Could be talking about GT's offense

[COJacket]

Pretty good read. This article (http://gazette.com/air-forces-offense-has-outgrown-its-triple-option-label/article/1557073) could be talking about how our offense has outgrown triple option label. But it is amazing to me the someone as smart as Coach DeRuyter (who I thought could be a good candidate for GT after CPJ retires) could still be lumping us into the "triple option teams" ("It creates some headaches because if you're just playing against a triple option team like Navy and Georgia Tech, in our defensive package we have different things we like against that. But if you call that and they line up in something else you suddenly don't lie that call or personnel group. They create some issues." Would like to play DeRuyter and see if he would still think we are just a triple option team.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

From a distance and talking to the average Joe, you have to dumb it down a bit.

 

[GTBandit22]

Ive seen a good bit of air force the past few years, and I think he is talking about personnel groupings. AFA will bring in tight ends and run different packages, whereas we mostly run a balanced flex set or trips at most. I don't think he is downplaying our effectiveness but speaking to subbing as a DC against them.
Plus this gem:

It's giving defenses more trouble because you can't lock in on one thing they do because they give you a variety of things," Long said. "But they don't run the triple-option quite as well. Now, from a defensive perspective, this is easier on us because the stuff they do other than the triple option is stuff you see all the time. The triple-option part of it is stuff you see once a year, maybe twice. And that's completely different than anything else you see so it's really hard to get ready for it in a week.

Sounds like Air Force might be getting too far into the weeds.

 

[TheGridironGeek]

Ive seen a good bit of air force the past few years, and I think he is talking about personnel groupings. AFA will bring in tight ends and run different packages, whereas we mostly run a balanced flex set or trips at most. I don't think he is downplaying our effectiveness but speaking to subbing as a DC against them.
Plus this gem:

Sounds like Air Force might be getting too far into the weeds.

They ran it well enough to beat Boise State. Beating a major bowl winner with Air Force's level of size and talent? To ? any part of the coaching or execution is absurd.

 

[GlennW]

WE don't run the Triple Option out of our Offense EVERY PLAY. We MAY run it 10 times a game AT MOST.

So calling it by the Paul Johnson "Flexbone" acronym, or "Spread Option" Offense, is much more appropriate when describing it (and probably more frightening to Defensive Coordinators).

 

[AE 87]

Fwiw, in 2014:
AF, 79.44% run, 65.22% yds
GT, 79.56% run, 71.79% yds

AF gets the balance in their production by not running as well, not by passing more.

 

[Skeptic]

Pretty good read. This article (http://gazette.com/air-forces-offense-has-outgrown-its-triple-option-label/article/1557073) could be talking about how our offense has outgrown triple option label. But it is amazing to me the someone as smart as Coach DeRuyter (who I thought could be a good candidate for GT after CPJ retires) could still be lumping us into the "triple option teams" ("It creates some headaches because if you're just playing against a triple option team like Navy and Georgia Tech, in our defensive package we have different things we like against that. But if you call that and they line up in something else you suddenly don't lie that call or personnel group. They create some issues." Would like to play DeRuyter and see if he would still think we are just a triple option team.

It seems very hard for people to grasp the concept of Johnson's offense, though he has explained it endlessly. Now AF is spouting his lines, about being effective when they pass, and seeing some vision. Few get it, that Johnson's funky doublewing alignment and replacing a big tight end with a running back, means he has four wide receivers in the game on every play, and now the run-and-shoot is there on demand. As he says again and again, he will do whatever it takes to win, run or pass, though he wants to run. But okay. Confusion to our enemies. Must be irksome to Johnson, but if nobody knows what he is doing or how, the better for us. (And people keep calling it the "triple option offense" maybe because that is the signature play, the spotlighted masterpiece on a wall of excellence.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

WE don't run the Triple Option out of our Offense EVERY PLAY. We MAY run it 10 times a game AT MOST.

So calling it by the Paul Johnson "Flexbone" acronym, or "Spread Option" Offense, is much more appropriate when describing it (and probably more frightening to Defensive Coordinators).

Unfortunately, our players didn't get the memo. Listen as Trey Braun calls our O the "triple option."

 

[awbuzz]

Trey must have been watching or listening to too many of the talking heads in the media.

 

[AE 87]

Unfortunately, our players didn't get the memo. Listen as Trey Braun calls our O the "triple option."

It didn't sound like that to me. He mentioned the play, added "and Coach Johnson's scheme," and then spoke about "our offense." A person who recognizes "triple option" as referring to our base play would not hear Braun referring to the whole offense that way.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Trey must have been watching or listening to too many of the talking heads in the media.

Yes. It is a hard habit to break. But CPJ has been consistent in his explanation of this offense for longer than he has been at Tech. To paraphrase something he has said hundreds of times, "Calling it a triple option offense would be like calling an I-formation the 'RB off tackle offense,' or calling it 'the hail Mary offense' when ever a team lines up in a trip formation."

 

[Northeast Stinger]

It didn't sound like that to me. He mentioned the play, added "and Coach Johnson's scheme," and then spoke about "our offense." A person who recognizes "triple option" as referring to our base play would not hear Braun referring to the whole offense that way.

Should have read your comment first. I did not go back and listen to the interview but went with someone's interpretation of what was said.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

It didn't sound like that to me. He mentioned the play, added "and Coach Johnson's scheme," and then spoke about "our offense." A person who recognizes "triple option" as referring to our base play would not hear Braun referring to the whole offense that way.

Someone who's not looking to argue for arguments sake and not hypersensitive about any criticism of our players might be open minded enough to see it for what it is. Maybe not......

 

[AE 87]

Someone who's not looking to argue for arguments sake and not hypersensitive about any criticism of our players might be open minded enough to see it for what it is. Maybe not......

Yeah, ... I'm the one being hypersensitive ...

FWIW, I didn't say your interpretation was wrong. I just said that it is not explicit. When I heard him say, "triple option," I thought he was speaking about the play, and the rest of what he said made sense, without making me think that he was referring to the whole offense by that term.

You know, sometimes people have different opinions. There is no reason to take offense or assume the other person is arguing simply to argue.

Again, I admit that if you think of the whole offense, and not just our base play, when you hear, "triple option," then Braun's comments would make sense that way too. I just didn't hear it that way.

 

[vamosjackets]

It's really a frustrating conversation isn't it. I don't mind being called a triple option offense ... honestly that's what we are. The whole offense is predicated and built around that play. If we can't run that play, we won't do anything else worth a darn either. If we can run that play well, we're going to be good at everything else we do because everything else we do is based sort of a response to that play. You've got to embrace it, and not apologize for it. Wear that badge with pride.

Now, I get it that there's some benefit to branding/marketing to cultural trendiness and such. And, I get that in a sense it's more accurate to call our offense the spread option offense or something like that because it is more descriptive of everything we do besides the triple option. But, I'm not offended or afraid when someone refers to our offense as a triple option offense. I'm sure there's a significant sense in which CPJ thinks of it as that as well.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

It's really a frustrating conversation isn't it. I don't mind being called a triple option offense ... honestly that's what we are. The whole offense is predicated and built around that play. If we can't run that play, we won't do anything else worth a darn either. If we can run that play well, we're going to be good at everything else we do because everything else we do is based sort of a response to that play. You've got to embrace it, and not apologize for it. Wear that badge with pride.

Now, I get it that there's some benefit to branding/marketing to cultural trendiness and such. And, I get that in a sense it's more accurate to call our offense the spread option offense or something like that because it is more descriptive of everything we do besides the triple option. But, I'm not offended or afraid when someone refers to our offense as a triple option offense. I'm sure there's a significant sense in which CPJ thinks of it as that as well.

I think being branded the triple option offense by the media and the college football general fandom is a double edged sword. In the best case, it gives us an identity that allows us to stand apart from all the rest, service Academies excluded. On the other hand, it may hurt recruiting as it puts us in the same boat as the service Academies and reinforces the non-helpful stereotypes of a plodding, 3 yards and a cloud of dust, boring offense. As has been told to me countless times on this board, perception is everything. Maybe JT and the current team can change perception. CPJ sure goes to great pains to clear up the "triple option is just a play" angle at every opportunity.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Yeah, ... I'm the one being hypersensitive ...

FWIW, I didn't say your interpretation was wrong. I just said that it is not explicit. When I heard him say, "triple option," I thought he was speaking about the play, and the rest of what he said made sense, without making me think that he was referring to the whole offense by that term.

You know, sometimes people have different opinions. There is no reason to take offense or assume the other person is arguing simply to argue.

Again, I admit that if you think of the whole offense, and not just our base play, when you hear, "triple option," then Braun's comments would make sense that way too. I just didn't hear it that way.

On reflection, I was a little harsh earlier. I've gone back and listened to the response several times assuming your take as accurate. It is possible, I guess only Trey knows for sure. Still, it seems to me when he says "triple option", then later in the same sentence, says "Coach Johnson's scheme" and "offense", he is using all three phrases interchangeably so as not to be repetitive.

The fact that it's ambiguous is not helpful, however, if CPJ truly wants to keep the media from referring to our offense in that way.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Here goes Bryan Chamberlain doing the same thing, imo:

Hale: You finally put on pads for practice in the past few days. Does it feel good to start hitting again?

Chamberlain: Oh definitely. The triple option, you have to get people on the ground, so you really can’t do the job in its entirety until you go full pads. It’s basically setting a foundation for what’s going on later in camp.​

Again, he could be referring to the play itself, but the question is not about the play, it's not even about the offense. Also, why would he be talking about a single play we run 10 or less times a game when talking about going full pads in practice?

I'm done being critical of the media for doing this when our very own players do it. Drawing the distinction is definitely something not important enough to be coached into our players for interviews.

 

[AE 87]

Here goes Bryan Chamberlain doing the same thing, imo:

Hale: You finally put on pads for practice in the past few days. Does it feel good to start hitting again?

Chamberlain: Oh definitely. The triple option, you have to get people on the ground, so you really can’t do the job in its entirety until you go full pads. It’s basically setting a foundation for what’s going on later in camp.​

Again, he could be referring to the play itself, but the question is not about the play, it's not even about the offense. Also, why would he be talking about a single play we run 10 or less times a game when talking about going full pads in practice?

I'm done being critical of the media for doing this when our very own players do it. Drawing the distinction is definitely something not important enough to be coached into our players for interviews.

LOL.

 

[AE 87]

Here goes Bryan Chamberlain doing the same thing, imo:

Hale: You finally put on pads for practice in the past few days. Does it feel good to start hitting again?

Chamberlain: Oh definitely. The triple option, you have to get people on the ground, so you really can’t do the job in its entirety until you go full pads. It’s basically setting a foundation for what’s going on later in camp.​

Again, he could be referring to the play itself, but the question is not about the play, it's not even about the offense. Also, why would he be talking about a single play we run 10 or less times a game when talking about going full pads in practice?

I'm done being critical of the media for doing this when our very own players do it. Drawing the distinction is definitely something not important enough to be coached into our players for interviews.

Upon reflection, my lol may have been ambiguous.

I took him as saying that the OL can't really practice our base play until they get into pads, not that they couldn't practice anything in our offense. For example, our pass pro schemes don't require our OL to cut guys to the ground like our base scheme for the triple.