Quote: As far as I can remember, that feller there isn't exactly the most mobile of QBs. Maybe I missed something?
Maybe I'm missing something. I don't claim to be an offensive guru. Plus, I didn't watch them much but I'd guess that's a rare formation for them. You'll probably see it from us on occasion as well. But it's surely not going to be our bread and butter formation.
Somebody help me.
Either by backing me up or by detailing another viewpoint.
The entire point of the Pistol formation is for the QB to still be in the Shotgun while giving the running back a running start. You do not need a mobile QB to run that formation.
Quote: The entire point of the Pistol formation is for the QB to still be in the Shotgun while giving the running back a running start. You do not need a mobile QB to run that formation.
Hmm..... so this seems to bring back all of my original questions. You guys settled the shotgun/under-center comparison, but the most convincing advantage of under-center is the RB getting a running start. Pistol formation appears to have this built in. And doesn't this also take care of confusing the defense? It could be a pass, it could be a run. And the QB doesn't have to just stand there if it's a pass either. What is stopping him from rolling right or left out of this formation?
There are questions about the Pistol because it is fairly new. Many college teams run it and I'm guessing we will see a ton of it in the pros this year. As you saw above Peyton Manning seems to be trying it out.
Quote: You do not need a mobile QB to run that formation.
That is incorrect. The QB has to present a real threat to run the ball himself. The point of the "Pistol" is to outman the defence at the point of attack. If the QB is no threat, then you negate the intent of the formation. In the "Pistol", the QB is 3-4 yards directly behind center, while in the "Shotgun", he is typically 7 yards behind center. (You are correct in stating that the "Pistol" is a formation, not a scheme).
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers...Socrates
Quote: That is incorrect. The QB has to present a real threat to run the ball himself.
Why? You seem to be relying on the way it is popularly used --
Quote: The point of the "Pistol" is to outman the defence at the point of attack. If the QB is no threat, then you negate the intent of the formation.
Who cares what the "intent" is for how it has been used thus far. It doesn't answer my question about why it is more advantageous for a QB to line up under-center as opposed to a short distance behind the OL. What can a typical under-center QB not do in the pistol?
You only need the mobile QB if you are going to run the option. The real benefit is to have the QB closer to the line than he would normally be in the shotgun. This allows the QB to better read the defense. It also allows the QB to be far enough back to get a good view of all the receivers.
Why would the Broncos be fiddling around with it if you needed a mobile QB? Do you think Manning would waste valuable practice time on something he isn't going to use?
Alabama has been running the Pistol for a few years now. Here is a video from 2009 with Greg McElroy at QB (non-mobile QB).(The running back might look familiar):
Chris Ault is usually credited with bringing the Pistol to the big stage in 2005. In 2005 his QB was Jeff Rowe he had 244 and 207 yards rushing in his two years in the offense. It wasn't until 2006 when Ault got freak of nature Colin Kaepernick did it start to incoporate more read option plays.
True, as I was not addressing your question, but rather the comment about the "Pistol" as I quoted...
Yes, but the statement by cfrs you were responding to has everything to do with my question. Basically, my question is cfrs' statement in question form. So, do you have an answer?
You may wish to reread crfs's post at 4:08; that was what I was responding to. It concerns only the "Pistol". Don't try to suck me in to your under-center discussion...
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers...Socrates
Quote: You do not need a mobile QB to run that formation.
That is incorrect. The QB has to present a real threat to run the ball himself. The point of the "Pistol" is to outman the defence at the point of attack. If the QB is no threat, then you negate the intent of the formation. In the "Pistol", the QB is 3-4 yards directly behind center, while in the "Shotgun", he is typically 7 yards behind center. (You are correct in stating that the "Pistol" is a formation, not a scheme).
Let me just get something out of the way so you can stop posting misconceptions.
Pistol =/= Option
You can run the option offense out of a pistol formation, but that isn't the only thing you can do.
The main advantage of a pistol formation is that it is a good compromise between a normal formation with the QB under center and the shotgun. It allows for a lot of the strengths of both positions to be utilized, all the while keeping a distance between the RB and QB that still makes running more effective than in a shotgun.
Proud fan of the Pulaski Academy football strategy.
You may wish to reread crfs's post at 4:08; that was what I was responding to. It concerns only the "Pistol". Don't try to suck me in to your under-center discussion...
LOL... okay, don't answer my question, a question which is relevant to your post on what the Pistol requires. We could have had a productive discussion about it, but oh well.
Quote: ...but that isn't the only thing you can do.
That's quite true; never said anything different. What misconception did I post?
Quote: That is incorrect. The QB has to present a real threat to run the ball himself.
It is simply not true that you need a QB who is a running threat to effectively use the pistol formation. Don't take my word for it though.
Quote: Ault said that any NFL team, even those with slow, pocket passers, could run its offense out of the pistol.
“They could run the pistol formation,” Ault said. “They don’t need to run the read part of it. When we first put the pistol in, in 2005 and 2006, that’s all we ran — we ran the power, the gap, the counters, the zones, the outside stuff. We did not run the read at that time. So the pistol offense, the most important thing there is you can run any offense you’ve been running.”
So you're going to choose to be deliberately obtuse and ignore everything that proves your assertion wrong?
Good to know, I needed to add someone to my ignore list, it's been too long.
Perhaps you missed this:
"You know, I know we saw Kaep run for 181 yards against Green Bay. That certainly -- the read part of the game -- is great," Ault said. "What you saw last week is what I believe our pistol brings to the table. Kaep didn't run it. He read it and handed it off, because Atlanta was taking away Kaep on the outside.
This confirms what I said about the QB presenting a threat to keep the ball. He doesn't have to be a great runner, but he has to present the threat to keep the ball. Are you through with the caustic remarks now?
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers...Socrates
Quote: Who cares what the "intent" is for how it has been used thus far. It doesn't answer my question about why it is more advantageous for a QB to line up under-center as opposed to a short distance behind the OL. What can a typical under-center QB not do in the pistol?
and
Quote: LOL... okay, don't answer my question, a question which is relevant to your post on what the Pistol requires. We could have had a productive discussion about it, but oh well.
I think a lot of people have been answering your questions. It has been a good discussion, but now it appears to me that you are forcing the discussion in a certain direction and getting upset w/posters if they don't answer the way you want them to. That's rude.
It's pretty obvious to me that you --and maybe a couple of other posters---want to make it sound like lining up in the shotgun is better than lining up under center in all circumstances.
You seem to have ignored that you have more flexibility w/audibles and that you can have more formations from under center. For instance, the I formation.
cfrs did post vids of some other formations, such as the off-set I, but that doesn't mean they are as effective. Look, if the shotgun was so completely superior, why would offensive geniuses who work in the NFL ever line up center?
Like I said earlier, there are advantages to both. I thought we were having a productive and good discussion, but you are getting pissy because people aren't answering the way you want them to. If you want everyone to believe the shotgun is far superior and that teams should never line up center, then just say it. Several people were being polite and taking the time to answer your questions and then you turn around and get an attitude. You could have saved us a lot of time.
I'll leave it like this. There are advantages to both. Both have some drawbacks. I do think that the shotgun might be better suited to collegiate and NFL games nowadays, but do you really want to run a short yardage situation out of the gun? That's just one more example. NFL teams utilize both because both have their strengths.
Quote: Like I said earlier, there are advantages to both. I thought we were having a productive and good discussion, but you are getting pissy because people aren't answering the way you want them to.
Really? If I'm "getting pissy" about anything, it's because bbrowns32 is not answering my question at all, even though it is relevant to his rather cavalier statement that the QB must be a threat to run out of the pistol.
You must have missed the post where I said the shotgun vs. under-center question was satisfactorily resolved for me, partly by yourself. I'm not asking about the shotgun anymore; I'm asking about this pistol formation which appears to be able to accommodate both run and pass and, therefore, audibles. My new question is, what can a typical under-center QB not do in the pistol? Why can't the "I" formation be run in the pistol with the FB standing next to the QB?
Edit: Oh yes, I should probably add I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious. You indicated that I have a preferred formation, and I'm trying to force people to acknowledge it is best. Maybe some posters operate that way, but I don't.
This is the post by crfs that I was responding to:
Quote: The entire point of the Pistol formation is for the QB to still be in the Shotgun while giving the running back a running start. You do not need a mobile QB to run that formation.
My response addressed only the issue of QB mobility, nothing more, nothing less. I don't believe it is being "cavalier" to wish that Kaepernick was running your "Pistol" as opposed to a Peyton Manning...
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers...Socrates
Quote: This is the post by crfs that I was responding to:
Quote: The entire point of the Pistol formation is for the QB to still be in the Shotgun while giving the running back a running start. You do not need a mobile QB to run that formation.
My response addressed only the issue of QB mobility, nothing more, nothing less. I don't believe it is being "cavalier" to wish that Kaepernick was running your "Pistol" as opposed to a Peyton Manning...
No offense, but I would take Peyton Manning over Kaepermick in any offense. (except maybe the option, or single wing T)
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: My response addressed only the issue of QB mobility, nothing more, nothing less. I don't believe it is being "cavalier" to wish that Kaepernick was running your "Pistol" as opposed to a Peyton Manning...
Okay, that's fair. And if I have been unfairly sucking you into a different discussion, I apologize.
Now, this next part is not directed at you, but to anyone who is interested. What I'm really interested in is this: what can Peyton Manning do under-center that he can't do in the pistol? Notice, I'm not asking what he can do under-center that he can't do in the traditional shotgun.
One possibility that comes to mind is the "I" formation that Versatile mentioned earlier. I don't see why the FB can't line up next to the QB to get the same results. The FB can still lead the RB. The only difference seems to be the RB getting the ball a split second earlier due to the QB being closer to him.
This is all pure curiosity on my part. I don't have anything up my sleeve. I just want to read thoughts on this.
Quote: My response addressed only the issue of QB mobility, nothing more, nothing less. I don't believe it is being "cavalier" to wish that Kaepernick was running your "Pistol" as opposed to a Peyton Manning...
That's not what you originally said, but if you have changed your opinion then I understand.
(What you originally said was you CANNOT run the Pistol with a non-mobile QB. You immediately changed your tune once you were proven wrong.)
Quote: This is all pure curiosity on my part. I don't have anything up my sleeve. I just want to read thoughts on this.
If I knew more about the pistol I'd try to help. As it is I'm as curious as you. I like to learn too. Hopefully someone with a greater knowledge of X's & O's will come to our aid.
Vers did mention the "I" formation and he also mentioned that there is a greater number of possible plays to choose from when the QB is under center rather than in the shotgun, ( and I assume this applies to vs the pistol formation as well), which means a larger selection of plays to audible into.
Yes, those are definitely theoretical possibilities. Now I'm hoping someone can give an example of such a play, one that can only be done under-center and which has no equivalent in the pistol.
Quote: My response addressed only the issue of QB mobility, nothing more, nothing less. I don't believe it is being "cavalier" to wish that Kaepernick was running your "Pistol" as opposed to a Peyton Manning...
That's not what you originally said, but if you have changed your opinion then I understand.
(What you originally said was you CANNOT run the Pistol with a non-mobile QB. You immediately changed your tune once you were proven wrong.)
Well of course you can attempt to run the pistol with a non-mobile QB. However, you severely limit its' intent/effectiveness as the defence knows there is no chance a Peyton Manning-type QB will keep and run the ball. Who do you want behind center in your pistol: Manning or Kaepernick? Self-evident, but it was my bad for making too general a statement; I should have been more specific. My opinion is howerer, unchanged...
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers...Socrates
Quote: ...one that can only be done under-center and which has no equivalent in the pistol.
One comes immediately to mind: 4th and inches, QB sneak. I don't believe you would want to run that play from the pistol...
Yes, perfect example. I have no questions on that one.
Okay, so we have one specific play that can't be reasonably done in the pistol. Are there more? I should add, if you give a specific play, describe it in detail. Don't just say "I" formation, etc. Explain where the players are positioned and what they do throughout the play.
Quote: Edit: Oh yes, I should probably add I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious. You indicated that I have a preferred formation, and I'm trying to force people to acknowledge it is best. Maybe some posters operate that way, but I don't.
I apologize if I misunderstood you. I was defending 32. Him and I completely disagree on all the regime stuff, but he is a real nice guy. Very classy. I don' think he was trying to blow you off.
I did miss the part about you were satisfied w/the shotgun conversation. I apologize. I should have read more closely before I tore into you. Sorry.
I really don't know much about the Pistol other than what I have read and saw on TV. I never had to defend it when I was coaching. Can't really help you.
I do think there are some positives w/that formation. A couple of things make me think that. 1. P. Manning did say he wanted to learn more about it and use it. Not sure about the second part, but I am sure about the first.
2. I think the new wave of QB in the NFL are going to be dual-threat guys. Guys like Luck, RGIII, Rodgers, Newton, Wilson, Big Ben. These guys can all beat you w/their legs, but what separates them is unlike past running qbs, these guys can all torch you w/their arms. And all but maybe Newton are better w/their arms than they are their legs. From what I have seen of the Pistol, this dual-threat can be used to exploit the defense.
I can't quite figure out why Manning wants to run it. I think the Pistol would lose its effectiveness if the qb isn't a threat to run. But again, I really don't know enough about the Pistol to talk w/a lot of knowledge.
I'm going to think about this and try and pay close attention during both collegiate and NFL games, so I might understand the Pistol more. I'll get back to you if you are still interested down the road.
No problem. I don't know much about it either, but I get the feeling we are going to be learning a lot more about it this year. We should definitely discuss this again as the evidence continues to come in.
The pistol is an exotic formation,born to address afew of the limitations of running the ball from the shotgun. A play that can be run from the pistol and not from under center;speed option. A play that can be run from the shotgun and not from under center;speed option. Plays that can be run more effectively from the pistol than the shotgun are any type of lead plays,iso,power and that misnamed lead dive.(I'm referred to the true pistol;a qb,a tailback and a sidecar.Not what was in the Manning picture) All quick hitting plays,dive,trap,are much more effective from under center.
Quote: ... pay close attention during both collegiate and NFL games, so I might understand the Pistol more
Whereas Mike Tomlin believes the pistol will go the way of the Wildcat and the Dodo bird, the pistol may be around at least until teams can easily defence it. If it didn't bring such an important "new" wrinkle to the game, why did many (all?) teams send their DC's to training sessions (usually at the college level) this past off-season? Obviously a complex subject, but one worthwhile paying attention to this season. (And Vers...thanks).
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers...Socrates
Quote: All quick hitting plays,dive,trap,are much more effective from under center.
Good, more potential plays to add to the list. You're going to have to explain these more, though. Is a "dive" play the same as a QB sneak? Who handles the ball, and what are they doing with it? Same questions for a "trap" play.
You know, there is some is always some disagreement when it comes to the dive play. Here is my definition:
You can run it w/either the FB or TB. Most teams run it w/the FB. You can have a lead blocker, although most think there isn't a lead blocker involved. LOL. You run it on short yardage plays, such as 3rd and 2 or 4th and 1 or on the goal line. You run it through the A gaps, which are between the center and guard on either side.
I love trap plays and used to run a ton of them when I was coaching. You catch defenders unawares and can knock them for a loop. The Steelers used to be the best trap blocking team around...by far. I don't watch the game as closely as I used to, but I don't think the same can be said for them now.
The trap is where you take one of your linemen [typically the guard] on the opposite side of the center and have him block "down" on the opposing defensive linemen. You have your front side guys gap block [some call this angle blocking] and blindside the d-lineman [typically a DT] w/a guard who is moving at a high rate of speed. I loved running behind trap blocking when I played. You string it out and then cut sharply behind the trap block. There is almost always a seam and you can burst into the second level in a hurry. The play can be derailed if the LBers are coming hard and get in the way of the guy who is the trapping.
It's a great blocking technique. You may ask why teams don't use it more often. I say that you have to have some agility and good technique to pull it off. Too many guys in the NFL are just big, dumb plodders. That is why certain teams always seem to have effective running games. They don't rely on the big dummies who can only man block. Guys like Shanny in Denver/Washington employ more zone blocking techniques and I am here to tell you that smart, technically sound, agile run blockers beat the pants off of the big dummies any day of the week. We have perhaps the best in Joe Thomas. Steiny was another one.
I can't remember which thread it was, but guys were talking about blocking schemes. I think they had it dead wrong for the most part. They were talking about finesse and brute strength blocking on running/pass plays. That isn't the way it works. I think someone should start a thread about it. It would be an interesting conversation.
Quote: You do not need a mobile QB to run that formation.
That is incorrect. The QB has to present a real threat to run the ball himself. The point of the "Pistol" is to outman the defence at the point of attack. If the QB is no threat, then you negate the intent of the formation. In the "Pistol", the QB is 3-4 yards directly behind center, while in the "Shotgun", he is typically 7 yards behind center. (You are correct in stating that the "Pistol" is a formation, not a scheme).
. . .what you meant to say was, "You are correct."
Quote: You do not need a mobile QB to run that formation.
That is incorrect. The QB has to present a real threat to run the ball himself. The point of the "Pistol" is to outman the defence at the point of attack. If the QB is no threat, then you negate the intent of the formation. In the "Pistol", the QB is 3-4 yards directly behind center, while in the "Shotgun", he is typically 7 yards behind center. (You are correct in stating that the "Pistol" is a formation, not a scheme).
. . .what you meant to say was, "You are correct."
When Cali slips into the Pacific Ocean, maybe then you will repent and say "32 was correct after all". Now, insert last word here...
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers...Socrates
