Archived

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

Steve Smith knocks the read option...

159 posts in this topic

Posted

Pistol isn't better to run the read option out of.....

You need good OL play and a RB who runs it well....that's about it. We didn't have that consistently

When you include the different play action, fakes and misdirection (with out hinting with the alignment of the line), yes it is. That's why the read option the Panthers ran (regardless of the line or RB's), were a dead give away every time it was ran frequently. There's more options out of the Pistol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

we just have different opinions. I think it is too taxing on the O line, regardless if you have elite offensive lineman. I dont feel like it needs to be run to the excess that we did in the first half of the season. I want Cam to learn how to throw more effectively from the pocket and run the option maybe 3, 4, 5 times a game. Thats what I personally feel will give us the best chance of winning.

It is no more taxing on an O-line than any other run play. The blocking is virtually identical except the tackle doesn't block the DE or LB and hits the next level or slides to block the inside lineman.

The way our run blocking was going in the beginning of the season even if we were in the I formation every play we would have been ineffective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Just make Smitty offensive coordinator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It is no more taxing on an O-line than any other run play. The blocking is virtually identical except the tackle doesn't block the DE or LB and hits the next level or slides to block the inside lineman.

The way our run blocking was going in the beginning of the season even if we were in the I formation every play we would have been ineffective.

Taxing, in the sense that it takes more time for the Oline to block the play. This is a fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

When you include the different play action, fakes and misdirection (with out hinting with the alignment of the line), yes it is. That's why the read option the Panthers ran (regardless of the line or RB's), were a dead give away every time it was ran frequently. There's more options out of the Pistol.

Doesn't matter the options.....you give the Skins and their pistol and crap OL and a RB who doesn't run it well and it won't work.

Ours didn't work bc of inconsistent OL play and bc Chud wanted to run it from passing sets....and a RB often uncomfortable with it.

It works fine out of the gun but there are many things you must have for it to work....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

When people say Read Option and "Base Offense" or "Base", every body knows its a play and not a formation. So you and others, don't have to keep repeating that. What they're really addressing/saying, is 'when you use or run it too much'. Even players have used the word "base" or "base offense" when addressing it.

Yes, the Pistol offense (which RG3 and Kaep run) is a better formation to use the read option out of, cause the Panthers with the Shotgun (with the back next to Cam), kinda gave it away that is was a running play in several ways. However, if you notice, Russell Wilson and the Seahawks, ran it out of the Shot gun as well. And I think the reason is simple: It's because both Cam and Wilson are more drop back/pocket passers at this stage than Kaep and especially RG3, so there more comfortable and successful operating out of more conventional sets.

And that's how I would like it. I want Cam to develop his drop back/pocket QB skills first and foremost. That other stuff can always be added in or used occasionally (depending on the defense). Cam's going to get enough yards, just on scrambling plays when there's nothing there down field.

I actually don't like the pistol formation for running the read option. The reason the pistol is good for NFL teams is that you can take your NFL offense, put the QB 3 yards behind the center, line up the RB behind the QB.... and then you just run your NFL offense.

The pistol is an easier transition from NFL formations to pistol formations because they are actually virtually the same. So Harbaugh can still run his entire playbook, but add some read option elements to it.

But with a pistol formation you can only really run a dive read option whereas with the shotgun formation with the RB next to the QB you shouldn't tip if it is a dive option or sweep option.

The shotgun formation actually makes it more deceptive, not less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Why would they dislike it? Our most effective running plays generally came off of it or because of the threat of it.

Ask Steve Smith.

He's the one who said he didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Ask Steve Smith.

He's the one who said he didn't.

Yeah, I could see why a WR might not prefer schemes that ask the QB to do more....more that involves not throwing to a WR.

Same goes for DeAngleo who is also spoken out against it. Yeah, I could see why a RB might be against his work going elsewhere..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Taxing, in the sense that it takes more time for the Oline to block the play. This is a fact.

Is it really that much more taxing than a QB snapping the ball taking three steps and handing the ball off.

If the QB is making his reads properly and quickly it shouldn't be longer than handing the ball off from under center. At the very least not so much longer that it is abnormally taxing on an O-linemen.

Has anyone actually done a comprehensive study on the time difference between the two?? Is there something besides opinion on that. Not attacking you, but you said it was a fact so I was wondering if there was something on this to prove it. You may be right. Just asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Ask Steve Smith.

He's the one who said he didn't.

The WR who wants the ball thrown to him in triple coverage??

Question. Why is Steve Smith's opinion on the read option more valuable than a guy like Tent Dilfer's who has been studying this the last 2 years??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Is it really that much more taxing than a QB snapping the ball taking three steps and handing the ball off.

If the QB is making his reads properly and quickly it shouldn't be longer than handing the ball off from under center. At the very least not so much longer that it is abnormally taxing on an O-linemen.

Has anyone actually done a comprehensive study on the time difference between the two?? Is there something besides opinion on that. Not attacking you, but you said it was a fact so I was wondering if there was something on this to prove it. You may be right. Just asking.

you are forgetting the fact if Cam keeps the ball. And yes it does mean something. If you think 1 second or .5 second doesnt matter in the NFL then you have no idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The WR who wants the ball thrown to him in triple coverage??

Question. Why is Steve Smith's opinion on the read option more valuable than a guy like Tent Dilfer's who has been studying this the last 2 years??

Because he's actually part of this team and thus has a stake in whether we succeed or not.

Dilfer doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites