The Future is Here: The NFL and the Pistol Offense

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by SouperMeister

The best line in the whole article is that Griffin almost always makes the correct read. He is effectively neutering the best defensive ends in the league, whom are left unblocked, letting them pick their poison. It's a beautiful thing when DeMarcus Ware bites on the handoff to Morris, only to helplessly watch Griffin pull the ball back and streak around the corner. With this QB, the Pistol isn't a gimmick, it's a paradigm shift that has the entire league on notice.

I started wondering a couple weeks ago, when talk about a playoff game vs Seattle started, if their big corners can minimize the pistol's effectiveness. A few analysts have talked about it too, but I have no idea what to expect. I guess if they're expecting the keep and RG is still hobbled they could close fast enough to stop a first down.

Or maybe the pistol can be effective without RG being a threat to run necessarily. Maybe we'll find out this game?

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by The Goat

I started wondering a couple weeks ago, when talk about a playoff game vs Seattle started, if their big corners can minimize the pistol's effectiveness. A few analysts have talked about it too, but I have no idea what to expect. I guess if they're expecting the keep and RG is still hobbled they could close fast enough to stop a first down.

Or maybe the pistol can be effective without RG being a threat to run necessarily. Maybe we'll find out this game?

I still dont get why people talk about the Pistol as if its an offense and/or offensive concept in and of itself. There is way too much reading into it. The Pistol is nothing more than a formation. It can run the same concepts as the standard I-Formation as SkinsGuru said earlier. It was asked earlier why others dont run it. Because it depends on what you want to do on offense as to whether the Pistol formation is usable or not.

The reason why it helps RG3 and the Redskins. Because of the concepts they want to use. First, they run the ZBS which is based heavily on stretch running plays. Second, RG3 is way to good at play action to not want to use it and even feature it in the passing game. Third, They want to use the read option to keep defenses reading before reacting, ultimately slowing them down making the rest of the offense work better.

Starting with the first point, the ZBS. The stretch run from the Pistol allows RG3 to get the ball quicker to Morris than he could under center, allowing Morris to get on the stretch runs quicker. Morris can press the outside hard because he doesnt have to wait as long for the hand-off.

The second point, play action. RG3 does not read defenses as good as experienced QB's, and play action can be detrimental to young QB's because that keeps their head in the backfield and not on reading the defense. The Pistol allows RG3 to execute the play action and get his head around quicker because he is already 3 or 4 yards deep.

The third point, the read option. Going back to it being asked why everyone doesnt run the Pistol if its so special. Tebow and Cam can both run the read option very well. Then shouldnt they use the Pistol? No way, that would be a huge mistake. The reason why is due to the axis of the run itself. Tebow and Cam are tanks. They have the option to hand off to the RB who is going to stretch the outside. They specifically read the DE that is reacting to the RB. If the DE crashes inside, they hand off to the RB who goes outside. If the DE maintains the outside to force it inside, Tebow (Tank 1) and Cam (Tank 2) take it right up the middle. Now they can choose basically tackle to tackle if they see a hole, but they are a FB at that point.

That is a mistake with RG3, hence the pistol. In the shotgun, the QB is facing forward, the RB runs across his face to the sideline. In the Pistol, the QB is facing the sideline, and the RB goes straight ahead. This changes the axis of the play from RB outside/QB inside to the exact opposite. The Pistol read option is RB inside/QB outside. Which is what we need to do based on RG3 not being a tank, but a cheetah (who can also throw the ball). RG3 does not read the DE who is assigned to the RB, he reads the DE to his side. If the DE crashes, RG3 keeps and goes outside. If the DE maintains the edge, Morris takes it between the tackles. I would much rather have RG3 going outside since he has that speed, plus it has him headed towards the sidelines.

We can run the stretch run plays with the ZBS (which can be run from under center). We can run a pro style play action passing game (which can be run from under center). Or we can run the read option. All very easily out of the Pistol Formation. Throw in that the defense has to respect three offensive concepts without changing a single look (Remember, under Rex/Beck/McNabb even the good plays seemed telegraphed) and the Pistol suits what we do better than other formations.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by The Goat

I started wondering a couple weeks ago, when talk about a playoff game vs Seattle started, if their big corners can minimize the pistol's effectiveness. A few analysts have talked about it too, but I have no idea what to expect. I guess if they're expecting the keep and RG is still hobbled they could close fast enough to stop a first down.

Or maybe the pistol can be effective without RG being a threat to run necessarily. Maybe we'll find out this game?

To repeat: the pistol is a formation, not a play. You can run the pistol without the QB's EVER keeping the ball.

When people talking about RGIII making good reads, as described above, they are talking about a play, the read option, not a formation. The read option can be run from formations other than the pistol. The read option and the pistol are not the same thing.

I cannot understand why this concept is so difficult to understand.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

To repeat: the pistol is a formation, not a play. You can run the pistol without the QB's EVER keeping the ball.

When people talking about RGIII making good reads, as described above, they are talking about a play, the read option, not a formation. The read option can be run from formations other than the pistol. The read option and the pistol are not the same thing.

I cannot understand why this concept is so difficult to understand.

Wow, just wow. Do you have invented arguments with your walls at home too lol? Nobody, including me, ever implied the pistol is a play rather than a formation. The forest through the trees issue here is whether it can be an effective formation (run, pass, pitch, toss) without the threat of the QB keeping the ball X percent of plays per game. I'm far from the only person asking this question. The analyst discussions have gone something like this:

The pistol's effectiveness is based on 1) keeping the defense back on its heels trying to diagnose the play and 2) quicker development. If Seattle's corners can effectively crash from the outside to stop major gains on the keeps, then we're limited to pass, hand-off, or pitch in a loaded backfield. The defense already has the luxury of stacking the box, and now we're seeing defenses come with heavy blitzes too. You've seen this on a few occasions where RG looks to pass out of the pistol. Unless he finds a target immediately open the pocket collapses around him. When he was in top form he could often escape and even turn it into a positive gain. Last week was a different story. He took a sack out of the pistol while trying to pass, and on another play like it near the goal line he got hurried and threw into coverage, luckily avoiding an INT. Passing out of pistol hasn't looked terribly effective to you, has it?

So again, there's absolutely no confusion what the pistol is. There's a debate whether it can be an effective formation if the defense finds a way to shut down RG on X number of designed keeps. It should be obvious that you give up a lot with the pistol. It forces you by its nature to load up the backfield, and therefor keeps you from putting more than two receivers out wide. Some d coordinators, to be sure, will see this as an opportunity. To highlight this, offenses who've had success with the pistol (Washington, Seattle, and SanFran to a lesser extent) have very mobile QBs who, once again, keep the ball X number of times. The Steelers on the other hand didn't find much success with it, though they tried using it to cover Ben's immobility when he played with injury.

It is why, IMO, we don't see, and won't see, elite pocket passers like Manning and Brady use it beyond a gimmick set, if at all.

[NC_Skins]

Like I said. Lots of HERP DERP up in here.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Wow, just wow. Do you have invented arguments with your walls at home too lol? Nobody, including me, ever implied the pistol is a play rather than a formation. The forest through the trees issue here is whether it can be an effective formation (run, pass, pitch, toss) without the threat of the QB keeping the ball X percent of plays per game. I'm far from the only person asking this question. The analyst discussions have gone something like this:

The pistol's effectiveness is based on 1) keeping the defense back on its heels trying to diagnose the play and 2) quicker development. If Seattle's corners can effectively crash from the outside to stop major gains on the keeps, then we're limited to pass, hand-off, or pitch in a loaded backfield. The defense already has the luxury of stacking the box, and now we're seeing defenses come with heavy blitzes too. You've seen this on a few occasions where RG looks to pass out of the pistol. Unless he finds a target immediately open the pocket collapses around him. When he was in top form he could often escape and even turn it into a positive gain. Last week was a different story. He took a sack out of the pistol while trying to pass, and on another play like it near the goal line he got hurried and threw into coverage, luckily avoiding an INT. Passing out of pistol hasn't looked terribly effective to you, has it?

So again, there's absolutely no confusion what the pistol is. There's a debate whether it can be an effective formation if the defense finds a way to shut down RG on X number of designed keeps. It should be obvious that you give up a lot with the pistol. It forces you by its nature to load up the backfield, and therefor keeps you from putting more than two receivers out wide. Some d coordinators, to be sure, will see this as an opportunity. To highlight this, offenses who've had success with the pistol (Washington, Seattle, and SanFran to a lesser extent) have very mobile QBs who, once again, keep the ball X number of times. The Steelers on the other hand didn't find much success with it, though they tried using it to cover Ben's immobility when he played with injury.

It is why, IMO, we don't see, and won't see, elite pocket passers like Manning and Brady use it beyond a gimmick set, if at all.

You have more than implied that the pistol is a play. You have presumed it in repeated posts, including the very post here.

For the last time, the pistol can be run without the QB EVER keeping the ball (I repeat, EVER). The pistol in no way prima facie presumes that the QB will keep the ball at any % above zero. Thus the concerns you expressed in your post are completely moot.

You can only make the argument that you make above if the pistol is a play - which it is not.

Goat, I have responded to your posts when others have ignored you in the hope that you will come around to seeing things clearly. Now I'm done.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Lotus

You have more than implied that the pistol is a play. You have presumed it in repeated posts, including the very post here.

For the last time, the pistol can be run without the QB EVER keeping the ball (I repeat, EVER). The pistol in no way prima facie presumes that the QB will keep the ball at any % above zero. Thus the concerns you expressed in your post are completely moot.

You can only make the argument that you make above if the pistol is a play - which it is not.

Goat, I have responded to your posts when others have ignored you in the hope that you will come around to seeing things clearly. Now I'm done.

Easier to hope for world peace. Just ignore - his equivocation, historical inconsistencies and logical fallacies provide him an unassailable platform to spout his particular brand of lunacy.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

You have more than implied that the pistol is a play. You have presumed it in repeated posts, including the very post here.

For the last time, the pistol can be run without the QB EVER keeping the ball (I repeat, EVER). The pistol in no way prima facie presumes that the QB will keep the ball at any % above zero. Thus the concerns you expressed in your post are completely moot.

You can only make the argument that you make above if the pistol is a play - which it is not.

Goat, I have responded to your posts when others have ignored you in the hope that you will come around to seeing things clearly. Now I'm done.

Good post. Goat makes some nicely worded arguments, but theyre based on a completely faulty premise. There's no sense arguing with someone who doesnt understand what theyre arguing.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

You have more than implied that the pistol is a play. You have presumed it in repeated posts, including the very post here.

For the last time, the pistol can be run without the QB EVER keeping the ball (I repeat, EVER). The pistol in no way prima facie presumes that the QB will keep the ball at any % above zero. Thus the concerns you expressed in your post are completely moot.

You can only make the argument that you make above if the pistol is a play - which it is not.

Goat, I have responded to your posts when others have ignored you in the hope that you will come around to seeing things clearly. Now I'm done.

Again, nobody has debated whether you can use the pistol without the QB ever keeping the ball. The debate is whether it can be effective without the QB ever keeping the ball. Looking at the data, successful use of the pistol formation thus far is limited to offenses where the QB indeed keeps the ball X number of times in a game, you cannot possibly believe the debate is settled.

I think maybe where you got confused (starting in another thread) is when I compared the initial success of the Wildcat, as something new defenses had to adjust for, to the emergence of the pistol as something new defenses have to adjust for? My post was probably lazy and resulted in your confusion.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Again, nobody has debated whether you can use the pistol without the QB ever keeping the ball. The debate is whether it can be effective without the QB ever keeping the ball. Looking at the data, successful use of the pistol formation thus far is limited to offenses where the QB indeed keeps the ball X number of times in a game, you cannot possibly believe the debate is settled.

I think maybe where you got confused (starting in another thread) is when I compared the initial success of the Wildcat, as something new defenses had to adjust for, to the emergence of the pistol as something new defenses have to adjust for? My post was probably lazy and resulted in your confusion.

We've run the pistol in games were Griffin only kept the ball once or twice. Because he is RGIII, and he is a THREAT to run at any time, defenses have to respect that threat and, therefore, the pistol will work. The reason you'll never see guys like Peyton Manning run the pistol is because there is no point in doing it. Manning is terribly immobile. He's not a THREAT to run, so defense dont have to respect that threat.

The pistol will always be effective as long as the quarterback is a THREAT to run.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

We've run the pistol in games were Griffin only kept the ball once or twice. Because he is RGIII, and he is a THREAT to run at any time, defenses have to respect that threat and, therefore, the pistol will work. The reason you'll never see guys like Peyton Manning run the pistol is because there is no point in doing it. Manning is terribly immobile. He's not a THREAT to run, so defense dont have to respect that threat.

The pistol will always be effective as long as the quarterback is a THREAT to run.

Agree with everything here, though it remains to be seen how the mad scientist d coordinators will adjust during an off-season etc. Nobody focused on defending the pistol formation prior to this year.

The Shanahans were brilliant in adopting/implementing it. On the other hand, I was equally impressed to see Mike's old school west coast offense at work in Cleveland. I have no doubt in the Shanahans' offensive genius now given the right tools.