| Sportsmanship | Participation | Skills Development |
| Sportsmanship | Participation | Skills Development |
|
|
The original discussion starts here. The latest messages
are farther down. From: Matthew.Culhane Let me start by stating clearly that I believe our playbook is very good and if we could consistently throw and catch out offense would put up big numbers. Also, I would include Rick in this discussion if he had e-mail - maybe this will help to persuade him to get a personal e-mail address if not a business one. Mostly, I just like to talk football and think about plays. My understanding of the underlying assumption of our plays is that the best way to move the ball in touch football is to have a quarterback that can read defences and throw to the pattern that is most likely to defeat that defence. Every play should always have one open pattern, so every play can be used anywhere on the field. This definitely has merit as it closely reflects the way most professional teams play. Personally, I have not spent much time on the offense but I have spent a lot of time on defence and this has influenced my philosophy. When I first became interested in designing offensive plays I didn't think so much about what should work, but rather, what does work. And I mean by that, what works consistently against our defence. This includes:
These are just a few, and our offensive plays contain some of these elements. I have a problem with the expectation that a quarterback has to read the defence and then know which pattern will be open on that play. I have watched a lot of defences and I can't consistently read them. Our defence, which is very disciplined, rarely lines up the way the textbook diagrams indicate. Not only do we call shifts and lines to hide our alignment, defensive players move all over their zones depending on the receivers, the alignment of the other team and who else is on the defence with them. Reading defences is not easy, especially as other teams tend to play with less discipline and switch from zone to man and move all over the place in the middle of plays. I have played with this playbook for 10 years and I don't have it memorized. Very few people on the team do. Maybe that's the fault of those of us who haven't memorized it, or maybe it's not a realistic requirement. I think it's not realistic. Thus, if you can't rely on a QB to read defences and know where to throw the ball, what are you left with? That's a very good question. I have some ideas of my own, but I'd like to hear yours. (Steven - please forward this to as many people on the team as you have e-mail address for.) ------------------------------------------------- From: Cartier, Steven So, Matt wants comments, here we go. I must be one of those mutants that has pretty much memorized the playbook since I have run every pattern from every position between 50 and (it seems) 10,000 times. Once I know my pattern and starting position on a play I can tell what everyone else is doing on that play. (At least from the half and slot positions. I agree it is difficult for the QBs to read the defense from the line but there are ways to help them. For example, something as simple as the HB lining up on the wrong side and moving to the correct side on "Down". This will probably tell the QB immediately if the defense is in "man" or "zone". Any kind of backfield motion can probably help the QB determine the type of defense they are facing on a particular play. Another suggestion which I have been trying to drill into John's head for years now is varying the snap count. Always using Down....................Set....................Hut, with long delays and never on anything but 1 makes it too easy on the rusher. If they would have to think about what the snap count is going to be then it might buy a second or two for either "reading the D" or scrambling. Another option is a more liberal use of the HB option, buying more time for the "pass" or "run". While we have practiced this a little in our practices we have very rarely ever used it in game situations. This is my 2 cents worth for you discussion and mangulation... Have fun. 117 days to first football practice! Steven Cartier ------------------------------------------------- From: John Hi, guys! I can see this becoming a very long email if we don't occasionally get rid of the "history". First, a belated Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all! In the past, I have tended to agree with Matt in that if I (or whomever is quarterbacking) can throw on target in a timely fashion (i.e., before the coverage closes), and the receivers can catch, we should be able to put up consistently good numbers. In this mode of thought, our problems in the last two years have mostly stemmed from inconsistency at the quarterback position. However, I've also noticed in the past that when I'm not throwing on target, receivers tend drop more of the throws that are on target; conversely, when I am throwing well and on target, receivers tend to catch better. For example, it tends to go something like this:
This has been my thinking in the past; however, while channel surfing a Monday night a few weeks ago, I saw part of a NFL game and they had an interesting graphic. The quarterback was Kitna (Steve(?) Kitna of the Seahawks(?) -- don't remember). The commentator showed Kitna's pass attemps broken down into six zones -- short vs long (15 yds+ being long) by left vs centre vs right. Kitna's passes were almost all short -- he had one long pass on the right side.
The commentator's observation was that if there is no ability to make the big play, then there is too much pressure on the receivers to not drop any pass -- they couldn't afford it. And this in the NFL, where they have an extra down. In Canadian football, a dropped pass almost certainly means a punt. So as our offence sits now, we have to execute perfectly for at least 10-15 plays to score at all (depending on where we start on the field). If we have a couple of consistent big play receivers, we can cut this down to 7-10 plays, and we will score more often. So to take pressure off the receivers, I think we need a couple of viable deep threats on the offence -- right now the closest thing we have to a deep threat is Kevin. We certainly don't have anyone capable of scoring from anywhere on the field. The quarterback also has to be more mobile -- more rolling out, more running. Yes, I am talking about me (if you'll have me). I think Matt's observation about our playbook is essentially accurate -- there is nothing wrong with it that requires drastic overhaul. However, we may want to institute a periodic review to tweak it a little bit so that teams we have played for several years in a row won't automatically know all our plays (and what about Duncan?). I disagree a bit with Matt's contention that learning to read defenses is hard, and learning the playbook is hard. I've learned because there has been what I call "evolutionary" pressure on me to learn -- if I didn't I wouldn't be a good quarterback. Matt himself has not suffered from this pressure and hasn't had to learn, so he hasn't. Steven, for example,despite limited quarterbacking time, is excellent at reading defenses from the QB position. As I've said to him, his only problem is that his set up and release are slow enough that defenses have time to read where he will throw. I can agree with Steven's position that always going on "one" gives an advantage to the rusher -- but it also gives an advantage to our offense in that we get fewer offsides penalties. From my time as a centre for Erik and Jean-Luc (way back when), I know that at least once or twice a game I would get the count wrong. The QB would say "On Two" and I'd snap on one...or down, or something. Or the QB would say "On Set" and I'd snap on one...at which point the only people NOT offside would be me and the QB. So I tend not to vary the count for that reason, especially since we often have inexperienced receivers on the line. Perhaps the simple answer to this is to teach all the receivers to "watch the ball". But then our drills in practice will have to reflect that. So in summary -- more QB runs and roll outs, more speed on the offense, more deep attempts. If we can do this, we will be able to score more points and win more games. Have fun! ------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew.Culhane Very insightful comments John! You are right about the catching percentage increasing dramatically with quarterback accuracy. You are also right in your assertion that an offense needs at least a couple of viable deep threats. Athleticism is a significant part of the equation, but, given that our team doesn't seem to be getting younger and faster (I'm thinking largely of myself) I think we have to look at other ways to create those opportunities. It certainly is something to think about in the spring when people are thinking about where they would like to play and how they could best help the team. A more mobile quarterback can also buy time and help to create openings, but this should be done as part of an overall strategy. Could we design a play that was specifically created to make a quarterback run possible? It's not just a matter of hoping to pull defenders when they are in man, it should work in zone coverage, too. And it has to be viable on it's own merits. One thing to ponder is how many times a year does the quarterback run using our current play #6. The is designed to pull defenders out of the way when they are in man. It depends not only on the QB reading the defence, it also relies on the receivers (sometimes inexperienced) reading the defence and remembering what the correct reaction is. Moreover, it depends on the defenders deciding to play man. Is there a simpler way to create the same opportunity? Can it be done independent of what alignment the defence has chosen? You're right John, despite my comments there is nothing wrong with our playbook that requires drastic overhaul. But, I, personally, think it would be fun to introduce a couple of new plays. I also think there is real value in experimenting with new things. We don't know what might work better until we try something new. I think it would be healthy for our team to regularly introduce new things just to see whether or not they work. We will learn more about why what we already have works as well as learn what else might work. Congratulations on having memorized the playbook. That makes you, Steven and, I expect, Rick. Anybody else? You are a very experienced quarterback, John, and have had a long time to learn to read defences. I'm more worried about new QBs having to use a system which requires them to read defences from the beginning. Experience seems to show that they don't try very hard to read the defences and throw to what should be open. Rather, they try to decide ahead of time where they will throw and hope it opens up. Maybe that's lazy, but maybe a more graduated playbook would be more in keeping with the Chaser philosophy allowing new people to compete for any position. Also, I have a philosophical problem with designing an offence that is entirely reactive. I think it's possible to force defences into vulnerable positions. Again, if we made a point of varying the snap count in practice. It would not be an issue during the game. It also seems to me that we don't have enough of a short game. Many of our short patterns tend to be pretty low percentage plays and we don't have anything designed for under 5 yard gains. A lot of plays leave us 2nd and 2-3 to go. We need plays designed to get us that 2-3 yards. Speaking of NFL play, I was watching a Raiders game a while ago and the commentator illustrated what is supposed to be an innovative new defensive alignment by the Raiders that they call "Sticks". Essentially, all of the safeties and cornerbacks set up in a horizontal line across the field at the first down marker. Sounds to me like they've stolen our Line defences. Matthew J. Culhane From:
John.Wilson Hi! I was on break and at Glenn's website, reading the email commentary from the offensive discussion this winter. I have some new comments, but now I've forgotten what they are. Oh, yeah!
So I think that as the official team quarterback (at least until the end of spring league when the next vote is held), I have to assume a burden of leadership amongst the other QBs. I have to take a more active role in teaching. Up until now, I've commented to Steven and Pat on their throwing mechanics, but I also need to teach reading and decision making. There probably isn't anything I can teach Steven about those, but Pat could benefit to some degree (he reads well and has good poise), and any new rookie quarterbacks will need help. Anyway, as you can see I have addressed mostly quarterback issues in this email, mostly because (aside from providing more catchable passes) I can't do anything about catching percentage. Have fun! From: Matthew.Culhane 1) Actually I never said anything about "timely" throwing, you did. 2) I have a question for you John, When the defence lines up in a sloppy alignment or anything that is not "text book" (ex. zan, diamonds, trapezoids of doom), what are you reading? How do you handle defences that shift? What do you do about zone defences that switch randomly to man? Matthew J. Culhane -------------------------------------------------- From: John.Wilson Okay, so maybe it was Steven who commented about timely throwing. Let's see. In practice, when our team lines up in a line defence, after the snap I do a quick check to see who (and how many) are back pedalling into deep coverage. That works against disciplined zone defences. Interestingly enough, a lot of teams tend to line up in "line" defence against us, especially when they're playing man, but they're not often disciplined. In game situations, I usually have an idea of what pattern I want to throw to when I call the play. When we get to the line, I scan the field before the snap, looking for situations where someone's pattern will get them open (e.g., when our centre is doing a flag right and the deep middle defender is cheating left). This is based on the static defensive lineup, whether it is a line (possibly man), diamond of doom, 3-3, whatever. After the snap, I check what that defender is doing, and use that as an indicator of what the whole defence is doing. This works especially well on slants, too -- if a defender lets a slant go, they're in a zone (or at least he is), and they're in man if he follows. Incidentally, that example I chose of centre flag right, coverage cheating left is exactly the situation that led to Pat's 60 or 70 yard reception in last Thursday's game. I looked at the defender and he hadn't moved! So instead of throwing the hook I had wanted to throw when I called the play, I threw to Pat and the rest is history. After my first check I look to my "primary" receiver and make a throw/no throw decision (and if necessary a "how to throw" decision). By now, between 3 and 5 seconds have passed since the snap, depending on what pattern I'm using as my bellwether. If my "primary" is a no throw, I start looking around, usually at the receivers to either side of the primary. If they're not open then I scan the rest of the field and if I run out of time I either eat it (sack) or try to throw it away safely or run. One point of weakness I have noticed as I'm writing this is that when I scan the field for an open receiver, I am typically looking 8-12 yards down field. I know over the years that I've missed a bunch of fly/post/flag patterns that were wide open because of this. It takes a lot longer to write this than it does to do it, obviously. I think I get anywhere from 5 - 9 seconds to throw the ball, counting from the snap and depending on the rusher. I can get more by rolling out. At the last practice, Matt, you ended up standing behind me as I ran the offence and you can probably have a decent idea of whether or not my description is at all accurate, or if my memory is playing tricks on me. Anyway, this is turning into one of my long emails, so I'll shut up now and go away and let you get back to work. Have fun! -------------------------------------------------- Matthew.Culhane I find some of your comments extremely revealing, although I may be exaggerating their importance:
My point has always been that reading defences and then processing that information to locate what should be the open pattern is very difficult. You are an extremely experienced quarterback and, as you seem to indicate, a lot of other teams tend to play undisciplined defences or try to hide their alignment. My argument has always been that our playbook asks a lot of new quarterbacks and maybe we should look at some options that would allow them to perform better. Spoon, From: John.Wilson I don't think you are exaggerating the importance of my comments you cite. One of the problems with trying to read an entire defence is precisely that there are very few that are disciplined. When the left side of the defence is in 3-3 and the right side in man, reading the "whole" defence can be an exercise in frustration. Rick has a drill for new quarterbacks where one of the coverage people "blows" the coverage. It's a good drill, but in game situations there may be as many or more guys "blowing" coverage as not. Admittedly, the last few years (in the higher divisions) we have seen less of this. Yes, I tend to choose a pattern before seeing the defence -- but I'm not going to force a throw to that pattern. If I get up to the line and find that the receiver I want to throw to is going to run right at a defender, then I look for something else. So I choose something in the huddle, but I'm not married to it. Usually, it's based on some weakness that we have seen in previous plays, maybe three or four or ten plays ago. Yes, I tend to work by finding individual open receivers rather than determining the defensive pattern and deciding who will be open as a result of that. I think I have evolved this behaviour for a couple of reasons. First, teams play man-to-man against us a significant amount of the time. They can get away with this because we don't have the team speed to force them into a more conservative defence (hence the need for a running and rolling quarterback to put pressure on the defence). Second, even when teams play a zone against us, they tend to be aggressive, i.e., the defender is almost playing man within his zone. (I recall a couple of instances in the last game where I heard the defenders call 3-3 before the snap, and I still had someone running at my shoulder as I ran my pattern). At a guess, I'd say that I function by finding an open (individual) receiver about 75% of the time. The end result is the same whether they play a zone or a man defence -- hopefully I find one of the open receivers and get the ball to him. The other 25% of the time I become aware during the play which type of zone they are playing, and react accordingly. But even then, I will almost always look to make sure the receiver is open before throwing, rather than doing something like: "They're in 2-4...throw to the right end 5 yard out." without looking. And one final note about the overall strategy. I tend to choose plays based on what have we not done recently, mostly to keep the opposing defence guessing. Occasionally I mix in the same play twice in a row, because that too will be unpredictable. I can afford to do that because of the way the play book is designed -- each play with some patterns that will work against each of the potential defences. That way it's one less thing I have to think about on the field. So, in summary, you're right -- I don't read "defences" very often. I read open receivers. With the experience I have, I can now do this pretty quickly and check 3-4 receivers before I have to get rid of the ball. So to get back to Matt's original point -- what can we do to help anyone who wants to try out for quarterback practice reading the defence? Something to think about. Have fun, and see you on Sunday! |