PDA

View Full Version : What 54 passes tell us about Brock Osweiler



VonDoom
11-18-2015, 09:44 AM
Andy Benoit looks at all of Osweiler's NFL film for this article. He's not particularly high on him as a QB. It's worth a read anyway - there's some good stuff towards the end about how he will be used this week:


On the plus side, the Broncos probably have the right skill-players to expand the zone scheme. Running back Ronnie Hillman is quick and C.J. Anderson plays with the center of balance needed for strong one-cuts. On the receiving side, tight end Owen Daniels has spent his career in this scheme under Kubiak with the Texans and Ravens, while wideouts Demaryius Thomas and Emmanuel Sanders are proficient on crossing patterns. We’ve already seen many variations of these concepts in Denver’s system with Manning, both this year and in previous years under coordinator Adam Gase, who is now coordinating Chicago’s offense.

The zone scheme would put Osweiler on the move. The beauty is that the types of throws that blossom here don’t require great arm strength. Kubiak, you might recall, had a lot of success coaching Matt Schaub. When you move the quarterback or the pocket, the field effectively slices in half. (Quarterbacks don’t throw back across the field, away from their rollout, unless it’s a designed throw against the grain.) Thus, there are fewer reads and simpler either/or decisions to sort through. This can be especially helpful for a quarterback whose first NFL start is coming on the road against his former coach. John Fox is one of the few people in the league who is familiar with the specifics of Osweiler’s weaknesses. You can bet Fox and defensive coordinator Vic Fangio will confer with Gase (Osweiler’s former position coach) and gather the exact schematic wrinkles that Osweiler will least want to see.

The simpler the reads in Denver’s game plan, the less vulnerable Osweiler will be. That said, not every drop-back can feature moving pockets—especially since the offense hasn’t extensively practiced for that this season. As is the case in every NFL game, Osweiler will find himself in third-and-long situations, which demand crisp throws from a crowded pocket. Expect the Broncos to rely on the shorter catch-and-run type throws they’ve already built much of their passing game around. Since they’re facing a Bears’ defense that is predominantly zone-based, those will actually be catch-and-sit throws in the coverage’s natural holes. It will be important to use spread formations that space out the defenders, which will clarify the reads so Osweiler can better anticipate the voids.

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/11/18/nfl-brock-osweiler-denver-broncos-gary-kubiak-peyton-manning

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
11-18-2015, 11:39 AM
Everything he says makes sense, except for the comments about arm strength.

Brock has a cannon, but sometimes he tries to put too much touch on the ball.

tomjonesrocks
11-18-2015, 11:59 AM
Yeah, I'm not sure what "pushing, not driving the ball" means either. Os from every scouting report I've read on him has near-elite arm strength.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
11-18-2015, 12:05 PM
Yeah, I'm not sure what "pushing, not driving the ball" means either. Os from every scouting report I've read on him has near-elite arm strength.

I understood that to mean he doesn't step into some of his throws, which is true.

BroncoJoe
11-18-2015, 12:07 PM
It's clearly a biased column, and he conveniently cherry picks some stats.

Oh well - hopefully Oz shows us what's he's got. For better or worse.

Buff
11-18-2015, 12:16 PM
He did sort of float a seam route last week that could have been delivered with more authority, so maybe I understand what he's getting at.

But my biggest concern is not around his physical tools - my concern is that he doesn't fully grasp where to take shots and where to play it safe. I worry about him making the big mistake because the moment is too big for him, the game is moving too fast. Again, I think back to 4th down last week where the guy was anything but cool & collected.

Was listening to Louis Riddick earlier this week, and he said they interviewed Brock when he was in the Eagles front office at the combine, and their concern was not with his physical tools - he said he doesn't think Brock is capable of being the guy the Broncos need to lead them.

So honestly - I am higher on the prospects of Siemian than I am Brock - but we've gotta at least see what Brock has I suppose.

underrated29
11-18-2015, 12:20 PM
I havent seen brock throw one pass as soft as manning. I think we will be fine, perhaps better.

Northman
11-18-2015, 12:28 PM
So honestly - I am higher on the prospects of Siemian than I am Brock - but we've gotta at least see what Brock has I suppose.

I think my only contention with you here is that i dont think we know anymore about Siemian than we do about Brock. Most if not all of Siemian's work has been with 2nd and 3rd stringers at this point so im skeptical that he can be (especially right now) any better than Brock at this point.

MasterShake
11-18-2015, 12:41 PM
Going to be a really interesting game for sure. I hope we see him line up under center more to see if the run game is affected positively from that standpoint. My biggest knock on Brock is that in the preseason his passes always seemed to get tipped at the line. Could be a throwing motion thing but I don't know what the hell I am talking about when it comes to being an NFL quarterback.

I mostly just think it will be funny if he outplays Jay Cutler. It would be kind of a weird closure to all the drama that led us to where we are Sunday in a roundabout way.

Ravage!!!
11-18-2015, 01:28 PM
Wait... hold ON

He wasn't cool and collected in his first REAL playing time.... on the day Manning got the record for most passing yards...after his mentor just threw 4 INTs... in a division game.... in a division game where we were down and he had to come in and REPLACE Peyton? Noooooo way.

NightTrainLayne
11-18-2015, 01:33 PM
I think the analysis is decent for the limited amount of snaps he had to work with.

I too think he is short-changing Brock's arm strength, but nevertheless Benoit seems to think it is adequate.

One big plus I think we have is Kubiak and his system. It worked wonders for Jake Plummer who was never a great decision maker. By cutting the field in half, and having just one or two relatively easy reads will be a big plus for Osweiler, and take a lot of pressure off of his plate.

I just wonder how quickly, or how long it will take to transition the play-book back to something resembling what Kubiak really likes to do vs. Manning's? And do we even start transitioning much if we plan on Manning being back in 2-3 weeks?

tripp
11-18-2015, 01:34 PM
How can you really read anything on 54 passes?

Would like to see CJ and Ronnie be used more in back field for screens. Check downs work too. Brock using his legs for short yardage gains as well. Crossing routes, and the odd bomb to DT.

I've been a big advocate for Peyton to start once healthy, but man I don't think I've been this excited for a game since the beginning of the season.

VonDoom
11-18-2015, 01:52 PM
I think the analysis is decent for the limited amount of snaps he had to work with.

I too think he is short-changing Brock's arm strength, but nevertheless Benoit seems to think it is adequate.

One big plus I think we have is Kubiak and his system. It worked wonders for Jake Plummer who was never a great decision maker. By cutting the field in half, and having just one or two relatively easy reads will be a big plus for Osweiler, and take a lot of pressure off of his plate.

I just wonder how quickly, or how long it will take to transition the play-book back to something resembling what Kubiak really likes to do vs. Manning's? And do we even start transitioning much if we plan on Manning being back in 2-3 weeks?

That last part is really the biggest question, isn't it? How much has the offense practiced the Kubiak system in recent weeks? This week will probably be a big cram session. The Manning issue will be there every week, so they're just going to have to deal with it on a week to week basis and game plan accordingly. Should keep everyone on their toes anyway.

VonDoom
11-18-2015, 03:38 PM
I also found this piece over on Thin Air:


With Osweiler, all of Kubiak’s formations will be in play. As I’ve already discussed, the running game will be the biggest beneficiary of this luxury. I expect to see a large increase in the number of snaps taken from under center, but I also expect to see a number of tight formations, many with multiple TEs. That will likely provide a boost to the running game, but it should also open up possibilities in the passing game. For instance, don’t be surprised to see a 3 TE set, including Vernon Davis, Owen Daniels and Virgil Green. The extra blockers will obviously be helpful on running plays, but with the defense likely countering a 3 TE set with “big” personnel packages on their side of the ball, the formation could be used to create a speed mismatch with Vernon Davis beating the defense downfield.


I’m referring to the sum total of these new possibilities as “The Osweiler Effect,” and I expect every player on the offense to benefit from the change at QB. Now, and this is important to note, I do not expect all of these changes will be immediate, nor do I expect Osweiler will execute Kubiak’s offense perfectly from his first snap. But understanding the offense has greatly underperformed in 2015, it’s not unrealistic at all to assume significant offensive improvement is on the horizon for these Broncos. It’s no doubt a controversial position, especially in Broncos’ Country, but Brock Osweiler gives the Broncos the best chance to win right now.

http://in-thinair.com/2015/11/18/the-osweiler-effect/

BroncoJoe
11-18-2015, 03:49 PM
MO's head is going to explode because operating under center is actually better than the pistol or shotgun for the running game and play-action.

ChairmanBron
11-18-2015, 05:03 PM
I also found this piece over on Thin Air:





http://in-thinair.com/2015/11/18/the-osweiler-effect/

Someone linked this article on that site. If Kubiak's installation of plays are similar, I hope Brock comprehends it all...




A Quarterback and His Game Plan, Part I: Five Days to Learn 171 Plays

Carson Palmer and the Arizona Cardinals allowed The MMQB inside the installation of the game plan for their Week 8 meeting with the Browns. How does a QB absorb and apply so much complexity—nearly 200 plays, plus all of their possible permutations and adjustments—in less than a week? Commitment and confidence help—and so does virtual reality...
Read more here.
http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/11/17/nfl-carson-palmer-arizona-cardinals-inside-game-plan

VonDoom
11-18-2015, 06:08 PM
Someone linked this article on that site. If Kubiak's installation of plays are similar, I hope Brock comprehends it all...



Read more here.
http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/11/17/nfl-carson-palmer-arizona-cardinals-inside-game-plan

Saw that article this morning. Really great look at what players and coaches do each week to prepare. Much more complex than I had thought on a weekly basis

I Eat Staples
11-18-2015, 07:32 PM
MO's head is going to explode because operating under center is actually better than the pistol or shotgun for the running game and play-action.

Except, statistically, it's not.

Simple Jaded
11-18-2015, 11:13 PM
Russ Landy was on with Narcissist Lamme and he's really high on Osweiler.

Also, you can add his name to the billions of people who accept the fact that running anything but draws from Shitgun sucks ass.

MOtorboat
11-19-2015, 01:57 AM
Except, statistically, it's not.

The Seahawks have a more effective running game from the shotgun.

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2014/12/14/7386497/seahawks-2014-offense-from-under-center-and-shotgun

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
11-19-2015, 09:36 AM
The Seahawks have a more effective running game from the shotgun.

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2014/12/14/7386497/seahawks-2014-offense-from-under-center-and-shotgun

How much do you think the threat of Russel running out of the spread option has to do with that?

Northman
11-19-2015, 10:06 AM
How much do you think the threat of Russel running out of the spread option has to do with that?

That was kind of my thoughts as well.

NightTerror218
11-19-2015, 10:53 AM
I am hoping to see a rollout that gives Sanders extra time to get past a CB for deep pass.

MOtorboat
11-19-2015, 11:48 AM
How much do you think the threat of Russel running out of the spread option has to do with that?

If that were the only team that runs more effectively from shotgun than under center you might have a point.

BroncoJoe
11-19-2015, 11:57 AM
If that were the only team that runs more effectively from shotgun than under center you might have a point.

Not being confrontational, but have you posted stats that prove that? I don't recall, and when trying to do some digging couldn't find anything concrete.

VonDoom
11-19-2015, 11:59 AM
Another take on Osweiler (everyone wants to get in on the action this week) from Bucky Brooks:



Can the Broncos win the Super Bowl with Osweiler at quarterback?

Yes. The Broncos remain one of the best teams in the AFC, based on their top-ranked defense and the explosive offensive potential they have with a fully functional quarterback at the helm. Despite Manning's career accolades and remarkable achievements, the 39-year-old passer limited the Broncos' offense with his inability to push the ball down the field.

No, Osweiler has not started an NFL game up to this point. But he is a better fit for Kubiak's offense and gives the wily play caller the opportunity to utilize some of the misdirection movement passes that create headaches for defensive coordinators. Additionally, Osweiler's athleticism will force defensive ends to respect the bootleg, leading to better production from the Broncos' running game.

Given the importance of explosive plays and the running game when it comes to sustained playoff runs, the Broncos are actually better positioned to make a title run with the youngster at quarterback.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000582906/article/brock-osweiler-can-make-denver-broncos-offense-more-potent

MOtorboat
11-19-2015, 12:00 PM
Not being confrontational, but have you posted stats that prove that? I don't recall, and when trying to do some digging couldn't find anything concrete.

Yes. Last time I checked Denver was more effective running from the shotgun, but it's been a few weeks. It's not an easy stat to find, and I've had to calculate it myself. That just perpetuates the myth.

VonDoom
11-19-2015, 12:00 PM
Not being confrontational, but have you posted stats that prove that? I don't recall, and when trying to do some digging couldn't find anything concrete.

This question came up last year and I looked at a bunch of our games late in the season, when we went more "run heavy." I believe our rushing numbers were virtually identical from shotgun or under center. I don't know if there's anywhere to find those stats specifically for all teams, as I had to look play by play in the game books for our team.

BroncoJoe
11-19-2015, 12:13 PM
It's a conundrum.

MOtorboat
11-19-2015, 12:24 PM
It's a conundrum.

Not really.

BroncoJoe
11-19-2015, 12:32 PM
Not really.

There really is no proof either way.

MOtorboat
11-19-2015, 12:35 PM
There really is no proof either way.

Oh, but there is.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
11-19-2015, 12:40 PM
There are a lot of nuances to this, for example:
Is the defense in the nickel.

MOtorboat
11-19-2015, 12:51 PM
There are a lot of nuances to this, for example:
Is the defense in the nickel.

Because defenses are forbidden to line up in nickel formation when a quarterback is under center?

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
11-19-2015, 12:56 PM
Because defenses are forbidden to line up in nickel formation when a quarterback is under center?

Yes, that's 100% what I was implying.

BroncoJoe
11-19-2015, 01:02 PM
Oh, but there is.

Still waiting for it....

I Eat Staples
11-19-2015, 01:03 PM
How much do you think the threat of Russel running out of the spread option has to do with that?


There are a lot of nuances to this, for example:
Is the defense in the nickel.

These are both part of the point though, right? If you line up in the shotgun and spread the defense out, they HAVE to line up in nickel more and defend the pass. That creates more running lanes. Similarly, if you have a QB that can run, they have to respect the QB run/read option as well, which once again creates more running room for your back that wouldn't be there in a conventional I-formation. The latter is also why I believe that the NFL will evolve like college and pretty soon everyone will want a mobile QB, and will play from the Shotgun 90% of the time to utilize the zone-read game. The NFL always lags behind so it might take a while, but I think they'll get there.

So while your points are completely valid, all you're doing is explaining WHY shotgun running is more effective.

I Eat Staples
11-19-2015, 01:09 PM
Also...

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/fo-basics


Over the past five seasons, offenses have averaged 5.8 yards per play from Shotgun (not counting the Wildcat or other college-style option plays), but just 5.0 yards per play with the quarterback under center. This wide split exists even if you analyze the data to try to weed out biases like teams using Shotgun more often on third-and-long, or against prevent defenses in the fourth quarter. Shotgun offense is more efficient if you only look at the first half, on every down, and even if you only look at running back carries rather than passes and scrambles.

MOtorboat
11-19-2015, 01:37 PM
Still waiting for it....

I provided one very in depth analysis of it. I doubt you read even a sentence of it.

BroncoJoe
11-19-2015, 02:04 PM
I provided one very in depth analysis of it. I doubt you read even a sentence of it.

Was it a Joel type post? If so, probably not :)

Where is it?

MOtorboat
11-19-2015, 02:05 PM
Was it a Joel type post? If so, probably not :)

Where is it?

If you're not even going to pay attention, I'm not going to bother. Read the article I posted, Joe. Start there.

BroncoJoe
11-19-2015, 02:06 PM
If you're not even going to pay attention, I'm not going to bother. Read the article I posted, Joe. Start there.

I discount the Seattle offense. It doesn't apply to the entire league.

Where did you post it? I'll look, just point me in the right direction.

MOtorboat
11-19-2015, 02:21 PM
I discount the Seattle offense. It doesn't apply to the entire league.

Where did you post it? I'll look, just point me in the right direction.

Don't discount anything. Earlier in this thread. The last page, I believe.

MOtorboat
11-19-2015, 02:22 PM
The Seahawks have a more effective running game from the shotgun.

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2014/12/14/7386497/seahawks-2014-offense-from-under-center-and-shotgun

Here.

BroncoJoe
11-19-2015, 02:23 PM
Here.

That's JUST the Seahawks, which I will discount because of their QB and RB.

Rex
11-19-2015, 02:24 PM
I provided one very in depth analysis of it. I doubt you read even a sentence of it.

The paraprofessional that reads shit to him is on lunch break Mo

Yashahla17
11-20-2015, 01:12 AM
The Seahawks have a more effective running game from the shotgun.

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2014/12/14/7386497/seahawks-2014-offense-from-under-center-and-shotgun

Lol russell wilson is running that shit.

Yashahla17
11-20-2015, 01:14 AM
Another take on Osweiler (everyone wants to get in on the action this week) from Bucky Brooks:



http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000582906/article/brock-osweiler-can-make-denver-broncos-offense-more-potent

Those are some great words. Very true stuff.

MOtorboat
11-20-2015, 01:21 AM
Lol russell wilson is running that shit.

Read it. Then comment. Because the above comment means I know you didn't even bother to read.

slim
11-20-2015, 01:26 AM
Bucky Brooks has a column on NFL.com, but with different results.

Opinions are like midgets, every message board has one.

MOtorboat
11-20-2015, 03:16 AM
Broncos 2015:
Under center
49 attempts, 178 yards, 3.6 yards per carry. Average down and distance when run play called, 1.8-8.1.

Shotgun
138 attempts, 592 yards, 4.3 yards per carry. Average down and distance when run play called, 1.4-8.9.


Must be Manning running the spread option.

VonDoom
11-20-2015, 07:33 AM
Broncos 2015:
Under center
49 attempts, 178 yards, 3.6 yards per carry. Average down and distance when run play called, 1.8-8.1.

Shotgun
138 attempts, 592 yards, 4.3 yards per carry. Average down and distance when run play called, 1.4-8.9.


Must be Manning running the spread option.

I'm actually shocked we've run 49 running plays from under center. Were they all in the first two games?

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
11-20-2015, 09:10 AM
I'm actually shocked we've run 49 running plays from under center. Were they all in the first two games?

Most likely. Didn't we switch to the pistol in game 3?

Yashahla17
11-20-2015, 10:40 AM
I'm actually shocked we've run 49 running plays from under center. Were they all in the first two games?

Had to be manning hasn't really been under center since the lions game.

Yashahla17
11-20-2015, 10:41 AM
Broncos 2015:
Under center
49 attempts, 178 yards, 3.6 yards per carry. Average down and distance when run play called, 1.8-8.1.

Shotgun
138 attempts, 592 yards, 4.3 yards per carry. Average down and distance when run play called, 1.4-8.9.


Must be Manning running the spread option.

138 vs 49 and probably 98% of them 49 came in the first few weeks. The broncos wasn't going to run the ball at all from the lame pistol or under center with the hofer back there.

Ravage!!!
11-20-2015, 10:53 AM
138 vs 49 and probably 98% of them 49 came in the first few weeks. The broncos wasn't going to run the ball at all from the lame pistol or under center with the hofer back there.

what does this even say?

Yashahla17
11-20-2015, 11:00 AM
Google it bro.

MOtorboat
11-20-2015, 12:06 PM
138 vs 49 and probably 98% of them 49 came in the first few weeks. The broncos wasn't going to run the ball at all from the lame pistol or under center with the hofer back there.

This statement is false.

Have a nice day.

MOtorboat
11-20-2015, 12:07 PM
I'm actually shocked we've run 49 running plays from under center. Were they all in the first two games?

The majority, yes, but not all.

Cugel
11-20-2015, 03:14 PM
Wait... hold ON

He wasn't cool and collected in his first REAL playing time.... on the day Manning got the record for most passing yards...after his mentor just threw 4 INTs... in a division game.... in a division game where we were down and he had to come in and REPLACE Peyton? Noooooo way.

There's going to be a lot of that if Brock struggles you know.

And he will struggle, because he's totally inexperienced. He's like a guy who's crammed for his final exam for 4 years, but has never actually taken a single test.

Then he gets in the testing room, and theoretically knows all the answers, but the exam proctors (defensive coordinators) are trying to make him fail, and are constantly changing the questions to find some that he can't answer!

So the question becomes one of adjustment. How quickly can he adjust to what defenses are trying to do to him?

That will go a long way to determining whether he succeeds in the long term.

In the short term, whether he has success will depend on whether Denver can run the ball or not. If not, then he'll fail and they'll lose games. If yes, then he'll succeed.

Simple Jaded
11-21-2015, 11:58 PM
Yay, draw plays run against Nickel defenses, now that's football!