View Full Version : One thing that bugs me...
TDmvp
10-24-2005, 07:30 AM
Whats up with this one back set motioning HB wide set ... THAT THING BLOWS... now FB wide motion to his FB spot is ok, but the motioning to Epmty has got to go . The pre snap read of 3 or 4 spread out with FB out and motioning to his fb spot in front of HB is great the pre snap read of pass and all ... BUT the one back motioned to empty gives a mostly pass read pre snap then 100 % pass read once the back moves FRIGGEN HATE IT . Iv allways thought O is set up 100% by other team at least haven to respect our/anyones RUN game and unless its 3rd and 10 or more handing the D a pre snap read of 100% pass is just wrong ...
Jetmeck
10-24-2005, 09:00 AM
Whats up with this one back set motioning HB wide set ... THAT THING BLOWS... now FB wide motion to his FB spot is ok, but the motioning to Epmty has got to go . The pre snap read of 3/4 spread with FB out and motioning to his fb spot is great the pre snap read of pass and all ... BUT the one back motioned to empty gives a mostly pass read pre snap then 100 % pass read once the back moves FRIGGEN HATE IT . Iv allways thought O is set up 100% by other team at least haven to respect our/anyones RUN game and unless its 3rd and 10 or more handing the D a pre snap read of 100% pass is just wrong ...
Beat me to this one. I agree the empty backfield has to go and someone correct me if I am wrong but I don't remember it EVER working to our advantage. Run the ball
, every time I saw the empty backfield on 3rd and 2 I wanted to puke.
NaptownChief
10-24-2005, 09:10 AM
Whats up with this one back set motioning HB wide set ... THAT THING BLOWS... now FB wide motion to his FB spot is ok, but the motioning to Epmty has got to go . The pre snap read of 3/4 spread with FB out and motioning to his fb spot is great the pre snap read of pass and all ... BUT the one back motioned to empty gives a mostly pass read pre snap then 100 % pass read once the back moves FRIGGEN HATE IT . Iv allways thought O is set up 100% by other team at least haven to respect our/anyones RUN game and unless its 3rd and 10 or more handing the D a pre snap read of 100% pass is just wrong ...
If it is 5 yards or less for a first down then I think it is actually a pretty good set with a QB like Plummer cause the defenses first thought is "draw".....That should suck the safeties and LB'ers in a little....
bendog
10-24-2005, 09:39 AM
If it is 5 yards or less for a first down then I think it is actually a pretty good set with a QB like Plummer cause the defenses first thought is "draw".....That should suck the safeties and LB'ers in a little....
yeah but with Jake just throwing 5 yard slants from the set, drawing the safties and lber's is being a bit counter productive.
ozomulsion
10-24-2005, 10:38 AM
This formation sucked the year before last, last year and it still sucks this year. Yet Shanaplan and Kubes love the hell out of it reguardless.
ludo21
10-24-2005, 10:52 AM
I hear you. I dont think anyone gets it, except Shanny/Kubes which is all that matters in the end.
Nap has a point with the Plummer draw, but we dont do that play ever so their really is no threat of it. He mainly runs when their is a breakdown.
bendog
10-24-2005, 10:56 AM
I recall it killing R66v6s in the last superbowl. Theoretically, if a team gets 8 in the box, it should work. But, tatum isn't a good catcher, and he somehow had a corner on him. It's tough on the qb too, cause its gonna be a real quick read because there's no way to pick up an outside blitzer. It seems obvious that like last week, shanny gave Jake an opportunity to put it away, rather than milking another 10 secs and a TO, but .... I don't mind the decsion to let Jake try to put it away, but the play works to all his weaknesses and absolutely none of his strengths, and why put tater in if that's gonna be the call?
Den screwed up all phases of the game, the officiating was awful, but they should still have won.
Clockwork Orange
10-24-2005, 11:10 AM
If it is 5 yards or less for a first down then I think it is actually a pretty good set with a QB like Plummer cause the defenses first thought is "draw".....That should suck the safeties and LB'ers in a little....
Not after they see the RB split out as a WR leaving an empty backfield. Jake isn't the worlds best pocket passer and pass blocking isn't our O-line's specialty. So you leave Plummer with no one there to pick up a blitzer, no play action, no bootleg. It seems to me that when they go to this formation they're not playing to their strengths at all.
Not to mention that Bell doesn't catch the ball well at all, so there's another problem with it. I don't like it at all.
jmz313
10-24-2005, 12:04 PM
The formation doesn't fit us at all. the only times we should have a empty backfield is when we are down by 28pts and are in 4WRs sets with a TE. 3rd and 27's may also yeild an empty backfield.
Dr. Broncenstein
10-24-2005, 12:37 PM
This formation has sucked balls since the beginning of time....
bronco militia
10-24-2005, 12:42 PM
Whats up with this one back set motioning HB wide set ... THAT THING BLOWS... now FB wide motion to his FB spot is ok, but the motioning to Epmty has got to go . The pre snap read of 3/4 spread with FB out and motioning to his fb spot is great the pre snap read of pass and all ... BUT the one back motioned to empty gives a mostly pass read pre snap then 100 % pass read once the back moves FRIGGEN HATE IT . Iv allways thought O is set up 100% by other team at least haven to respect our/anyones RUN game and unless its 3rd and 10 or more handing the D a pre snap read of 100% pass is just wrong ...
SOB also had terrible luck with this play/formation.....wait till mock see's this thread.
tdfan
10-24-2005, 12:54 PM
Plummer has to also learn not to stare at his primary receiver.
Bronco LB 59
10-24-2005, 12:57 PM
I totally agree TDmvp.
Unpredictably is a major aspect of playcalling. Every defense in football respects Denver's ability to run the football. Why give away your hand by letting them know you are passing? Keep the defense on their toes.
Hercules Rockefeller
10-24-2005, 12:57 PM
After showing a willingness to run Bell on 3rd and long this season, I can't believe they'd motion him out of the backfield and dispel any notion that it might be a running play.
bloodsunday
10-24-2005, 01:07 PM
After showing a willingness to run Bell on 3rd and long this season, I can't believe they'd motion him out of the backfield and dispel any notion that it might be a running play.
Especially after the first attempt turned out to be such a winner of a play. Why go back to it in such a crucial situation?
Running the ball there means they don't have that timeout when Tiki gets tackled at the 2 (although I realize its not that simple). The way we were running the ball there is no guarantee we wouldn't have gotten it. Maybe T-Bell makes one guy miss and goes to the house.
Bronco LB 59
10-24-2005, 01:09 PM
Tatum Bell should have got more than 8 touches yesterday. I think with a few more carries a potential home run play could have been the savior for the Broncos lack of 3rd down execution.
This is not a knock on Mike Anderson. Sarge deserved every carry he got yesterday.
yavoon
10-24-2005, 01:10 PM
I recall it killing R66v6s in the last superbowl. Theoretically, if a team gets 8 in the box, it should work. But, tatum isn't a good catcher, and he somehow had a corner on him. It's tough on the qb too, cause its gonna be a real quick read because there's no way to pick up an outside blitzer. It seems obvious that like last week, shanny gave Jake an opportunity to put it away, rather than milking another 10 secs and a TO, but .... I don't mind the decsion to let Jake try to put it away, but the play works to all his weaknesses and absolutely none of his strengths, and why put tater in if that's gonna be the call?
Den screwed up all phases of the game, the officiating was awful, but they should still have won.
I agree all third downs should be run from run heavy formations. let jake do the boots or max protect reads off of those. he's not manning or bulger, dont make him CONSTANTlY try to be. afterall our team is great at picking up 5-7 yards on a rush play.
Hercules Rockefeller
10-24-2005, 01:15 PM
Tatum Bell should have got more than 8 touches yesterday.
Damn, I didn't realize it was so few
rbackfactory80
10-24-2005, 01:18 PM
This formation sucked the year before last, last year and it still sucks this year. Yet Shanaplan and Kubes love the hell out of it reguardless.
Yeah it was something we did not do a lot last year and then in the playoffs against Indy we did it a ton. That is when it pissed me off the most.
TDmvp
10-24-2005, 02:14 PM
And if we have to go with this formation and motion a HB to a spread can it least be one that can catch even if its Johnson who seems to have best catching hands of all the backs . I love Bell but he just doesn't seem comfortable catching the ball.
Billy Clyde Puckett
10-24-2005, 03:49 PM
It what we get for not having a reliable 3rd option in the passing game.
elsid13
10-24-2005, 03:57 PM
My problem with this play is not that they use it, because it can be effective. But when they use it. On the 3- 5 or shorter, we should be looking to use the PA pass, run, rollout or quick pass/slant. Taking the running back out of the play removes confusion from defense's mind and leave the LB and Safeties with easier read. Why????
orange crusher
10-24-2005, 04:42 PM
I'm just baffled that we keep going to this f'n formation time after time at critical times in the game. What is it that the coaching staff is seeing that we don't see? I could have stuck my foot through the TV when they motioned Bell out of the backfield and tried throwing it to him. Without repeating everything that's been said, I'll just say that I agree with about everything that's been said on this thread. I get really tired of us playing chickenshiat and trying to beat them with trickery when we should be playing to our strengths and running it down their throats.
Kaylore
10-24-2005, 05:01 PM
Welcome to the Nintendo offense. We might as well give Plummer a "blitz me!" T-shirt to wear. I'd rather they ran it on those situations, personally.
Elway 4 Life
10-24-2005, 05:50 PM
Beat me to this one. I agree the empty backfield has to go and someone correct me if I am wrong but I don't remember it EVER working to our advantage. Run the ball
, every time I saw the empty backfield on 3rd and 2 I wanted to puke.
The empty backfield might work if we had some experienced depth at WR....
Dr. Broncenstein
10-24-2005, 06:41 PM
The empty backfield might work if we had some experienced depth at WR....
The empty backfield might work if snipers in the stands took out the defense right before the snap.....
Our game is predicated on the run and play action. This formation has never, ever, ever worked. We ran all over those bitches yesterday, yet when we REALLY need a short first down -----> :hitself:
Billy Clyde Puckett
10-24-2005, 06:53 PM
The empty backfield might work if we had some experienced depth at WR....
Welcome to the Mane. Rod has been great, but his brain and guts are what keeps him on the field, not his ahtletic ability at this time of his career. Ash is an above average deep threat, but opponents are not going to pull that CB off the running back until there is a third legitimate receiving threat on the field. The play is designed to get a LB on Bell. It doesn't work because Bell does not get the LB and Bell does not catch the pass.