RebelYell Posted March 5, 2002 Share Posted March 5, 2002 There seems to be a fair amount of concern, both here and in the press about whether Spurrier's Fun 'N 'Gun offense will succeed in the NFL.<br /><br />Well folks I have the answer: <I>;maybe<br />not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of your life</I>. And for those of you who might argue that it's not an original answer, well I will make no apologies for that <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="tongue.gif" /> . For those of you who want to claim that you've already said what I'm about to say, then I do apologize for that, because some of you (BCS, Art et al) have touched on what follows. I'm merely spelling it out because I just didn't get it until tonight and thought I'd lay out the full argument rather than the sophisticated version just in case there were other Frerottes out there like me <img border="0" alt="[Gus]" title="" src="graemlins/frerotte.gif" /> <br /><br />How can I be so sure? After all, systems have come and gone from the NFL. A few have proved successful and many have failed, caught between the Scylla of superior defensive coaching and the Charbydis of more talented defensive personnel. Why should the Spurrier offense fare differently?<br /><br />The key lies in the question "Describe the Fun 'N Gun." Because there is no simple answer to that question. Not even the Gator fans who have flocked to our message boards recently in droves can sum it up in a sentence or two. Unlike other systems, the Fun 'N Gun is not just a set of plays contained in the proverbial tattered playbook (haven't you heard the old adage about too many coaches spoiling the tattered playbook?) which has been created from years of experience.<br /><br />The Fun 'N Gun cannot really be written down and described because it is Steve Spurrier's brain, living and breathing on the football field. He doesn't have a set of plays, he just puts eleven guys out on the field in a particular formation and tells them all to look at the defensive formation, and run their routes into the holes. Sure it's complicated: it relies on the QB and all the receivers and backs agreeing on where the holes are, based on the defense they see. That doesn't happen in a couple of days. It takes a lot of dedication and study.<br /><br />In a conventional system, if a play is designed for the X receiver to run a 15 yard in, then that's what he runs. Perhaps he is supposed to break the route off real short if he reads a blitz, but that's about it. The Norv Turner form of the conventional offense requires that the play called by the coach is run on the field. The QB lines up behind center knowing that Norv has called a run up the middle, sees ten men in the box, and he has no option but to smile ruefully has he hands the ball to his soon-to-be turkey of a teammate.<br /><br />We all know what happened to Norv's offenses, once the opponents got the hang of what he was doing. If the defensive coordinator guessed what Norv's playcall was, that was that. And the more frequently they played us, the more often they guessed right (hence our terrible division record). The better defensive coordinators would often catch up to him by the second or third quarter of a game.<br /><br />Most offenses allow a little more flexibility than that - the QB gets the opportunity to audible to a few well known plays in response to a defense which has high chance of stopping the original play. The trouble with this is that the very act of calling an audible often gives the new play away. How many times have you seen a team showing blitz, only to back off once they get the audible they are looking for? The offense can play games with bluff audibles, but the risk of confusion is high.<br /><br />Contrast this with Spurrier's system which<br />- cannot be beaten by the defensive coordinator guessing the correct play, because a defense lined up to stop a particular play automatically causes the offense to run a different "correct" play<br />- is much less susceptible to motion on defense (and the defense never know when they've gone far enough to trigger a new set of routes, before backing off), because no signals are required between the QB and receivers which might be misheard or misinterpreted. If the QB and receivers have all done their homework, then they might as well be communicating by telepathy.<br /><br />The key to the Fun 'N 'Gun is the dual adaptive nature of the system, not the individual plays themselves. By dual adaptive I mean that both the routes change in response to the way the defense lines up, and that individual receivers change their routes independently of each other in response to specifc weaknesses of the defense. This is an intrinsic advance in the way that offenses function of enormous significance.<br /><br />We may well jump to a flying start and never look back, but there are three potential pitfalls which could slow us down.<br /><br />1. The specific routes determined by the defensive lineup which worked in college won't work in the NFL. The added speed and talent of NFL defensive backs may mean that the receiver who looks at the defense and reads a 20 yard out route still won't get open. This is very possible, although Spurrier has six months and a top notch NFL secondary to practice against to work out what modifications he needs. Still there's no substitute for live fire, and it may take half a season or so to fix problems arising from the transition to the NFL. To suggest that Spurrier won't be able to make the requisite modifications is just silly. He's been able to design his system from scratch and get it to work three times already in different environments (maybe more if he ever coached his son's little league team somewhere <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> ). His task is not to bring a new playbook to the NFL and see if it works, it's to bring a new concept to the NFL. Devising the individual plays is almost trivial within the framework he has created.<br /><br />2. Spurrier's system requires different skills than a traditional NFL offense. It places a huge premium on intelligence and diligence, and correspondimgly relies less on sheer athleticism. It is the opposite of say throwing a jump ball up for Randy Moss. That kind of play essentially says: "you know what we're going to do and we know what we're going to do, but you know what, we're going to do it anyway because our guy is so much faster and can jump so much higher that there's a good chance you can't stop us". This explains why a lot of Florida QBs and receivers are not very successful in the NFL - they just don't have the same skillset that most NFL offenses are predicated on. When asked to operate in an offense which doesn't allow them to use their intelligence, they simply don't stand out. This means that we legitimately can expect more from our new 'gators than they previously have shown in the NFL. It is far more likely that Wuerffel, Doering and Riedel will suddenly shine now, than any other similarly situated backups/third-stringers in the league. Nevertheless, it is still possible that despite their smarts, these guys are just too lacking in strength, height, speed and hands to perform as will be required in the NFL. In that case it may take Spurrier a year or two to acquire guys with enough athletic ability to succeed. The good news is that hopefully we should start to see some cap room free up after next year. Perhaps even more importantly, the laws of supply and demand will dictate that if we are looking for a different type of player than everybody else, we will get the guys we want, the guys who are the ideal fit for the Spurrier system significantly cheaper than other teams will be able to acquire the guys they want.<br /><br />3. Nolan excepted, defensive coordinators in the NFL are not idiots. They will be working night and day to foil the Fun 'N 'Gun. They will try to work out Spurrier's scheme of route selection and devise defenses which lead to the selection of routes which will fail. They will line up their defenses in ways which make it hard for our guys to read them , trying to make the QB and receivers reach different conclusions about what they should be doing. But fundamentally these are all the sorts of things they would be doing anyway - they will simply have less success against the Fun 'N 'Gun because it is a more advanced system, in the same way that it is a little bit harder to stop an offense which is making effective use of audibles than one which eschews them altogether.<br /><br />So this is just the usual chess match where our guy, Spurrier, has been spotted his opponents' queen by virtue of his system. Not only has he received a handicap, but arguably he was already the better player, as evidenced by his ability to draw up plays on the sideline which work. Spurrier has no need for head-scratching and playbook-flipping, desperately seeking an answer already written down to a defensive conundrum on the field. He sees the game, he sees the counter-move and he calls it there and then. I don't think we'll see Spurrier out-thought and out-adjusted too often.<br /><br />Q.E.D.<br /><br />No more fear, uncertainty and doubt please. The Redskins are about to enter a new era!<br /><br />RebelYell<br /> <br /> <small>[ March 05, 2002, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: RebelYell ]</small> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stricknine Posted March 5, 2002 Share Posted March 5, 2002 I was just about to post something very similar, but you pretty much said what I was thinking.<br /><br />Something I have thought of is that maybe this offense won't work with a Bledsoe or Blake. Maybe it has to be a Wuerffel or Matthews, a guy who relies more on quick thinking than a cannon or his feet. I know that sounds like what some others have said, but it makes sense. Maybe we all are worried about something we should'nt be. Steve knows his offense and knows what kind of guy it takes to run it. Maybe we should be glad he has'nt let Cerrato convince him he has to have a certain guy to be successful in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baralufficus Posted March 5, 2002 Share Posted March 5, 2002 that was a very good post .....i have been irritated as of late with all this talk about how so many Skins fans are ready to give up watching football because of what Spurrier has done this off season , .....well face it , we will go into camp most likly with Matthews, and Wuerfel ,and Sage , and maybe Ramsey , or Harrington , who knows ....but there will be alot of Skins fans talking about a losing record next year , and god knows what else ......you gotta keep the faith ....this is getting sad ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted March 5, 2002 Share Posted March 5, 2002 based on the mesolithic offense the Redskins were running last year where each third down and audible was cause for such lament, a system that runs smoothly with players knowing where they should be going will be an absolute revelation to us Redskins fans that saw what we did in 2001.<br /><br />The Redskins must have set a record last year with timeouts and penalties on their first possessions of games.<br /><br />It simply devastated the confidence of fans and I think fellow players on the defense and special teams to see an offense so obviously out of sync and without any kind of consistency or organization.<br /><br />And that from Mr. Organization, Marty Schottenheimer <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rat_Boy Posted March 5, 2002 Share Posted March 5, 2002 Hey Rebel Yell. Can you post that on "the other site?"<br /><br />That was a good read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted March 5, 2002 Share Posted March 5, 2002 rebel....correct me if i'm wrong...but your description of the Norval system was not what i understood it to be. in fact, much was made of the fact that his sytem did not allow for audibles - precisely because there were 3-4 checkdowns on each play that receiver and QB had to be in synch on for the system to succeed. this was one of the reasons given for explaining brad johnson's relative success - he was able to make the right decision more often than not. this was also a criticsm of westy - he did not always adapt. one can draw disctinctions between checking down to known options vice figuring the options on the fly - but the principle remains the same and the emphasis is the same: quick reads. so...this is not something unique/never observed in professional football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted March 5, 2002 Share Posted March 5, 2002 it doesn't come down to schemes. it comes down to execution by the personnel.<br /><br />that's why the talk of the philosophy is less important in and of itself than the fit of the players and their commitment to working hard and excelling.<br /><br />Westbrook quite simply didn't want to work that hard on the mental aspect of the game. His was a physical brand of football based on individual matchups and athleticism. He wasn't interested in becoming as well-versed on playing receiver from a technical point of view as a Henry Ellard or Art Monk.<br /><br />That is what physical talent early in life does to you. You depend on it and never work hard enough on the other aspects of the game because things have always come easily.<br /><br />Spurrier eschews this kind of player. He wants guys that can and will learn. And that is a return to a more fundamental value we had here under Gibbs, get players that want to work and more importantly, want to win.<br /><br />Who wouldn't rather have a Jerry Rice or Tim Brown in his prime overa prima donna in Randy Moss?<br /><br />Moss may put up the regular season numbers but he disappeared in the game vs. the Giants in the NFC Championship Game in 2000 and has been a locker room cancer for years.<br /><br />How many players from Todd Steussie to Randal McDaniel left Minnesota complaining that the double standard created for Moss by the organization was destroying the fabric of the team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted March 5, 2002 Share Posted March 5, 2002 bd...that's a tautology. if one doesn't execute then it can't work by definition. schemes do matter: reference bill bellichek, bill walsh, don coryell, etc., etc. i can execute a poorly conceived system perfectly and still fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RebelYell Posted March 5, 2002 Author Share Posted March 5, 2002 </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by fansince62:<br /><strong>rebel....correct me if i'm wrong...but your description of the Norval system was not what i understood it to be. in fact, much was made of the fact that his sytem did not allow for audibles - precisely because there were 3-4 checkdowns on each play that receiver and QB had to be in synch on for the system to succeed.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My understanding was a bit different, but you may well be right (in fact since you started following the Redskins before I was born, you are much more likely to be right than me). I got the impression with Norv's system that the receivers ran set routes. The routes were designed very carefully, with the idea being that, whatever defense the opposition ran, at least one receiver would get open at the right time. The QB's job was to read the defense and understand which guy would be open and when, and then deliver the ball.<br /><br />But this is different from both the receiver and the QB reading the defense and completely changing their routes based solely on what they see on the field.<br /><br />Can anybody else throw some light on this?<br /><br />RebelYell<br /> <br /> <small>[ March 05, 2002, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: RebelYell ]</small> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted March 5, 2002 Share Posted March 5, 2002 good response!....i'll disregard the veiled discriminatory comment vis my imagined seniority! (just joking - actually in my 40s). following your argument, i would add some thoughts:<br /><br />there appear to be two vulnerabilities<br />- the time required to execute (can a well executed blitz scheme disrupt an SS offense with limitted blockers?)<br />- a defense that counters with motion and masking can confuse this system into making the wrong decisions. (speculative comment on my part). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 5, 2002 Share Posted March 5, 2002 RY and Al, you are both right. Norv's system didn't allow for audibles because the QB had to process the information and go to the proper check down on each play. But, as RY said, in Norv's system the route tree was set and definite to the extent that if Westbrook was told to run a seven, which is a deep in, but allowed to run an 8 which is a deep out if the defender was shading his inside corner, Westbrook would not always do that well.<br /><br />Still, the adaptability within the scheme was not great. You were to be where you were to be so Brad knew where to deliver the ball. In Norv's system the QB was the one who had to know all the facets. Spurrier's system is different than Norv's and, as RY said, different than any we've seen in the NFL.<br /><br />Again, no one has ever based an offensive game plan on the defensive appearance. It's always been down and distance. Set ideas for set circumstances where you could process information, assess tendency and attack based upon historical information you've learned about your opponent.<br /><br />Spurrier's offense, as RY said, has more ebb and flow than any in football. It's possible in a game that no play that comes in from the sideline remains the play at the snap of the ball. And this is not done through audibles, for the most part, but rather, it's done through drilling by Spurrier on what is required for any specific look.<br /><br />The QB doesn't have to holler out to the receivers to change the route. The receivers just know and the QB just knows. It's a wildly different concept than any in the league. RY is correct that the speed of players in the NFL might make things more difficult. It'll be harder to break off a route into a linebacker zone because now, linebackers will be where they are supposed to be much faster than in college. <br /><br />But, Spurrier's system is, as RY has said, something that is difficult to pinpoint because depending on the play it can be something totally different than you've ever seen previously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RebelYell Posted March 5, 2002 Author Share Posted March 5, 2002 </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by fansince62:<br /><strong>good response!....i'll disregard the veiled discriminatory comment vis my imagined seniority! (just joking - actually in my 40s). following your argument, i would add some thoughts:<br /><br />there appear to be two vulnerabilities<br />- the time required to execute (can a well executed blitz scheme disrupt an SS offense with limitted blockers?)<br />- a defense that counters with motion and masking can confuse this system into making the wrong decisions. (speculative comment on my part).</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The age thing was just from your screen name - fansince62 - and the fact that I wasn't born until 68 :-). <br /><br />As far as the defense countering with motion and masking, this was what I tried to address as the part of the third potential pitfall in my original post<br /><br /> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> They will try to work out Spurrier's scheme of route selection and devise defenses which lead to the selection of routes which will fail. They will line up their defenses in ways which make it hard for our guys to read them , trying to make the QB and receivers reach different conclusions about what they should be doing. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I concluded that since they try these things anyway, the chances are that they will not be as effective against the Spurrier offense as against others, and that Spurrier will be able to adapt and change faster than the guys he's scheming against, always remaining one vital step ahead.<br /><br />RY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted March 5, 2002 Share Posted March 5, 2002 If nothing else, it sounds like a great benefit in situations where the play clock is running down, you're on the road and the crowd is booming, and the defense feints a blitz. Instead of Tony Banks trying to scream an audible and getting nailed with a delay of game penalty, people just do what they are supposed to, magically.<br /><br />I like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted March 5, 2002 Share Posted March 5, 2002 blitzing?....as I recall.....Fla lost pretty badly in one bowl several years ago precisely because they couldn't contain the pass rush.<br />- it's a good strategy - force more players to stay in and block and you have disrupted/alterred the offensive strategy<br /><br />back to the old risk/reward paradigm! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 5, 2002 Share Posted March 5, 2002 What was interesting about that Nebraska game you are referencing is that Florida routinely went empty set backfield, leaving five blockers in and whenever they did, Nebraska went man up on the five receivers and blitzed six. It worked perfectly and Florida had little chance, especially since Nebraska's cover people matched up well with the Florida receivers.<br /><br />On the professional level it's a bit harder to go empty set and get away with it and it's a bit harder to go man up across the field and get away with it. Spurrier adjusted a bit after that Nebraska game, but, the point here is that Nebraska didn't blitz and cause Florida problems. Nebraska keyed defensive calls off Florida calls and Florida players weren't able to make them pay. Still, the offense the Gators ran was pretty good that day and the offense Nebraska ran was just too much for the Florida defense, if I recall correctly. Hell, the score was 62-14 that day, so I'm not sure anything worked real well <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RebelYell Posted March 5, 2002 Author Share Posted March 5, 2002 Clearly any offense will break down if there is no pass protection. It doesn't matter how brilliant the play is if it doesn't get the time to develop.<br /><br />The key is that Spurrier's offense is better than the alternatives, and that therefore against any defense on any given day it will do better than other offenses.<br /><br />The day they got hammered 62-14 by Nebraska doesn't necessarily mean the system is flawed. It might just mean that without the system they would have been annihilated 62-0.<br /><br />RY<br /> <br /> <small>[ March 05, 2002, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: RebelYell ]</small> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 5, 2002 Share Posted March 5, 2002 And, let's not forget, Nebraska had 629 yards of offense that day. Certainly the Nebraska defense did a fine job containing Spurrier's offense on that day, but, when the Florida defense is getting utterly shredded like that, I'm not sure we can blame Spurrier so much. Especially when you consider the Gators scored 10 points in the first quarter before the Huskers got rolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.