Has The Winslow Trade Hurt Quinns Development?
-
What has hampered every QB in this organization since we came back in 1999 is:
Lack of a running game
Inability of the defense to stop either the run or pass.
Period. End of story.
What has hampered every QB in this organization since we came back in 1999 is:
Lack of a running game
Inability of the defense to stop either the run or pass.
Period. End of story.
Well actually thats the story for all losing teams.
-
Thing is if we traded Winslow for a better running game why didn't we draft a RB or RT capable of doing something instead of two WR's. McCoy was there, Greene was there. Now maybe they think Davis is just as good, that is yet to be seen, those guys are gonna be pretty good IMO.
Also we're still a few years away from a good running game. The right side of the line isn't very good, Jamal is on his last leg, why not at least keep K2 this season and help build Quinns confidence. Nothing they did this season bolstered our running game so why trade K2 because he's a liability in it. On third downs K2 was our best option and Quinn doesn't have that safety valve now.
I would argue that the Browns are weeks away from a good running game, if not days... but certainly not years. Nobody is "years" away from a good running game. If they are, they need a new coach.
Winslow actually hurt the running game, particularly in this division. So the running game got better simply by virtue of his no longer being on the field. The best way to attack a 3-4 defense is with two tight ends. You have to expand the edges, and slow down the upfield movement of the linebackers and create space. You can't do that if your #1 tight end can't block... or blocks like a wide receiver.
Now, if you're in the NFC South, or the AFC South where your big division games are against 4-3 speed defenses, then a hybrid TE is a huge advantage. But the Browns have 8 3-4 teams on their schedule, including the Steelers and Ravens twice. You've got to develop the team to compete against that 3-4 look.
So you have doubts that this offensive line can create seams in the running game. Remember offensive lines get better by running the ball, not the other way around. The key is, they've got to string some drives together. They have to convert some 3rd downs. And don't take that as an argument for K2 still being here... moving the chains is not what makes Kellen Winslow a special tight end. And although they have 5 of last year's top 8 run defenses on their schedule, they won't face a defense like the Vikings every week.
You have to bear with the fact that this is a completely different offensive system. It's one which favors stouter, stronger TE's (in New England: Watson, Thomas, Graham before that). You'll see a lot more guys in the 6'2" - 6'3" range, around 260 lbs. vs. the more angular 6'5" 240 pounders. They're basically glorified tackles... and probably why you're seeing a lot more of Royal and Heiden rather than Rucker. The "safety valve" in the offense is primarily the up back. That job is presumably Jerome Harrison's to lose, if he can get healthy.
The offense is generally vertical only on the outside. It plays with crosses, arrows, and trap routes in the middle of the field. (Trap routes are those where you send one receiver over and one under a single zone defender). It doesn't take a great deal of speed to operate that kind of route combination. As a matter of fact it almost works against you. If you're too fast, you end up deliberately throttling down tipping the route. It tells the safety where you're trying to set up. If you have a roly-poly tight end busting his hump to get over a linebacker, the Safety can't really tell if he's trying to get to the corner, hitching up, or if he's just hitting the seam. He has to kind of wait him out before he can close on the route. Not to mention, while he's lugging his 4.95 forty up the field the vertical receivers on the outside are pressing the safeties into deeper and deeper positions. That's why you see Ben Watson roaming seemingly all by himself through secondaries. It's a function of the run game holding the linebackers nearer the line of scrimmage, and the vertical routes on the outside, stretching the distance between the linebackers and safeties. It's particularly effective against zone-blitz schemes where linemen and backers are pressed into coverages generally reserved for safeties, or at least those more fleet of foot. This is why, over the years, the Patriots, and even the Jets a couple of years ago, have given the Steelers such problems.
You probably didn't ask for all that. But, I just wanted to kind of give you a feel for that offense. It's not as easy as saying "Winslow did X last year". It's a completely different offensive philosophy. And Winslow didn't fit. Winslow's a cover 2 killer and a monster against man coverage. Because linebackers can't run with him and corners and safeties aren't physical enough. And he's going to see that week in and week out in the NFC South. To me, that trade looks like a win-win.
-jj
It's particularly effective against zone-blitz schemes where linemen and backers are pressed into coverages generally reserved for safeties, or at least those more fleet of foot. This is why, over the years, the Patriots, and even the Jets a couple of years ago, have given the Steelers such problems.
Great post.
So you're saying crossing patterns with TE's and WR's limit the effectiveness of zone blitz when those fatties drop back?
Also, what I think you're saying is the outside receivers push the vertical routes and open up the middle of the field because slower TE's lumber into the middle, which by that point the Safeties have neglected because of the speed on the outside? A faster TE attracts more attention for the deep S in that coverage?
I get that cover 3 leaves the flats (at least one flat) open, and can be beat with flooding the seams with multiple recievers. Either that or a circle route by the Back.
What I am not sure about is what beats the zone blitz, and it seems you're saying 1) criss-crossing patterns in the middle, and 2) the TE leaking out into the zone over the LB and under the deep S in the middle.
"I will not insult your intelligence by suggesting you really believe what you just said." William F Buckley -
What has hampered every QB in this organization since we came back in 1999 is:
Lack of a running game
Inability of the defense to stop either the run or pass.
Period. End of story.
Well actually thats the story for all losing teams.
Well actually thats the story for all losing teams.
We have not been able to impose our will in either the running or passing game since we've been back. We haven't had an identity on either side of the ball because of all the changes.
It would be nice to have one of the 4 fooking phases - running the ball, stopping the run, passing the ball, stopping the pass - where we dominate, where teams know that shit isn't happening.
We just played a team strong in 3, and possibly 4, and people are surprised we didn't have a great showing.
"I will not insult your intelligence by suggesting you really believe what you just said." William F Buckley -
Who changed the title of this thread?
-
Well actually thats the story for all losing teams.
We have not been able to impose our will in either the running or passing game since we've been back. We haven't had an identity on either side of the ball because of all the changes.
It would be nice to have one of the 4 fooking phases - running the ball, stopping the run, passing the ball, stopping the pass - where we dominate, where teams know that shit isn't happening.
We just played a team strong in 3, and possibly 4, and people are surprised we didn't have a great showing.
We have not been able to impose our will in either the running or passing game since we've been back. We haven't had an identity on either side of the ball because of all the changes.
It would be nice to have one of the 4 fooking phases - running the ball, stopping the run, passing the ball, stopping the pass - where we dominate, where teams know that shit isn't happening.
We just played a team strong in 3, and possibly 4, and people are surprised we didn't have a great showing.
At times i was impressed. Consistancy should be a priority, we can all sit back and wish for it but the players need to make it happen.
-
@inspecta said:
Stan did of course.He's also editing people's posts.
Figures.
there was a thread from this morning thats been deleted, i want the puppet masters strings on Lumberg for just a day. I promise i won't ruin his reputation.
-
It's particularly effective against zone-blitz schemes where linemen and backers are pressed into coverages generally reserved for safeties, or at least those more fleet of foot. This is why, over the years, the Patriots, and even the Jets a couple of years ago, have given the Steelers such problems.
Great post.
So you're saying crossing patterns with TE's and WR's limit the effectiveness of zone blitz when those fatties drop back?
Also, what I think you're saying is the outside receivers push the vertical routes and open up the middle of the field because slower TE's lumber into the middle, which by that point the Safeties have neglected because of the speed on the outside? A faster TE attracts more attention for the deep S in that coverage?
I get that cover 3 leaves the flats (at least one flat) open, and can be beat with flooding the seams with multiple recievers. Either that or a circle route by the Back.
What I am not sure about is what beats the zone blitz, and it seems you're saying 1) criss-crossing patterns in the middle, and 2) the TE leaking out into the zone over the LB and under the deep S in the middle.
Great post.
So you're saying crossing patterns with TE's and WR's limit the effectiveness of zone blitz when those fatties drop back?
Also, what I think you're saying is the outside receivers push the vertical routes and open up the middle of the field because slower TE's lumber into the middle, which by that point the Safeties have neglected because of the speed on the outside? A faster TE attracts more attention for the deep S in that coverage?
I get that cover 3 leaves the flats (at least one flat) open, and can be beat with flooding the seams with multiple recievers. Either that or a circle route by the Back.
What I am not sure about is what beats the zone blitz, and it seems you're saying 1) criss-crossing patterns in the middle, and 2) the TE leaking out into the zone over the LB and under the deep S in the middle.
JJ has always had this theory----well, more fact than theory. We used to talk about it on Nav's board. The flats are vulnerable with them and you can pound them all day with it. The key is having a QB that can consistently complete the pass, receivers to catch it and you have to negate the occasional jump route.
If you can execute this you can own them, but you have to avoid penalty killing drives and TO's.
Spread them wide, intermediate and deep in all three zones and flood the flats. It's been the same way for years on how to beat them, but we've been busy watching DA go 3 and out on them. It takes hardcore execution but good game planning and talent can do it. I just don't understand why more teams don't do it.
-
@inspecta said:
Stan did of course.He's also editing people's posts.
Figures.
Seriously? Wow, way to be Stan. That will teach us all.
-
It's particularly effective against zone-blitz schemes where linemen and backers are pressed into coverages generally reserved for safeties, or at least those more fleet of foot. This is why, over the years, the Patriots, and even the Jets a couple of years ago, have given the Steelers such problems.
Great post.
So you're saying crossing patterns with TE's and WR's limit the effectiveness of zone blitz when those fatties drop back?
Also, what I think you're saying is the outside receivers push the vertical routes and open up the middle of the field because slower TE's lumber into the middle, which by that point the Safeties have neglected because of the speed on the outside? A faster TE attracts more attention for the deep S in that coverage?
I get that cover 3 leaves the flats (at least one flat) open, and can be beat with flooding the seams with multiple recievers. Either that or a circle route by the Back.
What I am not sure about is what beats the zone blitz, and it seems you're saying 1) criss-crossing patterns in the middle, and 2) the TE leaking out into the zone over the LB and under the deep S in the middle.
Great post.
So you're saying crossing patterns with TE's and WR's limit the effectiveness of zone blitz when those fatties drop back?
Also, what I think you're saying is the outside receivers push the vertical routes and open up the middle of the field because slower TE's lumber into the middle, which by that point the Safeties have neglected because of the speed on the outside? A faster TE attracts more attention for the deep S in that coverage?
I get that cover 3 leaves the flats (at least one flat) open, and can be beat with flooding the seams with multiple recievers. Either that or a circle route by the Back.
What I am not sure about is what beats the zone blitz, and it seems you're saying 1) criss-crossing patterns in the middle, and 2) the TE leaking out into the zone over the LB and under the deep S in the middle.
To your first question (and part of the fourth), what I'm saying is if you attack the middle of the field at multiple levels it causes problems for zone blitz schemes. What happens is you have guys, who aren't particularly gifted in coverage anyway, trying to make quick decisions about who to pick up while they're sprinting toward their drop spot. It complicates things. I don't mean to over-simplify. It's not like, "Hey, just do this and you can beat the Steelers." It's not that easy. But those types of combinations do cause problems for those types of schemes.
The zone blitz is generally a 4 or 5 man blitz package. And, you'll usually some sort of rotation. Lots of single high, and robber looks attempting to cut off hot slants and hook routes by running defenders through the passing lanes. So it ends up looking 3 over / 3 under or 2 over / 4 under. But often times, in order to fill the passing lanes, the inside defenders - usually LBs, but often DEs & DTs - have to sprint away from the line of scrimmage. Where the Patriots are gifted is in getting that defender to alter his path either by someone hitching up in his line of site, or sending a TE looping over top of him - then running a second receiver through the vacated area. They literally target an area where there is supposed to be a defender, knowing that the cross action, or misdirection will move him. They basically give him two choices, and they're both wrong. That's why they call it a trap route (or "trap combination").
I'm wouldn't say that this approach "beats" a zone blitz. It's just an approach that's more difficult for that type of defense to react to correctly.
Now, on your second question, yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying. If you can press the safeties deeper, you've got essentially two levels of defenders moving further apart. That should create a gap either in front of or behind the first level. That's a gross over-simplification on my part. But that's the theory.
As far as cover 3... I'm not sure I'd agree with that. There's no particular reason that a cover 3 would necessarily leave a flat uncovered. I mean, it could. But it doesn't have to. It simply means that the deep thirds are being covered by 3 players responsible for a third each. You could have as many as 4 or 5 defenders underneath, which is more than enough to cover the flats. Indeed multiple seam routes are one approach to three-deep coverages as long as their spaced well enough. But in the event of straight cover 3 zones you'd likely want to settle into the gaps and try to complete the short and midrange stuff over and between defenders. Typically, if you can get inside position from an outside receiver away from the rotation you can hit that seam. For instance if the strong safety plays the underneath zone, and the Free Safety has the deep third, you can hit that back side 9 route or skinny post if the X receiver can get a clean release. The safety is rolling away from him and the corner is usually holding the downfield position.
Well, that either cleared things up or complicated them irreparably. This is why my wife doesn't talk football with me.
-jj
-
Great post.
So you're saying crossing patterns with TE's and WR's limit the effectiveness of zone blitz when those fatties drop back?
Also, what I think you're saying is the outside receivers push the vertical routes and open up the middle of the field because slower TE's lumber into the middle, which by that point the Safeties have neglected because of the speed on the outside? A faster TE attracts more attention for the deep S in that coverage?
I get that cover 3 leaves the flats (at least one flat) open, and can be beat with flooding the seams with multiple recievers. Either that or a circle route by the Back.
What I am not sure about is what beats the zone blitz, and it seems you're saying 1) criss-crossing patterns in the middle, and 2) the TE leaking out into the zone over the LB and under the deep S in the middle.
To your first question (and part of the fourth), what I'm saying is if you attack the middle of the field at multiple levels it causes problems for zone blitz schemes. What happens is you have guys, who aren't particularly gifted in coverage anyway, trying to make quick decisions about who to pick up while they're sprinting toward their drop spot. It complicates things. I don't mean to over-simplify. It's not like, "Hey, just do this and you can beat the Steelers." It's not that easy. But those types of combinations do cause problems for those types of schemes.
The zone blitz is generally a 4 or 5 man blitz package. And, you'll usually some sort of rotation. Lots of single high, and robber looks attempting to cut off hot slants and hook routes by running defenders through the passing lanes. So it ends up looking 3 over / 3 under or 2 over / 4 under. But often times, in order to fill the passing lanes, the inside defenders - usually LBs, but often DEs & DTs - have to sprint away from the line of scrimmage. Where the Patriots are gifted is in getting that defender to alter his path either by someone hitching up in his line of site, or sending a TE looping over top of him - then running a second receiver through the vacated area. They literally target an area where there is supposed to be a defender, knowing that the cross action, or misdirection will move him. They basically give him two choices, and they're both wrong. That's why they call it a trap route (or "trap combination").
I'm wouldn't say that this approach "beats" a zone blitz. It's just an approach that's more difficult for that type of defense to react to correctly.
Now, on your second question, yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying. If you can press the safeties deeper, you've got essentially two levels of defenders moving further apart. That should create a gap either in front of or behind the first level. That's a gross over-simplification on my part. But that's the theory.
As far as cover 3... I'm not sure I'd agree with that. There's no particular reason that a cover 3 would necessarily leave a flat uncovered. I mean, it could. But it doesn't have to. It simply means that the deep thirds are being covered by 3 players responsible for a third each. You could have as many as 4 or 5 defenders underneath, which is more than enough to cover the flats. Indeed multiple seam routes are one approach to three-deep coverages as long as their spaced well enough. But in the event of straight cover 3 zones you'd likely want to settle into the gaps and try to complete the short and midrange stuff over and between defenders. Typically, if you can get inside position from an outside receiver away from the rotation you can hit that seam. For instance if the strong safety plays the underneath zone, and the Free Safety has the deep third, you can hit that back side 9 route or skinny post if the X receiver can get a clean release. The safety is rolling away from him and the corner is usually holding the downfield position.
Well, that either cleared things up or complicated them irreparably. This is why my wife doesn't talk football with me.
-jj
This is why my wife doesn't talk football with me.
-jj
I am guessing she tuned you out by the end of the first paragraph
STO should hire you for anyone of their Browns report shows. Those things are terrible and don't have a person with a clue on them.
-
Masters said:
I am guessing she tuned you out by the end of the first paragraph
STO should hire you for anyone of their Browns report shows. Those things are terrible and don't have a person with a clue on them.
Problem is 90% of the people wouldn't understand it. Maybe Shaun Smith can come back and diagram some plays with crayon.
-
Masters said:
I am guessing she tuned you out by the end of the first paragraph
STO should hire you for anyone of their Browns report shows. Those things are terrible and don't have a person with a clue on them.
Problem is 90% of the people wouldn't understand it. Maybe Shaun Smith can come back and diagram some plays with crayon.
-
Great post.
So you're saying crossing patterns with TE's and WR's limit the effectiveness of zone blitz when those fatties drop back?
Also, what I think you're saying is the outside receivers push the vertical routes and open up the middle of the field because slower TE's lumber into the middle, which by that point the Safeties have neglected because of the speed on the outside? A faster TE attracts more attention for the deep S in that coverage?
I get that cover 3 leaves the flats (at least one flat) open, and can be beat with flooding the seams with multiple recievers. Either that or a circle route by the Back.
What I am not sure about is what beats the zone blitz, and it seems you're saying 1) criss-crossing patterns in the middle, and 2) the TE leaking out into the zone over the LB and under the deep S in the middle.
To your first question (and part of the fourth), what I'm saying is if you attack the middle of the field at multiple levels it causes problems for zone blitz schemes. What happens is you have guys, who aren't particularly gifted in coverage anyway, trying to make quick decisions about who to pick up while they're sprinting toward their drop spot. It complicates things. I don't mean to over-simplify. It's not like, "Hey, just do this and you can beat the Steelers." It's not that easy. But those types of combinations do cause problems for those types of schemes.
The zone blitz is generally a 4 or 5 man blitz package. And, you'll usually some sort of rotation. Lots of single high, and robber looks attempting to cut off hot slants and hook routes by running defenders through the passing lanes. So it ends up looking 3 over / 3 under or 2 over / 4 under. But often times, in order to fill the passing lanes, the inside defenders - usually LBs, but often DEs & DTs - have to sprint away from the line of scrimmage. Where the Patriots are gifted is in getting that defender to alter his path either by someone hitching up in his line of site, or sending a TE looping over top of him - then running a second receiver through the vacated area. They literally target an area where there is supposed to be a defender, knowing that the cross action, or misdirection will move him. They basically give him two choices, and they're both wrong. That's why they call it a trap route (or "trap combination").
I'm wouldn't say that this approach "beats" a zone blitz. It's just an approach that's more difficult for that type of defense to react to correctly.
Now, on your second question, yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying. If you can press the safeties deeper, you've got essentially two levels of defenders moving further apart. That should create a gap either in front of or behind the first level. That's a gross over-simplification on my part. But that's the theory.
As far as cover 3... I'm not sure I'd agree with that. There's no particular reason that a cover 3 would necessarily leave a flat uncovered. I mean, it could. But it doesn't have to. It simply means that the deep thirds are being covered by 3 players responsible for a third each. You could have as many as 4 or 5 defenders underneath, which is more than enough to cover the flats. Indeed multiple seam routes are one approach to three-deep coverages as long as their spaced well enough. But in the event of straight cover 3 zones you'd likely want to settle into the gaps and try to complete the short and midrange stuff over and between defenders. Typically, if you can get inside position from an outside receiver away from the rotation you can hit that seam. For instance if the strong safety plays the underneath zone, and the Free Safety has the deep third, you can hit that back side 9 route or skinny post if the X receiver can get a clean release. The safety is rolling away from him and the corner is usually holding the downfield position.
Well, that either cleared things up or complicated them irreparably. This is why my wife doesn't talk football with me.
-jj
Well, that either cleared things up or complicated them irreparably. This is why my wife doesn't talk football with me.
-jj
Outstanding man, really. The more you write the more I learn. I figured the more I ask you the more I bait you into explaining what's inside your head. Thanks for taking the time.
.jpg.a1a2b9a0c33008fdaf4097d8fe2cfd64.jpg "Riffer X"){kind=avatar}
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login