PDA

View Full Version : Hide the playbook, or show it all?



The Dark Knight
08-27-2007, 11:28 PM
Shanny has been known to "hide the playbook" by switching to conservative play calling after we get a good lead in a game. I guess he doesn't want to give opponents any idea of what we may do in a future game.

Do you agree withb that philosophy?

I actually used to believe in it, but lately I've been thinking that we should do the exact opposite approach.

In other words, we should show opposing teams EVERYTHING.

By showing them more plays, we make other teams have to prepare for more plays. I imagine it's far more difficult to prepare for 50 plays than it is for 5. It could lead to more confusion than we could create otherwise.

I don't know. Just a thought.

Denver Native (Carol)
08-27-2007, 11:33 PM
I agree that the more you show, the other team is not sure what to prepare for.

Broncos Mtnman
08-27-2007, 11:43 PM
Shanny has been known to "hide the playbook" by switching to conservative play calling after we get a good lead in a game. I guess he doesn't want to give opponents any idea of what we may do in a future game.

Do you agree withb that philosophy?

I actually used to believe in it, but lately I've been thinking that we should do the exact opposite approach.

In other words, we should show opposing teams EVERYTHING.

By showing them more plays, we make other teams have to prepare for more plays. I imagine it's far more difficult to prepare for 50 plays than it is for 5. It could lead to more confusion than we could create otherwise.

I don't know. Just a thought.

I'm not sure.

While there is something to be said about showing alot in order to give the opposing team alot to think about, there's also something to be said about hiding some things.

If you hide some of the playbook, you can surprise the opponent with something they've never seen.

I just want them to win, either way...

Tned
08-27-2007, 11:45 PM
Shanny has been known to "hide the playbook" by switching to conservative play calling after we get a good lead in a game. I guess he doesn't want to give opponents any idea of what we may do in a future game.

Do you agree withb that philosophy?

I actually used to believe in it, but lately I've been thinking that we should do the exact opposite approach.

In other words, we should show opposing teams EVERYTHING.

By showing them more plays, we make other teams have to prepare for more plays. I imagine it's far more difficult to prepare for 50 plays than it is for 5. It could lead to more confusion than we could create otherwise.

I don't know. Just a thought.

I think that he has gone into 'run out the clock' mode way to early in games. Last year was horrible, so throw that out. The previous two years the Broncos woudl get out to early leads, typically have a nice lead at half time and start running the clock out, only to often find the other team getting back in the game.

I say play like you want to win and like you want to score on every possession.

topscribe
08-28-2007, 06:08 AM
I think that he has gone into 'run out the clock' mode way to early in games. Last year was horrible, so throw that out. The previous two years the Broncos woudl get out to early leads, typically have a nice lead at half time and start running the clock out, only to often find the other team getting back in the game.

I say play like you want to win and like you want to score on every possession.
When one doesn't have a decent pass rush, I guess one had better play that
way. When the other team gets behind, they are going to start passing. That
is exactly what happened, and too many times they got back into the game
while we seemed to be trying to run out the clock.

So it we are going to pull in our reins and start running it up the gut, then we
had better be able to stop the other team from passing it down the field in
a hurry.

We haven't yet shown a consistent ability to do that this year, either.

-----

Tned
08-28-2007, 07:39 AM
When one doesn't have a decent pass rush, I guess one had better play that
way. When the other team gets behind, they are going to start passing. That
is exactly what happened, and too many times they got back into the game
while we seemed to be trying to run out the clock.

So it we are going to pull in our reins and start running it up the gut, then we
had better be able to stop the other team from passing it down the field in
a hurry.

We haven't yet shown a consistent ability to do that this year, either.

-----


Yep, and while we have had great running games the last handful of years, they have not really been run at will teams. Meaning, when the team new we were running, they often stopped us. The running success came when the runs, passes and play actions were mixed up.

When we decided to simply run the clock out, we wound up with a lot of three's and outs, or five's and out. IMO, Much better to play in the second half like you played to get the lead in the first place. The Broncos 'run out the clock' offense, is often the offensive equivalent of a prevent defense.

TXBRONC
08-28-2007, 07:42 AM
I think that he has gone into 'run out the clock' mode way to early in games. Last year was horrible, so throw that out. The previous two years the Broncos woudl get out to early leads, typically have a nice lead at half time and start running the clock out, only to often find the other team getting back in the game.

I say play like you want to win and like you want to score on every possession.

Top pointed out one issue of why Shanahan may have done that, but I also believe there were other issues besides lack of a pass rush.

Tned
08-28-2007, 08:10 AM
Top pointed out one issue of why Shanahan may have done that, but I also believe there were other issues besides lack of a pass rush.

Lack of confidence in the offense not turning over the ball?

TXBRONC
08-28-2007, 08:24 AM
Lack of confidence in the offense not turning over the ball?

Yeah you could put those on the list.

Fan in Exile
08-28-2007, 09:36 AM
Shanny has been known to "hide the playbook" by switching to conservative play calling after we get a good lead in a game. I guess he doesn't want to give opponents any idea of what we may do in a future game.

Do you agree withb that philosophy?

I actually used to believe in it, but lately I've been thinking that we should do the exact opposite approach.

In other words, we should show opposing teams EVERYTHING.

By showing them more plays, we make other teams have to prepare for more plays. I imagine it's far more difficult to prepare for 50 plays than it is for 5. It could lead to more confusion than we could create otherwise.

I don't know. Just a thought.

I agree with the hide the playbook philosophy. I say that because it forces the other team to prepare for a lot more. They may also guess incorrectly and prepare for the wrong thing. If you show the whole playbook then the opposing coach only has to plan for what he has seen.

If however you hide the playbook then the opposing coach has to plan for what he has seen and whatever he thinks you might do. This category is much bigger than the actual playbook.

arapaho2
08-28-2007, 10:21 AM
Shanny has been known to "hide the playbook" by switching to conservative play calling after we get a good lead in a game. I guess he doesn't want to give opponents any idea of what we may do in a future game.

Do you agree withb that philosophy?

I actually used to believe in it, but lately I've been thinking that we should do the exact opposite approach.

In other words, we should show opposing teams EVERYTHING.

By showing them more plays, we make other teams have to prepare for more plays. I imagine it's far more difficult to prepare for 50 plays than it is for 5. It could lead to more confusion than we could create otherwise.

I don't know. Just a thought.


i dont feel we should hide it at all...more like execute it and dare to teams to stop it...i have seen the broncos lose to many 1st half leads over the last three season to make it a close game or loss...no i say, if we can drive the last nail in the coffen then we should do so


another thing is with cutler, sheffler, walker marshell grahm and stokely on the passing side and henry on the ground...a team cannot say we are gonna concetrate on both, its either one or the other, stop the run , open the passing game, stop the pass , open the running game

no is say full bore all the way , every qrtr, every week...kinda like 98

in accuality there are very few plays that havent been seen any way, its all about execution

Retired_Member_001
08-28-2007, 11:28 AM
I don't think we should go conservative when we have a good lead but I don't think we should throw in some of the bigger plays. We should hide the playbook with all our big plays for when we really need them. There's no point wasting those unless we have to.

We shouldn't play too conservative but not too over enthusiastic. We should just play normally unless we are 28+ points up.

Sponsored Links