RedskinsHeads

Sawxheads_Forum
May 19, 2012, 04:01:26 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
News: SMF - Just Installed!
 
   Home   Help Search Login  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: John Clayton article  (Read 304 times)
BMahoney
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 282


View Profile
« on: May 01, 2008, 10:18:30 AM »

Click link for full article:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=3375024

Take what you will from this article, some believe it portrays the supposed deficincies in our line are far too exaggerated.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2008, 10:20:05 AM by BMahoney » Logged
tryfuhl
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 335


hatsforpants.com

tryfuhl
View Profile
« Reply #1 on: May 01, 2008, 04:10:05 PM »

Retro model doesn't fit modern game
 By John Clayton
ESPN.com

 An interesting trend was crystallized during last weekend's draft. Teams are trying to go retro, reaching back to pattern themselves after championship teams of the 1970s or the 2000 Baltimore Ravens. They are emphasizing the running game.

As it turned out, the 2008 draft enabled those thoughts to grow. It was a draft that featured offensive tackles and running backs, not wide receivers capable of taking an offense to the next level. Ten receivers went in the second round; none were selected in the first.

What concerns me, though, is the increasing belief that it's better to win on the ground than it is through the air. Obviously, if a team has a bad starting quarterback, the simple solution is to use more handoffs, eat up the clock and hope the defense can keep things close heading into the fourth quarter.

Let's not be fooled, though. The trend, despite the pass-prohibiting 2008 draft, is for passing offenses to thrive. Officials aren't calling as many ticky-tacky holding penalties, so quarterbacks aren't facing as many second-and-20 situations. Passing yards per game have been rising the past three years. Scoring is up for the past three years.

And, remember, to win a Super Bowl, you have to find a way to beat Indianapolis' Peyton Manning or New England's Tom Brady, the gold standard for quarterbacks in this league. Their teams score at least 24 to 27 points a game.

The Falcons, Lions, Panthers and Dolphins lead the charge of teams going retro. Panthers coach John Fox clearly is going back to the philosophical roots that took Carolina to the Super Bowl after the 2003 season. He drafted RB Jonathan Stewart and used next year's first-round pick to trade up for 322-pound tackle Jeff Otah, one of five 300-pound offensive linemen added to the team this offseason.

The Panthers need a healthy Jake Delhomme to complement their promising running game.

Of the four teams, the Panthers are clearly the closest to winning. They were 7-9 last season despite the loss of quarterback Jake Delhomme, who underwent Tommy John surgery. Delhomme should be back, and he needs to be, because the Panthers' only other option is undrafted second-year quarterback Matt Moore. Armed with an easy schedule, Fox hopes to pound Stewart and DeAngelo Williams behind his bigger offensive line and get to nine or 10 wins.

Where the theory breaks down is with the other three teams. Bill Parcells is rebuilding the Dolphins around physical left tackle Jake Long and whoever emerges among quarterbacks Josh McCown, John Beck and Chad Henne. And until one of these three emerges as a legitimate franchise quarterback, it's going to be a tough road for Miami.

Give the Falcons some credit, though. Even though free agency gave them the retro model with running back (Michael Turner) and reliable place-kicker (Jason Elam), they resisted the temptation to take highly regarded DT Glenn Dorsey and grabbed the best quarterback in the draft, Matt Ryan.

Then there are the Lions. They fired offensive coordinator Mike Martz, whose two-year legacy of passing brought Detroit's offense from 15.9 to 21.6 points a game, a number that could get many teams into the playoffs. Head coach Rod Marinelli, who has turned the offense over to offensive line coach Jim Colletto and added physical right tackle Gosder Cherilus, plans to pound the ball with Tatum Bell and third-round running back Kevin Smith.

Teams tend to forget this isn't 2000 or 1975. The 1970s was a running era because the game was too physical for passing offenses to thrive. Cornerbacks could knock down receivers. The only way to survive on offense was to match violence with violence and wear out the defense with running plays.

The Ravens won a Super Bowl in 2000 with Trent Dilfer at quarterback, but that came at the end of a horrible cycle of quarterbacks coming out of college. In the mid-to-late 1990s, teams sent undrafted quarterbacks to NFL Europe, and many of them came back as NFL starters. That's how bad things were until Manning, Brady, Donovan McNabb and others finally came to the rescue and created more pass-friendly offenses.

There are limitations to being just a top-10 rushing offense. Unless the top-10 rushing offense is equipped with a top performing quarterback, the system fails. The Raiders, under Lane Kiffin, finished sixth in rushing last year. They won only four games because of the poor play at quarterback. Over the past five years, the 49ers have had three top-10 running seasons. They went 7-9 in two of those seasons and 2-14 in another.

Normally, a top-10 rushing season pushes a team to anywhere between seven and 10 wins. What a team can do with that, though, depends on the play of the quarterback. The outside world tends to look at the Giants as a team that played good defense and won with a strong ground game. Let's not mince any words. They won a Super Bowl because Eli Manning stepped up at the right times and won games.

The NFL is still about the quarterback. That's not going to change. The 2008 season should be a study in figuring out the right way to win until that quarterback develops.

Based on the 2008 offseason, it makes sense to shift some focus to the ground game. It was a draft that produced 27 running backs. But the key is not to go overboard. It's like travel: Ground transportation gets you anywhere, but it's faster to go through the air.


John Clayton, a member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame writers' wing, is a senior writer for ESPN.com.

Logged

Smile, you've got tryfuhl
Mike Bass
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1718



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 01, 2008, 04:12:06 PM »

Click link for full article:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=3375024

Take what you will from this article, some believe it portrays the supposed deficincies in our line are far too exaggerated.

I did not get this from the article at all. From what I read, Clayton was saying that teams are trying to beef up at RB and on the O-line to get back to how teams won in the 70's but he thinks that trying to win via the air would be just as viable an attack, these days as running was then.

As far as we are concerned, I think that we should have the best of both worlds by having a possible elite RB and a slew of receivers and TE's that should be very reliable this season. I think that we can plan an attack to exploit any defensive weakness of any team that we face this season, by running the ball against poor run stopping defenses and passing against poor pass defenses.

We are in a pretty good situation on offense this season.
Logged

tryfuhl
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 335


hatsforpants.com

tryfuhl
View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2008, 04:16:43 PM »

I think that Clayton is overlooking a few things here.

There wasn't much in the 1st round as far as WRs went.  Who wants to pay a 2nd round guy 1st round money?  It's not like a couple teams refused to sign one, NO TEAM signed a WR 1st round.  You can't tell me that all 31 picks between however many teams it was selecting in the 1st round all decided to become run-first, pound it in, between the tackles, Joe Gibbs guys, no way.  It had to do with talent.

Then we hear about tackles being selected, okay yes, they open up the lines for backs, sure.  They also protect your franchise QB from getting absolutely slimed by a DE or LB if at all possible.  So maybe it's not just for running, it's to protect against the huge rush to the QB that's become a newer trend for teams to focus on.  

I see where he's coming from but I think that he's got a different approach to it than what I see.

Logged

Smile, you've got tryfuhl
tryfuhl
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 335


hatsforpants.com

tryfuhl
View Profile
« Reply #4 on: May 01, 2008, 04:19:54 PM »

Click link for full article:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=3375024

Take what you will from this article, some believe it portrays the supposed deficincies in our line are far too exaggerated.

I did not get this from the article at all. From what I read, Clayton was saying that teams are trying to beef up at RB and on the O-line to get back to how teams won in the 70's but he thinks that trying to win via the air would be just as viable an attack, these days as running was then.

As far as we are concerned, I think that we should have the best of both worlds by having a possible elite RB and a slew of receivers and TE's that should be very reliable this season. I think that we can plan an attack to exploit any defensive weakness of any team that we face this season, by running the ball against poor run stopping defenses and passing against poor pass defenses.

We are in a pretty good situation on offense this season.

If our ball catching rookies can roll right into the system I wholeheartedly agree.  One thing Zorn has been excited about is different personnel packages.  No longer are we limited to a receiver or two hopefully.. and no longer can everyone just expect Portis up the gut.  We can be extremely adaptable if our guys get into the system and let it translate on the field.  Not to mention we can have backs coming out of the backfield to become targets or lay blocks as well.  I wouldn't mind seeing Alexander, Portis, Cooley, Davis or whoever play that role well, even Betts. 
Logged

Smile, you've got tryfuhl
BMahoney
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 282


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2008, 05:12:29 PM »

I personally only believe the statement to an extent, that is why I said "some believe" this demonstrates yada yada yada.  But I do agree with it as I have said up to a point, I just think Clayton points out that the "real trend" it towards pass aggressive teams, in the WCO schemes O-linemen are asked to block for far less duration during plays.  It is expected the qb will get rid of the ball very quickly, and if not we have CP back there to put the lights out on anybody trying to get to his qb.  Basically much like the hope that if we have an offense that sustains a drive our d will be more energized, their is the hope that in a WCO linemen will not be required to use as much energy as they would in a Gibbs like system, therefore they will have the ability to play at a higher level throughout the game.  For example do you really think the Pats O-line or Colts O-line is really just that incredible?  These guys make pro-bowls year in and year out, but is it just due to their incredible qb play?  Without Manning you think that line would play the same?  I sure don't... thats kind of what I was trying to get at.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.3 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!