Preseason Game 3: Bears at Browns August 27

[tiamat63]

2 hours ago, SdBacker80 said:

I don’t think anyone is saying why do we have Stanton on the roster, but I think I a lot of people are saying if Kevin wants to be “multiple” one of his favorite buzz words along with “work”. Can a package (not the entire offense) be devised where both backs are on the field?  Both have elite balls skills and playmaking ability.  I’d find something to get them on the field together in a package.  Is this too far off base????

If one or both get tired you throw DJohnson in the mix or Ford.  Are we not comfortable enough with those two- we are seemingly very willing to deal Hunt and feature either behind Chubb.  Are we saving Kareem for next season?  It appears the wear and tear this year will go on another roster and another team to manage.  
 

I don’t normally praise a Steeler but Najee had a good year considering the year Ben had.  You can say volume or you say getting the tough yards but I think he played a big role getting them to the playoffs. 

Several reasons, I suppose. 

- We run a great deal of one back sets like a lot outside zone offenses. 21 personnel gives us more flexibility in the passing game. 

- While Chubb and Hunt are elite playmakers as pure runners and in the screen game, I don't see them as backs who are elite at setting up and leveraging defenders on choice concepts from the backfield.  So their route selection will be incredibly limited.   Again, that's where I bring up players like CMC, Kamara and Eckler... different athlete's, different styles, different ways to make the effective. 

- If they have limited route viability, then bringing in both of them at the same time in favor over Felton or Bryant, the former who operates with better lateral explosion and the later who can be a downfield presence, really gives tips to defenses and allows them to key on certain routes and screens.  

 

I'm not saying it's a terrible idea to draw up certain looks and that you can't have it as a wrinkle. I love the idea of the screen game with it.   But Chubb and Hunt are similarly skilled, similarly built and styled backs. There is little contrast to their game that would be more a complement,  as opposed to being more overlapping.    

 

Edit: another thing to consider- Jacoby.   You have a new QB learning your playbook, language and players.  No way is he going to be able to digest and execute it all in a single off-season.  So the coaching staff is going to be busy cutting the fat, if you will.  Finding what best works for him, and trying to maximize our most utilized personnel grouping - 21.  So the idea of expanding the playbook not only with using 12 personnel in a two back set, but having multiple calls off of whatever your base for that would be, is a tall task for a new starter.   I'd be more apt to have time mastering what we have and maybe tossing in a fun design like a throwback screen off action.

- Najee is a damn good young RB.  But the weakness in the Steelers offense were between their Oline and Ben.  As a result, Najee had to get a TON of touches in order to produce numbers.  His 3.9 per carry is evidence of the lack of talent up front, not an inefficient running style.   The Steelers were a ball control offense as a result,  not so much by initial design. 

 

1 hour ago, TexasAg1969 said:

Replay of the game is on NFL Network 212 Direct TV today at 400PM EDT (3PM CDT). Recording to watch later since I play RB @3 our time.

 

If your old ass manages to figure out the internet, don't hesitate to install and pop in TBB discord when I watch and share the all-22.   Easier and more informative than a broadcast replay. (Sans Joe Thomas' knowledge) 

[Flugel]

On 8/29/2022 at 8:51 AM, tiamat63 said:

In order 

- Split back ball (without a 1 back) dates back to the 80's. So it seems a bit silly to call using a true lead  "outdated".    I can't speak for LB's, but I can tell you as a DB and saw time at the Star (4th man in a 44), I'd rather take on Kareem in the hole than a 250lb Johnny Stanton.  

It also speaks to wear and tear. If you want both Chubb and Hunt to be a fresh as possible late season, having Hunt as a lead will only take tread off those tires. LBs and upbacks are running backs without the ball.  

And the 80s isn't a great frame of reference either. Linebackers are twice as athletic now. So unless you possess elite change of direction and acceleration, making a halfback a primary component in the passing game is rare. Example, CMC, Kamara and Eckler.   The panthers offense would stall for long periods when teams found ways to ice McCaffrey, because of Carolina's inability to exploit all other areas of the field (especially vertical) they had no counter.

- Felton is getting looks. It's up to the coaching staff and Jacoby to make sure they get the most of him. 

- Najee' was effective through volume.  He was also a fresh legged rookie. I say 'was', because handing any RB 400 touches a season is going to turn them into an old man very fast.  DeMarco Murray, Henry, CMC, Kamara without Breesy.  All high volume backs that experienced career changing injuries after a few high touch seasons.  NFL means Not For Long when you're getting that sort of workload.  I would invite the Steelers to do the same this season. They invested a 1st round pick into a RB and his hips will be shot by the time it would come around to his 2nd contract with that sort of contact running style.   

Ball control is a net positive when you can also combine it with explosive plays.  Otherwise it's an admission your offense is flawed and working to mask those flaws while also hoping your defense makes stand after stand.  

There's more than one way to skin a cat by playing ball control.  And I'm not sure the Browns offense or  defense is at a point where they can afford to go full turtle mode. 

You finally gave me something to disagree with you about; and it's more of a personal preference/taste on my part. And I'll just give you my reasoning behind it that you may or may not agree with. 

I'd rather have the type of Fullback Kevin Mack or Mike Alstott could play in the sense they both offered the offense way more than just a lead block role.  Mack ran a 4.5 coming out of Clemson so he was a weapon catching the ball or carrying it when our other back (Byner) was a very physical back that could block almost as well as Mack.  The type of physics Mack brought to a collision well,,, just ask Greg Lloyd about the time he woke up to smelling salts in Cleveland following one of those.  Alstott was a lot like Mack in the sense he could run through people and even surprise people he had the jest to run away from defenders with a head of steam. He also had great hands while he was a great lead blocker for Warrick Dunn when necessary.

The 72 Dolphins had Larry Csonka rushing for over 1000 yards inside and Mercury Morris rushing for over 1000 yards outside plus Jim Kiick chipping in over 600 yards.  They also had Paul Warfield's 4.3 40 speed over the top for anyone trying to load the box.

Today, I'd rather have Chubb and Hunt on the field at the same time than Stanton tipping a tendency that our opponents will be extremely well prepared for.  LBers can range anywhere from 220 to 245 lbs; so I'm guessing they're not going to be overwhelmed by Stanton as you might think.  The more you can make a defense guess how a RB will be used in the formation is a plus.  Cleveland doesn't have to use an I backfield stacking a tailback behind a lead blocker/FB like the Chargers did with LT behind Lorenzo Neal if we use Chubb and Hunt.  You can use a Pro Set and still do an iso/blast the hole with Chubb leading and Hunt taking the hand off or vice versa.  There's so much the Browns can do with these 2 guys.  I do agree both will need rest so we can substitute Ford and D'Ernest. Back in 86, Curtis Dickey started over Byner (a lot of people forget that) so Lindy Infante used Mack, Dickey, Byner and Fontenot.  I prefer the pro set myself because I can use counter action in the backfield and involve another RB like a Felton/Ford/D'Ernest J in the slot.  I could also set up the entire Buck Series, which includes a QB bootleg for Waggle Passes set up from the play-action of those counters.  My point in all this?  We don't have to be so boring and predictable for our opponents.  When Hunt comes in for Chubb - defenses know there's a much greater chance the Browns will be throwing to the RB when this happens. 

This would be a really fun discussion with cold beers some time.  

Edited August 30, 2022 by Flugel
I meant Fontenot not Oliphant.

[tiamat63]

On 8/29/2022 at 1:29 PM, Flugel said:

You finally gave me something to disagree with you about; and it's more of a personal preference/taste on my part. And I'll just give you my reasoning behind it that you may or may not agree with. 

I'd rather have the type of Fullback Kevin Mack or Mike Alstott could play in the sense they both offered the offense way more than just a lead block role.  Mack ran a 4.5 coming out of Clemson so he was a weapon catching the ball or carrying it when our other back (Byner) was a very physical back that could block almost as well as Mack.  The type of physics Mack brought to a collision well,,, just ask Greg Lloyd about the time he woke up to smelling salts in Cleveland following one of those.  Alstott was a lot like Mack in the sense he could run through people and even surprise people he had the jest to run away from defenders with a head of steam. He also had great hands while he was a great lead blocker for Warrick Dunn when necessary.

The 72 Dolphins had Larry Csonka rushing for over 1000 yards inside and Mercury Morris rushing for over 1000 yards outside plus Jim Kiick chipping in over 600 yards.  They also had Paul Warfield's 4.3 40 speed over the top for anyone trying to load the box.

Today, I'd rather have Chubb and Hunt on the field at the same time than Stanton tipping a tendency that our opponents will be extremely well prepared for.  LBers can range anywhere from 220 to 245 lbs; so I'm guessing they're not going to be overwhelmed by Stanton as you might think.  The more you can make a defense guess how a RB will be used in the formation is a plus.  Cleveland doesn't have to use an I backfield stacking a tailback behind a lead blocker/FB like the Chargers did with LT behind Lorenzo Neal if we use Chubb and Hunt.  You can use a Pro Set and still do an iso/blast the hole with Chubb leading and Hunt taking the hand off or vice versa.  There's so much the Browns can do with these 2 guys.  I do agree both will need rest so we can substitute Ford and D'Ernest. Back in 86, Curtis Dickey started over Byner (a lot of people forget that) so Lindy Infante used Mack, Dickey, Byner and Oliphant.  I prefer the pro set myself because I can use counter action in the backfield and involve another RB like a Felton/Ford/D'Ernest J in the slot.  I could also set up the entire Buck Series, which includes a QB bootleg for Waggle Passes set up from the play-action of those counters.  My point in all this?  We don't have to be so boring and predictable for our opponents.  When Hunt comes in for Chubb - defenses know there's a much greater chance the Browns will be throwing to the RB when this happens. 

This would be a really fun discussion with cold beers some time.  

 

- The A train.  I got to grow up watching him.  EVERYBODY I played football with as a kid wanted to be Alstott.  At one point in jr high we begged our coach to run, what we called, the 'bully' offense - 23 personnel.   Absolutely zero desire to avoid contact.     But Mack and Alstott were/are rarities.  The ability to find ball carrier of that size, with balance, coordination, quickness and ball security isn't easy.  

- If anything, having both Chubb and Hunt on the field would be tipping a tendency.  While we might disagree, when Chubb isn't getting the ball, I don't want him taking on the contact that comes from being a lead.  That's just more wear on the body, minus carrying the rock.  Same for Kareem.  I don't need Stanton to be overwhelming, I need him to be effective and to take on the contact I don't want to hand to my ball carriers every down.  There are also designs where you invite backers and underneath coverage to play a game coaches call "follow the fullback", which plays directly into a lot of how Stef sets up the play action game with 21 and 22 personnel.      

 I've mentioned their involvement in the passing game, but neither Chubb or Huntt are dynamic enough (beyond the screen game) to be a primary option in the passing game. And my comment about linebackers still reasons that, unless you are that CMC type, you aren't going to out pace this new breed of athlete LB sideline to sideline consistently.   So tracking Chubb or Hunt from the backfield isn't a very tall order for them.

- And under no circumstances would I use Ford or DJ as a removed receiver... slot or otherwise, unless it's specifically draw up as a gadget play where they would get the ball.   Neither of them would threaten a LB or DB in coverage.  The idea with your #2 and #3 is to force those wins in coverage with twitchy or larger athlete's.   Wes Welker is an example of one side on the spectrum, Dallas Clark would be on the other side.  

- Cross Buck action tends to only work at the college level.  Big reason being pass rush.   The time it requires to execute those types of designs is.... quite a bit.     But the very last team I played for used a great deal of "pro"/split sets and blast calls.  Pretty sure I even still have the playbook somewhere? Maybe it's in my parents basement?   Might have to call them up and try to find it some day for memories.

 

- I have a feeling the boring and dirty, which was ineffective for good stretches last year (because of QB play) would be far more entertaining if we had a passer hitting the routine and methodical throws.   Which swings back around to my larger point at hand.  Handing Jacoby more work to learn is counterproductive to him digesting and mastering the bulk of the meat and potatoes parts of the playbook.  And we're down to 2 weeks until game 1.   So the likelyhood of having 2 different formations, with a new personnel grouping and 8 plays for each formation, just really isn't in the cards.   Doesn't mean it wouldn't be cool to see, but it doesn't scream 'realistic' at this moment.

 

I have a full plate but various parts of my schedule open here or there, and I always make time in the fall for football.  I'm actually looking ahead at the October 8th game when the Bolts come to town, possibly even finally hitting the gnats backers tailgate and saying hi.    But you say when and where on the beers, we might even be able to make it a TBB group thing.  

 

 

 

[Flugel]

1 hour ago, tiamat63 said:

 

- The A train.  I got to grow up watching him.  EVERYBODY I played football with as a kid wanted to be Alstott.  At one point in jr high we begged our coach to run, what we called, the 'bully' offense - 23 personnel.   Absolutely zero desire to avoid contact.     But Mack and Alstott were/are rarities.  The ability to find ball carrier of that size, with balance, coordination, quickness and ball security isn't easy.  

- If anything, having both Chubb and Hunt on the field would be tipping a tendency.  While we might disagree, when Chubb isn't getting the ball, I don't want him taking on the contact that comes from being a lead.  That's just more wear on the body, minus carrying the rock.  Same for Kareem.  I don't need Stanton to be overwhelming, I need him to be effective and to take on the contact I don't want to hand to my ball carriers every down.  There are also designs where you invite backers and underneath coverage to play a game coaches call "follow the fullback", which plays directly into a lot of how Stef sets up the play action game with 21 and 22 personnel.      

 I've mentioned their involvement in the passing game, but neither Chubb or Huntt are dynamic enough (beyond the screen game) to be a primary option in the passing game. And my comment about linebackers still reasons that, unless you are that CMC type, you aren't going to out pace this new breed of athlete LB sideline to sideline consistently.   So tracking Chubb or Hunt from the backfield isn't a very tall order for them.

- And under no circumstances would I use Ford or DJ as a removed receiver... slot or otherwise, unless it's specifically draw up as a gadget play where they would get the ball.   Neither of them would threaten a LB or DB in coverage.  The idea with your #2 and #3 is to force those wins in coverage with twitchy or larger athlete's.   Wes Welker is an example of one side on the spectrum, Dallas Clark would be on the other side.  

- Cross Buck action tends to only work at the college level.  Big reason being pass rush.   The time it requires to execute those types of designs is.... quite a bit.     But the very last team I played for used a great deal of "pro"/split sets and blast calls.  Pretty sure I even still have the playbook somewhere? Maybe it's in my parents basement?   Might have to call them up and try to find it some day for memories.

 

- I have a feeling the boring and dirty, which was ineffective for good stretches last year (because of QB play) would be far more entertaining if we had a passer hitting the routine and methodical throws.   Which swings back around to my larger point at hand.  Handing Jacoby more work to learn is counterproductive to him digesting and mastering the bulk of the meat and potatoes parts of the playbook.  And we're down to 2 weeks until game 1.   So the likelyhood of having 2 different formations, with a new personnel grouping and 8 plays for each formation, just really isn't in the cards.   Doesn't mean it wouldn't be cool to see, but it doesn't scream 'realistic' at this moment.

 

I have a full plate but various parts of my schedule open here or there, and I always make time in the fall for football.  I'm actually looking ahead at the October 8th game when the Bolts come to town, possibly even finally hitting the gnats backers tailgate and saying hi.    But you say when and where on the beers, we might even be able to make it a TBB group thing.  

 

 

 

Sound reasoning and valid points.  Thanks!

Joe Gibbs used a lot of the Buck series with the Hogs, Riggins and later with Byner and Riggs.  Analysts always loved to talk about the Counter Tre especially Madden.  The playaction remained the same with a different guy getting the ball each time with the QB's biggest responsibility of hiding the football. 1 time he'll give the immediate hand off inside of the short trap and then continue back to fake handoff for a sweep to the other back; while the QB goes the opposite way like he's carrying out a bootleg/waggle pass.  The next time it's all the same action, but he fakes the handoff to the 1st RB for the inside trap and continues back to give the ball to the RB coming across for a sweep outside. Meanwhile the QB repeats the bootleg action as if he didn't hand it off for the sweep the other way.  Another time he fakes to the 1st back and then also fakes it to the 2nd back on the sweep and then he keeps it on the bootleg in the other way to either run or throw the waggle passes.  It's easier to comprehend with playbook diagrams so you can also see what the linemen are doing while all that's going on.  Believe it or not, that's a lot of Delaware Wing T Joe Gibbs was using in Washington. 

The Delaware Wing T was the offense I had to teach to 8th and 9th grade kids because the Varsity ran it.  When you have you a really athletic QB that hides the football extremely well, it's a lot of fun to watch.  You might be right about that not being easy to pull off at the NFL level so it would take an elite and unique coach like Joe Gibbs to pull it off. What I didn't cover was the receiving routes used the the TE, SE/WR, Slot/Wing and the 1st back after the fake handoff to him.  That's for another time that would need diagrams from me. I still have the games taped on VHS.  

Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing if there are some sets that have Chubb and Hunt in at the same time.  This should be a fun running game for our offensive coaches.

 

[Dutch Oven]

39 minutes ago, Flugel said:

The Delaware Wing T was the offense I had to teach to 8th and 9th grade kids because the Varsity ran it.  When you have you a really athletic QB that hides the football extremely well, it's a lot of fun to watch.  You might be right about that not being easy to pull off at the NFL level so it would take an elite and unique coach like Joe Gibbs to pull it off. What I didn't cover was the receiving routes used the the TE, SE/WR, Slot/Wing and the 1st back after the fake handoff to him.  That's for another time that would need diagrams from me. I still have the games taped on VHS. 

 

For a couple of seasons, about 20 years ago, I helped coach down in the (Massillon) Perry youth football league, and we ran basically the Perry Panthers high school playbook from that era - the Wing T. 

I had never seen it before, definitely not up close, and I remember lining up on the defensive side next to the safeties and literally having no idea where the ball was until the ballcarrier was damn near past me already. To this day, I have no idea how a team with little exposure to the Wing T defends it. 

The problem with the Wing T was if you were used to playing against it, you could exploit it's key weaknesses: If you train your DLinemen to crash into the OGuards and restrict their mobility, the offense really could bog down. The other was it was not an offense made to come from behind. It is a limited passing offense. Perry was very successful in that era under Coach Wakefield, though. 

I wish I still had my playbook, there was this inside reverse play that was one of the prettiest running plays I've ever seen designed. The QB would hand to a halfback who would in return, hand to the wingback going the other direction, all within the tackle box, and damn if it didn't result in huge gains. 

[SdBacker80]

28 minutes ago, Dutch Oven said:

For a couple of seasons, about 20 years ago, I helped coach down in the (Massillon) Perry youth football league, and we ran basically the Perry Panthers high school playbook from that era - the Wing T. 

I had never seen it before, definitely not up close, and I remember lining up on the defensive side next to the safeties and literally having no idea where the ball was until the ballcarrier was damn near past me already. To this day, I have no idea how a team with little exposure to the Wing T defends it. 

The problem with the Wing T was if you were used to playing against it, you could exploit it's key weaknesses: If you train your DLinemen to crash into the OGuards and restrict their mobility, the offense really could bog down. The other was it was not an offense made to come from behind. It is a limited passing offense. Perry was very successful in that era under Coach Wakefield, though. 

I wish I still had my playbook, there was this inside reverse play that was one of the prettiest running plays I've ever seen designed. The QB would hand to a halfback who would in return, hand to the wingback going the other direction, all within the tackle box, and damn if it didn't result in huge gains. 

Ah the Wing T…I think we played 3 or 4 per year in HS the small Ohio farm schools loved those darn offenses. My Junior year we were 5-0 coming into our Homecoming game until we got lit up by 1-4 team and a Wing T offense.  We let two backs go over 200 on us.  The offense puts you in pause but you are right attack the guards because they are normally pullers in the scheme.   I don’t know what the hell we were doing that night or the film study the Saturday and Monday before. 
 

 

[Flugel]

9 hours ago, Dutch Oven said:

For a couple of seasons, about 20 years ago, I helped coach down in the (Massillon) Perry youth football league, and we ran basically the Perry Panthers high school playbook from that era - the Wing T. 

I had never seen it before, definitely not up close, and I remember lining up on the defensive side next to the safeties and literally having no idea where the ball was until the ballcarrier was damn near past me already. To this day, I have no idea how a team with little exposure to the Wing T defends it. 

The problem with the Wing T was if you were used to playing against it, you could exploit it's key weaknesses: If you train your DLinemen to crash into the OGuards and restrict their mobility, the offense really could bog down. The other was it was not an offense made to come from behind. It is a limited passing offense. Perry was very successful in that era under Coach Wakefield, though. 

I wish I still had my playbook, there was this inside reverse play that was one of the prettiest running plays I've ever seen designed. The QB would hand to a halfback who would in return, hand to the wingback going the other direction, all within the tackle box, and damn if it didn't result in huge gains. 

Thanks for sharing your experience with that offense Dutch. You are correct about the importance of getting penetration up front to stifle/challenge the running game.  When the OG is pulling or trapping the offense can be vulnerable.  That said, the passing routes the buck series uses can really exploit teams blitzing LBers. We had a great QB that hid the ball incredibly well and threw with really good accuracy at that level for his age.  To your point about the difficulty you notice passing in that offense - I think passing is always a challenge in youth football anyway.   The success of it is predicated on how well your team is doing in the running game as well as who you have at QB and running the routes.  A lot of variables there that would have Woody Hayes reminding us why he kept it safe with 3 yards and a cloud of dust...

I was very fortunate that when I was a student teacher (Health) in 1988 - I introduced myself to the varsity football coach.  Next thing I know he escorted me to the Athletic Director's Office after a brief conversation; and they hired me as an Assistant JV Football Coach.  Even better, it was a paid position despite me not being able to get paid for my student teaching assignment.  Anyway, they ran the Delaware Wing T - but it was a soccer town where all their best athletes played soccer.  

After college, I went on 1 interview.  The guy that interviewed me said his only worry was me getting to the school on time because I worked almost an hour away and I couldn't leave my job until 2 pm.  1 week later I got a call from an Athletic Director in the town I worked in telling me he spoke to the guy that interviewed me.  This guy used to be the best high school coach in the area and his kid was on the Freshman team I interviewed for. I got the job and the perfect opportunity.  They ran the Delaware Wing T offense as well; but there were a lot of great athletes.  He warned me the freshman team hasn't won a game in the last 3 years; because some of the 9th kids were moved up to JVs.  He also said they wouldn't need to do that now.  Maybe part of that was he wanted to protect his kid's team.  Don't know.  He was a great guy to work for.

Very first game we were down 20-0 at half despite driving the ball inside their 10 yard line 3 times ending in 2 fumbles and giving it up on downs.  Even worse they scored on one of those and had a good return with a short field on the other.  Welcome to your Head Coaching job Flugel!   At halftime, I told the kids we're dominating the line of scrimmage.  Both fumbles weren't forced.  One was a snap and the other was a handoff, things we spent so much time repeating daily.  We just need to keep the same poise we had driving to ball to that point.  As fate had it, the game ended in a 26-26 tie with us missing a 45 yard FG that was about 1 yard outside of the upright.  We didn't win per say; but their refuse to lose against a team that's always great really had them feeling good about themselves.  After not winning in 3 years, they only lost 4 of their 7 games.  The next year they went 5-2 and beat that same team who was undefeated when we met them the last week.  The week before that they beat another undefeated team.  It was a fun year with a great bunch of kids!