The CardBoard
Wildcat - Burns - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Wildcat - Burns (/thread-14151.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Re: Wildcat - Burns - Snorlax94 - 08-29-2017

I liked the Burns designed run play.

Burns looked like he was running well, and he's a more slippery runner than Chryst, so I could see it working fairly well.

I think it's particularly effective because you have such a viable passing threat -- a quarterback who started a number of games -- so opponents will have to respect the pass, and if they don't, I'd like to see Burns exploit that.

It seems like a good way to leverage Burns's quickness and starting experience, it adds a stronger quarterback run option to our repertoire (especially because certain teams have difficulty with running qbs), it keeps Burns a little more fresh just in case, the playtime rewards a player for returning for his 5th year even though there was a viable transfer option, and it adds another package/set of plays that teams have to prepare for.

So if it continues to work, why not?

Re: Wildcat - Burns - fullmetal - 08-30-2017

I'm okay with the Wildcat if -- the opponent is in nickel/dime, and if we have heavy blockers in there.  Suddenly the deck is stacked in favor of a run.

I think the misdirection works if the defense is in nickel/dime since they're anticipating a pass anyway...and when they realize the OG is pulling and the TE is blocking, it might be too late.

Having TyMont or CMac in there taking a direct snap telegraphs too much, but with Burns in there, the threat of a pass is at least mildly credible...or somewhat possible...

Re: Wildcat - Burns I DON'T THINK IT'S INNOVATIVE OR WISE - JohnR34231 - 08-30-2017

(08-29-2017, 08:56 PM)johnnyo53 link Wrote:TO USE BURNS LIKE THIS.  CHRYST BEFORE THE KNEE MAYBE, OR SCOTT FROST.  BUT WE DON'T HAVE A BELLDOZER OR A TEBOW, AND I HOPE TO GAWD WE NEVER GO THAT ROUTE WITH OUR QBS.  I JUST DON'T LIKE THE CALL.  I DIDN'T LIKE IT WITH MONTGOMERY, MCCAFFREY OR BURNS.  MAYBE I'M JUST RESISTANT TO SOME OF THE SHAVITAGREN GENIUS.  I HATED THE STUPID TE FADE TO TOILOLO TOO.  ERTZ OR FLEENER, MAYBE, BUT TOILOLO NEVER SEEMED TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT CALL WHEN WE NEEDED IT, IF AT ALL.  END OF RANT

Maybe I've missed them, but I have never seen Burns make any runs where I would describe him as slippery. Scott Frost, now there was a slippery runner. I still remember his touchdown run against Oregon where it appeared every Duck defender had a shot at him (some more than once) and missed.

Re: Wildcat - Burns - fullmetal - 08-30-2017

"Slippery" was Josh Nunes darting in against Arizona..."gutsy" was Hogan willing himself through two Oregon tacklers on third down to keep that drive alive deep in Stanford territory. 

I don't know if Burns's TD last game can be characterized by one word, but he made a helluva correct call given that the defense did not seem to account for him, and that's fundamentally what you want out of a QB.  If the defense had anticipated a QB run, I sure hope he would have bailed to a correct play call without a delay of game penalty  ::)

Re: Wildcat - Burns - CTcard - 08-30-2017

(08-30-2017, 08:27 AM)fullmetal link Wrote:I don't know if Burns's TD last game can be characterized by one word, but he made a helluva correct call given that the defense did not seem to account for him, and that's fundamentally what you want out of a QB.  If the defense had anticipated a QB run, I sure hope he would have bailed to a correct play call without a delay of game penalty  ::)

This play is getting a lot more discussion than I ever expected. Maybe it would be handy to have a replay available. Here is the one-hour version of the game time stamped to the play in question, there is also a replay from a different angle.
https://youtu.be/JR1j9lQEYSo?t=2075

Rice is in a pretty good set for a QB run. They have single coverage on our two wides, eight in the box, and a ninth guy (a safety) almost in the box to the defense left, who it appears is first watching if the TE releases and then rolls to the play.

It worked because we had 8 guys blocking their 8 guys and everyone, including Love, got on somebody. The extra blocker was key. If Love didn't make his block, Burns gets maybe 3 yards. The ninth Rice guy, the safety, did make a decent play and made a TD saving tackle (maybe - it was close). He was unblocked but had to get around behind the mess to get to the tackle.

Re: Wildcat - Burns I DON'T THINK IT'S INNOVATIVE OR WISE - BostonCard - 08-30-2017

(08-29-2017, 08:56 PM)johnnyo53 link Wrote:TO USE BURNS LIKE THIS.  CHRYST BEFORE THE KNEE MAYBE, OR SCOTT FROST.  BUT WE DON'T HAVE A BELLDOZER OR A TEBOW, AND I HOPE TO GAWD WE NEVER GO THAT ROUTE WITH OUR QBS.  I JUST DON'T LIKE THE CALL.  I DIDN'T LIKE IT WITH MONTGOMERY, MCCAFFREY OR BURNS.  MAYBE I'M JUST RESISTANT TO SOME OF THE SHAVITAGREN GENIUS.  I HATED THE STUPID TE FADE TO TOILOLO TOO.  ERTZ OR FLEENER, MAYBE, BUT TOILOLO NEVER SEEMED TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT CATCH WHEN WE NEEDED IT, IF AT ALL.  END OF RANT

What's your opinion of the "fades" to Parkinson?  I don't think they were really fades as much as highish passes to a guy who had 8 inches on the DB.

BC

Re: Wildcat - Burns - Chupacabra - 08-30-2017

The point of the formation is to make a running play 11 on 11 instead of 10 on 11. Everyone has sucked at it since Alex Loukas, who was a unique talent. Not transcendent but unique. If you've got Alex Loukas on the team then do it. If you don't have Alex Loukas on the team then it's a waste.

Re: Wildcat - Burns - pokey - 08-30-2017

(08-30-2017, 08:27 AM)fullmetal link Wrote:"Slippery" was Josh Nunes darting in against Arizona..."gutsy" was Hogan willing himself through two Oregon tacklers on third down to keep that drive alive deep in Stanford territory. 

I'd say this play was Nunes's most slippery moment against $C:
https://youtu.be/BEIvQoayqoA?t=14m36s

Re: Wildcat - Burns - CTcard - 08-30-2017

(08-30-2017, 01:50 PM)Chupacabra link Wrote:The point of the formation is to make a running play 11 on 11 instead of 10 on 11. Everyone has sucked at it since Alex Loukas, who was a unique talent. Not transcendent but unique. If you've got Alex Loukas on the team then do it. If you don't have Alex Loukas on the team then it's a waste.

Well, depending on just what you mean it's more to make the blocking 10 on 11 instead of 9 on 11 - but same idea.

The one time we ran the play vs Rice it was effective - not a waste.
For that matter, this guy was also effective in the formation - particularly this time.
http://www.ncaa.com/video/football/2015-10-16/fbs-highlights-ucla-stanford-christian-mccaffrey
[Sorry about the ad you have to sit through to watch this.]

Re: Wildcat - Burns I DON'T THINK IT'S INNOVATIVE OR WISE - johnnyo53 - 08-30-2017

(08-30-2017, 11:45 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=johnnyo53 link=topic=17253.msg198471#msg198471 date=1504065380]
TO USE BURNS LIKE THIS.  CHRYST BEFORE THE KNEE MAYBE, OR SCOTT FROST.  BUT WE DON'T HAVE A BELLDOZER OR A TEBOW, AND I HOPE TO GAWD WE NEVER GO THAT ROUTE WITH OUR QBS.  I JUST DON'T LIKE THE CALL.  I DIDN'T LIKE IT WITH MONTGOMERY, MCCAFFREY OR BURNS.  MAYBE I'M JUST RESISTANT TO SOME OF THE SHAVITAGREN GENIUS.  I HATED THE STUPID TE FADE TO TOILOLO TOO.  ERTZ OR FLEENER, MAYBE, BUT TOILOLO NEVER SEEMED TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT CATCH WHEN WE NEEDED IT, IF AT ALL.  END OF RANT

What's your opinion of the "fades" to Parkinson?  I don't think they were really fades as much as highish passes to a guy who had 8 inches on the DB.

BC
[/quote]

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM IF THEY ARE THROWING IT TO A GUY WHO ISN'T A STATUE AND CAN CONSISTENTLY BEAT THE COVERAGE AND THE MAN AND MAKE THE CATCH!  TOILOLO WASN'T THAT GUY.  IT WAS SO PREDICTABLY AWFUL IT BECAME A JOKE FOR US IN THE STANDS TO PREDICT IT.  ALMOST LIKE SHAVITAGREN WAS SO STUBBORNLY COMMITTED TO MAKING THAT HIS SIGNATURE PLAY, AND FOR US, IT WAS...  HE'S HAVING A GREAT PRO CAREER DOING THINGS HE'S GOOD AT.

Re: Wildcat - Burns - Snorlax94 - 08-31-2017

My only objection to Burns running the Wildcat is that the folks from marketing will start calling it The Wilburns.

Re: Wildcat - Burns - OutsiderFan - 08-31-2017

It seems all football fans universally hate the wildcat and love to talk about it.  Anyone have a theory why this is?

Re: Wildcat - Burns - Bruce Wang - 08-31-2017

(08-31-2017, 05:51 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:It seems all football fans universally hate the wildcat and love to talk about it.  Anyone have a theory why this is?

A couple theories:

1.  It's a bad play.  The advantage of the extra blocker gets offset by the defense knowing what's coming.  A designed QB run is a better play.

2.  A big part of the fun of watching football is guessing what the offense will do.  The wildcat takes away from that.

Re: Wildcat - Burns - CTcard - 08-31-2017

(08-31-2017, 05:51 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:It seems all football fans universally hate the wildcat and love to talk about it.  Anyone have a theory why this is?

It seems the observation is true. I would add the corollary that football fans are very woolly about just what a wildcat play is.

Was the Burns play a wildcat?

It sort of seemed to qualify as it was a designed run for the guy who received the snap and who wasn't the regular QB. That seems to be the generic fan criteria.

On the other hand, Burns is a QB who ought to be a credible threat to throw the ball as more than a trick. Also, it was a fairly regular set and there was no jet-sweep action going on. 

While I think this wasn't really a wildcat formation or play, it does look like there is some kind of red zone package for Burns. That clearly differs from the Hogan version in that there is no intent to prepare him for a larger role later, but it may be that the coaches think he can be good at a limited set of plays designed for specific situations. I also don't think that means Burns is the designated backup.

Re: Wildcat - Burns - Mick - 08-31-2017

(08-31-2017, 06:19 AM)Publius link Wrote:[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17253.msg198559#msg198559 date=1504183913]
It seems all football fans universally hate the wildcat and love to talk about it.  Anyone have a theory why this is?

A couple theories:

1.  It's a bad play.  The advantage of the extra blocker gets offset by the defense knowing what's coming.  A designed QB run is a better play.

2.  A big part of the fun of watching football is guessing what the offense will do.  The wildcat takes away from that.
[/quote]


I remember when I learned to hate the wildcat.  Stepfan Taylor took the ball in a shotgun snap and our right wideout was literally uncovered.  There was no one within thirty yards of him.  A half-assed pass would have gone for a nice gainer, but no, we ran into the line for a short gain.

Re: Wildcat - Burns - burger - 08-31-2017

(08-29-2017, 07:19 AM)Phogge link Wrote:Loved Sam Kinison. Should have had a full time chauffeur.
He got hit head on by a drunk driver.  I doubt a chauffeur would've helped.

Re: Wildcat - Burns - Phogge - 08-31-2017

(08-31-2017, 07:34 AM)burger link Wrote:[quote author=Phogge link=topic=17253.msg198393#msg198393 date=1504016348]
Loved Sam Kinison. Should have had a full time chauffeur.
He got hit head on by a drunk driver.  I doubt a chauffeur would've helped.
[/quote]

Perhaps the chauffeur would have insisted that Sam wear a seatbelt. He wasn't and hit the windshield. Fact.

Re: Wildcat - Burns - lex24 - 08-31-2017

Someone posted something to the effect of exactly what IS the Wildcat. A lot of times last year they simply lined up McCaffrey for a direct snap and he tried to pick a hole.

Whether it's right or not to me the Wildcat involves (1) direct snap to someone who is not QB in an empty backfield; (2). Motion with timing so that there is a potential fly sweep option; (3). QB stays on the field split wide.

I realize there are different iterations, but that is what I think of when I hear Wildcat. I am not a fan.  But I do think Stanford had pretty good success when they ran last year with McCaffrey in a direct snap/empty backfield. Sometimes with a motion man, sometimes not.  Of course it was McCaffrey....

Re: Wildcat - Burns - lex24 - 08-31-2017

On the two Parkinson TDs. First was a fade, over his shoulder to corner of EZ.  Second was what I call, for lack of better term, "rebound."  It is essentially a basketball play, he takes a few steps, uses his body to screen out the defender and tries to catch the ball at a high point. 

Parkinson is 6'7" and looks pretty darn athletic. That's a mismatch to exploit against a 6'0 corner/ safety  If it's executed decently (receiver gets a decent seal and the QB floats the ball high enough) it's not defensible.

But for it to be effective the receiver has to be able to use his height effectively. DOC is right, Toilolo did not. Seemingly couldn't jump. Didn't use his height well. 

Re: Wildcat - Burns - fullmetal - 08-31-2017

I wouldn't really call the Burns play a wildcat because Burns is a credible passer.  (hush)  I didn't anticipate him running the ball, tbh.