What's funny is that they are 0-3 and if they probably stay in their system they are at least 2-1. Falcons and 49ers stopped running the ball and stopped burning clock which I think is key.
I am excited to see what this new offense will finally look like. I really like the idea of controlling time of possession. Helping our D by not relying on the big play.
Originally Posted by: TheKanataThrilla
Correction, 1-3 as I left out Kubiak's Broncos, which won the Super Bowl, and slight more different than the rest of these, as they took Kubiak's a bit different direction in the passing game (I think).
Also I missed quoting someone who hoped the Rams loss didn't show the blue print showed how to beat this scheme. I'd say no, Rams loss showed what happens when you rely on one player too much, and they get injured... without a healthy Todd Gurley, they had no great running, short pass threat, in which the teams entire passing game was based off play action off of him and giving Goff a lot ass time to get it out. He couldn't do it without the play action, and the play action was gone with Gurley's injury.
How many WRs do we keep on the active roster next season? 5?
Originally Posted by: TheKanataThrilla
6, as some of the WR might also be helping else where such as returner and large slot receiver role.
Observations from some of our brightest posters (I will not take the time for attribution) compiled herein. Within the MLF scheme, we are taking the Titans/49er approach to team building/game planning. Ergo:[list]
we have collectively misunderstood roster desires of MLFwe have collectively undervalued the ability of wide outs/slots to block.we have undervalued the desire to pound the ball, control the clock, and keep the defense off the field.we are no longer a McCarthy style team.We want a flexible roster especially in the passing game where RBs and TEs are primary target esp in play action.We have over-valued burners outside.[/list]I am not saying our approach is right or wrong. It will be interesting to watch the transition.We need to hope for low scoring, high time of possession games.
Originally Posted by: KRK
Yes, and with all that, we assumed we had to be a pass first team, and pass to set up the run.Were we might be going more towards a running game that sets up the pass.And yes, one bad thing last year with the defense is that that would wear down and be struggling by the end of the game, as they kept going on the field.
Also one thing LaFleur said at the beginning of the offseason, was that he wish he could have run more power/gap, which most overlooked as some small change he wanted to make, which seems like a bigger change. I'm sure they'll still be mostly zone though, but not almost exclusively like they were last year.