Husker Chalk Talk: Slot Bubble RPO

[ThrowBones92]

A new Husker Chalk Talk has been posted by Rory. This dude does a great job of explaining what's going on on the field. I highly recommend reading his posts. Today he is discussing the slot bubble RPO that Langsdorf uses.

In another post, I was hammering on people who don't know the game as well as they should in order to be talking the way they talk about the program. Here is a great FREE resource to understand tidbits about the Xs and Os of the schemes Diaco and Langsdorf use. He's pretty unbiased and honest in his assessment. Check it out.

https://huskerchalktalk.com/2017/09/13/concept-wednesday-slant-bubble-rpo/

 

[ThrowBones92]

A new Husker Chalk Talk has been posted by Rory. This dude does a great job of explaining what's going on on the field. I highly recommend reading his posts. Today he is discussing the slot bubble RPO that Langsdorf uses.

In another post, I was hammering on people who don't know the game as well as they should in order to be talking the way they talk about the program. Here is a great FREE resource to understand tidbits about the Xs and Os of the schemes Diaco and Langsdorf use. He's pretty unbiased and honest in his assessment. Check it out.

https://huskerchalktalk.com/2017/09/13/concept-wednesday-slant-bubble-rpo/

Also, helluva sick burn in his closing line. Laughed out loud!

 

[TruHusker]

I hope everyone who complains about play calling reads this. Lang's gets beat up over his play calling when the option is given to the QB. I have been saying this over and over, here it is. Now I suppose people should say to take the option from the pass happy QB. Hmmm

 

[Toms Wife]

I hope everyone who complains about play calling reads this. Lang's gets beat up over his play calling when the option is given to the QB. I have been saying this over and over, here it is. Now I suppose people should say to take the option from the pass happy QB. Hmmm

Three things. First it was really good stuff.
Second, the author said twice it should have been a run not a pass. If true, it's on Langs to get that straightened out.
Third, it worked because the corner gave up the inside leverage which he should never do in a cover two when the safety has the slot.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Three things. First it was really good stuff.
Second, the author said twice it should have been a run not a pass. If true, it's on Langs to get that straightened out.
Third, it worked because the corner gave up the inside leverage which he should never do in a cover two when the safety has the slot.

If the safety has the slot it isn't cover 2. Its single high. The safety on the boundary side dropped deep middle and ended up making the tackle

I think it both examples he said could have run and not should have. Since it is counting guys in the box, I counted 7 in the box on the play to DPE. On the Ark St clip, Lee was counting the LB in the box because he read blitz, which would have left the TE open on the short seam, when the LB dropped into coverage it was too late to run. Sometimes you win sometimes you lose.

 

[Toms Wife]

If the safety has the slot it isn't cover 2. Its single high. The safety on the boundary side dropped deep middle and ended up making the tackle

I think it both examples he said could have run and not should have. Since it is counting guys in the box, I counted 7 in the box on the play to DPE. On the Ark St clip, Lee was counting the LB in the box because he read blitz, which would have left the TE open on the short seam, when the LB dropped into coverage it was too late to run. Sometimes you win sometimes you lose.

No, you are right. I meant single high. The issue still is inside leverage by the corner. If it is cover two he can feed him that way.

 

[ThrowBones92]

No, you are right. I meant single high. The issue still is inside leverage by the corner. If it is cover two he can feed him that way.

All good discussion. It's really nice when we get clips to look at and discuss. I wish we had it more often. We had it going a few years ago.

 

[bomber89]

the defensive explanation to me says a lot without saying it. Diaco does not trust certain players outside his base 3-4. Newby has not been able to (up to this point) to play fast and make very quick decisions in the RPO. Its not easy and add on top of that a new defense and its understandable but we need some quick, fast OLB with some brains. The thing is, who isn't looking for that.

 

[TruHusker]

the defensive explanation to me says a lot without saying it. Diaco does not trust certain players outside his base 3-4. Newby has not been able to (up to this point) to play fast and make very quick decisions in the RPO. Its not easy and add on top of that a new defense and its understandable but we need some quick, fast OLB with some brains. The thing is, who isn't looking for that.

Well, I am lost. This article doesnt say anything about our D.

 

[z28craz]

Well, I am lost. This article doesnt say anything about our D.

I'm guessing he's talking about the 9/5 entry discussing the defense. He basically said in that post that we don't have the LB's necessary to really run the defense Diaco wants to run.

 

[oldjar07]

I'm not a big fan of RPO. Seems to confuse your own players more than it does the defense. Wasn't the play Oregon ran a RPO play where they threw the interception? There was only 1 guy that ended up running a route. There was a running back who looked like he was going out to the flat, and that drew Antonio Reed down to defend that. But then the running back threw a block and Reed could drop back in coverage helping out on the post route that ended up tipped for an interception.

 

[ThrowBones92]

I'm not a big fan of RPO. Seems to confuse your own players more than it does the defense. Wasn't the play Oregon ran a RPO play where they threw the interception? There was only 1 guy that ended up running a route. There was a running back who looked like he was going out to the flat, and that drew Antonio Reed down to defend that. But then the running back threw a block and Reed could drop back in coverage helping out on the post route that ended up tipped for an interception.

I'm not sure the RPO is necessarily meant to confuse defenses, it's meant to put them in a difficult position and make them decide what they want to defend. Once they decide, the offense plays where the defense isn't playing defense.
I think it's a risk-reward thing. The risk lies with the QB and offense making the right decision. Realize that this is essentially an on-the-fly audible that players are coached to recognize. Regardless of what is decided, the OL blocks the same with the same effort, the WRs and RB all execute as if the ball is coming to them. So there shouldn't be a ton of confusion as all should be expecting the ball. The risk lies with the QB reading the defense, what they show, what the bluff, etc. If the QB decides wrong, the play goes right where the defense is. If the QB reads correctly, the offense should gain decent yardage every single time if there are no execution errors. Risk can be minimized by the QB being very well coached as well as spending a lot of time in film study picking up tendencies when teams show blitzes, when the bluff, what situations they use the zone blitz, which zones of the field the defense normally plays Cover _, etc.

This isn't much different from having your quarterback check the offense in and out of plays at the LOS pre-snap based on what he sees in front of him. Most of the time, he QB has an "if, then" between only a couple of plays. Most of the time it's based on what the OC has seen on tape of the opponent. In my experience, it isn't normally like Madden or NCAA where you have about 10 plays you can audible at the LOS at any time. I'm talking about at the college level and not the pros. It's much more complex at the professional level.

Also, sometimes the defenders just make plays. That's a fact of the game. I think Riley said it himself, the coaches do everything they can to put the team in the best position to be successful. None of this guarantees success. Players still have to and will make plays. Hopefully our players and not theirs.

 

[dinglefritz]

I'm not sure the RPO is necessarily meant to confuse defenses, it's meant to put them in a difficult position and make them decide what they want to defend. Once they decide, the offense plays where the defense isn't playing defense.
I think it's a risk-reward thing. The risk lies with the QB and offense making the right decision. Realize that this is essentially an on-the-fly audible that players are coached to recognize. Regardless of what is decided, the OL blocks the same with the same effort, the WRs and RB all execute as if the ball is coming to them. So there shouldn't be a ton of confusion as all should be expecting the ball. The risk lies with the QB reading the defense, what they show, what the bluff, etc. If the QB decides wrong, the play goes right where the defense is. If the QB reads correctly, the offense should gain decent yardage every single time if there are no execution errors. Risk can be minimized by the QB being very well coached as well as spending a lot of time in film study picking up tendencies when teams show blitzes, when the bluff, what situations they use the zone blitz, which zones of the field the defense normally plays Cover _, etc.

This isn't much different from having your quarterback check the offense in and out of plays at the LOS pre-snap based on what he sees in front of him. Most of the time, he QB has an "if, then" between only a couple of plays. Most of the time it's based on what the OC has seen on tape of the opponent. In my experience, it isn't normally like Madden or NCAA where you have about 10 plays you can audible at the LOS at any time. I'm talking about at the college level and not the pros. It's much more complex at the professional level.

Also, sometimes the defenders just make plays. That's a fact of the game. I think Riley said it himself, the coaches do everything they can to put the team in the best position to be successful. None of this guarantees success. Players still have to and will make plays. Hopefully our players and not theirs.

TO ran RPO a bunch. I love RPO plays. Hate having to defend them.

 

[bomber89]

Well, I am lost. This article doesnt say anything about our D.

it was an article that was posted on the site earlier. sorry i didn't specify that.

 

[oldjar07]

From some of the plays I watched, it seems like the RPO directly led to an interception. I saw 2 in the Oregon game. When you have potential receivers run blocking guys clear out of the play, it's easy to focus on the few receivers who are running a route.

 

[NikkiSixx]

"RPO"

College football's new slang acronym.. (already worn out if you ask me)

 

[HuskerDana]

I'm not sure the RPO is necessarily meant to confuse defenses, it's meant to put them in a difficult position and make them decide what they want to defend. Once they decide, the offense plays where the defense isn't playing defense.
I think it's a risk-reward thing. The risk lies with the QB and offense making the right decision. Realize that this is essentially an on-the-fly audible that players are coached to recognize. Regardless of what is decided, the OL blocks the same with the same effort, the WRs and RB all execute as if the ball is coming to them. So there shouldn't be a ton of confusion as all should be expecting the ball. The risk lies with the QB reading the defense, what they show, what the bluff, etc. If the QB decides wrong, the play goes right where the defense is. If the QB reads correctly, the offense should gain decent yardage every single time if there are no execution errors. Risk can be minimized by the QB being very well coached as well as spending a lot of time in film study picking up tendencies when teams show blitzes, when the bluff, what situations they use the zone blitz, which zones of the field the defense normally plays Cover _, etc.

This isn't much different from having your quarterback check the offense in and out of plays at the LOS pre-snap based on what he sees in front of him. Most of the time, he QB has an "if, then" between only a couple of plays. Most of the time it's based on what the OC has seen on tape of the opponent. In my experience, it isn't normally like Madden or NCAA where you have about 10 plays you can audible at the LOS at any time. I'm talking about at the college level and not the pros. It's much more complex at the professional level.

Also, sometimes the defenders just make plays. That's a fact of the game. I think Riley said it himself, the coaches do everything they can to put the team in the best position to be successful. None of this guarantees success. Players still have to and will make plays. Hopefully our players and not theirs.

Everyone should be liking this post. Very underrated.