X's and O's for the Wildcat

by Steve Nichols on Oct 12, 2008 5:21 AM MDT Comment 14 comments

I love football theory. While I never ran some of the more exotic systems (such as the "single wing"), they are a blast to watch when they are executed properly. The NFL is constantly evolving (such as the turn from FBs to TEs), and nowhere is this more obvious than in Miama, where a "terrible" team is taking some plays from the future and confounding the "elite" teams of today.

The Wildcat is an option based system, and (like the single wing) features no QB. Unlike the single wing, we have two WRs. While a critic of ESPN, I want to credit them for putting up Gary Horton's excellent breakdown of the Wildcat. It's instructive, includes some nice animations, and is just plain well done.

Here is the article on the scheme.

Here is an article on the counter.

And here is a look at which current NFL teams can run the program.

As always, feel free to leave any questions about the WIldcat, or any other X's and O's questions in the comments thread. Remember, Mile High Report University will be returning to the front pages after the season concludes.

Poll

Denver versus the Wildcat

The Wildcat is a fad and a gimmick

14 votes

The Wildcat is part of a bigger trend

6 votes

20 votes | Poll has closed

This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR

1 recs | Comment 14 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I still think...

the Broncos could run this with Royal as the shotgun player. I know they are targeting 2 RB systems, but it goes a bit deeper than that and to include New England in that mix as a team that should run it is a stretch to say the least….

-TSG

SBNation's Denver Broncos Blogger
MileHighReport

Questions, Comments...E-Mail Me!
milehighreport@gmail.com

by John Bena on Oct 12, 2008 6:00 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree.

Perhaps the thinking for NE is geared heavily towards the team missing their true starting QB, but I find that to be as weak as the other arguments.

Denver has the TEs in place for the endcaps to make this thing work, and plenty of HBs. Royal is an intriguing idea.

Oddly enough, the team I think could run the system well is Oakland. They have the HBs, and it would relieve JM and make his job a little easier when he comes in.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by Steve Nichols on Oct 12, 2008 6:22 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oakland has done it some already this season with McFadden and Bush

Though not as often as Miami has. Remember, McFadden was the trigger man for the Arkansas version, which popularized this. The more you run this package, the more you get into diminishing returns, because defenses are going to pay more attention to it, and have a better idea what to do about it. I’m an offense-minded guy, but I’d run-blitz the hell out of it, every time I saw the QB split out wide. I’d be bringing 8 men, and covering man-to-man with 3. I would be happy to take my chances of some RB beating me with his arm, in order to be sound against the runs off of the formation.

"I am not one of those who think that coming in second or third is winning." -- Robert F. Kennedy

by Ted Bartlett on Oct 12, 2008 7:23 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Solid.

Part of the reason I like Oakland for the scheme is McFadden’s experience with it. I also agree with your approach on defense.

Of course, even with eight in the box, the run would be hard to stop. The RB shouldn’t pass the ball much at any rate.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by Steve Nichols on Oct 12, 2008 7:39 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oakland ran it against us

with McFadden in the Shotgun and faking the handoff to Fargas. They got a few yards on it (maybe even a first down), but didn’t run it again the rest of the game.

Another intriguing reason for them to run it is Russell’s size down the field. If McFadden could throw and it Russell, he’d be a tough one to tackle, I would think.

"It's all over Fat Man" - Tom Jackson to John Madden 1977 AFC Championship Game

"I love your analysis of our team. Its kinda like watching a spider monkey trying to figure out a jar of peanuts.. you know whats going on.. you know whats in there, but to actually figure it out, is just a bit beyond your mental skills..."
- Bronco Dano

by DesertBroncoFan on Oct 13, 2008 4:34 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I saw that play in person....McFadden got very little and our defense wasn't fooled in the least.

If God is not a Bronco fan, then WHY are sunsets Blue and Orange? - Jon Tollerud 5/22/08

by Tim Lynch on Oct 13, 2008 5:00 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

My defensive approach would be to make the QB beat me

Near the goal line I might need to take a slightly different approach, but I would be blitzing the CB from whichever side the QB is lined up on with one of the safeties covering for him. When Pennington is under center, he is not a threat to run so it is like 10 and a half versus 11. Miami wants to force the defense to play 11 on 11 but my thought is that Pennington is still a minimal threat when he is out wide so the defense should treat him that way. I would not ignore him completely, but I would not have Champ covering him either.

by MattR on Oct 12, 2008 9:16 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

see now

they would just split the QB out on the rights side of the formation every time, committing Champ to him!

;)

Mountains, forest, sea: these render man fierce, but yet do not destroy the man.

by Jeremy Bolander on Oct 12, 2008 10:11 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

It is a fad, because it is not versatile enough.

Teams will learn that with the run blitz, especially with pressure from outside, will stop this formation. The weakness of this formation is the fact that it only has one or two passes it can complete with regularity, and the fact that for the run read option to work, the RB needs time to pick a lane after faking the reverse.

Others have mentioned the need to run blitz with a 8 man box, but more importantly, pressure with a seven man line needs to come from the outside to squeeze the run lanes and reduce the time the running back has to bounce.

The pressure from the outside is similar to how teams have successfully defensed Denver’s stretch play. Basically any play which is predicated on a read, takes some time, and a blitz from the outside takes that luxury away. Teams doing that to Denver can be beat by quick passing from a real QB, whereas this single wing with a RB at QB, is not a real threat for a quick passing attack.

by The Gun Young on Oct 12, 2008 2:03 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Another defensive solution.

Sub in a DL guy for the CB responsible for the QB who is out wide. At the snap have the DL “press the receiver”, hard. REAL hard. All of a sudden the coach gets scared about the well-being of his QB and that quit calling gimmicky plays like this.

Infact, bring down a safety as well, as soon as the RB starts running the ball, have the DL and SAF engage in a “block” with the QB. HARD. REAL HARD. Forget the RB. let him walk in for a score. Doesnt matter. you “block” the QB hard enough, they will not call the wildcat again. ;-)

Check out the website listed below...
http://www.nfl.fanhouse.com/2006/12/22/philip-rivers-bends-nick-hardwick-over-in-the-showers-gets-off/2

by EastCoastBronco on Oct 13, 2008 11:31 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm sure that the NFL would take exception to that

since they are all about protecting the quarterback.

But does moving the quarterback out wide not make him the quarterback for the play (thus is fair game) and the running back who is in the shotgun now becomes the player with the dress on?

"It's all over Fat Man" - Tom Jackson to John Madden 1977 AFC Championship Game

by DesertBroncoFan on Oct 13, 2008 4:37 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Whoever lines up as QB...

…gets the benefit of the rules for protection. HOWEVER, any referee worth his salt will notice a team’s QB who is lined up in another position, and will penalize someone heavily for trying to take advantage and going for a dirty shot.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by Steve Nichols on Oct 13, 2008 4:57 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Regarding teh judgement call by the ref there

do you feel that would be fair? What is the nature of setting the game up to protect the QB, and would that call be congruent with that goal?

And I assume it would be a personal foul called?

Mountains, forest, sea: these render man fierce, but yet do not destroy the man.

by Jeremy Bolander on Oct 13, 2008 5:17 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think it would be absolutely fair,

…and even the expectation of the players themselves. It would be a personal foul, such as “unnec roughness”. A fine would probably also be forthcoming.

The spirit of the rules are intended to keep players from crippling a team by trying to end a QB’s career. I think it is reasonable to assume (for instance) that if Peyton Manning lined up as a TE, and a defensive player overstepped the bounds of “zealous” play, the NFL would take further action. I would expect a defensive player to expect that.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by Steve Nichols on Oct 13, 2008 5:29 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs