How Kyle's Future and the Skins' Read-Option Future Are Linked

[darrelgreenie]

 

DG: I need to know what a stat represents. Without comparison I have no way to know if 152 hits is alot or average. I would at a minimum need to know how many QB hits did we have last year? Or the year prior? How many QB hits is league average? etc...

 

You didn't need stats at all to conclude that we should stick to the read-option. 

 

It's a season's worth of hits and it's a sizable sample of the scheme we run, not somebody else's, not last years, not a league average. It's the best data you're going to get if you want to make an informed decision for this season.

Having a stat from one year is meaningless to me because it has no context. Is 152 hits alot or a little? Do I even need to lower my QBs hit total? I cannot make an informed decision based only on a breakdown of one season's QB hit totals.

 

And actually I did post stats that support the use of read-option:

 

#1 rushing, #5 total offense, #4 Points Per Game, #1 YPA

Football Outsiders: #5 Offensive Efficiency, #6 Pass offense, #2 Rush Offense

 

 

Not at all. It doesn't make the read-option one dimensional nor would it slow down the QB and certainly won't result in a sure sack.

 

Play action always slows the QB down. At the mesh point, his momentum is stopped. If you don't block that DE, your QB is sacked. And, if you don't block him at the point of attack, it's going to be a difficult block for any other player.

In your context then sure play action 'slows' the QB down, but not in a meaningful way to negatively effect the outcome of play-action.

 

And talking specifically about read-option based play-action: the action-side DE can and is often blocked at the POA as opposed to unblocked like on other 'true' read-option plays.

 

And, even on true read-option plays that leave the DE unblocked the offense has countless effective means of dealing with the unblocked DE. Like I already mentioned arc, wham and pulling are all effective means. Some of those blocks like the wham or the bob often are effective without the blocker ever having to engage the DE. The mere act of running at the DE is enough to nullify the unblocked DE.

 

 

 

If it was as simple as sending the DE at the QB why haven't teams stopped it?

 

I didn't say it was simple. I gave you only the first move because the topic wasn't stopping the read-option. The topic was play-action.

Your comments gave and still give the impression that you think the read option is simple. And even in regards to stopping play-action your comments don't hold true.

 

The give to the RB still has to be stopped and that's not easy, but it does make the read-option one dimensional making it a simpler problem for the defense. Dan Reeves said you first take away the RB or the QB making the strategy one dimensional. He would then play Tom Landry's Flex which required defenders to stay in gaps rather than having everybody trying to run to the ball.

Again, this comment portrays a very simplistic view of the read-option. Even if a defense was able to 'stop' the RB or the QB it still wouldn't make the read-option one dimensional. Many modern read-option plays are packaged plays. Meaning the QB has a built in passing option based on how the defense chooses to play.

[darrelgreenie]

OF,

 

Yes, if you send your DE at my QB every play then I will be forced to run the ball with Morris.

 

I'm not sure why this misconception persists. Just because a defense send their DE at the QB doesn't mean the DE will ever actually touch the QB. Read-option offenses have been dealing with this contigency forever. It won't surprise them and they already have ways to deal with via the arc, wham or pull block. Point being if an OC views your strategy of sending your DE at their QB as a threat they will gameplan to protect their QB from your DE.

[Hitman21ST]

If the LBs bite on the playaction, that's correct. If they don't, you won't. But, what does that have to do with keeping a clean pocket?

 

Absolutely nothing. Just like the 70% hit rates on designed runs don't have anything to do with keeping a clean pocket.

 

 

So, your argument depends upon the DE playing it the way you want him to? I didn't know OCs were allowed to demand that the defense play it the way they want them to.

 

I'm basing my argument on what actually happened. You're basing yours on how you would have your DE play it. Not that there's anything wrong with how you would play it, but you can't counter a "this is how it happened" argument with a "this is what I would do to counter it" argument. If we were discussing how to stop/slow/defend it, then you would have a point. but we're discussing its effectiveness, so hypotheticals on how to stop it are pointless.

 

I didn't gloss over anything. I answered your question. In fact, you have been debating my answer.

 

 

Then show me a comparison between the sack totals on read option action vs traditional dropback and regular play action. Or at least acknowledge that you can't use total sack numbers to show the effectiveness of a subset of our passing offense. Just like you can't use total sacks given up by the line to show the effectiveness of the line (not saying you're doing this, just using an example); you have to break it down by each individual lineman.

 

I understand. You need to assume the read-option works perfectly with a frozen DE for your argument to work.

 

I don't need to assume anything. That's how the DEs played it. They were frozen or collapsed on the RB, as evidenced by the game film.

[Oldfan]

DG: Having a stat from one year is meaningless to me because it has no context. Is 152 hits alot or a little? I cannot make an informed decision based only on a breakdown of one season's QB hit totals.

 

How can you make an informed decision by denying evidence? You don't need to know the context of the sample size. See PeterMP's #70.

 

And actually I did post stats that support the use of read-option: #1 rushing, #5 total offense, #4 Points Per Game, #1 YPA Football Outsiders: #5 Offensive Efficiency, #6 Pass offense, #2 Rush Offense

 

You choose to ignore a season's worth of stats related to the risk while presenting a season's worth of rankings, none of which isolate and measure the reward offered by the read-option. You, in effect, are tacitly making the illogical deduction that the 2012 offense was good, therefore everything it did must be worth the risk to the QB.

 

Do I even need to lower my QBs hit total?

 

You do if you can see the logical connection between hits and the risk of injury. Your alternative is to ignore that logic based on what? Why do you think it can be ignored?

 

In your context then sure play action 'slows' the QB down, but not in a meaningful way to negatively effect the outcome of play-action.

 

Are you unable to make the logical connection between a slower drop and a greater risk of being sacked?

 

And talking specifically about read-option based play-action: the action-side DE can and is often blocked at the POA as opposed to unblocked like on other 'true' read-option plays

.

That would make sense.

 

And, even on true read-option plays that leave the DE unblocked the offense has countless effective means of dealing with the unblocked DE. Like I already mentioned arc, wham and pulling are all effective means. Some of those blocks like the wham or the bob often are effective without the blocker ever having to engage the DE. The mere act of running at the DE is enough to nullify the unblocked DE.

 

Some of the jargon you used there is unfamiliar to me, but I do understand where the players are positioned and the blocking angles involved. So, I know that you are guilty of gilding the lily when you claim they "are all effective means." You can't claim the read-option is just as effective if the DE must be blocked.

 

Your comments gave and still give the impression that you think the read option is simple. And even in regards to stopping play-action your comments don't hold true.

 

With respect, I'm interested in your arguments not your impressions.

 

Again, this comment portrays a very simplistic view of the read-option. Even if a defense was able to 'stop' the RB or the QB it still wouldn't make the read-option one dimensional. Many modern read-option plays are packaged plays. Meaning the QB has a built in passing option based on how the defense chooses to play.

 

If the QB does not give to the RB, he has the option of passing with the unblocked DE in his face. So, I suppose you are right. Technically, he has that option even if it's not a good one.

[Oldfan]

[Mahons]How so?  Let's say I run a Dive/Power/Off tackle, who is accounting for the QB and why?

 

That's not the way I interpret "11 on 11." On any specific play, there are players who are  not involved. So, 11 on 11 would not be involved if we name a specific play as you have.

 

As a DC, I'm 11 on 10 against the running game only when the QB can be neglected as a threat to run or block (except rarely). If I need to be concerned with him as a running threat, then it doesn't matter whether the threat comes from the read-option or from the pocket on a scramble. I wouldn't claim to be 11 on 10 if my job was to defend a Mike Vick in his prime as part of the running game.. That would feel more like 11 on 15

[Redskins Diehard]

How can you make an informed decision by denying evidence? You don't need to know the context of the sample size. See PeterMP's #70.

From PeterMP #70

(Now, statistics like this isn't really predicitive because people can change what they do.)

I personally believe that Griffin has the intelligence required to "change what he does". If someone does not think that Griffin is capable of modifying his behavior then I guess it does make sense to assume that the statistics will be consistent year to year.

You choose to ignore a season's worth of stats related to the risk while presenting a season's worth of rankings, none of which isolate and measure the reward offered by the read-option. You, in effect, are tacitly making the illogical deduction that the 2012 offense was good, therefore everything it did must be worth the risk to the QB.

Risk fundamentally is defined by likelihood of event and impact if event occurs. The OP focuses solely on likelihood of event. I would rather see Griffin pushed out of bounds by DeAngelo Hall over being blindsided by a rushing Ryan Kerrigan or Brian Orakpo.

[darrelgreenie]

OLDFAN-

I am not denying evidence at all. I concede that Griffin is more likely to be hit on read option then non-read option.

 

But, I'm not going to make a decision about my offense based on that.

My decision would be based on our total QB hits vs both the current league average and past history for this team.

 

The total of 152 QB hits tells me nothing about whether that number is high or low compared to league average.

 

152 QB hits could be the highest in the league or it could be the lowest in the league, the figure by itself doesn't convey anything
meaningful.

If 152 was the highest total QB hits in the league it would have a different meaning then if 152 was the lowest QB hit total.

The Washington Post stats show that Griffin took more hits on read-option based plays then non-read option. You didn’t prove that Griffin's total numbers of hits was more or less then any other QB in the NFL.

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

I’m openly saying that (a) read-option greatly aided our running game (#1 rushing offense
in the league)

( having the #1 rushing offense in the league allowed our
play-action game to flourish (we used more play-action then any team in the
NFL ~55% we also had league best 8.2 YPA due to our play-action game)

 

Nothing tacit about it, those are direct football correlations.

 

Some of the jargon you used there is unfamiliar to me,
but I do understand where the players are positioned and the blocking angles
involved. So, I know that you are guilty of gilding the lily when you claim
they "are all effective means." You can't claim the read-option is
just as effective if the DE must be blocked

 

I don't know what the above means. But, those blocks I mentioned are all ways read-option teams deal with the 'unblocked' DE.

 

Why can't I claim the read-option can be just as effective if they block the DE? Its true.

 

The read-option is a entire offensive concept. The notion that any 1 defensive adjustment can 'stop' it is just as silly as saying playing press man 'stops' a WCO.

 

If the QB does not
give to the RB, he has the option of passing with the unblocked DE in his face.
So, I suppose you are right. Technically, he has that option even if it's not a
good one.

 

 

The DE maybe blocked or unblocked it depends. And the passing option isn't its a 'technicality' its a reality of read-option football and packaged plays. Oldfan, I think you need to expand your knowledge of the read-option offensive concpets.

 

[Mahons21]

OF,

 

Yes, if you send your DE at my QB every play then I will be forced to run the ball with Morris.

 

I'm not sure why this misconception persists. Just because a defense send their DE at the QB doesn't mean the DE will ever actually touch the QB. Read-option offenses have been dealing with this contigency forever. It won't surprise them and they already have ways to deal with via the arc, wham or pull block. Point being if an OC views your strategy of sending your DE at their QB as a threat they will gameplan to protect their QB from your DE.

I think you're reading too far into my post.

I offered a play, I essentially designed, and in said play if the DE doesn't crash on the HB, the correct read will be handing the ball off to the HB every time. So me saying forced, is more or less me saying, the QB went with that right read on the play.

[PeterMP]

I wanted to do some looking at the differences between Russell and RGIII so I went to a Seahawks board to see if anybody would or had put together a compilation video of designed runs for Russell.  It does not appear as if there are going to be any takers, but it somewhat interesting to see their thoughts on the topic:

 

http://seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=70156

http://seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=70187

 

(though, I'd actually rather have the video).

[sjinhan]

What i will be interested to see this thursday is... Will Shanahans call for read option plays with Kirk Cousins and Rex grossman?

Would be interesting to see if they ate able to run it successfully.

[Jumbo]

Nice, Peter. And now I am going to deliberately present impressions and not facts.  

 

 Every now and then, even in nuanced and complex matters, I like to remind myself of our ole bud, Occam's Razor. In this case, the simple, objective, reasonable perception re: the vast majority of football fans/pundits is thinking RG3 was played too riskily (too aggressively as a runner) in the offense (to great reward) as much as he  played too riskily re: his own choices, and suffered as a direct result. And unless such in both aspects is changed, his career will be short-lived.

 

I'd suggest most Redskins fans desperately (reason and validity for use of that term should be obvious) want to believe otherwise, even when (if) trying to be objective or rational in overall analysis. Imagine if this were the hated Seahawks QB & coach (reversed positions). Many of us would be saying the same things those fans are in the threads Peter linked that I scanned.

 

I think there is great temptation for our fans to put the vast majority of the weight on RG3's rookie decision-making and his "getting smarter" about such next season, and to minimize any contributing role of the scheme or the play-calling. There is a fair degree of rational argument in support of going with that position, but the argument also ripe for enabling us to believe what we'd prefer to believe. This scheme AND the full-out RG3 was/is so full of excitement and success that the idea of it being "watered down" in any way is hard to accept. Understandably, we're all about seeing how it can grow and expand with improved personnel, not be "reduced" in some way.

 

At this point, my opinion is that RG3's need for improving decision making is a given, AND a conscious reduction in aggressiveness in his running should become a part of the scheme, too. I am one of those who has the impression that his career will be over far too soon (as in very soon) otherwise. Not a fun thing to think, type, or read, but that's where i'm at, and I'm not a reactionary or easily excitable type.

[pjfootballer]

I think I'm one that wants to see him play smarter, but remain aggressive. I feel like if he thinks too much about getting injured, he'll play hesitant and when you play hesitant in this league, you get hurt. Of course I want him to have as long a career as possible, but I'd trade 10 dynamic years with a SB or two then 15 years of him being afraid of being injured. Somewhere in there I'd love a combination of both longevity and dynamic play.

[Oldfan]

[RD] ..I personally believe that Griffin has the intelligence required to "change what he does". If someone does not think that Griffin is capable of modifying his behavior then I guess it does make sense to assume that the statistics will be consistent year to year.

 

Your point is not relevant to our topic. It has been conceded many times without debate that Robert needs to protect himself better. This topic is about the Shanahan responsibility to modify their behavior.

 

Risk fundamentally is defined by likelihood of event and impact if event occurs. The OP focuses solely on likelihood of event. I would rather see Griffin pushed out of bounds by DeAngelo Hall over being blindsided by a rushing Ryan Kerrigan or Brian Orakpo

. 

All we have are stats on hits. So, our choice is to ignore the evidence or, in the absence of other compelling evidence, to assume that a much higher hit rate probably carries with it much higher risk. If that's an error, it errs on the side of caution.

I wanted to do some looking at the differences between Russell and RGIII so I went to a Seahawks board to see if anybody would or had put together a compilation video of designed runs for Russell.  It does not appear as if there are going to be any takers, but it somewhat interesting to see their thoughts on the topic:

 

http://seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=70156

http://seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=70187

 

(though, I'd actually rather have the video).

 

Nice work, Peter. I would not have guessed that Seahawk fans were so much smarter than Redskins fans.

[Oldfan]

[Jumbo] ...At this point, my opinion is that RG3's need for improving decision making is a given, AND that a conscious reduction in aggressiveness in his running should become a part of the scheme, too. I am one of those who has the impression that his career will be over far too soon (as in very soon) otherwise. Not a fun thing to think, type, or read, but that's where i'm at, and I'm not a reactionary or easily excitable type.

We agree that a bias is influencing the reasoning of those who want to ignore the risk the scheme has on RG's future. However, I think the bias in this forum comes from fans who are knowledgeable about the Xs and Os; they are intrigued by new stuff that works; but lost in the trivia of the scheme, they can't see the big picture.

[KCClybun]

I am willing to admit that the read-option opens up Robert Griffin III to more hits.

 

 

But when it comes to watering down the scheme, or running it less, those were things we were doing far before Robert got hurt. They the read option 19 times after the bye. And if you go back and watch, you'll find that Robert was much better at running out of bounds, sliding and getting down on the read-option.

 

 

4 times versus the Eagles

4 times versus the Cowboys

3 times versus the Giants

1 time versus the Ravens

1 time versus the Eagles

6 times versus the Cowboys at home.

 

 

He attempted 131 passes in that time span. 131 pass attempts, 19 read-option plays.

 

 

There are people that want it run less than the 3.16 times a game they ran it over the last 6 games Robert played during the regular season. And there's Oldfan, who just doesn't want us to run it at all because its not worth the risk, even though of the 19 read-option plays we ran after the bye, Robert either got out of bounds, slid or dove on 14 of those. 1 play was a sack, the other he ran into Hankerson's back.

 

 

The "big picture" here is one of perception versus reality. The "trivia" of the scheme leads credence to the fact that before the bye, Robert DID take too many hits. Particularly in the Bengals game where one could make a decent argument that Kyle should've stopped running it, but just in general, Robert tried to do too much and took more hits than he should've.

 

 

After the bye, as John Keim says in the article. Robert got much, much better at protecting himself, and in turn they relied on the read-option far less (after Robert went to Kyle and Mike and asked to do more).

 

 

Those are facts. Not cherry-picked statistics to reinforce a conclusion that has already been reached.

 

 

Seeing the big picture involves 1.) understanding Kyle and Mike's role in keeping Robert healthy (to wit, Mike is already annoying his quarterback by not allowing him to do more), and 2.) understanding Robert's role in keeping Robert healthy.

 

 

Rob asked to do more and run less designed runs and they obliged him. In turn, Robert protected himself better and kept himself healthy until he dove instead of sliding and Ngata thwacked his leg. 

 

 

Facts.

[Oldfan]

[NLC] I am willing to admit that the read-option opens up Robert Griffin III to more hits.

 

If you are admitting that, why are you still referring to the statistics that forced you to make that admission as "cherry-picked?" 

 

YOU: Those are facts. Not cherry-picked statistics to reinforce a conclusion that has already been reached.

 

After the bye, as John Keim says in the article. Robert got much, much better at protecting himself, and in turn they relied on the read-option far less (after Robert went to Kyle and Mike and asked to do more).

 

It seemed to me that the usage only diminshed after Robert came back into the fray wearing a brace after the first strain. However, as I've said a couple of times before, minimal use would be an improvement, eliminating high-risk plays would be my preference.

 

The leading argument for minimal use is the hyped claim that opponent's DCs would spend an inordinate amount of practice time on it. The claim sets off my Bull Detector.

[KCClybun]

Your statistics had **** all to do with me coming to that conclusion. 

 

 

 

As for you "Bull Detector", teams have sent entire defensive staffs to colleges to study defending the read-option this offseason. If you think it's not renting headspace in the minds of defensive coordinators, and that teams don't spend a lot of time in practice trying to defend it, then I'd suggest your bull**** detector is faulty at best and non-existent at worse.

[Jumbo]

[Jumbo] ..

We agree that a bias is influencing the reasoning of those who want to ignore the risk the scheme has on RG's future. However, I think the bias in this forum comes from fans who are knowledgeable about the Xs and Os; they are intrigued by new stuff that works; but lost in the trivia of the scheme, they can't see the big picture.

 Yes, that would be one notbale and expected driver in influencing leanings, as I was suggesting here:

This scheme AND the full-out RG3 was/is so full of excitement and success that the idea of it being "watered down" in any way is hard to accept. Understandably, we're all about seeing how it can grow and expand with improved personnel, not be "reduced" in some way.

  

 

As I have said before, I expect this season will be quite tense (for me) for an unforeseeable time. I am not assuming setbacks, simply based on info to date, yet I am also not assured or confident that "things will go well" without real attention devoted to playing Robert "safer", whatever form that takes. I will need to see what they do. It's more still kind of up in the air than not, to my view (in both Robert's and the coaches' choices, going forward). I do think relevant history is usually a good source of insight in these matters, though you're always left dealing with arguments on accuracy of data and interpretation.

[ZRagone]

My one issue with "occum's razor" is that, going into two season ago and pretty much any time before that, the general view point of pundits and statements was that "The Option doesn't work in the NFL". Not that it was too dangerous, or it would work but QB's would get hurt, but that it was just not a workable offense. That the defenses in the NFL were "Too big and fast" for a QB to run option and succeed while also making it through a season.

 

The reasonable guess is that "well, all the pundits are saying it so it must be true". But it's not been true...

 

Cam Netwon in 2011 and 2012 and Russell Wilson in 2012 are two QBs, and three years, of examples where it absolutely can work at an NFL level AND the QB's can remain healthy. Kaepernick had a shortened season, but still adds to this. Griffin's success in it brings up the question of the QB remaining healthy, but again is a quality proof that the pundits across the board mentality about the option at an NFL level was exceedingly WRONG in terms of its effectiveness.

 

I think there's likely a happy medium going forward...both in terms of mitigating risk on the part of the Coaching staff AND on the part of hte player...to be able to both continue to utilize the read-option within our offensive package while still making sure we protect the QB. Things like the option pass with RG3 as a WR in the Pittsburgh game, or the heavy dose of triple option with RG3 being a dedicated runner multiple times are things we will likely see vanish. And it will be important for the coaching staff mix in the read option with all the other "traditional" looks as well so as not to make it predictable and simple for a defense to act on. But I think there IS a way for any team...not just us, but the Seahawks, the Niners, hell the Chiefs...to potentially make this a legitimate part of their offense while mitigating the risk to a reasonable level.

 

Sometimes the pundits are absolutely right; but they're still human and still capable of falling into group think and "old fashion" thinking. Over the past two years we've seen the notion that the option in the NFL isn't a workable play be shown to be poorly held onto group think. I don't think its unreasonable to think the "sustainable" part of that equation is also up for debate.

NLC, question for you. Those 19 times. Are you saying those were 19 total "read-option" plays or are you saying there were 19 total "Read-option RG3 runs"?

[KCClybun]

19 total read-option runs by Robert.

[Oldfan]

[Jumbo] As I have said before, I expect this season will be quite tense (for me) for an unforeseeable time.

 

Same here. 

 

Much of my enjoyment in watching sport has been simply watching the best do their thing, whether they are on my side or not.

 

I was nine or ten when I saw DiMaggio. Every move the man made was easy, fluid, graceful. Jim Palmer... loved to watch him pitch. I watch Jay Cutler every chance I get. 

 

Now, we have a great one on our side. 

[PeterMP]

Based on the tape of the designed runs, in the 1st 3 games of the season, I have RGIII running the ball 21 times, getting out of bounds cleanly twice, slilding twice and scoring 2 TDs.

 

In the last game against Dallas, despite the leg and head injury, I have him running the ball 6 times, sliding once, getting out of bounds cleanly once (the second play of Dallas game is a good example of what I'm talking about in terms of not getting out of bounds cleanly.  Yes, I believe he got out of bounds, but he takes a hit, ends up on the ground, and his helmet flys off), and scoring a TD.

 

Realistically, I don't think there is much significant difference there looking at the stats.

 

Looking at the plays, there is a big difference, in that they got rid of the real option plays they ran (there were a few of them with Banks in the Cincy game) where he tooks some hits.

 

So from my perspecitive, they managed to eliminate running a set of plays that were likely to end up in RGIII running the ball, but still didn't greatly reduce the number of times he ran the ball or greatly signficantly the percent in which of plays where he ran the ball and didn't take a hit.   Despite the fact that he had a significant knee and head injury during the season prior to the Dallas game (and at least was feeling the effects of the knee injury).

 

That's a little troubling IMO.

 

I'll say that things like changing the way a person plays a sport that they've been playing for a long time isn't really a matter of intelligence.  "Bad" habits (and I could see people arguing in terms of individual plays and games that the idea of trying to make every play count isn't "bad") aren't easly to get rid of, and I know plenty of smart people that have bad habits and they don't break them.

[DC9]

I wanted to do some looking at the differences between Russell and RGIII so I went to a Seahawks board to see if anybody would or had put together a compilation video of designed runs for Russell.  It does not appear as if there are going to be any takers, but it somewhat interesting to see their thoughts on the topic:

 

http://seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=70156

http://seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=70187

 

(though, I'd actually rather have the video).

 

 

Probably the best response from that board, which I agree with 100%: (From "Jac"):

 

Wilson has this "weaving" nature to his running style that keeps him away from alot of big hits, whereas it looks like Griffin likes to slash through the heart of the defense with sheer speed (regardless of contact). I also don't think Wilson seeks contact on the sideline, whereas Griffin often does (or did). Wilson's baseball background also makes him a natural slider. One thing you'll notice between those two videos (and I realize the Seahawks one is only representative), it looks like Griffin has a much higher number of designed runs.

 

Rob isn't an elusive runner... he wants to outrun you because he can and to him it's worth the gamble. 

 

Rob isn't going to juke you, he's got elite straight ahead speed.  Sometimes he wins, sometimes he loses.  Would love to see him slide more after a first down or get to the sideline quicker so he can step out.

 

 

[Hitman21ST]

 

Rob isn't an elusive runner... he wants to outrun you because he can and to him it's worth the gamble. 

 

 

Is it just me or would you pay good money to see RG3 vs Darrell Green in his run down Dorsett prime?

 

[Oldfan]

PMP... I'll say that things like changing the way a person plays a sport that they've been playing for a long time isn't really a matter of intelligence.  "Bad" habits (and I could see people arguing in terms of individual plays and games that the idea of trying to make every play count isn't "bad") aren't easly to get rid of, and I know plenty of smart people that have bad habits and they don't break them.

 

I'll add to that thought.

 

When reading the many posts about how RG3 needs to learn to slide, my reaction has been that the authors didn't understand the problem. Sliding is something of a mystery in Baseball. I've seen adults who were wonderful athletes who looked clumsy when sliding into bases and 12-year old kids who could do it better. There are pro players who look clumsy doing it.