A New Offensive Philosophy?

[Mr. Scot]

So here's what I perceive is happening to the team balance in Pantherland.

In prior years, Fox was a coach who was content with an offense that scored field goals and the occasional touchdown. The overall philosophy relied on the defense. As long as the offense scored 14-17 points or so, the defense would keep the other team under that number. End result? We win.

These days, it seems that balance has shifted.

The Fox of today is okay with allowing opposing offenses to score, as long as it's only field goals. The onus then is on the offense to score touchdowns. Thus, since touchdowns score more than field goals, we outscore the other team. End result? We win.

Anyone else see the shift? And more to the point, are you okay with this philosophy?

[2jakefansinva]

Yes........but a little more imagination on the "O" side would be appreciated.

[beastson]

I think Fox should see the difference and just go all out of offense. I think his worst nightmare is the offense being better than the defense. Obvious he hasn't adjusted cause if so we would have relied on mainly our offense to just keep going out there scoring yesterday

He doesn't want this to be known as an offensive team. Cause lately, thats what the look is starting to become

[AKPantherFan]

No- Its called our defense cant get off the damn field and does a decent job of buckling down in the Red zone.

Too many times it seems turgo calls the wrong play at the wrong times, I.E. blitz like hell on 3rd and long when you know they are going to throw the ball and you leave the middle of the field wide open :rant:

I think our offensive scheme is called DeAngelo Williams, no matter what people say we have a threat to score with any pass or run, defenses have to respect that and when they stack the box we get the advantage. That allows our offense to open up.

Fox has 1/2 of his idea working. He will need to find a defense to get it all.

[Mr. Scot]

No- Its called our defense cant get off the damn field and does a decent job of buckling down in the Red zone.

Too many times it seems turgo calls the wrong play at the wrong times, I.E. blitz like hell on 3rd and long when you know they are going to throw the ball and you leave the middle of the field wide open :rant:

That's the "bend, don't break" notion. It's what we've philosophically become.

[outlaw4]

So here's what I perceive is happening to the team balance in Pantherland.

In prior years, Fox was a coach who was content with an offense that scored field goals and the occasional touchdown. The overall philosophy relied on the defense. As long as the offense scored 14-17 points or so, the defense would keep the other team under that number. End result? We win.

These days, it seems that balance has shifted.

The Fox of today is okay with allowing opposing offenses to score, as long as it's only field goals. The onus then is on the offense to score touchdowns. Thus, since touchdowns score more than field goals, we outscore the other team. End result? We win.

Anyone else see the shift? And more to the point, are you okay with this philosophy?

I believe it's more out of necessity than anything else. At this point, the defense of 2008 is not the same defense we carried into the 2003 and 2005 playoffs. Our defensive line is thin on depth and it showed last night. At this point, there is very little that can be done there and honestly, there wasn't much we could had done in the offseason other than either using draft picks (which would mean no Stewart or Otah) keeping Jenkins. (which OBVIOUSLY wasn't going to happen)

The best way to compensate for the deficiencies on defense is turnovers. They had chances last night and couldn't capitalize. Time for a cram session on stripping the ball, tipping drills and learning how to CATCH the ball for some INTs.

[megadeth078]

If we limited them to FGs then yes, I'd be happy. That wasn't the case though.

[Mr. Scot]

If we limited them to FGs then yes, I'd be happy. That wasn't the case though.

Conceptually, it limits them to field goals.

(games aren't played conceptually)

[Kevin Greene]

I think it's just our running backs keep taking it to the house.

(No need for the FG)

[megadeth078]

I don't see it as a bad philosophy. It's basically bend, but don't break too much style, but during the game that's all I wanted. I knew we couldn't stop them, so I just wanted to limit them to field goals. The way our offense performed in the 2nd half just shows that you can't rely on them for this philosophy to work though. If you're letting your defense give them that much hoping to imit them to three points, your offense has to work too, and both sides didn't do their part in the 2nd half.

[Mr. Scot]

I believe it's more out of necessity than anything else. At this point, the defense of 2008 is not the same defense we carried into the 2003 and 2005 playoffs. Our defensive line is thin on depth and it showed last night. At this point, there is very little that can be done there and honestly, there wasn't much we could had done in the offseason other than either using draft picks (which would mean no Stewart or Otah) keeping Jenkins. (which OBVIOUSLY wasn't going to happen)

The best way to compensate for the deficiencies on defense is turnovers. They had chances last night and couldn't capitalize. Time for a cram session on stripping the ball, tipping drills and learning how to CATCH the ball for some INTs.

I'd agree with it being ut of necessity if I only saw this at work in yesterday's game. Truth is we've been playing "bend don't break" pretty much all season.

Personally, I believe we do have the personnel to play a much more aggressive attack, but we aren't doing it.

Why? You tell me :confused:

[beastson]

No, Mike & Fox need to tell you that

[natty]

I think it's just Fox dealing with what he has. A lot of offseason moves went to the offense simply because that was the talent that was there. I'm sure Fox wanted some more depth at the d line but it just didn't work out.

[Mr. Scot]

I don't see it as a bad philosophy. It's basically bend, but don't break too much style, but during the game that's all I wanted. I knew we couldn't stop them, so I just wanted to limit them to field goals. The way our offense performed in the 2nd half just shows that you can't rely on them for this philosophy to work though. If you're letting your defense give them that much hoping to imit them to three points, your offense has to work too, and both sides didn't do their part in the 2nd half.

Offensive playcalling became extremely vanilla in the second half for reasons I can't fathom, other than the "sit on a lead and don't take risks" philosophy. That philosophy, coupled with a 'bend, don't break' defense is an extremely bad mix.