Hillstead

[cr8zyncalif]

Interesting article on the home page re: Utah QB offer. The article lists him as pro style; but he is shown as 5' 10". However, also makes a big deal about his track speed. I'm thinking that a lack of height is not as big a deal in the R&S as it might be for a full time pocket passer, but that the speed might be quite helpful. Of course, none of that is a guarantee regarding how well he could set up & throw after running, but it would seem to be a good place to start. You don't see many 5' 10" drop back, pro style passers in the PAC, so this may be an offer that goes somewhere. Just thought this might be worth some comment during the summer doldrums.

 

[BiggsCoug]

Interesting article on the home page re: Utah QB offer. The article lists him as pro style; but he is shown as 5' 10". However, also makes a big deal about his track speed. I'm thinking that a lack of height is not as big a deal in the R&S as it might be for a full time pocket passer, but that the speed might be quite helpful. Of course, none of that is a guarantee regarding how well he could set up & throw after running, but it would seem to be a good place to start. You don't see many 5' 10" drop back, pro style passers in the PAC, so this may be an offer that goes somewhere. Just thought this might be worth some comment during the summer doldrums.

Having a qb with big time speed is only an asset if you use it. Taking this kid and making him a drop back passer is taking one of his talents and denying its use. Complete failure of coaching if you dont use this kids gift of speed.

Move the pocket, called runs, rpo… why would you take a qb that has so much to offer and then start limiting him?

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Interesting article on the home page re: Utah QB offer. The article lists him as pro style; but he is shown as 5' 10". However, also makes a big deal about his track speed. I'm thinking that a lack of height is not as big a deal in the R&S as it might be for a full time pocket passer, but that the speed might be quite helpful. Of course, none of that is a guarantee regarding how well he could set up & throw after running, but it would seem to be a good place to start. You don't see many 5' 10" drop back, pro style passers in the PAC, so this may be an offer that goes somewhere. Just thought this might be worth some comment during the summer doldrums.

Johnathon Smith went to the Fiesta Bowl as a drop back, and though listed at 5'10" he's 5'8", maybe.

Despite Biggs insistence to not ever run any offense as designed, I don't want rpo and a bunch of fckery in my R&S. WSU needs a consistent system so that we can recruit to it consistently, not we'll-just-wing-it because we have a guy who can't see over the line.

 

[Coug90]

Johnathon Smith went to the Fiesta Bowl as a drop back, and though listed at 5'10" he's 5'8", maybe.

Despite Biggs insistence to not ever run any offense as designed, I don't want rpo and a bunch of fckery in my R&S. WSU needs a consistent system so that we can recruit to it consistently, not we'll-just-wing-it because we have a guy who can't see over the line.

I think there’s a gray area here too. Not going bonkers when your QB takes off and runs for an easy 10-15 yards is just as good as designed runs/RPOs IMO. I don’t see a lot of RPO or designed runs with the Seahawks for example, but Wilson’s willingness to take off and safely get big yardage while avoiding big hits creates another problem for defenses. Seems Rolo is much more open to his QBs using their legs than Leach was-he was pretty vocal about not wanting his QBs running.

 

[BiggsCoug]

I think there’s a gray area here too. Not going bonkers when your QB takes off and runs for an easy 10-15 yards is just as good as designed runs/RPOs IMO. I don’t see a lot of RPO or designed runs with the Seahawks for example, but Wilson’s willingness to take off and safely get big yardage while avoiding big hits creates another problem for defenses. Seems Rolo is much more open to his QBs using their legs than Leach was-he was pretty vocal about not wanting his QBs running.

At some point throwing the ball away is just burning up downs. If the QB can run for yards and not get hammered, take them. Moving the ball forward on every play matters. Creating another dynamic the defense has to prepare for matters.

Having a qb that can run adds another dimension to the offense that most defenses can't handle.

 

[anon_1nb5kgc7kwlls]

Having a qb with big time speed is only an asset if you use it. Taking this kid and making him a drop back passer is taking one of his talents and denying its use. Complete failure of coaching if you dont use this kids gift of speed.

Move the pocket, called runs, rpo… why would you take a qb that has so much to offer and then start limiting him?

See Khahil Tate at Arizona.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

At some point throwing the ball away is just burning up downs. If the QB can run for yards and not get hammered, take them. Moving the ball forward on every play matters. Creating another dynamic the defense has to prepare for matters.

Having a qb that can run adds another dimension to the offense that most defenses can't handle.

the risk reward of having a qb not named Wilson do his best Wilson impression doesn't outweigh waiting for the 2nd or 3rd read or the safety valve to open up, especially if you can keep the defense honest with an actual running game (handing to the rb). Mainly I'm considering the risk of injury to the qb and actual yards usually gained.

Given my druthers and considering our (lack of) depth, I'd prefer the qb throw the ball away rather than run consistently.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Johnathon Smith went to the Fiesta Bowl as a drop back, and though listed at 5'10" he's 5'8", maybe.

Despite Biggs insistence to not ever run any offense as designed, I don't want rpo and a bunch of fckery in my R&S. WSU needs a consistent system so that we can recruit to it consistently, not we'll-just-wing-it because we have a guy who can't see over the line.

Bleed, I'd like to understand your point better. Let me explain. My understanding of offenses that use the RPO does not extend to thinking that it is fckery...? Of course, I played on a team in HS that ran a passing variant of the option for a few years, so maybe that impacted my perspective on football. Like most kids, I started on the scout team, and defending our first string offense was difficult on option plays. We lowly scout teamers learned early that your only chance of success was to use your two best & quickest LB or bigger sized people at DE, and to have those two DE's key on hitting the QB every single time he got outside the tackles. Every. Single. Time. Because if you let him get away with going wide with the ball still in his possession, bad things happen to the D. My understanding of the R&S is that if it is not a straight drop back or straight dive, then there is a good chance it will develop into some kind of roll out. Any roll out, almost by definition, offers the potential for the QB to run downfield. You would not necessarily want him running downfield a lot...injury concerns, lack of yards after contact, etc. all conspire to make that something that would not happen often. But I learned from my first year on the scout team that it doesn't HAVE to happen very often in order to completely alter how the D is forced to respond. The fact that the QB MIGHT run downfield if left unaccounted for is the offensive goal, from the standpoint of making the D respond to the offense (rather than the other way around). Of course, that is only a legitimate threat if the QB is mobile enough to actually run with the ball...and is also a threat to start out running but be able to pull up and throw (or better yet, throw on the run, but that is a lot harder than it looks unless you are running right at the guy you are trying to throw to).

I guess I see a well planned RPO play as something that forces the D to respect the RB (as a hand off to the line, or as a pitch, or as a receiver), respect the possibility of a throw to WR's, or if you leave him completely alone, as a chance for a QB to get 5-10 easy yards before he slides. If used in combination with drop back passes and conventional dive plays, it should force a D to play honest and cover all the possibilities. If you have a different view of the RPO, I'd like to understand it better so I would understand your objection...

 

[Coug90]

At some point throwing the ball away is just burning up downs. If the QB can run for yards and not get hammered, take them. Moving the ball forward on every play matters. Creating another dynamic the defense has to prepare for matters.

Having a qb that can run adds another dimension to the offense that most defenses can't handle.

Yeah I’ve always said a QB that can run is basically like having an extra guy on the field

 

[Coug90]

the risk reward of having a qb not named Wilson do his best Wilson impression doesn't outweigh waiting for the 2nd or 3rd read or the safety valve to open up, especially if you can keep the defense honest with an actual running game (handing to the rb). Mainly I'm considering the risk of injury to the qb and actual yards usually gained.

Given my druthers and considering our (lack of) depth, I'd prefer the qb throw the ball away rather than run consistently.

Your QB can still get destroyed if he’s standing in the pocket and throwing it away is one of his options. See Luke Falk…k maybe an unfair example but point remains.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Bleed, I'd like to understand your point better. Let me explain. My understanding of offenses that use the RPO does not extend to thinking that it is fckery...? Of course, I played on a team in HS that ran a passing variant of the option for a few years, so maybe that impacted my perspective on football. Like most kids, I started on the scout team, and defending our first string offense was difficult on option plays. We lowly scout teamers learned early that your only chance of success was to use your two best & quickest LB or bigger sized people at DE, and to have those two DE's key on hitting the QB every single time he got outside the tackles. Every. Single. Time. Because if you let him get away with going wide with the ball still in his possession, bad things happen to the D. My understanding of the R&S is that if it is not a straight drop back or straight dive, then there is a good chance it will develop into some kind of roll out. Any roll out, almost by definition, offers the potential for the QB to run downfield. You would not necessarily want him running downfield a lot...injury concerns, lack of yards after contact, etc. all conspire to make that something that would not happen often. But I learned from my first year on the scout team that it doesn't HAVE to happen very often in order to completely alter how the D is forced to respond. The fact that the QB MIGHT run downfield if left unaccounted for is the offensive goal, from the standpoint of making the D respond to the offense (rather than the other way around). Of course, that is only a legitimate threat if the QB is mobile enough to actually run with the ball...and is also a threat to start out running but be able to pull up and throw (or better yet, throw on the run, but that is a lot harder than it looks unless you are running right at the guy you are trying to throw to).

I guess I see a well planned RPO play as something that forces the D to respect the RB (as a hand off to the line, or as a pitch, or as a receiver), respect the possibility of a throw to WR's, or if you leave him completely alone, as a chance for a QB to get 5-10 easy yards before he slides. If used in combination with drop back passes and conventional dive plays, it should force a D to play honest and cover all the possibilities. If you have a different view of the RPO, I'd like to understand it better so I would understand your objection...

perhaps I'm not well versed in the R&S, but is the rpo a staple of that offense? I'm of the understanding that it was not, thus when running an rpo play in an offense its not a part of, to me that would be fckery. I'm not saying that the rpo is a bad play - its been proven to be VERY effective in college and high school.

Additionally, if its not part of the R&S, then recruiting a dual threat qb as opposed to a pocket passer adds a level of difficulty to our program as well, as dual threat qbs are in high demand and the chances of us landing a quality one is slim.

I'm just focusing on trying to do what WSU can do well with the resources we have and the kids available to us, not live in the fantasy world where we're recruiting Tua and Herbert to run our high powered rpo offense.

*edited - I want to add that I realize that we can add some rpo concepts the the R&S, but I don't think it would be beneficial to us to try to be Oregon lite - we can't recruit that talent.

also, thanks for being respectful. I'm sure I'm sounding pretty ignorant. I can't seem to get the point/ idea that's circling around in my skull down on paper in a way that is coherent. Sorry.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Your QB can still get destroyed if he’s standing in the pocket and throwing it away is one of his options. See Luke Falk…k maybe an unfair example but point remains.

he can also throw it away effectively - see Anthony Gordon.

I'm not against a qb taking off, I just don't think WSU can make a living off of doing so.

 

[spongeandshoot]

perhaps I'm not well versed in the R&S, but is the rpo a staple of that offense? I'm of the understanding that it was not, thus when running an rpo play in an offense its not a part of, to me that would be fckery. I'm not saying that the rpo is a bad play - its been proven to be VERY effective in college and high school.

Additionally, if its not part of the R&S, then recruiting a dual threat qb as opposed to a pocket passer adds a level of difficulty to our program as well, as dual threat qbs are in high demand and the chances of us landing a quality one is slim.

I'm just focusing on trying to do what WSU can do well with the resources we have and the kids available to us, not live in the fantasy world where we're recruiting Tua and Herbert to run our high powered rpo offense.

*edited - I want to add that I realize that we can add some rpo concepts the the R&S, but I don't think it would be beneficial to us to try to be Oregon lite - we can't recruit that talent.

also, thanks for being respectful. I'm sure I'm sounding pretty ignorant. I can't seem to get the point/ idea that's circling around in my skull down on paper in a way that is coherent. Sorry.

No..the RPO is not a part of the run and shoot.

I am sure they can add a few wrinkles to the offense....like some situational option and RPO. I think the former would be easier. The rpo is completely different than the run and shoot reads as I see it.

Rather than RPO, I would prefer to just run lots of 4 verticals and run the ball north and south..and mix in a little read option here and there and call it good.

Nobody open on 4 verticals? Good. Take off and slide for 7 yards

 

[cr8zyncalif]

From what I read, the R&S utilizes a "sprint play" that I loosely interpret as being one flavor of an RPO.

The quote:

"Some more modern versions of the Run and Shoot will incorporate what’s known as sprint plays, where the quarterback will take the snap, then sprint to his left or his right and either hand the ball off to a running back, throw the ball to a wide receiver or even run the ball himself if he sees a hole."

The source of the quote:

R&S article

 

[spongeandshoot]

From what I read, the R&S utilizes a "sprint play" that I loosely interpret as being one flavor of an RPO.

The quote:

"Some more modern versions of the Run and Shoot will incorporate what’s known as sprint plays, where the quarterback will take the snap, then sprint to his left or his right and either hand the ball off to a running back, throw the ball to a wide receiver or even run the ball himself if he sees a hole."

The source of the quote:

R&S article

Love these X's and O's sites and YT channels. Some fun stuff to geek out on. Thanks for the share

 

[BiggsCoug]

No..the RPO is not a part of the run and shoot.

I am sure they can add a few wrinkles to the offense....like some situational option and RPO. I think the former would be easier. The rpo is completely different than the run and shoot reads as I see it.

Rather than RPO, I would prefer to just run lots of 4 verticals and run the ball north and south..and mix in a little read option here and there and call it good.

Nobody open on 4 verticals? Good. Take off and slide for 7 yards

Make the defense defend the entire field and every way possible to move the ball forward.

Make them defend inside run AND 4 verts. Make them defend crossing routes and a QB that can run and slide.

Don't let the defense focus solely on 1 thing. Make the DC actually watch film and prepare his kids for everything. Don't let him manipulate his personnel to stop run or pass. Lock his personnel on the field and make his kids defend things they can't.

Make the defense run and tackle on every play. Don't just have your QB drop back, see no one open and throw the ball away. Make the DC coach his kids to pursue a tackler on every snap. Move the ball forward on every play.

You wanna see a passing game open up deep? Make the corners have an internal clock. When corners know in the back of their mind that the QB will take off... they may peek into the backfield to see what is happening.... when they do that it's over. WR's are gone and it's bombs away over their head.

Make things easier for your offense by actually COACHING and using a scheme that makes the defense work.

 

[mikalalas]

the risk reward of having a qb not named Wilson do his best Wilson impression doesn't outweigh waiting for the 2nd or 3rd read or the safety valve to open up, especially if you can keep the defense honest with an actual running game (handing to the rb). Mainly I'm considering the risk of injury to the qb and actual yards usually gained.

Given my druthers and considering our (lack of) depth, I'd prefer the qb throw the ball away rather than run consistently.

Bleed, if its Pure Pocket Drop Back Pro Style Passer like a Bledsoe, Ryan Leaf, type, then yes your right, that the QB should throw it away, even in the Run and Shoot.

Price's 1 back, spread, passing offense, was somewhat semi similar to, had semi elements of both the Air Raid, Run and Shoot, and Spread Offenses. He had Pro Style, and running, hybrid QB's like Bledsoe, Leaf, Guesser.

Guesser was nowhere near the runner other QB's are, were, but Guesser BOTH threw it out of bounds, and scrambled, run, rolled out, etc.

Price never told Guesser "Dont run, always either throw it to your 1st, 2nd, 3rd reads, safety valve, or throw it away if there is nothing there."

Gesser would sometimes throw it out of bounds, throw it away, an sometimes run for a easy 4.3 to 7 yards, if it was there. If not, he threw it away. Typically Gesser checked his reads, then checked his safety valve, if something was there, he threw it. If not, then he would check to see if he coukd scramble, run for a easy 4 yards. If so, he took that 4 yards. If not, he threw it away, out of bounds.

There was room to do that in Price's offense. There is room to do that in Rolo's Run and Shoot.

1. Check Reads, Safety Valve.

2. Wait for things to develop until cant wait any longer, because if wait longer, then get sacked.

3. If something is there, throw the ball.

4. If something is not there. Dont wait longer, dont take the sack. Check to see if can scramble, run for a easy 4+ yard gain.

5. If can, scramble, run for 4+ yard gain.

6. If cant, dont take the sack, throw the ball away, preferrably out of bounds, if can.

That is what QB's in the Run and Shoot, should do.

Doing that spreads the Defense, makes the defense have to defend against yet another thing.

If just either throw it a WR, or wait too long, take a sack, throw it away, dont ever run, scramble, then that makes it easier on the Defense.

WSU offenses, QB's need to just take whatever is tbere, and Play according to the situation, scramble, run, pasd, throw it away, etc, whatever is best at the moment, according to the situation.

 

[spongeandshoot]

Make the defense defend the entire field and every way possible to move the ball forward.

Make them defend inside run AND 4 verts. Make them defend crossing routes and a QB that can run and slide.

Don't let the defense focus solely on 1 thing. Make the DC actually watch film and prepare his kids for everything. Don't let him manipulate his personnel to stop run or pass. Lock his personnel on the field and make his kids defend things they can't.

Make the defense run and tackle on every play. Don't just have your QB drop back, see no one open and throw the ball away. Make the DC coach his kids to pursue a tackler on every snap. Move the ball forward on every play.

You wanna see a passing game open up deep? Make the corners have an internal clock. When corners know in the back of their mind that the QB will take off... they may peek into the backfield to see what is happening.... when they do that it's over. WR's are gone and it's bombs away over their head.

Make things easier for your offense by actually COACHING and using a scheme that makes the defense work.

Exactly.

Instead of letting the defense and safeties have easy reads and keep everything in front of them, give them multiple things to think about.

If a qb takes off several times for 10 yds a pop, I guarantee the safeties will start peaking in the backfield more. Same if we run the ball down their throat. Won't be too long before they are caught with their pants down out of position and the big play happens.

Even if they know what is coming, they can't be in two places at once...and giving them multiple things to think about makes them a half a step slower.

 

[mikalalas]

perhaps I'm not well versed in the R&S, but is the rpo a staple of that offense? I'm of the understanding that it was not, thus when running an rpo play in an offense its not a part of, to me that would be fckery. I'm not saying that the rpo is a bad play - its been proven to be VERY effective in college and high school.

Additionally, if its not part of the R&S, then recruiting a dual threat qb as opposed to a pocket passer adds a level of difficulty to our program as well, as dual threat qbs are in high demand and the chances of us landing a quality one is slim.

I'm just focusing on trying to do what WSU can do well with the resources we have and the kids available to us, not live in the fantasy world where we're recruiting Tua and Herbert to run our high powered rpo offense.

*edited - I want to add that I realize that we can add some rpo concepts the the R&S, but I don't think it would be beneficial to us to try to be Oregon lite - we can't recruit that talent.

also, thanks for being respectful. I'm sure I'm sounding pretty ignorant. I can't seem to get the point/ idea that's circling around in my skull down on paper in a way that is coherent. Sorry.

Lets say the Run and Shoot can accomodate either a Pure Pro Style Drop back Passer, and a Running QB, and a Dual Threat QB.

Now lwts say in 1 Year WSU can get a 3.75 star Pro Style QB, but if dont, and try to get a running QB instead, can only get a 2 star Running QB

Then 2,3,4 years later, lets say WSU can get a 3.75 star Running QB, but if try to get a Pro Style, can only get a 2 star Pro Style QB

Then 3 years later, Lets Say WSU can get a 4 star Dual Threat, but can oy get a 2 star Pro Style or 2 star running QB.

WSU should get the 3.75 star QB over tbe 2 star QB, no matter tbe type of QB.

Get that 4 Star QB(WSU has gotten lots of 4 star QB's), then BOTH try to get the QB to try to fit the Run and Shoot, and change tbe Run and Shoot a little tiny bit to fit tbe 4 star QB, whatever the type of the 4 star QB, whether Pro Style, whether running QB, whether Dual threat.

Thats why Price was successful.

He got the best 3,4 star QB he could, then made tbe offense and QB fit each other instead of getting a 2 star QB over a 4 star QB becauae the 2 star QB was a better fit to the offense.

If Price would have done the latter, he would have gotten a 2 star Pro Style, instead of getting Gesser, who shouldnt have been a fit for the offense. But Price made bith Gesser and the offense fit each other.

And thats what have to do, should do at WSU to be successful.

 

[95coug]

Exactly.

Instead of letting the defense and safeties have easy reads and keep everything in front of them, give them multiple things to think about.

If a qb takes off several times for 10 yds a pop, I guarantee the safeties will start peaking in the backfield more. Same if we run the ball down their throat. Won't be too long before they are caught with their pants down out of position and the big play happens.

Even if they know what is coming, they can't be in two places at once...and giving them multiple things to think about makes them a half a step slower.

Also…throw on first down. Make it so there are no “passing downs” or “running downs.” If they know you’ll toss it 20 yards downfield on 1st & 10 or 2nd & 7, they can’t cheat up to stop the run. If they know you’ll run on 3rd & 9, they can’t drop 8 (caveat - do not run the mike price draw play every time you’re at 3rd & long).

Force the D to take plays out of your playbook, don’t do it for them.

 

[spongeandshoot]

Also…throw on first down. Make it so there are no “passing downs” or “running downs.” If they know you’ll toss it 20 yards downfield on 1st & 10 or 2nd & 7, they can’t cheat up to stop the run. If they know you’ll run on 3rd & 9, they can’t drop 8 (caveat - do not run the mike price draw play every time you’re at 3rd & long).

Force the D to take plays out of your playbook, don’t do it for them.

But what about the 5 wide QB draw? lol

On a somewhat similar note....one thing I saw Levy do that was brilliant was during the 2 minute drill, he just running toss sweeps to Harrison. We went down the field in no time. Can't remember who it was against but I thought it was brilliant