Who know's better than the fans who watched every play..I'am gonna post both sides of the story in this thread..The question to the board was why would the dolphins hire Brian Daboll.. ''I couldn't agree more. Dabol was very sharp with some key off-speed pitches that worked very well. In fact, almost all the efforts to go against the conservative grain worked (I'm going to count that onside kick, that was just bad execution) and part of that is because the conservative grain ran so deep. That's actually part of this base offense itself. You smash smash smash and when they overcommit you sting deep. I don't think it's the ideal offense for us in this division because trying to smash Pittsburgh is just stupid. Nor to maximize the "talent" we have. But it's beyond ridiculous to think it isn't a credible approach or that Daboll isn't a good coach because of this year's futility. Aside from falling a little too much in love with Hillis, he did a nice job. I'm glad he gets a chance at redemption in Miami because he deserves it.'' ''Anyhow, I would take Marshall and Bess over Massaquoi and Robiskie any day of the week. Lack of weapons on offense is a valid argument for Daboll's last two years. I really think he's better than the rep he caught up here.'' ''I for one never thought Daboll himself was so bad. If you want to run that offense and it works for your personnel, there is nothing inherently bad about what I'd call Neanderthal+. There are reasons I don't think it was or is right for the Browns and those reasons are named Pittsburgh and Baltimore. As I see it, those defenses were built to stop a Daboll offense. Conversely, I think WCO is perhaps the best choice to attack those guys. The likely coming Pittsburgh-Green Bay matchup should be very very interesting to see. I'll be betting GB. And I do think Mangini's preference for that offense was really more about how he likes to manage a game close and win with defense than any strategic advantage it confers in this division. Neanderthal+ really is a great choice for the AFC east and I think it will look really good, and did look really good, against the Pats and Jets. And anything should work against Buffalo, but especially that. I'm still at a loss as to why we couldn't run on them. I think the Browns were right to ditch Daboll and the Dolphins were right to pick him up, and all that goes to the only point I seem to make on here, which is that there really aren't so much "good" and "bad" coaches as there are good and bad strategic fits, and that's by far what's most important. I realize this will never be accepted in general by most fans, who will continue to see old spittlechin as a genius who instantly make a team a superbowl contender. Even here where people should know better, I full expect to see a lot of Mangini-is-vindicated gloating next year when Miami's offense is better.'' ''What I'm trying to say hereis that we don't know what Daboll's offense would have looked like if he had playmakers at the WR position and a solid QB for more than 3 games in a row. One thing that is universal among good coaches is that they change their gameplan to fit their personnel. I think Daboll was doing just that in Cleveland, and that lead some people to think that he wanted to run a "Neanderthal" offense, when in reality, he probably just did not have the personnel to fit the type of offense he would prefer to run (vertical passing game!). ''Daboll was definitely working with a bare cabinet. hindsight is 20/20 on the plays that didn't work out and who knows, if the players executed the plays correctly i'm sure we would have a different perception of Daboll. '' ''I'm not using "neanderthal" in a negative way, and I'm not just saying that talent is more important than coaching (though overall it is). I'm trying to say teams do gain significant competitive advantage by running schemes that work well against their repeat opponents. While you can adapt and change your game on the fly from opponent to opponent somewhat, it's within a range constrained by your talent, and you need to really specialize in one scheme to get all you can out of the mix and force others to adapt to you. Coaches are, by-and-large, specialists in particular schemes. Maybe some are significantly "better" than others in the sense of adapting and so forth, but with all the money, manpower, computer power, video power, analysis, and assistants available to all of them, I think the range for that "better" is slim and shrinking rapidly, even as the media and fans' reactions to coaches moves the other direction towards individual idolatry and magical thinking. To me the important thing is that as an organization you make clearheaded decisions that create a harmonious, smart fit to give you your best strategic advantages. I think the Browns are doing that. >>>>one thing that is universal among good coaches is that they change their gameplan to fit their personnel. I think Daboll was doing just that in Cleveland,>>> To some extent maybe. But like most coaches, I think Daboll is a specialist in a particular scheme, and I think it's fair to call it Neanderthal+. In a sentence, it's smash-mouth running, and if you try to cheat with DB's, I burn you hard for cheating. It's definitely a run-first approach. I don't think any run-first approach will ever be especially good to beat the Steelers. Year in and year out, decade in and decade out, they gear their teams to stop the run. There's a lot of nonsense flying about how you can't run WCO in cold weather. Not only has that already been proven wrong, I find the weather around here a lot less predictable year to year than the fact that the Steelers are going to field a team that is very, very hard to run on. It's organizational religion for them, and almost allowed us to beat them with an inferior team in that one playoff with Holcomb that one year they are so committed to it. So I do think Daboll and Mangini were in that sense less of a natural strategic fit for us than H&H, even though I also think M&D were both probably good coaches.'' ''Could it just simply be that Daboll does sucks and is just not a qualified OC? Comparing Clevealnad;s numbers to Miami's is ....sad. How about Tampa and the Rams and Raiders. Look at the Raider's QB. yet, they averageed 25 points a game under a creative OC. You can sugarcoat it anyway you like, Daboll had to years and made no progress with his teams. Also had Sprolls and other weapons. Another sad day in Miami.'' ''It's hard to argue that Mangini's process got a fair chance to produce good results when he got canned after two seasons. The corollary is that Daboll may actually have been maximizing his offense's production with extremely conservative playcalling. Consider: Sam Bradford is considered a success in his rookie year despite taking zero chances with the passing game. His yards/attempt is through the floor.'' ''I think what you're getting at is that talent is much more important than coaching, right? If that's the case, I could not agree more, and while the PITT/GB game will be fun to watch, it will shed little light on the Browns ability to beat PITT/BAL unless the Browns add 4 receivers that are head and shoulders above MoMass & Robiskie, because that is what GB has, which is why their offense looks the way it does (along with one of the best QB's in the league of cour ''Holmgren and Heckert are familiar with filling the roster of West Coast offenses. They tried their little experiment of mixed philosophies and working with Mangini and his staff but it just wasn't working out the way they wanted, so they are bringing in guys who "speak the same language". Daboll is not versed in the WCO, hence his removal. Daboll's offensive philosophies and principals must have aligned with Sparano more than Childress' WCO and the others you mentioned. Plus his price must've been a heckuva lot cheaper as well. Not to mention his lineage to the Parcells tree, which Sparano also is a part of. NEPOTISM!'' ''I’m actually slightly impressed by the fact that Daboll’s offense in Cleveland last season averaged 5 yards per play – the same as the Dolphins. In fact, the Browns only scored two points fewer than the Dolphins last year over the entire season (273 to 271) and actually scored more offensive touchdowns (26 to 25) than Miami. And this is despite the fact that the team used three different quarterbacks, including a rookie for most of the season, and didn’t have a receiver top 500 yards receiving. Trivia question: can anybody name Cleveland’s top wide receiver? . . . [H]ere’s your proof that this Dolphins offense is going to look different in 2011 under Brian Daboll than it has the past three years with Dan Henning running the unit. Last season, the Dolphins used four wide receivers on only 20% of their quarterbacks’ drop-backs. The Browns, meanwhile, used four receiver sets on 41% of their quarterbacks’ drop-backs. This is despite having receivers like Chansi Stuckey, Mohamed Massaquoi, and Brian Robiskie to work with. Just imagine what those spread formations Daboll wants to run could look like with the addition of a speed receiver to go with Brandon Marshall, Davone Bess, and Brian Hartline.'' ''So the Dolphins’ decision to hire this same guy to run their offense just two weeks after his old boss Eric Mangini was deposed as head coach in Cleveland? The latest best piece of evidence to show how much nonsense all the criticism of the 2010 Browns’ offensive game-planning was, is what it looks like more than anything else. It’s safe enough to assume that the Dolphins are trying to win football games like everybody else. From there, we sort of have to assume that the Dolphins understand that “few coaches [could have done] more with less than Mangini [and his staff]” did this season; That, like Bernie Kosar said, you can only out-scheme a team for so long in the NFL; And that it’s really hard to win gunfights with slingshots, bows and arrows. It’s hard to remember sometimes in the dense fog of the Cleveland sports media Twilight Zone, but talent really does matter a lot in the NFL, and folks whose jobs depend on things like winning games in the NFL really can’t afford to forget that. So it’s easy enough to understand why the Dolphins would take more from the Browns’ surprising ability to compete in every game but one this season, more from the shocking wins over the Patriots and Saints and near-miss against the Jets, than they would from a run of close late-season losses with an injury-ravaged roster and a third-round rookie quarterback who played exactly like a third-round rookie quarterback as soon as there was a little tape out on him. Folks might want to call the position a dead-end job in Miami after the Dolphins strangely wooed Jim Harbaugh to replace head coach Tony Sparano before deciding to extend Sparano for two more seasons. But under these circumstances, Sparano’s incentives to get Miami’s offense fixed are playing with as much force as ever (and relatively so compared to other incentives, like potentially subconscious ones to hire a guy for reasons that don’t really relate to whether he’s the best one for the job). And Daboll was far from the only one who was interested in the position. Recently fired Vikings head coach Brad Childress interviewed for the job, telling the press that he “didn’t mind at all” the idea of going back to the coordinator ranks. Former Browns coach and long-time NFL offensive coordinator Chris Palmer, Cowboys tight ends coach John Garrett, Chargers tight ends coach (and ex-Browns OC) Rob Chudzinski, and Dolphins receivers coach Karl Dorrell all interviewed for the position as well. Question the competence of the Dolphins’ front office if you want, but as far as organizational governance goes, Brownstown has been North Korea for more than a decade in comparison. So while it’s good news that there are places in America where it’s not the Twilight Zone like it is here in Cleveland, and we couldn’t be happier for Daboll, Mike Holmgren’s decision to fire Mangini, his vague thinly-veiled shots at Mangini’s and Daboll’s play-calling, his statements about getting more out of the wide receivers, and that “[he] would have written the same things [the Cleveland press] did” about the Browns offense in 2010? That all comes off as significantly more depressing in light of the Dolphins’ decision to hire Daboll. I thought there was some smart folks on that board..just thought I'd post some thoughts cause I was bored..
I was eventually hearing Ed Grimley narrating that by the end... Daboll is a totally decent coach, I must say! Who knew the Browns scored 1 more touchdown than we did. I bet his lack of offensive talent totally made his offense look neanderthal-ish. It's difficult to say!
interesting stat. Will we see many 4 WR sets with Marshall, Bess, hartline and Gates? Or, will it be more 3 WR sets with either Fasano or Clay going out for a pass?
I'd be a bit more interested if they told when those formations were primarily called. That would be a better indicator of what was going on IMO. Otherwise it could be that the Browns faced more 3rd and longs than anyone else in the NFL and hence used more 4 wide looks.I'm not saying thats the reason, just that having that stat without any real context can lead to some unwise conclusions.
There are the following articles to consider as well: http://www.dawgsbynature.com/section/rufios-playbook Fantastic stuff in there.
It's more likely that they'll be 3 receivers and another player split wide. Anthony Fasano probably isn't going to leave the field much. Not as much as you owe everyone else for posting this.
That may be where my bookmark came from. If he posts it I try to remember/save as much of it as I can. Sadly, I never have the time to devote to learning as much as Alen has, but it's always good to have the higher-level stuff available.
I'm going to just assume you didn't get the joke and didn't notice the thanks for his post instead of assuming you just want to start **** up.
Yeah but they still used quite a bit of it to spread out defenses horizontally. In some ways, it was similar to what Green Bay does, meaning they used the pass game as an extension of the run game.
Yeah I think when you bring up the 20% versus 41% statistic on 4-WRs, you should keep in mind that when Daboll did it, it often involved Ben Watson splitting out into a wide position. This makes sense because Ben Watson ran a 4.4 coming out of college and is highly athletic, was always used wide with the Patriots like another wide receiver. So talking about the 41% statistic being despite having WRs named Chansi Stuckey, Mohammed Massaquoi, Josh Cribbs and Brian Robiskie...that wasn't REALLY what it was about. It was about Ben Watson. In reality, Miami under Henning very rarely put 4 actual wide receivers on the field from a personnel standpoint. And actually, very few teams in the league do that. The Cardinals have always done it more than other teams. But otherwise, teams don't put 4 actual wide receivers on the field much, and defenses don't face 4 actual wide receivers much. If Brian Daboll hails from the New England system, I don't imagine he's going to try and fit a square peg in a round hole by having Anthony Fasano split out wide as often as he had Ben Watson do it. That New England system remains to this day one of the most malleable systems in the league. They'll throw away entire sections of the playbook, and reinstitute forgotten sections year to year based on the personnel they have available to them. I'm sure Daboll will change things. But I think one of the things he's here to do is to install more shotgun and three step drops, and the other thing he's here to do is work with new RBs Coach Jeff Nixon on installing the kind of zone blocking scheme they used in Cleveland with the power runner Peyton Hillis. Otherwise I don't see any reason to believe that he's going to dramatically alter the system considering he works for an offensive coach, and almost all of the assistant coaches under him were here before he got here. That's just reality.
Its a bit difficult reading his explanations, such as what he calls the "fade-stop", which is just a "stop". The WR is suppose to retrace his steps of his vertical stem but I didn't see him mention that.
I could see him using Fasano in a flex alignment frequently, whether he operates as a clearout or a checkdown option or he cracks a blitzer. He did it with Lawrence Vickers.
I have no idea where they got that 41% from, but I call bull****. In fact, I'd be willing to bet Cleveland was among the lowest in the NFL in using 4 WRs.
I actually didn't. Didn't intend it to come off in a smartass manner. I thought you were talking about two man combo route but wasn't sure.
If that's the case, how long will we strruggle to install a zone-blocking scheme with no mini-camps and potentially shortened training camp?
And I fully expect him to do that with Charles Clay, whom I've been talking about playing that Lawrence Vickers type role since he was drafted. But using Fasano that way would IMO be a waste.
Never said he would be used like Ben Watson nor did I cite you saying that. I made a statement about seeing Fasano in a flex alignment.
http://thefinsiders.com/blog/2011/brian-daboll-the-new-man-in-charge-of-the-dolphins-offense The fact that Sparano would say "less predictable," knowing that was a criticism of Henning's offense last year, says a lot if you ask me. There's also good stuff in there about Daboll's personality and work ethic.
He got more comfortable as a play caller toward the end of the year but in the first half of the season, it wasn't all that great. If we get that Brian Daboll, people won't be happy. Toward the end of the season, he did things like this: Gave some different looks, mixed things up. Became more open with the usage of concepts, etc.
You can see the D is puzzled even being a still shot this would help so much against the Jets D instead of them telling our reciever what play is taking place.
This forum doesn't really need more no content posts by any means I think like was mentioned, the problem is in the semantics. Statistic sources don't really seem to often describe accurately if they are tracking four wide receivers on the field or four players split wide. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2011/formation-analysis-number-wrs-part-i Football Outsiders appears to have differentiated in the above link, given the text at the end concerning the Patriots, and it appears you're right on the Browns. They likely used 3-WR and a split "other" very frequently, and four receivers pretty rarely.
This, and really how hard is it to learn? The players already likely have their paperwork in terms of playbooks so they should know the plays and adjustment calls. The covered/uncovered rules are pretty simple. A fair amount them(Long, Pouncey, Jerry at least) have quite a bit of experience at some point in their career. I imagine the basic technique has been gone over briefly in Henning's offense given the Jet Sweep play at least in the Wildcat.
Not really hard. Inside and outside zone is not all that complicated. The thing that may give them some trouble is the footwork but I don't think it will take that long.
The only thing that I like about Daboll is the way he's praised for preparing Colt Mccoy. Other than that I can't believe nobody knows who Ed Grimley is. I mean, it's not like I'm referencing Nipsy Russell...
One of the few people rated worse than Henning in pro football last season. Like I've said time and time again: My expectations could not be any lower; and probably for the better.
Fasano's best receiving game was probably vs Tenn and seems like he was flexed out a lot and was often left wide open 15-20 yds down field.
I'm just hoping that we're not constantly running play action out of the i-formation on third and long in the fourth quarter if we're down by more than a touchdown. That alone will save me a lot of screaming at the tv in the sports bar. Please? Thanks.
