Browns Guards

NFL personnel people and coaches, unlike many Browns' fans, have a healthy respect for the Cleveland Browns' guards.  Perhaps they should agree to disagree, and that the fans are wrong.

Statisticly Luavao last season was dowright bad.  But the others, including Pinkston who has returned, were average at worst.  More young potential guards have been added through the draft and free agency, and Luavao is in his third season (injured as a rookie).

As Tony Grossi has pointed out a lot, the issue with these new/improving guards is that they're not very mobile.  None of them appear to be pulling guards who can get outside ahead of the running back.

It's sort of a trade-off, though.  Whichever two end up starting will be strong drive-blockers, good pass-protectors, and capable of reaching linebackers in space ahead of them (so they're not completely lead-footed.)

This would seem to mandate a 250 lb. blocking fullback, but instead, the Browns have stockpiled running backs.  So they don't know what they're doing, right?

Instead of trying to run the team, why not try to figure out why Norv Turner and company do what they do?  Because, you know what?  They know a little more about football than you do.

As Joe Thomas has tried to tell you, the deep passes in this offense pull defenders away from the line of scrimmage.  That's a clue.

Most of the offensive sets mandate nickel or dime defenses.  And since that's based on matchups and tendancies more than how the players are labelled, in some cases this even applies to two-backs or two tight end sets.  In general, the defenses will want to attack on neutral downs and risk getting stung by the run.

Weeden isn't a threat to run, so containment is not an issue, and they'll seek inside penetration to deprive him of a pocket and make him scramble.  Improved footwork should make him more accurate as he moves, but he'll never be as effective outside the pocket.

The outside rushers won't worry about opening a gap for Weeden to run for yards, and generally do have to commit to attacking him, which (more often than not) means trying to get around the tackles.

So with all those gaps, why would the running back need a lead-blocking fullback?  Especially a back who can run over half of the defenders?  

Of course, obvious run downs, and late in games when the run is the best way to drain the clock and protect a lead, are different.  Here, the fact that a blocking fullback is useful to the defense as a key doesn't matter so much.  They pretty much expect the run and can key the running back anyway.

Here you might see a big running back or tight end at fullback, or offset as an H-back or something.

This offense is much different than Square-Peg Shurmer's in that it spreads the defense out verticly as well as laterally, and mandates blitzes.  It's also far more important for the interior linemen to be stout and physical than to be athletic.

Vs. the West Coast, more defenders could be closer to the line and between the tackles because the recievers slant and cross the short and intermediate areas of the field--between the tackles.  Vs. this offense, it will be very, very hard to stack the box.

You need a blocking fullback or a pulling guard against seven or eight guys.  Not against five.

In a perfect world, the left guard would be Alan Fanika, but those guys are rare, and it's not at all realistic to expect perfection.

As Tony points out, they've invested heavily in the center and two tackles, and this will be one of the best offensive lines in the NFL overall.

Last week, I read another analysis that pointed out that Gil Brandt cited the prevalence of two tight end sets featuring te/wr hybrid "wing" tight ends in the NFL as a strong and growing trend.  That's true.

But the article went on to conclude that the Browns might or might not have the depth at TE to run it.  The implied premis is based on sheepthink.  The assumption is that Chud and Norv are obliged to stick with the flock.

Why?  They're the ones who come up with stuff like this.  Everybody else copies them.

Plus, like I said before, it's an arms race.  Just as the two tight end sets are becoming more prevalent, defenses are being built to stop them.  The smartest coaches don't want to be like everybody else.  If this defense is built to stop two tight ends, it's better of my offense uses something different DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

This is one of the reasons I think they might be setting up for a lot of two-back (with two running backs).  The guy they got to match up to that wing tight end doesn't match up so well with a quick/fast running back.

But it's deeper than that: You see, Jordan Cameron IS that tight end, so in a 21 grouping (two backs, one tight end) they still probably need to use that guy.  So who's got the other running back, who might line up in the slot?  

Further, everybody seems to think that Jordan will only line up split out.  Buy a clue.  He wasn't a great in-line blocker when he was drafted (but in reality was ok), and he was chosen mainly for his potential as a reciever, but you will see a complete tight end who can line up next to the tackle and take on defensive ends.  And this makes the guy who's supposed to cover him a liability against the run, because Cameron can smash him, and he's not built to stop the run.

Different defenses come up with different answers.  More often than not, they hope they have an extra safety they can use for the second running back.  It might look like a conventional front seven, but it's not, because one of the "linebackers" is a safety.

It's a lighter front which will attack the backfield, and the running backs can block blitzers or safeties downfield.

Just a theory.  But the main point is, don't think like a sheep.