Greg Robinson's move a work in progress/Wagoner

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

CoachO

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
3,392
One thing that seems to be a huge misconception, IMO, is the feeling that they are "throwing the entire playbook" at them. This is RARELY ever the case, as an offense evolves over the course of the entire season. I think in many cases, people think the "playbook" is simply a collection of "plays" that they learn to run, and it tends to be all inclusive. That isn't the case. The biggest issue when it comes to learning a "system" is the terminology that comes with it.

Has anyone ever listened to an actual play call in the huddle? There could be as many as 10-12 different "terms" in a single play and every system is different in how they are organized. It's not the PLAY that they get stuck on, its the terminology and the sequence that most have difficulty getting comfortable with.

Part of the reason that WRs tend to have the hardest time, is in most systems, the terminology of passing plays are VERY complex. Not only are the formations, motion, routes, and combinations all contained in that "play call", they also need to know the adjustments based on the coverages.

Offensive line play, is widely regarded as requiring some of the more "intelligent" people on the roster. As is the case with the WRs, even on a basic running play, there are terms used in these calls, which could be very similar, but at the same time very different in their ultimate assignment. To over simplify my point, the difference in a "wham" vs. a "blast" might only be ONE word, but it changes everything when it comes to how the same play is blocked.

So, IMO, its not that Schottenheimer, or Williams are "throwing the entire playbook" at them in terms of expecting them to learn 500 PLAYS in June, its more a scenario where they are trying to get them up to speed as quickly as possible with the various complex terminology, which applies to any and every "play" they install, both now, and later on in the season.
 

Rmfnlt

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
5,342
A rookie is overwhelmed in OTAs?

Shocking! :)
 

CoachO

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
3,392
For those of you who have a WHOLE LOT OF TIME on your hands, here is some interesting "reading" if you are interested in seeing just how complex a "playbook" can be.

Mike Martz' 2000 Playbook. It's 411 pages, and the FIRST 190 pages is nothing but terminology. It's not until he gets into the RUN GAME section does it actually show actual play diagrams (and that is limited to the interior line play and what hole to hit)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2945347/2000-Rams-Martz-Offense

this might give you some insight as to what goes into a play call, and everything that it means.
 

wrstdude

Rookie
Joined
May 27, 2013
Messages
433
Gotcha. This is difficult to hash out because (a) we don't know if he's doing anything wrong and (b) if he does change anything, would it be the right move? I saw a lot of execution problems last year (and the year before), but to be fair, that's because there are a lot of young players trying to execute on many levels for the same play. Could he dumb things down? I don't know, because I don't know if his stuff is actually that difficult to understand. It's like Fisher said ... "We don't draw up plays that don't work." Maybe, like you alleged, he's just not a good teacher. Of all the suppositions in this discussion, that one seems the most likely.

Regarding Patterson though, he didn't do any better than Givens did in 2012 (or as well). And we know who was calling the plays for us then.

Agreed on all counts.

The youth could be why Schotty continues to be in charge of the offense; knowing that the learning curve is so steep. Fisher's diagnosis could be that youth alone is holding back the offense and is granting a long leash to ultimately see his full vision. I'm, admittedly, curious as well but am becoming increasingly impatient. As you said, there's no way to know if another approach would work better. I would like to think that at some point 1 rookie would come in and immediately "get it." It's always been disconcerting that even Bradford struggled with it.
 

CoachO

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
3,392
Agreed on all counts.

The youth could be why Schotty continues to be in charge of the offense; knowing that the learning curve is so steep. Fisher's diagnosis could be that youth alone is holding back the offense and is granting a long leash to ultimately see his full vision. I'm, admittedly, curious as well but am becoming increasingly impatient. As you said, there's no way to know if another approach would work better. I would like to think that at some point 1 rookie would come in and immediately "get it." It's always been disconcerting that even Bradford struggled with it.

I think this points out just how valuable being in the same system really is for a QB. Take a look at the "elite" guys such as P. Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Brees. Aside from being extremely talented, they ALL have the luxury of "growing up" in the same system, and in many cases having a hand in its development.

When Schottenheimer makes comments about how Bradford NOW knows the system "like the back of his hand", once again, its all about being totally comfortable with the terminology, and knowing exactly what to do as soon has he hears a play call.

I remember Warner, back in the days of the GSOT having to correct the calls that would come in from Matrz, because one or two phrases would be out of order, or omitted. He had such an understanding of the offense, that he knew instantly what it was supposed to be. I think this is where you will see Bradford moving forward.
 

wrstdude

Rookie
Joined
May 27, 2013
Messages
433
One thing that seems to be a huge misconception, IMO, is the feeling that they are "throwing the entire playbook" at them. This is RARELY ever the case, as an offense evolves over the course of the entire season. I think in many cases, people think the "playbook" is simply a collection of "plays" that they learn to run, and it tends to be all inclusive. That isn't the case. The biggest issue when it comes to learning a "system" is the terminology that comes with it.

Has anyone ever listened to an actual play call in the huddle? There could be as many as 10-12 different "terms" in a single play and every system is different in how they are organized. It's not the PLAY that they get stuck on, its the terminology and the sequence that most have difficulty getting comfortable with.

Part of the reason that WRs tend to have the hardest time, is in most systems, the terminology of passing plays are VERY complex. Not only are the formations, motion, routes, and combinations all contained in that "play call", they also need to know the adjustments based on the coverages.

Offensive line play, is widely regarded as requiring some of the more "intelligent" people on the roster. As is the case with the WRs, even on a basic running play, there are terms used in these calls, which could be very similar, but at the same time very different in their ultimate assignment. To over simplify my point, the difference in a "wham" vs. a "blast" might only be ONE word, but it changes everything when it comes to how the same play is blocked.

So, IMO, its not that Schottenheimer, or Williams are "throwing the entire playbook" at them in terms of expecting them to learn 500 PLAYS in June, its more a scenario where they are trying to get them up to speed as quickly as possible with the various complex terminology, which applies to any and every "play" they install, both now, and later on in the season.

This is the crux of my point. I oversimplified my argument by saying "throwing the whole playbook" but when you have a dictionary to learn before you can run a play, it's essentially the same thing. Not every offense has that much verbiage and its not necessary to be an effective NFL offense. If you get a chance to read Smart Football by Chris Brown he illustrates many different ways that offenses have evolved in order to avoid things like that; ie packaged plays. I know coaching at the high school level, which is a far cry from the NFL, we have to work very hard for the players to understand basic terminology. As the levels increase the players must be smarter and know more. However, just because it's the NFL doesn't mean it has to be difficult. An adaptation of Occam's razor is usually beneficial for all parties as I think at the higher levels coaches tend to "over think."

So it may not be that all the plays are being thrown at them, however if all the verbiage is, it's kind of the same thing. As you illustrated simply changing one word changes an entire play an understanding all of the terms is necessary in order to run the most basic play. So his schemes & plays can remain the same, but by simply changing how a play is called could greatly reduce the learning curve for the installation of the base package of plays for the rookies. Then, as the season progresses and they become more familiar with the offense, they can progress into the meat of what he wants to do and gradually introduce more of the terminology.

Edited to add that he may very well be doing that and the players are just stupid. Again, I don't feel that's the case though as indicated by Bradford's struggles and that not one rookie, that I'm aware of has came in and said, "Yup, this all makes perfect sense!" lol
 
Last edited:

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
Agreed on all counts.

The youth could be why Schotty continues to be in charge of the offense; knowing that the learning curve is so steep. Fisher's diagnosis could be that youth alone is holding back the offense and is granting a long leash to ultimately see his full vision. I'm, admittedly, curious as well but am becoming increasingly impatient. As you said, there's no way to know if another approach would work better. I would like to think that at some point 1 rookie would come in and immediately "get it." It's always been disconcerting that even Bradford struggled with it.
I hear ya. And thanks for the discussion. It is frustrating because you need the QB, O-line, RB, and WRs to all execute well (not perfect, but well) for a pass play to be successful. If it's not one lack of execution, it's another. Miss a block, force a throw. Fail to chip, force a throw. Fail to recognize a sight-adjustment in the pre-snap read, and the throw is incomplete or intercepted. With a roster this inexperienced, it's difficult to get across the board execution. I saw Brady struggle when it was just the receivers who were behind the curve. That's why I feel like this is THE year, but it won't be easy.
I think this points out just how valuable being in the same system really is for a QB. Take a look at the "elite" guys such as P. Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Brees. Aside from being extremely talented, they ALL have the luxury of "growing up" in the same system, and in many cases having a hand in its development.

When Schottenheimer makes comments about how Bradford NOW knows the system "like the back of his hand", once again, its all about being totally comfortable with the terminology, and knowing exactly what to do as soon has he hears a play call.

I remember Warner, back in the days of the GSOT having to correct the calls that would come in from Matrz, because one or two phrases would be out of order, or omitted. He had such an understanding of the offense, that he knew instantly what it was supposed to be. I think this is where you will see Bradford moving forward.
Agreed. And now it's up to Bradford to take the next step and begin to direct traffic. He's the one with all the knowledge now.
 

CoachO

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
3,392
This is the crux of my point. I oversimplified my argument by saying "throwing the whole playbook" but when you have a dictionary to learn before you can run a play, it's essentially the same thing. Not every offense has that much verbiage and its not necessary to be an effective NFL offense. If you get a chance to read Smart Football by Chris Brown he illustrates many different ways that offenses have evolved in order to avoid things like that; ie packaged plays. I know coaching at the high school level, which is a far cry from the NFL, we have to work very hard for the players to understand basic terminology. As the levels increase the players must be smarter and know more. However, just because it's the NFL doesn't mean it has to be difficult. An adaptation of Occam's razor is usually beneficial for all parties as I think at the higher levels coaches tend to "over think."

So it may not be that all the plays are being thrown at them, however if all the verbiage is, it's kind of the same thing. As you illustrated simply changing one word changes an entire play an understanding all of the terms is necessary in order to run the most basic play. So his schemes & plays can remain the same, but by simply changing how a play is called could greatly reduce the learning curve for the installation of the base package of plays for the rookies. Then, as the season progresses and they become more familiar with the offense, they can progress into the meat of what he wants to do and gradually introduce more of the terminology.

I agree with you in principle, but I think you run the risk of hindering the rest of the offense (or defense) by trying to cater to the rookies. There will always be a learning curve, and as such, part of the reason that rookies IMO, should not be counted on. I also agree that in all too many cases, NFL coaches over think things to the point of trying to justify that they are "the smartest guys in the room".

I think in way too many instances, in this era of over saturated media coverage, and the FF mindset, that these rookies are expected to contribute at a unrealistic level. Draft status has never been so talked about, but now that every pick is dissected ad nausea, these guys are counted on to be the saviors of their respective teams instantly.

I have always viewed the draft as a long term investment, that players selected (including a Brian Quick) are selected for what they will become, not what they have to be day one. In that light, trying to "dumb down" the system for a class of rookies every year, to me is counter productive.
 

LACHAMP46

A snazzy title
Joined
Jul 21, 2013
Messages
11,735
COACHO!!!!! Love it...see your point "trying to dumb down the system for a class of rookies every year, to me is counter productive"...Another point, it does seem as if some O-Linemen make the transition to a starter as a rookie easier than some/most skilled positions. Could they be more cerebral? Learning the entire terminology is essentially throwing the playbook at someone, would this be done in OTA's? It's not all the plays, but the ground work for learning all the plays, correct?

So, me expecting Mo Alexander to start at safety 1st preseason game is jumping the gun a lil bit?
 

wrstdude

Rookie
Joined
May 27, 2013
Messages
433
I agree with you in principle, but I think you run the risk of hindering the rest of the offense (or defense) by trying to cater to the rookies. There will always be a learning curve, and as such, part of the reason that rookies IMO, should not be counted on. I also agree that in all too many cases, NFL coaches over think things to the point of trying to justify that they are "the smartest guys in the room".

I think in way too many instances, in this era of over saturated media coverage, and the FF mindset, that these rookies are expected to contribute at a unrealistic level. Draft status has never been so talked about, but now that every pick is dissected ad nausea, these guys are counted on to be the saviors of their respective teams instantly.

I have always viewed the draft as a long term investment, that players selected (including a Brian Quick) are selected for what they will become, not what they have to be day one. In that light, trying to "dumb down" the system for a class of rookies every year, to me is counter productive.

Agreed-this ties into your earlier point in which continuity or consistency from year to year is so important. It also makes it a double edged sword-very few offenses have relied so heavily on so many rookies. There are virtually no veterans in place in any position of the offense for the tenure of Schotty. So while "slowing" things down could be a detriment for a veteran filled team I feel the converse is true for a team full of players with less than 3 years of experience. Which again goes back to my point; with so many rookies w/in the offense, maybe a lesser version would have been more beneficial. Who's to know for sure and as I mentioned I'm just becoming impatient.

Now, if the "system is the system" for the past 10 years, then the veterans will already know they're doing the base package until the rookies get up to speed but it's also likely there aren't that many rookies on which to rely. It's been difficult, to say the least, for Schotty to implement anything in that regard because of the massive amount of roster turnover the Rams have experienced and reliance on so many rookies. Personnel stability will only help.
 

CoachO

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
3,392
Agreed-this ties into your earlier point in which continuity or consistency from year to year is so important. It also makes it a double edged sword-very few offenses have relied so heavily on so many rookies. There are virtually no veterans in place in any position of the offense for the tenure of Schotty. So while "slowing" things down could be a detriment for a veteran filled team I feel the converse is true for a team full of players with less than 3 years of experience. Which again goes back to my point; with so many rookies w/in the offense, maybe a lesser version would have been more beneficial. Who's to know for sure and as I mentioned I'm just becoming impatient.

Now, if the "system is the system" for the past 10 years, then the veterans will already know they're doing the base package until the rookies get up to speed but it's also likely there aren't that many rookies on which to rely. It's been difficult, to say the least, for Schotty to implement anything in that regard because of the massive amount of roster turnover the Rams have experienced and reliance on so many rookies. Personnel stability will only help.

Again, I agree with your basic point, but I think we are to the point, where other than Robinson, ALL of the rest of the key components on offense will be in their 2nd or 3rd year in this system, which should translate into a much higher level of execution, and success.
 

wrstdude

Rookie
Joined
May 27, 2013
Messages
433
Again, I agree with your basic point, but I think we are to the point, where other than Robinson, ALL of the rest of the key components on offense will be in their 2nd or 3rd year in this system, which should translate into a much higher level of execution, and success.

I agree-was just expounding...because I'm long winded and make my points as confusingly as possible.
 

CoachO

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
3,392
COACHO!!!!! Love it...see your point "trying to dumb down the system for a class of rookies every year, to me is counter productive"...Another point, it does seem as if some O-Linemen make the transition to a starter as a rookie easier than some/most skilled positions. Could they be more cerebral? Learning the entire terminology is essentially throwing the playbook at someone, would this be done in OTA's? It's not all the plays, but the ground work for learning all the plays, correct?

So, me expecting Mo Alexander to start at safety 1st preseason game is jumping the gun a lil bit?

To answer your question about OL being more cerebral that many of the skill positions, I tend to think that is by and large a fair assessment. In Robinson's case, he is said to be quite intelligent, IMO, the "struggles" mentioned have more to do with the basic system he ran at Auburn vs. any system he would have been expected to learn at the NFL level. There is no reason to think he will struggle with that part of the game, it just takes time. As he eluded to in his comments.
 

RamBill

Legend
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
8,874
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #56
PFT's Mike Florio: The No. 2 overall pick in the 2014 NFL Draft, former Auburn outside tackle Greg Robinson, is struggling early with his transition to the NFL. Should the Rams be worried? (2:29)

Watch Florio Talk Robinson
 

mr.stlouis

Legend
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
6,454
Name
Main Hook
Love his honesty, what a great young giant Robinson is.

He'll be facing some of the best DT tandems in the league during training camp. I'm have no doubt he'll be a beast week 1.
 

mr.stlouis

Legend
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
6,454
Name
Main Hook
Can u beleive he got heat forms guys like Florio from that honest, most understandable, comment? Rediculous...
 

PrometheusFaulk

Starter
Joined
May 25, 2013
Messages
618
That's interesting, what he says about how the game's moving faster because he's not able to kick slide. I wonder if that's true or just kind of a pride thing because of the speed of pro players in general's a lot to handle, and overlapping it with the transition helps mitigate his vulnerability.

Remember to be patient with this kid. He's been a dominant athlete for a long time, but like Ron Washington says in Moneyball, playing left tackle is "extremely hard."

He's talented enough to be great. He's got some savvy vets and a great unit coach, it's a really good situation for him to get started. He just needs to be patient and let the game come to him.