Why I Love Our Offense Sometimes

by rufio on Nov 21, 2008 1:45 AM EST Comment 18 comments

Sometimes Chudzinski is a genius. He knows how to use TEs and Fullbacks, and since we don't have a whole lot of WRs that are productive right now, we need to do more things like this.

We break the huddle with Charles Ali, Jamal Lewis, Kellen Winslow, Braylon Edwards, and Donte Stallworth at the skill positions. This means 2rb, 1te, 2wr, typical I-formation personnel, and a set of players that hints (but doesn't scream) that we are running the ball. Since defensive personnel is based on who we send in to the huddle, they bring in their base D, more geared to 1st down run stopping than 3rd down blitzing.

Instead of lining up in the I-formation, we appear to line up 3-wide:

Ali is in the slot to the high part of the screen, with Winslow in-line. I am guessing that when you play us, your defense knows where Kellen Winslow is on every down, and they know that he is more of a pass-catching threat than a threat to blow up DEs while run blocking. That means we are flashing potentially 4 pass catchers here, which is supposed to make the D nervous about the pass.

I was expecting Ali (who is really not known for catching balls) to motion in to the backfield and for us to run the ball, or play-action-fake off of the run. The threat of a 4-wide/3-wide+Winslow passing formation here is designed to have the defense thinking "they are trying to trick me, here, but I know what they are doing and I am 100% comfortable".

What I expected:

via farm4.static.flickr.com

Instead, Jamal Lewis motioned out of the backfield:

via farm4.static.flickr.com

Now, with absolutely no threat of a typical run, I had no idea what was going on. A defensive player had to be thinking about the possibilities of what we (the Browns) might be trying to do. Reverse? Screen? QB sneak? Furthermore, the defense tipped its hand as to what type of coverage they were playing. Whitner came down from his SS spot to man up on Winslow. Right after the snap it is easy to read one LB blitzing up the middle, one LB man-to-man on Lewis, and the last one playing man on Ali. This leaves the CBs man-to-man on our WRs with the FS (not pictured) in a deep zone: Man Cover-1 coverage.

via farm4.static.flickr.com

Because Winslow is dangerous enough that he can't be left 1-on-1 with a LB, and because both of our FBs can actually catch the ball--in other words because of our versatility--the defense had to not only tip their hand to Quinn before the snap, but also play a fairly easy coverage. Although Winslow isn't a dominant blocker, because he is at least decent, opposing teams can't bring in their Nickel packages when he is on the field in these types of situations and the types of players we have in he, Heiden, Vickers, even Harrison tip the scales in our favor on offense. Here, it resulted in a 12 yard gain to Ali on a slant.

via farm4.static.flickr.com

I don't buy the idea that we can't find ways to use our players. Get the people who can make positive plays on the field.

1 recs | Comment 18 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Wow. That’s some serious analysis rufio. You angling for an internship on NFL Matchup?

Good stuff.

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.

by BringBackKosar on Nov 21, 2008 9:01 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

nice insight rufio. your point is well stated, and the O can be so dangerous at times. so isn’t it maddening that when things start working, Chud almost immediately reverts back to plain jane vanilla and turns touchdowns into field goals. can it possibly be all him, or does RAC have his hand in the cookie jar? sometimes it just doesn’t seem to make sense.

by Dawg Nuts on Nov 21, 2008 9:12 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I honestly don’t know who is ultimately calling the shots in terms of playcalling. I would have to guess that Chud does most of the hands-on work, and picking of particular plays, while Romeo might have input like “lets stick with the run game and see if we can wear them down” or “try to get a few balls to Kellen”—if he has any input at all. Romeo should be smart enough to let his OC do his own thing.

Our red zone O has been pretty bad, but seems like it is better than it was earlier in the year. I plan to look at our redzone O if I have time.

by rufio on Nov 21, 2008 5:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow, this is a solid post. I remember thinking how wierd that Ali was running a slant route for this, but after reading the break down….great play by chud. I really liked the cribbs TD run, too…..didn’t see that coming in that situation for a second.

"Mixed emotions. Rather see him hit PEDroia [with that pitch]. I don’t care if he is in the dugout"

by Gradysmanldy on Nov 21, 2008 9:38 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I didn’t think Ali could do what he did and I don’t think Buffalo did either. It makes more sense with Vickers running the slant, but I guess thats where some of the “mad scientist” offensive coordinator typecast comes from.

When is Vickers due back? Anybody know?

by rufio on Nov 21, 2008 5:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Fantastic post rufio. You’re right that Chud can make some great calls and make our offense can look very creative sometimes. That’s why it’s frustrating when we get bogged down inside the red zone and can’t convert touchdowns (as Dawg Nuts stated above). Or when we run Lewis up the middle on every first down of a drive. Or we don’t use Harrison enough. Is this Chud’s fault or Romeo’s fault?

Also, rufio, I’ve been meaning to ask you about your football background. Did you play and/or coach football and if so on what levels? Your posts often give more knowledge about formations, assignments and other things that I (as a fan who’s never played organized football) don’t know about. I really enjoy reading your insight, please keep it up!

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Nov 21, 2008 10:50 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I never played organized football. I have read a few books on coaching but that’s pretty much it. I just have played a lot of sports (not football) and watch a lot of sports and read books on this stuff. I would love to get in to coaching HS or something later in life. I do not really have any hands-on experience at all.

I once did physical therapy with Bobby Carpenter, though…

by rufio on Nov 21, 2008 5:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Are you a therapist? Or were you doing physical therapy?

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Nov 21, 2008 7:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Strong post. This was one of the nicer plays on the evening. A great ball by Quinn and catch in traffic by Ali. Ali is no Vickers athletically speaking, but sure is a top-end backup Fullback.

by dawginphilly on Nov 21, 2008 10:52 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I’d love to see more of this. This is extremely well-done and well-analysized.

I also share concerns with many above (and all of us here) that any sort of creative play-calling we do show sparks of at times is completely lost in the Red Zone and on a great majority of first/second down plays.

I think we all hoped the play you mapped out in this post would be indicative of our entire offense — we simply would put too many weapons on the field for any defense to cover effectively. And with someone like Harrison out of the backfield, we would also be able to significantly change the pace of our running game throughout the game (pound it with Jamal, get it outside with Harrison and back and forth). It’s a shame that it often seems like poor play-calling puts us in situations where we simply cannot be all that creative (third and long, for instance).

I’d love to hear more of your analysis.

by DisplacedBuckeye on Nov 21, 2008 12:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Does anyone have a good reason why Chud and Crennel don’t get Harrison more touches? They have too see he is lightning in a bottle, so I just can’t figure out why he isn’t more involved. Or are they that out of touch.

by dawginphilly on Nov 21, 2008 2:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

It was a nice play design, but Buffalo helped us out a ton by playing Cover 1. The coaches must have picked up that tendency in the film room.

I don’t really understand why people are saying we aren’t maximizing creativity. You can’t just use multiple motions and shifts on every play. If you can’t line up, run a play, and then move the ball then you aren’t going to score no matter how much window dressing you have.

The execution is simply lacking.

by gahnki on Nov 21, 2008 3:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think it’s more about using players like Harrison more because he makes plays whenever given the chance.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Nov 21, 2008 5:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed that the good teams can just line up, run the ball, and convert 3rd and short or 4th and short. If you want to win, you have to find a way to win those types of battles in the NFL. I do not mean to clamor for a pure-gimmick-type offense, just to highlight a moment of intelligent and creative play design and to explain why it works well with our personnel. I do question why we weren’t doing this type of thing when Stallworth was out with the quad injury earlier in the year. Why play Steptoe so much when he only does one thing and he doesn’t do that one thing very well? Why not use Heiden or Harrison more? Both of them can do multiple things well, IMO. The offense is improving and without great execution every offense is worthless.

Cover 1 really isn’t too uncommon of a coverage look. Its not “exotic”. Its a fairly safe way to bring pressure with 5 guys. The fact that we have guys like Heiden, Winslow, and apparently Ali who can keep LBs in the game (instead of CBs) is what makes this type of play work for us, not the fact that the defense is playing cover 1 or cover 3. CBs could have played press coverage and thrown off Quinn’s timing with the receivers, giving Buffalo’s blitzers more time to get to the QB. Very few LBs in the NFL are good bump and run cover men—especially in the slot.

Winslow demands to be guarded by the other team’s best cover LB or cover S, in this case Whitner. Buffalo could have played Cover 2 man rushing only the 4 down linemen and it would not have made a difference on this play. It just would have meant a better matchup for Kellen with Mitchell guarding him instead of the faster Whitner. Kellen can easily beat a LB who is playing man to man, and is a threat to take a well thrown ball and break the tackles of DBs.

by rufio on Nov 21, 2008 5:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If given that look again Buffalo would have played zone. I would guess pure Cover Two. Lewis/Ali command no respect in the passing game. There is no need to man up across the board in that situation. They aren’t going to hurt you deep so you keep the five underneath zones, and assume that your two deep can handle a three vertical combination (from Winslow, Edwards, and Stallworth) long enough for your front four to force pressure. That is assuming the worst possible combination, of course.

That play was certainly designed to attack man coverage. You have one clearing route and four quick hitters to the middle. I would propose that the staff saw a tendency in Buffalo’s defensive coverage and came up with this play. Good call by Chud, and a nice breakdown by you.

by gahnki on Nov 21, 2008 7:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I really don’t think it would matter what coverage they were playing if it didn’t involve bumping our receivers. Obviously if you do that as a defense, you leave yourself vulnerable in other ways. Against a Cover-2 the 5 underneath zone guys still have to cover 5 route runners (just like in this coverage) and the two safeties don’t have anything to do with any of these routes (similar to the FS deep and LB blitzing in this play). Against the traditional Cover-2 you also have Kellen one on one on a slant with a LB playing zone or you have one DB on both Lewis and Stallworth. Kosar talks about how much he loves throwing to the outside guy on a double-slant when the opposing team is playing zone every preseason, and Brady would have had his choice of two of those throws against zone. Against a Tampa-2, it gets even better, as the MLB would be too deep to have anything to do with any of these routes as well.

You might have been able to take away any one, two, or even three of these routes with a Cover-2 or any other coverage, but it is really, really hard to cover all of them. We can speculate as to who might have been open or how the play would have gone if they ran a different coverage, but they didn’t. Brady made a nice read and got rid of the ball before he got hit.

Also, I don’t know what you are looking at (do you have a different angle?) but from the TV footage, Edwards and Ali are running slants at the top of the screen, Stallworth appears to be running a slant at the bottom of the screen before he goes out of frame, and Winslow looks like he is supposed to run either a slant or an in, but is bumped, and by the time he gets off of his man, Ali already has the ball in the middle of the field (where he would be headed). Lewis just runs a route out in to the flat—is this what you are calling a “clearing” route? I have often heard the term “clearing” route used to describe a WR getting vertical on either a “go” or a deep slant or some other deep-breaking route in order to “clear” room for someone else underneath.

Regardless, my point is that this play worked because it surprised the defense and because of the versatility of our players. Ali might not have “commanded respect”, but he can catch slants and get first downs. Kellen Winslow is a matchup nightmare. Those two things, combined with a good read by Brady make this play possible.

by rufio on Nov 22, 2008 8:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs