Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Gettleman not sold on read option


  • Please log in to reply
227 replies to this topic

#121 Guest_BlueBoy_*

Guest_BlueBoy_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:29 PM

hey blueboy got anymore antiquated racist anthro theory to spew in this thread too?

Lol. You're funny. I bet you've been looking for me, eh!

#122 TheRumGone

TheRumGone

    mountain man

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,727 posts
  • LocationAsheville, NC

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:30 PM

And the threat of it killed Atl. Now we have to scratch that from our offense because a guy who was involved in 2 of the luckiest superbowl ever have a better idea. Oh, well!


You must have bad reading comprehension. We are NOT scratching it from our offense. We will NOT use it as our BASE formation. Read, comprehend then post. It's not that hard.

#123 Salvo

Salvo

    BEWB

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 725 posts
  • LocationColorado

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:30 PM

How many fuggin times does it have to be said that no one here is advocating the complete removal of the read-option in our offense?

There is a difference between using it as our base and incorporating certain aspects of it.

San Fran/Seattle/Washington all had power run games and incorporated the RO to supplement. We had no power run game the first half of the season and relied on the RO. How well did that work out?

#124 Guest_BlueBoy_*

Guest_BlueBoy_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:37 PM

hey blueboy got anymore antiquated racist anthro theory to spew in this thread too?

Well, to my defense, genetics when being debated as it pertains to humans, no matter how objective, inherently sound agenda driven. And in some ways it is since it's normally pointless to highlight those meaningless fact being that we're all the same species. Agree to disagree.

#125 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,781 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:37 PM

347 in the 1st half, 394 in the 2nd. He had more attempts in the 2nd half (68 vs. 59) and the YPC was pretty close (5.8 for 1st half, 5.7 for 2nd half).


Thanks! I was just guessing off of what I saw re-watching the games (I usually keep them on DVR for at least 3 months after the season, with the exception of first ATL game. That game was deleted on that Sunday approximately 2 seconds after Bryant's field goal).

I honestly believe that the second half of the season we ran the read option from better personnel packages and our QB and O-Line executed it better. As far as the read option goes, those are the only two things that really changed.

The read option was not and is not the problem with this offense. It is execution.

#126 beastson

beastson

    Cam

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,793 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:40 PM

And the threat of it killed Atl. Now we have to scratch that from our offense because a guy who was involved in 2 of the luckiest superbowl ever have a better idea. Oh, well!


LOL

#127 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,781 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:42 PM

Cam hates losing just like Lebron. If you try to tie up their talent while the team is losing they will not like it. And we both know what happened with Lebron. Losing is one thing but losing while not giving all you can can't bode well for a player like Cam. A pure pocket passer would accept losing because the only way they can win is by throwing. But taking away a great player's dimension is unacceptable.


I am pretty sure that Cleveland was #1 or #2 in the East the year before Lebron left. He wasn't losing.

But I agree that taking away or limiting Cam's most important asset and the offense's best weapon is stupid.

#128 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,712 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:55 PM

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.

#129 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,966 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 24 January 2013 - 02:02 PM

The theory that 'hybrid' QBs can't succeed so they must turn them into pocket passers only is alarming to me when there is one in the superbowl. Mind you there are only 4 in the whole league. That's extremely successful. Now we have a GM telling THE Cam Newton that his talent is not valuable here in the NFL so we gonna get you kill like reid got Vick killed behind a bad OL is alarming. So they can turn around and say 'running QBs can't make it in the leauge'. So they can contitinue and draft their Clausons, Grossmans, Daltons, Lucks, etc. and do away with the Wilsons, Kaepernicks, Cams, Vicks, RG3s, etc. Just systematic bull crap.


Please just stop......you have no clue

#130 Proudiddy

Proudiddy

    The Thread Killer (Since 2004)

  • Moderators
  • 14,626 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 02:04 PM

I liked some of the things Gettleman said in his presser... I was just happy we had a new GM with plenty of respected people to vouch for him.

But then when I hear stuff like this, it makes me concerned that it was another money hire and he is just serving as a placeholder for Beane aka Hurney 2.0. I just feel like our franchise has lost a unified sense of direction and that doesn't leave me feeling content to say the least.

Yes, I know what he said and he didn't say we're getting rid of it altogether. But he certainly isn't a fan and that will likely bleed over into gamedays. I would love to see Cam be able to drop back and sling it non-stop when he's ready to do so, which he may able to right now. I don't doubt what Cam can do one bit... My problem is the hires we've made seem random and lack a sense of direction.

#131 Montsta

Montsta

    Rest In Peace

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,470 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 02:08 PM

If we REALLY want to protect the quarterback, we'll install the single wing offense.


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

#132 Marguide

Marguide

    South of the Border

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,377 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 02:12 PM

347 in the 1st half, 394 in the 2nd. He had more attempts in the 2nd half (68 vs. 59) and the YPC was pretty close (5.8 for 1st half, 5.7 for 2nd half).


What was being addressed were read option plays and the frequency of their use. It had nothing to do with how many rushing yards or attempts overall Newton had.

Now, if instead you were making the point that limiting the use of the read option did not hurt Cam's yardage, then I agree 100%.

#133 csx

csx

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,768 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 02:13 PM

The option was never our base offense. It was a wrinkle that was used way too much.

#134 Montsta

Montsta

    Rest In Peace

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,470 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 02:14 PM

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.


Couldn't agree more. The teams that consistently make the playoffs and have a good offense typically have great olines. SF, NE, Baltimore, Indy, even NO. All have great guys up front.

#135 Marguide

Marguide

    South of the Border

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,377 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 02:20 PM

Thanks! I was just guessing off of what I saw re-watching the games (I usually keep them on DVR for at least 3 months after the season, with the exception of first ATL game. That game was deleted on that Sunday approximately 2 seconds after Bryant's field goal).

I honestly believe that the second half of the season we ran the read option from better personnel packages and our QB and O-Line executed it better. As far as the read option goes, those are the only two things that really changed.

The read option was not and is not the problem with this offense. It is execution.


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.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.