I don't know exactly how different Lazor's scheme will be from Hennin... er, um Sherman's. I would just like fewer boneheaded calls, such as calling a stretch play on 4th and goal from the 1. Sherman drove me nuts.
Drove me nuts to see Wallace kept stationary last season. I believe he ran the most routes from one spot last year. He should be lined up more in the slot or motioned. We were very predictable on film. Sent from my Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk
absolutely. Move him around like the Panthers did with Smitty. Keep him moving, never know where hes coming from
In theory its ideal to be able to move players around in formations. The problem is that in practice it usually requires multiple players to be making the correct reads in order to execute, and creates a lot more room for error.
It really is not an easy thing to do. A lot of QBs have problems reading defenses on their own. Add in the necessity of 5 skill position players all having to make the correct read, and it becomes much more difficult. If one makes a bad read, it blows everything up.
Don't be too sure. Remember Chad Johnson? He had issues learning audibles and sight adjustments and when he couldn't get by on talent alone, he was on his way out of the league.
Yes. A lot of those teams are doing it with QBs that play at a high-level, and aren't in their second season. Or teams that have more experience than Miami. You're necessitating not only players that are very smart, but it also requires a lot of experience and chemistry among the skill players and the QB. NE is a great example here - they require a very specific type of receiver, and their offense struggles without them. My point wasn't to say it is impossible. My point was that it isn't as easy as saying "lets move Wallace around". You need to be able to get all the position players and QB to get all the mental stuff down. I seriously doubt Mike Sherman believed that moving Wallace around wouldn't be beneficial, and that Bill Lazor realizes he should do it, so it will happen. The challenge for the OC is getting the players to grasp the mental aspects. Getting young players like Lamar Miller, Rishard Mathews, Dion Sims, etc. to eliminate a lot of their mental mistakes.
Would you attribute the same reasoning for taking a Qb who is lethal on the run, from both sides, and restricting him to the pocket?
That, too. I'm just so used to being disappointed that I don't want to have too many hopes about the new offense this season. I'm fully expecting to be let down again.
I'm not really sure what contributed to Tannehill moving out of the pocket, or not moving out of it. We have coaches saying they wanted him to stay in the pocket, but in reality such a statement could very well mean they coached him not to break it prematurely, as opposed to them being overzealous in making him stay in there.
Well we have that issue, them teaching him not to escape, but we also had the issue of not calling enough designed pays that take advantage of the most lethal part of his arsenal.
I think Lazor is gonna make a HUGE difference this season..hes not set in his ways like Sherman was...and hes had experience seeing how Chip Kellys offense can be damn near unstoppable. Hell..I could care less if we threw the ball 15 times and ran it 60...if its fast paced..and keeps other teams off balance..thats what I want to see Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
DJ ..if we run Lazors offense the way it should be run...we shouldnt see Tannehill have to run. Im fine with Tannehill being steadfast in not relying on his legs. Im sure he knows he could pull it down and run..but then it always becomes his fallback option. We need to make a good wager. You decide..I say Thill out plays both CKap and Rwilson this season Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
yes..but in all honesty..what if he did say it was gonna change..it would be wide open and explosive...youd still be skeptical..and say ya..Ill believe it when I see it. Id rather he just say little and show it on field Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
I think Philbin meant that there's not a brand new offense being installed. If Lazor can call plays properly & our line holds up for more than 2.4 seconds, then our offense will be drastically different.
Yeah it seems he's going above and beyond protecting that some major overhaul is gonna commence.. He thinks football is a simple game, well, it is until it becomes predictable..when the defense knows they have an athletic Qb that barely runs and that the coordinator doesn't move the pocket, it really helps the defense.
The playbook doesn't make a team predictable or not, its how the game is called by the coordinators that make a team different (and talent of course.).
We didn't move the pocket, we didn't move Wallace around at all, I hope it's more different then he's alluding to..I understand most concepts regardless of what you call the offense are similar in design but id like to think our new coordinator has some new concepts and designs.
Well, when someone says they wanted him moved it doesn't necessarily mean the players must all make the same reads, does it? If you put him in a pre-snap motion all the players know the play being called, and know where he's going to end up. If I recall, Bruce Arians put him in motion a lot, and lined him up in the slot etc. We're not talking Tom Brady level sophistication here. Just something other then, line up on the right, Go.
There is one dynamic here that gives me pause for thought - and I'm a big believer in being positive. There were at least moments last year that should have been better but weren't and which came down to Philbin's strategy. First example that comes to mind is in the win (loss) against the Steelers. In the end the only reason we won that was because it was gifted to us by a misplaced foot. I left that game seeing a Pittsburgh win. Not that I want to drag it up, I don't (and yes, I know that there was a forward lateral), that's not my point. My point is that we had a chance in that game to try to seal the deal. On our last drive up the field we were in close and some how, bizzarely, Philbin chose to get all intimidated and play it too safe, and run the ball, three times, in the same way, rather than try for a pass or something, to get that touchdown. The game was ours to win and at the moment when he should have gone in for the kill, he played 'safe', which in the end proved to be far more dangerous by leaving us within range of a Steeler comeback. I checked after the game and the decision for that was all Philbin. In the same vain, I don't like how he sounds here, speaking as though the system was just fine. Maybe I'm reading that wrong. I hope so. However, if there was one problem the Dolphins seemed to have it was an inability to make adjustments during the game. I seriously hope that such is not the case in the overall view as well. We know that Philbin didn't want to drop Sherman. If he lacked that foresight, or let his sense of loyalty cloud his judgement, I can only say I hope that he doesn't have the same blinkers on preventing the adjustments necessary in both the long and short views. That may prove to be Philbin's big flaw - an inability to adjust. Lazor might be great, but if I have one fear, it is that Philbin holds him back.
http://prod.www.dolphins.clubs.nfl....ttsburgh/241cb64f-42d3-4d61-b185-6222912fda07 1:09 onwards. "I definitely wanted to run the ball three times because I felt like at the worst, you know... I would have given it some consideration if it we were at 4th and 1 or the 1, I would have given it some consideration..." etc. It could be argued that Sherman made the call, but even then that would have to mean Philbin had no interaction at that point, because he could have set strategy and said call a scoring play. It seems clear that the decision was to run the ball and waste the clock over and above scoring, as though scoring was some how too lofty/impossible a goal to consider.
Running the ball was the right call in that spot. Had we lost it would have been on the D for pretending the game was already over.
Ok, thank you. However, his explanation of his strategy was solid and it also worked, so why are you second guessing it?
WADR I don't think it did, or at least, it certainly wasn't the best scenario. Miami were gifted that win by a mistake (or two). If the Steelers had kept in bounds (and if referring to the forward lateral, had kept the lateral ...lateral) the game was theirs. All of that was a result of Philbin's decision not to try for the points. I want to see a mentality that takes opportunity and responsibility to make every win their own - that is, a mentality which says we will do this, we will win it, and not, let's hope and see if things go our way. To me that play showed either a lack of confidence in his team's offense or a far too defensive/cautious tendency (or both). More on topic, it is a potential indicator of how Philbin could end up limiting Lazor (if Lazor would have played it differently). If Lazor were there that night and wanted to call a scoring play, even if only after a couple of running plays, would Philbin have let him? How dynamic can an OC be if the HC isn't dynamic - that's my question and one of my biggest fears for the Dolphins this year.
You're talking about broad concepts of safe play or going for it. The thing is Philbin is not afraid to go for it. He's not always safe like Sparano was. He assessed the specific situation he was in, and deemed it was better for him to get the Steelers to burn their TOs. Right or wrong, works or not, its not a consistent with him. He doesn't always play it safe and he doesn't always go for it. If you ask me (and I know you didn't ) that's precisely what you want in a coach.
All this. Sherman is consistently the fall guy but he was acting under Philbin's command and direction. And Philbin didn't want to fire him. Play calling was an obvious issue last year and Philbin was at the bottom of it
If we had offensive linemen other than Pouncey who were athletic enough to move the pocket and able to pull so as to blow up lateral pursuit, Sherman wouldn't have had to call the kind of predictable plays he was always calling. My guess is that he was calling many of those plays because he knew the guys we had couldn't execute what needed to be called. I'm as disappointed in Sherman as the next guy, but you do have to spot him that his options were limited by lack of talent on the OL.
Yes and no. We can't know what any of the coaching staff were really thinking, and can only go by what they say, but I don't think this explains all the weird play calling or hesitancy. For example, what was with all the times where running was working and then we quit? Sherman? Obviously, but why didn't Philbin call a change? Having said that, even if the coaches were influenced by the weakness of the OL, I'd still rather not have a coach who is intimidated but rather found a way to play to strengths. Using the Steelers example, if run plays were the way to go, why utilise pretty much the same running play, why not mix it up? That's not the be all and end all play, though. I just have a few lingering doubts about Philbin that aren't helped when he steps up to the mic and consistently talks as though all is hunky dory. I'd rather he say less, than spout the usual, something along the lines of, "We've got work to do. End of!"
Not obviously, actually. First, even if it was Sherman, if Philbin had an issue he would correct it, he never did. That implies it was Philbin behind those calls. And this basically confirms it. http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/20...0914_1_joe-philbin-dion-jordan-ryan-tannehill If Sherman wanted to keep running even when they were getting stuffed, why would he abandon the run when they were getting good yardage on runs? It's Philbin and guess what, he's still here.
Not excited enough to show up and work out with Tannehill like all the other receivers. I guess they are even MORE excited than Wallace. Or just not as lazy.
