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

[KDawg]

 

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.

What that doesn't tell you is context. He can put his hands up all he wants, but if the DE is in striking distance when he starts putting those hands up, he's fair game.

[Darth Tater]

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.

And this is exactly why you run the read option.  My goal is to make sure your backside LB has to make good reads and your backside safety has to fill.

[KDawg]

Of course, Darth. My point has never been that you can stop it. No matter how you defend it, there's yards available. You have to make a few plays and lay some good hits on the QB to make the OC think about his game plan.

There is no sure fire way to stop it. I want you seeing your QB getting hit.

[HOF44]

What that doesn't tell you is context. He can put his hands up all he wants, but if the DE is in striking distance when he starts putting those hands up, he's fair game.

It really becomes a judgment call for the Ref.  He is the one that gets to define what striking distance is.  I would imagine they would look at it like hitting a QB on a pass. That sort of timing on whats legal. 

[Oldfan]

NLC: Both.

 

 

My statement can't be both false and, at the same time, be true as a general rule.

 

Since absolute rules rarely apply, the overwhelming majority of statements people make (that's me, you, everybody), are meant as claims true as a general rule.

 

Pointing out an exception, like your Bruce Arias exception, does not disprove the general rule.

 

Getting coaching jobs is more about who you know than how effective you are, for the most part. 

 

 

I don't believe that. I figure you are promoting the exception not the rule.

 

Offensive coordinators are going to run what works until you force them to stop running what works.

 

That's true as a general rule. But, they aren't going to ignore the fact that their QB is getting pounded if that's the point you are trying to make.

 

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.

 

 

How often its run during the game would not be a key stat in making an informed decision about whether to keep the read option in the playbook. What we really want to know is how much QB risk per play and how much reward per play.

 

We will probably never see enough data collected to produce reliable stats like that. So, it's going to come down to coach's judgment. If I'm the coach and RG3's my QB, given his talent and injury history, if I'm going to be wrong, I want to err on the side of caution. I wouldn't have him running the read-option at all.

[Darth Tater]

Of course, Darth. My point has never been that you can stop it. No matter how you defend it, there's yards available. You have to make a few plays and lay some good hits on the QB to make the OC think about his game plan.

There is no sure fire way to stop it. I want you seeing your QB getting hit.

Actually, you are right.  I just realized I'm giving myself an elite guy and not letting you have one.

[Oldfan]

KDawg: What that doesn't tell you is context. He can put his hands up all he wants, but if the DE is in striking distance when he starts putting those hands up, he's fair game.

 

 

Sure, I understood that. 

[skinny21]

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.

What that doesn't tell you is context. He can put his hands up all he wants, but if the DE is in striking distance when he starts putting those hands up, he's fair game.

The good news is the QB is probably staring down the end in his face and can get himself ready for the hit (possibly even avoid it). I'm stating the obvious here, but I'll take that over a hit to my QB as he's throwing (ie defenseless, possibly on his blindside) any day.

[KDawg]

Don't disagree. But it's still an extra hit that you have to think about.

[Spear]

If I recall correctly, it was an official that told Robert he had to put his hands up to draw a foul. I never once saw him got plastered with his hands up.

 

The risk of injury on the R/O carries is offset by the relative safety it brings to the pocket. We struggled on obvious passing situations, because those are the only times the defense is allowed to tee-off when the read option is in play. You can't just evaluate r/o plays in isolation. They may only be called ~10% of the time, but they nullify the defense's ability to be aggressive ~70% of the time.

 

Robert just needs to learn to take the yards that are there, slide, and don't put too much stress on his legs by trying to cut and he'll be fine running read option plays for the rest of his career. Unless they start letting the defense play with 12 on the field or something.

 

EDIT: Post is behind the thread. Was replying to the first page, really. Didn't notice we're deep into the second page.

[darrelgreenie]

I'm confused by what the defense is trying to 'stop' in this thread

 

Even if they send their DE at the QB they don't 'stop' the read option they only 'stop' the QB from running

Leaving ample gains for the RB as NLC has already stated

 

RE: Kdawgs thought of sending the DE at the QB

Even though a defenses intent maybe to attack/rush/hit the QB by sending their DE that is a contigency that most offenses will gameplan against by sending a blocker at the DE (back/wham/pull) with the sole responsibility of smacking that DE in the mouth and making sure they don't hit our QB

 

Imo if a defense wants to get a 'stop' against the read-option several things have to happen:

they must increase their numbers in the box and assign someone for the QB and the RB and to play the alley

which essentially results in playing Cover 0

BUT since the read-option is afterall an option play based on the defenses reactions; offensive coaches will again gameplan for the defense gearing up to stop the run options. And they already are combating those contingencies by building in other 'options' like the pass into their read-option plays (packaged plays) where the options could be: RB (dive/zone) QB (dive/zone) OR a passing concept like 'smash' or bubble/tunnel screen or some other passing concepts  (g

[KCClybun]

That's exactly the point I'm trying to get across, greenie.

 

 

"Making the offensive coordinator think about it by hitting the quarterback" is ignoring that hole "the quarterback can just hand the ball off or play fake it or throw a screen or anything else" part of the equation. 

 

 

If your only goal is to make the quarterback stop running, fine, crash on the QB all you want. I'll have my quarterback hand it off, and I'll trust that my back will gain yards and that your over-aggressiveness will cost you. I'll also count on the fact that you spent more time in practice trying to "stop" the read-option than the normal offense.

 

My quarterback might only run 2-3 times, my back will gain 100+ yards, and you can say you hit my quarterback a lot, but still lost. Sounds like a good deal to me.

[darrelgreenie]

That's exactly the point I'm trying to get across, greenie.

 

 

"Making the offensive coordinator think about it by hitting the quarterback" is ignoring that hole "the quarterback can just hand the ball off or play fake it or throw a screen or anything else" part of the equation. 

 

 

If your only goal is to make the quarterback stop running, fine, crash on the QB all you want. I'll have my quarterback hand it off, and I'll trust that my back will gain yards and that your over-aggressiveness will cost you. I'll also count on the fact that you spent more time in practice trying to "stop" the read-option than the normal offense.

 

My quarterback might only run 2-3 times, my back will gain 100+ yards, and you can say you hit my quarterback a lot, but still lost. Sounds like a good deal to me.

I'm pushing it one step further though. Even if a defense crashes their DE it doesn't mean they're gonna hit my QB. If I'm and OC and I want to my QB to run I can block that end. I can still have my OT/TE leave him unblocked but I can send my back, TE or OG to run at them and block them (although often times just running at them works). OR I could have my OT/TE block the DE and change the 'zone read' to a midline read where a DT is the unblocked or optioned defender thus negating the purpose of the scrape exchange.

 

 

RE: Read Option Net-Net

There are only a handful of teams that have the personnel to do it. But read-option is not only here to stay, its just the beginning.

 

I've always felt read-option would work in the NFL.

And, imo the Broncos/Tim Tebow is the a great testament to the efficacy of the read-option.

Well all know Tebow is a very limited passer, to say the least, but a very effective running QB.

The 1-4 Broncos took the read+option and a 1 dimensional (running) QB to the playoffs.

Defenses had 12 games to 'stop' the read-option being executed by a limited QB.

How much more difficult with a Griffin, Kaepernick or Wilson?

[KDawg]

Not sure what you're arguing. I've never used the word stop and read option together. It's nearly impossible.

I'm crashing the DE to hit the QB. No other reason. If you wham block or arc block, I want him blowing that guy up. Don't let them arc. If the QB keeps, I now have a key in your wham blocker and that allows my backers to flow to the ball. You won't stop it against a good, athletic QB, but you can contain the quarterback and hit him.

As far as the run aspect, I'm fine with you running the ball. If sending a wham guy backside and still running your back, you've taken a blocker out of the equation. If you run it as base, if my DE does his job well enough, I can pretty much commit to stopping the run and containing the QB with minimal players.

The bigger problem is Power Read. Pulling a guard play side is an issue. It creates an extra offensive hat and creates linebacker flow. If the backside end isn't perfect, he's in a lot of trouble.

Here's the beauty of my plan... I don't have to spend ridiculous amounts of time practicing it. It's basic football fundamentals.

Again, I've never said I was stopping ANYTHING. The read option is very difficult to stop.

[darrelgreenie]

Not sure what you're arguing. I've never used the word stop and read option together. It's nearly impossible.

I'm not sure where you're getting that from either...

 

RE: Kdawgs thought of sending the DE at the QB

Even though a defenses intent maybe to attack/rush/hit the QB by sending their DE that is a contigency that most offenses will gameplan against by sending a blocker at the DE (back/wham/pull) with the sole responsibility of smacking that DE in the mouth and making sure they don't hit our QB

 

I'm crashing the DE to hit the QB. No other reason. If you wham block or arc block, I want him blowing that guy up. Don't let them arc. If the QB keeps, I now have a key in your wham blocker and that allows my backers to flow to the ball. You won't stop it against a good, athletic QB, but you can contain the quarterback and hit him.

Right, and I'm saying that an OC can to stop your DE from hitting their QB. Kyle and 49ers added the arc blocking last year. And that's only 1 way. An OC could simply choose to block the DE with the OT/TE and option off another player.

 

 

As far as the run aspect, I'm fine with you running the ball. If sending a wham guy backside and still running your back, you've taken a blocker out of the equation. If you run it as base, if my DE does his job well enough, I can pretty much commit to stopping the run and containing the QB with minimal players.

Kyle to my eye did more frontside option then backside option. But, either way if your intent is to hit the QB with your DE then your plan fails if your DE is blocked. I'm not sure how you figure getting your DE blocked allows you stop the run or contain the QB?

 

The bigger problem is Power Read. Pulling a guard play side is an issue. It creates an extra offensive hat and creates linebacker flow. If the backside end isn't perfect, he's in a lot of trouble.

Right, that's one of the methods I was talking about.

Along with simply blocking the DE not optioning him at all but blocking him at the POA with either OT or TE and option another player like A DL in a 'midline' option.

 

Here's the beauty of my plan... I don't have to spend ridiculous amounts of time practicing it. It's basic football fundamentals.

Then the offenses counter to your plan would be equally as beautiful and would already be built into their gameplan.

[KDawg]

Such is football. A chess match.

[darrelgreenie]

And read-option combined with a apt QB gives an OC an extra chess piece.

[KCClybun]

Okay, this is what I'm talking about when I say crashing the quarterback and hitting him is a bad strategy.

 

Every play of the first drive versus Baltimore, the Ravens put hands on our quarterback on every single read option play, or at least they tried to.

 

Off the read-option, we gained 66 yards. 43 of which came on the ground, because they were so pre-occupied with hitting Robert, they basically ignored Alfred coming through the hole. Pierre got us down to the goal line on a screen where Robert got twacked but no one covered the screen of a read-option fake.

 

 

A big part of Alfred's yardage in that game came out of the pistol where the defense was so focused on hitting Robert that all Alfred had to do was fine a crease or a cutback to gain positive yards. And the over aggressive nature of their defense helped us score on a second drive which featured more play action passes.

[KDawg]

And read-option combined with a apt QB gives an OC an extra chess piece.

Sure. Give me a Jadaveon Clowney and the DC has an extra chess piece.

Your O will always find a way to beat my X on paper. And I can do the same.

NLC,

There are many ways to attack the QB. Baltimore did it differently than I would. If I remember right, they committed many resources to Griffin. If I also remember right, half their defense was injured.

[Lavarleap56]

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.

It's a 15 yard penalty if a defended hits Robert once he has declared he doesn't have the ball.. Think they get 1 1/2 - 2 steps at best once he's declared. The Refs, Mike Shanahan, & Robert have talked about it before. Defenses can't just T off on the QB whenever they want.

[darrelgreenie]

And read-option combined with a apt QB gives an OC an extra chess piece.

Sure. Give me a Jadaveon Clowney and the DC has an extra chess piece.

Your O will always find a way to beat my X on paper. And I can do the same.

I'm talking Xs and Os not jimmies and joes.

Having a Qb that is a run threat is like having an extra chess piece because it forces a defense to play 11-on-11.

And that is why the read-option works.

[KDawg]

And read-option combined with a apt QB gives an OC an extra chess piece.

Sure. Give me a Jadaveon Clowney and the DC has an extra chess piece.

Your O will always find a way to beat my X on paper. And I can do the same.

I'm talking Xs and Os not jimmies and joes.

Having a Qb that is a run threat is like having an extra chess piece because it forces a defense to play 11-on-11.

And that is why the read-option works.

Of course.

If I had a DE with the athleticism and size of a guy like Clowney with a ridiculous football IQ, I could neutralize your QB.

[darrelgreenie]

The same way DeMarcus Ware and JPP did?

One DE isn't going to neutralize a read-option QB. 'Stopping' the r/o isnt about individual talent at DE. It's an issue of scheme.

[KDawg]

Everything is about talent. Scheme comes into play, but the better the talent, the better the scheme.

[darrelgreenie]

Are you saying that read-option with a QB as a run threat doesn't have an inherent schematic advantage greater then the athletic ability of 1 DE?

Because that what it sounds like.

Or maybe you're just disagreeing for the mere wont to disagree with something?