What made anyone think that Spurrier's offense work?

Intimidated by intense football threads? Don't be... learn about football, the Washington Redskins and more.
Skins History Buff
Posts: 4934
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 5:36 pm
Location: New York, NY

What made anyone think that Spurrier's offense work?

Postby welch » Mon Apr 12, 2004 10:40 pm

Was Spurrier's offense significantly different from the
run&shoot or run&gun or red gun?

Those trick offesnes all failed in the early '90s. Our own Richie Petritbon helped to fail them. Look up the game scores. with the Falcons and Lions.

What was different about Spurriers offesne?

What right did ayone have to expect any different result?

******
Posts: 2512
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 2:55 pm
Location: charlotte nc

Postby redskinz4ever » Tue Apr 13, 2004 7:33 am

spurrier offense really no different than the run and shoot.i think the main differences were the head coach and the total lack of the running game.and once again only a few coaches from the ncaa will ever make in the pros.now with a new coach and portis in the backfield. our o-line won't look like a bunch of punks trying to pass block every play.REDSKINZ4EVER!!!
TOUCHDOWN .....WASHINGTON REDSKINS !!!!

and Jackson
Posts: 8384
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 9:37 am
Location: Charles Town, WV

Postby JansenFan » Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:24 am

The difference wwas supposed to be the play-calling prowess of a bonified offensive genius (excuse me while I throw up ... :puke:

That's better.
RIP 21

"Nah, I trust the laws of nature to stay constant. I don't pray that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I don't need to pray that someone will beat the Cowboys in the playoffs." - Irn-Bru

newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 11:46 am
Location: MD

Spurrier's Offense

Postby TERPSHOG » Thu Apr 15, 2004 10:17 am

Spurrier's offense had two main parts to it.

1. the QB had to read the defense, and audible if necessary
2. the receiver would change his route based on what the D was doing...so the QB had to be able to "read" his receiver

hey it sounded good, but we obviously found out the the MARGIN OF ERROR for an offense run like this is a LOT bigger in the NFL than in DIV 1...

anyways, i was never all that happy bout spurrier, as the last DIV1 team that he beat were the terps: right before he came to DC
____________________________

SEAN TAYLOR AT #5. oh and F$^% Duke.

**********
User avatar
Posts: 16744
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 1:45 pm
Location: If I knew ... it would explain a lot but I've seen Homerville on a map, that wasn't helpful at all

Re: What made anyone think that Spurrier's offense work?

Postby 1niksder » Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:26 am

[quote="welch"]Was Spurrier's offense significantly different from the
run&shoot or run&gun or red gun?

Yes in those schemes the QB could see the in of the play from a standing postion :P

Skins History Buff
Posts: 4934
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 5:36 pm
Location: New York, NY

Postby welch » Sun Apr 18, 2004 12:35 am

...in those schemes the QB could see the in of the play from a standing postion


Good point.

Except, of course, whenever one of those revved-up runin' gunnin' offenses ran into a Redskins defense coached by Richie Petibon.

NFC championship game, first play:

- Sir Charles Mann: Mr Kramer, give me that ball

- Erik Kramer: <after crunch> What ball?

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 9:35 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby genuswine hoglover » Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:20 pm

I believe Buddy Ryan had it right. Instead of "run and gun" he called it "chuck and duck".

FanFromAnnapolis
Posts: 11122
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:01 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby Irn-Bru » Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:31 pm

Spurrier was not that great of a playcaller, either. I'm actually a huge fan of Norv's playcalling (but I wouldn't want him back as our head-honcho), and it always seemed to me that Spurrier was more or less uncreative. (I will, however, give him credit for getting Gardner those few touchdown passes--it should have been three but the refs didn't give Hassleback credit for his great grab).

Also, did anyone anticipate the 7-hour workdays that we hear about? It's hard to imagine Spurrier spending many nights worrying about football--let alone sleeping in his office to get more work done. Perhaps he would have been a much better coach had he put in the crazy time the NFL requires. I think that we could have been a playoff team with his style of offense if he just had commited more time to it. (Though we probably couldn't have gone to the Superbowl, which is what Gibbs and his running game can consistently do).
"Last year I thought we'd win it all. This year I know we will." - Rex Ryan, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Jets

"Dream team." - Vince Young, on what would become the 8-8 2011 Eagles

~~
User avatar
Posts: 8462
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 2:12 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

It's all Danny and Vinny's fault

Postby REDEEMEDSKIN » Wed Apr 21, 2004 3:25 pm

If only they had kept Danny Wuerffel around, the Fun-N-Gun woulda worked.

Yes, I'm probably the one-and-only DW fan, and I'm willing to accpet the criticism, but we all saw that DW was the mos adept QB to run Spurrier's offense.

Now, he's outta the NFL,like his OBC. In retrospect, I would love to have seen DW play last year, but, had he done so, we may not have seen Joe come back, since the SKINS would have won the Super Bowl and we would be praisin' the OBC and his golden boy.

* WAKES UP*

What the heck????!!!! Did I type that?
Back and better than ever!

Return to Football 101