[AtlantaBadger]

With all due respect to WIM and garvin, the wildcat is stupid.  I am TOTALLY on board with getting Ty the ball in almost as many ways as we can -- dude is a playmaker.  But the Wildcat has virtually NO deception.  If you want Ty in as a running back, then have him line up as a tailback and then at least we have the possibility of play action or some other play when Hogan has his hands on the ball.  Or maybe even line up Ty next to Kevin in a pistol, with Ty taking a direct snap once in a while -- at least then there is SOME guesswork on the defense.  As has been posted a lot, the only deception we have is whether or not KY is going to get the ball on the fly sweep, and probably at least half the time we don't even have him in motion.  Furthermore, most of the time when we run it (not all, but most), we have Hogan lined up out wide, effectively taking him out of the play entirely, so we're running a play with 10 players against 11.  What is the point?  Ty picked up 7 on the fourth try, but negative yardage or minimal on the first three; I am pretty confident he could pick that up as a RB with even a minimally well designed running play.

Yes, the bad snap was not Ty's fault, but he is not as accustomed to receiving shotgun snaps as the QB, so the likelihood of something bad like that happening is increased, in my view. 

I just don't see the risk/reward equation being in favor of the wildcat.  Use Ty all you want, but make him a RB for a few plays, or get him in motion on the fly sweep, or whatever. 

Finally, as someone pointed out in another article online, and I thought it was an excellent point, Shaw seems to employ the wildcat at times when the offense is just getting into a nice rhythm, and the wildcat disrupts it.  Why?  What is the perceived advantage of running the wildcat versus making your stud offensive player into a RB for that play?

Sorry for the rant, but I just want to vomit every time I see us line up in that play.  The rare times when it has REALLY worked do not justify it to me.  But of course it is totally in keeping with our largely deception-free approach to running.

Eric

[AtlantaBadger]

With all due respect to WIM and garvin, the wildcat is stupid.  I am TOTALLY on board with getting Ty the ball in almost as many ways as we can -- dude is a playmaker.  But the Wildcat has virtually NO deception.  If you want Ty in as a running back, then have him line up as a tailback and then at least we have the possibility of play action or some other play when Hogan has his hands on the ball.  Or maybe even line up Ty next to Kevin in a pistol, with Ty taking a direct snap once in a while -- at least then there is SOME guesswork on the defense.  As has been posted a lot, the only deception we have is whether or not KY is going to get the ball on the fly sweep, and probably at least half the time we don't even have him in motion.  Furthermore, most of the time when we run it (not all, but most), we have Hogan lined up out wide, effectively taking him out of the play entirely, so we're running a play with 10 players against 11.  What is the point?  Ty picked up 7 on the fourth try, but negative yardage or minimal on the first three; I am pretty confident he could pick that up as a RB with even a minimally well designed running play.

Yes, the bad snap was not Ty's fault, but he is not as accustomed to receiving shotgun snaps as the QB, so the likelihood of something bad like that happening is increased, in my view. 

I just don't see the risk/reward equation being in favor of the wildcat.  Use Ty all you want, but make him a RB for a few plays, or get him in motion on the fly sweep, or whatever. 

Finally, as someone pointed out in another article online, and I thought it was an excellent point, Shaw seems to employ the wildcat at times when the offense is just getting into a nice rhythm, and the wildcat disrupts it.  Why?  What is the perceived advantage of running the wildcat versus making your stud offensive player into a RB for that play?

Sorry for the rant, but I just want to vomit every time I see us line up in that play.  The rare times when it has REALLY worked do not justify it to me.  But of course it is totally in keeping with our largely deception-free approach to running.

Eric