Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Nu Guns

Hidden Strategy ??

33 posts in this topic

Did I saw we never run with the fullback. He is primarily a blocker which is why we don't put 2 halfbacks in the backfield together. Try and keep up.:D

What? I think it's you that needs to keep up. Read what I wrote again. I never said anything about handing the ball off to the fullback. I said "we never run without the fullback" I was being sarcastic. Because we clearly have many run plays where there is no fullback in the backfield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't we beaten up all the others to death. How many drives by the first offense were hurt or killed by penalties. How many catches were called back. How many returns were flagged and put us in poor position. No one thing accounts for everything but penalties did more to derail the first offense than anything else.

Penalties played a part..but I dont think the biggest part. I would say that goes to WR and Oline play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I saw we never run with the fullback. He is primarily a blocker which is why we don't put 2 halfbacks in the backfield together. Try and keep up.:D

I'll go ahead and elaborate my point. I just thought it was not a very good point on your behalf to discount using two HB's in the backfield by simply stating that use a FB as a primary blocker for our runs.

I'll agree we use a primary blocker on many of our runs, I'd venture to say around 60% especially on runs between the tackles. It is no where near an absolute value like 100% like you made it sound.

We run a varied amount of running plays without a fullback even in the backfield, many such plays out of the shotgun formation. Hell, even when the fullback is in the backfield it's no guarantee he will be used as a lead blocker. He is used for misdirection a lot as well. Run a fake to the FB to the right and hand off on a counter to the HB to the left.

I do agree with you that they would never use both HB's in the backfield at once, but to discount the use of such misdirection because of our imminent need of a FB in the backfield for every run is both foolish and wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Penalties played a part..but I dont think the biggest part. I would say that goes to WR and Oline play.

And O line play sucked due to the penalties on the left side with Gross as it did for the turnstile play by the right side on pass protection. Penalties killed at least 1/3 of the drives by the first teamers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll go ahead and elaborate my point. I just thought it was not a very good point on your behalf to discount using two HB's in the backfield by simply stating that use a FB as a primary blocker for our runs.

I'll agree we use a primary blocker on many of our runs, I'd venture to say around 60% especially on runs between the tackles. It is no where near an absolute value like 100% like you made it sound.

We run a varied amount of running plays without a fullback even in the backfield, many such plays out of the shotgun formation. Hell, even when the fullback is in the backfield it's no guarantee he will be used as a lead blocker. He is used for misdirection a lot as well. Run a fake to the FB to the right and hand off on a counter to the HB to the left.

I do agree with you that they would never use both HB's in the backfield at once, but to discount the use of such misdirection because of our imminent need of a FB in the backfield for every run is both foolish and wrong.

Did I say that we had to have a fullback on every running play? Did I even try and account for variations like 3 or 4 wideouts where we only have a single back in or using the shotgun formation.

You are taking a few sentences of mine and trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. You as much said what I did. We don't use both halfbacks at the same time and won't. So why all the on and on.

We run a power running formation at least 70% of the time on running plays. Many of the single back formations you mentioned are actually passing formations or the occassional draw up the middle on third down where a fullback would telegraph the play. Plus you don't account for the times we line up to pass in a passing formation and then audibelize to a run for example when we see a blitz and don't use a fullback because he isn't in the game. You are mostly talking 3rd down not first or second. Anmd mostly the exception to the rule not the norm.

There are many better ways to run misdirection than lining up 2 halfbacks at the same time. Even if we were going to do that it wouldn't be Williams and Stewart, it would be Sutton with either Williams or Stewart. since Sutton can act like a fullback. We would also consider putting Rosario back there as a blocker or receiver out of the backfield.

So no my point is valid as usual. And your expose is simply trying to go down bunny trails in an attempt to be right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I say that we had to have a fullback on every running play? Did I even try and account for variations like 3 or 4 wideouts where we only have a single back in or using the shotgun formation.

You are taking a few sentence of mine and trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. You as much said what I did. We don't use both halfbacks at the same time and won't. So why all the on and on.

We run a power running formation at least 70% of the time on running plays. Many of the single back formations you mentioned are actually passing formations or the occassional draw up the middle on third down where a fullback would telegraph the play.

There are many better ways to run misdirection than lining up 2 halfbacks at the same time. Even if we were going to do that it wouldn't be Williams and Stewart, it would be Sutton with either Williams or Stewart. since Sutton can act like a fullback. We would also consider putting Rosario back there as a blocker or receiver out of the backfield.

So no my point is valid as usual. And your expose is simply trying to go down bunny trails in an attempt to be right.

See when you elaborate you are correct. When you say:

Our running game calls for a fullback blocking for the halfback which is why Williams and Stewart won't be in there together, end of story.
You make a definitive statement, which is incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See when you elaborate you are correct. When you say: You make a definitive statement, which is incorrect.

And you made a mountain out of molehill. We don't use them together and won't. You admitted as much. Let it go, you got nothing.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you made a mountain out of molehill. We don't use them together and won't. You admitted as much. Let it go, you got nothing.

Ohh, I never disagreed on the fact that we wouldn't ever use both at once. I just wanted to point out that without elaboration it was actually you who "had nothing".

As a second point, if history proves anything, it's not me who has trouble letting things go. I digress, I really have no problem with you, I just felt like arguing because I have nothing better to do while my 18month old naps today. That post felt like an easy target. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohh, I never disagreed on the fact that we wouldn't ever use both at once. I just wanted to point out that without elaboration it was actually you who "had nothing".

As a second point, if history proves anything, it's not me who has trouble letting things go. I digress, I really have no problem with you, I just felt like arguing because I have nothing better to do while my 18month old naps today. That post felt like an easy target. ;)

Thanks for the potshots though, glad I could give a sleep deprived grumpy poster some ammunition. Next time let me know ahead of time and I will make it easier.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites