PDA

View Full Version : Is Roethlisberger the Steelers' Sack Problem?



fordfixer
06-15-2008, 12:27 AM
Is Roethlisberger the Steelers' Sack Problem?
Posted Jun 13th 2008 9:26AM by JJ Cooper
Filed under: Steelers, AFC North, Pittsburgh
http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/06/ ... -too-long/ (http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/06/13/does-roethlisberger-hold-onto-the-ball-too-long/)

This post is part of a series of posts that try to figure out who's to blame for the Steelers sack problems. The first story in the series listed how many sacks each lineman was responsible for. Now we're looking at how much of the blame can be put on quarterback Ben Roethlisberger. To get this data, I went back and rewatched all 53 sacks from the Steelers' 2007 season including the playoff game, logging the type of rush, the time it took for the defender to get to Roethlisberger, who was responsible and any mitigating factors.

If Sean Mahan has gotten the majority of the blame for the Steelers' sack problems from Steelers fans and media members, Ben Roethlisberger hasn't been far behind. The logic is that the Steelers' guarterback holds onto the ball so long that he turns incomplete passes into sacks.

It's hard to argue the point. We all have seen numerous plays where Roethlisberger has slipped out of a blitzing linebacker's grasp, scrambled to the outside and then found Hines Ward or others downfield. But we've also seen plays where he spotted a blitzing cornerback, figured he could break the tackle, and went down on the initial hit. There are plays where Roethlisberger hangs on to the ball, gets hit and taken down when a quarterback who's less of a gambler would have simply thrown the ball into the stands.
SACKS FROM
3-MAN RUSH
<3 seconds 1
3-4 seconds 2
4+ seconds 1
SACKS FROM
4-MAN RUSH
<3 seconds 15
3-4 seconds 9
4+ seconds 7
SACKS FROM
5-MAN RUSH
<3 seconds 8
3-4 seconds 2
4+ seconds 1
SACKS FROM
6-MAN RUSH
<3 seconds 4
3-4 seconds 1
4+ seconds 0
SACKS FROM
7-MAN RUSH
<3 seconds 2
3-4 seconds 0
4+ seconds 0
While it happens, it's not happening as often as you may think. By my count, 30 of the Steelers 53 sacks were recorded on plays where Roethlisberger was initially hit in three seconds or less. From everything I can find, three seconds appears to be the generally accepted amount of the time when the warning bell in the quarterback's head starts to go off. On most plays, the line is expected to give the quarterback three seconds to drop back, set up, check one and maybe two receivers and get the ball out.

While the time to initial hit is not an absolute measure of whether Roethlisberger had time to pick out a receiver, it is a helpful indicator of whether the line did its job. There's no doubt that the 16 sacks that Roethlisberger took in 3.0 seconds or less against straight-up three or four-man rushes are the fault of the offensive line--it's not asking too much for five linemen to block four defensive linemen for three seconds. And it's actually pretty reasonable to expect that Roethlisberger will have four seconds to pick out a receiver against a three-man rush--after all, there are eight men in coverage so there's less open spaces for receivers to find.

As one of the commenters pointed out during the season, there is a difference between having three seconds to throw against a four-man rush and having three seconds to throw against a six-man rush. But the fact that 16 of the Steelers sacks came on plays where Roethlisberger was hit in less than three seconds by a three or four-man rush is a pretty clear sign of some serious offensive line problems. To put it in perspective, the Saints gave up 16 sacks all season.

On the other hand, I counted 19 sacks that could be termed coverage sacks. Not all of those are Roethlisberger's fault , but a large number of those sacks come on plays where someone like Peyton Manning might have thrown the ball away and avoided the sack.

In a most extreme case, there was a play against the Rams recorded a sack 6.3 seconds after the snap. No line can reasonably be asked to hold out a four-man rush for more than six seconds. There were three more sacks that took longer than five seconds to occur, and another five that took longer than four seconds. That's nine sacks where the line can reasonably say that Roethlisberger was asking too much from them.

Two of the Steelers sacks came on screen plays where the defense sniffed out the screen. Those can be blamed on play calling rather than any player--it's the offensive lineman's job to let the rush by, and if the rush gets to Big Ben too quickly while the running back is covered, it's better to take a sack than risk an interception.

I counted a total of 17 sacks that could reasonably be termed coverage sacks. Those include the nine sacks where Roethlisberger held onto the ball too long, several where there simply was no one open, and a couple of plays where an overload block left the line and backs with more blitzers than they could block., In one case Roethlisberger simply stepped out of bounds behind the line.

But here's the bad news for the Steelers offensive line--those 36 other sacks would still rank as a below average line (33 of them happened during the regular season). That would be worse than 16 other NFL teams by itself. And if you allow that even the best quarterback is going to hold on to the ball too long a couple of times a year, and that there will be four or five plays where a bad play call leaves the quarterback helpless and it's hard to envision any way that the Steelers would have given up less than 40 sacks with this line.

And there's one other factor to acknowledge. While Roethlisberger's decision to hang onto the ball may be responsible for some of the sacks, we also know that his size, strength and scrambling ability also keep him out of several sacks a season on plays where the average quarterback would have gone down.

This is a rough approximation, but if you blame 15 of the Steelers' 2007 sacks on Roethlisberger's tendency to hold onto the ball (and that's holding him to a very high standard), but also credit him with five sacks he avoided by breaking out of tackles where the average quarterback would have gone down, you're looking at him costing the team 10 sacks a season. That's a significant number, but the reality is that the Steelers line would give up plenty of sacks whether it was Roethlisberger or Dan Marino under center

MeetJoeGreene
06-15-2008, 09:33 AM
You are officially now on MSM's foe list and forever the object of his wrath.


But I agree with some of the points in the article. Ben needs to throw away and check down. He lives and dies by the big play. WHich is also why he is not condemning his O-Line.

BURGH86STEEL
06-15-2008, 10:30 AM
I've always thought it was a combination of things. The line, RBs, and TEs can do a better job in pass protection. The QB can get rid of the ball quicker by doing a better job of pre snap recognition. The QB can also do a better job of calling the right protections. I believe he had this responsibility last season after Harting's retirement. Coaches can call a better game.

As fans, one thing we should all take into account is the fact that sometimes the other team is going to make plays against our guys. They are playing against professionals and ours guys are going to win and lose some battles. Just because they lose some of those battles does not mean our guys are horrible players.

Flasteel
06-15-2008, 10:33 AM
Although the article came close to mentioning it, where is the number of times that Ben either shrugged off a rusher, or evaded a sack and made a play downfield? Not only did this occur in probably every single game, but he does it multiple times each game and often winds up with a big play or critical third-down conversion. Yeah, he could have thrown the ball away a few times more than he did, but I love the mentality that he has due to the fact that he knows he can make a play. His escapability is unparalleled in the league and I'll gladly take a few sacks over the course of a season in order to get the far more numerous plays he makes while improvising in the pocket.

I also believe that the number of "bum rush" sacks (less than 3 seconds, which was 30) starts to put him in the mind set that he's going to have to do something in the pocket to make a play, especially when his OC only believes in five and seven step drops. If we can start to incorporate more of a quick passing game involving three-step drops, that more than anything will alleviate the rush and cut down on sack opportunities for the opposing defenses.

fordfixer
06-15-2008, 11:41 AM
You are officially now on MSM's foe list and forever the object of his wrath.

But I agree with some of the points in the article. Ben needs to throw away and check down. He lives and dies by the big play. WHich is also why he is not condemning his O-Line.

who me? :shock:

Oviedo
06-15-2008, 11:53 AM
Ben using the talent he has at TE and RB as part of the receiving game will reduce the sacks significantly. If Ben would focus on short to mid range patterns and force the defenses to adjust he would be unstoppable and would open both the running game options and deep pass options. The key is to get the LBs turning and running versus putting eight in the box and playing straight up stopping the run and blitzing.

stlrz d
06-15-2008, 12:05 PM
Keep in mind that last season the TEs and RBs were kept in a lot to help block due to the O line play.

Couple that with no 3 step drops in the offense and there's a big part of the problem.

There are times I wish Ben would throw the ball away, but there are a lot of times I'm yelling "GET RID OF IT" and then he does something amazing to make a big play, keep the chains moving or score a TD and I think, "He's the one playing the game and seeing what he sees. I'm sitting here watching on TV and only seeing what the side angle camera shows me...wtf do I know about what he's doing?" :oops:

Shawn
06-15-2008, 12:17 PM
I also like Bens mentality of going down field. With that said, throwing to your check down is higher percentage and keeps the ball going foward rather than backwards. It moves chains. In order for Ben to continue in his growth he needs to learn to use his outlets more effectively. I truely believe Ben would be unstoppable if he could reign it in just a bit and let his playmakers make plays.

stlrz d
06-15-2008, 01:28 PM
I also like Bens mentality of going down field. With that said, throwing to your check down is higher percentage and keeps the ball going foward rather than backwards. It moves chains. In order for Ben to continue in his growth he needs to learn to use his outlets more effectively. I truely believe Ben would be unstoppable if he could reign it in just a bit and let his playmakers make plays.

The only problem with that is he rarely has checkdowns. When the TE and/or RB is kept in to block and the receivers are all running mid to deep routes because there are no 3 step drops in the offense that certainly puts a lot more pressure on the blockers and on Ben.

Mr Smartmonies
06-15-2008, 02:22 PM
You are officially now on MSM's foe list and forever the object of his wrath.

.

Why in the world would this guy be on my foe list? This is exactly what I have been saying all along. I have no problem whatsoever blaming Ben for 10 sacks. All QB"s
will contribute to the sack total. But the idea that Roethlisberger is the reason the Steelers went from 23 sacks in 2004, and 29 in 2005, to nearly 50 the last 2 years
is ridiculous. The offensive line was responsible for the increase of sacks since 2005.

blacknblue80s
06-16-2008, 02:06 AM
Although the article came close to mentioning it, where is the number of times that Ben either shrugged off a rusher, or evaded a sack and made a play downfield? Not only did this occur in probably every single game, but he does it multiple times each game and often winds up with a big play or critical third-down conversion. Yeah, he could have thrown the ball away a few times more than he did, but I love the mentality that he has due to the fact that he knows he can make a play. His escapability is unparalleled in the league and I'll gladly take a few sacks over the course of a season in order to get the far more numerous plays he makes while improvising in the pocket.

I also believe that the number of "bum rush" sacks (less than 3 seconds, which was 30) starts to put him in the mind set that he's going to have to do something in the pocket to make a play, especially when his OC only believes in five and seven step drops. If we can start to incorporate more of a quick passing game involving three-step drops, that more than anything will alleviate the rush and cut down on sack opportunities for the opposing defenses.

Excellent post.

IMO very few if any qb's could do what Ben has done behind this o-line.

NC Steeler Fan
06-16-2008, 09:50 AM
If we can start to incorporate more of a quick passing game involving three-step drops, that more than anything will alleviate the rush and cut down on sack opportunities for the opposing defenses.

Um, so if I remember correctly you're talking about
something similar to the opening drive against indy
in our playoff win to the SB?

I still can't get over the shock of how efficiently
we marched down the field using a series of
quick passes...

RuthlessBurgher
06-16-2008, 10:08 AM
Don't get me wrong, I love watching Ben break out of sack attempts to complete deep passes downfield, and I love watching Willie break off long runs into the secondary, but both were of the feast or famine variety often times. With an efficient, deliberate short passing game and Mendenhall churning out tough yards on a regular basis, that will open things up even more for Ben's bombs and Willie's sprints.

Mr Smartmonies
06-16-2008, 09:47 PM
Don't get me wrong, I love watching Ben break out of sack attempts to complete deep passes downfield, and I love watching Willie break off long runs into the secondary, but both were of the feast or famine variety often times. With an efficient, deliberate short passing game and Mendenhall churning out tough yards on a regular basis, that will open things up even more for Ben's bombs and Willie's sprints.

This is huge misconception with all due respect.

A Short passing game does not = Efficient passing game

And a high Yards per pass average does not = Throwing Bombs


I can explain this if you need me too.

Shawn
06-16-2008, 09:55 PM
Don't get me wrong, I love watching Ben break out of sack attempts to complete deep passes downfield, and I love watching Willie break off long runs into the secondary, but both were of the feast or famine variety often times. With an efficient, deliberate short passing game and Mendenhall churning out tough yards on a regular basis, that will open things up even more for Ben's bombs and Willie's sprints.

This is huge misconception with all due respect.

A Short passing game does not = Efficient passing game

And a high Yards per pass average does not = Throwing Bombs

No...but using your short passing game can certainly make a passing game more efficient.


I can explain this if you need me too.

Flasteel
06-16-2008, 10:11 PM
If we can start to incorporate more of a quick passing game involving three-step drops, that more than anything will alleviate the rush and cut down on sack opportunities for the opposing defenses.

Um, so if I remember correctly you're talking about
something similar to the opening drive against indy
in our playoff win to the SB?

I still can't get over the shock of how efficiently
we marched down the field using a series of
quick passes...

Even more to the point was the first drive against Jacksonville in last year's playoff game. To his credit, Arians finally broke out the three-step drop and we carved up the Jag's defense with the quick passing game. Not going back to that was a coaching crime in my opinion and directly contributed to putting us in an early hole.

I'm by no means advocating that we abandon the intermediate and deep passing game, I just want us to pepper in enough of the quick stuff to change the tempo and keep the opposing defense from pinning their ears back.

Mr Smartmonies
06-16-2008, 10:18 PM
Don't get me wrong, I love watching Ben break out of sack attempts to complete deep passes downfield, and I love watching Willie break off long runs into the secondary, but both were of the feast or famine variety often times. With an efficient, deliberate short passing game and Mendenhall churning out tough yards on a regular basis, that will open things up even more for Ben's bombs and Willie's sprints.

This is huge misconception with all due respect.

A Short passing game does not = Efficient passing game

And a high Yards per pass average does not = Throwing Bombs

No...but using your short passing game can certainly make a passing game more efficient.


I can explain this if you need me too.

The offense would have to change a bit. That would have to come from Arians.the nEw RB would have to be inserted cause Parker doesn't have great hands. The offensive line would need to be able to block without a help. More three step drops would be needed.

But my point is that Efficiency does not mean short. Efficiency is moving the football down the field in the fewest amount of attempts.

BURGH86STEEL
06-16-2008, 11:32 PM
If we can start to incorporate more of a quick passing game involving three-step drops, that more than anything will alleviate the rush and cut down on sack opportunities for the opposing defenses.

Um, so if I remember correctly you're talking about
something similar to the opening drive against indy
in our playoff win to the SB?

I still can't get over the shock of how efficiently
we marched down the field using a series of
quick passes...

Even more to the point was the first drive against Jacksonville in last year's playoff game. To his credit, Arians finally broke out the three-step drop and we carved up the Jag's defense with the quick passing game. Not going back to that was a coaching crime in my opinion and directly contributed to putting us in an early hole.

I'm by no means advocating that we abandon the intermediate and deep passing game, I just want us to pepper in enough of the quick stuff to change the tempo and keep the opposing defense from pinning their ears back.

I think you have to take into account the adjustments the Jags made to the short passing game. I guess I should ask, in your mind, what constitutes a short passing game? We really do not know what plays were called and who the primary WRs were. Outside of the deep passes, we really do not know where most passes were designed to go short or intermediate. It is usually up to the QB to decide where he should go with the football and not the coaches. Coaches give him opitions that he likes and after the snap, it is all on the QB. I am sure you know these things but I do not understand why you over look them.
I am not one to believe the scheme or plays called really carves up anything. I think it is all about the execution of the plays called. However, I do think the coaches can put the players in a better position to execute. I think the coaches did a good job of that last season. We had a big problem executing on offense in the 1st half of the Jags game (as evidence by the 3 INTs). If I recall correctly, they were moving the ball pretty well only to lose momentum because of turonvers. Not much changed in the 2nd half except they stopped giving the ball to the other team.
I think it is strange that people want to single out Arians on this. He made some bad calls in the game but the players made mistakes too. This is why it is hard to single out one coach or player for a loss. I try to avoid this way of thinking. I am sure that Lebeau and the defense thought they should've stopped the Jags after those turnovers. Overall, I think Arians called a good game. Good enough to give them a chance to come back in the game after the mistakes by the players.

Flasteel
06-17-2008, 01:27 AM
Even more to the point was the first drive against Jacksonville in last year's playoff game. To his credit, Arians finally broke out the three-step drop and we carved up the Jag's defense with the quick passing game. Not going back to that was a coaching crime in my opinion and directly contributed to putting us in an early hole.

I'm by no means advocating that we abandon the intermediate and deep passing game, I just want us to pepper in enough of the quick stuff to change the tempo and keep the opposing defense from pinning their ears back.

I think you have to take into account the adjustments the Jags made to the short passing game. I guess I should ask, in your mind, what constitutes a short passing game? We really do not know what plays were called and who the primary WRs were. Outside of the deep passes, we really do not know where most passes were designed to go short or intermediate. It is usually up to the QB to decide where he should go with the football and not the coaches. Coaches give him opitions that he likes and after the snap, it is all on the QB. I am sure you know these things but I do not understand why you over look them.
I am not one to believe the scheme or plays called really carves up anything. I think it is all about the execution of the plays called. However, I do think the coaches can put the players in a better position to execute. I think the coaches did a good job of that last season. We had a big problem executing on offense in the 1st half of the Jags game (as evidence by the 3 INTs). If I recall correctly, they were moving the ball pretty well only to lose momentum because of turonvers. Not much changed in the 2nd half except they stopped giving the ball to the other team.
I think it is strange that people want to single out Arians on this. He made some bad calls in the game but the players made mistakes too. This is why it is hard to single out one coach or player for a loss. I try to avoid this way of thinking. I am sure that Lebeau and the defense thought they should've stopped the Jags after those turnovers. Overall, I think Arians called a good game. Good enough to give them a chance to come back in the game after the mistakes by the players.

The quick passing game is going to consist of three step drops as I've been saying and see a lot of quick slants, hooks, hitches and outs. Normally the defense is going to react by keeping their linebackers in underneath coverage or the DB's will try and squat on routes to get a good jump on the ball. DE's will even start to give up on their rush and start to play "volleyball" and get their hands up in the air quickly. To be honest, I can't remember just how Jacksonville adjusted to what we were doing, but the bottom line is that they didn't adjust very well on that opening series since we tattooed six on their ass. We certainly didn't come out with it on the second series and if I remember correctly we never saw it again at any point. That should tell you that it wasn't anything they did to make us stop, we just took it upon ourselves to expose Ben to the rush with deeper routes and it had disastrous results early on.

In a three step passing game, you have about a second and a half before your plant foot hits and the ball comes out. The quarterback doesn't have a whole lot of time to go through any reads, so it's generally going to be determined where he goes with the ball before the snap. Your right brother, the execution of the plays and the players being on the same page is what is going to allow an offense to carve 'em up, but don't discount the role of the OC. The whole point in incorporating the quick passing game is to help out your o-line and keep your quarterback's jersey clean, which for some reason Arians clearly doesn't believe in. If the defense starts to widen and keep their linebackers in coverage, then you start hammering them with the running game, if the DB's are trying to squat or jump routes then you hit 'em deep. Invariably you mix it up and keep a defense on their heels. In that regard I thought Arians did a horrible job sans that first series and when you consider the turtle job we pulled late in the game it only underscores my point. It wasn't just that game either. He made seriously questionable calls all year long (especially around the goal line) and his disdain for the three-step drop considering our protection problems was nothing short of mystifying to me. Let's see what he comes back with this year, but I thought he sucked monkey balls in '07 and I'm not very hopeful he's going to get any better...thank God we have Ben and all of these weapons.

fordfixer
06-17-2008, 01:39 AM
Even more to the point was the first drive against Jacksonville in last year's playoff game. To his credit, Arians finally broke out the three-step drop and we carved up the Jag's defense with the quick passing game. Not going back to that was a coaching crime in my opinion and directly contributed to putting us in an early hole.

I'm by no means advocating that we abandon the intermediate and deep passing game, I just want us to pepper in enough of the quick stuff to change the tempo and keep the opposing defense from pinning their ears back.

I think you have to take into account the adjustments the Jags made to the short passing game. I guess I should ask, in your mind, what constitutes a short passing game? We really do not know what plays were called and who the primary WRs were. Outside of the deep passes, we really do not know where most passes were designed to go short or intermediate. It is usually up to the QB to decide where he should go with the football and not the coaches. Coaches give him opitions that he likes and after the snap, it is all on the QB. I am sure you know these things but I do not understand why you over look them.
I am not one to believe the scheme or plays called really carves up anything. I think it is all about the execution of the plays called. However, I do think the coaches can put the players in a better position to execute. I think the coaches did a good job of that last season. We had a big problem executing on offense in the 1st half of the Jags game (as evidence by the 3 INTs). If I recall correctly, they were moving the ball pretty well only to lose momentum because of turonvers. Not much changed in the 2nd half except they stopped giving the ball to the other team.
I think it is strange that people want to single out Arians on this. He made some bad calls in the game but the players made mistakes too. This is why it is hard to single out one coach or player for a loss. I try to avoid this way of thinking. I am sure that Lebeau and the defense thought they should've stopped the Jags after those turnovers. Overall, I think Arians called a good game. Good enough to give them a chance to come back in the game after the mistakes by the players.

The quick passing game is going to consist of three step drops as I've been saying and see a lot of quick slants, hooks, hitches and outs. Normally the defense is going to react by keeping their linebackers in underneath coverage or the DB's will try and squat on routes to get a good jump on the ball. DE's will even start to give up on their rush and start to play "volleyball" and get their hands up in the air quickly. To be honest, I can't remember just how Jacksonville adjusted to what we were doing, but the bottom line is that they didn't adjust very well on that opening series since we tattooed six on their ass. We certainly didn't come out with it on the second series and if I remember correctly we never saw it again at any point. That should tell you that it wasn't anything they did to make us stop, we just took it upon ourselves to expose Ben to the rush with deeper routes and it had disastrous results early on.

In a three step passing game, you have about a second and a half before your plant foot hits and the ball comes out. The quarterback doesn't have a whole lot of time to go through any reads, so it's generally going to be determined where he goes with the ball before the snap. Your right brother, the execution of the plays and the players being on the same page is what is going to allow an offense to carve 'em up, but don't discount the role of the OC. The whole point in incorporating the quick passing game is to help out your o-line and keep your quarterback's jersey clean, which for some reason Arians clearly doesn't believe in. If the defense starts to widen and keep their linebackers in coverage, then you start hammering them with the running game, if the DB's are trying to squat or jump routes then you hit 'em deep. Invariably you mix it up and keep a defense on their heels. In that regard I thought Arians did a horrible job sans that first series and when you consider the turtle job we pulled late in the game it only underscores my point. It wasn't just that game either. He made seriously questionable calls all year long (especially around the goal line) and his disdain for the three-step drop considering our protection problems was nothing short of mystifying to me. Let's see what he comes back with this year, but I thought he sucked monkey balls in '07 and I'm not very hopeful he's going to get any better...thank God we have Ben and all of these weapons.

You can rewatch the pain .... I mean game Sunday on nfl network at 1:pm to see what adjustments were made.

Flasteel
06-17-2008, 01:51 AM
You can rewatch the pain .... I mean game Sunday on nfl network at 1:pm to see what adjustments were made.

Noooooooo!

Alright maybe. I am curious after talking about it to see if there was anything they tried to do.

fordfixer
06-17-2008, 01:56 AM
You can rewatch the pain .... I mean game Sunday on nfl network at 1:pm to see what adjustments were made.

Noooooooo!

Alright maybe. I am curious after talking about it to see if there was anything they tried to do.

I would like to watch it again, but I have to take my son's to camp on sunday . I'm not sure I can bring myself to tape it yet :lol:

BURGH86STEEL
06-17-2008, 05:36 AM
Even more to the point was the first drive against Jacksonville in last year's playoff game. To his credit, Arians finally broke out the three-step drop and we carved up the Jag's defense with the quick passing game. Not going back to that was a coaching crime in my opinion and directly contributed to putting us in an early hole.

I'm by no means advocating that we abandon the intermediate and deep passing game, I just want us to pepper in enough of the quick stuff to change the tempo and keep the opposing defense from pinning their ears back.

I think you have to take into account the adjustments the Jags made to the short passing game. I guess I should ask, in your mind, what constitutes a short passing game? We really do not know what plays were called and who the primary WRs were. Outside of the deep passes, we really do not know where most passes were designed to go short or intermediate. It is usually up to the QB to decide where he should go with the football and not the coaches. Coaches give him opitions that he likes and after the snap, it is all on the QB. I am sure you know these things but I do not understand why you over look them.
I am not one to believe the scheme or plays called really carves up anything. I think it is all about the execution of the plays called. However, I do think the coaches can put the players in a better position to execute. I think the coaches did a good job of that last season. We had a big problem executing on offense in the 1st half of the Jags game (as evidence by the 3 INTs). If I recall correctly, they were moving the ball pretty well only to lose momentum because of turonvers. Not much changed in the 2nd half except they stopped giving the ball to the other team.
I think it is strange that people want to single out Arians on this. He made some bad calls in the game but the players made mistakes too. This is why it is hard to single out one coach or player for a loss. I try to avoid this way of thinking. I am sure that Lebeau and the defense thought they should've stopped the Jags after those turnovers. Overall, I think Arians called a good game. Good enough to give them a chance to come back in the game after the mistakes by the players.

The quick passing game is going to consist of three step drops as I've been saying and see a lot of quick slants, hooks, hitches and outs. Normally the defense is going to react by keeping their linebackers in underneath coverage or the DB's will try and squat on routes to get a good jump on the ball. DE's will even start to give up on their rush and start to play "volleyball" and get their hands up in the air quickly. To be honest, I can't remember just how Jacksonville adjusted to what we were doing, but the bottom line is that they didn't adjust very well on that opening series since we tattooed six on their ass. We certainly didn't come out with it on the second series and if I remember correctly we never saw it again at any point. That should tell you that it wasn't anything they did to make us stop, we just took it upon ourselves to expose Ben to the rush with deeper routes and it had disastrous results early on.

In a three step passing game, you have about a second and a half before your plant foot hits and the ball comes out. The quarterback doesn't have a whole lot of time to go through any reads, so it's generally going to be determined where he goes with the ball before the snap. Your right brother, the execution of the plays and the players being on the same page is what is going to allow an offense to carve 'em up, but don't discount the role of the OC. The whole point in incorporating the quick passing game is to help out your o-line and keep your quarterback's jersey clean, which for some reason Arians clearly doesn't believe in. If the defense starts to widen and keep their linebackers in coverage, then you start hammering them with the running game, if the DB's are trying to squat or jump routes then you hit 'em deep. Invariably you mix it up and keep a defense on their heels. In that regard I thought Arians did a horrible job sans that first series and when you consider the turtle job we pulled late in the game it only underscores my point. It wasn't just that game either. He made seriously questionable calls all year long (especially around the goal line) and his disdain for the three-step drop considering our protection problems was nothing short of mystifying to me. Let's see what he comes back with this year, but I thought he sucked monkey balls in '07 and I'm not very hopeful he's going to get any better...thank God we have Ben and all of these weapons.

We really do not know the adjustments they made because we cannot see the game film. The one adjustment the QB could've made would've been to stop throwin the INTs. He improved in this area in the 2nd half and we saw the results. I do not understand how Arians did a horrible job when the offense put 22 of 29 its points in the 2nd half.

Flasteel
06-17-2008, 07:33 AM
Even more to the point was the first drive against Jacksonville in last year's playoff game. To his credit, Arians finally broke out the three-step drop and we carved up the Jag's defense with the quick passing game. Not going back to that was a coaching crime in my opinion and directly contributed to putting us in an early hole.

I'm by no means advocating that we abandon the intermediate and deep passing game, I just want us to pepper in enough of the quick stuff to change the tempo and keep the opposing defense from pinning their ears back.

I think you have to take into account the adjustments the Jags made to the short passing game. I guess I should ask, in your mind, what constitutes a short passing game? We really do not know what plays were called and who the primary WRs were. Outside of the deep passes, we really do not know where most passes were designed to go short or intermediate. It is usually up to the QB to decide where he should go with the football and not the coaches. Coaches give him opitions that he likes and after the snap, it is all on the QB. I am sure you know these things but I do not understand why you over look them.
I am not one to believe the scheme or plays called really carves up anything. I think it is all about the execution of the plays called. However, I do think the coaches can put the players in a better position to execute. I think the coaches did a good job of that last season. We had a big problem executing on offense in the 1st half of the Jags game (as evidence by the 3 INTs). If I recall correctly, they were moving the ball pretty well only to lose momentum because of turonvers. Not much changed in the 2nd half except they stopped giving the ball to the other team.
I think it is strange that people want to single out Arians on this. He made some bad calls in the game but the players made mistakes too. This is why it is hard to single out one coach or player for a loss. I try to avoid this way of thinking. I am sure that Lebeau and the defense thought they should've stopped the Jags after those turnovers. Overall, I think Arians called a good game. Good enough to give them a chance to come back in the game after the mistakes by the players.

The quick passing game is going to consist of three step drops as I've been saying and see a lot of quick slants, hooks, hitches and outs. Normally the defense is going to react by keeping their linebackers in underneath coverage or the DB's will try and squat on routes to get a good jump on the ball. DE's will even start to give up on their rush and start to play "volleyball" and get their hands up in the air quickly. To be honest, I can't remember just how Jacksonville adjusted to what we were doing, but the bottom line is that they didn't adjust very well on that opening series since we tattooed six on their ass. We certainly didn't come out with it on the second series and if I remember correctly we never saw it again at any point. That should tell you that it wasn't anything they did to make us stop, we just took it upon ourselves to expose Ben to the rush with deeper routes and it had disastrous results early on.

In a three step passing game, you have about a second and a half before your plant foot hits and the ball comes out. The quarterback doesn't have a whole lot of time to go through any reads, so it's generally going to be determined where he goes with the ball before the snap. Your right brother, the execution of the plays and the players being on the same page is what is going to allow an offense to carve 'em up, but don't discount the role of the OC. The whole point in incorporating the quick passing game is to help out your o-line and keep your quarterback's jersey clean, which for some reason Arians clearly doesn't believe in. If the defense starts to widen and keep their linebackers in coverage, then you start hammering them with the running game, if the DB's are trying to squat or jump routes then you hit 'em deep. Invariably you mix it up and keep a defense on their heels. In that regard I thought Arians did a horrible job sans that first series and when you consider the turtle job we pulled late in the game it only underscores my point. It wasn't just that game either. He made seriously questionable calls all year long (especially around the goal line) and his disdain for the three-step drop considering our protection problems was nothing short of mystifying to me. Let's see what he comes back with this year, but I thought he sucked monkey balls in '07 and I'm not very hopeful he's going to get any better...thank God we have Ben and all of these weapons.

We really do not know the adjustments they made because we cannot see the game film. The one adjustment the QB could've made would've been to stop throwin the INTs. He improved in this area in the 2nd half and we saw the results. I do not understand how Arians did a horrible job when the offense put 22 of 29 its points in the 2nd half.

I personally thought that Ben was pretty much the difference in that game, along with the bad special teams play. He made a couple of bad throws in the first half, but was on fire the rest of the game. I just saw no reason to stop what we were doing when it was so effective and it perturbed me that we never broke out the quick passing game again, especially in light of the pressure that was getting to Ben in that first half. I also thought we should have went that route on the last possession and rode Ben's hot hand when we faced the 2nd and 5 or the third and six; instead we pull out perhaps the most lame looking QB roll-out in the game's history.

I have no doubt that Bruce Arians has forgotten more about the game than I'll ever know, but it doesn't excuse the shaky play-calling which was plainly evident.