Kelly the Dog Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 The Bills would have two WRs on a play, have one of them close to the line of scrimmage, and then put the other one in motion toward the middle of the field, stop and dance right before the snap, ensuring that all 11 defensive players were bunched up in the middle of the field, and then RUN up middle. I think they did this more than once. It could have been the most ridiculous formation and strategy I have seen in years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan_in_raleigh Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 The Bills would have two WRs on a play, have one of them close to the line of scrimmage, and then put the other one in motion toward the middle of the field, stop and dance right before the snap, ensuring that all 11 defensive players were bunched up in the middle of the field, and then RUN up middle. I think they did this more than once. It could have been the most ridiculous formation and strategy I have seen in years. 471141[/snapback] Its all part of a grand scheme for some corn ball play that MM and TC are working on. Amazing how we send folks in motion and just have them stop and dance around in center of the field. I always thought the idea of motion was to make a defender run across field or have to do a handoff to another player and catch the D in a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony P Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 We talked about that very fact near the end of the game and came to the same conclusion. Put a receiver in motion to bring the entire defense to the middle and then run right where your motion brought the defenders. A$$inine play that was run at least 8 or 10 times. We could only determine (spelled h-o-p-e) that they are trying to set-up something for the future. But man, what a crazy play that seemed to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 I always thought the idea of motion was to make a defender run across field or have to do a handoff to another player and catch the D in a mistake. It can also serve to force a defense to tip its hand and expose its coverage or to help wide-outs get off the LOS against good press coverage. I don't like it much either, but to be fair it's not only the Bills who are doing it. I see a league wide trend away from using WR's to spread the field on running downs, which I've always believed is an excellent strategy. A lot of people seem all-too-willing to pack too many bodies in too small a space and then expect the extra blocker to create space in a crowded phone booth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 10, 2005 Author Share Posted October 10, 2005 It can also serve to force a defense to tip its hand and expose its coverage or to help wide-outs get off the LOS against good press coverage. I don't like it much either, but to be fair it's not only the Bills who are doing it. I see a league wide trend away from using WR's to spread the field on running downs, which I've always believed is an excellent strategy. A lot of people seem all-too-willing to pack too many bodies in too small a space and then expect the extra blocker to create space in a crowded phone booth. 471190[/snapback] Have you really seen other teams do that? Intentionally bring all 11 offensive and defensive players into the hash marks and then run between the tackles? It makes zero sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Have you really seen other teams do that? Intentionally bring all 11 offensive and defensive players into the hash marks and then run between the tackles? It makes zero sense. 471193[/snapback] Sure, every time you run a jumbo package that's essentially what you're doing. If you look around the league you'll also see a lot of examples of single receiver sets where they wide-out is actually a near-out, or where teams put all their WR's in bunch formations off the TE's hip. I agree that it doesn't give the offense any advantage and instead just makes it more difficult for a back to find space. Cya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Have you really seen other teams do that? Intentionally bring all 11 offensive and defensive players into the hash marks and then run between the tackles? It makes zero sense. 471193[/snapback] When I've seen it over the past couple of seasons I always thought the goal was to open a cut-back lane (if the LB's first step is a drop in zone) and/or to have the back bounce it outside. The situations in which they used it today seemed a bit odd to me too. Lee Evans probably doesn't scare too many DL or LBs with his blocking prowess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 10, 2005 Author Share Posted October 10, 2005 When I've seen it over the past couple of seasons I always thought the goal was to open a cut-back lane (if the LB's first step is a drop in zone) and/or to have the back bounce it outside. The situations in which they used it today seemed a bit odd to me too. Lee Evans probably doesn't scare too many DL or LBs with his blocking prowess. 471224[/snapback] The thing that kills me about it is that with a WR blocking on a run between the tackles, the very best you can hope for is that he blocks his man, one man, who doesnt make the tackle. If you split him wide and run him down the field that essentially does that, until the runner goes more than 5 yards or so. But this way, he may easily miss that block or not be able to get to the guy. The RB has less of a hole and a much greater chance of a defender making the tackle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 The thing that kills me about it is that with a WR blocking on a run between the tackles, the very best you can hope for is that he blocks his man, one man, who doesnt make the tackle. If you split him wide and run him down the field that essentially does that, until the runner goes more than 5 yards or so. But this way, he may easily miss that block or not be able to get to the guy. The RB has less of a hole and a much greater chance of a defender making the tackle. 471233[/snapback] Yup. As a kid I had a coach who, on running plays, had the receivers (including the off side TE) "run 'em off." Their job was to run fly patterns and not engage to block until they were at least 10 yards downfield. Granted, at that skill level you didn't have the CBs & LBs reading and reacting like they do in the NFL, but it's do-able, especially against man coverage. Running 'em off certainly must be better than expecting a WR to block one of the big boys, but like someone said above, they may have been showing that look to set something else up - if not in today's game, then maybe down the road (vs Jets?)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Bengals just did the same thing on a 4th and inches call. Brought the WR in motion only to stop him right behind the tackle. Makes absolutely no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts