[Goose]

Our mentality has been to do what we do over and over, cause it's what we do.

Beg to differ. Pre 2015, we did what we did because we were good at it. With both Luck and Hogan, part of "what we did" was to have the QB read the defense at the LOS and exploit weakness in the defense. That was part of the long internship for Stanford QBs that people complained about. We could and did exploit choices the defense made in how to defend us. However, we had a definite basic core competence of running the football right at the defense. We could beat most teams in their "base defense" that way. It was a good match-up for us. If the opponent went to a "stop the run at all costs" defense, we did adjust and beat them over the top. So, yes, we "did what we do", but that wasn't just pound the ball.

The Saints and Niners both have teams that are athletically better than college teams, and much better prepared. They should be, this is their job. Most good NFL teams can execute their entire playbook pretty well. Even though certain plays are installed for a given game, if the QB reads a defense as susceptible to a particular approach, he can call that play and have a good chance the team can execute it. When Shaw said that Luck or Hogan had the entire playbook at his disposal, it indicated that the QB at least was able to run anything he wanted. The rest of the team, maybe not as much. College teams rely on core competence more than pro teams do, because they can't practice as much and don't have as much athletic ability generally.

However, pro teams do have a personality that rests on their core competence. The Rams lost their ability to run at the beginning of the year. Look what happened to them. No scheme they attempted could compensate for the loss of that ability. On the other hand, if the coaching staff of any team locates an area of the defense that they believe is exploitable, they will do so. The Saints thought they had an advantage in the middle of the field and attacked it. They had guys who could execute those plays. When that is true, you keep at it until your opponent fixes the problem or the game ends with you winning it. It does no good to find such an advantage if you can't execute the plays necessary to do so. It also does no good if the advantage isn't sufficient to produce a victory. Fortunately, last Sunday, it wasn't.

[Goose]

Our mentality has been to do what we do over and over, cause it's what we do.

Beg to differ. Pre 2015, we did what we did because we were good at it. With both Luck and Hogan, part of "what we did" was to have the QB read the defense at the LOS and exploit weakness in the defense. That was part of the long internship for Stanford QBs that people complained about. We could and did exploit choices the defense made in how to defend us. However, we had a definite basic core competence of running the football right at the defense. We could beat most teams in their "base defense" that way. It was a good match-up for us. If the opponent went to a "stop the run at all costs" defense, we did adjust and beat them over the top. So, yes, we "did what we do", but that wasn't just pound the ball.

The Saints and Niners both have teams that are athletically better than college teams, and much better prepared. They should be, this is their job. Most good NFL teams can execute their entire playbook pretty well. Even though certain plays are installed for a given game, if the QB reads a defense as susceptible to a particular approach, he can call that play and have a good chance the team can execute it. When Shaw said that Luck or Hogan had the entire playbook at his disposal, it indicated that the QB at least was able to run anything he wanted. The rest of the team, maybe not as much. College teams rely on core competence more than pro teams do, because they can't practice as much and don't have as much athletic ability generally.

However, pro teams do have a personality that rests on their core competence. The Rams lost their ability to run at the beginning of the year. Look what happened to them. No scheme they attempted could compensate for the loss of that ability. On the other hand, if the coaching staff of any team locates an area of the defense that they believe is exploitable, they will do so. The Saints thought they had an advantage in the middle of the field and attacked it. They had guys who could execute those plays. When that is true, you keep at it until your opponent fixes the problem or the game ends with you winning it. It does no good to find such an advantage if you can't execute the plays necessary to do so. It also does no good if the advantage isn't sufficient to produce a victory. Fortunately, last Sunday, it wasn't.