227 replies to this topic

[teeray]

Having the read option as a wrinkle is fine, same as the wildcat. As a base offense, not so good.

As I've said before, the phrase "Newton's getting up slowly" was heard an awful lot as this past season drew to a close. He's not Superman, and if you want to see him here for as long as possible they're going to want to limit his running. The threat of it absolutely needs to be there so it can't be eliminated, but it needs to be used wisely.

Bottom line for all of it though? No matter what system is being run, this team absolutely needs to build the best offensive line possible.

Fail that task and the rest is meaningless.

I really wish people would stop drawing the false parallel between the wildcat and the spread read option. It is like comparing a stealth bomber to a crop duster.

Newton usually "got up slowly" inside the pocket hitting his hands on helmets and getting his ankles rolled. Not while running the read option.

[teeray]

Won't a single wing just cause the offense to fly in circles?

[teeray]

I'll do a search later today and see if I can find the data I charted. This data has been presented a couple of times, it's just a matter of finding the threads or my written notes. But trust me, we ran the read option much more early in 2012 than we did last year, and ran it much less the 2nd half of 2012 than in the first half of 2012.

Just because yardage is similar doesn't mean that yardage came out of the read option.

Regardless of how much we ran it and didn't, we ran it better. It wasn't because we used it less, it is because we ran it better.

Now, of course you can't run anything all game long and get away from it. The fact that we ran it less could have been a by product of teams focusing on taking the read option away opening up other options like sweeps or power run plays off tackle or the passing game.

Using the read option is the threat that opens up the rest of the offense. Like someone said earlier, San Fran ran read option all day long and it opened up the rest of the offense and Kap only ran once or twice.

Sometimes as fans we get so bogged down in the minutia of all this stuff that we fail to see the bigger picture and how it all works together.

It isn't about sprinkling it in here and there, it is about using it when it is most advantageous and using it the threat of it to positively effect the rest of our offense as much as possible.

Using it just for sake of "sprinkling it in" is counter productive and useless. You use it when the defense is not in a position to stop it. Whether that is 15 times in a game or twice a game. But it all has to flow cohesively.

[FootballMaestro]

@Marguide
We don't even have to research it. Rivera admitted the focus of the option (and getting away from what they did in 2011) to Albert Breer of NFL.com. Here he says:

The coaches spent much of the summer trying to diversify their option package, in an effort to stay a step ahead. However, after that rough start, they decided to revert to what they'd done well in 2011 in those looks, which helped Newton play faster. By taking some things off of Newton's plate, offensive coordinator Rob Chudzinski and quarterbacks coach Mike Shula could focus on quickening Newton's decision-making and refining his footwork.

So they did focus on the "option". And they did before the season even started (to "stay a step ahead", can you believe that), and it showed!...The 'taking stuff off his plate' quote, was a direct reference to the read option and Cam's dual decision making both for the run and pass offense (along with some of the Wide receiver motion on those sets). It had nothing to do with simplifying the passing scheme or Cam's intelligence. It's about the Read Option and some of Chud's funky play calling--which ironically, Steve Smith commented/confirmed while on WFNZ radio recently.

Needless to say, Rivera and Chud didn't have a Come To Jesus Moment/Gain any sense about the offense, till Hurney was fired. Rivera says it here, in the same article.

Rivera and his staff, for their part, adjusted as well. The second-year coach is willing to concede that Hurney's dismissal put everyone on notice -- "That kinda put it out there how it was gonna be, and now people here look at it and say, 'If things go wrong, if it can happen to Marty, it can happen to anyone,' " he said -- and helped ratchet up the urgency.

There it is from the horses mouth. And I know it's not that simple (cause other things were involved than just the Read "Option" offense). But that was a big part of it. Here's the link.

http://www.nfl.com/n...hers-coach-says

[rayzor]

Reid had the same great idea for Vick too. How come Caroll and Harbaugh don't have those great plans for their QB but rather do wha't best to WIN. That offense should be runned around the strength of Cam. No such thing as balance. Tell that to the Patriots and Packers. My bad, I forgot this was about the Panthers. Cam would look great in Chip Kelly's offense in philadelphia. 2 more years Cam.

ugh.

one of his strengths is as a pocket passer. he's got an incredible arm in addition to being a great runner. and again, no one is saying eliminate it...add to it. allow . him to be the true versatile QB, the true DUAL THREAT QB he can be, wants to be, and should be. a complete QB.

you limit him to being a read option QB and you stunt his growth as much as if you were trying to make him just a pocket passer or game manager.

do you think he wants to be labeled as a read option QB? if you think thats the case you're being dumb.

no one wants to take away the read option. they want to provide more options for cam and this offense. you limit it and you make this offense easier to figure out and stop. i don't care what hole you're trying to put him in, read option...pocket passer...that hole is going to end up burying his potential and eventually his career. the more versatile you make...the more versatile you ALLOW him to be, the greater he becomes.

[panthers55]

Cam's short yardage work exposes him much more than his read option work....

RGIII is a poor example of why you shouldn't use it, b/c he has always been a magnet for contact (was a Baylor). Plus, he is built like a slim WR.

Pick any read option guy you want. Gettleman is a more traditionalist and will return to more of a power running attack and passing attack similar to what we ran over the past 8 weeks only more traditional. For better or worse the quirky offenses and exposing the QB to harm are largely over. Cam is going to be protected whether he wants to or not. Most of his running will be on busted plays and to avoid sacks not designed runs.

[Mage]

I'm not going to read through 10 pages but you guys do realize he said, make it a STAPLE of the offense right? Doesn't mean getting rid of it. Just means don't make your whole offense based off of it. Which is right as we saw at the start of this season.

[panthers55]

ugh.

one of his strengths is as a pocket passer. he's got an incredible arm in addition to being a great runner. and again, no one is saying eliminate it...add to it. allow . him to be the true versatile QB, the true DUAL THREAT QB he can be, wants to be, and should be. a complete QB.

you limit him to being a read option QB and you stunt his growth as much as if you were trying to make him just a pocket passer or game manager.

do you think he wants to be labeled as a read option QB? if you think thats the case you're being dumb.

no one wants to take away the read option. they want to provide more options for cam and this offense. you limit it and you make this offense easier to figure out and stop. i don't care what hole you're trying to put him in, read option...pocket passer...that hole is going to end up burying his potential and eventually his career. the more versatile you make...the more versatile you ALLOW him to be, the greater he becomes.

If Gettleman has his way the read option may be run a few times a game but as a staple of the offense it is history. If Cam gets hurt running it, it is just gone. Protecting the QB is paramount to him.

[Doc Holiday]

I think the whole RG3 thing got us thinking in our FO what if that happens to Cam, I've been a big proponent doing away with the designed QB run since we got cam

[Mr. Scot]

I think the whole RG3 thing got us thinking in our FO what if that happens to Cam, I've been a big proponent doing away with the designed QB run since we got cam

I can't get behind doing away with it. That threat needs to be there.

Limiting it? Sure.

[Mage]

I can't get behind doing away with it. That threat needs to be there.

Limiting it? Sure.

This. I agree that we should not make it the base of the offense or rely on it as the running game. We saw what happened. Defenders are simply too fast for it to work as a base. But it is great as something to just have in your back pocket. Plus, Newton is FAR too great of a short yardage back to get rid of it completely. The fact is, when you get your QB involved, it increases your chance of scoring in that goal line situation because 11 on 11 > 10 on 11. It is why we have more success just running with Newton on those situations than simply handing it off to a halfback.

[teeray]

Pick any read option guy you want. Gettleman is a more traditionalist and will return to more of a power running attack and passing attack similar to what we ran over the past 8 weeks only more traditional. For better or worse the quirky offenses and exposing the QB to harm are largely over. Cam is going to be protected whether he wants to or not. Most of his running will be on busted plays and to avoid sacks not designed runs.

If you are right, and I think you are, I hope even more that Rivera and Shula can be successful, because if we go back to the ground and pound days, the days of having an exciting explosive offense is over. We will be relegated to just average until Cam fully develops.

We better beef up the defense and in a hurry, because traditional offenses don't really work anymore. Even Harbaugh saw the writing on the wall and went to the pistol read option type offense with Kap. Denver doesn't run a traditional offense, nor does New Orleans neither does Green bay, neither does New England. Those teams run more of a spread offense than we ever have, they just don't use a read option component (especially Den and NE). Seattle, SF, and Washington's offenses has been well documented.

The other teams in the playoffs this year may run more traditional offenses but most of those teams are just good enough to squeak into the playoffs and get beat and by and large got in on the merits of their defense or Adrian Peterson. The lone exception is the Ravens this season, although their defense is still pretty darn good, but they usually fall into that category of being just good enough to get to the playoffs.

The NFL is changing. And yet we are about to be stuck in the past.

I hope I am wrong. Hopefully Gettleman is not so stuck in his ways that he can't see the evolution of the game. But when you deal with 60+ year old that usually isn't the case.

[teeray]

I can't get behind doing away with it. That threat needs to be there.

Limiting it? Sure.

If you try to limit it, it becomes mostly useless. Same as if you try to force it like we may have doen at the beginning of the year, it becomes useless. It has to be used for a purpose that does not include "just sprinkle it in". The flow of the game and the defense should dictate that, not preconceived limits on how many times to use it in a single game.

[Icege]

I recall Palmer taking a bad hit outside of the pocket as a pocket passer. I think that in the same scenario Cam would have been able to take off. In my opinion the read option is a luxury, not something to base a professional football team's offense around.

[rayzor]

I think the whole RG3 thing got us thinking in our FO what if that happens to Cam, I've been a big proponent doing away with the designed QB run since we got cam

this would be a bad thing and leave a ton of points off the table and games put on the L column.

the threat has to be there. he has to make it be there. designed runs have to be a part of the scheme, not a significant part, but they have to be there none-the-less.