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

[ghost2]

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

Sure did - class of 1998. Go Dukes!

 

[ghost2]

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.

This is spot-on, IMO. Just look at the vid I posted of Clemson on 3rd and 1 and how they lined up - 2 RBs + an H-back. You can still run "power" sets and use spread/RPO concepts, as Clemson did in that video. Defense sold out on the zone run, even kept a spy in on Watson, and he just dumped it off for 10 yards.

Where I think it becomes difficult to find the right QB for a spread system with RPO has less to do with taking a physical beating (a la the Read-Option guys like Tebow and Newton) and more to do with finding a QB with impeccable instincts. It's not even about "reading the field" as much as it is having that "feel" for where the pressure is and how to get out of it. The reads are simple - read one guy and commit to the pass or run. But I think it's difficult to find a great QB for that system because it's predicated so much on instinct and reflex - things that are hard to quantify on the recruiting trail. A guy can be 6'5, 240 and be just a hair late on his decisions and the whole offense falls apart. Similarly, you can get a skinny kid to run this offense (looking at you N'Kosi Perry) as long as he knows where to go with the football and how to stay upright. Look at Lamar Jackson - he's bigger than Perry certainly but he's listed at 6'3, 200 lbs - not exactly Tim Tebow - and ran for 1500 yards last year because he had that "knack" for knowing where to go.

 

[umhurricane2511]

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

Sure did - class of 1998. Go Dukes!

Awesome, my wife went there. Small world.

So that makes me an honorary fan too. Beautiful campus!

 

[RiDLer80]

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.

I actually disagree when you say spread option teams put themselves at a disadvantage to win meaningful games. You have to remember that spread offenses were created to level the playing field for teams that couldn't recruit the biggest, fastest and strongest. Without the spread offense teams like Baylor, Texas Tech or Oregon wouldn't have been in the position to play in meaningful games in the first place without the spread offense.

The only reason a team like Oregon, when they were rolling, was even in a position to play in BCS games year in and year out was because of their spread offense. Sure, their OLs could never stack up against traditional powers, but's because of their talent pool; not because of their offense. Chip Kelly was putting up stupid numbers with Dennis Dixon and Derron Thomas. I actually think it's easier to find a spread option QB than it is to find a true drop back passer that can pick apart a defense from the pocket.

 

[Gatorhater]

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.

Absolutely, and I'll put together some longer thoughts on that later. There's just been so much confusion as to what the heart of RPO means that I thought Richt's succinct quote warranted its own thread.

I understand the RPO, but I think it was bad for Kaaya and cost us last year. I think that extra presnap read and decision slowed the kid down and effected his rhythm. It seemed he did better on the plays that were just called as a pass or run. Less thinking and more action helped the defense last year but Mark seems to have went the opposite way on offense without the right talent for it. You have 3 rd starter at QB with your major opponent going in with band new QB -- you play to that relative strength and get the win you needed the most. Sticking to your own system regardless of your talent is something we have seen enough of here. The HC/QB thing was supposed to be Mark's strong suit. Instead that combo looked like our weak link last year.

 

[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.

I actually disagree when you say spread option teams put themselves at a disadvantage to win meaningful games. You have to remember that spread offenses were created to level the playing field for teams that couldn't recruit the biggest, fastest and strongest. Without the spread offense teams like Baylor, Texas Tech or Oregon wouldn't have been in the position to play in meaningful games in the first place without the spread offense.

The only reason a team like Oregon, when they were rolling, was even in a position to play in BCS games year in and year out was because of their spread offense. Sure, their OLs could never stack up against traditional powers, but's because of their talent pool; not because of their offense. Chip Kelly was putting up stupid numbers with Dennis Dixon and Derron Thomas. I actually think it's easier to find a spread option QB than it is to find a true drop back passer that can pick apart a defense from the pocket.

Appreciate the commentary. Doesn't sound like you really disagree. It helps teams elevate themselves, no doubt. I think it's a disadvantage (relative to the alternative style top teams can play) when you're talking about the games I care about: FSU, Clemson, conference championships, playoffs.

Those are the meaningful games I reference, and the spread option will struggle against the types of teams/defenses faced in those games. In the end, the spread option is easier to defend once you reach a certain level of talent in terms of defense. It's part of the reason (along with not murdering your expensive QB) you see it used more selectively in the NFL.

Facing gap exchanges and big, athletic DEs/OLBs/Safeties/Rovers, an offense in a meaningful game* is in a better position running the spread with power run game elements.

 

[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.

Absolutely, and I'll put together some longer thoughts on that later. There's just been so much confusion as to what the heart of RPO means that I thought Richt's succinct quote warranted its own thread.

I understand the RPO, but I think it was bad for Kaaya and cost us last year. I think that extra presnap read and decision slowed the kid down and effected his rhythm. It seemed he did better on the plays that were just called as a pass or run. Less thinking and more action helped the defense last year but Mark seems to have went the opposite way on offense without the right talent for it. You have 3 rd starter at QB with your major opponent going in with band new QB -- you play to that relative strength and get the win you needed the most. Sticking to your own system regardless of your talent is something we have seen enough of here. The HC/QB thing was supposed to be Mark's strong suit. Instead that combo looked like our weak link last year.

I think it only looked weak during that four game stretch where mostly every true fan was ripping out their hair wondering what was happening. The offense was clicking towards the last 5 games, one thing I can say is the offense that we are going to see this year is going to be interesting breaking in a new starter.

 

[TheEye]

I think people were complaining about the delayed handoffs with Kaaya running towards the line like he was Tim Tebow or something.

 

[ghost2]

I think people were complaining about the delayed handoffs with Kaaya running towards the line like he was Tim Tebow or something.

That's just it. Those plays can work if there's at least a tiny threat of the QB actually running. Nobody in the stadium ever believed that Kaaya was going to take off, not even once. Therefore all that play ended up being was a slow-developing handoff every time.

 

[ghost2]

Here's a great video of a play from the Memphis-Houston game last year:

[video]https://streamable.com/28ai[/video]

Here's the play design:




I picked this play to highlight because it shows how a simple handoff-or-screen RPO (like we ran last year) can be coupled with zone-read and other WR routes to produce a particularly nasty play. In this clip, the play starts with motion from the TE to show a "power" look and to seal off the edge rusher (implying the inside zone run perhaps.) At the snap, the QB sees the 2 ILBs cheat down to take away the zone (first read). He then slides right and now has two options on the conflicted boundary CB - the WR screen in the slot or the WR running a go route on the edge. The CB (AND safety) bite hard on the screen and the QB dumps it to the go-WR for a walk-in TD.

I want to point out that that simple half-rollout from the QB is what gets the other defenders to commit and buys him enough time to make his 2nd read. That's what we could never get from Kaaya. Memphis QB Riley Ferguson is no Cam Newton or Vince Young - kid is 6'3, 180 lbs. But that THREAT of zone-read is what opens up the rest of the RPO playbook, IMO.

Also noted is that after getting burned on this play, those Houston CBs started playing way off, and that's when Memphis hit them with the easy screens that killed App State early on.

 

[Dingaan1828]

Here's a great video of a play from the Memphis-Houston game last year:

[video]https://streamable.com/28ai[/video]

Here's the play design:

View attachment 43919


I picked this play to highlight because it shows how a simple handoff-or-screen RPO (like we ran last year) can be coupled with zone-read and other WR routes to produce a particularly nasty play. In this clip, the play starts with motion from the TE to show a "power" look and to seal off the edge rusher (implying the inside zone run perhaps.) At the snap, the QB sees the 2 ILBs cheat down to take away the zone (first read). He then slides right and now has two options on the conflicted boundary CB - the WR screen in the slot or the WR running a go route on the edge. The CB (AND safety) bite hard on the screen and the QB dumps it to the go-WR for a walk-in TD.

I want to point out that that simple half-rollout from the QB is what gets the other defenders to commit and buys him enough time to make his 2nd read. That's what we could never get from Kaaya. Memphis QB Riley Ferguson is no Cam Newton or Vince Young - kid is 6'3, 180 lbs. But that THREAT of zone-read is what opens up the rest of the RPO playbook, IMO.

Also noted is that after getting burned on this play, those Houston CBs started playing way off, and that's when Memphis hit them with the easy screens that killed App State early on.

Great observation.