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

[Oldfan]

[DC9] Rob isn't an elusive runner... he wants to outrun you because he can and to him it's worth the gamble.

 

Robert doesn't have a choice. He runs like a hurdler, not like a running back.

[DC9]

 

 

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?

 

Haha, I'd love to.  I'd have to give the edge to DG28, though. 

 

And just to clarify, I'm not saying that Rob "can and should" try and out run guys.  That was me more speaking to where I think his ego and his head is at in games. 

 

I geniunely believe he thinks he can outrun most guys in the NFL (and probably can) but I don't think it's smart. 

 

So, Kind of a smartass sarcasm bit right there.

 

[DC9] Rob isn't an elusive runner... he wants to outrun you because he can and to him it's worth the gamble.

 

Robert doesn't have a choice. He runs like a hurdler, not like a running back.

 

Agreed.  Look at that, OF and I, together at last

 

He needs to refine that choice, though.  He's displayed that he can get down or get out.  The hits come from his mentality that he's faster than everyone and he loves to show that.

 

He checks that, he's the most dangerous player in the NFL for the next 10 years.

[PeterMP]

I have a question.

 

From my recollection, they killed the more traditional option sets after the Cincy game.  It has some of the same advantages of the RO (you're playing 11-11 football, you make the edge pass rushers slow down and read what's happening (they did throw out of the look at least once I'm pretty sure (somethink like a quick slant to Moss)), if your running it the other team will have to prepare for it defensively).

 

And it potentially can put people that the other team doesn't have to really acount for in positions where the other team has to really account for them (I believe, they ran this look w/ Garcon out because it allowed them to put Banks on the field where the defense would really have to pay attention to him), but it also seems to me that they could run it with more base personall (e.g. put Moss as the pitch man) and still have a big play.

 

Anybody think that the Shanahan's made a mistake by not running the more traditional option sets for at least a few plays every game?

 

Why would you keep one and not the other (if anything from a game planning perspective, there seems to be fewer teams running things out of a more traditional option look so the defenses are even less prepared)?

 

Why do you think they did?

[Oldfan]

ZRagone --- 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....

 

NFL coaches have been saying for many years that running QBs didn't make sense in their league. There have been teams that tried to buck that trend with dual-threats. A couple of ex-Redskins QBs among them: Billy Kilmer and Mark Brunnell both ran a lot until knee injuries hobbled them. There were several others, but none lit up the NFL for long.

 

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

 

Not so far, but the jury is still out. If you predicted that the read-option is here to stay, I think it's much too early to run your victory lap.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

19 total read-option runs by Robert.

Then how can you say that the coaches called it less the second half of the season if that number only equals the amount of times Griffin himself chose to keep it?

They could have called it the same as the first half which means if he thought had a lane he would have tried to run himself just as much if not more than earlier in the season. I'm sure a lot of his decision to keep or give to Morris was impacted by his brace/knee injury during Philly and Dallas too.

Not sure how much they really watered it down in the 2nd half if that is the case unless I am misunderstanding you.

[Oldfan]

PMP ---- Anybody think that the Shanahan's made a mistake by not running the more traditional option sets for at least a few plays every game? Why would you keep one and not the other (if anything from a game planning perspective, there seems to be fewer teams running things out of a more traditional option look so the defenses are even less prepared)? Why do you think they did?

 

If there were no other considerations involved, I'd prefer to keep the read-option because Robert is outstanding at running it.

[darrelgreenie]

Anybody think that the Shanahan's made a mistake by not running the more traditional option sets for at least a few plays every game?

 

Why would you keep one and not the other (if anything from a game planning perspective, there seems to be fewer teams running things out of a more traditional option look so the defenses are even less prepared)?

 

Why do you think they did?

By traditional option you seem to be refering to the triple option used in the Bengals game?

I don't think they made a mistake because to me the triple option used in that game seemed ad hoc/impromptu.

They didn't seem sharp when they ran it. Which leads me to believe they didn't spend enough time on it in practice.

 

So my reason for why they didn't run triple option more often is because they don't have enough time to run their base offense, read-option and triple-option.

 

Its hard to complain because the offense was super productive. My only regret or wish I have about Kyle's use of read-option is the lack of spread formations. The base formation/personnel pistol was damn good, I think the spread/3-4 wide personnel could be devasting.

[PeterMP]

Anybody think that the Shanahan's made a mistake by not running the more traditional option sets for at least a few plays every game?

 

Why would you keep one and not the other (if anything from a game planning perspective, there seems to be fewer teams running things out of a more traditional option look so the defenses are even less prepared)?

 

Why do you think they did?

By traditional option you seem to be refering to the triple option used in the Bengals game?

I don't think they made a mistake because to me the triple option used in that game seemed ad hoc/impromptu.

They didn't seem sharp when they ran it. Which leads me to believe they didn't spend enough time on it in practice.

 

So my reason for why they didn't run triple option more often is because they don't have enough time to run their base offense, read-option and triple-option.

 

Its hard to complain because the offense was super productive. My only regret or wish I have about Kyle's use of read-option is the lack of spread formations. The base formation/personnel pistol was damn good, I think the spread/3-4 wide personnel could be devasting.

 

I'd include any play where RGIII is running the ball, and there is a man in position to be pitched too for much of the play.

 

vs. the RO where there is a normal mesh point (i.e. not a pitch) and once RGIII makes the decision to run, he has no other option.

 

From looking at the video of the RGIII designed runs, it looks like to me then ran it once against the Saints (Helu is the pitch man, but RGIII keeps), against Cincy several times, and then against Minnesota the next week a few times.

 

And then none after that.

 

From the video, I have them averaging over 5 yards a play where they run it (the video does include plays where RGIII makes the pitch, but I don't know if it is inclusive of all such plays) for a long of ~22 yards (Banks on the pitch in the Cincy game).  There are plays where they get about ~0 yds on the play, but also plenty where they get 5+ yrds.

 

That seems pretty good to me, especially when you consider that in many of the plays Banks (whom I consider to be a marginal NFL player) is one of the important people in the play and what that means in terms of roster usage/flexibility.

[pjfootballer]

I have a degree in Communication and a minor in Journalism.  I took all kinds of human communication courses, philosophy courses along with argumentation and debate. I received an "A" in my argumentation and debate class and I can say with a straight face that I never lost a debate when presented a topic in class.  I think we had to do like 4 of them over the course of a semester.  I kind of wanted to say this in the I don't trust the Shanahan's thread, but I value my sleep and I was late getting in here today.

 

In order to debate a topic, there must be a subject that is presented by an unbiased 3rd party for the other two sides to debate.  Once the two sides have presented their side, a winner is usually declared, most of the time by said 3rd party.  You cannot, "cannot" be both the moderator and have a side. That is bringing too much bias in the conversation.  You cannot have a successful debate when one side is judge, jury and executioner.  That is bad debating.

 

I know Oldfan has been sent on a vacation and can't respond to this.  I'm not piling on him or calling him out when I say this, but too many times in his threads, that is the case.  That is why it is difficult to actually "debate" anything because bias has already been presented.  I do want to say that there are rare times that the thread is good (I believe I said that in that thread) and the debate is worthy. 

 

It's a shame sometimes that threads end up the way that one ended up.  I've been trying my best to respond with less emotion.  I can admit that there are times when I see something typed and I want to go ballistic on the poster, but it's really not worth it.  I really hope that in the future we will be able to have healthy debates and that he is a part of them, so long as the topic is from a 3rd party.  That would make for a better debate.  Apologiies if anyone, including the mods think this is out of place, but it was just food for thought that was on my mind. 

 

Now, let's enjoy the game tonight.  It's been over 7 months since we've seen the Redskins play some live ball.  And no injuries.

[Darth Tater]

 

Anybody think that the Shanahan's made a mistake by not running the more traditional option sets for at least a few plays every game?

 

Why would you keep one and not the other (if anything from a game planning perspective, there seems to be fewer teams running things out of a more traditional option look so the defenses are even less prepared)?

 

Why do you think they did?

By traditional option you seem to be refering to the triple option used in the Bengals game?

I don't think they made a mistake because to me the triple option used in that game seemed ad hoc/impromptu.

They didn't seem sharp when they ran it. Which leads me to believe they didn't spend enough time on it in practice.

 

So my reason for why they didn't run triple option more often is because they don't have enough time to run their base offense, read-option and triple-option.

 

Its hard to complain because the offense was super productive. My only regret or wish I have about Kyle's use of read-option is the lack of spread formations. The base formation/personnel pistol was damn good, I think the spread/3-4 wide personnel could be devasting.

 

I'd include any play where RGIII is running the ball, and there is a man in position to be pitched too for much of the play.

 

vs. the RO where there is a normal mesh point (i.e. not a pitch) and once RGIII makes the decision to run, he has no other option.

 

From looking at the video of the RGIII designed runs, it looks like to me then ran it once against the Saints (Helu is the pitch man, but RGIII keeps), against Cincy several times, and then against Minnesota the next week a few times.

 

And then none after that.

 

From the video, I have them averaging over 5 yards a play where they run it (the video does include plays where RGIII makes the pitch, but I don't know if it is inclusive of all such plays) for a long of ~22 yards (Banks on the pitch in the Cincy game).  There are plays where they get about ~0 yds on the play, but also plenty where they get 5+ yrds.

 

That seems pretty good to me, especially when you consider that in many of the plays Banks (whom I consider to be a marginal NFL player) is one of the important people in the play and what that means in terms of roster usage/flexibility.

The ones he got crushed on were ones were he had a pitch option of course maybe that's because without Helu, he didn't really have much of a pitch option.  As Morris showed he was solid on his own (most of his big runs came from more traditional Shanny stretch plays), we only called enough RO to help make sure they wouldn't have anybody to show were they shouldn't show.

[Mahons21]

PJ,

 

This is a message board, it isn't a classroom with formal debate, which is what you're referencing.  To have a debate all you need are two sides with different views.

[pjfootballer]

PJ,

This is a message board, it isn't a classroom with formal debate, which is what you're referencing. To have a debate all you need are two sides with different views.

While I agree with you that it's a message board and we all have opinions and nothing is formal, that's not how OF operates. He expects you to have a formal debate on a message board, but refuses to follow the rules of a formal debate. I don't ever come in here looking for that as I just like talking football.

If he said, "I saw this article and my view is this," and then I picked the other side, I'd be more than happy to engage him. But his threads are loaded to his view and if you deviate, debate, argue or disagree, no matter what, you are wrong.

Anyway, enough of him. I'm ready for a live Redskins game in about an hour. Typing all this on my phone. My fingers are getting tired.

[Redskins Diehard]

Anybody think that the Shanahan's made a mistake by not running the more traditional option sets for at least a few plays every game?

 

Why would you keep one and not the other (if anything from a game planning perspective, there seems to be fewer teams running things out of a more traditional option look so the defenses are even less prepared)?

 

Why do you think they did?

By traditional option you seem to be refering to the triple option used in the Bengals game?

I don't think they made a mistake because to me the triple option used in that game seemed ad hoc/impromptu.

They didn't seem sharp when they ran it. Which leads me to believe they didn't spend enough time on it in practice.

 

So my reason for why they didn't run triple option more often is because they don't have enough time to run their base offense, read-option and triple-option.

 

Its hard to complain because the offense was super productive. My only regret or wish I have about Kyle's use of read-option is the lack of spread formations. The base formation/personnel pistol was damn good, I think the spread/3-4 wide personnel could be devasting.

 

I'd include any play where RGIII is running the ball, and there is a man in position to be pitched too for much of the play.

 

vs. the RO where there is a normal mesh point (i.e. not a pitch) and once RGIII makes the decision to run, he has no other option.

 

From looking at the video of the RGIII designed runs, it looks like to me then ran it once against the Saints (Helu is the pitch man, but RGIII keeps), against Cincy several times, and then against Minnesota the next week a few times.

 

And then none after that.

 

From the video, I have them averaging over 5 yards a play where they run it (the video does include plays where RGIII makes the pitch, but I don't know if it is inclusive of all such plays) for a long of ~22 yards (Banks on the pitch in the Cincy game).  There are plays where they get about ~0 yds on the play, but also plenty where they get 5+ yrds.

 

That seems pretty good to me, especially when you consider that in many of the plays Banks (whom I consider to be a marginal NFL player) is one of the important people in the play and what that means in terms of roster usage/flexibility.

I hope they never run the traditional/historical option again. The one that Army and Navy run. In that play one of two things happens. The quarterback is turned inside and keeps it. The quarterback gets as close to contain as possible and likely gets hit after the pitch. That is what they talk about when they say "hit him no matter what". If the discussion was running that play then I would 100% be on the side of retiring it.

I really do not see the legitimate way to stop the read option from pistol formation....especially with a gamebreaking tight end in the game and a quarterback that could take the ball 70 yards if you don't respect him.

[darrelgreenie]

I wonder where the Post got there QB hit stat from.

 

Here is ESPN count:

 

[pjfootballer]

That's what I saw and I think I commented somewhere in this thread that he wasnt hit nearky ad much as some others claim he was. Thanks DG.