Hitting the QB in the read option

[ivanvamp]

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?

 

[jmt57]

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?

I saw on one of the NFL shows recently that the refs were instructing teams and their players that for the QB to not be hit that he needed to throw up his hands in a surrender fashion, to indicate that he no longer had the ball. One of the analysts pointed out that doing so takes away a key point of the read option - deception - in the fact that it tells all the defenders that he does not have the ball. The other problem with this 'point of emphasis' is the speed of the game; how does a defender stop his velocity and momentum in that split second?


Bottom line is that I agree, hit the read option QB as early and often as possible. For an analogy think of how the Patriots defended Marshall Faulk in Super Bowl 36.

 

[AzPatsFan]

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?

It is legal and that is what Ninko expects to do.

My real proposition is which will last longer the Read Option fad, or the health of RG III and Colin Kaepernick? So far the health expectancy of Read option QBs running QBs i n the NFL is about 8-10 games. RG III didn't make it passed 10 games. Kaepernick is bigger, but he has only played 6 games so far. I predict he won't finish the season if he keeps playing the Read Option fad.

Wilson doesn't Read Option, up in Seattle. He is a re-incarnation of Fran Tarkenton who played into his 40s. Tark scrambled to AVOID the hits, threw it to a receiver, or threw it away, or went down to avoid the hits.

 

[jmt57]

Wilson holds on to the ball way too long. For now I'll attribute that to his being a rookie last year, but he is going to need to improve on that in order to last in the NFL. Rather than extending a play with his legs and taking sacks there are times he would be better served by throwing the ball away.

If Wilson can progress in that area then he should have a better career than the other young quarterbacks (Griffin, Kaepernick, Newton) that get much more publicity. Despite that flaw Wilson only turned the ball over 16 times last year (10 INT, 3 Fumbles Lost), with just five turnovers in his final 13 games.

His 33 sacks are middle of the pack but considering Wilson dropped back to pass so many fewer times, it really stands out; he was sacked 7.7% of the time he dropped back to pass. For the sake of comparison the only active starting QBs with a higher sack percentage are Alex Smith (8.26%), Ben Roethlisberger (8.38%) and Michael Vick (8.60%); even guys you think of getting sacked a lot like Jay Cutler (6.31%) and Philip Rivers (5.79%) are better in that regard.

 

[Oinko]

To be hit the QB has to do pretend run action, like he's got the ball still.

And also, it can't just be ridiculous, like seconds after the ball is gone, and he's just standing there, and you sucker hit him.

Really, it shouldn't be all that different from a play-action pass motion, where Tom Brady hands it off but holds his hands up like he might still have the ball and be passing it. If the defender is back there and he pretends to have it, he's fair game. But a defender can't just come 3 seconds later and t-bone him.

 

[Get it shawtaay]

The deep animosity towards "read option quarterbacks" on this site is hilarious. Did one of them sleep with your wives or something?

 

[borg]

The deep animosity towards "read option quarterbacks" on this site is hilarious. Did one of them sleep with your wives or something?

My favorite post of the new year

 

[ivanvamp]

The deep animosity towards "read option quarterbacks" on this site is hilarious. Did one of them sleep with your wives or something?

What are you talking about?

 

[Bruins29]

The deep animosity towards "read option quarterbacks" on this site is hilarious. Did one of them sleep with your wives or something?

I dont see anyone showing any animosity towards any of the "read" guys. In fact it sounds like its more admiration than anything else. It is really mostly a discussion about ways to countermeasure the read QB by beating him up as much as possible.

Are you ok?

 

[Get it shawtaay]

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?

 

[Modest]

The deep animosity towards "read option quarterbacks" on this site is hilarious. Did one of them sleep with your wives or something?

 

[Get it shawtaay]

Wilson holds on to the ball way too long. For now I'll attribute that to his being a rookie last year, but he is going to need to improve on that in order to last in the NFL. Rather than extending a play with his legs and taking sacks there are times he would be better served by throwing the ball away.

If Wilson can progress in that area then he should have a better career than the other young quarterbacks (Griffin, Kaepernick, Newton) that get much more publicity. Despite that flaw Wilson only turned the ball over 16 times last year (10 INT, 3 Fumbles Lost), with just five turnovers in his final 13 games.

His 33 sacks are middle of the pack but considering Wilson dropped back to pass so many fewer times, it really stands out; he was sacked 7.7% of the time he dropped back to pass. For the sake of comparison the only active starting QBs with a higher sack percentage are Alex Smith (8.26%), Ben Roethlisberger (8.38%) and Michael Vick (8.60%); even guys you think of getting sacked a lot like Jay Cutler (6.31%) and Philip Rivers (5.79%) are better in that regard.

Wilson holds onto the ball because of several things.

1. His height makes it difficult for him to find receivers from inside the pocket, and once he's out he's got to run around like Frogger if he doesn't find a man right away.

2. He's simply not very good at reading defenses. Most of Wilson's chain-moving completions come on the first read or in a scrambling situation where he can use his instinct to wait for someone to work free playground style and just chuck it.

 

[Fencer]

Beating up a guy in the hope of injuring him (even slightly) is a dubious strategy. If it works too well, the league will soon put in protections.

Ditto for beating up a guy and making him afraid of pain. Enforcer safeties are not allowed to be as valuable as they used to be.

As fans of the team Darryl Stingley played for, we should approve of the above the trends.

HOWEVER, beating up a receiver to disrupt his route is an excellent tactic. Belichick's clever thought vs. the Rams was to note that Faulk, despite being listed as an RB, was an important enough receiver to be worth beating up.

Disrupting a blocker is another important tactic, of course.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

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?

I know the Wildcat is not the same thing as the read-option, but wasn't the secret to neutering the Wildcat to just have the D maintain their normal roles, and not try to do something exotic as a counter?

 

[BradyFTW!]

Beating up a guy in the hope of injuring him (even slightly) is a dubious strategy. If it works too well, the league will soon put in protections.

Ditto for beating up a guy and making him afraid of pain. Enforcer safeties are not allowed to be as valuable as they used to be.

As fans of the team Darryl Stingley played for, we should approve of the above the trends.

HOWEVER, beating up a receiver to disrupt his route is an excellent tactic. Belichick's clever thought vs. the Rams was to note that Faulk, despite being listed as an RB, was an important enough receiver to be worth beating up.

Disrupting a blocker is another important tactic, of course.

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.

On a side note, I think that Newton, more than any of the other guys, is built to last and could potentially have a long and productive career as a QB who runs frequently and effectively.

 

[Joker]

yeah, the counter is covering the gaps as the play unfolds in either direction...if the D penetrates, the gaps open...that's how the Pats stopped the Phins finally...the read option is QB centric, so you need THAT skill behind center...hitting the QB seems to be a reasonable counter to eventually slow it, but QB's like Kaep and Cam are fast AND pretty stout, especially Cam. Russell Wilson and RG3 are dynamic, no question...but I have to see it to believe they'll have a long shelf life in THIS league,especially if defenses game plan constant hitting on them.

 

[lurker1965]

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?

Sounds good until you think about it.

First off some basics on what the read option is: No, what the Broncos ran out of the Pistol is NOT the read option. Peyton Manning is NOT a creditable running threat.
In a running play the offense is usually 1 man down because the QB is not really involved in the play. (Yes, it can be drawn up with the QB throwing a block, but, c'mon, it's a QB.)

In the read option the QB is a creditable running threat so he "reads" the DE. if he is setting the edge, he keeps it and cuts back. (Into the middle like you often see if Tebow keeps it.) If the DE is lackadaisical about the edge because he is concerned about the QB running threat, he hands off.

What you would do is make his read obvious. After he hands it off the DE can't blast him without personal foul call. (Otherwise why not have a NT or DT blast Brady after every hand off to Ridley?)

The two ways to defend it I know of are:
1) Tampa 2. The CBs are close to the line and can return the defenses "one more man" superiority. Of course, then you are in a Tampa 2. But what read option QB do you think can take advantage of that? (That's rhetorical. I'm sure some QB eventually will be a good passer AND a good runner.)
2) Muddy the read. I'm not sure how, but it has been done by, for instance, making a LB set the edge when he usually does not have that responsibility. (Of course, that leaves other weaknesses - often in coverage after they have declared to be running, but if it is a trick play... etc.)
If you have good coaches, I favor #2.

Edit: sorry I got long winded and probably repeated another obvious objection. I should read the thread before responding.

 

[lurker1965]

I saw on one of the NFL shows recently that the refs were instructing teams and their players that for the QB to not be hit that he needed to throw up his hands in a surrender fashion, to indicate that he no longer had the ball. One of the analysts pointed out that doing so takes away a key point of the read option - deception - in the fact that it tells all the defenders that he does not have the ball. The other problem with this 'point of emphasis' is the speed of the game; how does a defender stop his velocity and momentum in that split second?


Bottom line is that I agree, hit the read option QB as early and often as possible. For an analogy think of how the Patriots defended Marshall Faulk in Super Bowl 36.

Be careful what you wish for. Brady must now throw up his hands after every handoff or the Bernard Pollards of the world can claim they thought he was scrambling.

 

[ivanvamp]

Sounds good until you think about it.

First off some basics on what the read option is: No, what the Broncos ran out of the Pistol is NOT the read option. Peyton Manning is NOT a creditable running threat.
In a running play the offense is usually 1 man down because the QB is not really involved in the play. (Yes, it can be drawn up with the QB throwing a block, but, c'mon, it's a QB.)

In the read option the QB is a creditable running threat so he "reads" the DE. if he is setting the edge, he keeps it and cuts back. (Into the middle like you often see if Tebow keeps it.) If the DE is lackadaisical about the edge because he is concerned about the QB running threat, he hands off.

What you would do is make his read obvious. After he hands it off the DE can't blast him without personal foul call. (Otherwise why not have a NT or DT blast Brady after every hand off to Ridley?)

The two ways to defend it I know of are:
1) Tampa 2. The CBs are close to the line and can return the defenses "one more man" superiority. Of course, then you are in a Tampa 2. But what read option QB do you think can take advantage of that? (That's rhetorical. I'm sure some QB eventually will be a good passer AND a good runner.)
2) Muddy the read. I'm not sure how, but it has been done by, for instance, making a LB set the edge when he usually does not have that responsibility. (Of course, that leaves other weaknesses - often in coverage after they have declared to be running, but if it is a trick play... etc.)
If you have good coaches, I favor #2.

Edit: sorry I got long winded and probably repeated another obvious objection. I should read the thread before responding.

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.

 

[Oinko]

yeah, the counter is covering the gaps as the play unfolds in either direction...if the D penetrates, the gaps open...that's how the Pats stopped the Phins finally...the read option is QB centric, so you need THAT skill behind center...hitting the QB seems to be a reasonable counter to eventually slow it, but QB's like Kaep and Cam are fast AND pretty stout, especially Cam. Russell Wilson and RG3 are dynamic, no question...but I have to see it to believe they'll have a long shelf life in THIS league,especially if defenses game plan constant hitting on them.

And another point of emphasis is -- if you're expending thought, reaction time, and practice on the idea of hitting the quarterback just to be hitting him, then you're probably not focusing enough on tackling the actual ball carrier.

These plays develop lightning fast and you pretty much need to focus on beating your blocker and putting a hat on the ball. Too much "chess mentality" if you're running after the guy you know doesn't have it.

It's an afterthought -- yeah, if they've got a quarterback who keeps it a lot, hit him every time you find yourself coming at him and he's in a running motion. But that's about as far as it goes.