Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

The read option is just that - its a play or a package of plays that the redskins have the option of utilizing. The read option will continue to be used and is not a gimmick as long as its effective. An opposing defense cannot completely shut it down because that means the defense must completely sell out on every play to prevent the offense from using it. This opens all kinds of other plays up for the offense.

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

Bottom line - you can't stop it for a full game because the offense will kill the opposing defenses by just taking advantage of the holes in the defense selling out to stop the read option play(s).

Here's a simple example in basketball (but not meant as a direct comparison) - you can't double-team one player for a whole game because that means that another player is open the whole game.

Really get out of here!

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

Maybe it's semantics to some, but until a team running the read-option wins the SB it's a gimmick to me. And I don't think it's an accident we don't see the very best teams who have very mobile QBs running it i.e. Aaron Rogers has fantastic mobility and shows it plenty to scramble/extend plays, but you don't see Mike McCarthy sending Rogers up the gut with the pigskin. It's retarded to use your franchise QB as a running back, period. Another enchilada to use a guy like Kaepernick or Wilson who cost you very little.

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

[quote=The Goat;1005301]Maybe it's semantics to some, but until a team running the read-option wins the SB it's a gimmick to me. And I don't think it's an accident we don't see the very best teams who have very mobile QBs running it i.e. Aaron Rogers has fantastic mobility and shows it plenty to scramble/extend plays, but you don't see Mike McCarthy sending Rogers up the gut with the pigskin. It's retarded to use your franchise QB as a running back, period. Another enchilada to use a guy like Kaepernick or Wilson who cost you very little.[/quote]

We don't see Rodgers getting designed runs called for him because he can't run like Griffin. No QB in NFL history was probably as fast and elusive as him, even Vick in his youth.

The game has changed many times and we're seeing a transition right now, thanks to our own RGIII.

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

yea, saying rogers could run the read option is laughable, ur reaching sir.

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

[quote=The Goat;1005301]Maybe it's semantics to some, but until a team running the read-option wins the SB it's a gimmick to me. And I don't think it's an accident we don't see the very best teams who have very mobile QBs running it i.e. Aaron Rogers has fantastic mobility and shows it plenty to scramble/extend plays, but you don't see Mike McCarthy sending Rogers up the gut with the pigskin. It's retarded to use your franchise QB as a running back, period. Another enchilada to use a guy like Kaepernick or Wilson who cost you very little.[/quote]

So, 3 teams running it and all 3 get to the playoffs, 1 winning a division title, 1 making it to the SB, that's not good enough. It only counts if they win the SB. Got it. That seems like a perfectly rationale requirement.

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

[quote=The Goat;1005301]Maybe it's semantics to some, but until a team running the read-option wins the SB it's a gimmick to me. And I don't think it's an accident we don't see the very best teams who have very mobile QBs running it i.e. Aaron Rogers has fantastic mobility and shows it plenty to scramble/extend plays, but you don't see Mike McCarthy sending Rogers up the gut with the pigskin. It's retarded to use your franchise QB as a running back, period. Another enchilada to use a guy like Kaepernick or Wilson who cost you very little.[/quote]

Check the stats and tape again. Aaron Rodgers has averaged 4 rushes per game over the last three years. Some of these are scrambles but some are designed runs in which Rodgers runs "up the gut with the pigskin." If you watch the tape, you'll see that some of these designed runs are based on zone read concepts.

[url=http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/7200]Aaron Rodgers | Green Bay Packers | NFL - Yahoo! Sports[/url]

Wrong example to make your point.

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1005323]So, 3 teams running it and all 3 get to the playoffs, 1 winning a division title, 1 making it to the SB, that's not good enough. It only counts if they win the SB. Got it. That seems like a perfectly rationale requirement.[/quote]

It makes perfect sense if you think about it in a way that makes no sense.

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

Twitter sources are reporting that Shanahan will run Rg3 12 times up the gut per game this year. It worked so well, and he didn't tear his achilles fully until the last game. They want to see how long it will take to tear with more runs.

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

[quote=Evilgrin;1005340]Twitter sources are reporting that Shanahan will run Rg3 12 times up the gut per game this year. It worked so well, and he didn't tear his achilles fully until the last game. They want to see how long it will take to tear with more runs.[/quote]

:confused:Achilles? :postcop:

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

[quote=Evilgrin;1005340]Twitter sources are reporting that Shanahan will run Rg3 12 times up the gut per game this year. It worked so well, and he didn't tear his achilles fully until the last game. They want to see how long it will take to tear with more runs.[/quote]

That's a long way for a bad joke that fell flat.

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

[quote=The Goat;1005301]Maybe it's semantics to some, but until a team running the read-option wins the SB it's a gimmick to me. And I don't think it's an accident we don't see the very best teams who have very mobile QBs running it i.e. Aaron Rogers has fantastic mobility and shows it plenty to scramble/extend plays, but you don't see Mike McCarthy sending Rogers up the gut with the pigskin. It's retarded to use your franchise QB as a running back, period. Another enchilada to use a guy like Kaepernick or Wilson who cost you very little.[/quote]

I think that the 49ers and Seahawks would argue that their qbs are franchise qbs. And I don't like sticking up for another team, but the 49ers proved that they were one of the best teams in the nfl.

And I don't want to start arguing about the details of the read option and the misconception of using the qb as a running back.

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

[quote=Lotus;1005329]Check the stats and tape again. Aaron Rodgers has averaged 4 rushes per game over the last three years. Some of these are scrambles but some are designed runs in which Rodgers runs "up the gut with the pigskin." If you watch the tape, you'll see that some of these designed runs are based on zone read concepts.

[URL="http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/7200"]Aaron Rodgers | Green Bay Packers | NFL - Yahoo! Sports[/URL]

Wrong example to make your point.[/quote]

I can't tell if your serious or not, but I'll play along for a minute. Every QB in the history of the game runs a sneak, typically at the goal line or on very short yardage. Beyond that, I've never seen Rogers keep the ball on say, 2nd and 8, for the sake of keeping the ball. If you've seen it, please post it. What we do see is Rogers scramble out of a collapsed pocket, and picking up so good yardage there. Though I'll say he's extremely careful to avoid hits i.e. sliding long before there could be contact or heading out of bounds. Hopefully this is what Shanahan ultimately envisions for RG.

Again, the notion of making your designated franchise QB a RB at the pro level is way outside the norm. Vick is really the only other example, and he held up far better than RG as a comparison i.e. Vick didn't sustain repeated major injuries as a rookie. The bottom line is it hasn't worked for any team in terms of long-term success, and won't work unless the league somehow makes hits to the QB off-limits in all circumstances.

Arguing otherwise is just absurd. It's not supported by the evidence or common sense.

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

There's no way to tell what the Niners and/or Seahawks would do in our situation i.e. using a 2nd overall pick they mortgaged the future of the franchise to get as a RB. Whether Wilson/Kaepernick are considered franchise QBs is debatable, but it's irrelevant to the discussion because those situations are nothing like ours.

I guess you can believe the hype about the read-option, but it was run very well by San Fran and was basically shut down by the first great/disciplined defense they faced in the playoffs. And that was on minimal game tape and review. Every defensive coordinator/unit in the league has time to review it now. Betting on the read-option is a long-shot at this point, unless you've predetermined you cannot compete with a traditional offensive system ala the Ravens, Pats, Broncos, Giants, Saints and Packers.

The weight of evidence here isn't even close at this point.

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

[quote=The Goat;1005358]I can't tell if your serious or not, but I'll play along for a minute. Every QB in the history of the game runs a sneak, typically at the goal line or on very short yardage. Beyond that, I've never seen Rogers keep the ball on say, 2nd and 8, for the sake of keeping the ball. If you've seen it, please post it. What we do see is Rogers scramble out of a collapsed pocket, and picking up so good yardage there. Though I'll say he's extremely careful to avoid hits i.e. sliding long before there could be contact or heading out of bounds. Hopefully this is what Shanahan ultimately envisions for RG.

Again, the notion of making your designated franchise QB a RB at the pro level is way outside the norm. Vick is really the only other example, and he held up far better than RG as a comparison i.e. Vick didn't sustain repeated major injuries as a rookie. The bottom line is it hasn't worked for any team in terms of long-term success, and won't work unless the league somehow makes hits to the QB off-limits in all circumstances.

Arguing otherwise is just absurd. It's not supported by the evidence or common sense.[/quote]

Of course I am serious. And you are mistaken.

I do not have time to splice film together demonstrating that the Packers do in fact send Aaron Rodgers "up the gut" on intentional runs. However, in the brief time that I have had to look, I still found this film of an intentional QB draw:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5duZQMnjw2Y]Aaron Rodgers Touchdown Run vs Tennessee Titans - YouTube[/ame]

Fact is, the Packers and Aaron Rodgers have had long-term success with the franchise QB running the ball intentionally. Aaron Rodgers engages in intentional runs frequently. Please adjust your argument to reflect reality.

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

^^^ LOL to the above. I just said every team/QB in football runs a sneak (or draw, which is just the delayed version) near the goal line or in short yardage, and that's exactly what you found.

From the stats page you linked, Rogers hasn't run anywhere near as many yards as RG or Vick for that matter. And again, apart from the goal line and short yardage I've never seen him, or any other franchise QB since Vick, tucking the ball as the primary running option the way RG does.

You just don't see it, and for good reason.

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

I do think there's an argument for it though with a guy like Kaepernick in San Fran. As a franchise, you didn't sacrifice much for him in the first place, and he's a bigger dude than RG.

Apples and oranges comparing those two guys for a whole bevy of reasons.

I don't know what to think of Wilson, except that from what little I watched of him he's already very good and avoiding contact.

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

What the hell is your stupid point? That teams shouldn't utilize their players' full talents? That offensive concepts shouldn't evolve?

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

Last year Kyle fielded an offense unlike any that has ever been seen before in the NFL. Certainly concepts were borrowed: read option, West Coast schemes, etc. But the way he put those pieces together was new. We frequently ran formations which had never before been seen on an NFL field. The result: near the top of the league in both rushing and passing.

What Kyle did was creatively and effectively innovate. He showed that he can successfully implement original offensive concepts.

If people don't see this, and call what we did a "gimmick" instead, they are not appreciating the game of football. Or Kyle for that matter. What a shame.

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

[quote=SmootSmack;1005371]What the hell is your stupid point? That teams shouldn't utilize their players' full talents? That offensive concepts shouldn't evolve?[/quote]

That is what I got from it. My mom always told me when we go to the zoo that I shouldn't feed the bears. She never said what to do with the goats. I may need to call her later tonight.

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

[quote=The Goat;1005369]I do think there's an argument for it though with a guy like Kaepernick in San Fran. As a franchise, you didn't sacrifice much for him in the first place, and he's a bigger dude than RG.

Apples and oranges comparing those two guys for a whole bevy of reasons.

I don't know what to think of Wilson, except that from what little I watched of him he's already very good and avoiding contact.[/quote]

You know you changed your argument. You were arguing it was a gimmick offense because it wasn't run by the best teams. Now you're saying you can run it, but not with RGIII. Is it a gimmick or not?

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

[quote=EARTHQUAKE2689;1005374]That is what I got from it. My mom always told me when we go to the zoo that I shouldn't feed the bears. She never said what to do with the goats. I may need to call her later tonight.[/quote]

The student has surpassed the teacher. Wise words my friend. Wise words

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

Don't get sucked into the vortex.

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

[quote=Lotus;1005372]Last year Kyle fielded an offense unlike any that has ever been seen before in the NFL. Certainly concepts were borrowed: read option, West Coast schemes, etc. But the way he put those pieces together was new. We frequently ran formations which had never before been seen on an NFL field. The result: near the top of the league in both rushing and passing.

What Kyle did was creatively and effectively innovate. He showed that he can successfully implement original offensive concepts.

If people don't see this, and call what we did a "gimmick" instead, they are not appreciating the game of football. Or Kyle for that matter. What a shame.[/quote]

Boom roasted

[QUOTE=Mattyk;1005380]Don't get sucked into the vortex.[/QUOTE]

You'll notice I am still sitting quietly in the corner. I concede, however, that I am pointing and laughing at a certain someone's devotion to stupidity.

[QUOTE=Lotus;1005372] ... If people don't see this, and call what we did a "gimmick" instead, they are not appreciating the game of football. Or Kyle for that matter. What a shame.[/QUOTE]

Clearly, you know nothing about football.

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

[quote=SmootSmack;1005371]What the hell is your stupid point? That teams shouldn't utilize their players' full talents? That offensive concepts shouldn't evolve?[/quote]

Using your franchise QB as a running QB is what's stupid. Again, there's a reason you don't see it. Even with the Vick example, who did NOT suffer near the injuries RG has, no other HC/FO in pro football has used their franchise QB the way shanahan uses RG.

What amazes me, is after a season of horrific injuries (to RG) folks are still homers for the status quo. It just seems like common sense to limit the number of hits to this guy who we mortgaged the future on. I mean, answer me this: is it your opinion we cannot compete with a traditional offense? Why else would you risk your QB?

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

[quote=Lotus;1005372][B]Last year Kyle fielded an offense unlike any that has ever been seen before in the NFL.[/B] Certainly concepts were borrowed: read option, West Coast schemes, etc. But the way he put those pieces together was new. We frequently ran formations which had never before been seen on an NFL field. [B]The result: near the top of the league in both rushing and passing.
[/B]
[B]What Kyle did was creatively and effectively innovate[/B]. He showed that he can successfully implement original offensive concepts.

If people don't see this, and call what we did a "gimmick" instead, they are not appreciating the game of football. Or Kyle for that matter. What a shame.[/quote]
SIR, until a Super Bowl has been won with your......Huckster Offense, it cannot be taken seriously!

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

[quote=The Goat;1005498]Using your franchise QB as a running QB is what's stupid. Again, there's a reason you don't see it. Even with the Vick example, who did NOT suffer near the injuries RG has, no other HC/FO in pro football has used their franchise QB the way shanahan uses RG.

What amazes me, is after a season of horrific injuries (to RG) folks are still homers for the status quo. It just seems like common sense to limit the number of hits to this guy who we mortgaged the future on. I mean, answer me this: is it your opinion we cannot compete with a traditional offense? Why else would you risk your QB?[/quote]

No comment

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

[quote=Hog1;1005499]SIR, until a Super Bowl has been won with your......Huckster Offense, it cannot be taken seriously![/quote]

That's a fair criterion which in no way obscures the history of the development of the game. I stand corrected. :)

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

Ahhhh wrong thread

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

Same

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

[quote=The Goat;1005498]Using your franchise QB as a running QB is what's stupid. Again, there's a reason you don't see it. Even with the Vick example, who did NOT suffer near the injuries RG has, no other HC/FO in pro football has used their franchise QB the way shanahan uses RG.

What amazes me, is after a season of horrific injuries (to RG) folks are still homers for the status quo. It just seems like common sense to limit the number of hits to this guy who we mortgaged the future on. I mean, answer me this: is it your opinion we cannot compete with a traditional offense? Why else would you risk your QB?[/quote]


[IMG]http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6td1lQoKv1qcwic6.gif[/IMG]

[IMG]http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&docid=xiDeD4bJtL0rWM&tbnid=zRtxustmizX98M:&ved=0CAUQjBwwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fd22zlbw5ff7yk5.cloudfront.net%2Fimages%2Fstash-3-4fb423de9b5cb.gif&ei=in96UeaDMori4APMy4HICg&psig=AFQjCNFcIKHHPfddSQhBITDCAUto4MI4cw&ust=1367068938872970[/IMG]

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

Run and Shoot anyone?

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

[quote=CrustyRedskin;1005653]Run and Shoot anyone?[/quote]

No need to threaten anyone over internet postings.

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

"Stroll and bowl". Next big thing in Offensive schemes. And kittens.

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

What's with you and kittens today?

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

[quote=CrustyRedskin;1005653]Run and Shoot anyone?[/quote]

Nah. Wasn't the old Houston Oilers one of the last teams to run that offense? I like the read option because it's highly successful and puts all types of stress on a defense.

Re: To Read Option, or Not
 

Since the Oilers never won a Super Bowl, Warren Moon was just a gimmick.