NFL.com's Bucky Brooks: Change in offensive philosophy could be difference for Henne

I'm just not sure I agree with the reasoning of the second possibility. We've had multiple players (Ricky & Marshall, just off the top of my head) complain about the OCD of the coaching staff last year. That, to me, suggests that it's not a foregone conclusion that the staff not letting Henne change things up is an indictment of him. Is it possible? Sure. But I see it as fitting in quite nicely with what I already thought about this staff. They were control freaks who were terrified of deviating from their set gameplan. That's why they refused to ride the hot hand in the running back by committee situation. That's why they wouldn't even let Henne make the simplest of all audibles when we had a favorable matchup with Marshall. It was their MO. And, if that's the case, I'm just not sure I can indict Henne.

By the way, are the stats available for how many snaps our #2 TEs took (on an individual basis) and how often they stayed in to block compared with how often they went out to run routes? I understand your earlier point that, even if they're complete turds, it still makes sense to release them. I don't disagree with that at all. I just think, when you consider the above point, and then look at the caliber of guys we were throwing out there at that particular position, it makes a lot more sense to think this was a coaching decision and not Henne crying for extra protection.

 

That they were, but I was kind of answering with teams that have had a solid running game every season and implement it a little heavier.

But yea, Woodhead and BGE were no joke either.

 

I may be wrong here, because I am not real interested in statistics, but I believe Andy Reid calls runs less than NE.

 

I submit Alen, there is a difference between running the ball out of the spread, or 3 Wr formations, and running the ball out of the I or split backfield.

Stats wise, yds are yds, reality on the field is a bit different, this was sort of the case when the Run and Shoot was going strong in the NFL, they racked up huge stats but then fell apart in the playoffs or to good teams.

 

Since it has already been shown that the number of extra protectors did not really change in 2010 from 2008 or 2009 -- only the ratio of protectors to blitzers -- I think it is incumbent upon you to prove why this is Chad Henne not reacting to the situation as much as it is that calling for those extra protectors was the design and function of the offense based on the depth of drops and the types of routes being run.

This is your system. You are the one arguing for a definite conclusion based solely on the ratio of protectors to blitzers, regardless of factors like play action (which always includes extra blockers) on third and long (when few teams blitz), our consistent avoidance of three step drops (when extra protection is not needed), the almost non-existent presence of the screen game (either bubble screens to the wide receivers or traditional screens to the backs -- neither of which require extra blockers), and so on.

Would including such information be practical in constructing a model? Unless you're Nate Silver, perhaps not. But it would go much farther in proving that the relationship between extra blockers to blitzers is as causal as you say it is.

 

Quite possible. But it makes sense when you consider McCoy is one of the best pass-catching RBs out there.

 

Yeah but they've always been that way.

 

Like when they had Westbrook, who was easily one of the best pass-catching RBs at that time.

 

You're completely ignoring the points I raised. I'll reiterate them.

1. Extra blockers is 80% correlated with extra pass rushers for the rest of the league.

2. The ratio of extra blockers per extra pass rusher was 5 or 6 standard deviations outside the league mean.

Perhaps you can revise your arguments accordingly.

 

Yeah. I was talking about Reid's philosophy, which he learned Bill Walsh's offense through Mike Holmgren. Though I should add that he probably learned a lot of stuff from LaVell Edwards.

 

I know what you mean, but that kind of pass-catching success w/your RBs is still filed under running game, imo.

 

Just so I don't misunderstand you (though I might be doing just that with this next statement), you are saying that the passing game with running backs is an extension of the run game?

 

Yeah, he's a quality coach and of equal quality as a play caller.

 

An ironic charge, given you utterly ignored the points I made.

1. Correlation does not imply causation.

2. A standard deviation based on a stat derived from incomplete information? Whoa. Stop the presses!

Now perhaps you can explain why a simplistic analysis that does not include all of the data should be taken as proof of anything.

 

To some extent I think you could say it is. Not that there isn't a big diff between an RB that can line up out wide and run quality routes or one that just catches short little dump-offs.

My point was more that PHI has always had very solid RBs. In their case, they were just used in a variety of ways.

 

Agreed.

 

1. Nobody said "proof". I've put out a leading theory with strong evidence to back it up. Though people have put out competing theories, nobody has put out ANY evidence to back them up.

2. What you said here makes no sense. It's just words put into a sentence. Explain yourself better.

 

Evidence that does not consider the larger context is not "strong."

If I were to tell you that Arian Foster was a better running back than Chris Johnson and cited as "strong evidence" the fact that he had more yards, a higher YPC and more touchdowns last year and ignored as "not evidence" stuff like offensive philosophy, talent at quarterback and on the rest of the offense, and so on, I hope you would tell me that I was trying to jury rig the argument to support a pre-existing conclusion, because that's what I'd be trying to do.

You are the one drawing conclusions from this incomplete data. It is up to you to prove why you think why extra pass protectors per blitzer is a comprehensive enough ratio to draw a conclusion about Chad Henne's inability to adapt to NFL defensive strategy when there are so many factors out of the quarterback's control that go into how many protectors are called on a given play.

 

Your entire counter-argument breaks down to a Monty Python style "No it isn't."

 

Not really because he wasn't nor was the Colts running game.

Much easier?

James Starks has always been pretty talented. Not to mention that their OL finally got working right. But yeah, Aaron Rodgers had something to do with it as well.

 

The only problem with your analogy is trying to say that x is better than y. Better is an entirely subjective term. CK offered nothing subjective.

Your theory that the protection calls at the line are made by someone else other than the QB is baffling. I've never heard of a RB or LT or anyone else making those calls other than the QB. You would be hard pressed to show a RB or lineman or WR calling out the strength of a defense.

 

Why is it necessary for me to provide a counter explanation for the existence number I don't consider relevant? I disagree with the premise of the number entirely and have laid out my reasons for doing so.

 

It does happen. The back will call out protections, not often and mostly its a slight change to overall call thats been made. The back may call out that he's switching sides based on what he sees, but that goes to the line more than anything else. It doesn't mean the protection is inherently different, but it does change the call somewhat.

Basically if the back was supposed to block left, he may make a call telling the OL that he will in fact be going right. That does happen, I had that call under Dick Winder.

I didn't have to make the Mike call, but I did have a responsibility to make the call I outlined. It can screw things up as it is another voice out there making a call, but it does happen to some degree.

 

I didn't say they were. I said that protection calls are often a necessary part of the play call. A three step drop requires less protection than a five step or seven step drop, regardless of what the defense is doing. A play action pass requires even more protection than that. So if you run play action on third and long, you'll probably have a situation where you have at least a seven man protection against a three man rush. If you assume such a situation twice per game (which I think is a conservative estimate, especially since play action can often be an eight man protection), then you'd have, what? Like 48 extra blockers versus -32 rushers? And that's just play action. Trying to run a statistically normalize the fact that we never ran a three step drop would even be more difficult, but also necessary, to provide such an analysis more significance.

The larger context matters.

 

Sure, but we aren't talking about a single play or blown call. We're talking about a significant disparity over the course of a season, which I have a hard time seeing the RBs or OL being culpable for.

 

1. The Dolphins didn't call very many three step drops.

2. Contrary to popular belief, Dan Henning did not call play-action on 3rd & Long many times. It's a stupid and maddening call whenever it would happen, but the fact of the matter is it only happened liked 4 or 5 times all year long and yes I did gather those stats.

 

Right. I remember when Big Ben took over the first 4 games of this year. That's how they started out 3-1, right?

Not like Westbrook or McCoy ever took over any games either.

 

I meant that a three step drop requires less protection than a five or seven stop drop. Rewrote that sentence one too many times.

 

So you believe that there were no other offenses in the league that used three step drops as little or close to as little as Miami did?

 

lol So now that play is responsible for winning the game? How about Mendenhall's 2 TDs? Funny no mention about Big Ben fumbling it on the goal-line and single-handedly giving BAL an easy TD earlier in that game.

Comedy.

 

Wouldn't a three-step drop require less protection since the quarterback is expected to get rid of the ball earlier?

 

Ok, I'll explain it one more time because apparently most people here don't get it.


Your banging the drum on a statistic that doesn't take account for the principle of each individual offense. Whats the first and foremost priority of an offense? To protect the quarterback. Sending out 2 wideouts or 5 wideouts doesn't really matter, the right protection being called is. The protection relies on the drop of a quarterback and secondly the "flow" of the play (play action to the strength of the formation, or "web" action away from the strength of the formation

The "strength" of the formation is dictated by whichever side has 2 out of 3 receivers, or a receiver and tight end.

The depth of the drop absolutely takes precedence over how many rushers will possibly be coming in terms of calling protection. If the protection calls for a RB/TE to stay in and block on a 5 or 7 step drop and one of the the expected rushers doesn't come, then the RB/TE has the option to release.

Which goes back the #1 priority of protecting the quarterback.

If you're running a more updated offense you automatically have more receivers running routes especially in 3-4 WR sets. These quarterbacks are using 3 step drops because the "strength" of the formation has already dictated that you don't have as many extra blockers at your disposal to help in protection.

Check everyone's love toy Andrew Luck and his game film. On 5-7 step drops he has extra blockers. On 3 step he has less. Check Henne, in the Detroit game in the 1st half he barely had any extra blockers due to being in Shotgun the entire time.

 

Nope. I think that Miami abused the 5-7 step drop and barely used the 3 step.

 

Sure, but keep in mind a couple of things:

-Henne had the most tipped passes of any starting Qb in the NFL in 2010, if the rusher cannot reach him, they just put their hands up
-3 step drops are sort of the fat # 7 pencil of Qb play, as in the last time we used 3 step drops often the guys name was John Beck at Qb.
-no real time for deep routes to develop

Not totally against using them, and do think Henne's drop point was far to consistent in 2010, pass rushers knew the spot where he was going to be at, 3-step drops are no panacea as at the end of it all Henne will earn his bones on 5 and 7 step drops or he will fail.

 

Any offense from the Coryell tree (like Henning's) uses less three step drop than an offense from, say, the West Coast. Mike Martz is notorious for not using a three step drop but even he went to it enough last year to combat Chicago's horrid offensive line that I would wager heavily they used it far more than we did.

Is it really your contention that these "other" factors (drop back vs. shotgun, # of steps of drops, play action in obvious passing situations, etc) do not have a significant impact on the ratio of blitzers to extra blockers?

 

Thats not a defacto either or decision with regards to the back. Just because no one rushes does not mean they have an option to release. On some plays yes they do, but that is in relation to that play or formation, and it is part of the play. It isn't up to the back to make that decision on every play.

It is not automatic by any means.

 

Is that really saying anything though? The WC utilizes more 3 step than most offenses I would imagine, given the way it was constructed. However, regardless of offensive philosophy each playcaller tends to make it their own in some way or through many ways. Andy Reid's WC offense is not the same as Mike McCarthy's. There will be plays that are the same, as well as verbage, but there will likely more that differs than there is the same.

Thats true of any offensive system, the play caller ultimately influences the use of varying aspects of that offense. Its not just as simple as offensive system x uses more than offensive system y. There's more individuality than that involved.

 

I would think that three-step drops would decrease the number of tipped passes as the pass rusher would have less time to try to rush, fail, and then put his hands up, no? Wouldn't the appropriate conclusion be that Henne had the most tipped passes of any starting QB in the league, in part, because of the lack of three-step drops?

 

Then you've never played football at even the High School level. That explains a lot, actually.