Ravens just ran a TO play

Have fun running the option against the likes of Ray Lewis. "Okay, Ray, your job is to hit the QB as hard as you can every play until he can't walk. We don't give a crap whether he pitches or keeps."
 
GiveEmHellJackets said:
Have fun running the option against the likes of Ray Lewis. "Okay, Ray, your job is to hit the QB as hard as you can every play until he can't walk. We don't give a crap whether he pitches or keeps."
Click to expand...

Um, good luck of running any offense against Ray Lewis. Besides, it's not like Tom Brady is running the option either. Oh yeah good luck to D's not having any safeties to help in pass protection.
 
GiveEmHellJackets said:
Have fun running the option against the likes of Ray Lewis. "Okay, Ray, your job is to hit the QB as hard as you can every play until he can't walk. We don't give a crap whether he pitches or keeps."
Click to expand...

and if you can, stab him real quick and then hide behind the other LBs
 
This thread leads me to ask this, and it may be a pretty stupid question (not surprising from me), but why couldn't a flexbone offense such as ours cross-train a B back or two to play the QB position for backup purposes? We are so deep at RB (and not so deep at QB) and it seems that in our offense you don't always need a QB with a laser arm to move the ball. Seems that if you had a RB learning to make reads and pitches it could actually come in handy. Is it just a matter of not having the time/reps to teach the same player how to run B back and QB? Is height an issue? Or is there something totally obvious about this that I simply have not thought of? Has Coach Johnson ever attempted any RB-at-QB packages like this?
 
GiveEmHellJackets said:
This thread leads me to ask this, and it may be a pretty stupid question (not surprising from me), but why couldn't a flexbone offense such as ours cross-train a B back or two to play the QB position for backup purposes? We are so deep at RB (and not so deep at QB) and it seems that in our offense you don't always need a QB with a laser arm to move the ball. Seems that if you had a RB learning to make reads and pitches it could actually come in handy. Is it just a matter of not having the time/reps to teach the same player how to run B back and QB? Is height an issue? Or is there something totally obvious about this that I simply have not thought of? Has Coach Johnson ever attempted any RB-at-QB packages like this?
Click to expand...

I'd guess height issue and how the individual's football IQ/make-up allows him to make the right decisions as QB.

Also, QB is a full-time job I'm guessing. So it would be like working two full-time jobs which is A LOT of work in practice. My guess is QB is the much harder job of the two...

Personally, I'm extremely worried for how long Nesbitt will be injured this year. Last year worked out well.
 
This thread leads me to ask this, and it may be a pretty stupid question (not surprising from me), but why couldn't a flexbone offense such as ours cross-train a B back or two to play the QB position for backup purposes? We are so deep at RB (and not so deep at QB) and it seems that in our offense you don't always need a QB with a laser arm to move the ball. Seems that if you had a RB learning to make reads and pitches it could actually come in handy. Is it just a matter of not having the time/reps to teach the same player how to run B back and QB? Is height an issue? Or is there something totally obvious about this that I simply have not thought of? Has Coach Johnson ever attempted any RB-at-QB packages like this?
Click to expand...

Also, you remove a lot of the threat of passing the ball. Yes, teams do pass with RBs (see Ronnie Brown, LT, etc.), but the threat of a pass is still real for GT, and that would remove a lot of it.
 
WreckTheRest said:
I'd guess height issue and how the individual's football IQ/make-up allows him to make the right decisions as QB.

Also, QB is a full-time job I'm guessing. So it would be like working two full-time jobs which is A LOT of work in practice. My guess is QB is the much harder job of the two...

Personally, I'm extremely worried for how long Nesbitt will be injured this year. Last year worked out well.
Click to expand...
I'm really hoping that we manage to keep Nesbitt healthier this year because our offense will put points up faster, and he can rest during the second half.
 
I thought that if an NFL team were to try the PJ TO, it should be the pre-Favre Vikings. Jackson at QB, Peterson as the BB, Taylor at one AB and Percy Harvin at the other would seem like a pretty nice fit.
 
Of course it would work. And, anybody that thinks it wouldn't has been duped or is as dellusional as SEC people, or any of these folks saying our offense has been "figured out". How many times does it have to happen for people to stop saying crap about size and speed and hype words like that. It's so stupid. The offense has size and speed too!

The reason they haven't run it in the NFL is because it's the passing league, it's a fan oriented league, and high flying offenses are what stupid fans want. Nobody has had the balls to consider hiring someone who knows how to run this kind of offense (yet). And there aren't that many candidates who could do it! Maybe like 5, and we have the premier guy! Let's hope the delusion continues.
 
Jacket59 said:
The reason they haven't run it in the NFL is because it's the passing league, it's a fan oriented league, and high flying offenses are what stupid fans want.
Click to expand...

:laugher: The NFL is "the passing league?" Compared to what, the UFL?
 
Jacket59 said:
Of course it would work. And, anybody that thinks it wouldn't has been duped or is as dellusional as SEC people, or any of these folks saying our offense has been "figured out". How many times does it have to happen for people to stop saying crap about size and speed and hype words like that. It's so stupid. The offense has size and speed too!

The reason they haven't run it in the NFL is because it's the passing league, it's a fan oriented league, and high flying offenses are what stupid fans want. Nobody has had the balls to consider hiring someone who knows how to run this kind of offense (yet). And there aren't that many candidates who could do it! Maybe like 5, and we have the premier guy! Let's hope the delusion continues.
Click to expand...

You are right that it is a passing league and I think the preference for that when it comes to personnel selection is why we really won't see a full blown option offense any time soon.
 
I don't buy the argument that NFL teams won't run a triple-option based offense because of the fans. Fans want to win. Take fans in Dallas or Philadelphia or Pittsburgh, anywhere, and they'd be happy running the statue of liberty play every first down and punting on second down if it could win a SuperBowl.
 
The TO (triple Owens) never works in NFL football. When will people learn.

nfl_g_owens_580.jpg
 
GiveEmHellJackets said:
I don't buy the argument that NFL teams won't run a triple-option based offense because of the fans. Fans want to win. Take fans in Dallas or Philadelphia or Pittsburgh, anywhere, and they'd be happy running the statue of liberty play every first down and punting on second down if it could win a SuperBowl.
Click to expand...

Of course not. No coach or GM is sitting in his office thinking, "Well, this way would give us the best chance to win, but I bet the fans would enjoy this more!" They don't give a damn what the fans think. Their jobs don't depend on the fans. Winning is, and always has been, the bottom line.
 
Every offense has 11 players. The defense has more time to prepare in the NFL, but so does the offense.

It's a personnel issue. Option QB's in the NFL would need to be cheaper and NFL teams would need to have two or three, since the QB does get hit every play. It would also take a much different skillset on the coaches and players part, which is why change happens incrementally in the NFL. In college, we know most players won't leave for four years and we won't have to replace them on the fly. We can take the time to train people from scratch.

But it's not an issue with speed or talent. If defenders make the right decision every time and have the talent, EVERY offense will be stopped. Texas Tech can be beat if you just have good pass coverage every single play.
 
gth816f said:
Of course not. No coach or GM is sitting in his office thinking, "Well, this way would give us the best chance to win, but I bet the fans would enjoy this more!" They don't give a damn what the fans think. Their jobs don't depend on the fans. Winning is, and always has been, the bottom line.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the Falcons when they drafted MV7 instead of getting a solid OLineman or DLineman.

They knew that MV7 win or lose would put more fans in the stadium than an Olineman or Dlineman.
 
unforgiven108 said:
Tell that to the Falcons when they drafted MV7 instead of getting a solid OLineman or DLineman.

They knew that MV7 win or lose would put more fans in the stadium than an Olineman or Dlineman.
Click to expand...

You mean the guy who led them to a playoff win in his first season as a starter(the first time the Packers ever lost in the playoffs at Lambeau?) And the guy who led them to the NFC championship game the year after his preseason injury?

Vick may have put fans in stands but that's not why he was picked. He was picked because he was a game-changer, even if it didn't work out in the end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top