I've been re-watching some old clips of Brock Purdy analysis from QB School that JT O'Sullivan put out after he recently did some more analysis from Purdy's film from SF's win over Dolphins, and few things surprised me about comments he made on the game analyses of Purdy:
- He talked about how he liked the design/scheme, especially with motion, formation etc. multiple times
- He talked about how well coached Purdy was on footwork/throwing/anticipation
- There were few plays where formation included ineligible receivers as decoys to draw defenses in
Which led me to few thoughts...
- I don't remember running a lot of 2-3TE (or H-Back) packages until Kolar/Allen emerged (Campbell's 3rd year?). Looking at some highlights from the first two years, we ran a lot more 4WR sets.
- Our TE room (even going back to Sam Harms) were really smart players
- some of the issues in recent years with ineligible receivers downfield might have been designed but poor execution
- WRs need to win some 1-on-1 battles and..
- QB needs to trust the receivers and make the throws needed; in the analysis, Purdy had good examples of evading the rush, anticipating WR breaks and trusting the receivers
- it seemed like the play calls trusted the offense to make right reads and execute.
- maybe it was Manning not trusting our offensive and giving the shallow crosses, or maybe these were the dump offs that Dekkers just relied on, especially if we didn't have any deep threat who could win 1-on-1 battles or Dekkers being able to read/make the throws with the poor O-line play, and we probably resorted to the shallow cross dump offs.
It seems clear that after we developed our TEs (and after Manning came back) we ran a lot more TE sets, which played to our strengths and added wrinkles into our system. If I had any major concerns with our offense this year, after losing 3 veteran and smart players, we had a significant turnover in our TE room and yet we were still stuck using the same schemes as if we had multiple All-Conference+ TEs and really smart players instead of maybe thinking to spread the field more use some schemes made us successful pre our TE days.
Maybe philosophically, things weren't too different but tactical/scheming this year lacked and you could probably debate if that's on CMC or Manning. But reading about changes that were promised with the offense and not getting makes me wonder if Manning got too comfortable with his TE formations and kept resorting to that instead of thinking of new creative ways to get guys involved with the offense.
- He talked about how he liked the design/scheme, especially with motion, formation etc. multiple times
- He talked about how well coached Purdy was on footwork/throwing/anticipation
- There were few plays where formation included ineligible receivers as decoys to draw defenses in
Which led me to few thoughts...
- I don't remember running a lot of 2-3TE (or H-Back) packages until Kolar/Allen emerged (Campbell's 3rd year?). Looking at some highlights from the first two years, we ran a lot more 4WR sets.
- Our TE room (even going back to Sam Harms) were really smart players
- some of the issues in recent years with ineligible receivers downfield might have been designed but poor execution
- WRs need to win some 1-on-1 battles and..
- QB needs to trust the receivers and make the throws needed; in the analysis, Purdy had good examples of evading the rush, anticipating WR breaks and trusting the receivers
- it seemed like the play calls trusted the offense to make right reads and execute.
- maybe it was Manning not trusting our offensive and giving the shallow crosses, or maybe these were the dump offs that Dekkers just relied on, especially if we didn't have any deep threat who could win 1-on-1 battles or Dekkers being able to read/make the throws with the poor O-line play, and we probably resorted to the shallow cross dump offs.
It seems clear that after we developed our TEs (and after Manning came back) we ran a lot more TE sets, which played to our strengths and added wrinkles into our system. If I had any major concerns with our offense this year, after losing 3 veteran and smart players, we had a significant turnover in our TE room and yet we were still stuck using the same schemes as if we had multiple All-Conference+ TEs and really smart players instead of maybe thinking to spread the field more use some schemes made us successful pre our TE days.
Maybe philosophically, things weren't too different but tactical/scheming this year lacked and you could probably debate if that's on CMC or Manning. But reading about changes that were promised with the offense and not getting makes me wonder if Manning got too comfortable with his TE formations and kept resorting to that instead of thinking of new creative ways to get guys involved with the offense.
