ADVERTISEMENT

Offense and Identity

phillysportz

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jan 9, 2010
335
40
28
At the start of Rhules tenure this is what the team looked like. Out of sorts, searching for an identity, losing to less talented teams. We were running a spread offense, that our personnel didn’t exactly fit into well. I forget at exactly what point we changed, but it was clear that Rhules mission was to establish an identity on the field. We moved to a more pro-style offense, it saved our defense from being on the field for a majority of the game and it helped our team focus on finding who they were and what they could do.

This post isn’t about the merits of any particular scheme vs another. I actually prefer an offense that can be a little multiple in what they do. But it honestly seems like Patenuade throws darts at the wall to call plays. Orlovsky said that we were a bit “staccato” but it really seems like that is by design. There is no rhythm to what we do. There is no commitment to the run game. We ran the ball 22 times in a game that was never really more than a 1 score difference. To run the ball, you have to RUN THE BALL. Two times we went for it on 4th and medium or more, and on the third down before it there was no effort to make the 4th down more manageable. Routes past the sticks back to back downs. Did they think about whether they were in 4 down territory or not? Are they just shooting from the hip? There didn’t seem to be any sort of plan whatsoever.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT

Go Big.
Get Premium.

Join Rivals to access this premium section.

  • Say your piece in exclusive fan communities.
  • Unlock Premium news from the largest network of experts.
  • Dominate with stats, athlete data, Rivals250 rankings, and more.
Log in or subscribe today Go Back