So I decided to value stream map it. The current state is the conventional approach. (Click to enlarge.)
In this model you have 3 "operators", and if you consider going down the field as the only value-added activity, then snapping the ball and handing it off are both NVA. So if you try to put some cycle time numbers to these activities (and I'm sure mine are way off) you get about 38% NVA cycle time. This would be great for a manufacturing process, but probably not so good in sports.
Additionally, each process has a yield. I figure snaps and handoffs go right most of the time, and a running play nets an acceptable positive gain about half the time. You can use whatever numbers you want, but if you use mine you get a rolled throughput yield of about 49%.
Now let's look at the future state, the wildcat.
The first thing you notice is that you've reduced headcount by 1. Of course there are still 11 men on the field, but now you have an extra blocker in the game, someone directly supporting the running back's value-added activity. I like to think of blockers as water skippers, making sure things are set up and there are no obstacles to work.
Next you see that the percentage of NVA work is reduced to about 17%, a pretty big improvement in productivity.
And finally you see that by eliminating a step (or combining steps) you can actually improve the RTY. Of course this assumes that long snapping and snapping under center have equal "yields". But it also assumes you'll have no greater chance for running success by using this approach.
You can certainly argue with my numbers, and you can even argue with the overall effectiveness of the wildcat (Miami did lose), and you can site all of the myriad other factors that go into success on the gridiron. But the point is that in any process, be it making furniture, serving customers at the DMV, or even playing football, you can make hugh improvements by finding and eliminating waste.