Jump to content

LaFleur Interview


tgo

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Soxcat said:

Mularkey did use bunch WRs but his philosophy was "bunch and condense" rather than bunch and expand......if they went out for a pass.

Some of the time the WRs were looking to block LBs or trap DL guys. 

Btw, I agree with the last bit and think it's silly in general to do things like have WRs block or trap LBs and DL. 

 

I also agree that at times it was too much max protect and not enough guys on routes (although that was a function of longer developing routes within the scheme, which just doesn't match up with Mariota's strengths imo). 

 

I was watching some Haynesworth highlights the other day and saw him dropping back into coverage and it reminded me of Horton and LeBeau talking about dropping Casey back into coverage. With these types of things, I think you're just overthinking it at that point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Exactly. I love the narrative that fans on this board were bitching about the bunch formation in general. Clearly the argument was using Bunch and condensing the field without giving the Qb many optio

Yes, it was a critique last year because they never expanded into space. Tons of times the routes would overlap one another. We also had several times where a WR was blocking a LB 1v1.They didn’t use

You're fucking correcting people's grammar? 

Posted Images

1 minute ago, Soxcat said:

Actually I have gone on record saying some of the plays Mularkey ran were very well scripted (like the Decker TD against KC).  The problem is for every well scripted and executed play there were a bunch of cess pool plays with poor execution of scheme.  In fact the Decker TD was an anomaly.  Mularkey started to look like Jeff Fisher in 2017 where they played for the FG instead of drawing something up to get them to the endzone. 

It seemed like whenever they got deep into the opponent's territory, regardless of how the drive had gone up to that point, it was run, run and pass.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Soxcat said:

Mularkey did use bunch WRs but his philosophy was "bunch and condense" rather than bunch and expand......if they went out for a pass.

Some of the time the WRs were looking to block LBs or trap DL guys. 

Lets make the field smaller! The philosophy was to help guys get open. It was mentioned by Robiskie at least. Not saying LaFleur could be more effective but lets not act like Robiskie was trying to give receivers less of a chance to get open.

 

http://www.espn.com/blog/tennessee-titans/post/_/id/20455/terry-robiskie-explains-titans-condensed-formations

 

Robiskie deploys a great deal of condensed formations -- far from the spread set at the snap that Marcus Mariota is most familiar with -- in the hope of creating room for route-runners to get into.

 

“That’s the whole process behind it,” Robiskie said. “The other side of it is, when you’ve got a guy that is tight on the left or a guy that is tight on the right, it’s a lot easier for them to crisscross when you’re in a close formation. It makes the guy in the other side of the ball from you decide, he’s got more field to defend.

Edited by big2033
Link to post
Share on other sites

Did LaFleur mention "converging routes?"  No?  Because Robiskie mentioned them a few times.  He liked them, as if running guys into one another was going to make space.

It's one thing to start from a bunched formation to prevent the defense from being spread out and waiting for BOTH (lol) of your receivers.  And it's another thing entirely to start from a bunch and send 2TEs, the slot guy(s) and the TB out on routes at the snap.

 

When I started seeing DC's drop 6 & 7 into coverage from a stacked box, I knew Mularkey and Robiskie had been figured out.

We'll see what LaFleur does with it, if he uses it much at all.

 

And don't forget folks, it's lying season.

Nobody is giving away their primary plans/formations at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TitanDuckFan said:

Did LaFleur mention "converging routes?"  No?  Because Robiskie mentioned them a few times.  He liked them, as if running guys into one another was going to make space.

It's one thing to start from a bunched formation to prevent the defense from being spread out and waiting for BOTH (lol) of your receivers.  And it's another thing entirely to start from a bunch and send 2TEs, the slot guy(s) and the TB out on routes at the snap.

 

When I started seeing DC's drop 6 & 7 into coverage from a stacked box, I knew Mularkey and Robiskie had been figured out.

We'll see what LaFleur does with it, if he uses it much at all.

 

And don't forget folks, it's lying season.

Nobody is giving away their primary plans/formations at this point.

It's just fun to point out the extreme stupidity that some have pushed when it came to our offense. I'm happy we got someone more expansive in LaFleur. But people act like we ran a high-school offense and somehow "modern LaFleur" is going to re-invent the wheel. 

 

Bunch formations were a HUGE problem for people in 2016, not in terms of success, but in terms of doing it at all. Which speaks to everyone's bias.

Edited by big2033
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tgo said:

But this is something that really irked people about Mularkey, and LaFleur is preaching the same concepts regarding bunch formations. 

 

I'm sure someone has mentioned that Mularkey didn't open it up enough and they would run plays unsuccessfully over and over.  Mularkey lost his running back and refused to get Henry on the field.  No run game, he couldn't move to the expansion.  LeFleur is going to have to fix the same problem, get Henry on the field producing and deal with the weakness at receiver.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Number9 said:

I'm sure someone has mentioned that Mularkey didn't open it up enough and they would run plays unsuccessfully over and over.  Mularkey lost his running back and refused to get Henry on the field.  No run game, he couldn't move to the expansion.  LeFleur is going to have to fix the same problem, get Henry on the field producing and deal with the weakness at receiver.

Ok, but none of this has anything to do with the topic at hand: using bunch formations to create space. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, tgo said:

That's not what he said every time he talked about bunch formations. Kuharsky did a whole article about this with quotes from Mularkey and Robiskie both talking about creating space with bunch formations. 

I’m sure that was their intent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, japan said:

Big, was it you who were the big Robiskie apologist?  Or was that tgo?

Never been a Robiskie apologist (although I think some posters perceived me that way) and even said they should fire him. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, japan said:

Big, was it you who were the big Robiskie apologist?  Or was that tgo?

I was, "the plan they've had is working in terms of wins and losses and efficiency to start ... so it's not nearly as much of a world-ending situation as some are making it to be. But if the offense doesn't expand in year two, they'll likely be replaced."

 

This automatically made me a Robiskie/Mularkey apologist. Because the expectation was disaster in year one, and that didn't happen - success happened.

Edited by big2033
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TitanDuckFan said:

 

 

When I started seeing DC's drop 6 & 7 into coverage from a stacked box, I knew Mularkey and Robiskie had been figured out.

 

This is exactly right. I’ll never forget when Derrick Henry did a Statue of Liberty play and not a single LB, safety, or corner took the bait. They simply knew we did not run Henry from Shotgun. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, big2033 said:

It's just fun to point out the extreme stupidity that some have pushed when it came to our offense. I'm happy we got someone more expansive in LaFleur. But people act like we ran a high-school offense and somehow "modern LaFleur" is going to re-invent the wheel. 

 

Bunch formations were a HUGE problem for people in 2016, not in terms of success, but in terms of doing it at all. Which speaks to everyone's bias.

You’re conflating issues. Yes, we saw the offense as it progressed and believed a more spead open offense would benefit MM, which it did down the stretch, making us correct on that point. Not liking the bunch formations was because of how they were being implemented. I can still believe MM is better in a spread with more defined reads; that is mutually exclusive from whether or not the bunch routes are being used properly to create space for the WRs. 

Edited by IsntLifeFunny
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...