Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Gettleman not sold on read option


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
227 replies to this topic

#217 poorboysrev

poorboysrev

    Junior Member

  • Joined: 17-March 11
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 321
  • Reputation: 57
HUDDLER

Posted 25 January 2013 - 07:31 AM

Stewart might be your preferred running back, to me he accelerates ALOT slower. Once we ran Deangelo with a FB, not out of shotgun, and gave him the ball more than 8 times a game he started running better. Yes the Saints game was against the Saints but he was powering thru tackles again. IFwe start the season with a better scheme, oline help, and an attitude/commitment to run the ball I think he can kill it.

Deangelo and either Stewart or Tolbert makes more sense than Stewart and Tolbert. Those 2 are the same running back. Tolbert can do everything Stewart can for alot cheaper. They are both good at the same things. Neither can do what Deangelo can. Deangelo, Smith, and Cam are our only breakaway threats on the whole team. We need more big play threats not less.

#218 unicar15

unicar15

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,824
  • Reputation: 204
HUDDLER

Posted 25 January 2013 - 08:00 AM

guess what else exposes a QB to hits


STANDING IN THE POCKET LIKE A MFING STATUE


Good thing Cam has mobility...doesn't mean he has to have designed runs 10 times per game. Nobody is saying Cam shouldn't scramble.

#219 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,825
  • Reputation: 3,108
HUDDLER

Posted 25 January 2013 - 08:21 AM

The 49ers caught teams off guard with KP. I don't think that'll work too good against the Ravens. Next year teams will be more prepared for them just like they were for us, but I doubt the 49ers will use it as frequent as we did. I say let Cam be a pocket passer. Run the ball and some playaction and if Cam gets pressure or sees free yardage let him do what he does. Simple


Bingo

#220 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 27,262
  • Reputation: 5,361
Moderators

Posted 25 January 2013 - 09:11 AM

Stewart might be your preferred running back, to me he accelerates ALOT slower. Once we ran Deangelo with a FB, not out of shotgun, and gave him the ball more than 8 times a game he started running better. Yes the Saints game was against the Saints but he was powering thru tackles again. IFwe start the season with a better scheme, oline help, and an attitude/commitment to run the ball I think he can kill it.

Deangelo and either Stewart or Tolbert makes more sense than Stewart and Tolbert. Those 2 are the same running back. Tolbert can do everything Stewart can for alot cheaper. They are both good at the same things. Neither can do what Deangelo can. Deangelo, Smith, and Cam are our only breakaway threats on the whole team. We need more big play threats not less.


not my prefered RB nessecarily, but has been the preferred RB under Ron Rivera in both 2011 and 2012.

When healthy, Stewart and Tolbert are not the same back. Now, the question is if Stewart can ever go at something besides 90%.

#221 Guest_BlueBoy_*

Guest_BlueBoy_*
Guests

Posted 25 January 2013 - 09:33 AM

I not trying to be argumentative or contrarian and I am no more trying to show that I know football than you are with your posts. i was just trying to get the info correct. I know my posts can get too wordy but I always try to explain myself thoroughly and they end up being too long. So sorry about that.

You can't have 4 RBs in the backfield because that is an illegal formation. You can only have a total of 4 players in the backfield and that includes the QB so you could only use 3 backs and a QB in the backfield.

You have a lead blocker on a dive option play even if you don't run there because on a read option, unless the blockers turn around and watch the QB and RB, they don't know which way the ball is going. The QB makes that determination with his read. And typically you don't even block the DE.

So the tackle becomes the lead blocker for the dive guy and we usually pull Olsen or Tobert who become the lead blocker for the outside. By not blocking the DE you are freeing the tackle of that responsibility that he would normally have so he goes straight to the second level. So you aren't losing any blockers you wouldn't typically have because you are not blocking a guy. You don't use a decoy in a read option, you read the DE that is unblocked. The point is to make the DE make a decision. Is he going to take the QB or the RB? That is what the QB is reading. If the DE stays outside to take the QB you hand it off, if the DE collapses to take the RB the QB keeps it.

That is a generic example and you can do several different things like pulling O-line as a lead blocker or not blocking a DT and reading the DT. But typically you have a lead blocker in the gap the RB may run in and a lead blocker for the QB. And the reason you can get away with it is because you are not blocking someone on the defense, and that unblocked player is the QBs key.

As far as whether you telegraph it or not and the defense over shifts, that is why you see college teams speed the tempo and audible so much from the sideline. The offense sets, makes the defense show their look, and then the offense audibles based on the defense or if they have the look they want initially they snap the ball quickly to take advantage.

That was my biggest complaint about how we have run our offense and especially the read option aspect of it. You can't run it for the sake of running it, it has to be when it is advantageous to do so. Us getting out of the Huddle with 15-12 seconds left on the play clock only gave us enough time to look over the defense, get your assignments, and snap the ball. In order for an offense like this to work to its full potential you HAVE to play at a faster pace and change plays at the line of scrimmage.

And lastly no I have no life :(. I make the majority of my money playing poker and betting sports, primarily football. I also do some work as a real estate broker. So I spend most of my time on the internet either playing cards, studying football, or studying the real estate market. I also just enjoy studying and researching QBs and basketball (the sport I actually played in college) just as a hobby.

No wonder your comments always make sense. Any betting man would know the read option is a money maker. If 2 average teams are playing the odd of the read option team winning is higher.

#222 FootballMaestro

FootballMaestro

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 13-January 13
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,921
  • Reputation: 1,577
HUDDLER

Posted 25 January 2013 - 09:59 AM

not my prefered RB nessecarily, but has been the preferred RB under Ron Rivera in both 2011 and 2012.

When healthy, Stewart and Tolbert are not the same back. Now, the question is if Stewart can ever go at something besides 90%.


D'Angelo and Tolbert are a better combination of backs, if you could only keep two of them.

No Tolbert and Stewart aren't exactly the same. However, the poster was correct in that they almost mirror each others similarities. Stewart just does most things faster. Tolbert does most things stronger/tougher. And they both catch the ball well out of the backfield. Tolbert actually looks to have the softer hands as well.

Tolbert could also fill in for D'Angelo as a lead back for maybe one or two games as well. He's a nice combination.

And Tolbert's short yardage ability is a nice luxury for Cam to have (i.e., he doesn't have to), especially if the offensive line is not up to snuff.

#223 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 27,262
  • Reputation: 5,361
Moderators

Posted 25 January 2013 - 10:04 AM

D'Angelo and Tolbert are a better combination of backs, if you could only keep two of them.

No Tolbert and Stewart aren't exactly the same. However, the poster was correct in that they almost mirror each others similarities. Stewart just does most things faster. Tolbert does most things stronger/tougher. And they both catch the ball well out of the backfield. Tolbert actually looks to have the softer hands as well.

Tolbert could also fill in for D'Angelo as a lead back for maybe one or two games as well.

in their primes? Sure, no arguement here but that isn't the reality we are faced with.

Today or going forward? The games against the Saints somehow making people forget about how unimpressive Williams was this year. He also is at the point where he is getting worse....not better.

Going forward a healthy Stewart is easily a better option than Williams if you had to pick. Now, you can debate Stewart will never play actually healthy....

Gentlemen will clean the mess up....we shouldn't have to be debating about all these RBs b/c the scenario shouldn't exist.

#224 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,653
  • Reputation: 2,300
HUDDLER

Posted 25 January 2013 - 11:32 AM

random post..........

#225 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,653
  • Reputation: 2,300
HUDDLER

Posted 25 January 2013 - 01:19 PM

It is clear you know your football and it is fun to talk to someone about the Xs and Os. I don't claim any great knowledge or expertise about football. Like you I am a fan of the game and the Panthers in particular. Instead of engaging in a football contest of one-upmanship, we ought to be able to enrich each other's knowledge in a more collegial manner. For example instead of nitpicking and pointing out that of course you can have 4 running backs in the backfield. You probably forgot that you don't have to have a quarterback or he can line up as a receiver. The receiver is replaced by another runningback. The result is that all 4 of the guys allowed in the backfield can be running backs lined up in a formation like the diamond formation run infrequently in the pistol offense and often in some versions of the wildcat. But I don't know why you would want to limit your options by not having a passing option by only using running backs. Having a guy like Newton allows us to have the running and passing option. Or why you would use 4 running backs when you could use a TE. But lets not quibble over those things.

Instead I found an interesting article about why we struggled with the read option while other teams like Washington did not. What is your take on this and would it suggest that Matso needs to read this or we can put him on the list of needed upgrades. If we did telegraph what we were doing and didn't figure it out all year, but this guy could see it plain as day, how telling is that? Maybe the problem was how we ran the read option, putting our suspect offensive line under an even bigger disadvantage than they already had when we lost our first and second string centers and had to shuffle everyone around.

http://www.catscratchreader.com/2013/1/9/3855388/why-the-panthers-struggle-with-the-read-option

#226 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • Joined: 10-January 11
  • posts: 17,951
  • Reputation: 9,690
SUPPORTER

Posted 25 January 2013 - 03:50 PM

It is clear you know your football and it is fun to talk to someone about the Xs and Os. I don't claim any great knowledge or expertise about football. Like you I am a fan of the game and the Panthers in particular. Instead of engaging in a football contest of one-upmanship, we ought to be able to enrich each other's knowledge in a more collegial manner. For example instead of nitpicking and pointing out that of course you can have 4 running backs in the backfield. You probably forgot that you don't have to have a quarterback or he can line up as a receiver. The receiver is replaced by another runningback. The result is that all 4 of the guys allowed in the backfield can be running backs lined up in a formation like the diamond formation run infrequently in the pistol offense and often in some versions of the wildcat. But I don't know why you would want to limit your options by not having a passing option by only using running backs. Having a guy like Newton allows us to have the running and passing option. Or why you would use 4 running backs when you could use a TE. But lets not quibble over those things.


You are 100% right. I actually didn't forget, but after I typed up my response I kept re-reading what I wrote and thought A.) it was confusing and B.) I was falling into my own trap of being too wordy. So I deleted that part and just said "fug it they'll get the point". However, since I gave you some grief over a technicality I guess I deserved that :P

Instead I found an interesting article about why we struggled with the read option while other teams like Washington did not. What is your take on this and would it suggest that Matso needs to read this or we can put him on the list of needed upgrades. If we did telegraph what we were doing and didn't figure it out all year, but this guy could see it plain as day, how telling is that? Maybe the problem was how we ran the read option, putting our suspect offensive line under an even bigger disadvantage than they already had when we lost our first and second string centers and had to shuffle everyone around.

http://www.catscratchreader.com/2013/1/9/3855388/why-the-panthers-struggle-with-the-read-option


Someone else posted this article the other day and I read it and thought it was interesting as well. I didn't really have an opinion on it one way or the other because I hadn't paid that much attention to the blocking on pass plays. Although, I don't think that was why we were struggling with the read option. Or at least I don't think it was the main culprit. Most of the time it was just players missing assignments or just getting beat on their blocks. Also there was indecision by Cam at times that slowed the play down. And thirdly I don't think we played at the correct pace for it to be as successful as it should be.

But when I read it, it was something that I had not considered before, and would have to go back and re-watch the games to see how much truth there is to it and how much I thought it actually effected the offense.

I can say this, if this was an issue earlier in the season, it was corrected by the last game of the season. About a week ago I was bored and decided to re-watch the second New Orleans game and at one point this article came to mind. And although I didn't chart it or anything there were several play action plays where the blocking scheme looked essentially identical to the zone read plays. So I feel that if this was a problem, it was identified and corrected by the end of the season.

So I guess the short answer would be that I don't know. i would have to go back and re-watch some of the games and really key in on the o-line and see what they were or weren't doing on passing plays. But I am skeptical that even if the author of the article was correct that it made that much of a difference and even if it did it would have actually affected the passing game more negatively than the running game.

#227 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,653
  • Reputation: 2,300
HUDDLER

Posted 25 January 2013 - 05:11 PM

You are 100% right. I actually didn't forget, but after I typed up my response I kept re-reading what I wrote and thought A.) it was confusing and B.) I was falling into my own trap of being too wordy. So I deleted that part and just said "fug it they'll get the point". However, since I gave you some grief over a technicality I guess I deserved that :P



Someone else posted this article the other day and I read it and thought it was interesting as well. I didn't really have an opinion on it one way or the other because I hadn't paid that much attention to the blocking on pass plays. Although, I don't think that was why we were struggling with the read option. Or at least I don't think it was the main culprit. Most of the time it was just players missing assignments or just getting beat on their blocks. Also there was indecision by Cam at times that slowed the play down. And thirdly I don't think we played at the correct pace for it to be as successful as it should be.

But when I read it, it was something that I had not considered before, and would have to go back and re-watch the games to see how much truth there is to it and how much I thought it actually effected the offense.

I can say this, if this was an issue earlier in the season, it was corrected by the last game of the season. About a week ago I was bored and decided to re-watch the second New Orleans game and at one point this article came to mind. And although I didn't chart it or anything there were several play action plays where the blocking scheme looked essentially identical to the zone read plays. So I feel that if this was a problem, it was identified and corrected by the end of the season.

So I guess the short answer would be that I don't know. i would have to go back and re-watch some of the games and really key in on the o-line and see what they were or weren't doing on passing plays. But I am skeptical that even if the author of the article was correct that it made that much of a difference and even if it did it would have actually affected the passing game more negatively than the running game.

I don;t disagree with your sense of what went wrong, there was enough to take your pick especially before the bye. You can thank Chud who decided that complexity was the way to go and giving Cam more options and reads was better than keeping it simple. Hence the tendency to look disjointed and slow in making reads. So they went to simplier and faster but they took too much away and didn't let Cam audibalize like last year and we still struggled. Finally we gave Cam more freedom and went to a more conventional power running game and things clicked again.

As far as whether we corrected it or not, I might not use the Saints game against the worst defense in the league as my bellweather to gauge success. Then again since I am not going to go back and rewatch any game this year it was more than I did..........

#228 poorboysrev

poorboysrev

    Junior Member

  • Joined: 17-March 11
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 321
  • Reputation: 57
HUDDLER

Posted 25 January 2013 - 05:55 PM

not my prefered RB nessecarily, but has been the preferred RB under Ron Rivera in both 2011 and 2012.

When healthy, Stewart and Tolbert are not the same back. Now, the question is if Stewart can ever go at something besides 90%.


Yeah it's hard for me to have faith in something I haven't seen yet. I like Stewart but he is a frustrating player(not his fault). It's not either back's fault they were getting 6 or 7 carries a game and expected to do something. But because of the lack of carries for the last 3 years I think he has more left in the tank than you do. Time will tell. It'll be interesting to see how Gettleman fixes it,