Jeremy Bates Offense: PA WR Screen #1

Formation: Two-person bunch formations, symetrical left and right. Shotgun. Running back right.
1) Play-action fake. Inside hand off, line surges left.
2) Tight ends streak up field.
3) Wide receivers curl in.
Uses: Attacks zones and especially off-coverage combined with zones. Puts wide receiver in space. Very high completion percentage.
Probable targets: Golden Tate, T.J. Houshmandzadeh, Deion Branch.
31 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Are you happy with this diagram?
I’m not complaining in the slightest. Just curious to know your satisfaction level with it.
I’m good with it. Easy to follow, and I especially appreciate the numbered list. Shorter and less detail the better I think.
easier to read then the 3d one
simple and to the point
by Hancock.Brett on Jul 26, 2010 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions
It works.
I am never satisfied, honestly, but it’s clear, quick to produce and not oogly.
by John Morgan on Jul 26, 2010 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions
The ones I found are butt ugly, not particularly facilitating and expensive.
by John Morgan on Jul 26, 2010 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions
Don't know if you've ever worked in a restaurant,
but that’s exactly how I feel about Point-of-Sale software. I feel like somebody could develop ONE aesthetically pleasing and intuitively-functioning piece of software for this function and just steal the market with a low margin. Whatever, shit, business school has taken over my life.
Field Gulls: my anti-PFT.
I've used POS software in the golf business as well.
To me, it’s proof positive to me that people are willing to settle for inferior “tools” to do their job simply because it’s convenient. It’s terrible.
I'm gonna go calm submissive on your ass.
the thing that gets me is interac machines.
they’re hard to read and confusingly set up. It takes old people ages to figure them out, they’re always hitting the wrong buttons. Convenience, my ass.
That's cuz enterprise is the customer, not the end user.
Cost, ROI, total cost of ownership, scalability, extensibility (to reporting, inventory, purchasing, accounting), maintainability, and of course security all have higher priority over usability in enterprise, and if I were running a company, I’d probably weigh those factors greater, too.
Usefulness is the driving feature in technology. Usability mildly stems from that, but usability is a total red-headed stepchild of the industry, especially in enterprise. A new feature is easier to market than being more aesthetically pleasing, which is highly subjective.
by jacobstevens on Jul 26, 2010 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Used it for 4 years at RR. Worked great.
And … that’s an embarrassing admission.
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
2+ years at Applebees here.
Livin’ the dream.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
Somebody who reads this blog must work for Microsoft
and be able to get you a copy of Visio at employee price. A football playbook template should probably be available, somewhere, or you could make your own.
Seahawks Fans Cannot Be Cured
I can get a version of Visio 2010 at $80 vs. the $200+ retail
for the greater Field Gulls good.
Field Gulls: my anti-PFT.
Whether it's a WR screen or a J-Force screen
I can’t get enough of them. Maybe it’s just me being too used to not having a line capable of giving Matt enough time to make a worthwhile downfield throw, but getting a quick, high-percentage throw to one of our smaller, faster players in space gets me so pumped because I love our screen game. Now with Gibbs orchestrating the line as a smarter, quicker unit, I feel that our screen game will be that much more effective.
Field Gulls: my anti-PFT.
That and us being one of the worst teams when it comes to screens since before Alexander.
Holmgren somehow never recovered from Shaun. He used to do well with the RB screen but the best we’ve seen in 8 years was from Knapp and out of the kind of necessity to make you wince, not a positive.
And then we’ve never been a big WR screen team. So yeah I’m really pumped up for the screen!
by jacobstevens on Jul 26, 2010 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions
This is a great play...
…provided that we’re actually able to throw deep enough to scare corners off of our WR’s. If pop-gun Hass comes back, every CB from here to Miami is just going to sit on our WR’s (particularly the small, easily-chucked ones) and a WR screen like this becomes impossible.
5 Brief Suggestions for the Diagrams
For those of us who get more clarity from words than pictures, football play diagrams can be a real chore.
But this looks really good, and it got me immediately thinking of suggestions that may be helpful even for folks who are pretty visual. These are a handful of small changes worth considering. They’re mostly for future diagrams; adding consistency to them so that the message comes through immediately at a glance.
1. Move the play title outside the diagram entirely to avoid the problem of arrows and lines overlaying the title.
2. Consider dashed arrows (like the one with the RB in this diagram) to signify movement in the passing game (routes and movement in pass pro) and solid lines to signify runs and run blocking.
3. For pass plays, use different colored dashed arrows for the primary target (e.g., red) and secondary targets/blockers (e.g., blue). For running plays the lines should be solid and black.
4. The numbered sequence in the diagram is a godsend for a non-visual processor. Yet, it might be useful to substitute “Phase 1,” “Phase 2,” and “Phase 3” for just the numbers. By themselves, the numbers really only imply temporal sequence—1 happens, then 2, and so forth. But adding “phase” broadens it just a tad, which is all you need. Phase 1, 2, and 3 could indicate sequencing by order of importance rather than time, or sequencing by the QB’s read (which could be the opposite of when receivers leave the LOS), or any other way of sequencing. It’s a subtle change that I think allows for you to better direct the reader’s attention the way you want.
Perhaps the best thing here is that if you diagram a single pass play and a single running play, put them in a post with the full-length explanation on how to read the diagrams you should only have to do it once. You can simply link to them every time you put up a post with a play diagram.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
I don't like phase so much, since they happen at the same time.
Other than that I’m generally a fan of what you’ve proposed.
Definitely don't like phase.
With or without phase, it will take any virgin a moment or two to get the wherewithal to read and understand the diagram at about the same rate, I think. Phase does imply things taking longer than centiseconds, too, as you pointed out.
by jacobstevens on Jul 26, 2010 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions
I appreciate the suggestions.
Shouldn’t be hard to integrate most of that.
by John Morgan on Jul 26, 2010 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Madden Diagrams?
Not sure it would be entirely legal and whatnot. But the play diagrams used in each Madden game were always pretty easy to understand and read.
Better Than A Bar Napkin
This seems to do the trcik for me, it shows the play you want, no muss no fuss and bulky other garbage. works for me. but then again I am a fan of simple and basic. Don;t need all the other fancey crap that just clouds what you are trying to show.
The play itself is one (or rather the 2 TE formation) that I am looking forward to seeing a lot this year. Carlson and Baker/McCoy should open a lot of intermediate range options for Matt. Should also take advantage of Tate’s run after catch ability as well.
Beer, its not just for breakfast anymore.
I have one suggestion.
No background. We all know, by way of the five "O"’s that make the offensive line, where the line of scrimmage is. You could very easily have a blank background, this one is distracting.
Not to be contrary.
But I was going to say how I liked that the background has yard markings that are pretty much to scale.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
Loving the diagrams
Also one more vote for no background, or just a solid background. Seems to muddy it up.
Having the TEs streaking doesn't strike me as sophisticated play design.
Do they streak, or do they draw a bead on a defender to block after 6 yards?
TEs don’t move as fast and even with PA — shotgun PA — the ball is going to get into the WRs’ hands pretty quickly. So you could get Okung out and over there to block but the WR wouldn’t seem all that screened, if the TE goes long.

by 

























