zdro22 Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/...-warner-offense Any thoughts? I kind of go both ways on this, i think shonert sucked and had no business ever having the job, so maybe his comments need to be taken with a grain of salt. But at the same time the espn the magazine article on indy said the colts playbook is 4 inches thick, and i can see jauron wanting a safe no thrills/ chances offense.
nucci Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/...-warner-offense Any thoughts? I kind of go both ways on this, i think shonert sucked and had no business ever having the job, so maybe his comments need to be taken with a grain of salt. But at the same time the espn the magazine article on indy said the colts playbook is 4 inches thick, and i can see jauron wanting a safe no thrills/ chances offense. Way to take a stand!
eball Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 As the saying goes, there are three sides to every story. Plenty of reports coming out about the over-complexity of Turk's offense as well. I've seen it mentioned in some other posts I've perused this morning, but the best teams don't necessarily run "complex" offenses. They know what they do well, they perfect it, and they dare you to stop them. It's called "playing to your strengths." Seems as though the OC should be able to figure out what his players do well and implement that.
Lofton80 Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 Jauron's only good season in Chicago featured Gary Crowton and his wide open attack. Once Crowton left for college ball, Jauron had some of the worst offenses in the league. 10 years of data suggest that Jauron is clueless on offense.
Speedy G Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 jauron is kind of right on with this one, Kelly and Manning both said they wanted to be great at few plays and keep runing them over and over, stick with what works, if the defense shuts that down, go to plan B, sounds good to me .......
BobDVA Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 I go with the do what you do best theory and if you get stopped, then your best is not good enough!
Chandler#81 Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 It sucks. I believed -but hoped wasn't true- DJ ultimately directed this unprodutive O. Now we'll see if Trent was merely a devoted disciple or if he can attack downfield. C'mon Ralph! Give 'em hell!
yall Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/...-warner-offense Any thoughts? I kind of go both ways on this, i think shonert sucked and had no business ever having the job, so maybe his comments need to be taken with a grain of salt. But at the same time the espn the magazine article on indy said the colts playbook is 4 inches thick, and i can see jauron wanting a safe no thrills/ chances offense. They use very thick pages in Indy.
MRM33064 Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 It'd be interesting to know what plays actually were being called, what the designed progressions were, and so forth. All we really see is the result. If Turk decided that he was going to try and defend himself in the media, it seems like a better rationale would've been to say that aggressive plays were being called, but for whatever reason weren't executed - i.e. the majority of the checkdowns were a result of Trent's reluctance to make a tight throw, let one of the WRs make a play, etc. I'm not defending Turk, but I think Evans has hinted at that idea before, which might've contribued to Evans' perceived preference for his buddy JP over Trent. Of course, fired NFL coaches don't often make a practice of airing a lot of dirty laundry (enabling them to be quickly recycled by some other team), but once Turk decided he was going to take a shot, I wish it would've consisted of more useful information.
TDO'Kearney Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 jauron is kind of right on with this one, Kelly and Manning both said they wanted to be great at few plays and keep runing them over and over, stick with what works, if the defense shuts that down, go to plan B, sounds good to me ....... True, from 89-94 how many times did you see Thurman run a counter trey to the right. Seems like it was 40% of the running plays back then, but with those players it always seemed to get between 8 and 15 yards every time.
Speedy G Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 True, from 89-94 how many times did you see Thurman run a counter trey to the right. Seems like it was 40% of the running plays back then, but with those players it always seemed to get between 8 and 15 yards every time. Back then the O line could do it all, so a lot is riding on this O line?
ieatcrayonz Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 Jauron's only good season in Chicago featured Gary Crowton and his wide open attack. Once Crowton left for college ball, Jauron had some of the worst offenses in the league. 10 years of data suggest that Jauron is clueless on offense. Didn't the Bears defense score about 23 touchdowns that year? Did Crowton draw up those plays too?
DrDawkinstein Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 for Schonert to pop of like that, it shows that he truly was NOT on the same page as the head coach and couldnt/wouldnt understand why. i agree with DJ that we need less formations and a handful of different plays that we can run from each formation. currently, it seems like we have a different formation for each play, and you can predict exactly what play is coming based on formation. a good coordinator would be able to figure out how to successfully run an array of plays from the same formation. a good coordinator would know why that is important to helping our young players run the no huddle.
Kelso_Helmet Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 They use very thick pages in Indy. and about 1/2 of those are advertisements (Mastercard, Gatorade, etc)
CodeMonkey Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 I think simple is a good idea. Most of these players aren't exactly brilliant after all.
The Senator Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/...-warner-offense Any thoughts? I kind of go both ways on this, i think shonert sucked and had no business ever having the job, so maybe his comments need to be taken with a grain of salt. But at the same time the espn the magazine article on indy said the colts playbook is 4 inches thick, and i can see jauron wanting a safe no thrills/ chances offense. OTOH, the guy who runs what some call the most intricate offense in all of football - resulting in 6 NCAA passing offense titles and 3 total offense titles in his 9 year tenure - keeps no playbook at all. The only written records are on his QB's wrist, and in the back pocket of... Mike Leach
lets_go_bills Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/...-warner-offense Any thoughts? I kind of go both ways on this, i think shonert sucked and had no business ever having the job, so maybe his comments need to be taken with a grain of salt. But at the same time the espn the magazine article on indy said the colts playbook is 4 inches thick, and i can see jauron wanting a safe no thrills/ chances offense. Already posted. http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?showtopic=95073
Recommended Posts