NFL.com: Robert Griffin III triggers Washington Redskins' pistol offense

[Oldfan]

... But I would rather stretch the OLB to that duty thus not depleting the whole backfield in the middle of the field. ..

I haven't given your idea enough thought. I rolled the safeties under because that's something NFL teams already do now and then at the goal line. It's not a completely new thing for them.

[nemocystem]

the teams best suited to handle this sort of offense are the ones that can pursue at the LOS with regularity & have a dime/3-safety/or amoeba type package to help deal with the speed. the thing is...having Garcon back really stresses the outside & deep-middle areas of the field that we couldn't exploit as well earlier in the season. this added dimension has been like creating a new wrinkle all by itself in mid-season & has Defenses scrambling again to regain footing.

i don't think it's a matter of Defenses "catching up" or "figuring it out" per 'se as RGIII's athletiscism & all around QBing ability create even more dimensions to this attack that nobody is really able to deal with at this point. the other thing to consider is that as Defenses continue to try to adapt to what we're doing, we still have opportunities to create even more dimensions to this Offense by improving our RT position as well as our WR depth. imagine this Offense if we hadn't been (illegaly) cap-strapped & were able to acquire V-Jax or Manningham?

right now i feel like we're working the middle as frequently as we are because we just don't have the WR's with the entire skill-set to make plays along the sideline. but Defenses still can't stop it. what's more is they know what is coming & they are still powerless to defend it.

i believe that there are about 3-4 more dimensions that can be added just with personnel to this offense & from what i've seen thus-far, i FIRMLY believe that the Shanahan's will add MANY more wrinkles into the play design that will keep Defensive coordinators & personnel shaking their heads for quite some time.

ultimately...i personally believe they're maneuvering the Offensive playcalling exquisitely by turning over the usage rate into a more fluid scheme that will go a long way to keeping opposing Defenses honest at all times. using the read-option exclusively is not, & never has been the full plan.....but its success may have them utilizing it much more down the stretch than they may have originally intended.

i really don't see this slowing down anytime soon....especially with the way M46 runs in this scheme as a PERFECT compliment. this is easily the funnest Offense to watch...& while i am biased...i love its depth, its diversity, & its subtle complication..

i think that despite RGIII's ability...the single greates element is the design by the Shanahan's that makes for an entire plethora of plays to be run off of the EXACT same action. that's what makes it so hard to defend more than anything.

[UK Skins]

I am sure I heard them say during the Giants game that we have the worst 3rd down completion in the League. Even if that is even partly correct that would suggest that teams were stopping our offense. And when it matters too. We won't win Play-off games if we can't convert on 3rd down.

Forgive me if I heard that wrong, I was watching the game before going to work!

[Oldfan]

I am sure I heard them say during the Giants game that we have the worst 3rd down completion in the League. Even if that is even partly correct that would suggest that teams were stopping our offense. And when it matters too. We won't win Play-off games if we can't convert on 3rd down.

Forgive me if I heard that wrong, I was watching the game before going to work!

Trent Dilfer speaks on your point in the video. He says that NFL teams essentially have two offenses. One for first and seond down. The other for thiird down. He makes sense.

[Warpath11]

I am sure I heard them say during the Giants game that we have the worst 3rd down completion in the League. Even if that is even partly correct that would suggest that teams were stopping our offense. And when it matters too. We won't win Play-off games if we can't convert on 3rd down.

Forgive me if I heard that wrong, I was watching the game before going to work!

you heard it right we are terrible at converting 3 and long situations because our offense is not predicated on the drop back passing game on obvious passing downs. Our o-line can not pass block in those situations so teams contain RG3 in the pocket with their ends and the DTs keep their gap assignments. Having said that, as Trent Dilfer pointed out, this is the best 1st and 2nd down offense he has ever seen.

---------- Post added December-7th-2012 at 04:21 PM ----------

How would you defense it? My first thought is to roll the safeties under -- have them press on the WRs as their first assignment. Then, they turn the WRs over to the CBs and play a short outside zone to provide an extra body to stop pass or run to their side.

The corners would play man coverage but with the advantage of having help from the safety pressing the WR at the LOS.

Sorry to roll into this conversation so late but who has middle of the field responsibility in this alignment? How would you defend a 4WR set with a bunch formation to the closed side? Also a 31 (3WR 1TE)? Is this defense only situational? If so against what formation would you use it? Also, if I send my WR in motion does the safety assigned to press him outside motion with the WR to the slot or otherside of the formation? If I saw that look I would spread you out and confuse the defense with some motion and I think holes will start to open up.

[Oldfan]

...Sorry to roll into this conversation so late but who has middle of the field responsibility in this alignment?

If you rolled one safety under, the other safety could play a single safety. If you rolled both, you play with no safety in the middle.

There's no rule that a defense has to stick with the same coverage no matter what the offense does. If the offense takes itself out of its base offense in order to counter my rolling the safeties under, I have achieved my objective of screwing with what they do best. I might choose to go back to Cover Two or whatever to counter four WRs.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

I think most defenses would take those odds also if they could take away the Skins strength on the outsides.

I'm not sure the read option is our strength. Or bubble screens for that matter which you specifically listed. The read option with Griffin keeping is certainly effective but I think our true strength is simply PA. We can run and consistently grab huge gains with PA passing with or without the read option(though it has obviously helped) and I think that is where we would exploit the Slot WR in man to man with no help over top all day.

---------- Post added December-7th-2012 at 06:03 PM ----------

If you rolled one safety under, the other safety could play a single safety. If you rolled both, you play with no safety in the middle.

There's no rule that a defense has to stick with the same coverage no matter what the offense does. If the offense takes itself out of its base offense in order to counter my rolling the safeties under, I have achieved my objective of screwing with what they do best. I might choose to go back to Cover Two or whatever to counter four WRs.

Again, So you just line up with a WR in the backfield like we have done all season and with the defense in this formation, either motion this WR out to the slot so he is 1on1 with the nickel or LB or send him deep at the snap from the backfield and run PA. NO defense would want to contend with that imo.

[DogofWar1]

If you rolled one safety under, the other safety could play a single safety. If you rolled both, you play with no safety in the middle.

There's no rule that a defense has to stick with the same coverage no matter what the offense does. If the offense takes itself out of its base offense in order to counter my rolling the safeties under, I have achieved my objective of screwing with what they do best. I might choose to go back to Cover Two or whatever to counter four WRs.

That's what makes RGIII so dangerous though, he picks apart teams without safeties over the top. His completion percentage with two safeties is pretty meh, but with one safety it's insane. I think in that scenario you go with 3 WRs, possibly with one coming out of the backfield. Robinson is quick enough that he could get from 7 yards deep in the backfield to 30-40 yards downfield in 5 seconds, and if there's no safety deep defending him, that could get messy.

It's sort of a pick your poison thing, which is great for us.

[Oldfan]

I'm not sure the read option is our strength. Or bubble screens for that matter which you specifically listed.

I wrote that: "I'm starting with the premise that the strength of our offense is attacking wide with the zone stretch, the option, and the bubble screens." The zone stretch is the offense's signature play.

The read option with Griffin keeping is certainly effective but I think our true strength is simply PA. We can run and consistently grab huge gains with PA passing with or without the read option(though it has obviously helped).

Our offense is #1 in rushing yardage and #21 in passing yardage.

Again, So you just line up with a WR in the backfield like we have done all season and with the defense in this formation, either motion this WR out to the slot so he is 1on1 with the nickel or LB or send him deep at the snap from the backfield and run PA. NO defense would want to contend with that imo.

If you do that, you have weakend your running game with less blocking in the backfield and the defense can counter by moving the safety uninvolved with a WR back to a single safety position.

---------- Post added December-7th-2012 at 06:44 PM ----------

That's what makes RGIII so dangerous though, he picks apart teams without safeties over the top. His completion percentage with two safeties is pretty meh, but with one safety it's insane.....

I've been searching but I can't find stats with splits like that. Can you link me to your source?

[DogofWar1]

I can't find stats with splits like that. Can you link me to your source?

Sure, it was on ESPN Monday before the game:

http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/57112/rgiii-key-single-safety-approach

[BobGriffin]

if someone else says he will 'get figured out like Cam" I'm going to punch a child.

[Oldfan]

Sure, it was on ESPN Monday before the game:

http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/57112/rgiii-key-single-safety-approach

I don't see any stats with no safeties over the top, so I assume you were assuming that if he is better at one safety than two, he'd be even better with none. I don't think you can assume that. The number of safeties deep is just one factor in the defensive scheme.

[Darth Tater]

The Giants showed one way, You aren't necessarily going to stop us from getting the yards but you can stop us from getting the points. Don't let us hit you with the big scoring play (play 2 high and assignments -- no hero). Tackle...tackle (giants didn't succeed here). Play keep away by dominating ToP that scores TDs, not FGS (if the Giants offense does its job here, they win big). Right now, the only way to stop us is to figure out how to take advantage of our defense. The only time I've seen the pistol stopped is because the defense is just too athletic (you don't stop it with scheme) and/or the opposition's offense stays on the field and scores TD, not FGs. Now, I have seen it stop itself.

[DogofWar1]

I don't see any stats with no safeties over the top, so I assume you were assuming that if he is better at one safety than two, he'd be even better with none. I don't think you can assume that. The number of safeties deep is just one factor in the defensive scheme.

I suppose it's not guaranteed he'd be good with no safeties, but I still think it's dangerous to be playing RGIII with no one deep, when we have a bunch of guys who can get 50 yards downfield in a hurry. Robinson and Moss get most of the deep routes, but Garcon and Hank have 4.4 speed too, and even Morgan is supposed to be pretty fast if we wanted him to. RGIII is too smart to see that kind of coverage and not immediately call a deep PA pass to someone most likely in 1 on 1 coverage way downfield. Even if they jam a couple guys, we would probably have three on the field, or alternatively would run down the middle, and if Morris gets to the 2nd level, well he's probably not fast enough to score a long TD, but he'll grab 20 yards when before he might only have grabbed 10.

Two safeties underneath would certainly weaken the outside game, so I agree that it would slow our best plays, but those are far from all we can do, and that's what's killing defensive coordinators. You can eliminate the deep throws like the Giants did, but then we'll just pound it all day and pass underneath.

[TSO]

Moss is in the slot, so the safety isn't on him. So, my safety is up tight on the LOS in a press position in front of your WR -- and you are going to throw a pass to him in the flat? Did I read that right?

Slot was one example, but a guy split wide can be off the LOS as well you know, right?

This is too easy... quick slants and hitches all day. I would definitely give you a call after the game and thank you for nullifying the athleticism of your CBs for me as well.

[RawBBQSauce]

I've been searching but I can't find stats with splits like that. Can you link me to your source?

Oldfan, you're such a boss. Salutations, sir.

[redskins55]

Every formation you see defenses with 7 in the box while we have 9 including Griffin. If they bring the safety down to help we torch them deep. This offense is built to get yards. I credit Shanahan for implementing it, and allowing Griffin to do what he does. I think the Shanai have turned a corner in their coaching approaches.

---------- Post added December-8th-2012 at 03:39 AM ----------

The Giants showed one way, You aren't necessarily going to stop us from getting the yards but you can stop us from getting the points. Don't let us hit you with the big scoring play (play 2 high and assignments -- no hero). Tackle...tackle (giants didn't succeed here). Play keep away by dominating ToP that scores TDs, not FGS (if the Giants offense does its job here, they win big). Right now, the only way to stop us is to figure out how to take advantage of our defense. The only time I've seen the pistol stopped is because the defense is just too athletic (you don't stop it with scheme) and/or the opposition's offense stays on the field and scores TD, not FGs. Now, I have seen it stop itself.

Excellent point!! And to the Redskins credit they came out in the 2nd half and slowed the game down as well to keep their offense on th field longer. I think there were big plays down field there to be made, however the Skins wanted to keep Eli off the field so they focused on intermediate and short passes. Moss was open down field on one play vs the Giants, and RG3 didnt look down field like he normally does. I believe he was told by Mike to slow the tempo and not go for the big shot.

[MartinC]

2) My second premise is that our offense attacks the outside best and is not as good at attacking the middle. There are always trade offs. Making the middle more vulnerable is the price that must be paid.

I assume you are talking about the running game here and I can see your thinking given we don't have a down hill power O style running game. However one of the objectives of our running game is to draw defenders out of position to cover the pass inside the numbers and deep, think of all those deep crosses and square ins to Garçon and seamroutes to the TE and the deep shots to Robinson.

Your defense by design does just that. I don't think you are so much taking away what the offense does best as giving it exactly what it wants. You may slow the running game but you would be gashed by the passing game IMO. That's the beauty of RGIII he is a great running threat but he is even MORE dangerous as a passer.

Our running game may be ranked more highly than our passing game but IMO that's a deceptive stat. The running game is designed to set up the passing game and IMO your defensive idea achieves that objective for us and we would move to a more pass based game plan in response until we force you out of that alignment.

[Oldfan]

... RGIII is too smart to see that kind of coverage and not immediately call a deep PA pass to someone most likely in 1 on 1 coverage way downfield.

Which of our receivers is good enough to fight past the press and then consistently beat man coverage?

Even if they jam a couple guys, we would probably have three on the field...

...And the defense is going to be gashed by our third receiver?

or alternatively would run down the middle, and if Morris gets to the 2nd level, well he's probably not fast enough to score a long TD, but he'll grab 20 yards when before he might only have grabbed 10.

Okay. This is the most likely tradeoff for having contained RG3 and neutralized anything, pass or run to the outside.

Two safeties underneath would certainly weaken the outside game, so I agree that it would slow our best plays, but those are far from all we can do, and that's what's killing defensive coordinators.

In my mind, that's what defensive strategy is all about -- taking away what the O does best. There's always a trade-off. If I'm playing the Skins' O, I'm willing to swap the middle for the sides. I want Rg3 throwing out of the pocket and our lighter O-line trying to open holes on the inside zone.

You can eliminate the deep throws like the Giants did, but then we'll just pound it all day and pass underneath.

That's why I would not defend in Cover 2.

[MartinC]

Which of our receivers is good enough to fight past the press and then consistently beat man coverage?

Garçon IMO for one.

[Oldfan]

...Your defense by design does just that. I don't think you are so much taking away what the offense does best as giving it exactly what it wants. You may slow the running game but you would be gashed by the passing game IMO. That's the beauty of RGIII he is a great running threat but he is even MORE dangerous as a passer.

We're right back to the same problem. You think our receivers are capable of fighting past the press and beating DBs man-to-man. I don't see that happening.

Didn't Dilfer say in the video posted that he has never seen so many receivers so open? Haven't you seen that too? Mike knows how to get his receivers open against zone coverages. That's scheme. Our receivers as a group are nothing special.

---------- Post added December-8th-2012 at 04:52 AM ----------

Garçon IMO for one.

Garcon is the only one and he's a maybe.

---------- Post added December-8th-2012 at 04:59 AM ----------

Slot was one example, but a guy split wide can be off the LOS as well you know, right?

This is too easy... quick slants and hitches all day. I would definitely give you a call after the game and thank you for nullifying the athleticism of your CBs for me as well.

My friend, you got nothing. NUH - THING! (Imagine in Robert DeNiro's voice)

[MartinC]

Didn't Dilfer say in the video posted that he has never seen so many receivers so open? Haven't you seen that too? Mike knows how to get his receivers open against zone coverages. That's scheme. Our receivers as a group are nothing special.

Mike and Kyle can get receivers open against man and zone. Your right though that it is scheme getting receivers open and my contention is the running scheme is designed to draw defenders out of position to cover the pass. We are making the defense respond to our running game which is creating opportunities in the passing game. IMO what you are suggesting as a defensive strategy is doing exactly the same - your reacting to our running game and in doing so opening up the pass.

Your thinking is that having the safeties press on the receivers will disrupt the timing on any play and reduce your defenses vulnerability to the pass. I disagree with you there but that's just my opinion versus yours so we will have to agree to disagree.

[Oldfan]

...Your thinking is that having the safeties press on the receivers will disrupt the timing on any play and reduce your defenses vulnerability to the pass. I disagree with you there but that's just my opinion versus yours so we will have to agree to disagree.

I suspect that the NFL is about to make a return to man-to-man anyway. Mike Shanahan isn't the only coach who has no trouble getting receivers open against zone coverage. And, it seems like every game I watch there's an easy TD scored on a blown coverage.

[MartinC]

I suspect that the NFL is about to make a return to man-to-man anyway. Mike Shanahan isn't the only coach who has no trouble getting receivers open against zone coverage. And, it seems like every game I watch there's an easy TD scored on a blown coverage.

I think if you have the talent in your defensive backfield man coverage is preferable to zone. For me it gives you more flexibility to be creative with your pressure packages and as per your ideas in this thread stop the run. It also reduces your chance of the blown coverage as you note.

However you need the talent to run it successfully. I don't watch that much College football but what I do watch does not fill me with confidence that there is a ready supply of corners coming through who will excel in man coverage in the Pros.

I think we will see a lot more zone than man from teams who play us. Right or wrong they will be too worried about the threat of RGIII running to play us in man as their base coverage.

[Oldfan]

....I think we will see a lot more zone than man from teams who play us. Right or wrong they will be too worried about the threat of RGIII running to play us in man as their base coverage.

You're probably right, but it would only take one team to successfully defend us by playing man coverage to start a trend. But, if they're going to do it, they have to keep Robert contained, of course.