The New Wildcat


gopherdudepart2

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,841
Reaction score
315
Points
83
Shouldn't they run Morgan in motion occasionally too so they have to cover the possible pitch to the QB?
This they should at least run Morgan in motion on this type of play to at least make the defenders honor covering the pitch to the QB. Another wrinkle I would like to see is line Howard up at WR insted of Morgan (He was HS QB and had decent arm) have him cross in motion pitch it to him, and then have him or Morgan throw it to a leaking RB out of this Wildcat formation with the two RB's or a leaking out Tight end. Would seem nice to add some creativity to this formation. Wileycat, I like it he can actually throw it off of the motion to. Would be nice to have a crosser that you can flip pitch to and get everyone going after the inside zone guys.
 

noamfromm

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
1,603
Reaction score
873
Points
113
This they should at least run Morgan in motion on this type of play to at least make the defenders honor covering the pitch to the QB. Another wrinkle I would like to see is line Howard up at WR insted of Morgan (He was HS QB and had decent arm) have him cross in motion pitch it to him, and then have him or Morgan throw it to a leaking RB out of this Wildcat formation with the two RB's or a leaking out Tight end. Would seem nice to add some creativity to this formation. Wileycat, I like it he can actually throw it off of the motion to. Would be nice to have a crosser that you can flip pitch to and get everyone going after the inside zone guys.
I don't know what the staff can't trust in Cole Kramer but he's reasonable athletic enough and has enough size
 

Gophergrandpa

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
1,271
Reaction score
1,237
Points
113
I don't know what the staff can't trust in Cole Kramer but he's reasonable athletic enough and has enough size
I’d love to see Cole Kramer as the split out receiver, possible jet sweep guy in the wildcat. He’s got wheels.
 





VACTERL

Active member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
293
Reaction score
32
Points
28
Whether he lines up at quarterback or receiver they have to account for him. So they’re bringing in a package to defend him and the pass (nickel was the example) on a down where there’s a chance we may run or pass.

If he wasn’t on the field/huddle at all, fine they can bring in their jumbos.

So I get it. But I don’t get it.

If we line him up at receiver we may as well show the defense our play. We are running it.
 

VACTERL

Active member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
293
Reaction score
32
Points
28
Anticipating a response: sure the extra back could provide some blocking or misdirection. But is that worth tipping our hand? I guess I don’t know. But I don’t think so.
 



Joined
May 17, 2021
Messages
447
Reaction score
200
Points
43
Not for Morgan to run....for him to pass.
I don't think it would work. First, the guy who was covering Morgan would follow him and when he's sees Morgan get the ball, that defender has nothing better to do than blitz, since he's been following after Morgan already. So now Morgan has to get the pitch, set his feet, get the ball in his hand correctly, etc with this guy bearing down on him. Not sure he'd have enough time to do anything. Could easily fumble if he's hit right.
 

noamfromm

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
1,603
Reaction score
873
Points
113
Actually, he's not that big, or fast.
Actually *pushes up glasses*, he runs a 4.6 which fits the bill of reasonable athletic -- Mitch ran a 4.9 and seemed to do just fine off the edge. He's 205 . . . which is 5 pounds less than Potts who just took 3X carries
 
Last edited:

Word

Eats difficult conversations
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
8,218
Reaction score
3,048
Points
113
I don't think it would work. First, the guy who was covering Morgan would follow him and when he's sees Morgan get the ball, that defender has nothing better to do than blitz, since he's been following after Morgan already. So now Morgan has to get the pitch, set his feet, get the ball in his hand correctly, etc with this guy bearing down on him. Not sure he'd have enough time to do anything. Could easily fumble if he's hit right.
There's at least 2 plays here where it works:
The blitzer can get picked up by the o-line or a running back. Plenty of time to make a throw.
 

Joined
May 17, 2021
Messages
447
Reaction score
200
Points
43
There's at least 2 plays here where it works:
The blitzer can get picked up by the o-line or a running back. Plenty of time to make a throw.
Ok, I watched and there were two throws by QBs there, Kitna early on and Pennington around the halfway mark. I don't think either of those resemble what you suggested, "run Morgan in motion". Neither QB went in motion. They were out wide at the snap and took a few steps backwards before being pitched the ball, as the ball carrier was coming to them.
 



PMWinSTP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
11,154
Reaction score
1,710
Points
113
Actually *pushes up glasses*, he runs a 4.6 which fits the bill of reasonable athletic -- Mitch ran a 4.9 and seemed to do just fine off the edge. He's 205 . . . which is 5 pounds less than Potts who just took 3X carries
He's shorter than Morgan, who is listed at a very generous 6'2". I'm 6'1" and have stood next to Morgan in cleats and helmet...he is shorter than me. I would question the 205 as well.
 

Joined
May 17, 2021
Messages
447
Reaction score
200
Points
43
He's shorter than Morgan, who is listed at a very generous 6'2". I'm 6'1" and have stood next to Morgan in cleats and helmet...he is shorter than me. I would question the 205 as well.
I was walking by Cole Kramer on campus in summer 2020 (was there getting lunch) and I'm not sure he's even 6 feet tall. I'm a tad over 6'1" myself, so easy to compare.
 

noamfromm

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
1,603
Reaction score
873
Points
113
He's shorter than Morgan, who is listed at a very generous 6'2". I'm 6'1" and have stood next to Morgan in cleats and helmet...he is shorter than me. I would question the 205 as well.
so a reasonably athletic guy who is 6" ~205 with cannot be a wildcat quarterback?
 

PMWinSTP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
11,154
Reaction score
1,710
Points
113
so a reasonably athletic guy who is 6" ~205 with cannot be a wildcat quarterback?
I didn't say that, and by definition, it is a formation with a direct snap to a player other than the QB. Nothing in the practices that I attended tells me putting him in would make that play more successful. It would be a read option with the QB taking the snap.
 

PMWinSTP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
11,154
Reaction score
1,710
Points
113
I was walking by Cole Kramer on campus in summer 2020 (was there getting lunch) and I'm not sure he's even 6 feet tall. I'm a tad over 6'1" myself, so easy to compare.
He's not. Morgan is 6' or just under but listed as the same height as Wiley. Clearly shorter when they are on the field together. Kramer is clearly shorter than Morgan. He's not 205 either. Not sure why they overstate these with QBs and WR so obviously at times.
 

hungan1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
11,535
Reaction score
1,886
Points
113
Our new version of the “single wing,” power Wildcat places two running backs in the backfield and Tanner split out wide as a receiver. Neither of the RBs appears to be a threat to throw; a running play is telegraphed; both backs head in the same direction (no counter play); and Tanner is pretty much a wasted body. This Wildcat seems to place very little stress on the defense in terms of “guessing” the play or being punished for immediately converging on one side of the field. Instead, it places 10.5 defenders in the box against a predictable run.

I don’t know the x’s and o’s, but if the OC thinks that a two back formation presents a threat that should stress a defense, why not as our “wildcat” put Tanner under center with Trey and Bryce in the backfield, and a real receiver out wide? No wasted bodies; there is a threat of a run by either Trey or Bryce; the running threat could be a counter, punishing over-pursuit; and there remains a real threat that Tanner pulls the ball and goes down field to a real receiver.

The new uni-dimensional Wildcat we are running seems inferior, in terms of the “stress” it places on the defense, to a two-RBs-Tanner-under-center set with CAB or Wright or Jackson split out wide (preserving two TEs, one of whom could release). If we don’t want to use a two back set with Tanner under center, which presents several options for the defense to consider, why would we use uni-dimensional, highly-predictable two RB Wildcat (with Tanner wasted on the outside) instead? … unless we really are going to have Trey Potts throw to Tanner???
Why? Because it is Sanford Jrs' Wildcat. Live and learn. The Iowa Defense are probably licking their chops.
 

noamfromm

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
1,603
Reaction score
873
Points
113
I don't know what the staff can't trust in Cole Kramer but he's reasonable athletic enough and has enough size
Now that I've got Sanfords ear let me know what plays you want us to add
 




Top Bottom