Do we have more than one elephant in the room?

[Guest]

They ran the Hurry Up at the end of the 1st Half of the Dallas game and easily marched down the field. Ultimately settled for a FG. Ran it for a lot of the 2nd Half against Denver. And in chunks of the 4th Quarter of loss to Seattle.

It just seemed like Stefanski was loath to admit his gameplan wasn't working by going Hurry Up. 

[Guest]

@"FSUVike" said:
They ran the Hurry Up at the end of the 1st Half of the Dallas game and easily marched down the field. Ultimately settled for a FG. Ran it for a lot of the 2nd Half against Denver. And in chunks of the 4th Quarter of loss to Seattle.

It just seemed like Stefanski was loath to admit his gameplan wasn't working by going Hurry Up. 

Or Zim was opposed to it.  What does it say about Zimmer if it was as simple as changing tempo and he didnt instruct his OC to do it?

Norv left because of a philosophy difference,  defilippos issue with zim were well chronicled,  but then we assume its Stefanski that insisted on a vanilla approach more often than not?  Sorry I dont buy it.  Some of this shit needs to start falling on zims shoulders as he is the one has said it will be done his way until hes no longer in charge.

[Guest]

Stefanski was here for all of it too. Stefanski was here before Zimmer. Maybe he didn't like Norv's non-WCO ideals. Maybe he didn't jive with the passing-orientated WCO twist DeFelippo ran - maybe the Brad Childress offense is right up Zim's alley, since he is being sold as loving conservative gameplans himself. Maybe he ran to the front office and squealed - the front office must have felt pretty highly of a guy to insist he be a part of multiple staffing changes on that side of the ball...

Our offense looked like 1985 before Zimmer got here.

[Guest]

I posted weeks ago how I felt the hurry up should be implemented more because it got Cousins out of his own head.  Made he play more instinctually instead of analytically.  I think it was a huge mistake not to play that way and I would be interested in knowing why we didn't use it.

[Guest]

@"VikingOracle" said:
I posted weeks ago how I felt the hurry up should be implemented more because it got Cousins out of his own head.  Made he play more instinctually instead of analytically.  I think it was a huge mistake not to play that way and I would be interested in knowing why we didn't use it.

Because when it doesnt work it puts the defense back out there that much quicker.

[Guest]

The hurry up screen game and hurry up run game is only as cool as you're coverting the chains. Otherwise, you're still giving them the ball back; you've just given yourself less time to respond to their possession.

I think we went uptempo fairly often throughout the season - it doesnt resonate the same as marching down the field when you gather 6 yards out of it and punt. 

I thought we perfected the hurry up and give them the ball back offense. 

[Guest]

Without the OL to be able to establish the run against everyone (not just bad defensive teams), this offense doesn't work.

[Guest]

Well, we cant draft a QB, we cant fix the OL. Now, the defense is getting long in the tooth and we still need corners after drafting them high the past four years. 
Typing this while watching GB play a very good game against Seattle. #JustFrustrating

[Guest]

Without a dominant oline hurry up offense isnt something they can execute.

[Guest]

@"pumpf" said:
Without the OL to be able to establish the run against everyone (not just bad defensive teams), this offense doesn't work.

That was the biggest difference in this game...  we couldn't run the ball.  This offense is much more explosive when the run game is working.  Look at our losses this year...  except the Week 2 game against GB (and we lost that one for very different reasons) all were games where Dalvin was essentially shut down on the ground.  Then you add in all the three and outs on offense and our defense starts getting gassed in the 2nd half...  SF starts moving the ball on the ground and it was all over.