Should We Be Concerned About Offense?

Discuss your favorite team: the Atlanta Falcons. As well as all NFL and pro football-related topics, including fantasy football.

Moderators: Capologist, dirtybirdnw, thescout

User avatar
Pudge
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Posts: 26397
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:03 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: Should We Be Concerned About Offense?

Postby Pudge » Sun Dec 02, 2012 4:48 pm

In the sense that Nolan calls the plays and designs the schemes, then yes, it is his defense.

But at the same time, I don't think you can say that Koetter doesn't run his offense. He just doesn't have control over personnel.

Nolan doesn't have control over personnel either, at least not in the way that you seem to be perceiving it.
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.

User avatar
fun gus
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
Posts: 5302
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 6:32 am

Re: Should We Be Concerned About Offense?

Postby fun gus » Sun Dec 02, 2012 5:39 pm

Pudge wrote:In the sense that Nolan calls the plays and designs the schemes, then yes, it is his defense.

But at the same time, I don't think you can say that Koetter doesn't run his offense. He just doesn't have control over personnel.

Nolan doesn't have control over personnel either, at least not in the way that you seem to be perceiving it.



again, I disagree. Nolan runs HIS defense, and I believe when he came to interview with Smith ( who was a DC himself )he basically told him " I will take over this defense. Give me whatever pieces, but what I choose to do with them is my domain. That's the deal. Take it or leave it."

to which Smith,Td AND Blank said 'you got it. you get results, we leave you alone'.

Nolan gets results. They leave him alone. Our defense truns around.

Koetter comes here and Smith says 'I want our offense to remain basically the same, with a few bubble screens. Your working with the Jagoffs, with no talent. I've got 5 winning seasons here, I want you to run my Turner-centric offense, and I will tell YOU who starts and doesn't. With you, Dirk, I am hands on. That's the deal take it or leave it'.

and here we are. 8-)
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"

takeitdown
All-Pro
All-Pro
Posts: 952
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:01 pm

Re: Should We Be Concerned About Offense?

Postby takeitdown » Mon Dec 03, 2012 2:21 am

While I agree that the entire OL is culpable, and our lack of an interior runner who can bounce it outside makes it easier on a D, it's pretty hard to argue that our C/RG combo isn't the most pressing OL issue.

It is in fact the case that if we had a great RG, the lack a C isn't as noticeable, but it doesn't mean the C play is OK.

I think RG is the bigger concern, but interior OL is the thing I wanted fixed in the offseason, and the thing I've said is the biggest determinant of our fortunes in the postseason. I want a 3rd WR, 2nd TE, etc...but the only thing that can truly shut down the offense is power directed at our weakness...the C/RG.

I know McClure gets a bit of a bum rap, but that combo has been insufficient against any bullrush for a long while. Sure the LT doesn't help. Sure Clabo is playing well below what I hoped this year, but the damage is primarily (not wholly) at the C/RG area. I don't know how to fix it now, though it concerns we enough that it may derail our postseason that examining Konz at C, Clabo at RG isn't ludicrous to me (though I would have done it earlier in the season). Now that last piece is likely a little rash...I just don't have much confidence with the current group against interior pressure and think sometimes you have to take risks if you know what you have now won't work. It's not like this has only been an issue for 1 game. It's a huge part of the reason that most carries are for 0 yards. Weak interior OL. Hurts my feelings.

User avatar
one8swayze
Superstar
Superstar
Posts: 1286
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:08 pm
Location: Atl GA/Fayetteville GA/ PCB FL/Edgewater,NJ

Re: Should We Be Concerned About Offense?

Postby one8swayze » Mon Dec 03, 2012 2:56 am

RobertAP wrote:The offensive problems are simple, the center and right guard can't do their jobs. Since teams have figured that out, they have been bringing all kinds of pressure up the middle. Ryan can't step up, he has to dodge or get rid of the ball quickly. There's no easy fix here. McClure should be gone already, and we don't have a RG on the roster that can do what's required. The Falcons are just going to have to deal... Although, if Koetter felt like experimenting, he could try Clabo at RG, and let Holmes or Johnson try their hand at RT.


Or, and I'm just going eyeball test here, involve Snelling more and run the play-action through that "hole".
Disregard anything I say that may offend you, as I am most likely drunk.

User avatar
Pudge
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Posts: 26397
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:03 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: Should We Be Concerned About Offense?

Postby Pudge » Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:25 am

fun gus wrote:
Pudge wrote:In the sense that Nolan calls the plays and designs the schemes, then yes, it is his defense.

But at the same time, I don't think you can say that Koetter doesn't run his offense. He just doesn't have control over personnel.

Nolan doesn't have control over personnel either, at least not in the way that you seem to be perceiving it.



again, I disagree. Nolan runs HIS defense, and I believe when he came to interview with Smith ( who was a DC himself )he basically told him " I will take over this defense. Give me whatever pieces, but what I choose to do with them is my domain. That's the deal. Take it or leave it."

to which Smith,Td AND Blank said 'you got it. you get results, we leave you alone'.

Nolan gets results. They leave him alone. Our defense truns around.

Koetter comes here and Smith says 'I want our offense to remain basically the same, with a few bubble screens. Your working with the Jagoffs, with no talent. I've got 5 winning seasons here, I want you to run my Turner-centric offense, and I will tell YOU who starts and doesn't. With you, Dirk, I am hands on. That's the deal take it or leave it'.

and here we are. 8-)

But I don't quite understand why you believe Koetter didn't say the exact same thing.

I think it might be because of the very different flavor of defense that Mike Nolan runs in contrast to Mike Smith's very vanilla, conservative 4-3 defense. Nolan is a 3-4 guy, as the season has progressed has push the Falcons to more of a 3-4 defense with a lot of varied fronts. And of course because certain players (safeties, Robinson, Nicholas, Biermann) have improved their play and adopted different roles, things look a whole lot different. We essentially went from vanilla to chocolate.

On the flip side, offensively, there isn't a brand new flavor. If we were vanilla before, then now we're french vanilla. But I know revisionist history has people saying that Mike Mularkey ran a scheme that was incompetent, but in reality the scheme Mularkey ran, the biggest weakness of it was the route design. It was basic routes that overemphasized guys being able to individual separate from coverage and get open. Koetter has introduced an offense that utilizes more of those complementary routes that doesn't require guys to be as good. It is designed to make it easier to throw the ball and be an efficient pass-first offense. That was the flaw of Mularkey's scheme. His offense was built around the run setting up the pass. His scheme wasn't designed to be able to drop back 45+ times and win that way because of the play design of the passing plays. You could sit around and nitpick other issues (as you can with any team/offense/defense), but it wasn't a major issue with his protections, run plays, etc. And contrary to popular belief, his play-calling wasn't as horrible as people made it out to be.

So now Koetter comes in and his offense just changes the pass routes, and now you have a much more efficient and effective passing game.

Mike Smith tells Nolan who starts as well. It's not like Nolan came into the office and said Biermann is starting over Edwards. No, what happened was Nolan put Biermann in the team's nickel set. And then what happened was the Falcons over the first few weeks of the season ran nickel like 80% of the time.

Yes, there is clear evidence that Nolan is doing his thing. What is the evidence that says Koetter isn't doing his thing?

I think over the past 20+ years, the different flavors of offense have become more amalgamated. There is no longer a distinct West Coast, or Air Coryell offense. They all run each others plays and principles. The only real difference between offenses nowadays is formation variance, and terminology (what verbiage you use to call plays).

That's not yet the case with defense, but we're getting there with all of the hybrid 3-4 and 4-3s that have cropped up around the league in the past 10 years. It's possible that 10 years from now, everyone will be running a hybrid scheme.

And it appears to me that because there is not a night and day difference to how our offense looks now as it did last year, then you believe that means that Koetter is basically running the same scheme. I don't think that's the case, I just think it's harder to determine via the naked eye, the differences between offenses nowadays. Not so much with defenses.
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.

User avatar
Pudge
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Posts: 26397
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:03 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: Should We Be Concerned About Offense?

Postby Pudge » Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:54 am

The demise of Todd McClure is greatly exaggerated. Sure, he gave up 2 pressures, missed a pair of blocks (one of which came on a screen), but other than that the Mud Duck IMO had a solid game.

I'm aware that McClure has given up a number of pressures/sacks (I think the tally is about 10, when last year he only had 1 or 2). That's a high number for an interior lineman, especially a center. But still from watching tape, he still appears to me to be mostly effective. At least not significantly less effective than any of the other starting linemen, that nobody is calling to be benched.
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Return to “The Huddle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest