@tour2ma said:

Absolutely. Because of the lack of complexity in college defenses that read will hold true a bulk of the time. In the NFL? Not so much.

@tim-couch-pulls-out said:

I'm with you on the play action, Tour. A read option PA is plenty different than a true PA. Namely, the fact that you can keep your eyes down the field on a read action PA.

However, I think one thing that doesn't get talked about enough is the decision-making of read action QB's. QB's with slow-moving wheels (both physically and mentally) tend to make poor fits for the read action.

So, to some extent, you could make the argument that QB's who are proficient in read action tend to be quicker decision makers, which is a welcome asset.

Agree... I think some translation from read option to decisiveness is legit, but as you say focusing on the defensive key through the play fake is vastly different that snapping that head around and finding that key.

And the art of a proper play fake itself can not be minimized. Selling the fake is far harder than it appears it should be.

@calfoxwc said:

The toughest thing about stats is deciding what they actually mean in terms of legit information.

Undoubtably there are a ton of inequities, cal, that even a full year's worth of sample size cannot completely wash away. Still interesting to speculate...

@tim-couch-pulls-out said:

Being a quick decision maker on a zone read is worlds different then being a decisive QB in the passing game. Also, QB's in systems that utilize a fake read to set up ball action tend to have their receivers on high percentage routes and or per-determined plays such as all matter of screens.

************************************************

quite possible, but also the strength of the offensive line per quality of competition on defense

varies. I mean, Sean Mannion had only 4 more sacks than Mariotta. That's hard to figure, given that

Mariotta is very quick and can run, and Mannion - well, I think he has faster feet than... Bernie Kosar had....

If a qb has the type of quick wr's that get open quickly off the los, that would benefit them hugely. If they

have long striders who are better at getting open eventually downfield...not so much to avoid a pocket

quickly collapsing. The toughest thing about stats is deciding what they actually mean in terms of legit

information.

And yes, given the relative same competition and offensive line quality.... a qb that reads

very quickly, like Kosar did, would benefit hugely.

Which makes me wonder... does Mariotta, given that line of reasoning, read defenses

less as adeptly that Mannion, for example?

@tour2ma said:

I'm with you on the play action, Tour. A read option PA is plenty different than a true PA. Namely, the fact that you can keep your eyes down the field on a read action PA.

However, I think one thing that doesn't get talked about enough is the decision-making of read action QB's. QB's with slow-moving wheels (both physically and mentally) tend to make poor fits for the read action.

So, to some extent, you could make the argument that QB's who are proficient in read action tend to be quicker decision makers, which is a welcome asset.

Hundley looks to lead this as well followed by Halliday. My boy, Petty, is slightly underwater here.

As for the first table... Love me a PA proficient QB, but these spread QBs' style of PA is nothing like the skills needed by an under-center QB.

Couple other interesting tables in the link.

if all the qb's had the same players around them, same ocs,

and same competition.............................

@gftchris said:

30.5%?

Not what the table says?