clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Does Our Offense Function Better Without Julio?

New, comments

There are probably stats to prove this true or false, but you guys know me, I'm not a stat guy.

This is also not asking the question "Is our offense better without Julio?". I think we all know the answer to that. BUT, our offense may not be functioning as well with him on the field.

Sound silly? Sure it does. But with Julio having a bum hamstring, his inconsistency to stay on the field could be hindering the overall function of the offense, due to forcing personnel changes that put players (HD) in an unnatural position.

But those players have stepped up. HD had a monster game against the Saints. I feel like some of that was due to blown coverage, though I'm not complaining. We can successfully say we have been on both ends of the "Why aren't we covering that guy?!" spectrum.

No Julio, at least in my mind, has changed what plays are called. We've gone back to being a power running team in his absence, and we've started playing our way again. Julio looked good against the Saints, but was hurt and missed a lot of the game.

The Indy game...well, we need to see that against a potent defense.

It blows my mind how teams can get so open, but we can't. Is it our route tree? It could be. Is it the passing routes that are run? It could be. Many of you will be quick to blame Mularkey, and while even I am ready for an OC change, I can only imagine the looks on your faces if we were to discover that our "talent" actually isn't so "talented". Not saying that's the case, but I would personally be amused if that were the case. And then I'd be sad.

So, fine, fellow Falcoholickers. What do you think? Has Julio's absence caused the O to function better? Will we figure out what to do with him against a good team? Is Matty locking in on him too much? Let's discuss!