Changing the play at the line

by sunny D on Aug 12, 2008 4:37 PM CDT

CROYLE: "I would say out of 16 plays we probably had seven or eight that we had the ability to change it. So that’s eight more than we had all of last season combined... It just kind of makes sense. If you go up there and they have eight guys in the box and you only have seven people to block them, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to run the football. That’s where Chan getting us into one-on-ones comes into play, you know, checking to the pass. If they’re playing cover two zone, run the ball at them, that’s your best chance. It’s just kind of stuff that makes sense.

Duh... (I believe the reference to "16 plays" were the ones he QBed in the opening preseason game, btw.)

Why can't common sense be more common? Did Solari think calling two plays in the huddle would be too complicated for men whose full-time job is playing football? I realize the use of personnel packages limits the playbook when you get up to the line. But sheesh!

Sometimes I think the coaches who are determined to play tough football refuse to use any kind of misdirection or "finesse" just because they want to prove they're not pansies. It's like, "Here's the play we're going to run. We're going to prove that we can execute it even if you know what we're going to do." You play to win the game, and if that can be accomplished with a little legal deception -- go for it! Being tough and being creative are not mutually exlusive strategies.

Thank you, Chan, for being man enough to wear socks with your sandals, and for mixing up the plays to confuse the defense while still being tough! Block quote from Q & A with Brodie 8/12.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Arrowhead Pride's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Arrowhead Pride writers or editors.

0 recs | Comment 15 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Audibles

Well you can’t really blame Solari for them not having audibles. That was just the way Saunders and Vermeil set the offense up. With all the shifts and motions changing the play midstream would have created some problems. Theoretically it wasn’t supposed to matter what the defense did .

But I like the common sense approach we have now much better.

by ChiefDJ on Aug 12, 2008 5:49 PM CDT 0 recs

Reason for the motion?

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I always thought the biggest reason to have a man in motion was to help the QB identify what kind of defense they were playing on that play. More of a zone coverage or more man? i.e. who followed the guy in motion?

Shifiting guys from one side to the other after coming to the line was also intended to create mismatches and possibly disguise a play, I assumed. Motion can also move a defender away from the ball. So I like motion. But if it complicates things to the point that some athletically talented players can’t get into the game because they can’t remember everything, and if it kills the ability to call audibles—I’d rather have the ability to call the audible and get out of a bad play.

by sunny D on Aug 13, 2008 5:08 PM CDT up 0 recs

The game has changed... even since the late 90's

Defenses are getting smarter and better at disguising packages. Gunther mentioned it in his interview with Gretz even. I think if at this point, you don’t have the ability to change a play, or at least make a defense think you’ve changed a play, you’re at a serious disadvantage. I think that if you can’t trust your QB to read the defense and make an appropriate change at the line, then maybe you’ve got the wrong QB leading the team.

The shifts and motion were all good and well for Vermiel/Saunders for a while… but what else probably hurt Solari is that by the the time he was calling those plays, everybody in the league had seen them for years. No degree of shifting and motion matters when it’s the same shift and motion you’ve been doing forever. Defenses are too smart to fall for that crap anymore. With the new intercom to a defensive player from the sideline, it would be even less potent.

I like what Chan is doing so far.

by Ochophosphate on Aug 12, 2008 5:58 PM CDT 0 recs

Not to mention a different o-line than Saunders had.

by Eric Allen on Aug 12, 2008 6:59 PM CDT 0 recs

At one time

we could do this

“Here’s the play we’re going to run. We’re going to prove that we can execute it even if you know what we’re going to do.”

When we had Roaf, Waters, Weigmann, Shields, and anybody, we could point to the damn hole we were running through before we snapped the ball. not anymore

by PVChiefsfan on Aug 12, 2008 7:32 PM CDT 0 recs

Hell they even made welbourne look good!

I wpuld love to have that kind of line back, even today with the advance in defenses we would still destroy them! Hopefully these are not chronic foot/ankle problems with BA, maybe he is the next Roaf!

by Eric Allen on Aug 12, 2008 9:07 PM CDT up 0 recs

Welbourn Was Solid

He just wasn’t great, and so he got old and terrible a lot faster than guys like Shields or Roaf. Unfortunately for us, it happened in a year when we needed him to still be solid.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Aug 12, 2008 9:31 PM CDT up 0 recs

In camp practices, the Chiefs quarterbacks have handled the play calling at the line of scrimmage maybe 15 to 20 percent of the snaps. I say "appeared" because worked into the whole scheme are some fakes. There are times when the Chiefs quarterbacks will rise up at the line of scrimmage and start yelling signals and it’s all meaningless; just something more for the defense to think about.

Glad to hear that sometime the apparent audible is a fake. Lessons from Peyton.

by sunny D on Aug 14, 2008 10:30 AM CDT 0 recs