GURU Posted August 11, 2003 Share Posted August 11, 2003 Ya know, code, Sonny knows what he's talking about. He's been under center. In fact, when he played, he had to call his own plays. The audibles seem excessive. I thought Spurrier was a great play caller. Why change the play when you know the defense is trying to fool you, anyway? Like I said, this bears watching. It could be the part of Spurrier's offensive system that just never translates to the NFL level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted August 11, 2003 Share Posted August 11, 2003 Originally posted by GURU Ya know, code, Sonny knows what he's talking about. He's been under center. In fact, when he played, he had to call his own plays. The audibles seem excessive. I thought Spurrier was a great play caller. Why change the play when you know the defense is trying to fool you, anyway? Like I said, this bears watching. It could be the part of Spurrier's offensive system that just never translates to the NFL level. Spurrier's entire offensive system is BASED on changing the play at the line... Thing's have played since Sonny played the game. I'm not taking anything away from what he did as a player, I think he sucks as a commentator. Rather than constantly crying about the main aspect of the offense (he did it in the preseason last year too) why not just come out and say "I hate Spurrier's offense". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GURU Posted August 11, 2003 Share Posted August 11, 2003 You don't think Spurrier's offense is above scrutiny, do you? Frankly, it's still a big experiment at the NFL level. I would't totally characterize Spurrier's offense as "audible driven." It was a major component of the offense that worked on the college level. But it's still Spurrier's offense, even if he decides to tone down the audibles because they don't work at this level. Again, someone needs to explain the logic--how can an audible based on what the defense shows be a better call, if the defense is trying to fool you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted August 11, 2003 Share Posted August 11, 2003 That's a good point GURU and there is something to be said for lining up and just playing and not always trying to outsmart the opponent. With our speed and talent at WR and OL we can probably just call in a play, run it, and succeed a good percentage of the time. I do think you can over-audibilize sometimes. However, Spurrier's offense is driven by audibles. I find nothing wrong with getting to the line and trying to find the best play for a particular D scheme. My only concern is that they get the play off in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted August 11, 2003 Share Posted August 11, 2003 I don't think you "always" try to make a change in the play, the key is that the qb is looking for certain things that are likely to cause the play to fail, in that case, you switch. I'm pretty sure that when Spurrier calls a play, there are several options and variations. The audibles are not as complex as some teams, they may only change one receiver's routes. I have faith in Spurrier, I'm not going to question a guy that's won at every stop he's been to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GURU Posted August 11, 2003 Share Posted August 11, 2003 Look, I am in no way trashing Spurrier. But I think the audible situation bears watching. I don't really remember too many times last year when the QB made a great audible and the Skins made a big play out of it. But I remember plenty of times when calling an audible caused problems--either a penalty or confusion -- even when Wuerffel and Matthews, who were supposedly well versed in the offense, were under center. Again, nobody seems to be able to answer my basic question. If the defense knows you're coming to the LOS looking to change the play, how can you change to a better play? A perfect example Sat. night was when the Panthers faked a blitz, Ramsey audibled to a slant, then the defense called off the blitz and covered the slant. How is that an advantage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted August 11, 2003 Author Share Posted August 11, 2003 I have no problem with Spurrier's system. But his micromanaging style with respect to his QB's needs to stop. They turn the microphone off with 15 seconds to go on the 40 second clock. That's plenty of time to line up and audiblize, but he's taking too long. We can't take momentum-ending and disspiriting 5-yard penalties 2-4 times per game just because SOS is always having to stroke his own artistic side. Get the godd*amn play in already! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted August 11, 2003 Share Posted August 11, 2003 One thing you forget, when it seems they are audibling, sometimes they are not. Sometimes, a fake audible is as good a a real one. The defense is guessing.. they don't know for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted August 11, 2003 Author Share Posted August 11, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama One thing you forget, when it seems they are audibling, sometimes they are not. Sometimes, a fake audible is as good a a real one. The defense is guessing.. they don't know for sure. Code, that's of course interesting but beside the point. Is it any better to get a delay penalty on a fake audible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted August 11, 2003 Share Posted August 11, 2003 I knew that one was coming, but lets be real for a second, how many times did we actually get delay of game calls last year during the regular season? It wasn't that big a deal. It's a big deal now because it's the first preseason game and everyone's rusty, the playcalling is slower etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewhoos Posted August 11, 2003 Share Posted August 11, 2003 Interesting to note, Ramsey audibled the FIRST play of the game. Anyone know if Spurrier scripts the first 10 or so plays from scrimmage like other coaches do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlsbadd Posted August 11, 2003 Share Posted August 11, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama I knew that one was coming, but lets be real for a second, how many times did we actually get delay of game calls last year during the regular season? It wasn't that big a deal. It's a big deal now because it's the first preseason game and everyone's rusty, the playcalling is slower etc... I think we lead the league in dead ball fouls,not to mention wasted time outs. I can't and won't blame it all on SS but as a team I would like to see some improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted August 11, 2003 Author Share Posted August 11, 2003 Spurrier doesn't script plays - that's more of a WCO thing because that offense is built around precise timing of route running and passing that creates its own mismatches. Spurrier likes to read the defense and call his own plays based upon that, which you can't do three days earlier in your office while scripting plays. Again, I have no problem with that, as long as it doesn't take too long to do. Code, it's not just the delay penalties, it's the false starts, illegal procedure, illegal motion, wrongly run routes, missed handoffs, etc. that are the result of rushing audibles under pressure in a noisy stadium with the play clock winding down. The delay penalties are merely the most obvious problem created by how long it takes to get plays in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yank Posted August 11, 2003 Share Posted August 11, 2003 Another aspect of the cat and mouse is the fake audible. The D shifts, a fake audible is called and the D shifts again. If its back to the original spot then the original play should work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted August 11, 2003 Share Posted August 11, 2003 GURU's question echoes what I have been watching, and wondering about, since last season. Our guys come to the line with 10 seconds on the play clock, and line up. The D dances around ... a safety jukes up to the line, then drops back ... the CB's who had lined up on the ball drop 3 yards off. The QB starts to audible. As he completes it and goes under center again, with the clock down to 2 seconds, the CB's press again, the safety drops, and the LDE slides outside the TE. Who's won the chess game? Love to be a fly on the wall in the QB meeting room breaking down who outthunk who each time audibles were called. * Also, I'd like to know just what percentage of offensive snaps last season the Redskins called audibles on, as opposed to the rest of the league. Based on what we think we know about SS, you'd assume we'd lead the league by a fair margin, right? Someone call Sabol and ask him to break it down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted August 11, 2003 Share Posted August 11, 2003 Originally posted by Brewhoos Interesting to note, Ramsey audibled the FIRST play of the game. Anyone know if Spurrier scripts the first 10 or so plays from scrimmage like other coaches do? No. He doesn't. As a matter of fact he does not "gameplan" in the traditional sense either. Spurrier's method is to have the team ready to respond to any situation to attack whatever weakness the defense shows. I goes back to the old military axiom that "no battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy". It's something that has been true for thousands of years of warfare an applies very well to football. Teams that cannot adjust will almost always get beaten by teams that can. The point I'm trying to get at is; if a team plans all week to attack a specific aspect of the opponents defense and the opponent throws something unexpected then the team has waisted a lot of time planning for specific situations that hey are not getting. Better to plan to be flexible enough to attack any defensive plan the opponents D falls into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culver00 Posted August 11, 2003 Share Posted August 11, 2003 The QB headphones might be turned off, but Spurrier's mouth isn't. Watch him during a game. He will literally run down the sideline barking in a play, or signal it, if he sees the something the QB doesnt. I can't tell you how many times I saw this at Florida. I'd say half of the visor throwing that Spurrier is so well noted for came prior to a play. Nothing bothers him more than when his QB isn't seeing what he sees. That is what success for the Fun N Gun really boils down to. When the QB running it is making the reads Spurrier wants, then the offense explodes. When the QB isn't making those reads, Spurrier and the offense implode. Bottom line is that Spurrier believes there is a perfect play for every down. He's always believed in this philosophy and he always will. So if the delay penalties and what may seem like presnap confusion bothers you to no end irreguardless of offensive production, then I have nothing but bad news for you. Spurrier's tenure in Washington will be painful for you watch. It's just that simple. And you'll either learn to cope with it while he's there, or you'll complain until he's gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted August 11, 2003 Share Posted August 11, 2003 I agree with what Om touched on, get to the line sooner. But I honestly believe they will, it's just the first game... preseason even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Washington Posted August 11, 2003 Share Posted August 11, 2003 i don't mind audibles at all. its just a question of when to audible. sometimes you have to have faith in your guys to make the play work. also i thought alot of this offense is based on wr making reads. so couldn't the wr alter the route so the qb and easily get the ball to the hot read? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted August 11, 2003 Share Posted August 11, 2003 I understand the offensive advantage that exists (at least conceptually) with audibilizing....its Sun-Tsu's primary thesis.... Basically, a violent sudden but imperfect attack at the critical juncture at the right time (read AUDIBLE here) is better than a well-planned perfectly executed attack at the wrong time and place. I believe that. But you still have to get the play off on time. Or you lose the advantage you sought to gain by audiblizing in the first place. Thats my only point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earthcat Posted August 11, 2003 Share Posted August 11, 2003 Exactly Code, And add to that- Patrick will learn when they are bluffing. Most of the time the Panthers seemed to go back to their original coverage once they got him to bite. It's a chess game and I have faith in Ramsey and Spurrier. 'Course I said that about Shuler and Turner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted August 11, 2003 Share Posted August 11, 2003 so what do we have here? Audibles are good, they keep the D on their toes... Audubles are bad if the other team is suckering you into one. Audibles are good if you pretend that you're being suckered but call an unexpected play Audibles are bad if the other team is only pretending to sucker you into an audible, but they really are not. Audibles are good if you see them pretending, and pretend to fall for it. my head is spinning... Lets simplify - Audibles are good if you end up running a play the defense is not prepared for, as long as you manage the clock properly. However, trying to call audibles when you cannot do it properly (either suckered into it or managing the clock poorly) will result in bad things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medicio Posted August 11, 2003 Share Posted August 11, 2003 If Ramsay calls an audible then surely he is thinking and reading the D what he needs to learn is the reaction of his audible on the D surely there is something in the playbook that an audible can change just one part. What i mean is if the primary target say coles doing a route to post and he sees the D possibly covering that then an audible for Trung or whoever to go flat keeping coles on his pattern would cover the original play if the D reverts back or get Trung open if that is the audible. Does anyone understand what i am trying to say? If they do please let me know because i have just lost myself. Going for a lie down now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riggins44 Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 Sometimes you just need to stick with the play that is called. Playing the game of bluff and chicken doesn't always work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.