LNBS: Altering the Smash Concept

[Sorter]

Okay guys, here's another football philosophy/play thread. The Smash concept (a staple in every offense to a degree) is a wonderful play call that has the inside receiver run a corner route while the inside receiver typically runs a hitch, curl, or occasionally a jerk route working back to the inside. If run with a trips or 2 Wr and a TE on the same side of the formation, the TE or furthest inside receiver will typically run a go down the seam or a post, thus requiring the safety to choose who he's going to help, typically freeing the corner route and enabling him a look with no safety help over the top.









The problem with this route comes when teams play quarters, Cover 3, or cover 6 primarily IMO, which enables the far side corner to play off and then possibly jump the corner route.



Cover 6:


Now, my question to my fellow planeteers is, knowing that several teams primarily operate out of a cover 3, cover 2, quarters and cover 6 look on early downs, why wouldn't you have your furthest receiver (X) run a go(9) route to take the corner and possibly safety with him down the deep right part of the field, and then have your inside receiver run his corner and break once the X has gotten past him (depth to ensure the corner or safety playing zone doesn't jump the route). You could even make this more difficult on opposing safeties by having your TE or an even further inside receiver run an option route down the seam, breaking on a post or dig if MOFO or continuing down the seam if not.

Now, some problems that could potentially arise are if a LB gets a great deep drop and doesn't drop to the flat. However, the corner route should provide enough depth to drop the ball in over him. You also run the risk of having limited check downs, reduced protection, and requiring a deep drop. Additionally, it isn't an easy throw.

That being said, altering the Smash concept as such seems to be a good beater of most coverages that one is likely to see on early downs.

I know TL;DR but I really would like to get some thoughts on this. It seems like a fairly simple concept that hasn't been incorporated with a great deal of frequency (I know I've seen GB, NYG, and Dallas run this exact concept as I suggested but it doesn't seem to be popular even at the college level, which to me seems a little confusing).

[Chief Roundup]

What is LNBS?

[Dayze]

Like Never Before Seen.


which is basically everything Romeo sees from other defensive coordinators.

[listopencil]

That's a lot of reading by the QB, and requires some accurate passes with decent velocity. It also leaves your QB back there outnumbered if the D is in Nickle and the LB's all rush. I'm not saying it's a bad concept by any means. Just that it takes some quality play by the QB and the line to make it work.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by Chief Roundup

What is LNBS?

Late Night Bullshit... Made famous by incredibly too many posts by Direckshun with said tag.

[JoeyChuckles]

Originally Posted by Frosty

Brees does it too. It just means to speed up the snap and to cancel any motion or shifts, etc. It's not an audible.

How was Omaha chosen as the word by so many teams? I think I've heard more quarterbacks use it then just those three. The word Omaha has to have some significance somewhere for all these teams to be using it.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by JoeyChuckles

How was Omaha chosen as the word by so many teams? I think I've heard more quarterbacks use it then just those three. The word Omaha has to have some significance somewhere for all these teams to be using it.

It's easy to say with a mouthpiece in.

[Sorter]

Originally Posted by Dayze

Like Never Before Seen.


which is basically everything Romeo sees from other defensive coordinators.

[Sorter]

Originally Posted by listopencil

That's a lot of reading by the QB, and requires some accurate passes with decent velocity. It also leaves your QB back there outnumbered if the D is in Nickle and the LB's all rush. I'm not saying it's a bad concept by any means. Just that it takes some quality play by the QB and the line to make it work.

It really isn't that difficult of a progression, as it will primarily work just one side of the field. YOu could install a deep out, another smash concept, or whatever you really want on the other side. You could work in a slant, sluggo look and that would provide you with a hot (slant from the Z) and another quality look on the far side. As I stated and you mentioned, the obvious flaws would be protection, and the throw (however, from the MOF or the near hash, it isn't too terrible. Far side though :O )

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Sorter

It really isn't that difficult of a progression, as it will primarily work just one side of the field. YOu could install a deep out, another smash concept, or whatever you really want on the other side. You could work in a slant, sluggo look and that would provide you with a hot (slant from the Z) and another quality look on the far side. As I stated and you mentioned, the obvious flaws would be protection, and the throw (however, from the MOF or the near hash, it isn't too terrible. Far side though :O )

What QB are you thinking is going to run this? I had assumed you had KC in mind.

[Sorter]

Originally Posted by listopencil

What QB are you thinking is going to run this? I had assumed you had KC in mind.

**** no. KC QBs are gross man.

[Sorter]

Ideally, it would be Tom, Rodgers, Big Ben, Stafford, or Brees.

[Chiefs=Champions]

There is a counter for everything in football. I would also suggest that teams run this quite often. Problem is throwing a deep ball requires time and good touch. Its a low percentage pass and if the d calls the right play, such a blitz which gets there before the wr gets open ull be in trouble.

[Sorter]

Originally Posted by Chiefs=Good

There is a counter for everything in football. I would also suggest that teams run this quite often. Problem is throwing a deep ball requires time and good touch. Its a low percentage pass and if the d calls the right play, such a blitz which gets there before the wr gets open ull be in trouble.

You need to read more carefully.

The majority of teams run coverages that are favorable to this play on early downs, simply due to philosophy. Of course this is likely to change once teams begin to gameplan for it but you can also add it in with additional pckgs and plan accordingly. Yes, protection is an issue but that can be remedied by having a back or a TE on the opposite side staying in to block (and release after a chip) and providing another hot. It really isn't that deep of a pass; ideally the inside receiver running the corner will stem any where from 7-12 yds max depending on when he sees the corner turn his hips and follow the X. He would be permitted to break it off earlier if the QB signals at the LOS that pressure is indicated, stemming to maybe 5 yds and breaking to about 8-10 on the sideline.

It really isn't low percentage, considering the amount of possible built in hots, possible added protections, and the ability to design a play that can put stress/quick reactions on both safeties and both corners, while also enabling a probable matchup of an inside receiver with a LB, especially if you shift to this or have 2 competent TEs/pass catching RBs.

I'm not saying its perfect, no play is. It does however, IMO provide unique problems to most coverages philosophically and based on what most teams run out of base downs.

Just my opinion of course.

[Chiefs=Champions]

Originally Posted by Sorter

You need to read more carefully.

The majority of teams run coverages that are favorable to this play on early downs, simply due to philosophy. Of course this is likely to change once teams begin to gameplan for it but you can also add it in with additional pckgs and plan accordingly. Yes, protection is an issue but that can be remedied by having a back or a TE on the opposite side staying in to block (and release after a chip) and providing another hot. It really isn't that deep of a pass; ideally the inside receiver running the corner will stem any where from 7-12 yds max depending on when he sees the corner turn his hips and follow the X. He would be permitted to break it off earlier if the QB signals at the LOS that pressure is indicated, stemming to maybe 5 yds and breaking to about 8-10 on the sideline.

It really isn't low percentage, considering the amount of possible built in hots, possible added protections, and the ability to design a play that can put stress/quick reactions on both safeties and both corners, while also enabling a probable matchup of an inside receiver with a LB, especially if you shift to this or have 2 competent TEs/pass catching RBs.

I'm not saying its perfect, no play is. It does however, IMO provide unique problems to most coverages philosophically and based on what most teams run out of base downs.

Just my opinion of course.

I like you as a poster, but this is a silly concept, or maybe im just not getting what you are saying. Are you suggesting that teams should run x deep and then have the slot run a corner route because teams play a lot of cover 3? Well ok but they dont exclusively, teams mix it up and blitz too. You are allowing for the offense to change the play add in hot routes etc, but then ignoring the fact that defenses scheme too. If teams knew exactly what a play a defense would run on every down this concept would work, but youre not accounting for variation. Teams do run plays like this and then defenses shift.

[Sorter]

Originally Posted by Chiefs=Good

I like you as a poster, but this is a silly concept, or maybe im just not getting what you are saying. Are you suggesting that teams should run x deep and then have the slot run a corner route because teams play a lot of cover 3? Well ok but they dont exclusively, teams mix it up and blitz too. You are allowing for the offense to change the play add in hot routes etc, but then ignoring the fact that defenses scheme too. If teams knew exactly what a play a defense would run on every down this concept would work, but youre not accounting for variation. Teams do run plays like this and then defenses shift.

I realize this and acknowledged this in the OP. Additionally, the route concepts hypothetically open up against soft spots in zone against Cover 2, 3,6 and against man provided you have receivers that gain separation.

Byhaving the X run a go, the slot run a corner and additionally having the furthest inside run a post/seam/dig option, you free up a 1-1 matchup the majority of the time.


In the above image, by having the listed Z run a 9, you force the closest safety to chose between covering the seam, help over the top to help against the go route by the Z, or jumping the corner. The whole idea of this play is to obtain a 1-1 matchup for a deep gain down the field. You can make this play even more productive if you will, by adding a hot on the opposite side and an additional blocker or another 1 deep/1hot combo (curl/flat, deep out/flat/ smash, etc.)