SB Nation User Blog: rufio

Midseason Report: the Cleveland Browns' Offense (Part II)

rufio — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 00:33:56 -0000

In Part I, I broke down three plays that I felt exemplified the Browns' offensive woes this season. Here, I will break down two plays that did go our way.

The Browns may lack explosive playmakers who could allow us a good offense, but by studying exactly what it is that has (and hasn't) worked for us, a solid offensive coordinator could put together a competent offense without any personnel changes.

Play 1

After stopping the Packers on 4th and 1 midway through the first quarter, the Browns took over at their own 30 yard line. We lined up in a singleback formation with WRs Mohammed Massaquoi and Mike Furrey lined up to the left of the formation, along with TE Michael Gaines. Jamal Lewis is in the backfield, and TE Greg Estandia is on the opposite side of the formation:

I actually like what the coaching staff did with this formation for a couple of reasons.

First, it is hard to run a Cover-2 against a trips formation, so we should have already taken some of Green Bay's defensive options.

Second, double TE sets usually have a built in advantage against an odd front: they match up fairly well with 3-4 OLBs, and Daboll could play a cat/mouse game with Green Bay DC Dom Capers (alternating between keeping the TEs in to block the OLBs and then releasing them to catch passes).

Third, before TE Michael Gaines goes in motion, look at the right side of our line vs the left side of Green Bay's defense above. If we were to run to the right, we'd outnumber Green Bay 4 to 3 on that side. If we executed our blocks well, we could momentarily double-team NT Ryan Pickett, then have RG Rex Hadnot relase to block ILB A.J. Hawk at the second level. Jamal Lewis wouldn't face a potential tackler for 10 yards.

We do end up bringing Gaines in motion, and DA sees that Green Bay is once again in a Cover-1 look:

The motion not only reveals something about the coverage, it also causes confusion between LB Nick Barnett and S Atari Bigby:

Whatever switch Green Bay wanted to happen didn't happen. DA quickly notices that Gaines is wide open, and checks down with an accurate, easy to catch pass

The ball has some touch on it but is still thrown with enough zip that Gaines is able to catch it in stride with enough space between him and the sideline to secure the ball and turn upfield for a nice gain.

Play 2

Later in that same drive, we lined up in a strong I formation with Massaquoi and Robiskie at WR, Estandia at TE, and Vickers and Lewis in the backfield. Green Bay showed a Cover-3 shell before the snap (again), by walking CBs Al Harris and Charles Woodson back before the snap.

Green Bay was walking a safety up into the box all day and basically daring our WRs to beat them through the air. Anderson notices and makes a check:

After the snap Anderson, FB Lawrence Vickers, and RB Jamal Lewis all do a great job of selling a little play-action fake. It isn't a full on "stick it in his gut and pull the ball back out" fake, but with a quick twitch by DA and good salesmanship by Vickers and Lewis, Woodson bites.

Above, you can see Woodson take one false step, and that's all the Browns needed. DA sees that Robiskie has Woodson beaten, but he also notices FS Nick Collins coming over from his centerfield responsibility (out of screen) to cover Robiskie.

DA knows that with the free safety out of the picture, CB Al Harris is truly on an island against Massaquoi. He also knows that because GB is playing a Cover-3, Massaquoi should be wide open on his route, a slant/deep in.

DA throws a great ball, right on Massaquoi's numbers. 20 yards, a first down, and a facemask penalty for good measure.

After a very brief review of what is and isn't working for the Browns' offense, here are my reccommendations:

Simplify the playbook. There is too much wild experimentation, too many plays, and to little mastery of the plays we run. We need to establish some success in moving the ball, and then we can add wrinkles from week to week. Experiment, sure. But first and foremost make sure people know where they need to be and can play fast, "without thinking".
Use the Giants' "Omaha" call. We don't need to use the word "Omaha", but we should have a word that our QB uses to indicate that the snap count is live. Prior to saying the "hot word", whoever our QB is can use the hard count to try to get the defense to show their hand. We should use this at least 50% of the time. Eric Mangini wants to make this a disciplined, intelligent football team, so our strategies should reflect that. This would require our players to be more disciplined than the opposing defense, but could get us some real advantages.
Run when there are 7 in the box, pass when there are 8. The "Omaha" call would give us the upper hand as to determining this (see how those things go hand in hand and they aren't just randomly thrown together?). Far too often, we are trying to run with 8 in the box.
Run the same concepts from different formations. Yeah, it is a little "college offense-ish", but we might actually move the ball if we did it. If we run the ball with a Power O play, run the Power-O play with 2WR, 3WR, 4WR, and from the Wildcat. If we are going to run the Smash passing concept or the Slants concept, run it out of several formations. Have a few plays that work better against MOFO (middle of field open) coverages like cover-2 and cover-4, and some that work well against MOFC (middle of field closed) coverages. Build around the core concepts of the offense.
Find an identity. What exactly are the core concepts that we build around? If we had no idea what the defense was doing and we needed 4 yards, how would we try to get those yards? Run? Pass? Inside? Outside? Do we stretch the field horizontally? Are we looking to make big plays or take short, easy passes? Will we win with strength? Speed? Right now, I don't think we even know what we like to do.

Midseason Report: the Cleveland Browns' Offense

rufio — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 07:14:30 -0000

So far this season, our offense has scored 58 total points, for an average of 8.3 points/game. That simply isn't going to get the job done in the NFL.

At times, I have wanted to throw my TV out of my third floor window. At others, I have wanted to lace up my cleats to see if I can run a seam route better than Robert Royal.

Why exactly are we so bad? Where do we need to improve? Is there anything positive to take away from our offensive performance amidst the sea of ineffectiveness?

I finally got my hands on some game film, so I decided to take a look at this past Sunday's game against the Green Bay Packers. I will break down three plays that didn't work here, handing out blame to the guilty parties. Look for a breakdown of some plays we ran effectively to be posted Saturday night.

Play 1

This is a play we ran very effectively last year (check out my comment with screenshots). If all goes as planned, Josh Cribbs goes in motion and blocks down on a defender on the line of scrimmage, then LT Joe Thomas pulls around Cribbs, lead blocking along with FB Lawrence Vickers.

I love this play, as it suits our strengths. It allows Cribbs (a tough, physical player for his size who isn't afraid of contact) to catch someone off-guard and light them up. It allows Joe Thomas (a ridiculously athletic man for his size) get out into space and engulf a smaller defender. It allows Vickers (an above-average athlete at FB) to lead block in space, and it runs away from one of our offensive weaknesses; the right side of the line.

The problem with this play starts with the fact that we have RB Jamal Lewis in the game over RB Jerome Harrison. Harrison is much faster than Lewis. Sure, the defense might know we like to run outside with Harrison, but who cares what they know if they can't stop us?

The second problem is that for whatever reason, Cribbs isn't exactly sure who to block:

You can see him ready to block but not taking anyone on above. It was a bit of a weird front, as Green Bay had moved the FS Nick Collins up to the line of scrimmage bewteen ROLB Clay Matthews and RDE Cullen Jenkins. I have a feeling that Cribbs thought he was to block the SS, who TE Greg Estandia took on immediately after the snap.

In this situation, it is better for Cribbs to block the "wrong" guy, but to be wrong decisively. Instead he waits and waits, and even lets RILB A.J. Hawk run right by him...

...and make the tackle.

Who's at fault?

QB: hard to blame Anderson on this play, as it was a solid play call, and could have resulted in a solid gain if DA did everything exactly as he did above.
WRs: Cribbs needs to block someone. Even if he gets the "wrong guy", Vickers or Thomas can adjust an pick up whoever Cribbs lets through.
OL: every lineman pretty much did their job. The play could have resulted in a solid gain even if they did everything the same as above.
RB: I can't put the blame on Lewis for this play. A faster/better back could have gotten more yards, but when you are getting hit behind the line of scrimmage as a RB, someone else messed up.
Coaching: I know that if the coaches always used Lewis to run inside and Harrison outside we'd be predictable. But is this alternative any better? We simply don't have uber-versatile players right now, so why not put the players we do have in position to succeed? Harrison is good at running outside. Lewis is not. Put Harrison in for this play, and then if teams start catching on, throw the changeup.

Play 2

Early in the second quarter, we ran another play that epitomized what is wrong with our offense.

I like that our coaching staff tried something different, lining Hank Fraley up at Tight End. The problem with the personnel package we used, however, is that it failed to create the mismatches we wanted. Fraley does one thing as a TE, and that is block.

Green Bay knows the pass is less of a threat--especially to the bottom of the screen--with Fraley at TE. Because of this, they are able to walk their SS up to put 8 men in the box:

Against an eight man front, we only have seven blockers available (5 OL, 1 TE, 1 FB), which means the defense will have an unblocked player available to make the tackle even if we are able to make and sustain all our blocks. This is why Bernie Kosar always advocates throwing the ball against an 8 man front when he is the color man during our preseason broadcasts.

DA can reasonably suspect that Green Bay is in man coverage because CBs Charles Woodson and Al Harris are lined up directly over WRs Brian Robiskie and Mohammed Massaquoi. Facing man coverage and an 8 man front, we should be in great position to pass the ball. DA can guess with some confidence that Green Bay is playing Cover-1, facing anywhere from a 4-6 man rush. So, DA checks to a pass:

Because of our substitution of Fraley at TE, we aren't in much better position to pass the ball. Green Bay is able to send 6 rushers while still playing man-to-man on all of our receiving options and having deep "centerfield" safety help.

After the snap, rookie WRs Massaquoi and Robiskie struggle to get off the line of scrimmage against press coverage. Further exacerbating the delay in getting open, both WR are running relatively slow developing routes. We are running the "switch" concept (see WRs X and Y, ignore the others):

When DA hits the back of his drop, the WRs are no where close to where they need to be. Instead of looking them off and checking down to FB Lawrence Vickers, who is open and could probably pick up a solid gain, Anderson continues to stare down the WRs.

Compounding the problem is the fact that DA doesn't have another player running a route because RB Jamal Lewis is pass blocking and our other eligible receiver is OL Hank Fraley, who isn't ever a threat to catch a pass.

After hesitating, DA fires a dangerous pass almost right to LB Nick Barnett. He was lucky this wasn't a pick 6.

Who's at fault?

QB: DA can not throw this high risk, low reward pass--at worst it should have been a throwaway over Vickers' head and out of bounds. He also probably shouldn't be checking to a pass with 6 OL in the game. Lastly, when he saw our WRs struggle to get open, he should have looked them off and checked down much sooner. Additionally; why is this a 5-step drop and not a 7- or even 9-step drop for such long-developing routes? If he knows the blitz is coming and that he has to get rid of the ball quickly, why is it not a 3-step drop with quicker developing routes?
RB: Lewis may have whiffed on his block. I can't tell if he was supposed to chip and then release in to the flat or not. Either way, he could have slowed the pass rush more.
WR: They need to get off the press. It doesn't look as bad real-time as it does in the stills, but they could still help Anderson out.
OL: they picked up the 6 man pressure fairly well.
Coaching staff: Why simply sub Fraley in the game at TE? It's a pretty clear signal that we are going to run. Furthermore, it's not at all versatile (something that the coaches want our offense to be) because Fraley is only in there to block. It takes our offense from 5 receivers down to 4. Why not go with an unbalanced line instead, leaving a TE on the field? Why not go with another TE instead of 2 WR, creating a mismatch (our power vs. their speed)? Why is there not a better "hot" route on this play, with the blitz looming?

Play3

We come out in a singleback shotgun formation with WR Mohammed Massaquoi at the top of the screen, and WRs Brian Robiskie and Chansi Stuckey, along with TE Greg Estandia in a trips formation at the bottom of the screen.

DA sends Estandia in motion across C Alex Mack, and then back to his original place in the formation:

This isn't just motion for the sake of motion; it is designed to tell us something about the coverage. Green Bay shows that they are playing man coverage on Estandia because LB Brandon Chillar follows Estandia in motion. This implies that the Packers are also playing man coverage on our other receivers.

Off the snap, Estandia stays in to block, but our protection scheme is such that he has to cross paths with RT John St. Clair to pick up the blitzing LB Chillar (who was trying to deceive us and is actually blitzing, not covering Estandia). Initially, I thought Mack blew our pass protection because he wasn't blocking anyone off the snap...

but Mack actually knew exactly what was coming, as Green Bay's rushers stunted. Anderson, knowing he has Massaquoi basically one-on-one, stares him down. Massaquoi has a step, but Stuckey seems to be getting open behind S Atari Bigby.

I have to blame the play design here. Against Cover-1, there is usually a LB or S playing a short zone in the middle of the field (a "robber"). To me, it's clear that if Stuckey were running an out or a corner route here, he would be open for the 1st down, as there is no help in those areas of the field.

In 2007 when DA was at his best, he was trying to fit balls in to tight spaces, and he was throwing some jump balls (high risk), but he was also taking shots downfield (high reward). He goes that route again here, but he makes a really weak effort. At this point, he has held on to the ball long enough that he knows he is probably going to get hit. Instead of stepping up into the pocket and taking that hit ("like a man"), he tries to avoid the contact...

...and because he doesn't step into his throw, he ends up grossly underthrowing Massaquoi...

...right off of Al Harris' foot. I don't need to talk about how bad of a throw that is, but it should be especially embarrassing because he wouldn't just take a hit for the benefit of the team.

Who's at fault?

QB: DA's arm is supposed to be his strengh. He needs to suck it up, step up, and take this hit.
WR: Stuckey is open, and Massaquoi has a step and a half on Al Harris. I can't see Robiskie's route after it's stem. A WR can always be more open.
RB: Jerome Harrison actually picks up a blitzing linebacker fairly well for a 210lb. man. He could have done a better job, but this play isn't on him.
OL: They could have done a better job, particularly RT John St. Clair. He does have to switch places with Estandia, making it tough to recover.
Coaching staff: I don't know if Estandia was supposed to stop his motion in the backfield and be lined up more like an H-back, but a switch like what happened shouldn't happen, especially on the right side where we are having enough problems pass blocking. K.I.S.S. Why is Stuckey running a square in/post? Here is another example of not putting our players in position to succeed; Harrison is the worst pass protecting back on our roster. Clearly, Green Bay was not worried about him catching the ball, so why put him in the game, only to have him do what he isn't good at doing? Why not have Lewis or Vickers in there to pass block?

Verdict

Here is where I place the blame, from least blame to most blame:

OL: At least in the Green Bay game, the pass protection wasn't bad. Maybe St. Clair really wanted DA to be the quarterback, because he didn't play anywhere near as bad as he used to with Quinn under center (see: Broncos game). He isn't the long-term answer, but I expect the line to continue to improve because of Mack and (hopefully) a healthy Rex Hadnot.
RB: Lewis certainly isn't what he used to be, but Harrison has shown he can be dangerous. Still, both our RB's weaknesses are being highlighted far too often, with their strengths being ignored or underutilized. I would love to be finding out what James Davis could do right now.
WR: Both Robi and MoMass will improve with time, and if they are going to excel in the NFL, they probably don't do so consistently this year. We lack a WR who can consistently get open against straight man or man-free coverage.
QB: He isn't getting much help from his wideouts or the play calling/play design, but DA looks like he is a step slow in reading the defense, he is forcing short throws that he shouldn't make, and he isn't utilizing his own strengths.
Coaching staff: Our players look undisciplined, confused, and out of position. Daboll looks like a jack of all trades but a master of none, his offense lacks any sort of coherence, and he looks like he is out-smarting himself. In my opinion, we should simplify our offense.

We should work three or four runs that we can run out of any formation and master them. We should take three or four passing concepts/route combinations and master those. Ideally, a few of the runs compliment a few of the passes (play actions with the same blocking patterns, etc,) and they'd compliment each other. Once we have the simple things down, then we can put in the wrinkles and the tricky pass protections and the counter punches. As it stands now, we have nothing to counter off of.

Why a bear can take your head off (or: an extended reply to mooncamping)

rufio — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 04:17:19 -0000

Recently, I went to a teaching workshop that I thought was going to be horrible. Then, the guy giving the workshop opened with the question: "Why can a bear take your head off?" coupled with him acting out a head-removing swipe on a student in the front row. I was instantaneously more focused than I had been in months.

This is relevant to football, I promise.

You see, people think that bears are stronger than humans because they are so big, but that is only partially true. Bears also have a lot of built in skeletal leverage, too.

Every joint is a lever. Let's take the elbow as an example because it is a pretty simple joint:

The joint itself is the "fulcrum" of the lever (think the middle of a see saw). We'll call the distance between the fulcrum and the point where the biceps tendon attaches to the forearm the "effort arm" of the lever (the blue section). The distance between the biceps tendon and the weight or "load" is called the "load arm" of the lever. As you can see above, on humans, the effort arm (blue) is much much shorter than the load arm (purple).

Because of the short effort arm and the long load arm, a lot of force (huge biceps muscle) is required to move a relatively small load.

Now let's take a look at a bear's arm:

The effort arm (blue) is a lot longer and the load arm (purple) is a lot shorter versus the human arm.

This means that if a bear and a human had the same size biceps, the bear would be able to lift a much heavier load (or swipe your head clean off your body).

Ok, so how does this apply to football?

Not all humans' tendons attach in the same place. Some people's tendons attach closer to the elbow (making for a shorter effort arm) and others attach further from the elbow (making for a longer effort arm). Even if that tendon is a fraction of an inch different between two players it can make for a big difference in strength--and this occurs all over the body, not just with the biceps.

So even if two humans have biceps (or any muscles, for that matter) that are exactly the same size, one can be much, MUCH stronger than the other. Because of several factors, including a players' skeletal leverage, scouts can't determine a player's strength or speed based purely on their size or weight.

While scouts might drool over the imposing size of a lineman or might look for players of a certain size to play a certain position, size always takes a back seat to talent. Height and size are one of many, many measureables a scout will look at when evaluating a player, and most (if not all) of those measurables are trumped by film evaluation.

A player's dimensions or proportions don't necessarily tell us much of anything about a player in terms of their raw physical skills, let alone their skills as a football player.

Mangini Reveals Details About Defensive Scheme in Press Conference

rufio — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 06:59:22 -0000

Mangini Reveals Details About Defensive Scheme in Press Conference

Ok, it's minimal, but Mangini spoke about a typical "sub package" we will use in his press conference Wednesday.

When speaking of Defensive Ends' responsibilities:
"On third down, an outside guy would become an inside guy and, typically, outside linebackers become ends in sub. Our ends move in, our linebackers tend to be the edge guys."

That means we can probably expect two of Wimbley, Bowens, Hall, Veikune, Brown, or Hunt to put their hands on the ground as DEs, and for at least one of our typical DEs to move inside at times. I can't imagine a situation where it would be good for our pass rush to take Shaun Rogers off the field, but our DTs will probably be two of: Rogers, Robaire Smith, C.J. Mosley, Kenyon Coleman, and Corey Williams.

This is very similar personnel to what Romeo Crennel used in some of our nickel and dime packages, hopefully the results are different.

Is anyone going to the scrimmage on Sunday?

rufio — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 21:58:25 -0000

I do not believe the Browns family night will be televised, but I do think we can gather some early information on our schemes based on what we do at the scrimmage. The Plain Dealer is reporting that Mangini wants the scrimmage to have "as close to a game feel as possible".

I would love if anyone who plans on attending could pay attention to what we are running and take some notes for us all.

A few things I am interested in are:

Offensively

How do we attempt to run the ball? Do we pull linemen? Are we running up the middle or to the outside? Are we zone blocking? Are there counters or misdirections?
What kinds of formations do we use on offense? Lots of WRs? Lots of TEs? Shotgun or under center? Do we run or pass out of those formations?
Do we use motions and formation shifts?
Is our passing game more of a spread, West Coast attack, or do we look to throw down the field off of more 7-step drops?

Defensively

What do our linemen do immediately after the snap? Are they looking to shoot in to a gap, attacking the spaces between linemen, or do they shoot their arms right at the OL, looking to two-gap?
Are the DL and LBs shifted "over" and "under"? Or do they pretty much line up at the same techinques all the time?
How much do we move before the snap? Who is doing the moving?
Do we use a lot of 8 man fronts? Against which formations?
Are our CBs up near the line of scrimmage or off of it?
What are our safeties doing? Do they switch in terms of which one is left/right, strong/weak, or forward/deep?
How many rushers do we send at the QB?

Here's hoping the scrimmage goes well and our scheming is better than it was in 2008.

Eddie Royal's 93 yard Touchdown: Whose fault was it?

rufio — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:06:06 -0000

Things were good. Brady Quinn had led the Browns to 23 points in just over three quarters of game time in his first start for the Cleveland Browns. Quinn, named the starting quarterback before a Thursday night game had a very short week to prepare and he was leading his team to success.

The Browns defense had done an admirable job while holding the Broncos' high-powered passing attack to only 13 points in those same three quarters of play.

Even the Special Teams unit seemed to be on, as Dave Zastudil had just pinned the Broncos at their own 7 yard line.

Then disaster struck.

With the statistics of "The Drive" on the screen, Jay Cutler hit Eddie Royal for 93 yards and a TD. In less than 15 seconds, the momentum swung to Denver and the Browns' 10 point lead was down to 3.

At first, it appeared that CB Brandon McDonald was to blame. He was the only one in the vicinity of Royal and was the one eating Royal's dust as he caught the ball and raced for the TD. Upon further review, that might not have been the case. Before we get down to the finger pointing, let's go through the play.

Our defense is in it's base 3-4 alignment, countering Denver's 2 TE, 1 RB, 2 WR personnel. TE Tony Scheffler is in the slot toward the bottom of the screen, currently obscured by the foretelling graphic.

Initially, we set up in a Cover-3 look. Sean Jones is the safety toward the top of the screen (the "strong" side of the formation is to the defense's right/offense's left). Jones scoots up and CBs Eric Wright and Brandon McDonald scoot back along with FS Brodney Pool, showing the Cover-3 shell.

ILB Andra Davis appears to hear something as QB Jay Cutler goes through his cadence or barks out an offensive audible. Davis motions to McDonald and other defenders, apparently audibling to a different play or a different coverage or notifying them that a certain play is coming.

McDonald acknowledges the check, and for some reason points to the sideline.

McDonald then motions to someone, waving them toward him.

Chris Collinsworth (who was broadcasting the game) pointed out that it appears the Browns were in either a Cover-4 shell or in straight man to man coverage with no deep help after Davis' audible and before the snap. Collinsworth also notes how unusual it is that Sean Jones does not move over to help McDonald once TE Daniel Grahm does not threaten his area of the field.

I do not believe we were in straight man to man coverage. There is almost only one reason to be in straight man, and that is because you are sending a huge blitz. We only sent 4 rushers at Cutler. Also, ILB D'Qwell Jackson appears to be covering a zone and OLB Kamerion Wimbley appears to leave TE Daniel Grahm to drop in to a zone after jamming Grahm at the line of scrimmage.

Our OLBs jam the TEs at the line of scrimmage, as Jackson drops into a zone. Pool notices that the TE on his side is not going to run deep, so he works his way over to help Wright cover WR Brandon Marshall.

As Cutler pump fakes to Royal's fake slant, McDonald bites. Royal turns that slant in to a "slant and go" route and McDonald is beat. You can clearly see in this image how Pool appears to be playing Cover-4, but Jones is in underneath coverage, guarding almost the exact same spot as D'Qwell Jackson.

So what happened?

For me, it boils down to a few questions:

1. What is the coverage?

As I said earlier, I highly doubt this was supposed to be pure man-to-man coverage. Jackson is playing zone, WImbley is playing zone, and Pool appears to be playing zone. There would be no reason to take such a reckless risk unless you were sending seven rushers at the QB, knowing you would get an unblocked player to Cutler and knowing that he would have to take a big hit and still get the ball out.

I am fairly certain this should have been Cover-4 zone coverage. Jones should have dropped deep. McGinest, Jackson, and Wimbley all played their underneath zones fairly well.

2. What was Davis' signal about?

Davis' signal--I think--is a cue to McDonald about the route Royal is about to run. Davis makes sure McDonald hears him, but doesn't seem to care as much as to whether the DBs on the other half of the field hear/see him. He doesn't even seem to care if Jones hears him.

If Davis' signal is a cue that a slant is coming, how did he know and why wasn't a slant thrown?

A while ago, I was watching the NFL films version of the Green Bay vs. San Francisco playoff game in the 90s with "the Catch II". Steve Youg provided some commentary from the game and noted on one play that since both SF and GB ran the west coast offense, they had similar terminology and often could know what the opposing offense was doing.

Because of this, they would plant several "fake" audibles every game: they would use the terms that meant "Owens will run a post route" but then would actually have Owens run a post-corner, scorching the defense.

It is possible that Cutler and Denver "booby-trapped" their audible, here. The Browns thought they knew what was going on, but Denver was in control all along.

3. Who the heck is McDonald waiving at?

Originally, I thought McDonald was waiving at Sean Jones to come over and help him deep. I think it's pretty clear from the images that McDonald is waiving at someone closer to the ball. This could be:

a. OLB Kamerion Wimbley, motioning for him to drop back in zone coverage to cover the slant if it is indeed thrown

b. Cutler, taunting him.

Option b. would my theory about the "booby-trapped" audible, with McDonald thinking he knows what route is coming and feeling even more like an idiot after he gets scorched.

4. What is Sean Jones doing?

I have no idea what Sean Jones is doing. He is covering almost the same exact area as D'Qwell Jackson, he looks almost surprised that Jackson is there, and he is looking to cover TE Daniel Grahm, who is already blanketed by Wimbley and Jackson.

Jones is effectively covering grass (not covering anyone). If the Browns should indeed have been in a Cover-4, he needed to help McDonald. If Jones is assigned to any other part of the field, he needs to be freeing up a LB to cover the slant if it is indeed thrown, allowing McDonald to stay deep.

Conclusions

I believe McDonald is to blame for the catch, but I still believe Jones is at least partially to blame for the score. He should have been helping McDonald cover Royal deep, and even if he was out of position, he should have been able to tackle Royal after he caught the ball.

One or more coaches could have also been to blame. If they thought they knew some of Denver's terminology (i.e. that Royal was going to run a slant), they could have schemed a much more effective play to stop it. If they truly decided to have McDonald attempt to jump the route with no help and 93 yards behind the defense, it was an incredibly inept decision. That isn't to mention that they in fact had no idea as to what was coming on this play.

Multiple things didn't go well for us on this play, and hopefully new head coach Eric Mangini and new defensive coordinator Rob Ryan can mimize that type of play for the Browns' Defense in the future. Even if that type of play does happen, I believe this year's Browns will be better equipped to stave off the opposing team's charge and regain momentum because of Mangini's coaching style.

Robiskie's In

rufio — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 02:05:59 -0000

Robiskie's In

Four years, undisclosed money.

Scouting Brandon McDonald: can he produce at cornerback for the Cleveland Browns?

rufio — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:05:18 -0000

There seems to be a lot of mixed feelings regarding CB Brandon McDonald. A lot of fans think he isn't a good player because it appeared that he got burned for a late TD against the Denver Broncos. Others complain about his size or speed. Some think he can be an above average starter in the NFL. Who is correct?

Here, I look at some film of Brandon McDonald and highlight some of his strengths and weaknesses.

Strengths

Ball Skills

McDonald played some wide receiver in college for the Memphis Tigers--and it shows. The man can simply make plays on the ball when it is in the air. McDonald's skills were on display against Peyton Manning and the passing attack of the Indianapolis Colts during week 13 of the 2008 season.

On this play, McDonald is lined up in man coverage against WR Reggie Wayne--not an easy task for any DB. McDonald is supposed to have help over the top from safety Mike Adams, who's assignment is to comprise half of a Cover-2 shell. McDonald is at the top of the screen on this play.

Wayne puts a nice move on McDonald to gain inside leverage. A cornerback's goal when covering man to man is almost always to stay inside of the WR. Manning takes notice.

Manning makes an accurate throw to Wayne (surprise!) and McDonald is on an island covering Wayne all the way to the endzone. Not an easy task against the Colts' high octane passing game.

You can see #20 Mike Adams get sucked in to covering the underneath route, a deep out. This is an example of good play design; the Colts use route combinations designed to pick a defense apart.

McDonald doesn't have the help he thought he would, and Adams is left trailing the play, hopelessly out of position.

McDonald has enough speed and skill to make a play on the ball and single-handedly save a touchdown.

McDonald wasn't done.

Later in the game, McDonald made another phenomenal play against Wayne. Again in a man under, Cover-2 shell, McDonald is in "off" coverage on this play:

This time, McDonald keeps good inside leverage on Wayne, and even gets away with a little arm bar as Wayne tries to accelerate past him. Pass interference would have been a very weak call against McDonald here.

You've probably heard announcers comment on this a million times; if a WR turns his head to find the ball, the DB needs to turn his head to find the ball, too. McDonald does just that.

Above, Wayne turns his head, and Below (two steps later) McDonald turns and finds the ball.

McDonald boxes Wayne out, leaps, and snags the ball, catching it at his highest point.

(You can see McDonald's help arriving from the top of the screen.)

In my opinion, Brandon's greatest strength is his ability to go after the ball, followed by his ability to flip his hips and change directions fluidly. He is probably at his best in either zone or off-man coverage where he can stay behind the receiver, keep his eyes on the QB and the ball, and change directions and jump on routes as needed. He isn't going to be able to turn and run with the best NFL wideouts if he tries to press them, but when he is put in position to succeed (read: off of the LoS or with help over the top) he can be very effective and create turnovers.

Weaknesses

Physicality, toughness, and run stopping

Not every DB can be Antoine Winfield, but McDonald has enough size that he should be able to contribute more against the run. He had a play against the Bills that was just flat out embarrassing when he let a ballcarrier (RB Fred Jackson?) go right by him. I can't find my tape of that game, but I can show several examples of McDonald's lack of physicality from the Colts game.

Before the snap on this play, McDonald was showing Peyton Manning different body positions, moving from this look to more of a Cover-3 look, before settling in to a position where he was close to the WR and square to the line of scrimmage, in position to complete his press coverage assignment.

This is something I felt the defense actually did well under Mel Tucker; while our front 7 were often predictible and stagnant, our cornerbacks moved before the snap effectively. Sometimes, a corner would back up like he were settling in to a 3-deep shell, only to plant and fire in at the QB on a corner blitz after the snap. We need that kind of movement and unpridictibility from every member of our defense

Here, McDonald is at the top of the screen with his hips open to the center of the field.

Probably knowing they can't overpower Shaun Rogers with their undersized OL, the Colts ran their stretch play to the outside. McDonald meets Wayne's block about 2 yards off the LoS.

McDonald temporarily gets around Wayne's block and looks to be in good position to make the play...

...but gets washed out of the play by Wayne, allowing the first down. Wayne and McDonald are the blurred pair of players closest to the orange first down marker and slightly above #92 Shaun Rogers.

Of course, it would have helped if Andra Davis was a better LB and could have gotten there in time (Rogers is as close to the RB as Davis is on this play! Shaun Rogers: sideline to sideline NT), but McDonald was in position to make the play or at least get ahold of RB Joseph Addai so someone else could make the tackle, but he let himself get washed out of the play by a wide receiver.

We don't need McDonald to stand 260 lb. Brandon Jacobs up in the backfield or to take on and shed offensive linemen, but he should be able to at least hold his ground against sub-200 lb. WRs. McDonald isn't a huge CB, but improving this area of his game is more about having the "want-to" and the mentality to hit than the actual physical tools. Especially if McDonald is up to 195 lbs, there is no reason he can't be more effective against the run.

Again in off-coverage, McDonald is in position to see the play developing in front of him and move forward to make the play. He is the CB at the top of the screen.

The Colts again run wide to the left. The FS on this play (Brodney Pool?) recognizes run, and actually runs past McDonald to draw Wayne's block.

McDonald is left unblocked, and needs to be the one to make the tackle or at least slow Addai down. You've heard the cliche "do your job", this is McDonald's job: stop the ballcarrier for an acceptable 4 yard gain, or go make a great play to stop him for 2 or 3 yards.He is between the 25- and 30-yard lines in this image, completely alone.

McDonald needs to either wrap Addai up and hold him till help arrives, make the tackle, or force Addai back in toward the middle of the field where there are more tacklers. He does none of the above. Addai shrugs McDonald off without much trouble and goes for 8 or 9 yards.

McDonald needs to get more physical and to start looking to hit people if he wants to stay in the league. I love his playmaking ability and I would like to see the Browns try to pressure the quarterback more in order to bait teams in to forcing throws where McDonald and our other corners can get good chances at interceptions. We simply will not be in position to do that unless we get better at stopping the run, especially against teams like Baltimore and our other division rival from Pennsylvania.

With more people realizing that it's hard to run up the middle at #92, more teams might try running at McDonald. If he steps up and does his job, he can get more chances to showcase his hands on 2nd and 3rd and long.

Can we hurry up and sign our draft picks?

rufio — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:31:58 -0000

The Plain Dealer reports that we are somewhat close to signing Mack, but not as close to signing Robiskie, Massaquoi, or Veikune.

What's the deal. Eric?!?

Rookies are supposed to report to camp on Friday the 24th, but it doesn't look like we'll be able to get all of these guys in by then. I personally would love to see all four of these rookies on the field early and often if they can digest the playbooks. Getting them in to camp will certainly help them adjust to the NFL game and can't hurt their chances of seeing the field.

Mack is talented and he is probably one of the 5 best OL we have.

Our WRs were really bad last year. Either one of those guys should be able to push Steptoe down the depth chart.

Our pass rush was pathetic last year, as were our linebackers. Veikune could help.

-But-

July 24th is the earliest reporting date in the entire NFL. Mangini/Kokutnus (sp) don't seem to have been working too diligently to bring these guys in on time considering contract proposals haven't even been exchanged with Robiskie and Massaquoi yet.

So let me ask you all:

Poll

Is it important for the rookies to report on time--a full week before the veterans?

Yes, we need to sign all of them

295 votes

Yes, we need to sign Mack

10 votes

Yes, we need to sign the recievers

18 votes

Yes, we need to sign Veikune

0 votes

No, it isn't a big deal. They don't need a full extra week.

32 votes

355 votes | Poll has closed

Defensive playbook: the Cleveland Browns and the 46 defense Part II

rufio — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 05:37:32 -0000

T-N-T. Watch me Explode!

via www.heavyharmonies.com

In Part I I broke down the "normal" 46 formation. Here in Part II, I will address more of the defensive concepts related to the 46 and the Nickel 46 formation, and later in Part III I will cover some of the offensive innovations since the dominant '85 Bears' defense, and more on how we can use the 46 today.

A key area in the 46 is deep down in the trenches. In my understanding, Buddy Ryan was among the first in the NFL to put three big, bad down linemen directly over the offensive guards and the center. It was pretty genius. This "T-N-T front" (for tackle-nose-tackle) can be explosive.

In the 46, I have called one of those "tackles" the left defensive end, but it really doesn't matter what we call him, the concept is the same. He is big, explosive, lined up over the Guard and he can overpower an offensive lineman.

Less run blocking options

One reason the T-N-T front poses problems for offenses is that it is pretty hard for a guard to pull effectively when there is a defensive lineman right in front of him. This defensive lineman should be ready to use the space vacated by the guard, get in the backfield, and swallow a running back or a fullback whole.

Here, the offense can account for every player in the box: they pull the RG to the left, and if they win their one on one matchups (a big "if"), the RB can run untouched into the secondary.

By dropping the 8th man into the box and placing a defensive lineman directly over the RG, the defense changes the effectiveness of the play. The offense can't block everyone: if the RG still pulls, the LE gets in the backfield to make the play:

If the RG stays to block the LE, the RE goes unblocked. If the RT can make it over to handle the LE, the Charlie goes unblocked, and so on.

Running up the middle against the 46 is tough because of the 1,000ish lbs. of man there to clog things up. Running outside can be tough because it is hard for guards and centers to pull.

Stranded

Another reason the T-N-T front poses problems for an offense is that because both guards are covered, the center has trouble getting any help in dealing with a massive DT/NT. Centers are traditionally smaller than other offensive linemen, potentially because against a traditional 4-3 front they are uncovered and in position to get up to the second level to block linebackers (who are traditionally smaller and quicker than defensive linemen).

Just imagine a 305lb. center trying to block Shaun Rogers! Even if Rogers can't get a hit on the QB, he can still push the pocket so that the QB has nowhere to step up (which might give a Kamerion Wimbley-esque pass rush a chance). Also, if a QB knows that his center is isolated against a guy like Rogers, the "gotta get rid of the ball" clock in his head ticks a little faster.

Furthermore, if that DT/NT is fast enough to either at least kind of play zone coverage or to stunt around the LE or RDT, the defense can strand the Center with no one to block. More on this in the next section.

Overload

"Overloading" an offensive line means simply bringing more pass rushers than an offense can effectively block. The potential to overload an offensive line in the 46 should be pretty clear: there are six defenders on the line of scrimmage, and only five offensive linemen.

If no skill players stay in to block those six pass rushers (and the defense does indeed send all six), there will be one unblocked rusher coming at the QB and five skill players being covered by five defenders.

The 46 also has great potential for what I will refer to here as "selective overload". Selective overload occurs when a defense sends a number of pass rushers that the offense could potentially block (let's say five), but does so such a way that a particular area of the line is outnumbered.

For example, lets take a look at that T-N-T front again. If our DT/NT is, in fact versatile enough to drop in to zone coverage and not be a complete liability, the defense can potentially overload the offense with only four rushers.

On this play, the NT drops in to coverage as both the LE and the RDT attack the OG in front of them with a bull rush. This colapses the pocket a little, leaving the Center with no one to block. Meanwhile, the RE blitzes wide and the SS blitzes through the B gap between the LT and LG. The Left Tackle is left with a choice between blocking the RE or the SS and the other gets a free path to the QB.

Now it would be pretty easy for the offense to block the SS with either the running back or the fullback and the QB could probably get the ball out. But, if the offense sends both backs out on pass routes or sends its pass protection to the right, that quarterback is probably taking a big hit.

The key is to be unpredictable and to set an offense up. If we run this blitz effectively on one play and show the same look again later in the game, the offense may think it has learned from it's mistake and shift the pass protection to the left. Then we can blitz the Mike, the Charlie and the Jack. Even if the offense kept the TE in, there are 3 blitzers to only 2 blockers:

Another possible overload:

The RE fakes a wide rush, then drops off in to pass coverage. The RDT and LDT shoot the gaps to the weakside of the play, looking to draw the LG and OC's blocks. The LE penetrates the B gap between the RG and RT, while the Charlie rushes wide of the RT. The seas part for the Mike, who gets through the line untouched between the OC and RG.

Nickel

When the 46 goes up against a 3WR offense, the formation changes. The SS aligns over the third wide receiver with a varying depth. The Mike aligns over the weak OT where the SS was, and the Charlie shifts to be over the strong OT:

This simply highlights the usefulness of a versatile safety. A guy like Polamalu or Dawkins can play in the "normal" 46 like an inside linebacker, and then shift outside in the nickel version of the 46 to cover a WR man to man (and can do both at a very high level). I don't trust Brodney Pool or Abe Elam to be this versatile at a high level, which may require us to bring one safefy up to the line against running formations (I would guess Elam) and the other against 3WR sets (I would guess Pool, who has played some cornerback for us). If either is versatile enough to cover a slot WR, play centerfield, and stop the run, then awesome.

This formation looks even more like a version of the 3-4 defense, but it is important to remember that hypothetically both the Charlie and the Jack would ideally be able to rush the passer like a 3-4 OLB (as in: we would have 3 OLBs and 1 ILB on the field with one of the OLBs playing as the RDE). Because the new coaching staff seems to trust LB David Veikune to play either position, he might be a great choice for the Charlie.

The nickel version of the 46's similarity to the 3-4 also demonstrates that we could use the "T-N-T" defensive line and other 46 concepts out of our normal 3-4.

Blitz reads

One concept I really hope we employ is what I will call the "blitz/pickup" assignment. Different coaches will probably call this different things, and a team could even name it something unique. What is really important isn't what its called, but what happens:

Two defenders are assigned to "blitz/pickup". On the snap, both rush wide and get in the backfield. They both read the running back and react based on what he does: "Is the RB moving to my half of the field?" If "yes", they "pick him up" by covering him if he goes on a pass route, or attacking his block if he stays in to pass protect. If "no", they continue to rush the passer. Here, those two defenders are the Jack LB and the Right Defensive End:

The "blitz/pickup" isn't the only read-and-react blitz that a defense can employ. One thing offenses do is to "slide" their protection one way or the other, meaning the whole line will shift one way or the other on pass protection, often with any pass protecting backs shifting the other way.

A smart defense can send a blitz and assign the outside two rushers to read the pass protection: "Is the OT on my side of the field sliding to block me?" If "yes", they drop in to zone coverage. If "no", they continue to rush the passer. This will usually result in a DE/OLB being blocked by a RB, a matchup he should always win (at least eventually):

In the above play, the line shifts to the right to pick up what it thinks are blitzing Mike and Jack linebackers. The Right Defensive End and the Jack linebacker read the shift in the line: since the RT is in position to pick up the Jack, the Jack drops off into coverage. Since the LT is not in position to block the RE, he continues his blitz. The Mike was never going to blitz and drops in to coverage.

Done perfectly, the defense can effectively always have the perfect play "called" (really it is just adjusting it's play to become the perfect play) and get a whole lot of pressure on the QB. Yes, these concepts require some read and react, but that doesn't neccesarily mean that they are passive, vanilla defensive concepts like we saw under Romeo and Mel Tucker. They should always leave an offense under pressure and guessing where the rush is coming from.

Even if they aren't run perfectly or even if the offense is making the correct guesses (as to who is blitzing and who will be open), these defensive concepts are a way of responsibly blitzing, staying aggressive, and keeping enough defenders in coverage to defend the pass.