Jimmy Lake: "I'm not a sideways kind of guy"

dooginthehall said:

1to392831weretaken said:

RoadDawg55 said:

Gladstone said:

RoadDawg55 said:

TheBounceLives said:

I liked the wildcat runs you tried against the ducks in 2019. I hope that kind of sneaky trickeration still has a place in the husky offense going forward.

“Our numbers showed how productive those plays had been for us.”

That was with Gaskin and Newton, Pete. Not with a 4th strong RB named Kamari Pleasant who has poor vision and runs straight up.

That quote drove me up the fucking wall. The entire point of that was to get your playmakers in space with an extra blocker. Gaskin and Newton. Not the formation in and of itself. Beyond stupid. Bush too.

Having your 4th best RB run those plays was stupid. As was bringing in Malik Braxton each time and completely telegraphing it every time. If I notice we run that formation with those guys in the stands, I’m sure the Oregon DC noticed too.

The whole concept is stupid, and it goes to your original point: The offense often fails because plays are predicated on too many things going right. So let's look at the wildcat: You have your unathletic quarterback out there playing split end, so he's not a threat. The corner over him is playing inside leverage and looking inside every time, so he can be in the box in about a second and a half to take away the cutback lane. Otherwise, you've got nine blockers and a ball carrier to take on ten defenders in the box. No problem!

Ignoring talent on my roster, quality of ball carrier, etc., I'm going to think of a play like this: If I have a ball carrier in space against a single defender, I have something like a 50/50 shot of a successful play. If I have a ball carrier and a blocker against two defenders, the odds drop a little, as now I need a successful play by the ball carrier and a successful block. If I have a ball carrier and two blockers against three defenders, the odds decrease even a bit more.

The wildcat is the ultimate fuck-you to this simple math. It's, "Come on, motherfucker, let's go 10-on-10 with you knowing it's coming." Blocks become less critical the further from the point of attack, but a successful wildcat play is still requiring at least a half dozen successful blocks and the back making a correct choice and/or making somebody miss to be successful. It's the "half a dozen successful blocks" part that's the killer. The 3rd down fs wildcat against Oregon didn't fail because Pleasant sucks, it failed because Hunter Bryant blocked about as well as a parking cone would have, and even had he stayed engaged with his man, Pleasant would have still had two unblocked defenders to beat. There was a cutback lane that was good for another two-on-one chance, I guess.

We all want to be smashmouth, but modern football is all about exploiting numbers. Spread to run, play action out of heavy sets (one-on-one coverage on the outside is the equivalent to that dream 50/50 scenario in the running game), simplicity and execution. If John Ross has to beat man coverage in three seconds for a play to be successful, I like my odds. If I need three yards and I can put my running back in space with a single defender, I like my odds. I never want to take on all 11 of their defense, I want to isolate a little group over here or over here and try beating it.

I’m hard as a fucking diamond right now