A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?

such as?Wait, out of all the possible football discussion going on in this thread this is what you contribute?

If you want a list of all the teams that used the wishbone formation and don't use option your on your own with that one because the list would be ridiculously long.

There are countless football teams from pop warner to high school to college to NFL that use the wishbone formation and don't use option.

The reason?
The wishbone is a formation its not inherently used as an option offense as REDSKINSEVER suggested.

I can get you started with program where I used to coach the Arbutus Golden Knights and in the NFL the Green Bay Packers used wishbone and inverted wishbone.

-Cheers

Wait, out of all the possible football discussion going on in this thread this is what you contribute?

If you want a list of all the teams that used the wishbone formation and don't use option your on your own with that one because the list would be ridiculously long.

There are countless football teams from pop warner to high school to college to NFL that use the wishbone formation and don't use option.

The reason?
The wishbone is a formation its not inherently used as an option offense as REDSKINSEVER suggested.

I can get you started with program where I used to coach the Arbutus Golden Knights and in the NFL the Green Bay Packers used wishbone and inverted wishbone.

-Cheersyes, this is what i'm bringing to the table, good honest football discussion.

so of the plenty/countless, the 2 teams referred used (not use?) the wishbone formation and don't use option. since they're countless, can you name plenty or even 1 that might be relevant? maybe plenty of teams run the single wing, but i'm not going to suggest that they are relevant and plentiful.

the wishbone was designed for the purpose of running the option, it sounds like you're saying otherwise.

yes, this is what i'm bringing to the table, good honest football discussion.

so of the plenty/countless, the 2 teams referred used (not use?) the wishbone formation and don't use option. since they're countless, can you name plenty or even 1 that might be relevant? maybe plenty of teams run the single wing, but i'm not going to suggest that they are relevant and plentiful.

the wishbone was designed for the purpose of running the option, it sounds like you're saying otherwise.Well, if that is all your bringing your answers are already found in my previous post:


Wait, out of all the possible football discussion going on in this thread this is what you contribute?

If you want a list of all the teams that used the wishbone formation and don't use option your on your own with that one because the list would be ridiculously long.

There are countless football teams from pop warner to high school to college to NFL that use the wishbone formation and don't use option.

The reason?
The wishbone is a formation its not inherently used as an option offense as REDSKINSEVER suggested.

I can get you started with program where I used to coach the Arbutus Golden Knights and in the NFL the Green Bay Packers(past 2 seasons) used wishbone and inverted wishbone.

-CheersBasically your list consists of every team that has used/uses a wishbone formation and not run the option from the formation.

Simple, logic tells you that the list is long.

Is the off-season over yet? We are down to discussing the wishbone and option.



NEWSFLASH: Nobody runs the option in the NFL. It's pretty much all but disappeared in college as well.(navy being one of the few still using it)




ps. I'm still holding hope that the single wing offense makes a comeback!!

since they're countless, can you name plenty or even 1 that might be relevant?a simple "no" would have sufficed

a simple "no" would have sufficedA "no" wouldn't suffice because its not the truth and you know perfectly well that I've already mentioned 2 teams.

Its impossible to know or list every team from pop warner to highschool to college to the NFL that uses the wishbone formation and doesn't run the option.

It spurious reasoning to ask the for a list of teams when simple football logic tells the truth of my statement.
Teams use almost every formation over the course of a season, but you know what most teams don't do? Bingo, most teams don't run option.

Your question is a pointless and spurious as me asking you: to name some teams that use the wishbone formation to run the option?

-Obviously some teams do you use the wishbone formation to run option, I don't need a list of teams to know the football validity of that statement.

But to be clear ANY team that uses the wishbone formation and doesn't run the option from is relevant because that was the discussion myself andf REDSKINSEVER were having.
ANY team that uses the wishbone formation and doesn't run the option from the wishbone disproves REDSKINSEVER claim.

If my word isn't good enough here's a blurb:
Packers rocking the wishbone - NFC North Blog - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/22399/packers-rocking-the-wishbone)
Packers rocking the wishbone @ 1:05 mark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt3wnvA5lVA&feature=related

When they are clicking, the Green Bay Packers have one of the most explosive downfield passing games in the NFL. So you might not believe what their most effective personnel formation was in Sunday's 21-16 victory over the Philadelphia Eagles.

*8.7 yds per attempt up the middle Source: ESPN Stats & Information

The long-forgotten (at least in the NFL) three-back set.

That's right. According to ESPN Stats & Information, Packers rookie tailback James Starks averaged 7.6 yards on eight carries in either the wishbone or inverted wishbone formation, accounting for 61 of his 123 yards. He had 62 yards on his other 15 carries.

During the regular season, NFL teams ran the ball out of a three-back set 34 times. The Packers accounted for 20 of them, utilizing a preseason roster decision to carry three fullbacks on their 53-man roster.Just in case you don't remember Aaron Rodgers wasn't running the option that day.

Once again, cheers-

We are down to discussing the wishbone and option.

NEWSFLASH: Nobody runs the option in the NFL. It's pretty much all but disappeared in college as well.(navy being one of the few still using it)Heck, I wish we were discussing option football.
That was one of the aims of this thread to discuss and chronichle the Redskins exploration and possible implementation of Baylor's option concepts.
I've been updating this thread with zone-read (option) concepts for my own benefit, I wish there were more people willing to discuss it though...

Also, I wish we would all make an effort be more clear in our definitions. Although it might seem like semantics there are distinctions in the terms used that would avoid some of the conflict that is going on in this thread.

For example I'm guessing you're think 'QB pitch option' when you say 'Nobody runs the option in the NFL'.

But 'the option' is a blanket statement that covers numerous types of plays and concepts.

For example the Panthers and Bronco's do actually run the option.
They run the 'read option' the most popular play being the 'zone read'. (Which I've posted about several times in this thread)
And actually the Panthers and Broncos also use the 'traditional' QB pitch option too.
Heck, Mike Shanahan used to run the option with Jay Cutler @ 1:10 mark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEL4K3_vO5I&feature=player_embedded


So, I gotta disagree with you when you say 'Nobody runs the option in the NFL' especially since all signs seem to point to the Redskins being one of the teams that will run some option this year.

i'm not sure that packers formation was even wishbone. i don't know of any teams that use the wishbone and run the option. i don't know of any teams that run the wishbone. i'm not going to post a clip of theisman getting retired and say that the redskins run the flea flicker offense. i'm not going to reference a team that did it decades ago or a team that doesn't even turn up in a google search (arbutus golden eagles for an arbutus golden knights search).

what was redskins4ever's claim?

A "no" wouldn't suffice because its not the truth and you know perfectly well that I've already mentioned 2 teams.

Its impossible to know or list every team from pop warner to highschool to college to the NFL that uses the wishbone formation and doesn't run the option.

It spurious reasoning to ask the for a list of teams when simple football logic tells the truth of my statement.
Teams use almost every formation over the course of a season, but you know what most teams don't do? Bingo, most teams don't run option.

Your question is a pointless and spurious as me asking you: to name some teams that use the wishbone formation to run the option?

-Obviously some teams do you use the wishbone formation to run option, I don't need a list of teams to know the football validity of that statement.

But to be clear ANY team that uses the wishbone formation and doesn't run the option from is relevant because that was the discussion myself andf REDSKINSEVER were having.
ANY team that uses the wishbone formation and doesn't run the option from the wishbone disproves REDSKINSEVER claim.

If my word isn't good enough here's a blurb:
Packers rocking the wishbone - NFC North Blog - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/22399/packers-rocking-the-wishbone)
Packers rocking the wishbone @ 1:05 mark

James Starks 2010 Highlights - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt3wnvA5lVA&feature=related)

Just in case you don't remember Aaron Rodgers wasn't running the option that day.

Once again, cheers-

Excellent catch with the Pack's reverse wishbone.

You are correct - most people in this thread are using "option" to mean only a wishbone-style pitch option on the defensive end/linebacker and are missing things like zone-read and bootleg run/pass options. You have correctly stated that option plays are a bigger part of NFL offenses than people think. Heck, if we included option routes by receivers then many, if not most, NFL plays would be options. But I suppose in this thread we are talking about QB options only.

Personally I hope that we have Griffin pursue zone-read pass options. Such could simultaneously open up the running game and the passing game when used prudently. A small package of such plays would be all that is required to either keep defenses honest or, thinking bigger, bust some huge plays. Grif could threaten the corner with the run or whip it downfield if the safety/corner are crashing the run. And, if Grif hands off, Helu could be deadly if backside pursuit is paralyzed by the threat of Grif on the other side.

This would demand that Griffin do more reading of defenses than he did in college but he is the #2 overall pick dammit. When Shanny talked about an option game, I hope that this is what he means.

Personally I hope that we have Griffin pursue zone-read pass options. Such could simultaneously open up the running game and the passing game when used prudently. A small package of such plays would be all that is required to either keep defenses honest or, thinking bigger, bust some huge plays. Grif could threaten the corner with the run or whip it downfield if the safety/corner are crashing the run. And, if Grif hands off, Helu could be deadly if backside pursuit is paralyzed by the threat of Grif on the other side.

This would demand that Griffin do more reading of defenses than he did in college but he is the #2 overall pick dammit. When Shanny talked about an option game, I hope that this is what he means.I agree.
At first I was hesitant to believe that Kyle would even add read option/zone read plays at all.
But, I've kinda been keeping my ear out for anything mention of zone read or option concepts.
The rhetoric from Mike Shanahan (that admittedly could be coachspeak) and the mentions of zone-read and option plays in practice from the local beat writers and the actual video of the zone-read and option in practice lead me to believe that at the very least their will be a package of read option plays in the offense.

These words from Mike Shanahan resonate with me:

if it’s running the option, running the counter option, doing things that are not going to be the staple of your offense – that really dictate what defenses can do and can’t do

keeps defenses honest because they’ve just got to prepare, and it makes it a little bit easier to do other things. The more a quarterback can do, the better chance you have to be successful.”

Mike makes the same point Gruden made when talking to Tannehill about the benefits of the zone-read:
This read option combined with the WCO offense is just down right scary...no huddle offense..hey...it regulates the coverage and fronts a defense can playTo your last point, having a zone-read based series of plays could actual help Griffin read the defensive coverages because those plays could dictate/force defenses to play certain known coverages.

Gruden talks about the zone read + WCO concepts that could be possibilities for our offense with Griffin:
7:50-8:30
YO6UgIg1AU4

At a minimum what do you think a zone-read series of plays would consist of?
I'm think a base zone-read, a counter option/veer, then play action passes.
This article from smart football posted earlier talks about zone-read play action.

“A very wise coach once told me, ‘If you really want play-action, you better pull a guard’” — Andrew Luck and Robert Griffin III agree | Smart Football (http://smartfootball.com/passing/a-very-wise-coach-once-told-me-if-you-really-want-play-action-you-better-pull-a-guard)

I'm gonna follow up with an article about a base zone read and a counter/veer from that site.