Could be talking about GT's offense

[cuttysark]

As a compromise in order to avoid all of this confusion it should just be referred to as: A High School Offense.

I've heard that reference someplace a time or two. UGA comes to mind.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

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.

My point is that it's no wonder why there is identity confusion within the media when the first thing out of the mouths of our players is the name of a play we run fewer than 10 times a game. It's especially misleading when they're answering general questions about the offense or practice and not specifically about said play.

The players are obviously not on a crusade to change the media's misperception of our offense like our coach.

 

[deeeznutz]

As a compromise in order to avoid all of this confusion it should just be referred to as: A High School Offense.

I've heard that reference someplace a time or two. UGA comes to mind.

What I find hilarious about the "high school offense" label is it's WAY more accurate about the shotgun spread offenses you see so many schools running now. In fact we seem to always go back to discussions about how the QBs we recruit didn't play under center, they were in a shotgun spread. So I ask, which is the true HS offense?

 

[Northeast Stinger]

My objection to calling it the triple option is simply based on the epiphany I had watching CPJ do one of his chalk talks years ago. He demonstrated all the different plays that can be run out of the flexbone formation. It is like a wishbone (the standard triple option attacking formation) except that the two half backs are put in slot positions. The word flex implies flexibility. You can run the triple option whenever you want to out of this but you have the flexibility to run a spread passing game, a power running game, a belly series, a read option or anything that might be run out of a pro set, a power I or a spread option formation.

One of the things I noticed last year was that when the option was not working particularly well we were able to loosen things up using a variety of other plays that are also standard off of this formation. The Miami game was a particularly brilliant example of this. Tech's first scoring drive was all called plays, even though sometimes run off of "an option looking" play. The second drive had three true option plays, the third drive had 1 option play and the last touchdown drive had 4 option plays. But the majority of the plays throughout the game were straight dive calls, misdirection, quarterback draw or mid line B-back follow, called pitches, passes and toss sweeps. The announcers however kept marveling at this "triple option offense." If they had just called it an option offense they would have been better off since one of the options is to actually throw the ball.

 

[TheGridironGeek]

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.

CPJ is definitely of the Lombardi-Blaik coaching school, isn't he? I think of Lombardi's quote about how any great offense comes back to one basic power-blocked play, and the way the team executes that play reflects the basic honor and integrity of the coaches and players.

I always hope that when Paul Johnson describes his offense as "The Spread" he is almost sheepish about it, merely referring to the wider OL splits and not the concept. Because this GT staff takes a military approach to field tactics & strategy...not bumper cars or battle-chess. It all comes back to the fullback dive and its counters, i.e. the QB keep and the pitch.

 

[Skeptic]

CPJ is definitely of the Lombardi-Blaik coaching school, isn't he? I think of Lombardi's quote about how any great offense comes back to one basic power-blocked play, and the way the team executes that play reflects the basic honor and integrity of the coaches and players.

I always hope that when Paul Johnson describes his offense as "The Spread" he is almost sheepish about it, merely referring to the wider OL splits and not the concept. Because this GT staff takes a military approach to field tactics & strategy...not bumper cars or battle-chess. It all comes back to the fullback dive and its counters, i.e. the QB keep and the pitch.

I just stood up and decided I don't care what anybody calls it. Makes no never mind. To me it is the offense that, per Paul Johnson said, doesn't miss its chance when it gets the ball. Besides, there is a kind of mystery about it if so few people really get it. So I am swearing off the thread and concentrating on the vast matters at hand, such as what makes rubber bounce and if Teflon is so great how come it scratches?