Read-Option QBs

[3irty1]

If you are the lesser team, then a high risk strategy is the way to go. But when the greatest disparity existed in the NCAA (prior to scholarship reductions to 85), college offenses, with a few exceptions tended not to be gimmicky. They all tended to be run and option based. There were exceptions based on talent but until Howard Schnellenberger took over at Miami, they weren't program or coach based. Except perhaps Purdue.

But I think this analysis misses the point about the newer read option, spread option, run and shoot, Air Raid, etc. You could call them gimmicky, but they aren't high risk. In fact several are the opposite, their plays (like Oregon) tend to be risk averse.

Passing now is far less riskier than previously. And option ball is tried and true sound.

Philosophically, a flexbone triple-option heavy offense like Paul Johnson's at GT is the ultimate underdog offense in college football IMO.

Against a better team, the big plays from a passing game is a high-risk gamble that can win you the game but I don't think its the way to go. Better than that is to run the ball and shorten the game. In a shorter game fewer things need to go your way in order to win. The better team gets less chances to be better. In that offense though, you often also get an above average amount of big plays as well. You can't just play assignments against this advanced of an option team, they'll figure them out and read your assignment, put a guy in motion to double team an assignment, or run the play away from your assignment even to the short side of the field. So the whole game is a punch, counterpunch, counter-counterpunch, etc.

On top of all that the personnel you need to make it work is WR/HB hybrids who can be vastly undersized and a scrambler QB who if he can pass is icing on the cake. The funny thing about the flexbone is that it was born out of the run-and-shoot. If you put 8 in the box against it, you're leaving yourself in a 3 deep coverage just asking for them to audible to a 4-verticles for easy underneath completions even if your QB barely has an arm. For an underdog, what more could you want? Short game, big plays, low risk!

[rbaloha1]

won't argue the fact that if a guy is an exceptional throwing from the pocket QB who has a good running game and great D to boot that his team will be very successful.

I am saying that a guy that runs the read option more than 4 times a game won't likely be successful because that will mean they likely don't pass well from the pocket.

First of all how can put a number of 4 on read option plays?

Second all the read option qbs have demonstrated the ability to throw successfully from the pocket (CK, Wilson, RG III, Newton, etc.) The new draft picks are also capable of throwing from the pocket.

Third pocket passers like AR, Brady, both Mannings are incapable of running read option nor do they want to.

Bottom Line: Read Option is an added dimension not a complete overhaul.

[rbaloha1]

Philosophically, a flexbone triple-option heavy offense like Paul Johnson's at GT is the ultimate underdog offense in college football IMO.

Against a better team, the big plays from a passing game is a high-risk gamble that can win you the game but I don't think its the way to go. Better than that is to run the ball and shorten the game. In a shorter game fewer things need to go your way in order to win. The better team gets less chances to be better. In that offense though, you often also get an above average amount of big plays as well. You can't just play assignments against this advanced of an option team, they'll figure them out and read your assignment, put a guy in motion to double team an assignment, or run the play away from your assignment even to the short side of the field. So the whole game is a punch, counterpunch, counter-counterpunch, etc.

On top of all that the personnel you need to make it work is WR/HB hybrids who can be vastly undersized and a scrambler QB who if he can pass is icing on the cake. The funny thing about the flexbone is that it was born out of the run-and-shoot. If you put 8 in the box against it, you're leaving yourself in a 3 deep coverage just asking for them to audible to a 4-verticles for easy underneath completions even if your QB barely has an arm. For an underdog, what more could you want? Short game, big plays, low risk!

Correction -- Paul Johnson's offense is from the wishbone not the run and shoot. Mouse Davis/June Jone's run and shoot could not be more opposite from Paul Johnson's offense.

Watched, studied, listened and went to film studies of both offenses while they coached at Hawaii.

[rbaloha1]

If you are the lesser team, then a high risk strategy is the way to go. But when the greatest disparity existed in the NCAA (prior to scholarship reductions to 85), college offenses, with a few exceptions tended not to be gimmicky. They all tended to be run and option based. There were exceptions based on talent but until Howard Schnellenberger took over at Miami, they weren't program or coach based. Except perhaps Purdue.

But I think this analysis misses the point about the newer read option, spread option, run and shoot, Air Raid, etc. You could call them gimmicky, but they aren't high risk. In fact several are the opposite, their plays (like Oregon) tend to be risk averse.

Passing now is far less riskier than previously. And option ball is tried and true sound.

Risk averse? These offenses are aggressive designed to score points -- not concerned about time of possession. No matter what you think pitching the ball is risky along with throwing the ball (think Woody Hayes).

[rbaloha1]

Newton is in a bad spot in Carolina. Rivera looks overmatched and his moves at offensive coordinator are depressing. Mike Shula has never run a bona fide NFL offense for any length of time.

CK only took the packers offguard -- Capers failed to prepare properly.

[rbaloha1]

You have hit on it here. Gimmick offenses are there so lesser teams can compete by doing....something gimmicky. If you have the talent to run it and pass it effectively in the traditional manner, its still the best route to success. If you do not....then you run the wildcat and the read option. SF had a great D and good running game, but needed the extra umph at QB to make the big game. RO gave them that last year. I suspect it won't be enough this year.

These are only gimmicks to dinasour thinkers.

Traditional offenses give the defense an advantage since the qb does not have to be accounted for.

Newer offenses put added pressure on defenses. Just heard Urlacher on Mike & Mike talk about the difficulties defensing newer offenses.

[rbaloha1]

Of course there are more factors. That's why I said time was one reason.

But if competing against superior talent was the only factor, then teams would be using less non-traditional offenses today than before, because the talent gap has narrowed (scholarship limits), passing game rule changes, practice limits and the proliferation of talent outside of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas. In other words, people would be reverse engineering the Badgers under Alvarez, who took coal to Newcastle and beat the traditional powers with his running game and defense (unless you were Michigan then by rule the Badgers lost just to keep order in the Universe).

Instead, despite the leveling, the number of alternate offenses has proliferated and has incorporated older option concepts. But even those older concepts are given a new spin. I believe there is only one team running a true triple option run offense in D1 right now.

Tommie Frazier never got the chance to run a pro offense. Tebow barely got one.

The primary factor pushing teams to innovate in the passing game is the increased reward versus the decreased risk compared to decades past. And the increased focus on passing in college has in turn produced more QBs with phenomenal athletic talent who are also accomplished passers. Perhaps not schooled as before, but talented and trained arms none-the-less.

Their numbers and passing training make the likelihood of NFL teams committing to something other than traditional drop back passing more likely.

Fraizer and Tebow can not pass.

[3irty1]

Correction -- Paul Johnson's offense is from the wishbone not the run and shoot. Mouse Davis/June Jone's run and shoot could not be more opposite from Paul Johnson's offense.

Watched, studied, listened and went to film studies of both offenses while they coached at Hawaii.

The Flexbone came from the original run-and-shoot created by Tiger Ellison. In fact the formation is exactly the same, it was just revived for use as a triple-option offense hence the bone. The Hawaii run-n-shoot has the same roots but has been innovated to the point of being unrecognizable.

[rbaloha1]

The Flexbone came from the original run-and-shoot created by Tiger Ellison. In fact the formation is exactly the same, it was just revived for use as a triple-option offense hence the bone. The Hawaii run-n-shoot has the same roots but has been innovated to the point of being unrecognizable.

Yes, Mouse Davis borrowed it from Tiger Ellison. Mouse believed in triple option.

June's version is more adapted to the NFL. Plus when June ran Mouse's run and shoot at Portland State, Mouse had to modify to utilize June's pocket passing strengths and inability to run.

Formations are irrelevant.

I have heard Paul Johnson say personally the offense he runs is a derivative of the wishbone -- the two outside rbs were shifted to slots and run triple option. It is also easier to throw from than the wishbone. BTW Johnson does not like name flexbone attached to his offense.

In terms of the pistol -- Mouse and June say it was derived from the single wing. Unsure -- but Mouse and Ault are longtime hated rivals from the 70's.

[3irty1]

Yes, Mouse Davis borrowed it from Tiger Ellison. Mouse believed in triple option.

June's version is more adapted to the NFL. Plus when June ran Mouse's run and shoot at Portland State, Mouse had to modify to utilize June's pocket passing strengths and inability to run.

Formations are irrelevant.

I have heard Paul Johnson say personally the offense he runs is a derivative of the wishbone -- the two outside rbs were shifted to slots and run triple option. It is also easier to throw from than the wishbone. BTW Johnson does not like name flexbone attached to his offense.

In terms of the pistol -- Mouse and June say it was derived from the single wing. Unsure -- but Mouse and Ault are longtime hated rivals from the 70's.

The formation is not irrelevant but even still its not just the formation that came from the run-and-shoot. The Ellison offense was very balanced and used the same blocking schemes to disguise run vs pass. The famous Ellison playbook, Gangster, Cowboy, Wagon Train, Popcorn, and Mudcat all had rushing plays and a pass play to contradict the rushing plays. The Gangster and Cowboy were speed and triple options and are what Ken Hatfield took to Air Force and the basis for everything that the flexbone is today. Of course Johnson's not wrong to say that his offense came from the wishbone either.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Pretty solid article on the Read Option which focuses on the Rams and how they may be the best equipped team to stop it. True or not, it does have some great insight on how the plays are run and theories on how to stop it. They also note that in games the Rams had vs Seattle and SF, very few Read Option plays were used.

http://www.turfshowtimes.com/2013/5/...he-read-option

Another ESPN article on the % of plays that teams ran the RO last season:
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post...west-mythology

Another article by Chris Brown from SmartFootball, who is a big proponent of the RO, and has great diagrams on the RO, which were used in the first link above about the Rams.
http://www.sbnation.com/longform/201...l-redskins-rg3

Finally, an article about how to stop the RO, which is essentially to hit the QB on every play they run it.
http://www.stampedeblue.com/2013/2/2...t-the-qb-every

[pbmax]

A [possible] theory on Datone Jones. Dammit. I keep batting .500

TCU's coach, Gary Patterson, told the NY Times "If the defensive end is fast enough to be able to play the running back or the quarterback instead of some other person on your defense, that frees up a guy," he said. "If nine guys out of your 11 can run somebody down, it always helps."

from Cheese's Turf Show Times link

[pbmax]

I love the Turf Show Times link:

I think we didn’t fit it up as we had practiced throughout the week. We were seeing the zone read since the beginning of OTAs with Robert [Griffin III] and our offense," inside linebacker London Fletcher said. "So we knew how to fit it up; guys just didn’t play it the way we’re supposed to every single time.

You have to be technically sound. You’ve got to rally to the football, but you’ve got to do assignment football. If one guy misses, then the next guy’s got to make it, and the next thing you know, it’s an 8-yard gain.

Quick, name three Packers who tend to freelance and might get a defense out of its designed shape?

[rbaloha1]

The formation is not irrelevant but even still its not just the formation that came from the run-and-shoot. The Ellison offense was very balanced and used the same blocking schemes to disguise run vs pass. The famous Ellison playbook, Gangster, Cowboy, Wagon Train, Popcorn, and Mudcat all had rushing plays and a pass play to contradict the rushing plays. The Gangster and Cowboy were speed and triple options and are what Ken Hatfield took to Air Force and the basis for everything that the flexbone is today. Of course Johnson's not wrong to say that his offense came from the wishbone either.

Good summary of the flexbone which is an offense I am very unfamiliar with. Hatfield transitioned nicely from Debury's wishbone.

Paul Johnson's roots are with Georgia Southern. Recall PJ saying his offense was learned from a high school coach. PJ's protege is running his offense at Navy.

[rbaloha1]

Again all this stuff is stating the obvious about assignments which are easily blown since you do not rep it enough during practices.

Still comes down to your d-front being better.

Auburn and LSU controlled Oregon's spread by having a better front.

TAMU beat BAMA because they have a better offensive line than Bama's front.

It is unknown if the Packer front seven has upgraded enough to control the read option.