Fixes on O

[CornerBlitz]

Great feedback and X and O talk.....I still believe we must have a go to receiver(s) that other teams respect for us to compete with the top end of our schedule. Clemson, VT, UGA, et al. defenses are simply to athletic to allow their safeties to be constantly rolled up. Without a threat of a passing attack, we almost have to be perfect with our calls, reads and blocks to sustain production for a complete game. It’s simply asking an awful lot of our run game....even tougher with the lousy defense we’ve played over the last several years.

I hope that guy is on the roster and we have a QB that can deliver the ball. I desperately want us to be successful and consistently play meaningful football late in the season.

 

[bmeGT]

Instead of counter option, how about triple option? We only ran it a few times last year IIRC. That play is the essence of the offense, and we need to master it if we want to be successful on O.

Could you explain the triple option play vs the triple option offense? I was always under the impression we ran the 3O play primarily but I guess I'm not aware of the major differences. What I think of in our offense is QB decides to hand off or keep, then keep or pitch (thus, 3O).

 

[RonJohn]

Could you explain the triple option play vs the triple option offense? I was always under the impression we ran the 3O play primarily but I guess I'm not aware of the major differences. What I think of in our offense is QB decides to hand off or keep, then keep or pitch (thus, 3O).

Take a look at this:


The Veer is triple option. The rocket toss, QB Draw, Zone Dive, Counter Option, Trap, QB Follow, Midline, Pass, and Belly are not. The counter option looks like triple option, but there are only two actual options. The offense lines up in similar formations most of the time.(receivers will be in tight or out wide, the ABs will line up in double wing, or one will line up close to a TE position, etc) The plays usually start with AB motion. However, they don't all have three options. The blocking schemes change with the different calls. For example, the DE might get used to not being blocked and having to choose BB or QB, and then he is straight up blocked for a pure dive. Alex Carrick also has some videos that describe the formations and plays that GT runs. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAOirs0M_wA6EyIKgnB3BTQ

 

[tech_wreck47]

Yep. We did have a lot of success with what is I think called the Bubble Option, where TaQuon spins around, we pull the Guard and Tackle, and he runs behind them as shields. We probably ran it 10 times against Tennessee with great success. I also remember us running it to score a couple long touchdowns against Wake Forest. We had it wide open a couple times against Miami IIRC but we slipped and fell in the mud.

But I am also a big fan of the direct handoff counter just as you said. No risk of having to wait for pulling guards and for the play to set up. Especially given where the most aggressive defenses we run against are folks like Clemson, Miami, and Georgie, you can't give them any time at all. Especially Clemson, whose DL holds like crazy on the line, if you can run a quick direct handoff counter into the line while they're all occupied, the Linebackers attacking the edges are caught too.

Do you or anyone else know if we run that counter play but instead of TM running it, have it as a pass with the back side WR running a post across field? I think that would work really well with teams who like to have their safeties be aggressive, either they bite for the option or they fly down to the counter side not thinking about the possibility of a pass.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Yep. We did have a lot of success with what is I think called the Bubble Option, where TaQuon spins around, we pull the Guard and Tackle, and he runs behind them as shields. We probably ran it 10 times against Tennessee with great success. I also remember us running it to score a couple long touchdowns against Wake Forest. We had it wide open a couple times against Miami IIRC but we slipped and fell in the mud.

But I am also a big fan of the direct handoff counter just as you said. No risk of having to wait for pulling guards and for the play to set up. Especially given where the most aggressive defenses we run against are folks like Clemson, Miami, and Georgie, you can't give them any time at all. Especially Clemson, whose DL holds like crazy on the line, if you can run a quick direct handoff counter into the line while they're all occupied, the Linebackers attacking the edges are caught too.

Both of Marshall’s big runs against Wake were aided by great downfield blocking. The first play featured a nice block by our RT on the MLB. The second play was helped by the MLB taking a horrible angle and just being flat out slow of foot.

 

[Techster]

Do you or anyone else know if we run that counter play but instead of TM running it, have it as a pass with the back side WR running a post across field? I think that would work really well with teams who like to have their safeties be aggressive, either they bite for the option or they fly down to the counter side not thinking about the possibility of a pass.

Like this? (First play)

 

[tech_wreck47]

Like this? (First play)

Kinda, but I’m talking about this play, notice TM is left alone with no one to option to? Both Abacks are selling the option left which can pull the safeties down that way with the WR on the left running the post. Also Tm could roll out more and sell the run better than staying in the pocket from the video you posted. That way the ad doesn’t know what you are doing if you run it more than once, it could actually be a run pass option.

 

[AE 87]

Kinda, but I’m talking about this play, notice TM is left alone with no one to option to? Both Abacks are selling the option left which can pull the safeties down that way with the WR on the left running the post. Also Tm could roll out more and sell the run better than staying in the pocket from the video you posted. That way the ad doesn’t know what you are doing if you run it more than once, it could actually be a run pass option.

If you look at our OL on that play, it's pretty obvious why it can't be an rpo.

Most of our run plays ask certain OL to get to the next level. They would be illegal downfield on a passing play.

 

[tech_wreck47]

If you look at our OL on that play, it's pretty obvious why it can't be an rpo.

Most of our run plays ask certain OL to get to the next level. They would be illegal downfield on a passing play.

I get that, but I’m sure there could be some modifications and if not just have it as a pass.

 

[Techster]

I get that, but I’m sure there could be some modifications and if not just have it as a pass.

Don't go there...some on here refuse to believe plays can be tweaked...even though our entire offense is based off of tweaking each play...

 

[AE 87]

Don't go there...some on here refuse to believe plays can be tweaked...even though our entire offense is based off of tweaking each play...

LOL
Didn't you also post about adding a pass option to a play which had OL downfield in a past year?

That's not a tweak ... it's against the rules ...

Well, you could respond, let's do more zone blocking so that we're not asking OL to block on the next level on our running plays ... that way we don't give away the pass option by having OL stay home ... but again that's not a tweak ... It's a different offense.

 

[Techster]

LOL
Didn't you also post about adding a pass option to a play which had OL downfield in a past year?

That's not a tweak ... it's against the rules ...

Well, you could respond, let's do more zone blocking so that we're not asking OL to block on the next level on our running plays ... that way we don't give away the pass option by having OL stay home ... but again that's not a tweak ... It's a different offense.

Lol...this response is pretty much what I was talking about.

I said blocking could be tweaked as to NOT be in downfield blocking territory. I get it, it's harder for some to be creative than others. Man, did not know keeping OLs within 3 yards of the LOS was that difficult to scheme.

There's the Patrick Nix offense, then there's the Scott Frost offense. I guess some people have the ability to think outside of the box, and some don't...

 

[Coloradojacket]

Kinda, but I’m talking about this play, notice TM is left alone with no one to option to? Both Abacks are selling the option left which can pull the safeties down that way with the WR on the left running the post. Also Tm could roll out more and sell the run better than staying in the pocket from the video you posted. That way the ad doesn’t know what you are doing if you run it more than once, it could actually be a run pass option.

This play is called a QB counter.

 

[tech_wreck47]

This play is called a QB counter.

So do we have this with a pass? That’s what I thought it was called but I wasn’t 100% sure.

 

[AE 87]

Lol...this response is pretty much what I was talking about.

I said blocking could be tweaked as to NOT be in downfield blocking territory. I get it, it's harder for some to be creative than others. Man, did not know keeping OLs within 3 yards of the LOS was that difficult to scheme.

There's the Patrick Nix offense, then there's the Scott Frost offense. I guess some people have the ability to think outside of the box, and some don't...

No worries.

I thought I covered that with my reference to Zone blocking schemes.

However, I recognize that I skipped some steps in the logic of my posts. I had the same problem in HS math when I didn't show the teacher the steps I was doing in my head.

If the OL has the assignment of blocking a Linebacker or DB, then your suggestion that they tweak his assignment so he does that within 3 yards seems strange to me. I am frankly surprised that you could suggest it. Maybe, I'm stupid, but that sounds stupid to me.

 

[Coloradojacket]

So do we have this with a pass? That’s what I thought it was called but I wasn’t 100% sure.

No but send it off to CPJ. You could run play action or pass back

 

[tech_wreck47]

No but send it off to CPJ. You could run play action or pass back

I would send it if I knew how lol. Anyone close to CPJ want to tell him about this awesome play lol?

 

[Techster]

No worries.

I thought I covered that with my reference to Zone blocking schemes.

However, I recognize that I skipped some steps in the logic of my posts. I had the same problem in HS math when I didn't show the teacher the steps I was doing in my head.

If the OL has the assignment of blocking a Linebacker or DB, then your suggestion that they tweak his assignment so he does that within 3 yards seems strange to me. I am frankly surprised that you could suggest it. Maybe, I'm stupid, but that sounds stupid to me.

Again, if you're not willing to think outside of the box in terms what you can do with your blocking with regard to deception, then I guess you would continue regurgitating the same assignments.

I'll give you credit, at least this time you're willing to admit you're stup...id... ahem...

 

[AE 87]

Again, if you're not willing to think outside of the box in terms what you can do with your blocking with regard to deception, then I guess you would continue regurgitating the same assignments.

I'll give you credit, at least this time you're willing to admit you're stup...id... ahem...

Alright. Smdh.

 

[Techster]

I get that, but I’m sure there could be some modifications and if not just have it as a pass.

Did some digging on past plays. To your point about modifications for an RPO, but really you don't even have to "tweak" or modify the blocking if you look at this:



Counter option with trips alignment to the left of the formation. Playside is to the right off the motion to the left, but if you look at the backside of the play, the Y receiver (middle reciever if you count the AB as Z WR...which he is) is abandoned because the DB is following the motion. DB covering the X clears out of the play by virtue of marking the X WR. Y receiver could have easily peeled off and run straight down the seam and he would have been wide open backside. If it was implemented, Josh could have easily pulled up and threw a pass had the backside WRs been included in his reads. The "pocket" around him was relatively clean. Blocking assignments here were more the playside, but in either case, there was no downfield blocking carried out...the closest thing was 73 getting swung out at the 3 yard mark past the LOS.

In terms of reading the play from a QB perspective if you were to turn this into an RPO, I would go:

1. Backside DB over the Y. If Y DB turn in with motion, pass is there. If Y DB runs with the Y WR, refocus on the option. By the second step off the QB twril, what the DB locks into is pronounced. The first drop steps off the snap is already to that side for the QB to focus on.

2. IF the Y WR is not open, refocus to the playside counter option. Obviously, the reads here would follow along with the defensive reads of the counter option plays. Pitch or keep.

Play assignments won't always be that clean, but most of the time they usually aren't. The idea is, if you teach it and practice it, guys know what they are allowed to do and what they are not allowed to do. That includes blocking.

Now, taking it a step further in contrast and comparing to typical RPO plays from other offenses:



You notice that the QB pull (from the RB) and pass out to the flats is very similar to the play that I linked to from your earlier post:



Tevin could have easily read 1. Dive, 2. Pass to Hill (end result), or QB keep to backside. CPJ tweaked the blocking here knowing the primary read was going to be pass, but the Dive/Keep could have easily have been implemented off the same blocking scheme.

So can GT have a legitimate RPO game off our plays? Absolutely we can. Minor tweaks or adjustments, mainly on QB and WR assignments, and I can't imagine why we wouldn't use them seeing as defenders are so keyed into their defensive reads after 10 years of going against CPJ's offense.

I'm sure if we wanted to we could analyze other flex option plays and figure out tweaks.