CREATING A CHAMPIONSHIP OFFENCE!!

Serious Discussion of Football Terminology and Tactics.
This Room is named after the late Annis Stukus.

Moderator: Team Captains

Post Reply
Blitz
Team Captain
Posts: 9094
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:44 am

EARLY STRUGGLES

Our B.C. Lions offence continues to struggle!! Our record is 5-1, we're in first place, our defense and special teams are outstanding but the worries are there! Sportswriters bemoan the lack of offence, Lionbackers write threads analyzing the predicament, and die hard Leos fans wonder what is going on. Leos players reactions are as inconsistent as the offence itself. After our first game of the season players expressed concern about the amount of times we ran the football instead of passing it. After our first loss of the season players reacted negatively that we didn't run the football enough.

CRACKS APPEAR

The cracks have begun to appear! Wally blew up 'big time' at a Leos offensive player when he expressed his view that we needed to run the football more often after our loss against Saskatchewan and then conceded we should have run the football more. Wally and many Lionbackers point out that it's a problem of execution in our passing attack, from quarterbacks missing open recievers, receivers not running their routes hard, to recent game planning and play calling. Some moan about the dual offensive coordinator role, some heap scorn on Jarious Jackson who, for some reason, the Leos brain trust decided to try and turn into Peyton Manning for his first CFL start ever. Offensive lineman *beeotch*, receivers throw their hands in the air, quarterbacks sit on the turf and shake their heads after another incompletion.

WALLY'S VIEW

Wally points out that we are running the same offensive passing plays and shows reporters that the problem for the offence is a matter of execution, not play calling. A rare few mention that we've had three quarterbacks start and play in our first six games which adds to the problem of inconsistency. In the small picture the problem is all of those things from a quarterback crew and receiving corps that seems to be suffering from a Grey Cup hangover that hasn't infected the rest of the team, to two new offensive coordinators, to quarterback injuries. However, the problem of dropped balls, poorly run patterns, and poor quarterback play started on the first day of training camp.

FANS EXPRESS FRUSTRATION

In other CFL cities fans also rail about their offences this 2007 season. George Cortez was seen as a hero returning to Calgary but visions of an easy Grey Cup victory for the Stamps have faded quickly. Fans in Calgary express their frustration with Cortez not using Reynolds in the running attack and even Calgary offensive players express strong views that Reynolds is their best offensive player...when he goes...Calgary wins...but Cortez sticks with the pass!

In Edmonton, by stealing away Chapdelaine from B.C. and with a championship quarterback in Ricky Ray at the helm, Edmonton fans saw a quick trip out of the basement and back to championship calibre play. However, Chapdelaine's pedigree, coming out of Wally's successful system hasn't been enough to change their fortunes dramatically.

Steve Burratto was seen as a guy who could finally turn the Argo ship around. Burratto's offence was the best in the league with B.C. in 2003 and 2004 and in Calgary in 2006. However, Burratto, having to also play three quarterbacks in his first six games, and still struggling to develop a running attack, has not been able to turn the Argo offence into a potent weapon.

TEAMS CHANGE PHILSOPHIES

In B.C. it's been a stuggle to develop an offensive philosophy that will lead to victory. At first the direction was clear that we would become more of a running team and be using a more multi-formational attack... but we suddenly reversed course and went back to airing it out almost every play against the Riders with a third string quarterback. That only creates confusion!

In Calgary Cortez abandons his best weapon in Reynolds and moves away from the balanced attack that made Calgary so potent in 2006. In Edmonton "Chap Ball" moves the football but struggles to score when defenses clamp down against the pass as they also do to Calgary. In Toronto Burratto tries to establish the run but gives up on it at times. In the meantime, Kent Austin fools everyone, as soon as he aquires Wes Cates, by abandoning 'pass and catch' football and moves to a more balanced attack. Hamilton introduces the West Coast offence and after early struggles begins to establish a strong running attack and to execute the passing game. They now have the third best offence in the CFL.

WHAT IS THE ANSWER?

What is the answer? How does a team develop a successful, potent offence against today's sophisticated, smart, fast, and well coached defenses? Offensive players are struggling with new offensive coordinators, different philosophies, and executing their own play in this new version of CFL football. In the small picture the answers can be found in good game plans, sound play calling, skilled quarterback reads, and player execution. In the big picture, the answer is much different! Here are a few thoughts.

***************************************************************************

ALL CFL OFFENCES ARE SIMILAR TODAY (except Hamilton)

One of the problems is that CFL passing attacks are similar from team to team. Our Leos, the Stamps, Riders, Eskimos, Bombers, Argos, and Alouttes mostly run similar spread offences. Only Hamilton's is a little different. They all use similar patterns in their five receiver sets, all run tight bunch formations, and all go with empty backfields too often. The pass plays have been seen by defenses for so long defenses can recognize them easily.

FASHIONABLE OFFENCES-FOLLOWING THE HERD

Most football teams run currently-fashionable offenses. Nowadays, that typically means a one-back set most of the time. On occasion they will run a bunch formation or two back set or go empty backfield but these formations are used sporadically. Everyone operates out of the shotgun formation. Offensive coordinators run these offences because everyone else runs them and therefore it protects them from being criticized for choosing the wrong offense. Some run them because it’s all they know and they are afraid to try something new or would not know how to do it if they did.

As a coordinator, if the offensive coordinator runs the same offense as everyone else, and the team loses, the can deflect blame onto the players. How? By using subtle phrases like, “Someone needed to make a play and no one didâ€
Last edited by Blitz on Tue Aug 07, 2007 3:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
"When I went to Catholic high school in Philadelphia, we just had one coach for football and basketball. He took all of us who turned out and had us run through a forest. The ones who ran into the trees were on the football team". (George Raveling)
User avatar
Luke
All Star
Posts: 325
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:05 pm
Location: Yorkton

Wow. Thats great insight. I hope we can do that. I think the Leos have some of the best offensive personnel in the league, but we're not utilizing them to their fullest potential.

What is the wishbone formation? I've heard of it, but I wouldn't recognize it if you hit me outside the head with it. :?
User avatar
Toppy Vann
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9789
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:56 pm

Well once again, a brilliant set of insights into what's going on in the CFL and with the Lions.

It is definitely food for thought and should be an agenda item for the Lion coaches who apparently watch what is posted on Lionbackers but who have yet to take heed of some of the brilliant insights and observations offered by posters free of charge.

While I'd not be the first one to advocate coaches listening to sports fans - quite the contrary - this post by Blitz is deserving of the coaching staff's time to consider.

Getting ahead of the curve is definitely the key to changing the balance between defensive and offensive success. Not sure if the Lions would consider changing their repertoire or even running some of the plays we know they had from last year where they actually incorporated their FB Lyle Green into the offence where he got the football.

None of your ideas are a panacea for an offense struggling to find its form with their trigger pullers (QBs) either not at full health or in fine form but they are definitely ideas to consider by the current Lions before someone else in the league does. I always subscribe to the theory that execution is absolutely key to success in football. Nothing outperforms an offence where it is executed properly, however, I also believe that more of the same won't get you different results.

It is not panic time for the Lions but there is a need to balance the struggles of their QBs health- and performance-wise with plays and formations that will restore the element of surprise and provide different looks to defensive players who by now could be inserted into the Lions offense and run their plays. Maybe it is opening their play book as surely some of the stuff Blitz writes about is there now. Maybe it is injecting some new and interesting schemes that will fire up the players and give their QBs success.

Let's hope that the Lion coaches are thinking similarly.

Luke: you could Google wishbone - tons of information on that.
"Ability without character will lose." - Marv Levy
User avatar
Shi Zi Mi
Hall of Famer
Posts: 4360
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 6:06 pm
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba

Blitz, do you see the Lions changing up their playbook with DD still a Lion?..........IMHO, an emphatic NO.
Lloyd
User avatar
cromartie
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5005
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 2:31 pm
Location: Cleveland, usually

Shi Zi Mi wrote:Blitz, do you see the Lions changing up their playbook with DD still a Lion?..........IMHO, an emphatic NO.
Not that you asked me...

But I'll agree with you.

When you transition from DD to Buck, you'll need to emphasize the running game a great deal. At that point you'll see a transition.
Blitz
Team Captain
Posts: 9094
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:44 am

Getting ahead of the curve is definitely the key to changing the balance between defensive and offensive success.
None of your ideas are a panacea for an offense struggling to find its form with their trigger pullers (QBs) either not at full health or in fine form but they are definitely ideas to consider by the current Lions before someone else in the league does
We can't create the kind of innovative offensive system I'm recomnmending at this stage of the season. That's for the longer term, perhaps once this season is over or longer future. In fact we need to simplify what we are doing. When things go sideways that's always what you have to do. It's what they should have done with Jarious last Thursday night, it's what they need to do for Buck against the Bombers, and it's also what we'll need to do at first, when Dickenson returns at some point.
Blitz, do you see the Lions changing up their playbook with DD still a Lion?..........IMHO, an emphatic NO.
Shi Zi Mi wrote:
Blitz, do you see the Lions changing up their playbook with DD still a Lion?..........IMHO, an emphatic NO.


Not that you asked me...

But I'll agree with you.

When you transition from DD to Buck, you'll need to emphasize the running game a great deal. At that point you'll see a transition
I don't know if we'll ever see a transtion to a different offensive system under Wally. From the time Hufnagel created it Wally has passed it along from Cortez to Chapdelaine to Kruck/Dorazio. He had Burratto in 2003 and 2004, when we had the best offence in the league, and Wally still wanted someone brought up inside the Hufnagel system to run things.

Even though I believe the Hufnagel offence is a tired system it still has enough volume in it to make some good changes. It didn't start out of the shotgun and it had more variety in the running attack that what is used today. It also utilized more rollouts and pocket movement with guys like Flutie and Garcia playing quarterback. That said, longer term, we'd be better off with someone coming in from the outside to create any serious innovation with it.

For this season we could simplify and still really hurt teams with our personell. Right now I would go with just two formations...the "I"formation and the five receiver/ace backfield. I would use both Green at fullback and Smith at tailback in the I formation and also use Smith at fullback and Smart at tailback. It's a great formation for our team. We have a huge offensive line that could really pound teams.

The I formation allows us double teams that the ace backfield can't. We could run off-tackle against smallish defensive ends and tweener linebackers. We could add variety with Green running the ball on occasion to take away linebackers keying Smith. We could run both isolation plays and power running plays for Smith. In the Smith/Smart combo we could run counters and pitches and have an inside/outside threat. The formation would set up great play action.

What is the point of having five receivers against seven defensive backs and two linebackers dropping? We don't throw to two of our receivers anyway. We might as well have four receivers against five defensive backs....if they go with six defensive backs we can run them into the ground. If they go with five defensive backs it's easier to get Geroy open because the safety has to stay in the middle. The I formation sets up the isolation pass, the sprint draw pass, the counter pass, and the bootleg off the fake toss sweep. We could also motion Smart out of this formation and it sets up great screen plays.

However, we would have to commit more to the I formation more than just throwing Green out there when we have a lead and want to run the football or putting Smart out there for a couple of plays. We have to commit to it!

We're used to running the ace back, five receiver spread set so we might as well stick with it for now, as a second fomation but we shouldn't be using it as our main running formation. The inside and outside zone run is very effective with Smith and would continue to be part of the arsenal. However, now the zone run would not be the only two running plays that we have, by using the I formation more often. However, we need to motion with one receiver out of the five receiver set. We might as well throw away the bunch formation and the six pack for a while and simplify.

In the spread formation we could adjust, with more play action out of the shotgun, to move the pocket a little and also change some of our routes or players running those routes.

We could slide Clermont inside, as a tight end out of this formation, or even use him the same way in the I formation, based upon defensive personell. By adjusting some of our patterns we could break up our predictability... get Rodgers running crossing routes to take advantage of his run after catch abilities or put him in motion to get him the football. Simmons and Geroy could run more short post corners and post curls as well as quick posts and slants. Clermont could runs more quick posts and deeper curls while Paris Jackson needs to be given more patterns that go into the middle of the field, using his height and leaping ability to greater advantage in this area. We need to change the predictability of our passing attack and that is an easy adjustment to make at this stage.

Short term we could simplify, while at the same time be able to make adjustments that utilize our strengths and still have multi-formational looks using these two sets. These changes are easy to make!! Our offence has looked tired and predictable since 2005. It's run inside with an ace back and pocket pass. Smith's running ability and some excellent offensive line blocking has made our offence look better than it really is.

It's a dull, unimaginative offence that as long as we've won we haven't complained too much. However, when we lose, because our defense can't create the turnovers our offence needs, it's predictability reminds us of how dull and frustrating this offence is. It was dull and frustrating in last years Grey Cup, it was dull in the 2005 Western Final, and it will continue to become even duller and more frustrating until we recognize things have changed and we need to change with the times...or even lead them, as our defense has!!!!
"When I went to Catholic high school in Philadelphia, we just had one coach for football and basketball. He took all of us who turned out and had us run through a forest. The ones who ran into the trees were on the football team". (George Raveling)
Post Reply