Okay, not sure if that's legal or not, but since you can only play 5 linemen, maybe 6 if one of them reports as a TE, but I think he has to go out as a receiver in that case, not sure, but at least use a 3 RB formation I say and have them all block.  3 receivers going downfield should be enough to find a mid range target.  Bottom line though, this O-line needs help and I'm with Doug Brown calling for max protection on the QB.

Not sure if serious ...

Three RBs like Mike Sellers might work with this strategy.

Yeah, if we want to sacrifice all offensive production to just protect the QB we may as well sit Willy after all. Or run the ball 60 times.

Yeah, if we want to sacrifice all offensive production to just protect the QB we may as well sit Willy after all. Or run the ball 60 times.

Doesn't look like Willy will be playing.... Not practicing today.

max power, on 16 Oct 2014 - 12:41 PM, said:

Yeah, if we want to sacrifice all offensive production to just protect the QB we may as well sit Willy after all. Or run the ball 60 times.

 

And how is there offensive production when we're getting 0 blocking up front period from our linemen?  Something should be done about that don't you think?

The old wishbone, sounds like a Mike Kelly set.

 

The problem with the Bombers is that they only run the ball on that little read play. Maybe if they actually had an offense with more than 1 or 2 formations to run out of, you get defences to back off.

The old wishbone, sounds like a Mike Kelly set.

 

The problem with the Bombers is that they only run the ball on that little read play. Maybe if they actually had an offense with more than 1 or 2 formations to run out of, you get defences to back off.

That's crazy talk.

3 running backs? might as well just punt the ball on first down. 

Worst idea yet.

How about starting 12 RBs on offense? That would throw the opposing defense off for sure.

How about starting 12 RBs on offense? That would throw the opposing defense off for sure.

 

That's true, and as to Grigsby's statement…then, instead of 1 vs. 12, it would be 12 on 12.

Brilliant!

Personally I would rather see 1 centre and a qb and then 10 receivers. 

Personally I would rather see 1 centre and a qb and then 10 receivers.

How about a long snapper, a kicker, a left tackle and 9 quarterbacks on offense?

Our offense will be rejuvenated as soon as we start scheming to have a shortstop in the backfield.

 

Maybe he is free to do the play calling.

Personally I would rather see 1 centre and a qb and then 10 receivers. 

 

If Etch was the OC you probably would.

Three RBs like Mike Sellers might work with this strategy.

Sellers was the size of 3 running backs. 

 

Three RBs like Mike Sellers might work with this strategy.

Sellers was the size of 3 running backs. 

 

Well then, do we have any linemen who are quick enough that they do not have to be timed in the 40 with a calendar?

Why we don't go with a two back set I do not understand. We go entire games with receivers that make one catch or never see the ball. No rule against the back catching the ball so at least it gives us options and the other defence something else to think about.  

Why we don't go with a two back set I do not understand. We go entire games with receivers that make one catch or never see the ball. No rule against the back catching the ball so at least it gives us options and the other defence something else to think about.  

The two-back set is not much of an option due to the horrible play of the O-line so the extra man is needed to shore up the blocking. A good old-school  tight end could help with the blocking and even leak out into the flats for outlet passes to slow the rush once in awhile.

*cough* fitzgerald *hack* pontibrand

Have em, even use em..

Not very freakin' often, and Fitz seems to have pretty good hands.

Pontbriand played a ton of fullback last night.

First time have seen a I formation in a while