Smart Football: 2QB Zone Read
I'm not about to suggest that Borges should, or could, install a 2QB Zone Read package, but given our situation with Robinson/Gardner it certainly peaked my interest to see this piece from Chris Brown at Smart Football. Not a lot I can add beyond linking and embedding the video, but it's a cool wrinkle and I figured some readers may be interested if they haven't seen it.
September 24th, 2012 at 6:10 PM ^
Nebraska has the players to implement this.
September 24th, 2012 at 6:15 PM ^
This makes more sense for them because they have both a RH and LH QB.
September 24th, 2012 at 6:56 PM ^
And always wanted to do it myself. Alas, now I cannot.
September 24th, 2012 at 7:01 PM ^
Now that is thinking-man's football. Nebraska ran that one double-option play against Michigan last year that left Mattison and Hoke with that priceless "never seen that before" reaction. This is the next step of the same thing. It could be used as a wildcat-type thing for a couple plays or series a game. Or imagine how cool it would be to run it as a base offense!
When you force the defense into a timeout because you are running something totally baffling: RPS+12.
September 24th, 2012 at 8:11 PM ^
how do you defend that?
September 24th, 2012 at 10:16 PM ^
I don't know, but I would guess you'd watch the linemen to see if they're run blocking or in pass protection. Put a linebacker or someone out there as a spy if you're still worried about it. I don't think this would work more than a few times in one game.
September 24th, 2012 at 8:22 PM ^
A few teams tried this back about 30 years ago. It started as a great idea, and it ended with several dead hookers.
September 24th, 2012 at 8:30 PM ^
Five is not "several."
#CJK5H
September 24th, 2012 at 9:23 PM ^
September 24th, 2012 at 9:42 PM ^
I discussed this a bit in a previous thread that began by discussing the zone read option in the NFL. I would like to see some NFL team that has had bad luck with quarterbacks implement this sort of thing as a key component of its regular offense.
The fundamental law of the NFL is that the QB position is by far the most important position on the field; great QBs can carry mediocre football teams to the playoffs, while great teams with lousy QBs tend to seriously underperform. As a consequence, getting the right quarterback is more important to a team's success than any other factor by a wide margin.
But not everybody can have a great quarterback. So why doesn't some team try to take advantage of a seriously underutilized skillset in the NFL and build a team around it? I'm talking about mobile quarterbacks who are good, but not great, at passing. Guys like Dennis Dixon, Vince Young, and the like. Incorporate a true ZR running quarterback offense, and since you are worried about getting your QB hurt, stockpile four of them on your roster.
And then, since it would waste roster space just to have those guys on the bench, put them on the field. Denard's going to be a slotback type in the NFL anyway, right? You can draft him in the fourth round and give him 10 touches a game, with four or five being pass plays, and terrify opposing defenses. Run a ZR with Vince Young and Tim Tebow in the same backfield. etc. Passes would come from all over the field, and run/pass packages would gain an entirely new meaning. A team like that would be a nightmare to prepare for--but with so many running QBs filling backup and third-string roles, you would have no problem finding people to play.
It's crazy, and risky, so nobody in the ultimate safe league will try it; but it would be fun to watch, and someone willing to stick with it for two years and make it work could see some surprising results. Of course, most GMs would rather stick with Kevin Kolb or Matt Cassel.
September 24th, 2012 at 11:01 PM ^
I can't believe I'm gonna be "that guy" but it's "piqued", not "peaked." Then again, if you couldn't be any more interested, I'll kindly remove my foot from my mouth.
September 25th, 2012 at 9:35 AM ^
September 28th, 2012 at 1:57 AM ^
You're lucky. I was about to be more condescending when correcting the same thing. I think I know why this one bothers me more than other spelling mistakes--it's one of a few rare words where spelling it incorrectly creates a different meaning for the word than intended. When you hear the phrase you think interest was "peaked" or "maximum"-ed -- that is you reached some sort of interest climax.
Spelling it correctly reveals a different meaning: piqued. Twitched, but to an essential point at which you will turn your attention to this new thing. There isn't another word with that kind of subtlety that can be used for this, and therefore the correct spelling is worth protecting, for fear of it losing that meaning and us having no way to express an interest level literally just above the "don't care" mark.