Offense in the NFL is evolving rapidly, and outpacing Defense at a record pace.
Watching the close games the past few weeks, I’ve seen two “hook and lateral” plays, and it got me thinking:
If you can predict with a reasonable degree of certainty what the safety or corner will do in a particular coverage, you should be able to determine what they will do post-completion as they track towards the ballcarrier. At this point, you could anticipate - and plan for - where the next pocket of space will open up.
For so long it’s been a one hit approach: find the open man, and he runs in space until he scores, gets tackled, or goes out of bounds.
What if it was a combo approach? Find the open man, gain yards, and provide him with an option to lateral to a crossing receiver who should be able to get another chunk.
You see this with rugby runs all the time. Why not more often in football? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Dante84:
Um. You said that, I didn’t. You’re arguing with yourself. This is a LNBS thread. Don’t be a drama queen.
I proposed us having a few plays per game where we use the fastest weapon in football history in space with an unsuspecting defense.
I discussed the primary risk of turning the ball over, and how to mitigate that risk.
Your argument was that “it’s dumb” and that our coaches would have to sacrifice practice time to work on it.
Actually it's dumb because the team would have to use too much practice time to make it a regularly effective weapon, time that could be spent invested into projects with far higher rates of return.
I'm not opposed to a gadget, I'm simply of the opinion that an NFL offense should not invest heavily in them.
You don't need to score a TD on every play. Sometimes controlling the clock and having a long 5-8 minute drive can be very effective towards setting the tempo of a game.
The idea of using a lateral scheme sounds like something you'd want for a team that lacks the ability to score points, so then takes an all or nothing approach to every drive. [Reply]
Just line up a center, four tight ends wide on each side (keeping three of them on the line of scrimmage, of course), and then put Patrick at QB and Tyreek at HB. It's a score every time. [Reply]
Originally Posted by -King-:
Why do we need gimmicks?
The jet sweep is a gimmick. Last year when DAT walked into the end zone in Week 1, that was a gimmick. Or Kelce taking an inside screen shovel pass. Or Pat No-looking.
Andy is innovative. Every year there’s weird wrinkles.
I just don’t think it’s as wild and far-fetched as it sounds to have a guy with the ball toss it to a faster guy that’s running right next to him. You see it in rugby all the time. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Dante84:
The jet sweep is a gimmick. Last year when DAT walked into the end zone in Week 1, that was a gimmick. Or Kelce taking an inside screen shovel pass. Or Pat No-looking.
Andy is innovative. Every year there’s weird wrinkles.
I just don’t think it’s as wild and far-fetched as it sounds to have a guy with the ball toss it to a faster guy that’s running right next to him. You see it in rugby all the time.
None of those plays you listed are gimmicks. They're frequently used in college football every week/game. Hook and lateral plays aren't used frequently on any level. [Reply]
Patrick Mahomes don’t need no gimmicks. He’s got Hill, Watkins, Kelce, D-Rob, Hardman, Thompson, and a rocket launcher of an arm. Somebody gonna be open. [Reply]
Originally Posted by -King-:
None of those plays you listed are gimmicks. They're frequently used in college football every week/game. Hook and lateral plays aren't used frequently on any level.
Don't act like Reid isn't innovative or mess with opposing defenses.
I understand this idea is outside the norm, hence the LNBS tag. I'm not advocating that it become our entire offense. I'm simply saying this would be one hell of a wrinkle for other teams to have to account for each week. [Reply]