Kaep, RGIII, Russel, Cam, Vick

[imac_21]

The difference between college and the NFL is greater then between a bama and a mid-tier school IMO. Either way, it's not as consistent. You don't play bama every week.

You're right, teams don't play Bama every week. But the option has existed in college football for years. Shouldn't there be some history of QBs getting injured running the college in option?

Or does it boil down to being hit constantly with NFL force?

How many big hits did Kaepernick take last year?

How about Manziel? Mariota?

 

[imac_21]

But only the best of the best, the strongest of the strongest and the fastest of the fastest get to the Pros. In the pros, everybody is a bad ass.

So are college players unable to generate the force to injure QBs? Is the injury threshold somewhere in the fine line between Patrick Willis in 2006 vs Patrick Willis in 2007?

 

[JDM]

I don't know the track record of injuries in college to compare scramblers to pocket passers there. I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find examples of either, but unless there is a comprehensive study I am not aware of, that approach is very easily susceptible to a wide range of bias.

I was, in a redskins thread, shown a link that was fairly nonconclusive trying to compare running QBs to QBs who don't. One measure showed they get hurt more, and the other showed not a lot of difference. But if teams are promising to tee off on the guy when you run it, that hasn't happened in the past either. If that happens on a weekly basis, even if you get yards doing it, it becomes a game of chicken between you and the defense. Will the defense give up yards if they can make you pay for it, and will you pay that price if they keep doing so?

If they do, it hurts them a game. If you do, and something goes wrong, it hurts you for longer. I think it comes down to picking your spots, and using a more conventional run game for the heavy lifting. For a third and short, maybe a read option gets you the first and he can get down. On first and ten, maybe it's not worth the risk.

 

[tallglassofwater007]

So are college players unable to generate the force to injure QBs? Is the injury threshold somewhere in the fine line between Patrick Willis in 2006 vs Patrick Willis in 2007?

Also, if you are going by this logic of size/speed etc, the QB himself would be smaller and slower because he is at the college level. So it equals out again.

 

[JDM]

So are college players unable to generate the force to injure QBs? Is the injury threshold somewhere in the fine line between Patrick Willis in 2006 vs Patrick Willis in 2007?

I guarantee you he got significantly stronger with an NFL strength and conditioning program and without having class work to do. But it's not the point. Would you rather take 100 hits from say, jerod mayo (a step down but still good), or 10 from Willis and 90 from guys who have no shot in the NFL? The first option makes you more likely to get hurt. Yes, it only takes one play, but every hit from a NFL caliber player might be that play. Most hits from college players really don't have the same potential.

 

[imac_21]

I don't know the track record of injuries in college to compare scramblers to pocket passers there. I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find examples of either, but unless there is a comprehensive study I am not aware of, that approach is very easily susceptible to a wide range of bias.

I was, in a redskins thread, shown a link that was fairly nonconclusive trying to compare running QBs to QBs who don't. One measure showed they get hurt more, and the other showed not a lot of difference. But if teams are promising to tee off on the guy when you run it, that hasn't happened in the past either. If that happens on a weekly basis, even if you get yards doing it, it becomes a game of chicken between you and the defense. Will the defense give up yards if they can make you pay for it, and will you pay that price if they keep doing so?

If they do, it hurts them a game. If you do, and something goes wrong, it hurts you for longer. I think it comes down to picking your spots, and using a more conventional run game for the heavy lifting. For a third and short, maybe a read option gets you the first and he can get down. On first and ten, maybe it's not worth the risk.

So you have decided to form a conclusion on something without actually doing any research?

And it isn't as if any NFL team runs read option every play. In 2012 SF ran 44 read option, zone read and option pitch plays combined according to a Sando study. That's 4.7% of total plays. Once Kaepernick took over they ran read option on 5.7% of plays.

That's not QB keeps, that's total option runs. I think we need to stop treating it like this is a play that is happening 25 times per game.

 

[imac_21]

I guarantee you he got significantly stronger with an NFL strength and conditioning program and without having class work to do. But it's not the point. Would you rather take 100 hits from say, jerod mayo (a step down but still good), or 10 from Willis and 90 from guys who have no shot in the NFL? The first option makes you more likely to get hurt. Yes, it only takes one play, but every hit from a NFL caliber player might be that play. Most hits from college players really don't have the same potential.

At no point did I question if Willis got stronger or faster. I asked if the threshold of force that can cause injury is somewhere between the college and pro game. I chose Willis as an example.

It's interesting that you chose Willis and Mayo as your examples. Their college careers overlapped and took place in the same conference. You would have very possibly played both of them.

As I said in my above post, SF ran 44 plays all season that were any sort of option run. There is no way he takes 100 hits from Mayo-level players, unless you're looking at a 5 year stretch.

With no evidence to support the theory that QBs who run the option are more susceptible than those that don't, it seems silly to strongly push that belief.

Div 1 college is the highest level of football that routinely runs option plays. I'm not the biggest NCAA fan around, and this is far from any sort of scientific study, but based on my observations option QBs do not get injured more than pocket passers.

And I refuse to believe this idea that college players don't hit hard enough to injure QBs.

As for the idea that teams will just simply focus on blasting the QB, that was Atlanta and Baltimore's plan in the playoffs last year. Kaep came out pretty healthy, and the offense did alright. I would imagine that if a team blasts the QB when he gives the ball up on 2 plays (those will be 15 yard penalties the way the league is right now) and those two plays see Gore/Lynch/Morris/Williams/Spiller pick up big gains or TDs the defense likely stops doing that.

What would be more important for the Colts this season, injuring Kaepernick and possibly having him miss a couple games, or beating the 49ers? Are they really going to risk losing the game on the chance they can injure a player? If that's the argument, then it can apply to pocket passers too. What's to stop a DE or LB rushing blindside from diving at the QB's knees to injure him and ignore the play?

The argument that teams are just going to blast the QB every time and it will scare teams out of running option plays is ridiculous.

Teams still throw over the middle.

 

[JDM]

The OP is based on the premise that teams will hit them every chance they get. All I am saying is that free shots on your QB is not something you want to happen. Beyond that, we will have to wait and see.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

Sending a guy after the QB on every play regardless of what happens is advantage offense - it amounts to the QB blocking a defender out of the play. Defenses have to come up with something craftier than that. And I don't think they'll get away with consistent cheap shots on the QBs, if there's a pattern refs will watch for it and 15 yard penalties are too big to mess around with.

 

[imac_21]

The OP is based on the premise that teams will hit them every chance they get. All I am saying is that free shots on your QB is not something you want to happen. Beyond that, we will have to wait and see.

And I am saying that warrants a flag every time he doesn't have the ball. It's no different than a team deciding to hit Brady every time he drops back.

I also question how committed teams would be to this strategy if Kaep hands the ball to Gore and the OLB or DE decides to blow up Kaep allowing Gore to go 20 or more yards down the field. Is winning a game more important, or hitting the QB? Especially when you may not really benefit from a Kaepernick injury (if you play in the AFC South for example. If you're the Colts and expect to compete for either a wild card or the division are you willing to risk a loss just to get some shots in on Kaep? I would be surprised.

This has also been the strategy talked up in college football for years as well. Teams don't do it.

 

[imac_21]

Also, the idea that teams are just going to blast the QB every time no matter what is something John Madden presented. It isn't as if teams are talking up the strategy, One guy who hasn't coached or schemed for decades has a theory.

I would imagine that when all these teams went to college teams to find out how to defend it, if they suggested hitting the QB every time the answer from college DCs was "that's a great way to lose."

 

[JDM]

And I am saying that warrants a flag every time he doesn't have the ball. It's no different than a team deciding to hit Brady every time he drops back.

I also question how committed teams would be to this strategy if Kaep hands the ball to Gore and the OLB or DE decides to blow up Kaep allowing Gore to go 20 or more yards down the field. Is winning a game more important, or hitting the QB? Especially when you may not really benefit from a Kaepernick injury (if you play in the AFC South for example. If you're the Colts and expect to compete for either a wild card or the division are you willing to risk a loss just to get some shots in on Kaep? I would be surprised.

This has also been the strategy talked up in college football for years as well. Teams don't do it.

Unless he makes it clear he doesn't have the ball he is the same as a running back on a play fake. He is fair game.

 

[imac_21]

Unless he makes it clear he doesn't have the ball he is the same as a running back on a play fake. He is fair game.

He's fair game to be tackled. He's not fair game to be blown up. In many cases he would be a defenseless player. Hitting a defenseless player is illegal. Atlanta got flagged for hitting Kaep in the NFCC last year when he didn't have the ball on a read option.

And that doesn't do anything to address the fact that you just pulled one of the guys from that side of the field out of the play as part of your defensive scheme.

How many times are you going to tell Chandler Jones to hit EJ Manuel on the read option play when every time he does Spiller picks up 20 yards?

 

[JDM]

The play is easy enough to defend simply by playing fundamentally correct defense. My team will not resort to those tactics. But I have little doubt some will. And yes, if he is pretending to have the ball, he can be blown up, because a ball carrier can be blown up.

 

[imac_21]

The play is easy enough to defend simply by playing fundamentally correct defense. My team will not resort to those tactics. But I have little doubt some will. And yes, if he is pretending to have the ball, he can be blown up, because a ball carrier can be blown up.

So you don't think the Pats will do it, but you think some teams will because John Madden said it's a strategy?

How many times will teams be willing to get burned to get a hit on the QB?

And no one can be blown up in the NFL anymore. There are so many rules about hitting now. And if you think officials won't be even more strict when it's a QB you're crazy. As a Patriots fan I'm sure you've heard plenty about the protection Brady gets from officials. With how much Kaep, Wilson and RG3 are being used to promote the league, they will get that as well.

There's also a very definitive limit on how much time you have to hit a guy pretending to have the ball. QBs tend to take only a few steps when they give the ball up. They don't run 30 yards downfield. All they're trying to do is make a defender take one false step.

If, as you said, the read option can be "easy enough to defend" with proper fundamentals why would teams risk getting burned, taking penalties and (for players) being fined?

I think it's also important to note that the read option is not a single play. The option plays the Niners run have multiple looks with OL, TE and FB all having different responsibilities from one play to the next.

 

[imac_21]

You're also ignoring the fact that the Niners ran option plays on just 44 of their total plays last season. Gore had a grand total of 16 carries in read option plays last year. Kaepernick had 13.

In games Kaepernick started last season the Niners averaged 3.7 option plays per game in the regular season.
In the playoffs it went up considerably, but that was because GB was hopeless against it.
As I mentioned earlier, the Falcons plan was to hit Kaep ever time and make him give the ball up after watching him demolish the Packers. Gore carried 11 times in the option and scored on 2 of them.

Against the Pack they ran 16 options, 7 were kept by Kaep. On 5 of them he was untouched.

And if the QB is keeping the ball, the Madden strategy is failing.

 

[JDM]

Because teams don't play fundamental football.

 

[imac_21]

Here's an article on the Niners option game.

Breaking down the Niners' option attack - Stats & Info Blog - ESPN

I also think the idea that defenses will "catch up" with option offenses in the NFL. Are we going to pretend that SF, Seattle, Washington and Carolina are going to trot out the same option plays this year without making any adjustments or developments? SF and Seattle installed their offenses last offseason with the idea that their QBs were more traditional pocket passers. With all the praise Roman and Bevel get for their offensive creativity, is it possible that next year teams will see option plays that they didn't last year? There are already plenty of articles out there explaining how much more "advanced" the Niner option was then any college option last year.

I also think that if the great solution for defenses facing option offenses is as simple as "blow up the QB every time" we would have seen a lot more of that last year. It isn't as if that's an incredibly complex scheme. It's telling the DE or OLB on the play side to take the QB every time.

Madden basically said teams spent significant time this offseason learning how to stop it and have decided the solution is essentially cave man football.

 

[LPinSLC]

ReaD option or not the fact Remains, a player getting hit more often, increases the chance of an injury. When any QB leaves the protection of the pocket he becomes more likely to get hit. Even if on average, said QB only does this an additional 5-10% of designed plays per game. Does this not expose him to additional hits that A typical pocket passer isn't exposed too? 44 plays, thats Over 400 opportunities in the span of one decade. When it only takes one hit to cause an injury, are you really trying to suggest there isn't added risk?

 

[imac_21]

Because teams don't play fundamental football.

It isn't because they don't want to though. It's easy to say "we'll play fundamental defense to stop it." That's what GB, Atlanta and Baltimore planned in the playoffs.

How often did New England face option offenses last year? And no, the Jets don't count.