Was Grubbs’s system an easier one to consistently come back in once falling behind? I’m sincerely asking, no passive aggressiveness.
I lack in X’s and O’s compared to most of you (which is why I love learning from you guys), but isn’t the universal difficulty of falling behind in the NFL why you don’t want to do it in the first place?
I have just started watching the film of some of the Saints games when they had their core offensive unit in place (for anyone else who is interested: Weeks 1, 2, & 4 are the only ones with their actual starting group, but weeks 9, 10, 11, & 13 after they signed MVS to replace Shaheed would also represent an honest look at his scheme).
So far, the biggest thing that stands out to me is--they don't stop running the ball. They fall behind, they still run the ball. They are off schedule on 1st or 2nd down? They still run the ball.
On one hand, this is a nice change from Grubb who would seemingly throw that section of his playbook in the garbage the moment we got down by a single point. We put ourselves in bad situations when we seemingly ignored the value of our current field position or draining clock in a desperate bid to score.
On the other hand... running the ball to score points almost always takes a lot more clock and a lot more individual plays. If I fall behind with 8 minutes to go in the 4th, go pass heavy at that point, if it works, I take the lead on this drive. If it doesn't, I probably killed so little clock that if my defense makes a stop, I'll get another shot at it. Run heavy? That drive starting with 8 minutes left might be the last time I get the ball.
This is exactly what went down against the Rams in Week 13. Rams went up, 21 to 14 with over 8 minutes left in the 4th. New Orleans takes over at their own 30, drive all the way down to the 9 yard line before turning it over on downs... with only a little over a minute left. 1 first down run later, and the Rams are kneeling out the clock.