If both offenses and defenses bring in a different package of players for passing downs why not substitute O-linemen who are better pass blockers.

Teams already bring in different defensive backs, linebackers, and d-linemen. Offenses bring in extra WRs and/or different RBs. So why not different O-line packages for passing downs?

I keep hearing that some of our O-linemen are better run blockers while others are better pass blockers. So we need to come up with a rotation that gets the most/best use of every player.

(08-13-2019, 02:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If both offenses and defenses bring in a different package of players for passing downs why not substitute O-linemen who are better pass blockers.

Teams already bring in different defensive backs, linebackers, and d-linemen.  Offenses bring in extra WRs and/or different RBs.  So why not different O-line packages for passing downs?

I keep hearing that some of our O-linemen are better run blockers while others are better pass blockers.  So we need to come up with a rotation that gets the most/best use of every player.

Wouldn't that be telegraphing the play?

(08-13-2019, 02:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If both offenses and defenses bring in a different package of players for passing downs why not substitute O-linemen who are better pass blockers.

Teams already bring in different defensive backs, linebackers, and d-linemen.  Offenses bring in extra WRs and/or different RBs.  So why not different O-line packages for passing downs?

I keep hearing that some of our O-linemen are better run blockers while others are better pass blockers.  So we need to come up with a rotation that gets the most/best use of every player.

The problem is, it wouldn't take long for other teams to know that when we bring in so-and-so, that means we're about to run or pass.

Continuity.

I have not been a fan of specialty packages, particularly on the offensive side of the ball, for quite a while. With the exception of very situationally specific instances, like red zone, 3rd or 4th and short, etc.; I feel like it not only tips the defense as to what you might be up to, but severely limits what plays are able to be run from said package.

Now, if you're down by 2 scores with under 4:00 to go, and it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that you're going to be passing most every snap? Then that might fall into situationally appropriate.

(08-13-2019, 03:03 PM)PhilHos Wrote: The problem is, it wouldn't take long for other teams to know that when we bring in so-and-so, that means we're about to run or pass.

And if you're running any kind of a hurry up it sorta throws a monkey wrench in that plan.

(08-13-2019, 03:03 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Wouldn't that be telegraphing the play?

(08-13-2019, 03:03 PM)PhilHos Wrote: The problem is, it wouldn't take long for other teams to know that when we bring in so-and-so, that means we're about to run or pass.

What difference does it make if you are already replacing your TE with an extra WR and bringing in your "3rd down specialist" RB?

The defense is going to be playing pass on 3rd and long no matter what players you bring in.

(08-13-2019, 03:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What difference does it make if you are already replacing your TE with an extra WR and bringing in your "3rd down specialist" RB?

The defense is going to be playing pass on 3rd and long no matter what players you bring in.

This. In instances like 3rd and long, it's pretty obvious what you're going to do anyways.

The main downfall I see with the approach though is if you essentially specialize run vs pass, what happens when there's injury? You're now forced to completely change your approach full-time. And if this is anything like the Bengals of old, they aren't great at adjusting.

(08-13-2019, 03:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What difference does it make if you are already replacing your TE with an extra WR and bringing in your "3rd down specialist" RB?

The defense is going to be playing pass on 3rd and long no matter what players you bring in.

In obvious situations, sure, have your best pass/run blockers out there. But, for much of the game, the situations are NOT obvious and you run the risk of telegraphing your plays if you do that.

(08-13-2019, 03:26 PM)PhilHos Wrote: In obvious situations, sure, have your best pass/run blockers out there. But, for much of the game, the situations are NOT obvious and you run the risk of telegraphing your plays if you do that.

Bengals telegraph their plays anyway regardless what players are out there, so no harm 

(08-13-2019, 03:48 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Bengals telegraph their plays anyway regardless what players are out there, so no harm 

We don't know if that's true of ZT.


Yet.

I actually think it would help the overall offense. We put in the pass blockers then they counter by putting in a light/speed package with 280-290lb tackles rather than a 320-330 lb tackle and all of the sudden our pass blockers get a advantage as run blockers if we do run the ball and vise versa.

(08-13-2019, 03:03 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Wouldn't that be telegraphing the play?

Took the words right outa  my mouth,  The exact words, in fact.  Give 'em back.

(08-13-2019, 03:03 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Wouldn't that be telegraphing the play?

(08-13-2019, 03:26 PM)PhilHos Wrote:  you run the risk of telegraphing your plays if you do that.

(08-13-2019, 03:48 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Bengals telegraph their plays anyway regardless what players are out there, so no harm 

Mike Brown may be cheap, but I seriously doubt that our coaches are still using telegraph machines.

(08-13-2019, 05:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Mike Brown may be cheap, but I seriously doubt that our coaches are still using telegraph machines.

Nah.  They've moved on to new technology.  They've been using signal flags for years.

(08-13-2019, 05:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Mike Brown may be cheap, but I seriously doubt that our coaches are still using telegraph machines.

Clearly you haven't noticed the OL stomping out Morse code... 

You all did notice in PS Game 1 that the plays were NOT telegraphed? I enjoyed that they were consistently running and passing out of the same base formations so as not to key the defense in on what they are doing.

(08-13-2019, 02:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If both offenses and defenses bring in a different package of players for passing downs why not substitute O-linemen who are better pass blockers.

Teams already bring in different defensive backs, linebackers, and d-linemen.  Offenses bring in extra WRs and/or different RBs.  So why not different O-line packages for passing downs?

I keep hearing that some of our O-linemen are better run blockers while others are better pass blockers.  So we need to come up with a rotation that gets the most/best use of every player.

Because it's the same thing as holding up a sign saying "we are going to pass"....smh

(08-13-2019, 06:09 PM)scorp1974 Wrote: Because it's the same thing as holding up a sign saying "we are going to pass"....smh

It is no different from replacing a TE with an extra WR and bringing in the "3rd down specialist" RB, and every team in the league does that a lot.

No defense is going to be playing the run in 3rd and long no matter who we have on the field.

(08-13-2019, 06:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is no different from replacing a TE with an extra WR and bringing in the "3rd down specialist" RB, and every team in the league does that a lot.

No defense is going to be playing the run in 3rd and long no matter who we have on the field.

Which could be why the well executed draw, or gawd forbid, the shovel pass, is sometimes effective on 3rd and long.  It takes teams by surprise, and also makes a strong argument for why you might not want to sub out your run blocking OL for pass block specialists.