Wild Cat formation.... (1 Viewer)

[SSOG]

This is just hopelessly naive, and not even from a rules standpoint. If the QB is within 5 yards of the LOS, he's fair game to play bump and run, which will mean contact. If he's actively out trying to block someone, again, he's going to get beat on and if he happens to end up between a defender flying full speed to the ball and the ball carrier, there is nothing in the rules that protect him from becoming collateral damage. Regardless, whether its via being simply shed or happening to have a defender launch himself through the QB to get to the ball, that's not where you want your expensive QB.

Bumping and running isn't a dangerous activity- it's not like a CB can dive for the QB's knees and say he was just playing bump and run. You think a QB is going to get injured because a 180 pound DB is pushing on him above waiste level? How many WRs have you *EVER* seen injured by bump and run coverage? Besides, the QB might be the most valuable position, but he's not automatically the most valuable PLAYER. Do you see defenders headhunting Randy Moss and trying to position him between them and the ballcarrier so they can lay lumber to him legally on a block? Seriously, this whole line of reasoning is absurd- you expect me to believe either that a player with whom the QB is currently engaged can somehow manage to create enough burst to explode through the QB with enough force to injure him while still tackling the ballcarrier... but they don't do this against WRs, because WRs aren't as valuable as QBs (and tackles apparently aren't that important- only injuring the QB is)? Or else you expect to tell me that a player can manage to get a decent head of steam and manage to tackle one moving target THROUGH ANOTHER MOVING TARGET while moving at close to top speed? These are ludicrous propositions. Run blocking at the LoS simply is not a dangerous activity, at least not in football terms. It's probably the safest thing you can do on the field in any given play, outside of running decoy routes. Again, how many times a year does an offensive lineman run block, and how often does he get injured? How many times does a WR run block, and how often is he injured while run blocking?

So why doesn't anybody do so regardless of the formation? McNabb and Culpepper are big guys- screw the wildcat, why aren't they out leading sweeps? Or maybe a QB blocking isn't quite so safe.

Or maybe because the nature of a handoff makes it impossible for a QB to lead block? How do you expect a QB to hand the ball off while his momentum carries him backwards and the RB forward, then somehow manage to burst in front of the (usually much faster) RB before he crosses the LoS? The mechanics of it are impossible. The only way for a QB to lead block for an RB would be... to direct-snap to the RB. And when last I checked, when teams did direct-snap to their RB, they didn't seem to have much compunction against the QB being out their throwing blocks. Maybe they didn't realize just how dangerous it really was.Another thing- there's a big difference between lead-blocking FB-style through traffic and downfield blocking in the open field like a WR.

Again- that's true for any formation. So why line up a QB ever on running downs? The answer is the same for any formation- by explicitly abandoning the threat of passing you allow the defense to stack the line of scrimmage which is to their advantage.

Wait, do you honestly mean to tell me that there's more threat of a pass if your RB takes the snap and can throw to your WR1 or your QB than there is if he can throw to your WR1 or your WR2? For instance, Arizona possesses more of a threat to pass if Beanie is throwing to Fitzgerald or Warner than it does if he's got Fitzgerald or Boldin to throw to? Are you INSANE? Your QB isn't even in the backfield- taking him off the field entirely certainly presents a larger threat to pass, since you're going to replace him with someone who can... you know... actually catch the ball. Besides, you'd never want to throw to your QB in the first place, since getting tackled most certainly *IS* a dangerous activity, and once the ball is in your QB's hands the defense *CAN* actively headhunt him.

I'm not sure how a play away from the ball sending a buy to the hospital and another play that was a bad call support your contention. The point is every team in the NFL, hell the NFL playbook itself, bends over backwards to keep QBs away from as much incidental (or more) contact as possible. What you are suggesting flies in the face of it and its just not realistic. You may think its perfectly safe for a guy that hasn't practiced blocking since high school to get out there and mix it up with Ray Lewis and Roy Williams, but it just isn't going to happen with any QB anybody gives a crap about.

A *LEGAL* play away from the ball demonstrates that offensive players (which Sapp was at the time) can legally headhunt and lay wood to whomever they please. The Hasselback play demonstrates that it is *ILLEGAL* for the defenders to go after anyone but the ballcarrier (although, in that instance, the refs blew the call- Hass *WAS* going for the ballcarrier). How do you not see how this is relevant when you tell me that defensive players are going to start headhunting the QB (an offensive player)?Now, your other argument (QBs haven't practiced blocking since HS) is a very good argument against lining your QB up at WR. So, like I said... just take him off the field entirely. Ronnie Brown is a bigger threat to pass when he has two WRs to choose from, instead of a WR and Chad Pennington, anyway.

Their jobs are to drop back and pass and throw touchdowns. The reward is worth the risk. Picking up an extra 2 yards on 2nd and 6 in the first quarter of game 2 vs the Lions and seeing your franchise QB carted off because he got his feet tangled up with a DB is the kind of thing that gets coaches fired.

Okay, so it's fine for QBs to drop back and throw passes, just as long as they aren't throwing screens on 2nd and 6, because they're far too valuable to risk for just two yards on 2nd and 6. :(

 

[mbuehner]

Bumping and running isn't a dangerous activity

Spoken as someone who has never lined up across from Antoine Winfield. It so happens that the technique defenders are taught to shed blockers is the grab their jersey and toss the blocker aside- with as much gusto as possible. We aren't talking about the hand slappy you see between a WR and CB on a pass play- the defenseman is going to be as nasty as he can possibly get away with.

You think a QB is going to get injured because a 180 pound DB is pushing on him above waiste level?

You think a Quarterback is ever going to trip over his dog and fall down the stairs? Guys get hurt, they are MORE LIKELY to get hurt when they are... you know, IN HARMS WAY. I'm having trouble believing I have to make this argument- and now you're making me be that guy: have you ever played the game? Have been front row in an NFL game? The level of violence doesn't translate well to TV. A simple running play involves a half dozen collisions- most of then NOT the ball carrier. Why do you think these linemen and tight ends are soaking for hours after a game? Its NOT JUST the ball carrier that takes a beating in a football game. Blockers end up under piles, they get ankles rolled by teammaters, they end up getting run over by THE BALL CARRIER, and yes, sometimes a tackler will take on a blocker and blast him into the ball carrier, in fact THATS WHAT THEY ARE TRAINED TO DO. You take on blockers, you don't go around them. I'm really not sure what game you've been watching...

Besides, the QB might be the most valuable position, but he's not automatically the most valuable PLAYER.

They may be so, but they are the most IRREPLACEABLE player 99 times out of 100 in the context of executing an offense. What is in their head is something a backup doesn't have. A WR can be replaced and know the playbook. The backup QB hasn't been running against the other teams D in practice all week.

Or maybe because the nature of a handoff makes it impossible for a QB to lead block?

Yeh. Thats why QBs aren't out lead blocking. You keep believing that.

How do you expect a QB to hand the ball off while his momentum carries him backwards and the RB forward,

Is there a rule against the direct snap?

And when last I checked, when teams did direct-snap to their RB, they didn't seem to have much compunction against the QB being out their throwing blocks.

OH?! Show me the clips of QBs lead blocking in a direct snap situation.

Wait, do you honestly mean to tell me that there's more threat of a pass if your RB takes the snap and can throw to your WR1 or your QB than there is if he can throw to your WR1 or your WR2? For instance, Arizona possesses more of a threat to pass if Beanie is throwing to Fitzgerald or Warner than it does if he's got Fitzgerald or Boldin to throw to? Are you INSANE? Your QB isn't even in the backfield- taking him off the field entirely certainly presents a larger threat to pass, since you're going to replace him with someone who can... you know... actually catch the ball. Besides, you'd never want to throw to your QB in the first place, since getting tackled most certainly *IS* a dangerous activity, and once the ball is in your QB's hands the defense *CAN* actively headhunt him.

You got me there- you're the one pimping this stupid gimmick formation. Like someone said above, its just going to take 1 QB getting hurt to put this thing to bed for another 20 years.A *LEGAL* play away from the ball demonstrates that offensive players (which Sapp was at the time) can legally headhunt and lay wood to whomever they please.

No longer true.

The Hasselback play demonstrates that it is *ILLEGAL* for the defenders to go after anyone but the ballcarrier (although, in that instance, the refs blew the call- Hass *WAS* going for the ballcarrier).

Like I said, a blown call.

How do you not see how this is relevant when you tell me that defensive players are going to start headhunting the QB (an offensive player)?

No because defensive players are going to do attack QBs with extra gusto, whether you think so or not. In the same MINDSET of how they went after QBs after ints. Only difference now is that coach would be stupid enough to intentionally put him in the normal field of play.

Okay, so it's fine for QBs to drop back and throw passes, just as long as they aren't throwing screens on 2nd and 6, because they're far too valuable to risk for just two yards on 2nd and 6. rolleyes1.gif

Thats just asinine. In the context of executing an offense in some logical way- yes its worth the minimal risk of a QB throwing out of the pocket. In the context of executing some gimmicky routine that risks your expensive QB and has now been completely soaked in by every defense in the league- NO. God, its not just me making these points- its facts. NFL teams DONT risk their QBs on idiotic schemes like this. Are you going to trot out your punter into your base offense because he completed a couple of fake punts? Its a gimmick, and one that risks your most irreplaceable player. Unless you've got nothing to lose and little stake in your QB, its a ride out of town on a rail waiting to happen.

 

[baconisgood]

Spoken as someone who has never lined up across from Antoine Winfield. It so happens that the technique defenders are taught to shed blockers is the grab their jersey and toss the blocker aside- with as much gusto as possible. We aren't talking about the hand slappy you see between a WR and CB on a pass play- the defenseman is going to be as nasty as he can possibly get away with.

You ignored his question for like the fourth time. How many WRs are injured every year blocking on running plays? What percentage of plays is it? is it high, is it low? What is the average size of a WR Verses the average size of a QB? Winfield is 5'9, 190 lbs. Ben Roethlisberger is 6'5" 240 lbs. Antoine Winfield is going to grab Roeth and toss him aside?

 

[baconisgood]

Thats just asinine. In the context of executing an offense in some logical way- yes its worth the minimal risk of a QB throwing out of the pocket. In the context of executing some gimmicky routine that risks your expensive QB and has now been completely soaked in by every defense in the league- NO. God, its not just me making these points- its facts. NFL teams DONT risk their QBs on idiotic schemes like this. Are you going to trot out your punter into your base offense because he completed a couple of fake punts? Its a gimmick, and one that risks your most irreplaceable player. Unless you've got nothing to lose and little stake in your QB, its a ride out of town on a rail waiting to happen.

NFL teams don't have their QBs block because they have players that are better at blocking than QBs. Same reason they don't have punters pass the ball outside of fake punts, its got nothing to do with extra injury risk.

 

[sholditch]

I thought this was about the wildcat??

 

[Corporation]

I thought this was about the wildcat??

Don't pee in the shark pool.

 

[Balance]

I thought this was about the wildcat??

Don't pee in the shark pool.

This is the bathtub, I think you are lost.

 

[SSOG]

Spoken as someone who has never lined up across from Antoine Winfield. It so happens that the technique defenders are taught to shed blockers is the grab their jersey and toss the blocker aside- with as much gusto as possible. We aren't talking about the hand slappy you see between a WR and CB on a pass play- the defenseman is going to be as nasty as he can possibly get away with.

I said it's not dangerous, at least as far as NFL activities go. Yes, bumping and running is more dangerous than filing paperwork or holding business meetings... but is bump and run from Antoine Winfield more dangerous than getting piledriven by Kevin Williams? Is it more dangerous than going over the middle vs. Brian Dawkins? Is it more dangerous than throwing yourself at a wedge to try and tackle Devin Hester? Is it more dangerous than lowering your shoulder and trying to drive Brian Urlacher back for extra yardage? Is it more dangerous than standing tall in the pocket and having Julius Peppers run through you?You think a Quarterback is ever going to trip over his dog and fall down the stairs? Guys get hurt, they are MORE LIKELY to get hurt when they are... you know, IN HARMS WAY. I'm having trouble believing I have to make this argument- and now you're making me be that guy: have you ever played the game? Have been front row in an NFL game? The level of violence doesn't translate well to TV. A simple running play involves a half dozen collisions- most of then NOT the ball carrier. Why do you think these linemen and tight ends are soaking for hours after a game? Its NOT JUST the ball carrier that takes a beating in a football game. Blockers end up under piles, they get ankles rolled by teammaters, they end up getting run over by THE BALL CARRIER, and yes, sometimes a tackler will take on a blocker and blast him into the ball carrier, in fact THATS WHAT THEY ARE TRAINED TO DO. You take on blockers, you don't go around them. I'm really not sure what game you've been watching...

You make a great point. Guys are more likely to get hurt when they're put into harms way... so I'd say that the things guys are least likely to get hurt doing are the things that do the least to put them in harms way. And as I've said repeatedly, the least likely way for a guy to get hurt, based on the actual number of guys who are getting hurt doing it, is blocking from the WR position.

I'd also like to point out that QBs spend a lot of time soaking after games, too, whether they've been blocking or not.

They may be so, but they are the most IRREPLACEABLE player 99 times out of 100 in the context of executing an offense. What is in their head is something a backup doesn't have. A WR can be replaced and know the playbook. The backup QB hasn't been running against the other teams D in practice all week.

So what you're telling me is that CBs want to take someone out of the game... but only if they're the MOST IMPORTANT person on the team- if they're the SECOND MOST IMPORTANT, then they don't care in the slightest. CBs would rather throw an illegal hit against Dan Orlovsky than Calvin Johnson. CBs are fine letting Larry Fitzgerald do his thing all day long, but if Warner ever stepped out of the pocket, they would break the rules and stop playing sound football with a clear intent to injure. That's seriously the argument you want to make here?

Yeh. Thats why QBs aren't out lead blocking. You keep believing that.

It's a bigger factor than fear of injury, believe me.

OH?! Show me the clips of QBs lead blocking in a direct snap situation.

I said "throwing blocks", not "lead blocking"- which is a key distinction, since I also said that blocking from the WR position was less dangerous than lead blocking. As for clips of a QB throwing blocks in a direct snap situation... watch any clip of Miami running the wildcat last year.

You got me there- you're the one pimping this stupid gimmick formation. Like someone said above, its just going to take 1 QB getting hurt to put this thing to bed for another 20 years.

A "gimmick" is a play that is not fundamentally sound whiteboard football- it's a play that relies on misdirection or a fundamentally unsound defense in order to succeed. The wildcat is not a "gimmick" formation. It is a fundamentally sound formation, every bit as sound as any other formation used in the NFL.

No because defensive players are going to do attack QBs with extra gusto, whether you think so or not. In the same MINDSET of how they went after QBs after ints. Only difference now is that coach would be stupid enough to intentionally put him in the normal field of play.

The defensive players will attack the QB with extra gusto... WHEN IT'S LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE. As in the case of the INTs that you already mentioned. And as I've *REPEATEDLY* told you, it is not legally permissible to headhunt a QB who is lined up at WR and blocking downfield.

Thats just asinine. In the context of executing an offense in some logical way- yes its worth the minimal risk of a QB throwing out of the pocket. In the context of executing some gimmicky routine that risks your expensive QB and has now been completely soaked in by every defense in the league- NO. God, its not just me making these points- its facts. NFL teams DONT risk their QBs on idiotic schemes like this. Are you going to trot out your punter into your base offense because he completed a couple of fake punts? Its a gimmick, and one that risks your most irreplaceable player. Unless you've got nothing to lose and little stake in your QB, its a ride out of town on a rail waiting to happen.

The goal of the offense is to get points on the board (and a step in accomplishing that goal is getting yards). Why on earth is it fine to risk a QB trying to get those yards in one way, but not in another? If NFL teams DON'T risk their QBs on idiotic schemes like this... then why did Miami (an NFL team, when last I checked) risk Chad Pennington on EXACTLY THIS IDIOTIC SCHEME last season? I suppose NFL teams also don't run the football... except for those times when they run the football.

Serious question: look at the Pittsburgh Steelers. Hines Ward is the most vicious blocking WR in the game right now, and a player that opposing players love to hate. Who do you think takes a greater beating in any given game- Hines Ward, or Ben Roethlisberger? Because I guarantee you every single Steelers fan in the world will agree that it's Ben. Despite the fact that Hines Ward is out there performing the INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS act of downfield blocking, while Ben is in that uber-safe pocket being pampered and protected by league officials.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Spoken as someone who has never lined up across from Antoine Winfield. It so happens that the technique defenders are taught to shed blockers is the grab their jersey and toss the blocker aside- with as much gusto as possible. We aren't talking about the hand slappy you see between a WR and CB on a pass play- the defenseman is going to be as nasty as he can possibly get away with.

You ignored his question for like the fourth time. How many WRs are injured every year blocking on running plays? What percentage of plays is it? is it high, is it low? What is the average size of a WR Verses the average size of a QB? Winfield is 5'9, 190 lbs. Ben Roethlisberger is 6'5" 240 lbs. Antoine Winfield is going to grab Roeth and toss him aside?

Has anyone mentioned Sterling Sharpe yet?

 

[SSOG]

Spoken as someone who has never lined up across from Antoine Winfield. It so happens that the technique defenders are taught to shed blockers is the grab their jersey and toss the blocker aside- with as much gusto as possible. We aren't talking about the hand slappy you see between a WR and CB on a pass play- the defenseman is going to be as nasty as he can possibly get away with.

You ignored his question for like the fourth time. How many WRs are injured every year blocking on running plays? What percentage of plays is it? is it high, is it low? What is the average size of a WR Verses the average size of a QB? Winfield is 5'9, 190 lbs. Ben Roethlisberger is 6'5" 240 lbs. Antoine Winfield is going to grab Roeth and toss him aside?

Has anyone mentioned Sterling Sharpe yet?

Alright, we've brought the list up to 1 in the past 20 years.

 

[Truman]

Why do we keep the QB on the field in goalline and short yardage formations? Why not the receivers? Is it due to the injury risk from run blocking?

 

[Truman]

Spoken as someone who has never lined up across from Antoine Winfield. It so happens that the technique defenders are taught to shed blockers is the grab their jersey and toss the blocker aside- with as much gusto as possible. We aren't talking about the hand slappy you see between a WR and CB on a pass play- the defenseman is going to be as nasty as he can possibly get away with.

You ignored his question for like the fourth time. How many WRs are injured every year blocking on running plays? What percentage of plays is it? is it high, is it low? What is the average size of a WR Verses the average size of a QB? Winfield is 5'9, 190 lbs. Ben Roethlisberger is 6'5" 240 lbs. Antoine Winfield is going to grab Roeth and toss him aside?

Has anyone mentioned Sterling Sharpe yet?

Alright, we've brought the list up to 1 in the past 20 years.

Coming from a rugby background, the injury phenomenon is completely overrated in football (especially with returners - give your playmakers touches). Guys get injured all the time, they're no more likely to get injured because they're doing it on a specific play. Seems like a lot of the time teams want to keep their most dangerous threats off the field because of injury fears. 250 pounders collide with 200 pound guys all the time in rugby and injuries are far more rare - because you can't blindside guys like you can in football. QBs are bigger than WRs or DBs anyway and a re more likely to get injured in the pocket when they're standing still or off balance than when they're bracing for impact and throwing blocks.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Spoken as someone who has never lined up across from Antoine Winfield. It so happens that the technique defenders are taught to shed blockers is the grab their jersey and toss the blocker aside- with as much gusto as possible. We aren't talking about the hand slappy you see between a WR and CB on a pass play- the defenseman is going to be as nasty as he can possibly get away with.

You ignored his question for like the fourth time. How many WRs are injured every year blocking on running plays? What percentage of plays is it? is it high, is it low? What is the average size of a WR Verses the average size of a QB? Winfield is 5'9, 190 lbs. Ben Roethlisberger is 6'5" 240 lbs. Antoine Winfield is going to grab Roeth and toss him aside?

Has anyone mentioned Sterling Sharpe yet?

Alright, we've brought the list up to 1 in the past 20 years.

Just saying it has happened. Not trying to dispute your theory.

 

[Two Deep]

Sure he is, you can't possibly take his college highlights and translate that to the NFL. The majority of defenders he runs against will never make it to the NFL. So he looks bigger and faster than the other players because in most cases he is. In the NFL the linebackers and a good many defensive ends will be faster and stronger than Tebow could ever wish to be.

That is true of EVERY SINGLE COLLEGE PLAYER! We're not talking like he plays in Div II or III. He plays Div I football, in the SEC. Six SEC players went in 2009's first round, the first defensive player was an SEC player.

I don't have a side in the Tebow will/will not be a great NFL QB. But that argument against him is weak, very weak.

Also I'd like to see some official time of his 40 not what his school posts. Good chance he is smaller than listed as well.

Then these two sentences make it seem more personal than anything... Just watch the games, dude is big and fast.

Not personal just questions: http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog...rn=ncaaf,147026

 

[mbuehner]

David Givens? Joe Jurevicious? DJ Hackett? A cursory google search turned up some familiar names.

You guys tell me what the reaction would be if you substitute the name Tony Romo to the below:

NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- Dallas Cowboys wide receiver Chris Brazzell was taken off the field strapped to a back board in the second quarter of Saturday night's exhibition game against the New Orleans Saints.

Brazzell was blocking and was apparently kicked in the head by a teammate.

How many WRs get injured blocking? I don't know, but I do know it does happen and its a legitimate risk- particularly for a player that hasn't practiced blocking... maybe ever. Is riding a motorcycle dangerous? People do it safely every day, but the Steelers and Browns probably feel differently.

The question is, is the risk worth the reward. The NFL to date has resoundingly said no way. I doubt that will change.

 

[switz]

Also I'd like to see some official time of his 40 not what his school posts. Good chance he is smaller than listed as well.

Then these two sentences make it seem more personal than anything... Just watch the games, dude is big and fast.

Not personal just questions: http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog...rn=ncaaf,147026

Interesting article, but that's inside the locker room stuff, I don't see those listed on the player profile pages. I think all "measurements" are a little off, teams always make their players look a little better than they really are. I just don't know that it's as egregious as it sounds like you want it to be. ETA - Just looked at a few sites, they all list Tebow somewhere between 6'2 and 6'3, 235-240 Lbs. The school lists him at 6'3, 245.

Like I said, I don't have a side in this. Tebow looks like a good prospect, I'm not sure if it's as a QB or not. Quite honestly, I can see a lot of teams looking at him as a TE. I just don't know. I don't see how anyone could be vehement about it..

 

[T Bell]

One thing I have found to be apparent about you is that you making sweeping generalizations based on terrible assumptions based on limited data. I suspect if you looked into my posting history, you'd discover I've earned quite the reputation as a contrarian over the years, and yet based on one thread you've concluded that I'm really just a herd-follower afraid to go out on a limb. I think a lot of long-time posters are probably going to find that pretty funny.

And one thing that you may discover is that my track record on player evaluations is.........remarkableWhat limited info you have on me and what you misinterpret to be terrible assumptions and sweeping generalizations has me hitting at a very high clip........Teddy Ballgame not Luis Mendoza......I don't require a bunch of cronies at my side, cheerleading and pointing out he's the bad guy.......I kick in the door and head straight to the executive chair.....I take a backseat to no one in this here game, nor in life, period.Although, the cronies at your side isn't your fault, actually, I'll give you props for that, shame on the cronies.......The "Boss" will tell you all when to laugh again, OK......And FTR, I don't make conclusions about stuff or people I don't know. Really, like I told you before, it's never personal, if you take anything I say about you personal, then, hey, maybe it might be true???I check everybody's history, remember I'm the guy who emphasizes "for the record"........

It moved.

 

[SSOG]

Just saying it has happened. Not trying to dispute your theory.

I didn't mean to sound snippy, I was actually glad for the contribution.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Just saying it has happened. Not trying to dispute your theory.

I didn't mean to sound snippy, I was actually glad for the contribution.

 

[daveR]

3-2-1 .................s.s.s.s.s.S.S.S....... (fizzle)....... wildcat.......RIP.