» What made anyone think that Spurrier's offense work?

welch

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?

redskinz4ever · Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2004 7:33 am Post subject:

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!!!

JansenFan · Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:24 am Post subject:

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.

TERPSHOG · newbie Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Posts: 3 Location: MD

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

1niksder

[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 Razz

welch · Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 12:35 am Post subject:

genuswine hoglover · Hog Joined: 13 Mar 2004 Posts: 239 Location: Atlanta, GA

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

Irn-Bru · Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:31 pm Post subject:

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).

REDEEMEDSKIN · Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2004 3:25 pm Post subject: It's all Danny and Vinny's fault

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?