The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Deadskins wrote:Peyton Manning won't be running any read option plays, but I'd bet Denver still has them in their playbook.

Exactly!

There's no doubt in my mind that the RO plays are still in the playbook for the Skins, it's just that they don't call them as frequently.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Even for "elite" quarterbacks, the RO can be helpful... A little success with RO can put the breaks on a pass rush.

A quarterback who can take advantage of a running lane is always going to be a good thing but one who runs by design is never going to be a good thing unless the quarterbacks are as big as the linemen. There are some similarities in most running quarterbacks that aren't conducive to winning games in the playoffs or staying healthy. Steve Young and John Elway had success running because they were quarterbacks who could run, not runners playing quarterback. The only thing keeping Russell Wilson healthy is his intelligence. He's smart enough to protect himself most of the time. But he's going to take some shots you don't want a quarterback taking and, like RGIII after 2012, NFL defenses seem to have adjusted for him. I just don't see it as being a viable scheme to run the read option by design. That doesn't mean teams should never run it but I wouldn't make a habit of it with Kirk Cousins. We need him healthy for the full season to know if he's worth keeping.

if you are thinking that I advocate living by the RO, you are wrong. However, when you need a few yards, or you want to slow down an effective pass rush, picking up a five yard fist down via RO is a good way to do that, especially if you are not known to do it. It has the added benefit of forcing next week's opponent to game plan against it, and waste time in practice.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:He certainly won't be running into any defensive players on designed read option plays.

Kirk runs read option plays, or were you emphasizing the "running into" part?

He does? I haven't seen one play yet where Cousins made one read and then ran by design. In fact, the only run I recall Cousins making was on a broken play where receiver coverage was good.

We saw it twice on Sunday; once for a TD, and once for a first down.

Deadskins wrote:We saw it twice on Sunday; once for a TD, and once for a first down.

That we did. I stand corrected.

Kirk: "you like that?..............you like THAT..!!!"

Scotty Mac: "I do like...................yes I do LIKE...!!!"

Scotty understand the value of a great backup QB.

hitmandm wrote:Scotty understand the value of a great backup QB.

Which is why Colt is currently the #2!

StorminMormon86 wrote:

hitmandm wrote:Scotty understand the value of a great backup QB.

Which is why Colt is currently the #2!

Or is Colt the starter? I remember last year when Gruden benched Cosuins how Colt was the best man to lead this team.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

Deadskins wrote:We saw it twice on Sunday; once for a TD, and once for a first down.

That we did. I stand corrected.

Actually, you weren't "incorrect" at the time you posted. You made the statement in September.

Regardless, everyone was correct in that while they typcially don't run the RO, they have a couple plays still in the playbook; as we saw.

markshark84 wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

Deadskins wrote:We saw it twice on Sunday; once for a TD, and once for a first down.

That we did. I stand corrected.

Actually, you weren't "incorrect" at the time you posted. You made the statement in September.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:He certainly won't be running into any defensive players on designed read option plays.

That wasn't "incorrect" because it was back in September?

Read the second part of my post --- you know, the one you strategically removed.

Obviously the first sentence of my most recent post was referring to the phrase YOU specifically HIGHLIGHTED for emphasis......

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote: He does? I haven't seen one play yet where Cousins made one read and then ran by design. In fact, the only run I recall Cousins making was on a broken play where receiver coverage was good.

In the future, I'd suggest that if you aren't responding directly to a certain sentence/statement within a post or are responding to something completely different altogether, not to highlight it as if you are doing so......

PS -- before you get technical and try to move onto something irrelevant; I wasn't counting preseason games.

markshark84 wrote:Read the second part of my post --- you know, the one you strategically removed.

I removed it because it wasn't relative to your point. Here it is for you, though:

markshark84 wrote:Regardless, everyone was correct in that while they typcially don't run the RO, they have a couple plays still in the playbook; as we saw.

Please point out why removing this was so strategic. And, once again, you accuse me of something that you do, such as removing the relevant quote that he was referencing when he said he "stood corrected"

markshark84 wrote:Obviously the first sentence of my most recent post was referring to the phrase YOU specifically HIGHLIGHTED for emphasis......

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote: He does? I haven't seen one play yet where Cousins made one read and then ran by design. In fact, the only run I recall Cousins making was on a broken play where receiver coverage was good.

In the future, I'd suggest that if you aren't responding directly to a certain sentence/statement within a post or are responding to something completely different altogether, not to highlight it as if you are doing so......

PS -- before you get technical and try to move onto something irrelevant; I wasn't counting preseason games.

Please stop following me around the boards trying to catch me in some error. I thought you said you were good with where our exchange stood. Let it go already. The statement where he "stood corrected" was the one I quoted. The one you are bringing up was in the following back and forth, and I later referenced that he had run read option plays in 2014, so even if he couldn't remember, he probably had seen it. At least B&GF can admit when he was wrong.

PS the full exchange:

Deadskins wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Kirk runs read option plays, or were you emphasizing the "running into" part?

He does? I haven't seen one play yet where Cousins made one read and then ran by design. In fact, the only run I recall Cousins making was on a broken play where receiver coverage was good.

Deadskins wrote:He did it in the pre-season game Vs. the Browns. I commented on it here:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=40882&p=652654&hilit=+read+option#p652654

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:Fair enough. But nothing tells me he'll be running that play by design in the regular season. In two regular season games we haven't seen it once.

He will. The season is young. He ran it last year a few times when he was the starter. I think most NFL teams have added read option plays to their playbook. It's just a matter of how often it's used, and what the game situation is.

Deadskins wrote:Please stop following me around the boards trying to catch me in some error. I thought you said you were good with where our exchange stood. Let it go already. The statement where he "stood corrected" was the one I quoted. The one you are bringing up was in the following back and forth, and I later referenced that he had run read option plays in 2014, so even if he couldn't remember, he probably had seen it. At least B&GF can admit when he was wrong.

I stay in the hogwash section; I post nowhere else. There are like 5 threads added a week in here. By that token, I "follow around" every poster in hogwash. And look whos talking about following posteres around --- B&G made the comment over a month ago and you were the one that jumped back on the thread to "prove him wrong" a month later.....

I also don't try to catch you in an error. I couldn't care less. After all, I have agreed with you a number of times. My response was to B&G anyway --- not you. You are the one that got involved -- so quickly (11 minutes later) B&G didn't even respond. My second statement was an olive branch in an attempt to merge the two notions of thought. All you do is look to catch people in some sort of language, semantic, or irrelevant error. It is your well documented and multple poster repeated MO. Get over yourself.

And to keep this somewhat relevant: How was my response close to being off:
B&G: He certainly won't be running into any defensive players on designed read option plays.
DS: Kirk runs read option plays, or were you emphasizing the "running into" part?
B&G (DS Emphasis): He does? I haven't seen one play yet where Cousins made one read and then ran by design. In fact, the only run I recall Cousins making was on a broken play where receiver coverage was good. Posted on 9/24/15.
DS: We saw it twice on Sunday; once for a TD, and once for a first down. Posted on 10/27/15.
B&G: That we did. I stand corrected.
Me: Actually, you weren't "incorrect" at the time you posted. You made the statement in September. Regardless, everyone was correct in that while they typcially don't run the RO, they have a couple plays still in the playbook; as we saw.

Your post was responding directly to the highlighted YELLOW statement. Was it not? If it wasn't, why did you highlight it? B&G is either too diplomatic or didn't look at the time stamps or just didn't want to get into it. Smarter man than I.

I was and am fine with the prior exchange. This is a new one. And I generally don't even read who writes what. I read and respond --- many times without even knowing the author. Here, when I replied to B&G, I had no clue you were involved --- until I got your typical reply. If I did, I would have considered not posting because anytime your involved it results in a 10+ post back and forth ---- and by the end we are discussing nothing having to do with football and you trying to talk your way out of something or rephrasing or redirecting it to the point it is no longer recognizable.....

And talk about admitting when you are wrong. Look in the mirror my man. You are far worse. At least I admit I'm hardheaded. Generally when I think things are to the point I am confident I'm correct, I let them go. Take the RGIII injury prone thing. You still can't admit you were wrong on that. Get real. Pot meet kettle.

Don't make me turn this board around. Seriously. Turn it down, or take it to smack.

Since what is being argued is a post I made perhaps I can clarify.

No one cares.