Reich out

[Lightningwill_420]

Are we talking about Mr. Peterman from Seinfeld?

[TTK]

Reich hired by the Eagles:

Ian Rapoport @RapSheet 12m12 minutes ago
Plan is for Frank Reich to be OC under Pederson. RT @NationOfEagles: @RapSheet as OC or a positional coach?”

LOL, poor Ryan Mathews.

[Mister Hoarse]

LOL, poor Ryan Mathews.

No shit!

[Steve]

Maybe I'm ignorant, but the running game has always seemed far less complicated than the passing game. Running the ball is mostly about having good blockers and a decent back. You don't have to be Don Coryell to figure that out.

That is why teams are getting away from it. You have to outplay the other team across the board play after play. Pass blocking, you don't have to whip the guy across from you, you just have to keep from being beaten badly. Then factor in the down and distance thing (most fans are completely ignorant of that), and the fact that if the D makes a play and you lose yardage or there is a penalty, the drive is basically done (on average).

The beauty of the GB sweep back in the day was not that it was that great a play. The key was that it was a play that the Packers could execute so well that teams had to sell out to stop. Once a team did, the entire rest of the Packers offense was designed to exploit all the different ways that defenses would try to stop the sweep. You knew the Packers were going to run the Packer sweep at you until you sold out to stop it, and then the inside and off tackle runs would eat you alive, with some play action behind it. And if you did anything to stop those, they went right back to the sweep. But the other key to the Packers offense is that they didn't have to score a ton of points. They had a defense full of hall of fame guys, so they won most of their games 21-17 or 17-14. Today that wouldn't work because teams would throw the ball and make it hard to win that many close games.

The big takeaway is that having a signature running play is a good idea. Make the other team sell out to stop it. Being a little predictable is not a bad thing. It forces the other team to stop that play, and opens up other (complimentary) plays. You dictate to the other team, and they aren't dictate to you. But you have to execute that one play so well that it is money in the bank. You may not get rich running that play, but you get your 3-4 yards and a cloud of dust. That play was supposed to be the inside zone run this year, which is why we drafted Gordon (the best inside zone runner in college football), but when the line never got set, the plan fell apart before it got started.

[Bolt-O]

It appears that Pederson will be calling plays, no matter who the OC is.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/19/doug-pederson-will-call-offensive-plays-confirms-schwartz-as-dc/

[SDFan]

:freakout:

[chris9341]

Well hopefully they don't run the ball out of shotgun formation anymore. I will say this as I have said numerous times in the past until the chargers develop a decent running game well then we can all look forward to another 4-12 season. I could careless that Rivers nearly passed for 5000 yards. I would rather see him pass for 3000 plus yards and have Gordon run for 1500 plus yards.

[Mister Hoarse]

Well hopefully they don't run the ball out of shotgun formation anymore. I will say this as I have said numerous times in the past until the chargers develop a decent running game well then we can all look forward to another 4-12 season. I could careless that Rivers nearly passed for 5000 yards. I would rather see him pass for 3000 plus yards and have Gordon run for 1500 plus yards.

Your idea just lost 500 yards.

[chris9341]

Ok and your point is? Here ill make a point to you in 2006 Rivers passed for 3,338 yards and Tomlinson rushed for 1815 yards the same season we went 14-2. So yes if Melvin Gordon rushing for 1500 yards or more and Rivers only passing for 3000 yards or more gets a this team to 14-2 then yes I can handle losing 500 yards on offense. What I don't want is where the coach becomes ultra conservative in the playoffs and we lose. That was Marty shitenhiemers downfall here. Always one of the better coaches in the regular season but stunk it up in the playoffs.

[Steve]

We didn't lose with Schottenheimer because we went conservative.

And in case you missed it, Denver was playing conservative and just won the SB. They started protecting their lead in the 1st quarter. Any strategy can work, you just have to go out and get the right players, which sadly we are completely lacking. But SB and NCAA championship list are full of teams that make the other team beat them, and usually it works. Where it doesn't work is when inferior teams try to do it. At some level, the best teams do usually win. Denver may not have been the better team, but they didn't step on their dicks nearly as badly as Carolina did.

[chris9341]

The difference between Denver's superbowl win and going conservative in that game is that they had a great defense. When shitenhiemer was the coach the year we went 14-2 the chargers had a good defense but it wasn't great like Denver's was this season.

[Steve]

True, but most teams that go conservative have a much better offense and can control the clock some.

Teams like Pittsburgh have won several SB and they went conservative. The greatest college teams of all time (Oklahoma under Bud Wilkinson, 47 straight games) won by playing conservative. In fact that was what he preached, make the other team beat you.

As many teams win games by going conservative as don't. When inferior teams play aggressive or play conservative, they aren't going to win much, which is basically true of any strategy. If you don't execute, you aren't going to win no matter what. Denver played the Waterboy offense and won a SB because Carolina's best WR were out with injuries.