Jump to content

Thoughts on offense


OILERMAN

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, big2033 said:

This is more about the original thinking. People tried to paint Mularkey's original idea for the offense as a disaster waiting to happen. When they were really just coming from a place of being angry and biased regarding a mediocre hire. Which it 100% was.

 

Without bias, the original plan and foundation was a good one, deserved some optimism, and equaled success: It opened HUGE running lanes as well.

 

The problem was the transition to year two and if we could expand past our foundation.

 

Now that our hire is a bit more interesting and "young" suddenly this foundation seems to make sense. Suddenly bunch formations aren't so bad. Suddenly splitting Fluellen out wide is inspired. Suddenly Mariota predominantly under center makes sense.

 

Anyway ... I definitely like LaFluer's thinking and believe they'll bring a lot more nuance to the run-first foundation as time goes by.

Mularkey’s offense was great when we had the 2nd best back in the league. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 376
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I can only assume #11 must be HUGE...

Because if it's all the same then everyone who wanted a coaching change and everyone who criticized last year's offense were off their rockers. I mean, for fuck's sake... Robiskie and LaFleur are prac

We haven’t established that, doofus    you’re saying chocolate cake and whole wheat bread are the same because they both have eggs, milk, butter, and flour.    Don’t be retarded. 

Posted Images

6 hours ago, titanruss said:

Youre still mostly off and creating strawmen like he accused you of. No one said it was a disaster waiting to happen. It was given decent opportunity once they admittedly altered things after the first 4 games of 2016. But It was just a straight disaster outside of 20% of the games over 2 years. 

 

People weren’t as upset about the hire as they were the search. They had 4 months and used none of them. 

 

No one was afraid of an offense that featured the run game. They were afraid of an offense that used trick plays and an offense that “enforced their will and forced their identity” regardless of its success doing so.

 

... And we were right. 

 

 

To establish something you have to push it. Or you'll end up like Whisenhunt, being "versatile" and trying to adapt to everything. Which will make you a master of none. Whisenhunt would abandon the run too quickly and would become predictable.

 

Yes, to establish the run you're going to have to run when they expect you to.

 

And lol about "altering after 4 games." I remember that argument now: You were definitely one of the freakouts, and then had egg on you face when it proved successful after a couple of games. So you brought in this theory that they "changed the offense" to appease to your "demands." 

 

They changed nothing. They established an identity and offense and got good at it. I hope it takes 4 games or less with this offense for things to get in sync.

 

I agree people were upset about the search. Which was ultimately the problem that most never got over.

 

Edited by big2033
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, japan said:

Mularkey’s offense was great when we had the 2nd best back in the league. 

Mularkey's offense took one of the previously worst backs and made him the second-best back in the league.

 

Murray was better than his stint with the Eagles, but lets give credit where credit's due. It's not like we had Adrian Peterson in the backfield.

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, TitansFan_42 said:

What do you mean, Mularkey got 141 yards out of Lewis in only one game!? He wanted more, but ran out of time.. 

I have no idea what any of this means 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, big2033 said:

To establish something you have to push it. Or you'll end up like Whisenhunt, being "versatile" and trying to adapt to everything. Which will make you a master of none. Whisenhunt would abandon the run too quickly and would become predictable.

 

Yes, to establish the run you're going to have to run when they expect you to.

 

And lol about "altering after 4 games." I remember that argument now: You were definitely one of the freakouts, and then had egg on you face when it proved successful after a couple of games. So you brought in this theory that they "changed the offense" to appease to your "demands." 

 

They changed nothing. They established an identity and offense and got good at it. I hope it takes 4 games or less with this offense for things to get in sync.

 

I agree people were upset about the search. Which was ultimately the problem that most never got over.

 

There’s a huge difference between mularkey/robiskie’s definition of establishing and the rest of the leagues.

 

Lol all you want. You were wrong then and you’re wrong now. They changed. They admitted to mixing things up and doing less bs plays. Admitted to more plays mariota felt comfortable with. So.. they changed the offense. Look I can do my own straw man too.... According to you and Oman, these guys run the same plays and formations anyhow - it’s just how they call the plays ( incredibly wrong again but whatevs) . So by that logic, game 4 to game 8 of 2016 is about as different as the offense will be from game 1 of 2017 to game 1 of 2018. 

Edited by titanruss
Link to post
Share on other sites

I love all this mental masturbation surrounding the offense. The NFL has a simple defensive formula that almost every team uses. Stop the run especially on first and second down, make them beat you in the passing game.

 

Thus players like Brady, Rogers, Brees, Roethie-whatever-hell, Mannings, etc had the most success year in, year out.

 

The Titans have not had a real QB that could win consistently on 3rd down since McNair, thus the usually disappointing variations in results.

 

Did Mariota "grow" this summer? Will he take the next step under LaFleur? Who knows. Winston looked like the better passer/play-maker through the air Saturday night. The proof will be in the pudding.

 

And before everyone starts pointing fingers at the coaches LaFleur and a rookie QB were consistently explosive last year.

 

8MM needs to step up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, titanruss said:

There’s a huge difference between mularkey/robiskie’s definition of establishing and the rest of the leagues.

 

Lol all you want. You were wrong then and you’re wrong now. They changed. They admitted to mixing things up and doing less bs plays. Admitted to more plays mariota felt comfortable with. So.. they changed the offense. Look I can do my own straw man too.... According to you and Oman, these guys run the same plays and formations anyhow - it’s just how they call the plays ( incredibly wrong again but whatevs) . So by that logic, game 4 to game 8 of 2016 is about as different as the offense will be from game 1 of 2017 to game 1 of 2018. 

Finding out what plays your QB is comfortable with in your offense time isn't "changing your offense."

 

LaFleur is going to do the same as time goes by.

 

Mularkey got fired because he was unwilling to change his offense in year two. And the rightful knock on him was ultimately he was unwilling or incapable of big change or big expansion. So to hang our improvement on him "changing the offense," is a hilarious way to avoid admitting his plan lead to success.

 

-----

 

Mularkey's plan was to establish the run and create a run-focused team.

 

I believed that plan would work because:

  • It would protect Mariota from having to carry games and take unnecessary hits.
  • Would increase time of possession.
  • Would shorten games which makes us more competitive.
  • Would create easier throws for Mariota.
  • Would make the pass game more efficient.
  • Would create less turnovers.
  • Would improve the defense because they're on the field less often.
  • Would help Mariota become better under center and in play action.
  • All the above combined would lead to more wins.

 

And we were right. It did all those things. Even in games where the run wasn't "working" it still did the job of burning clock and shortening games and would lead to big plays late.

 

It's how Jeff Fisher kept mediocre Titans teams competitive. You ever see Eddie George's YPC?

 

However. the problem with a run-first offense or "Fisher Ball" is it can make you competitive but it has a ceiling (about 8-8). It won't win you Super Bowls unless you grow from there. You have to have an offense that can expand from that point and a QB capable of expanding with you.

 

The Seahawks did that for example.

 

Mularkey did not.

 

The "worst case scenario" wasn't Mularkey "ruining Mariota" as some of you shouted, the worst case scenario was a competitive-yet-stagnated team. A Jeff Fisher team. Which at the time I believed was still 100% better than the 4-12 team we had. At worst we'd have a stop-gap coach who got us out of the basement:

 

Tada!

Edited by big2033
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Soxcat said:

Basically when Murray was healthy he was a big part of the passing game (53 receptions in 2016).  And the Titans ran screens to guys like Taylor and Matthews (had a long TD on one).  The scheme and execution were the differences so the play calling really isn't that much different.  It is also ridiculous to harp on how great the play calling was when the tosses to Lewis were basic plays everybody runs.  Lewis is just good in the open field and a weapon Mularkey didn't have last year with Murray hobbled.  Lame article. 

well he does say that the addition of Lewis is a big factor but yeah he does seem to cover both sides of the coin on that argument.  Even a healthy Murray isn't quite the weapon that Lewis is on some of those plays.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Nash said:

Slants, screens, passes to rb’s..::

 

We have been assured that last year's offensive scheme was fine and that there were no issues with playcalling or play selection.  

 

Regardless of their proven effectiveness and success in 2016, these plays were not needed in 2017.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...