Offensive strategy question...

[RhinoD]

So I watch a lot of football games, both high school and college and one thing that bothers me about our offense is that we fake the read option on every play. My question is (not bashing any specific coordinator) why do we do this?

1. Litton is no threat to run... He isn't very fast and about as elusive as my old Ford Tempo.
2. We don't want Litton running... Getting him killed by a linebacker on the rare occasion he does keep the ball is a pretty bad scenario.
3. It wastes time... I realize its tenths of a second, but isnt that tenths of a second our QB could use to look down field?
4. It's not effective... A linebacker hits the running back every single play knowing that Litton isn't going to run away from anyone and safeties arent charging the line of scrimmage to stop him following a very clearly fake handoff.

I understood when we did it with Cato, because he was a legit threat to pick up a first down on a bootleg/scramble, but I don't know why we havent adjusted to Litton's skill set and stopped the fake handoff nonsense.

 

[Marine03]

So I watch a lot of football games, both high school and college and one thing that bothers me about our offense is that we fake the read option on every play. My question is (not bashing any specific coordinator) why do we do this?

1. Litton is no threat to run... He isn't very fast and about as elusive as my old Ford Tempo.
2. We don't want Litton running... Getting him killed by a linebacker on the rare occasion he does keep the ball is a pretty bad scenario.
3. It wastes time... I realize its tenths of a second, but isnt that tenths of a second our QB could use to look down field?
4. It's not effective... A linebacker hits the running back every single play knowing that Litton isn't going to run away from anyone and safeties arent charging the line of scrimmage to stop him following a very clearly fake handoff.

I understood when we did it with Cato, because he was a legit threat to pick up a first down on a bootleg/scramble, but I don't know why we havent adjusted to Litton's skill set and stopped the fake handoff nonsense.

I highlighted your question in bold, my answer is simple. Bill Legg sucks

 

[bbneutralfan]

Offensive strategy? We have an offensive strategy? I thought you may be referencing something regarding military history or some new video game.

 

[Sean Hammond]

So I watch a lot of football games, both high school and college and one thing that bothers me about our offense is that we fake the read option on every play. My question is (not bashing any specific coordinator) why do we do this?

1. Litton is no threat to run... He isn't very fast and about as elusive as my old Ford Tempo.
2. We don't want Litton running... Getting him killed by a linebacker on the rare occasion he does keep the ball is a pretty bad scenario.
3. It wastes time... I realize its tenths of a second, but isnt that tenths of a second our QB could use to look down field?
4. It's not effective... A linebacker hits the running back every single play knowing that Litton isn't going to run away from anyone and safeties arent charging the line of scrimmage to stop him following a very clearly fake handoff.

I understood when we did it with Cato, because he was a legit threat to pick up a first down on a bootleg/scramble, but I don't know why we havent adjusted to Litton's skill set and stopped the fake handoff nonsense.

I'm a SF 49er fan and learned a lot about the "read-option" last year when Chip Kelly was coaching there. One of the first things Kelly did when he arrived was try to explain to the media that his QBs aren't options to run on every play. There's a difference between a read-option and an inside zone play. It often looks the same, but the option isn't always there for the QB to keep. I'm not sure, so I'm not going to argue whether we are/are not running the option play, but I would seriously bet we run the inside zone play and people think it's a read play, when it's not at all.

For instance, go back and look at Johnson's monsterous FAU game. Cato wasn't reading anything on those runs. Those were just straight inside zone plays.

Then when you go back and look at some old Frohnapfel or Birdsong tape, you see their heads are up more during the exchange and there's an actual read being made on the handoff.

 

[JudgeDD]

I'm a SF 49er fan and learned a lot about the "read-option" last year when Chip Kelly was coaching there. One of the first things Kelly did when he arrived was try to explain to the media that his QBs aren't options to run on every play. There's a difference between a read-option and an inside zone play. It often looks the same, but the option isn't always there for the QB to keep. I'm not sure, so I'm not going to argue whether we are/are not running the option play, but I would seriously bet we run the inside zone play and people think it's a read play, when it's not at all.

For instance, go back and look at Johnson's monsterous FAU game. Cato wasn't reading anything on those runs. Those were just straight inside zone plays.

View embedded media

Then when you go back and look at some old Frohnapfel or Birdsong tape, you see their heads are up more during the exchange and there's an actual read being made on the handoff.

The problem I have is when we leave the backside edge defender unblocked, don't read the play, and then get run down from behind by that same player. If you leave the "read" unblocked, the QB has to read the play.

 

[Sean Hammond]

The problem I have is when we leave the backside edge defender unblocked, don't read the play, and then get run down from behind by that same player. If you leave the "read" unblocked, the QB has to read the play.

Yep. Agree 100%. There has to be a gapping hole for the RB to hit as soon as he gets the ball or he'll more than likely catch the RB a yard or two past the LOS.

I occasionally see us pulling our tackle up inside to create a lead blocker, which has worked nicely. But like you said, if the unblocked edge defender is dead set on running down the RB, the ball carrier often gets caught from behind. BUT you also see the unblocked edge defender freeze occasionally because it looks like a read. When that occurs, it completely takes a defender out of the play while giving us numbers up front/inside. There's a little risk/reward in it, but I understand the reasoning behind it. I think people believe it's a read play, but I don't think that's the case 90% of the time.

I would imagine when there is a read to be made, it's a RPO where Litton has a chance to scramble out and make a throw on the run instead of being a runner, which looks like a PA fake and people don't recognize that as a read play. Cato did that a lot too and much of Cato's scrambling yards came off of those RPOs where defenders stayed in coverage and he'd scamper for 5-10 yards. Litton doesn't have that ability.

 

[oldeherd]

Yep. Agree 100%. There has to be a gapping hole for the RB to hit as soon as he gets the ball or he'll more than likely catch the RB a yard or two past the LOS.

I occasionally see us pulling our tackle up inside to create a lead blocker, which has worked nicely. But like you said, if the unblocked edge defender is dead set on running down the RB, the ball carrier often gets caught from behind. BUT you also see the unblocked edge defender freeze occasionally because it looks like a read. When that occurs, it completely takes a defender out of the play while giving us numbers up front/inside. There's a little risk/reward in it, but I understand the reasoning behind it. I think people believe it's a read play, but I don't think that's the case 90% of the time.

I would imagine when there is a read to be made, it's a RPO where Litton has a chance to scramble out and make a throw on the run instead of being a runner, which looks like a PA fake and people don't recognize that as a read play. Cato did that a lot too and much of Cato's scrambling yards came off of those RPOs where defenders stayed in coverage and he'd scamper for 5-10 yards. Litton doesn't have that ability.

Add to this that the edge defender has an even better advantage when our QB is handing the ball off 6 or 7 yards deep in our backfield.

 

[Sean Hammond]

Add to this that the edge defender has an even better advantage when our QB is handing the ball off 6 or 7 yards deep in our backfield.

Very true, but that's always the case in shotgun offense. Looks like we're emplementing some more pistol this year, which is a good thing.

 

[WV_Celt]

Stra-te-gy?
What's this thing you speak of?

 

[bbneutralfan]

Cmon Sean do you really think Legg knows the difference between a "shotgun" and a "pistol"?

 

[sistersville]

When your qb cant run defense's can eat you alive. Its not like chase is joe namath. His passing is not great. From watching practice I would blitz the herd like crazy. We need a fresh look at qb. Chase would be a decent backup. But doc has struck out getting a qb than can play now so chase is our qb. Best we got

 

[bbneutralfan]

Sister you say Litton is the best we have? What about Gaines? I never get the idea of redshirts - especially at Marshall. You have any idea how many QBs Doc has brought in here only to see them succeed elsewhere. Gaines is an "athlete" so let him be the QB and let's see what he's got.

 

[WV_Celt]

Sister you say Litton is the best we have? What about Gaines? I never get the idea of redshirts - especially at Marshall. You have any idea how many QBs Doc has brought in here only to see them succeed elsewhere. Gaines is an "athlete" so let him be the QB and let's see what he's got.

Well said bb.
The offense has absolutely no spark to it. Why not see what can happen when you give someone with athletic ability a chance. I've said before that Chase is a decent runner, but he has no desire to tuck it and run. That really limits the possibilities.

 

[Josh Stowers]

Sister you say Litton is the best we have? What about Gaines? I never get the idea of redshirts - especially at Marshall. You have any idea how many QBs Doc has brought in here only to see them succeed elsewhere. Gaines is an "athlete" so let him be the QB and let's see what he's got.

There's more to being a quarterback than being athletic.

 

[oldeherd]

The bigger issue at the MU QB position seems to be "Can't run" versus "Won't run". If MU has virtually zero threat of the QB running the ball, then under the so called "read option" offense that Legg employs one prong of the offense is missing. Common sense, therefore, would indicate that this would make the offense easier to defend.

 

[Sean Hammond]

The bigger issue at the MU QB position seems to be "Can't run" versus "Won't run". If MU has virtually zero threat of the QB running the ball, then under the so called "read option" offense that Legg employs one prong of the offense is missing. Common sense, therefore, would indicate that this would make the offense easier to defend.

Who has labeled our offense a "read option" offense? I don't think it's a read play.

 

[TwolfHerdfan]

What is the label given to our offense?

 

[Marine03]

What is the label given to our offense?

Shit

 

[goherdorgohome2]

Funny how we're already complaining about our offense after a win.. tells you have bad this guy really is.... thank you special teams!!!!

 

[Sean Hammond]

What is the label given to our offense?

When Legg was hired, he called it a spread offense with West Coast passing principles.

I don't know where the label of a read-option offense has come from? Between Frohnapfel and Gaines, we haven't seriously looked at an athletic QB besides Birdsong. Holcomb, Anderson, Garvin, Litton, Morrell, etc., all pocket passers.

 

[Josh Stowers]

Funny how we're already complaining about our offense after a win.. tells you have bad this guy really is.... thank you special teams!!!!

Complaining about an offense (following a win), after the team's first game which involved five new (first time) starters. You're right, it tells you something.

 

[lexkyherdfan]

Complaining about an offense (following a win), after the team's first game which involved five new (first time) starters. You're right, it tells you something.

actually what is funny how so many people said we would lose or get stomped by Miami and now that we won a significant group is finding reasons to complain about a win. Some will never be happy. Sure there were issues last week but at the end of the day we won. Chad's teams had issues from time to time, Byron's teams had issues from time to time and Cato's teams did as well. I am not a Doc homer or wear thick green colored glasses either. Saying that we have to get better offensively. It is a given.

I just remember how many were freaked out because a crazy vegas line came out in May that we were 8 pt dogs and our fans said we would get stomped by Miami. And now the message is well we got lucky or Miami isn't really any good. I am glad I can enjoy a win and be upset when we lose but at the end of the day...move on without letting it make me be miserable (win or lose).

 

[Marine03]

Complaining about an offense (following a win), after the team's first game which involved five new (first time) starters. You're right, it tells you something.

Still a homer for the staff I see

 

[Marine03]

I think the issue is not the fact we won but the manner in which this offense has performed for 2 straight seasons, and game 1 of this season and NOTHING really has been addressed on it by the staff. Opposing coaches even mock the predictable nature of Bill Leggs unlabeled offense. Was the win nice? Yes, but is anyone really expecting the offense to suddenly be a juggernaut, uh no not even close. And yet after the season all will remain status quo

 

[19MU88]

When Legg was hired, he called it a spread offense with West Coast passing principles.

I don't know where the label of a read-option offense has come from? Between Frohnapfel and Gaines, we haven't seriously looked at an athletic QB besides Birdsong. Holcomb, Anderson, Garvin, Litton, Morrell, etc., all pocket passers.

I recall Bill Legg himself saying our offense is predicated on the read option...that was several years ago.

 

[Sean Hammond]

I recall Bill Legg himself saying our offense is predicated on the read option...that was several years ago.

I don't recall that and nothing we do is predicated on the read-option. We don't recruit for it and we don't run it. Maybe in 2015 when Birdsong was going to be the starter or we were trying the AJ Graham thing or maybe the summer we thought we were going to get some Blake Frohnapfel packages (still pissed about that), the zone-read probably was a big part of those and might be where those comments you're referring to came from. But outside of that, I haven't seen us be serious about it.

This is basically the concept I see us using:

It's an Inside Zone play where the TE/H-back (Yuracheck) is often the backside blocker on the end we leave unblocked. Just because the QB isn't a threat to run doesn't mean this play isn't effective because there's still some action for that backside end to read. Yuracheck could be coming to block, passing him to arc block someone at the next level, or releasing out into the flat on a RPO, which is where there would actually be a "read" on the play. Except instead of Litton keeping to run if the unblocked end crashes down on the RB, Litton is keeping to throw.

 

[Josh Stowers]

Still a homer for the staff I see

No, I just see things as a whole and not just how I choose to see them.

No one is saying the offense was a well-oiled machine last week, but to just say the offense is "shit" is just wrong. We could've had 600 yards of offense and certain people would've used the excuse, "well, it was little Miami so let's not give the offense too much credit."

 

[Marine03]

I don't recall that and nothing we do is predicated on the read-option. We don't recruit for it and we don't run it. Maybe in 2015 when Birdsong was going to be the starter or we were trying the AJ Graham thing or maybe the summer we thought we were going to get some Blake Frohnapfel packages (still pissed about that), the zone-read probably was a big part of those and might be where those comments you're referring to came from. But outside of that, I haven't seen us be serious about it.

This is basically the concept I see us using:

It's an Inside Zone play where the TE/H-back (Yuracheck) is often the backside blocker on the end we leave unblocked. Just because the QB isn't a threat to run doesn't mean this play isn't effective because there's still some action for that backside end to read. Yuracheck could be coming to block, passing him to arc block someone at the next level, or releasing out into the flat on a RPO, which is where there would actually be a "read" on the play. Except instead of Litton keeping to run if the unblocked end crashes down on the RB, Litton is keeping to throw.

Do not post publically one of the 8 plays in our playbook.

 

[Marine03]

No, I just see things as a whole and not just how I choose to see them.

No one is saying the offense was a well-oiled machine last week, but to just say the offense is "shit" is just wrong. We could've had 600 yards of offense and certain people would've used the excuse, "well, it was little Miami so let's not give the offense too much credit."

It is shit and it really has been for quite some time. The frustration is the refusal by the staff to do anything to change it

 

[Josh Stowers]

It is shit and it really has been for quite some time. The frustration is the refusal by the staff to do anything to change it

Again, if you didn't see a difference in the 1st half's play-calling last week then it's useless to discuss with you.

 

[Marine03]

Again, if you didn't see a difference in the 1st half's play-calling last week then it's useless to discuss with you.

Again if you don't see the apparent offensive struggles heading into the third straight season it's also useless to discuss. I'll sticky this debate, and by week 6 you'll have no place to hide your head. Legg and the offense is THE Achilles heel of this team

 

[Sean Hammond]

I don't recall that and nothing we do is predicated on the read-option. We don't recruit for it and we don't run it. Maybe in 2015 when Birdsong was going to be the starter or we were trying the AJ Graham thing or maybe the summer we thought we were going to get some Blake Frohnapfel packages (still pissed about that), the zone-read probably was a big part of those and might be where those comments you're referring to came from. But outside of that, I haven't seen us be serious about it.

This is basically the concept I see us using:

It's an Inside Zone play where the TE/H-back (Yuracheck) is often the backside blocker on the end we leave unblocked. Just because the QB isn't a threat to run doesn't mean this play isn't effective because there's still some action for that backside end to read. Yuracheck could be coming to block, passing him to arc block someone at the next level, or releasing out into the flat on a RPO, which is where there would actually be a "read" on the play. Except instead of Litton keeping to run if the unblocked end crashes down on the RB, Litton is keeping to throw.

This is another generic look at what I think we're trying to do:

This is the Oregon-OSU National title game. Oregon plays a 3-4 defense, so the "unblocked end" is the standing up OLB on the right side. Chase Litton could run circles around Cardale Jones so please don't act like Cardale is a threat to run, but the play is still successful because it's creating numbers for OSU on the left side. No read on this play. Straight inside zone.

 

[Sean Hammond]

Again if you don't see the apparent offensive struggles heading into the third straight season it's also useless to discuss. I'll sticky this debate, and by week 6 you'll have no place to hide your head. Legg and the offense is THE Achilles heel of this team

I have a lot of concerns about our offense. I'm convinced we'll never get back to what it was under Cato. Idk the reasoning for that because Legg ran that offense, but I don't think we'll ever have an offense that in-sync again. Hope I'm wrong, but we'll see.

I seen some subtle changes in the first half last week, like Josh said. I went back last night and watched most of those first half drives and while it still looks clunky and out of whack, there have been some changes and added concepts to the offense. Definitely not what we want it to be with a 3rd year starting QB, but when the fans keep saying the same thing over & over about it being the same offense, Legg's 1 page playbook, etc, it's hard to not wonder if people really do give a crap about the team they say they like to watch. It's like everyone has their preconceived notions and since we didn't come out 5-wide and guns blazing, people think everything's the same.

 

[JudgeDD]

First, the play concept being referred to here is actually called the ZONE READ; "read option" is just redundant, though even many coaches have now adopted this misnomer (sort of like how the running drill karaoke used to rhyme with tapioca and now everyone says it like the sing-a-long). Second, most of our running plays (95%, perhaps) are not Zone Read plays, but simply Inside or Outside Zone. Sometime we incorporate a pin-and-pull with an O-lineman or kick with the H. Other times we block it as a straight zone. I'm fine with either of these blocking schemes.

My issue come when we block the play like a zone read (leave a player unblocked - the read) and then don't read the player. If the minimal threat of a QB keep freezes the defender then great, but often is doesn't, and we miss out on not only the possibility of decent yards on that play, but the opportunity to keep the defense honest on future plays.

We do run some RPOs, but not nearly enough, IMO. Most RPOs take advantage of reading the run-support player - usually an outside LB, a nickel back, or even the safety. It should be designed just like any option play, where there is no good choice for the defender. Handoff if he stays, throw to the vacated area if he commits to the run. I don't know the percentage of RPOs called against Miami, but I didn't see as many as I would have hoped.

 

[19MU88]

I don't recall that and nothing we do is predicated on the read-option. We don't recruit for it and we don't run it. Maybe in 2015 when Birdsong was going to be the starter or we were trying the AJ Graham thing or maybe the summer we thought we were going to get some Blake Frohnapfel packages (still pissed about that), the zone-read probably was a big part of those and might be where those comments you're referring to came from. But outside of that, I haven't seen us be serious about it.

This is basically the concept I see us using:

It's an Inside Zone play where the TE/H-back (Yuracheck) is often the backside blocker on the end we leave unblocked. Just because the QB isn't a threat to run doesn't mean this play isn't effective because there's still some action for that backside end to read. Yuracheck could be coming to block, passing him to arc block someone at the next level, or releasing out into the flat on a RPO, which is where there would actually be a "read" on the play. Except instead of Litton keeping to run if the unblocked end crashes down on the RB, Litton is keeping to throw.

It may have been early like pre Cato or early Cato, but I do recall it. I know we made some changes around that time as well, of course maybe I don't remember very well. Did Cato not run some of that his Sr. year, or were those called with no read?

 

[19MU88]

Again, if you didn't see a difference in the 1st half's play-calling last week then it's useless to discuss with you.

I agree with this and did not have issue until late in the game.

 

[TwolfHerdfan]

I really wonder if our limitations at this point are a result of Littons inability to grasp all of the playbook.

I am very happy with the win and encouraged, but we do have issues on offense. Hopefully those will be taken care of in the next few weeks.

 

[Sean Hammond]

First, the play concept being referred to here is actually called the ZONE READ; "read option" is just redundant, though even many coaches have now adopted this misnomer (sort of like how the running drill karaoke used to rhyme with tapioca and now everyone says it like the sing-a-long). Second, most of our running plays (95%, perhaps) are not Zone Read plays, but simply Inside or Outside Zone. Sometime we incorporate a pin-and-pull with an O-lineman or kick with the H. Other times we block it as a straight zone. I'm fine with either of these blocking schemes.

My issue come when we block the play like a zone read (leave a player unblocked - the read) and then don't read the player. If the minimal threat of a QB keep freezes the defender then great, but often is doesn't, and we miss out on not only the possibility of decent yards on that play, but the opportunity to keep the defense honest on future plays.

We do run some RPOs, but not nearly enough, IMO. Most RPOs take advantage or reading the run-support player - usually an outside LB, a nickel back, or even the safety. It should be designed just like any option play, where there is no good choice for the defender. Handoff if he stays, throw to the vacated area if he commits to the run. I don't know the percentage of RPOs called against Miami, but I didn't see as many as I would have hoped.

100% endorsement, Judge.

The thing about the unblocked end is a concern of mine too. But I wonder if our goal on that is to sacrifice a 4-5 yard gain for the potential of a 20+ yard gain. If the end crashes, the RB is still almost certain to get back to the LOS or 1-2 yard gain. But if that unblocked end doesn't crash and make the play, we got #s like crazy. It would just be nice to see us break one of those off, but I think that gets back to our offense just being clunky & out of sorts. Seems like there's too much thinking and not enough reading/reacting, IMO. In the Cato days, it was fast & crisp. If the D made a mistake, they usually paid for at least a 10 yard gain.

There's still some action we use that can freeze that unblocked end. Yuracheck with that wham action is one. We kick the tackle up into the second level as a lead blocker while Yuracheck blocks the "unblocked" end. Also, when that end automatically crashes from Chase's right side, it COMPLETELY opens up the whole side of the field for Chase on PA rollouts. So we're basically allowing an unblocked end to run himself out of the play, which gives us numbers.


So, I say all of that to say that while there can be plenty of criticisms about what we do, I think there is some sound reasoning in what we do...even though we may not agree with it haha.

 

[Sean Hammond]

It may have been early like pre Cato or early Cato, but I do recall it. I know we made some changes around that time as well, of course maybe I don't remember very well. Did Cato not run some of that his Sr. year, or were those called with no read?

I think Legg allowed Cato to make that call a little more his senior year. Definitely wasn't a staple of the offense, but he did keep it more that year. I think that was probably an answer for defenses crashing so hard on Johnson too. When Cato kept, half the field was wide open. I think it had to be an automatic pre-snap read where the only time Cato could keep was when he could pick up 5-10 yards and do his version of a slide haha.

And the read play is in our offense. If the numbers in the box or the blocking angles look a certain way, it's there. Chase has kept it before. It's just what Judge said, 95% of our run plays are probably not reads. They're either inside/outside zone running plays. But I think people think they are reads, which is where the confusion is coming from.

 

[JudgeDD]

So, I say all of that to say that while there can be plenty of criticisms about what we do, I think there is some sound reasoning in what we do...even though we may not agree with it haha.

No doubt. I don't agree with everything the Marshall staff does, but I'm not going to pretend that these coaches don't know football. Or that I know more than they do. I also know from experience that sometimes the thing every fan thinks is an obvious fix has been tried in practice and, for whatever reason, has not worked. Usually a personnel issue.

I recall one season in particular as an offensive coordinator where this one guy in the stands yelled every game for us to "throw the damn ball!" I wanted so much to yell back, "Do you realize in practice that we complete 30% of our passes - against AIR?" There is always a lot we as fans don't know.