Go Back   New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com > Main > Saints
Shop Horizontal

Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; Please do me a favor and go to nfl.com and look at the 2002 Bucs stats, the 2001 Bucs stats and the 2001 Raiders stats. You will see that the Bucs offense spread the ball out way more than 2001 ...

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-15-2003, 11:01 PM   #21
Resident antediluvian
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,738
Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...

Please do me a favor and go to nfl.com and look at the 2002 Bucs stats, the 2001 Bucs stats and the 2001 Raiders stats. You will see that the Bucs offense spread the ball out way more than 2001 where a RB was the second leading reciever by 30 catches over the #2 and #3 WR. They had way more TE contributions, Alstott had way less carries than Pittman in 2002, while in 2001 he had way more than Dunn. He was used like the Raiders used Wheatley and Garner, not like the Bucs used Dunn and Alstott. They were much more spread in 2002. He brought in McCardell because he needed the Tim Brown look alike since Keyshawn was playing the Rice possession role. He also brought in Jurevicius because he wanted the Jerry Porter size mismatch at #3 WR. He also brought Ricky Dudley with him and got Dilger because his offense has the TE as a more recieving threat than the blocker role that Tampa used to use the TE in. Tampa used to use the TE primarily as a red zone reciever, while Gruden uses the TE more seam patterns.

Brad Johnson\'s yards per attempt raised last year to within 0.2 of Rich Gannon\'s 2001 stats. Much higher than they were in 2001 for Johnson.


Point: He tried to implement the Raiders offense.


[Edited on 16/6/2003 by lumm0x]
lumm0x is offline  
Old 06-16-2003, 08:58 AM   #22
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,209
Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...

Look at the number of pass attempts for the 2001 Raiders compard to the 2002 Bucs. The Raiders pass attempts were 549 to Tampas 451.

So while you compare individual stats and try to show me where he\'s using McCardell as Tim Brown and all the other comparisions, those players and the whole offense for the Bucs were not as talented as the raiders offense.

Because of that, Gruden could not throw the ball as much. He played more of a ball control offense and relied on the great Bucs D more. The simple fact is they did not throw as much as the raiders and they had many more opportunities because the Bucs defense got the ball back for the offense way more than the Raiders D ever did.

Sure, Gruden tried to implement his offense, but he knew the heart and soul of the Bucs was the defense. The Raiders offense struck fear in the heart of opposing defenses, if you think that\'s what the Bucs offense looked like, you entitled to your opinion. I disagree.
BillyCarpenter1 is offline  
Old 06-16-2003, 10:30 AM   #23
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Orlando,FL
Posts: 1,368
Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...

lummox...i was scanning the posts to see if anyone mentioned the Williams move....good call.....replace the player who better fits the scheme
subguy is offline  
Old 06-16-2003, 10:53 AM   #24
Resident antediluvian
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,738
Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...

All of this was to try to say one thing.....a coach designs a system and tries to fit players into it. A coach doesn\'t get a bunch of players and try to make a system that exploits their talents. The players that are there are there only because they can mesh into that system. The system is only so adaptable. I concede that Gruden bent his system somewhat, but it was clearly a more diverse Gruden offense than when Dungy coached.
Spurrier came to the Skins and installed his offense. Granted is wasn\'t successful. Vermiel went to K.C. and implemented his offense rather than the Schottenheimer/Cunningham handoff.
lumm0x is offline  
Old 06-16-2003, 10:59 AM   #25
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,209
Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...

Lummox,


What I am trying to say if you have a system in place and you get a player that his stengths do not fit into your system, you change your system somewhat to that player. Not throw your whole system out the window for that one player.
BillyCarpenter1 is offline  
Old 06-16-2003, 11:07 AM   #26
Resident antediluvian
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,738
Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...

I agree with you. Just to clarify that then....you run a ground and pound ball control offense and you have an injuryto your running back. The free agency has two equally talented running backs available (with different talents). Do you go after Charlie Garner or do you go after Corey Dillon? You get players that fit your system.

If you are a coach that walks into a new system you try to adapt the players in the direction of your method. If you have a system in place, you try to upgrade positions with guys that will fit the mold you need best. No team will go after a player that clearly doesn\'t fit the system unless they see the need to change direction.

I see we both have valid points, we just sit on opposite sides of a fence here. You feel the game is geared more around the ability of the players, while I see the players abilities are geared more around the systems they play in. No harm in either.

Damn, I trying to control my profanity now because of Gatorman. What a bad influence he was.
lumm0x is offline  
Old 06-16-2003, 11:11 AM   #27
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,209
Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...

You don\'t purposly go after a player that doesn\'t fit into your system I agree that you want players that can execute your sytem first but you have to be flexiable.
BillyCarpenter1 is offline  
Old 06-16-2003, 12:08 PM   #28
Resident antediluvian
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,738
Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...

Actually I just went back to review the team stats, rather than the individual. They are as follows:

The 2001 Raiders rushed the ball 43 more times than the 2001 Bucs. The 2002 Bucs also rushed the ball more than the 2001 Bucs. The 2001 Raiders threw the ball 40 less times than the 2001 Bucs. The 2002 Bucs also threw the ball less than the 2001 Bucs. The 2001 Raiders had the ball in offensive possession less than the 2001 Bucs. The 2002 Bucs had the ball in offensive possession less than the 2001 Bucs. The 2001 Raiders rushed the tailback almost 2 to 1 over the full back. The 2002 Bucs rushed the tailback almost 2 to 1 over the fullback. The 2001 Bucs rushed the ball to the full back over tailback. The 2001 Bucs had the #1 WR account for nearly 63% of WR receptions. The #2 WR accounted for 21% of WR receptions and the #3 had 14 %. The 2001 Raiders #1 WR accounted for 47% of WR catches, the #2 WR had 43 % of WR catches, and the #3 had 10 %. The 2002 Bucs had the #1 WR make 43%, the #2 made 43 % and the #3 made 25%.

So rather than look at individuals, the team stats show that they transformed the offense in the direction quite heavily towards the way Gruden likes the carries and catches split up. He didn\'t say, gee, Keyshawn Johnson is head and shoulders more talented than the #2 and #3 WR and capable of catching 63% of the passes. My system calls for the #1 reciever to line up in a shifting slot and recieve less than 50% of the throws. The 2002 Bucs also accounted for WR TD\'s in the following manner #1-5/#2-6/#3-4. The 2001 Raiders did it #1-9/#2-9/#3-3. The 2001 Bucs did it #1-1/#2-1/#3-1. That\'s right the top three WR for the 2001 Bucs had a combined 3 TD catches.

What looks more alike? The 2001 and 2002 Bucs, or the 2001 Raiders and the 2002 Bucs. Plays were created to exploit the talents of the individuals. The system was created to distribute the game plan to Gruden\'s style. Gruden implemented his offense and, yes, I\'ve watched the game film, probably two or three times each game more than you have. Just to let you know, I\'m a football freak and I have it set up where I get every game recorded. Every game. I watch the 2002 year all offseason, over and over. I live football, I can\'t not watch it. I\'ve seen every game from last year at least twice. The 2002 Bucs more resemble the 2001 Raiders than they do the 2001 Bucs in offensive style. You go watch some film. Are you basing your knowledge of these two teams on the fact that you saw probably 6 total games in which one of them appeared last year? YOu bet your ass Gruden started to toy it up a bit in the playoffs and especially the Super Bowl. The win came down to the fact that he knew more about Callahan and the Raiders than they knew about him.
lumm0x is offline  
Old 06-16-2003, 12:23 PM   #29
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,209
Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...

Is that suppose to impress me? You can throw all of that out there you want, but I\'m telling you he changed his systmem SOMEWHAT to his players.


LummOx,

You know your stuff. It\'s just when I watch Tampa\'s offense, they look nothing like the Raiders too me.

[Edited on 16/6/2003 by BillyCarpenter1]
BillyCarpenter1 is offline  
Old 06-16-2003, 12:47 PM   #30
Resident antediluvian
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,738
Just to beat the Brooks debate to death...

Billy, I\'m not trying to impress you. I\'m trying to show you, by using statistics and factual evidence, my position on a debate. I\'m providing names of players that support my arguements, data that was generated as a result of a football game, and my own personal insights into the arguement. You have responded with nothing, but repeating your opinion. When two people have a debate, they take a side in a question and defend their position with stuff like this. Your side of the debate is: \"well, that\'s not what I see!\".

Then show me what you see. Just because the two teams have different colors and the names are different, if you transparencied the formations and alot of the plays as they transpired, you see Gruden offense. Gruden runs alot of formations and plays in Tampa that he ran in Oakland. He uses different players and mixes up where they line up and what diversions he uses to generate the same play. Of course he uses the players that have the best ability to exploit that play. But he uses the play. And he uses the play with a variety of players. The 2001 Bucs had two plays that stood out and that was run Alstott, force the ball to wherever Keyshawn is, and the screen to Dunn. I\'m really generalizing that, but they were less dimensional in 2001, and they became much more balanced in 2002. You said that Oakland throws it all over. Yes they do and so did the 2002 Bucs. They spread the ball around more, ran more TE seams, ran more multi-wide crosses and more outs. Alot of that looked like dink and dunk, but it was the same thing as Oakland in a shorter work space. When you learn something you start small and work big. They were preparing the plays in short space and gradually making them intermediate routes. I could clearly see that across the course of 2002.

Back up your side with something. I\'m just debating you on a topic, not insulting you. You need something substantial in here.
lumm0x is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:45 AM.


Copyright 1997 - 2013 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts