PDA

View Full Version : 5 Wide No Huddle



flippy
12-22-2008, 01:29 AM
We need to go 5 wide, no huddle from here on out.

Let's turn this team into Jim Kelly's Buffalo Bills.

There's really no other reasonable choice for this group.

We've gotta prevent the D from subbing players.

And keep em on their heels.

No huddle!

MeetJoeGreene
12-22-2008, 09:14 AM
I wouldn't mind seeing us run this against Cleveland for a couple of series to see how it works.

I also wouldn't mind seeing Ben practice this wierd type of pass play called a CHECK DOWN!!!

frankthetank1
12-22-2008, 09:21 AM
I wouldn't mind seeing us run this against Cleveland for a couple of series to see how it works.

I also wouldn't mind seeing Ben practice this wierd type of pass play called a CHECK DOWN!!!

the last month ben has been doing a great job of hitting his check down wr's and rb's. yesterday for some reason he wasnt doing it

MeetJoeGreene
12-22-2008, 09:24 AM
I wouldn't mind seeing us run this against Cleveland for a couple of series to see how it works.

I also wouldn't mind seeing Ben practice this wierd type of pass play called a CHECK DOWN!!!

the last month ben has been doing a great job of hitting his check down wr's and rb's. yesterday for some reason he wasnt doing it

at least 3 times there was someone open in the flats. One time he ran and fumbled. one time he threw an int. both of those could have netted positive yardage (if only 5 yards) .. and perhaps moved the chains or got us in better FG range.

frankthetank1
12-22-2008, 09:42 AM
I wouldn't mind seeing us run this against Cleveland for a couple of series to see how it works.

I also wouldn't mind seeing Ben practice this wierd type of pass play called a CHECK DOWN!!!

the last month ben has been doing a great job of hitting his check down wr's and rb's. yesterday for some reason he wasnt doing it

at least 3 times there was someone open in the flats. One time he ran and fumbled. one time he threw an int. both of those could have netted positive yardage (if only 5 yards) .. and perhaps moved the chains or got us in better FG range.

the thing i dont understand is ben was doing this so well the past 4 games or so but yesterday he doesnt? why is he so inconsistent? he is pretty much a vet now, there is no reason for the irratic play. also he was making some horrible audibles at the los. how many times did he audible to a draw which got nothing?

Starlifter
12-22-2008, 10:13 AM
We need to go 5 wide, no huddle from here on out.

Let's turn this team into Jim Kelly's Buffalo Bills.

There's really no other reasonable choice for this group.

We've gotta prevent the D from subbing players.

And keep em on their heels.

No huddle!

I love it!!! kelly's available. this off season, we dump ariens and bring in the K-Gun!!!!!

besides, JK's from the burg. you just know he'd LOVE to coach here.....

RuthlessBurgher
12-22-2008, 11:01 PM
Unless you are throwing a desperation Hail Mary, I hate 5 wide empty backfield. The defense knows you aren't going to run the ball, so the d-line can just pin their ears back and come after the QB with reckless abandon since they don't have to worry about their gap responsibilities against a draw play like the would if there were a RB back there.

If you want to spread a team out, though, using Hines, Santonio, and Nate as 3 WR's, Heath as a TE, and Moore as a single back gives you plenty of options. There is still the threat of a run, and if you pass, you have two legit deep threats in Holmes and Washington, two sure handed possession guys underneath in Ward and Miller, plus a dump off option in Moore.

AngryAsian
12-23-2008, 12:30 AM
Unless you are throwing a desperation Hail Mary, I hate 5 wide empty backfield. The defense knows you aren't going to run the ball, so the d-line can just pin their ears back and come after the QB with reckless abandon since they don't have to worry about their gap responsibilities against a draw play like the would if there were a RB back there.

If you want to spread a team out, though, using Hines, Santonio, and Nate as 3 WR's, Heath as a TE, and Moore as a single back gives you plenty of options. There is still the threat of a run, and if you pass, you have two legit deep threats in Holmes and Washington, two sure handed possession guys underneath in Ward and Miller, plus a dump off option in Moore.



The above noted alinement is the most sound for our offensive unit from here on. So many options to throw to. Moore especially... only one of our RBs that can catch out of the backfield. We've had so many successful drives with TDs at the end of them when we've given Heath and Moore a fair share of the receptions. These two opposing LBs haven't been able to address simultaneously. Why we stopped doing this at Tenn. is beyond comprehension. And Flippy, the fact that you stated that going 5 wide and no huddle is the only "reasonable" choice... you're forgetting who is doing the playcalling... "reason" has nothing to do it.

stlrz d
12-23-2008, 12:42 AM
Five


Five Wide


Five Wide No Huddle


It's c-c-c-catching onnnnnnnnnn!

:lol:

MeetJoeGreene
12-23-2008, 10:08 AM
Unless you are throwing a desperation Hail Mary, I hate 5 wide empty backfield. The defense knows you aren't going to run the ball, so the d-line can just pin their ears back and come after the QB with reckless abandon since they don't have to worry about their gap responsibilities against a draw play like the would if there were a RB back there.

If you want to spread a team out, though, using Hines, Santonio, and Nate as 3 WR's, Heath as a TE, and Moore as a single back gives you plenty of options. There is still the threat of a run, and if you pass, you have two legit deep threats in Holmes and Washington, two sure handed possession guys underneath in Ward and Miller, plus a dump off option in Moore.

Which the defense knows Ben won't utlize and hence ignore.

Flasteel
12-23-2008, 10:15 AM
Unless you are throwing a desperation Hail Mary, I hate 5 wide empty backfield. The defense knows you aren't going to run the ball, so the d-line can just pin their ears back and come after the QB with reckless abandon since they don't have to worry about their gap responsibilities against a draw play like the would if there were a RB back there.

If you want to spread a team out, though, using Hines, Santonio, and Nate as 3 WR's, Heath as a TE, and Moore as a single back gives you plenty of options. There is still the threat of a run, and if you pass, you have two legit deep threats in Holmes and Washington, two sure handed possession guys underneath in Ward and Miller, plus a dump off option in Moore.

Agreed. I hate empty sets because there is no running threat and the defenders who are coming can pin their ears back. I thought I read somewhere where our greatest success running the ball has come out of three-wide sets, so I'd use that as the staple and definitely mix in a liberal use of the no-huddle...anything to remove Arians from the playcalling. :tt2

flippy
12-23-2008, 10:34 AM
Unless you are throwing a desperation Hail Mary, I hate 5 wide empty backfield. The defense knows you aren't going to run the ball, so the d-line can just pin their ears back and come after the QB with reckless abandon since they don't have to worry about their gap responsibilities against a draw play like the would if there were a RB back there.

If you want to spread a team out, though, using Hines, Santonio, and Nate as 3 WR's, Heath as a TE, and Moore as a single back gives you plenty of options. There is still the threat of a run, and if you pass, you have two legit deep threats in Holmes and Washington, two sure handed possession guys underneath in Ward and Miller, plus a dump off option in Moore.

I can roll with this.

NorthCoast
12-23-2008, 10:59 AM
at least 3 times there was someone open in the flats. One time he ran and fumbled. one time he threw an int. both of those could have netted positive yardage (if only 5 yards) .. and perhaps moved the chains or got us in better FG range.

the thing i dont understand is ben was doing this so well the past 4 games or so but yesterday he doesnt? why is he so inconsistent? he is pretty much a vet now, there is no reason for the irratic play. also he was making some horrible audibles at the los. how many times did he audible to a draw which got nothing?[/quote]


I am wondering whether the defensive formations were confusing the heck out of Ben in this game. Or maybe BA's gameplan called for more vertical passing thinking the rush by Titans wouldn't be there with Haynesworth out. Don't misunderstand, I think Ben laid an egg in this one but without a running game this Steelers team can be beat.

NorthCoast
12-23-2008, 11:23 AM
Note the comment about the QB athletic skills.


http://smartfootball.blogspot.com/2007/12/shotgun-gun-and-shotgun-spread-offense.html

Advantages of the Shotgun

- The QB can get deeper in a given amount of time (whether the 3 yard “pistol” snap or a 7-8 gun for passing)

- Lateral play faking (but not drop back style play action, at least so easily) can be achieved

- Relatedly, the zone-read is a kind of “bootleg-plus” in that instead of calling a blind bootleg, you make the backside defensive end wrong every time)

- Some QB's can see better (i.e. wider field of vision)

- The depth of the QB often forces the defense to expose its pressure plans more clearly

- The RB might be able to pick up a blitz better (i.e. no dropping QB to bump into)

- It does not need a snap count and helps mitigate crowd noise factors (though many still use a snap count)


Disadvantages of the Shotgun

- The QB has to take his eyes off the pass defense and has to watch the ball into his hands. This effect also somewhat reduces the QB’s ability to see the coverage and read changes (Cover 2 to 1, etc.) until after the snap. This is particularly acute for 3-step passes, where you have to catch and throw almost immediately. The read becomes almost exclusively pre-snap.

- The Shotgun alignment makes some lead-plays more difficult. I also would argue that the “gun-option,” as such, is not completely structurally sound in the way other veer plays are. Some gun teams have tried to develop the veer from the gun. Time will tell whether they are successful. (This requires more discussion than I have space for.)

- It becomes a crutch for the QB and an easy way to avoid improving footwork and play faking. I think this is an underrated problem. Footwork in the gun is (a) easier, because it is less, but is (b) prone to getting very, very sloppy. If there is any knock against “spread gun” QBs who go to the Pros, this one of the few viable ones, but can be simply overcome with good coaching.

- It retards the notion of a power run game and shifts more towards deception based delays, options, or draw type run plays. This is not a bad thing, though true.

- It can amplify your QB’s athletic skills, in either direction. If they are very athletic, it can improve their ability to make plays, but if they are not athletic many traditional QB plays – bootlegs, play action, and certain lead-option type run plays - are almost entirely out of the question.

- The footwork of the QB changes as does timing for pass plays. The "mesh" point for hand-offs to the RB change as well. Now Florida offensive coordinator Dan Mullen says this is one reason they run shotgun almost exclusively, so they can practice just one thing and get good at it.

So there are pros and cons. What this mostly counsels is a commitment to what you do, an organized, systematic approach to your offense, and an acknowledgment of where your weaknesses are as well as your strengths. The great shotgun teams work on this consistently, the haphazard teams will consistently both live and die by their sword-of-the-moment.

ramblinjim
12-23-2008, 01:09 PM
Unless you are throwing a desperation Hail Mary, I hate 5 wide empty backfield. The defense knows you aren't going to run the ball, so the d-line can just pin their ears back and come after the QB with reckless abandon since they don't have to worry about their gap responsibilities against a draw play like the would if there were a RB back there.

If you want to spread a team out, though, using Hines, Santonio, and Nate as 3 WR's, Heath as a TE, and Moore as a single back gives you plenty of options. There is still the threat of a run, and if you pass, you have two legit deep threats in Holmes and Washington, two sure handed possession guys underneath in Ward and Miller, plus a dump off option in Moore.


Ruthless, I'm with you, I think this would be the way to play this out. Next year Mendenhall could make a four wide single back set dangerous as h3ll b/c he can take the ball to the house.

skyhawk
12-23-2008, 04:32 PM
Unless you are throwing a desperation Hail Mary, I hate 5 wide empty backfield. The defense knows you aren't going to run the ball, so the d-line can just pin their ears back and come after the QB with reckless abandon since they don't have to worry about their gap responsibilities against a draw play like the would if there were a RB back there.

If you want to spread a team out, though, using Hines, Santonio, and Nate as 3 WR's, Heath as a TE, and Moore as a single back gives you plenty of options. There is still the threat of a run, and if you pass, you have two legit deep threats in Holmes and Washington, two sure handed possession guys underneath in Ward and Miller, plus a dump off option in Moore.

Nice post.

Not only that but the Steelers CANNOT protect the QB with only 5 OL's and an empty backfield. Unless all pass routes were 1-3 yards.

ikestops85
12-23-2008, 05:12 PM
Unless you are throwing a desperation Hail Mary, I hate 5 wide empty backfield. The defense knows you aren't going to run the ball, so the d-line can just pin their ears back and come after the QB with reckless abandon since they don't have to worry about their gap responsibilities against a draw play like the would if there were a RB back there.

If you want to spread a team out, though, using Hines, Santonio, and Nate as 3 WR's, Heath as a TE, and Moore as a single back gives you plenty of options. There is still the threat of a run, and if you pass, you have two legit deep threats in Holmes and Washington, two sure handed possession guys underneath in Ward and Miller, plus a dump off option in Moore.

Excellent reasoning ... as long as we don't run the 3 WRs from that stupid bunch formation. I really hate that set. http://smileyjungle.com/smilies/angry8.gif

RuthlessBurgher
12-23-2008, 05:19 PM
Unless you are throwing a desperation Hail Mary, I hate 5 wide empty backfield. The defense knows you aren't going to run the ball, so the d-line can just pin their ears back and come after the QB with reckless abandon since they don't have to worry about their gap responsibilities against a draw play like the would if there were a RB back there.

If you want to spread a team out, though, using Hines, Santonio, and Nate as 3 WR's, Heath as a TE, and Moore as a single back gives you plenty of options. There is still the threat of a run, and if you pass, you have two legit deep threats in Holmes and Washington, two sure handed possession guys underneath in Ward and Miller, plus a dump off option in Moore.

Excellent reasoning ... as long as we don't run the 3 WRs from that stupid bunch formation. I really hate that set. http://smileyjungle.com/smilies/angry8.gif

:Agree One WR on Heath's side and 2 WR on the other side. Stop trying to get cute.

Steeler Mafia
12-23-2008, 05:23 PM
Unless you are throwing a desperation Hail Mary, I hate 5 wide empty backfield. The defense knows you aren't going to run the ball, so the d-line can just pin their ears back and come after the QB with reckless abandon since they don't have to worry about their gap responsibilities against a draw play like the would if there were a RB back there.

If you want to spread a team out, though, using Hines, Santonio, and Nate as 3 WR's, Heath as a TE, and Moore as a single back gives you plenty of options. There is still the threat of a run, and if you pass, you have two legit deep threats in Holmes and Washington, two sure handed possession guys underneath in Ward and Miller, plus a dump off option in Moore.

Excellent reasoning ... as long as we don't run the 3 WRs from that stupid bunch formation. I really hate that set. http://smileyjungle.com/smilies/angry8.gif

Most of those 3-wide formations that we run out of is a 3-TE set. Being that we don't have one TE that can block worth a sh**, we are not very sucessful in this formation. I wish they would scrap that formation all together. However, BA continues to run out of that formation time and time again. I would be interested in seeing the stats when we are set up like that. I would bet that we average negative yards.