The very last RPO thread (from the coach's mouth)

[JHallCanes]

I think what ghost2 means by "integrating the read-option into the RPO" is adding a third O(ption)- the quarterback run. So the QB can pass, hand off, or keep.

Isn't this basically what Trubisky did to us to win that game?

IIRC we would have two options locked down but that would just manage to wiggle out of it and it basically cost us the game.

 

[kutz]

Certain situations call for different things, let's just not let other defenses predicate us running the ball 3 times in a row and gaining 6 yards and having to punt. I think Richt is going to come up with a whole blend system that incorporates so many different things, maybe I'm just hopeful but I think he is getting all the pieces and info he needs to run a unique offense that we have never seen.

Ideally, if the defense "predicates" us to run the ball we're running into a favorable front and getting more than 6 yards on three carries.

Are you trying to be an ******* with your quotation's​ around predicate? Because if you are, you clearly missed me using "defense's" which is plural you grammar police bytch.

 

[Coach Macho]

I've been to 3 clinics in the past month alone and the hottest topic was RPO's. Offensive guys were giving clinics on how to run them and defensive guys were giving clinics on how to stop them.

The good OC's run so many variants of the RPO. The **** is difficult to stop. I'm not an offensive guy but it's some **** ****, can't lie. It's kinda cheating though, taking advantage of a rule that's lightly policed. (linemen downfield)

As a DC I think putting a lot of emphasis on pre-snap disguising is your best bet to consistently stop RPO's. The offense is reading your alignments and movements. The more you can confuse the QB the better off you are. I think it needs to be done out of single-high coverage though. IMO this is where the 3-4 is super beneficial cause it's symmetrical and you can move guys around easier.

 

[ghost2]

Great stuff Macho. I remember where Kaaya really started struggling with RPO was when defenses started disguising the "conflict defender".

That's also why I like a QB who can move a bit. Often he can buy time to get that conflicted defender to overcommit and then it's open season (see Jackson, Lamar.)

 

[Coach Macho]

I think these new offensive innovations make football much more of a chess match. The days of defenses dominating all game are long gone IMO.

Offenses today are a ***** to stop. Even against a dominant defense, the defense wins some reps and the offense wins some reps. I think we've seen a lot of very close games lately between good offenses/good defenses. Even programs like Bama, who have been the standard for defensive play lately, have had to fight tooth and nail with good spread offenses.

I don't think you can ever truly stop them, you can only slow them down and make them uncomfortable. Offense has always been the more the innovative side of the ball IMO. A lot of smart nerds coaching offense in this country. I think it's forcing DB's to be a little smarter and more innovative. I enjoy the challenge when we play a good spread offense.

 

[Cribby]

I think these new offensive innovations make football much more of a chess match. The days of defenses dominating all game are long gone IMO.

Offenses today are a ***** to stop. Even against a dominant defense, the defense wins some reps and the offense wins some reps. I think we've seen a lot of very close games lately between good offenses/good defenses. Even programs like Bama, who have been the standard for defensive play lately, have had to fight tooth and nail with good spread offenses.

I don't think you can ever truly stop them, you can only slow them down and make them uncomfortable. Offense has always been the more the innovative side of the ball IMO. A lot of smart nerds coaching offense in this country. I think it's forcing DB's to be a little smarter and more innovative. I enjoy the challenge when we play a good spread offense.

Remember all the dummies calling the spreads a " gimmick offense "? Those calling them that have never tried to defend one.

 

[Coach Macho]

I think these new offensive innovations make football much more of a chess match. The days of defenses dominating all game are long gone IMO.

Offenses today are a ***** to stop. Even against a dominant defense, the defense wins some reps and the offense wins some reps. I think we've seen a lot of very close games lately between good offenses/good defenses. Even programs like Bama, who have been the standard for defensive play lately, have had to fight tooth and nail with good spread offenses.

I don't think you can ever truly stop them, you can only slow them down and make them uncomfortable. Offense has always been the more the innovative side of the ball IMO. A lot of smart nerds coaching offense in this country. I think it's forcing DB's to be a little smarter and more innovative. I enjoy the challenge when we play a good spread offense.

Remember all the dummies calling the spreads a " gimmick offense "? Those calling them that have never tried to defend one.

Yup. My favorite statement is one I've had to debunk quite a few times.

"Spread offenses don't win the national championships."


Woops!

 

[LuCane]

I think these new offensive innovations make football much more of a chess match. The days of defenses dominating all game are long gone IMO.

Offenses today are a ***** to stop. Even against a dominant defense, the defense wins some reps and the offense wins some reps. I think we've seen a lot of very close games lately between good offenses/good defenses. Even programs like Bama, who have been the standard for defensive play lately, have had to fight tooth and nail with good spread offenses.

I don't think you can ever truly stop them, you can only slow them down and make them uncomfortable. Offense has always been the more the innovative side of the ball IMO. A lot of smart nerds coaching offense in this country. I think it's forcing DB's to be a little smarter and more innovative. I enjoy the challenge when we play a good spread offense.

Remember all the dummies calling the spreads a " gimmick offense "? Those calling them that have never tried to defend one.

Yup. My favorite statement is one I've had to debunk quite a few times.

"Spread offenses don't win the national championships."


Woops!

Thing is, though, spread option teams (where the argument against spread offenses usually revolved) put themselves at a disadvantage to win meaningful games unless they have a transcendent QB. That's a lot of pressure to find, recruit and develop a single player. Now, I know you know better than most that "spread offense" and "spread option" aren't the same. New England has hopefully proven that much to everyone.

Interestingly, it all boils down to one thing: can you convert on third and 3 and shorter.

 

[Coach Macho]

I think these new offensive innovations make football much more of a chess match. The days of defenses dominating all game are long gone IMO.

Offenses today are a ***** to stop. Even against a dominant defense, the defense wins some reps and the offense wins some reps. I think we've seen a lot of very close games lately between good offenses/good defenses. Even programs like Bama, who have been the standard for defensive play lately, have had to fight tooth and nail with good spread offenses.

I don't think you can ever truly stop them, you can only slow them down and make them uncomfortable. Offense has always been the more the innovative side of the ball IMO. A lot of smart nerds coaching offense in this country. I think it's forcing DB's to be a little smarter and more innovative. I enjoy the challenge when we play a good spread offense.

Remember all the dummies calling the spreads a " gimmick offense "? Those calling them that have never tried to defend one.

Yup. My favorite statement is one I've had to debunk quite a few times.

"Spread offenses don't win the national championships."


Woops!

Thing is, though, spread option teams (where the argument against spread offenses usually revolved) put themselves at a disadvantage to win meaningful games unless they have a transcendent QB. That's a lot of pressure to find, recruit and develop a single player. Now, I know you know better than most that "spread offense" and "spread option" aren't the same. New England has hopefully proven that much to everyone.

Interestingly, it all boils down to one thing: can you convert on third and 3 and shorter.

Agree, but most people who make that statement don't even know enough to decipher the difference, they're just making a general statement about spread offenses.

 

[Bunker Mentality]

I've been to 3 clinics in the past month alone and the hottest topic was RPO's. Offensive guys were giving clinics on how to run them and defensive guys were giving clinics on how to stop them.

The good OC's run so many variants of the RPO. The **** is difficult to stop. I'm not an offensive guy but it's some **** ****, can't lie. It's kinda cheating though, taking advantage of a rule that's lightly policed. (linemen downfield)

As a DC I think putting a lot of emphasis on pre-snap disguising is your best bet to consistently stop RPO's. The offense is reading your alignments and movements. The more you can confuse the QB the better off you are. I think it needs to be done out of single-high coverage though. IMO this is where the 3-4 is super beneficial cause it's symmetrical and you can move guys around easier.

FSU goaded Brad into the throw while spying the flat to blow up the play. It's not perfect and you still need to able to control the game with a power play IMO, but it's a good tempo maintaining play to keep the defense off balance.

 

[RiDLer80]

Certain situations call for different things, let's just not let other defenses predicate us running the ball 3 times in a row and gaining 6 yards and having to punt. I think Richt is going to come up with a whole blend system that incorporates so many different things, maybe I'm just hopeful but I think he is getting all the pieces and info he needs to run a unique offense that we have never seen.

Ideally, if the defense "predicates" us to run the ball we're running into a favorable front and getting more than 6 yards on three carries.

Are you trying to be an ******* with your quotation's​ around predicate? Because if you are, you clearly missed me using "defense's" which is plural you grammar police bytch.

I wasn't being a grammar police you sensitive *****.

I was making light of the idea that we'd choose to run into, what our offense would perceive as a favorable defensive front, three times in a row and only get six yards total. That's the whole point of the RPO. No matter what the defense does, the offense has the numbers advantage.

 

[Coach Macho]

I've been to 3 clinics in the past month alone and the hottest topic was RPO's. Offensive guys were giving clinics on how to run them and defensive guys were giving clinics on how to stop them.

The good OC's run so many variants of the RPO. The **** is difficult to stop. I'm not an offensive guy but it's some **** ****, can't lie. It's kinda cheating though, taking advantage of a rule that's lightly policed. (linemen downfield)

As a DC I think putting a lot of emphasis on pre-snap disguising is your best bet to consistently stop RPO's. The offense is reading your alignments and movements. The more you can confuse the QB the better off you are. I think it needs to be done out of single-high coverage though. IMO this is where the 3-4 is super beneficial cause it's symmetrical and you can move guys around easier.

It's not perfect and you still need to able to control the game with a power play IMO, but it's a good tempo maintaining play to keep the defense off balance.

Agree.

 

[kryptonite]

I think the confusion probably stems from not understanding that the run portion of RPO does not refer to the QB running.

 

[LoungeLord]

If i never see another bubble screen by Miami again I'll be happy.

 

[TheSwagger1]

Kudos to the contributors to this thread. Enjoying the commentary, good stuff.

 

[We'retheBoss]

I think these new offensive innovations make football much more of a chess match. The days of defenses dominating all game are long gone IMO.

Offenses today are a ***** to stop. Even against a dominant defense, the defense wins some reps and the offense wins some reps. I think we've seen a lot of very close games lately between good offenses/good defenses. Even programs like Bama, who have been the standard for defensive play lately, have had to fight tooth and nail with good spread offenses.

Amen to that. 75 pts allowed in 2 games vs Clem.

 

[skyman]

I think these new offensive innovations make football much more of a chess match. The days of defenses dominating all game are long gone IMO.

Offenses today are a ***** to stop. Even against a dominant defense, the defense wins some reps and the offense wins some reps. I think we've seen a lot of very close games lately between good offenses/good defenses. Even programs like Bama, who have been the standard for defensive play lately, have had to fight tooth and nail with good spread offenses.

I don't think you can ever truly stop them, you can only slow them down and make them uncomfortable. Offense has always been the more the innovative side of the ball IMO. A lot of smart nerds coaching offense in this country. I think it's forcing DB's to be a little smarter and more innovative. I enjoy the challenge when we play a good spread offense.

Remember all the dummies calling the spreads a " gimmick offense "? Those calling them that have never tried to defend one.

Yup. My favorite statement is one I've had to debunk quite a few times.

"Spread offenses don't win the national championships."


Woops!

Thing is, though, spread option teams (where the argument against spread offenses usually revolved) put themselves at a disadvantage to win meaningful games unless they have a transcendent QB. That's a lot of pressure to find, recruit and develop a single player. Now, I know you know better than most that "spread offense" and "spread option" aren't the same. New England has hopefully proven that much to everyone.

Interestingly, it all boils down to one thing: can you convert on third and 3 and shorter.

Lu, could you elaborate as I think it is much harder to find a qb to run a pro style and get same results/ production. Spread seems to be more plug n play. Very few teams with teh talent level they can get are able to put points on board to compete with big dawgs. I might have read your statement wrong so just wanted to make sure.

Teams who want to run pro style put themselves at disadvantage to the point, DC feel like they get a breather on gameweek facing a traditional O nowadays. Anytime a FB is on the field is a great time for most DC.

 

[QSTOKES]

what game was it where we ran like 4 or 5 quick wr screens in a row? same play. worked every time

App State. Dayall Harris' breakout game lol.

also late in the bowl game, it was working so good the guy from WVU had to fake an injury to slow it down.

 

[LuCane]

I think these new offensive innovations make football much more of a chess match. The days of defenses dominating all game are long gone IMO.

Offenses today are a ***** to stop. Even against a dominant defense, the defense wins some reps and the offense wins some reps. I think we've seen a lot of very close games lately between good offenses/good defenses. Even programs like Bama, who have been the standard for defensive play lately, have had to fight tooth and nail with good spread offenses.

I don't think you can ever truly stop them, you can only slow them down and make them uncomfortable. Offense has always been the more the innovative side of the ball IMO. A lot of smart nerds coaching offense in this country. I think it's forcing DB's to be a little smarter and more innovative. I enjoy the challenge when we play a good spread offense.

Remember all the dummies calling the spreads a " gimmick offense "? Those calling them that have never tried to defend one.

Yup. My favorite statement is one I've had to debunk quite a few times.

"Spread offenses don't win the national championships."


Woops!

Thing is, though, spread option teams (where the argument against spread offenses usually revolved) put themselves at a disadvantage to win meaningful games unless they have a transcendent QB. That's a lot of pressure to find, recruit and develop a single player. Now, I know you know better than most that "spread offense" and "spread option" aren't the same. New England has hopefully proven that much to everyone.

Interestingly, it all boils down to one thing: can you convert on third and 3 and shorter.

Lu, could you elaborate as I think it is much harder to find a qb to run a pro style and get same results/ production. Spread seems to be more plug n play. Very few teams with teh talent level they can get are able to put points on board to compete with big dawgs. I might have read your statement wrong so just wanted to make sure.

Teams who want to run pro style put themselves at disadvantage to the point, DC feel like they get a breather on gameweek facing a traditional O nowadays. Anytime a FB is on the field is a great time for most DC.

Note: I'm not saying it's harder to find a QB to run a spread offense. I'm saying it's more difficult to find a QB with whom you'll win a championship revolving your offense around the spread-option (read-option; not spread offense). The difference in name is minor, but in philosophy is significant. Look at Clemson this past year vs some of those old Oregon teams. While Clemson ran some spread-option, they still ran the power running game at times. It's necessary to win meaningful games because surviving tough games usually hinges on short conversions. As I mentioned, 3rd and 3 or less.

If you can't consistently stay on the field (conversely, your defense get off the field), you will not make it through a playoff round. All that said, you can be a spread team, run RPO, and still have power elements to your run game.

The alternative is to find the Cam Newtons and Tim Tebows of the world. In that sense, I think your odds go way down. Those players - even a Deshaun Watson-type - come around far less than what is needed for a solid spread team with a good power run game.

 

[umhurricane2511]

[MENTION=293]ghost2[/MENTION] , you went to JMU??