Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Options
Someone rush to tweet this to Bush Hamdan about red-zone offense
Squirt
Member Posts: 485
1. The heavy sets he is using in the red zone do not work. Bush, you must unlearn what you have learned from Sark.
2. Run the ball in the red zone. Just don't do it out of heavy sets or with play calls that rely on Jake Browning to make decisions.
3. Use tight ends more in the red zone. Not only does it turn on @Dennis_DeYoung whenever Cade Otton is in the game, but doing so also creates more mismatches, flexibility, and deception. Here's Warren Sharp:
4. Avoid sets with three or more WR, unless you're going to run the ball.
Warren Sharp elaborates:
2. Run the ball in the red zone. Just don't do it out of heavy sets or with play calls that rely on Jake Browning to make decisions.
3. Use tight ends more in the red zone. Not only does it turn on @Dennis_DeYoung whenever Cade Otton is in the game, but doing so also creates more mismatches, flexibility, and deception. Here's Warren Sharp:
If deciding to pass, particularly near the end zone, personnel groupings with fewer WRs and more TEs deliver substantially more efficient results. And this makes perfect sense. A team’s #3 DB against a #3 WR has less ground to cover and the #3 WR is less likely to get open quickly, which is how most passes in confined spaces need to be delivered. However, a team’s #2 TE working his body positioning against a LB who doesn’t typically cover TEs often, let alone in confined spaces, is a massive edge.
4. Avoid sets with three or more WR, unless you're going to run the ball.
Warren Sharp elaborates:
3) The optimal formation is 2 wide receivers, using either 12 or 21 personnel. RB-runs out of these formations are the best of any grouping, delivering a 73% success rate. In part this formation is successful because it delivers enough illusion for a pass. However, passes are also extremely successful from 12 or 21 personnel.
4) If a team wants to pass the ball, they should not add more wide receivers in hopes of playing “find the open man” thanks to more options. Passing out of 3+ WRs is a terrible strategy in this situation. However, rushing with a RB is successful 60% of the time, an extremely palatable rate.
4) If a team wants to pass the ball, they should not add more wide receivers in hopes of playing “find the open man” thanks to more options. Passing out of 3+ WRs is a terrible strategy in this situation. However, rushing with a RB is successful 60% of the time, an extremely palatable rate.
Comments
5. Stop calling fades unless Ty Jones is lined up against a midget.
The success rate of fade passes in the end zone is only 36%, based on data from the 2016 college season.
Sure, it's a safe call:
And a safe call might be appropriate when you're up by several scores and don't want to turn the ball over. But when you're playing to win, as you should be when playing Auburn on the road or Utah at Utah, just no:
If you really, really have to call a fade, do it on first down, when an incompletion is less damaging. Don't do it on second or third down, like you did when you called a fade to Ty Jones against Auburn on second and goal:
That isn’t a significant drop-off, but things get dicey from there. The average drop grows to 0.9 expected points with an incomplete pass on second-and-goal. Example: second-and-goal from the 7 was worth 4.61 points in 2016, but third-and-goal from the 7 was worth 3.73.
On third-and-goal, things take on a far more all-or-nothing quality. A team’s expected point total drops by about 1.5 points on average with no gain on third-and-goal and by 1.75 points inside the 5.
So what pass plays work better?
- Play action
- Pick plays (if executed properly, FFS)
- Flooding a zone
- Throws short of the end zone
- Designed QB rollouts
In addition to the sources I've quoted already, here's another one.