We Need Some Wannstedt-Ball? | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

We Need Some Wannstedt-Ball?

S

Shouright

☠️ Banned ☠️
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
15,051
Reaction score
18
Age
52
I've seen a lot of posts this week about how we need to run the ball more. Has anyone noticed that we're basically asking for more "Wannstedt-Ball"?

I totally agree -- I think KC's time of possession (41:40) reflected pretty horrible game management on Scott Linehan's part. I don't care WHAT's going on in the game, you better run the ball more if your opponent is headed toward THAT much time of possession. Defenses can't handle being on the field that long.

But the point still remains, and I think it's been pretty much overlooked: a lot of us are asking for more of a "Wannstedtian" approach here. I know most of us thought Wannstedt was too conservative, but a lot of us are basically saying Linehan is too liberal. Just because Wannstedt was too conservative doesn't mean we have to swing the pendulum TOTally in the other direction.
 
I' ve noticed that also. Ironic isnt it We wanted wanny out becaus he ran too much and now you guys are all pissed because we dont run the ball alot. I'm no saying running is a bad thing, but you do have to run the ball 20 times a game at least.
 
I don't know why people like to label it Wannstedt ball just because Dave tried and failed to build a power rushing attack in Miami.

Hell Pittsburgh runs the ball more than anyone...why not call it Cowher-ball?
 
Superself said:
I don't know why people like to label it Wannstedt ball just because Dave tried and failed to build a power rushing attack in Miami.

Hell Pittsburgh runs the ball more than anyone...why not call it Cowher-ball?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say he failed at building a power rushing attack. He had it with Ricky.
 
Superself said:
I don't know why people like to label it Wannstedt ball just because Dave tried and failed to build a power rushing attack in Miami.

Hell Pittsburgh runs the ball more than anyone...why not call it Cowher-ball?
Click to expand...
It IS Cowher-ball in Pittsburgh. That's his style. Wannstedt's style was to run the ball primarily and put the game in the defense's hands. That's the style a lot of us have asked for this week. Does that style have to have been named "Wannstedt-ball" beforehand by some entity for me to call it that today?
 
It is also Gibb ball and Shula ball when he won the superbowl. Even though Wansteadt was a bad head coach he isn't a football idiot. He does know somethings. Just because he believes in something doesn't mean it is wrong.
 
Dol-Fan Dupree said:
It is also Gibb ball and Shula ball when he won the superbowl. Even though Wansteadt was a bad head coach he isn't a football idiot. He does know somethings. Just because he believes in something doesn't mean it is wrong.
Click to expand...
Exactly -- but how many posts have you seen this week that ask, by name, for more of a Wannstedt approach? We're asking for more of a running game, but nobody wants to acknowledge that we're asking for something that the guy we wanted run out of town thought was a good thing to do. That's the point of the thread, not that Wannstedt's approach was wrong.

And you don't seem to have any problem admitting that some of Wannstedt's offensive philosophy was good, but it seems like a lot of other people do. You'd figure that if we're asking for what the most recent coach did a lot of, we'd refer to him by name at least a couple times.
 
shouright said:
Exactly -- but how many posts have you seen this week that ask, by name, for more of a Wannstedt approach? We're asking for more of a running game, but nobody wants to acknowledge that we're asking for something that the guy we wanted run out of town thought was a good thing to do. That's the point of the thread, not that Wannstedt's approach was wrong.

And you don't seem to have any problem admitting that some of Wannstedt's offensive philosophy was good, but it seems like a lot of other people do. You'd figure that if we're asking for what the most recent coach did a lot of, we'd refer to him by name at least a couple times.
Click to expand...


I'm sure there were many things Wanny did well. However he was still not a good coach at all. Sure he has a commitment to the run...but hey, so do I and I believe you need a rushing attack to win. A lot of coaches do.

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make.
 
Superself said:
I'm sure there were many things Wanny did well. However he was still not a good coach at all. Sure he has a commitment to the run...but hey, so do I and I believe you need a rushing attack to win. A lot of coaches do.

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make.
Click to expand...
I think it's a symptom of "Saban Glorification Syndrome." We're so enamored with Saban and so hopeful that he'll turn the franchise around that we can't even realize we're asking for what the most recently fired coach believed in.

That's the underlying point. The superficial one is that nobody has mentioned Wannstedt.
 
shouright said:
Exactly -- but how many posts have you seen this week that ask, by name, for more of a Wannstedt approach? We're asking for more of a running game, but nobody wants to acknowledge that we're asking for something that the guy we wanted run out of town thought was a good thing to do. That's the point of the thread, not that Wannstedt's approach was wrong.

And you don't seem to have any problem admitting that some of Wannstedt's offensive philosophy was good, but it seems like a lot of other people do. You'd figure that if we're asking for what the most recent coach did a lot of, we'd refer to him by name at least a couple times.
Click to expand...

The problem is that a lot of NFL fans like to throw the baby, tub, bathroom, kitchen, house, foundation, and neighborhood out with the bath water.
 
I was atthe game against KC and it was the 3rd qtr. We had a 3rd and one and Scott called for a Long Bomb downfield that of course missed. This was at a time when the offence really needed to move the chains. Poor play calling, i COULDN'T BELIEVE IT.
 
No. Wanny ran the ball too much. We're not running it enough now.
 
But the point still remains, and I think it's been pretty much overlooked: a lot of us are asking for more of a "Wannstedtian" approach here. I know most of us thought Wannstedt was too conservative, but a lot of us are basically saying Linehan is too liberal. Just because Wannstedt was too conservative doesn't mean we have to swing the pendulum TOTally in the other direction.
Click to expand...

I do not think for one second what EYE am asking for, a BALANCED attack has anything to do with Pornstache and his wadball. We don't have the line to be a power running team. We have the backs to be a scary running team but eight in the box and poor lineplay almost guarantee limited success. What we have seen is an attempt by Saban not to have to play Wannyball. If Guss had been just a little more accurate and or the friggen recivers had caught just the ones that hit their hands and were dropped the safeties would have backed up and we would be rockin' It is not a bad approach, we just could not make it work. I also would not call our present offense "liberal" They tried an approach that could help the o-line and it did not work, that is not liberal.

I'll bet a nickle this time next year this process will be working. Right now they are loading the box daring Frerrotte to beat them and Linehan has given him the chance. The qb position has failed to rise up to the challenge. A great qb could do this at any time. Guss needs everyones help to be effective and it has not always been there. Saban has to recognize that the defense desperatly needs some help and had Linehans plan worked they would have got it. The instant our deep passing game becomes an honest threat we will be able to run the ball. It will be at that point, that we will be able to operate our entire playbook. I too believe that we need to run the ball more but at the same time I really believe that had our passing game worked better the run game would have had bigger numbers. How exciting would it be to know that we can score from any down and distance.
 
Wanny would run on 3rd and 15 late in the third down by 21. That's how committed to the run he was.

People are just asking to not throw a bomb on 2nd and 1 and 3rd and 1 like we did in KC.

Is that so much to ask?

People are right to ask for more rushing. It's called being balanced. Doesn't mean we want to run 90% of the time like Wanny used to. Just that we don't want to throw 90% of the time like we are now. Most sane people would prefer something closer to a 50/50 split.
 
Nothing gels an offensive line quicker then alot power running.

FYI: The Steelers replaced their RG & RT with dam near rookies and haven't missed a beat.

It's not about Wanny ball, it's about walking before running.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom