This time of year, coaches around the NFL are re-evaluating their schemes, adding new wrinkles for the season ahead. Below, I've outlined a few offensive concepts I'd like to see more of in 2016. I'm talking about proven schemes that can be utilized versus multiple defensive personnel groupings, fronts and coverages. Let's dive into the All-22 coaches tape to show some examples of how these concepts generate positive results and scoring opportunities.
RPOs (Run-Pass Options)
I'm of the opinion that RPOs (or packaged plays) are the future of football. They dominate college spread offenses, and they are becoming a true staple in high school ball, which I coach in Illinois. And these run-pass options (built into one play) are also starting to become more of a game changer in the NFL.
Think of the Seahawks and Russell Wilson, Marcus Mariota in Tennessee and Jay Cutler with the Bears. These concepts are showing up more and more on tape because they put the defense in an extremely tough spot with their run-pass keys. With RPOs, the offensive line is run-blocking, which causes the linebackers to naturally step downhill.
The goal is to put defenders in a position where they can't be right. They play the run? Then throw the ball. They play 3-on-2 versus the wide receiver screen? Hand it off -- or pull the ball with the quarterback to attack the edge. Either way, the offense has the advantage before the ball is even snapped.
To start, let's look at an example from the Cincinnati Bengals this past season to show the multiple options the quarterback/offense have to work with. This is a red zone situation against the Cleveland Browns with 11 personnel on the field (3 WR, 1 TE, 1 RB).
In this play, the Bengals can choose to run (inside zone) or pass (strong-side wide receiver screen, open side hitch route, tight end pop pass). Plus, as Andy Dalton showed last season, the Bengals quarterback can also run the ball off a zone-read look if the end man on the line of scrimmage crashes inside on the dive.
That's a lot in one play, right?