Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

[quote=Monkeydad;919014]Why not the 1991 Redskins?[/quote]fast/slender qb with an accurate/rocket arm (the arm sleeve tops it off) is why 1998 vikings offense. setting the record for points scored would be the cherry on top.

wouldn't mind some shades of the 1991 redskins offense, either

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;919016]If you look at the trends, the Texans are really similar to us (I suppose thats not the most surprising thing). They're a lot better on offense, sure, [I][B]but the down/distance splits break down almost exactly identical[/B][/I].[/quote]Thanks again bro.
But, I'm scratching my head on the the bolded portion. of your quote.
I guess they're kinda in the same ball park in some areas but I don't see identical.
I'd say they're somewhat close on 1st downs rushing/All 1st downs.
But its hard to guage the degree of difference between the data sets without seeing some other teams figures
For example: 1st down passing:
Texans: 3rd @ 59.2%
B&G: 7th @ 36.5%
Are they as close as the ranking suggests(3rd vs 7th) ? Or was far apart as the % suggests?

But, when it gets to 2nd down even without the knowing where the other teams fall their is a large disparity, first off the rankings are separated by almost 10 spots. And the Texans % figures are all in the positive and ours are all in the negative.

It would be great if this down/distance/run/pass DVOA was coordinated to matching YPA then it would be evening more meaningful.

For example what YPA do the Texans/B&G have on 1st downs rushing? etc..

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

[quote=Monkeydad;919015]Bubble screen!

(Anyone who heard the commentary during the OK State game will understand...)[/quote]

The Baylor Bears ran that particular play a lot last season. If Kyle Shanahan incorporates that play into the Redskins passing game, I wouldn't be at all surprised.

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

[quote=REDSKINS4ever;919070]The Baylor Bears ran that particular play a lot last season. If Kyle Shanahan incorporates that play into the Redskins passing game, I wouldn't be at all surprised.[/quote]


Garcon is deadly at 4 routes. Screens, slants, drags, and go/9 routes. I would be shocked as well if KS didn't have Griffin throwing bubble screens this year.

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

anyone remember that screen to moss against kansas city years ago? it went for big yardage, can't remember if it went all the way

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

[quote=los panda;919139]anyone remember that screen to moss against kansas city years ago? it went for big yardage, can't remember if it went all the way[/quote]

Yeah I remember that. 78 yarder, went for a touchdown. That was 2005 I believe. I'd love for him to get a couple of those this season with RG3 at qb.

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

[quote=mooby;919141]Yeah I remember that. 78 yarder, went for a touchdown. That was 2005 I believe. I'd love for him to get a couple of those this season with RG3 at qb.[/quote]thanks moobs, i remember i was picking up some some buffalo wings at wings to go and yelled/clapped real loud. my friend got embarrassed (bills fan) and asked me to quiet down.

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

0:47
[url=http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d8003b521/Chiefs-28-Redskins-21]NFL Videos: Chiefs 28, Redskins 21[/url]

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

[B][SIZE="4"]On changing the offense to take advantage of Robert Griffin III’s strengths:[/SIZE][/B]

[quote=Mike Shanahan]“[SIZE="3"]Anytime you have a person that has that type of speed, you feel like you’re able to do some things that maybe those teams can’t do with their quarterback. A lot of quarterbacks are just considered runners. Robert has proven that he can drop back and throw with anybody in the National Football League. He has that type of arm strength. Everything else is a progression. You’re going to learn year-by-year, and each year, each snap he gets, he’s going to better and better. You’ve got to account for that speed. We can do some things – [COLOR="DarkRed"][U]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[/U][/COLOR][/SIZE].”[/quote]


[SIZE="4"]On the adjustments to the playbook to utilize Griffin’s running ability:[/SIZE]
[quote=Mike Shanahan]“[SIZE="3"]What happens is that different things you’ve done in college, like when I was at Oklahoma, we ran the wishbone and we ran the veer – different things, a little bit what colleges are doing right now. Sometimes they do it out of the shotgun, sometimes they do it out of an option here. Cam Newton did a little bit of it last year. [It] [U][COLOR="darkred"]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[/COLOR][/U][/SIZE].”[/quote]

Is this the way Kyle feels also?
Coachspeak? or Truth?

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

[quote=30gut;919500]

[B]Is this the way Kyle[/B] feels also?
Coachspeak? or Truth?[/quote]

thats the real question...Kyle needs to prove alot this year. Id be much more comfortable with Shanny running the O. For some reason I dont think Kyle wants to change anything.

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

[quote=Chico23231;919505]thats the real question...Kyle needs to prove alot this year. Id be much more comfortable with Shanny running the O. For some reason I dont think Kyle wants to change anything.[/quote]

I think Kyle Shanahan will change a few things. Now that Robert Grifffin III is in the Redskins fold, I expect Kyle Shanahan to take a few things from the Baylor Bears playbook that RG3 did so well while in college and modify their version of the west coast offense a bit. The bubble screens along with other concepts could very well be implemented enough to give RG3 enough of a chance to succeed. It would be foolish of Kyle Shanahan to just hand RG3 a playbook and not have anything else in creative in mind to add along to it.

Mike talk pretty(option) one day
 

[SIZE="3"][B][I][COLOR="darkred"]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[/COLOR].” [/I][/B][/SIZE]

[QUOTE=REDSKINS4ever;919562]I think Kyle Shanahan will change a few things. Now that Robert Grifffin III is in the Redskins fold, I expect Kyle Shanahan to take a few things from the Baylor Bears playbook that RG3 did so well while in college and modify their version of the west coast offense a bit.[/QUOTE]I don't think bubble screen would be a new wrinkle since its already part of the offense.
However the quotes from Mike Shanahan above specifically mention option/counter option.

And in that case the possibilities are intriguing....if we did anything close to this wow....

[QUOTE=Chris from Smart Football]The new new thing. The spread offense, as it has matured, seems like it continues to absorb and assimilate every offensive football concept ever run — quick passing game, option, single-wing, wing-T, etc — and the play-action passing game is no different. The rise of pistol and even three-back “Diamond” formations have been big factors in spread offenses incorporating using more and more play-action over the past few seasons. And with the rise of the “inverted veer,” which involves a pulling guard and has the quarterback read a play-side defender (as opposed to a backside defender as with the zone read), it was only inevitable that offenses would use that play as the foundation for play-action.

And no one did it better this past season than Art Briles and Robert Griffin III at Baylor. Griffin, of course, throws a beautiful deep ball — probably the best I’ve seen from a collegiate player in at least a decade. But he also benefited from a lot of wide open deep tosses, often off this very run action. The typical inverted veer play is as drawn up below:

[IMG]http://smartfootball.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/invertedveer.gif[/IMG]



So how do you adapt this to play-action using the same principles as above? You guessed it: The line to the play-side blocks down while the pulling linemen is responsible for the defensive end to his side, i.e. the “C” gap.
[IMG]http://smartfootball.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/inverted-veer-playaction.jpg[/IMG]


One important note is that as I have drawn this up — which is how Baylor typically ran it — there are only five offensive players pass blocking. Unlike above where the backside tackle steps down and an H-back or fullback has the C gap, here the backside tackle just locks on to the defensive end. Note that one can easily put another blocker there backside to get a sound six-man surface.

In any event, as shown here as well as the video clips below, Baylor decimated people with this concept. They loved to fake the inverted veer one way and to have the backside slot get deep, often off of a fake-slant-and-go concept. But any passing concept should work, especially considering that the runningback becomes a swing or flare-control checkdown receiver.
[IMG]http://smartfootball.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/baylor1.jpg[/IMG]


So that’s how to use the pulling lineman with the inverted veer. The other method to pull a linemen in pass protection from a spread set — one used by many college and pro teams — is not quite as good in terms of the run fake but still does the trick and it provides a full six-man pass protection surface. In this method, shown below, the pulling linemen and the runningback go in opposite directions. I have shown this with a pulling tackle to mimic the common “Dart” run play, where the playside tackle pass sets and the backside tackle, not the backside guard, is the one pulling. For the play-action concept, essentially the interior line squeezes down while the runningback and pulling tackle are responsible for the C gaps — and outside rushers — to either side. And, as mentioned above, this has traditionally not been a difficult block because those defensive ends tend to read run and step down, waiting for a ballcarrier.

[IMG]http://smartfootball.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/DART-one-back.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

click the link to the great article and video clip:

[url=http://smartfootball.com/passing/a-very-wise-coach-once-told-me-if-you-really-want-play-action-you-better-pull-a-guard]“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[/url]

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

Imagine using a series of play similar to the ones below as a compliment to the base offense +Griffin's throwing ability:

[YT]8KR638W3tRc[/YT]

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

We already know RG3 will be used in the wildcat formation. If the coaches called the wildcat using Brandon Banks in 2010, why not call that same play using Robert Griffin III in 2012?

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

With RG3 & the speed on OF we have the options might become endless IMO.

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

[quote=REDSKINS4ever;919656][B]We already know RG3 will be used in the wildcat formation.[/B] If the coaches called the wildcat using Brandon Banks in 2010, why not call that same play using Robert Griffin III in 2012?[/quote]

We do? Has this been confirmed somewhere?

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

[quote=Mattyk;919667]We do? Has this been confirmed somewhere?[/quote]

No. But once a play is in the playbook, why remove it? It's not a farfetched notion to think that RG3 will be used in the wildcat. Just look at how he ran the ball in college at Baylor.

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

[quote=Mike Shanahan]“[SIZE="4"]We’ve run the quarterback keeps, we’ve run the rolls. We have different types of [B][U][COLOR="DarkRed"]option schemes[/COLOR][/U][/B] available to us. It does present problems for the defense,” [/SIZE][/quote] from John Keim article in Examiner
[url=http://washingtonexaminer.com/sports/redskins-confidential/2012/06/rg3-report/703711]RG3 Report | Washington Examiner[/url]

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

[QUOTE]The Redskins worked on more rollouts and [B][I][U][COLOR="darkred"][SIZE="3"]option plays[/SIZE] [/COLOR][/U][/I][/B]for Griffin. But that's not going to be the primary focus of the offense. He's not a young Michael Vick. Shanahan wants RG3 to be a young John Elway.

"[B][I][COLOR="DarkRed"][SIZE="3"]It's good that we're implementing some of the option stuff because I have the ability to run it[/SIZE],[/COLOR][/I][/B] but I don't want people to think I'm just an option quarterback," Griffin said[/QUOTE]

[url=http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d829aa605/article/robert-griffin-iii-im-not-just-an-option-qb?module=HP11_headline_stack]Robert Griffin III: I'm not just an option QB - NFL.com[/url]

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

[QUOTE=Chris Russell]Clearly they have been evolving this offense from a running the QB perspective...[Chris Russell] don't like the notion of expecting (Griffin) to take a snap, make a read and immediately take off[/QUOTE]

06-13-12 Skins @ 1 (11:09)
Chirs Russell talking about Griffin running option
[url]http://www.stationcaster.com/player_...c=427&f=585021[/url]


[url=http://www.csnwashington.com/pages/video?PID=m1pGMz9_VrQrBmupsoUnbh0JTu7f3wI9&t=23-28]RG3: playbook turning into a second language[/url]
:24s mark vid of Griff practicing zone read QB keep

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

A standard NFL defense should be able to stop the old option play. If the Redskins incorporate this into their offense, they should use it sparingly. Griffin III is a very athletically gifted QB, but most of his runs should be made off schedule during pass plays and not designed for him to just keep the ball and outrun the defense.

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

[quote=REDSKINS4ever;922494]A standard NFL defense should be able to stop the old option play.[/quote]I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about when you say the "old option play" could you be more specific? Or do you mean option concepts as a whole (to include zone-read)?
Because surely, I'm not nor do I think anyone in this thread has suggested running the "old option play".

And when if comes to option concepts the Panthers [I]embarrassed[/I] our defense and plenty of other defenses by using different option concepts last year.
Tebow, a QB that doesn't even throw the ball very well, was able to take a 1-4 team and amass a 7-4 record and a playoff win by using option concepts almost exclusively as the basis for their offense.
But, any play or concept can be "stopped" but not without leaving the defense vulnerable somewhere else e.g. if a defense commits to stopping the the zone-read QB keep and the zone-read RB keep then they leave themselves vulenrable against playaction passing:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbqxh7GGJ1I&feature=related[/ame]

Option concepts are sound football concepts tried and true over a long period of time.
Its not a gimmick play, at its core option concepts that include the QB as a run threat create a numerical advantage over the defense.
The question is how much contact is a team willing to expose they're QB to and how much contact can the QB handle and how smart is the QB about protecting themself?


[quote]If the Redskins incorporate this into their offense, they should use it sparingly. Griffin III is a very athletically gifted QB, but most of his runs should be made off schedule during pass plays[/quote]If most of Griff's run come off schedule then imo an entire facet of the offense that his unique skillset provides will be ignored.

[quote]and not designed for him to just keep the ball and outrun the defense[/quote]I think this is a very generic and overly simplistic approach/opinion of how Griffin's running ability would be used as a threat to the defense.

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

[quote=Mattyk;919667]We do? Has this been confirmed somewhere?[/quote]

Nothing has been confirmed. If they used Brandon Banks in the wildcat in 2010, why wouldn't they use Griffin in the wildcat now? Didn't Mike Shanahan or Kyle Shanahan say that they were incorporating plays for Griffin?

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

[quote=REDSKINS4ever;922584]Nothing has been confirmed. If they used Brandon Banks in the wildcat in 2010, why wouldn't they use Griffin in the wildcat now? Didn't Mike Shanahan or Kyle Shanahan say that they were incorporating plays for Griffin?[/quote]

You CAN'T wildcat Griffin. By definition the wildcat is a formation in which someone other than the normal QB takes the snap.

You can incorporate running plays or run/pass options for Griffin (I hope we are) but that is different from a wildcat.

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

[quote=REDSKINS4ever;922584]Nothing has been confirmed. If they used Brandon Banks in the wildcat in 2010, why wouldn't they use Griffin in the wildcat now?[/quote]

When?


[YT]kEpm_H2lS_4[/YT]

This is NOT any wildcat formation.




[YT]0khG2ecVkC4&[/YT]

This IS a wildcat formation.

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

[quote=30gut;922552]I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about when you say the "old option play" could you be more specific? Or do you mean option concepts as a whole (to include zone-read)?
Because surely, I'm not nor do I think anyone in this thread has suggested running the "old option play".

And when if comes to option concepts the Panthers [I]embarrassed[/I] our defense and plenty of other defenses by using different option concepts last year.
Tebow, a QB that doesn't even throw the ball very well, was able to take a 1-4 team and amass a 7-4 record and a playoff win by using option concepts almost exclusively as the basis for their offense.
But, any play or concept can be "stopped" but not without leaving the defense vulnerable somewhere else e.g. if a defense commits to stopping the the zone-read QB keep and the zone-read RB keep then they leave themselves vulenrable against playaction passing:

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbqxh7GGJ1I&feature=related]Tim Tebow game winning touchdown to Demaryius Thomas Denver Broncos vs Pittsburgh Steelers today - YouTube[/url]

Option concepts are sound football concepts tried and true over a long period of time.
Its not a gimmick play, at its core option concepts that include the QB as a run threat create a numerical advantage over the defense.
The question is how much contact is a team willing to expose they're QB to and how much contact can the QB handle and how smart is the QB about protecting themself?


If most of Griff's run come off schedule then imo an entire facet of the offense that his unique skillset provides will be ignored.

I think this is a very generic and overly simplistic approach/opinion of how Griffin's running ability would be used as a threat to the defense.[/quote]

The term 'old option play' was used by old timers such as Pat Summerall and Lou Holtz. The wishbone offense or the option play is one of the oldest plays in the game of football today.

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

[quote=REDSKINS4ever;922609]The term 'old option play' was used by old timers such as Pat Summerall and Lou Holtz. The wishbone offense or the option play is one of the oldest plays in the game of football today.[/quote]I'm asking [I][B]you[/B][/I] what [I][B]you[/B][/I] mean by 'old option play' because there is no singular 'option play'.

The option is a football concept that is applied in various formations and systems.
Those systems are termed "[I][B]option[/B][/I]" because the execution of the play is deteremined by the ballcarrier [I][B]reading[/B][/I]/keying* off a defender giving them the [I][B]option[/B][/I]* to either keep the ball or give the ball to another possible ball carrier. Usually the read/keyed defender is unblocked by design to give the offense a numerical advantage in blocking elsewhere.
*(hence the term: [B][I]read option[/I][/B] )

Also, the wishbone is another formation/system that [I][B]can[/B][/I] be option but doesn't have to be, their are plenty of teams that use wishbone formation and don't option.

So, I ask again, what are you refering to when [I][B]you[/B][/I] say option?
I've been quite specific when I refer to option throughout this thread and like I've mentioned already in my previous post evidence on how/why option concepts are not as easily defended as you seem to think.

Lets not speak in platitudes when we can have a real football X's and O's conversation and discuss in specifics.
The aim for most of my threads is to have an honest to goodness football discussion.

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

[quote=Lotus;922588][B]You CAN'T wildcat Griffin. By definition the wildcat is a formation in which someone other than the normal QB takes the snap. [/B]

You can incorporate running plays or run/pass options for Griffin (I hope we are) but that is different from a wildcat.[/quote]

lol pretty much ends the conversation right here

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

We can't possibly be worse with Rex riding the bench, even if we finish the season 2-14.

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

[quote=30gut;922618]their are plenty of teams that use wishbone formation and don't option.[/quote]such as?

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

[quote=los panda;922633]such as?[/quote]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

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

[quote=30gut;922640]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[/quote]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. [B]since they're countless, can you name plenty or even 1 that might be relevant?[/B] 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.

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

[quote=los panda;922646]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. [B]since they're countless, can you name plenty or even 1 that might be relevant?[/B] 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.[/quote]Well, if that is all your bringing your answers are already found in my previous post:


[quote=30gut;922640]Wait, out of all the possible football discussion going on in this thread this is what you contribute?

[B][I][U]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.[/U][/I][/B]

[I][B]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.[/B][/I]

The reason?
[B][I]The wishbone is a formation its not inherently used as an [U]option offense [/U]as REDSKINSEVER suggested.[/I][/B]

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.

-Cheers[/quote]Basically your list consists of [I][B]every[/B][/I] team that has used/uses a wishbone formation and [U][I]not run the option[/I][/U] from the formation.

Simple, logic tells you that the list is long.

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

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!!

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

[quote=los panda;922646][B]since they're countless, can you name plenty or even 1 that might be relevant?[/B][/quote]a simple "no" would have sufficed

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

[quote=los panda;922707]a simple "no" would have sufficed[/quote]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 [I][B]ANY[/B][/I] 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:
[url=http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/22399/packers-rocking-the-wishbone]Packers rocking the wishbone - NFC North Blog - ESPN[/url]
[SIZE="4"]Packers rocking the wishbone[/SIZE] @ 1:05 mark

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

[quote=Kevin Seifret]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.[/quote]Just in case you don't remember Aaron Rodgers wasn't running the option that day.

Once again, cheers-

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;922703]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)[/quote]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 [I]pitch[/I] 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 [I]do[/I] 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 [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEL4K3_vO5I&feature=player_embedded[/ame]


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.

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

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?

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

[quote=30gut;922721]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 [I][B]ANY[/B][/I] 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:
[url=http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/22399/packers-rocking-the-wishbone]Packers rocking the wishbone - NFC North Blog - ESPN[/url]
[SIZE="4"]Packers rocking the wishbone[/SIZE] @ 1:05 mark

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

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

Once again, cheers-[/quote]

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.

Re: A New Look Offense or the Same but Better?
 

[quote=Lotus;922741]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.[/quote]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:

[quote=30gut/Mike Shanahan;919633][SIZE="3"][B][I][COLOR="darkred"]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[/COLOR].” [/I][/B][/SIZE][/quote]

Mike makes the same point Gruden made when talking to Tannehill about the benefits of the zone-read:
[quote=Gruden]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 play[/quote]To 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.

[quote=30gut;911689]Gruden talks about the zone read + WCO concepts that could be possibilities for our offense with Griffin:
7:50-8:30
[YT]YO6UgIg1AU4[/YT][/quote]

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.

[url=http://smartfootball.com/passing/a-very-wise-coach-once-told-me-if-you-really-want-play-action-you-better-pull-a-guard]“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[/url]

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