Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Steve Smith knocks the read option...


  • Please log in to reply
158 replies to this topic

#76 TheRumGone

TheRumGone

    mountain man

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,140 posts
  • LocationAsheville, NC

Posted 04 February 2013 - 06:50 PM

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.

#77 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 24,080 posts

Posted 04 February 2013 - 06:54 PM

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....

#78 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,047 posts

Posted 04 February 2013 - 06:54 PM

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.

#79 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,269 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 04 February 2013 - 06:57 PM

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.

#80 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 24,080 posts

Posted 04 February 2013 - 07:03 PM

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..



#81 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,047 posts

Posted 04 February 2013 - 07:04 PM

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.

#82 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,047 posts

Posted 04 February 2013 - 07:06 PM

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??

#83 TheRumGone

TheRumGone

    mountain man

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,140 posts
  • LocationAsheville, NC

Posted 04 February 2013 - 07:20 PM

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.

#84 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,269 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 04 February 2013 - 07:26 PM

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.

#85 BigSyke

BigSyke

    I Know you Watching me but I'm watching you too Playa...

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,131 posts
  • LocationFLORIDA

Posted 04 February 2013 - 07:28 PM

ozzie newsome says give the d cordinators one year to study the pistol/read option and it will be done.......UMMPH lol


lets see.....

#86 Guest_BlueBoy_*

Guest_BlueBoy_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 February 2013 - 07:36 PM

I bet he doesn't like running games either. Just a 'me' player who wants the ball thrown to his direction on every down. Fortunately Smith is just an employee that just needs to do his job and block down field.

#87 jtnc

jtnc

    Resident Asshole

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,352 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 04 February 2013 - 07:39 PM

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??


Trent Dilfer? Pardon me, I had to laugh at that.

#88 Razeyfingers

Razeyfingers

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,382 posts

Posted 04 February 2013 - 07:41 PM

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.


time isnt the only variable, its space and speed also. . and furthermore its vector and not speed, there is a difference.

#89 Guest_BlueBoy_*

Guest_BlueBoy_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 February 2013 - 07:44 PM

An offense that puts up 31 points in the SB and averages 35 points in the playoffs is unsuccessful.

Ok, Steve.

To Steve success means him catching 10 passes for 150 yards per game and never make the playoffs, not this making the playoffs and superbowl stuff. It's so ironic it's coming from a guy who plays for a team that hasn't been in the playoffs in almost 10 years.

#90 TheRumGone

TheRumGone

    mountain man

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,140 posts
  • LocationAsheville, NC

Posted 04 February 2013 - 07:49 PM

To Steve success means him catching 10 passes for 150 yards per game


I hope every reciever on this team thinks this way...the rest is total BS.


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.