Jump to content
tgo

LaFleur Interview

Recommended Posts

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Number9   
4 minutes ago, tgo said:

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

Okay.  

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
big2033   
2 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

You’re conflating issues. Yes, we saw the offense as it progressed and believed a more spear 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. 

No, the reaction in 2016 was Robiskie was an idiot for running bunch formations period. Hence, PK writing an article on why he's doing it at all.

Edited by big2033

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tgo   
4 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

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. 

No arguments with this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
big2033   
1 minute ago, tgo said:

Exactly, people were so incensed and up in arms that any nuanced position with a positive reflection of the offensive staff whatsoever was perceived as being staunch general support. People fucking HATED Mularkey and Robiskie from the beginning, despite the first playoff win in like 15 years and helping to turn that shithole of a team around. 

 

I could sit here and list 100 things I don't like about Mularkey (and especially Robiskie) and the offense, but some credit had to be given for the things that were accomplished (under the guidance of the RobFather, of course). 

Some had the gall to say Whisenhunt would've been better with this team. Absolute insanity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

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. 

And that's the next big issue with bunched formations.

When you have a young QB you don't hamstring his ability to make presnap reads by using formations that can be defended with all 11 defenders starting from the box.

Mul/Rob did that constantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, big2033 said:

No, the reaction in 2016 was Robiskie was an idiot for running bunch formations period. Hence, PK writing an article on why he's doing it at all.

2016? You mean 2017? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tgo   
11 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

@tgo

 

It’s funny now because we got rid of the staff. I rewatched every game throughout the season and Henry had less than 15 carries from shotgun the entire season, only 9 of which I saw where zone runs. Defenses had us figured out. 

They definitely were more keen on formational deception for very specific schemed plays rather than more overarching deception if you know what I mean. They employed deception as in, they had so many formations and plays that it was impossible for the defense to be able to study them all. 

 

But with run plays, it was pretty obvious at times when we were going to run the ball vs pass the ball, and they simply didn't care and just wanted to smash the opposing team and dare them to stop them. I kind of liked this old school mindset in a way, but it just couldn't work with a washed up Murray and the OL off it's game. I think the deception in the run game was of the nature that they had a plethora of nuanced differences in different run plays (to the point of being confusing for the offense at times even) and the opposing defense didn't know what all the moving parts would be on certain run plays, but they knew that it was a run and not a pass nevertheless. 

 

But with LaFleur, the idea of course is that many plays look the same from the same formations. This is a more modern and superior philosophy, but then with a young team you're sacrificing that hard-core team identity that was at least partly inspired by the hard-headed nature of the run scheme itself. I think the whole "team identity" was partly the cause for turning the team around because the team had been rudderless for so long and needed this. 

 

But I also think the Shanahan scheme is the best NFL offensive scheme and that it's time for the next step in the evolution of the team/offense now that it's a more veteran team that knows how to win. 

Edited by tgo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, big2033 said:

The article was from the 2016-17 season. The first season. 

Ah. I thought we were talking about the battles from last year. I didn’t have a problem with the offense in 2016 because it was working. As you said, they failed to adapt to their personnel, and it ended up with our QB and the entire offense noticeably regressing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
big2033   

It's almost like Mularkey was a necessary evil. The story of a lot of good teams seem to go down this way.

 

A coach comes in an sparks the turnaround with foundation and simplicity, then someone new is added to push things to the next level. I hope that happens.

Share this post


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...