Why is motion important to a QB?

[Russ Smith]

This came up on another board when looking at the split stats on ESPN for QB's, they have motion/no motion which I assume they define as ANY motion as in it can be a back, a TE or a WR.

Anyhow it's interesting to look.

Jake Plummer no motion 58% 5 td 4 pick 80 rating
Plummer with motion 67% 10 td 3 picks 104 rating

significant attempts for both.

Jeff Blake no motion 56% 4 TD 8 pick
Blake motion 57% 8 td 7 int(but a lower YPA number)

Josh McCown no motion 57% 3 td 5 pick 6.5 YPA
McCown motion 56% 0 td 0 INT 4.6 YPA

Josh's attempts were obviously lower especially the motion but I gotta ask if there's a logical explanation for why both Jake and Blake see such a noticeable jump in certain stats on plays using motion?

When I saw the numbers for Jake I assumed it was a function of the "rhythm" of the Bronco offense, but I started looking at other QB's and noticed it seems to make a difference in a lot of them.

I've always assumed the whole point of motion is to either try and make the defense move and get out of position, or try and get the defense to "tip" it's scheme, I just had no idea it actually seems to work on pass plays.

 

[Pariah]

I've always understood motion to be useful in reading the defense and sometimes creating some favorable match-ups.

 

[conraddobler]

This came up on another board when looking at the split stats on ESPN for QB's, they have motion/no motion which I assume they define as ANY motion as in it can be a back, a TE or a WR.

Anyhow it's interesting to look.

Jake Plummer no motion 58% 5 td 4 pick 80 rating
Plummer with motion 67% 10 td 3 picks 104 rating

significant attempts for both.

Jeff Blake no motion 56% 4 TD 8 pick
Blake motion 57% 8 td 7 int(but a lower YPA number)

Josh McCown no motion 57% 3 td 5 pick 6.5 YPA
McCown motion 56% 0 td 0 INT 4.6 YPA

Josh's attempts were obviously lower especially the motion but I gotta ask if there's a logical explanation for why both Jake and Blake see such a noticeable jump in certain stats on plays using motion?

When I saw the numbers for Jake I assumed it was a function of the "rhythm" of the Bronco offense, but I started looking at other QB's and noticed it seems to make a difference in a lot of them.

I've always assumed the whole point of motion is to either try and make the defense move and get out of position, or try and get the defense to "tip" it's scheme, I just had no idea it actually seems to work on pass plays.

I think the best offense is one that appears as random as possible at least to the defense.

My favorite scheme is simply running the same formation over and over again but doing something different each time so that the defense can't get a read on what is going to happen.

Jakes jump in numbers I believe has more to do with motion causing him to have to play on the fly a bit more because he just flat stunk at any kind of play that called for him to read the defense and throw to a spot out of a set formation. It was as if thinking about it caused him to be a complete flop but winging it he reverted to instinct and did much bettter.

I think the motion just simulated winging it for him and made him more comfortable.

 

[football karma]

Motion gives a QB decent shot at determining if the coverage is man or zone – if man the cb tends to follow the guy in motion across the formation.

In addition, motion can make it very difficult for a CB to jam the motion receiver at the line, resulting in a clean release by the WR and better timing on three step routes.

 

[CardinalChris]

I've always understood motion to be useful in reading the defense and sometimes creating some favorable match-ups.

A great explanation.

Benefits - Motion can tip off the type of coverage a defense is using for that play by how the defense reacts and shifts with the motion. It can also isolate a WR on say a safety or LB and create a matchup you want. Mike Shanahan is the king of this.

Draw backs - Your offense has to know the count and be able to stay in their stance for a LONG time, much like audibles.

 

[FischerKing]

it definitely gives the qb a slight advantage in reading defensive coverage, so i'd think they're numbers should be better because he can identify the key matchups sooner.

shawn

 

[FischerKing]

My favorite scheme is simply running the same formation over and over again but doing something different each time so that the defense can't get a read on what is going to happen.

rams used to do that a lot - the colts do that very well.

shawn

 

[BIGDADDY_REDBIRD]

posted by en fuego:In addition, motion can make it very difficult for a CB to jam the motion receiver at the line, resulting in a clean release by the WR and better timing on three step routes.

EXACTLY!!!!!

 

[Russ Smith]

Thanks for the explanations. Now it begs the next question, if it works, why don't teams do it every play?

Is this a diminishing returns thing?

For example the Cowboys used to do that silly thing where the line would shift on every play, which I never quite understood the purpose of.

I know Walsh would do what Conrad suggested, run the same formation with different plays or the same play from different formations until he found something he could exploit.

Then there's the Cardinals motion where the FB points at the spot where the RB is going to go alerting the entire defense where to go to make the tackle

 

[football karma]

Then there's the Cardinals motion where the FB points at the spot where the RB is going to go alerting the entire defense where to go to make the tackle

The Joel Mackovicka memorial dive play. I dont think I ever saw it work when the Cardinals really needed it to -- 3rd and 1, 4th down, etc

Not only that, but I dont recall a single occasion where they ran play action off of it, or anything else.

 

[maddogkf]

Alot of times, players will line up in a unyielding formation.

Once the QB begins the cadence, a WR or RB may go in motion to get in the correct position prior to the snap. Sometimes, they will line up in a different formation to give the defense a look, then get into the proper position....sometimes they line up in a certain way & then motion out of the formation to set something up next play, next series, next quarter, next game......

More often though, when the WR goes in motion, the QB can see if the DB goes with him (man) or if the LB & CB shift (zone).

However, I always hated the FB in motion & stopping right at the hole & the run right up his ass. That has to be the worst play ever.

 

[Chaz]

My playcalling expertise extends as far as my Playstation. But I use motion all the time in Madden because I can get some clues on the defense whether they are in man or zone. The extra time may also reveal some impatient blitzers. It also can create some mismatches with WR on LB and it can allow receivers to beat the press coverage like some have said.

Now if these things work in the real world I can only guess because it is more dynamic but I am sure some of the same principles apply.

 

[JeffGollin]

Sounds like an interesting observation, but, at face value, I'd want look a bit deeper into the context of the stats before buying into this 100%.

For example, are there down & distance and game situations where motion plays are more likely to be called? Would these situations tend to improve the the likelihood of success of these plays?

There's also the issue of the type of offensive system and make-up of the offensive roster. On an inexperienced (or stupid) team, would the overreliance on motion result in more delay of game or false start penalties? Would too many motion plays disrupt the rhythm of a smashmouth offense?

Having said that - I do favor the use of motion as a way to help the QB snuff out the defensive scheme he's up against.