How Can the Pats Stop the Ravens?

[luuked]

I see what you’re saying but it’s not like the back is the only one who can receive the ball. You can set up formations to run counters/sweeps. There could be an H back who is either blocking for the tail back on a counter or receiving the ball on a sweep.

That is all true.

That being said sometimes to take a bite of efficiency out of an offense you just need to make them switch off their staples to stuff they have used less or are not as absolutely confident in.

Maybe making their usual option play unviable and making them switch to a different formation or whatever other wrinkle introduces some hesitation or messes up timings.

It is the old "make them play left-handed/on your terms" kinda jazz. Instead of trying to show how smart you are against their best shot make them beat themselves with the rest of their portfolio.

 

[sb1]

Watching highlights from the Chargers Ravens playoff game. Feels after watching it wasn’t quite the game which exposes the Ravens RPO like it felt at the time. Same Ravens offense and they were making plays. Feels like their OL though is way better now than it was then.

If there is a rematch some creative ways to get pressure would be good for the Pats.

 

[Ring 6]

you’re literally assuming the the unblocked d end will know if it’s an option or an automatic give. You are also assuming that if it is an option, hell know what kind of option it is.

think about it. You want him to crash on the QB everytime there’s an option. You really can’t see how he could make a mistake?

Baltimore could leave the end unblocked on a play which isn’t an option

When the de us unblocked it is either an option coming his way or a play going away from him that the offense believes he is no threat to.
You are basically making up something that can’t happen, pretending it happens then assuming that a football player on a football field plays with his eyes closed.
You keep implying there could be a play where dedicating a player to the running QB would be a disaster and ignoring the running QB would be better. Give an example.

On an inside hand off you must have a player dedicated to the qb keeper because he will keep it every single time if you do not. On an outside option if no one takes the qb he will keep it every single time.
You are asking the player best positioned to stop the qb to ignite him and inviting Jackson to run.
What do you want the unblocked PLAYSIDE player to do?

 

[Ring 6]

I think the point he is trying to make is that by having a player always go for the QB you take the guess work on option plays out of the equation. Meaning you sacrifice a player but at the same time also know that the ball will go to the RB and you can scheme accordingly without the need for a plan B.

Now whether that ultimately helps or not I am not sure. But keeping in mind that the player they are option-ing off of usually ends up doing nothing anyway I'd be interested to see what you could do if you take the guess work out of the option play.

Of course this would work for a series or two and then they'd adjust to that taking advantage of the predictability of your crashing player. Hell, maybe they already have that adjustment build in and it only works for 3-4 plays.


Ultimately, while scheme will play a role in this I think people are overthinking it here. Most importantly what you need is absolute discipline and players not taking even one wrong step on the edge.

There was a play in the first meeting where we had LJ dead in the backfield but KVN took one single step to far up hoping to sack him for a bigger loss and LJ juked him and broke contain for a big play.

I think the biggest thing is to not get greedy and try to get those extra 2-3 yards on stops but rather go for the conservative but sure angle on tackles. And so on.

It might not be fancy or sexy but fundamentally sound football absolutely necessary. The reason they look like a buzzsaw on offense is because players are just undisciplined, greedy and way to aggressive.

Like Bruschi said..

There really isn’t a predictability factor because it’s a stone cold read every play. The ONLY response is to hand the ball off. Dedicating the optioned off of man to qb dictates either the qb gives it up or he runs into an unblocked player only worried about him.
Sure he could make a play but if you lose because unblocked players can’t make tackles you lose no matter what you do.

 

[Ring 6]

I see what you’re saying but it’s not like the back is the only one who can receive the ball. You can set up formations to run counters/sweeps. There could be an H back who is either blocking for the tail back on a counter or receiving the ball on a sweep.

Like you said this could work for a few plays. You can easily adjust to this.

The main point to this is, which I’ve said and you already basically stated is that whether the end stays home, or cashes the QB... there is no difference. The ravens still have that advantage that he isn’t coming down that I originally mentioned which ignited this discussion

There are 10 other players to defend those plays.
Somehow you think the qb will take the snap, fake a handoff in the b gap them find a different player to get the ball and run to the c gap on the same said while the de is unblocked and bearing down in the qb?


It sounds like you want the unblocked man to just stand still and watch the play. So in your world when a team runs option the unblocked man has neither qb or rb he has mystery player who may materialize and run a new play never created before.


Scott’s comments are saying if the player does what you want you are screwed.

Listen to his comment. “As long as he has the ball the de does t know what to do”. This is why the option was created. In the traditional option the qb runs at the unblocked player. As soon as he commits to the Qb the pitch comes out. If he doesn’t commit the QBs keeps and the unblocked man took himself out of the play.
I am saying, consistent with 50 years of defensive philosophy vs the option that instead of staying in no mans land and taking yourself out of the play the unblocked man needs to have options rules and commit to one or the other. I can believe it’s gone on this long and you still don’t get that this is the most basic concept of defending the option.
You are telling the de to do exactly what Scott says the problem is. If you want to unblocked man to play rb, fine, but I would rather take away the qb.
but to tell him to stand there and do nothing Is suicide.

 

[Ring 6]

I see what you’re saying but it’s not like the back is the only one who can receive the ball. You can set up formations to run counters/sweeps. There could be an H back who is either blocking for the tail back on a counter or receiving the ball on a sweep.

Like you said this could work for a few plays. You can easily adjust to this.

The main point to this is, which I’ve said and you already basically stated is that whether the end stays home, or cashes the QB... there is no difference. The ravens still have that advantage that he isn’t coming down that I originally mentioned which ignited this discussion

A couple more things. 1 to your last sentence that is completely backwards from what I am saying. I want the end (or whoever is unblocked) to aggressively take QB. So he IS coming down and he is influencing, actually dictating Jackson decision. Jackson can’t keep. The other 10 players understand that because it’s the scheme.

now as far as “misdirection”. Misdirection is when you show action in one direction then run the play back in the other direction.
In this example I suppose it would be a reverse. The QBs shows run left and the inside de is unblocked. I say the onside de declares aggressively on the qb keeper. Misdirection would mean either the QB doesn’t hand off and runs back across the formation to the right or pitches to a reverse.
Why would what the unblocked DE does on action coming left hurt you on a misdirection run back to the right.

You seem to have conflated what the optioned off player does when he is optioned off with a scheme to crash the de inside on every play all game, the latter of which I never even suggested for a moment.

 

[luuked]

There really isn’t a predictability factor because it’s a stone cold read every play

It is predictable as in you know exactly what the DE will do on every play that looks like the option. The same way them handing it to the RB would become predictable if you always crash on the QB and they never change something up or add a wrinkle.

Again I am not sure what said adjustments would be but I'd be shocked if they could not somehow take advantage of knowing what the DE will do on every play.

 

[Ring 6]

It is predictable as in you know exactly what the DE will do on every play that looks like the option. The same way them handing it to the RB would become predictable if you always crash on the QB and they never change something up or add a wrinkle.

Again I am not sure what said adjustments would be but I'd be shocked if they could not somehow take advantage of knowing what the DE will do on every play.

But it's not predicted its read.
The de isnt doing anything in every play he is playing the keeper when he sees option.
The only way to counter that is to not keep.
I mean we have 50+ years of option football to look at.
If you want to have the unblocked man flatten down to the inside run sometimes ok, but that only changes the read and the QB keeps.
The other poster is suggesting the unblocked player stand there and do nothing out of fear he could be duped by some unknown kind of play no one can describe, so let’s just have the player at the point of attack who is being optioned off of choose neither and essentially fall to the ground. It just makes no sense.

 

[fightingirish595]

@Ring 6

you realize same side counter plays exist right?

 

[Ring 6]

@Ring 6

you realize same side counter plays exist right?

Not off an option look and even if they did you still have to account for the qb.

please describe the play you are alluding that would make my option strategy a problem

I think you have continued to refuse to that because you can’t.

and you are aware 11 players don’t play counter right?
Edit: wait do you understand what a counter is?
Please describe a “same side counter”.
This should be interesting. I’d love to hear the play design that uses counter action (a fake in one direction to get players moving in that direction in order to run the play to the vacated area) that is run on the same side of the formation that you are trucking defenders to go to.

 

[fightingirish595]

Not off an option look and even if they did you still have to account for the qb.

please describe the play you are alluding that would make my option strategy a problem

I think you have continued to refuse to that because you can’t.

and you are aware 11 players don’t play counter right?
Edit: wait do you understand what a counter is?
Please describe a “same side counter”.
This should be interesting. I’d love to hear the play design that uses counter action (a fake in one direction to get players moving in that direction in order to run the play to the vacated area) that is run on the same side of the formation that you are trucking defenders to go to.

a counter to the side that the back is aligned on. Not complicated stuff

 

[Ring 6]

a counter to the side that the back is aligned on. Not complicated stuff

That makes no sense.

 

[fightingirish595]

That makes no sense.

Are you saying teams dont run counters to the same side the back is on? Because they absolutely do. If the back is lined up on the right side of the QB, you can absolutely run a counter to the right side. I’ve seen teams do it

 

[Ring 6]

Are you saying teams dont run counters to the same side the back is on? Because they absolutely do. If the back is lined up on the right side of the QB, you can absolutely run a counter to the right side. I’ve seen teams do it

What?
Explain how you fake a run AT the unblocked optioned on man then “counter” right back at him.
Are you trying to tel your “same same side counter” argument was the you start action away from the side the rb is aligned on them counter back? How does that have anything whatsoever to do with the player declaring keep or rb?
It has zero relevance.

 

[fightingirish595]

What?
Explain how you fake a run AT the unblocked optioned on man then “counter” right back at him.
Are you trying to tel your “same same side counter” argument was the you start action away from the side the rb is aligned on them counter back? How does that have anything whatsoever to do with the player declaring keep or rb?
It has zero relevance.

it has plenty of relevance. Back lines up on the right. The end on right side of the formation from the offense point of view is unblocked if it’s an option. If it’s a counter, he initially is unblocked, but would eventually be blocked by someone pulling from the left side of he stays home. however in your “scheme” he may crash the QB because he thinks it’s an option but it’s really just a give all the way

 

[Ring 6]

Are you saying teams dont run counters to the same side the back is on? Because they absolutely do. If the back is lined up on the right side of the QB, you can absolutely run a counter to the right side. I’ve seen teams do it

Explain what you disagree with

1) when teams run option the unique facet of the play is that they do not block a player because they will read him and choose which of the 2 options eliminate him from the play.
2) everyone who has defended the option in our lifetimes gives that player an
Assignment. Either the qb or the run
3) if that optioned player is indecisive it’s a huge win for the offense because he takes himself out of both potential plays.
3b) the assignments of the other 10 players are independent but built off of what you assign the unblocked player to do
4) the qb reads that player and what he does dictates the qb decision
5) if you assign QB to that player the QB isn’t going to keep the ball
6) if you assign RB to that player the qb will keep that ball
7) Baltimore is more dangerous faking the handoff and having Jackson run than handing the ball off with no threat of Jackson running.

 

[Ring 6]

it has plenty of relevance. Back lines up on the right. The end on right side of the formation from the offense point of view is unblocked if it’s an option. If it’s a counter, he initially is unblocked, but would eventually be blocked by someone pulling from the left side of he stays home. however in your “scheme” he may crash the QB because he thinks it’s an option but it’s really just a give all the way

It can only be a counter to his side of action initially flows away. If action flows away he can’t possible read option to his side.
If action flows away and he is unblocked he flattens out and plays counter/contain.
You cannot run option AT a player then counter back to him it’s physically impossible.

here is an example. Qb runs handoff off tackle. The DE is the optioned player. They are running TOWARD HIM. If he closed down to take the rb Qb pulls it out and has the corner. if he stays wife who hands off. Staying wide includes attacking the QBs
There is no possible play design where you do that then somehow get a second ball carrier to appear out of nowhere the run back inside of the de. And If there were you already have your other defenders playing the inside run.

if you fake a handoff in one direction and counter on the other the guy you are running at was never optioned off of and never had to employ option rules.

 

[fightingirish595]

It can only be a counter to his side of action initially flows away. If action flows away he can’t possible read option to his side.
If action flows away and he is unblocked he flattens out and plays counter/contain.
You cannot run option AT a player then counter back to him it’s physically impossible.

so you do not think it is possible for for them to option off of him and then suck him inside on a counter to the side the back is aligned on

So really what you expect him to do is read the play quickly enough to protect himself from a counter if he’s initially unblocked.

If they option off somebody a bunch of times, you really can’t see him falling for a counter If his assignment is the QB? You think he’ll diagnose it right everytime? (Especially against Lamar jackson)

 

[Ring 6]

so you do not think it is possible for for them to option off of him and then suck him inside on a counter to the side the back is aligned on

Of course not.
how do you run an option at a guy and counter back at him. It’s physically impossible.

So really what you expect him to do is read the play quickly enough to protect himself from a counter if he’s initially unblocked.

The same he does on any counter. Why would his responsibilities when he reads option have anything to do with his responsibility when the play flows away and he is responsible for counter?

If they option off somebody a bunch of times, you really can’t see him falling for a counter If his assignment is the QB? You think he’ll diagnose it right everytime?

His assignment is only QB IF THEY RUN OPTION AT HIM. You are talking about the DE they run option away from.

again you are conflating option rules with chasing the qb regardless of the play and read.
The off side DE isnt playing the qb because the qb isn’t coming at him and optioning off of him.


I’ve asked about 20 times and you still
Won’t answer. What do you want the player they are optioning off of to do?

 

[luuked]

Same Ravens offense and they were making plays. Feels like their OL though is way better now than it was then.

Are you sure the offense was the same ?

I'd assume that Mornhinweg and Roman would leave their own unique signatures on the offense.