Grantland: The End of the Run-and-Shoot Offense?

[floridianstang]

To quote Jim Mora: "You think you know, but you don't know. And you never will."

It cannot beat ranked or opponents with winning records.

Were you watching the TCU game in 2011? Reminder: it was AT TCU.

Baylor's ... recent talent upgrade is what makes them very successful.

Please read this over and over and over again until it sinks in.

Line up in an I formation every damn once in a while and pound the damn ball down their throats!

We can line up in whatever formation you want cowboy, it won't make a bit of difference.

It's the players, not the scheme. This is not a hard concept to understand.

So we beat TCU once in all of JJ's tenure.

[smu2004]

Correlation does not equal causation - you should look that up.

Funny how the Oilers blow a big lead in the playoffs one time and that becomes the major failing of the offense. Let's ignore the fact that the franchise went the playoffs seven straight years, which is almost as many times as the franchise had in its history prior to that, and has never won the Super Bowl, regardless of what offense it runs, so that must mean whatever offense they're running now "can't win championships" with it.

http://www.profootballhof.com/history/s ... backs.aspx - there are 24 games listed here. Only one involves a run-and-shoot team. Does that mean all of those other offenses can't close out games too?

Texas A&M tears up the SEC with a four-WR offense (when nobody said it would work) but a different four-WR offense, with some minor differences from TAMU's that nobody here could possibly know about (and please don't try because you make yourself sound foolish and don't really know anything about football), wouldn't work in the SEC.

How many other pass-first offenses have won national championships in the last 15 years? I'll wait.

UCF is hanging in there AT #20 Missouri

They didn't hang with them very long.

What are you even arguing? If you are expanding R&S to every modernized pass oriented 4 wide offense then great, we all agree it works great. If you mean the strict run n shoot or the RnS west coast mix Jones has been running, well, theoretically even the single wing can win football games.

This clown is saying the R&S is great if you get better players and run variants of it that have little to do w its core concepts. I agree completely...if we got better players and ran a more diverse offense then we would be better on offense.

On a side note, water is wet and fire is hot.

[PonySnob]

Correlation does not equal causation - you should look that up.

Funny how the Oilers blow a big lead in the playoffs one time and that becomes the major failing of the offense. Let's ignore the fact that the franchise went the playoffs seven straight years, which is almost as many times as the franchise had in its history prior to that, and has never won the Super Bowl, regardless of what offense it runs, so that must mean whatever offense they're running now "can't win championships" with it.

http://www.profootballhof.com/history/s ... backs.aspx - there are 24 games listed here. Only one involves a run-and-shoot team. Does that mean all of those other offenses can't close out games too?

Texas A&M tears up the SEC with a four-WR offense (when nobody said it would work) but a different four-WR offense, with some minor differences from TAMU's that nobody here could possibly know about (and please don't try because you make yourself sound foolish and don't really know anything about football), wouldn't work in the SEC.

How many other pass-first offenses have won national championships in the last 15 years? I'll wait.

UCF is hanging in there AT #20 Missouri

They didn't hang with them very long.

It didn't help Hawaii when they got a major case of butthurt from Georgia in the Sugar Bowl.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[gord]

This clown is saying the R&S is great if you get better players and run variants of it that have little to do w its core concepts. I agree completely...if we got better players and ran a more diverse offense then we would be better on offense.

On a side note, water is wet and fire is hot.

Any offense is great if you have great players, which is been my point all along. Great players make schemes great. It's a simple concept and I'm not sure why so many find it hard to understand.

It didn't help Hawaii when they got a major case of butthurt from Georgia in the Sugar Bowl.

Georgia had better players - period. Hawaii could have run whatever offense it wanted in that game - it wasn't going to win no matter what.

[Digetydog]

This clown is saying the R&S is great if you get better players and run variants of it that have little to do w its core concepts. I agree completely...if we got better players and ran a more diverse offense then we would be better on offense.

On a side note, water is wet and fire is hot.

Any offense is great if you have great players, which is been my point all along. Great players make schemes great. It's a simple concept and I'm not sure why so many find it hard to understand.

It didn't help Hawaii when they got a major case of butthurt from Georgia in the Sugar Bowl.

Georgia had better players - period. Hawaii could have run whatever offense it wanted in that game - it wasn't going to win no matter what.

No. SMU could line up Dickerson, James, and Doak in the Wishbone and it wouldn't make it a great, modern offense. Great players cover up for bad offenses like the "Greatest Show on Turf" Offenses that didn't have proper protection schemes built in

Great offenses maximize the talent of the players that you have.

[gord]

Great players cover up for bad offenses like the "Greatest Show on Turf" Offenses that didn't have proper protection schemes built in

Are you referring specifically to the Rams' Greatest Show of Turf offense?

[floridianstang]

June never adjusted his offense to fit the players, he expected the players to adapt to his offense. Briles said in an interview that one of the keys to the success of his offense is that he adapts the offense around his QB. Petty can run the entire game with only a handful of plays and make it seem like the best thing since sliced bread...but in reality it is simple offense.

[Digetydog]

Great players cover up for bad offenses like the "Greatest Show on Turf" Offenses that didn't have proper protection schemes built in

Are you referring specifically to the Rams' Greatest Show of Turf offense?

I was referring to the offenses run by Mike Martz in St.Louis and in other places. With Warner, Faulk, Holt, Bruce and a good OL, the Rams offense was spectacular. When Martz tried it in other places, it was a spectacular failure. The players made that offense.

[gord]

June never adjusted his offense to fit the players, he expected the players to adapt to his offense.

Not sure how you figure this. He ran it more and threw it less here than he did when he was at Hawaii. Zach Line was a better RB than he had at Hawaii and he let him run it more. If what you say is true, he would have still thrown 70% of the time despite having a good RB.

I was referring to the offenses run by Mike Martz in St.Louis and in other places. With Warner, Faulk, Holt, Bruce and a good OL, the Rams offense was spectacular. When Martz tried it in other places, it was a spectacular failure. The players made that offense.

So you're saying that when he had four hall of fame skill players and another one on the offensive line it was a great offense, but when he didn't have hall of famers on his offense, it wasn't as good? Are you trying to prove my point for me?

George Seifert had hall of famers galore when he was coaching the 49ers and won two Super Bowls behind great offenses (and defenses). When he coached the Panthers, he didn't have hall of famers and coached one of the worst teams in the NFL in 2001. Anyone else see the connection here?

[malonish]

June never adjusted his offense to fit the players, he expected the players to adapt to his offense.

Not sure how you figure this. He ran it more and threw it less here than he did when he was at Hawaii. Zach Line was a better RB than he had at Hawaii and he let him run it more. If what you say is true, he would have still thrown 70% of the time despite having a good RB.

I was referring to the offenses run by Mike Martz in St.Louis and in other places. With Warner, Faulk, Holt, Bruce and a good OL, the Rams offense was spectacular. When Martz tried it in other places, it was a spectacular failure. The players made that offense.

So you're saying that when he had four hall of fame skill players and another one on the offensive line it was a great offense, but when he didn't have hall of famers on his offense, it wasn't as good? Are you trying to prove my point for me?

George Seifert had hall of famers galore when he was coaching the 49ers and won two Super Bowls behind great offenses (and defenses). When he coached the Panthers, he didn't have hall of famers and coached one of the worst teams in the NFL in 2001. Anyone else see the connection here?

Double whammy- June had an outdated system AND didn't go after the best players. Dead Horse, meet hammer.

[gord]

Double whammy- June had an outdated system AND didn't go after the best players. Dead Horse, meet hammer.

I think you missed the part where I pointed out we had a top-20 offense in 2010 and was no worse than 32nd from 2009-11 (when we had our most talent). You aren't breaking any news by saying his recruiting wasn't very good. You'll get no argument from me there.

[floridianstang]

Double whammy- June had an outdated system AND didn't go after the best players. Dead Horse, meet hammer.

I think you missed the part where I pointed out we had a top-20 offense in 2010 and was no worse than 32nd from 2009-11 (when we had our most talent). You aren't breaking any news by saying his recruiting wasn't very good. You'll get no argument from me there.

What use was having a top 20 offense that collapses in the red zone because we couldn't pound it in? He did not adapt the offense to the QB like other simpler high octane spread offenses such as the Bear raid in BU.