It's not so much the formation as it is the keys you give off when running out of a passing formation you frequently use and your tendencies, IMHO.
I would prefer to have an "I" formation alignment as the base one in that situation because it is simply harder to track a play action fake closer to the LOS than if a fake is done deeper in the backfield. The QB turning his back to the LOS before the fake hides the ball, even if one isn't Danny Mac Houdini-like. Having the running back moving FORWARD towards the LOS accentuates the effect as opposed to the usual Cobb-crossing-ahead-of-Glenn shotgun draw routine.
That is just me, however. I'm not enamoured with predictable spread offenses. It tends to add to my critique of Gibson in that respect.
Be clear though: Gibson, by and large, called a good game last night IMHO. It's difficult to keep up the same kind of production in a back-to-back.
Cue my "howevers"... LOL
Against inferior opposition and with a solid level of execution, he's a world beater. My take re his record against equivalent or superior opposition is...well...he's choking on Crayolas re playbook and game planning. Our margin against the Montreal-Calgary-Saskatchewan tier of the league is negligible unless our play execution is outstanding. We are predictable to well-coached opponents.
I'm not a scoreboard chaser when it comes to making this assessment. We RARELY score 30+ against the top tier anyway! My issue is that this team cannot get leads enough -- and extend them -- against those elite teams when the game is in the balance.
The level of misdirection, tendency-breaking, effective use of pre-snap motion, crossing routes and rubs, etc. being utilized by Trestman/Milanovich, Dave Dickenson, and Doug Berry ENHANCE the ability of their respective teams to obtain advantages by design and play call to compensate for marginal flaws in execution. Receivers downfield get free more often than with Gibson and his approach. The windows are more often ones where the receiver is hit running with speed than our situation, making for bigger plays.
These teams usually score big against elite competition. They have less stretches of nothingness offensively and far less two-and-outs against that level of opponent.
I guess I'm a little old school when it comes to these things. This team has execution issues in short yardage and the fact we don't really put the fear of the football gods into opponents by how play action is conceived in sandwich-spread offenses and that equals disaster come playoff time.
Good teams have short-yardage plays that they can run like clockwork. Out of MULTIPLE looks and sets. Us? Not so much. It's a problem!
Last night was a display of the kind of sustained effort and intensity that can make this team a legitimate contender. Props to all the coaches and players for the hard work to clean up the mess from the first tilt against Edmonton.
November is coming. We shall see if this result becomes a springboard for greater things when the money is on the line. Gibson and Marshall have to keep working out what works with their respective systems and work on maintaining a high level of execution. Time will tell if we can break through the ceiling we've hit and hang with the big boys.
Oski Wee Wee,