Cards want versatile offensive line

[BACH]

Cards want versatile offensive line
Kent Somers
The Arizona Republic
May. 14, 2007 06:03 PM

If Russ Grimm has his way, the Cardinals offensive line will be so versatile that no one label will describe it.

Running a zone power scheme? The Cardinals want to be able to do that.

Using a straight power game? That, too.

Feel like pulling the two guards to lead Edgerrin James on a sweep? That's in the playbook.

"We want to be multiple," said Grimm, the team's offensive line coach. "Certain players fit different styles of offense. Some are better in some than others. We're looking for guys that pretty much can do a little bit of everything."

That kind of versatility requires mobility. The Cardinals don't want to start five behemoths who move slower than the field that rolls in and out at University of Phoenix Stadium.

"In this offense everybody has to be able to move and run," said tackle Mike Gandy.

It's especially important that the guards can run, because they're often asked to pull in this offense. That's why coaches want right guard Deuce Lutui, who played at 338 pounds last year, to lose weight. That's why Reggie Wells was moved from right tackle to left guard.

In coach Ken Whisenhunt's offense, guards don't just hit the linemen in front of them and then try to block a linebacker if they can. They'll often be asked to sprint to the other side of the ball and hit defenders in the open field.

"Obviously, if you don't have that kind of personnel, you're limited to what kind of offense you can run," Grimm said.

Grimm isn't quite sure what kind of personnel he has yet, but he's encouraged by the work of his players this off-season. Lutui is losing weight and looked much better in the team's recent minicamp than he did in its first, Grimm said.

Wells also has lost weight, although that wasn't a priority for him, Whisenhunt said. Wells was listed at 318 last year and is down to around 315, Grimm said.

"He's athletic and he's a physical player," Grimm said. "He has all the tools."

When evaluating last season, Whisenhunt and Grimm were impressed with the way Wells played at right tackle. Yet, they moved him to guard because of his athletic ability.

"The thing is when you get a guy with a lot of ability at tackle, then he's stuck on that one side," Grimm said. "At guard, I can get him on either side of the ball."

Moving Wells created a hole at right tackle, which will be filled by either Gandy, Oliver Ross or first-round pick Levi Brown. One of those guys will be the starting left tackle.

The Cardinals don't have a prototype vision for each position. A player's frame determines how much weight he should carry, Whisenhunt said. Coaches would like Lutui to be under 330 pounds, while someone like Brown can carry that weight more easily.

"What it comes down tois the weight their body and frame can hold and how they move that weight," Whisenhunt said.

Addressing the offensive line was a priority of Whisenhunt's when he took the job in January. The Cardinals averaged just 3.2 yards a rush last year, which ranked last in the NFL.

Whisenhunt received a big boost when he hired Grimm, who is highly regarded in the league. Then the organization added Gandy and center Al Johnson in free agency and drafted Brown fifth overall.

But Whisenhunt and Grimm are quick to point out that many questions remain to be answered. There's not a lot you can tell about offensive linemen from watching them practice in shorts at minicamp. The real test comes when training camp opens in July.

"The biggest thing for the big guys is once we get the pads on," Grimm said.

Mods, if this breaks the rules, then delete, but as I understand it the "ban" on full articles only included Somer's and Urban's blogs.

Anyway, according to this Wells is not the odd man out, Milford is.

 

[Pariah]

In theory, I like it.

But, I also worry that what this line has been lacking the past few years is an identity--and now their identity is supposed to be "no identity?" Could be trouble.

 

[Russ Smith]

We've been versatile for years, we could miss blocks on run plays, pass plays, on inside runs, outside runs, draws, you name it we missed them.

I have to admit this is the year I'm actually believing the new coaching staff is going to improve the OL.

So far it's all about finding the best 5 guys on the field, I dont' hear any ego or other nonsense, I just hear coaches that want to put together the best OL they can possibly get from the guys we have to work with.

 

[conraddobler]

We've been versatile for years, we could miss blocks on run plays, pass plays, on inside runs, outside runs, draws, you name it we missed them.

I have to admit this is the year I'm actually believing the new coaching staff is going to improve the OL.

So far it's all about finding the best 5 guys on the field, I dont' hear any ego or other nonsense, I just hear coaches that want to put together the best OL they can possibly get from the guys we have to work with.

I had to seriously chuckle, on the NFL network minicamp thing I watched they actually ran a screen in practice, granted it was narfed up which all our screens are but I just had to laugh out loud that here we go again, hopefully with better results this time.

I agree this group from what I saw has the correct approach, they may get things wrong but I doubt they'll be too stubborn to admit it forever. I expect improvements but I wouldn't get terribly excited about our line at least not yet, there be a lot of work to do.

 

[Zeno]

I'm still concerned about Wells and Gandy being lined up out of position and Milford Brown being an afterthought now after how well he played the last half of the season.

They said no favorites were being played but how else do you explain Oliver Ross and Al Johnson being in the starting lineup? Shouldn't both of them have to beat out players to earn those spots(Wells at OT and Leckey at Center respectively?)? We at least see that on defense with Holt and Hood not listed as starters (even though we all assume they were signed to be starters).

 

[CardinalChris]

Except they actually have a reason for moving players. Well's skills matched what they want their guards to do, so they moved him there. It always felt like before players were forced to play in a position that did not suite their skill set. Just what I got out of that article.

 

[Russ Smith]

I'm still concerned about Wells and Gandy being lined up out of position and Milford Brown being an afterthought now after how well he played the last half of the season.

They said no favorites were being played but how else do you explain Oliver Ross and Al Johnson being in the starting lineup? Shouldn't both of them have to beat out players to earn those spots(Wells at OT and Leckey at Center respectively?)? We at least see that on defense with Holt and Hood not listed as starters (even though we all assume they were signed to be starters).

Look at the notes from the nest thread, Whiz specifically says no position is set in stone, he said Wells and Lutui have performed before and you take that into account, but that the best players are going to play. For the first time in awhile I really believe it when a coach says that. I don't think he's playing favorites or trying to motivate, I think he will legitimately put the guys on the field he thinks are going to make the team better.

I reserve the right to change my mind later but so far I like what I'm reading and hearing.

 

[BACH]

Except they actually have a reason for moving players. Well's skills matched what they want their guards to do, so they moved him there. It always felt like before players were forced to play in a position that did not suite their skill set. Just what I got out of that article.

Exactly. That's the really positive thing I get out of this article, too.

Grimm wants pulling guards, so he wants the athletic Wells back at guard.

The old coaching staff prefered athletic tackles that could reach-block on the outside, but yet they didn't move Wells out there until mid season AND kept Ross there despite excelling at downblocking and struggling big time sealing on reaches.

 

[Scot1]

I am favorably impressed by the rationale for moving Wells. I also think this group may be able to declare an approach (open competition etc.) strategically while keeping their real plans and expectations to themselves. After all, they were pretty convincing about being OK [read: out of touch with reality] with the pre-Draft OL and open to selecting other players, then came through by choosing Brown.

I admit I am worried by this "adaptive" notion. It sounds like plug-and-play, which does not build coordination by repetition, the hallmark of great OLs. The same with "mental reps". I hope that is just a strategy to get Ross, Gandy, etc. motivated, so Grimm can see their best before [probably] benching them.

 

[Redsz]

I was impressed with the article and relieved to read the rationale behind moving Wells. I still have my doubts about the switch, but at least there is a method to their madness.

Also, MJ noted that Grimm is only looking at installing five running plays under the old 'keep it simple stupid' motto.

 

[joeshmo]

I am all for versatile as long as it doesnt turn into complicated or confusing. Its a very fine line to walk.

 

[Pariah]

Also, MJ noted that Grimm is only looking at installing five running plays under the old 'keep it simple stupid' motto.

ONLY five? For the season? Yet, we're supposed to run it 550 times this season?

 

[joeshmo]

Also, MJ noted that Grimm is only looking at installing five running plays under the old 'keep it simple stupid' motto.

Doesnt that contradict the whole idea of versatile?

 

[CardinalChris]

Doesnt that contradict the whole idea of versatile?

I think they were talking personnel wise. The players may be versatile and the playbook rigid and predictable......

 

[BACH]

Doesnt that contradict the whole idea of versatile?

The five different types of running plays can be run at different holes = still numerous combinations

 

[joeshmo]

I think they were talking personnel wise. The players may be versatile and the playbook rigid and predictable......

What is the point of having versatile personnel combined with a rigid playbook with only 5 running plays? Doesnt that defeat the purpose. You would think a versatile personnel grouping would allow for more plays because they can handle more situations not less. Just seems like a very odd combo to me.

Hopefully MJ really ment they are just running 5 plays right now in these mini camps just to get the basic schemes down.

 

[Redsz]

ONLY five? For the season? Yet, we're supposed to run it 550 times this season?

That's what he said. I would think that MJ is refering to the blocking schemes not the actual plays, though?

Although, it is not uncommon for a team to do this. For instance, the Bears only have five blitzes that they use and yet they are one of the best D's in the NFL.

 

[joeshmo]

The five different types of running plays can be run at different holes = still numerous combinations

So MJ really should have said 5 different run schemes(strech, zone, counter, and so on), not 5 run plays. There is a big difference in my head.

I get it now, its all in the wording.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I would rather be really good at one thing than somewhat proficient at everything.

I also found it funny Elton Brown wasn't mentioned at all. The Scissors are coming my under-achieving friend.

 

[lobo]

ONLY five? For the season? Yet, we're supposed to run it 550 times this season?

Why don't you go to your nearest Blockbuster and try and find some of the old game films of the Packers of the 60' and early 70's, open up a bottle of hershey's milk chocolate and watch the film 6/7 times. See how many plays they ran, I believe it is less than five. After you have that down, then open up an NFL Guide Book and take a look at their record over that period of time, and also note the success rate of Bart Starr's passing during that period as well.

If you still are having a problem with this, you might also pick up some of Vince Lombardi's old weekly TV shows where he goes into some pretty good detail on how the 49 (i think that was the number) was run. Isn't it interesting the the defensive coordinators knew what they were going to do and they still were able to do it quite well.

Ya' think that Grimm mentioning the need for pulling guards might have something to do with that. Ya' think well moving inside might also have a bearing on this?

 

[conraddobler]

Why don't you go to your nearest Blockbuster and try and find some of the old game films of the Packers of the 60' and early 70's, open up a bottle of hershey's milk chocolate and watch the film 6/7 times. See how many plays they ran, I believe it is less than five. After you have that down, then open up an NFL Guide Book and take a look at their record over that period of time, and also note the success rate of Bart Starr's passing during that period as well.

If you still are having a problem with this, you might also pick up some of Vince Lombardi's old weekly TV shows where he goes into some pretty good detail on how the 49 (i think that was the number) was run. Isn't it interesting the the defensive coordinators knew what they were going to do and they still were able to do it quite well.

Ya' think that Grimm mentioning the need for pulling guards might have something to do with that. Ya' think well moving inside might also have a bearing on this?

I think people mistake simple for basic, or for mundane and unimaginative, in theory if all your plays have a really well designed compliment to them the perfect offense would again in theory be rather basic.

The trick is to design plays that come out of a common formation and that allow you to take advantage of the defense with a few basic combinations of the same play.

IE, exploit what you are given, and again ideally it should be second hand nature and simple for everyone on your team to know what to do given a certain look by the defense.

It's really more complicated than that in the NFL since the defense is always trying to disguise what it's really going to do but the concept is still the same, dictate to them first, master a few things completely, hopefully in that set of skills are things that work against all the likely looks you can get, then vary it and adapt to what their allowing you to have.

So again an offense is just like a beautifully written program, tight code that is wonderfully efficient, no wasted plays, no wasted motion, always an answer, always telling the defense what IT must do to stop you.

 

[CardinalChris]

What is the point of having versatile personnel combined with a rigid playbook with only 5 running plays? Doesnt that defeat the purpose. You would think a versatile personnel grouping would allow for more plays because they can handle more situations not less. Just seems like a very odd combo to me.

Hopefully MJ really ment they are just running 5 plays right now in these mini camps just to get the basic schemes down.

Not necessarily. Versatile personnel means that when somebody gets hurt, another player can step in without missing much. Being able to play 2 spots doesn't mean you should be able to run twice as many plays. For a team without star depth on the line but several similar-talent level guys, this is a good thing. The purpose of being able to play multiple slots is in maintaining the talent on the line, not broadening the playbook.

 

[BigRedArk]

Why don't you go to your nearest Blockbuster and try and find some of the old game films of the Packers of the 60' and early 70's, open up a bottle of hershey's milk chocolate and watch the film 6/7 times. See how many plays they ran, I believe it is less than five. After you have that down, then open up an NFL Guide Book and take a look at their record over that period of time, and also note the success rate of Bart Starr's passing during that period as well.

If you still are having a problem with this, you might also pick up some of Vince Lombardi's old weekly TV shows where he goes into some pretty good detail on how the 49 (i think that was the number) was run. Isn't it interesting the the defensive coordinators knew what they were going to do and they still were able to do it quite well.

Ya' think that Grimm mentioning the need for pulling guards might have something to do with that. Ya' think well moving inside might also have a bearing on this?

Guess what? This OL isn't the OL of the 60's Packers nor do we have Jim Taylor and Paul Hornung in our backfield. I haven't seen Vince Lombardi on the sideline wearing a Cardinal hat either.

 

[WildBB]

Except they actually have a reason for moving players. Well's skills matched what they want their guards to do, so they moved him there. It always felt like before players were forced to play in a position that did not suite their skill set. Just what I got out of that article.

Exactly, that's what I got too. And it's exciting. They won't be bound by just one style of play. That was the OL's undoing week in and week out.

Quote: Molding the System:
"One thing Whisenhunt has preached is he wants to put players in the best position in order for them to succeed."
“A lot of times you have a system, but I don’t think you say lets run this,” explained Whisenhunt. “You tailor or change your system to fit what you think your players are. Then you use those players in those roles.”

The oponent knew EXACTLY the way we were going about our business, because the last regime never changed anything up. They kept running the same plays the same ways to little results, until the season was allready shot. Then finally there was some results, not great, but some. We were basic and fairly easy to prepare for.

NO MORE!

 

[Zeno]

Quote: Molding the System:
"One thing Whisenhunt has preached is he wants to put players in the best position in order for them to succeed."
“A lot of times you have a system, but I don’t think you say lets run this,” explained Whisenhunt. “You tailor or change your system to fit what you think your players are. Then you use those players in those roles.”

I really love that quote specifically. That is something every coach in every team sport should do. All too often, you see a coach married to a particular scheme/formation/lineup no matter what kind of players he has on the team. The results are normally less than spectacular.

I speak of this from personal experience, I coach soccer not football but that is a philosophy I apply when coaching because like any other coach I have my favorite system but as I've grown a little more experienced and wiser its less my "system" and more the types of players I have that dictate where my players line up on the field. I really wish more coaches did this because not only does the team suffer but often time individual player development (round hole square peg--its just never going to work).