NFL.com: Robert Griffin III triggers Washington Redskins' pistol offense

[Oldfan]

...Sorry to roll into this conversation so late but who has middle of the field responsibility in this alignment?

If you rolled one safety under, the other safety could play a single safety. If you rolled both, you play with no safety in the middle.

There's no rule that a defense has to stick with the same coverage no matter what the offense does. If the offense takes itself out of its base offense in order to counter my rolling the safeties under, I have achieved my objective of screwing with what they do best. I might choose to go back to Cover Two or whatever to counter four WRs.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

I think most defenses would take those odds also if they could take away the Skins strength on the outsides.

I'm not sure the read option is our strength. Or bubble screens for that matter which you specifically listed. The read option with Griffin keeping is certainly effective but I think our true strength is simply PA. We can run and consistently grab huge gains with PA passing with or without the read option(though it has obviously helped) and I think that is where we would exploit the Slot WR in man to man with no help over top all day.

---------- Post added December-7th-2012 at 06:03 PM ----------

If you rolled one safety under, the other safety could play a single safety. If you rolled both, you play with no safety in the middle.

There's no rule that a defense has to stick with the same coverage no matter what the offense does. If the offense takes itself out of its base offense in order to counter my rolling the safeties under, I have achieved my objective of screwing with what they do best. I might choose to go back to Cover Two or whatever to counter four WRs.

Again, So you just line up with a WR in the backfield like we have done all season and with the defense in this formation, either motion this WR out to the slot so he is 1on1 with the nickel or LB or send him deep at the snap from the backfield and run PA. NO defense would want to contend with that imo.

[DogofWar1]

If you rolled one safety under, the other safety could play a single safety. If you rolled both, you play with no safety in the middle.

There's no rule that a defense has to stick with the same coverage no matter what the offense does. If the offense takes itself out of its base offense in order to counter my rolling the safeties under, I have achieved my objective of screwing with what they do best. I might choose to go back to Cover Two or whatever to counter four WRs.

That's what makes RGIII so dangerous though, he picks apart teams without safeties over the top. His completion percentage with two safeties is pretty meh, but with one safety it's insane. I think in that scenario you go with 3 WRs, possibly with one coming out of the backfield. Robinson is quick enough that he could get from 7 yards deep in the backfield to 30-40 yards downfield in 5 seconds, and if there's no safety deep defending him, that could get messy.

It's sort of a pick your poison thing, which is great for us.

[Oldfan]

I'm not sure the read option is our strength. Or bubble screens for that matter which you specifically listed.

I wrote that: "I'm starting with the premise that the strength of our offense is attacking wide with the zone stretch, the option, and the bubble screens." The zone stretch is the offense's signature play.

The read option with Griffin keeping is certainly effective but I think our true strength is simply PA. We can run and consistently grab huge gains with PA passing with or without the read option(though it has obviously helped).

Our offense is #1 in rushing yardage and #21 in passing yardage.

Again, So you just line up with a WR in the backfield like we have done all season and with the defense in this formation, either motion this WR out to the slot so he is 1on1 with the nickel or LB or send him deep at the snap from the backfield and run PA. NO defense would want to contend with that imo.

If you do that, you have weakend your running game with less blocking in the backfield and the defense can counter by moving the safety uninvolved with a WR back to a single safety position.

---------- Post added December-7th-2012 at 06:44 PM ----------

That's what makes RGIII so dangerous though, he picks apart teams without safeties over the top. His completion percentage with two safeties is pretty meh, but with one safety it's insane.....

I've been searching but I can't find stats with splits like that. Can you link me to your source?

[DogofWar1]

I can't find stats with splits like that. Can you link me to your source?

Sure, it was on ESPN Monday before the game:
http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/po...afety-approach

[BobGriffin]

if someone else says he will 'get figured out like Cam" I'm going to punch a child.

[Oldfan]

Sure, it was on ESPN Monday before the game:
http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/po...afety-approach

I don't see any stats with no safeties over the top, so I assume you were assuming that if he is better at one safety than two, he'd be even better with none. I don't think you can assume that. The number of safeties deep is just one factor in the defensive scheme.

[Darth Tater]

The Giants showed one way, You aren't necessarily going to stop us from getting the yards but you can stop us from getting the points. Don't let us hit you with the big scoring play (play 2 high and assignments -- no hero). Tackle...tackle (giants didn't succeed here). Play keep away by dominating ToP that scores TDs, not FGS (if the Giants offense does its job here, they win big). Right now, the only way to stop us is to figure out how to take advantage of our defense. The only time I've seen the pistol stopped is because the defense is just too athletic (you don't stop it with scheme) and/or the opposition's offense stays on the field and scores TD, not FGs. Now, I have seen it stop itself.

[DogofWar1]

I don't see any stats with no safeties over the top, so I assume you were assuming that if he is better at one safety than two, he'd be even better with none. I don't think you can assume that. The number of safeties deep is just one factor in the defensive scheme.

I suppose it's not guaranteed he'd be good with no safeties, but I still think it's dangerous to be playing RGIII with no one deep, when we have a bunch of guys who can get 50 yards downfield in a hurry. Robinson and Moss get most of the deep routes, but Garcon and Hank have 4.4 speed too, and even Morgan is supposed to be pretty fast if we wanted him to. RGIII is too smart to see that kind of coverage and not immediately call a deep PA pass to someone most likely in 1 on 1 coverage way downfield. Even if they jam a couple guys, we would probably have three on the field, or alternatively would run down the middle, and if Morris gets to the 2nd level, well he's probably not fast enough to score a long TD, but he'll grab 20 yards when before he might only have grabbed 10.

Two safeties underneath would certainly weaken the outside game, so I agree that it would slow our best plays, but those are far from all we can do, and that's what's killing defensive coordinators. You can eliminate the deep throws like the Giants did, but then we'll just pound it all day and pass underneath.

[thesubmittedone]

Moss is in the slot, so the safety isn't on him. So, my safety is up tight on the LOS in a press position in front of your WR -- and you are going to throw a pass to him in the flat? Did I read that right?

Slot was one example, but a guy split wide can be off the LOS as well you know, right?

This is too easy... quick slants and hitches all day. I would definitely give you a call after the game and thank you for nullifying the athleticism of your CBs for me as well.

[windsofcreation]

I've been searching but I can't find stats with splits like that. Can you link me to your source?

Oldfan, you're such a boss. Salutations, sir.

[redskins55]

Every formation you see defenses with 7 in the box while we have 9 including Griffin. If they bring the safety down to help we torch them deep. This offense is built to get yards. I credit Shanahan for implementing it, and allowing Griffin to do what he does. I think the Shanai have turned a corner in their coaching approaches.

---------- Post added December-8th-2012 at 03:39 AM ----------

The Giants showed one way, You aren't necessarily going to stop us from getting the yards but you can stop us from getting the points. Don't let us hit you with the big scoring play (play 2 high and assignments -- no hero). Tackle...tackle (giants didn't succeed here). Play keep away by dominating ToP that scores TDs, not FGS (if the Giants offense does its job here, they win big). Right now, the only way to stop us is to figure out how to take advantage of our defense. The only time I've seen the pistol stopped is because the defense is just too athletic (you don't stop it with scheme) and/or the opposition's offense stays on the field and scores TD, not FGs. Now, I have seen it stop itself.

Excellent point!! And to the Redskins credit they came out in the 2nd half and slowed the game down as well to keep their offense on th field longer. I think there were big plays down field there to be made, however the Skins wanted to keep Eli off the field so they focused on intermediate and short passes. Moss was open down field on one play vs the Giants, and RG3 didnt look down field like he normally does. I believe he was told by Mike to slow the tempo and not go for the big shot.

[MartinC]

2) My second premise is that our offense attacks the outside best and is not as good at attacking the middle. There are always trade offs. Making the middle more vulnerable is the price that must be paid.

I assume you are talking about the running game here and I can see your thinking given we don't have a down hill power O style running game. However one of the objectives of our running game is to draw defenders out of position to cover the pass inside the numbers and deep, think of all those deep crosses and square ins to Garçon and seamroutes to the TE and the deep shots to Robinson.

Your defense by design does just that. I don't think you are so much taking away what the offense does best as giving it exactly what it wants. You may slow the running game but you would be gashed by the passing game IMO. That's the beauty of RGIII he is a great running threat but he is even MORE dangerous as a passer.

Our running game may be ranked more highly than our passing game but IMO that's a deceptive stat. The running game is designed to set up the passing game and IMO your defensive idea achieves that objective for us and we would move to a more pass based game plan in response until we force you out of that alignment.

[Oldfan]

... RGIII is too smart to see that kind of coverage and not immediately call a deep PA pass to someone most likely in 1 on 1 coverage way downfield.

Which of our receivers is good enough to fight past the press and then consistently beat man coverage?

Even if they jam a couple guys, we would probably have three on the field...

...And the defense is going to be gashed by our third receiver?

or alternatively would run down the middle, and if Morris gets to the 2nd level, well he's probably not fast enough to score a long TD, but he'll grab 20 yards when before he might only have grabbed 10.

Okay. This is the most likely tradeoff for having contained RG3 and neutralized anything, pass or run to the outside.

Two safeties underneath would certainly weaken the outside game, so I agree that it would slow our best plays, but those are far from all we can do, and that's what's killing defensive coordinators.

In my mind, that's what defensive strategy is all about -- taking away what the O does best. There's always a trade-off. If I'm playing the Skins' O, I'm willing to swap the middle for the sides. I want Rg3 throwing out of the pocket and our lighter O-line trying to open holes on the inside zone.

You can eliminate the deep throws like the Giants did, but then we'll just pound it all day and pass underneath.

That's why I would not defend in Cover 2.

[MartinC]

Which of our receivers is good enough to fight past the press and then consistently beat man coverage?

Garçon IMO for one.