Fantasy Football LNBS: Altering the Smash Concept - Page 3

Sorter · 11-28-2012, 12:53 AM

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).

Sorter · 11-29-2012, 04:30 AM

Additionally I acknowledge that it is vulnerable to pressure and press coverage. I also think fire zones, and a far side cloud rotation w/ a corner blitz could definitely **** this play up. Of course there are downsides to it and can be exploited.

I just think it is something I haven't seen on film a lot that could be extremely productive at the college level due to the lack of coverage abilities of 3rd/4th DBs and LBs and the propensity of the spread.

Chiefs=Champions · 11-29-2012, 04:32 AM

Im not really sure what point you are trying to make

. Certain plays work against certain coverages? Yes, yes they do. If you are saying that this play concept should be used more often, i would suggest that you are incorrect. The premise of exposing the coverage you have described with this concept is sound and most offenses will attempt to do so. However defenses change and disguise coverage. What may look like a cover 3 could be a blitz, and often a play like you described will end in a sack or int if the right blitz is called.

This is why offenses game plan and mix up deep routes with short medium and running plays. Basic offensive game planning 101...

Chiefs=Champions · 11-29-2012, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sorter

Additionally I acknowledge that it is vulnerable to pressure and press coverage. I also think fire zones, and a far side cloud rotation w/ a corner blitz could definitely **** this play up. Of course there are downsides to it and can be exploited.

I just think it is something I haven't seen on film a lot that could be extremely productive at the college level due to the lack of coverage abilities of 3rd/4th DBs and LBs and the propensity of the spread.

No doubt college defenses would struggle to cover it IF (and this is a big IF), you are able to have qb that could execute it and read defensive coverages at a pro level.

Sorter · 11-29-2012, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefs=Good

Im not really sure what point you are trying to make

. Certain plays work against certain coverages? Yes, yes they do. If you are saying that this play concept should be used more often, i would suggest that you are incorrect. The premise of exposing the coverage you have described with this concept is sound and most offenses will attempt to do so. However defenses change and disguise coverage. What may look like a cover 3 could be a blitz, and often a play like you described will end in a sack or int if the right blitz is called.

This is why offenses game plan and mix up deep routes with short medium and running plays. Basic offensive game planning 101...

That is why you run different plays out of the same formation, build in different hots, and run this same play/concept out of other formations.

This play additionally could be a zone-read PA, in which there is only 1 wr out to the side, trips right, and a RB in the backfield and the passing concept is built into the zone-read run, something that quite a few spread teams in college do (OK State specifically).

Sorter · 11-29-2012, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefs=Good

No doubt college defenses would struggle to cover it IF (and this is a big IF), you are able to have qb that could execute it and read defensive coverages at a pro level.

Really, the whole point of this play is to make an easy read. You read primarily the closest safety to the corner route side. If he goes to help over the top, you're going to have your TE usually matched up with a LB down the seam (usually a win).

If he stays and helps cover the MOF, then you have a 1-1 shot down the sideline or on the corner (usually).

Chiefs=Champions · 11-29-2012, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sorter

That is why you run different plays out of the same formation, build in different hots, and run this same play/concept out of other formations.

This play additionally could be a zone-read PA, in which there is only 1 wr out to the side, trips right, and a RB in the backfield and the passing concept is built into the zone-read run, something that quite a few spread teams in college do (OK State specifically).

I dont think you are describing anything new mate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_and_shoot_offense

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Coryell

Chiefs=Champions · 11-29-2012, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sorter

Really, the whole point of this play is to make an easy read. You read primarily the closest safety to the corner route side. If he goes to help over the top, you're going to have your TE usually matched up with a LB down the seam (usually a win).

If he stays and helps cover the MOF, then you have a 1-1 shot down the sideline or on the corner (usually).

Thats a lot to digest during a play. This concept would require a lot of pre snap reading that would be unreliable. You would need a heck of a qb to run it.

Sorter · 11-29-2012, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefs=Good

I dont think you are describing anything new mate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_and_shoot_offense

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Coryell

No, I just haven't seen these routes all packaged together with a great deal of frequency. The smas concept isn't anything new; neither is what I suggested. I sated that in the OP. I just think the concept is underutilized, personally. Read the whole OP

I did enjoy this though. Beats the **** out of bitching about Cassel/BlackBoob.

Chiefs=Champions · 11-29-2012, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sorter

Really, the whole point of this play is to make an easy read. You read primarily the closest safety to the corner route side. If he goes to help over the top, you're going to have your TE usually matched up with a LB down the seam (usually a win).

If he stays and helps cover the MOF, then you have a 1-1 shot down the sideline or on the corner (usually).

Furthermore the in play reading would take a lot of time, blitzing would kill a team running this play as an offense.

Chiefs=Champions · 11-29-2012, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sorter

No, I just haven't seen these routes all packaged together with a great deal of frequency. The smas concept isn't anything new; neither is what I suggested. I sated that in the OP. I just think the concept is underutilized, personally. Read the whole OP

I did enjoy this though. Beats the **** out of bitching about Cassel/BlackBoob.

Dont get me wrong dude. I wish there was more of this type of discussion. Im also not that high and mighty that if i disagree with you, that i feel the need to think you are dumber than myself..

Sorter · 11-29-2012, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefs=Good

Thats a lot to digest during a play. This concept would require a lot of pre snap reading that would be unreliable. You would need a heck of a qb to run it.

Get yo play call in fast!!!

I do admit it isn't that easy of a read but I feel most Big 10/12/SEC QBs could handle it. I guess when I originally was throwing this together, I was envisioning Rodgers.

The way that team runs back-shoulders down the sideline, you could expect that a CB isn't going to jump the corner route the first few times this is run IMO.

Sorter · 11-29-2012, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefs=Good

Furthermore the in play reading would take a lot of time, blitzing would kill a team running this play as an offense.

Hence the ideas of built in hots/zone-read looks.

I did agree earlier that I think fire-zones or cover 0/1 w/ additional rushers makes this play look like Turner Gil's offense.

*shudders*

Sorter · 01-13-2013, 11:55 PM

So, I'm pretty sure ATL ran my altered version today on their 1st play after Seattle went up 28-27.

****ing Koetter owes me money.

Sorter · 01-14-2013, 01:03 AM

around the 9min mark (hard to see, but just go to the 2 sec mark on the game clock or about 3/4 of the way through the video.)
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/foo...13/01/13/5274/

I want my royalties, Dirk.

Chiefs=Champions · 01-14-2013, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sorter

So, I'm pretty sure ATL ran my altered version today on their 1st play after Seattle went up 28-27.

****ing Koetter owes me money.

i noticed that

11-28-2012, 12:53 AM
Sorter Caralho Join Date: Sep 2011 Casino cash: $9611474	LNBS: Altering the Smash Concept 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).
Posts: 18,455

11-29-2012, 04:32 AM	#32
Chiefs=Champions Training Camp Hero Join Date: Oct 2006 Casino cash: $8034801	Im not really sure what point you are trying to make . Certain plays work against certain coverages? Yes, yes they do. If you are saying that this play concept should be used more often, i would suggest that you are incorrect. The premise of exposing the coverage you have described with this concept is sound and most offenses will attempt to do so. However defenses change and disguise coverage. What may look like a cover 3 could be a blitz, and often a play like you described will end in a sack or int if the right blitz is called. This is why offenses game plan and mix up deep routes with short medium and running plays. Basic offensive game planning 101...
Posts: 6,001