Looks like the WildCat Offense is here!!!!!!!
From Kevin Seifert of ESPN.com
EDEN PRAIRIE, Minn. -- I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes. Just as I arrived at Minnesota's second day of minicamp, fashionably late after skipping the stretching portion, I saw the Vikings offense in a decidedly unfamiliar formation.
Rookie Percy Harvin was lined up as a shotgun quarterback. Sage Rosenfels was split out wide.
What?
Yep. The Wildcat.
I've spent most of the past month believing there was no way that coach Brad Childress would consent to such a trendy formation, even after the Vikings' decision to draft Harvin -- an ideal fit for the Wildcat -- in the first round. Childress is a traditional, meat-and-potatoes offensive coach who never embraced the formation as it became fashionable last season.
But the Wildcat was in plain sight Saturday morning. Harvin, tailback Chester Taylor and receiver Darius Reynaud will all rotating in the quarterback role. You can only imagine how dangerous this could be when defenses follow tailback Adrian Peterson wherever he goes.
The Story (Along with some other notes from day 2 of training camp) continues here: http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcnorth/0-11-126/A-significant-wrinkle-in-Minnesota.html
God i can't wait to see the Vikings run this.
This FanPost was created by a registered user of The Daily Norseman, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the staff of the site. However, since this is a community, that view is no less important.
15 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
As long as it works, it will be fun.
Let’s be real about Childress. He’s always been a copycat. He was bare-bones vanilla when nobody else dared to do much else, or when “else” meant shotgun, rushing from shotgun formation, toss sweep, and 3 WR sets. He’s been 100% anti-toss-sweep because everybody else seems to prefer challenging the big DTs rather than running around them (or is it because several teams didn’t have a RB as fast as AP?). He said that 3WR sets were a bad idea, yet even Tyler Thigpen was highly productive with 3WR, which even casts doubt on all other doubters of the spread in the NFL. He was even against shotgun in his first year, but only because he wanted to be like Mike Holmgren and the old Niners, not because of original thought.
Similarly, I don’t expect Chilly and Bevell to do anything terribly different with the wildcat than those who ran plays out of it last year.
Let's Be Real about the Myth of Creativity
Vince Lombardi did not care to surprise you with new plays. He did not confuse you with which play was coming either. When his Packers lined up, you knew, #5 is getting the ball and he was coming on the power sweep. That boring, direct approach to football was Lombardi’s way of saying he was about to knock you flat on your can.
You don’t get any more points for a touchdown if the play you used had never been run in the history of the game, nor do the officials deduct any style points if you score using the same dive right, every time, all season long.
It is also true that Childress has won more games each season he has coached the Minnesota Vikings. If he continues to do that, I won’t care who dreamt up the plays or who decided to call then. He’s not claiming to be David Copperfield or that he’s going to make the Statue of Liberty disappear right before your eyes.
If they are scoring touchdowns out of the Wildcat or the Single Wing or Student Body Right, I won’t be unhappy.
Sir Isaac Newton was an arrogant egotist, but at his moment of triumph he said that if he had seen further than other men it was because he had stood on the shoulders of giants. That was just another way of saying what the English cleric Charles Caleb Colton would later say: “Immitation is the sincerest form of flattery.”
If it works, do it.
People don’t remember Edison for the thousands of light bulbs he made that never worked, nor do they call him an uncreative failure. As Edison said, "Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration. "
Nice to make your point
about only doing what has already been done, by quoting quates that are old and tired, and totaly lack in creativity today.
Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?
by the Real Thor on May 31, 2009 6:44 PM CDT up reply actions
I didn’t find it to be that bad. Actually thought he used those examples quite well to describe his point of view. Personally, I think that today’s world is built upon what’s new. Everything is about numbers and watching film. If something works for a team, other teams are figuring out how to beat it. Once beat, everyone tracks on how it was done.
I agree on some of this. Mostly the part about not needing to be creative. I understand that it creates good highlights, which are always fun, but there’s nothing wrong with keeping things simple. That said, you obviously aren’t going to be able to do the same play over and over in today’s NFL. That’s just not going to happen. Unless you’re expecting no results.
But it's been done
No, maybe that’s too weird (Godley & Creme flashback).
Forrestt Gregg, Paul Hornung, Jerry Kramer, Fuzzy Thurston, Kenny Bowman…. Yeah, cheesheads one and all, but they did it.
Lots of naysayers on Lombardi’s style of smash-mouth football…. which is understandable. It hasn’t been done in decades… To pull that off, you need a really powerful, dominant front line and running back. They need to be absolutely brutal and committed for the beating they’re going to have to overcome.
Hrmm…. I’m a comparative youngster, so I’ve only seen one other team do that… The 1982 Washington Redskins, behind a massive front line nicknamed “The Hogs”, and a bruising RB named John Riggins. The offensive playbook was generally considered, “Riggins Right, Riggins Left, Riggins up the Middle”, everyone knew it was coming and no one (not even the Beloved Purple) could do a damned thing about it. Pure power football…. damn but it was beautiful.
Could it be done today? That’s a helluva question. With the right front line, I can’t see any reason why not. Teams like the Colts would be brutalized by it.
Would love to see the Vikes give it a go :)
Could be scary..
If R. Brown and R. Williams can run this and be very successful it could be scary to see how successful ap, taylor, and harvin could be. I’m with most of you guys, when I say it doesn’t really matter if Childress makes changes or not. I guess I’m not even sure how different you could make the wildcat offense. It’s pretty much just a qb choice. If the qb sees the rb has room then he hands it off, if he sees he himself has more room to run then he keeps it yourself. I guess maybe, whoever is taking the snap could throw the ball more, but as far as I know ap, taylor, or harvin haven’t ever played QB.
I think, if they want a wildcat QB, and they’re not going to use Jackson, it should be Sidney Rice. I think everyone remembers those gadget plays where he just launches the ball downfield. I think it was the Raiders game a couple seasons ago, he threw the ball what looked like half the field to Shiancoe, who didn’t get the TD, but it was a huge gain.
was at that game
and yes it was a great way to start out the game with an explosive play, it kind of set the tempo for the whole game. However I think that they will want Sidney as a reciever in those situations because of his size. Plus they have already been giving Darius Reynaud looks in that spot.
sugar + water + purple
i'm still not convinced
that chili will actually use the wildcat in actual meaningful games. i see it as a gimmick to make other coaches have to gameplan for it.
by iseepurplepeople on Jun 1, 2009 3:07 PM CDT reply actions
Why the Wildcat could work well here
Not to be a whiner but I don’t see the point of the wildcat. AP has just as big of a chance to bust big on a normal run play. If you really want to get Harvin going one way and AP the other, then just run reverses and fake reverse handoff’s like normal respectable teams do. Have Harvin streaking across as the snap gets off then hand off up the middle. Occasionally give it to Harvin.
I just don’t see the big advantage of the wildcat. To me it only seems like it would work if they are confused but at this point people wouldn’t be surprised.
If they did run the Wildcat, I think it would be better without AP out there. You want the D in a passing defense like nickel. With AP out there, they always stay in run personel. It defeats the purpose. You want to run the wildcat, put Chess and Harvin on the field with 3 other WR’s. Teams will get into passing personel then and you can run wildcat.
Just think of how pointless it would be though to run wildcat with AP back there. Get them in a running defense and then pull the QB out of the backfield. Not smart. You wan’t Harvin shennanigans with AP out there then run a reverse or fake reverse AP up the middle play.
Or play action to AP and have a QB that doesn’t suck throw it to a receiver who doesn’t suck for a TD. Not as fancy but usually that’s how the best teams score.
i'm old school
i like the plays when the defense knows exactly what we’re going to do and we come out, smack em in the mouth, and do it anyway!
by iseepurplepeople on Jun 4, 2009 11:24 AM CDT reply actions

by 






















