kcwilson
Rookie
Ok, I noticed during the whole first half that any motion we had on offense was either of the following:
(1) Cook line dup at WR, and then would go in motion to the traditional FB location in front of RB in the I. Not once did we try and run a play where Cook was line dup outside. There didn't seem to be a mystery to the movements and no "surprise! we are actually going to runa play out of the different formation".
(2) Daniels or the TE lined up outside and then would shift in motion to the more traditional TE role. If we are going to run the ball, why not try and spread that line pressure out a little more. Runa few plays with the TE lined up wide.
Although the scheme is different, it seemed to be a pretty predictable run vs. pass game plan that we ran. Even when we tried a few draw plays, we did so with max protection instead of trying to spread the pressure out from the middle of the field.
Was it just me or did the formation shifting really not create any confusion for the defense?
(1) Cook line dup at WR, and then would go in motion to the traditional FB location in front of RB in the I. Not once did we try and run a play where Cook was line dup outside. There didn't seem to be a mystery to the movements and no "surprise! we are actually going to runa play out of the different formation".
(2) Daniels or the TE lined up outside and then would shift in motion to the more traditional TE role. If we are going to run the ball, why not try and spread that line pressure out a little more. Runa few plays with the TE lined up wide.
Although the scheme is different, it seemed to be a pretty predictable run vs. pass game plan that we ran. Even when we tried a few draw plays, we did so with max protection instead of trying to spread the pressure out from the middle of the field.
Was it just me or did the formation shifting really not create any confusion for the defense?