Wildcat

[AU64 10,122]

Guess I'm one of the few proponents of using the wildcat in certain situations especially if your QB is no better at running the ball than JS and passing the ball inside the ten or so is no cinch.    I agree with the comment above....direct snap to KJ or Michel at Uga was the safe way to put the ball in the hands of your best running back and giving him the best opportunity to find the hole.  

JMO but whether JS is a Heisman quality QB or not, does not change the fact that the OC should call the play that he thinks gives the team the best chance to make the yardage....or TD..   And maybe it's just me but JS still needs to prove that he is a reliable ball handler when the defense is bunched up in his face. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

9 minutes ago, AUsince72 said:

You mean @DAG was right?? NO, not DAG!!!!

Actually, DAG is most often right...

Ikr? So annoying. Making good points and bringing good insights and whatnot.

[AUsince72 11,084]

35 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Guess I'm one of the few proponents of using the wildcat in certain situations especially if your QB is no better at running the ball than JS and passing the ball inside the ten or so is no cinch.    I agree with the comment above....direct snap to KJ or Michel at Uga was the safe way to put the ball in the hands of your best running back and giving him the best opportunity to find the hole.  

JMO but whether JS is a Heisman quality QB or not, does not change the fact that the OC should call the play that he thinks gives the team the best chance to make the yardage....or TD..   And maybe it's just me but JS still needs to prove that he is a reliable ball handler when the defense is bunched up in his face. 

Cannot disagree with anything you said.

It'd be best to just have a QB who can handle all comers.

With KJ, the WC was a bonafide weapon.  Just not sure who the best option is this year....

[AuburnNTexas 7,149]

1 hour ago, AUsince72 said:

Cannot disagree with anything you said.

It'd be best to just have a QB who can handle all comers.

With KJ, the WC was a bonafide weapon.  Just not sure who the best option is this year....

We have options now we need one of the players people mentioned earn the WC in fall practice.

[AU64 10,122]

3 hours ago, AUsince72 said:

Cannot disagree with anything you said.

It'd be best to just have a QB who can handle all comers.

With KJ, the WC was a bonafide weapon.  Just not sure who the best option is this year....

Just from my observation the wildcat back rarely throws a conventional pass....maybe a little shot-put like the KJ  pass....mostly what I prefer is a guy who can find a hole or is big enough to make one for himself if the blocking is not fully effective.   I'm thinking that Joey could be that guy. 

[DAG 33,988]

8 hours ago, AUsince72 said:

You mean @DAG was right?? NO, not DAG!!!!

Actually, DAG is most often right...

Ha hardly lol. I appreciate the sentiments.

[DAG 33,988]

9 hours ago, McLoofus said:

Thanks for that. Maybe it really is as simple as letting MW run it. 

As for somebody's comment about not wanting to take the ball out of Stidham's hands, this is even more shocking than I remember:

 

Holy crap did he really fumble that much? Wow 

[DAG 33,988]

8 hours ago, AU64 said:

Guess I'm one of the few proponents of using the wildcat in certain situations especially if your QB is no better at running the ball than JS and passing the ball inside the ten or so is no cinch.    I agree with the comment above....direct snap to KJ or Michel at Uga was the safe way to put the ball in the hands of your best running back and giving him the best opportunity to find the hole.  

JMO but whether JS is a Heisman quality QB or not, does not change the fact that the OC should call the play that he thinks gives the team the best chance to make the yardage....or TD..   And maybe it's just me but JS still needs to prove that he is a reliable ball handler when the defense is bunched up in his face. 

Well he has nothing but speed on offense . No reason to utilize it this year to the max. 

[AU64 10,122]

7 hours ago, DAG said:

Well he has nothing but speed on offense . No reason to utilize it this year to the max. 

There are a few guys in the backfield who have some punch but not the likely starters..... 

[McLoofus 35,182]

7 minutes ago, AU64 said:

There are a few guys in the backfield who have some punch but not the likely starters..... 

?

KMart and Whitlow are both sub-4.5 guys. No idea on AMart. I might be misinterpreting your comment, though. 

[AU64 10,122]

4 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

?

KMart and Whitlow are both sub-4.5 guys. No idea on AMart. I might be misinterpreting your comment, though. 

I was thinking about guys big enough to take on a DB or LB when trying to make two or three yards for a first down.....which is mostly where we use the wildcat...short yardage.

  Cam was big of course, but when we needed 3 yards you could bet the rent money that he would get it. ..same for Tre...not a big guy but could hit the line when a few yards were needed.     Not sure who we have that meets that criteria this season...yet..

[McLoofus 35,182]

2 minutes ago, AU64 said:

I was thinking about guys big enough to take on a DB or LB when trying to make two or three yards for a first down.....which is mostly where we use the wildcat...short yardage.

  Cam was big of course, but when we needed 3 yards you could bet the rent money that he would get it. ..same for Tre...not a big guy but could hit the line when a few yards were needed.     Not sure who we have that meets that criteria this season...yet..

Ahh, gotcha... that kind of punch. I thought you meant speed.

I'm hoping that Shivers will have that same leverage and balance that Tre did. I'm confident he'll have the same leg drive and be quicker. Tre's super power seemed to me to be that he could keep running with his body practically parallel to the ground, so that when he got his pads under the defender's he could keep moving forward for seemingly impossible yards and sometimes even find daylight and get back upright. Shaun could be that kind of guy with his physical attributes.

Gatewood seems closest to being another Cam in terms of running the ball. No idea if he's got the downhill toughness.

Willis seems closest to being another Nick Marshall. No idea if he has the vision.

Like you said, though, none of those guys are starters yet. 

[AURex 2,000]

 

I'm not a huge fan of the WC, because 99% of the time, you are just telegraphing what the play is going to be, at which point it comes down to "my guys up front vs your guys up front fighting it out." And this year, rebuilding the OL, I'm not eager to go there against teams like Udub, LSU, Miss St, UGA and Bama.

That said, I think Gatewood has the size and speed, if he has the want-to, and he would be a threat to throw. Same with Sandberg. He's 6'3 and 215 lbs and was a dual threat guy, so we know he can run. Either one would be something of an unknown to defenses, not sure what was coming, siunce either could be a threat to pass.

I'm also curious to see if CCL (with CGM's permission) is going to try a fake punt occasionally on 4th and short -- line up initially like a punt with Siposs, then hurry up into WC and go for it. He's 6' 2" and 200 lbs and he's used to playing rough Aussie rules ball. He could go in either direction, and since he can roll out and  kick with either foot, the D wouldn't know whether he was going to run or kick. I'm just not sure the coaches would risk him getting clobbered by a full speed LB. And it might take a year or two until they develop plays for him.

 

[johnnyAU 3,633]

Let's really mess with them and put Derrick Brown back there

[Slammer1 409]

46 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Let's really mess with them and put Derrick Brown back there

I don'r know how many on here remember "The Refrigerator" Perry that played for the Chicago Bears. way back when. I think he was the original Wildcat. He weighed 335 pounds and nobody could keep him out of the end zone in short yardage situations. The comment about Derrick Brown triggered my memory that he could be our "Refrigerator". It would be interesting.

WDE

[alexava 6,973]

I love the wildcat. It needs to be a player that plays somewhat regularly. Yo don’t want the defense to see the backup qb coming in and know exactly what’s coming and be given time to substitute. 

[AUsince72 11,084]

Siposs, being a BA Aussie Rules Football player, would be an interesting WC back.... especially on 4th down.

[WFE12 9,191]

3 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

Let's really mess with them and put Derrick Brown back there

Coynis Miller was the wildcat qb in high school.

[LKEEL75 2,566]

15 hours ago, Slammer1 said:

I don'r know how many on here remember "The Refrigerator" Perry that played for the Chicago Bears. way back when. I think he was the original Wildcat. He weighed 335 pounds and nobody could keep him out of the end zone in short yardage situations. The comment about Derrick Brown triggered my memory that he could be our "Refrigerator". It would be interesting.

WDE

Maybe I am remembering wrong, but I don't think he ever took a direct snap.  I think McMahon always handed off to him.

17 hours ago, AURex said:

I'm also curious to see if CCL (with CGM's permission) is going to try a fake punt occasionally on 4th and short -- line up initially like a punt with Siposs, then hurry up into WC and go for it. He's 6' 2" and 200 lbs and he's used to playing rough Aussie rules ball. He could go in either direction, and since he can roll out and  kick with either foot, the D wouldn't know whether he was going to run or kick. I'm just not sure the coaches would risk him getting clobbered by a full speed LB. And it might take a year or two until they develop plays for him.

I hope they allow him to kick some Aussie style.  I think having him role out like that will put a lot of pressure on a return team to cover the fake.  With his size, he could have a RKO on every punt.  That is assuming he can maintain height, distance and accuracy on the run.

[aucanucktiger 1,794]

Boobie.

[LKEEL75 2,566]

So I have a question for those in favor of the WC.  If the WC is such a weapon, then why was it no more than a fad in NFL?  When teams line up in the WC there is a 90% chance that it is a run play and probably 75% of that time it is to the strong side.  If you had a RB that was a threat to actually pass (not the jump pass), then maybe it would be a better play.  But as time goes on more and more good teams have learned these tendencies and have schemed for it.  Personally I would rather have a QB that has an RPO available than I had line up in the WC.  

[AUsince72 11,084]

36 minutes ago, LKEEL75 said:

So I have a question for those in favor of the WC.  If the WC is such a weapon, then why was it no more than a fad in NFL?  When teams line up in the WC there is a 90% chance that it is a run play and probably 75% of that time it is to the strong side.  If you had a RB that was a threat to actually pass (not the jump pass), then maybe it would be a better play.  But as time goes on more and more good teams have learned these tendencies and have schemed for it.  Personally I would rather have a QB that has an RPO available than I had line up in the WC.  

I suspect it's because NFL players are night and day better than college players and thus much better at scheming and defending anything.

Aren't NFL offenses & defenses notoriously more sophisticated than college versions?

Probably the same reason Duante Culpeper or Michael Vick, etc were much better at running the ball at their respective colleges than they were in the pros.  The personnel speed is just so much better, overall, than on college teams.

It's why you never saw the wishbone in the pros....but it was a great offense for years in college football.

....just my opinion.

[McLoofus 35,182]

37 minutes ago, LKEEL75 said:

So I have a question for those in favor of the WC.  If the WC is such a weapon, then why was it no more than a fad in NFL? 

All due respect, what does that have to do with Auburn?

 

[LKEEL75 2,566]

3 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

All due respect, what does that have to do with Auburn?

 

If it was a fad in NFL then that means it can be schemed against and planned for.  If the NFL can plan for it then so can at least half the SEC West teams.  Which if they are all scheming for it and planning against it then what good is it to have.  I agree it has worked for AU in years past, but it worked less and less last year (especially against the stronger defenses).  Another reason is the age old question: why take the ball out of your QBs hands?  An RPO play should give you as high or higher percentage of conversion than WC against a strong defense because there are more places for the ball to go.

 

11 minutes ago, AUsince72 said:

I suspect it's because NFL players are night and day better than college players and thus much better at scheming and defending anything.

Aren't NFL offenses & defenses notoriously more sophisticated than college versions?

Probably the same reason Duante Culpeper or Michael Vick, etc were much better at running the ball at their respective colleges than they were in the pros.  The personnel speed is just so much better, overall, than on college teams.

It's why you never saw the wishbone in the pros....but it was a great offense for years in college football.

....just my opinion.

I agree that NFL are typically more sophisticated than college, but it is not hard to scheme against something when you know that 90% of the time what the play is.  Exact same thing that most of the board has been saying for the last few years regarding the play right after a first down and we HUNH to run a dive play.  Teams have caught on and know what is coming.  Same goes for WC.

[McLoofus 35,182]

12 minutes ago, LKEEL75 said:

If it was a fad in NFL then that means it can be schemed against and planned for.  If the NFL can plan for it then so can at least half the SEC West teams.  Which if they are all scheming for it and planning against it then what good is it to have.  I agree it has worked for AU in years past, but it worked less and less last year (especially against the stronger defenses). 

Did it? 

Quote

Another reason is the age old question: why take the ball out of your QBs hands?  An RPO play should give you as high or higher percentage of conversion than WC against a strong defense because there are more places for the ball to go.

One could just as easily ask: Why put it in his hands (on short yardage/goal line plays) to begin with? Stidham isn't a reliable ball carrier, so putting it in his hands necessitates an extra ball exchange- handoff, pitch or throw. We've now doubled the likelihood of a botched handoff or pitch and added in the possibility of an incompletion for no gain or, worse yet, an interception.

However, the real point is that the wildcat adds a blocker, typically giving the offense a mathematical advantage. Furthermore, the defense doesn't know where the ball carrier is going, even if he's unlikely to throw it. 

I'd be surprised if there is data showing that RPOs are necessarily successful at a higher rate in short yardage situations than the wildcat has been for us. I'm sure they are very successful in certain offenses with the correct personnel to run them, and maybe we are at a point this season where our personnel- more mature Stidham, no KJ- makes something other than the wildcat a preferable way to go. But there's nothing inherently wrong with the wildcat itself at the college level.