Option football in the pro's

[augustabuzz]

I believe winning drives the market in tha NFL.

Yes, but the NFL loses half its games each year!

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Vince Lombardi said it would work. The NFL tends to operate within an orthodoxy, however. The only way I could see it ever happening would be with a new franchise and an owner who loved the offense and was willing to risk a lot of money over several years to get a system in place.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I think that is because these guys are running QB's, not passing RB's like Tebow or back in my day Thomas Lott at OK and Norman Cromwell at KU. Both had long careers in the NFL at other positions.

Is your name Dale, by the way?

 

[Skeptic]

How is that any different than Payton, Martin, Sanders and Dorsett playing against those same defenses for 10+ years at 205 lbs or less? Tebow was closer to Lewis's size than their size. It seems to me the option QB should take no more of a pounding than a typical RB, maybe less, depending on the rotation and how they call the plays.

An option QB a) invites the hit by running right at the optioned man; b) is exposed to full speed hits when carrying out fakes which by rule makes him a live target even without the ball. (RG3?) Not to even mention the elephant in the room: every one of those pro LBs wins those positions because they are explosive upon impact; they run through people. I don't think one has to play pro football to see how violent a game it is. It's not far-fetched to call it a coliseum sport.

 

[augustabuzz]

An option QB a) invites the hit by running right at the optioned man; b) is exposed to full speed hits when carrying out fakes which by rule makes him a live target even without the ball. (RG3?) Not to even mention the elephant in the room: every one of those pro LBs wins those positions because they are explosive upon impact; they run through people. I don't think one has to play pro football to see how violent a game it is. It's not far-fetched to call it a coliseum sport.

Suggs was nailed with a personal foul for hitting the Eagles' QB after the option pitch.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

Some of you are missing the point. You don't need top dollar nfl qbs and rbs to be successful. You pay for linemen and a D. A successful qb in your system wouldn't necessarily be high market qb elsewhere.

The problem is salary cap and roster size.

 

[Skeptic]

Suggs was nailed with a personal foul for hitting the Eagles' QB after the option pitch.

Didn't see it but he still got hit, and will be, again and again, as long as they have a shot at him. How much do you think the bounty on one of them would be, seriously? If you are a DE or LB and a QB makes you look foolish, how would you react the next time he is a target, and is -- in the pro fashion of such things -- pretending to fake keeping the ball? On a real endangerment level, though, is this: the very nature of the option pitch is that the QB must momentarily completely expose his rib cage to toss the ball. The running back is not so encumbered and can protect himself. The pro team that runs the option as a way of making a living in lieu of chuck and duck would have to have 5-6 QBs on its roster. Moreover regardless of such optimism of availability, there aren't many option QBs coming out of college, particularly good option QBs. I think Watson of Clemson is an excellent QB, seriously. But would a true sophomore who missed half his freshman year even be in the Heisman conversation if there were lots of option guys out there? We keep forgetting colleges went to pro-sets and I formations to get away from the "unappealing" option and thus spawned the 240 pound leadfoot. I'm talking about you, Peyton. And you (insert name).

 

[JorgeJonas]

Options work every where for certain, but with every other reason expressed why it wouldn't t, this one foremost: I am trying to picture Ray Lewis with a shot at an exposed QB 40-60 pounds lighter. He would grow fangs and salivate en route. How many times can a team say about a QB, "Next man up"?

The other reason of course is that the team would have to be innovative. Innovative and NFL do not go in the same sentence.

You are dead on about innovation. Any new things that you see in football were started at the high school level and flowed upward. I can't think of the last time the inverse was true.

 

[WreckinGT]

From a game day perspective, I think it could work. As others have said, the health of the QB would be the biggest concern. From a franchise building perspective, I think the idea would be dead in the water. Not only would all of the current players have to be brought up to speed on the new type of offense but it would be hard to convince big time free agents to play in that type of offense as well. You would be stuck building your roster with draft picks and has been free agents. If it didn't go well then the transition to a new coach would take 3-4 years of roster rebuilding. The idea just comes with too many risks that I don't think any NFL GM would ever take.

 

[AE 87]

The problem is salary cap and roster size.

My post was directed at how salary cap is actually less of a problem. The biggest hit on most teams is the QB, and you wouldn't have to go aftet that guy. I don't see why roster size should be an issue.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

My post was directed at how salary cap is actually less of a problem. The biggest hit on most teams is the QB, and you wouldn't have to go aftet that guy. I don't see why roster size should be an issue.

You have 47 players last I looked. Only 3 QBs. QBs are the most valuable asset in the NFL. You play 20 games + playoffs. I guarantee you could not make it through one season on three QBs. It's not it want work. It will. Owners have too much invested to risk it.

 

[AE 87]

You have 47 players last I looked. Only 3 QBs. QBs are the most valuable asset in the NFL. You play 20 games + playoffs. I guarantee you could not make it through one season on three QBs. It's not it want work. It will. Owners have too much invested to risk it.

You make a good point because GT has never needed more than 3 QBs, needed it's 3rd QB one game in 7 years and played 6 seasons with the #1 QB available every game.

I guess you can repeat all the reasons people gave for why it wouldn't work at D1 for the NFL. Yet, the fact that those reasons didn't hold when applied to D1 makes me suspect of them at the next level.

 

[vamosjackets]

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!

Shhhh... Don't tell anybody it will work in the NFL ... I think that's the only way we could lose CPJ as coach.

 

[AE 87]

Shhhh... Don't tell anybody it will work in the NFL ... I think that's the only way we could lose CPJ as coach.

It wouldn't happen until we compete for / win NC.

 

[vamosjackets]

It wouldn't happen until we compete for / win NC.

Yeah, and it would definitely overall be very good for our program even if CPJ were to leave for the NFL, as it would totally change the recruiting paradigm.

 

[takethepoints]

In college, at least, option QBs are less likely to be hurt then those in a pro set. QBs in the pros who get hurt are almost always stationary in the pocket and get hit by DLs/LBs going full tilt at them. Option offenses make that less likely. I get that the first time or two that Ray Lewis got a shot at a QB on an option play, he would try to blow him up. Then his DC would pull him over to sideline and point out that the pitch back just went for 20 yards because Ray was trying to be all macho. "Play your assignment, Lewis! They'll kill us if you free lance!" Not pointing out, of course, that they'll kill them regardless when Ray slows down. You might very well need the full 3 QBs usually carried; no question that the injury risk would be perceived to be greater. However, I doubt that increased injury risks would prove much of a problem.

What would be a problem, as was mentioned above, is that you couldn't get a long shelf-life for the QBs. Unless they're Russell Wilson (and fat chance of ever replicating him) the inevitable immobility of increasing age would reduce QB playing time considerable. That means trading a proven commodity for an unknown one and disregarding the way pro fans get so attached to major skill players. It would take an owner who was really tired of losing or who had enough money to ignore the fans to take those risks. But that will happen; the Sox hired Bill James and won the series.

 

[Techster]

In college, at least, option QBs are less likely to be hurt then those in a pro set. QBs in the pros who get hurt are almost always stationary in the pocket and get hit by DLs/LBs going full tilt at them. Option offenses make that less likely. I get that the first time or two that Ray Lewis got a shot at a QB on an option play, he would try to blow him up. Then his DC would pull him over to sideline and point out that the pitch back just went for 20 yards because Ray was trying to be all macho. "Play your assignment, Lewis! They'll kill us if you free lance!" Not pointing out, of course, that they'll kill them regardless when Ray slows down. You might very well need the full 3 QBs usually carried; no question that the injury risk would be perceived to be greater. However, I doubt that increased injury risks would prove much of a problem.

What would be a problem, as was mentioned above, is that you couldn't get a long shelf-life for the QBs. Unless they're Russell Wilson (and fat chance of ever replicating him) the inevitable immobility of increasing age would reduce QB playing time considerable. That means trading a proven commodity for an unknown one and disregarding the way pro fans get so attached to major skill players. It would take an owner who was really tired of losing or who had enough money to ignore the fans to take those risks. But that will happen; the Sox hired Bill James and won the series.

The one example I always like to cite when it comes to the whole "Well, option QBs would get hurt blah, blah, blah..." is Tim Tebow. Dude is probably the most illustrious "option QB" in the past decade. In all those snaps, and all those runs he took for UF (which were A LOT), the play that literally knocked him out wasn't even on an option play, or a play where he had to go through his option mesh reads...it was a straight-up passing play:



Those are hits you see "Pro Style" QBs take every Sunday. You pretty much never see an option QB take a square clean hit like that on an option play. Remember how JeT got knocked out against Miami in 2013? Same thing. Straight drop back passing play.

So in summary, the forward pass needs to be outlawed to protect the QB.

 

[Skeptic]

You make a good point because GT has never needed more than 3 QBs, needed it's 3rd QB one game in 7 years and played 6 seasons with the #1 QB available every game.

I guess you can repeat all the reasons people gave for why it wouldn't work at D1 for the NFL. Yet, the fact that those reasons didn't hold when applied to D1 makes me suspect of them at the next level.

Don't think the aginners are saying it wouldn't work. Option is option, some more, some less complex. But option. My view, and mine alone, is that you can't stock enough QBs. (And I ignore the want-to element of using it, because that ain't gonna happen up there were cash money is the only currency.) Just don't think we should confuse GT's level of play with the NFL regarding the need for QBs. Dozens, if not tens of dozens, of very good college players wash out at NFL camps every year. Running backs generally last 4, 5 years at the most and even their last year or so shows great declines in production (Ray Rice, for instance.) And yes, even Calvin Johnson, one of the best football players ever in the league, has been dinged up and slowed the last couple of years after his record year, and sits out most of August exhibitions. (It didn't help that the morons calling the offense actually used him as a possession receiver on short slants over the middle, a sure place to get lit up, and he was.) As the player said when Petrino sneaked out of town, the NFL is a man's league. Good discussion but just that. I'm really more into will it continue to work at the GT level. Ten days?

 

[Minawreck]

Of you run the option as an NFL organization you limit yourself in almost all of the offensive talent through free agency. You would have to be 100% in the draft day. I say this because no agent is going to let his player play in a system that would put him at a (perceived or not) competetive disadvantage at joining any other team. You'd be left with old vets trying to hang on and castoffs in terms of Free Agents building your depth. Is the option able to overcome that? Maybe, but no owner will take on that risk.

 

[mj claz]

My post was directed at how salary cap is actually less of a problem. The biggest hit on most teams is the QB, and you wouldn't have to go aftet that guy. I don't see why roster size should be an issue.

Exactly. I am a Buffalo Bills fan and we have had well-documented issues at QB. Our defense and skill positions may be great this year because we have less money tied up at the QB position than most teams, so more money to spend on the rest of the roster.

Say we have $5 million tied up at QB this year. That could get you a very mediocre pro-style QB like Matt Cassel or EJ Manuel, or it could get you Tyrod Taylor and Justin Thomas, star QBs in your system who commands next to nothing on the free market. Now if you want to try to sign guys who would be very good in either a pro-style system or an option system like Russell Wilson, Colin Kaepernick, etc, then the argument about the inability to stock 3 QBs due to money makes sense.

GT has been able to get away with a lack of a good passing game for years. Obviously our offense is better when we can pass, but we can still run a pretty good offense with guys like Nesbitt and Washington throwing the ball. I guess the real question would be: how good would the passing game need to be for an option offense to succeed in the NFL? With the defense's focus being on the run game, the windows are bigger/more single coverage/etc in an option offense than a pro-style offense. Would Tyrod Taylor, who is not quite accurate enough to run a pro-style system in the NFL, be accurate enough to consistently execute passes from an option system? My guess is yes.

So if you can overspend at non-QB positions due to your QB cap hit being small AND get star-level production from your QB, I think it could be a genius move.