In theory, having a downfield pass as the third option instead of a backward pitch or a stalk-block doesn't add any additional effectiveness to the play, since the receiver is accounting for the cornerback one way or another. And none of these adds any additional numbers to the playside in the way that the pitchback coming across the formation in the wishbone does, for example. Numerically, this play is the same as a quarterback sweep, not that that's a bad thing. Probabilistically, though, there's an extra dimension here.
The cornerback in this situation should sink back with the receiver, forcing him to run the hitch or stalk block, and give up either a quick hitch or the QB keeper, with the same numerical situation as your standard read option (assuming C3 as shown; in C2 he will force but there will be more safety help behind). But there's a chance the corner doesn't do what he's supposed to do:
(Figure blatantly stolen from Smart Football post, credit probably to SB Nation)
In his article Brown describes this as a "hole" throw between the CB and S, but I think the example above is more a matter of the CB being fooled by the run action and/or the S being out of position; the true "hole" down the sideline in C2 is usually a lot smaller than you see in the clip above. In any event, it's the chance of things going other than planned for the defense, and the fairly nice fallback plan of a standard read option even if the defense does everything right, that changes the calculus for this play in the long-term average sense. The risk-reward ratio of adding the downfield throw is a good one for the offense.
The main drawback to this play mentioned in the Smart Football post is that the offensive linemen are technically illegally downfield when the pass is thrown (and the other receivers are committing offensive pass interference too for that matter), not that this penalty is often called in real life. I can think of another issue, though: if the CB does play the pass, the receiver has to react quickly to get into position to block him, potentially leaving the QB in no-man's land where he can't throw the pass and also doesn't have a great lead blocker ahead of him. If the receiver would simply block the corner, he'd lose the big-play possibility but be more sure of eliminating the corner from the play. And if the receiver would get into a pitch relationship instead of running a route, then the QB could get him the ball even beyond the line of scrimmage, also largely ensuring that the corner won't make a tackle on the play.
Regardless of the scheme used on the perimeter, I still think that the best defense for the zone read is the zone blitz.
This scheme (the NCAA Blitz aka "America's Zone Blitz") should result in a QB keep with a free rusher (the Sam or, less likely, the Mike) to the QB. The QB still might make the throw on the quick hitch, but the CB and SS should be able to converge for the tackle. Furthermore, the risk-reward calculus is now drastically different - if the QB overthrows the hitch under pressure, now it's headed into the deep third zone where the CB is waiting.
If defense chooses to run the blitz in the opposite direction, away from the RB (or, equivalently, the offense reverses the read), the result should be a give to the RB that sends him into the defensive overload. The appropriate offensive counter to this tactic should be to predetermine the give or to run a single-sided option like a speed option, but that makes the QB an inside runner or takes him out of the play completely. Either way, the possibility of the downfield throw is all but eliminated.
No comments:
Post a Comment