Brian Schottenheimer Is Not the Problem

[jrry32]

Judging by the games I've seen there defeats can blamed on their lack of a defense. One of the worst in the league IMO.

That's exactly what I'm talking about...it's not really that true. Their offensive system inflates their offensive stats and deflates the defensive stats. I'll show you what I mean:
Eagles Offense
Average Yards Per Drive - 31.1 yards(12th best in the NFL)
Average Points Per Drive - 1.96 points(13th best in the NFL)
Average Yards Per Game - 394.8 yards(5th best in the NFL)
Average Points Per Game - 29.3 points(3rd best in the NFL)
Turnovers - 35(WORST in the NFL)

Eagles Defense
Average Yards Allowed Per Drive - 27.6 yards(5th best in the NFL)
Average Points Allowed Per Drive - 1.76 points(13th best in the NFL)
Average Yards Allowed Per Game - 366.9 yards(25th best in the NFL)
Average Points Allowed Per Game - 24.9 points(23rd best in the NFL)
Turnovers Forced - 27(5th best in the NFL)

Because the offense moves at such a fast pace, they rack up yardage and points but they also force the defense to be on the field a lot more than other NFL defenses. Due to this, the Eagles defense is actually a more efficient unit than the offense but the philosophy just murders their bulk numbers while inflating the heck out of the offensive bulk numbers.

In fact, here's how Seattle's defensive stats would be affected(I'm extrapolating based on their averages) if they were on the field as much as Philadelphia's defense:
Yards Per Game Allowed: 268.6 yards -> 332.6 yards
Points Per Game Allowed: 16.5 points -> 20.5 points

That would drop them from #1 and #1 in those categories to #7 and #8 respectively. And that's the best defense in the NFL.

 

[MrMotes]

Nope. Jets were averaging 29.4 PPG before Favre's injury without the hurry up to inflate their numbers(while hindering defensive performance).

This is getting a little spin-y.

With Favre The Jets scored 25.3 a game (22.9 offensive ppg)
With Foles and Sanchez this year Philadelphia is scoring 29.3 per (24.7 offensive ppg)

I really don't think it's a reach to say Kelly is getting more from Foles and Sanchez than BS got from Favre...

 

[Amitar]

To hammer home my point, would Schottenheimer be a good OC if he had Aaron Rodgers and Jordy Nelson or Carson Palmer and Larry Fitzgerald? Of course....Well, I'm not in that camp and I'm not that lazy....But more importantly, I don't throw players or coaches under the bus unless they really, really deserve it.

He would still be bad OC but the talent of the QB would make it look like he is a good OC to casual observers.
I'm not lazy. I observe, analyze, and make a judgment.
I'm not throwing him under the bus. I.e. I am not blaming him for everything wrong with the offense. But his play calling is poor, unimaginative, and impossible to come up with any semblance of a counter to a defensive adjustment. And I really, really believe it.

 

[jrry32]

This is getting a little spin-y.

With Favre The Jets scored 25.3 a game (22.9 offensive ppg)
With Foles and Sanchez this year Philadelphia is scoring 29.3 per (24.7 offensive ppg)

I really don't think it's a reach to say Kelly is getting more from Foles and Sanchez than BS got from Favre...

No, it's not.

Favre played like hot garbage after he tore his biceps. Before it, he was tearing it up and the Jets offense was tearing it up.

And if you read the post directly above yours, it shows how Kelly's philosophy inflates the bulk numbers of the offense and deflates the bulk numbers of the defense.

Which is something Rex Ryan would never consider. Nor would any intelligent HC in that sort of situation.

So I don't think it's spin, I think you're trying to play with a stacked deck here.

Schottenheimer with actual Brett Favre...not an injured shell of Brett Favre...had the Jets averaging the same PPG that the Eagles are averaging this year...and he did it without inflating his stats at the expense of the defense.

I'm not about to sit here and tell you that Schottenheimer is a better offensive mind than Kelly but I will tell you that I'd take the 2008 Jets offense with a healthy Favre BY A COUNTRY MILE over the Eagles offense this year.

And yes, I think it's absolutely relevant if we're discussing Schottenheimer's ability that we draw a distinction between Favre when he was healthy and Favre when he was injured. Because the OC doesn't control injuries and there was little he could do to fix that problem. When he had the REAL Favre, which is the topic you wanted to discuss to compare and contrast with Kelly who had Foles/Sanchez, the Jets offense was a well oiled machine that was top 2-3 in football that year.

 

[jrry32]

He would still be bad OC but the talent of the QB would make it look like he is a good OC to casual observers.
I'm not lazy. I observe, analyze, and make a judgment.
I'm not throwing him under the bus. I.e. I am not blaming him for everything wrong with the offense. But his play calling is poor, unimaginative, and impossible to come up with any semblance of a counter to a defensive adjustment. And I really, really believe it.

Which is an interesting point to make because I feel like there are a lot of OCs out there that look great with talent and not so great without it.

Which begs the question...how do you know who is and isn't being made by their QB?

There are some OCs you can just tell suck. But Schotty isn't one of those guys. Personally, I think he'd look brilliant with the right personnel and with the wrong personnel, he doesn't.

But that holds true of the vast majority of OCs.

Take Mike McCarthy, for example. He has a brilliant system in GB...but GB hired him coming off a year where his offense in SF ranked 30th in the NFL and Alex Smith had arguably the worst rookie year of all time in his system. Prior to SF, he was NO's OC for 5 years where his offense ranked in the top half of the NFL every single year(including one season where they were #3) with Aaron Brooks at QB.

So without the right personnel and talent, McCarthy had one of the worst offenses...with just enough personnel and talent, he had an above average offense(one year, it was great)...and with great personnel and talent, he perennial has elite offenses.

What does this say about Schotty? I don't think he's McCarthy good...but I do think that if he had the right personnel here, his offense would do well. I think with Sam Bradford this year, we would have been in the top half of the league in points scored.

I don't think Schottenheimer is the problem. He's not exactly the solution either. But I do think he's good enough at what he does that we can be successful with him.

 

[blue4]

I love the Internet. 3 days and 13 pages of vigorous argument complete with realms of statistics and assumptions and the answer both sides have is......


Brian S= Meh. Maybe not a problem but probably not a solution. If there was a problem.

 

[jrry32]

I love the Internet. 3 days and 13 pages of vigorous argument complete with realms of statistics and assumptions and the answer both sides have is......


Brian S= Meh. Maybe not a problem but probably not a solution. If there was a problem.

There's definitely a problem. I'd say three major problems:
1. QB
2. C
3. RG

If freaking Sam would have listened to me and had the procedure they did in Wolverine done to him before the year, our Problem #1 would have been solved. I sent him this video:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ayt4nIZCLQ

 

[moklerman]

There's definitely a problem. I'd say three major problems:
1. QB
2. C
3. RG

If freaking Sam would have listened to me and had the procedure they did in Wolverine done to him before the year, our Problem #1 would have been solved. I sent him this video:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ayt4nIZCLQ

Naw, those claws would just keep popping the ball.

 

[Alan]

mr.stlouis hoping for a miracle:
Should we pick up Sanchize if he's available?

He's not going to be available but if they do let him go I wouldn't want him. Of course, that means he's probably make the PB with someone else next year.

 

[jrry32]

He's not going to be available but if they do let him go I wouldn't want him. Of course, that means he's probably make the PB with someone else next year.

He's still Mark Sanchez.

 

[Alan]

jrry32 demonstrating why he has no life outside of football:
That's exactly what I'm talking about...it's not really that true. Their offensive system inflates their offensive stats and deflates the defensive stats. I'll show you what I mean:

Eagles Defense
Average Yards Allowed Per Drive - 27.6 yards(5th best in the NFL)
Average Points Allowed Per Drive - 1.76 points(13th best in the NFL)
Average Yards Allowed Per Game - 366.9 yards(25th best in the NFL)
Average Points Allowed Per Game - 24.9 points(23rd best in the NFL)
Turnovers Forced - 27(5th best in the NFL)

Because the offense moves at such a fast pace, they rack up yardage and points but they also force the defense to be on the field a lot more than other NFL defenses. Due to this, the Eagles defense is actually a more efficient unit than the offense but the philosophy just murders their bulk numbers while inflating the heck out of the offensive bulk numbers.

This is why you need large sample sizes to get good results from any set of stats. Those stats were derived from a lot of plays so you'd probably surmise that the sample size was large but it's actually very small. All those stats were produced by only one team and in any set of stats there are almost always outliers. In this case the team itself is the outlier. At first glance only. This is a good example of why stats should be parsed and thoroughly analyzed to glean real world info that validates what you see with your eyes.

Having said that, these stats you've given us have just reinforced my view that overall defense should, as it is already, be determined but total yards given up. They have also validated what my eyes have seen. This team better score a lot of points because they're going to give up a lot of points every game.Why a team is giving up shit loads of points is only important in a statistical world and not in real life. When they run up against teams that have good to great Ds they flounder because they can't score enough points to keep up with the amount they give up. I know that sounds counter intuitive when you realize that when their O flounders the other team has less chances to score but it doesn't work out that way in real life situations.

There are a few more nuggets in there to be panned. One of those is turnovers. 5th best in total turnovers but if you use your own logic that ranking would go down considerably if you looked at it from a turnover per opposition drive view. That's just low hanging fruit though. I'd go into this more deeply but I picked up some kind of bug at a Hanukkah party my wife threw last Friday at our house and I'm going back to bad shortly, girded by shit loads of drugs, as I have a Christmas party I have to go to this afternoon. Damn thing will probably last until late into the night (10 PM or so ).

Sorry I wasn't able to give the thought and effort into my reply that all the work you put into compiling and organizing all these stats deserves. If I remember I'll revisit this post when I'm feeling better.

 

[-X-]

13 pages of conversation, but you had me at 'Brian'.

 

[Irish]

Schottenheimer is what he is at this point of his career.

Pros:
Understands NFL offensive players
Runs an efficient offense predicated on limiting mistakes and turnovers
Best when he has a dynamic runningback
Easy to understand offensive nomenclature and play calling, i.e. small learning curve for new players and rookies
Good at utilizing top tier talent

Cons:
Absolutely Zero innovation
Suspect play calling at best, head scratching and frustrating at its worst
Seemingly incapable of game planning in less than optimal situations
Inability/unwillingness to make adjustments
Has not shown an ability to maximize less than stellar players, does not put them in the best position to succeed.

Fisher and co. seem content to go forward with Schottenheimer's warts because they like the perceived positives he brings to a Fisher team. The real question, however, is if the team shows stagnation again next year, is Schotty a hill (no pun intended) that Fisher is willing to die on.

 

[-X-]

Schottenheimer is what he is at this point of his career.

Pros:
Understands NFL offensive players
Runs an efficient offense predicated on limiting mistakes and turnovers
Best when he has a dynamic runningback
Easy to understand offensive nomenclature and play calling, i.e. small learning curve for new players and rookies
Good at utilizing top tier talent

Cons:
Absolutely Zero innovation
Suspect play calling at best, head scratching and frustrating at its worst
Seemingly incapable of game planning in less than optimal situations
Inability/unwillingness to make adjustments
Has not shown an ability to maximize less than stellar players, does not put them in the best position to succeed.

Fisher and co. seem content to go forward with Schottenheimer's warts because they like the perceived positives he brings to a Fisher team. The real question, however, is if the team shows stagnation again next year, is Schotty a hill (no pun intended) that Fisher is willing to die on.

And let me preface this by saying I'm not saying you're wrong or trying to argue about anything. I just have a different POV about some of those things.

Per your PROS:
I don't think he entirely understands offensive players, but he is definitely more pragmatic than McDaniels for damn sure.
Agree on his philosophy of limiting mistakes
Agree he's best (as are most OC's) when he has a stout running attack
Disagree on his playbook. It's been widely reported to be pretty in-depth and requires a lot of study
Agree that he can use top tier talent; but I think we, as fans, tend to assign that label too frivolously

Per your CONS:
Disagree that he has zero innovation. He calls some plays that I haven't seen before and some are really complex.
No comment on the suspect play-calling, because execution makes a play work and lack of execution makes it fail.

* If you mean situational play-calling, then that's subjective too and the same principle applies. ​

Don't know what you mean by "incapable of game planning in less than optimal situations." We have tons of comebacks, but not a lot of closure.
Disagree on the "Inability/unwillingness to make adjustments" part. Adjustments are made constantly.
Disagree that he has not shown an ability to maximize less than stellar players/does not put them in the best position to succeed, because .... how do you know?

 

[MrMotes]

And if you read the post directly above yours, it shows how Kelly's philosophy inflates the bulk numbers of the offense and deflates the bulk numbers of the defense.

Inflated numbers? We're talking about points. They all count the same and they determine who wins the game. Points scored by the Eagles count just the same as those scored by anyone else. There is no inflation, just an offense that scores a lot of points. And they're doing it with Foles and Sanchez, QB's who, if BS had them, we'd be saying, "what do you expect, he doesn't have much to work with..."

But to your original point, i agree BS is not THE problem. He's A problem...

 

[jrry32]

Inflated numbers? We're talking about points. They all count the same and they determine who wins the game. Points scored by the Eagles count just the same as those scored by anyone else. There is no inflation, just an offense that scores a lot of points. And they're doing it with Foles and Sanchez, QB's who, if BS had them, we'd be saying, "what do you expect, he doesn't have much to work with..."

But to your original point, i agree BS is not THE problem. He's A problem...

Great rant. Yes. Inflated numbers. And we are talking about points. Because their points per drive for their offense comes out to 13th in the NFL. Their points per drive for their defense comes out to also 13th in the NFL.

Yet, they're #3 in PPG and #23 in PPG Allowed.

So by inflating their PPG number, they deflate their PPG Allowed. So while their offensive points may count the same as those scored by anyone else...so do the defensive points they allow.

There is a lot of inflation.

 

[jrry32]

Having said that, these stats you've given us have just reinforced my view that overall defense should, as it is already, be determined but total yards given up.

That's disappointing to hear because, imo, it's the worst way of evaluating a defense.

They have also validated what my eyes have seen. This team better score a lot of points because they're going to give up a lot of points every game.Why a team is giving up crap loads of points is only important in a statistical world and not in real life. When they run up against teams that have good to great Ds they flounder because they can't score enough points to keep up with the amount they give up. I know that sounds counter intuitive when you realize that when their O flounders the other team has less chances to score but it doesn't work out that way in real life situations.

That's not exactly what my eyes have seen. What my eyes have seen is that a team who likes to use the tempo they do sacrifices on defense because of how many plays their defense must suffer through. The quicker your drive, the more drives your defense sees. But it also means more chances for you to score...but also more chances for your opponents to score. Why do you think teams with top tier defenses typically choose the ball control method on offense? They want to play to their strength on defense by lowering the number of drives each game. The Eagles do the opposite. And as I have shown, it significantly hinders their defensive bulk output.

There are a few more nuggets in there to be panned. One of those is turnovers. 5th best in total turnovers but if you use your own logic that ranking would go down considerably if you looked at it from a turnover per opposition drive view. That's just low hanging fruit though. I'd go into this more deeply but I picked up some kind of bug at a Hanukkah party my wife threw last Friday at our house and I'm going back to bad shortly, girded by crap loads of drugs, as I have a Christmas party I have to go to this afternoon. Damn thing will probably last until late into the night (10 PM or so ).

Yep. Both their offensive and defensive turnovers per drive would be lower in ranking than the bulk number...but that kind of goes to my point as well.

 

[wrstdude]

@jrry32 Hey you seem to have one hell of a football mind. I'm always trying to grow my FB IQ. I have a fundamental and working understanding of most offensive and defensive schemes. However you see things I just wouldn't. Any tips or books or something I could use to grow that IQ?

This is a great read. More like a series of essays, but lots of useful information.

http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Smart-Football-Chris-Brown/dp/1470125595

 

[MrMotes]

Great rant. Yes. Inflated numbers. And we are talking about points. Because their points per drive for their offense comes out to 13th in the NFL. Their points per drive for their defense comes out to also 13th in the NFL.

Yet, they're #3 in PPG and #23 in PPG Allowed.

So by inflating their PPG number, they deflate their PPG Allowed. So while their offensive points may count the same as those scored by anyone else...so do the defensive points they allow.

There is a lot of inflation.

The Eagles won 10 games last year and have 9 so far this year with not a lot of defense and Nick Foles and Mark Sanchez playing QB. I guess the win totals are inflated too?

 

[jrry32]

The Eagles won 10 games last year and have 9 so far this year with not a lot of defense and Nick Foles and Mark Sanchez playing QB. I guess the win totals are inflated too?

That's the irony. They actually have quite a bit of defense this year. As I adeptly pointed out, their offensive scheme just hung them out to dry. Their defense is one of the best at forcing turnovers, top 5 in yards allowed per drive, and #13 in points allowed per drive(likely related to the fact that their offense is worst in the NFL at protecting the football).

On a per drive basis, their defense is right around the top 10.

But their offensive philosophy hangs their defense out to dry.

They won 10 games last year mostly because of their offense(and their low number of turnovers). Their defense was an average unit.

This year, it's very different. Their defense has been a more efficient unit than their offense. But the bulk stats will never reflect that because the offensive system they use inflates those numbers and deflates their defensive numbers...as I already showed with the Seahawks comparison.

You can continue to ignore that but it doesn't make what you're saying any less wrong. It's really fairly simple...more offensive drives/plays mean more opportunities to score points and rack up yardage. Which means your bulk yardage and point totals will be higher. The trade-off is that it means more plays/drives for your opponents to rack up yardage and score on your defense.

Newton's third law: "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction."

Seems like that sort of logic applies well here.