Hitting the QB in the read option

Get it shawtaay said:

OK a few thoughts.

1. Classifying RGIII, Kaepernick, and Wilson (add Cam Newton to that list as well) as "read option quarterbacks" is a gross oversimplification. All of them are passers first and runners second. Furthermore, outside of RGIII, all of them more often than not ran plays where they weren't called upon to either carry the ball or simulate a ball-carrier while going upfield. Normal shotgun sets, designed rollouts, pistol handoffs and fakes where they were well out of the reach of defenders, etc.

2. Steve Young had 722 career carries to his credit. Randall Cunningham had 775. The notion that a quarterback who carries the ball (and usually is going out of bounds at the end of those carries) can't go 10 games without getting messed up is ridiculous.

Do people want to see them get injured and fail? Is it some kind of strange wishful thinking?

Click to expand...

No it isn't, Kaepernick runs, not passes quite often,just like RG III. Steve & Randall did it, but not part of the planned Offense; and we've seen it all before. Unlike the Single wing revival, aka "Wildcat", which preserved the QB, the Read-Option is an opportunity to "Kill the QB!" ball carrier or not, on every play.
The fad won't last long, as NFL level QBs are too rare. :bricks:

The best running QB perhaps ever, was and is, our very own tough guy, Steve Grogan. The year to remember and confirm it as proof, is still the standing record in NFL record books, when the Pats rushed for over 3100 hundred yards that season, with Grogan a major running contributor. It is several hundred yards better than the next best team rushing performance, ever. It was accomplished in a 14 game season too.

But eventually after a year or two, Grogan's knees were shot, and he had to play pocket passer or quit, so he did. Grogan was not one the all-time Greats passing the football, but he was much more accomplished than Keapernick, RG III or Cam Newton or perpetually injured running QB Michael Vick.

ivanvamp said:

Then I would take away the handoff and make the QB run every time. Then you can absolutely destroy him on every running play - legally. Eventually they'll stop doing that, but if you take away the RB handoff every time, either the QB continues to get mauled or they stop running the read option.

I don't think SF really wants Kaepernick running 25 times a game all season, even if early on he's gaining lots of yardage. No QB in the league can withstand that kind of punishment.

Click to expand...

That'll work, if they don't have a good/ better option on the bench.

With Kaepernick, etc. good idea, but with Tebow - the coach may be excited by the idea of him getting injured.

BradyFTW! said:

This is football. If it's legal to hit a guy, and that's an effective strategy for stopping what they're doing, then of course you should hit him.

Click to expand...

The Saints faced heavy suspensions for taking that theory too far.

My point was that if you DON'T take the theory too far, then you also are unlikely to accomplish much -- especially if it's a sustained strategy, rather than a one-game special plan.

ivanvamp said:

I think the way to defend the read option is to drill the QB on every play. He takes enough of those hits and they'll have to stop running it so the QB doesn't get killed out there.

The question is: how much abuse do you think the refs will allow teams to get away with in this regard? In the Pats' SB win over the Rams, the Pats hit Faulk on nearly every play, whether he had the ball or not. And on a running play, where the QB is a threat to run (which is how the read option works), he can't have the same protections that a pocket passer would have. So what do you guys think? How much will the league and refs let teams hit the QB on the read option?

Click to expand...

You weren't asking about it, but the initial strategy of hitting the QB every play will probably leave defenses exposed, so it might not be that good an idea

Basically, for the defender to hit the QB, he's going to have to be going at the QB from the snap. That means he's leaving his gap. First time he does it, he might get a hit on the QB. The next time he does it, he's going to watch the RB go right by him on a counter play or an inverted veer.

Demosthenes said:

You weren't asking about it, but the initial strategy of hitting the QB every play will probably leave defenses exposed, so it might not be that good an idea

Basically, for the defender to hit the QB, he's going to have to be going at the QB from the snap. That means he's leaving his gap. First time he does it, he might get a hit on the QB. The next time he does it, he's going to watch the RB go right by him on a counter play or an inverted veer.

Click to expand...

No offensive system is unstoppable, not even the read-option offense that is hot right now.

To stop the read-option, three things need to work in unison..

Defensive ends who can get upfield, and stack the point of attack to keep the play inside

Corners who can play press-man coverage , jam receivers and disrupt patterns

which frees up an extra defender down in the box , a safety or fast LB'er, to spy the QB, preferably a safety.

If the QB breaks contain the safety shoots the gap and lays a hit on him....here's a picture of a safety fans should be familiar with...



safeties like THIS hitting the Wilson's and RG3's five or ten times a game WILL take a toll. A QB is no good sitting on IR from crunching hits at the end of the season.

The premise of the OP worked in the old school NFL. In today's NFL, wearing down a QB (that frequently runs) through hitting him is much more difficult. Most defenders pull up with the QB because of the threat of sliding. A QB that gets hit after even slightly going into a slide is 15 yards and a new set of downs. IMHO, even prior to the read-option QBs coming onto the scene, this rule is unfair to the defender. It has ultimately led to what I mentioned, most defenders are often thinking pull up as they go at a QB running the ball.

A QB that can pass and run is not a new thing. Why wouldn't you want your QB to be a mutli threat? Yet it didn't have a lot of success (exceptions noted) because the QB by nature is an upright runner, and running upright against the frighteningly effective battering rams on defense was a ticket to the IR waiting to happen. But with the slide/pull up, protections afforded receivers, and the more physically built "read-option" QB, I think there is room for the higher level success that was previously elusive. But I would agree with someone who noted someone like RG3's size. I doubt he can have a long career if he is putting up 75 to a 100 rushes a season. Put another way, the Skins always better have one of the more capable #2 QBs.

Today's NFL sees defenses built for the pocket passer. Why wouldn't they? These style QBs have been the ones winning the SB. Yet the read-option QB is nothing more than the constant evolution of the game. It's analogous to the advent of the west coast offense. Where something was discovered-employed that could beat the standard built defense. It simply puts the ball in the defensive coaches/planners court to employ something else that what will slow the read-option down (it can't be old school hit 'em and wear 'em down). If they do it soon then the read-option will sputter. If they don't/aren't able to, read-option will become widespread. This is the simple and normal evolutionary process of the game that started way back with the first coach who figured out you didn't have to run the ball 95% of the time.

Fencer said:

The Saints faced heavy suspensions for taking that theory too far.

My point was that if you DON'T take the theory too far, then you also are unlikely to accomplish much -- especially if it's a sustained strategy, rather than a one-game special plan.

Click to expand...

No they did not, They were fined for bountys and for talk about taking out a players knees. Not for treating the QB as a RB when he is running the ball.

And what is a sustained strategy? The pats play each opponent different every week and will always do so under BB

ivanvamp said:

Then I would take away the handoff and make the QB run every time. Then you can absolutely destroy him on every running play - legally. Eventually they'll stop doing that, but if you take away the RB handoff every time, either the QB continues to get mauled or they stop running the read option.

Click to expand...

They call it from the sideline as a "give" a lot of times, meaning it's a give no matter what he sees. In those plays, the same tempo and motion are kept ( put the ball in the belly for a pause) to maintain deception. And for those who are anticipating the quarterback having it ( like you say you would be looking to do), it keeps them honest.

On some levels it can be compared to bootleg action, where the quarterback can keep it from the same action, but you would use it sparingly to keep the backside honest. The "keep" on the read option is a way of doing (keep the backside honest) from the shotgun.

At one time it was said that the shotgun formation hurts the running game. Read option is one way to tilt back in the favor of shotgun. Because you can make all the passing plays have a "play action" for run before throwing it, you can hand off to an RB, and the third element is have the QB keep it if the end crashes down.

You wouldn't want to run it every time where the quarterback has the option to keep it, because they will indeed start to punish him.

AzPatsFan said:

NThe year to remember and confirm it as proof, is still the standing record in NFL record books, when the Pats rushed for over 3100 hundred yards that season, with Grogan a major running contributor. It is several hundred yards better than the next best team rushing performance, ever. It was accomplished in a 14 game season too.

Click to expand...

Not quite. Patriots set the NFL single-season rushing record of 3165 yards in 1978, which assuredly was a 16-game season.

ivanvamp said:

I think the way to defend the read option is to drill the QB on every play. He takes enough of those hits and they'll have to stop running it so the QB doesn't get killed out there.

The question is: how much abuse do you think the refs will allow teams to get away with in this regard? In the Pats' SB win over the Rams, the Pats hit Faulk on nearly every play, whether he had the ball or not. And on a running play, where the QB is a threat to run (which is how the read option works), he can't have the same protections that a pocket passer would have. So what do you guys think? How much will the league and refs let teams hit the QB on the read option?

Click to expand...

Well, according to my understanding of the rules, a QB can be treated as a runner in read option plays. That is unless he quickly after faking the handoff actually changes stance and goes to the act of throwing the ball.

This is a direct quote from the rulebook digest:
"Any offensive player who pretends to possess the ball or to whom a teammate pretends to give the ball may be tackled provided he is crossing his scrimmage line between the ends of a normal tight offensive line."

More importantly, a player who pretends to possess the ball is NOT considered a defenseless player or the passer, so only the QB specific "below the knee area" rule should be applied from the rules below.

However, this is a tricky thing, because a QB is actually considered defenseless player, after a change of posession. So if the referees do not consider that he pretends to possess the ball, he cannot be hit like a runner.

There are 3 rules that protect the quarterback (two of which only protect him when he is considered a passer):
1) Quarterback cannot be hit to the knee area or below, if the defender has an unrestricted path to him (from any direction). This is the only rule specified to the player lining up in Quarterback position.
2) After the forward pass has left his hand, he becomes "the passer". This is when he cannot be hit or even run into, unless the defender cannot stop his momentum after the ball has left the passers hand. Any player who passes a forward pass is protected by this rule.
3) When a player (any player) is in the act of or just after throwing a pass, he is considered a defenseless player. At that time he cannot be A) hit to head or neck area with basically anything or B) hit to any part of his body with the crow of the hitters helmet. These penalties are sometimes called "roughing the passer", but the correct call is "unnecessary roughenss".

So whack the QB, if he simulates read option and pretends to rush with the ball. But to be on the safe side, don't hit him with the type of hits that draw the "unnecessary roughness" penalty, just in case refs think he clearly handed off the ball.

Few hard tackles on a QB who doesn't even have the ball should make the OC's reconsider how many times they call those plays the rest of the game.

I would defend it like I would any mobile quarterback. Worry about the run first. Having Wilfork is a luxury against this. Have the DL stay in two gap discipline, effectively set the edge on both sides of the LOS, and make the quarterback come off his primary read on passing plays. Containing the edge makes the quarterback less of a threat to break a run to the outside while staying in our two gap discipline with the size of our DL makes it hard for the RB to run up the A or B gaps. This is essentially how the Patriots slowed Kaepernick in the second half last year to get back in the game, and the way that they humiliated Tebow in 2011.

KontradictioN said:

I would defend it like I would any mobile quarterback. Worry about the run first. Having Wilfork is a luxury against this. Have the DL stay in two gap discipline, effectively set the edge on both sides of the LOS, and make the quarterback come off his primary read on passing plays. Containing the edge makes the quarterback less of a threat to break a run to the outside while staying in our two gap discipline with the size of our DL makes it hard for the RB to run up the A or B gaps. This is essentially how the Patriots slowed Kaepernick in the second half last year to get back in the game, and the way that they humiliated Tebow in 2011.

Click to expand...

The Pats destroyed Tebow and the Broncos by running a 5 man front for most of the game. They shifted (shaded) Wilfork's alignment based off of where the RB was positioned.

Demosthenes said:

The Pats destroyed Tebow and the Broncos by running a 5 man front for most of the game. They shifted (shaded) Wilfork's alignment based off of where the RB was positioned.

Click to expand...

That five man front looked a lot like the 3-4 under based on what I saw. Three DL, two LB's. Nevertheless, the LB's were responsible for setting the edge, the Pats stayed in two gap discipline, they kept Tebow in the pocket, and forced him off his first read.

And I was only using Tebow as an example so please, for the love of God and all that is holy, let's not de-rail this thread and turn it into Tebow Mania.

KontradictioN said:

That five man front looked a lot like the 3-4 under based on what I saw. Three DL, two LB's. Nevertheless, the LB's were responsible for setting the edge, the Pats stayed in two gap discipline, they kept Tebow in the pocket, and forced him off his first read.

And I was only using Tebow as an example so please, for the love of God and all that is holy, let's not de-rail this thread and turn it into Tebow Mania.

Click to expand...

Not going to derail it

The defense I saw most of the game looked like a 5-2. Yes, it was 3 DL and 2 LBs, but the 2 LBs spent most of the day in the Denver backfield and as you said, they set the edge. But, they did that at a cost. A cost which Denver didn't try to exploit, but a cost none the less. That "cost" is that they ran a 7 man box leaving 4 defenders for coverage.


A 6 man oline, plus 1 QB and 1 RB makes 8, leaving 3 WRs with 4 defenders in coverage. There's a bunch of different ways to attack that.

What I'm trying to point out is that stopping a Read/Spread option attack isn't really as simple as just running 2 gap and setting both edges, especially if the Offense has gone pretty far down the rabbit hole wrt an option system.

lurker1965 said:

That'll work, if they don't have a good/ better option on the bench.

With Kaepernick, etc. good idea, but with Tebow - the coach may be excited by the idea of him getting injured.

Click to expand...

Classy post rooting for a player to get injured. I think Tebow can be very useful for the Pats running the wildcat (or wildhorse as McDaniels called it in Denver) giving Brady a little bit of rest on obvious running downs. Keep Brady fresh and give Tebow a chance to do what he does best which is play a running qb. I'm definitely more optimistic about this move than some pats fans are.