Foster vs. CPJ and Venables vs. CPJ were to of the best "chess match" matchups in college football. I love that we got to watch those year after year. Some of the best at their craft, just picking each other's strategies apart on the fly.
It was crazy to behold how all those games went down. Wasn't it Jeremy Pruitt under Dabo at first that CPJ took to the woodshed? Venables came later? Or was it the other way around. My memory is shot.
We are near the top of the ACC right now, behind only FSU and Louville. Let’s go for THE top.
That was gift to Colorado from the scam biased voters. Everybody knew Colorado had a loss and won another game because they were given 5 plays to get a win that should’ve been another loss. The big 8 always got favoritism. They were bound and determined to give Colorado a NC…and I mean give!
But, really, isn’t there a difference between running an option as an occasional play vs running option as the basis for the entire offense and team structure? Couldn’t one like the first and dislike the latter?
Ther's a lot of ways to run an option. CPJ used the flex formation, Pepper Rodgers used the wishbone, Tom Osborne used the I-formation. The RPO is run from a shotgun formation. Here's a video of LSU running option against Tech in 1962 from a T-formation, which I believe Tech did with Jack Williams at QB in 1968-69 (Deepsnap, correct me if I'm wrong).
Well one should get the wording correctly to accurately describe what they don't like. The CPJ flexbone offense ran the "triple option" about 20% of the time. They also ran pass plays sometimes, toss plays, draw plays, midline plays, etc.
Brain malfunction. I should have said wishbone instead of wing-t.
It was an inverted bone. No worries.
Aside from what the true and right definition of “triple option” is — or what formation it looks like (or what any given Bible verse really means) — I think the general complaint was that one could literally bank that the next play was going to be a run play. And at the end of the day the offense was geared to be exceptionally bent to the ground game. Again, in however that formation or slight variant manifests.
or whatever formation) is not the same thing as wholesale disliking “triple-option-ish” plays. I do, however, greatly enjoy this current offense!
Thank you. I remember watching some games where the triple option constituted less than 20% of the plays.
PJ ran multiple types of option in his spread option offense.
Hey stranger!
I think you hit the nail on the head. The only difference between the formations was where the qb stood the majority of the time.
Yes, of course. I didn’t mean to be imprecise. What I meant was that 80% of the plays were straight handoffs, passes, pitches, passes behind the line, called quarterback runs etc., etc., etc.
That was SEC fans in a bar that had been drinking too much their entire miserable lives to the point of destroying what few brain cells that were still working. SEC fans of teams that faced the triple option did not want any part of it afterwards. Kentucky fans were complaining after that bowl game that the fullback dive was getting 4 yards every time. The only SEC teams that I saw completely stop the Flex bone were UGA several times and LSU due to physical superiority. Vanderbilt had a really great linebacker one year that I thought would give us trouble but Coach Johnson schemed around him. Mississippi State was helpless against it both times they faced it. Even Tennessee was baffled by it for much of the game we had with them.
Except if you say that you don't like running football and you would like to see more passing, you would get an entirely different discussion, which might be a more meaningful and beneficial discussion. Society today has turned into a tribal conflict. Take a hypothetical example of music fans. Some fans like XY hip hop. Some fans like XZ hip hop. Fans of those different styles of hip hop dislike each other. XY fans say the phrase "red popsicle" and they immediately understand it signifies hate for XZ. When XZ fans hear the phrase "red popsicle" they immediately understand that it is hate directed at them and get angry at their hated rivals. There probably is some story about a red popsicle, but the actual facts of the story probably don't have much to do with hate for each other nor about either side being evil.Aside from what the true and right definition of “triple option” is — or what formation it looks like (or what any given Bible verse really means) — I think the general complaint was that one could literally bank that the next play was going to be a run play. And at the end of the day the offense was geared to be exceptionally bent to the ground game. Again, in however that formation or slight variant manifests.
But I’m not trying to stir up this old debate — I was only trying to qualify that because Alabama or whomever occasionally runs a “triple-option-ish” play (