LNBS: Calling options / Adding reverse action downfield

[Dante84]

Offense in the NFL is evolving rapidly, and outpacing Defense at a record pace.

Watching the close games the past few weeks, I’ve seen two “hook and lateral” plays, and it got me thinking:

If you can predict with a reasonable degree of certainty what the safety or corner will do in a particular coverage, you should be able to determine what they will do post-completion as they track towards the ballcarrier. At this point, you could anticipate - and plan for - where the next pocket of space will open up.

For so long it’s been a one hit approach: find the open man, and he runs in space until he scores, gets tackled, or goes out of bounds.

What if it was a combo approach? Find the open man, gain yards, and provide him with an option to lateral to a crossing receiver who should be able to get another chunk.

You see this with rugby runs all the time. Why not more often in football?

[Dante84]

Biggest risk: turning the ball over.

If you trust your team to execute, be smart and make the right decision in space, this could be a disgusting next level of dominance.

You could even run a crosser by the ballcarrier as a diversion to freeze the tackler. The mere threat of a downfield reverse would be terrifying to account for.

[JakeF]

When it goes wrong you turn the ball over. That's the last thing coaches want to happen.

[Dante84]

Originally Posted by JakeF

When it goes wrong you turn the ball over. That's the last thing coaches want to happen.

I agree. BUT you can mitigate this risk a bit through practice and coaching the players to make the proper decisions.

You could have the crosser come close enough for it to be a handoff instead of a lateral, as well.

I mean, can you imagine Kelce on a slant, who then hands it to Tyreek running the opposite direction?

[dlphg9]

It doesnt happen because it's really ****ing dumb.

[Dante84]

Originally Posted by dlphg9

It doesnt happen because it's really ****ing dumb.

So is passing it to your OT in the red zone, or having your DT throw a jump pass.

Why do they do it late in games when they need a huge play? The element of surprise.

If it was a regular package defenses had to prepare for, it could be a strategic advantage.

[Molitoth]

Originally Posted by dlphg9

It doesnt happen because it's really ****ing dumb.

These are the kind of non-forward thinking opinions that coaches like Bob Sutton use before they become a ****ing fossil.


I take it No-look passes are ****ing dumb?
Oh, I know... how about drafting an NFL QB with a baseball background and not touching his throwing mechanics.... is that ****ing dumb?

[OlineDline]

Originally Posted by Molitoth

These are the kind of non-forward thinking opinions that coaches like Bob Sutton use before they become a ****ing fossil.


I take it No-look passes are ****ing dumb?
Oh, I know... how about drafting an NFL QB with a baseball background and not touching his throwing mechanics.... is that ****ing dumb?

This doesn't mean that any idea is necessarily a good one, nor that it should be tried to prove it.

You really want to turn a nice downfield completion into a turnover.

Yes, that's ****ing dumb. You do that when there are no options, or as a gadget play.

[Molitoth]

Originally Posted by OlineDline

This doesn't mean that any idea is necessarily a good one, nor that it should be tried to prove it.

You really want to turn a nice downfield completion into a turnover.

Yes, that's ****ing dumb. You do that when there are no options, or as a gadget play.

WHY would this always be a turnover?

It's 1946 and the Chicago Cardinals are like.... "Gee, ya know... everytime we pass the ball we could have an interception... lets just run the ball everytime."

You know when you practice consistently, you typically get good at it?

It's why today we have a passing league, and not a run dominant league. Teams thought outside the box, and they practiced.



PS: Elon Musk will NEVER have a self landing rocket!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[OlineDline]

Originally Posted by Molitoth

WHY would this always be a turnover?

It's 1946 and the Chicago Cardinals are like.... "Gee, ya know... everytime we pass the ball we could have an interception... lets just run the ball everytime."

You know when you practice consistently, you typically get good at it?

It's why today we have a passing league, and not a run dominant league. Teams thought outside the box, and they practiced.



PS: Elon Musk will NEVER have a self landing rocket!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First, "outside the box" is not as outside as you think.

Almost everything that's "new" is just recycled old. Hell, RPO isn't new.

Now, running twelve downfield laterals per game, that'd be new.

Sure. Please do. I think you'd have great success with it until you didn't.

I'd also review how logic works. You see, skepticism doesn't make an idea true, simply because other, unrelated ideas were proven true in spite of skepticism.

People were skeptical of using leeches to cure foul humours in the blood....

I think the downfield lateral idea is similar to that.

[smithandrew051]

What if the Chiefs put Tyreek in the backfield and Kelce inside (either next to Fisher or Schwartz; doesn’t matter which).

Fake the handoff to Tyreek to Kelce’s side. Kelce releases into the flat and Tyreek follows him. Dump the ball to Kelce.

The speed option is then set up in the flat. The corner has to either try to bring down Kelce or stick with Tyreek.

The turnover possibility is still very real and the play will never happen, but it’s fun to think about.

[Dante84]

Originally Posted by smithandrew051

What if the Chiefs put Tyreek in the backfield and Kelce inside (either next to Fisher or Schwartz; doesn’t matter which).

Fake the handoff to Tyreek to Kelce’s side. Kelce releases into the flat and Tyreek follows him. Dump the ball to Kelce.

The speed option is then set up in the flat. The corner has to either try to bring down Kelce or stick with Tyreek.

The turnover possibility is still very real and the play will never happen, but it’s fun to think about.

EXACTLY.

Layered options downfield. Defenses would be so ****ed.

DE’s get destroyed on having to pick poison on read options in the backfield. Imagine a CB having to do this for the first time.

[TribalElder]

Next offensive revolution will be rbs who pass and the two rbs and qb lateral around until the play opens up

[Hammock Parties]

They do it on kickoffs and punts. I don't see why it couldn't be done on offense with practice in the right situation.

[TwistedChief]

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties

They do it on kickoffs and punts. I don't see why it couldn't be done on offense with practice in the right situation.

Not sure if I missed if someone else's mentioning it, but doing it in the backfield or on a punt/special teams return is meaningfully different from doing it downfield. Why? Because in the former two instances, you're not dealing with the defense being underneath. Not only does that increase the likelihood of a turnover (because in a sense you're not as "alone" if you have a simple miscue), but you also can't easily plan for the spacing you may or may not have given that you'd have to go into the next dimension of the play in considering where the defenders would be during the lateral downfield. It would truly be some next level shit if that became a regular part of the playbook.

I'm happy for someone else to figure that out first. We have enough gimmicks in our offense.