Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Is Cam just a bad read option QB?


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#61 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,161 posts

Posted 07 January 2013 - 07:18 PM

Newton is a fine read-option QB.

The read-option is a bad system to run as your base offense in the NFL.

We have better results when we run Newton out of a base Coryell offense not because of problems with the quarterback, but issues with the system at the pro level.

meh...it's just another running scheme.

people turn it into some big bugaboo when it's just a running scheme.

the problem is just what i said earlier. the OL isn't up to the job and chud doesn't know how to operate it right.

if it's run right and the OL knows how to block for two potential runners and isn't all beat up and not on the same page, it would be fine.

a read option offense is just another run first offense.

#62 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • ALL-PRO
  • 42,322 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 07 January 2013 - 07:20 PM

meh...it's just another running scheme.

people turn it into some big bugaboo when it's just a running scheme.

the problem is just what i said earlier. the OL isn't up to the job and chud doesn't know how to operate it right.

if it's run right and the OL knows how to block for two potential runners and isn't all beat up and not on the same page, it would be fine.

a read option offense is just another run first offense.


Understood, but would you not agree that we looked better the more we went back to base Coryell this season?

#63 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,161 posts

Posted 07 January 2013 - 07:36 PM

Understood, but would you not agree that we looked better the more we went back to base Coryell this season?

because of who was running the offense (as in chud), not because of the scheme itself.

chud has no experience running the read option beyond what he did here. his problem was that he tried marrying the coryell to the read option, but he ended up making the offense predictable.

just like i said earlier, the offense became predictable. defenses knew we were going to run because we were in a read option formation. defenses knew we were going to pass because we weren't in the read option.

his mindset on how to run it was all screwed up. it was a shiny toy that he didn't think to ask instructions on how to operate. if your mindset is that it's just another running scheme, then you treat it like one. you make the defense respect it and expect it and then you start misleading them....you know, use play action and stuff. treat it like you would any running scheme or plays.

he should have run more traditional plays out of the read option formations and ran more out of more traditional formations.

or talked to someone like kelly who is a guru, or even read his playbook, which is online, btw, and very interesting to read. find out how to run it before you try to run it.

i said over and over, tho, that chud's offense had been as predictable as davidson's. sure, his playbook was more intricate than davidson's 5 page coloring book, but it was just as predictable. when you're predictable and your OL is crap, you're offense isn't going to be all that good. another of the good few fatal flaws was that chud wasn't basing the offense on the personnel he had. i mean sure he was tailoring part of the offense around newton, but he didn't game plan and play call for the players we had on the field. they didn't make the most of their strengths, but more than that, it didn't account for their limitations. the OL he has here is more suited for what it's been used to. more powerblocking rather than the zone blocking scheme which is better suited for the read option.

we shouldn't have been running it as much because chud didn't know how to use it and we didn't have the OL for it.

#64 footballisasport

footballisasport

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,506 posts

Posted 07 January 2013 - 08:01 PM

I'm waiting for someone to start a thread labeled..."Can Cam pat his head and rub his belly at the same time?"

#65 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • ALL-PRO
  • 42,322 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 07 January 2013 - 08:02 PM

because of who was running the offense (as in chud), not because of the scheme itself.

chud has no experience running the read option beyond what he did here. his problem was that he tried marrying the coryell to the read option, but he ended up making the offense predictable.

just like i said earlier, the offense became predictable. defenses knew we were going to run because we were in a read option formation. defenses knew we were going to pass because we weren't in the read option.

his mindset on how to run it was all screwed up. it was a shiny toy that he didn't think to ask instructions on how to operate. if your mindset is that it's just another running scheme, then you treat it like one. you make the defense respect it and expect it and then you start misleading them....you know, use play action and stuff. treat it like you would any running scheme or plays.

he should have run more traditional plays out of the read option formations and ran more out of more traditional formations.

or talked to someone like kelly who is a guru, or even read his playbook, which is online, btw, and very interesting to read. find out how to run it before you try to run it.

i said over and over, tho, that chud's offense had been as predictable as davidson's. sure, his playbook was more intricate than davidson's 5 page coloring book, but it was just as predictable. when you're predictable and your OL is crap, you're offense isn't going to be all that good. another of the good few fatal flaws was that chud wasn't basing the offense on the personnel he had. i mean sure he was tailoring part of the offense around newton, but he didn't game plan and play call for the players we had on the field. they didn't make the most of their strengths, but more than that, it didn't account for their limitations. the OL he has here is more suited for what it's been used to. more powerblocking rather than the zone blocking scheme which is better suited for the read option.

we shouldn't have been running it as much because chud didn't know how to use it and we didn't have the OL for it.


I know you're a bigger fan of it at the pro level than I am. That's one of those things I think we'll have to agree to disagree about.

I put it in the same category as the Wildcat, i.e. Something that's useful when mixed in occasionally but not something you can make your bread and butter.

With Chudzinski, my take has been that he's a better play designer than play caller, but I thought he did a pretty good job in the latter half of the season,

#66 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,161 posts

Posted 07 January 2013 - 08:08 PM

I know you're a bigger fan of it at the pro level than I am. That;s one of those things I think we'll have to agree to disagree about.

it's because you're old. :)

#67 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • ALL-PRO
  • 42,322 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 07 January 2013 - 08:12 PM

it's because you're old. :)


A lot of things about me can be attributed to that :(

#68 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,161 posts

Posted 07 January 2013 - 08:26 PM

I know you're a bigger fan of it at the pro level than I am. That's one of those things I think we'll have to agree to disagree about.

I put it in the same category as the Wildcat, i.e. Something that's useful when mixed in occasionally but not something you can make your bread and butter.

With Chudzinski, my take has been that he's a better play designer than play caller, but I thought he did a pretty good job in the latter half of the season,

i'm repeating myself in this thread but i'm old so it's ok.

the wildcat didn't work long term because of the fact that it was a constantly telegraphed play...you knew it was going to happen because it was the RB back there and while it was supposed to throw in the possibility that the RB would throw the ball, there were a couple problems with it. 1) RBs can't throw the ball all that well and 2) they ran with it 95% of the time. it was predictable and easy to defend because of it, but i do think the premise was good...snap the ball to a guy who is a threat to either throw it or run it or hand it off to someone else. it's just that the RB kept it. i think that helped lead towards the QB playing a bigger role in the running game. instead of finding an RB who can throw the ball every once in a while, get a QB that is a threat to run. it makes the threat more constant.

the thing that bugged me about chud running the offense was him throwing in the wildcat...we pretty much run it every play with cam. there was no advantage to putting him out on the wing and having the ball snapped to williams. THAT was a gimmick and it shouldn't have been employed at all. it brought nothing of substance to the table and it rarely worked, even before cam got there.

run right, the read option presents three problems for the defense, is the QB going to throw the ball, run with the ball, or get the ball to another rusher? i just don't see why it wouldn't work and why some people have such a hard time accepting it.

btw...not campaigning for it to be run here. i just don't know understand the issue, esp. from old school smashmouth football guys. it's ground and pound with a little extra hot sauce.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com