The Future is Here: The NFL and the Pistol Offense

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

Of course not. That would stupid. Teams are built differently and thus NFL teams will always run what works best for each individual team.
Who ever said the Pistol offense provides an "insurmountable advantage"?
Are you making shit up again?

I'm simply asking for some substantive explanation. There's nothing you've said I hadn't already heard/read at least a dozen times.

If the pistol doesn't give the offense a tangible, reliable advantage (what I would call insurmountable), why would we use it as our base as Lotus said?

On the flip side, if it does provide that advantage why wouldn't the other super smart QBs, namely Manning and Brady, begin using it next year?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by The Goat

I'm simply asking for some substantive explanation. There's nothing you've said I hadn't already heard/read at least a dozen times.

If the pistol doesn't give the offense a tangible, reliable advantage (what I would call insurmountable), why would we use it as our base as Lotus said?

On the flip side, if it does provide that advantage why wouldn't the other super smart QBs, namely Manning and Brady, begin using it next year?

Your whole post is really a pure BS argument. Nothing in the NFL gives an "insurmountable" offensive advantage, as they say Defense gets paid too.

As for the substantive explanation, I know the article expressed several rational points for the pistol being a sustainable effective formation for any NFL team. I know Defensewins and I put forward several as well, the fact that you don't acknowledge them makes them neither less substantive, nor less effective. The proof this year is in the stats that have our team leading the NFL in yards per attempt, and the fact that more teams are starting to use it, copycatting is a form of flattery in the NFL.

As to Lotus' point, we may use it as our base formation, specifically because our exceptionally talented qb is able to run it to a T. If he ran the shotgun perfectly, my guess is that would be our base. It's kind of a fitting the scheme to your personnel type thing.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Your whole post is really a pure BS argument. Nothing in the NFL gives an "insurmountable" offensive advantage, as they say Defense gets paid too.

As for the substantive explanation, I know the article expressed several rational points for the pistol being a sustainable effective formation for any NFL team. I know Defensewins and I put forward several as well, the fact that you don't acknowledge them makes them neither less substantive, nor less effective. The proof this year is in the stats that have our team leading the NFL in yards per attempt, and the fact that more teams are starting to use it, copycatting is a form of flattery in the NFL.

As to Lotus' point, we may use it as our base formation, specifically because our exceptionally talented qb is able to run it to a T. If he ran the shotgun perfectly, my guess is that would be our base. It's kind of a fitting the scheme to your personnel type thing.

...and what's my argument again? Notice, apart from giving my opinion the pistol is a gimmick in my view unless it's central to a SB winning offense, I haven't made any other assessment. I've simply asked you to put the pistol in the context of pro football as opposed to the Washington Redskins. Honestly, I think you've already overreached.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by The Goat

I'm simply asking for some substantive explanation. There's nothing you've said I hadn't already heard/read at least a dozen times.

If the pistol doesn't give the offense a tangible, reliable advantage (what I would call insurmountable), why would we use it as our base as Lotus said?

On the flip side, if it does provide that advantage why wouldn't the other super smart QBs, namely Manning and Brady, begin using it next year?

In 1982 the Redskins (Bugel and Gibbs) took a college play the "counter-trey" and introduced it into the NFL. They ran it until defenses learned how to defeat it and it did not work anymore. It took almost ten years and we won three super bowls with it. Many teams copied it but not all teams copied used it.
I am not by any means saying the Pistol will have that kind success but you keep using something it if it works.

There is nothing in football, scheme or formation that is insurmountable or gives you an insurmountable advantage. Everything can at some point be defeated or at least neutralized by the clever NFL defenses that are prepared with the knowledge, scheme and tools to defeat it.
We are using the pistol because we are winning and playing well in it, not because it affords us an insurmountable advantage Why change (fix) something it it ain't broke.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

In 1982 the Redskins (Bugel and Gibbs) took a college play the "counter-trey" and introduced it into the NFL. They ran it until defenses learned how to defeat it and it did not work anymore. It took almost ten years and we won three super bowls with it. Many teams copied it but not all teams copied used it.
I am not by any means saying the Pistol will have that kind success but you keep using something it if it works.

There is nothing in football, scheme or formation that is insurmountable or gives you an insurmountable advantage. Everything can at some point be defeated or at least neutralized by the clever NFL defenses that are prepared with the knowledge, scheme and tools to defeat it.
We are using the pistol because we are winning and playing well in it, not because it affords us an insurmountable advantage Why change (fix) something it it ain't broke.

Best post I've read from you.

[Bucket]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Best post I've read from you.

Yet, the best one I've read from you.