• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

RPO

bgbigdog

bgbigdog

Well-known member
DONOR
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/packaged-plays-and-the-newest-form-of-option-football/

Did we see some of this last year? Curious if I'm the only one who thinks so.
 
bgbigdog said:
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/packaged-plays-and-the-newest-form-of-option-football/

Did we see some of this last year? Curious if I'm the only one who thinks so.
Click to expand...

I'd agree. This I probably where Stitt would like to be....
 
Seems very similar to Stitt's offensive philosophy. He's said multiple times that the QB has the option to handoff to the RB on every play, it's just up to the QB to make the correct read on whether to run, pass, and where to look to pass the ball.

So it should be good having both Gus and Chalich with a full year under their belts. Hopefully Phillips gets up to speed quickly.
 
CV Griz Fan said:
bgbigdog said:
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/packaged-plays-and-the-newest-form-of-option-football/

Did we see some of this last year? Curious if I'm the only one who thinks so.
Click to expand...

I'd agree. This I probably where Stitt would like to be....
Click to expand...

Stitt promised that this is almost point on to what he wanted. However let me ask the question, can this truly work well without a mobile QB?
:dead:
 
RPO isn't new. RPO has been around for in some form since the inception of the Oregon Spread stuff.

You don't need a mobile quarterback because there are several iterations of it. The assumption is that you need a mobile quarterback. You don't, you just need a quarterback capable of reading defensive alignment, a hole player, and be decisive in the read. You don't need a guy to carry it 20 times a game, but enough to keep the hole players honest and conflicted (multiple reads and responsibilities).

Basically the purpose of RPO is to prevent two things from occurring,

1) The general rule in recent years with 40 front teams is to crash the DE and not read it. The reason functionally is the DE is a wasted unblocked player, might as well create havoc. The track depending on philosophy either takes the DE to the front side or to the QB on every play.

So depending on the RPO, my preference is to the front side versus the back, you have the inside zone, QB with a run pass option, and a post by the lead back, a bubble and a slant if you are in a H back plus a Y/Z alignment. Upfront, it looks like zone. The goal is to have the QB to release the ball on the stick route (Z) or the post after two steps. He reads the safety/coverage pre snap. Most QB's know whether they are going to get the zone or man coverage to the front side. Auburn ran this a bunch two years ago. Oregon did with Mariota as well.

2) This prevent teams for locking coverage based upon alignment and adding an extra man to the front side of zone. The habit of most zone read teams is out of 2x2 was to block the front side, and run some sort of bubble to the back (we saw this a bunch under Pflugrad where they would throw that 1 yard bubble). Basically it prevents teams who run 4-2-5, to cover 2x2 on the backside and add an extra man to run defense on the front. The old rule for most 4-3 zone teams it was a full-field 3 over 2 alignment in coverage. A lot of newer defenses try to cover the back side or boundary side with a half man to a man less. The RPO puts a lot of pressure on teams who want to run man to the backside with stick/wheel combos. There are a bunch of combos. You can't as freely crash your DE or give your OLB aggressive run reads.
 
Grizfan-24 said:
RPO isn't new. RPO has been around for in some form since the inception of the Oregon Spread stuff.

You don't need a mobile quarterback because there are several iterations of it. The assumption is that you need a mobile quarterback. You don't, you just need a quarterback capable of reading defensive alignment, a hole player, and be decisive in the read. You don't need a guy to carry it 20 times a game, but enough to keep the hole players honest and conflicted (multiple reads and responsibilities).

Basically the purpose of RPO is to prevent two things from occurring,

1) The general rule in recent years with 40 front teams is to crash the DE and not read it. The reason functionally is the DE is a wasted unblocked player, might as well create havoc. The track depending on philosophy either takes the DE to the front side or to the QB on every play.

So depending on the RPO, my preference is to the front side versus the back, you have the inside zone, QB with a run pass option, and a post by the lead back, a bubble and a slant if you are in a H back plus a Y/Z alignment. Upfront, it looks like zone. The goal is to have the QB to release the ball on the stick route (Z) or the post after two steps. He reads the safety/coverage pre snap. Most QB's know whether they are going to get the zone or man coverage to the front side. Auburn ran this a bunch two years ago. Oregon did with Mariota as well.

2) This prevent teams for locking coverage based upon alignment and adding an extra man to the front side of zone. The habit of most zone read teams is out of 2x2 was to block the front side, and run some sort of bubble to the back (we saw this a bunch under Pflugrad where they would throw that 1 yard bubble). Basically it prevents teams who run 4-2-5, to cover 2x2 on the backside and add an extra man to run defense on the front. The old rule for most 4-3 zone teams it was a full-field 3 over 2 alignment in coverage. A lot of newer defenses try to cover the back side or boundary side with a half man to a man less. The RPO puts a lot of pressure on teams who want to run man to the backside with stick/wheel combos. There are a bunch of combos. You can't as freely crash your DE or give your OLB aggressive run reads.
Click to expand...

Be honest. You got this shit from Wikipedia, didn't you?
 
Grizfan-24 said:
RPO isn't new. RPO has been around for in some form since the inception of the Oregon Spread stuff.

You don't need a mobile quarterback because there are several iterations of it. The assumption is that you need a mobile quarterback. You don't, you just need a quarterback capable of reading defensive alignment, a hole player, and be decisive in the read. You don't need a guy to carry it 20 times a game, but enough to keep the hole players honest and conflicted (multiple reads and responsibilities).

Basically the purpose of RPO is to prevent two things from occurring,

1) The general rule in recent years with 40 front teams is to crash the DE and not read it. The reason functionally is the DE is a wasted unblocked player, might as well create havoc. The track depending on philosophy either takes the DE to the front side or to the QB on every play.

So depending on the RPO, my preference is to the front side versus the back, you have the inside zone, QB with a run pass option, and a post by the lead back, a bubble and a slant if you are in a H back plus a Y/Z alignment. Upfront, it looks like zone. The goal is to have the QB to release the ball on the stick route (Z) or the post after two steps. He reads the safety/coverage pre snap. Most QB's know whether they are going to get the zone or man coverage to the front side. Auburn ran this a bunch two years ago. Oregon did with Mariota as well.

2) This prevent teams for locking coverage based upon alignment and adding an extra man to the front side of zone. The habit of most zone read teams is out of 2x2 was to block the front side, and run some sort of bubble to the back (we saw this a bunch under Pflugrad where they would throw that 1 yard bubble). Basically it prevents teams who run 4-2-5, to cover 2x2 on the backside and add an extra man to run defense on the front. The old rule for most 4-3 zone teams it was a full-field 3 over 2 alignment in coverage. A lot of newer defenses try to cover the back side or boundary side with a half man to a man less. The RPO puts a lot of pressure on teams who want to run man to the backside with stick/wheel combos. There are a bunch of combos. You can't as freely crash your DE or give your OLB aggressive run reads.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 
24 gave us a good view (school) on Football 3/4 with some side slashing lingo that made me read his post twice. Perhaps if I check on it again I may understand the basis of his teachings.
Thanks!
 
Coach Stitt had a tough first season with Montana. As we now are able to at least begin to understand what his offense is trying to do it is slowly becoming obvious what went on last season. Many of the fans did not have a clue as to what the hell ocurred right in front of them. Quite a few folks thought Stitt was calling all of the sneaky plays from the sideline while not understanding what concept was driving the offense. Conventional offensive football was not being performed so as the season went along with 3 new QBs, OL inexperience, WRs with extreme talent, RBs injured and coaching issues I think it can now be concluded that Stitt did about as well as he could.

The new season will bring a new team together along with some fresh coaches and us die hard Griz fans will begin to understand more about coach Stitt and his strange offense. With a new coaching staff that gets along with each other while implementing the team concept can only improve over last season's performance.

Old football coaches warned me that no matter how great Stitt was it would take some time for him to get the Griz rolling along and headed for the high ground. So while I want instant glory one must be patient and wait for the water to boil. RPO but I'd like to see Punt added. Perhaps RPOP...
 
The RPO stuff can be as simple and complex as you want it. I think there are more issues with receiver personnel than there is with QB's in that regard. You need different iterations of slot receivers, or recievers that are capable of executing different parts of the offense. I do believe for the RPO function within Stitt's offense, you need slot guys capable of executing concepts that typically might be divided between two different types of receivers. A Y or H that can block, and a slot receiver capable of getting into space quickly. As the year went on you saw more 3x1 with an H than you did 2x2 with an ace back. The reason simply is that you can use your split H/Y as a wing back and provide more punch to the run game.

RPO/Zone read is notoriously muddy. A clean read (a clear pull/give) doesn't happen that often. I think teams understood what the limitations of Montana's offense was last year, and made the front side of zone really difficult to execute with some fronts and stunts (NDSU game 2). If you are in a 3x1 set and want to run to the trip side, you are going to run into defenses that are more capable of handling it. If you talk to a lot of spread guys, they want a 2x2 versus 3x1 or a H or wing back set, because it is so much easier to defend those sets. 2x2 is neutral and you have to honor the whole field.

What you can find about Stitt at CSM in regards to video's had a mix of RPO and layered pass concepts. I think Stitt prefers the layered passing stuff more than the RPO. Though when Simis and Chalich were in at QB you saw the emergence of the RPO especially away from zone read. A lot of quick bubble, solid screen off the back side of zone read.
 
ALPHAGRIZ1 said:
No, he posts most of this stuff in his "Chalk Board" section on a real football chat site.

:coffee:
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of what 24 brings to the table. I'm just yankin' his chain...metaphorically speaking, of course.
 
Grizfan-24 said:
The RPO stuff can be as simple and complex as you want it. I think there are more issues with receiver personnel than there is with QB's in that regard. You need different iterations of slot receivers, or recievers that are capable of executing different parts of the offense. I do believe for the RPO function within Stitt's offense, you need slot guys capable of executing concepts that typically might be divided between two different types of receivers. A Y or H that can block, and a slot receiver capable of getting into space quickly. As the year went on you saw more 3x1 with an H than you did 2x2 with an ace back. The reason simply is that you can use your split H/Y as a wing back and provide more punch to the run game.

RPO/Zone read is notoriously muddy. A clean read (a clear pull/give) doesn't happen that often. I think teams understood what the limitations of Montana's offense was last year, and made the front side of zone really difficult to execute with some fronts and stunts (NDSU game 2). If you are in a 3x1 set and want to run to the trip side, you are going to run into defenses that are more capable of handling it. If you talk to a lot of spread guys, they want a 2x2 versus 3x1 or a H or wing back set, because it is so much easier to defend those sets. 2x2 is neutral and you have to honor the whole field.

What you can find about Stitt at CSM in regards to video's had a mix of RPO and layered pass concepts. I think Stitt prefers the layered passing stuff more than the RPO. Though when Simis and Chalich were in at QB you saw the emergence of the RPO especially away from zone read. A lot of quick bubble, solid screen off the back side of zone read.
Click to expand...

Makes a lot of sense. Do you see Stitt sticking to that or would a big improvement in the effectiveness of the o-line make a difference? Or does he shift if something happens to Brady?
 
bgbigdog said:
Grizfan-24 said:
The RPO stuff can be as simple and complex as you want it. I think there are more issues with receiver personnel than there is with QB's in that regard. You need different iterations of slot receivers, or recievers that are capable of executing different parts of the offense. I do believe for the RPO function within Stitt's offense, you need slot guys capable of executing concepts that typically might be divided between two different types of receivers. A Y or H that can block, and a slot receiver capable of getting into space quickly. As the year went on you saw more 3x1 with an H than you did 2x2 with an ace back. The reason simply is that you can use your split H/Y as a wing back and provide more punch to the run game.

RPO/Zone read is notoriously muddy. A clean read (a clear pull/give) doesn't happen that often. I think teams understood what the limitations of Montana's offense was last year, and made the front side of zone really difficult to execute with some fronts and stunts (NDSU game 2). If you are in a 3x1 set and want to run to the trip side, you are going to run into defenses that are more capable of handling it. If you talk to a lot of spread guys, they want a 2x2 versus 3x1 or a H or wing back set, because it is so much easier to defend those sets. 2x2 is neutral and you have to honor the whole field.

What you can find about Stitt at CSM in regards to video's had a mix of RPO and layered pass concepts. I think Stitt prefers the layered passing stuff more than the RPO. Though when Simis and Chalich were in at QB you saw the emergence of the RPO especially away from zone read. A lot of quick bubble, solid screen off the back side of zone read.
Click to expand...

Makes a lot of sense. Do you see Stitt sticking to that or would a big improvement in the effectiveness of the o-line make a difference? Or does he shift if something happens to Brady?
Click to expand...

Part of the problem with running RPO/Zone Read schemes is for all the plays or combo's you run, especially if you turn it over to the QB to read rather than calling it in, you are going to get a pile of negative results. Last year there were vastly too many for Stitt's liking. A lot of that was personnel related. Not being capable of executing it effectively over the course of games/weeks/years.

If I were to guess, the preference would be to give the QB's the reads in the passing game and call the run game. Most schools, Oregon, UCLA, Cal, all had RPO packages rather than running it every down. Mariotas oregon teams were as close to a full RPO team I have seen in recent years. Auburn who runs more than they pass, does turn over much of the run game calls to on field reads.

Last year the OT's struggled with front/back side reads in the run game. A lot of free runners or just bad footwork. I think it improves, because Germer is a stickler for that stuff. The talent may or may not be better, but Germer will get better OT play this year. That allows Stitt to make play calls and use more RPO because there is less chance of free runners in the backfield.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top