Jump to content

Talk:Wildcat formation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jreeves726.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images wrong

[edit]

This can't be right, can it?

The LT is an eligible receiver and the TE along with the inner receiver on the right isn't eligible. And if the TE, WR, and LT don't tell the ump before the play this will result in an illegal procedure penalty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyh84 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it has to be wrong simply due to the fact that the diagrams only show 3 men behind the line of scrimmage and 8 men lined up on the line of scrimmage. >_< One of the "Wide receivers" on the right side needs to be lined up as a flanker (off the line of scrimmage), and I assume it would be the slot guy, but I can't say for sure. 74.215.117.240 (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

play diagrams too small

[edit]

Anyway to get higher res/larger versions? It's next to impossible to tell what's going on in them, beyond a very general level at least.On Thermonuclear War (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that they might take up too much space if they are much larger. (they already take up quite a bit) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter; right now the images (mainly the first one) are too small to be useful. You can't even see the player designators; despite the article talking about an unbalanced line and a running back positioned to receive the snap, this isn't evident at all in the image. Besides, the formation as shown is clearly wrong, as there are five men on the line to the right of the center. There should only be three, or four in an unbalanced line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamer 2k4 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; the images right now are way too small and virtually unreadable. We need larger images. —Lowellian (reply) 05:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They can be small on the main page but when you click them link to a large hi res version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.32.57 (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is over four years since the initial comment about the images. I just came to this page for the first time and these images are worse than useless, since they are too small help explain the article in any way, all they do is frustrate the reader. They are so small I could not get enough information out of them to enlarge them myself. I have deleted the image.Nick Beeson (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Winged-T reference in article

[edit]

The article states that the Winged-T was introduced at U of Delaware by Tubby Raymond. This is not true.

See:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/David_M._Nelson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.101.81 (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to understand for the uninitiated

[edit]

The introduction to this page does little to describe what makes this football formation different from any other. It is my impression that what makes the Wildcat Formation different from other formations is that the ball is not hiked directly to a quarterback, but this is mentioned nowhere in the introduction. There should be a more detailed section about the attributes of this formation, what plays can be run from the Wildcat formation, etc. Zminer (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Change

[edit]

I deleted the following part of the article:

but recent information has led us to believe that it was Wellington the Wildcat, and implemented into the Central Washington Wildcat football team back in 1986 [citation needed].

The above portion came directly after the point that Michael Vick claims to be the originator of the wildcat. I was able to find several sources verifying that part of the sentence so I included one and kept that portion. However the second half of the sentence, which I deleted, was unsourced and very poorly written.

First, who exactly is the "us" being referred to? Why the use of the first person plural for material that isn't a quotation? First person should never be used in an encyclopedia outside of a direct quotation. Second, the odd subjunctive form there should also always be avoided. The article should present facts and assertions from various sources not stating what any particular editor believes, thinks, hopes, etc. Third, despite there existing "recent information" that led whomever to believe the claim, the editor has not included a single source. Fourth, frankly the claim that "Wellington the Wildcat" created the wildcat offense sounds like a joke and is probably an act of vandalism.

I may be wrong, and if indeed there is someone named Wellington the Wildcat who is a coach of some sort who has been said to have originated the wildcat offense, then by all means include a cite which supports that fact. As it was, between how badly the sentence was written and how odd the claim is, I am not willing to take it at face value.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 11:46, 1 October 2009

Steve Bush

[edit]

The Steve Bush mentioned under the High school section is not the same Steve Bush that the name links to. i.e. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Miami_Dolphins#Current_staff The Steve Bush here is the correct Steve Bush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.174.252 (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tylor Whitham

[edit]

My stuff is all true, Tylor Whitham has a claim to inventing Wildcat.

It is not, however, verifiable using reliable sources. If you wish to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, please familiarize yourself with these rules. You edits have also run afoul of our policy on edit warring, which you should also read before making any further edits to wildcat formation. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So books and interviews aren't credible? Why is Michael Vick allowed to make a claim to being its originator? I can assure you Tylor Whitham has no criminal record, which would in the eyes of most make him more credible than a person who has done time in prison.
Your interview with him certainly is not, especially considering that you are probably Tylor Whitham yourself, and that you can't even use a consistent date of the imaginary interview. Books are credible, but books you made up are not. Provide an ISBN number for the book you're using, and a page number, and maybe someone will believe you.
Of course, this is a pretty obvious (and lame) contrivance, so I wouldn't recommend continuing to spin your wheels. — Bdb484 (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't think personal insults are the way to go here. And have you read the book? I certainly have, and don't think you can say it doesn't exist till you've looked. And I also fail to see how the interview is inconsistent. Can't an interview happen any time after the origin? I also think that your personal bias that Mr. Whitham didn't originate Wildcat is clouding your judgement. And what does personal opinion have to do with something. The text stated "Some claim" not "All Claim". Please do your research before you insult me.
Sorry if my language was too harsh for you. But again, personal interviews are not acceptable sources, as WP guidelines require secondary, not primary, sources. You'll need to provide an ISBN number for the book you're citing, as a Google search yields no indication that either it or its purported publisher exist.
Also, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Single wing

[edit]

The Wildcat is just a variation on the single wing, which people were running 90 years ago. Vidor (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be merged with the single wing article? Vidor (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, they shouldn't be merged. That's like saying the article "dog" should be merged with the article "mammal", just because a dog is a type of mammal. —Lowellian (reply) 05:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

confusing overview

[edit]

I'm a casual football watcher, and checked out this article during a game to understand what it is and its function. I didn't find this article very enlightening. It gives lots of detail about when it's used and its history, without clearly describing what it is and its function. These elements should go in the summary, above the table of contents. Adler's article at http://football.about.com/od/offensivestrategy/a/Wildcat_Offense.htm is much clearer. Because I am not a football sophisticate, I didn't try to clarify the article, but someone should. Robertekraut (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wildcat formation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wildcat formation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wildcat_formation&oldid=1212960689"