Questions about the O

[Nerm]

I know I have a ton of questions here but if some of you guys could pick one or two of them and give me some insight I would be thankful. Im wondering about SS's new O. I have heard it described (by a SS detractor) as the QB dropping back and throwing to the WR that is wide open, which does not happen in the NFL. Can someone explain the fun-n-gun to me?

Specifically:

What kind of formations can be expected on 1st an 10? Will there be a FB and a TE?

Is the O just a tweeked form of the run and shoot? If not, what is the difference?

With multiple WR sets is it important to have a mobile QB? Is the QB going to be left unprotected?

Does the QB just take a 3/5 step drop and throw, or is it actually just a matter of looking for an open receiver?

Of the NFL QBs, RBs, and WRs from the past 20 years, who would fit the fun-n-gun best?

Thanks

[RySkins]

I would call it a version of what the Rams are running.

The main difference between Spurrier's offense and the run and shoot is that the run and shoot was a short-passing attack while the Fun 'N Gun is predicated on getting the ball down the field.

Spurrier never had a mobile QB at Florida, and Warner is certainly not mobile in St. Louis, so mobility at quarterback is not necessary.

Of the NFL QBs, RBs, and WRs from the past 20 years, who would fit the fun-n-gun best?

Probably the ones they have in St. Louis. Mark Rypien would probably be a good fit, as would Marino. Barry Sanders would be another RB who would excel in the Fun 'N Gun

[Uptown Skins]

Here's the main layout of SS's offense.................

[bulldog]

well, the one weakness in Martz's system is he doesn't keep anyone in to block for Warner and that has taken a real toll on him in terms of hits and knockdowns (and in 2001 interceptions).

with Ramsey we are going to have to keep a TE or FB in to block more than the Rams do if we are going to keep the kid upright while he is learning how to play in the NFL.

the pace of defense is such that using a 4 wide receiver set is something you can't do too often, it has to be used in spots to effect.

the fact the Skins are going to be working in THREE new offensive linemen this year only underscores this need for protection schemes for the qb.

[Wacky Ralph]

Every offense has its flaws, and if you give an NFL-quality coach enough time to examine it closely, eventually he'll find a weak link. At the end of the day, you can't win solely because of a system. It's just not that simple. And you're not gonna be a winner at the end of a 16 game season because of an innovative scheme. MOST of the time, the team with the most talent wins on Sunday, and MOST of the time, the talent that makes the difference is wearing pads, not a necktie. My "Most of the Time" rules:

A great coach can take a great team, and make them champions. A great coach can also take a bad team, and make them respectable.

A so-so coach can take a great team, but will need to figure out the appropriate scheme to make them champions. And if he has a bad team, his team will be bad.

A bad coach won't win, even with a great team with a great scheme.

(Hey, how many Superbowls were won by bad coaches???)

That's why I'm not so optimistic about our offense. I just don't think we have the pieces in place, even assuming Spurrier is a great coach with a great scheme. I think he'll need at least one year of "trial & error" to see what will work in the NFL, what won't, and where the available pieces are.

Ya know what Uncle Ralph is saying?

[redman]

Its success is premised upon the QB and WR's reading the defensive alignment together and the same way prior to the play starting, and also making the same adjustments of the pass routes. The QB then snaps the ball and reads the defense to find the WR who is in the best coverage situation, usually single coverage. He checks down if he has to to a secondary WR - not somebody drifting into the flat like we saw with Marty and with a weak-armed Brad Johnson under Norv, but a guy running a deep post or a deep out.

The WR's routes are designed to to work with each other to force the defense, particularly safeties, to commit to one WR or another relatively early in the play so that the QB can read where the defense is committed and throw to "where they ain't", again, generally meaning single coverage. That's why Spurrier always talks about his offense as simply being based upon the idea of taking what the defense gives you. At its core, that's exactly what it does. However, there's a lot more to it than that as the offense must be well-versed to make the right reads of the defense, and to make the right adjustments off of those reads, and to ensure that their reads and adjustments are the same as those their teammates are making.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by redman

Its success is premised upon the QB and WR's reading the defensive alignment together and the same way prior to the play starting, and also making the same adjustments of the pass routes.

...which is not likely to happen consistently enough in the first few weeks. With inconsistent play by a new OL with a new protect system, the QB will be under frequent pressure by blitzes, stunts, and even normal pressure packages. The result will be a lot of sacks, QB knockdowns, QB fumbles, and interceptions, along with some nice big plays when everything works.

The team will figure all this out eventually, hopefully sooner than later. But we should buckle our seatbelts for ugly play early. If the team couldn't handle Marty-ball by Game 1 (or Game 5) last year, it's going to take some brilliant coaching and great team concentration to expect much better play early on offense.

Don't expect Stephen Davis to bail out the team early. With a soft interior OL and the defense stacking the line for blitzes, there won't be any lanes open for Davis until the QB, WRs and OL master the passing game.

Geoff

[Zen-like Todd]

(Hey, how many Superbowls were won by bad coaches???)

Barry Switzer?

[Guest Goatroper]

It will be an exciting offense if it works in the NFL. I think you are right that it will take time to get everybody to gee and haw together, though.

How much time will The Daniel give Spurrier? How much ugliness will the fan base tolerate?

I can remember a brash rookie coach, coming off a successful college career, going 1-15 his first year in the NFL. His rookie QB got the bejezuz knocked out of him all year. Things got better, but it took a while.

Would Snyder stick with Spurrier after a 1-15 rookie season? (Please don't say it can't happen because it can.)

Re: The slam on Barry Switzer -- Better go check his stats as a college coach, see how he measures up to Spurrier.

[Zen-like Todd]

Yes, he would stick with Spurrier.

But it wouldnt happen.

[Zen-like Todd]

Please dont tell me you are defending Switzer's coaching ability. The Cowboys won on veteran leadership with Switzer, he had nothing (nothing positive) to do with it.

[RySkins]

This team is not comparable to the team Jimmy Johnson took over in 1989, which was coming off consecutive horrible seasons. This Redskin team has a defense in place...any offense at all is an improvement.

[Wacky Ralph]

Originally posted by TheChosenOne

Please dont tell me you are defending Switzer's coaching ability. The Cowboys won on veteran leadership with Switzer, he had nothing (nothing positive) to do with it.

Well, it's hard to evaluate Switzer as a head coach in the pros because he was in a weird situation. But he had great assistant coaches, guys like Dave Campo, Ernie Zampiesie, and Butch Davis. Switzer might've been a jabroni, but he/Dallas still had a very good coaching staff, if I remember right. I mean, how bad can the coaching staff be when you have two current NFL head coaches as your underlings????

[SPare]

It would seem to me that the imperative for this offence to work is that you have smart guys playing. (hmmm, maybe that's bad news for Westbrook, and why it's a good thing that Connell and Shepherd are gone)

Similarly, the key thing with practices is simple recognition of defences, so that everybody recognizes the modifications.

In many ways, this offence reminds me of how Joe Gibbs' offence was once described to me:

"they only had 20 plays, but they ran them out of 20 different formations."

I would expect that the same thing will apply here.

[Guest Goatroper]

On the Switzer Super Bowl, Troy Aikman was asked how much credit Switzer deserved for the win.

"As much as Jimmy deserved for the other two (SBs)," he said.

But what I suggested was you compare Switzer's college stats with Spurrier's.

Spurrier (Duke and Fla. combined) 142-40-2

Switzer (Okla.) 157-29-4

I'd say neither was a bad coach in the college ranks.

Switzer in the pros: Reg. Season 40-24, Playoffs 5-2 (1 SB)

Spurrier in the pros: Reg. Season 0-0, Playoffs 0-0 (0 SB)

Any questions?

[Riggo-toni]

Originally posted by Wacky Ralph

(Hey, how many Superbowls were won by bad coaches???)

Ya know what Uncle Ralph is saying?

Uh Hello - Did you see the last Superbowl. Does the name Bill Belichik mean anything? Do you think the Pats really won on playing talent?

[Art]

The Fun & Gun is a Run & Shoot variant, but, it is more based on deep to short in progressions and the offense is more structured and layered than a real Run & Shoot. The essential principle of the two offenses is the same though. Run where the defender isn't.

The offense is based really, on the same basic principles that the Run & Shoot was based on. They being:

"He right, I left!"

"He left, I right!"

"He come, I go!"

"He go, I stay!"

The beautiful thing about the Fun & Gun is that no one really knows what's going to happen until the ball is snapped. This includes offensive players and is very difficult for defensive players to adjust to. It's been said of this type of offense that the only way to stop it from passing is to allow it to run. So, if you go three or four linemen and seven defensive backs, the Redskins will simply put Stephen Davis or newly minted hero Rock Cartwright up the gut for chunks of yards. If you balance, going man across the field, it's an either or thing.

The statement here that if you give an NFL coordinator enough time, he'll find a weakness in this or any offense. That is true to an extent but, in this type of offense, you can never catch up to it because the receiver will run to a spot as dictated by what the defense does. In fact, a defensive player's training often works against him because he's used to seeing Post/Cross routes, for example, and his body naturally responds to what he's seen time and time again, but, when he does, the route becomes corner/cross and no one knew it until the QB is putting the ball in the air.

The offense is simple while being remarkably complex. This is why Spurrier was so smart to bring in his very successful Gator players at the important skill positions to help teach this offense. How it works in the NFL is yet to be seen, but, this is a very exciting opportunity Redskin fans have .

Spurrier has a QB who is essentially a poster child for this offense now. I'm only expecting a relatively mild offensive improvement into the 18-23 statistical ranking, but I wouldn't be surprised with a great deal more if Spurrier is right that he can get production out of Wuerffel.

[Wacky Ralph]

Originally posted by riggo-toni

Uh Hello - Did you see the last Superbowl. Does the name Bill Belichik mean anything? Do you think the Pats really won on playing talent?

I think the Patriots were more talented than most "experts" gave them credit for, winning all those playoff games. I also think the reason Belichik failed with the Browns but did well with New England had much to do with the quality of his team.

The Pats had a very good secondary and a very good DL, to go with a Pro Bowl QB, 1000-yard-rusher, and a Pro Bowl WR. This wasn't a bumbling batch of Boston banal bums, blissfully blind but borderline bad. That was a much better team than anyone anticipated....and it took most folks untill after the fact to appreciate how good they were.

That being said, if they played the Rams 10 times, I think the Rams would win about 7 of those games. But on any given Sunday..........

[skinsfanbu]

In answer to the graphic of the Fun and Gun; SS would go 4 wide on any down and distance, but it was not the set offense. His standard Set inluded a full back, occassionally a tight end. For years, he refused to play the Shot-Gun, 'cause the QB had to look at the ball, instead of the defense. FSU learned him one year...next game Wuerrful comes out in a shot gun.

HE WILL ADJUST!

HTTR,

[Zen-like Todd]

Oh jesus. Not the "check out his #s when he worked at a totally loaded program with great coordinators and crazy talent" argument. I'm sure you got straight A's in elementary school, but it doesnt exactly make you smart, now does it?

Troy tried, as he always does, to be a nice guy. He was such a pain in the *** that they had to hire a buffer coach between the two of them, Irvin threatened to quit football, etc.

Fer real. He sucked. Get over it. The team had great talent, and yes, as was pointed out, a good set of assistant coaches.

[Barney B]

OK Goatroper,

I'll give you some props for that post, at least.

Switzer had an amazing college record, which may not have translated into greatness at the pro level. My own feeling is that he was probably just a mediocre NFL coach in a great situation, with great players and excellent subordinate coaches, but that's just one man's opinion.

So therefore I have to concede that college-level coaching greatness doesn't necessarily translate into NFL coaching greatness. We'll have to wait and see about Spurrier.

But one thing we know for sure - Quincy Jones ain't all that!

[Guest Goatroper]

Quincy Jones is, indeed, "all that" and more.

I will concede, however, that the jury is still out on young Quincy Carter, our fledgling QB.

But if hard work counts for anything (and it does), Carter will be way better than his critics believe. You can only pray that any one of your jumble of wannabe QBs has a fraction of Carter's work ethic.

[Art]

Goat,

Carter's work ethic? The man sounds like Joseph Merrick when he talks. Only thing is, if they made a movie about him, like Merrick's Elephant Man, he couldn't play himself, because he wouldn't be able to read the part.

Our jumble of QBs include one who has more physical ability throwing the ball and who would have been absolutely assured of not having to ask his coach, "Hey, coach, am I starting this year or what?" if he came back.

[Barney B]

Whoa, did I write Qucincy Jones?

Gotta stop drinking before lunch. The man, is, indeed all that.

However, Quincy Carter's work ethic, while admirable, I'm sure, is no substitute for talent. :laugh:

[GainesvilleGator]

What kind of formations can be expected on 1st an 10? Will there be a FB and a TE?

-There is no set formation as a standardfor 1st and 10. He'll sometimes line up with 2 WR's, 1 TE, and 2 RB's. Sometimes he'll line up with 5 WR's and the QB in the shotgun.

Is the O just a tweeked form of the run and shoot? If not, what is the difference?

-IMO, no it isn't a tweaked form of the run and shoot. They throw the ball downfield more. The QB can take 3 step drops, 5-step, and 7 step drops along with the shotgun.

With multiple WR sets is it important to have a mobile QB? Is the QB going to be left unprotected?

-No, because if they blitz a 4 or 5 wide set, he expects his QB to make the proper read and get rid of the ball quickly. He's never had a very mobile QB at UF. As far as the QB being unprotected, there's not a simple answer to that. If a team surprises you and disguises a blitz well, they could have a guy come free. But he doesn't leave a QB out to dry. He DOES ask his QB's to be courageous, and hang in the pocket to release the ball, and sometimes they take hits after the release. if a team brings more guys than blockers, then somebody should be able to be open quickly and the QB has to rid of it quickly. But so does Kurt Warner. He usually picks himself off the turf and moves 15-20 yards downfield after the completion. The idea from the media that he always has 5 guys running routes on pass plays is absurd. They make it seem like he forgoes pass protection to get as many guys in the route as possible. He does and has and will max protect if a team is bringing the blitz. Go watch this year's Miss St game to see what Spurrier does against blitzing teams as far as protection goes. He's also very adept at slowing the rush by throwing delays after allowing the rush in.

Does the QB just take a 3/5 step drop and throw, or is it actually just a matter of looking for an open receiver?

-It depends. When he has the right play on, the QB may take a 5 step drop and throw without hesitation as the primary WR would be breaking open at the end of the 5 step drop. Sometimes it's choice for the QB. He may take a 5 step drop and have the option of throwing the curl or the flat route depending on whether the defense has shaded to the curl or the flat. If he throws the curl, the next time he runs that play the QB may stare down the curl to draw the DB and throw the flat. If they're playing bump and run, he may take a 2 step drop and throw the fade. It really depends.

Of the NFL QBs, RBs, and WRs from the past 20 years, who would fit the fun-n-gun best?

IMO, Montana and Kurt Warner, because they're good decision makers and because they're very accurate passers. RB's, Walter Payton and Faulk, because they can get the tough yards and catch the ball out of the backfield and you wouldn't have to tip your hand on short yardage by bringing in a big back to pick up 1 yard. Isaac Bruce would be a good choice because his offense has always relied on (not always but most of the time, the slot receiver matched up against the LB or SS is the exception) the quicker receivers around 5-10 to 6-1 180-195 lbs with speed that can get separation from the DB as opposed to the bigger receivers who can't separate as easily but will outjump DB's. His offense rarely relies on a covered WR out-jumping a DB. A big receiver would fit well there. If he was covered tightly, he'd rather have the QB throw it to someone who wasn't covered as tightly rather than throw the jump ball to a tall receiver. JMHO.