Panther's Running Back Failure(s)

Like I already showed, Davis' short yardage statistics got a hell of a lot worse when he joined Carolina than they had been in Washington.

 

Doesn't the other team already know we like to run? So of course short yardage stats will go down

 

Two questions for...the masses. What formation were we in in the play Collin is referring to? Who is usually responsible for the LDE (Umenyiora) in those cases?

 

Why are you even asking? You don't have the tape, you don't know what I'm talking about, and you aren't going to admit that I'm correct regardless. But for the record, Umenyiora plays RDE for the Giants. I hear their LDE is pretty famous, but his name slips my mind.


It was an strong off-set I from the right hash, running a counter to the left. Seidman tried to cut Umenyiora and failed, while Hoover's responsibility is either to take the SLB head up or help on the RDE. The SLB (Emmons) was off the line, so in this case Hoover's responsibility was to help on the RDE. Instead he shuffled his feet for a couple of seconds as Foster passed just to the right of him and was stuffed immediately by Umenyiora.


And weavervegas, you're not getting the point. Davis' short yardage numbers went down dramatically after joining the Panthers. Defenses know that every team is going to run in short yardage, but we do it much less effectively than most other teams in the NFL.

 

So now we shouldn't even ask questions huh? And I messed up and put LDE when I was thinking about the guy opposite our LT...so shoot me. Oh and I do have the tape (TiVo actually) but you see I wooooork during the day. I'll check it out tonight.

This article is nice at explaining the FB role in I-formation plays. And I believe that a counter fits into the category of a trap play. If it was a Blast or Power it would have been a good example of what you called Hoover's weakness. You said Hoover's strength was his ability to "seal off defenders" (traps) and the problem was that he "can't create holes" (Blast and Power). In other words, the play you picked doesn't illustrate your point.

You've said this twice now but refuse to link or name any sources.

 

Think that is the reason we signed Wahle?

 

I didn't tell you not to ask questions, I questioned your motivation for doing so. You're just going around disagreeing with me to be disagreeable, so it's not like you're actually looking to learn something. Plus I question how much you can actually understand.

Future tip: Don't try to argue with other people about a play until you've actually seen it, or otherwise remember it. You're making a fool out of yourself just because you're so much of an ass that you want to disagree regardless of whether or not I'm correct.

Actually it does. Your article (it's by the aforementioned morons responsible for the Football Prospectus) doesn't even mention the counter. But in a traditional I-formation, the FB will sometimes seal the backside in order to feed the misdirection that makes up the foundation of the play, it just depends on the design. However, I already pointed out that this was a strong off-set I. Since you probably don't have a clue what that means, it is when the FB lines up in front and to the side of the tailback. Strong obviously means that the FB is lined up shaded to the strong side of the formation, as opposed to a weak off-set I. In the strong set counter, the FB has kick out responsibilities if there is no pulling guard. Hoover simply chose not to block anyone.

Do you have any idea how irritating it is to have to correct you just because you won't actually bother reading anything before posting? I already gave the numbers and source, genius:

Try actually reading things or bothering to watch a play before running your mouth as if you have something meaningful to say.

 

It certainly looked like Seidman was suppose to block down on the RDE, who was playing inside of him, with Hoover comimg across to take out the backer. When Seidman almost completely whiffed on the RDE the hole was blocked, Foster then kicked it out at which time Hoover went for the LB. Siedman's man (#72) made the hit on Foster; also # 70 had Foster around the ankles. That play looked to me like it did not go because Seidman wasn't blocking worth a shit, as exhibited on other plays in the same game. If Hoover had not gone for the LB, Foster would have been probably taken out by him for no gain.

At any rate, I would like to hear from others on this play. It was replayed several time at different angles while they measured for the first.

 

figured you'd be unwilling to discuss facts. thanks for letting me off the hook.

>> I can more or less get away with being an ass

wrong. start counting how many people here who can't stand you being a constant ass and wish you would just go away.

>> In this world you can either be mean or a dumbass

there are other options. btw, i doubt anyone considers ya mean as i doubt anyone respects you enough to give a shit if ya insult them. but at least you do have the dumbass part down pretty well

curious, do you have a paying job of any consequence or any responsibilities other than changing your underwear?