10-28-2018, 10:44 PM
We'll probably just have to agree to disagree on this topic. Not sure about anyone else, but I've never called for breaking patterns merely for the sake of breaking patterns. When your offense has been more effective than it has been all year as a result of trying a new approach, I'm a fan of sticking with that approach until the opposing defense shows it can stop it.
I did see the last possession of the third quarter as reversion in form because those heavy sets have been a staple of the Shaw offense for the past decade. In past years, they've worked great. This year, however, they've stunk. Despite their ineffectiveness, I believe Shaw is still more comfortable calling plays out of those sets than the up-tempo, spread formations we saw on the first seven drives. Call it Shaw being conservative, or turtling or any other label you choose. The bottom line is that for one possession, we got away from the approach that was working and that deviation was enough to cost us a win.
I did see the last possession of the third quarter as reversion in form because those heavy sets have been a staple of the Shaw offense for the past decade. In past years, they've worked great. This year, however, they've stunk. Despite their ineffectiveness, I believe Shaw is still more comfortable calling plays out of those sets than the up-tempo, spread formations we saw on the first seven drives. Call it Shaw being conservative, or turtling or any other label you choose. The bottom line is that for one possession, we got away from the approach that was working and that deviation was enough to cost us a win.