Part I

As an Oregon State fan, the read option has had me tugging my hair for some time. I have always figured the solution to stopping it would lie in the esoterics of x's and o's; that is, run-stopping defensive formations such as the 46 or 4-4. Then I had a eureka moment. So simple, so elegant, so obvious. Why hadn't I thought of it before?

First, let's understand what happens during a typical a read option. This video does an excellent job of demonstrating the simplicity of the play from the offensive perspective: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDu-livhN-k

As you can see, the idea behind the read option is to create indecision for the defensive end (sometimes this can be the linebacker as well). The Oregon variation is to leave the DT unblocked. This is a good wrinkle since a DT is usually slow and therefore cannot recover from the smallest indecision. So the question that's eluded Beavers coaches and fans for years is "how do we stop it?" Mark Banker has been trying to answer that question for seven years.

In the remainder of this article, I postulate that the solution is based on a simple, yet profound paradigm shift that has little to do chalk board diagrams. The idea is based upon this one simple proposition: Reverse the defensive player's indecision onto the offensive player. This is done by:

1. The DE (or LB or DT) "bluffing" a quick initial step towards either the QB or RB, then bouncing the other direction once the QB reads the defensive player's initial (bluff) move.

2. Variation in the bluff. It doesn't matter if the DE bluffs to the QB or RB, so long as he changes his strategy often enough so as to not form a pattern. This is an idea I've known intuitively for some time, but it wasn't until about six months ago when I began reading about (applied mathematical) game theory that I learned of the name for it–"mixed strategy." The idea and use behind a mixed strategy is simple:

A player would only use a mixed strategy when s/he is indifferent between several pure strategies, and when keeping the opponent guessing is desirable – that is, when the opponent can benefit from knowing the next move.

There is an infamous study on soccer penalty kicks that describes the [intuition of this] phenomena beautifully:  http://www2.owen.vanderbilt.edu/mike.shor/courses/game-theory/docs/lecture05/MixedSoccer.html In short, by using a mixed strategy you can create an endless loop of "what if's" on both sides.

For example, in the soccer example it would be something like this: "I will kick left. But what if the goalie is guessing I'm going to kick left? Then he will block my kick. Therefore, I will kick right! But what if he knows that I think he knows that I'm going to kick left and therefore adjust to the right? Then he will block my kick to the right. So I will kick left."…and so forth. You can see how this quickly becomes and infinite and complicated loop in thought, and that is the precise idea–to nullify and level the offensive advantage (i.e. taking advantage of the defense's "pure strategy") via creating equal indecision. —————————————————————————————————————————————-

Part II

The notes below are taken from an interesting paper I found online, written by Mike Bellotti himself at a Nike camp in 2008, on the advantages and disadvantages of a shotgun spread offense.

Spread Shotgun Advantages:

1. Force defense to defend the width & depth of the field

2. Create more 1-on-1 situations for more RAC (run-after-catch) opportunities

3. Can see the blitz coming or it must come from a distance

4. Easier to read coverage

5. QB separation from line of scrimmage

Disadvantages:

1. Lose lead back running game

2. QB's eyes must be on shotgun snap, affects ability to read coverage

3. Defense can always outnumber – need options, hots, sight reads in the offense

4. QB must be a viable run threat

Some astute ideas here. While interesting, I see no purpose in focusing on the advantages on this list. The disadvantages offer great insight into how to further stop the read option. For example, if the QB must focus on the snap, an audible late in the snap count would likely work wonders. It's interesting to note that the defense can always outnumber, which is why Oregon loves to have a mobile QB and even that playing field. ———————————————————————————————————————————————– Conclusion The combination of reversing confusion onto the offense with defensive bluffs and late audibles should stop the read option. If the defensive players' commitment is a bluff, the quarterback has an unreliable "read" and therefore the pre-snap becomes an infinite guessing game that an offense would likely not want to play, and the post-snap would be bedlam. I'd love to find some of the Boise State film and see if this is precisely how they shut down Oregon.

This is simply a copy/paste job from the comment area of the main thread on Olander, but it so poignantly showcases the viewpoint of Beaver fans and the conflict it’s creating within myself that I thought it would make for good discussion.

Mckalk, a reader whom I respect based on his past insights, had this viewpoint, which having perused the blogs and forums, seems to summarize the majority opinion:

I am ok with James…one game suspension. Somewhat unclear circmunstances, right? Domestic dispute gone out of control? Masoli was kind of premeditated theft. Went into someone’s house and stole a couple of thousand dollars worth of stuff, that is a true felony. Then he lied to his head coach if I understand it correctly. I can see why he got suspended for a season. I don’t know what Riley has said to Olander in the past…maybe it is a three strike situation. I am just saying ( and I could have my head up my) that if you look at the misdemeanor he committed, it is not a career ender in my book. I am disturbed that Riley seems to have his head buried in the sand with all of this going on and really in hindsight there should have been more debate about the Al Alfalava situation…drunk driving is a serious offense. Third wheel on a golfcart joyride..not so much.

My response is as follows:

It’s not a career ender in my book, either, but when you add it to the body of work it should be.

My argument is one of a slippery slope, I realize. To say that because he did x in the past he will do z in the future. But there’s a point where the “slope” dries up a little, a pattern emerges, and you can begin to confidently predict based on that pattern. For me two of these events would be enough, but to someone more lenient I’d hope four is plenty.

My question would be this: how many more “minor” offenses are acceptable to you?

The main issue for me and Beaver fan is the incongruity in their rationalization:

1. Beaver fans who wanted James’ head for a misdemeanor are much more forgiving of Olander.

They act as if the behavior is perfectly normal for college kids, when in fact I’ve never seen a college kid in my entire life driving a golf cart around while drunk and likely neither have they. Further, they completely ignore the danger it could have caused to citizens or (potential) innocent victims. For example, what if they drove this golf cart into the road and caused a vehicular manslaughter? It’s for these very reasons the severity of the law exists.

2. Beaver fans are justifying and rationalizing Oldander’s behavior because it’s a position (DT) of need.

If this were a 6th string safety there would be little justification or care. Think back to Ashton Jefferson or Reggie Jefferson, how minor their FIRST infraction was, and how little anybody cared when they were booted. Further, Riley becomes inconsistent and preferential–the two things with which Beaver fan loaded his quiver while riding his high horse in the Eugene disciplines–if he lets Olander remain on the team.

Consider this quote from Cliff Kirkpatrick after the Jefferson/Williams incident:

“Riley has a near zero tolerance policy for alcohol/drugs. That could have done it. Near-zero because if someone has a long history of being good, he takes that into consideration. (Al Afalava)”

Oldander was drunk, illegally using a vehicle, had a past marijuana charge, and two thefts.

Just think about this for a while before responding.

Which of these viewpoints most reflects what you think, and more importantly, why?

I don’t have much to say about the Lalich situation. The short of it is that this is a blessing in disguise. Last time I wrote a piece like this Keith Pankey’s mom showed up, and she did not share the same sentiment!

My opinion of Lalich is that he’s been both a ticking time bomb and wallflower since his arrival and was getting 2nd string reps based on pedigree (i.e. 4-star and “all the tools”) alone. Vaz has been better since day one and is a rich man’s Jonathan Smith. Additionally, it was likely that Vaz would transfer if the log jam at QB didn’t free up, so that is an added benefit. Finally, Lalich’s departure will give the much deserving bump up the depth chart to Jack Lomax. So there you have it, divine intervention did the job the coaches couldn’t do an aligned the depth chart properly.

This is, of course, assuming Riley kicks Lalich off the team. He definitely, 100% should. It’s a no-brainer. Anything less and this blog is about to blow up. Not only is Riley’s mailbox going to get flooded but the AD as well. In fact, the fact that he hasn’t been kicked off the team yet is igniting sparks of rage.

———————————————————————————————————————————————-

Extra Extra!

Does anyone care to discuss how this DUI further tarnishes our image and tightens the muzzle around annoying Beaver fans’ granola eating mouth? I covered both in the Olander article, but annoying Beaver fan needs to be reminded of how flawed the program is once a minute or his pupils begin to dilate orange. It’s nice to be an objective, non-annoying Beaver fan, isn’t it?

Oh, and speaking of the annoying Beaver fan, I found this quote from Oregon head coach George Horton to be everything annoying Beaver fan claims to be but precisely lacks. That is, class and respect. From Oregonlive:

Horton was not impressed with the OSU fans sitting behind the Oregon dugout on the first base side and some unsavory comments that they made when Ducks third baseman J.J. Altobelli turned his right ankle while pursuing a ground ball in the eighth inning and had to leave the game. “A couple things came out when J.J. got hurt that I didn’t like very much,” Horton said. “(Losing the series) is a tough pill to swallow, because of the energy here and some of the stuff that’s coming out of the stands, but I don’t have any animosity towards Coach Casey or their athletes. Like I’ve said before, there’s room for both of us in Omaha.”

Way to show your true colors and cheer on an injury. Godspeed, ever-classy, annoying Beaver fan.