...sort of....former OL Billy Contz of the 1982 NC team....at the 9:50 mark.....
Former Nittany Lion OL wants PSU to scrap RPO....
- Thread starter psuro
- Start date
I don't think their talent lines up to be a strict RPO team. It can be part of the package but with the talent at RB and on the edge I think they would be a much better Pro-set offense. They could be a very good play action team. It think that was one of Michigan's big improvements Saturday. They went away from RPO.
The pro set is essentially dead. I do think there is value in getting under center 20% of the time but I understand if it doesn’t fit the offense. The 5 teams ranked ahead of us rarely, or ever, play under center as well.
I've always felt that while I am a fan of the RPO in general when used correctly, it should not be your base offense.
We can be a spread offense and run multiple concepts that aren't RPO. When we ran the ball down the throat of Iowa a few weeks ago in the 2nd half most of those play calls weren't RPO.
We can be a spread offense and run multiple concepts that aren't RPO. When we ran the ball down the throat of Iowa a few weeks ago in the 2nd half most of those play calls weren't RPO.
I think we should bring back Jay and Galen and go to the Spread HD and come up with the gameplans using the PS4
That’s what we’ve been for the past two years, really. We’re a run-first spread team with a collection of reads, tags, and RPOs mixed in. Our offense is much more similar to, say, Ohio State’s than Mississippi State’s right now.
I guess my hatred of what PSU does is that there is a point behind the center where there is a read on too many plays. The d-line can rush to that spot and know the ball will be there. I would like to see that spot move around a little more.
Just not as good - yet! It will be by late November in Columbus. The D will be improved as well!
The game SHOULD be one for the ages unless some injuries intervene.
Yeah, I'm tired of all the points this offense scores. We need more smash mouth football with a focus on running it up the middle. Keep the clock winding, play field position football and, grind out a bunch of 17-14 wins.
I hate that Galen gets lumped in with Jay. Galen has a track record of knowing what he was doing - Jay not so much
Sorry the game evolved in the 3 decades since he played at PSU, but it has. Some still cannot come to grips with it.
Some of you guys are taking this way to seriously.
By the way - has anyone read Contz's book?
By the way - has anyone read Contz's book?
I knew Billy Contz when I was a PSU student, great guy, really good OL for us. But the RPO is here to stay and every big time team in college football runs some version of it. Michigan just paid Gattis millions of dollars to transform their offense to try to get them over the hump of where they have been. It is here until the next fad sweeps college football. Just as we had the veer, wishbone, west coast, pro-style, and now RPO, someone will invent something new at some point in time.
Pretty much it. Take a long look at the top 25, you may have 3-4 teams at best that still run a PRO style offense. You can win both ways, but there is a clear direction in which the game is heading....for now at least. Like you stated, there will be a new fad sooner or later.
This isn't what anybody is saying.
I tend to agree with Contz. You design the offense to take advantage of your personnel. I do think Clifford would be a better drop back passer, and I don't think the blocking schemes fit the kind of linemen we have. They are more like the big, bruising type of lines of the past. This is especially true of our left guard, who doesn't move well enough to block a lot of the plays we run. There is a reason we have all but abandoned the screen play. It hurts when the defense can just tee off to the same mesh point or pocket location. Rollouts in the offense would help.
I don't know what an RPO gains when the defense is in man coverage against our receivers. The last thing we should be doing against a defense keying the run is to do what we tend to do -- start every run pretty much the same way.
This one could easily have been a loss. Not being able to sustain drives comes with a price. I don't accept that the only way to beat Brown's defensive style, much like what other teams have done as well, is to complete the bombs. That should be just part of the solution. Otherwise, if Clifford is a little off and throws like he did against Pitt, it is a loss, probably by a couple of scores.
So you like the square peg through the round hole offense. Bottom line is the offense is designed to hit on big plays and it did. You have absolutely no idea how this OL would hold up in a traditional pro style offense.
Wisky runs a pro style offense with a FB and a featured back and a great OL. How did it hold up to a team with a losing record? We just beat two ranked teams back to back, but we need to try and envision the 94 offense here. It's such a waste of breath and time.
Successful coaches adapt their schemes(offensive and defensive) to the talent they have instead of brute forcing the talent into the scheme. Granted they can be minor or major adjustments but adjustments none the less.
IMO, we should have a short yardage adjustment where the QB is under center for the snap. Especially with Cliffords size instead of starting 4-5 yards from LOS. We have 4 RBs, is there a formation where we have more than 1 RB in the game? Wouldn't that keep the defense guessing? I do like the RPO but can we change it up every once in a while, seems to be getting somewhat predictable? Maybe that is why the offense stops working as the game goes on because the opponents figure out what the key reads are and adjust to it? Not sure I like the blocking schemes either, for several years now it seems like the O-Line can't consistently pass block or open up holes long enough. I don't think that is talent but more the talent not knowing exactly who to block at times with the defense jumping all around.
I am not a college football coach and just throwing out some thoughts. I am glad we are 7-0 but do not think we are up there with the top tier teams.
IMO, we should have a short yardage adjustment where the QB is under center for the snap. Especially with Cliffords size instead of starting 4-5 yards from LOS. We have 4 RBs, is there a formation where we have more than 1 RB in the game? Wouldn't that keep the defense guessing? I do like the RPO but can we change it up every once in a while, seems to be getting somewhat predictable? Maybe that is why the offense stops working as the game goes on because the opponents figure out what the key reads are and adjust to it? Not sure I like the blocking schemes either, for several years now it seems like the O-Line can't consistently pass block or open up holes long enough. I don't think that is talent but more the talent not knowing exactly who to block at times with the defense jumping all around.
I am not a college football coach and just throwing out some thoughts. I am glad we are 7-0 but do not think we are up there with the top tier teams.
Reading it right now, actually. Very enjoyable as I am a 1981 and 1983 degree holder from PSU, meaning I was at PSU during the years covered in the book ( primarily 1982, of course). Fun reminiscing as well as hearing some new stories about the players, Joe, and their journey to the first official national title. My girlfriend (now wife) and I are from the Pittsburgh area, and were there (in the Pitt student section, of all places) for the 48-14 game, I was at the 1982 Nebraska game, etc. I’d recommend it . . .
Thanks - I was a freshman in 1982, and finished up in 1987. So, I was there for all three NC attempts and 2 NC victories.
Is it only available on Amazon, or can I get it at Barnes and Noble?
This was my first thought. Oh, a guy from the 1982 team doesn't like an offense that didn't exist 35 years ago? Color me shocked.
I wish I could help you out but my copy is on loan from a friend after being up at the game this weekend. After I got home and started reading I saw that it’s autographed by Contz, SuePa, and one other person whose name I can’t read.
I think a lot of people are confusing the RPO with a simple Option play. (@Raffycorn 's summation of the O's identity is more accurate IMO)
PSU (this year) has run a lot of option plays between Clifford and the RB. They have used the RPO quite infrequently. (It looked like only 2 or 3 times on Saturday night).
The dissatisfaction extends all the way back to when Trace was handing the ball to Barkley and he was getting stuffed, and people just assumed that it was an RPO. Just because a guard doesn't move to the second level right away doesn't mean it's an RPO.
^ The staff boasted about Clifford's improvement at running in the offseason...sounded a little too much like, "we're molding him into Trace." However, the offense is taking more long shots, which does utilize Clifford's talents...so there's that.
I agree that rollouts might help...maybe not against Michigan, but there were times on Saturday where it looked like Clifford was having difficulty finding a throwing lane (and in the past, McSorley was athletic enough to turn that delay in timing into a positive QB keeper). The throwing lane issues may be a self-scouting issue but it may also just be Clifford's comfort/timing in the pocket.
Not that they compare, but Patterson is far more effective in roll out situations and he is a good enough QB to throw to the other side of the field and off his back shoulder. It's really odd that Michigan doesn't use it more often.
PSU (this year) has run a lot of option plays between Clifford and the RB. They have used the RPO quite infrequently. (It looked like only 2 or 3 times on Saturday night).
The dissatisfaction extends all the way back to when Trace was handing the ball to Barkley and he was getting stuffed, and people just assumed that it was an RPO. Just because a guard doesn't move to the second level right away doesn't mean it's an RPO.
^ The staff boasted about Clifford's improvement at running in the offseason...sounded a little too much like, "we're molding him into Trace." However, the offense is taking more long shots, which does utilize Clifford's talents...so there's that.
I agree that rollouts might help...maybe not against Michigan, but there were times on Saturday where it looked like Clifford was having difficulty finding a throwing lane (and in the past, McSorley was athletic enough to turn that delay in timing into a positive QB keeper). The throwing lane issues may be a self-scouting issue but it may also just be Clifford's comfort/timing in the pocket.
Not that they compare, but Patterson is far more effective in roll out situations and he is a good enough QB to throw to the other side of the field and off his back shoulder. It's really odd that Michigan doesn't use it more often.
I did- actually got a signed copy from a mutual acquaintance. Book is pretty good. Some insider stuff and a nice walk down memory lane.
Everyone runs RPO's so whoever is saying to scrap the RPO's doesn't know what they are talking about. And we didn't run very many vs Michigan. The only pass attempt out of the RPO that I remember was the batted ball that was almost intercepted and CJ Thorpe was 10 yards down field. I don't remember running another one after that, at least one where we actually passed.
Well, I guess if everyone else is running it we can just be followers and do the same. So then, when they jump off the bridge we will follow.
Let’s follow the few teams that do something different and don’t win...that makes more sense.Well, I guess if everyone else is running it we can just be followers and do the same. So then, when they jump off the bridge we will follow.
People confuse the zone read with RPO's. I'd be surprised if we ran more than 5 RPO plays against Michigan. We ran quite a few zone reads that weren't very effective and there were a few times where Clifford made the wrong decision, but anyone blaming the RPO's for our poor second half offensive performance really is clueless. We don't run an RPO offense, we just run a few plays that have a RPO.Well, I guess if everyone else is running it we can just be followers and do the same. So then, when they jump off the bridge we will follow.
I cannot always tell when a play is an RPO or not, but I can tell when some - certainly not all, probably not most - confuse RPO with run options. And I know that RPO: used by many teams in top 25, and NFL. I’m not a coach - see disclaimer below! - and I’m sure there are better football folks that explain why the Pro Set is no longer seen (too bad - my favorite PSU O was Enis/Harris in Pro set!) and why spread and RPO concepts have been readily accepted in college and pro ball.
The run option - RB vs QB - can be part of RPO, but can also be run independently. Even Joe ran some option with Galen at the helm.
The run option - RB vs QB - can be part of RPO, but can also be run independently. Even Joe ran some option with Galen at the helm.
Well if an OL from 1982 wants us to drop it, we should. We are only 7 and 0 with it.
Please don't bother. There can be no discussion of football on this board. PSU is 7-0 so if you have any criticism you must be a franklin hater that will never be satisfied. I think that is the current stance of some vocal people on this board. FTR, apparently Contz and the rest of the nitwits in the video hate us and will never be happy since they spent a whole segment talking about needed improvements despite being 7-0. **Sigh**
There can be discussions but some just prefer they be rational. Go through the top 10 and tell us how many pro style offenses are being run.
I usually look at whether the receivers are blocking to determine if it is (not) an RPO.
This is just speculation, but it seems to me that if you build an offense around RPO's you're training your linemen to block that way, even when it is a designed run.
With the linemen we have I don't understand why you would double team and pull so much. The defensive ends run free, but also the linebacker coming in right behind that DE. Good luck hitting that backer with a pulling offensive guard.
This is just speculation, but it seems to me that if you build an offense around RPO's you're training your linemen to block that way, even when it is a designed run.
With the linemen we have I don't understand why you would double team and pull so much. The defensive ends run free, but also the linebacker coming in right behind that DE. Good luck hitting that backer with a pulling offensive guard.
I'd be surprised if more that 10% of the posters on this board know what was an RPO and what was a Zone read is when the play is run. And I definitely include myself in that. We may know the definition but thats about it.
I think @gemrich and @SJLuvsLions might back me up on that.
an RPO does not dictate how the OL blocks, they block run all the way. And remember in college you get 3 yds downfield, which by that time the ball should be gone. From what I've seen, we only pull the OG when we run power read or power read pitch, and I dont think we RPO off that play.
as far as the double teams, I dont think we double team enough, especially on inside zone. if you do it right, you have enough people to block the DE if you want to, or control him with the QB run (bootleg etc)
Yes, makes much more sense to discuss trashing our entire offensive plan since we’re 7-0, but we didn’t win those games by enough points. And doesn’t it really matter what any of us think on this board? Franklin and his staff are going to continue to do what they’re doing because it’s successful.
