(02-07-2018, 02:16 PM)NYC4jags Wrote:

(02-07-2018, 01:53 PM)Bullseye Wrote: Not dodging your question, but it's difficult to say.

This team was built to be a run first team.  The approach is going to be conservative overall.

Considering the injuries and youth at WR, a more conservative approach was understandable at times.

Not only that, I have long maintained that ineffective offense is too often conflated with conservative offense.

Could you cite specific instances?

If you mention the AFCCG, I could see a run first approach to the 4th quarter, considering Atlanta lost the Super Bowl last year because they abandoned the run.  Should there have been more playcall variety in that 4th quarter?  Absolutely, but I don't abandon the run during that stretch.

It wasn't the run first approach that struck me as too conservative. It was scrapping the run from a two-back/3 WR set for a more conservative one back power formation that bothered me.  Much, much easier to defend. 

Marrone/Hackett steered this tack late in at least 4 games over the season. I recall it working in two of the five when Fournette was able to break loose. It didn't work well in the others as Fournette was bottled up and limited on first and sometimes second down. 

Just seems like running from a more "multiple" set in those instances - with more wrinkles to defend - is a wiser course than just daring your opponent to stop the run.

Well I agree with your analysis here, generally.  I think there needed to be more formation/personnel variety.

I just don't know if I would label it a conservative approach.

I don't know that a one back set makes something conservative.  The Gibbs era skins were a one back set and they threw the ball all over the place.  The Greatest Show on Turf Rams ran a lot of one back with Faulk, and I wouldn't call them conservative for that, either.

---