Fantasy Football LNBS: Altering the Smash Concept

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).

11-28-2012, 12:53 AM	Topic Starter
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