Idle Thoughts – the read option edition

Disclaimer: There have been enough books written on option football to fill a small library. These are thick books with hundreds of pages filled with photographs, diagrams and other assorted visual aids. You will get none of that good stuff from me. . Instead you will get some meandering observations from an old guy who is at the stage where he has forgotten more than he’s remembered. I’m sure you can google “stopping the read option offense” or “how to run the read option offense” and get a better picture of what the Pats are preparing for. In fact I hope someone who is more comfortable googling for info will do it and post it. We will all be more knowledgeable for it.

What I will do is try to give everyone a better idea of the basic concepts of what the offense is trying to do and what the defense does to defend it. My goal is to have you understand better what to look for, and be just a bit more knowledgeable when discussing it. OK…….and we’re off.

FROM THE OFFENSIVE SIDE:

1. The option, in all its various incarnation is a beautiful play. When executed correctly it is virtually impossible to defend. In fact the only real way to defend the option is to make the offense make a mistake. In other words the ONLY way the defense to stop a well run option offense is to consistently make the QB make bad reads or otherwise screw up their execution.

2. The traditional “triple option” was designed to give the QB 3 options that attacked 3 areas of the field. First was a straight dive generally run outside the OG’s outside leg. Second, the QB keeps the ball and continues to stretch the defense taking the ball and attack the outside defender on the LOS. The third option was a trailing RB (the pitch man) which the QB could lateral the ball to. In other words forcing a defender to either attack him or defend the pitch.

3. One of the reasons the offense was so successful was because part of the basic strategy was to leave 2 men on the front 7 completely unblocked. and use those guys gain advantages in other areas. The QB makes his decisions based on how those 2 unblocked men react.

4. For NFL purposes the triple option has been altered. Most of the time it’s hand off to the RB, QB run off the fake, or pass if the LB comes to defend the QB run. Every now and then I‘ve seen a pitch man, but for an NFL skilled QB the pass is the better third option. Now since there is really only one run option, in the NFL version of the read option, usually only one man is left unblocked

5. Now this would be the time were I would show you some X’S and O’s of different blocking schemes, against different defensive alignments and explain some of the possibilities, but we know THAT ain’t happening until Ian finds a way. So let me try to talk you through it.

6. Conceptually the offense wants to dictate a defensive alignment based on their offensive alignment Motion is often used to help the QB determine the coverage pre-snap. . From there a predetermined defensive lineman has designated as the “read”. In a 4-3 it might be the DE. They will not block him and will use that man to get an additional block on a DT or LB to create an advantage. Essentially they want to set up a one on one situation between the RB and DE.

7. The RB will run a tight quick slant right off whatever blocking advantage is created by the extra man, usually right off the OG’s outside leg. Attacking the LOS quickly is key. You want the defense to commit ASAP.

8. At this point the QB makes his mesh with the RB. That means he puts the ball in his pocket. The RB has no idea whether he’s getting the ball. The QB is looking at the DE (in this case). If the DE steps across the line or penetrates the LOS at all, that should create a crease, or at worse a soft spot for the RB and the QB will give the RB the ball. BTW- the mesh point is the most dangerous time for the offense. This is where most of the fumbles occur.

9. However if he steps down the LOS (but not too far) the QB knows that the crease will likely be closed and pulls the ball out and attacks the edge of the defense.

10. Understand the outside players in the offensive formation have released downfield to block or receive and thus softens the edge giving the QB a run option. If the OLB stays to protect against that possibility, it opens up a nice hole for a receiver to be wide open just over the OLB for the QB to dump the ball off. Also much like a play action pass, “read option” teams can also predetermine a pass with more elaborate routes that look like “read option” with the hope of drawing the defense up and throw over them.

11. By now you can see that playing press man against a read option can be a huge problem, because you can simply run off you the very outside defenders who are needed to defend the QB run. That’s why if Seattle is in a formation that they can run “read option” the Pats are going to have to audible out of that coverage.

12. So now let me summarize the problems the “read option” brings. In every area, the play is designed to create 2 on 1 adavantages

A. Use the extra blocker to create a bubble at the point of attack.

B. Force the “read” to play perfect technique. If he’s too aggressive, he’ll create a big crease. If he’s too cautious, he’ll create the kind of soft spot a RB like Lynch turns into a 5 yd gain

C. IF the DE plays it well, now attack the next outside defender with a pass/ run threat. If he attacks too soon the dump off will be there, if he drops, he opens the run lane.

D. When they start to play it perfectly, then use it as your play action pass look and destroy all the defense’s reads. BTW- understand the offense can also change the blocking schemes and who the "read" is, to confuse the D.

13. So hopefully now you can see what it’s such a difficult play to defend. The reality is that the only reason everyone doesn't use it is that NFL quality QB’s are too rare and hard to find to risk running the ball that often Also the more defenses see it, the better they'll get at defending it.

Wilson does a remarkable job in his decision making and avoiding hits. However you can’t avoid them all and we saw the effect of just one solid hit on Wilson by Mathews early in the game. I’m sure THAT was the reason why you didn't see the Seahawks use the “read option” until they absolutely had no other choice.

FROM THE DEFENSIVE SIDE:

1. The first step for the DC is to look at the tapes and based on what he sees and what he expects to run determine who the “read” is likely to be for each alignment

2. At that point you look in the mirror and admit to yourself that you can’t stop an option offense when the QB makes all the correct reads. THEN you do what’s necessary to make sure he DOESN'T make all the correct reads.

3. To that end there is only ONE rule, and TWO options. The rule is: if the QB makes a mesh with a RB he MUST hit the ground. EVERY SINGLE TIME. When he makes that mesh, he becomes by rule a RB and thus cannot slide (at least I think that’s the rule, and if not it should be)

The two options are to (a) attack the play and force the offense to make their reads as fast as possible, giving your team more time to react up to who actually has the ball. Or (b) delay the read as long as possible forcing the play to go laterally until the D can react up to the ball. The longer the ball goes laterally, the more the sideline comes into play as an added defender.

Personally I prefer the former, but there are others who disagree. But we all agree that you can’t just play it one way. The more looks you give the QB, the more often he will make the wrong read, and the more often, you’ll get a hat on him.

4. When playing a true option team, you would generally designate 2 players to concentrate on defending the run, one person on the QB, and one had the pitch. And just like always, you’d have signals to change that up so you might have 2 men on the QB and one man on the dive, if for example, you determined the QB was a bigger threat than the RB. So sometime you'd slow read him and have the DE try and stretch the play out, and on another have the DE attack the QB from the snap totally ignoring any other option.

5. Now that you’ve put in your base coverage, you can do a number of things that are all designed to confuse the QB. You can blitz a LB from the offside and attack the mesh point. You can have a LB and DE swap roles. You can invert a S to jump the dump off and add run support. You can rotate your secondary to do the same thing.

6. In the end no one way will work if the QB sees it too many times, but EVERY way will work if you are able to confuse the QB

7. Now understand this. When you play an committed option team, that is going to be the play that they run in some form 80% or more of the time. No NFL team would allow their QB to be exposed that many plays to hits. So we need to remember that if we see it run 10 times, that would be a lot. But that doesn’t mean we have to prepare for it. When you only have one week, that could be a problem, but when you have already seen it or prepared for it a few times already, AND have 2 weeks, it really shouldn't be a problem. I won't be surprised if they have some success with it once or twice, but if it consistently works, I’d be very surprised.

Well that’s that. If you are a casual fan, I hope that helps. If you are a student of the game, I hope I didn't bore the crap out of you.

I’m doing this late enough so that it’s been announced that most of the balls were deflated 2 lbs less than mandated. Good we are guilty. Of what I’m not exactly sure. It’s probably SOP on cold wet days, for most of the league. My only fear is that the guy who is dishing out the punishment is more concerned about how HE is going to look, than how just the punishment is for this “heinous” crime I just don’t care anymore.

My next post is going to try and show why I was so anxious to get Seattle rather than GB for this superbowl. Preview - You saw how successfully the GB defense shut down the Seattle offense for 55 minutes of the game. Well we have some specific match ups that are much better. Stay tuned.

Ken, why the hell are you talking actual football when we've got distractions to deal with?

I think for the pats defensively, the game plan will be similar to the 2011 game vs tebow and the broncos. In that game, we didn't have to worry about the passing game so much because tebow was not a great passer eventhough the pats secondary was weak. This time around, although Wilson is a better passer than Tebow, our secondary is top notch. Overall, the result is the same: the pats should be able to attack the run / option game hard.

In that game, BB chose to deploy a 5 man front with Wilfork lining up over the strong side guard rather than center. The ends moved up agressively to begin with but then held contain or continued rushing depending upon whether the play was coming at them or moving away from them. Behind the line, the pats had two linebackers and, often, a safety ready to play the sidelines.

This 5-3-3 worked very well in stringing out the option play. The defensive ends wreaked havoc, hitting tebow at every chance forcing him to take a hit every play and / or pitch it out where there rb would be met by a lb, safety or the sideline before he could make progress.

I expect to see a 3 DT, 5-man front again. Siliga over center, Wilfork over strong side guard and pick the third DT over weakside guard.

Tunescribe said:

Ken, why the hell are you talking actual football when we've got distractions to deal with?

Click to expand...

Although I've been a fan of the team since it's birth, I'm one of the casual fans Ken was talking about. I find his posts informative and very enjoyable. Thanks once again Ken.

Getting into this thread now is like going to a book signing for an outstanding author and getting the author all to yourself, while the rest of the crowd is over in the comic book section.

I would like to point to the AFC divisional round between New England and Denver in January of 2012 for a textbook defense of the read option scheme. Never has a more beautiful defense of the read option scheme been put on display.

I acknowledge that Wilson is a thousand times the passer Tebow could ever dream of being, but the scheme itself is utterly destroyed in this game.

How does the read option work against a classic 2-gap 3-4 defense? Who is there to not-block?

Baboon said:

I think for the pats defensively, the game plan will be similar to the 2011 game vs tebow and the broncos. In that game, we didn't have to worry about the passing game so much because tebow was not a great passer eventhough the pats secondary was weak. This time around, although Wilson is a better passer than Tebow, our secondary is top notch. Overall, the result is the same: the pats should be able to attack the run / option game hard.

In that game, BB chose to deploy a 5 man front with Wilfork lining up over the strong side guard rather than center. The ends moved up agressively to begin with but then held contain or continued rushing depending upon whether the play was coming at them or moving away from them. Behind the line, the pats had two linebackers and, often, a safety ready to play the sidelines.

This 5-3-3 worked very well in stringing out the option play. The defensive ends wreaked havoc, hitting tebow at every chance forcing him to take a hit every play and / or pitch it out where there rb would be met by a lb, safety or the sideline before he could make progress.

I expect to see a 3 DT, 5-man front again. Siliga over center, Wilfork over strong side guard and pick the third DT over weakside guard.

Click to expand...

I've forgotten what the 5-3-3 against Denver amounted to, but I don't think we're playing against Wilson (exotic offensive packages perhaps aside) with fewer than 4 DBs. So a 5-3-3 is only on the table if Chung (or Wilson, Arrington, whoever) is one of the LBs.

Also, instead of Ninkovich and Jones bracketing 3 DTs, I'm tempted by the idea of having Ayers in Jones' slot, with Jones inside. He's played there before, and besides the main benefit of getting through the oL faster, it also adds to the possibilities for taking DL and dropping them into coverage.

Finally, it will be tempting to assign Collins simply as a spy -- except that both Lynch and Wilson are attractive targets for him in that role. Hightower is an alternate candidate, especially in the case of Lynch.

In any of these schemes, it's easy to talk ourselves into having 5-6 or even more guys as fairly committed DL, rushers, and/or spies. That's probably not practical as a steady diet.


All that said, I lean toward having Collins spy Lynch. First, I think it's more practical to do a McGinest/Faulk on an RB than to spy a QB; a spy on a QB is like a pass rusher who's not pass rushing. Second, Collins is amazing at second efforts after missing on a tackle or other play. If he tries to stop Lynch and fails, whether due to elusiveness or blocking, there's an excellent chance he'll be back in the play as soon as anybody else slows Lynch down.

Fencer said:

I've forgotten what the 5-3-3 against Denver amounted to, but I don't think we're playing against Wilson (exotic offensive packages perhaps aside) with fewer than 4 DBs. So a 5-3-3 is only on the table if Chung (or Wilson, Arrington, whoever) is one of the LBs.

Also, instead of Ninkovich and Jones bracketing 3 DTs, I'm tempted by the idea of having Ayers in Jones' slot, with Jones inside. He's played there before, and besides the main benefit of getting through the oL faster, it also adds to the possibilities for taking DL and dropping them into coverage.

Click to expand...

I failed to indicate in my post that the 3rd interior defensive lineman was achieved by removing a linebacker. I believe Mayo and Spikes were the two behind the five man line. A safety would then take on the role of linebacker on certain plays. It wasn't a pure 5-3-3.

I like the thought of Ayers on the outside of Jones as a change of pace, but I think you need the beef of Wilfork or Siliga to shutdown both the A and B gaps, and force them to kick it out where Jones will be waiting and more able to handle a tackle or tackle / TE in the run game. (The whole scheme was designed to force the ball to the sideline. As Terrel Thuggs said mic'd up last week, "the sideline has never missed a tackle.")

As far as a spy, GB got burned by that at the end. (Traffic in the middle forced the LB out of position. LB chose to undercut the traffic rather than looping which would have allowed a moderate gain instead of the huge play Seattle got.) I just prefer playing their offense straight up rather than risking getting schemed.

But, not matter how much we scheme, BB and the pats are way ahead of us with plans of creating as much confusion as possible for a young qb.

Same more of a 5-2-4 rather than 5-3-3 due to Wilson >>> Tebow throwing the ball. Chung being the in the 'swing guy' box safety. Expect a lot of hiding Chung's intentions on a play to play basis to try to fool WIlosn. Wilson having a very high FB IQ compared to Tebow.

http://mmqb.si.com/column/deep-dive/

Here's a decent article from SI.com summarizing things for non-techie football fans like me. This guy picks the Pats to win by less than a TD. From his pen to God's ears!

The article is the one by Andy Benoit - Everything you need to Know about Superbowl 49

This is an OUTSTANDING piece Ken. It should be at the top of the board instead of the drivel thats's consumed Pats Fan Forum. IT IS THE GOD DAMN SUPERBOWL PEOPLE!

It sounds like the pro read-option is like a designed QB draw off a play-action fake.

Thanks for posting some actual football. It might be time for Ian to introduce the football analysis forum. This is thread was hard to find.

(Bump.)

Baboon said:

I think for the pats defensively, the game plan will be similar to the 2011 game vs tebow and the broncos. In that game, we didn't have to worry about the passing game so much because tebow was not a great passer eventhough the pats secondary was weak. This time around, although Wilson is a better passer than Tebow, our secondary is top notch. Overall, the result is the same: the pats should be able to attack the run / option game hard.

In that game, BB chose to deploy a 5 man front with Wilfork lining up over the strong side guard rather than center. The ends moved up agressively to begin with but then held contain or continued rushing depending upon whether the play was coming at them or moving away from them. Behind the line, the pats had two linebackers and, often, a safety ready to play the sidelines.

This 5-3-3 worked very well in stringing out the option play. The defensive ends wreaked havoc, hitting tebow at every chance forcing him to take a hit every play and / or pitch it out where there rb would be met by a lb, safety or the sideline before he could make progress.

I expect to see a 3 DT, 5-man front again. Siliga over center, Wilfork over strong side guard and pick the third DT over weakside guard.

Click to expand...

Tebow was a terrible passer, period. Wilson and Tebow are not even in the same ballpark, passing-wise.

And this is why I really doubt we will see a 5 man front.

However I am intrigued by moving Wilfork over to end; that would facilitate the scrape exchange by a backer (Hightower, for instance). We could also line up a backer on 9 tech the way GB does with Matthews to kill the mesh, and have a safety scrape over to replace him, especially as we'll probably be exclusively nickel. In this regard I would not be suprised to see Hightower on the line often.

I strongly believe that the backbone of however way we deal with the read option will be a disciplined scrape exchange by a variety of personnel/package, and that is best served with a minimum of DT's whose jobs will be to simply tie up the linemen, which is why I foresee a two men front for the most part- maybe 3 and this will also eliminate the midline read as you can't read off the 1-3 tech because they're not really doing anything. The backers will be the most active ingredients- Hightower, Collins, Ayers, and Castellas will have their jobs cut out for them as they must stay disciplined, ignore false keys, don't get sucked into fold blocking that is a staple of the read, especially the power right Seattle likes to run. Above all, they must maintain gap integrity. If they do that, they'll have a good chance of forcing Seattle into being a one-dimensional offense.

I recently decided to officially join this forum, but I've been a fan for a very long time before that and I always enjoyed your posts very much. They are always a very good read and they certainly made me a bit more knowledgeable on football. So I'd just like to thank you for that! It's a great moment to be a Pats fan and talk about actual football.

Belmont Henry said:

I recently decided to officially join this forum, but I've been a fan for a very long time before that and I always enjoyed your posts very much. They are always a very good read and they certainly made me a bit more knowledgeable on football. So I'd just like to thank you for that! It's a great moment to be a Pats fan and talk about actual football.

Click to expand...

Welcome aboard!

PP2 said:

However I am intrigued by moving Wilfork over to end; that would facilitate the scrape exchange by a backer (Hightower, for instance). We could also line up a backer on 9 tech the way GB does with Matthews to kill the mesh, and have a safety scrape over to replace him, especially as we'll probably be exclusively nickel. In this regard I would not be suprised to see Hightower on the line often.

I strongly believe that the backbone of however way we deal with the read option will be a disciplined scrape exchange by a variety of personnel/package, and that is best served with a minimum of DT's whose jobs will be to simply tie up the linemen, which is why I foresee a two men front for the most part- maybe 3 and this will also eliminate the midline read as you can't read off the 1-3 tech because they're not really doing anything. The backers will be the most active ingredients- Hightower, Collins, Ayers, and Castellas will have their jobs cut out for them as they must stay disciplined, ignore false keys, don't get sucked into fold blocking that is a staple of the read, especially the power right Seattle likes to run. Above all, they must maintain gap integrity. If they do that, they'll have a good chance of forcing Seattle into being a one-dimensional offense.

Click to expand...

A few things:

• What is a scrape exchange?
• What is fold blocking?
• His name is Casillas.
• You're unusual in forecasting "exclusively nickel". Please say more about that.

strngplyr said:

I would like to point to the AFC divisional round between New England and Denver in January of 2012 for a textbook defense of the read option scheme. Never has a more beautiful defense of the read option scheme been put on display.

I acknowledge that Wilson is a thousand times the passer Tebow could ever dream of being, but the scheme itself is utterly destroyed in this game.

Click to expand...

I was just coming to comment on the same thing. The fact that we shut DEN down twice within a month or so during the 2011 run gives me confidence.

As long as the defensive players do their jobs and keep their responsibilities, I think they can do well vs. SEA.

supafly said:

I was just coming to comment on the same thing. The fact that we shut DEN down twice within a month or so during the 2011 run gives me confidence.

As long as the defensive players do their jobs and keep their responsibilities, I think they can do well vs. SEA.

Click to expand...

Woah, what are you doing, talking about the game, this isn't what we're supposed to be doing as wimpy fans right now!

strngplyr said:

Woah, what are you doing, talking about the game, this isn't what we're supposed to be doing as wimpy fans right now!

Click to expand...

I'm starting to come to the realization that we're completely screwed with the other topic. There is some stuff in here from 6 hrs ago that I did not originally know.

http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story...-had-inflated-footballs-afc-championship-game