ponder6168
Georgia Tech Fan
- Messages
- 17
I follow GT because I love the option offense (I am a Missouri fan first) and gather most of the people on this board also love option football so I would like to hear your opinion on whether an option offense could work in the NFL. I know this isn't exactly a GT FB topic, but it might help pass the time until the season starts. I will list some of the reasons given why it wouldn't work and why I disagree.
1) NFL players are too fast.
I don't understand this at all. It seems to me this would apply to all offenses. I assume NFL defenses play their fast players against traditional offenses. Plus speed is relative. The offensive players are faster too. Also, if it is essential to have a speed advantage in the back field for it to work how do you explain all the success the Academies have had running it. I don't think they have a speed advantage game in and game out. I watched Navy shred MU's defense in a bowl game a few years ago and I would bet money MU had faster players on defense than Navy did on offense. I also think you can find lots of backs with great straight line speed if you really need it.
2) NFL defenses would figure it out.
This is another argument which appears to me to apply to any offense. I assume NFL coordinators spend time every summer working on how to defense the traditional NFL offenses and yet teams still score. I also assume a team running the option would spend the summer finding new wrinkles to add in. Plus, how much time are you going to spend on ways to defend an offense you face once or twice a year compared to the 14 traditional offenses. Compare that to the option offensive staff would spend all summer finding better ways to run the offense with the personal they have. Also, who has a better chance of implementing your plan, the offense who works on the same offense every week and consists of players drafted just for that offense or the defense who does it once or twice a year with players drafted to defend a traditional offense. The only actual case study is with Tim Tebow and the Broncos and what did we find. A team which had won 4-12 the season before had gone 1-4 so far that season went 8-5, including 1-1 in the playoffs. This with a head coach and offensive coordinator who didn't believe in the offense and didn't want to run it and admitted they were making it up as they went.. They also had gotten rid of their best receiver and their top two running backs were injured during the season. I don't see the evidence that the off season time would help the defense more than the offense.
3) QB's would get hurt.
Four of the top five all team leading rushers in the NFL were listed at 205 and less (Smith, Dorsett, Martin and Sanders, the bus is the exception), but if I take Tim Tebow at 230 lbs and put a QB number on him he will never be able to take the punishment. Tebow wasn't a running QB, he was a passing RB and I think you could find lots of players like him. I would agree you would need to carry 3 or 4 QB's but you would be able to draft the best option QB out of college every year with a mid-round pick so depth should not be a problem. Maybe you should rotate the QB position like you do the running back position. The Chief's have one of the best RB's in football, but there will be several times in a game the 2nd string RB plays an entire series. I think you could do the same with your QB in an option offense.
The NFL would have advantages colleges don't have. The QB and left tackle positions chew up huge amounts of the salary cap for most teams but that would not be the case for the option team (although if you were successful and other teams started to use it, the option QB salaries would go up). It is much cheaper to sign good run-blocking linemen than good pass-blocking linemen. That would leave a lot of money to build your defense with. If you watched the Broncos during Tebow's season he often had all day to pass because the defense was so focused on the run. You wouldn't have to recruit a good receiver you could draft him. Once he figured out the defense would have to put 9 in the box to stop the run which means he would get 1-1 coverage he might find he liked making 6 catches a game with 2 or 3 tds.
If any of you are interested in this topic I look forward to reading your opinions. Thanks!
1) NFL players are too fast.
I don't understand this at all. It seems to me this would apply to all offenses. I assume NFL defenses play their fast players against traditional offenses. Plus speed is relative. The offensive players are faster too. Also, if it is essential to have a speed advantage in the back field for it to work how do you explain all the success the Academies have had running it. I don't think they have a speed advantage game in and game out. I watched Navy shred MU's defense in a bowl game a few years ago and I would bet money MU had faster players on defense than Navy did on offense. I also think you can find lots of backs with great straight line speed if you really need it.
2) NFL defenses would figure it out.
This is another argument which appears to me to apply to any offense. I assume NFL coordinators spend time every summer working on how to defense the traditional NFL offenses and yet teams still score. I also assume a team running the option would spend the summer finding new wrinkles to add in. Plus, how much time are you going to spend on ways to defend an offense you face once or twice a year compared to the 14 traditional offenses. Compare that to the option offensive staff would spend all summer finding better ways to run the offense with the personal they have. Also, who has a better chance of implementing your plan, the offense who works on the same offense every week and consists of players drafted just for that offense or the defense who does it once or twice a year with players drafted to defend a traditional offense. The only actual case study is with Tim Tebow and the Broncos and what did we find. A team which had won 4-12 the season before had gone 1-4 so far that season went 8-5, including 1-1 in the playoffs. This with a head coach and offensive coordinator who didn't believe in the offense and didn't want to run it and admitted they were making it up as they went.. They also had gotten rid of their best receiver and their top two running backs were injured during the season. I don't see the evidence that the off season time would help the defense more than the offense.
3) QB's would get hurt.
Four of the top five all team leading rushers in the NFL were listed at 205 and less (Smith, Dorsett, Martin and Sanders, the bus is the exception), but if I take Tim Tebow at 230 lbs and put a QB number on him he will never be able to take the punishment. Tebow wasn't a running QB, he was a passing RB and I think you could find lots of players like him. I would agree you would need to carry 3 or 4 QB's but you would be able to draft the best option QB out of college every year with a mid-round pick so depth should not be a problem. Maybe you should rotate the QB position like you do the running back position. The Chief's have one of the best RB's in football, but there will be several times in a game the 2nd string RB plays an entire series. I think you could do the same with your QB in an option offense.
The NFL would have advantages colleges don't have. The QB and left tackle positions chew up huge amounts of the salary cap for most teams but that would not be the case for the option team (although if you were successful and other teams started to use it, the option QB salaries would go up). It is much cheaper to sign good run-blocking linemen than good pass-blocking linemen. That would leave a lot of money to build your defense with. If you watched the Broncos during Tebow's season he often had all day to pass because the defense was so focused on the run. You wouldn't have to recruit a good receiver you could draft him. Once he figured out the defense would have to put 9 in the box to stop the run which means he would get 1-1 coverage he might find he liked making 6 catches a game with 2 or 3 tds.
If any of you are interested in this topic I look forward to reading your opinions. Thanks!
