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...
Recommended Posts