In Defense of the Wildcat
One of the few complaints I've consistently seen with most 'Bama fans following the Virginia Tech game is criticism of our use of the Wildcat. And in all fairness, in terms of actual production, our use of the Wildcat didn't generate very many yards. I haven't crunched the specific numbers just yet, but off-hand I can really only recall about one good run from the formation, and most of the runs generally resulted in little success. Furthermore, we did have a promising drive end on a poor snap in the Wildcat from William Vlachos to Mark Ingram, and Saban himself said in the post-game interview that he and his staff thought some of the things we tried in the first half (the Wildcat, among others) would be a bit more productive than they were.
With that said, however, I'll still defend our use of the Wildcat to date. Yards gained and points accumulated are ultimately the measures of offensive success, of course, but that is not to say that something cannot have value even if the actual raw production in terms of yards and points was not as high as you would like. And to that end with the Wildcat, even though it didn't grind out a lot of yards, our usage of it still provided a lot of positives for the Tide offense. First and foremost, by splitting McElroy out side and effectively taking him out of the play, we made the transition a bit smoother for him in his first start by effectively giving him a few plays off. Moreover, we gave our future opponents a lot more to prepare for than they otherwise would have -- and combined with the Pistol, all of the shotgun work, the jet sweeps, etc., a lot more to prepare for -- and using the Wildcat many times on tough, physical, interior running plays helped wear down the Virginia Tech defense. Sure people were complaining that we didn't get a lot of yards on the Wildcat runs, but I saw no one complaining when the Hokie defense was completely gassed in the fourth quarter, and our running of the Wildcat at least had a small hand in that.
Furthermore, it should be pointed out that any lack of success we had in the running game while using the Wildcat was really not caused by us running the Wildcat. No we weren't moving the ball well on the ground early, but we wouldn't have moved the ball particularly well on the ground regardless of whether or not we were running the Wildcat, the I-formation, a two-tight end set, or whatever other formation you can think of. Simply put, we were unable to throw the football, Virginia Tech was compressing their entire defense, and frankly their undersized but lightning quick defenders in the front seven were flat-out whipping our offensive line on almost every single snap. The lack of success stemmed not from poor play-calling, but from poor execution up front. Therefore, you don't need to scrap the Wildcat as much as you simply need the offensive line to play better football.
Moreover, I will also add that we were very conservative in our usage of the Wildcat. Why? I imagine it was because we didn't want to risk a big negative play that the Hokies could quickly turn into points, but in any event we were indeed quite conservative when we lined up in the Wildcat. Still, moving forward, it doesn't take an offensive genius of Walshian proportions to figure out that the possibilities for using the Wildcat in a variety of different ways is almost infinite. Rest assured we've got some passes installed, counters, misdirections, sweeps to other players, laterals to McElroy to set up other passes (remember, he stayed on the field when we ran this) and hell perhaps even a bit of an option game worked into it. You could effectively dream up scenarios all day long, and at some point in time I think you can be confident that you will see many of them. I highly doubt our coaching staff spent the time installing this that they did only to have Ingram consistently run it between the tackles ala Woody Hayes. And, undoubtedly, our opponents from here on out will have to spend valuable time preparing for every single one of those possibilities.
So, no, the Wildcat wasn't overly successful in its debut for the Crimson Tide, but for now I'll defend its usage anyway. Even though it didn't generate a lot of rushing yards, it still helped us in some other ways, and at any rate it was largely unsuccessful not because of the formation itself, but because of a lack of execution from our offensive line. If the offensive line plays better, or plays an opponent without the defensive quality of the Hokies, it should come to life. I, for one, hope we see it again when Arkansas comes to town.
ed.- Thought I'd throw this bit in from Gentry Estes's twitter feed:
Ingram: "If I have to throw it, I will."
0 recs |
16 comments
|
Comments
im wondering...
…why they couldnt do it with the offensive line we had last year…
hell, direct snaps to coffee and ind ingram…it would have been fun to see.
Tigers Hide and rooooll that TIDE!
by JiggaTide on Sep 7, 2009 1:28 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
(correction)
AND ingram
Tigers Hide and rooooll that TIDE!
by JiggaTide on Sep 7, 2009 1:29 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think ...
that Upchurch and Ingram can do damage in the wildcat after it’s had some time to sink in. On a couple of plays Upchurch looked like Darren McFadden lite. And Ingram is better than Felix Jones. I think doubters should think about that a little before tossing the wildcat in the dumpster.
I also agree that it has value just making teams have to prepare for it. How many teams are going to be able to work covering it, the pistol, the shotgun spread, doubling Julio and the pro sets ? Something has to give.
by Lawboy on Sep 7, 2009 1:31 PM CDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs
not so fast my friend
I was with you until the “Ingram is better than Felix Jones” statement. Ingram isn’t faster than Felix. Ingram is a different type of back than Felix is – more of a physical runner. I like Ingram, but I’m not ready to say he’s better than Felix just yet. And it might not even be a fair comparison given their different skill sets.
by howardcosell on Sep 7, 2009 4:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
if nothing else...
…we now have an answer for this, do we not?
by kleph on Sep 7, 2009 2:07 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Another thing we were likely reluctant to pull out of the playbook before the SEC season starts would be a double pass. If we start getting teams who audible into a sell-out type formation when we line up in the Wild[whatever], leaving someone on an island against Julio or Maze, it wouldn’t take much for McElroy to get the ball and launch it to the end-zone.
Keep in mind that as big of a deal as VT was, it’s still only week one. I would guess that Saban was never too worried about the outcome — even though Tech kept it close, they largely did it on chance sort of things like kick-returns and penalty-aided drives. Saban really had no reason to put our whole playbook on display.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Sep 7, 2009 2:40 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed completely.
No use needlessly experimenting with your new toy that early when you know you’ll probably need it much more later on in the year.
by outsidethesidelines on Sep 7, 2009 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
development
Do you think the wildcat formation gives the play a chance to develop when running between the tackles? Just thinking back to the Ole Miss game last year I dont remember much success of that formation by Ole Miss unless the play went outside.
by robalo216 on Sep 7, 2009 3:37 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
It can work inside...
… and you see a lot of that if you watch teams that run the Wildcat closely. It’s just like any other interior running play: you get a hat on a hat, get a small crease, and then with a good back you can get a big play quick. Ole Miss really didn’t have much success with that against us last year simply because with the interior of our front seven, no one really could run inside on us.
But you are right with the outside runs, the Wildcat really increases the possibility of breaking a big one on the outside. In a lot of ways, the Wildcat is really an anti-spread formation. It purposely bunches everyone together right around the ball, but when you do that the defense really leaves its outside flanks vulnerable. That makes it really easy for the offense, if they can even remotely seal off the edges, if they have a fast tailback, because then they can quickly bounce things outside and suddenly they have a lot of green grass in front of them.
by outsidethesidelines on Sep 7, 2009 3:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chris from smart football noted “Whenever any team goes wildcat Bud Foster just blitzes the corner right at it”
by Alabama ManDance on Sep 7, 2009 3:57 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I too defend the Wildcat
1) Using the Wildcat TOTALLY had VT off guard on our 1st offensive play of the game. If not for the referees having some kind of issue (which had the effect of us being at the line, but unable to snap the ball essentially robbing us of the element of surprise), VT wouldn’t have even gotten lined up properly. The VT defensive line was furiously motioning to the sidelines that Ingram was in the Wildcat and they didn’t know how the coaches wanted them to line up. Whatever problem the officials were having provided enough of a delay for VT to receive instructions from the sideline, which helped them to get lined up right before we snapped the ball.
2) If Brad S. blocks the DB on that 1st play, Ingram gets at least a first down and has 1 guy to beat to score a TD. Smelley coming across the formation didn’t continue his motion outward toward the DB, but for some reason curled back and tried to seal off the inside (which was already sealed off). That is why you see Ingram so animated after the play yelling at Smelley. I think Ingram sensed that he could have taken it to the house and was frustrated with his TE that he didn’t execute the play properly. If they had executed that play right I think it would have given our O some huge early momentum, building off of the defenses impressive first series.
3) The Wildcat lends itself to being a power running formation. If executed properly it can be devastating (see Utah). It is most effective when used multiple times, not as a gimmicky flea-flicker type deal. I completely understand why the coaches kept calling it and I hope we continue to employ it as an offensive weapon.
by howardcosell on Sep 7, 2009 4:00 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
smelley missed
on several other blocks as well and perhaps this is why we saw a lot of Preston Dial in the 2nd half?
2008 Iron Bowl Bumper Sticker: Shut DOWN, Shut OUT, now SHUT UP!
Alabama 36 - Auburn 0
by LittleSis on Sep 7, 2009 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with both of you.
I just re-watched the game and noticed Smelley goof several blocks, although on at least one occasion one of the receiver’s appeared to take his assignment. I think Ingram was so mad on the first play not only because Smelley missed his blocking assignment, but he also turned back toward the backfield and smacked right into Ingram.
by Bubba Chang on Sep 7, 2009 8:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with both of you.
I just re-watched the game and noticed Smelley goof several blocks, although on at least one occasion one of the receiver’s appeared to take his assignment. I think Ingram was so mad on the first play not only because Smelley missed his blocking assignment, but he also turned back toward the backfield and smacked right into Ingram.
by Bubba Chang on Sep 7, 2009 8:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm for anything
that opens up our offense and makes us less predictable. And I agree it did help wear down VT. I’m sure we will see it again this year, although we may not use it the next 2 weeks.
I hate the NCAA more than UT & AU combined. At least with UT & AU you got a fighting chance.
by 5026 on Sep 7, 2009 5:45 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
There is also another quarterback....
Earl Alexander was a quaterback in high school…couldn’t he possibly run this as well…i dont know the extent of Ingram’s arm strength…but knowing ingram he probably has a stud arm! but i was just thinking about more ways to get Alexander more toches!
Later Days
Jason Brakefield
Romans 8:38-39
by BamaFever10 on Sep 8, 2009 2:30 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

by 













