Did Miami win by using a 3-4 defense??????? NOPE.Did Miami win by using the Wildcat???????? NOPE.
Maybe the Dolphins didn't use it enough? Against opponents with less big-play capability than Indy, why not?the wildcat offense.Run out the clock, kick field goals, lose the game
So if Ted Ginn is simply able to make a nice leaping TD catch at the end of the game that most #1 WR's in the NFL will make, then the Wildcat offense becomes a "Winning Ingredient"?Interesting.Did Miami win by using the Wildcat???????? NOPE.
wow Two Deep really embarrassed himself here....So if Ted Ginn is simply able to make a nice leaping TD catch at the end of the game that most #1 WR's in the NFL will make, then the Wildcat offense becomes a "Winning Ingredient"?Interesting.Did Miami win by using the Wildcat???????? NOPE.
No what was embarrassing was the Indy's defense. The fact that Indy won despite their defense only supports the ineffectiveness of the Wildcat. You can blame Ted Ginn all you want but when you have the ball 3/4 of the time you should blow the other team out. Give New England, Indy, New Orleans, San Diego, or any other Conventional NFL QB driven team 3/4 of the clock and they would crush their opponent.wow Two Deep really embarrassed himself here....So if Ted Ginn is simply able to make a nice leaping TD catch at the end of the game that most #1 WR's in the NFL will make, then the Wildcat offense becomes a "Winning Ingredient"?Interesting.Did Miami win by using the Wildcat???????? NOPE.
I don't understand this, since Miami didn't pass once out of the Wildcat yesterday. They don't even have a QB in on most of the plays. The Wildcat isn't a trick play, it's a power play. So I don't get why Freeney/Mathis would be going for sacks.ninerfanatic492000 said:exactly, Freeney/Mathis make this so easyMeh, the Colts have the perfect defense to run it against. They just pin their ears back and run upfield. Too much overcomitting and too little reading the play.The Dolphins just ran it pretty good right now. Maybe the team who started it can keep it going.
I'm pretty sure it only supports the ineffectiveness of Miami's defense.No what was embarrassing was the Indy's defense. The fact that Indy won despite their defense only supports the ineffectiveness of the Wildcat. You can blame Ted Ginn all you want but when you have the ball 3/4 of the time you should blow the other team out. Give New England, Indy, New Orleans, San Diego, or any other Conventional NFL QB driven team 3/4 of the clock and they would crush their opponent.wow Two Deep really embarrassed himself here....So if Ted Ginn is simply able to make a nice leaping TD catch at the end of the game that most #1 WR's in the NFL will make, then the Wildcat offense becomes a "Winning Ingredient"?Interesting.Did Miami win by using the Wildcat???????? NOPE.
This is ridiculous. You might as well cherry pick any other component of a losing team's game plan and suggest that, because the team lost, it's not a valid strategy for winning a football game.If you want to blame a defense for losing, blame it on Miami's. My guess, however, is that it was a number of factors that influenced the outcome, and that one game does not represent the success or failure of ANY particular strategy. The Dolphins won 11 games last season, during some of which they ran the wildcat formation. I'm curious: How does that fit into your worldview?No what was embarrassing was the Indy's defense. The fact that Indy won despite their defense only supports the ineffectiveness of the Wildcat. You can blame Ted Ginn all you want but when you have the ball 3/4 of the time you should blow the other team out. Give New England, Indy, New Orleans, San Diego, or any other Conventional NFL QB driven team 3/4 of the clock and they would crush their opponent.wow Two Deep really embarrassed himself here....So if Ted Ginn is simply able to make a nice leaping TD catch at the end of the game that most #1 WR's in the NFL will make, then the Wildcat offense becomes a "Winning Ingredient"?Interesting.Did Miami win by using the Wildcat???????? NOPE.
Easy schedule, They will be 0-4 to start this season, with their vaunted Wildcat.This is ridiculous. You might as well cherry pick any other component of a losing team's game plan and suggest that, because the team lost, it's not a valid strategy for winning a football game.If you want to blame a defense for losing, blame it on Miami's. My guess, however, is that it was a number of factors that influenced the outcome, and that one game does not represent the success or failure of ANY particular strategy.No what was embarrassing was the Indy's defense. The fact that Indy won despite their defense only supports the ineffectiveness of the Wildcat. You can blame Ted Ginn all you want but when you have the ball 3/4 of the time you should blow the other team out. Give New England, Indy, New Orleans, San Diego, or any other Conventional NFL QB driven team 3/4 of the clock and they would crush their opponent.wow Two Deep really embarrassed himself here....So if Ted Ginn is simply able to make a nice leaping TD catch at the end of the game that most #1 WR's in the NFL will make, then the Wildcat offense becomes a "Winning Ingredient"?Interesting.Did Miami win by using the Wildcat???????? NOPE.
The Dolphins won 11 games last season, during some of which they ran the wildcat formation. I'm curious: How does that fit into your worldview?
Not sure what game you were watching TwoDeep but IMO the ONLY thing that worked for the Dolphins last night was the Wildcat - they were ripping off chunks of yards out of that formation and controlling the clock.
Nope, they lost because they didn't score more points than Indy.Did Miami win by using a 3-4 defense??????? NOPE.Did Miami win by using the Wildcat???????? NOPE.
Was this the Pat White throw? Stat line doesnt show he had an attempt, but I read a log that he overthrew Ginn for a long one. Is this the one? Anyone see it?So if Ted Ginn is simply able to make a nice leaping TD catch at the end of the game that most #1 WR's in the NFL will make, then the Wildcat offense becomes a "Winning Ingredient"?Interesting.Did Miami win by using the Wildcat???????? NOPE.
No, it was a pass from Pennington. He did get both hands on it, but the defender was pulling his shoulder back, which messed up the placement of his hands. It could have been called PI, but it would have been a ticky-tack call.He should have made the catch, but he's no Randy Moss and he didn't.Anyone who could watch last night's game and doubt the effectiveness of Miami's wildcat is not living in the reality-based community.Was this the Pat White throw? Stat line doesnt show he had an attempt, but I read a log that he overthrew Ginn for a long one. Is this the one? Anyone see it?So if Ted Ginn is simply able to make a nice leaping TD catch at the end of the game that most #1 WR's in the NFL will make, then the Wildcat offense becomes a "Winning Ingredient"?Interesting.Did Miami win by using the Wildcat???????? NOPE.
Again give Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Philip Rivers, Drew Brees (conventional offenses) 3/4 of the game clock. Hell look what Manning did with 1/4 of the game clock. Sure they got some yards out of the Wildcat but at the end of the game they still lost.Not sure what game you were watching TwoDeep but IMO the ONLY thing that worked for the Dolphins last night was the Wildcat - they were ripping off chunks of yards out of that formation and controlling the clock.
I bet you are wrong. Teams putting up huge points do it with stud QBs. Miami ran it and lost. What won them games last year, isn't producing wins this year now is it? What team is winning with the wildcat? Name them. It's a glorified option play with a less than ideal 'QB'. That's all it is.I bet you after tonight's game after the Fins run it 15+ times, people will be buzzing about it again and more teams will be running it more going into week 3
I would posit that the Dolphins lost, in part, due to the relative inefficiency of their non-Wildcat plays. I'd disagree pretty strongly that ditching the Wildcat plays from the game plan would've increased their chances of winning. All that would've done is potentially let the Colts get out further ahead (and earlier) with their big-play capability.Again give Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Philip Rivers, Drew Brees (conventional offenses) 3/4 of the game clock. Hell look what Manning did with 1/4 of the game clock. Sure they got some yards out of the Wildcat but at the end of the game they still lost.
The room is quiet, players sit silently awaiting the storm. Tony Sparano bursts into the room- the players shiver as one."You lazy, good for nothing, no talent Bumbs!!!! " He screams in rage. "You!" Pointing at Ronnie Brown "Where were you all game? You weren't even in frame when Dallas Clark ripped off that 80 yard TD! What the hell is wrong with you? Don't you know how to play your safety position?""And you" Pointing at Ricky Williams "You were on the bench when that Garcon kid tore us a new one. What kind of despicable piece of garbage sits on the bench while his defense is getting shredded? Run out there and make a play for god's sake!""and finally YOU" pointing at two deep "get out here and teach Chad Pennington to be Tom Brady or Peyton Manning. For the love of god why don't you show us how to have one of the top 3 QBs in the game? Then we would win more, cause, you know, we would have better players."Again give Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Philip Rivers, Drew Brees (conventional offenses) 3/4 of the game clock. Hell look what Manning did with 1/4 of the game clock. Sure they got some yards out of the Wildcat but at the end of the game they still lost.Not sure what game you were watching TwoDeep but IMO the ONLY thing that worked for the Dolphins last night was the Wildcat - they were ripping off chunks of yards out of that formation and controlling the clock.
:confirmed:The team that uses the Wildcat the most is 0-2, I wonder why that is?
Miami had 3/4 of the game clock because they were running the wildcat. If Miami had Peyton Manning at QB and Reggie Wayne and Dallas Clark, they wouldn't be running the wildcat, so your hypothetical is meaningless.Again give Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Philip Rivers, Drew Brees (conventional offenses) 3/4 of the game clock. Hell look what Manning did with 1/4 of the game clock. Sure they got some yards out of the Wildcat but at the end of the game they still lost.Not sure what game you were watching TwoDeep but IMO the ONLY thing that worked for the Dolphins last night was the Wildcat - they were ripping off chunks of yards out of that formation and controlling the clock.
The Pat White throw was in week 1. This thread was brought back to life by the Miami/Indy game last night. I was confused at first too.Was this the Pat White throw? Stat line doesnt show he had an attempt, but I read a log that he overthrew Ginn for a long one. Is this the one? Anyone see it?So if Ted Ginn is simply able to make a nice leaping TD catch at the end of the game that most #1 WR's in the NFL will make, then the Wildcat offense becomes a "Winning Ingredient"?Interesting.Did Miami win by using the Wildcat???????? NOPE.
This is possibly the dumbest thing I have ever read.Carry on.Did Miami win by using the Wildcat???????? NOPE.
Possibly because they played two teams who are better than they are?Manning >> Ryan > PenningtonWayne > White >> anyone on MiamiTurner > Addai =~ BrownGonzo >> Clark >> anyone on MiamiThe team that uses the Wildcat the most is 0-2, I wonder why that is?
Sorry if this comes off as a bit harsh, but that is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. It was the effectiveness of the wildcat (at least in large part) that allowed them to keep possession for that length of time. Two Deep, you need to go back to the shallow end of the Shark Pool.No what was embarrassing was the Indy's defense. The fact that Indy won despite their defense only supports the ineffectiveness of the Wildcat. You can blame Ted Ginn all you want but when you have the ball 3/4 of the time you should blow the other team out. Give New England, Indy, New Orleans, San Diego, or any other Conventional NFL QB driven team 3/4 of the clock and they would crush their opponent.
Hummmm. I wonder why the Wildcat was ineffective week 1? 4 yards gained from Wildcat, probably had nothing to do with the Atlanta D.Sorry if this comes off as a bit harsh, but that is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. It was the effectiveness of the wildcat (at least in large part) that allowed them to keep possession for that length of time. Two Deep, you need to go back to the shallow end of the Shark Pool.No what was embarrassing was the Indy's defense. The fact that Indy won despite their defense only supports the ineffectiveness of the Wildcat. You can blame Ted Ginn all you want but when you have the ball 3/4 of the time you should blow the other team out. Give New England, Indy, New Orleans, San Diego, or any other Conventional NFL QB driven team 3/4 of the clock and they would crush their opponent.
:red_herring:Hummmm. I wonder why the Wildcat was ineffective week 1? 4 yards gained from Wildcat, probably had nothing to do with the Atlanta D.Sorry if this comes off as a bit harsh, but that is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. It was the effectiveness of the wildcat (at least in large part) that allowed them to keep possession for that length of time. Two Deep, you need to go back to the shallow end of the Shark Pool.No what was embarrassing was the Indy's defense. The fact that Indy won despite their defense only supports the ineffectiveness of the Wildcat. You can blame Ted Ginn all you want but when you have the ball 3/4 of the time you should blow the other team out. Give New England, Indy, New Orleans, San Diego, or any other Conventional NFL QB driven team 3/4 of the clock and they would crush their opponent.
Bills_Fan11 said:This thread is a travesty. I think Dallas should throw on every down for the rest of the season because rushing for 250 yards obviously made them lose.
Maybe I wasn't watching the same game you were. I would describe it more as: the wildcat offense.Move the team down the field, set up the upset, watch the traditional offense and the defense choke it awayIn the end, the wildcat contributed more to the success of the offense than their traditional offensive sets, so if anything should be blamed for the offense's shortcomings, why blame WHAT WORKED and not WHAT DIDN'T?bicycle_seat_sniffer said:the wildcat offense.Run out the clock, kick field goals, lose the game
I don't understand this. It isn't like you're convinced that the Wildcat won't work, it's that you're ACTIVELY ROOTING AGAINST IT (despite the fact that it is working). It's as if you feel like your life will somehow be worse off if it turns out there's a new offensive staple in the league.Newsflash: Once upon a time, the West Coast Offense was a "gimmicky" "college offense" that would "never work in the pros". Turns out it winds up working after all... and no one's life is really any worse as a result. Why the blind hate? Did the Wildcat sleep with your sister and then never call again?Two Deep said:Hummmm. I wonder why the Wildcat was ineffective week 1? 4 yards gained from Wildcat, probably had nothing to do with the Atlanta D.
Still don't get it, hmm? Whether they are 0-4 or not after four games, it doesn't prove that the wildcat formation is valid or invalid. Sometimes two events occur simultaneously, and they may seem related, but in reality, are not. This is called the questionable cause fallacy.Here's another possible interpretation of the data at hand. Miami has shown that they can run the Wildcat very effectively, so much so, that their time of possession was 3/4 of the game. Unfortunately, Miami's defense was unable to stop Peyton Manning when it mattered most as he was able to orchestrate scoring drives via long plays and short drives.Easy schedule, They will be 0-4 to start this season, with their vaunted Wildcat.The Dolphins won 11 games last season, during some of which they ran the wildcat formation. I'm curious: How does that fit into your worldview?
I don't have to root against it. I'm convinced It will go the same way as the Edsel, Reggie Bush and Vince Young all hype and no substance.Maybe I wasn't watching the same game you were. I would describe it more as: the wildcat offense.Move the team down the field, set up the upset, watch the traditional offense and the defense choke it awayIn the end, the wildcat contributed more to the success of the offense than their traditional offensive sets, so if anything should be blamed for the offense's shortcomings, why blame WHAT WORKED and not WHAT DIDN'T?bicycle_seat_sniffer said:the wildcat offense.Run out the clock, kick field goals, lose the gameI don't understand this. It isn't like you're convinced that the Wildcat won't work, it's that you're ACTIVELY ROOTING AGAINST IT (despite the fact that it is working). It's as if you feel like your life will somehow be worse off if it turns out there's a new offensive staple in the league.Newsflash: Once upon a time, the West Coast Offense was a "gimmicky" "college offense" that would "never work in the pros". Turns out it winds up working after all... and no one's life is really any worse as a result. Why the blind hate? Did the Wildcat sleep with your sister and then never call again?Two Deep said:Hummmm. I wonder why the Wildcat was ineffective week 1? 4 yards gained from Wildcat, probably had nothing to do with the Atlanta D.
See, I personally consider posting a 3:1 ToP advantage and averaging 10 yards per play to be "substance".I don't have to root against it. I'm convinced It will go the same way as the Edsel, Reggie Bush and Vince Young all hype and no substance.
And if they won at the end of the game I may consider it as well, but they didn't. In fact Miami and their Wildcat are 0-2 not much to get excited about. Please don't make me come back to this thread to remind you all of that again. Please!See, I personally consider posting a 3:1 ToP advantage and averaging 10 yards per play to be "substance".I don't have to root against it. I'm convinced It will go the same way as the Edsel, Reggie Bush and Vince Young all hype and no substance.
Drew Brees and Tom Brady and Mannign and Rivers would never have 3/4 of the game clock. Hell, the other team could have 6 tunrovers and they still wouldn't get 3/4 of the game clock. Because every time you throw a 40 yard TD...the other team gets the ball. And your ToP stops. It's quite a simple concept really: If you score on 12 play 80 yards drives, you have the ball more. If you score on 3 play 80 yard drives...you have the ball much less.Two Deep said:Again give Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Philip Rivers, Drew Brees (conventional offenses) 3/4 of the game clock. Hell look what Manning did with 1/4 of the game clock. Sure they got some yards out of the Wildcat but at the end of the game they still lost.
I tisn't an option play. It is a fundamentally sound offense on the whiteboard. You are doing a normal running play...with an extra blocker. If everybody covers their assignment...the RB has to beat 1 guy. As opposed to a handoff, where if every guy made his block perfectly, the RB would have 2 guys to beat.FavreCo said:I bet you are wrong. Teams putting up huge points do it with stud QBs. Miami ran it and lost. What won them games last year, isn't producing wins this year now is it? What team is winning with the wildcat? Name them. It's a glorified option play with a less than ideal 'QB'. That's all it is.
Because their defense sucked big in week 2 and when they're true QB played in week 1 all he could do was turn the ball over? And they didn't run it much in week 1? And oh, when they did, Ginn was wide open but the rookie throwing his first ever NFL pass overthrew him?Two Deep said:The team that uses the Wildcat the most is 0-2, I wonder why that is?
See above. No way in hell a Drew Brees team has the ball that long. Because he scores too quickly. Time of Possesion vs big play ability is an inverse relationship.ETA: I'm also not a Miami fan. Oh, and...I like to actually look at facts after they happen, not decide the facts and then twist things to look the way I want.bollocks28 said:Sorry if this comes off as a bit harsh, but that is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. It was the effectiveness of the wildcat (at least in large part) that allowed them to keep possession for that length of time. Two Deep, you need to go back to the shallow end of the Shark Pool.No what was embarrassing was the Indy's defense. The fact that Indy won despite their defense only supports the ineffectiveness of the Wildcat. You can blame Ted Ginn all you want but when you have the ball 3/4 of the time you should blow the other team out. Give New England, Indy, New Orleans, San Diego, or any other Conventional NFL QB driven team 3/4 of the clock and they would crush their opponent.
If Ted Ginn had caught a pass he got both hands on at the end of the game, Miami would have won. That play was run out of a TRADITIONAL offensive set. So, what you're saying basically boils down to this: whether the Wildcat was a success or not depended completely on how Miami did in its traditional offensive sets. If Miami's wildcat did awesome, and its traditional offense did mediocre, then clearly the wildcat is inferior to the traditional offense, because if the wildcat was really better than the traditional offense then Miami would have done better in its traditional offensive sets.That's like judging the effectiveness of an 8-man blitz by what happens when a team only rushes 3. That's like judging the effectiveness of a 2-5-4 defensive package by how a team stops the run in the 4-3. That's like judging the effectiveness of a team's passing game by how many ypc the RB averages. Can you really, truly, honestly not see how absurd and indefensible your position really is?And if they won at the end of the game I may consider it as well, but they didn't. In fact Miami and their Wildcat are 0-2 not much to get excited about. Please don't make me come back to this thread to remind you all of that again. Please!See, I personally consider posting a 3:1 ToP advantage and averaging 10 yards per play to be "substance".I don't have to root against it. I'm convinced It will go the same way as the Edsel, Reggie Bush and Vince Young all hype and no substance.
I've come to the conclusion that nobody can be this obtuse unless it's intentional. Congratulations Two Deep, you suckered us all.Its like trying to rationalize with my girlfriend, it just doesn't work
Don't be so sure. Perhaps the "Two" refers to the number of people required to operate the computer to post messages here. One person looks up words in a dusty old dictionary they pulled off of a guy on a canoe trip that had the misfortune making their acquaintance and the other pounds them into the keyboard. Two Deep?I've come to the conclusion that nobody can be this obtuse unless it's intentional. Congratulations Two Deep, you suckered us all.Its like trying to rationalize with my girlfriend, it just doesn't work
Trying way too hard.Don't be so sure. Perhaps the "Two" refers to the number of people required to operate the computer to post messages here. One person looks up words in a dusty old dictionary they pulled off of a guy on a canoe trip that had the misfortune making their acquaintance and the other pounds them into the keyboard. Two Deep?I've come to the conclusion that nobody can be this obtuse unless it's intentional. Congratulations Two Deep, you suckered us all.Its like trying to rationalize with my girlfriend, it just doesn't work
It's been my observation people start slinging insults when they are desperate and can't support their position. Thank you for the confirmation. See you next week when the Wildcat is 0-3.Don't be so sure. Perhaps the "Two" refers to the number of people required to operate the computer to post messages here. One person looks up words in a dusty old dictionary they pulled off of a guy on a canoe trip that had the misfortune making their acquaintance and the other pounds them into the keyboard. Two Deep?I've come to the conclusion that nobody can be this obtuse unless it's intentional. Congratulations Two Deep, you suckered us all.Its like trying to rationalize with my girlfriend, it just doesn't work
Be that as it may, if they had a real offense, they wouldn't have to stoop to the 'wildcat'. They could put up points with the big boys.Without the Wildcat to keep the Indy offense off the field, Miami would have lost 49-10. Their defense was fresh because of the small amount of time theywere on the field and still couldn't stop Indy from scoring 27! Miami didn't win the game, but without the Wildcat, it wouldn't have even been close.