PDA

View Full Version : Offensive schemes.



Lonestar
07-10-2010, 06:00 PM
Since there seems to be some debate on the forum about New schemes.

Please take the above poll to put the question to bed one way or the other.

Does having a new scheme, new players, new coach affect the production of the team or does just having a rookie QB (sanchez), going into an existing scheme make the difference.


Which is going to affect the team more.

New scheme, new player, coaching staff. (Broncos)

New QB in existing scheme surrounded by veteran players from that scheme.

Lets see who is honest about this poll..

nevcraw
07-10-2010, 06:38 PM
I'll be honest - It Depends

on -
said player skill and talent levels
fit of players
type of experience
scheme type
scheme quality
coach quality
etc.
etc.

Lonestar
07-10-2010, 06:43 PM
I'll be honest - It Depends

on -
said player skill and talent levels
fit of players
type of experience
scheme type
scheme quality
coach quality
etc.
etc.

there could be a million qualifiers so make a decision on the criteria above. simple question tat I asked.

Tned
07-10-2010, 06:58 PM
Since there seems to be some debate on the forum about New schemes.

Please take the above poll to put the question to bed one way or the other.

Does having a new scheme, new players, new coach affect the production of the team or does just having a rookie QB (sanchez), going into an existing scheme make the difference.


Which is going to affect the team more.

New scheme, new player, coaching staff. (Broncos)

New QB in existing scheme surrounded by veteran players from that scheme.

Lets see who is honest about this poll..

Your prejudging anyone that disagrees with you aside ("honest about this poll"), it all depends on the scheme, veteran players, etc.

Take the Rams. They could have a veteran team, existing scheme, and throw a new young QB in the mix, and still suck.

If it is a sound scheme, with good talent all around, then adding the one player could make a difference. If it is sub-par or over the hill talent, then adding one impact player likely will do very little.

underrated29
07-10-2010, 07:00 PM
lol- you still can not let it go........:lol::lol:

..Having said that, I think option A.


A new everything is definitely more.....whats the word I am looking for...Diversifying? nah, but whatever- you get the point. I do not see how anyone can logically say otherwise..New Qbs go to teams all the time...

EX- sam bradford, matt stafford, ryan, bretty favre, jake plummer, donovan mcnabb to be seen, jay cutler, orton etc etc etc etc etc...............................

The teams they go to most of the time do fine. (if they are a good team or get a good qb, notice i left oakland off the list because they will always suck)


However, a new coach, scheme, qb, defense, block scheme and more than 50% players is about as obvious as stepping on a nail and shisting ones pants.

HORSEPOWER 56
07-10-2010, 07:10 PM
Your prejudging anyone that disagrees with you aside ("honest about this poll"), it all depends on the scheme, veteran players, etc.

Take the Rams. They could have a veteran team, existing scheme, and throw a new young QB in the mix, and still suck.

If it is a sound scheme, with good talent all around, then adding the one player could make a difference. If it is sub-par or over the hill talent, then adding one impact player likely will do very little.

On top of that. The Rams could bring in a QB like Tom Brady or Peyton Manning and go .500 or better without changing the scheme or the rest of the team just because of what those guys bring to the table.

Does anyone think the Redskins won't be better this year with McNabb at QB? Wait, it's a new system, though. If the Redskins end up better than the 4-12 they were last year with new coaches, a new scheme, and a new veteran QB (like the Broncos last year), then it pretty much invalidates this poll.

It's so much more than just the choices above. It's a completely loaded poll. It's like asking which is more... a ton of feathers or a ton of lead. Technically, you could argue either one or neither and be right based on the context. I can guarantee you that the Redskins (who are identical to option 1) will be better than the Rams (who more closely mimic option 2 if Bradford starts), but might not be better than the Panthers assuming Claussen gets the start because of the Panthers' other attributes (dominant running game, solid defense).

TXBRONC
07-10-2010, 08:12 PM
This poll doesn't put jack or shit to bed.

TXBRONC
07-10-2010, 08:16 PM
On top of that. The Rams could bring in a QB like Tom Brady or Peyton Manning and go .500 or better without changing the scheme or the rest of the team just because of what those guys bring to the table.

Does anyone think the Redskins won't be better this year with McNabb at QB? Wait, it's a new system, though. If the Redskins end up better than the 4-12 they were last year with new coaches, a new scheme, and a new veteran QB (like the Broncos last year), then it pretty much invalidates this poll.

It's so much more than just the choices above. It's a completely loaded poll. It's like asking which is more... a ton of feathers or a ton of lead. Technically, you could argue either one or neither and be right based on the context. I can guarantee you that the Redskins (who are identical to option 1) will be better than the Rams (who more closely mimic option 2 if Bradford starts), but might not be better than the Panthers assuming Claussen gets the start because of the Panthers' other attributes (dominant running game, solid defense).

Exactly it's all about the circumstances.

Tned
07-10-2010, 08:18 PM
On top of that. The Rams could bring in a QB like Tom Brady or Peyton Manning and go .500 or better without changing the scheme or the rest of the team just because of what those guys bring to the table.

Does anyone think the Redskins won't be better this year with McNabb at QB? Wait, it's a new system, though. If the Redskins end up better than the 4-12 they were last year with new coaches, a new scheme, and a new veteran QB (like the Broncos last year), then it pretty much invalidates this poll.

It's so much more than just the choices above. It's a completely loaded poll. It's like asking which is more... a ton of feathers or a ton of lead. Technically, you could argue either one or neither and be right based on the context. I can guarantee you that the Redskins (who are identical to option 1) will be better than the Rams (who more closely mimic option 2 if Bradford starts), but might not be better than the Panthers assuming Claussen gets the start because of the Panthers' other attributes (dominant running game, solid defense).

After reading UD29's post, I understand what the goal of the loaded poll was. I assumed, he was asking which would have the most positive effect on a team, such as getting them to the playoffs/winning it all/etc.

In reality, this goes back to his ongoing defense of the collapse last year, and tries to claim that anyone being 'honest' will say that changing the scheme, players, coach will have a bigger negative effect on the team.

Granted, that's a given, but should have been just stated, rather than the round about rambling trying to prove his point and insult at the same time.

Dirk
07-10-2010, 08:29 PM
New everything is always worse than 1 piece. There is just no "gelling" at the offstart.

TXBRONC
07-10-2010, 08:33 PM
New everything is always worse than 1 piece. There is just no "gelling" at the offstart.

I disagree I think it depends on the circumstance.

dogfish
07-10-2010, 10:09 PM
On top of that. The Rams could bring in a QB like Tom Brady or Peyton Manning and go .500 or better without changing the scheme or the rest of the team just because of what those guys bring to the table.

Does anyone think the Redskins won't be better this year with McNabb at QB? Wait, it's a new system, though. If the Redskins end up better than the 4-12 they were last year with new coaches, a new scheme, and a new veteran QB (like the Broncos last year), then it pretty much invalidates this poll.

It's so much more than just the choices above. It's a completely loaded poll. It's like asking which is more... a ton of feathers or a ton of lead. Technically, you could argue either one or neither and be right based on the context. I can guarantee you that the Redskins (who are identical to option 1) will be better than the Rams (who more closely mimic option 2 if Bradford starts), but might not be better than the Panthers assuming Claussen gets the start because of the Panthers' other attributes (dominant running game, solid defense).

this, pretty much. . . it's just way too vague to really come up with a definitive answer. . . our defense last year had a lot of vets from different teams and schemes, and they came together really quickly and played kick-ass ball right out of the gate. . . you never know. . .

ultimately though, i don't want either of those situations. . . arguing about what mcD accomplished last year is fine, but i'm much more concerned with what he does over the next several. . . his job's to get us to a situation where we aren't dealing with either of those scenarios any more than necessary. . . you can only keep so many guys together for so long, but successful franchises have stability and depth, and a lot of the taking the rough edges off new guys happens on the practice field and in the film room, and because you have an established scheme you're able to find guys that fit it and have a good chance of making the transition. . .

although last year was actually a truly bizarre combination of glorious and hideous, the totality of the end reult was just blah. . . good ol' mediocrity-- which, whether you consider it "acceptable" or not for a first year, is very commonly the result. . .

last year will only matter to mcD if it's repeated-- especially if he hangs around and it's repeated multiple times. . .

Northman
07-10-2010, 10:22 PM
but successful franchises have stability and depth,

Absolutely.

topscribe
07-10-2010, 10:28 PM
After reading UD29's post, I understand what the goal of the loaded poll was. I assumed, he was asking which would have the most positive effect on a team, such as getting them to the playoffs/winning it all/etc.

In reality, this goes back to his ongoing defense of the collapse last year, and tries to claim that anyone being 'honest' will say that changing the scheme, players, coach will have a bigger negative effect on the team.

Granted, that's a given, but should have been just stated, rather than the round about rambling trying to prove his point and insult at the same time.

Yes, he was trying to prove a point. But I didn't notice any rambling. I thought
he got right to the point. And to say he was trying to insult is your guess.

-----

atwater27
07-10-2010, 11:18 PM
Sounds like a hastily made poll made in anger to try to prove a cheap point, but instead falling flat and exposing a vicious bias.

Lonestar
07-11-2010, 12:45 AM
All to predictable.

All of those invested in Josh and KO are bums rush to the. Side of the indefensible.

That a complete change in everthing has to be less chances of winning more games Than one change in the Team.


The lame arguement that the D was ok really forget that D is awhol lot complaex than offenss are.

For the most part almost every teams Defense. Always strats out faster then the offense does.

Ususally take 4-6 games for the O to catch up and be in sync unless of course neither have have changes in personell.

But again

Blame the messenger and call it bias on my part opposed to be logical and hold on to your misguided beliefs.

On this folks I am correct.

Everybody new vs one guy new there HAVE to be more break downs in consistency with 11 than 1.

Some are just to proud to admit it while others are to invested in their favorites.

Night night

Ahahahahahahahahaha I knew.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Tned
07-11-2010, 01:25 AM
All to predictable.

All of those invested in Josh and KO are bums rush to the. Side of the indefensible.

That a complete change in everthing has to be less chances of winning more games Than one change in the Team.


The lame arguement that the D was ok really forget that D is awhol lot complaex than offenss are.

For the most part almost every teams Defense. Always strats out faster then the offense does.

Ususally take 4-6 games for the O to catch up and be in sync unless of course neither have have changes in personell.

But again

Blame the messenger and call it bias on my part opposed to be logical and hold on to your misguided beliefs.

On this folks I am correct.

Everybody new vs one guy new there HAVE to be more break downs in consistency with 11 than 1.

Some are just to proud to admit it while others are to invested in their favorites.

Night night

Ahahahahahahahahaha I knew.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

You weren't at all clear in what you were asking or trying to prove. It's much easier for someone to be 'honest' if they know what they are being asked about.

Your poorly written poll and attempt to denigrate all that disagree with you aside, you are correct as to the impact on a team.

There is no question that replacing roughly 1/2 of the starters and something close to 2/3 of the roster will have a much greater negative impact on a teams ability to win as compared to putting a rookie QB in an established scheme full of veterans or others familiar with the scheme.

Tempus Fugit
07-11-2010, 02:00 AM
The question has too many variables to answer with the two options provided. For instance:

Give me example 2 and Tom Brady, and the transition will be relatively seamless.

Give me example 2 and JaMarcus Russell, and you've got disaster on your hands.

Lonestar
07-11-2010, 02:50 AM
You weren't at all clear in what you were asking or trying to prove. It's much easier for someone to be 'honest' if they know what they are being asked about.

Your poorly written poll and attempt to denigrate all that disagree with you aside, you are correct as to the impact on a team.

There is no question that replacing roughly 1/2 of the starters and something close to 2/3 of the roster will have a much greater negative impact on a teams ability to win as compared to putting a rookie QB in an established scheme full of veterans or others familiar with the scheme.

Well color me embarassed. By admin like usual.

I had little agenda other than see where the fans LIE in the equation.

Seems that you got it with your final.

Comment.

35 new players scheme new to coaches and players

Will always be a bigger issue than replacing ONE player the QB regardless of who the QB is.

Trying to obiscate the issue with brady vs russel. Well one beat us like a drum last year the other lost to us. Hmmmmmmm

I always believe that simple questions are the easiest to answer.

Unless those that do not wish to be honest with themsleves

Or do not want to answer because the turth be known they could not answer the question in a public poll and still hold their positions with a straight face, and not be hypocrites.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Northman
07-11-2010, 09:21 AM
The question has too many variables to answer with the two options provided. For instance:

Give me example 2 and Tom Brady, and the transition will be relatively seamless.

Give me example 2 and JaMarcus Russell, and you've got disaster on your hands.


And for a guy who i normally dont agree with i do here as your right on the money which is what Tned was alluding too.