Hawkadeus wrote:I have to 100% agree with Montana. The "dink and dunk" is not a successful scheme. It's a sign of failure or a sign of playing a terrible defense. You aim that low, you will never go anywhere. And hello? What exactly were we doing at the start of the year that drove every fan insane? That was the definition of "dink and dunk".
Actually, at at the beginning of the season, we were running the ball a lot, and not a lot of passing. And when we did pass, it was a lot of mid-range routes, 10-20 yard seams, etc. That's not dink and dunk. "Dink and dunk" is a lot of underneath routes, screens, and quick passes at the LOS for 5-6 YAC. A true "dink and dunk" offense will throw the ball A LOT (>35 times a game), because you're only trying to get a handful of yards per passing down. And it's most often used against teams that have a strong defense, specifically teams that have a great pass rush and secondaries that play a lot of zone. It's also very effective at creating opportunities for your run game, as evidenced by the Patriots success at running up the middle this season. LBs start spreading out and playing coverage rather than rushing the passer or playing inside to stop the run.
And New England just totally blows up your theory. They're having HUGE success with the dink and dunk. In fact, they are the #1 ranked offense in the NFL for both yards AND points - 440 yards/game, and 32.8 pts/game. And they've done it against the best defenses in the NFL. They absolutely torched Seattle's defense when we were ranked #1 in the NFL. And they're doing it entirely with a dink and dunk approach, using those great TEs and a bunch of fast slot WRs from a fast-paced offense where Brady just snaps the ball and gets it out quick to whoever doesn't have a man on them at the LOS, letting the receivers pick up YAC. If you watched them play, you'd see Brady throwing the ball without even dropping back, he's literally taking the snap, standing up and firing it out immediately. And defenses are just getting blown away by it, nobody seems to be able to stop them.
And the comparison between WCO and "dink and dunk" couldn't be further from the truth. WCO (at least the classic Bill Walsh and Holmgren WCOs) is a scheme based on timing routes, uses a lot of 3-step and 5-step drops and generally requires the QB to stand in the pocket for a bit. The WCO also uses the run to setup passes (dink and dunk uses short passes to setup runs, generally up the middle because LBs are spread out trying to defend against the quick LOS passes). The only way I can conceive comparing the WCO to "dink and dunk" is that the Holmgren WCO has a lot of plays designed so that a couple slot receivers are available as underneath checkdown options while another receiver or two are going deep. Holmgren's theory was that this helps to neutralize a pass rush and also spreads out the secondary, specifically, it is designed to force DBs to choose a WR to cover, leaving at least one WR open on any given play. The biggest difference here is that the WCO is relying on open receivers up-field, at least 8-10 yards deep. The dink and dunk relies on open receivers at the LOS. I think the misunderstanding in this thread is based on how Holmgren used the WCO in Seattle, where he never really had any deep threats. He tended to call a lot of plays with multiple slot receivers because that's what we had. I remember all this from listening to him while he was coaching in Seattle, he was very open about his philosophy and his WCO.