If I remember correctly, our offensive playbook was supposedly large and complex. Encyclopedia sized even. This brings me to four observations/questions:

  1. was it too complex and should have been 'dumbed' down?
  2. Why the hell did we only ever see the same 5 plays
  3. Was it that there were too many plays or the plays themselves were too complex
  4. Will the recent coaching changes mean that other items from that playbook will be used?

Running plays are fine.

We just need to be able to provide pass protection in order to see what the passing game might look like.

Naw the playbook isnt that big but its a nice size.

The only hard part about the playbook is its Terminology

In the press conference, Coach B talked about moving to a more "assignment friendly" approach. Presumably this means the players will be required to make fewer reads. Maybe this along with his talk about passion and intensity means that he thinks players have been playing hesitantly due to the complexity of the schemes?

The "encyclopedia" was Taaffe's playbook -- it was referred to in a Peters article in The Spec last year.

We have largely been using Bellefeuille's this year with some Taaffese blended in and I suspect it is somewhat bigger than a last will and testament with similar results. :wink:

To answer your specifics:

  1. It is cute, predictable, and couldn't be dumbed down any more than the idea of running a 5-WR base set with receivers who can't read zones, adjust their routes to blitzes, or are otherwise invisible basketball rebounders by default.
  2. See no. 1. It's 5 basic plays, so it doesn't need much dumbing down, right?
  3. See no. 1. Actually the "allowing your QB to be road grated by refusing to reinforce the O-line sieve" by an extra backfield protector is an added twist.
  4. It will be the same playbook, unless Danny Mac can hide Marcel's Crayolas.

You're welcome. :wink:

Oski Wee Wee,

I don't think the playbook is all that bad. Certainly not as bad as you might suggest.

If I remember correctly, when Taaffe was hired he talked about bringing in a zone blocking scheme for the Oline. Now, my understanding is that that a zone blocking Oline can be very effective (see Denver Broncos), but is also very complicated and requires accurate and effective reads by all members of the line.

Perhaps this is why we have such problems on the line. Perhaps a team made from young players (Dyakowski, Hage, Cavka) and bad players (Woodard) have been unable to grasp the complexities of this scheme.

Of course, this is all conjecture. But who knows. This team and it's decisions are a mystery to me.

Actually, a zone blocking scheme works most efficiently when one has a preponderance of blockers engaged at the LOS. We have five blockers (O-line) and usually some blocks off the slot on off-tackle plays. The guys are capable of run blocking off the spread when they have to respect play action (the zone read option being the best thing we have to keep OLBs honest). However, BC simply didn't back their guys off, so you're running five blockers against seven or sometimes eight. Unless the QBs and receivers can read these blitzes or throw over an in-tight safety or DB, it can make us one-dimensional.

Pass protection is a far greater concern. Again, relying on the singleback to chip block and then release out puts added pressure on the QB to get the ball out, often facing one or more onrushing opponents coming in unabated.

Troy Davis's chip blocks were KO shots...Jesse and Terry? Not so much.

Running a 5-pack WR base set has its inherent weaknesses. Unless you have the talent to quickly hit in open areas vacated by attacking defenders, you're risking what we've seen. Either you adjust and have a dedicated blocking back for the passing game or you risk having your QBs road grated.

Defences do not feel like the Cats can burn them enough in the passing game. We have to move the pocket, make our QB attack the LOS on rollouts, use misdirection, screens and play action, etc. to keep them off-balance.

Perhaps we don't have the talent to win. But at least we could give ourselves a fighting chance by being balanced and using more cunning than the recent output. The schedule is getting tougher, the quality of defences should also be stronger. We need to sustain drives, control the clock, and take pressure off our already-embattled defence.

Time will tell. If Marcel allows Danny Mac to have more gameplanning input, things could get better. We'll see.

Oski Wee Wee,