Red will verify that I RARELY agree with him...but I do in this discussion. 1)We have NOT had more punts blocked out of this formation. If you disagree, look it up. 2)Who gives a rat's rear end what it "looks" like? 3)This topic has been discussed (read beaten like a dead horse) every year since I've been on the forum...or even just reading the forum before I joined. The worst part is, every time it's brought up, it's the same old false info...that it results in more blocked punts...or NEARLY blocked punts. No it doesn't...really.
Wow it's hard to believe we have that many slow learners on the board today. Did you even read my posts. I even reposted it for those really slow people. I said it has looked great this year. I also said I had no problem with it as long as it works. Some of you should read and then post instead of the other way around.:dis::dis::dis:
Easy...I wasn't picking on you. Shouldn't have quoted you I suppose. Just saying that this same dead topic comes up every year, and people continue to post false information without checking some facts to see if their post holds water.
I think punt ugly's biggest drawback is that it is designed to let some blockers reach that 2nd level, the other way wasnt. Everytime a team punts out of that there seems to be someone just a few steps away from a block. I believe the blocking scheme allows for that. It can be scary sometimes but it seems to work.
Such an unclever name, not sure how it stuck. Anyway, the spread punt formation allows for much better downfield coverage. We rarely surrender PR yardage out of this.
I know you are agreeing that it's successful, but again...like Red said...ALMOST blocked is synonymous with not blocked. There just isn't evidence to support that this formation isn't better than old style.
