GDT-Stumps @ Bombers

[WBBFanWest]

3 hours ago, Noeller said:

 

[17to85]

I said during the game, I'd watch a bryant/law scrap. Definitely something going on there all game long.

[Floyd]

Throat punch.

[66 Chevelle]

1 hour ago, wbbfan said:

That clip doesnt show the snap but still shows him on a 7 step drop taking 4-5 seconds minimum for the wr to get deep. Its not a throw to a spot, thats just a deep pass. With out pressure. 4-5 second + pockets / 7 step drop is a slow developing play for the pocket. 

you might want to take another look then...  if Nichols had taken the snap under center, then yeah, thats a 7 step drop, but Nichols is step up in the 'gun', he takes a 3 step drop and throws the ball... maybe 2.5 seconds or so from the snap... Demski is running a 'skinny post' route... the ball is in the air way before Demski ever considers making his break... Demski is running just inside the numbers and by the time he makes his break, at about the W50, the ball is already in the air... ball is thrown to the left hash and is caught at the O47, or so... yeah, it was a deep pass, but, Nichols still threw to 'a spot' he anticipated where Demski was going to be because the play is designed for him to be on the hash to make the catch... the ball is thrown when Demski is at about W45 and is caught at about the O45, the whole play takes maybe 5 seconds from snap to catch...

[66 Chevelle]

I've seen screen passes take longer to develop, lol...

[Booch]

That was a point I was trying to make as well in a different thread..a play may call for a timing throw to a spot on field..and if a receiver muffs his route..the qb ends up looking bad.

Not sure if people know or are aware of how some routes are drawn up but vcd there are several benchmarks used on the field that a play is designed for..and sometimes the slightest of things can mess it all up...

Just like too once a QB and a receiver have that mental connection then it's easier to throw a guy open or adlib on the play.

The one long td to Demski was an example of it when Demski pushed his defender toward side line and made subtle shift down between hashes..that was not the intended design..but Nichols was in Demskis head space and seen what he was doing and threw it to a spot that only Demski could get to it..

[wbbfan]

59 minutes ago, 66 Chevelle said:

you might want to take another look then...  if Nichols had taken the snap under center, then yeah, thats a 7 step drop, but Nichols is step up in the 'gun', he takes a 3 step drop and throws the ball... maybe 2.5 seconds or so from the snap... Demski is running a 'skinny post' route... the ball is in the air way before Demski ever considers making his break... Demski is running just inside the numbers and by the time he makes his break, at about the W50, the ball is already in the air... ball is thrown to the left hash and is caught at the O47, or so... yeah, it was a deep pass, but, Nichols still threw to 'a spot' he anticipated where Demski was going to be because the play is designed for him to be on the hash to make the catch... the ball is thrown when Demski is at about W45 and is caught at about the O45, the whole play takes maybe 5 seconds from snap to catch...

No.. hes dropping back with steps out of the pistol... and recount the time and his steps.

[Floyd]

Maybe whitehead isn’t quite as familiar with the playbook as dressier was... 

[17to85]

Seems to me that pretty much every deep throw is thrown to a spot cause the ball has to be in the air before the receiver gets open and it's up to the receiver to be where the ball is going to come down. Probably why Reilly isn't having as much success in BC, he doesn't have the same calibre of receiver he had in Edmonton to go out and get those balls. 

[66 Chevelle]

1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

Seems to me that pretty much every deep throw is thrown to a spot cause the ball has to be in the air before the receiver gets open and it's up to the receiver to be where the ball is going to come down. Probably why Reilly isn't having as much success in BC, he doesn't have the same calibre of receiver he had in Edmonton to go out and get those balls. 

actually, throwing to a 'spot' in the QB/WR world means something just a little bit different than simply leading your receiver or a QB waiting to throw until the receiver is open...  when the QB throws to a 'spot' he is throwing to a predetermine spot on the field as dictated by the route pattern.  When the receiver runs the route he's headed to the 'spot' and isn't looking for the ball until he makes his last break because if he is at the 'spot' the ball will be there when he gets there...  for example, if a receiver is running a 'skinny post' he is expected to run down field exactly 25 yards and then break at 45 degrees, 5 yards in towards the goal post... there isn't a need for the QB to wait and see if he's open, or the WR to look back to see if and when the ball is coming his way...  The QB has already made his read and anticipates that the WR will be open when he gets to the 'spot', WR runs the route assuming the ball is coming to him regardless...

some routes have double moves, such as a 'post corner' when the receiver runs 20 yards down field, cuts 45 degrees toward the goal post 3 strides and then breaks back towards the corner of the end zone... not all routes have a 'spot', like a go route... in that pattern the QB may be waiting to see if the WR beats his man and then throws the ball leading the receiver based upon the WR's speed ... throwing to a 'spot' helps to complete a pass even when the receiver is actually well covered as the receiver doesn't have to look for the ball, he's already anticipating it being on him at the 'spot', defender is engaged in trying to cover until he sees the receiver look for the ball and then he does as well... if the receiver isn't looking the defender never knows the ball is coming until it's too late...

[Jpan85]

10 hours ago, Floyd said:

Maybe whitehead isn’t quite as familiar with the playbook as dressier was... 

No one is or was.

[NorthernSkunk]

15 minutes ago, Jpan85 said:

No one is or was.

Not even matt ?