Colts practice line up with 3WR's and 2 TE's and Empty Backfield!

[ruksak]

I would still have serious reservations as to whether we would ever see such a formation... how often does a team line-up in the goal line of all places, with an empty backfield?

 

 

Well.....when a team has a 6'4 240 pound monster at QB that can move like the wind, this formation in a goal line scenario develops great merit. In order to blitz, a defense has to sacrifice coverage, as we all know. If they don't blitz, Luck can be dangerous with his feet. If they do blitz, Luck will have an ideal target in a 1v1 quite quickly. 

[ruksak]

 

 

If a defense sees an offense cone in the field with no back... they will immediately bring out their dime back.

Then watch the defense ripple in the wake of a screen to Hilton. With Nicks, Wayne and Allen as proficient receiving blockers, I don't see this concept as being in the "gadget" category. 

[NagelHausForge]

I think this formation would be good in certain circumstances provided we get sufficient pass blocking from the line... If the line proves to not be able to give Luck the time he needs then this formation will not be seen.  But why not try everything and see what works?  That's what preseason is for, right?

[ruksak]

I think this formation would be good in certain circumstances provided we get sufficient pass blocking from the line... If the line proves to not be able to give Luck the time he needs then this formation will not be seen.  But why not try everything and see what works?  That's what preseason is for, right?

...and that's pretty much the thread right there. If the O-line holds up under these circumstances against Mathis and company, than I'd say the coaches will see this form as viable and effective. If the line doesn't hold, than it's likely this form never sees daylight. 

[AntonMcG]

Well.....when a team has a 6'4 240 pound monster at QB that can move like the wind, this formation in a goal line scenario develops great merit. In order to blitz, a defense has to sacrifice coverage, as we all know. If they don't blitz, Luck can be dangerous with his feet. If they do blitz, Luck will have an ideal target in a 1v1 quite quickly. 

 

You think this adds a dimension to the offense on the goal line... it doesn't, it takes one away. Teams won't play the run, more than likely, the MIKE will spy Luck whilst playing a zone coverage over the middle. The lack of a downhill runner makes it much easier for the defense.

 

Plus, a back can receive as well... and they can be much easier disguised as a receiving option.

 

I don't necessarily dislike this formation, I just do not see the great benefit of it on the goal line, or for chunk yardage plays.

 

I love empty backfields in the no-huddle, with lots of motion... having Allen back allows us to do a lot more of this. But bringing out 3 WRs and 2 TEs is making it pretty easy for the defense IMO... which is why it is very rare to see it across the league.

[jskinnz]

Then you are dealing with gadget plays essentially... you may get away with it once or twice in a season, sure. But without the threat of running back, play identification would not be overly difficult to diagnose early in the play.

 

Agree to an extent because I do think the run threat has to be there.  They can bring this personnel grouping onto the field but how they line up is another matter.  If Allen is lined up in the backfield, then the run threat is still there.  Pats used to hand the ball to Hernandez from time to time.  Would be interesting to how the d adjusts.

 

With two TEs?

 

I would be shocked to find that they used this personnel grouping against the Chiefs in the playoffs. 

[AntonMcG]

Then watch the defense ripple in the wake of a screen to Hilton. With Nicks, Wayne and Allen as proficient receiving blockers, I don't see this concept as being in the "gadget" category. 

 

Do you think that works consistently? 

[ruksak]

Do you think that works consistently? 

Screens, no, they are a bit of a gamble. A low risk/high reward scenario. But it presents a defense with a different set of options than what they're accustomed to. It means their goal line package must operate under discomfort. Which is the idea I suppose drives such a formation being run in practice. They have extremely limited time for 1st team reps, so anything they review must be seen by fans as having great merit and that any form being run in TC is certainly being far more than just "considered". 

[ruksak]

You think this adds a dimension to the offense on the goal line... it doesn't, it takes one away.

I call it "addition through subtraction". The lack of a run threat at the goal line doesn't mean the defense will smile upon such a move. I say this with much consideration that Luck is, in fact, a serious run threat. 

[Valpo2004]

Spreading it out wide like that could open up Luck to run it up the middle.  

[TKnight24]

I'm sorry, that's not what I was looking for.

The OP said he predicted this formation and he was called out for it.

I'm looking for that thread here on Colts.com

Here's what the OP wrote....

"A few weeks back I was called out for my outrageous prediction that the Colts would use a set featuring 3 WR's, 2 TE's and an empty backfield."

Yep, JPF called it. Here's the post (predicting the formation at the end of the post)

Really? You don't believe the Colts will EVER run an empty backfield formation? The variation would be two wide, two tights, and Richardson, who can be as effective as a slot in dump off, but I believe they'll line up in 5 receiver formations to overload the defense with 5 players who can't all be covered. Sure, Luck has to get the ball out quickly, but should his line give him a snippet of time, how is anyone going to cover Nicks, Hilton, Wayne, Allen and Fleener, or if it is with a back, sub a receiver for Richardson and you still have 5 pass catchers you can't cover. If you lose Fleener, that scenario (using Two Tight Ends with max receivers on a designed play) can't happen with a lesser third level TE.

Additionally, why would we trade one of the top picks from the second round for a third rounder when he had been productive and on an upward trajectory talent wise? Makes no sense unless the money simply isn't there to sign everyone. They you'd still need to make a judgement between who remained healthy this year and produced with other receiving talent on the field at the level we will have this year.

And... we'll see an empty backfield, two tight-end set this year.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

Could see some big numbers from AL if they use this often and the line can hold

 

True, with all those receivers lined up, Luck could just walk right up the middle for a score.

[lollygagger8]

That'd be awesome to setup the 3 WR's and 2 TE's and then let Luck run it in since the defense will be so spread out. 

[AntonMcG]

Agree to an extent because I do think the run threat has to be there.  They can bring this personnel grouping onto the field but how they line up is another matter.  If Allen is lined up in the backfield, then the run threat is still there.  Pats used to hand the ball to Hernandez from time to time.  Would be interesting to how the d adjusts.

 

 

I would be shocked to find that they used this personnel grouping against the Chiefs in the playoffs. 

 

I couldn't agree more... I was a big champion of how the Pats utilized their two TE system. They were great at keeping preferred defenses on the field an making use of mismatches, mainly by moving Hernandez around. Allen can give us similar versatility, specifically in the H-Back role.

 

But a 2-TE, 3-WR empty backfield set? I dunno, just does not make much sense to me.

[AntonMcG]

Screens, no, they are a bit of a gamble. A low risk/high reward scenario. But it presents a defense with a different set of options than what they're accustomed to. It means their goal line package must operate under discomfort. Which is the idea I suppose drives such a formation being run in practice. They have extremely limited time for 1st team reps, so anything they review must be seen by fans as having great merit and that any form being run in TC is certainly being far more than just "considered". 

 

A screen is certainly not a gadget play, but things like end-arounds etc. certainly are. I don't have any problem with screen plays, but screens work best of play action.

[AntonMcG]

I call it "addition through subtraction". The lack of a run threat at the goal line doesn't mean the defense will smile upon such a move. I say this with much consideration that Luck is, in fact, a serious run threat. 

 

Yes but he is a singular run threat who lacks momentum when receiving the ball... QB run success is usually reliant on the additional threat of the RB... hence the success of the read option.

 

Luck would be much easier to defend in these situations than you think.

[chad72]

I couldn't agree more... I was a big champion of how the Pats utilized their two TE system. They were great at keeping preferred defenses on the field an making use of mismatches, mainly by moving Hernandez around. Allen can give us similar versatility, specifically in the H-Back role.

 

But a 2-TE, 3-WR empty backfield set? I dunno, just does not make much sense to me.

 

If teams are stunting and blitzing more often, you send your TEs in space to block for WR screens out of such formations, you can pretty much do that anywhere on the field but gaps will get squeezed closer to the goal line. I am not certain of this being a goal line formation but I think you can get some big yardage out of this formation between the 20s if a D tries to be too cute trying to blitz while being spread out. If you pick up the blitz, the D ends up being a sitting duck with the QB having several options to choose from. With the TEs being big targets, it is very much possible that one of them breaks free towards the sidelines to get good yardage like a sweep route.

 

Tom Brady and the Pats made it work because of the OL being able to hold up. Ultimately, it is all about the OL being able to hold up. It works better against 3 man fronts, IMO because you force more LBs in coverage and get TE mismatches for your 2 TEs. Accuracy and quick release while recognizing blitzes are equally important as well.

 

However, I'd prefer the traditional 2 WR 2 TE set with an RB to still give us 5 pass catching options but more protection for the QB. If we cannot get the run going and the opponent's 3-4 D is still in their base formation without going nickel, this one is definitely worth dipping into the playbook for.

[jskinnz]

I couldn't agree more... I was a big champion of how the Pats utilized their two TE system. They were great at keeping preferred defenses on the field an making use of mismatches, mainly by moving Hernandez around. Allen can give us similar versatility, specifically in the H-Back role.

 

But a 2-TE, 3-WR empty backfield set? I dunno, just does not make much sense to me.

 

Agree with you.  That is why it falls under gadget to me.  But still depends on how they align.  If they go straight to 5 wides with this grouping - strange.  But if they get there by lining up someone in the backfield and motioning him out, that is a different scenario.  Guess they want to give the d different looks and see how they adjust to it. 

[CR91]

I think its brilliant. it puts our best 5 passing threats on the field at the same time. sure the oline will get abused, but if they can hold up long enough, no defense can defend that much talent on the field at once

[Superman]

I think its brilliant. it puts our best 5 passing threats on the field at the same time. sure the oline will get abused, but if they can hold up long enough, no defense can defend that much talent on the field at once

 

I agree with the post, disagree with the bolded. I think most defenses would keep 7 in coverage, in which case it's a four on five rush/protection. Our line should be able to hold up against four pass rushers. And if they blitz, we should be able to pick up an extra man so Luck has a couple of seconds to make a decision. Any more than five rushers, and the advantage goes to us, decidedly, with mismatches and single coverage. 

 

I really don't see the downside to this formation. Sure, it has its limitations, but it's not like anyone is proposing it become a base package. It's just strange that anyone would suggest that this package has no value for us. Like you said, it would put our five best receiving playmakers on the field at the same time, and force the defense to show their hand. Writing it off seems closed minded.

 

And by the way, I favor a gameplan with fewer personnel packages, to cut down on substitutions. And fewer formations, with greater diversity of options per formation. But I'm not opposed to any particular package or formation, especially in certain situations. Use it, see how it goes, and adjust accordingly. 

[ProblChld32]

They ran a 5 wideout set last season as well which included Fleener as well,  not seeing much of a difference except that it now includes a better pass catcher in Allen. 

[JPFolks]

Yep, JPF called it. Here's the post (predicting the formation at the end of the post)

 

Actually, I made the statement much earlier on page 1... that was more of a summation to what I had said and defended over and over during the post.  Funny how many of the same folks were on that post as this one but I am getting way more support now that it has happened in practice.  Anton still won't give in though... no problem, it will be fun to see if it happens and then we can revisit as warrants. I think it wouls be impossible to defend, especially if we caught them off guard with it.

[Andy]

There's just so much talent at WR and TE that you just have to get them all out on a few plays each game. Personally, I'd like to see a lot of empty backfield type of players.

[AntonMcG]

Actually, I made the statement much earlier on page 1... that was more of a summation to what I had said and defended over and over during the post.  Funny how many of the same folks were on that post as this one but I am getting way more support now that it has happened in practice.  Anton still won't give in though... no problem, it will be fun to see if it happens and then we can revisit as warrants. I think it wouls be impossible to defend, especially if we caught them off guard with it.

 

 

Give in? There is nothing to give in to, I am having a legitimate discussion in regards to this... we did not have it once last year that I can recall and no one else has been able to provide evidence that we did. 

 

Question... how do we catch a defense off guard with this?

[AntonMcG]

I agree with the post, disagree with the bolded. I think most defenses would keep 7 in coverage, in which case it's a four on five rush/protection. Our line should be able to hold up against four pass rushers. And if they blitz, we should be able to pick up an extra man so Luck has a couple of seconds to make a decision. Any more than five rushers, and the advantage goes to us, decidedly, with mismatches and single coverage. 

 

I really don't see the downside to this formation. Sure, it has its limitations, but it's not like anyone is proposing it become a base package. It's just strange that anyone would suggest that this package has no value for us. Like you said, it would put our five best receiving playmakers on the field at the same time, and force the defense to show their hand. Writing it off seems closed minded.

 

And by the way, I favor a gameplan with fewer personnel packages, to cut down on substitutions. And fewer formations, with greater diversity of options per formation. But I'm not opposed to any particular package or formation, especially in certain situations. Use it, see how it goes, and adjust accordingly. 

 

I agree 100% with that point... coming out with a two TE, three WR, empty backfield is making it pretty easy for the defense in my opinion. But if we had that personnel out, and Allen was able to go to different spots as well as into the backfield, and we could split Fleener out wide and he could prove himself as a capable run blocker... then we become very dangerous.

[AntonMcG]

If teams are stunting and blitzing more often, you send your TEs in space to block for WR screens out of such formations, you can pretty much do that anywhere on the field but gaps will get squeezed closer to the goal line. I am not certain of this being a goal line formation but I think you can get some big yardage out of this formation between the 20s if a D tries to be too cute trying to blitz while being spread out. If you pick up the blitz, the D ends up being a sitting duck with the QB having several options to choose from. With the TEs being big targets, it is very much possible that one of them breaks free towards the sidelines to get good yardage like a sweep route.

 

Tom Brady and the Pats made it work because of the OL being able to hold up. Ultimately, it is all about the OL being able to hold up. It works better against 3 man fronts, IMO because you force more LBs in coverage and get TE mismatches for your 2 TEs. Accuracy and quick release while recognizing blitzes are equally important as well.

 

However, I'd prefer the traditional 2 WR 2 TE set with an RB to still give us 5 pass catching options but more protection for the QB. If we cannot get the run going and the opponent's 3-4 D is still in their base formation without going nickel, this one is definitely worth dipping into the playbook for.

 

I think good defenses that present lots of different looks, could eat us up in these circumstances, especially considering our O-Line concerns.

 

I don't remember Pats going empty backfield much though in 2012... when they did, it was usually an audible that put Vereen into motion and lining up out wide... something we did with Donald Brown last year. When they ran the no huddle, they sometimes used Hernandez as the only back due to his versatility, we could potentially do something similar with Allen.

 

It could definitely work on occasion, but we run it too much and we would be ate up by smart defenses.

 

If we run the '12' as our base it gives us the best chance to be versatile and create mismatches out of a fast-paced no huddle offense. That is what I would like to see this year.

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

Folks, 

 

A few weeks back I was called out for my outrageous prediction that the Colts would use a set featuring 3 WR's, 2 TE's and an empty backfield.  Well, they are already practicing that very formation.  Sure, it doesn't prove they will use it in a game, but it also proves that my statement was not without merit nor as incredulous as some said it was. 

 

Here's a quote from ESPN: 

• The Colts showed their offensive versatility during a red-zone drill when they used a formation that featured receivers Reggie Wayne, T.Y. Hilton and Hakeem Nicks lined up out wide on one side and tight ends Dwayne Allen and Coby Fleener lined up out wide on the other side. With both Allen and Fleener standing 6-foot-3 and 6-foot-6, respectively, the Colts will have a height advantage to throw the ball up high to their tight ends against the smaller defensive backs. Luck tried that once on a play when Fleener was defended by safety Delano Howell. He ended up overthrowing Fleener, as the pass went out of bounds. Still, Luck didn’t have those types of options last season. “Coach told us never to compare seasons to seasons because you end up devaluing someone along the way,” Luck said. “So I’m not going to compare it to whatever I’ve played with in the past with some awesome, awesome dudes. But again, it takes a bunch of guys throughout a season and we know that. So the way the guys are playing now, it should be a lot of fun.”

So, it is not only possible, but something they are working on.  And we WILL see it in a game in one form or another.  Why not?  Who else can put that much receiving talent on the field at once?

I think they will use it spread people out & make them cover. I think most of us if not all thought this was possible!

[chad72]

I think good defenses that present lots of different looks, could eat us up in these circumstances, especially considering our O-Line concerns.

 

I don't remember Pats going empty backfield much though in 2012... when they did, it was usually an audible that put Vereen into motion and lining up out wide... something we did with Donald Brown last year. When they ran the no huddle, they sometimes used Hernandez as the only back due to his versatility, we could potentially do something similar with Allen.

 

It could definitely work on occasion, but we run it too much and we would be ate up by smart defenses.

 

If we run the '12' as our base it gives us the best chance to be versatile and create mismatches out of a fast-paced no huddle offense. That is what I would like to see this year.

 

The '12' base is where our offense will make its living, I agree. DA's health is the singular most important aspect for our offense's versatility, whether being the lone TE in a POSSE (3WR-1TE-1RB) or one of the two TEs in the ACE (2WR-2TE-1RB)

 

Of course, we have seen plenty of it when Peyton ran it. I think we have the depth in offensive personnel to run it well now. I was reading this article lately:

 

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Film-session-Broncos-Levels-concept.html

 

It was weird how the writer was on the money when he wrote this in 2012: When you play Peyton Manning, you have to defend the short to intermediate route tree--because that's where the ball is going. Funny how the Broncos never trotted out enough of the ACE against the Seahawks Cover 3.

[Superman]

I agree 100% with that point... coming out with a two TE, three WR, empty backfield is making it pretty easy for the defense in my opinion. But if we had that personnel out, and Allen was able to go to different spots as well as into the backfield, and we could split Fleener out wide and he could prove himself as a capable run blocker... then we become very dangerous.

 

Maybe. I think it has the potential to generate some matchup issues, and maybe make it easier for Luck to diagnose the coverage before the snap. I'm not lobbying for us to use it, I just think it's a legitimate option.

 

If we run the '12' as our base it gives us the best chance to be versatile and create mismatches out of a fast-paced no huddle offense. That is what I would like to see this year.

 

Which two receivers would you put on the field in 12 personnel?

[Superman]

The '12' base is where our offense will make its living, I agree. DA's health is the singular most important aspect for our offense's versatility, whether being the lone TE in a POSSE (3WR-1TE-1RB) or one of the two TEs in the ACE (2WR-2TE-1RB)

 

Of course, we have seen plenty of it when Peyton ran it. I think we have the depth in offensive personnel to run it well now. I was reading this article lately:

 

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Film-session-Broncos-Levels-concept.html

 

It was weird how the writer was on the money: When you play Peyton Manning, you have to defend the short to intermediate route tree--because that's where the ball is going. Funny how the Broncos never trotted out enough of the ACE against the Seahawks Cover 3.

 

The Broncos' pass protection was a disaster, and their LBers were destroying receivers across the middle. I actually think they should have been driving the top of the defense back with Thomas and Decker, then using J Thomas in vacated space. But again, there wasn't a lot of pass protection. And they made a ton of mistakes, passing, catching, and otherwise. 

[chad72]

Maybe. I think it has the potential to generate some matchup issues, and maybe make it easier for Luck to diagnose the coverage before the snap. I'm not lobbying for us to use it, I just think it's a legitimate option.

 

 

Which two receivers would you put on the field in 12 personnel?

 

Reggie Wayne and T.Y. Hilton, of course unless Reggie does not show us the same explosion he had before, in which case I would use Nicks and T.Y.

 

Some hard decisions will be made. Unless you see Hakeem Nicks show a great grasp of our offense and beating more guys off the line of scrimmage, you go with what you know, to keep it simple.

[Poster X]

I was thinking with two healthy tight ends they might throw more two tight end sets at people. The goal line situation is the odd part.

[Superman]

Reggie Wayne and T.Y. Hilton, of course unless Reggie does not show us the same explosion he had before, in which case I would use Nicks and T.Y.

 

Some hard decisions will be made. Unless you see Hakeem Nicks show a great grasp of our offense and beats more guys off the line of scrimmage, you go with what you know, to keep it simple.

 

Yeah, that makes sense. 

[AntonMcG]

Maybe. I think it has the potential to generate some matchup issues, and maybe make it easier for Luck to diagnose the coverage before the snap. I'm not lobbying for us to use it, I just think it's a legitimate option.

 

 

Which two receivers would you put on the field in 12 personnel?

 

I guess that is situational... within the red zone I'd go Nicks and Wayne mostly, depending on how they perform of course. Hilton will be a massive piece of the offense, but I think his value diminishes the closer we get to the goal line.

 

I see the same problem you see I think... we both want to see a lot of pace and no huddle, which means keeping the same personnel on the field for long periods. But, then there is the issue of having a lot of offensive weapons that you want to get on the field.

 

It's a good problem to have.

[AntonMcG]

The '12' base is where our offense will make its living, I agree. DA's health is the singular most important aspect for our offense's versatility, whether being the lone TE in a POSSE (3WR-1TE-1RB) or one of the two TEs in the ACE (2WR-2TE-1RB)

 

Of course, we have seen plenty of it when Peyton ran it. I think we have the depth in offensive personnel to run it well now. I was reading this article lately:

 

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Film-session-Broncos-Levels-concept.html

 

It was weird how the writer was on the money when he wrote this in 2012: When you play Peyton Manning, you have to defend the short to intermediate route tree--because that's where the ball is going. Funny how the Broncos never trotted out enough of the ACE against the Seahawks Cover 3.

 

 

Really good article.

[Superman]

I guess that is situational... within the red zone I'd go Nicks and Wayne mostly, depending on how they perform of course. Hilton will be a massive piece of the offense, but I think his value diminishes the closer we get to the goal line.

 

I see the same problem you see I think... we both want to see a lot of pace and no huddle, which means keeping the same personnel on the field for long periods. But, then there is the issue of having a lot of offensive weapons that you want to get on the field.

 

It's a good problem to have.

 

That's exactly how I see it. We have the personnel to be really effective out of 11 and 12 packages. Those are probably our best packages, assuming everyone is healthy. But if we go 11, we're taking a TE off the field, likely Fleener. If we go 12, we're taking a WR off the field, either Nicks or Hilton. And we want to get as much as possible out of our playmakers, so we don't want to take them off the field.

 

That leads to experimenting with the 3WR/2TE package. But then, we're taking our backs off the field, and we want to have a good running game. So it's kind of hard to figure out what kind of balance you want to strike, and still get the most out of your playmakers.

 

Of course, these are good problems to have.

[chad72]

That's exactly how I see it. We have the personnel to be really effective out of 11 and 12 packages. Those are probably our best packages, assuming everyone is healthy. But if we go 11, we're taking a TE off the field, likely Fleener. If we go 12, we're taking a WR off the field, either Nicks or Hilton. And we want to get as much as possible out of our playmakers, so we don't want to take them off the field.

 

That leads to experimenting with the 3WR/2TE package. But then, we're taking our backs off the field, and we want to have a good running game. So it's kind of hard to figure out what kind of balance you want to strike, and still get the most out of your playmakers.

 

Of course, these are good problems to have.

 

Defensive matchups dictate a lot of those, in all likelihood.

 

If we are playing 2 TEs inline in a goal line situation and they go jumbo package, I'd just split Fleener out and take advantage. I'd even be tempted to use T.Y.Hilton like Randall Cobb or Percy Harvin to keep the safeties and LBs honest for a few plays though most likely between the 20s. With multiple WRs, we can run a whole lot of stacked formations and pick plays too that will improve red zone efficiency.  

 

Fleener's usage will depend a lot on how well the Luck-Fleener connection improves as the year goes on against good LBs. It has to get to Dallas Clark's level for teams to abandon using an LB against Fleener, that is when you know you really have a mismatch but first we need to get to that level.

[Superman]

Defensive matchups dictate a lot of those, in all likelihood.

 

If we are playing 2 TEs inline in a goal line situation and they go jumbo package, I'd just split Fleener out and take advantage. I'd even be tempted to use T.Y.Hilton like Randall Cobb or Percy Harvin to keep the safeties and LBs honest for a few plays though most likely between the 20s. With multiple WRs, we can run a whole lot of stacked formations and pick plays too that will improve red zone efficiency.  

 

Fleener's usage will depend a lot on how well the Luck-Fleener connection improves as the year goes on against good LBs. It has to get to Dallas Clark's level for teams to abandon using an LB against Fleener, that is when you know you really have a mismatch but first we need to get to that level.

 

Teams used corners and safeties on Fleener last year from time to time. That's why I want to see 12 personnel some of the time, because we can get a nickel look against 2TE sets, then run the ball. Of course, Fleener has to do his share as a run blocker, but if we're going against nickel, we should be asking a little less of him.

 

The possibilities are endless, really. I'm excited. Just hope everyone stays healthy.

[loudnproudcolt]

Remember Nicks is 6' 1". Now how about going with Montcrief who is 6' 3"  Then Luck can just throw up a jump ball and we should be fine!

[JPFolks]

Give in? There is nothing to give in to, I am having a legitimate discussion in regards to this... we did not have it once last year that I can recall and no one else has been able to provide evidence that we did. 

 

Question... how do we catch a defense off guard with this?

 

You're simply adding 2 new statements that have nothing to do with what I said.  I never said "we catch a defense off guard with this" or we did it once last year.   My only statement was that at some point in the season, we would run it.  Good argument tactic, but don't imply in a reply to me that I said or need to defend either statement.