Thanks for the post Bschucher and I think you indadvertedly proved my point. No one in their right mind is going to say Sully doesn't call enough deep plays. Lord knows he does it all the time and I'm not so much complaining about that. My contention is simply this. Our routes that we run that take a long time to develop or are of the change on the fly route do a couple things.1. It slows mike's reads because he is stuck on his 1st read longer than he should be trying to figure out what he is seeing, what adjustments are going to be made and if the receiver is open.2. During that time he often misses other routes that flash open.3. As I said before long routes and routes that adjust on the fly give mike an unclear read and slow his progression significantly.I don't believe it's a coincidence that for the last month we've see all 22 breakdowns of mike missing open WR all over the field yet for the 2-3 series we run out of hurry up he misses none. I contest we need to take all of the adjust on the fly routes out of this offense and run pre-determined routes so mike can more quickly read the defense and work his progressions.Going back to college, Mike does not have a problem pulling the trigger and he does now. That tells me he is unsure of what he is seeing with route and coverage concepts.
A couple stats to chew on before you call it a night.Mike Glennon during our two hurry up/no huddle drives 14-16 157 yards 2 TDsMike Glennon on all other drives of the day 4- 18 22 yards 1 INTAnother little tid bit, outside of those two drives, the offense had a net total of 11 yards on the day, including penalties. Sheer domination all day outside of those two drives that Mike took over. Still think the glaring inconsistency is all on Mike? Do the astounding change in passing effectiveness make you wonder what was different about those two drives? It sure makes me wonder and my OP is what I think the issue is.
QB passer rating of 147.1 vs 16.4. If Schiano is telling the truth and we don't practice the hurry/no huddle offense all that much, those numbers are scarey that this offense would perform so well on something that isn't regularly practiced.
Mike Glennon in the redzone: 11 tds and 0 ints.Significant for two reasons. Everyone is crammed in closer and the field can't be stretched. The lack of field to work with makes the routes shorter and quicker, allowing Mike to get rid of the ball quicker. The 11 TDs and no picks is also impressive because of how clustered the field is, the reads and throws must be done very quickly and precisely.My point is that Mike can and will get rid of the ball quickly when our offense runs quicker developing routes and fast reads.
BucNY, I really appreciate your thought provoking OP. Only thing I would say to it is that comparing MG to the Brady and Manning offense capability is not a good measuring stick. For starters, they have WR/TE depth that we just don't. Underwood and Dawson are special team types, not starting WRs. When you couple that with Glennon not going through progressions (not sure anyone can argue that) then it doesnt make much sense to give him 4-5 options if he is only going to look at 2 before dumping it off.
BucNY, I really appreciate your thought provoking OP. Only thing I would say to it is that comparing MG to the Brady and Manning offense capability is not a good measuring stick. For starters, they have WR/TE depth that we just don't. Underwood and Dawson are special team types, not starting WRs. When you couple that with Glennon not going through progressions (not sure anyone can argue that) then it doesnt make much sense to give him 4-5 options if he is only going to look at 2 before dumping it off.
Thanks for keeping the intelligent discussion going, hopefully this thread doesn't turn into what most threads turn into. I can agree that Glennon doesn't seem to be reading or working his progressions and I shouldn't have used Peyton Manning or Tom Brady. I agree in theory that having more options might not help if he's can't progress through them all. My argument isn't that our 4th or 5th WR can beat the defense's corner, I can't even list who our 5th receiver is? Sky Dawson? But argument is having more receivers (and far far fewer route adjustments) is so Mike may be able to get a presnap read and better narrow down his best few options rather than trying to determine what route adjustment will be made by his #1 before moving to #2.More numbers for a minute on Mike's passer rating:His best passer rating is out of I-formation on 1st down (over 100). Very likely because it general breaks a huge tendancy of ours running the ball on 1st down. Surprising how much better he plays when we actually surprise someone.2nd best passer rating is out of shotgun with 3 WR, 1 TE and 1 RB (high 90's). This doesn't prove my theory of the hurry up offense but does speak to getting him more options. It's spreads the field out a bit while still keeping our better receivers on the field (Jackson, Owusu, Underwood, Wright and RB). It also spread the defense and allows for a more clear recognition of coverage.
BucNY, I really appreciate your thought provoking OP. Only thing I would say to it is that comparing MG to the Brady and Manning offense capability is not a good measuring stick. For starters, they have WR/TE depth that we just don't. Underwood and Dawson are special team types, not starting WRs. When you couple that with Glennon not going through progressions (not sure anyone can argue that) then it doesnt make much sense to give him 4-5 options if he is only going to look at 2 before dumping it off.
Thanks for keeping the intelligent discussion going, hopefully this thread doesn't turn into what most threads turn into. I can agree that Glennon doesn't seem to be reading or working his progressions and I shouldn't have used Peyton Manning or Tom Brady. I agree in theory that having more options might not help if he's can't progress through them all. My argument isn't that our 4th or 5th WR can beat the defense's corner, I can't even list who our 5th receiver is? Sky Dawson? But argument is having more receivers (and far far fewer route adjustments) is so Mike may be able to get a presnap read and better narrow down his best few options rather than trying to determine what route adjustment will be made by his #1 before moving to #2.More numbers for a minute on Mike's passer rating:His best passer rating is out of I-formation on 1st down (over 100). Very likely because it general breaks a huge tendancy of ours running the ball on 1st down. Surprising how much better he plays when we actually surprise someone.2nd best passer rating is out of shotgun with 3 WR, 1 TE and 1 RB (high 90's). This doesn't prove my theory of the hurry up offense but does speak to getting him more options. It's spreads the field out a bit while still keeping our better receivers on the field (Jackson, Owusu, Underwood, Wright and RB). It also spread the defense and allows for a more clear recognition of coverage.
I saw what you were saying though. I just dont think any of us actually know what is going on. Ive watched and played a lot of football in my life and this team perplexes me. At times I watch Glennon and I think he could be the guy. Other times I watch and think, oh thats just a rookie mistake. And then, there are others where I wonder how he even got a college scholarship. I dont know how much of any of that to chalk up to him being a rookie, him being limited as a player, the coaching calls, the scheme, etc. The recent thread about Steve White's diagrams and defending the OC are a perfect example. Yes there are guys who are wide open on plays...but only a few people know what number in the progression they were. Im also sure that Schiano has drilled it into Glennon's head not to make risky throws and so now he errs on the side of caution...but to what extent?
BucNY, I really appreciate your thought provoking OP. Only thing I would say to it is that comparing MG to the Brady and Manning offense capability is not a good measuring stick. For starters, they have WR/TE depth that we just don't. Underwood and Dawson are special team types, not starting WRs. When you couple that with Glennon not going through progressions (not sure anyone can argue that) then it doesnt make much sense to give him 4-5 options if he is only going to look at 2 before dumping it off.
Thanks for keeping the intelligent discussion going, hopefully this thread doesn't turn into what most threads turn into. I can agree that Glennon doesn't seem to be reading or working his progressions and I shouldn't have used Peyton Manning or Tom Brady. I agree in theory that having more options might not help if he's can't progress through them all. My argument isn't that our 4th or 5th WR can beat the defense's corner, I can't even list who our 5th receiver is? Sky Dawson? But argument is having more receivers (and far far fewer route adjustments) is so Mike may be able to get a presnap read and better narrow down his best few options rather than trying to determine what route adjustment will be made by his #1 before moving to #2.More numbers for a minute on Mike's passer rating:His best passer rating is out of I-formation on 1st down (over 100). Very likely because it general breaks a huge tendancy of ours running the ball on 1st down. Surprising how much better he plays when we actually surprise someone.2nd best passer rating is out of shotgun with 3 WR, 1 TE and 1 RB (high 90's). This doesn't prove my theory of the hurry up offense but does speak to getting him more options. It's spreads the field out a bit while still keeping our better receivers on the field (Jackson, Owusu, Underwood, Wright and RB). It also spread the defense and allows for a more clear recognition of coverage.
I saw what you were saying though. I just dont think any of us actually know what is going on. Ive watched and played a lot of football in my life and this team perplexes me. At times I watch Glennon and I think he could be the guy. Other times I watch and think, oh thats just a rookie mistake. And then, there are others where I wonder how he even got a college scholarship. I dont know how much of any of that to chalk up to him being a rookie, him being limited as a player, the coaching calls, the scheme, etc. The recent thread about Steve White's diagrams and defending the OC are a perfect example. Yes there are guys who are wide open on plays...but only a few people know what number in the progression they were. Im also sure that Schiano has drilled it into Glennon's head not to make risky throws and so now he errs on the side of caution...but to what extent?
Good points, agree with them all especially the Schiano factor. I've seen some throw aways that i was like WTF? I think Schiano get's in these guys heads. I hope at one point Mike is confident enough in his game where he's like, screw it, I'm gonna make a play for this team.
It's not a coincidence that he looked so much better in the two minute drill. Why? Because it's my estimation that the routes are not adjustment routes and that WR1 runs and out WR2 runs a seam, TE runs a post and RB does a 5 yard curl. Before the snap, much like Manning and Brady, Mike can look at the defense, identify cover 2 vs cover 3 vs man and have an idea of what routes will be covered and what routes won't. This speeds up his reads and progressions 10 fold, not to mention the WR knows the route being run and is able to run it faster without slowing to read the defense. It's like running to a stop sign then going in the direction the arrow points, it's much faster if you know the arrow is pointed left before you even start running. Same thing with Mike, if he sees a cover 2 and knows without a doubt what the patterns are, he can check his progression quickly to ensure the right presnap read was right then move to his most likely open pattern. That doesn't happen with Sully's offense because it takes so much longer to develop long patterns that may or may not change..
interesting point
Totally agree
One thing that you're not factoring in is that during this no-huddle, the defense was playing a soft prevent defense. If the Bucs went to this formation more often, you'd see a different defense.
This is actually schiano's offense, not sullys.Youtube rutgers qb, and then glennon or later freeman.Same tendencies, same run heavy offense. Imo, he took over in PS.
It's not a coincidence that he looked so much better in the two minute drill. Why? Because it's my estimation that the routes are not adjustment routes and that WR1 runs and out WR2 runs a seam, TE runs a post and RB does a 5 yard curl. Before the snap, much like Manning and Brady, Mike can look at the defense, identify cover 2 vs cover 3 vs man and have an idea of what routes will be covered and what routes won't. This speeds up his reads and progressions 10 fold, not to mention the WR knows the route being run and is able to run it faster without slowing to read the defense. It's like running to a stop sign then going in the direction the arrow points, it's much faster if you know the arrow is pointed left before you even start running. Same thing with Mike, if he sees a cover 2 and knows without a doubt what the patterns are, he can check his progression quickly to ensure the right presnap read was right then move to his most likely open pattern. That doesn't happen with Sully's offense because it takes so much longer to develop long patterns that may or may not change..
interesting point
Totally agree
One thing that you're not factoring in is that during this no-huddle, the defense was playing a soft prevent defense. If the Bucs went to this formation more often, you'd see a different defense.
No, I doubt the 49ers were running a soft prevent defense with 5 minutes to go in the 3rd quarter when up 20-7. You may well be right about playing soft coverage at the end of the first half but I highly doubt that the case in the 3rd quarter. No huddle does several things. Amongst those is it usually slows a pass rush and forces the defense to revert to a base coverage. Note* we only had about 6-8 plays of true no huddle.
The thing about progression is that what the QB sees pre snap and just after should tell him what his progression is going to be. If VJax has double coverage it may be a good idea to change your progression if he is your first read. Great QB'S like Brady and Manning are masters of doing this. Half of the time I watch Brady he knows where he is going with the ball pre snap. Freeman didn't have this skill and it doesn't look like Glennon has it either. Although Glennon showed glimpses of doing this early on, he has become gun shy.
Progression isn't always linear. This offense is to complicated, and unnecessarily so. Thinking slows players down. Make it easier and predictable for Mike and you'll see his thought process, progressions and ability to get rid of the ball all speed up. IMO.
Best explanation of SUlly's bad offense from Bucsnation.com. Better explains what I've been trying to say with this thread. EnjoyThe inevitable has happened - Mike Sullivan has been handed his marching orders by the Buccaneers. Despite overseeing a stretch of six games in 2012 where the Bucs had the best offense in the NFL, his overall tenure has been poor, as can best be seen by the fact that the team had the league's worst offense in 2013. While many of us can speculate that Greg Schiano had a big say in the offensive gameplan, it still remains that Sullivan's playbook, combining archaic run-first philosophy with convoluted, complex scheme, was the chief architect of his downfall in Tampa Bay.The first coordinator to be hired by Greg Schiano, Sullivan came to the Bucs from the Giants after their 2011 Super Bowl season. He had served first as Big Blue's receivers coach for six years, and then their quarterbacks coach for two, winning two Super Bowl rings in the process. He brought with him a lot of elements from Kevin Gilbride's Giants playbook, in particular a heavy use of read and option routes, which he combined with Schiano's already-stated philosophy - run the ball hard and take deep shots down the field.This commitment to the run plagued Sullivan throughout his tenure. It may have been particularly notable in 2013, with the team running often on first and second down regardless of the distance (runs on 2nd & 10+ were called far too regularly), but it began almost immediately - you only need to re-watch the Week 3 game against Dallas from 2012 to see the blueprint for the kind of gameplan that would ultimately lead him to be fired.There have been times when Sullivan did appear capable of some minor adjustments - in 2012, by airing the ball more he appeared to have revived Josh Freeman's fortunes while turning Doug Martin into a star, there was a stretch of games that made the coordinator look like a genius. Unfortunately, teams soon wisened up to the new gameplan - the Rams' James Laurinaitis in particular mentioned, in the aftermath of a game that saw them intercept Freeman four times, how easy it was to read the Bucs' offense - contributing to the team losing four of its final five games.The 2013 season picked up where the previous season left off on offense: offensively. The Bucs didn't even reach 20 points until Week 6, and with the exception of their Week 11 stomping of the Falcons, where the offense scored 34 points, the Bucs didn't score more than three touchdowns in a single game all season.The biggest issue early on in 2013 was that the passing plays Sullivan dialed up were fairly ridiculous, consisting primarily of multiple vertical routes outside the hashes, using little in the way of crossing routes, routes in the middle of the field, hot routes, safety valves or check downs. This was hardly helped by Sullivan's propensity to run the ball up the middle on early downs, leading to both quarterbacks facing far too many 3rds-and-far-too-longs.That said, Sullivan did again being to show the ability to adapt, even if it was at glacial pace; when the quarterback switch was made to Mike Glennon, Sullivan began to have more checkdowns on pass plays. Eventually he began throwing in more crossing routes - mesh concepts on third downs being a particular favourite - and it was when he started introducing more complementary underneath routes the the offense began to pick up a little, bringing the team four wins.It was all for nowt, however, as Sullivan, buoyed by getting a few wins with Glennon, began to phase those concepts back out of his gameplan, while appearing to be even more stubborn with dialing up running plays early - and, worse, more often than not just straight runs up the middle with little-to-no variety, and generally with paltry results. In an age when the air over every NFL field is thick with footballs sailing through the air from quarterback to receiver, Mike Sullivan was more interested in pounding his running backs into an impenetrable wall of offensive and defensive linemen. It's a gameplan drawn from the mists of time, by NFL standards, and like all dinosaurs, the Bucs' offensive production simply became distinct.Most distinct of all this season was the clear disconnect between his offense's first- and second-half production. According to the Tampa Bay Times' Greg Auman, the Bucs' averaged just 2.1 points in the third quarter of games in 2013. We all know that Schiano believes that there isn't enough time during halftime to make meaningful adjustments to the gameplan. Whether it was because he was told by Schiano to keep the gameplan the same, or whether he was simply incapable, it's clear that when the other team changed their defense, Sullivan was regularly at a loss to find an answer.The issues with Sullivan's offensive coordinatorship were manyfold. From the too-slow rate of adapting (which, compared to his head coach, was still break-neck speed), to a stubbornness in refusing to help out his quarterbacks by removing the reliance on read routes and options routes, or attempting to set up third-and-short instead of third-and-long, to the predictability of the playcalling, to, ultimately, the 32nd-ranked offense in the league, Sullivan's tenure has been a failure, simple as.We wish Sullivan luck with wherever he ends up, but it's time for a change in Tampa Bay. There is no more damning an assessment of his time in charge of the team's offense than this: Mike Sullivan, you made Greg Olson look competent.
http://www.bucsnation.com/2014/1/1/5253078/mike-sullivan-retrospective If you're going to copy someone's material, have the courtesy to provide a link. "It was all for nowt, however, "If you're going to use a word or phrase, look it up if you have no idea how to spell it, or your attempts at professionalism will be all for naught.
