Chalk Talk: More on the Pistol Alignment, Why it's not just for Mobile QBs, Uzi Alignment

[Mahons21]

Here's a descent piece I found on the zone-read from Pistol, read the comments as well.

 

http://coachbigelow.blogspot.com/2012/03/to-pistol-or-not-do-pistol-offense.html

 

I'm personally of the belief that it is more difficult to run from pistol.

 

You're either forcing the ace back to change direction, which negates the downhill running advantage of the pistol, and requires more time to get to the mesh point.

 

Or you're running the zone so far inside that the defenders doesn't have to commit to a player as much they would v the zone read out of shotgun, making the read more difficult.

[Oldfan]

Mahons: I'm personally of the belief that it is more difficult to run from pistol.

 

 

You're right, Amigo. The Pistol is a compromise. Most RBs would like running from the pistol better than they would from the shotgun, but they would rather have the QB under center. Most QBs would prefer to throw from the shotgun, but the pistol is the next best thing.

 

As an OC, I like that pistol-RB as another receiver. He's most useful as an outlet to either side (like Sean Payton's use of his RB).

[darrelgreenie]

Pistol zone read:

 

 

 

 

[darrelgreenie]

More Nevada Pistol runs:

 

 

 

[darrelgreenie]

 

Some plays are inferior when run from a pistol others offer no special advantage (especially when the situation is considered).

Which plays/situations do you think are inferior from pistol compared to shotgun?

 

I can't think of any shotgun plays that would be less effective from pistol. And Pistol always adds the to run downhill that shotgun does not have.

Zone read for one.  You either need a superior running back, modify the reads or put in an extra RB.  You have better angles in your passing game except for PAs.

Not sure how much Nevada you guys watched but I watched quite a bit 2 years ago. I'm posting some of there pistol runs and read options plays. Nevada replaced the shotgun completely with pistol and they certainly run zone read from pistol. West Virginia, Oklahoma and IIRC Ok St.also run zone read from pistol.

 

What better angles do you think shotgun gives you in the passing game?

[Oldfan]

DG: What better angles do you think shotgun gives you in the passing game?

 

 

I think most QBs would prefer to take the snap as far from the line as possible up to a distance of seven yards. The rush takes a split second longer to get there and the downfield vision is a little better. 

 

We won't see direct snaps at seven yards, though. The risk of a bad snap goes up sharply.

[darrelgreenie]

 

DG: What better angles do you think shotgun gives you in the passing game?

 

 

I think most QBs would prefer to take the snap as far from the line as possible up to a distance of seven yards. The rush takes a split second longer to get there and the downfield vision is a little better. 

 

We won't see direct snaps at seven yards, though. The risk of a bad snap goes up sharply.

I think the difference between pistol vs shotgun when it comes to seeing the field and pass rush  is negligible. The QB in pistol can take a step or two and be at the same depth they would be in shotgun. And directly relating to angles in the passing game the pistol gives the QB better angles in the quick game (screens, hitches, shallow drags etc) then shotgun. The QB has a chance to get the ball out quicker and have shorter throws.

[KDawg]

 

 

DG: What better angles do you think shotgun gives you in the passing game?

 

 

I think most QBs would prefer to take the snap as far from the line as possible up to a distance of seven yards. The rush takes a split second longer to get there and the downfield vision is a little better. 

 

We won't see direct snaps at seven yards, though. The risk of a bad snap goes up sharply.

I think the difference between pistol vs shotgun when it comes to seeing the field and pass rush  is negligible. The QB in pistol can take a step or two and be at the same depth they would be in shotgun. And directly relating to angles in the passing game the pistol gives the QB better angles in the quick game (screens, hitches, shallow drags etc) then shotgun. The QB has a chance to get the ball out quicker and have shorter throws.

 

Not only that, but the drop from the pistol, although different than the drop from under center, would allow you to get into "rhythm" as well. I don't see any particular advantage of the gun versus the pistol other than the quick screen game. The pistol is a bit closer to the LOS, so to catch and throw means you're closer to the LOS and thus in a position to get the pass knocked down a bit easier. But I also agree that the pistol allows the QB to get the ball out faster.

 

I don't quite understand why people think the zone read is any more difficult to run from pistol than it is shotgun, either. The back can still take an angle across the QBs face to execute it. Or the QB can turn completely, to 3 or 9 o'clock and face the backside end. The QB doesn't care what's happening on the running back side of the play, he cares about that backside end. Any reads he's making on the play side are all presnap.

 

It's different, but I wouldn't say it's any more difficult.

[darrelgreenie]

It already started some last year where formation like this:

 

 

Started to be replaced with formations like this:

 

Mahons/Oldfan and (anyone else) would be interested in your thoughts on: What direction do you think the offense will go next season? (And if different) What direction do YOU want the offense to go?

http://es.redskins.com/topic/367035-a-look-into-the-futurethe-robert-griffinkyle-shanahan-offense-going-forward/

[KDawg]

DG, interestingly enough, in the first pic RG3 is 4 yards back in the gun. In the second pick, RG3 is 4 yards back in the pistol. It's the same QB alignment. The difference is the alignment of the tailback. Good find.

[Oldfan]

DG: What direction do you think the offense will go next season? (And if different) What direction do YOU want the offense to go?

 

 

As I said earlier, I think having his QB learn to throw on rhythm from under center in 3, 5 and 7 yard drops is not worth the practice time anymore. It won't surprise me if Mike takes it out.

 

Where do I want it to go? There's no chance that Mike would go my direction. I like ball control.

 

My "Red Zone Offense," Briefly

 

Designed to be effective in the RZ

Achieves ball control in the other 80 yards

70/30 pass/run ratio

QB and RB aligned in the Pistol

The RB used often as an outlet receiver

QB can be a slug-footed pocket passer like Brady or Manning

Two TE body types in double slot positions

Big, slower WRs lined up just outside the hash

Big, power-blocking, pass-protecting line

Small playbook with audibles 

 

My big, slower receivers won't get separation, so the deep passing game is weak. They would use their bigger bodies on defenders like power forwards in the low post to gain advantage. Picking up more defensive penalties is part of the plan.

 

This offense wouldn't be dynamic. It would not rank highly in most offensive stats. Its goal is to win NFL football games.

 

A high fourth-down success rate would be key. Going for it on fourth down in plus territory would be the strategy when trying to beat a team with better personnel or when trying to come from behind.

[Mahons21]

I would like the offense to continue on the with the read-option plays, specifically, the packaged plays with passing patterns.

 

Where they will go?  I think this depends on successful adjustments defenses are able to make.  I don't think defenses will able to stop the read-option attack entirely, but they may be able to dictate where the play goes, and force the Redskins to take the weakest of the options on the play (IE Banks as the pitch man on the triple option last year).

 

 

I don't want to revert to a traditional MS offense, but I don't think Kyle or Mike do either.

 

EDIT:

 

How rude of me not to ask you as well.  What would you like to see the offense? And where do you believe it is headed?

[KCClybun]

This offense wouldn't be dynamic. It would not rank highly in most offensive stats. Its goal is to win NFL football games

 

And what happens when you come across a team with a high powered, fast scoring offense like the Patriots or Packers? Running clock and getting completions is an okay strategy against offensively limited team, but what you come across a Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees or Peyton Manning, unless you have a lights out defense, you're not gonna win many games a lot.

[darrelgreenie]

 

DG: What direction do you think the offense will go next season? (And if different) What direction do YOU want the offense to go?

 

 

As I said earlier, I think having his QB learn to throw on rhythm from under center in 3, 5 and 7 yard drops is not worth the practice time anymore. It won't surprise me if Mike takes it out......

 

Most of the undercenter stuff we did was based on play action or movement.

We don't really do much straight drop back 3-5-7 step non-playaction progression reading.

 

Judging from what we did last year do you think the offense is going to change? If so how?

 

Where do I want it to go? There's no chance that Mike would go my direction. I like ball control.

 

 

I meant using the personnel we currently have which direction do you want to see the offense go?

[darrelgreenie]

............................

Cont in other thread

[Oldfan]

This offense wouldn't be dynamic. It would not rank highly in most offensive stats. Its goal is to win NFL football games

 

And what happens when you come across a team with a high powered, fast scoring offense like the Patriots or Packers? Running clock and getting completions is an okay strategy against offensively limited team, but what you come across a Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees or Peyton Manning, unless you have a lights out defense, you're not gonna win many games a lot.

Ball control isn't just about "running clock." Ball control will keep the opponent's high-flying offense on the bench just as it did for the balanced, but not much above average Giants in keeping Brady watching from the sidelines while they won two super bowls. The Giants used a good pass rush, but they could not be labeled a "lights out defense."

[Oldfan]

DG: I meant using the personnel we currently have which direction do you want to see the offense go?

 

 

Peyton Manning and I agree that the RB should be routinely used as an outlet and not kept in to block on passing downs. I've been saying that since Spurrier but dummy Redskins coaches never listen to me.

 

What did you have in mind for our offense?

[KDawg]

The problem with a total ball control offense is that one turnover could create a major swing when playing an explosive offense.

[Darth Tater]

Pistol zone read:

Neither are zone reads.

 

 

Some plays are inferior when run from a pistol others offer no special advantage (especially when the situation is considered).

Which plays/situations do you think are inferior from pistol compared to shotgun?

 

I can't think of any shotgun plays that would be less effective from pistol. And Pistol always adds the to run downhill that shotgun does not have.

Zone read for one.  You either need a superior running back, modify the reads or put in an extra RB.  You have better angles in your passing game except for PAs.

Not sure how much Nevada you guys watched but I watched quite a bit 2 years ago. I'm posting some of there pistol runs and read options plays. Nevada replaced the shotgun completely with pistol and they certainly run zone read from pistol. West Virginia, Oklahoma and IIRC Ok St.also run zone read from pistol.

 

What better angles do you think shotgun gives you in the passing game?

Quite a bit.  Don't run much zone read at Nevada.  Mostly inverted veers or modified veer reads of another sort.

 

 

 

DG: What better angles do you think shotgun gives you in the passing game?

 

 

I think most QBs would prefer to take the snap as far from the line as possible up to a distance of seven yards. The rush takes a split second longer to get there and the downfield vision is a little better. 

 

We won't see direct snaps at seven yards, though. The risk of a bad snap goes up sharply.

I think the difference between pistol vs shotgun when it comes to seeing the field and pass rush  is negligible. The QB in pistol can take a step or two and be at the same depth they would be in shotgun. And directly relating to angles in the passing game the pistol gives the QB better angles in the quick game (screens, hitches, shallow drags etc) then shotgun. The QB has a chance to get the ball out quicker and have shorter throws.

 

Not only that, but the drop from the pistol, although different than the drop from under center, would allow you to get into "rhythm" as well. I don't see any particular advantage of the gun versus the pistol other than the quick screen game. The pistol is a bit closer to the LOS, so to catch and throw means you're closer to the LOS and thus in a position to get the pass knocked down a bit easier. But I also agree that the pistol allows the QB to get the ball out faster.

 

I don't quite understand why people think the zone read is any more difficult to run from pistol than it is shotgun, either. The back can still take an angle across the QBs face to execute it. Or the QB can turn completely, to 3 or 9 o'clock and face the backside end. The QB doesn't care what's happening on the running back side of the play, he cares about that backside end. Any reads he's making on the play side are all presnap.

 

It's different, but I wouldn't say it's any more difficult.

Back has to declare his intentions and be quick enough to make his counterstep, at least from a basic pistol.  Most of the read options from the base Pistol are veer reads not zone reads.

[KCClybun]

The problem with a total ball control offense is that one turnover could create a major swing when playing an explosive offense.

 

Yup. You have to play nearly perfect football to win that way on a consistent basis. Reminds me of the 49ers in 2011. You can win that way for sure, but eventually you want to get more explosive.

[Oldfan]

KDawg: The problem with a total ball control offense is that one turnover could create a major swing when playing an explosive offense.

 

NLC: Yup. You have to play nearly perfect football to win that way on a consistent basis.

 

 

You both made similar claims, but neither of you offered a reason to support your claim. If you have one, please enlighten me.

 

Why would a turnover have more effect on a ball control team than on a quick strike team? Why would a ball control team have to be nearly perfect?

[darrelgreenie]

Darth Tater

 

-As per the conversation had early about the need to define terms how can you say those plays aren't zone read?

Playside read options are commonly refered to as zone read, even by our own coaching staff. Insisting that those plays are veer and therefore not zone read seems like you're merely playing semantics. Zone read is simply a play where the a defender is read as opposed to blocked.

 

But, that aside getting back to the question why would a pistol team continue to use the shotgun at times...

Lets assume that backside read option plays are more difficult to execute from the pistol (to be clear I disagree but for the sake of argument lets assume it is). It would still make pistol the superior formation because of the multitude advantages and concepts/plays that can be run from pistol that simply can't be run from shotgun.

 

I still don't see the benefit of using any shotgun formations at all when you have the pistol, save for not having the time to fully convert all the shotgun plays into pistol plays.

[darrelgreenie]

 

DG: I meant using the personnel we currently have which direction do you want to see the offense go?

 

 

Peyton Manning and I agree that the RB should be routinely used as an outlet and not kept in to block on passing downs. I've been saying that since Spurrier but dummy Redskins coaches never listen to me.

So you would like to see them throw the ball to the backs more.

Do you think the offense will change a lot?

 

 

What did you have in mind for our offense?

RE:Where I think the offense will go:

I don't think the offense will change very much. Probably fewer designed runs, (hopefully they'll get rid of the QB sweep), but not a drastic amount less.

I'm worried the offense will shift away from being run centric and start to revert back to Kyle's pass heavy ratios, but then again with Griffin at the triggerman he makes it easy for a coach to be right.

-fewer designed runs

-shift away from being run centric to more balanced/pass centric

 

RE:What I want

I would like the offense to maintain it run/pass ratio and remain run centric.

Maintain the threat of read option as the spearhead of the running game.

Work read-option concepts into every formation even under center to give the defenses a constant threat to worry about.

 

Use more spread formations and use read-option and base runs from the spread. For as deadly as our running game is against base personnel I think it could even more potent with fewer people in the box. And when a defense gets greedy to stop the run being bringing more people into the box the spread will force them to play man to man on the outside with either a single deep FS or no deep safety at all which means that when play action works its going work in a big way.

 

Griffin work the whole field not just over the middle.

More uptempo/no huddle.

Pistol formations completely take over shotgun.

 

add:

Be more aggressive on 3rd and long (3rd+7)

-last year the offense was conservative on 3rd and long probably to protect Griffin, but although that helped keeps his INTs low it also hindered the ability to convert some of those 3rd down chances

 

-Spread: chief aim of using more spread formations is to benefit the running game- Spread to run not neccessarily spread to pass/the passing will come as a by product of the running

[Oldfan]

DG: Do you think the offense will change a lot?

 

 

It depends on Robert's recovery. If he comes back 100% your prediction looks good to me. I don't think the offense will change much. If he doesn't, it will have to change.

 

I'm worried. I have never seen a mobile NFL QB return from serious knee surgery 100% before. I hope RG3 will be the first.

 

As for the offense you would like to see, we are not going to be on the same page because you seem to like the Shanahan plan as a base and I don't. Mike and Norv are remarkable in their ability to move the football on offense. Their teams are fun to watch. But their dynamic plans seem to be designed with the goal of putting up gaudy stats and not to cooperate with their defense to win championships.

[darrelgreenie]

 

DG: Do you think the offense will change a lot?

 

 

It depends on Robert's recovery. If he comes back 100% your prediction looks good to me. I don't think the offense will change much. If he doesn't, it will have to change.

 

I'm worried. I have never seen a mobile NFL QB return from serious knee surgery 100% before. I hope RG3 will be the first.

I don't want to open a whole can of worms but I'm very hopefull that Griff makes a full recovery. I assume he either knowingly or unknowningly is taking HGH; like I assume all injured NFL players do.

I assume this because HGH works and the NFL doesn't test for it.

 

 

As for the offense you would like to see, we are not going to be on the same page because you seem to like the Shanahan plan as a base and I don't. Mike and Norv are remarkable in their ability to move the football on offense. Their teams are fun to watch. But their dynamic plans seem to be designed with the goal of putting up gaudy stats and not to cooperate with their defense to win championships.

You're right. I've always been a fan of Mike's Denver WCO and the Kubiac Texan's variant provided the OC maintains a run centric as opposed to pass centric approach.

 

I forgot to add:

Be more aggressive on 3rd and long (3rd+7)

-last year the offense was conservative on 3rd and long probably to protect Griffin, but although that helped keeps his INTs low it also hindered the ability to convert some of those 3rd down chances

 

-wanted to add a point of clarity: the chief aim of using more spread formations is to benefit the running game............