Seems like common sense to me, but why don't QB's go short to long on their reads?

[PrimeTimeHeel]

Just now, pantherclaw said:

All based on coverage, and ultimately, negating the denver pass rush.

Well no poo. 

Curls work great against zones. 

Getting the ball out quick negates any pass rush. 

[Diehardpanther02]

3 minutes ago, PrimeTimeHeel said:

That makes no sense.

The goal is to much the chains and score touchdowns. 

If the D is giving you the short stuff and you keep hitting it and marching up the field and scoring TDs. 

How is that playing to lose?

Playing to lose is more like doing dumb stuff to cause sacks, turnovers and 3 and outs. 

 

Makes plenty of sense the chiefs receivers for the last 3 seasons have struggled getting in the endzone because they dont throw the ball down the field. Sure you can play for the chains but at some point you have to take a shot. And if you go with your mentality of short to long every play you will be giving freakishly athletic safeties time to recover when they may have been out of position had you looked first. The time of the game, down and distance, defensive coverage and plenty of other things will determine where the ball goes. You go with your short to long idea inside 2 mins in the 4th low on timeouts down a td and see how that works out.

[PrimeTimeHeel]

Just now, Diehardpanther02 said:

Makes plenty of sense the chiefs receivers for the last 3 seasons have struggled getting in the endzone because they dont throw the ball down the field. Sure you can play for the chains but at some point you have to take a shot. And if you go with your mentality of short to long every play you will be giving freakishly athletic safeties time to recover when they may have been out of position had you looked first. The time of the game, down and distance, defensive coverage and plenty of other things will determine where the ball goes. You go with your short to long idea inside 2 mins in the 4th low on timeouts down a td and see how that works out.

I just used the chiefs as an example of getting the ball out quick. Not for them following x strategy 100%. 

Scoring td's is much more than reads. Play calling is also huge. 

Can you explain why IF the other team is giving you the short stuff and you take it, results in you struggling to score tds? 

You take a shot when the team covers the short.

A team is not just going to keep letting you short stuff for 5 yards every play. 

They will adjust and take that away. 

Sure you might give S time to recover but you may also miss open positive yards and result in a sack. 

Obviously there are some negatives to every strategy. 

[Saca312]

36 minutes ago, PrimeTimeHeel said:

You do not know what the actual coverage is, so it doesnt really matter.

As I said, unless its 3rd and long, you reads should always be short to long. 

Take what the D gives you. If the D is going to give you 4 yards on a quick throw to the flats or a shallow drag take it. 

No.

OC's design the play and designate the QB where to go. Certain plays are one read deals to two most of the time to limit overall time an o-line is stressed with blocking. Sometimes, it may be three reads. Never is it ever a full field read unless a QB has six seconds in the pocket or more.

Generally put, most of the time it's a concept that may be a coverage beater that happens to be deep. That's usually a one read deal period. Progressions will never be "short to long" unless you want to be pre-2017 Alex Smith. You look at the intermediates and deep depending on the playcall and then go for the outlet or short if the playcall allows you to do so when such doesn't formulate.

Your understanding of how QB reads work is quite flawed if you think it should simply be "short to long"

[csx]

He's discussing why it has to be this way and everyone's reply is it has to be this way because that's how it is. Discussions are fun when yo dontvoretend tour limited knowledge is more than it actually is 

[csx]

19 minutes ago, Saca312 said:

No.

OC's design the play and designate the QB where to go. Certain plays are one read deals to two most of the time to limit overall time an o-line is stressed with blocking. Sometimes, it may be three reads. Never is it ever a full field read unless a QB has six seconds in the pocket or more.

Generally put, most of the time it's a concept that may be a coverage beater that happens to be deep. That's usually a one read deal period. Progressions will never be "short to long" unless you want to be pre-2017 Alex Smith. You look at the intermediates and deep depending on the playcall and then go for the outlet or short if the playcall allows you to do so when such doesn't formulate.

Your understanding of how QB reads work is quite flawed if you think it should simply be "short to long"

You need to read or watch some of the coaching info on read progressions vs route progressions. What you are suggesting is not true.

[ColumbusCounty]

32 minutes ago, PrimeTimeHeel said:

Cam is 6'5, line of sight shouldnt be an issue. 

Progressions is the reads. 

 

U think?? ... Also, being 6'5 has nothing to do with football vision. I'm not talking about looking over lineman. When I say his line of sight, I mean what he focuses on during that specific playcall and his peripheral vision. 

It's a difference between watching on Fox and playing in game.

 

[Saca312]

3 minutes ago, csx said:

You need to read or watch some of the coaching info on read progressions vs route progressions. What you are suggesting is not true.

Perhaps referencing you to this article may help you understand a bit better.

Generally put, sometimes it will be the short pass. Sometimes the long. Sometimes it's a one read play; sometimes there's two to three reads. Generally put, you don't go through just short to long if you want to be effective.

 

[Saca312]

58 minutes ago, pantherclaw said:

I'm  not worried about correcting you with your holier than thou statements. 

He's actually spouting a bunch of nonsense with most of this talk lmao. It's kind of comical to still see him going on.

[Saca312]

1 hour ago, PrimeTimeHeel said:

As I said, unless its 3rd and long, you reads should always be short to long. 

Lol since when the heck has that ever been the case.

So much bad in this I don't know where to start.

[Jangler]

[TheRed]

Cam isn't the issue.

I'm really trying to be nice about this, but sometimes I wonder if any of you actually process what you're watching, if you're actually watching at all.

We can't run the ball for poo. Our offense runs through Cam Newton. We desperately need playmakers to step up. On top of the running game woes, our WR's have a consistent tendency to have trouble getting separation. Even more on top of all that we lack a deep threat. We sorely miss Ted Ginn. We're reduced to sending Devin Funchess downfield who just isn't a fit for that role, it's not his strength. Predictably those plays end up failing.

We're also seriously already force feeding CMC as it is. If you're solution is to force feed him even more to rack up 800 total yards like Ted Ginn did for us in 2015, the problem is, it's going to be on twice as many touches as Ginn had. We could have just re-signed Ginn and used the 8th overall pick elsewhere in an area of need if that is the case, like TE.

[PrimeTimeHeel]

1 hour ago, Saca312 said:

No.

OC's design the play and designate the QB where to go. Certain plays are one read deals to two most of the time to limit overall time an o-line is stressed with blocking. Sometimes, it may be three reads. Never is it ever a full field read unless a QB has six seconds in the pocket or more.

Generally put, most of the time it's a concept that may be a coverage beater that happens to be deep. That's usually a one read deal period. Progressions will never be "short to long" unless you want to be pre-2017 Alex Smith. You look at the intermediates and deep depending on the playcall and then go for the outlet or short if the playcall allows you to do so when such doesn't formulate.

Your understanding of how QB reads work is quite flawed if you think it should simply be "short to long"

Of course OC's design the play and instruct the QB what to do. Usually. 

There should almost never be a one read play. That is not a good play. Always want to have a few options. 

You can expect an NFL QB to make 3 reads in about 3 seconds. 

The average safe time before the pocket starts to break down is about 3 seconds. 

Excluding the plays where OLmen completely whiff on a block or assignment. 

My thinking is not flawed. 

Makes perfect sense to look short to long. 

As i pointed out, if your first read is long that takes time to develop and it reduces the amounts of reads you can make an also increases the chances for a sack or something bad happening. That is not even arguable. Its a fact. 

Now, if you have a GODLY OL and you can have great success looking long to short then go ahead and do it. 

The Panthers dont have that. 

[PrimeTimeHeel]

59 minutes ago, Saca312 said:

Perhaps referencing you to this article may help you understand a bit better.

Generally put, sometimes it will be the short pass. Sometimes the long. Sometimes it's a one read play; sometimes there's two to three reads. Generally put, you don't go through just short to long if you want to be effective.

 

Why can you not go short to long and be effective? 

Please explain. 

As far as I see it, any strategy can be effective so long as the play call and execution is good. (includes route running, timing, blocking, accuracy, etc)