Death to Google Ads! Texans Talk Tip Jar! 🍺😎👍
Thanks for your support!

Double Reverse has NEVER happened. Please get that right commentators.

awtysst

awtysst

Draft Guru
From my understanding nobody in the history of football has ever run a double reverse. What most commentators call the "double reverse" is really a single reverse, wrap around, or whatever you want. Here is why:

A double reverse has 3 hand offs. First,QB hands ball to RB1 who runs left. Then, RB1 hands off to RB2 who runs right that's the first reverse(but is commonly called the "doubel reverse"). For a real double reverse, RB2 hands off the ball to RB3 (or WR1 or whomever)who runs to the left.

As far as I know this has never happened in the NFL. So, please commentators get the right term down.
 
Luv_ya_blue said:
Is this going to turn into a RB thread???
:joker: :joker: :joker: :joker:
Wasn't his play, the DB reverse?
Click to expand...

No it isn't about RB but just my irritation with the miscalling of this play. In theory a double reverse is a pretty dumb play. You have established a run to one side, reversed to the other, then reversed back to the original side. Likely what will occur is a massive loss. The reverse in general is used to get the speed rushers out of position, but if you run into the speed rushers while in the backfield, you have lost a HUGE chunk of yards. Thus it is a pretty silly play to call.
 
Titan "Tack" Fan;500822 said:
I've seen a true double reverse. I can't remember if it was college or NFL though.
Click to expand...

It is very likely college as I have never heard or seen it occur in the NFL.
 
See the thing is...people call the "end around" (fake to RB, handoff to WR) a reverse, not the actual play, which is the end around....so that's why people call "hand off to RB, RB hand off to WR" a double reverse.

You're correct though, it's not a double reverse, its just a reverse.
 
awtysst said:
In the NFL or college? And it was a real doubel reverse or what the commentators claimed was a double reverse but was really a single reverse?
(Laterals do not count).
Click to expand...
i don't believe there is a true definition for a "reverse." but i've seen the "real" one you're talkign about several times.
 
Hmmm. Wouldn't a ''double reverse'' defeat the purpose of the play? The point of the reverse is to hand off one way, get the defense moving that way, then fool them by handing off again, in the other direction, correct? If you were to double reverse, you would be running right back into the side of the field you lured the defense into.
 
RTP2110 said:
Hmmm. Wouldn't a ''double reverse'' defeat the purpose of the play? The point of the reverse is to hand off one way, get the defense moving that way, then fool them by handing off again, in the other direction, correct? If you were to double reverse, you would be running right back into the side of the field you lured the defense into.
Click to expand...
You'd lure them back the other way and all their knees would explode.
 
RTP2110 said:
Hmmm. Wouldn't a ''double reverse'' defeat the purpose of the play? The point of the reverse is to hand off one way, get the defense moving that way, then fool them by handing off again, in the other direction, correct? If you were to double reverse, you would be running right back into the side of the field you lured the defense into.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Thats why it is a play that I have personally never seen and one that in my mind cannot work in the NFL. Maybe it can work in pop warner, highschool, and maybe in college, but i cannot see its effectivness in the NFL. You would be running into the heart of the defense for a massive loss if you tried the play.
 
Real double reverses are too slow in their development to be run at a level with as much speed as the D's in the NFL have. I agree with the original poster in that I wish the game-callers would learn how to call it correctly. Last Sunday was the second time this year that happened for us and it is a bit annoying.

Then again, I've pretty much given up on anything technically relevant or correct coming from the mouths (or pens or typing fingers for that matter) of anyone in the sports media world.
 
I still think a real triple reverse would work pretty good. :tease:


I think the one where they fake the first hand off and it's not a "real" reverse is the best one to use, if any. Even the "real" reverse (the single variety) :) just doesn't work very well in the NFL. Containment is just too good, as well as penetration. Same reason the "real" Reggie Bush doesn't work.
 
RTP2110 said:
Hmmm. Wouldn't a ''double reverse'' defeat the purpose of the play? The point of the reverse is to hand off one way, get the defense moving that way, then fool them by handing off again, in the other direction, correct? If you were to double reverse, you would be running right back into the side of the field you lured the defense into.
Click to expand...

Well here's an idea

Sweep to RB -> reverse to WR #1 -> double reverse to WR #2 -> WR #2 throws pass to RB or another receiver who was running a fly pattern
 
The Pats just ran one. A real one. At about 12:00 in the 4th quarter against the Bears. It didn't fool anyone.

Here's the play by play entry:
1-10-CHI26 (13:02) C.Jackson up the middle to CHI 34 for -8 yards (A.Ogunleye, Ta.Johnson). double reverse
 
damn-was watching that game and when it happened i thought of this thread.. yeah it didnt work- the wr should've just taken off and not handed it off again but they won anyway thanks to asante samuel (yeah he'll be an fa alright:rolleyes:) and brady (and grossman)
 
Yea, it's happened once in a Super Bowl a long time ago. Fittingly, it resulted in a fumble.

But I agree, announcers calling end-arounds revereses and reverses double-reverses really annoys me too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top