Archived

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

Gabeking

Article claiming Panthers should NOT decrease read option usage next season

23 posts in this topic

The read option was not the issue last season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking back, The Read Option wasn't the issue. It was Chud and his ego.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also feel like I have to point out for the bazzillionth time that 4QC and GWD are both very deeply flawed stats that can be manipulated completely by things out of a QBs control. Both for the QBs benefit or his detriment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott Cocksmear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking back, The Read Option wasn't the issue. It was Chud and his ego.

When we ran it and the amount we ran it absolutely was a problem early last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its fine now. Whats done is done. Let the league know that Cam can do that if he has to. Let them all account for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care what the average stats say.  Just watch a game from last year and you can see how ineffective it was.  

 

The guy who wrote this seriously downplayed the negative plays we had as a result.  Those negative plays kill drives and leave points off the board.  I would say you'd need 50 yards of offense to negate one -5 yard play.  That's how impactful those plays are.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all it might have been a small percentage of all plays but it was almost 40% of all running plays which is way too many for one set.  It was also a good portion of our negative running plays which kills drives when you end up in 2nd and long or 3rd and long.

 

The point that wasn't discussed at all was that in the first half of the year we not only used the read option but we had made the various reads very complicated sometimes keying off the DE, sometimes the DT, sometimes the linebackers which slowed Newton down and was one of  the reasons he was so ineffective.  I also remember a discussion where the blocking scheme on the read option was very different from how we blocked other running plays or pass blocking essentially telegraphing when we were going to use the read option.  All defenders had to do was see how the OT blocked and they could tell what play we were going to run  and to what side which is why it got blown up so often.

 

So the whole premise that the read option wasn't the problem based on quantity and yards per play is rather simplistic and doesn't account at all for the problems we had with the read option and why we improved so much. Clearly the author had an agenda when he started out and fit his whole discussion to support what he already believed to be true. Not unlike many arguments by posters on this site.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care what the average stats say. Just watch a game from last year and you can see how ineffective it was.

The guy who wrote this seriously downplayed the negative plays we had as a result. Those negative plays kill drives and leave points off the board. I would say you'd need 50 yards of offense to negate one -5 yard play. That's how impactful those plays are.

Pretty much.

It's a lot of mental gymnastics to say "it's not the system, it's Newton". To make that point, you have to significantly downplay that Newton and the offense improved greatly as the Read Option was minimized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • @Panthro Proving Medical Malpractice Based on Diagnostic Errors The law does not hold doctors legally responsible for all diagnostic errors. Instead, patients usually must prove three things in order to prevail in a medical malpractice lawsuit based on a wrong diagnosis: A doctor-patient relationship existed. The doctor was negligent -- that is, did not provide treatment in a reasonably skillful and competent manner. The doctor's negligence caused actual injury to the patient. Most medical malpractice cases hinge on either the second or third element (or both) -- was the doctor negligent and did that negligence harm the patient?   Easily provable  1. ER dr saw mom and had all the records. Mom was healthy prior, no issues besides a murmur she was born with. 2. Motrin does dot fix the flu especially if you one has A and B. Greenville drs from ICU would testify against New Bern ER doc. No tamiflu prescribed nor any other treatment besides Motrin. (Anybody can take Tylenol/asprin but tamiflu is prescribed) 3. Without x raying or running further test, mom went from early caught flu to both pneumonia that now developed 3rd stage ARDS and now pulmonary fibrosis is setting in. Due this negligence, mom will live at most 5 years in poor quality will my dad ends bankrupt. I just proved how not properly treating mom has lead to a snowball effect due to incompetence which lead to where we are now. Dad was not given a course of action, he does not have a M.D. at the end of his name, and the hippocratic oath has been tarnished. I am in the settle or I will find out how he will lose his license. I will file a complaint with the hospital and board. Publish in the newspaper about his care and online. My mom will never be the same. 
    • Grigson put in a lot of effort to try and stack the receiving corps. Not all of it was smart effort, but it was effort. O-Line, on the other hand...