Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Read Option

49 posts in this topic

Posted

ATL killed us for years with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The reason why it won't be figured out is because hats have to get on hats. The play is set up to where they can't overload the option side with extra men, because the offense can just check out of the play and hurt you. Then, the blocking is set up to get to the second level as quickly as possible. As long as your OL knows their assignments and make the blocks, the play is there regardless of what the defense does. The only way to contain it is to be more athletic on defense...and, well...look at our fuging backfield. As long as we make the blocks, the play will always be there, by design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I don't care for it. We are just tempting disaster. There are some dirty defenders out there who would love nothing more than to get a cheap shot on a star QB and do them serious harm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This is the beginning of a period of change. Athletes who become professional football players will increasingly allow this sort of offense to become successful in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The Bucs did a good job of stopping it because they sold out to stop the run, and if we didn't have protection issues, we would've killed them in the air like the Giants did.

You make a point, but I think what killed our read option the most was the fact that our oline just didn't feel like blocking that game.

Our problems at Tampa were often due to protection issues as noted above. Some were failures in individual matchups, but in general, the problem at Tampa is we tried to beat them giving minimum protection to our QB and RB's. Against NO, especially until we got rolling, we were careful to try to get enough blockers both for pass protection and to open up holes for the run.

Chud thought he could beat Tampa sending out 4 guys in pass patterns all day, and it bit him in the ass. He was more prudent against the Saints.

I think the read option is here to stay for us, as Cam is uniquely successful running it. Other QB's with similar skill sets could widen it's use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I don't care for it. We are just tempting disaster. There are some dirty defenders out there who would love nothing more than to get a cheap shot on a star QB and do them serious harm.

They can do that in the pocket as well. Just ask Payton Manning, the Falcunts were even throwing the refs out of the way to get cheap shots in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

i dont necessarily think it is an overall more productive running scheme, however it is more exciting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I just don't like using it to close out games, because the likely hood of Cam running is low, which allows the defense to key in on the running backs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Our problems at Tampa were often due to protection issues as noted above. Some were failures in individual matchups, but in general, the problem at Tampa is we tried to beat them giving minimum protection to our QB and RB's. Against NO, especially until we got rolling, we were careful to try to get enough blockers both for pass protection and to open up holes for the run.

Chud thought he could beat Tampa sending out 4 guys in pass patterns all day, and it bit him in the ass. He was more prudent against the Saints.

I think the read option is here to stay for us, as Cam is uniquely successful running it. Other QB's with similar skill sets could widen it's use.

This is true, as evidenced by the fact that Louis Murphy didn't catch a pass against NO, and Greg Olsen was awfully quiet. I fear for the team we play once our passing and rushing offenses are hitting on all cylinders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Just saw them breakdown the option (the one that Cam busted for a big gain on the Saints) on NFL 32, and they missed one key component. They are treating ALL of the read-option plays as double options between QB and pitch-man. When we fake to Tolbert, it's only a fake because the backside DE comes down on the dive. Whenever we have that pistol set with two RBs back there, and we ride the RB lined up beside Cam, that isn't a definitive fake. If that DE doesn't come down, we hand that dive off. It's a triple-option, which just adds to the confusion, which makes it even more dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

i dont necessarily think it is an overall more productive running scheme, however it is more exciting.

How is it not? If executed properly, there isn't a more effective PLAY in football, let alone running scheme. That isn't an opinion, it's an observable fact. There is a reason why GT has one of the more potent, if not the most potent, running game in college football. You can say "they run more often" all you want. They still have the yards per carry numbers up above 4 a carry with every ball-carrier. That's effective as hell.

I just don't like using it to close out games, because the likely hood of Cam running is low, which allows the defense to key in on the running backs.

Wouldn't say that necessarily. You don't key in on RBs in that scheme. If the end man on the line of scrimmage commits to the RB, Cam carries. If he doesn't, Cam hands off. I don't follow your train of thought there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

How is it not? If executed properly, there isn't a more effective PLAY in football, let alone running scheme. That isn't an opinion, it's an observable fact. There is a reason why GT has one of the more potent, if not the most potent, running game in college football. You can say "they run more often" all you want. They still have the yards per carry numbers up above 4 a carry with every ball-carrier. That's effective as hell.

Wouldn't say that necessarily. You don't key in on RBs in that scheme. If the end man on the line of scrimmage commits to the RB, Cam carries. If he doesn't, Cam hands off. I don't follow your train of thought there.

When we were closing out the game, Cam handed the ball off to DeAngelo even when the DE committed to the RB. Just like in the preseason game against the Jets, since it was preseason, Cam handed the ball of to the RB, regardless to whether or not the DE committed.

I'd prefer to close out games in a more traditional power formation. The read option is at it's best, when all phases are in play, and if we're closing out the game, the likely hood of us play action passing, or Cam running, becomes low, and that's regardless of whether the DE commits, or the Safety comes down to play the run.

Get what I'm saying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites