Wildcat
papa.carl44
field we saw what can happen...plus they showed they can make the changes
without calling a timeout. What did bug me was in the early game Buffalo
had NO idea how to stop that option, then near the goal instead of running
it again they used the wildcat with an inside play that got stuffed...then a
FG instead. I did not like that...I still believe you run a play till the
defense shows you they can stop it, and by stopping it they almost always
give something else big up, this is what I think is the breaking of the
rhythm that happens. They should have run that deal right into the endzone.
All that said, they showed that it can be a very effective option to use,
and I liked Conor being part of it...they formation they preferred was the
"pistol" with running back options open....I like it.
John C TX
wrote:
Papa, after watching Brunnell play I started wondering if plan B
should Sanchez go down is run the Wildcat.
papa.carl44
"John C TX" <johnc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dc402fd8-3d81-4653...@l24g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
Well...it ain't throw Clemmens. Brunnell can still throw and made a couple
decent throws today...the pick 6 was more of a fantastic D play than a total
screw up by Brunnell...still bad decision....I'd run the crap out of that
Wildcat thing till they absolutely stopped it, then go to the second phase
wrinkle in it, let Brad throw more.
Harlan Lachman
"papa.carl44" <papad...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
Papa, I could be wrong but I think the pick 6 showed the impacts of
throwing an out pass by a 60 year old who stared down his receiver.
I have long been a proponent of using Brad Smith in the Wildcat as an
emergency replacement. I would like to see him try to throw to Braylon
or Holmes on a sprint out because I think his arm is stronger than
Brunnel's.
h
papa.carl44
"Harlan Lachman" <har...@eeivt.com> wrote in message
news:harlan-B8AE0C....@news60.forteinc.com...
You're right...but Brunnel can still put some heat on certain balls...that
out was a giveaway though...there wasn't anything going down in front of it
to loosen anybody up...it was not a good throw..but it was also a great
defensive play...gotta give the guy that, he had some quicks.
Michael
wrote:
i dont see any issue running the wild cat or any other gimmic just so
long as it works and you are not banking on it. what i like most
about using the wild cat is that it forces the teams you play to
overload their defensive preperation. then you can do other stuff
while they are concentrating on covering the extra bubbles that the
wild cat creates. the key is... you gotta make it work in game, and
if it aint happenin', you gotta lay off... and most importatnly...
dont grow to rely on it, or you are toast in th end. a team that can
run the wild cat has a nice tool to use, but a "wild cat" team is
ultimately numbered for the bottom
papa.carl44
"Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:8d06722e-7b94-4474...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
The way they started running it was not really even the wildcat..it was a
pure option offense out of a pistol, which is a very popular formation in
option football now. I don't see it as a gimick...and if something works
they should run it to death till the defense figures out how to stop
it...THAT can tire the crap out of a defense, then you hit them with
something else.
Michael
wrote:
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
i hardly ever hear the term "pistol" used outside of college. i wonder
if that stuff will start making it over to the pro's. could you ever
see a wishbone working in the pros ???
Grinch
>
> - Show quoted text -
Re the wishbone in the pros.
The basic concept of the option O is:
You leave the D-end unblocked, the OT blocks inward to double-team or
cut off the pursuit, that's *good* ....
The QB instead of being out of the play after the handoff is in the
play, giving the O an extra player, that's *good* ....
The QB runs in tandem with the RB toward the DE, two player against
one, that's *good*...
If the DE goes for the QB he pitches the ball to the RB who goes
outside for a gain in the open field, if the DE goes for the RB the QB
keeps the ball and runs inside "through the channel" with LBs to one
side, safeties head, DE in pursuit, for a good 5 or 7 yard gain,
before they all converge on him in a pile-up -- so you always have one
runner with an open route upfield for several yards, which is
*good*...
If your QB running "through the channel" is Peyton Manning, Tom Brady,
Drew, Phil, Brett ... Sanchez, etc., thats ***BAAADD!***
I saw Belichick answer this question once, saying no true option O
will ever be a base NFL offense is because
(1) NFL defensive ends are coached on option plays to take out the RB
and make the QB run up inside "through the channel", and ...
(2) The NFL is a passing league, you have to pass well to win, good
passers are very few and cost many millions of dollars, and no coach
is ever going to risk his job/team owner is ever going risk his money
by having his top passing arm run "through the channel" even three
times a game, much less 20+ times a game as his O's base idea.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
i guess with the option, if you have a guy like brad smith or may be
tebow AND a regular starting qb too, you can safely run the option a
few times a game with your utililty guy no ???
as far as the wish bone... i was thinking of using a gimmic like 3
rb's in the wishbone backfield... it does not create additional
bubbles/gaps like the wild cat or the option, but it creates
additional blockers for the standard gaps. i started thinking about a
wish bone gimmic after miami came out with their wild cat. i think it
would be a shock to a cover two style defense.
papa.carl44
The pistol and all the other variations are the wishbone grown up. The bone
stopped working in college, it evolved and became something else. The pure
option stuff is very complicated today. There is actually a move the Jets
use, even with Sanchez that is taken from the freeze option variation. You
see it when the QB faces out with a delay, and then comes around and does
the handoff to the back on the hesitation and going the other way. That
freeze action causes the D to react and gives an O lineman a chance to set
up a block based on that reaction. The pro game is too much passing...and a
QB can't get killed doing option stuff. And....the fans want to see the
passing game, they'd never put up with a boring option game.
papa.carl44
"Grinch" <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:a8d15afb-f088-4dc4...@fu15g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Good description of an option offense...the basics that set everything else
up. And good explanation of why it will not come into the NFL.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
what about rolling out a three back set ??? just as a gimmic or change
of pace. could such a stunt bare some fruit ??? it would seem that a
cover two defense would get mauled by all those backs hitting one side
of the line. may be even go to the outside sort of like a screen pass
that starts as a hand off or pitch out instead
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
come to think of it... the modern day screen pass almost seems like a
wish bone play. you get the same sort of effect with defenders
getting used up... and... you dont expose your qb to the channel.
instead of a hand off in the tripple option with three rb's, it is a
short pass inside of a "bunch". i wonder if the screen play has any
roots in the tripple option.
Grinch
> On Jan 3, 1:57 pm, Grinch <oldna...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> tebow AND a regular starting qb too, you can safely run the option a
> few times a game with your utililty guy no ???
>
> as far as the wish bone... i was thinking of using a gimmic like 3
> rb's in the wishbone backfield... it does not create additional
> bubbles/gaps like the wild cat or the option, but it creates
> additional blockers for the standard gaps. i started thinking about a
> wish bone gimmic after miami came out with their wild cat. i think it
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm sure an NFL team could run the 'bone or an option of its choice
quite effectively on a limited basis, as a short-yardage or special-
situation or surprise set.
But in the pros you always have the trade off: If you leave your
regular QB on the field to avoid tippping it, move him out to flanker
or somewhere, you're basically playing 10 on 11 and as soon as the D
sees him out there they'll shift up to block the run. While if you
take the QB out to put in your "option package" with a real option QB,
the D will respond by putting in its "anti-option package" that
ignores the pass to really close down the run.
If you have an option QB who can throw like Smith, better for you.
I'd love to see Smith throw more on these plays. But he throws well
only for an option QB not an NFL QB, or he'd be the #2 QB behind
Sanchez. And this is still a pass-to-win league.
Go to the well with the option too often, get predictible with it, the
Ds will develop serious anti-option packages, and the option will go
the way of the run-and-shoot -- a brief period of glory, then back to
special-situation land. You'll bone yourself. There's a reason why
the wishbone has disappeared even from high-level college play.
I still remember an Orange Bowl where Wishbone Nebraska played
Johnson's Pro-Style Miami. Nebraska came out rushing like 7 yards a
carry, really scary impressive. Then they found themselves in one
single third-and-long, and their QB dropped back and threw like a
girl. The Miami players were laughing. That was the end, Miami put
10 in the box and completely closed them down....
I just Googled it to be sure my Alzheimer's wasn't imagining things.
1989, Nebraska averaged 380 yards rushing during the season, #1 in the
country, but got only 80 in the big game. That's what happens when an
option O gets *predictible* against pro-quality coaching and personnel
on D. They also had all of 55 yards passing, lost 23-7. (It didn't
help them any that playing only the 'bone in a 'bone league, their D
never practiced against decent passing and their DBs weren't any
better than their QB.)
That said, on a limited basis I think it could work fine. You might
even use your regular 1st-string QB running it on key plays, to keep a
real passing option and put the D in a real tough spot, if he's
athletic enough.
IIRC, when Warren Moon was on the Oilers they used a wishbone with him
at QB on short-yardage and goal-line situations, until they had some
bad fumbles on pitchouts. And I know that Bill Walsh after he retired
said he regretted not putting in a Single Wing package for Steve
Young. But it says something that when he had the chance he thought
about it and still didn't do it. What would 20 successful Single Wing
plays with Young be worth compared to one play where he's carried of
the field on a stretcher?
FWIW, one of my favorite anecdotes from the long history of Jets
misery dates to the great year when Lou Holtz coached them. He
thought, why should I be constrained by NFL dogma? I'll put in the
veer offense and surprise them all! He brought a veer QB into camp to
run it. Walt Michaels was the DC, and he wasn't about to have his D
be embarrassed by a college option offense even in camp. He had that
QB carried off the field on a stretcher in the first week of practice.
That was the end of the short run of the veer in the NFL.
That story via Google Books:
papa.carl44
Some people have done it...but you need a back who has ball handling
skills...and it seems quite a few of them have problems just holding on to
the damn thing. When I see some of these defenses on passing downs, I often
wonder why they don't run an old Greenbay Sweep....and do it weak...they
don't have the people to stop it.
papa.carl44
LOL...I just thought, "Damn, I'm old enough that the modern screen pass
looks like the crap we did in high school." If you really want to get into
some research, get some books on the original T offense....the fullhouse
backfield with a fullback behind a QB and two half backs often did work like
the bone, veer and all that other stuff....once upon a time there was an
offense called "Fly-T Offense"....it did a lot of the things that eventually
became bone and veer stuff and did have an option component in it...however,
a lot of the time the option look was predetermined. I learned a lot of
that offense decades ago and I think it could be very effective at some
levels today.
Grinch
wrote:
> "Grinch" <oldna...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> Good description of an option offense...the basics that set everything else
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks. What, last week(?) Peyton Manning ran a beautiful naked
bootleg from mid-field. Surprised everyone, me, the camera crew, the
D. He was all alone by himself chugging along, gone about 25 yards,
it looked like even he could go the length ... then one defender came
within 10 yards of him and he took a dive and curled up like a
hedgehog. I think it's going to be a while before we see real option
Os run by first-team QBs in the NFL. :-)
papa.carl44
I heard about that Holtz episode. I met Holtz a few times and on one
occasion at a clinic when he was caught off guard and we saw a not very nice
guy. I like all of what you say here. Good analysis. The overall team
speed in the NFL causes problems for a bone type option offense....BUT...I
really think you uncovered some things that they do not take advantage of.
A few times when Miami ran the Wildcat continuously, it would wear the
defense down quite a bit. I think a well executed Wildcat, pistol....guys
like Smith doing it could be very difficult to defend for a period of
time.....what I can't understand is when it works and then they stop doing
it. I come from the school of make them stop it, run it and run it till
they stop it, and by doing so they often show another weakness...and then
you come back with the other components of the scheme. I don't think it
works well as the field shortens and you can get more defenders to the point
of attack...but it can really wear a defense down and confuse them
especially run in a series with no huddle stuff. I have done some research
on no huddle offense and it is interesting stuff. Coslett had a role in it.
I also don't see why for at least a play, not running it as a series, you
couldn't send the QB (Sanchez) out to the wide split position and just have
him leave the field and a replacement come on going right to his spot. It
is not illegal, and the guy coming on would know the play....that does not
allow for the D to adjust and it puts a real threat out there. Remember the
old Lonely End stuff?
Harlan Lachman
<8d06722e-7b94-4474...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
Michael <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote:
Michael, one question is whether or not it could be a back-up offense in
case of an in-game injury to a Qb. That is banking on something.
IMHO, most teams are banking on bupkus (c.f., Brian Brohm). I think we
might even to better in an in-game scenario with Brad rather than
Brunnel.
h
papa.carl44
Oh...Definitely...
Michael
> In article
> <8d06722e-7b94-4474-b10f-38b03b0ba...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
absolutely you can consider it as a back-up offense. it appears as if
miami came up with it as a baind-aid for a qb that could no longer
throw very well. in a sense... a back-up offense. i would not bank
on it as a base
Grinch
wrote:
> "Harlan Lachman" <har...@eeivt.com> wrote in message
>
> news:harlan-57D3A9....@news60.forteinc.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'd love to see a team in the right situation try a serious option
offense, as a lot more than a special situation or backup O.
If you have a QB who can both really run the option and also throw at
a near good NFL QB level, the D is going to have a terrible problem to
face -- much worse than if you put Peyton Manning out at flanker or
pull out your passing QB to put a RB who can't throw in behind center.
What about Denver running a real option O for a year with Tebow? What
would they have to lose?
They are coming off a 4-12 disaster year, so nobody expects too much.
Their new coach isn't going to be blamed for this mess, if anything
he'll get credit for trying new ideas until the placed is straightened
out.
Tebow is supposed to be able to pass the ball. They didn't mortgage
the franchise for him, he's not that expensive, most people don't
expect that much from him, they aren't risking losing a franchise QB
to injury. He's big young healthy, resistant to injury. And it
really may well be the best way to get the most out of his talent
until he masters sophisticated NFL passing (assuming he can).
Why not? Try it in a rebuilding year and see what happens.
I for one would love it, and root for them.
papa.carl44
To have it as a base...you need to go back to the draft and start over :-)
Some day, somebody will do it...come up with a radically different scheme
that works.
papa.carl44
I couldn't agree more...and NFL defenses are not built to stop a serious
attempt at it...and one key to running it is speed...hurry up, no huddle,
keep the pace going and run the Hell out of the outside option and then come
back with a counter and / or a pass to the weakside...I think like you do
here...it would be very hard to defend...and if ONE team were doing it...the
problem is multiplied, because you can't assimilate things you worked on
defending other teams, that is always an issue. Defensive coaches are
always saying things like, "Remember when we played ?????? it's the same
thing now...we're gonna...." So many teams have distinct similarities..but
if you had a real attempt at being different with the right players...you
may well have something.
Harlan Lachman
"papa.carl44" <papad...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
Papa, I may not have been clear. I don't want it as a base. Brad Smith
already practices different plays each week and with few reps is ready
to go. It is not like he will be any better or worse off after a week of
practice if Mark went down and had to sit out the rest of the game or a
bunch of plays. Brad would be as ready as he already is.
If Sanchez goes down in the playoffs, it is likely the old, tired arm,
rusty Brunnel will have gotten much fewer snaps than he got prior to the
last game and play against much better competition.
I just think for part of game that the other team was not prepare for
it, Brad being forced full time into the Wildcat and sprint out passes
would be more effective than putting Brunnel in and seeing how bad
things can get.
h
papa.carl44
I'm with you on that...and agree....if Sanchez were down Brunnell would not
be the answer and honestly, I don't see why Brad can't hand the ball off
too, out of a reg O scheme....let's hope it does't happen
JetsLife
wrote:
> They ran it today like it should be run...and when they left the QB on the
> field we saw what can happen...plus they showed they can make the changes
> without calling a timeout. What did bug me was in the early game Buffalo
> had NO idea how to stop that option, then near the goal instead of running
> it again they used the wildcat with an inside play that got stuffed...then a
> FG instead. I did not like that...I still believe you run a play till the
> defense shows you they can stop it, and by stopping it they almost always
> give something else big up, this is what I think is the breaking of the
> rhythm that happens. They should have run that deal right into the endzone.
> All that said, they showed that it can be a very effective option to use,
> and I liked Conor being part of it...they formation they preferred was the
> "pistol" with running back options open....I like it.
Don't know if was mentioned somewhere in this thread, but Wildcat
success should be taken with a large grain of salt. I.e. v. Buffalo's
worst run defense in the league.
papa.carl44
"JetsLife" <Jets...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5fcaed21-ed7f-4605...@d1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
You are right about results against Buffalo...what was significant was the
design of the attack was very different, more complete, so we don't know how
it works really. I like what Grinch has posted...a lot. Someday, some
innovative coach will come up with the right personnel and scheme to run
some type of option offense in the NFL and he will kick ass with it. I do
not mean a half ass attempt of some type like Spurrier did. You need to
develop the right players just like any other offense. The stretch the
field game is not the same as the west coast game and uses different skill
sets. I think that a completely unique approach just may drive defenses
crazy for a while.