Saying a team hikes the ball to the RB and not the QB and gets tackled behind the line, does that mean it is a sack considering he is the QB for that play?
That's a good question. There are arguments for both sides. It is definitely sack if it is a designed pass play, but that might be tough to determine. Someone on this board probably has a better answer.
the basic thing with the wild cat is this, since the rb is taking the snap you don't know if he is going to run with it or pass it, so the question for the D at that moment is do we play it as a run or a pass? with that being said, here is how i would defend against it. i would have my DBs play man pass protection and my LBs a run defense, then i would have whoever is responsible for covering the QB, lets say chad henne is the QB, i would have them biltz the RB who took the snap, lets say ricky brown is the RB. that would leave only chad henne open, making him the dump off receiver and it would also send an extra man rushing that the OL has to account for. with pressure bearing down on brown from the extra man and with few holes to run into with the LBs playing run and with the DBs holding the wideouts, brown is going to dump it off to henne or throw it away. if he throws it away, great, D wins. but knowing that the other option is that it's going to henne. you can let henne get his short gains........but at a heavy price. basically you beat the living shit out of him when tackling. after some vicious hits i want to see how long a QB can hold up through a game never mind a season. to sum up. i would force the offense to use to the starting QB as the receiver in the play and then i would pound him very very badly. when he ends up on the IR you don't have to worry about the wildcat anymore.
As far as I can tell this does not appear on NFL.com, but according to Wikipedia, unless it is a pass play the answer is no: "To be considered a sack the quarterback must intend to throw a forward pass. If the play is designed for the quarterback to rush the ball, any loss is subtracted from the quarterback's rushing total. If the quarterback's intent is not obvious statisticians use certain criteria, such as the offensive line blocking scheme, to decide." Obviously the same rules would apply to any player taking the snap. Unfortunately they don't give a source for this statement, so we can't be sure if it is correct.
Why don't they defend it the same way they defended against the Falcons when Vick was starting? Put a spy on Brown, for starters.
Why not match the RBs and TEs with LBs? We don't need Revis and Sheppard covering two TEs. They have 6 TEs and RBs in the wildcat. We should have 6 LBs on the field then.
The problem is that the defense doesn't know before the guys line up that it is a Wildcat formation, as the QB is still on the field. And if they noticed we're carrying only 1 CB, they'd shift to a normal formation and just throw the ball to the receiver covered by the LB or safety. Easy completions.
I don't remember ever seeing Henne on the field during the Wildcat formations. If you blitz the person who takes the snap, someone is open. There's only 11 guys on defense. Miami was very good at finding that open person. Theirs works well because the QB isn't on the field, so no one is wasted.
The only particular type of play that involves a good deal of judgment on the part of football scorers are sacks. They have to decide if the quarterback was intending to pass. Lateral plays also can give official scorers a tough time. One time Tom Brady was credited with a touchdown pass to Kevin Faulk. The next day the Bills appealed the ruling. The play was looked at further and the ruling was change from a touchdown pass to a touchdown run because the play was actually a lateral.
He's (QB- Henne) is on the field during them... sometimes he lines up wide as the receiver on those formations.
i saw him on the sidelines 90% of the time when they ran it. they take the QB completely off the field. I'm just not from that mindset of football. You're QB has to beat my defense and my QB has to beat yours. Not two RBs and a QB/RB hybrid while your future franchise QB is looking on from the sidelines. I just don't like that kind of football, and if the Jets ran it as much as the Fins did - you'd hear it from me. I hate that.
You're right that Henne was almost always off the field, but I admit that I don't understand your attitude at all. Teams tailor their personnel to try to create mismatches all the time - why is this any different? It might be that an offense like this can't win a Super Bowl, and it might be that it delays the progress of a young QB, but on the other hand, no one really knows, since no one has tried it before. I don't see any reasonable argument against the way the Dolphins ran their offense on Monday, and would have no problem if my team had offensive games like that every week. This is why I pay no attention to the complaints about a "gimmick" offense - to me the only gimmick that matters is being effective, and they were.
I did say "sometimes"... I wasn't always looking for the QB so I don't know if it was more or less, but I was sure I saw him at the top of the screen in the WR spot a couple of times. I'm sure I have seen Penny there too at times. I like it best when the line it up with Pat White in there cause he's really a running QB anyhow. And if it works and it is legal... use it. You would be crazy not to.
you know at one point the forward pass was considered gimmicky. and out of the ordinary. i think the offense is brilliant, they have set themselves up with a numbers mismatch and take advantage. there is a reason they do it so much better than everyone else. they have personnel that work well in it and they obviously have a real game plan and not just 2 or 3 plays. there were many wrinkles in there last night. sure its annoying, just like tim tebow running a very similar offense in the college game but that is because it works and works very very well.
I agree with this post. I do not understand why fans deride those single wing formations as a gimmick and/or a sissy offense. It's anything but a sissy offense.
Exactly, the idea is to win the game. If you have the personnel and that's what works for you, why wouldn't you do it? It's on plenty of film now and still is working, so I'd stick with it until it doesn't work anymore. I'll be very interested to see how Rex defends it in a few weeks, fresh off this game. He now has more film with Henne instead of Pennington and the D won't be playing in 90 degrees and humidity. Keep in mind Miami only had 10 points after three quarters and they spent a lot of time on the field.
