Geep Chryst (and discussion on offensive versatility)

[magnus]

has some interesting things to say about offense, and our offense gets mentioned also.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_22_228/ai_n6126776

One reason teams hesitate to adjust is their scheme ties their hands. "A lot of power running teams with tighter formations aren't used to spreading the ball out," Chiefs offensive coordinator Al Saunders said. "They rely on the run game predominantly, and spreading out the formation becomes a small percentage of what they do. So they get out of the character of what their team is, and they have to do things that they work on in a practice environment only a very small percentage of the time."

The Panthers, Dolphins, Cowboys and Ravens are examples of teams that put most of their eggs in the run basket. Their personnel is geared for protecting a lead more than overcoming one, and the emphasis of their preparation is on ball control. Teams with those kinds of offenses find it more difficult to play from behind than teams such as the Chiefs, Colts or Patriots, whose offenses are more geared to the pass.

 

[Thelt]

Our best offensive player by far is Steve Smith. He is one of the top players in the whole league. I hope our new offense is built to take advantage of that fact.

I am not sure that I agree that we were out of our element when we got behind though. Our offense seemed to work the best when we finally did spread it out and stopped with the conservative play calling. The problem was that it never happened until the situation was dire and when one mistake costs you the game. Had we spread it out more often earlier then it may have never came down to one bad play killing us.

 

[magnus]

that was a factor of two things - being unable to dictate what we intended to do and then changing to something the other team was less prepared to defend.

I don't think we should be a big air-it-out team. But I like what Zampese would seem to stand for - running, but not under pretense of "power" - running out of motion, spread formations a good deal, and making it harder for teams to do two things that hurt us - 8 in the box or an extra man on Smith (and creating the deep pass rather than just defaulting it).

The idea of more 3 WR and generally having a versatile offense leaves us with mismatches I love - nickel on a receiver and 6-on-6 blocking. You can motion a guy back in and give a standard look, which isn't something a nickel D is as prepared for; by coming out in 3 WR, you're taking a base D out of their element. Great way to get strong defensive teams, especially 3-4 teams, out of their best.

 

[lde]

Al Saunders is quoted there. Did you misread it, or is there a connection to Geep that I'm not seeing?

 

[magnus]

the two are separate things. GC isn't talking about the team specifically.

 

[lde]

the two are separate things. GC isn't talking about the team specifically.

Where in that article is GC talking at all? I couldn't find any mention of him.

 

[Thelt]

that was a factor of two things - being unable to dictate what we intended to do and then changing to something the other team was less prepared to defend.

I don't think we should be a big air-it-out team. But I like what Zampese would seem to stand for - running, but not under pretense of "power" - running out of motion, spread formations a good deal, and making it harder for teams to do two things that hurt us - 8 in the box or an extra man on Smith (and creating the deep pass rather than just defaulting it).

The idea of more 3 WR and generally having a versatile offense leaves us with mismatches I love - nickel on a receiver and 6-on-6 blocking. You can motion a guy back in and give a standard look, which isn't something a nickel D is as prepared for; by coming out in 3 WR, you're taking a base D out of their element. Great way to get strong defensive teams, especially 3-4 teams, out of their best.

As I have stated many times, I like a power running offense. The problem I have with our offense is that it is not really a power running offense. It does not have the type of linemen you need for that offense. It does not have a tight end that fits that offense either.

 

[magnus]

Where in that article is GC talking at all? I couldn't find any mention of him.

there's this paragraph leading up

Why does scoring first matter?

Well, last season in the NFL, the team that scored first won 70 percent of the time. When a team scored twice before the opponent scored its first points, even if it was two field goals, the team with the points won an incredible 84 percent of the time.

then a crappy advertisement, then:

Those startling numbers come from the research of former Cardinals quarterbacks coach and former Chargers offensive coordinator Geep Chryst, who has been analyzing trends for nearly 20 years. This is the time of year when teams study such trends and respond accordingly.

Why should a 7-point lead be so difficult to overcome or a 10-point lead be nearly insurmountable? It has to do with how the dynamics of the game subtly shift when one team takes a lead. Even a small deficit tightens a team's turtleneck. And even when teams are capable of rallying, they might not have enough bullets left in their belts to win the game at the end.

 

[Thelt]

I think a simple reason is often the best answer. When a team gets ahead of you by 10 points they most often times are a better team. That is why they beat you.

 

[magnus]

As I have stated many times, I like a power running offense. The problem I have with our offense is that it is not really a power running offense. It does not have the type of linemen you need for that offense. It does not have a tight end that fits that offense either.

running power (which is a different thing from running behind power, a la the buck sweep of Green Bay) is fine, but none of the guys we've talked with, come from that style, and our guys don't fit that.