Re. direct snaps to RBs, is there a "timing" issue in play?

[toneful]

Watching Fla and now OU incorporate these plays into their system, i wonder, as a FB novice in regards to X/Os, if there is more to the play than just wanting to get a certain player more touches. Naturally if you snap directly to the end-use runner then the time taken to run a hand-off is totally negated from the process. How long does it take to run a hand off, like .7-1 second? Does the direct snap play not allow the LBs that extra .7-1 second to react and pursue, therefore creating more space for the runner?

Or, if not, then what advantages are gained by using the direct snap and not just handing the ball off to the same player?

on edit, i see there's a post on this play. I'll read and see if this got addressed in there. Sorry for duplicating...

[SoonerObsession]

The benefit of direct snaps to the running back is that you have 10 blockers instead of 9. If the qb hands off to a running back then he is essentially useless after the ball is handed off. Plus, when everyone sees the rb taking the snap, they automatically look run and this leads to wide open tight ends or wide receivers. Anyone can make a 10 yard pass and I expect Murray to have a effective pass play before this season is over.

[soonerboomer93]

It also gives them a different look and something they have to prepare for.

[rhombic21]

The biggest thing is the blocking advantage. You split the QB out wide, the defense still has to account for him with a defender (usually a CB), but you gain an advantage at the point of attack, in terms of numbers. It's the same basic reason that the triple option is so difficult to defend -- the defense has to account for every player on the field. In a traditional, pro-style set, where the QB is not a run threat, nobody has to account for him. With a run-threat at QB, the defense has to account for an extra player, thus giving you advantages in terms of blocking.

[Curly Bill]

The biggest thing is the blocking advantage. You split the QB out wide, the defense still has to account for him with a defender (usually a CB), but you gain an advantage at the point of attack, in terms of numbers. It's the same basic reason that the triple option is so difficult to defend -- the defense has to account for every player on the field. In a traditional, pro-style set, where the QB is not a run threat, nobody has to account for him. With a run-threat at QB, the defense has to account for an extra player, thus giving you advantages in terms of blocking.

The reason saxet was successful with vince young, even though he pretty much threw like a girl.

[mfosterftw]

The other advantage is you eliminate the risk of a fumble in the QB-RB transaction...

[Soonerus]

I see a pass out of that formation in our future...yes, to Bradford...

[Crucifax Autumn]

Not too sure about the bradford part, but I can see it happening. That or a reverse or lateral pass to Bradford and then a downfield throw.

[swardboy]

Toneful....although I played qb in a college program, I was never involved in a direct snap offense. But I can see the timing you bring up to be a significant factor. It doesn't make any difference to the blockers, but the defenders would be facing a whole different perception. I would say it's a whole one second timing difference, which is huge at this level.

[tigepilot]

I think it also messes with how some defensive schemes handle their reads. I could easily see Bradford somewhere downfield completely uncovered. However, is there anyone of the other major offensive players (not Nichol or Hazle) that has shown he can through a ball? I don't think I'd want to see just anyone lobbing a pass out to Bradford... I cringe whenever I see a halfback.

[OUmillenium]

Manny Johnson baby, ex-QB in HS, threw 1 to Kelly v. Miami after a reverse, it was underthrown or would have been a TD