todd Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 I can't find a link online, but this is from the NFL preview Sports Illustrated on page 36. Peyton is interviewed by Dan Patrick: DP: Last week phillip rivers told me that he didn't like the idea of calling his own plays. What's he missing out on? PM: San Diego is a diverse offense -- they have multiple formations and personnel groups, and they'll shift [a lot]. When it comes down to it, [the Colts are] trying to be good at a certain number of plays, and we're not afraid to run the same play over and over again. You've got to be carefultrying to run 60 different plays in a game and being pretty good at most of them, as opposed to being great at this core group of plays. I certainly don't call all the plays -- I just have the flexibility to change them. It just depends on the offense you're in. So it seems as if Jauron is of the same school regarding the no-huddle as the Colts and the 90's Bills. Shonert apparently disagreed with that, and wanted a complex offense with lots of formations. Just some food for thought regarding Schonert bitching about being forced to simplify things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 I can't find a link online, but this is from the NFL preview Sports Illustrated on page 36. Peyton is interviewed by Dan Patrick: So it seems as if Jauron is of the same school regarding the no-huddle as the Colts and the 90's Bills. Shonert apparently disagreed with that, and wanted a complex offense with lots of formations. Just some food for thought regarding Schonert bitching about being forced to simplify things. Simple works well. Lombardi's power sweep: http://www.profootballresearchers.org/Coff...r/19-05-712.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GR8PRKN Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Simple works well. Lombardi's power sweep: http://www.profootballresearchers.org/Coff...r/19-05-712.pdf Exactly Redskins Power trea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Exactly Redskins Power trea I think you mean Counter Trey, but your point is well made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 I can't find a link online, but this is from the NFL preview Sports Illustrated on page 36. Peyton is interviewed by Dan Patrick: So it seems as if Jauron is of the same school regarding the no-huddle as the Colts and the 90's Bills. Shonert apparently disagreed with that, and wanted a complex offense with lots of formations. Just some food for thought regarding Schonert bitching about being forced to simplify things. If I am not mistaken I remember reading in Kelly's book that the Bills only had 6 basic running plays they used, one of which was the virtually unstoppable shotgun counter trey that Thomas used to run all the time... Football is about execution. If the offense executes properly, they are going to move the football regardless of what the defense is doing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobDVA Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Nothing is more demoralizing then to know what is coming and not be able to stop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwws9999 Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Nothing is more demoralizing then to know what is coming and not be able to stop it. I'm not disagreeing with Kelly and Manning on this one, but wasn't the biggest criticism of Fairchild's offense is that it was too simple and too predictable, and he was run out of town and the time it takes Manning to call changes at the line, and the all the shifts they do, I would say Indy's offense is pretty complicated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 I'm not disagreeing with Kelly and Manning on this one, but wasn't the biggest criticism of Fairchild's offense is that it was too simple and too predictable, and he was run out of town and the time it takes Manning to call changes at the line, and the all the shifts they do, I would say Indy's offense is pretty complicated Simple and predictable need not mean the same thing. Simple can mean keeping the same personnel in only a few formations, yet running a variety of possible plays. A complex system with lots of personnel and formation shifts can actually be more predictable, when it is obvious which plays will be run when certain people are on the field in certain spots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThereIsNoDog Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 I think the point about being good at a smaller number of plays rather than okay-to-bad at a larger number is the key here. And I don't recall Fairchild's offense, which was based on Martz' offense, being "simple," but it was predictable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cocktosten Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 I can't find a link online, but this is from the NFL preview Sports Illustrated on page 36. Peyton is interviewed by Dan Patrick: So it seems as if Jauron is of the same school regarding the no-huddle as the Colts and the 90's Bills. Shonert apparently disagreed with that, and wanted a complex offense with lots of formations. Just some food for thought regarding Schonert bitching about being forced to simplify things. Simplicity and repitition might also be the reason why the Colts win 13 games every year and only have 1 champioship (Which I would take in a heartbeat) to show for it. That being said, they have Peyton Manning. Their offense is built off of play action and no in the league carries out their fakes and sells the pass better than Manning. They also have had great personell; Harrison, Wayne, Clark James/Adai and a solid Oline. The Bills have Trent Edwards and an Oline that looks to be in disarray. Multiple formations might be what we need to mask all of our ineptitude. However, I never saw innovation out of Turk. He barely utilized play action. He never moved the pocket. When you have guys like Lee and Roscoe, to never use a bubble screen or a quick hitch makes no sense at all. His idea of innovation was a TE screen to Robert Royal and all knows how well that guy runs. We have the WR's and RB's now Trent has to put it together. I'm sure TO, Lee and Trent will have a TON of input when it comes to gameplanning this year. Lets just hope they know what the hell they're doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelso_Helmet Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Nothing is more demoralizing then to know what is coming and not be able to stop it. exactly...like watching like another sub .500, playoff-less, Dick Jauron-led debacle of a Bills' season coming down the pike. Now THAT'S demoralizing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VJ91 Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 I can't find a link online, but this is from the NFL preview Sports Illustrated on page 36. Peyton is interviewed by Dan Patrick: So it seems as if Jauron is of the same school regarding the no-huddle as the Colts and the 90's Bills. Shonert apparently disagreed with that, and wanted a complex offense with lots of formations. Just some food for thought regarding Schonert bitching about being forced to simplify things. Gee, you think that's why Peyton Manning has been so successful for the Colts all these years, including having a SB WINNING ring on his finger, while Rivers has quite a ways to go yet? I feel sorry for Rivers, and every other QB out there that has to memorize those 60 plus plays with different formations and packages and schemes. Rivers certainly seems to do pretty damn good at it, looking at his stats from last year. But Jim Kelly is in the Hall of Fame, and lost 4 consecutive SB's. Obviously, the voters were forced to look at his entire body of work beyond those 4 mostly bad games. He ran about 6 plays, as Manning said, PERFECTLY, for so many years out of that no-huddle, that he was able to convince the HOF voters he deserved membership. And in order to lose 4 straight SB's, you have to be 4-0 in 4 straight Conference Championship games. Rivers has to get his Chargers into those games and win a few of them, before he can hope to gain as much overall success as Kelly and Manning. It's an interesting debate. If asked, I'll bet Dan Marino and John Elway would tell you their offenses were much simpler then what the ego-maniacial OC's are forcing down the throats of today's lesser talented QB's in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwws9999 Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Gee, you think that's why Peyton Manning has been so successful for the Colts all these years, including having a SB WINNING ring on his finger, while Rivers has quite a ways to go yet? I feel sorry for Rivers, and every other QB out there that has to memorize those 60 plus plays with different formations and packages and schemes. Rivers certainly seems to do pretty damn good at it, looking at his stats from last year. But Jim Kelly is in the Hall of Fame, and lost 4 consecutive SB's. Obviously, the voters were forced to look at his entire body of work beyond those 4 mostly bad games. He ran about 6 plays, as Manning said, PERFECTLY, for so many years out of that no-huddle, that he was able to convince the HOF voters he deserved membership. And in order to lose 4 straight SB's, you have to be 4-0 in 4 straight Conference Championship games. Rivers has to get his Chargers into those games and win a few of them, before he can hope to gain as much overall success as Kelly and Manning. It's an interesting debate. If asked, I'll bet Dan Marino and John Elway would tell you their offenses were much simpler then what the ego-maniacial OC's are forcing down the throats of today's lesser talented QB's in the NFL. good post, but I believe the bottom line is that a successful offense's biggest asset is talent. Marv said during the SB days that systems don't win games, players do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelso_Helmet Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 good post, but I believe the bottom line is that a successful offense's biggest asset is talent. Marv said during the SB days that systems don't win games, players do back in the day, seemed like they ran the delayed handoff to Thurman every other play. But they were masterful in selling it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2o Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Football is about execution. If the offense executes properly, they are going to move the football regardless of what the defense is doing... That sums it all up right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lofton80 Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 The key to a simple playbook is blocking. If you can move the opposition out of your way, you can run the same play all day. If you patch together an OLine, chances are you can't get away with simple. People like Sanahan, Walsh and Gibbs won a few games with some of the thickest playbooks imaginable. Blocking is step one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 I can't find a link online, but this is from the NFL preview Sports Illustrated on page 36. Peyton is interviewed by Dan Patrick: So it seems as if Jauron is of the same school regarding the no-huddle as the Colts and the 90's Bills. Shonert apparently disagreed with that, and wanted a complex offense with lots of formations. Just some food for thought regarding Schonert bitching about being forced to simplify things. I've heard some players say that it doesn't matter if the defense knows what play you're going to run the players still need to be able to execute. I agree. After an offense has been together for a couple of years then I think more plays and subterfuge can be more successful. Simple works well. Lombardi's power sweep: http://www.profootballresearchers.org/Coff...r/19-05-712.pdf Thanks for the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Nothing is more demoralizing then to know what is coming and not be able to stop it. How about running the same plays, over and over, knowing that they won't work? People seem to be forgetting, those early 90's Bills teams had an outstanding offensive line...this team does not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 exactly...like watching like another sub .500, playoff-less, Dick Jauron-led debacle of a Bills' season coming down the pike. Now THAT'S demoralizing Notice Lombardi's commitment to that play in the write-up. Clearly he was deeply commited to it and asked the players to commit themselves to it. What is Dick committed to? Do you ever hear him speak in similar terms? Heck no. He's wishy washy on most things. He uses phrases like "we need to do this" or "I prefer to do that". He's nothng like Lombardi with or without a huddle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfaninPortland Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 I'm not disagreeing with Kelly and Manning on this one, but wasn't the biggest criticism of Fairchild's offense is that it was too simple and too predictable, and he was run out of town and the time it takes Manning to call changes at the line, and the all the shifts they do, I would say Indy's offense is pretty complicated his was run, run, pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 I got to thinking about all of this to include Turk's "pop warner" comments I dont know if it will play out this way but I get the feeling that the offense is going to look sharper soon...... - I think of the horrid run blocking.......could it be that we were confusing these young linemen - Thinking of Edwards check downs......could it be that it was simply too complicated for him so he went for the easiest pass? Hmmmmmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transient Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 On the point of complexity, as some have alluded to, is the fact that we have an entirely new offensive line with 2 rookies. If the players aren't grasping the complex nature of the offense, then of course you have to simplify it. It speaks to Schonert being a systems coach, instead of being able to adapt his style to players. If you want to build a complex offense around young players, you better have a stellar defense and some time to implement it incrementally, NEITHER of which he had, as is turns out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dog14787 Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Maybe its just me, but I feel like we should put the no huddle on the back burner until the offense is more in sync. Huddling allows a younger team to gather its composure, words will be spoken, nerves calmed, not to mention being able to communicate weakness's other players may see in the defense. I argued this very point awhile back, but was on the other side of the argument, I thought the no huddle would put a young team at an advantage, but in my opinion now I was mistaken. You have to be hitting on all cylinders to run the no huddle or you will sputter and stall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Kinda like the Marv mentality about finasse and execution. As long as you execute... Nobody can beat you... Even if you keep running the same plays. IMO, I really don't think it is that simple. To quote Hannah Montana (as much as I want to puke ) Marv, Dick, and Peyton: "Everybody makes mistakes, everybody has those days." Reminds me of the old picture taking debate. Take one good quality pic vs. spraying a roll of film in hope you get the quality picture. The answer... Somewhere in the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Funny enough, there's an article on ESPN right now about Bill Belichick...who says the exact same thing...Offense should be simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PNW_Bills_Fan Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Funny enough, there's an article on ESPN right now about Bill Belichick...who says the exact same thing...Offense should be simple. I love this. You would think a D guy would understand what is predictable on O. DJ has always been a good D guy. AVP would be good to listen to him about what is predictable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Kinda like the Marv mentality about finasse and execution. As long as you execute... Nobody can beat you... Even if you keep running the same plays. IMO, I really don't think it is that simple. To quote Hannah Montana (as much as I want to puke ) Marv, Dick, and Peyton: "Everybody makes mistakes, everybody has those days." Reminds me of the old picture taking debate. Take one good quality pic vs. spraying a roll of film in hope you get the quality picture. The answer... Somewhere in the middle. OMFG... "To quote Hanah Montana..." means you've actually watched Hanah Montana. Turn in your f&kcing Man Card IMMEDIATELY, and don't ever post here again!!!!!! :worthy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 OMFG... "To quote Hanah Montana..." means you've actually watched Hanah Montana. Turn in your f&kcing Man Card IMMEDIATELY, and don't ever post here again!!!!!! :worthy: I frequently watch her show with my 10 year old. I'm sure you are aware that this man is a member of her fan club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 I frequently watch her show with my 10 year old. I'm sure you are aware that this man is a member of her fan club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 OMFG... "To quote Hanah Montana..." means you've actually watched Hanah Montana. Turn in your f&kcing Man Card IMMEDIATELY, and don't ever post here again!!!!!! Real men don't need "cards!" Well, at least that is what they tell us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Funny enough, there's an article on ESPN right now about Bill Belichick...who says the exact same thing...Offense should be simple. Belichick*? WTF doe he know about winning*? (Without cheating, that is ) I'd rather ask... Mike Leach Mike Leach, head coach of the Texas Tech Red Raiders and Mad Scientist of The High Plains keeps it simple. Coach Leach is known for the prolific offense that the Red Raiders field year after year. Taking a closer look at Leach’s offense, it’s surprising how simple the plan is. Michael Lewis states in his New York Times article profiling Leach that the offense has no playbook. The only formal written record exist on the quarterbacks arm and Leach’s back pocket. He prefers multiple formations as opposed to multiple plays. So each player only learns a few plays that can be run out of many formations. Leach says, “That way, you don't have to teach a guy a new thing to do. You just have to teach him new places to stand.” Good luck game planning against this offense—the plays are few enough that the playbook can be rewritten week to week. I would imagine the quarterback can audible into any play from the playbook from any formation at any time. He’s probably a few steps ahead of even the most experienced defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 I frequently watch her show with my 10 year old. And I imagine the entire time, she's screaming, "Dad, you freaking WUSS - turn that crap off so I can watch some college football, dammit!" Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Simple and predictable need not mean the same thing. In fact, "simple" can facilitate unpredictability. The base set of the K-Gun was always 3-wide-outs, with a minimum of shifts and looks...and from any look, the Bills had one of many options to attack with that the defense couldn't necessarily discern. It's how the Raiders got completely dismantled in the AFC Championship Game - the simplicity of the offense they faced put them in a position where they had no idea what was going on (worse, had no chance figure it out, because the no-huddle didn't give them the time.) Simple for the offense does NOT necessarily mean simple for the defense facing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 theres a difference between SIMPLE, and PREDICTABLE. Fairchilds offence was PREDICTABLE. Everyone knew what they were going to do, RUN, RUN, PASS, PUNT. That is worse then SIMPLE. SIMPLE can mean having only a dozen different plays, but the key to that is knowing how to hide which of those dozen you are going to run, and mixing it up so that teams don't know whats going to be coming. When its so easy that the fans at home know what is going to be run, what do you think its like for the other team that has studied and watch video of the team all week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geno Smith's Arm Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Well at least for now, Belichick won't have much film to figure out what the Bills are doing, BECAUSE EVEN THE BILLS DONT KNOW. Picture the quotes "Well the Bills are a tough team to prepare for because you never know what they are gonna do, it's uncanny" That should keep the opposing teams confused for a while... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 I'm not disagreeing with Kelly and Manning on this one, but wasn't the biggest criticism of Fairchild's offense is that it was too simple and too predictable, and he was run out of town and the time it takes Manning to call changes at the line, and the all the shifts they do, I would say Indy's offense is pretty complicated If the players are good enough and execute the play well, it doesn't matter a whole lot... That being said, the Bills players aren't good enough, and they execute poorly too often... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hossage Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Remember when the Dallas cowboys won all those super bowls with literally a pop warner playbook? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Are we really going with this notion that the Bills offense was wildly complex? Isn't this the team that didn't run a single play action until the last month of the season last year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Are we really going with this notion that the Bills offense was wildly complex? Isn't this the team that didn't run a single play action until the last month of the season last year? I don't think the two have anything to do with each other...play action is just something that happens inside any given pass play...complexity likely means receivers running ad having to know hundreds and hundreds of plays. The more plays they ran, the less practice they had on each play, likely the less good they be on any given play. Fewer plays mean more repetitions on the same play and more time to fine-tune any issues and get better. There are a few things here. Just because they were running hundreds of plays, doesn't mean the plays were any good. Why is it they spent the majority of their time running 2 yard pass patterns and other other short patterns as reported by Paul Hamilton? The plays usually resulted in players not being open, which likely is the result of poor play design. Good passing plays usually force the defense to make choices, and depending on what choices they make dictates who is going to be open on any given play. The Bills pass plays did not force the defense to do much other than cover the players running patterns. In essence, the plays don't do what they need to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Are we really going with this notion that the Bills offense was wildly complex? Isn't this the team that didn't run a single play action until the last month of the season last year? the playbook in 2008 was pretty devoid of a lot of standard stuff like screens, draws, slants, etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts