Greg Knapp's Playbook: Zone Stretch Left
by John Morgan on Jan 13, 2009 3:47 PM PST
in Analysis
65 comments
Below is an essential run play in any zone-blocking scheme. If you are interested in me diagramming a specific play or exhibiting fundamental differences between Greg Knapp's offense and Mike Holmgren's offense, like wide receiver splits, leave a comment and I'll make it the subject of a future post.
Oakland is pinned at its own five. The Raiders set 2 wide receivers, tight end, I-backs. The Chiefs set in a balanced 4-3.
Zach Miller motions in, crosses behind the center and then returns to a recessed position off right tackle. Strong safety Bernard Pollard moves up into the second level.
Snap.
Right tackle Cornell Green pulls hard left. Miller moves up to block Chiefs left defensive end Turk McBride. Miller is a Carlson-esque tight end and an asset in Knapp's system. Ronald Curry cuts across field looking for a Chief to engage. It's already clear, with Oakland's interior line bunching and blasting left the success of this plays hinges on Miller and left tackle Mario Henderson containing their respective assignments, McBride and right defensive end Tamba Hali, preventing them from shooting in and redirecting or tackling Darren McFadden.
From behind, the essence of this run is revealed.
Green cuts Tank Tyler. Center Jake Grove cuts middle linebacker Pat Thomas. Robert Gallery and Cooper Carlisle combo block Glenn Dorsey. The three interior linemen, right tackle Green and fullback Justin Griffith form a five man wedge in front of the slashing McFadden.
From the scrum a hole emerges Emmitt Smith could run through.
The Zone Stretch is not a play, but a family of plays or, more accurately, the opener for a set of possible runs. Zone blocking empowers linemen to adjust and pick their assignment in response to the defense. A stretch has a few fundamentals: Linemen block one direction, typically the direction of the run; a defensive lineman, typically a defensive tackle and typically the defensive tackle positioned to the side the run is directed, is double teamed; one of the two blockers doubling the defender walls off the defender while the other pulls into the second level. Other rules may be instituted on specific plays, but the elegance of a zone block is that blockers may "audible" their assignment on the go. It's so libertine and spontaneous one wonders how Tim Ruskell ever convinced Mike Holmgren into accepting it.
0 recs |
65 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Score
Good piece here, John. I was already pretty familiar with zone blocking schemes, but this was a really easy-to-follow breakdown that served as a good example of what we’re going to be aiming for.
Out of random curiosity, does zone blocking tend to open any cutback lanes? I remember how stellar Shaun Alexander’s field vision was, and how he could always cut back for massive gains in the early to mid part of the decade. Zone blocking looks like it’s directed to go one direction, though?
by jimmimoose on Jan 13, 2009 4:43 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Zone blocking is best for the one cut and jet type runner. See: Denver and their success with backs who did that
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Jan 13, 2009 5:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wouldn't that
make it less running back dependent and more dependent on the line? As long as the line can do their jobs, the hole will be there and all the RB has to do is run through it and then see what he can do in the open space that results. The RB doesn’t have to look for cut back lanes or make any real decisions, he just goes where he’s supposed to go and if the hole isn’t there, the play fails.
This is, of course, an over simplification. But am I correct in that assessment?
by Fear on Jan 13, 2009 5:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty Much
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Jan 13, 2009 5:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
or that
Said RBs might have to be good at fewer things when running those types of plays, but still talented. Burst and decisiveness are two qualities that come to mind. It’s also not like we’ll abandon the screen game, at least I hope.
by Misfit74 on Jan 13, 2009 6:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
why Shanahan kept pulling productive backs out of his hat
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Jan 14, 2009 8:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's where I was going
with my train of thought. I havn’t payed much attention to Denver, but I was wondering if they did exactly the same thing. Such a system allows you to draft late RB’s that only have the particular skill sets you need and allows you to forget about everything else. Thus saving 1st round draft picks for other positions (of course, it also makes the offense line more important and so you have to spend more early picks on them). Since RB is a premier position that commands top dollar, recycling late round RB’s every few years for another allows you to keep paying rookie salaries for solid production. Which frees up money for other positions as well (once again, with the recent dramatic increase in the price of offensive linemen, that money is probably just going straight to the O-Line).
by Fear on Jan 14, 2009 11:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
...Which in turn, is a good thing,
seeing as how having a strong o-line dramatically improves every aspect of your offense. See: Alexander, Shaun/Hutchinson, Steve
by Fearless Frog on Jan 14, 2009 12:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Denver also cycled through OL's like RBs.
Since 1990, they’ve only drafted 2 OL’s higher than the 3rd round – and one of them was a semi-bust they later traded away.
Alex Gibbs ran a zone-blocking scheme that was based on smaller, quicker OLs. So just like the RBs, they were able to concentrate on guys with a particular skillset who were usually available in the late rounds.
So when it comes to the OL, maybe the ’Hawks are thinking along the same lines. Not necessarily the small guys like Gibbs preferred, but you can run different forms of zone-blocking with the bigger O Linemen we have, which Solari did in KC.
IMO, one of the few things Ruskell actually was honest about in his PC was the whole “getting OL’s later” thing – because they’re looking for particular skillsets. Then you let scheme & cohesion make the unit better than the sum of it’s parts. Personally, I’ll be very surprised if the ‘Haws use a first day pick on an OL this upcoming draft … unless the first 3 picks break the worst way possible and we’re facing a situation where an OT is leaps & bounds the BPA.
by jteckmann on Jan 14, 2009 2:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
John, I was going to ask about WR splits
I was curious if Knapp employed the bunch formation more than Holmgren ever did. Also, what type of two TE sets for passing plays. Holmgren usually only brought in the second TE to block, except at times in the red zone.
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Jan 13, 2009 5:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Is there a model of a successful NFL team
the Knapp offense is going to follow? A team that has contended for the title recently with the “run first” offense Knapp will be employing?
by VBJohnson on Jan 13, 2009 5:56 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
There was a run-first team that hoisted a Lombardi Trophy at the end of the 2005 season...
…though I’m loath to say they actually won it.
by Doug Farrar on Jan 13, 2009 5:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Giants were pretty run based last year
And so were the Bears in ’06 with Thomas Jones. Carolina and Tennessee were both 1 seeds this year with a run first mentality.
If you’re good at what you do it doesn’t really matter whether you’re run first or pass first or run to set up the play action or pass to set up the run or whatever “do this to get that” plan you want to talk about.
by Nate Dogg on Jan 13, 2009 6:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Jeez, I'm still not seeing it.
The Giants were dominating with their passing game in the playoffs last season. The other two stunk it up bad in the playoffs.
by VBJohnson on Jan 13, 2009 8:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I kind of agree.
You need to have a good passing game in the playoffs (unless your defense and special teams is otherworldly) because it seems most good teams that can stop the run make it to the playoffs.
by LantermanC on Jan 13, 2009 8:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That year, every time the Seahawks ran first,
they lost. When they passed on first down and second and short, Alexander started busting out and then they dominated with the running game.
by VBJohnson on Jan 13, 2009 7:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Seahawks didn't win the SB
But it didn’t matter that year. Alexander could run on any down when we had Hutch.
by cashless on Jan 13, 2009 9:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That is a popular
misconception. The Seahawks set up the run with the pass in 2005.
by VBJohnson on Jan 13, 2009 10:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's what the basic gameplan approach was
but they still did have the ability to run Shaun any down.
by Fearless Frog on Jan 14, 2009 10:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You can't say something is a misconception without substantiating why.
What sort of evidence do you have that Seattle used the pass to set up the run?
by John Morgan on Jan 14, 2009 11:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well John, you yourself have stated that's how Holmgren's WCO offense worked.
Spreading out the field with passes and paying off in a big run through the tackles, if memory serves me correctly.
by Fearless Frog on Jan 14, 2009 12:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, it's Holmgren's goal to set up the run by spreading the field horizontally with the pass.
That does not mean by extension that:
That year, every time the Seahawks ran first,
they lost. When they passed on first down and second and short, Alexander started busting out and then they dominated with the running game.
That’s a very specific and rather lofty claim that requires substantiation.
by John Morgan on Jan 14, 2009 3:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I seem to remember Holmgren himself saying this
sometime around last year, talking about the ’05 season.
Could be wrong.
by djafrot on Jan 14, 2009 12:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Careful observation.
Being particularly interested in exactly this caused me to watch carefully for this. In the 05 season there were a few games where the Seahawks persistently ran on first down (I forget why) and they either lost or were losing and changed strategy. The rest of the games they would come out pass, pass, pass, run. Pass pass, run. Heavy toward passing, only after they had made about five or six first downs would they start running much on first down.
by VBJohnson on Jan 14, 2009 1:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So you are basing this fervent claim on some small sample unsubstantiatable observation
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Jan 14, 2009 2:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Does anyone have access to the play by play of that season?
I forget what they call it in football, where they tell the play called and the result of each play. And I’m not referring to a small sample I’m talking about 19 games.
by VBJohnson on Jan 14, 2009 2:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Play-by-plays are all over the web
nfl.com, espn.com, etc … basically any site that has good NFL coverage.
by jteckmann on Jan 14, 2009 4:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Falcons run a lot of slide protection...
They like to have Turner or Norwood cut one step to the slide, then look for the cutback. Another favorite play is to line up in I or offset I or full house and slide left, have fullback Ovie Mughelli seal to the right, and have Turner blast through the lane.
by Doug Farrar on Jan 13, 2009 6:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
All the run first teams nowadays that I can think of
lose early in the playoffs, like the Falcons did.
by VBJohnson on Jan 13, 2009 8:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Falcons are protecting a rookie QB
What about the Steelers and Ravens? The only team that passes a lot that was in the divisional series was the Chargers.
And when you look at the Knapp offenses in Oakland and Atlanta, they didn’t have great passers. The SF offense he had was a lot more balanced. With Hasselbeck passing and no run game last year we made it to the playoffs but couldn’t run when we hit the snow and got blown out. The Chargers and Colts didn’t run that well this year and they are both out. Balance(which is what we seem to be getting) is the best offense.
by cashless on Jan 13, 2009 9:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't the Steelers and Ravens
win mostly due to their defenses? I mean, is it a good idea to use an offensive philosophy that only works if your defense carries you? When I think about the recent dynasties, the Patriots, the Cowboys, the 49ers, all I see is pass first domination.
Are the Seahawks trying to do something new to the NFL?
by VBJohnson on Jan 13, 2009 10:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
what do you mean by "new"?
Because “establish the run” is one of the oldest cliches in the NFL.
These are the rough numbers I pulled off nfl.com for the last 10 Super Bowl Champs:
’07 Giants: 7th Overall D, 11th Passing O, 8th Rushing O, 54% Pass
’06 Colts: 11th Overall D, 2nd Passing O, 18th Rushing O, 56% Pass
’05 Steelers: 4th Overall D, 24th Passing O, 5th Rushing O, 59% Run
’04 Patriots: 9th Overall D, 11th Passing O, 7th Rushing O, 52% Run
’03 Patriots: 7th Overall D, 15th Passing O, 4th Rushing O, 53% Pass
’02 Bucs: 1st Overall D, 15th Passing O, 27th Rushing O, 58% Pass
’01 Patriots: 24th Overall D, 22nd Passing O, 13th Rushing O, 50% Balanced
’00 Ravens: 2nd Overall D, 22nd Passing O, 5th Rushing O, 50% Balanced
’99 Rams: 6th Overall D, 1st Passing O, 5th Rushing O, 55% Pass
’98 Broncos: 11th Overall D, 7th Passing O, 2nd Rushing O, 52% Run
So, out of the past 10 SB Champs, you’ve got 5 that were pass-heavy in their play calling. 3 were run heavy, and the other 2 had a 50/50 balance. The Pats dynasty falls on both sides – they started off as a run heavy, play-action team. As Brady developed into a better QB, they became more balanced. And only after getting Moss & Welker did they morph into the passing juggernaut that lost the Super Bowl.
A few other trends – 9 of the Champs had D’s that were top-11. Only 3 had passing O’s that were ranked higher than their rushing O’s. 8 of them had Total O’s that finished in the top15.
IMO, that backs up exactly what cashless was saying – it’s all about balance. Run to set up the pass or pass to set up the run? … whatever. It doesn’t matter how you choose to do it. Either way can work. What matters most in the end is that you can run the ball successfully (even the ‘99 Rams did that well). This grinds clock and gives your D a rest – making them look better. Teams like the Colts, Bucs, Rams & Brocos had smaller, speedier D’s that were protected by an O that chewed clock.
Just for kicks, here’s the Pass/Run ratios for the rest of the Super Bowl winners in the 90’s:
’
97 Broncos: 51% Run
’96 Packers: 54% Pass
’95 Cowboys: 50% Balanced
’94 49ers: 51% Pass
’93 Cowboys: 51% Run
’92 Cowboys: 50% Balanced
’91 Redskins: 55% Run
’90 Giants: 58% Run
Once again, it’s all about balance, and a strong running game. The decade started off with 2 smashmouth running teams in the Giants & Redskins. The WCO 49er’s & Packers are the only pass heavy teams that won the SB that decade. The Cowboys strove for balance – but they used the run to establish it (that’s always been the staple of the Norv Turner playbook: run first to set up play-action and stretch the field later)
by jteckmann on Jan 14, 2009 2:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting stats, thanks
Since 98, the only team with more than 52% run was the team that had the luckiest championship run in the history of sports as many of us here would agree, the 05 Steelers. We have to go all the way back to 91 to find another SB winning team with more than 52% run. So balance, yeah, run dominance? Not really.
And this seems to be something that we can’t really tell from stats, right? Some teams that run more than pass are still passing first to open up the defense and then ending up running more, and vice versa. The most successful team lately, the Patriots, for example, strikes me as the former.
But where is the successful WCO team that runs first to set up the pass? That’s what I mean by “new.”
by VBJohnson on Jan 14, 2009 8:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, play calling doesn't always matter.
If you’re up by 2 tds, then in the 4th quarter, you’re probably going to call 65% rush.
Also, I didnt’ realize that the 03 and 04 Pats were so good at rushing.
by LantermanC on Jan 14, 2009 8:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think we'll be "run first"
We’ll just be a lot more “run heavy” & run often. Subtle difference. But the core of the WCO isn’t going to see wholesale changes under Knapp – we’ll just see new wrinkles thrown in. Knapp’s big thing is that he strives for that 50/50 balance in his playcalling. It’s not a matter of “one setting the other up”, it’s using them effectively to compliment each other.
Like comparing he ’05 ’Hawks to the ’07 version …. basic scheme is the same but the playcaling was vastly different between the two.
If I had to guess, IMO Knapp’s goal is to look a lot like those late ’90’s Bronco’s teams, and those 49er teams from the Garcia/Owens/Hearst days.
P.S. – I don’t think the ‘05 Steelers were anymore “lucky” than the ’06 Colts, ’08 Giants or any other non #1 seed SB champ. They were a good team, were 15-1 the year before, and hung their hat on 2 big strengths. And they got hot at the right time to blast their way through the playoffs. I hate picking at the scab of WL, but I separate bad refs from good play by the Steelers – both of which we faced. IMO, the ’01 Pats are actually one of the luckier champs in recent memory, because there wasn’t one thing you could look at (besides coaching & gameplanning, I suppose) and say they did at an elite level.
by jteckmann on Jan 14, 2009 1:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
good play? are you kidding?
what was Roth’s QB rating?
Hass threw for almost 300 yards.
All of their points came off tiny critical almost-flukes (QB’s past the LOS, a third string safety, a QB “maybe” getting across the goal line).
We had seven points definitely taken off the board, and a first down and 2 taken away as well.
I’m not saying they weren’t a good team, but we really played a better game.
by djafrot on Jan 14, 2009 2:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I've never been a big fan of QB rating.
Seems like the ERA of football, highly dependent on things outside of the player’s control.
by BrianL on Jan 14, 2009 2:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
so Seneca Wallace didn't have a joystick controlling Leonard Weaver
after his short dumpoff passes?
Yeah QB rating really is a very very basic way of evaluating a performance. It’s a shame football events are so much harder to quantify than baseball events (which are plenty complicated on their own)
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Jan 14, 2009 2:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
so are a lot of stats.... well, all of them.
Either way, you couldn’t have watched the game and thought Roth played well.
by djafrot on Jan 14, 2009 2:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If we played a better game, we would've won.
It’s not like XL was the first game in the history of the NFL where the lower-rated QB won, or the other QB put up better #’s in a losing effort.
It was an ugly game on both sides – but Pittsburgh made up for their O’s shortcomings by better D and Special Teams. They did a lot of “little things” better than us. Bad calls certainly didn’t help. But the Steelers did what they needed to to win, and the ‘Hawks shot themselves in the foot even when the calls weren’t going against them.
That’s just the way I look at it. But I realize it’s one of those deals were the scars run deep, so I’m not trying to get anyone to change their mind.
by jteckmann on Jan 14, 2009 3:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Better D? We were carving that secondary like a turkey.
And they didn’t have a first down the entire first quarter.
by Fearless Frog on Jan 14, 2009 3:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I've since made my peace with the XL debacle
Yeah, it would’ve been nice had the blown calls not happened. It also would’ve been nice if Jerramy Stevens didn’t have jazz hands, if Alexander had shown up at all, or if our defense had bothered to tackle Willie Parker once in a while.
So it goes.
Every day I hear about Seattle sports' failures. Every night I fall asleep to the sound of my own tears.
by Benne on Jan 15, 2009 12:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeesh.
There’s “low rated QB’s” and then LOW RATED QB’s. I think he was the lowest rated QB in superbowl history, with something like a 28.6 rating.
And OF COURSE if we’d played a better game we would have won. Duh. Sure, if we’d played perfect, i.e. thrown for THREE times as many yards, maybe we could have beaten a team when half (or more) of our big plays were taken away by turnovers.
But Pittsburgh is a good team, and we were playing on their turf. We played good enough to win… don’t try and tell me that without DJack’s PI call, Lock’s “hold”, Manuel’s injury, Roth’s non-past the LOS 3rd and long completion, or any number of other calls we don’t win that game handily.
by djafrot on Jan 15, 2009 1:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Etric Pruitt...
Being down to our fourth safety on the depth chart was a real big factor in 14 points.
by cashless on Jan 15, 2009 5:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I never said the bad calls didn't matter.
I was just addressing the issue that Pittsburgh was a fluke team that year.
Of course the bad calls mattered. Without them, Seattle would’ve won despite the average game they played. But for every bad call, there was also a missed FG, blown coverage, or one of the worst decision/throws of Matt’s career.
I’ll never stop being bitter that the refs put the ‘Hawks in an unfair position where they needed to play an A+ game to pull it out. OTOH, I’ll always be disappointed because I felt the ’Hawks were capable of that, and helped compound the officiating problem by not playing it.
What can I say? We fought the law, and the law won. It sucked.
by jteckmann on Jan 15, 2009 2:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It wasn't just
the luck of having the Superbowl refs help. They backed into the playoffs (needed help from other teams to get in) and had more than one other crucial game that they won with disputed calls.
by VBJohnson on Jan 14, 2009 2:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
By that definition, every Wild Card team has "backed in"
Since all of them needed at least one other non-division winner to win less games.
It was the other way around in ’05 – the Chiefs were the AFC team that needed help making the play-offs. The ’05 Steelers controlled their own destiny and won out to secure their spot.
The disputed call in the playoffs actually went against them (Polomalu’s overturned INT)
I hate the Steelers as much as the next ’Hawks fan …. but seriously, that was not a fluke team.
by jteckmann on Jan 14, 2009 3:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The next season
they took on the curse of the Super Bowl loser by going 7-9 and not making the playoffs. Yeah, I think they are right up there in the top five luckiest championship runs in the history of professional sports.
by VBJohnson on Jan 14, 2009 6:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
you don't think that their quarterback's head going through a car windshield may have had something to do with that?
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Jan 15, 2009 2:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, I don't know how curses work
All I know is the Superbowl loser had been missing the playoffs the next season for quite a few years in a row. The Seahawks made the playoffs, the Steelers didn’t.
by VBJohnson on Jan 15, 2009 9:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm 100% with you on this
I woudn’t say the Steelers ’05 season was lucky or flukey though.
by Nate Dogg on Jan 15, 2009 9:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
curses are just the need to attribute meaning to random and unrelated events
The SB Winner has missed the playoffs the next year as well a few times. Before the Steelers, it had already happened a few times this past decade. (’03 Bucs, ’02 Pats, ’99 Broncos)
by jteckmann on Jan 16, 2009 1:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Mora did say
he wanted to be able to run the ball successfully even when they other team was putting eight in the box. I don’t know if that’s run first, but it sounds like it.
by VBJohnson on Jan 14, 2009 2:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds like "execution" to me.
The ‘05 Seahawks did exactly the same thing – and as you’ve argued, they were a pass-first team.
I think we’re losing sight of the bigger picture here. There’s so much more to an offense than trying to define them by strictly the first 10-15 plays they run in a given game.
by jteckmann on Jan 14, 2009 3:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're right.
I’m just looking for something to hang my hat on. Some previous successful NFL offense that the Seahawks are trying to resemble, or if they are trying to innovate and do something new, I’ll hang my hat on that!
by VBJohnson on Jan 14, 2009 6:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
cool you're using data
where did you find that? for a point of reference, would there be any way to dig up:
- league median % (sometimes slight rule changes make passing easier or harder, coaches would certainly be aware of it and change their playcalling to adjust)
- first half run/pass %? (obviously teams that are up the whole second half of games will run the ball more often)
- the seahawks data over the last 10 years?
Thanks! if the data is accessible I’ll in doing the research myself.
by cro-mag! on Jan 15, 2009 6:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd love to be able to look into some of that stuff myself, too.
I just went to nfl.com and pro-football-reference.com and cut and pasted the O & D rankings … which are just based on total yards, which is a very flawed way of doing things. For the run/pass ratio, I just did the simple math using a teams total rushing attempts & passing attempts.
But I realize total run/pass ratios don’t tell us much about team’s philosophy. For example, the ‘05 Seahawks had more total rushing attempts than passing attempts. But if you look at the play-by-plays for ’05, The ’Hawks started almost every game in pass first mode. For those scripted plays on the first few drives, it’d be close to a 2-1 pass ratio. So that indicates that the ‘Hawks came out throwing to soften the D, then started pounding Alexander one things got rolling. The ’07 Giants are the opposite. They finished with more pass attempts, but their play-by-plays show them opening up games by running Jacobs up the gut, and they started throwing once D’s started creeping into the box, and play action became a big threat.
I’d really like to look at all the stuff you mentioned, to get a better overall picture of things. But I don’t have access to any of the premium footalloutsiders.com stats, and play-by-plays on nfl.com only go back about 5 years. And it takes going back and charting out each game individually. It’s fun, but sadly I don’t have the time to do that level of research right now.
by jteckmann on Jan 15, 2009 1:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There is no magic formula for superbowl champ
But all Superbowl Champs, and Superbowl teams for that matter, are excellent at something. The 05 Sehawks were excellent at offense. They lost the game because of mistakes. Mistakes that did not plague them during the regular season.
One common denominator with 99% of superbowl winning teams: they all battle back against some sort of adversity. Their mettle gets tested during the season, they come back from it stronger, and move on from there. That is why both AZ and Philly are interesting teams. NE lost the SB last year because it was the most they went up against all year.
Lets look at this year’s final four:
Pittsburgh- excellent on defense
Baltimore- excellent on defense
Arizona- excellent passing game
Philly- excellent pressure packages on QB’s- can make them look really bad
Now, the other key is not having a fatal flaw. Based on my formula it should be Philly and Pittsburgh in the Superbowl. I just think that Pitt’s is better suited to terrorize the rookie QB and Baltimore than vice versa. As much as I dislike Big Ben, he has proven that despite having a not so great game, he can make enough plays usually to put points on the board. Although he could totally implode…..I think Flacco will struggle to put points on the board in that game.
AZ’s passing game is impressive to me. But the Philly D will probably do enough to rattle Kurt Warner. That is a QB who when pressured significantly- will make mistakes that put points on the board for the other team. The only way AZ wins this game is if: they handle the blitz and allow KW enough time to make positive plays. I will not bet on this. But- AZ has shown a lot in two prior games this post season. They could overcome this- especially at home. But I won’t bet on it. Philly has enough versatility on offense and discipline (Andy Reid will learn from Holmgren here) to put up a few points.
That being said— I’m glad the Hawks look to have that character part figured out. They just need a facet of their team performance in 09 to become excellent. In 08, nothing was excellent. In 07, the passing game was very close to excellent. In 06, a few parts of the offense were pretty good, but nothing close to excellent. In 05…excellent overall offense, well balanced, with a solid defense. Should have won the Superbowl.
by Section 128 on Jan 14, 2009 9:26 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
