Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Hidden Strategy ??


Nu Guns

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
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.
Link to comment
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. ;)

Link to comment
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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...