Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Hasselbeck using the Shotgun? « previous next »
Page: 1 2



Guest
: October 19, 2006, 04:35:41 PM

Maybe it's not a WC thing to not use the shot gun. Maybe it's a University of Dayton thing, because Chuck Noll always refused to use the shot gun with the Steelers.

Apparently, at this point, the shotgun is an "everyone except for Jon Gruden" thing.  ;)

gharen

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1639
Offline
#1 : October 19, 2006, 04:29:06 PM

Maybe it's not a WC thing to not use the shot gun. Maybe it's a University of Dayton thing, because Chuck Noll always refused to use the shot gun with the Steelers.



Guest
#2 : October 19, 2006, 04:25:11 PM

Holmgren came out and gave Hasselbeck the ok to use the shotgun if he feels more comfortable in that situation.  No biggie, right?

The thing is...this leaves Jon Gruden as the only coach in the NFL who does employ the shotgun.

rocko23

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 3937
Offline
#3 : October 19, 2006, 04:52:32 PM

he needs to use it this week to help deal with the sheagles blitz

coopsxx

*
Starter
****
Posts : 402
Offline
#4 : October 19, 2006, 05:12:33 PM

i think dunno why there is such a desire from fans to see us use a shotgun, it restricts the use of run plays. rollouts bootlegs, and playactions. It sets the D a target of where the QB is gonna be and there is a greater chance of fumbles. Plus its harder to block D becasue of the angle you create



Guest
#5 : October 19, 2006, 05:31:51 PM

i think dunno why there is such a desire from fans to see us use a shotgun, it restricts the use of run plays. rollouts bootlegs, and playactions. It sets the D a target of where the QB is gonna be and there is a greater chance of fumbles. Plus its harder to block D becasue of the angle you create

I'm not necessarily of one opinion or the other.  Jon knows what he's doing.  It's interesting to speculate, though, especially when every single other team in the league uses it.  I realize that it limits running/blocking, but so does going 5 wide and that has its place.  I'm just wondering.

OpTiOnMaStA

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 0
Offline
#6 : October 19, 2006, 09:03:11 PM

i think dunno why there is such a desire from fans to see us use a shotgun, it restricts the use of run plays. rollouts bootlegs, and playactions. It sets the D a target of where the QB is gonna be and there is a greater chance of fumbles. Plus its harder to block D becasue of the angle you create

There are a variety of reasons. For one, look at how many teams in the league use the formation. It is a very common formation for most teams. Some teams, such as the Colts run almost their entire offense out of the shotgun formation. It is clear that someone who does not watch a ton of football and could be considered more of a casual fan would see that as a reason for the team to use it. The Colts are a great offensive power and they use the formation a ton, so why shouldn't we? This argument does not take into account such counterarguments like the west coast timing is altered by the shotgun.

Secondly, you bring up three points about why installing the formation is not a prudent venture for the team. The first is that the formation limits playcalling. With this I respectfully disagree. The formation, if run only occasionally actually expands your playcalling. A team that runs the formation as their basic offensive set would be limited, yes, however a team who only uses the shotgun formation sparingly would be expanding their capabilities. Take for example the Falcons and their read option play. They absolutely blew our run defense apart by using this play. Gradkowski is no Michael Vick, however, he could on occasion have similar success with that type of play. The shotgun formation is actually the key to this play because of the read that Vick is able to make from the start. He is off of the line of scrimage far enough that he can read the blitz more effectively and then make his decision as to whether to keep or hand the ball off. This brings me to another point of why it is a worthwhile venture, despite your arguments. The QB is able to see the field better from the formation. This is indisputable. Stepping back just a few steps helps a ton with what the QB can see rather than being under center.

The second argument you make is that the offensive line has a harder time blocking for the QB. On this point I will partially agree. The teams that you see having success with the formation are the teams who have good offensive lines. Aren't those the same teams that are having success in football on the offensive side of the ball in general anyway? I think this has considerably less to do with the formation than with the linemen themselves, but I will credit you with the fact that the Bucs offensive line has been shaky all season and for the last few seasons at that and so this could present a problem. Usually people associate the formation with allowing the QB to have more time to throw but really if your line is no good then this formation doesn't help you there except maybe a second give or take.

Your third and final argument is that there is a greater chance of fumbles from the shotgun. I don't believe this. I don't know where that came from, and I don't know where it could possibly come. The only way to know would be to keep track of fumbles out of the formation for a season at the least and probably more like 2-5 seasons in order to know for sure if your allegation is accurate. I don't believe that there is any correlation between using the formation and an increased number of fumbles, but if you have a website to show me that in fact then I will believe it. Really, it sounds more like mere opinion than anything and that's cool. I would be interested to know if you have a site though.

In short it is good in moderation and better if you have a good OL. That could be why we aren't using it.

alldaway

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 37350
Online
#7 : October 19, 2006, 09:10:45 PM

Brad Johnson with the Vikes used the shotgun often in Childress' version of the WCO against the Panthers a few weeks back.  With that said he was still sacked out of it and pressured.   The disadvantage of the shotgun is that there is a chance a bad snap takes place many yards behind the line of scrimmage compared to taking it under center. 

In my very personal opinion the shotgun should be used sparingly as a change of pace.  I do not believe it should be a staple of an offense in today's NFL.   I see no reason why not to use it once and a while though.  It simply comes down to a difference in philosophy I suppose .




keeponbucn

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11481
Offline
#8 : October 19, 2006, 09:13:45 PM

I bet the Bucs run the shotgun before the year is over. He's pretty open minded in that respect and if the QB is excels at it, ala TOm BRady, then he'll depoloy it.

Caveat Emperor

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1270
Offline
#9 : October 19, 2006, 10:40:01 PM

Gruden's offensive plays are all designed for the quarterback to have a primary read come open when the back foot hits on whatever step the drop is. When the offensive plays are called correctly for a given defense, the QB should be able to step, step, step, throw in one fluid motion -- 3 steps back, Galloway coming open over the near hash is on a slant is primary. It's Gruden's belief that the key to running this offense is having the timing be perfect and the reads be instantaneous. The shotgun disrupts that two ways: 1.) It adds an uncontrollable variable to the play in the length of time required for the ball to reach the QB and be placed into a throwning-grip and 2.) It requires the QB look the snap into his hands and take his eyes off the defense.

Are they fatal flaws that could never be corrected? No -- the degree of precision lost in a shotgun snap exchange vs. a 3 or 5 step drop is so miniscule that I doubt it makes a huge difference in the long run. The eyes thing might be a bigger concern, since so much of the offense seems geared around deciding quickly whether the primary target will be open for the throw when or whether a checkdown needs to be used -- but most throws made out of the Shotgun are more downfield and give the QB more time to make a read as the play is in motion.

At this point, it's a dogmatic choice that Gruden makes. Having said that, I doubt that using the shotgun would change anything about this team's offensive strengths and deficencies.

coopsxx

*
Starter
****
Posts : 402
Offline
#10 : October 20, 2006, 02:52:12 AM

great replies, i have no onjection for it to be used occasionally but i dont thing we would reap Colt like benefits, i dont really see much advantage, maybe some but not enough to alter a whole scheme.

rocketspeed

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 0
Offline
#11 : October 20, 2006, 02:55:20 AM

There are a variety of reasons. For one, look at how many teams in the league use the formation. It is a very common formation for most teams. Some teams, such as the Colts run almost their entire offense out of the shotgun formation. It is clear that someone who does not watch a ton of football and could be considered more of a casual fan would see that as a reason for the team to use it. The Colts are a great offensive power and they use the formation a ton, so why shouldn't we? This argument does not take into account such counterarguments like the west coast timing is altered by the shotgun.

Secondly, you bring up three points about why installing the formation is not a prudent venture for the team. The first is that the formation limits playcalling. With this I respectfully disagree. The formation, if run only occasionally actually expands your playcalling. A team that runs the formation as their basic offensive set would be limited, yes, however a team who only uses the shotgun formation sparingly would be expanding their capabilities. Take for example the Falcons and their read option play. They absolutely blew our run defense apart by using this play. Gradkowski is no Michael Vick, however, he could on occasion have similar success with that type of play. The shotgun formation is actually the key to this play because of the read that Vick is able to make from the start. He is off of the line of scrimage far enough that he can read the blitz more effectively and then make his decision as to whether to keep or hand the ball off. This brings me to another point of why it is a worthwhile venture, despite your arguments. The QB is able to see the field better from the formation. This is indisputable. Stepping back just a few steps helps a ton with what the QB can see rather than being under center.

The second argument you make is that the offensive line has a harder time blocking for the QB. On this point I will partially agree. The teams that you see having success with the formation are the teams who have good offensive lines. Aren't those the same teams that are having success in football on the offensive side of the ball in general anyway? I think this has considerably less to do with the formation than with the linemen themselves, but I will credit you with the fact that the Bucs offensive line has been shaky all season and for the last few seasons at that and so this could present a problem. Usually people associate the formation with allowing the QB to have more time to throw but really if your line is no good then this formation doesn't help you there except maybe a second give or take.

Your third and final argument is that there is a greater chance of fumbles from the shotgun. I don't believe this. I don't know where that came from, and I don't know where it could possibly come. The only way to know would be to keep track of fumbles out of the formation for a season at the least and probably more like 2-5 seasons in order to know for sure if your allegation is accurate. I don't believe that there is any correlation between using the formation and an increased number of fumbles, but if you have a website to show me that in fact then I will believe it. Really, it sounds more like mere opinion than anything and that's cool. I would be interested to know if you have a site though.

In short it is good in moderation and better if you have a good OL. That could be why we aren't using it.


Is there a point here? *sarcasim* LOL



Guest
#12 : October 20, 2006, 09:10:56 AM

I bet the Bucs run the shotgun before the year is over. He's pretty open minded in that respect and if the QB is excels at it, ala TOm BRady, then he'll depoloy it.

Also, Gruden likes to keep something up his sleeve.  Maybe this is one of those things.  First game with G-Kow, he had him roll out, bootleg alot.  Next game, he made him a pocket passer.  At some point during the season, maybe the shotgun is another wrinkle???

Naaaaaaaaahhh...  :)

InChuckyITrust

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11562
Offline
#13 : October 20, 2006, 02:23:33 PM

so what, we're up and coming without the gun

"there are no medals here for who can stay at the office the longest," said Jagodzinski. "I'm not into that. The guys that brag about working till 2 in the morning, in my opinion, they're just not smart enough. "

18,2,25,13 ... murderers row?

I support coach Calhoun and his salary

redbeard10

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2355
Offline
#14 : October 20, 2006, 02:45:33 PM

Holmgren came out and gave Hasselbeck the ok to use the shotgun if he feels more comfortable in that situation.  No biggie, right?

The thing is...this leaves Jon Gruden as the only coach in the NFL who does employ the shotgun.
Bill Parcells does not use Bledsoe in the shotgun.
Page: 1 2
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Hasselbeck using the Shotgun? « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools