bill Walsh WCO it is playing in these spread systems. How do we run the concepts behind those traditional WCO plays out of spread type formations to help these kids to pick it up and adjust?" It was the same point I made when scouting Deshaun Watson and Jared Goff. People asked whether their games would "translate". My answer was always the same.... they don't need to "translate." Deshaun Watson beat Alabama in the National Championship game on two pass concepts (the fade to Williams and then the rub play on the goalline to the tight end) that the Green Bay Packers and the New England Patriots use week in and week out. Jared Goff hit a seam route in his bowl game for a score that Drew Brees has made a living out of. The plays didn't look exactly the same... the formations were different, the timing was different, the concepts however were the same. They are the same plays..... the college teams get to them a little differently. That is what you have to scout. If a guy is just throwing bubble screens in college or just throwing on roll outs and half field reads then you can worry about his offense and whether he "translates." If guys are running NFL concepts then take your eyes off the motion, the run-action, the funky or spread formation..... focus on the way the routes interact with where the Quarterback's head appears to be looking. Does that look like a concept you recognise from the NFL? If the answer is yes and the guy is executing them well in college then he has a chance. Doesn't mean he will make it, there are plenty of other variables. But he has a chance.

i love when my fellow bills fans actually know football! i almost teared up reading this, good job sir. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

 

I think Riddick is a bit stuck on his match coverage idea. It is a look that more teams could move towards but there are already teams that incorporate plenty of match coverage concepts into their schemes - the Patriots are an obvious one but the Eagles do some of it too (Schwartz was a junior staffer on that Browns coaching staff when Saban was DC) - even did some on Sunday against the Saints (not that it worked out too well - they are really beaten up in the secondary at the moment and it was just a talent failing.

 

I think more fundamental is you have to have linebackers and safeties who have the ability to play in the box and cover in space. 5 years ago people called guys who could do both "hybrids" now people who can do both need not to have a specific term applied to them.... because they actually need to be the rule - not the exception. The RPO in its purest form puts the weakside linebacker in a bind by making him play 2 responsibilities at once. Clever scheming that can get absolve him of one of those responsibilities by rotating the WLB and the safety allows that player to react more instinctively to the play. The Bills drafted a guy without a true position in the last draft - Siran Neal - with the express intention of moulding him to allow them to do more of this. There is a long way to go in his development but the plan presumably is to get to that stage.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...