Picking Poison
"Read option" is not a precisely defined term. In general, the term usually refers to plays where the quarterback and halfback run in opposite directions, and a defender to the side of the quarterback's run path is left unblocked as the option key:
As with all option plays, the offense is making a bargain with the defense: the offense gets to leave a defender unblocked, letting the quarterback occupy a defender with an option read who would otherwise have to be blocked or occupied with a fake. The flipside of this arrangement is that the defense can dictate who carries the ball. To defend an option play, the defense designates at least one defender for each potential ballcarrier (note this is a necessary but not sufficient condition for defending the play - many TV commentators suggest that the option can be stopped just by ensuring a defender is assigned to each of the dive, keep, and pitch, but there are still plenty of ways for an option play to succeed even if every defender knows his assignment, not least of which is that the defenders with those assignments might get blocked). The defense also arranges these assignments to force the ball to the runner they perceive as least dangerous, and to funnel this runner to an area where they have more defenders, starting a cat and mouse game of adjustments and counter-adjustments between the two teams.
In a traditional option play, the attack focuses on one side of the formation (ignoring for the moment concepts like freeze option and counter-dive option), and often the offense will bring a player across the formation to create a numerical advantage on the playside. To compensate, the defense has to bring an extra player to the playside as soon as they recognize the direction of the play. For example, one common defense for a traditional option offense is to use a rotating secondary to introduce an extra "alley player" to the playside based on the initial flow of the ball:
By rotating from a 2 Deep to a 3 Deep secondary the defense compensates for the numerical advantage the offense generates by introducing a player (the pitchback) from the opposite side of the formation.
The read option makes this kind of tactic impossible, because the potential ballcarriers are moving in both directions at once. This two-sidedness is what makes a read option fundamentally different from a single-side option like the outside veer shown above, and it leads to both the play's greatest strength and greatest weaknesses.
Playing Both Ways
The first issue with a play that can end up going either direction is the challenge of sealing inside linebackers without knowing which way they will be trying to flow. Generally, a read option play is blocked as a run for the halfback, meaning that if the QB keeps the ball he won't usually have dedicated blocking to protect him from the linebackers. The defense can further exploit this by crashing the defensive end to force the QB to keep, leaving contain responsibility to the inside linebacker, who loops outside. Often called the "pinch-and-scrape" stunt or "scrape exchange," this has been one of the more popular tactics mentioned in the articles linked above. And with good reason - it's a simple and effective way to get a free defender on the quarterback:
In a "scrape exchange," the defensive end crashes down to force the QB to keep the ball and sprint outside, where he runs into the looping inside linebacker. Because the play is blocked as a run to the left, the linebacker doesn't encounter resistance on his way to the offensive right.
The scrape exchange is no magic bullet, though. As with the stack twist many teams use versus traditional option offenses, blocking either of the two twisting players tends to open a running lane for the offense. Chris Brown highlights one such scheme in his article, in which a backfield player from the opposite side of the formation blocks the scraping linebacker, a tactic Brown calls "samurai" and attributes to Nevada Coach/AD and Pistol Offense innovator Chris Ault.
On a tactical level, this is pretty much where the articles linked above leave off. They point out the importance of solid tackling, suggest hitting the quarterback whenever possible, and offer some coverage options that will allow an additional undercoverage player to play the run. But they surprisingly omit several common defensive strategies and offensive counters.
Strategic Overload
One very common response to a twist like the scrape exchange is for the offense to "reverse the read," flipping the play and taking advantage of the bubble created when the linebacker loops outside.
The "reversed read" flips the blocking direction of the zone read play, swapping the roles of the halfback and QB. In the scrape exchange stunt, the Sam ILB who would otherwise be responsible for the playside A gap has abandoned that responsibility to loop outside. With the playside DE kept from crashing by the OT's block, the defense is left with two players outside and nobody to cover the A gap.
Even though it has its risks, the scrape exchange illustrates a problem for the read option: while any option play lets the defense dictate the ballcarrier, a two-sided option also lets it dictate the direction of the play, and send its players to the side it dictates. Reversing the read lets the offense take some of the power back, making it more likely the play will go where it wants. To be prepared for both the normal and reversed read option plays the defense could run the scrape exchange to both sides, but that would weaken the middle of the run defense and create some issues for pass coverage, which is already a challenge against this scheme, as Matt Bowen has written for Bleacher Report.
A better way of dictating play direction to the offense is to have the defensive end play upfield to force the quarterback to give the ball to the halfback, then squeeze down the line to deny the cutback, a technique that Stanford coach Derek Mason hints at in Bedard's article. With the play direction predetermined, the rest of the defense can focus on covering all of the halfback's potential run gaps:
A "box and crash" stunt, sending the end upfield to force the play to the waiting linebackers on the other side, is the opposite tactic from the scrape exchange.
This technique, sometimes called the "box and crash" stunt, causes two problems for the zone read. First, by covering all the gaps at the line of scrimmage, offensive linemen can't create seams with double team blocks - "where there are no linebackers, there is no zone play" as Homer Smith said. Second, the backside defensive end effectively covers two gaps by accounting for the quarterback and the cutback lane, neutralizing the numerical advantage created by introducing the quarterback as a running threat. This is not necessarily an easy technique for the end to execute, and Mason points out that it requires undoing some of his previous coaching, but it can be done. Note that reversing the read won't help here, as both ends are in contain position and all gaps are covered regardless of the blocking direction.
However, committing six defenders to the run isn't a sustainable solution for the defense, either. Before long a Cover 0 defense will give up a big play via screen or downfield pass. The defense needs a way to accomplish the effect of a box and crash without the risk. Fortunately, one of most popular defensive innovations of the last 30 years is right there, begging to be put in the game.
Zone Versus Zone, Read Versus Read
"America's Zone Blitz (AZB)" and the "NCAA Blitz" are two names for what is arguably the most common fire zone blitz in football. Both names refer to the play's ubiquity, as in everyone in America (or in the NCAA) uses that blitz.
The AZB sends one defensive end crashing down on a long stick to the A Gap, with the rest of the line slanting away and the opposite end taking a read step and dropping into fire zone coverage versus a pass. Both linebackers blitz behind the crashing end.
Zone blitzing manages risk better than all out blitzing from Cover 0, and the AZB combines the crashing end from the scrape exchange with a boxing end to send the play to the blitz side.
In essence, running a zone blitz versus the zone read fights a read with a read: the dropping end is there to contain versus a run but also drops into the short zone coverage versus a pass, allowing the defense to adapt as the play develops.
With overload zone blitzes like the AZB effectively dictating play direction versus read option plays to either side, while maintaining a relatively sound 3-3 fire zone coverage behind, the offense must again adapt. To do so, it goes back to basics.
As with the scrape exchange, the AZB has the end crash down, forcing the read option QB to keep and run into blitzing linebackers. The additional blitz from Mike partially covers the resulting bubble.
In essence, running a zone blitz versus the zone read fights a read with a read: the dropping end is there to contain versus a run but also drops into the short zone coverage versus a pass, allowing the defense to adapt as the play develops.
Versus the reversed read play, the dropping end in the AZB sends the play back toward the blitz side. The AZB isn't totally risk free: as with the scrape exchange, the A Gap is open here, assuming the guard recognizes that Mike is the threat to his zone. If the guard goes for Sam instead, Mike will be free to run through the A/B gap.
With overload zone blitzes like the AZB effectively dictating play direction versus read option plays to either side, while maintaining a relatively sound 3-3 fire zone coverage behind, the offense must again adapt. To do so, it goes back to basics.
Completing the Cycle
The bidirectional read option play neutralized the defensive tactic of inserting an extra player to the playside, until the zone blitz managed to dictate the play direction from both sides. The offensive response is to complete the circle of adjustments, predetermining the play direction with a traditional, single-sided option play.
The AZB wants to chase the play to the side with the crashing end and blitzing linebackers. The offensive response is to predetermine the play direction with a traditional, single-sided option like the inverted veer. Hat tip: Coach Gerrick Suggs for pointing out Baylor's use of the pulling guard in their version.
Running a single-sided option against an overload blitz is a gamble, since calling it into the teeth of the blitz will not likely end well. But if the offense alternates guessing right and wrong sides, the 5 yard losses and 20 yard gains will average out to an offensive advantage.
Conclusion
The read option is a fundamentally different play from previous option offenses because it attacks both sides of the defense, neutralizing traditional option defense techniques, but also opening the play to attack through overload blitzes, including zone blitzes. Therefore, single and double sided options that look similar complement each other, since they require different defensive strategies. Because of the unique stresses it applies to the defense as a part of a complete package of constraint plays including single-sided options, the read option looks like a tactic that will stand the test of time, and the zone blitz looks like one of its most natural defenses.
Endnote: hitting the QB. Some commentators suggest that just hitting the quarterback will be enough to discourage the option in the NFL, as risk-averse coaches shy away from endangering their biggest investment. I'm not so sure. Nobody in their right mind will expose Peyton Manning to much option running, but the same can't be said for the innumerable young option QBs who are available every year. If any NFL team really wants to commit to the option, Matt Scott, Collin Klein, Tim Tebow and many others are available at low cost.
No comments:
Post a Comment