Oldfan Posted August 13, 2007 Author Share Posted August 13, 2007 Quoted for truth. Man, it's been awhile since I've seen OF here. He didnt like the trend that Defense wins SB's much. Spurriers' "Fun and Gun" didnt work out so well in the NFL, neither did the Run and Shoot. He'll throw something out that can't hold water, have someone depute it and then demand you got back 40 years to prove your point. All without a shred of eveidence. Hey, you guys need to form a club. I didn't realize I had the ability to get under people's skin this way. I'm not even trying either. Imagine how nasty I'd be if I did? Are you still ranting about "Dee-fense wins games!" Morneblade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Washington Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 didn't the houston oilers have an all-shotgun offense with warren moon? also buffalo with the "k-gun" with jim kelly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted August 13, 2007 Author Share Posted August 13, 2007 Sure was. And when Gibbs started off the season 0-5 in 1981, he decided he'd need to make changes.That's when he added the 2 and 3 TE sets and started running the ball. Thanks for pointing that out OF, I'd forgotten. .... Wrong again, zoony. When Joe Gibbs started 1981, he began it with the then conventional pro offense which had a fullback and a halfback in the backfield (Riggins with Joe Washington, if memory serves). Then, after going 0-5, he installed the H-back (a TE type) which was a Coryell concept with Riggins as the lone RB except on third downs when Joe Washington came in. Joe always gave credit to Coryell for the H-back idea even though Gibbs was the one who popularized it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted August 13, 2007 Author Share Posted August 13, 2007 didn't the houston oilers have an all-shotgun offense with warren moon?also buffalo with the "k-gun" with jim kelly. Yes, Moon ran Jack Pardee's Run and Shoot which uses four and five WR sets. It's detractors say it didn't work. One of the criticisms was that it scored too fast and didn't give defenses a chance to rest. However, four and five little twerps running around isn't nearly as effective in the red zone as it is with a longer field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morneblade Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Hey, you guys need to form a club. I didn't realize I had the ability to get under people's skin this way. I'm not even trying either. Imagine how nasty I'd be if I did?Are you still ranting about "Dee-fense wins games!" Morneblade? Did you watch last season?:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted August 13, 2007 Author Share Posted August 13, 2007 Did you watch last season?:laugh: I saw dee-fense lose games. Is that what you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morneblade Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 I saw dee-fense lose games. Is that what you mean? bad defense=loose good defence=win Not that it wasnt obvious or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skin_finatic Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 the first pre-season game wasn't a complete success, ur right the season's over.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 I saw dee-fense lose games. Is that what you mean? i guess the Ravens winning the SB in a season where they went like 6 games without a TD wasnt D. and a bears team that went to the SB with Rex Grossman as a QB doesnt count either huh. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted August 13, 2007 Author Share Posted August 13, 2007 i guess the Ravens winning the SB in a season where they went like 6 games without a TD wasnt D. and a bears team that went to the SB with Rex Grossman as a QB doesnt count either huh. :2cents: Exception to the rule. The strongest football team is going to win most games, offense and defense combined. "Defense wins championships" is simplistic nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 You read me right. I'm saying that I'd like to see the Skins be the first to use a variation of the shotgun spread as a base offense. Well then, I disagree with you. There is evidence of success using this approach from two sources: the college game where it teams using it have beaten teams using the conventional approach with regularity Which is largely irrelevant when you consider the significant lower level of talent available in the college game, which makes it easier to run offenses that showcase the ability of a handful of star players. As levels of play increase (Pop Warner to High School to College to semi-pro and Pro) certain strategies that work at one level are necesarily abandoned as the talent level increases, and the difference between good players and average players decreases. Running an entire offense out of the shotgun, where it is more difficult to develop a downhill running game, is one of those strategies, in my opinion. and the success of pro teams that have used it for more than just third and long situations. That's evidence for considering using the formation in more than just third-and-long situations. That is not evidence that supports running it as the base formation. Overall, I agree that our team looks rather unspectacular yet again this year. I haven't been all that impressed this offseason. I'm not sold on our QB, our offensive scheme or our defensive personnel. I do not, however, thinks that means we should attempt to re-invent the wheel on offense. And the evidence you are presenting in this thread is far from compelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sekhmet187 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 I don't know how well an entire offense built around the shotgun formation would do, but I'm sure it could be successful to an extent, but it would still take talent. Basing success of everything college on teams with sub-par talent (like a spurrier team with terrible QB's and Reidel Anthony and Jacquez Green at WR?) isn't a good way to look at things. Now, if the Patriots ran that kind of offense and failed, then you'd have a point. The shotgun formation is pretty effective but until more than a handful of teams use it more than 30% of the time, you won't know for sure if it can be done. As for "defense wins championships", thats totally overdone and untrue. A good defense can definitely help you win, but without a balanced offense, you'll still get beaten into the ground. Every now and then you might get a team that has its defense bail it out of most games, but you can't expect to win it all very often without a great balanced team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Exception to the rule.The strongest football team is going to win most games, offense and defense combined. "Defense wins championships" is simplistic nonsense. so 2 teams in the past 7 years are exceptions? how do you back that up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sekhmet187 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 so 2 teams in the past 7 years are exceptions? how do you back that up? And how many teams in the 20-30 years before that were only good on one side of the ball? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 And how many teams in the 20-30 years before that were only good on one side of the ball? Im not going to go back on stats and look up how many were better on one side of the ball then the other, but i do believe that i proved him wrong when he said that D does NOT win super bowls. when b-more went in 2000 they had the streak where they didnt score a TD in something like 5 or 6 games and were still winning. sure they put up 35 against the Gnats with Dilfer as the QB, but they got there with their D. i dont even think you can deny that.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warpath11 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 The idea of running a West Virginia like offense (or even worse Florida under Urban Meyer) in the NFL is absurd. The talent leve of, not only players, but coaches would have such an offense dimantled in a hurry. The speed of the NFL player would render that offense useless and without max protection schemes the QB would be dead real quick. Why hasn't the wishbone option offense ever taken off in MODERN NFL era (while it had great success in college and high school levels up until the 1990s and even some today). In college you can stack talent on your team while in the NFL there is such parity in talent, due to free agency, that it is impossible to run those gimmick schemes that requre superior athletic/talent skill set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sekhmet187 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Im not going to go back on stats and look up how many were better on one side of the ball then the other, but i do believe that i proved him wrong when he said that D does NOT win super bowls. when b-more went in 2000 they had the streak where they didnt score a TD in something like 5 or 6 games and were still winning. sure they put up 35 against the Gnats with Dilfer as the QB, but they got there with their D. i dont even think you can deny that.. Its just as possible as the Rams winning without any defense to speak of. But that doesn't mean a team can do either every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgitta Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Bottom line is no one knows SQUAT about what will happen this year for ANY team. Not the so called "expert" sports writers Not the fans Not the coaches, players, towel boys, NO ONE. The Redskins could go 0-16 or 16-0 or anything in between. There are factors in this game like fortune and a kind of inexplicable magic that make predictions futile. And since I have absolutely no control over the outcome, I'm just going to sit back and hope for the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 you are really getting in the middle of a discussion and turning it to something you want to talk about. the simple point was him saying that D can NOT and me showing him it CAN. i didnt once say that O couldnt win a SB. i was merely pointing out that D can win it. nor did i say they could do it every year. if you want to discuss that we can, but you are jumping on me and warping this to get involved in something that wasnt about offense or 20-30 years of stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AceSkinsFan Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Typical ES doom and gloom thread. Any way we can start NNTing people for this? I'm sure I'm not the only one that would be in favor of this. Is it so difficult to start a positive thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKINS FAN #56 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Dude it was our first preseason game. Chill, everything will be ok. haha u just called a 72 year old "dude"..no offense oldfan, just saying..i respect seniors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sekhmet187 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 you are really getting in the middle of a discussion and turning it to something you want to talk about. the simple point was him saying that D can NOT and me showing him it CAN. i didnt once say that O couldnt win a SB. i was merely pointing out that D can win it. nor did i say they could do it every year. if you want to discuss that we can, but you are jumping on me and warping this to get involved in something that wasnt about offense or 20-30 years of stats. I didn't get involved in anything different. The guy said that it was an exception to the rule. I took it as meaning that a team won't win with just defense, which is true and the Ravens winning once is just an exception. You trying to prove him that a defense can win a superbowl is pretty pointless. You won't find a team doing what the Ravens did again, unless the NFL starts to get less and less talent and some team gets an easy road to the Superbowl against a soft team. And the Ravens had a record setting defense anyway, playing about as well as you could possibly play on defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 did the bears not just get there with D and special teams? im pretty sure that Grossman wasnt a major factor in it, but then again last year stats are just exceptions too right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morneblade Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Its just as possible as the Rams winning without any defense to speak of. But that doesn't mean a team can do either every year. Rams ranked #7 in Todal defense the year they won. Nice try though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sekhmet187 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 did the bears not just get there with D and special teams? im pretty sure that Grossman wasnt a major factor in it, but then again last year stats are just exceptions too right? Did the Bears win or get it handed to them by a team criticized all year for bad defense? Did the Bears have to face touch competition all year? Thats what I mean by exceptions. 1 team might win it every 20 seasons, but its not gonna happen often, so saying "defense wins championships" is just not accurate. Its just a catch phrase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.