Andy Reid vs Tom Landry vs Don Shula

[74_75_78_79_]

The three QBs who each won their two World Championships with are three worth looking at together...

Greise - Staubach - Mahomes

I think that Shula's 72-73 Dolphins teams were superior to any team produced by Landry or Reid.

I can agree with that. I've been done, lately, with placing many champions above '72 just because of their easy schedule. Yes, maybe a few of the best-of-the-bests I may still place above them. But as real great the '71, and also the '77, Cowboys were, I got to place 17-0 above each. End of day, the '72 Dolphins were the pro equiv of some of those championship-caliber Nittany Lions teams of the '80s. They can barely beat teams like Maryland and Cincinnati, but still beat 'Bama at Tuscaloosa soundly and then Jimmy's 'U' for all the marbles.

[7DnBrnc53]

But as real great the '71, and also the '77, Cowboys were, I got to place 17-0 above each.

On the one hand, going undefeated is impressive. However, they only beat Cleveland 20-14 despite picking off Phipps several times, and they were extremely lucky to get out of Pittsburgh the next week with a win.

Also, in SB VII, Redskin RB Larry Brown had literally nothing left (and I bet that the Redskins didn't, either). He never ran for over 1,000 yards again.

The next year, the Dolphins had a better team (in my opinion), but they beat up on another aging team in the SB in the Vikings, who had half their starters over 30.

[JohnTurney]

I'm less impressed with Landry. Mainly because I think the Flex was a crappy pass defense. You can't win with sacks very often.

Felx a run defense with expansive keys and assignments and agree it wasn't ideal for pass defense, but the reason was it limited pass rush by having 2 guys off the line of scrimmage -- usually 1 DT and 1 DE, but sometimes other variations, like both DTs off. You cannot get good rush very other that wat. So, teams had some success throwing the ball on early downs.

But the coverages behind it were the same as the inside and outside 4-3 they used or even pass-rush fronts. But they could get a dominating pass rush when they actually went after the QB on say 2nd and 3rd and long.

Dallas over the years did give up more pass yards than some of the other great defenses, but teams also threw the ball more against them (generally top 1 or 2 over any given period of their "peak') and ran the least (fewest carriers in most cases as well). Teams had to pick their poison and apparently though running was the less deadly of the two. You just couldn't run effectively vs the Flex.

However, looking at the yards per attempt and defensive passer rating - they were a pretty good pass defense it seems-- just not one of the top 2-3-4 like say VIkings and 70s Steelers for example.

But agree with you that gave up some leverage when they were in Flex (likely run downs). Would quibble with "crappy" but I am sure you were just making a point but you can correct me if I'm wrong on that.

[Jay Z]

I'm less impressed with Landry. Mainly because I think the Flex was a crappy pass defense. You can't win with sacks very often.

Felx a run defense with expansive keys and assignments and agree it wasn't ideal for pass defense, but the reason was it limited pass rush by having 2 guys off the line of scrimmage -- usually 1 DT and 1 DE, but sometimes other variations, like both DTs off. You cannot get good rush very other that wat. So, teams had some success throwing the ball on early downs.

But the coverages behind it were the same as the inside and outside 4-3 they used or even pass-rush fronts. But they could get a dominating pass rush when they actually went after the QB on say 2nd and 3rd and long.

Dallas over the years did give up more pass yards than some of the other great defenses, but teams also threw the ball more against them (generally top 1 or 2 over any given period of their "peak') and ran the least (fewest carriers in most cases as well). Teams had to pick their poison and apparently though running was the less deadly of the two. You just couldn't run effectively vs the Flex.

However, looking at the yards per attempt and defensive passer rating - they were a pretty good pass defense it seems-- just not one of the top 2-3-4 like say VIkings and 70s Steelers for example.

But agree with you that gave up some leverage when they were in Flex (likely run downs). Would quibble with "crappy" but I am sure you were just making a point but you can correct me if I'm wrong on that.

I am influenced by Herb Adderley's negative opinion of the Dallas scheme.

Other than that I compare the Dallas talent level at other positions to what they were doing with the defensive backfield, and what Dallas did to what other top teams did with their defensive backfield.

Crappy, let's use the word underachieving. Dallas had a good pass defense in 1971 with Renfro, Green, Adderley, Harris, and Waters. I just think that's FAR more talent than you actually should need to have a good pass defense. We could blame players like Phil Clark, Otto Brown, Charlie Waters at CB, Mark Washington for not being good enough. But this is Dallas. They had considerably more talent coming through the organization, on a yearly basis, than weaker teams. When I look at other positions, they were still getting positive contributions from part time players or players who started for just a year or two. So why shouldn't that have been the same with the defensive backs? With the Dolphins they had Anderson and Scott, top safties of all time, but the CBs were more average or guys in and out of the lineup. Green Bay, all time pass defense, but everyone on that pass defense was not all time all pro. Some players were plugged in and out. Steelers, Blount was the only one who saw honors.

So based on these other teams and the resources Dallas had at the time, these weaknesses always getting exposed was partially a fault of the scheme, not doing enough helping and having a defense that worked together well enough. Because the personnel resources should have been adequate. That and Adderley's comments have led me to this conclusion.

[JohnTurney]

Other than that I compare the Dallas talent level at other positions to what they were doing with the defensive backfield, and what Dallas did to what other top teams did with their defensive backfield.

Okay, got it. So you think part lack of talent in secondary and part scheme.

[Sonny9]

Green Bay, all time pass defense, but everyone on that pass defense was not all time all pro. Some players were plugged in and out.

I'm not following. GB in the 60's had Hall of Famers Adderley and Wood. Plus Jeter had a couple Pro Bowls and an All Pro

[JuggernautJ]

An interesting article from 1999 by Pat Toomay: The Ghost of Tom Landry

https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/the ... ry-6397125


As far as coach Landry was concerned, players were responsible for their own motivation, while his job was to put them in position to make plays. The schemes he devised to accomplish this task were labyrinthine. While Lombardi's defense might be described as "tackle the man with the ball," Landry's Flex defense required recognition of offensive patterns, internalization of the probable outcomes of those patterns, and a corresponding reaction. Locating the football came only after following the branches of his logic tree, a counterintuitive approach that could take years to master.

For a defensive end -- which was my position -- if you were in the off-set of the Flex, your key was not the immediate threat of the gigantic tackle across from you, who wanted to grind you into hominy grits, but rather the guard positioned next to the tackle, who was hardly a concern. It was the movement of the guard that dictated whether you met the tackle with your outside shoulder or simply caromed off him to slide inside if the guard happened to be pulling -- all according to some larger plan that only Landry understood.


And...
In Landry's system, "guessing," reacting instinctively, was a cardinal sin. If you followed his keys, took his clues, then your actions were predicated on a set of mathematical probabilities, gleaned from hours of study, rather than on the vagaries of instinct, which lacked accuracy, certainty, conformity with the assembly-line performance of the other defensive players. "Guessing," for Tom, could too easily become an excuse, and there was no room for excuses, either in football or in life.

"Herb, you're clueing again!" The anger in Tom's voice, as the meeting progressed, escalated out of all proportion, and finally Herb rose to defend himself. It was an unprecedented moment for the team. No player had ever challenged the coach. Unaccustomed to Tom's habit of transposition, Herb had no idea what Tom was talking about with his "clueing" criticism. Angry and confused, Herb snapped something back at him, then left the room. The moment was quickly forgotten by the players, but not by the coach.

Not long afterward, during a game with the Giants, Herb was benched after swatting down a potential touchdown pass. Out of position again, he had been reacting instinctively. Despite the positive outcome of the play, it was all Tom could take.

"Herb, you've got to play the defense like everybody else!"
"You mean I'm supposed to let a guy run by me and catch a touchdown pass?"

"Yes, if that's what your keys tell you to do!"

"No. I don't play that way."

"Then you won't play at all."

...."Tom Landry had a bitterness in his heart for me," Herb remarked in a recent conversation. "After all I did for that team, I'll never understand it."

[JohnTurney]

For a defensive end -- which was my position -- if you were in the off-set of the Flex, your key was not the immediate threat of the gigantic tackle across from you, who wanted to grind you into hominy grits, but rather the guard positioned next to the tackle, who was hardly a concern. It was the movement of the guard that dictated whether you met the tackle with your outside shoulder or simply caromed off him to slide inside if the guard happened to be pulling -- all according to some larger plan that only Landry understood.[/i]

Here is the most common call (if tight end was right) would be Flex strong
he's talking about the start with stance, attack, key, and responsibility --then there is a coaching point or two. And not
shown is technique ... i.e. how to attack.

You can see exactly the key he's talking about -- the guard (or tackle in special situations)

On top of this there is Flex weak and then Flex weak inside and Flex weak outside, Flex strong inside & outside
then there is "Angle" which has both DTs off-set and both DEs on the line

and that does not count the regular 4-3 inside and outside where all defensive are on the LOS, used for pass rush

Charlie Waters talked about the complex nature of the Flex. It is easy to see where an instinctive player like Adderley
would not like it. I think he went downhill in 1972, that's when he got benched.

this is Flex Strong--

2023-10-19_13-34-39.jpg (62.5 KiB) Viewed 3721 times

[Brian wolf]

Reid deserves alot of credit for winning two championships with Mahomes and developing stars like Kelce, Hill and even getting production out of underachieving Watkins. He is even bringing Hardman back because the Jets dont know how to utilize him but lets be frank, he could never win the biggest games before Mahomes. He didnt put enough offensive talent around McNabb and the KC team couldnt get by NE with Smith at QB. Reid has definitely taken advantage of defenses being more handcuffed and restricted the last six years ...

[Brian wolf]

Landry felt even in retirement that the flex could still work today if it was coached and utilized properly. You dont see all the gaps filled anymore by defenses these days which takes the guessing from offenses about who is rushing and who will drop back in coverages ...