HTTR24-7; The Difference Between The Wildcat and the Read-Option (Or, Why Perry Fewell is Wrong)

[skinny21]

Any team that uses read-option should be well aware of the strategy to send the DE at the QB and will adjust.

No team is gonna allow their QB to get tuned up by a DE on the regular. Kyle, like the 49ers and many other read options teams will simply scheme to have the end earholed by a wham block from the TE/WB or maybe even pull a OL.

But, sending a DE at the QB is not a 'solution' to stopping the read-option.

Am I remembering right that late in the year they starting running a TE or FB at the end on R/O plays? As if the end didn't already have enough problems, lol.

[Oldfan]

NLC: Read, damn it.

 

 

Okay, then you are insisting that this paragraph...

 

The problem with comparing the read-option with the Wildcat, is that they are fundamentally different plays, that work completely independently of each other, with their own separate ways of doing things. Defensive coordinators comparing the read-option with the Wildcat are hurting no one but themselves when it comes to successfully defending it.

 

 

...is a valid counter-argument to this quote?

 

Fewell: The wildcat took us by storm and then until you can see it, understand it; then you can defend it.

 

 

Your argument doesn't make sense. As Larry pointed out, Fewell made an analogy between two football strategies. He said they were alike in that they 1) took the NFL by storm and 2) they would both be figured out and defended. That quote doesn't imply that the two strategies are alike in other respects or in all respects. So, it doesn't matter that they are "fundamentally different plays." Or, to put it another way, there is no reason that "two fundamentally different" strategies can't both be fads in the NFL.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

Any team that uses read-option should be well aware of the strategy to send the DE at the QB and will adjust.

No team is gonna allow their QB to get tuned up by a DE on the regular. Kyle, like the 49ers and many other read options teams will simply scheme to have the end earholed by a wham block from the TE/WB or maybe even pull a OL.

But, sending a DE at the QB is not a 'solution' to stopping the read-option.

Am I remembering right that late in the year they starting running a TE or FB at the end on R/O plays? As if the end didn't already have enough problems, lol.

 

Yeah I remember that as well. So not only did the DE have to worry about crashing on Morris or containing Griffin but sometimes we'd even seen Young or Paulsen at him and not even block him but the DE wouldn't know what to do or what was coming. 

 

It's a mess to defend play after play since a lot of our standard PA passes or regular zone runs look like Read Option plays. You just sucker them in and it only takes one mistake. Can defenses really expect to play perfect assignment football for an entire game? 

 

It might be less successful but it won't be figured out and abandoned like the Wildcat. It will still be a staple of some NFL offenses for years. 

[KDawg]

Yes, they arc released the fb/TE at the de. It's a brilliant strategic move, especially considering the fact that sometimes they'd actually block the end.

I am surprised though that we haven't seen more teams take the DE and crash him hard at the first object coming his way. QB, TE, fb, whatever. Just blow him up. The backside DE doesn't need to worry about Morris going the other direction.

I'm sure it's because they're afraid of Robert getting outside of the DE. But if the DE screws his feet in, Robert essentially has a two-way go to move in either direction.

I'm not sure it would "solve" the problem of the read series, but it would certainly allow the defense to lay a few good hits on guys and maybe get in their heads psychologically.

[skinny21]

Yes, they arc released the fb/TE at the de. It's a brilliant strategic move, especially considering the fact that sometimes they'd actually block the end.

I am surprised though that we haven't seen more teams take the DE and crash him hard at the first object coming his way. QB, TE, fb, whatever. Just blow him up. The backside DE doesn't need to worry about Morris going the other direction.

I'm sure it's because they're afraid of Robert getting outside of the DE. But if the DE screws his feet in, Robert essentially has a two-way go to move in either direction.

I'm not sure it would "solve" the problem of the read series, but it would certainly allow the defense to lay a few good hits on guys and maybe get in their heads psychologically.

Could the FB or TE be given an "option to block" depending on what the end does? It's interesting to see the potential (chess-like) complexity involved in even such a small part of the playbook.

[KDawg]

Yes, they arc released the fb/TE at the de. It's a brilliant strategic move, especially considering the fact that sometimes they'd actually block the end.

I am surprised though that we haven't seen more teams take the DE and crash him hard at the first object coming his way. QB, TE, fb, whatever. Just blow him up. The backside DE doesn't need to worry about Morris going the other direction.

I'm sure it's because they're afraid of Robert getting outside of the DE. But if the DE screws his feet in, Robert essentially has a two-way go to move in either direction.

I'm not sure it would "solve" the problem of the read series, but it would certainly allow the defense to lay a few good hits on guys and maybe get in their heads psychologically.

Could the FB or TE be given an "option to block" depending on what the end does? It's interesting to see the potential (chess-like) complexity involved in even such a small part of the playbook.

Absolutely they could. Depends what's happening. Major chess match. It's why I love the game.

[Oldfan]

The college game has proven that the read-option is a difficult-to-defend football strategy. However, I am registered as an early doubter that it would last long in the NFL because the NFL QB as a runner idea strikes me as adding too much risk of injury.

 

The NFL QB is most valuable as an accurate passer;

he plays a 16-game schedule and more in the playoffs;

NFL defenders are bigger, faster and hit harder than college defenders;

since defenders are faster, it's harder to get to the outside for big gains; 

and since in the read-option he establishes himself as a runner, the QB is a target for hits even when he hands off.

 

The only reason I have to doubt my opinion is that knee surgeries are far more successful than they once were. If RG3 had had his second knee surgery ten years ago, there would have been no expectation of a return to form. Now, there is. In other words, the risk portion of the risk-reward decision has fallen somewhat.

[HOF44]

 

and since in the read-option he establishes himself as a runner, the QB is a target for hits even when he hands off.

That's not really true.  After the Cincy game there was a decision to have him not carry out any fakes and just throw his hands up to make it clear he did not have the ball.  In those situations, if hit it, would be and a 15 yard personal foul.  It's carrying out the fake after the handoff in the read/option that was getting him killed. 

[Oldfan]

HOF44: That's not really true.  After the Cincy game there was a decision to have him not carry out any fakes and just throw his hands up to make it clear he did not have the ball.  In those situations, if hit it, would be and a 15 yard personal foul.  It's carrying out the fake after the handoff in the read/option that was getting him killed. 

 

 

You are jumping the gun. There is no NFL rule yet that prescribes a penalty for tackling a QB who fakes a keeper and I doubt there ever will be. Such a rule would ask the official to see the play from the defender's perspective and determine that he should not have been fooled by the fake which was intended to fool him.

[HOF44]

 

HOF44: That's not really true.  After the Cincy game there was a decision to have him not carry out any fakes and just throw his hands up to make it clear he did not have the ball.  In those situations, if hit it, would be and a 15 yard personal foul.  It's carrying out the fake after the handoff in the read/option that was getting him killed. 

 

 

You are jumping the gun. There is no NFL rule yet that prescribes a penalty for tackling a QB who fakes a keeper and I doubt there ever will be. Such a rule would ask the official to see the play from the defender's perspective and determine that he should not have been fooled by the fake which was intended to fool him.

If the defender gets there right at the mesh point you would be right.  But I believe it was widely stated that if Griffin has time to get his hands up to show he does not have the ball and is still clobbered it would be called unnecessary roughness. 

[KCClybun]

The Bengals game was a replacement ref game, and there were plenty of times where Robert got clobbered far after he didn't have the ball. If the regular refs are there and a single flag is thrown, that likely didn't doesn't go down that way.

[Mahons21]

 

NLC: Read, damn it.

 

 

Okay, then you are insisting that this paragraph...

 

> 

The problem with comparing the read-option with the Wildcat, is that they are fundamentally different plays, that work completely independently of each other, with their own separate ways of doing things. Defensive coordinators comparing the read-option with the Wildcat are hurting no one but themselves when it comes to successfully defending it.

 

 

...is a valid counter-argument to this quote?

 

Fewell: The wildcat took us by storm and then until you can see it, understand it; then you can defend it.

 

 

Your argument doesn't make sense. As Larry pointed out, Fewell made an analogy between two football strategies. He said they were alike in that they 1) took the NFL by storm and 2) they would both be figured out and defended. That quote doesn't imply that the two strategies are alike in other respects or in all respects. So, it doesn't matter that they are "fundamentally different plays." Or, to put it another way, there is no reason that "two fundamentally different" strategies can't both be fads in the NFL.

 

 

An interesting argument, would be to compare the different principals of the wildcat and the read-option, and point out why the principals of the zone-read package of plays have more lasting power.

[KDawg]

 

HOF44: That's not really true.  After the Cincy game there was a decision to have him not carry out any fakes and just throw his hands up to make it clear he did not have the ball.  In those situations, if hit it, would be and a 15 yard personal foul.  It's carrying out the fake after the handoff in the read/option that was getting him killed. 

 

 

You are jumping the gun. There is no NFL rule yet that prescribes a penalty for tackling a QB who fakes a keeper and I doubt there ever will be. Such a rule would ask the official to see the play from the defender's perspective and determine that he should not have been fooled by the fake which was intended to fool him.

If the defender gets there right at the mesh point you would be right.  But I believe it was widely stated that if Griffin has time to get his hands up to show he does not have the ball and is still clobbered it would be called unnecessary roughness. 

The defender would almost need to be at the LOS for the hands up thing to draw a penalty. It's why I said I would have my DE come downhill quickly. Hit the QB either way, and hit him hard. If he screws in at the LOS and the QB doesn't keep he's essentially useless.

Basically, I'd dare you to run the play without a blocker coming backside.

A blocker coming backside is a key. It certainly doesn't stop the read option, but it becomes easier to decipher.

[HOF44]

 

The defender would almost need to be at the LOS for the hands up thing to draw a penalty. It's why I said I would have my DE come downhill quickly. Hit the QB either way, and hit him hard. If he screws in at the LOS and the QB doesn't keep he's essentially useless.

Basically, I'd dare you to run the play without a blocker coming backside.

A blocker coming backside is a key. It certainly doesn't stop the read option, but it becomes easier to decipher.

 

Basically, I'd dare you to run the play without a blocker coming backside.

A blocker coming backside is a key. It certainly doesn't stop the read option, but it becomes easier to decipher.

If you crash the end down isn't that what takes away the dive hand off, and keys the QB to keep it and go wide?  I thought the QB read was rather the end closed down or stayed wide.  If he closes down the QB keeps and runs wide.  If the DE holds position the QB hands to the back for the dive. 

[Oldfan]

HOF44: If the defender gets there right at the mesh point you would be right.  But I believe it was widely stated that if Griffin has time to get his hands up to show he does not have the ball and is still clobbered it would be called unnecessary roughness.

 

Widely stated? Are we talking about well-informed people?

 

I recall reading that Robert himself said something about showing his hands to the official. I'm not sure what that would accomplish. There's no rule that you can't be tackled if you don't have the football. And the ref isn't the one doing the tackling anyway. It would make a tad more sense if he showed his hands to the DE.

 

I've read speculation like yours in this forum, but I haven't read anything "official" on the topic and I really doubt that the NFL is going to try to afford greater protection to QBs than RBs on the read-option.

[KDawg]

I don't mean straight down. I mean on a good angle that forces Robert to make a decision. I'm not referring to having him crash down the los.

[KCClybun]

I still think painting the quarterback is a bad idea.

 

Here is LL's article on whether hitting the quarterback stops the read-option. In the playoffs, the Falcons sold out and focused all their attention on stopping Colin Kaepernick from running the ball. They basically ignored the read-option and zeroed in on the quarterback and tried to hit him on every give.

 

 

This was the same tactic Atlanta used with us.

 

 

And what happened.

 

 

Alfred Morris goes for 115 on 18 carries.

Frank Gore goes for 90 on 21 carries.

 

 

Pittsburgh took the same "just hit the quarterback" mentality, and even though Alfred posted a low yardage total, a huge chunk of his yardage came from the Pistol. Baltimore took the "just hit the quarterback" approach with us too, and Alfred Morris went for 129 and a touch. Baltimore took the "just hit the quarterback" approach in the Super Bowl and Frank Gore had 110 yards on 19 carries.

 

 

"We'll see how much teams like getting their quarterbacks hit" is just a backwards mentality. It's fine if your only goal is to stop the quarterback from running, but if you've got the right running back, you're hurting yourself.

 

 

The idea is "WE'RE GOING TO SCARE THE OFFENSE INTO NOT RUNNING THIS **** ANYMORE!", instead of, you know, actually trying to come up with a way to defend it.

 

 

The best way to defend it is to do the one thing defensive coaches don't seem to want to do anymore; preach the fundamentals, preach discipline, and teach solid tackling. You don't want the DE to screw his feet into the ground, but you want the defender to pay attention and not go screaming 120 MPH towards EITHER the back or the quarterback.

 

 

Just ignoring the running back and hitting the quarterback doesn't work. We had games last season that proved it didn't work, and RG3 getting twacked didn't discourage Kyle from calling it. It didn't discourage Darrell Bevell or Greg Roman from running it. You're not going to scare any of these OC's from running it, especially since it isn't even a quarter of the plays they run.

 

Teams are going to spend all week trying to stop the read option and then they'll get killed on everything else, just like they did last season. The read-option is designed to take advantage of over aggressive defenses, and this offseason, it seems like every defensive minded coach has been trying to get more and more aggressive.

[HOF44]

IThe best way to defend it is to do the one thing defensive coaches don't seem to want to do anymore; preach the fundamentals, preach discipline, and teach solid tackling. You don't want the DE to screw his feet into the ground, but you want the defender to pay attention and not go screaming 120 MPH towards EITHER the back or the quarterback.

 I think this is a good approach to stop the read option.  The problem with this is it opens up so much for the regular part of the offense. 

 

This is going to be so much fun to watch unfold this year.  I don't really know whats gonna happen.  I do know it is very difficult to defend our offense, which is a whole other conversation than defending just the read option.  I am loving Kyle S to be honest.  It's nice to have cutting edge offense that others are having to try to decipher.  For to long everyone was covered and the whole D knew where the ball was going.  These are the best of times!!!

[KDawg]

I never advocate selling out to stop anything. My entire premise of stopping read option would be making sure the back side safety can fill blood alley and having the DE crash the quarterback. Every time. My back side LB would need to be sure of his reads as well. But otherwise, we defend it like we always would playside.

[Oldfan]

KDawg: I don't mean straight down. I mean on a good angle that forces Robert to make a decision. I'm not referring to having him crash down the los. 

 

 

Your approach makes sense:

 

Negative: Your defense gives up its 11-10 advantage. It has to defend the run 10 -10. However, if the DE is read correctly, the offense does that normally. So, negative canceled.

 

Positive: It limits the run to one option making it easier for your other ten defenders to adapt.

 

Positive: It's a simpler approach requiring less practice time.

 

Positive: It makes OCs worry about job security since exposing their QBs to a pounding will probably not look good on a resume.

[KCClybun]

 

KDawg: I don't mean straight down. I mean on a good angle that forces Robert to make a decision. I'm not referring to having him crash down the los. 

 

 

 

Positive: It makes OCs worry about job security since exposing their QBs to a pounding will probably not look good on a resume.

 

 

Bruce Arians has gotten his quarterbacks sacked an average of 43 times a season the 9 years he's been an offensive coordinator and he just got a head coaching job.

[Oldfan]

NLC: Bruce Arians has gotten his quarterbacks sacked an average of 43 times a season the 9 years he's been an offensive coordinator and he just got a head coaching job.

 

 

So, what is your point?

 

Are you claiming that getting your QB pounded is not considered a problem on a coach's resume; or, are you merely pointing out that the negative impact is not an absolute rule since you can offer Arians as an exception to a general rule?

[HOF44]

 

HOF44: If the defender gets there right at the mesh point you would be right.  But I believe it was widely stated that if Griffin has time to get his hands up to show he does not have the ball and is still clobbered it would be called unnecessary roughness.

 

Widely stated? Are we talking about well-informed people?

 

I recall reading that Robert himself said something about showing his hands to the official. I'm not sure what that would accomplish. There's no rule that you can't be tackled if you don't have the football. And the ref isn't the one doing the tackling anyway. It would make a tad more sense if he showed his hands to the DE.

 

I've read speculation like yours in this forum, but I haven't read anything "official" on the topic and I really doubt that the NFL is going to try to afford greater protection to QBs than RBs on the read-option.

RG3 put his hands up, stayed safe

On options and handoffs during Sunday’s victory in Tampa, Robert

Griffin III made it a point to raise his hands as soon as he no longer

was in possession of the football.

He did it so the officials – and especially the Buccaneers – knew that he could not be hit. Legally, at least.

“I thought [the referees] were on point, especially the head ref,”

Griffin said Wednesday. “Actually, one time I carried out my fake and

didn’t put my hands up. [Referee Alberto Riveron] came and found me and

said, ‘Hey, make sure you put your hands up.’”

“I said, ‘Alright, you got it, I gotcha, you’re watching, that’s

good,”’ Griffin said. “I thought it was great. They protected me as a

quarterback out there a lot more, which is how it’s supposed to be.”

[KCClybun]

 

NLC: Bruce Arians has gotten his quarterbacks sacked an average of 43 times a season the 9 years he's been an offensive coordinator and he just got a head coaching job.

 

 

So, what is your point?

 

Are you claiming that getting your QB pounded is not considered a problem on a coach's resume; or, are you merely pointing out that the negative impact is not an absolute rule since you can offer Arians as an exception to a general rule?

 

Both.

 

 

Getting coaching jobs is more about who you know than how effective you are, for the most part. Arians got canned from Pittsburgh because he got Big Ben hit too much, but he was pretty good friends with Pagano so he immediately got a job. And then Arians got Andrew Luck sacked 42 times and got him hit a ton more, and he still got a head coaching job with a team that gave up 58 sacks last season with an offensive line that's largely unchanged.

 

(And the irony of all ironies this offseason was Arians talking about how he doesn't like running the read-option because it leaves quarterbacks open to injury. Because getting your quarterbacks creamed 43 times a season and hit a bunch more as a general rule of your offense apparently doesn't. But this is just me going off on an annoyed tangent.)

 

Offensive coordinators are going to run what works until you force them to stop running what works. Elements like the read-option are just a wrinkle; none of the teams that utilized regularly implemented it as part of their offense ran it on a majority of plays. You might only read a read-option play 10 times in a game, and your quarterback might hand off all 10 times, versus 20+ pass attempts where your quarterback is just sitting in the pocket going through reads. One thing is more likely to get your quarterback annihiliated more than the other.

[Oldfan]

HOF44: "“I thought [the referees] were on point, especially the head ref,”

Griffin said Wednesday. “Actually, one time I carried out my fake and

didn’t put my hands up. [Referee Alberto Riveron] came and found me and

said, ‘Hey, make sure you put your hands up.."

 

 

I find that interesting and surprising stuff. It proves my speculation wrong.

 

Thanks for finding and posting that for me.