I think Greg Davis would do well to read this: "The Constraint Theory of Offense".

Money quote:

The upshot of all this is that when you are designing an offense you must (a) find those one or two things which you can hang your hat on and beat just about anything doing when the defense is playing honest, and (b) get good at all those little "constraint" plays which keep the defense playing honest. You won’t win championships simply throwing the bubble screen, but the bubble will help keep you from losing games when the defense wants to crash your run game. Same with draws and screens if you’re a passing team. You find ways to do what you want and put your players in position to win and score.

My (and many others') annoyance at GD's reliance on bubble screens, etc. stems from the fact that he seems to be using them backwards.  Meaning, he seems to call them as "set-up plays" hoping to force a defense to over-react, thereby setting up other opportunities.

Instead, he should be using the screens as a tool to "constrain" overly-attacking defenses and force them to play you straight up.  Then, your bread-and-butter offense can then exploit inherent mismatches.

Anyone else agree or have another idea?

(HT: SMQ)