OT: Chris Brown on RGIII Struggles

Submitted by Marley Nowell on

Great article on how the disjointed Skins offense has turned an electrifying QB into a complete mess. This is the passage that really struck me (for obvious reasons):

Coordinator Kyle Shanahan's offense hasn't done Griffin many favors. Last season, the Washington offense evolved into a dangerous hybrid of the West Coast, the Denver Broncos' stretch running game, the Nevada pistol read-option, and the Baylor spread. With Alfred Morris carrying the load on the ground and Griffin slinging strikes off play-action, Washington was tied for first in the NFL in yards per play. But Griffin's legs were the glue that held these pieces together. Defenses, while also trying to defend more traditional looks, faced the constant threat of Griffin keeping the ball on a read-option, running a bootleg pass, or simply scrambling for a key first down — or touchdown.
But while playing with a diminished Griffin this season, the Redskins seem to have junked most of the Baylor influence and instead alternated erratically between Shanahan's stretch run game, the pistol, and the "bunch" passing plays that NFL defenses have faced for years. The Redskins have been running three disparate offenses that don't add up to one coherent whole.

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/86415/what-really-…

mGrowOld

December 18th, 2013 at 10:56 PM ^

"The Redskins have been running three disparate offenses that don't add up to one coherent whole."

Man am i super glad to NOT be a Redskins fan right now.  I can't even imagine how much it would suck to root for a team running a disjointed offense like that.   

UMxWolverines

December 18th, 2013 at 11:47 PM ^

I'm not going to say any more than this because it will cause a stir, but this just irritates the hell out of me. If it's such a horribly racist slur, why do the indians in the area feel honored by the name? Why is the primarily indian high school in the area named ''Redskins'' as well? 

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/27/21647332-navajo-code-talker-…

pb1234

December 19th, 2013 at 12:33 AM ^

Look at all these super honored-feeling Native Americans.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/11/27/native-american-leaders-speak-out-against-redskins-name/

No wait just kidding, they fucking hate the name, and severely outnumber the pro side. 

But hey, who am I to doubt your expertise on the relative offensiveness of a word to an ethnic group you undoubtedly have no contact with

Rhino77

December 18th, 2013 at 10:57 PM ^

I am still waiting to see if you can consistently run a spread attack with a QB over 25. The Skins gave up a ton and now have a QB with multiple knee surgeries and an inability to read defenses and adjust to a pro style game. He wont make it two more years running a spread in the NFL.



The Skins are in a no win.

Tater

December 18th, 2013 at 11:25 PM ^

More "spread won't work here?"

One of the two precursors to the spread worked fine in the NFL: the Run and Shoot, which was a spread passing offense.  It is no accident that Barry Sanders quit after one year of playing in the Bobby Ross offense after having all the space he had in the Run and Shoot. 

As for injuries, QB's get levelled after they throw every pass if they are on a team with a bad enough line.  It's not like they don't take any punishment at all in a regular offense.  

The other "spread offense" that has worked better than any offense in the NFL: the "two minute offense."  And it is composed entirely of pro set formations and plays.

The spread works fine in the NFL: it's just the QB run-heavy, option version that doesn't.

GoBLUinTX

December 19th, 2013 at 12:38 AM ^

the spread has been around for....well, since football evolved out of the Rugby scrum.  The forward pass becoming a legal play in American football in 1906 could be said to be year zero of the spread offense.  So saying an offense is a "spread offense" is saying little of substance because almost all offensive schemes use ideas and tactics to spread out and or overmatch the defense.

What we are usually left with is to define the "Spread offense" as one that utilizes a dual threat QB, thus making the defense account for all 11 players on offense instead of just 10 when the QB isn't a threat to run.  Most people seem to be comfortable with that definition right up to the point when it is suggested that once the dual threat QB has his legs taken out he's relegated to the more conventional pro-style offense.  There upon ardent advocates of the spread will jump up and say, New England is a spread offense and Tom Brady does just fine standing still in the pocket.  Really?  It boggles the mind.

So what we're left with is a definition that includes almost all offenses, but since it does, it therefore means nothing.  Or we can simply understand that when we say "spread offense" we mean an offense that relies upon a dual threat QB.

befuggled

December 19th, 2013 at 8:04 AM ^

Which includes 1997, which was probably his best year (2053 yards and 6.1 yards per carry). Link.

I think Barry just hated Ross and was unhappy with playing football by the end of his career. I don't think Ross gets enough credit for destroying the Lions; few of his draft choices worked out and he helped drive off Barry Sanders. I think Charlie Batch was his best pick, and Batch was a career backup after he left Detroit.

There's no doubt Millen finished the job, though.

ca_prophet

December 19th, 2013 at 6:35 PM ^

Griffin can actually read defenses and make throws (as some of the picture pages indicate), but the reads he's being asked to make are either incorrect because he can't take what the defense is giving him (either running or stepping into a deep throw), or he can't buy enough time on his gimpy leg for the play to come open.

This has had a snowball effect on Morris - he's getting fewer yards because defenses are stacking for him, which leads to fewer third and short carries, which leads to more unsuccessful passes.

Basically, the biggest wrong with the offense is that this version of Griffin with this line can't make it hum. If he gets healthy that gets fixed; otherwise they'll have to rebuild it to reflect what he can actually do. Fortunately, they have a better line than we do and could actually do that successfully ...

Space Coyote

December 18th, 2013 at 10:59 PM ^

Average 4.8 ypc (5th in the league) but only surpassed 20 attempts 3 times (in consecutive weeks) and had 16 or fewer 8 times (15 or fewer 6 times). With RGIII being a shell of his former self (not just running, but his throwing mechanics largely struggled as well), they needed a better primary run threat to take some pressure off of RGIII.

LSAClassOf2000

December 19th, 2013 at 6:14 AM ^

Excellent article, I thought, and thanks for sharing. 

It is interesting to see how Griffin has been removed quite a bit from the rushing game in particular this year, only accumulating 489 yards in 13 games this year, compared to 815 yards in 15 games last year. That's a loss of about a yard per carry on average, if you throw the 86 carries this year (120 last year) in as well. The passing production has been similar to last year, but he's thrown for fewer TDs and about one less yard per attempt. Even the stats would agree with Grantland really. 

Magnus

December 19th, 2013 at 8:18 AM ^

I haven't read the whole article yet (and maybe I should before commenting), but Brown praises last year's Redskins offense by listing the 4 different "offenses" they ran...and then says they haven't been successful because they're running 3 "disparate" offenses that, oh by the way, were mostly included in the 4 from last year. The only difference is that they're running bunch formations this year. So 4 different offenses are great, but 3 different offenses are "disparate" and "not coherent as a whole"?

It sounds a lot like Michigan because of the poor offensive line and what the young guys in the middle can/can't handle. Michigan is doing "too much" because their youth is hurting them. I'm assuming most of the Redskins lineup is the same as last year, so that doesn't seem like a logical explanation for the Redskins' downturn.

ShadowStorm33

December 19th, 2013 at 12:31 PM ^

To be fair though, there's really no problem with mixing up concepts if everything's clicking. But when there are issues (such as youth and inexperience), and it's plainly clear there are issues, I don't think it's asking too much to play to your strengths and try to build up some consistency. I don't think the criticism in this context is so much the disjointed nature of the offense itself, but rather continuing on blindly in that fashion when it's clear the offense has no rhythm whatsoever. In essence, the criticism isn't with the plan in the abstract, but failing to adjust the plan based on what's happening on the field...