I want a run first pro style offense

[danny daniel]

Technically yes, but as ATL1 pointed out sometimes it's hard to determine.

With that said, Shouldn't the opposite should be true? Any "pitch" (underhand, overhand, side armed, shot putted, etc.) that is not a forward lateral should be considered rushing yardage. I wonder how many of those (again not many happen that way) end up being counted as passing yards instead of rushing yards.

I suspect this whole discussion applies even more to the wide screen passes to the WR or Slot Back. There are many more of those "marginal pass or lateral" plays on wide screens than on TO3 pitches.

 

[awbuzz]

The problem with "scoring" our pitches is that many times our qb and Aback are moving diagonally across the field, not perfectly horizontal. This makes the pitch actually travel forward even though it appears to travel backward or sideways due to the qb/Aback relationship. For example, when in our own end of the field, if we pitch on the 20 yardline and it's caught on the 21, it should be called a forward pass regardless of how it looks according to the pitch relationship.

Exactly... as long as and if it happens behind the line of scrimmage should technically be a "pass", because if it happens that way beyond the LOS it's considered a forward lateral and thus illegal. We've seen plays reviewed to verify if the ball went forward or not- with respect to the LOS - if the toss happened past the LOS.

 

[awbuzz]

I suspect this whole discussion applies even more to the wide screen passes to the WR or Slot Back. There are many more of those "marginal pass or lateral" plays on wide screens than on TO3 pitches.

Definitely!

 

[AE 87]

Imo, the rule should be relative to QB not absolute. In football's rugby roots, laterals are routinely used while both pitcher and catcher are running downfield. The ball is pitched backward to the trailing player but still travels forward in absolute terms because of the greater momentum gained from the running of the ball carrier. That play should still be legal.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Imo, the rule should be relative to QB not absolute. In football's rugby roots, laterals are routinely used while both pitcher and catcher are running downfield. The ball is pitched backward to the trailing player but still travels forward in absolute terms because of the greater momentum gained from the running of the ball carrier. That play should still be legal.

Actually, I agree with this. However, I'm not sure what the official rule is. It all depends on frame of reference. (De ja vu.)

Also, there's a rare play in football where a team receiving the final kickoff has to go the length of the field to win or tie the game. Typically they always make sure to lateral the ball backwards relative to the horizontal yard lines. I wonder if this is due to some misunderstanding of the rules or correct understanding of the rules?

 

[Mack]

Guys no problem........I like to see the pass or as I say"the rock in the Air" a pitch is fun to watch if you have a Tracy Ham or JC Watts pitching the ball over the DE to a trailing back but to me when you are behind and clock is dying time to throw the damn ball.You guys fight it out I think Cheese understood my point.

 

[IEEEWreck]

Actually, I agree with this. However, I'm not sure what the official rule is. It all depends on frame of reference. (De ja vu.)

Also, there's a rare play in football where a team receiving the final kickoff has to go the length of the field to win or tie the game. Typically they always make sure to lateral the ball backwards relative to the horizontal yard lines. I wonder if this is due to some misunderstanding of the rules or correct understanding of the rules?

Clearly, it's a legal lateral if the flux through the ball from a field originating at the quarterback is decreasing at a greater rate than flux through the ball from a field originating at the receiver.

Alternately, it's a legal lateral if both players and the ball are moving forward wrt the line of scrimmage, but only if the play clock is dilated to adjust for the acceleration between frames.

 

[thagooseisloose]

In my opinion, wanting a change in offense because something else is "more fun to watch" is the height of idiocy. I don't care if it's the single wing. If it works, run it. It's also funny that Stanford, a school that many on here want us to become carbon copies of, runs maybe the most boring offense in the history of college football. Their base set is "goal line." So which is it?

 

[daBuzz]

In my opinion, wanting a change in offense because something else is "more fun to watch" is the height of idiocy. I don't care if it's the single wing. If it works, run it. It's also funny that Stanford, a school that many on here want us to become carbon copies of, runs maybe the most boring offense in the history of college football. Their base set is "goal line." So which is it?

I don't know that I've seen anyone espousing that we emulate Stanford's offense. I think most people talking about Stanford are referring to admissions and recruiting.

 

[Mack]

In my opinion, wanting a change in offense because something else is "more fun to watch" is the height of idiocy. I don't care if it's the single wing. If it works, run it. It's also funny that Stanford, a school that many on here want us to become carbon copies of, runs maybe the most boring offense in the history of college football. Their base set is "goal line." So which is it?

In my opinion, wanting a change in offense because something else is "more fun to watch" is the height of idiocy. I don't care if it's the single wing. If it works, run it. It's also funny that Stanford, a school that many on here want us to become carbon copies of, runs maybe the most boring offense in the history of college football. Their base set is "goal line." So which is it?

 

[Mack]

WELL I ain't having fun now at seven and five my friend and of course I go to games to see wins and yeah.......exciting plays.Not pass happy but certain not a lunitic....yet.I could care less what is appropriate for Stanford......I think we do better with better play calling thatcontains passing.Yeah if we won eight to ten a year running ND box I wouldn't say anything but we are not there lunacy or mot..

 

[GTNavyNuke]

Uh, dude, Bill Walsh says hello.

Stanford has been much the same as us; up and down. What they haven't been is as consistent at winning as Tech.

I swear, if the present generation of Tech fans had had to sit through the 70's and early 80's we wouldn't be having these conversations. We've been consistent winners for so long that people have forgotten what really bad football looks like. Believe me, I can tell you.

Like this? Notice from 67-95 our winning % was less than 50%.

 

[Ramblinwreck1991]

This offense PJ uses can be deadly . I think having better defense will help.

 

[Ramblinwreck1991]

Pro Style offense requires a quarterback that u can't hit or miss on to be successful.

 

[Mack]

Pro Style offense requires a quarterback that u can't hit or miss on to be successful.

Yeah not so keen on a pure pro set but love the Carolina spread and many of our players have played it in high school so they would be used to parts of it if we went to it..........but we are a option team and will stay there until we get better or PJ leaves...........