Texas A&M Football
Sponsored by

4 receivers bunched up on one side

6,259 Views | 30 Replies | Last: 9 yr ago by RockInspector
AggieDruggist89
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:46a, 10/20/14
AG
Did we see any success with that formation? Seems like that would just cause a lot of traffic in the area.

Especially on the short side of the field.
Reply Quote
Sean_Jones
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:47a, 10/20/14
Did we see any success with any formation?
Reply Quote
5
Eric Forman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:48a, 10/20/14
AG
The diamond formation wasn't successful... but I have a feeling the Marco Polo formation will be hugely successful.

The Marco Polo formation is this: Speedy climbs up on top of RSJ and sits on his shoulders... then RSJ runs down field and the ball is thrown to Speedy. Their combined height will make it impossible to defend. Its the next big thing. Book it.
Reply Quote
2
Sean_Jones
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:50a, 10/20/14
You can't run very fast with someone on your shoulders and I think that would be a penalty anyway. Terrible idea.
Reply Quote
Eric Forman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:53a, 10/20/14
AG
Terrible idea... or GREAT idea?
Reply Quote
Texas_Aggie_12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sean_Jones • 9:05a, 10/20/14
AG
quote:
Did we see any success with any formation?
Reply Quote
blsag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:08a, 10/20/14
Great idea. Can't have any less success with that Marco Polo formation
Reply Quote
yeahtoast
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:08a, 10/20/14
AG
WHAT IN THE HELL IS THE OOP-DE-OOP?

Reply Quote
1
Charlie02
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:29a, 10/20/14
AG
It was meant to confuse man-to-man coverage and provide variations of crossing, down field and flood routes...
Reply Quote
SQXVI
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:34a, 10/20/14
AG
the bronco's ran it last night with success several times, it actually does require WR blocking, so it's a total failure in our scheme
Reply Quote
1
Texas Yarddog
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to SQXVI • 9:50a, 10/20/14
AG
quote:
the bronco's ran it last night with success several times, it actually does require WR blocking, so it's a total failure in our scheme

This. I think Notre Dame used the same formation as well with success (was one of the other games on Saturday). But, as stated above, it requires blocking by the WR's. That doesn't happen with our team which is why that pass completion is a tackle for loss most of the time for us. I do not know if I have seen us run that formation with any type of success, but Spav seems to want to run it constantly.
Reply Quote
wood2007
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:51a, 10/20/14
All it did was cause a cluster**** for us. EVERY time.
Reply Quote
SQXVI
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:52a, 10/20/14
AG
we did have three receivers absolutely maul one hapless defensive back on one occasion though.....the only problem was that left two defensive backs to tackle our receiver behind the line.
Reply Quote
Science Denier
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:55a, 10/20/14
AG
The three WR's that are required to block have to know who to block. If they all block the same ****ing guy, then you get the cluster**** you saw on Saturday.
Reply Quote
Science Denier
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:55a, 10/20/14
AG
****, you beat me to it.
Reply Quote
WellMarchBehindtheBand
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:42a, 10/20/14
It would work better if it always wasn't a reciever screen pass
Reply Quote
BigJim49 AustinNowDallas
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:49a, 10/20/14
AG
First time it was used the QB ran to the other side ! No blockers there either .
Reply Quote
Just Tired
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:08a, 10/20/14
it's a statistical thing...the theory is to just chunk up in there amongst them and see if one of can catch it.
Reply Quote
1
Charlie02
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:19a, 10/20/14
AG
How do you apply the probability that each player first could catch a ball to the probability of catching based on the proximity to the ball? Plus you would need to factor in how many defensive player's were in proximity... I think the most important thing is deciding whether Kenny could throw the ball to them in a proximity that is probable vs. behind him. Of course there is the whole QB "drops the ball for no reason" outlier...
Reply Quote
MrMiyAggie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:25a, 10/20/14
AG
spent all week installing this worthless formation. why don't we just stick to the offense we ran against SC. Tempo tempo tempo. speed speed speed.
Reply Quote
1
AgBeliever
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:46a, 10/20/14
AG
quote:
spent all week installing this worthless formation. why don't we just stick to the offense we ran against SC. Tempo tempo tempo. speed speed speed.


Jackie pointed out the problem with our lack of tempo in his last article.

And get rid of that retarded formation. It's obvious we can not execute it when we have 3 WRs blocking the same DB.
Reply Quote
agnuke14
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to SQXVI • 12:00p, 10/20/14
quote:
we did have three receivers absolutely maul one hapless defensive back on one occasion though.....the only problem was that left two defensive backs to tackle our receiver behind the line.
Ha from they way I saw it, their one DB blocked 3 of our WRs to let his buddies tackle our guy behind the LOS.

All you can do is laugh at our guys, it was a clown-show.
Reply Quote
AgBeliever
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:02p, 10/20/14
AG
It was a clown show.

Which is why the deja vu comments to the Fran days are totally valid.
Reply Quote
CharlieBrown17
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:07p, 10/20/14
AG
I really enjoyed when we ran a screen out of the formation and then immediately faked the screen out of that formation the next play. That was some next level brilliance right there.
Reply Quote
1
Ulrich
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:07p, 10/20/14
Diamond short side = option short side
Reply Quote
1
MAROON
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:52p, 10/20/14
AG
Diamond formation should be renamed the Circle Jerk formation
Reply Quote
Outlaw0206
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:56p, 10/20/14
AG
That formation was a joke.. it was even more of a joke that we ran it back to back plays.
Play 1: Screen pass for 1 yard
Next Play: Fake the screen and get sacked with no one open

Hey dumbass Spav, you aren't fooling anyone with the screen play fake that just went for a yard
Reply Quote
1 edit
Ulrich
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:57p, 10/20/14
Hey, that play was an utter failure the first two times they ran. I bet they'll immediately run it again! Oops.
Reply Quote
1876er
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eric Forman • 1:02p, 10/20/14
AG
quote:
The diamond formation wasn't successful... but I have a feeling the Marco Polo formation will be hugely successful.

The Marco Polo formation is this: Speedy climbs up on top of RSJ and sits on his shoulders... then RSJ runs down field and the ball is thrown to Speedy. Their combined height will make it impossible to defend. Its the next big thing. Book it.
Great idea. What if we tried RSJ on speedy's shoulders to really throw off the D. Sorta like this

Reply Quote
FrontPorchAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:54p, 10/20/14
quote:
Diamond short side = option short side
Denver Broncos ran it four times last night. All with success. Our problem is more execution.
Reply Quote
Sea Gull
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Outlaw0206 • 3:33p, 10/20/14
AG
quote:
That formation was a joke.. it was even more of a joke that we ran it back to back plays.
Play 1: Screen pass for 1 yard
Next Play: Fake the screen and get sacked with no one open

Hey dumbass Spav, you aren't fooling anyone with the screen play fake that just went for a yard

I could be wrong, but I think Play #1 lost 3-4 yards.
Reply Quote
RockInspector
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sea Gull • 3:47p, 10/20/14
quote:
quote:
That formation was a joke.. it was even more of a joke that we ran it back to back plays.
Play 1: Screen pass for 1 yard
Next Play: Fake the screen and get sacked with no one open

Hey dumbass Spav, you aren't fooling anyone with the screen play fake that just went for a yard

I could be wrong, but I think Play #1 lost 3-4 yards.
You're not wrong, I believe it lost at least three yards.
Reply Quote
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.