71 replies to this topic

[Infield Infidel]

I think the big problem with the R/O will be that Defenses have the choice of who "hurts them".

I think every time they will make the QB carry the ball by "defending the RB option".

but you can't "make the qb carry the ball." If you commit to stopping the RB run by stacking the LOS, then the QB can throw over the top, or at worst throw to the hot read. He doesn't have to run. There are also imaginative screens that take advantage of over-agressiveness at the LOS.

The only way to make the qb run is to stack the line to stop the RB read and have full complement of pass coverage, which would take 13-14 players. Not going to happen.

Now you can use deception to make the QB think the RB run isn't the best option when it actually is, but that's not always going to work

Edited by Infield Infidel, 07 February 2013 - 07:53 AM.

[bakahump]

but you can't "make the qb carry the ball." If you commit to stopping the RB run by stacking the LOS, then the QB can throw over the top, or at worst throw to the hot read. He doesn't have to run. There are also imaginative screens that take advantage of over-agressiveness at the LOS. The only way to make the qb run is to stack the line to stop the RB read and have full complement of pass coverage, which would take 13-14 players. Not going to happen. Now you can use deception to make the QB think the RB run isn't the best option when it actually is, but that's not always going to work

You can.

A very popular type of double option is the Read Option (or Zone Read).
It is typically run out of the shotgun formation. The quarterback reads
the defensive end on the side in which the play is designed to take the
running back. If the defensive end is playing inside the tackle after
the snap of the ball, the quarterback hands the ball off to the running
back. If the defensive end is playing outside of the tackle after the
snap, the quarterback keeps the ball and runs counter to the blocking
scheme.

 

 

Obviously you cant MAKE them run every play.  However during obvious running plays you can "influence" who carries the ball.  You can do this by either Stacking the line (again during obvious running plays) or in a base D playing outside the tackle.  In that base D you can still put the DE outside and make the QBs choice easier ("Outside=I carry it.")

 

The reason this works so well at Oregon (for example) is that even if Boise...or Texas or St. Marys-Catherine Stack the box....or play outside the Tackle "QBAthlete X" is still good enough to beat them running and when necessary throwing.  The difference is that NFL defenses are worlds better then even the Alabamas, LSUs and Texas's of the NCAA world, and beating them will take an even better athlete.

 

Your also assuming that the QBs capable of pulling off the the running portion of this offense will also be able to CONSISTENTLY beat you by "throwing over the top or to the hot receiver" in the NFL.  In the NCAA their Athleticism opens up enough space to be effective passing.  In the NFL that window will be reduced.

 

I guess thats where we disagree.  I dont see how if this becomes popular (say 10 NFL teams run it) that there will be enough competent QBs who are athletic enough to run (when forced too) and capable enough throwing (when they should).  Let alone Competent backups you would need because of the Potential for more hits on your starting QB... which should by common sense mean he faces a bigger potential for performance decline/injury.

 

Now is there a "Waterline"  where there ARE enough Competent starters and backups?  And by competent I mean players who can run and pass effectively enough to defeat NFL quality defenses (as opposed to NCAA quality Defenses).

 

Sure.   What that number is open to debate. I think that number of successes will be higher early on while its still "gimmicky" and NFL defenses haven't dedicated themselves to solving it. For long term success you need a talent like (pre-injury) RGIII and Perhaps Kaepernick (time will tell) and maybe Tavon Wilson (again time will tell).  And those combinations of athleticism and smarts are not so easy to find.

 

Right now the Option QB is the NFL "Moneyball".  When everyone (or a large group of teams) starts doing it, its no longer efficient and stops being "moneyball".

[bowiac]

Sure.   What that number is open to debate. I think that number of successes will be higher early on while its still "gimmicky" and NFL defenses haven't dedicated themselves to solving it. For long term success you need a talent like (pre-injury) RGIII and Perhaps Kaepernick (time will tell) and maybe Tavon Wilson (again time will tell).  And those combinations of athleticism and smarts are not so easy to find.

 

 

 

 

Assuming you meant Russell Wilson, why do you think that combination is all that hard to find? And why is it harder to find than traditional pocket passers? It's obviously hard to find NFL caliber talent period, but why are spread option guys harder to find than pocker passers?

 

Right now the Option QB is the NFL "Moneyball".  When everyone (or a large group of teams) starts doing it, its no longer efficient and stops being "moneyball".

 

Why do you think this? This is really the core disagreement, so I'm curious why you think this is true? As I've discussed, I think this offense is succeeding because it has fundamental advantages over stationary QB offenses, not because it's counter-cyclical or finding undervalued talent. I'm curious to understand the counterpoint.

Edited by bowiac, 07 February 2013 - 12:37 PM.

[Super Nomario]

Assuming you meant Russell Wilson, why do you think that combination is all that hard to find? And why is it harder to find than traditional pocket passers? It's obviously hard to find NFL caliber talent period, but why are spread option guys harder to find than pocker passers?

Per NFLDraftScout, there aren't any QBs projected to be drafted this year with a 40 time as low as Russell Wilson. In the past five years, RGIII, Kaepernick, and Wilson are 1/3/5 in Combine 40 times among QBs; the fact that they all emerged this season doesn't mean that they aren't rare. You may be right that they're less rare than good traditional pocket passers. With Wilson, height was clearly a factor; if he was 6'2" or something, I'm guessing he would have been a first- or second- round pick.

 

I'm going to do a full write-up for my blog, but the use of the read option in the Super Bowl was interesting. Baltimore had their ends (OLBs, I guess) in two point stances, at a 45-degree angle to the line of scrimmage (basically, facing the QB/back exchange point at the moment of the snap) and then had them crash hard, trying to disrupt the handoff / force the handoff early / make the play in the backfield. I haven't crunched the numbers yet, but in the first half it worked really well. The 49ers added a wrinkle late where they flanked the QB on both sides with a back and had the FB pull across the DE's face. He didn't block the DE, but his presence (and the threat of a wham block) delayed the DE from crashing hard into the backfield, giving the play enough time to develop. They got a 33-yard run this way to set up the first-and-goal that they didn't convert at the end; it was probably about 40% of the yards they gained on the RO all day.

Edited by Super Nomario, 07 February 2013 - 01:07 PM.

[bakahump]

UGhh... I had a response written and it got blown away.

 

Your right Russell Wilson...not Tavon... 

 

I know it will undermine my argument but think of it like this...Madden Style..

 

Right now teams are looking for 90+ accuracy 90+ Arm Strength 90+ Intelligence guys IE the super Pocket Passer.  Basically Bradys, Rodgers and Mannings. We know few exist.

 

Tomorrow....or in 2016 Some number of teams who choose the R/O will be looking for guys who are 80 Speed 70 Break Tackles + 80 accuracy 80 Arm Strength 90 intelligence Call them "Really Good R/O QBs" (think Kaep). We know that they wont find the 90/90/90 guys who have blazing speed and can break tackles because they are generational talents. (Maybe RGIII was preinjury....but you cant expect those every year).

 

How many of those "Really Good R/O QBs" exist? Not many. (and I agree that not many 90/90/90 Traditional Pocket passers exist either.) As the Good R/O QBs get scooped up....now your start looking at R/O QBs who are not as fast or not as accurate or not as smart or maybe all three.

 

My thought is  will teams really gain that much over a Tradition PP who is 82/84/90?  Guys who are still better at passing then all but the top 5% of R/O Qbs....? Guys who currently are the 2nd tier Starting QBs in the NFL.

 

And after the top 25 or 40% of R/O Qbs are on teams  you will be choosing from guys who are 90 speed 60 break tackles 67 accuracy 87 arm strength and 76 intelligence.   Does that guy give a  team a better chance to win then a 80/80/80 third tier Pocket passer? Maybe....but its not an obvious yes.

 

Right now based on a "QBs ability to Win" (Because thats really what this boils down to..)

(and you may quibble with the numbers slightly...)

There are 3-5 great QBs.....3-5 Pretty Good Qbs.....10-12 average Qbs....7 slightly below average QBs  and  the rest well below average (mostly all of these PP QBs).

 

 

In the end when the R/O becomes more common I think there will always be 3-5 really great PP (they are just too good not to be used).  5-7 Pretty Damn good Qbs (including a couple of R/O QBs like RGIII and Kaep)  10-12 avg QBs (probably split about 50/50 between PP and R/O Maybe Wilson Level).  5 slightly below average QBs (including a couple of R/O QBs) and the Rest (including a couple of R/O QBs) well below average.

[bowiac]

I appreciate what you're saying, I just don't see a basis for it. Why are we going to discover there's relatively few "Really Good R/O QBs"? Given their success rate so far, it seems like we're going to discover there are a ton of them. Now maybe SuperNomario is correct, and we've just been incredibly lucky to see three semi-generational talents emerge in one year. My sense is that this is just the natural evolution of college talent meanwhile, and we're going to see a ton of guys like this. 

 

That's without getting into the schematic advantages present, that have allowed "less talented" guys like Denard Robinson to put up huge passing numbers, without actually being a good passer.

[bakahump]

Bowiac....I wish I had numbers to back up my thoughts.....but we are at the top of the Ski Run and both of us will need to wait to see where this goes.

 

What I can say is we are dealing with the NFL.  And history has shown that regardless of what a "player type" may do....there are very few really great ones.

 

Every so often we get some really great huge Running backs.  We soon start discussing the plausibility of every team with a Huge Back.  We soon discover that all Huge Backs are not the same some are Bettis and some are Butts.  We then find a team with a Huge receiver. We begin to think every team will have a huge receiver.  Soon enough we figure out that all 6'4 230 WRs are not Calvin Johnson. Then we see a LB who is 6'6 265 and runs a 4.4 40 who sacks everyone.  We figure out that the 6'4 260 guys who run 4.52 doesnt sack anyone and that the 6'5 250 4.4 player is out of the league.

 

 

Time will tell but i dont see where these incredible athletes with the smarts needed for the nfl, (and lets face it to make the mark you are suggesting they would need to be incredible and have some great smarts) have been hiding over the last 5, 10 or even 20 years. Has the NFL (and sometimes in College previously) some how failed to utilize them properly by putting square pegs (great potential R/O QBs) into round holes (pocket passing Offenses)?

 

Basically Michael Bishop will always be Michael Bishop and Kliff Kingsbury will always be Kliff Kingsbury.  They will be great in College....often BECAUSE of the Scheme. But will not be good enough for the NFL.

 

 

What do you think of Geno Smith? Do you think he is next out of the really Good R/O QB Mold?

[Super Nomario]

What do you think of Geno Smith? Do you think he is next out of the really Good R/O QB Mold?

Geno Smith isn't particularly mobile. He runs like a 4.8-4.9 40 and averaged 1.4 YPC at WVU.

[bowiac]

 Time will tell but i dont see where these incredible athletes with the smarts needed for the nfl, (and lets face it to make the mark you are suggesting they would need to be incredible and have some great smarts) have been hiding over the last 5, 10 or even 20 years. Has the NFL (and sometimes in College previously) some how failed to utilize them properly by putting square pegs (great potential R/O QBs) into round holes (pocket passing Offenses)?

 

 

 

 

The zone read itself is comparatively new. It's functionally 20 years old, and less than that in big time college football circles. It's only been the last 10 years or so that the packages for it have reached particularly sophisticated levels. It's not surprising that it's taken time to filter on to the NFL. Coaches are conservative by nature, and by and large, they do what they know. Not many NFL guys know how to run a spread option offense, and not many want to put their necks on the line by trying it. It's taken time for the same reason it took a long time for the three point shot to come into vogue in basketball. Coaches didn't know what to do with it for a long time. The spread option is similar, but with an even more extreme learning curve.

 

So what's been happening to those guys? Well, some of them are being misused at the college level. Terrell Pryor went to Ohio State rather than Michigan because he wanted to go to the NFL, and thought running a pro set would be better for his pro prospects. Others are going to the NFL and then being badly misused, like Alex Smith. He was Tim Tebow before Tim Tebow was. And then he went to the NFL where they decided not to use those talents. Increasingly however, NFL teams are realizing that the schematic advantages of the zone read so great that they not trying to do that anymore. Witness Cam Newton.

 

The difference between the spread option and the "Huge Back", is that the "Huge Back" doesn't have the same fundamental advantages as the spread option does. Some innovations are just fashion/vogue, while others represent shifts in the game. I agree not all of these guys will be great, but my belief is that the schematic advantage that the spread option presents is sufficient that they don't need to be great to match/exceed the performance of most pocket passer types. 

 

I think Geno Smith is very good, yes. He's not super fast, but I suspect he's fast enough. That doesn't mean he's gonna be used as a spread option guy however. I think if the Chiefs take him, he may well very well go the "scrambler" route, rather than the spread option route.

Edited by bowiac, 07 February 2013 - 03:21 PM.

[maufman]

When I was growing up, drop-back passers were the norm. Guys like John Elway who had more than a modicum of athletic ability were the exception to the rule.

 

This has been changing for some time. Among currently active QBs, only the Manning brothers are as statuesque as Bradshaw, Montana, Marino, Kelly and Simms were. Even guys like Brady and Brees, neither of whom has ever been described as a "running QB," would have rated comfortably above-average in athleticism for a QB 30 years ago.

 

During this time, we have also seen the rise of running QBs. I believe, however, that the benefit of a "running" QB, as opposed to a drop-back QB with some athleticism, is overstated. Other than Mike Vick in his Atlanta days, I can't think of any running QBs who enjoyed sustained success without having enough skills to survive as a drop-back passer if need be.

 

The emergence of RG3, Wilson, and Kaepernick this year, on the heels of Cam Newton's breakout season a year ago, will definitely affect the thinking of NFL coaches and GMs. I do think we'll see a lot more running QBs and a lot more read options. I also think we'll see a lot of failures, because most of those teams will not find a QB with the preternatural talents of RG3, Wilson, Kaepernick, and Newton. In the long run, I think we'll find that guys with elite running ability and solid drop-back skills are as rare as drop-back QBs with the skills of a Peyton Manning or a Tom Brady.

 

The only difference is that the running ability is easier to gauge than the soft skills that make for an elite pocket passer. Teams might be more willing to gamble a high draft pick on a running QB than a traditional one. This means guys like Wilson and Kaepernick will go in the first round in the future, and the next RG3 might get drafted ahead of the next Andrew Luck, but I think this will have a marginal effect on the games we watch on Sundays -- good running QBs will continue to be the exception to the rule.

[bowiac]

Not to belabor this too much, as I think we're reaching the point where we're going around in circles, but maufman - while we haven't seen running QBs who have enjoyed a lot of NFL success, we also haven't seen teams really try and deploy the read option until lately.

 

Anyway, that's where I'm at. I don't think the pocket passer is going to be a dinosaur, but I think it'll be a bit of a oddity, like having a point guard who can't shoot the three. 

[shlincoln]

ndy let Luck take his lumps in this regard, but protected him physically by not exposing him to as many hits as those guys.

I saw Peter King mention this on Twitter yesterday, Andrew Luck was the most knocked-down QB last season (148). So he was taking lumps physically as well.

Edited by shlincoln, 07 February 2013 - 06:31 PM.

[LondonSox]

Bowiac I totally agree. As an Eagles fan I have done a LOT of reading up and research on Kelly and the Oregon offense.

I firmly believe that the schemes he runs are generally and genuinely part of a real change to football. The philosophy is really simple the QB can take the best defender out of a running play with no contact. If it was as straight forward as that who could possibly argue with that upside. If the talent level is equal and the QB is not involved on a running play the defense has an extra guy to tackle. In the read option the best defensive line man can be taken out of the play and now you are one on one across the board.

There are many other variations for this of course but that simple maths is compelling. I like Kelly a lot as he has reasons for doing his "crazy" ideas, when to punt etc.

 

The big extra point here which seems to be going under appreciated is, the read option WANTS and EXPECTS the defense to force the hand off to the RB. This eliminates the extra defender and gives the ball to the guy you want running it in traffic. When the QB keeps it he should e running to the backside of the play AWAY from the defense. Now of course you need a guy fast enough to use that space and not get caught from behind constantly. However, the point is the QB keeps it only if he is running into space, and frankly if he's past the defensive line before anyone even has a play he's going to get 5+ yards before contact and can slide if it's not there. RGIII got hit and hurt on scrambles and QB called runs more than the read option. The scramble has no such advantage or space and the called run has nothing to get the defense away.

Look again at the Kaepernick game vs Green Bay and show me the bad hits he takes on read option plays. He's UNTOUCHED on the biggest runs. This claim of damage from running the read option is off base IMO.

 

As another very separate point Vick got destroyed in the pocket the last two years, fragile guys are fragile period.

[bowiac]

[quote name="Super Nomario" post="4541785" timestamp="1360172383"]
ndy let Luck take his lumps in this regard, but protected him physically by not exposing him to as many hits as those guys. /quote]

I saw Peter King mention this on Twitter yesterday, Andrew Luck was the most knocked-down QB last season (148). So he was taking lumps physically as well.

Yeah, like I mentioned, the only data I've seen (and linked to), shows no extra injury risk for mobile QBs. I wouldn't take it as an article of faith that those guys will be more prone to injury.

[Super Nomario]

 I think Geno Smith is very good, yes. He's not super fast, but I suspect he's fast enough. That doesn't mean he's gonna be used as a spread option guy however. I think if the Chiefs take him, he may well very well go the "scrambler" route, rather than the spread option route.

I'd be very surprised if Smith ran the read-option in the pros, since he didn't run it in college.. His average speed is a limitation to running the zone read, too. Part of the reason defenses tend to force the handoff to the HB is that the QB run (as LondonSox notes, away from the defense) has big-play potential; if your QB isn't fast, the big-play potential is obviously more limited. And as Chris Brown points out:

 

Now, let’s say (a) that the defensive end (or linebacker in a “scrape-exchange” scheme) is a real stud, and (b) that the quarterback is nothing special — not a Pat White or Vince Young. In that case, when the defense sees the zone read the defender being “read” can pretty much just wait until he knows whether the QB or RB is keeping it, and then attack accordingly. Unless the quarterback is a real athletic threat (think of Michigan’s motley quarterbacking crew from last season), that defender can play both the zone-read and not fear having the quarterback run by him; if the QB runs, he’ll get ‘em.

 

Not to belabor this too much, as I think we're reaching the point where we're going around in circles, but maufman - while we haven't seen running QBs who have enjoyed a lot of NFL success, we also haven't seen teams really try and deploy the read option until lately.

 

Anyway, that's where I'm at. I don't think the pocket passer is going to be a dinosaur, but I think it'll be a bit of a oddity, like having a point guard who can't shoot the three. 

This is a pretty strong statement. The top two offenses last year both had traditional pocket passers (and #3 was GB; Rodgers is a traditional pocket passer who can run in a pinch), and since the read option is an offensive innovation, not a defensive one, there's no reason to think if it spreads it's going to make a great traditional pocket passer less effective. Or are you envisioning an NFL where the read option makes offenses so dominant that games are 55-45 shootouts every week and what we now think of as great offenses can't keep up?

[LondonSox]

I don't think the read-option is going to be the dominant strategy for a very very long time if ever. Firstly it's a run play and the league is still a passing league. Secondly I don't think there are MORE good running QBs than good pocket passers. As a read option QB you still need to be good enough to pass.

I do think that this allows a wider range of QBs to have success. Wilson is a great example of a guy who would have been an after thought for more teams due to issues like size. Johnny Manziel is now going to have a shot in the NFL, a year or two ago he would have been too small, wouldn't translate etc.

So if these means a wider range of QB sign me up. We have a lot of shitty pocket passers out there starting, at least this offers more variety.

 

The thing I find so interesting about Kelly is he's using modern concepts to RUN. The hurry up we know can be effective. The spread we know can be effective. Throwing we know is effective. When was the last time we had a new style of running the ball? It's exciting.

[maufman]

I don't think the read-option is going to be the dominant strategy for a very very long time if ever. Firstly it's a run play and the league is still a passing league. Secondly I don't think there are MORE good running QBs than good pocket passers. As a read option QB you still need to be good enough to pass.

I do think that this allows a wider range of QBs to have success. Wilson is a great example of a guy who would have been an after thought for more teams due to issues like size. Johnny Manziel is now going to have a shot in the NFL, a year or two ago he would have been too small, wouldn't translate etc.

So if these means a wider range of QB sign me up. We have a lot of shitty pocket passers out there starting, at least this offers more variety.

 

The thing I find so interesting about Kelly is he's using modern concepts to RUN. The hurry up we know can be effective. The spread we know can be effective. Throwing we know is effective. When was the last time we had a new style of running the ball? It's exciting.

 

Manziel will be used more effectively today than he would've been 20 years ago, but he would've been a stud regardless -- he's not a one-trick pony like Randall Cunningham or Tim Tebow.

 

The rise of RG3, Wilson, Kaepernick and Newton in a two-year span is an aberration. Manziel will join those guys a year from now, but the flood gates aren't going to open -- because the skill set those guys possess is exceedingly rare. We might see a little copy-catting -- teams who lack a solid QB option may prefer to roll the dice on a second-tier running QB like Tebow rather than hitching their star to a second-tier pocket passer like Ryan Fitzpatrick. But that's only going to affect a few teams on the margin -- we're not talking about a game-changing innovation like the west-coast offense.

[bowiac]

The rise of RG3, Wilson, Kaepernick and Newton in a two-year span is an aberration. Manziel will join those guys a year from now, but the flood gates aren't going to open -- because the skill set those guys possess is exceedingly rare. We might see a little copy-catting -- teams who lack a solid QB option may prefer to roll the dice on a second-tier running QB like Tebow rather than hitching their star to a second-tier pocket passer like Ryan Fitzpatrick. But that's only going to affect a few teams on the margin -- we're not talking about a game-changing innovation like the west-coast offense.

Why do you think it's an aberration? People keep saying this, but I don't understand why? After Manziel, it'll be Braxton Miller and Devin Gardner. I kind of expect Terrell Pryor to rear his head eventually too. 

.

When the West Coast offense was making the rounds, people said the same thing by the way. "Well, lets see you do it without Joe Montana."

 

As far as it being a running play - that's true, but it largely serves to open up the passing game by forcing the defense to commit a safety to stopping the run. One thing RG3, Wilson, Kaepernick, and Cam Newton all had in common was that they had better years passing the ball than Andrew Luck, Blane Gabbert, Ryan Tannehill, Jack Locker, or Christian Ponder did.

[bowiac]

This is a pretty strong statement. The top two offenses last year both had traditional pocket passers (and #3 was GB; Rodgers is a traditional pocket passer who can run in a pinch), and since the read option is an offensive innovation, not a defensive one, there's no reason to think if it spreads it's going to make a great traditional pocket passer less effective. Or are you envisioning an NFL where the read option makes offenses so dominant that games are 55-45 shootouts every week and what we now think of as great offenses can't keep up?

I don't think traditional passing attacks are going to suffer as result of this, no. Like I said, Peyton Manning will be great regardless. (And the Celtics won a title with a PG who can't shoot the three). It's just going to increasingly be the exception, because I do think it's going to be easier to find mid level talent who can run the read option with great success than it'll be to find pocket passers who can be good. 

 

Are games going to be 55-45 shootouts? Maybe. A lot of that depends on changes to the rulebook. I expect defenses will adjust as well, but I only to a limited degree. The NFL seems pretty interested in increasing offense, and I don't think that tendency will help either system more.

[simplyeric]

I don't think traditional passing attacks are going to suffer as result of this, no. Like I said, Peyton Manning will be great regardless. (And the Celtics won a title with a PG who can't shoot the three). It's just going to increasingly be the exception, because I do think it's going to be easier to find mid level talent who can run the read option with great success than it'll be to find pocket passers who can be good. 
 
Are games going to be 55-45 shootouts? Maybe. A lot of that depends on changes to the rulebook. I expect defenses will adjust as well, but I only to a limited degree. The NFL seems pretty interested in increasing offense, and I don't think that tendency will help either system more.

One question: if read option qb's become more successful and more common (or vice versa), won't defenses have to respond to that trend? If so, while read option offense might still be effective, wouldn't that tend to make traditional offenses also more effective? I mean this in the sense of resource allocation: if limited salary and talent has to focus on an certain aspect of the game, it tends to leave other aspects more open. The same way now some D's are much better against the run than the pass, or what have you. A great read option D might suffer against a great pocket passer (if they have the right O-line) because they're focused differently.

[bowiac]

One question: if read option qb's become more successful and more common (or vice versa), won't defenses have to respond to that trend? If so, while read option offense might still be effective, wouldn't that tend to make traditional offenses also more effective? I mean this in the sense of resource allocation: if limited salary and talent has to focus on an certain aspect of the game, it tends to leave other aspects more open. The same way now some D's are much better against the run than the pass, or what have you. A great read option D might suffer against a great pocket passer (if they have the right O-line) because they're focused differently.

Yes, but perhaps not sufficiently to make a difference. For instance, most defenses these days are built to stop modern offenses, and yet you don't see teams going to back to the triple option. The idea of certain resources becoming undervalued, and defenses being built to stop a different offense has merit, but I wouldn't take it too far. That argument can apply to literally every innovation in football history. 

[coremiller]

What will really be scary is once Kaepernick/RG3/Wilson develop to the point where their offenses can combine read-option run attacks with more traditional sophisticated drop-back passing attacks.  Colleges haven't done this because they don't have the players around long enough to develop both skill sets, but the NFL guys could do this.  What we saw this year was only the tip of the iceberg.