Play Calling

[FoutsFan]

I didn’t care for Lombardi as an OC hire at first because of what happened with the Lions. But he’s definitely doing a much better job with Herbert than he did with Stafford. For example, we don’t have a great running game so we’re using the pass to set up the run and it’s working so far. My main issues with him seem to be in our offensive inconsistency especially against the better defensive minds in the league. I’m not sure if the inconsistency is because of him, Herbert, or personnel. Maybe all three through varying degrees?

Agree with you on Lombardi. I am not sold entirely on him either. I do agree that he is doing better than what he did in Motown with Stafford. One of my biggest gripes with him is the formations, I would like to see more spread formations against teams stacking the box. When we played the Vikings he had too many bunch formations with everybody on top of the LOS. Our running game could not get going, as the game progressed, I would have liked to see him spread it out wide and run from that or do some screen plays at that point just for variety.

My other complaint with him is that some games when the offense could just not get going it seemed like he did not have an answer and just kept doing the same over and over hoping for a different result. Lombardi is not as bad as some are saying but he has definite room for improvement (a lot of improvement).

[BayAreaBoltz]

I wonder what former QB Chris Sims has to say about this discussion:

[Critty]

Nice clip.
It really would have been cool to see Simms do a comparative analysis to previous game tape and shows a real difference in the call itself. Unfortunately he didn't do that. His analysis was of the results after the play was executed.

The stat he showed was a result stat which only shows more deep throws were executed, it did not show if it was called more. Come on Chris Simms pull other tape and compare the calls. Show me the difference.
It's easy to do the eye test on results.

Staley when asked about the deep throws in Bengals game specifically said we had a lot of those types of throws up through the season and whether or not it happened was depending on coverage and things.

Execution makes more sense than play call.
The OP posted tape of calls where those same type of throws would have been available for Herbert to make but execution prevented it from happening.

[Guest]

Often times what looks like a single high can morph into another coverage. And a two high shell is not the only way to stop a long pass. That being said, take what the defense is giving you. That is the best way and take your shots when they are presented to you.

You can also call plays and do things to set up others as well. I would at some point get into a rhythm in the cadence on purpose to be able to change it up when needed to draw the defense off sides. Or stare down a receiver a couple of plays in a row to set up a safety later in the game.

Its a different game now. In the past we teams would look long and work their way back. Now teams look short and work their way long. its why QB's have a 68% completion percentage compared to Fouts and his 59% completion percentage. Its why QB's now have a 1.somthing to 2% interception percentage and Fouts had a 4.5%. Not taking anything away from Fouts, he was my favorite and what I tried to model my play style after but that really aggressive style leads to high TO's. Taking what the D gives you is much safer and overall effective but not nearly as sexy. There is also a mental aspect to wearing down a defense that they know you are picking on their weakness and are being killed by 1000 cuts. Just watch some of the drives we gave up earlier and in the Donkey game and how frustrating those were as a fan. Now imagine the players perspective. Giving up a 15 play 90 yard drive is much more physically and mentally exhausting then a 3 play 80 yard drive from a long bomb.

I have no issue with most of what you have said.

I agree that 15 play 90 yards drives are more taxing on defenses, but the issue is that they are much more difficult to execute than 90 yard drives that include a 45+ yard pass play. That is why that is our defensive philosophy is the way that it is. I think the data shows that Lombardi has not been aggressive enough and that there are lots of pundits out there that agree with me, though I have been banging the drum on the deep passing issue since the day Johnson was cut.

I guess the cutting of Johnson makes sense if the offensive plan always was not to throw the ball deep and Johnson's understanding of the play book lagged behind Guyton's.

That said, I am not on board with any sort of notion that opponents have the long pass perfectly defended all game long virtually every game. Honestly, that seems like a very silly notion even in theory. So there is no way to justify our team having gone games at a time with no very deep passes even attempted.

The reality is that we should have had 4 long pass completions on Sunday, but Parham and Palmer failed to catch balls that went right through or in and then out of their hands.

So the plays seem to work pretty well for us, which we already knew from last year was the case. As a team, the ability to hit long passes is a huge strength for us. I think it makes sense to try to capitalize on these opportunities more often than we have been.

Also, without using the deep passes for much of the season and without the points that Staley created (where Staley's decision to go for it produced points where no points would have been produced under Lynn), the Lombardi offense is actually scoring less than the Lynn/Steichen offense even though the Lynn/Steichen offense constantly created problems for itself by early down running plays and running too much in general.

The lack of big plays and lack of feel for the game in Lombardi's play calling has been that much of an issue even though Lombardi has ben bailed out by Staley's aggressiveness at times.

I generally like Lombardi's pass to run ratio, but Steichen's calling of pass plays when they were called last year was far superior to the passing plays Lombardi is calling.

[Guest]

I wonder what former QB Chris Sims has to say about this discussion:

It is incredibly obvious. Of course Simms and others can see it. His discussion of why the deeper passes are needed is spot on. I think just about everyone but a few people on this forum can see it. I thank him for restating the very points I made the day Johnson was cut.

[FoutsFan]

I have no issue with most of what you have said.

I agree that 15 play 90 yards drives are more taxing on defenses, but the issue is that they are much more difficult to execute than 90 yard drives that include a 45+ yard pass play. That is why that is our defensive philosophy is the way that it is. I think the data shows that Lombardi has not been aggressive enough and that there are lots of pundits out there that agree with me, though I have been banging the drum on the deep passing issue since the day Johnson was cut.

I guess the cutting of Johnson makes sense if the offensive plan always was not to throw the ball deep and Johnson's understanding of the play book lagged behind Guyton's.

That said, I am not on board with any sort of notion that opponents have the long pass perfectly defended all game long virtually every game. Honestly, that seems like a very silly notion even in theory. So there is no way to justify our team having gone games at a time with no very deep passes even attempted.

The reality is that we should have had 4 long pass completions on Sunday, but Parham and Palmer failed to catch balls that went right through or in and then out of their hands.

So the plays seem to work pretty well for us, which we already knew from last year was the case. As a team, the ability to hit long passes is a huge strength for us. I think it makes sense to try to capitalize on these opportunities more often than we have been.

Also, without using the deep passes for much of the season and without the points that Staley created (where Staley's decision to go for it produced points where no points would have been produced under Lynn), the Lombardi offense is actually scoring less than the Lynn/Steichen offense even though the Lynn/Steichen offense constantly created problems for itself by early down running plays and running too much in general.

The lack of big plays and lack of feel for the game in Lombardi's play calling has been that much of an issue even though Lombardi has ben bailed out by Staley's aggressiveness at times.

I generally like Lombardi's pass to run ratio, but Steichen's calling of pass plays when they were called last year was far superior to the passing plays Lombardi is calling.

To get a correct count on the long passes you would have to go play by play and examine which route each receiver took on each play. Then you need to compare it to the results of the play. Was there a receiver running deep that drew he CB and safety? Did that leave a TE over the middle wide open to which Herbert hit the open player for a sure thing instead of taking a gamble long? Or like NoMreChillis posted after the Denver game we did try and throw long, just the O line decided they were not going to let those plays happen.

This is not a defense of Lombardi, I am just pointing this out that just because we do not see the results we want does not mean the plays were not called. I do not have the answers other than I do know that we have called deep passes where Herbert has checked down to a RB or TE, which I would rather see than him forcing the long ball into coverage often. If you can watch each lay and compile a list from last year to this year then we can compare apples to apples.

Let me know when you are done and well go over it in depth.

[Guest]

Sorry to cut your post but i wanted to address this specifically:

I gave you 5 plays, video evidence of 5 plays where Lombardi designed deep routes and each of the 5 plays someone different missed a block or Herbert got spooked and the long bomb never happened.

You just dismisssed this evidence and went on a tirade about Mathew Stafford. Now you say you want 3-4 passes per game...

Please go back and look at the plays again. None of them are very deep passes and none are with Guyton as the primary read. So these plays are not examples of what I am calling for the team to do. Also, while there is evidence of poor execution to be sure, there is also some poor play design involved.

Video #1: This shows a 15-20 yard medium crossing route by Guyton and I agree that he is wide open. And that should be him running that route and not Allen as Allen's lack of speed will cause the defender to be carried with him across the field, which has led directly to 2 INTs this season. But Guyton is not the primary read on the play. Allen is on the short out.

Video #2: Again, Guyton is not the primary read. It is also a bad route combination with two receivers running in the same area for a prolonged period of time.

Video #3: This looks like a designed clear out for a short pass to Cook over the middle of about 12 yards or so.

Video #4: There is a major lack of pass protect on this play, which muddies what exactly is supposed to happen. However, we can clearly see Herbert looking to his left. If I had to guess, this is supposed to be a short pass to Allen.

Video #5: This is a 25 yard out deep crossing route that appears to be intended for Williams.

None of these plays are designed very deep passes. None of these plays are designed for Guyton to be the primary receiver. Two of the plays have a line of scrimmage too close to the end zone for a very deep pass even to take place.

I do not see Herbert looking to connect on very deep passes on any of these plays. I do agree that there pass rush pressure issues on these plays. I think the pressure is avoidable with a little better play design and execution. I think it is too bad that Herbert is not looking for Guyton because he was wide open on a couple of these plays.

[Guest]

To get a correct count on the long passes you would have to go play by play and examine which route each receiver took on each play. Then you need to compare it to the results of the play. Was there a receiver running deep that drew he CB and safety? Did that leave a TE over the middle wide open to which Herbert hit the open player for a sure thing instead of taking a gamble long? Or like NoMreChillis posted after the Denver game we did try and throw long, just the O line decided they were not going to let those plays happen.

This is not a defense of Lombardi, I am just pointing this out that just because we do not see the results we want does not mean the plays were not called. I do not have the answers other than I do know that we have called deep passes where Herbert has checked down to a RB or TE, which I would rather see than him forcing the long ball into coverage often. If you can watch each lay and compile a list from last year to this year then we can compare apples to apples.

Let me know when you are done and well go over it in depth.

I have just responded to what NoMoreChillies represented were somehow intended very deep passes. They were not and really were not even close to the kinds of plays for which I am calling. What I saw was a bunch of slow developing short and medium passes with one being a borderline medium/long pass (25 yards) with Williams running all the way across the field. And, regarding that play, I would point out that if you want a WR to run away from the defenders (as you would on away deep crossing route), that play should called for Guyton, the WR that can run away from defenders.

But more than that, I do not want across the field when I am discussing very long passing plays. I want up the field with that receiver being the primary read.

Let me make this much easier for you. Is our OL better this year than last year? I am not taking any answer other than "yes". We actually threw deep last year. Therefore, we can do it this year if we make an actual effort to do so, which, except for the Cincinnati game, we have not even tried to do at all.

There is no need to go play by play. That is crap. If we were trying to throw very long passes, we would be throwing very long passes. With a few noted exceptions, we are not.

As the Simms video noted, prior to the Cincinnati game, only 8% of our passes this season have been even 20 yards down the field. With Herbert as our QB, that is putrid play calling.

[chargeroo]

Mike Williams's 40 time was only 4.54 but he's caught a lot of deep passes in his short career. He's proof that you don't have to be a speed burner to get deep. Don't forget the WR knows the play, thus knows where he going but the DB has to trail himsince he doesn't know where the WR is going. A guy like MDub, that wins more often than not on 50-50 plays has an advantage because he doesn't have to be a yard or two ahead of the DB. A speed burner like Guyton must get deeper than the DB's because he can't be expected to win many of the 50-50 plays, although he did win one last week. That's the first one I can recall him catching in that manner.

I'm with Fouts Fan regarding the spread formations. I see several advantages to spread formations for both the passing game and for running the ball. I wish we used the spread formations more than we do. I also wish they'd throw long more. I'm hoping Lombardi will change those two facets of the offense. He's seen it work, so there's reason to hope he will. On the other hand, I like that I can't call the next play all the time as I have with some of our teams in the past. I have hope for Lombardi to figure it all out.

[Critty]

Simms did not compare any tape.
He simply showed results.
That not analysis. That is results grading.

The play to Mike Williams that Simms talked about on film was a fake post corner with a deep cross and max protection. It was executed.

The 1st play OP Chili showed was a 20yd deep out with a deep crosser and max protection. And Guyton was wide open for a huge gain. This is a chunk yard play call. But the play wasn't executed.

At least Simms did say Bengals will give you opportunity to go deep. And Chargers took advantage of it.

I'd challenge Simms to look at the tape Chili posted and explain why those are NOT play calls intended to get chunk yards of 20plus because that was his metric for the Bengals game 5/7 20plus yd throws.

[Critty]

Please go back and look at the plays again. None of them are very deep passes and none are with Guyton as the primary read. So these plays are not examples of what I am calling for the team to do. Also, while there is evidence of poor execution to be sure, there is also some poor play design involved.

Video #1: This shows a 15-20 yard medium crossing route by Guyton and I agree that he is wide open. And that should be him running that route and not Allen as Allen's lack of speed will cause the defender to be carried with him across the field, which has led directly to 2 INTs this season. But Guyton is not the primary read on the play. Allen is on the short out.

Allen ran the deep out.
Quick/short out is a 5 yard pattern.
Normal out route is 10-15yds pattern.
Deep out is over 15 yds.

Guyton ran the deep cross.
Shallow crosser is 5 yard or less.
Normal crosser is 10yd pattern
Deep crosser is 15yd or more.

And on this play the protection was max.

Max protection is used for a reason.
Typically to help give time to push the ball down field.

I get you have an opinion, but calling Allen route a short out is a lie.

Everyone who looks at that tape of this play knows Allen did not run a short out.

I didn't invent what is considered a short, normal or deep route, football people did.

If you don't believe it, there is plenty of material available to show you what a deep cross or deep out pattern is.
Here's a link so you can educate yourself
It shows how Kyle Shanahan uses the deep cross.
Guess what, the deep cross is typically a 15 yard route.

https://blogs.usafootball.com/blog/6...-concept-works

[Critty]

This is a good read about the deep pass.

"But there are many other ways deep passing plays can fail. The throw might be off, or the defense might show the wrong coverage look, or the receiver can't shake the coverage, or the offensive line can't hold up in protection. A lot of plays that are designed to be deep passes never show up in the stat sheet as a deep pass attempt."