What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Cosell’s Take: Running quarterbacks are great, (1 Viewer)

Faust

MVP
Cosell’s Take: Running quarterbacks are great, but throwing from the pocket is still the best option

By Greg Cosell | Shutdown Corner

Shutdown Corner is proud and pleased to announce the addition of Greg Cosell to our list of writers and analysts. Greg has been with NFL Films since 1979, and invented the concept of advanced football analysis on television in 1984 when he and Steve Sabol engineered the "NFL Matchup" concept for ESPN. The show has run ever since, and Greg has always been its executive producer. As you know if you've listened to our podcasts with Greg over the last two years, he brings a unique and comprehensive view to pro and college football with his decades of experience watching coach's tape, and speaking with scouts, coaches, and personnel executives throughout the league.

Greg will bring his perspective to the draft process, and to the NFL game in general, through a series of articles that begins with his take on the recent schematic changes at the quarterback position at the professional level.

As I prepare for my 15th NFL scouting combine in Indianapolis, I am more intrigued than ever by the evolution of offense in the NFL. Many saw the 2012 season as the dawning of a new, ground-breaking era, one few could have seen coming just a few short years ago.

Those who viewed this past season as a demarcation point focus on the respective successes of Colin Kaepernick, Russell Wilson and Robert Griffin III. Their mastery of the Pistol and the read option offenses was seen as clear evidence of a significant change in NFL culture -- the fusion of the college game, once seen as separate and distinct, with the more “advanced” and “better” NFL version.

Of course, there’s more to it than that. The Pistol was not new in the NFL this past season. In fact, it was utilized extensively in 2008 in Kansas City. The offensive coordinator was Chan Gailey, and the quarterback was Tyler Thigpen. I remember a conversation I had with Ron Rivera, then the defensive coordinator for the San Diego Chargers; he told me how difficult the Pistol was to defend, primarily due to the ability of Thigpen to run the ball effectively. Thigpen started 11 games that season, threw 18 touchdown passes and ran for 386 yards. The Chiefs, however, only won one of those 11 games. Thigpen was gone the next season. The main reason: he could not throw the ball well enough to be a consistent NFL starter, no matter what formation or offensive concepts were deployed.

Similarly, the read option was not a revolutionary NFL idea in 2012. The Carolina Panthers, with rookie Cam Newton, used it often a year ago with success, well before Tim Tebow became the starter for the Denver Broncos. Denver won games with Tebow running the read option, but individually and offensively as a whole, Tebow and the Broncos were not very good. Again, the reason was basic: Tebow was not a good enough passer.

Why did Newton struggle throughout 2012? The Panthers clearly committed to the shotgun, with more extensive utilization of the read option. No one would argue Newton's talent. The reason Newton, and the Carolina offense, struggled was simple: Newton was erratic and scattershot throwing the ball from the pocket. As good as he was as a runner manipulating the read option (ask the Atlanta Falcons, they’ll tell you), his inability to throw consistently reduced him to an uncertain week-to-week player.

At the 2006 combine, I had a great conversation with Rick Neuheisel, then the quarterback coach for the Baltimore Ravens. Neuheisel had predominantly been a college coach up to that point, and he felt strongly that the read option (the Pistol features read option concepts) would work in the NFL if coaches would only broaden their thinking. The ability of the quarterback to run on any given play would put such stress on the defense, Neuheisel believed, that extra bodies would be needed to defend that, and coverages would then be simplified and easily defined before the snap of the ball.

There’s no question Neuheisel was right, as we saw this season with Kaepernick, Wilson and Griffin, but there’s a caveat, and it’s critical. There are two elements that must be in place for the read option to be successful. The first may be obvious, but it’s so important it can’t be overstated: it is the quarterback’s viability as a runner. Without that, the read option has no value. Only the quarterback as a meaningful running threat forces defenses to alter their gap control concepts, and the number of defenders allocated to defend the myriad run schemes. That has been lost in this fervor over the read option -- it’s solely a function of the quarterback as runner. That is what dictates the defensive reaction, the need to always account for the quarterback. Another gap must be defended, and therefore another player is required.

Is that enough for the read option to be a staple component of an NFL offense? Can an average passer be a quality, or even a high level quarterback, simply because the offense is predicated on the read option?

The answer is a definitive "no."

The NFL reality remains clear and unambiguous, and it speaks to the second element that must exist for the read option to be effective as an offensive staple. The ability to throw the ball effectively from the pocket is the most essential characteristic required to be in the discussion of the game’s best quarterbacks. Of course, many factors comprise that, the most important of which is accuracy, or ball location, a more descriptive term that better captures the essence of the attribute. There are many others, among them anticipation, pocket movement, pocket toughness, decision-making, the willingness to pull the trigger in critical situations. These traits have always been identifiable and measurable through extensive film study.

These are the subtleties of quarterback play, the nuances demanded at the highest level. NFL quarterbacking is a tediously disciplined craft, not a toss-the-ball-out, make-it-up-as-you-go, random and arbitrary improvisation. All you need to do is look at the expansion of quarterback “gurus” preparing prospects for the draft, and their NFL careers. The George Whitfields, the Chris Weinkes, and all the others are teaching the details of the position, the fine gradations that separate success from failure.

There is absolutely nothing revolutionary or unconventional about any of this, and it will never change. Why? There are many reasons, but the simplest is this: Third down, especially third and long. That’s the possession down, the down in which defenses have the advantage with their multiplicity of pressures and coverages. Quarterbacks must be able to throw the ball effectively against sophisticated defenses specifically designed to challenge and disrupt them. If you can’t do that, you can’t play in the NFL.

One point that must be made is that mobile quarterbacks do impact third-down defense in the NFL. They force defenses to play more zone than man-to-man coverage so that there are eyes looking back at the quarterback, as opposed to running with receivers. There was no better example than Kaepernick’s 20 yard touchdown run on third-and-8 against the Green Bay Packers in the NFC Divisional Playoff game. Green Bay played “man free” coverage, with the second safety doubling Michael Crabtree. All eyes were on the five eligible receivers; no one was looking at Kaepernick. He saw that, and ran untouched into the end zone. Of course, I’ve also seen Aaron Rodgers run for explosive yardage in many similar third down situations versus man coverage, and we won’t see him running the read option anytime soon.

What has been largely overlooked when discussing Kaepernick, Wilson and RGIII is their outstanding passing ability. 49ers offensive coordinator Greg Roman made exactly that point about Kaepernick leading up to Super Bowl XLVII. He said that what had made his first year starter so good was his throwing ability, not his running ability, more specifically his arm strength and his downfield accuracy.

“People don’t understand what makes Colin good,” Roman said. “It’s his arm. All week, everybody’s talking about how great he ran against Green Bay, but the keys… were the throws he made.” Roman summed it up succinctly. The key to playing quarterback in the NFL is the ability to pass, primarily from the pocket. If you can’t do that, it’s exceedingly difficult to perform well week-in and week-out.

What other NFL teams could make effective use of the read option? Tennessee with Jake Locker? Minnesota with Christian Ponder? Miami with Ryan Tannehill, the former college wide receiver? There’s no doubt in my mind Chip Kelly will run it in Philadelphia now that the Eagles brought Michael Vick back. I have studied Oregon’s offense, and it is evident it was structured on the quarterback’s threat as a runner. To believe otherwise is to not understand the schematic underpinnings of that offense.

The idea that colleges are churning out mobile quarterbacks with strong arms, and that the NFL is now allowing them to stay mobile, misses a subtle distinction. That mobility is the initial mechanism by which the 49ers, Seahawks, Redskins and Panthers structure components of their offense; it’s the means, not the end. The read option is a concept and scheme that exploits the quarterback’s running ability to dictate tactical stress and uncertainty in the defense. It’s a strategically efficient manner by which to create better opportunities in both the running game and the passing game. What few acknowledge is that it can be highly disruptive to the defense even without the quarterback running. Kaepernick did not run the ball once out of the Pistol-read option against Atlanta in the NFC Championship game. Neither did Wilson against the Falcons in the Divisional Playoff. But he did throw for 385 yards, and led the Seahawks to four second-half touchdowns.

The success of Kaepernick, Wilson, Griffin and, to a lesser extent (based on wins), Newton has exaggerated the impact of the read option as the impetus for revolutionary change in the NFL. Look at this year’s group of quarterbacks in the draft. Only one, Florida State’s E.J. Manuel, is capable of running the read option. None of the other top six or seven quarterbacks can do it. But even that overlooks the far more important point: no one will become a great NFL quarterback because of the way they run the read option.

While there’s no question more of Saturday’s offensive concepts have, and will continue to spread throughout Sunday’s game, there remains one prevailing difference. In college football, you can be a great quarterback without being a very good passer. In the NFL, that will never be the case.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think Cossell is great and he makes solid points but have a different take.

Cossell's argument is stated up front that running QBs are great but throwing from the pocket is the best option.

OK, well I think that reasoning is backasswards.

I think to be effective as a zone-read-option QB or to be effective from the Pistol formation that you obviously HAVE to be good from the pocket FIRST and foremost.

The called runs from the zone-read or the Pistol number around 7 per game. Basically the zone-read-option and Pistol should be seen as offensive packages, Cossell seems to be of the mindset that teams or front offices or NFL talking heads or fans or whoever don't understand this and now are seeking running QBs who are not capable pocket passers.

I don't agree and I'm not sure how he came to that conclusion.

The hiring of Chip Kelly and his zone-read-option offense when Chip doesn't really have a pocket passer who can run his scheme might have prompted this or he may have heard so-much about the zone-read or the Pistol that he feels the need for some blow back. Or it could be the build up to the NFL draft where he may be hearing about this new offensive attack and he feels the need to throw cold water on some sort of uncontrollable frenzy for teams to get zone-read or Pistol QBs but I'm not feel'n it.

His points are valid but his argument doesn't seem to have much merit because I don't think he's got anyone taking the opposite side, basically Cossell seems to have built up a false argument, a paper tiger.

I do feel that their HAS been a sea-change in the NFL where we WILL see more zone-read and Pistol packages being installed with QBs who are already solid pocket passers and who have the unique abilities to run the option but only in certain key situations. It wasn't run nearly as much as it was talked about but it doesn't mean teams will force it into their offense if they lack the personnel to run it effectively.

I think we will see it run in places where it wasn't last year where it should be effective from two different mind-set.

1. Pull mind set talent to run the systems will be pulled out naturally from the coaching staffs

a pull model based on personnel. Specically I'm thinking of a guy like Tannenhill in Miami has the unique ability to be effective in those packages but it was off Miami's radar last year but obviously they can see how effective he can be if they install some of those packages.

2. Push mind set coaching staffs will push their knowledge of systems onto players who aren't get fits

I also feel it will be pushed onto a team, like in Philadelphia. I feel the Eagles will run it, zone-read, due to Chip Kelly's coaching even if Vick or Dixon or whoever isn't a perfect match that the coaching support will be in place and it will also have a good chance to be effective since familiarity with the systems will allow those coaches to take guys who are not perfect fits but place them into great situations to be successfull.

Cossell is great and he makes great points but I do feel their was a sea-change in the NFL last year and the zone-read-option and Pistol will be seen much more and teams will be seekings guys to run those systems. The value of the pocket passer is still the base-line-stand but a pocket passer who can also run the zone-read or Pistol now has become the gold standarnd IMHO.

 
Other than Tannehill, there are some other mobile "pocket" passers that would be deadly in a "zone-read" offense, like Aaron Rodgers and Andy Dalton.I think EJ Manuel is overrated as a runner. He's more like Jason Campbell and Josh Freeman.

 
Other than Tannehill, there are some other mobile "pocket" passers that would be deadly in a "zone-read" offense, like Aaron Rodgers and Andy Dalton.I think EJ Manuel is overrated as a runner. He's more like Jason Campbell and Josh Freeman.
I'm holding judgement until he runs his 40. I agree if he's on th slow side.
 
His points are valid but his argument doesn't seem to have much merit because I don't think he's got anyone taking the opposite side, basically Cossell seems to have built up a false argument, a paper tiger.

. . .

Cossell is great and he makes great points but I do feel their was a sea-change in the NFL last year and the zone-read-option and Pistol will be seen much more and teams will be seekings guys to run those systems. The value of the pocket passer is still the base-line-stand but a pocket passer who can also run the zone-read or Pistol now has become the gold standarnd IMHO.
Agree with pretty much your whole post, but these two statements sum it up for me. I think Roethlisberger (even though he's not fast, he is so hard to bring down and can keep plays alive) and Rodgers were sort of the start of this recently (and going back, Elway and Young, among others). A QB who can make all the necessary decisions, pass from the pocket, and hurt you by moving with his legs would really be the ultimate weapon. It's just a matter of prioritizing the qualities that you want (probably in that order) and maximizing the QB's full talents.
 
I think Cossell is great and he makes solid points but have a different take.Cossell's argument is stated up front that running QBs are great but throwing from the pocket is the best option....
(Edited) While the article's title says that, the article itself is not about that topic. Nor does it ever come close to addressing that question.The true point of the article was:
Is [it] enough for the read option to be a staple component of an NFL offense? Can an average passer be a quality, or even a high level quarterback, simply because the offense is predicated on the read option?The answer is a definitive "no."
The article is not expressing a preference for pocket passing over the read option. It is saying the read option system won't turn an average passer who can run into the same effectiveness as a high level QB. He's saying you still need a QB who can throw well when running a read option.Edit to add: The article would be more aptly named "Cosell’s Take: Running quarterbacks are great, but throwing from the pocket is still a necessary skill"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think Cossell is great and he makes solid points but have a different take.Cossell's argument is stated up front that running QBs are great but throwing from the pocket is the best option....
(Edited) While the article's title says that, the article itself is not about that topic. Nor does it ever come close to addressing that question.The true point of the article was:
Is [it] enough for the read option to be a staple component of an NFL offense? Can an average passer be a quality, or even a high level quarterback, simply because the offense is predicated on the read option?The answer is a definitive "no."
The article is not expressing a preference for pocket passing over the read option. It is saying the read option system won't turn an average passer who can run into the same effectiveness as a high level QB. He's saying you still need a QB who can throw well when running a read option.Edit to add: The article would be more aptly named "Cosell’s Take: Running quarterbacks are great, but throwing from the pocket is still a necessary skill"
Agreed. The article was spot on, but the title was a little too cutesy—and possibly not even something Cosell himself came up with—play on the read "option".
 
This might be a better fit for a combine thread but I figured this would be a good a place to post the latest Shutdown Corner Combine Preview podcast with Greg Cosell.

Go to the link to listen. Below the link are some tidbits.

The Shutdown Corner Combine Preview Podcast with Greg Cosell

With the 2012 NFL season in the books and the pre-draft process underway, it's time to reunite with our old buddy and new collaborator Greg Cosell of NFL FIlms and ESPN's NFL Matchup (as well as Shutdown Corner, in articles you can read here and here). The scouting combine is coming up rught away, and since Greg and I will both be there, along with Shutdown Corner's Brian McIntyre, we thought it would be good to go over the big prospects before the combine shook a few things out. As always, Greg gives you a sense of the process you won't get anywhere else, based on his conversations with players and coaches past and present, and his OCD-level evaluation of coach's tape.

A few words of wisdom from Mr. Cosell:

On West Virginia QB Geno Smith: "There's no question that he has an NFL arm. The ball comes out with good velocity and juice. His short to intermediate throws are very, very good. The one thing that troubles me about Smith, and it's theoretically coachable, is that he's primarily a shotgun quarterback, which in and of itself is not an issue. But he has a tendency to bounce on his drops -- he does not actually drop. And that must be cleaned up. Because the problem when you do that is you're not truly ready to throw the ball, and a major difference between college and the NFL is the response time of defensive backs. If you're not ready to throw, and you wait that extra beat while you get your feet set, you'll have an issue."

On USC quarterback Matt Barkley: "He does not have a naturally strong arm. There's not a lot of natural velocity on his throws. He did not drive the ball at the intermediate and deeper levels. He does have a quick and compact delivery, but I think arm strength is a significant concern as he transitions to the NFL. The other concern is that his feet are a little slow; he's not very athletic in and around the pocket. To be a top NFL quarterback, he's going to have to be a rhythm and timing passer with great anticipation and ball location. That must be his game if he's to be a quality NFL starter."



On Florida State QB E.J. Manuel: "Of the top six or seven quarterbacks in this class, he's the only one who can run read-option. It will be interesting to see if that raises his value. But again, it gets back to throwing the football. I think he has an easy delivery, and the ball comes out with velocity. He was under center more than people think -- I think people just assume that he was in the shotgun all the time. There were throws I saw that did have anticipation and good accuracy. He's got a high release point. At times, he's a little scattershot, and we'll see where that goes. His ball position is too high, and that will be changed in the NFL."

On Notre Dame TE Tyler Eifert: "To me, he's far and away the best tight end in this draft for the NFL that we now exist in. This guy lines up wide, he beats cornerbacks on vertical routes, he's got great hands, he has body control flexibility tracking the ball, and a very wide catch radius. To me, he's worthy of a first-round pick, and maybe even a top-20 pick."

On Florida State DE Bjoern Werner: "I've seen a bunch of games, and I'm going to be in the minority here, but I did not love this kid on tape. He's naturally athletic, there's no question about that, and there were times when he was very explosive off the ball as a pass rusher. There were times when he used his hands effectively to stack and shed in the run game. I thought he was more of a speed-to-power pass rusher than an explosive edge rusher, and I didn't think he was highly competitive snap after snap. I thought he was a flash player -- when he won early, he was really good. But if he didn't win initially, he was not a finisher."

As with everything involving Greg Cosell, this podcast is a must-listen for those fans of advanced tape analysis.
 
Chuck Pagano: Read-option will be slowed with study By Marc SesslerAround the League Writer
If our little band of bloggers had a more robust travel budget, we might have made the trip to Friday night's Maxwell Awards Dinner in Atlantic City. We missed out, but that's all right, because Greg Cosell was there.The NFL Films guru was kind enough to pass along an interesting nugget from Chuck Pagano. The Indianapolis Colts coach reiterated what many of his peers told Cosell at the NFL Scouting Combine: That defensive minds around the league don't feel the read-option attack will be a big issue once it's been studied.Nobody's questioning the value of the scheme, but as Cosell points out, it comes down to this: The ability to throw the football will always be king in the NFL.Still, the Pistol formation, a relatively newer concept, might be around for the long haul. With the right quarterback, the Pistol removes some of the run-game limitations inherent to a traditional shotgun formation. With your quarterback and runner aligned closer to the point of attack, defenders -- especially linebackers -- struggle to see ground plays develop.Defenses might catch up tactically, but the Pistol formation, specifically, toys with instincts. Defenses were slowed down last season by having to account for so many potential options out of the backfield. Players won't adjust to that overnight.Hits on the quarterback remain a concern. We just saw Joe Flacco become the highest-paid player in league history. He's not a read-option quarterback, but do you pay a player like Robert Griffin III that kind of money down the road and allow him to run the way he does? It's a topic of discussion among coaches.49ers offensive coordinator Greg Roman told reporters at the Super Bowl that San Francisco intentionally moved away from Pistol late in the season before stamping the Green Bay Packers with it during the playoffs.Everybody talks about what Colin Kaepernick did on the ground in that game, but he's dangerous because he can make every throw. San Francisco has a quarterback that can do it all. That's why this 49ers offense will continue to evolve.It's a fascinating time to be a fan of the game. We don't know where all of this is going. Read-option concepts have staying power, they've been around for ages, and mobile quarterbacks are going to draw more interest than ever. But mobile quarterbacks who can't deliver the football -- no matter the scheme -- will never thrive at the pro level.
 
I think that he's right in that QBs need to be accurate and good passers no matter what. But I think coaches that think the read option can be easily solved with some study are deluding themselves. If you have an accurate QB, the only way to truly defeat the read option is to take the QB out of the game. And that is where Cosell is getting a little trapped on Twitter tonight I think. His main assertion for why the RO won't work longterm is due to the hits QBs take. But I don't see the same concern for pocket QBs that take a ton of hits. Where is the fretting over Big Ben? Or Andrew Luck? Or any QB behind the Arizona or NYJ lines? QBs get hit lots of ways. Good RO QBs limit the bad hits they take by getting rid of the ball or taking good angles. I don't think teams should run 100% read option, but if you have a QB that can run it, running it enough times to force defenses to use an extra LBer or S to account for the QB is devastating.

 
It's definitely true that the Quarterback still has to be a decent player to get it done in the read option.I'm not sure he really hits on one point about it - in the read option, you don't have to be AS GOOD of a passer to be successful compared to a pocket passing offense, AS LONG AS YOU ARE A GOOD RUNNER.Kaepernick would get eaten alive in a pocket passing offense, but because he's such a running threat and because of the offense SF runs, he has a bit more time to throw the ball. He's got an arm to make throws as long as he can identify the throws and make them in time, and with a huge pass rush bearing down on him he can't do that very well, but the running threat of the read option gives him the time needed to make use of his arm.As a read option prospect Kaepernick is probably the best QB to come into the NFL based off his running ability and passing ability. It'll be interesting to see if teams go with guys like EJ Manuel and the success they have with that, because those guys are not as good as Kaepernick at doing it. The Philadelphia situation will be extremely interesting to watch.

 
I still think that the whole thing only really works to full effect when the defense has to worry that the QB is going to rip off long gains like Kaepernick or Griffin have done. And that takes a guy who can really run. Not just scramble, but flat motor. All on top of being able to make the throws. It's a pretty rare combo. From 1999-2010 the only guy who really fit the bill was Culpepper. Vick might have evolved into something similar if he'd stayed healthy, worked hard and not lit his career on fire. But he was probably never really going to be the passer the recent quartet are.That four guys who can all run and throw like that all hit the NFL in the span of two years after seeing none for so long is odd. Might be the start of a trend or we might not see it again for five years. Geno Smith has the physical tools to play the read option, but he's never run much and he's undersized compared to Kaep, Newton, Griffin and even Wilson (who's much thicker and more compact). Can he take the beating? I also saw a ton of WVU the last few years and I'm not sure Smith is comfortable running. He's always looking to pass first.

 
Good stuff. I do agree with the main point that a QB being able to run will not make them a more accurate passer. It can make some of the QB reads easier but they still have to execute. I do think defenses will develop some counters for the Seahawk Washington and 49er schemes however over the offseason. Cam Newton still performed well last year, so I am not saying there are any easy answers to this, but I think part of his early struggles were due to game plan against him that had been worked on based on the previous years scheme. Tampa Bay especially had great plan against it week one where they destroyed the Panthers running game. So teams will have some time to look at variations of the scheme run with these 3 new QB and be better prepared for them next season.No question the Pistol and Read Option are good tools for QBs who are adept at running them. A QB that can run makes the defense account for that or give up easy 1st downs to the QB running the ball.I would like to read Cosell's Take on the Vikings offense last season. I have heard a lot of people criticize it as uncreative, simplistic ect. There were a lot of bootlegs and things to help set up the run and play action. I wonder what his opinion about that might be particularly when Harvin was healthy. I think part of the criticism of the Vikings offense stems from making comparisons to these 3 new QBs effectiveness year one in the zone read. So naturally in the draft teams may be looking for QBs who could possibly enjoy similar success year one in the scheme. What gets lost in this is that all 3 of these QB are very good. They are accurate passers. It is the player that drives the scheme rather than the other way around.

 
I still think that the whole thing only really works to full effect when the defense has to worry that the QB is going to rip off long gains like Kaepernick or Griffin have done. And that takes a guy who can really run. Not just scramble, but flat motor. All on top of being able to make the throws. It's a pretty rare combo. From 1999-2010 the only guy who really fit the bill was Culpepper. Vick might have evolved into something similar if he'd stayed healthy, worked hard and not lit his career on fire. But he was probably never really going to be the passer the recent quartet are.That four guys who can all run and throw like that all hit the NFL in the span of two years after seeing none for so long is odd. Might be the start of a trend or we might not see it again for five years. Geno Smith has the physical tools to play the read option, but he's never run much and he's undersized compared to Kaep, Newton, Griffin and even Wilson (who's much thicker and more compact). Can he take the beating? I also saw a ton of WVU the last few years and I'm not sure Smith is comfortable running. He's always looking to pass first.
The Vikings did not run a zone read or anything like that. It was very rare that the Vikings would have a called run for CulPepper. He had a rocket arm and Randy Moss was out running everybody and HOF Cris Carter who kept the chains moving. Most of his runs were result of evading pressure not planned. Cunningham when he was with the Eagles was great also with Keith Jackson and Keith Byers as his top receiving targets. Cunningham lead his team in rushing from 1987-1990. His main targets were a TE and FB. It wasn't called the read option or anything like that I recall but the scheme was definitely built around Cunningham being a threat as a runner.Geno Smith may be one of the unsaid reasons why Cosell is saying not every QB is suited to the scheme.
 
This isn't Cosell's take. Its conventional wisdom and borderline common sense at this point. Let's not give Cosell credit for what most NFL fans already know.

 
The Vikings did not run a zone read or anything like that. It was very rare that the Vikings would have a called run for CulPepper.Cunningham when he was with the Eagles was great also with Keith Jackson and Keith Byers as his top receiving targets. Cunningham lead his team in rushing from 1987-1990. His main targets were a TE and FB. It wasn't called the read option or anything like that I recall but the scheme was definitely built around Cunningham being a threat as a runner.
Right. Didn't mean to suggest Culpepper actually ran the read option, just that based on the skills required he could have.Kaepernick reminds me a ton of Cunningham except I think he might be bigger.I was also wondering about Steve McNair. I have the impression he was an above average passer, but maybe more of a McNabb/Rodgers type scrambler than a true threat. But I don't really remember him very well.
 
Cosell’s Take: You say you want a revolution?

By Greg Cosell

It was just over 12 months ago that the 2011 season was anointed “the Year of the Quarterback”. Think about it. Tim Tebow was the center of conversation. The Broncos ran the read option (wasn’t that a college offense?), and Tebow made enough plays late in games to help drive Denver to the playoffs. Then in the AFC Wild Card game, he threw for over 300 yards on just 10 completions, including the improbable 80 yard touchdown in overtime to beat the Steelers. Tebow was suddenly the poster child for all those outliers who believed: 46% completion percentage be damned, it was possible to play NFL QB unconventionally.

Then there was Cam Newton. Newton had the most prolific season by a rookie quarterback in NFL history, becoming the first to throw for more than 4,000 yards. In addition he ran for over 700 yards, and scored 14 rushing touchdowns, another NFL record for a quarterback.

Newton’s statistical profile was remarkable; perhaps more compelling was the manner in which he did it. In some ways similar to Tebow (both ran the read option) and in others different (he was a far better passer), he was bending, if not breaking, the rules of accepted quarterback play. Newton was shattering long-held beliefs of how the position had to be played successfully in the NFL. In short, in the eyes of many, he was revolutionizing the quarterback position.

The overriding point was this: After the 2011 season, we heard much dialogue about the quarterback position being transformed. It may seem a little preposterous now, but that was the talk only one short year ago. The established and time-honored way of playing quarterback consistently and effectively in the NFL was changing. It was a new day, a new way, and new eyes to see the dawn, as Crosby, Stills and Nash sang in their classic song, “Carry On”.

Of course, this kind of talk was nothing more than frivolous white noise. Let’s step back a minute and provide some needed context. The evolution of the NFL game has been evident for some time. Pro football today is defined by the emphasis on throwing the football. In addition to the significant increases league-wide in passing attempts and yardage totals, many other more tactical factors reflect this reality: multiple receiver packages, athletic and versatile tight ends, spread formations (including empty sets with no backs) with wide receivers of differing skill sets, shifts and motions designed to dictate favorable matchups, play calling weighted heavily to pass. Offensively, the NFL is about explosive plays, and the percentages strongly indicate you have a better chance to gain 20-plus yards passing the ball as opposed to running it. Sid Gillman, the recognized father of the modern day passing game, always used to bemoan all the effort spent coaching the running game. He would say, “We’re spending all that time to try to gain three yards”.

Defenses have responded accordingly. Coaches are continually looking for strategies to pressure quarterbacks without sacrificing or compromising coverage. It’s a numbers game, and it always will be. How can you present the illusion of pressure without actually sending more rushers? The defense’s objective is to force the offense to increase the number of pass protectors beyond the 5 offensive linemen, so that eligible receivers must become part of the protection and therefore cannot release freely into pass routes. The defense wants more defenders to match up to fewer receivers. That was the superseding premise of the zone blitz (five pass rushers) and zone exchange (four rushers with one or more second and/or third level defenders) concepts.

The bottom line is this: Quarterbacks must be able to pass the ball against multiple pressure and coverage concepts designed specifically to challenge not only them, but the pass protection schemes. This is what happens on third down, the possession down, the down in which the proactive offensive tactics (read option, for instance) have no relevance. Passing the ball well in those difficult and critical situations demands specific and identifiable attributes. They are necessary for all quarterbacks to consistently succeed at the NFL level. There’s no question different players possess these characteristics in distinctive and varying degrees. But make no mistake: a tangible skill set that can be quantified is required.

Those traits begin with the very basics: Footwork on the drop from center or in the shotgun. I can’t tell you how many times I have seen quarterbacks drift to one side or the other on their drop into the pocket. That negatively impacts their balance and their footwork. In addition -- and this is never talked about -- it has a damaging effect on pass protection. Remember, pass protection concepts are structured on the launch point of the quarterback. If he drifts, or in any way moves closer to his offensive line, he’s increasing the likelihood of throwing with bodies too close to him. You can see that. It’s visible on film.

There are so many attributes that are discernible on tape. Accuracy, or more precisely ball location, can be measured. So can timing and anticipation. You can see when a quarterback delivers the ball before the receiver makes his break. You can’t be a high-level NFL quarterback without that trait. Pocket movement can be gauged. You can analyze a quarterback’s capacity to move within an area that approximates the size of a boxing ring. And the corollary, just as important, is his ability to maintain downfield focus while doing so.

There are certainly more, but the point is clear. You need specific attributes to play NFL quarterback well, and none of them are unconventional or revolutionary. That’s not the way it works in the NFL.

One final point that I can’t stress enough: In order for the position to be played properly, the quarterback must operate within the structure of the offense a large percentage of the time. Improvisation and sandlot play may occasionally look spectacular, but always remember they are random and arbitrary. They can result in negative outcomes just as easily as they can produce positive ones. That’s not the template for success in the NFL.

So what happened to Tebow and Newton? Tebow was not hard to analyze. He simply lacks the necessary skills to be an NFL passer. Newton, on the other hand, struggled in his sophomore season primarily because he was unreliable and scattershot as a passer. As a rookie, and this was overlooked by those yearning for a new day, he transitioned to the NFL in a manner that was unexpected and unforeseen given his college resume. He was poised and composed, decisive and consistently accurate in the pocket. He delivered in the face of pressure. He made difficult throws into tight coverage. He did not look to run, unless it was the only option or part of a designed play call.

In 2012, the Panthers, looking to further take advantage of Newton’s size and running ability, committed more to the read option, with Newton the foundation of the run game. The results were not what Carolina hoped. They had a less productive rushing attack, and a more erratic passer. Newton’s accuracy, both from the pocket and on the move, was unpredictable. You saw outstanding throws, but far too many poor throws. The expected development into a high level NFL quarterback did not take place.

The revolutionary quarterback of 2011 became just another inconsistent passer in 2012. The reason is simple and straightforward -- he did not throw the ball well enough. That’s what NFL quarterbacking is about. It will always be that way. Remember we have been through all this talk before about the multi-dimensional quarterback. Michael Vick was the athletic innovator who was going to change the game, transcend accepted and time-worn philosophies, and compel a rethinking of the perceived limits of the position. It never happened. Vick, to this day, is not an accomplished passer. He does not exhibit the quantifiable attributes often enough. He remains a week-to-week player with little stability or continuity to his game. He’s constantly dangerous, at times dazzling, but seldom consistent, and most importantly, not always available.

Of course, this discussion leads to Colin Kaepernick, Russell Wilson and Robert Griffin III. All athletic quarterbacks with a wide array of throwing and running skills, leading the so-called new era of NFL quarterbacks. Griffin will be the most interesting to follow, coming back as he is from a major knee injury. If his ability to run is compromised meaningfully, will he develop into a top NFL quarterback? It’s an unanswerable question at this moment, but much of his passing success resulted from the impact his viability as a runner had on the defense. Newton presents a cautionary tale. The biggest and strongest of the group took a step back in 2012. Few would have anticipated that a year ago.

The overall point is this: To play NFL quarterback at a high level consistently, a tangible, identifiable and measurable set of attributes is demanded. No one revolutionizes the position without those attributes. No one plays it unconventionally without those attributes. That kind of conversation is just idle talk and white noise.
 
Critics already burying read-option? Packers and others know better

Jason La Canfora

CBS Sports NFL Insider

PHOENIX -- Perhaps, as several coaches have suggested during the just-concluded NFL's owners meetings this week, the read-option is a fad about to expire. Could be they are right.

But when Packers coach Mike McCarthy thinks about read-option football, he sees anything but an ineffective gimmick about to be expunged. McCarthy is still haunted by visions of 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick gouging his defense with his legs and his arm, making season-changing plays out of the read-option seemingly at will. He sees something that, no matter what the future may hold, is very much a problem for Green Bay in the here and now, and something he and his staff will invest considerable time and resources studying this offseason.

"I wouldn't say it's here for years to come -- I don't have a crystal ball," McCarthy said during the NFC coaches breakfast with the media Wednesday morning in Arizona. "But I know we're going to see it early and often."

McCarthy, whose dream of hoisting another Lombardi Trophy was derailed by the 49ers and the read option in the divisional round of the playoffs -- with San Francisco amassing nearly 600 yards of offense -- said it would be naive to expect opponents not to pour over that game film and try to replicate those results against his defense. So while others may be dismissive of read-option football, McCarthy's entire defensive staff recently spent a day at Texas A&M immersed in the concepts.

His defensive coaches headed to the airport and piled in a van to pick the brain of Aggies innovative head coach Kevin Sumlin, who confounded college football with his version of the offense with Heisman Trophy winning quarterback Johnny Manziel.

"Coach Sumlin and his staff were very gracious," McCarthy said, in engaging in a back and forth with his defensive staff, trading concepts and philosophies (expect NFL teams to be hot and heavy for Sumlin come January, if not sooner).

McCarthy is still blaming himself for his team at times lacking the requisite fundamentals and confidence in its attempts to defend the read option in the postseason. Once Kaepernick turned the edge and galloped 56 yards for a memorable touchdown in the third quarter, McCarthy began to fear the worst. And indeed that play altered the landscape of the rest of the game.

"I could see we weren't playing with proper leverage," he said. "Our confidence wasn't there. ... When they hit the big plays on us, I could see we were on our heels."

Kaepernick, in his first playoff start, led San Francisco to a record 579 yards -- he accounted for 181 of their 322 yards on the ground. Not even Green Bay's quick-strike offense could pretend to keep pace.

Suffice to say, the Packers don't think this style of football is suddenly going to go out of style.

In fact, the tone NFC coaches took toward the formation today was decidedly different from what their peers in the AFC were uttering publicly, or under their breath, when they met the media Tuesday. Part of it could be a bit more of a defensive-minded framework from some successful AFC coaches -- five of the playoff coaches in that conference (Mike Tomlin, Bill Belichick, John Fox, Marvin Lewis and Super Bowl champ John Harbaugh have defensive backgrounds) -- and it's also very much a matter of personnel.

So while Tomlin calls it a "flavor of the week," he doesn't have to look at a schedule that for the foreseeable future is loaded up with the 49ers (Kaepernick), Seahawks (Russell Wilson), Redskins (Robert Griffin III), Panthers (Cam Newton) and, with the arrival of Chip Kelly to Philadelphia via Oregon, one of the innovators of read-option concepts now in that conference as well.

New Bears coach Marc Trestman revealed at this same coaches breakfast that he will be adopting elements of the offense, which now means at least one team in every NFC division will be experimenting with some variation of the offense. (The Bucs, with a big, athletic quarterback as well, in Josh Freeman, could always play around with it more as well).

Saints coach Sean Payton, always at the vanguard of offensive football, had plenty of time to watch games last season while serving his one-year suspension for the "bounty" case. Like McCarthy, himself a quarterback guru, Payton is hesitant to vouch for the longevity of the read-option -- it could be defenses catch up to it as they did with the wildcat -- but he has seen how effective it can be with the right personnel and real team.

"It's of no concern to me whether we have to deal with it in 20 years," Payton said. "But I know it's here now. That's factual. ... We have to play teams like Carolina and San Francisco and Washington and Seattle. It is in the NFC, and we have to play those things."

Niners coach Jim Harbaugh, a former quarterback, generally reveals nothing, but I did get him to concede that there are still more wrinkles within read-option football yet to be exposed. And it stands to reason that with Kaepernick now established as the starter, and virtually all first-team reps, that his rapid development should only be hastened by the upcoming OTAs and training camp.

"Option football has been around a long time," Harbaugh said. "The first football I really started watching as a kid at Michigan was option football. ... It's really been around a long time."

Harbaugh seems to be hinting that perhaps some of this is here to stay, though obviously with the massive quarterback contracts and huge stakes in the pro game, the question will remain as to what impact the physical toll and injury-risk passers incur in this system will lead to its rapid demise in the NFL game.

No one absorbed more criticism for running plays in the pistol, and watching his quarterback get pummeled than Redskins coach Mike Shanahan. Griffin's rookie-of-the-year season came with its share of blows to the head and knee injuries and ended with a second ACL repair of his brief football career (including college). But Shanahan isn't apologizing -- although he is imploring his dynamic quarterback to learn to slide sooner -- and he certainly isn't backing away from using read-option plays whenever RG3 gets back into live game action.

"I love that type of talk," Shanahan said, when asked about the comments other coaches have made about this brand of football being on the verge of extinction.

He loves the fact that, even if he only plans to run, say, three read-option plays in a game, the opponent is forced to devote valuable, and limited (in this new CBA), practice time to trying to stop it.

"It takes away from game preparation," Shanahan said.

It also forces defensive coordinators to "change your defense to stop it," which in and of itself gets an opponent out of its base formations and into looks they can't possibly spend as much time honing and perfecting.

"It slows defenses down," Shanahan said, and forces them to deploy safeties differently, which opens up other quadrants of the field."

No one has adopted this up-tempo, spread approach to the levels that Kelly did when in college, and now there is a tremendous amount of intrigue league-wide into how prevalent those concepts will be in Philadelphia and whether or not it will work (or how long it might take to click). Kelly has stressed above all else that he won't force anything -- there has to be the proper marriage between scheme and personnel -- but it's hard to imagine he is going to break away entirely from his brainchild.

He was at first seemingly dismissive of the theory that defenses will figure this thing out this offseason -- "I say they could be right; anybody can say whatever they want" -- and, like McCarthy he made clear that he's no Miss Cleo, and lacks that same crystal ball, before giving a salient lesson in football history.

It wasn't all that long ago that "3 yards and a cloud of dust" was all the rage, and had someone 20 years ago suggested that offensive success in the modern game would become defined by throwing the ball 60 to 65 percent of time, "they would have said that's a recipe for disaster."

"The game is always evolving," Kelly pointed out, and as you watched these 16 coaches holding court at various tables in a conference room today, there was no doubt that there would be more scheming, and read-option machinations to come, once they got back home.

It might not be here forever, but it will remain something for defenses to cope with in 2013.
 
I think Shanahan has the correct interpetation of the value of the zone-read-spread/Pistol.

"I love that type of talk," Shanahan said, when asked about the comments other coaches have made about this brand of football being on the verge of extinction.

He loves the fact that, even if he only plans to run, say, three read-option plays in a game, the opponent is forced to devote valuable, and limited (in this new CBA), practice time to trying to stop it.

"It takes away from game preparation," Shanahan said.

It also forces defensive coordinators to "change your defense to stop it," which in and of itself gets an opponent out of its base formations and into looks they can't possibly spend as much time honing and perfecting.

"It slows defenses down," Shanahan said, and forces them to deploy safeties differently, which opens up other quadrants of the field."
THIS is absolutely the correct way to view the read-option.Shanny only used it on average 7 plays a game. Its a package not a base offense and by using it sparingly it keeps a defense off-guard so his interpretation is correct and as I've said from the begining.

Cossell is great but he came in with his view from the wrong angle of scoffing at a 'new-type' of read-option QB being what NFL teams should be targeting. He made his case, undeniable case, that QBs first and foremost had to be proficient in the pocket or the read-option wouldn't work when he should have added the true value of the read-option as a PACKAGE since that is what it is a PACKAGE that hurts a defense due to prep time and forcing them out of their base-D.

But if you don't have a QB to install a Pistol/read-option then obviously you can't force a defense to prep for it or take them out of their base.

 
Run or pass? History says teams with running QBs are average, at best

Pat Kirwan

I took a look at the 10 best running performances by quarterbacks in NFL history and how their teams fared during those seasons. Not one of those top-10 performances led to a Super Bowl win or an appearance in a Super Bowl.

In fact, as a group, the 10 running quarterbacks were barely over .500 in the win-loss column. The combined record for the quarterbacks is 78-71-2, or 52 percent.

Michael Vick has four of the top-10 rushing seasons. In 2004, Vick led his team to an 11-4 record while recording the fourth-best rushing season for a QB with 902 yards. But Vick's team didn't go very far in the playoffs. I'm not saying it was his fault -- or the fault of any of these quarterbacks -- but the running QB has yet to trump the throwing QB.

Here are the top 10 all-time season running performances by quarterbacks.

  • Michael Vick (2006): 1,039 yards and a 7-9 record
  • Bobby Douglas (1972): 968 yards and a 4-9-1 record
  • Randall Cunningham (1990): 942 yards and a 10-6 record
  • Michael Vick (2004): 902 yards and an 11-4 record
  • Robert Griffin III (2012): 815 yards and a 9-6 record
  • Michael Vick (2002): 777 yards and an 8-6-1 record
  • Cam Newton (2012): 741 yards and a 7-9 record
  • Cam Newton (2011): 706 yards and a 6-10 record
  • Michael Vick (2010): 676 yards and an 8-4 record
  • Steve McNair (1997): 674 yards and an 8-8 record
Only five of these top-10 performances helped get that quarterback into the postseason -- Vick (2002, 2004 and 2010), Cunningham (1990) and RG3 (2012). In the seven postseason games played by these quarterbacks, the record is 2-5 -- with both victories by Vick. In five postseason games, Vick has rushed 36 times for 271 yards (7.5 per rush), and he also scored the only rushing postseason touchdown of the quarterbacks on this list.

In the next few years we are going to see some outstanding rushing seasons from the young quarterbacks in the NFL, but the question remains: Can those running quarterbacks can lead a team to a Super Bowl win? So far the answer is no.
 
Run or pass? History says teams with running QBs are average, at best

Pat Kirwan

I took a look at the 10 best running performances by quarterbacks in NFL history and how their teams fared during those seasons. Not one of those top-10 performances led to a Super Bowl win or an appearance in a Super Bowl.

In fact, as a group, the 10 running quarterbacks were barely over .500 in the win-loss column. The combined record for the quarterbacks is 78-71-2, or 52 percent.

Michael Vick has four of the top-10 rushing seasons. In 2004, Vick led his team to an 11-4 record while recording the fourth-best rushing season for a QB with 902 yards. But Vick's team didn't go very far in the playoffs. I'm not saying it was his fault -- or the fault of any of these quarterbacks -- but the running QB has yet to trump the throwing QB.

Here are the top 10 all-time season running performances by quarterbacks.

  • Michael Vick (2006): 1,039 yards and a 7-9 record
  • Bobby Douglas (1972): 968 yards and a 4-9-1 record
  • Randall Cunningham (1990): 942 yards and a 10-6 record
  • Michael Vick (2004): 902 yards and an 11-4 record
  • Robert Griffin III (2012): 815 yards and a 9-6 record
  • Michael Vick (2002): 777 yards and an 8-6-1 record
  • Cam Newton (2012): 741 yards and a 7-9 record
  • Cam Newton (2011): 706 yards and a 6-10 record
  • Michael Vick (2010): 676 yards and an 8-4 record
  • Steve McNair (1997): 674 yards and an 8-8 record
Only five of these top-10 performances helped get that quarterback into the postseason -- Vick (2002, 2004 and 2010), Cunningham (1990) and RG3 (2012). In the seven postseason games played by these quarterbacks, the record is 2-5 -- with both victories by Vick. In five postseason games, Vick has rushed 36 times for 271 yards (7.5 per rush), and he also scored the only rushing postseason touchdown of the quarterbacks on this list.

In the next few years we are going to see some outstanding rushing seasons from the young quarterbacks in the NFL, but the question remains: Can those running quarterbacks can lead a team to a Super Bowl win? So far the answer is no.
I really hate this article.

First - Had Kaepernick started all 16 games, he'd be on that list and he's a bad no-call away from winning the Super Bowl.

Second - Vick accounts for 40% of that list, and has a great winning % in those 4 years.

Third - way too early to point to Cam and RG3 and their lack of playoff wins. They've played 3 season's combined.

Lastly - the sample size is way too small to make any solid assumptions.

What a horrible article.

 
Read-option will harm QBs, Gunther Cunningham saysBy Marc Sessler

Around the League Writer

Plenty of the NFL's defensive coaches believe the read option can be stopped.

Indianapolis Colts coach Chuck Pagano said in March the attack would be slowed with study, and everyone from the Green Bay Packers to the New York Giants have deployed their assistants to college campuses to crack the code.

Detroit Lions defensive coordinator Gunther Cunningham says it won't be defenses that put an end to the read-option offense, but injuries to NFL signal-callers.

"The problem is for those quarterbacks, one of these days, one of them is not going to walk off," Cunningham told the team's official website. "It's a lot of pressure on him to physically do that."

Cunningham, who's been coaching since the 1960s, went on: "I think we all understand what the issues are and how to play it. I reflect back on my college days and it wasn't that hard to remember all that stuff because it put a lot of pressure on me in those days and it does in this league, too."

Fair point. The pistol formation is a newer beast, but the read-option attack didn't emerge in a vacuum. Coaches and players league-wide have faced it for decades at the college level. It's fair to expect NFL teams to improve against the option in 2013, but offenses will continue to adapt, too. That's the chess match that makes football a pleasure to watch.

But the subtext of Cunningham's comments bear some truth. Landing a franchise quarterback is akin to unearthing the Ark of the Covenant in NFL circles, and putting that treasure in danger never will be in vogue.

Follow Marc Sessler on Twitter @MarcSesslerNFL.
 
If your QB has to run, you might have problems.

If your QB has the ability to run, that's probably a good thing.

I always think of Steve young as the ideal combination. he rushed for around 400-500 yards in his best seasons but his running complimented his passing. Ben and McNair were similar in that way.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just thought I would trhow this out there - is the running QB era looking like a passing era?

- Vince Young

- Tebow

- Kaepernick

- Griffin

Russell Wilson has won a Super Bowl and was runner up in another and though it has been a down year perhaps he is the ideal right now.

Any views on the era of running QB's in FF or the NFL? Is this a continually viable model or it dying out, or has it already?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just thought I would trhow this out there - is the running QB era looking like a passing era?

- Vince Young

- Tebow

- Kaepernick

- Griffin

Russell Wilson has won a Super Bowl and was runner up in another and though it has been a down year perhaps he is the ideal right now.

Any views on the era of running QB's in FF or the NFL? Is this a continually viable model or it dying out, or has it already?
The four guys you list can't pass and don't seem to have a handle on running an offense or adjusting to what the defense does. They had success for a time but their inability to adjust was their undoing. Cam is doing well because he has learned to read a defense and lead the offense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just thought I would trhow this out there - is the running QB era looking like a passing era?

- Vince Young

- Tebow

- Kaepernick

- Griffin

Russell Wilson has won a Super Bowl and was runner up in another and though it has been a down year perhaps he is the ideal right now.

Any views on the era of running QB's in FF or the NFL? Is this a continually viable model or it dying out, or has it already?
I didn't agree with the way Cosell presented his initial argument but agreed with how Shanahan did where basically said its an effective package to be used sparingly in games forcing the defense to prepare and adjust.

The fact college offenses have gone to the spread means top QBs coming into the league will come in with spread skill sets and it will be a projection of whether or not they can fit into the traditional pocket passing Pro Sets so I think we will see a lot of QBs coming into the league who are mobile.

If any of mobile QB coming into the league develops into solid pocket passers they will still be mobile and have a chance to be special. If that happens then I think a good OC like Kyle Shanahan would take advantage of that and install a pistol/spread/zone-read packages to put more pressure on a defense to turn them into something special.

 
I just thought I would trhow this out there - is the running QB era looking like a passing era?

- Vince Young

- Tebow

- Kaepernick

- Griffin

Russell Wilson has won a Super Bowl and was runner up in another and though it has been a down year perhaps he is the ideal right now.

Any views on the era of running QB's in FF or the NFL? Is this a continually viable model or it dying out, or has it already?
The #1 and #2 rated FF QBs going into this year (Rodgers and Luck) are both running QBs. And it's very possible that #3 next year will be Mariota. Tyrod Taylor is 4-2 as a starter and has completed 70% of his passes. So no, running QBs are not dying out.

QBs can't get by solely on running ability; they have to be able to pass. That's not news.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top