More option………?

[BigRedBuster]

More of this, please:

I have said for a very long time the biggest problem with the zone read is that there isn't a third option that stretches the defense to the side lines. Basically, in the normal zone read play, the defense just needs to contain a little wider than the tackles. If you have that other pitch man that is a threat for a pitch after Taylor keeps the ball, then it just makes it that much harder to defend.

This can be accomplished by having someone like AA also in the backfield or bringing a WR in motion like Turner.

If that could get perfected, I think this could be an extremely dangerous play. As it is with just two options, it has become fairly easy for defenses to defend.

 

[Landlord]

I guess I wouldn't running more option if it meant cutting out some of the shotgun read plays. I hope we pass as much or more than we did last year because we are finally getting big name receivers interested and we want them to feel like ya going to pay off.

You mean the option plays..?

 

[brophog]

I have said for a very long time the biggest problem with the zone read is that there isn't a third option that stretches the defense to the side lines. Basically, in the normal zone read play, the defense just needs to contain a little wider than the tackles. If you have that other pitch man that is a threat for a pitch after Taylor keeps the ball, then it just makes it that much harder to defend.

Athletes, especially at DE, can kill the zone read. The problem is that the QB portion of the zone read is a backside running play and because of that you have potential free defenders. That's how the scrape exchange works. It takes the 'read' out of the play by having the DE always come down the line, with the backside LB scraping to take the QB. It can be countered in numerous ways, but by taking the quick and dirty method of the zone read out of the equation it killed off most of the reasons that teams put the play in to begin with.

What we're talking about with so many options in the backfield is being done. Oregon has used a modern day version of the wishbone. But even with the frontside zone blocking in place, the defense just keys on the heavy flow in the backfield and reads the play. The play devotes so much to backfield distraction that it simply runs out of blockers, so if the DTs can slow down those combo blocks then the backers, both front and back, have little to worry about. It can, however, make for a great passing play because you can freeze both the frontside and backside LBers so easily. The defense, in essence, just parts in the middle for you. Obviously you can throw a lot of screens and such into the play as well to create width that way.

Lots of good options, but one has to be careful of them. Like any counter play, the real benefit is to allow your flow to create a number advantage on the backside for you. Adding options to the backfield, or backside receiver options, etcetera doesn't necessarily solve the problem solutions like the scrape exchange have caused for the zone read. It's biggest advantages are that it is a backside complement to the zone packages out of the gun, it's easy to install, and the reads were simple. While we can create these alterations to the play, and it is fun doing it, that's a serious amount of time to devote for any team that doesn't use the zone read as a big time part of its playbook. For most teams, that wasn't the case and as I alluded to above, that's why it's not run as much as it was.

 

[Enhance]

I don't think Nebraska's done particularly well with i-formation option the last couple of years. I'm a huge fan of the way Florida ran their option attack under Urban Meyer with Tim Tebow. That was one of my favorite offenses to watch in college football because they executed it very well; and I, like a lot of Husker fans, love a good rushing attack.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I have said for a very long time the biggest problem with the zone read is that there isn't a third option that stretches the defense to the side lines. Basically, in the normal zone read play, the defense just needs to contain a little wider than the tackles. If you have that other pitch man that is a threat for a pitch after Taylor keeps the ball, then it just makes it that much harder to defend.

Athletes, especially at DE, can kill the zone read. The problem is that the QB portion of the zone read is a backside running play and because of that you have potential free defenders. That's how the scrape exchange works. It takes the 'read' out of the play by having the DE always come down the line, with the backside LB scraping to take the QB. It can be countered in numerous ways, but by taking the quick and dirty method of the zone read out of the equation it killed off most of the reasons that teams put the play in to begin with.

What we're talking about with so many options in the backfield is being done. Oregon has used a modern day version of the wishbone. But even with the frontside zone blocking in place, the defense just keys on the heavy flow in the backfield and reads the play. The play devotes so much to backfield distraction that it simply runs out of blockers, so if the DTs can slow down those combo blocks then the backers, both front and back, have little to worry about. It can, however, make for a great passing play because you can freeze both the frontside and backside LBers so easily. The defense, in essence, just parts in the middle for you. Obviously you can throw a lot of screens and such into the play as well to create width that way.

Lots of good options, but one has to be careful of them. Like any counter play, the real benefit is to allow your flow to create a number advantage on the backside for you. Adding options to the backfield, or backside receiver options, etcetera doesn't necessarily solve the problem solutions like the scrape exchange have caused for the zone read. It's biggest advantages are that it is a backside complement to the zone packages out of the gun, it's easy to install, and the reads were simple. While we can create these alterations to the play, and it is fun doing it, that's a serious amount of time to devote for any team that doesn't use the zone read as a big time part of its playbook. For most teams, that wasn't the case and as I alluded to above, that's why it's not run as much as it was.

Which is exactly what TO did with his option attack. He ran it and ran it and ran it until the LBs started cheating to the outside. This opened up both the Full back up the middle and the TE post pattern down the middle.

You must use all of them in good combination and the OC (QB audible) must be very good at timing of the play calling.

I am a firm believer that both TOs option style and the zone read can work in todays football but it has to be ran to perfection and it can't be as simple as running the same play over and over with only two options.

 

[NUance]

I have said for a very long time the biggest problem with the zone read is that there isn't a third option that stretches the defense to the side lines. Basically, in the normal zone read play, the defense just needs to contain a little wider than the tackles. If you have that other pitch man that is a threat for a pitch after Taylor keeps the ball, then it just makes it that much harder to defend.

Athletes, especially at DE, can kill the zone read. The problem is that the QB portion of the zone read is a backside running play and because of that you have potential free defenders. That's how the scrape exchange works. It takes the 'read' out of the play by having the DE always come down the line, with the backside LB scraping to take the QB. It can be countered in numerous ways, but by taking the quick and dirty method of the zone read out of the equation it killed off most of the reasons that teams put the play in to begin with.

What we're talking about with so many options in the backfield is being done. Oregon has used a modern day version of the wishbone. But even with the frontside zone blocking in place, the defense just keys on the heavy flow in the backfield and reads the play. The play devotes so much to backfield distraction that it simply runs out of blockers, so if the DTs can slow down those combo blocks then the backers, both front and back, have little to worry about. It can, however, make for a great passing play because you can freeze both the frontside and backside LBers so easily. The defense, in essence, just parts in the middle for you. Obviously you can throw a lot of screens and such into the play as well to create width that way.

Lots of good options, but one has to be careful of them. Like any counter play, the real benefit is to allow your flow to create a number advantage on the backside for you. Adding options to the backfield, or backside receiver options, etcetera doesn't necessarily solve the problem solutions like the scrape exchange have caused for the zone read. It's biggest advantages are that it is a backside complement to the zone packages out of the gun, it's easy to install, and the reads were simple. While we can create these alterations to the play, and it is fun doing it, that's a serious amount of time to devote for any team that doesn't use the zone read as a big time part of its playbook. For most teams, that wasn't the case and as I alluded to above, that's why it's not run as much as it was.

I thought the point of the zone read was to read the DE and take him out of the play. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. But a DE would need to be *very* athletic to both close off the QBs inside running lane and still make it outside fast enough to lay a hand on the RB. Gholston and maybe a handful of others could do this. Sometimes.

/edit: Nice post of yours. +1

 

[RedDenver]

I have said for a very long time the biggest problem with the zone read is that there isn't a third option that stretches the defense to the side lines. Basically, in the normal zone read play, the defense just needs to contain a little wider than the tackles. If you have that other pitch man that is a threat for a pitch after Taylor keeps the ball, then it just makes it that much harder to defend.

Athletes, especially at DE, can kill the zone read. The problem is that the QB portion of the zone read is a backside running play and because of that you have potential free defenders. That's how the scrape exchange works. It takes the 'read' out of the play by having the DE always come down the line, with the backside LB scraping to take the QB. It can be countered in numerous ways, but by taking the quick and dirty method of the zone read out of the equation it killed off most of the reasons that teams put the play in to begin with.

What we're talking about with so many options in the backfield is being done. Oregon has used a modern day version of the wishbone. But even with the frontside zone blocking in place, the defense just keys on the heavy flow in the backfield and reads the play. The play devotes so much to backfield distraction that it simply runs out of blockers, so if the DTs can slow down those combo blocks then the backers, both front and back, have little to worry about. It can, however, make for a great passing play because you can freeze both the frontside and backside LBers so easily. The defense, in essence, just parts in the middle for you. Obviously you can throw a lot of screens and such into the play as well to create width that way.

Lots of good options, but one has to be careful of them. Like any counter play, the real benefit is to allow your flow to create a number advantage on the backside for you. Adding options to the backfield, or backside receiver options, etcetera doesn't necessarily solve the problem solutions like the scrape exchange have caused for the zone read. It's biggest advantages are that it is a backside complement to the zone packages out of the gun, it's easy to install, and the reads were simple. While we can create these alterations to the play, and it is fun doing it, that's a serious amount of time to devote for any team that doesn't use the zone read as a big time part of its playbook. For most teams, that wasn't the case and as I alluded to above, that's why it's not run as much as it was.

I thought the point of the zone read was to read the DE and take him out of the play. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. But a DE would need to be *very* athletic to both close off the QBs inside running lane and still make it outside fast enough to lay a hand on the RB. Gholston and maybe a handful of others could do this. Sometimes.

/edit: Nice post of yours. +1

As he explains above, the DE takes the outside runner and the backside LB takes the QB. Requires an athletic DE to scrape with the RB.

 

[brophog]

I thought the point of the zone read was to read the DE and take him out of the play. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. But a DE would need to be *very* athletic to both close off the QBs inside running lane and still make it outside fast enough to lay a hand on the RB. Gholston and maybe a handful of others could do this. Sometimes.

That's the point of the scrape exchange. The DE and backside LB exchange responsibilities. The backside DE crashes the line on every play, allowing the backside LB to scrape over the top and take the QB.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I thought the point of the zone read was to read the DE and take him out of the play. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. But a DE would need to be *very* athletic to both close off the QBs inside running lane and still make it outside fast enough to lay a hand on the RB. Gholston and maybe a handful of others could do this. Sometimes.

That's the point of the scrape exchange. The DE and backside LB exchange responsibilities. The backside DE crashes the line on every play, allowing the backside LB to scrape over the top and take the QB.

But, if the QB is really good at making the LB commit to him, an RB on the outside to pitch to many times is going to be wide open if your receivers are blocking properly.

 

[NUance]

I thought the point of the zone read was to read the DE and take him out of the play. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. But a DE would need to be *very* athletic to both close off the QBs inside running lane and still make it outside fast enough to lay a hand on the RB. Gholston and maybe a handful of others could do this. Sometimes.

That's the point of the scrape exchange. The DE and backside LB exchange responsibilities. The backside DE crashes the line on every play, allowing the backside LB to scrape over the top and take the QB.

That would just result in a handoff to the RB every time. Seems like that little trickeration play in the Youtube above would be hard to account for. Handoff to Rex and pitch to other Abdullah. I wonder why we didn't run it more?

 

[brophog]

That would just result in a handoff to the RB every time.

Exactly.

 

[BigRedBuster]

That would just result in a handoff to the RB every time.

Exactly.

Not necessarily. Just like TO's option play requires the DE to commit to the QB and that SHOULD happen every time, sometimes the DE/LB in this play is going to cheat to the outside expecting the pitch because they have been burned on it over and over. At that point, the QB has to be good at reading that and realize they can cut up field and gain yards.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I'm trying to picture it in my mind and don't think it's possible. But, is there a way the second RB actually blocks the LB which would spring the QB loose?

 

[brophog]

But, if the QB is really good at making the LB commit to him, an RB on the outside to pitch to many times is going to be wide open if your receivers are blocking properly.

If, for example, we take the frontside slot out of a starting 2x2 set and motion him in the backfield to be used as a pitch man, then the defense has one more man to account. It may not be just one LB anymore that we have to account for on the backside. The defense could shift their linebacker front, rotate the Safety, etc. For every player in the backfield you have the potential to have one less blocker and one less man pulling someone out of the box.

Because of the numbers, another way may be to not run this as a backside zone read addendum. We've introduced the zone read play into this thread, but with a video example above that is not a zone read so we need to be careful that we're not getting confused by talking about so many things in this same thread (as good as this conversation has been ). Our Michigan play above is run off of counter action, not zone. Choi is pulling on that play to help with the numbers, and laying a key block to get to the outside. It's Choi's block that gives Taylor a frontside running lane if he chose to keep it. I mention this so that anyone using the Michigan example linked above is not confused with the ideas in this conversation of branching off of the zone read, because that isn't a zone play in the video.

 

[brophog]

That would just result in a handoff to the RB every time.

Exactly.

Not necessarily. Just like TO's option play requires the DE to commit to the QB and that SHOULD happen every time, sometimes the DE/LB in this play is going to cheat to the outside expecting the pitch because they have been burned on it over and over. At that point, the QB has to be good at reading that and realize they can cut up field and gain yards.

That quote is referring to a normal zone read play with a scrape exchange by the defense. The QB could keep it, but the advantage would be to give to the RB and utilize the zone blocking. The QB is at a serious disadvantage trying to turn the corner against a leveraged linebacker one on one.