You train your receivers to read the defenders and analyze if/when they should lateral to the crosser. Or, you call each route with a chaser route and have the primary receiver catch it, then run the option downfield - keep or pitch.

What are you cutting from practice to install this?

Also, what cyborgs are you drafting to run it?

Because scheduling the install for new packages is something that professional football players and coaches aren’t accustomed to doing.

As far as the type of player capable of handing the ball to a teammate or not handing the ball to a teammate, I’m just not sure. We’d probably have to develop them in a lab.

I give up...go find a team and run it. Post video here please.

Here's one example, dad.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uqLUFdTfQ2g" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Imagine this in the third quarter of a game, Kelce on the catch with Hill coming up the sideline:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LUHqAxXjSs8" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Good luck catching Hill / DAT / Pringle on one of these:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GDqIuUnu9nU" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Not sure if I missed if someone else's mentioning it, but doing it in the backfield or on a punt/special teams return is meaningfully different from doing it downfield. Why? Because in the former two instances, you're not dealing with the defense being underneath. Not only does that increase the likelihood of a turnover (because in a sense you're not as "alone" if you have a simple miscue), but you also can't easily plan for the spacing you may or may not have given that you'd have to go into the next dimension of the play in considering where the defenders would be during the lateral downfield. It would truly be some next level shit if that became a regular part of the playbook.

I'm happy for someone else to figure that out first. We have enough gimmicks in our offense.

This one is less risky because if the receiver mistimes the lateral, the ball goes out of bounds along the sideline.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uEVHr3zwwlA" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Maybe you scout the defense's reaction to certain receptions when they are in a particular coverage, and know where the space will open up.

Also, if you call these along the sideline, the ball just goes out of bounds if the pitch is missed.

This team ran one in the middle of the second quarter:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cCdz3DKuapM" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If Eric ****ing Fisher got a playoff TD like this, CP would melt the **** down.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zNqCVTs38nU" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

We could be the Harlem Globetrotters of the NFL.

We can go reverse, reverse pass, double reverse pass, double reverse fake pass, flea flicker, lateral skip double pass, double pass, double throwback pass, fumblerooski, Bumerooski, circus, gate, double gate, overload gate....

So the argument is not longer about making gadget plays a core part of the offense, simply that they exist, people have run them, and it's on film?

Great argument. I relent. Fire Reid and hire the CP collective to draw up an entire offense of nothing but rugby laterals.

It's bulletproof.

Here's one my team ran.

https://youtu.be/CbK7Xk-_YDA