Option Football

jacketup

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,551
And, again, this is one of the things I liked about the spread option. There were only about 20 or so plays. The difference was in how the opposing D was blocked and that was something the opposing DC provided Paul information about as the game progressed; i.e there was no game plan except what Paul called and how the play was blocked. Crafty that was.
Then why didn't we win more games?
 

billga99

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
852
Then why didn't we win more games?
Let's not start another pro or con Paul Johnson debate. I think the issue was how a transfer could take their knowledge of our schemes to another school via transfer. I think most offenses have enough flexibility in things such as route running or the modern QB option from shotgun formation that no one would have a big advantage. It still comes down to calling the right plays, teaching the QB to make the right reads and having enough talent to make it work.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,724
Let's not start another pro or con Paul Johnson debate. I think the issue was how a transfer could take their knowledge of our schemes to another school via transfer. I think most offenses have enough flexibility in things such as route running or the modern QB option from shotgun formation that no one would have a big advantage. It still comes down to calling the right plays, teaching the QB to make the right reads and having enough talent to make it work.
Out of all the ways for FSU to manage their roster and their indirect NIL money, i don’t think they’d invest heavily in a non-starting DL just for one game, against us, to get intel on our playbook. First, a DL is going to know the defensive playbook a lot better. Second, they played against our DC last year, and they’ve seen his calls. Third, Clemson is gonna rank higher on their priorities than us (yes, I’m a fan, but they probably view us as the 8th or 9th best team in the conference next year.
 

jacketup

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,551
Let's not start another pro or con Paul Johnson debate. I think the issue was how a transfer could take their knowledge of our schemes to another school via transfer. I think most offenses have enough flexibility in things such as route running or the modern QB option from shotgun formation that no one would have a big advantage. It still comes down to calling the right plays, teaching the QB to make the right reads and having enough talent to make it work.
Especially the bolded part. Texas, Alabama, Oklahoma and others figured out in the 80's that the TO was a disadvantage when it came to recruiting. Our athletic board had not figured that out in 2007, and for some reason thought that it was an advantage. The results of 2008-2009 vs the results from 2010-2018 confirm what other the leadership of other schools already knew. We are just now recovering from that decision.
 

jgtengineer

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,057
Especially the bolded part. Texas, Alabama, Oklahoma and others figured out in the 80's that the TO was a disadvantage when it came to recruiting. Our athletic board had not figured that out in 2007, and for some reason thought that it was an advantage. The results of 2008-2009 vs the results from 2010-2018 confirm what other the leadership of other schools already knew. We are just now recovering from that decision.

Given the state the program was in even under chan. And the fact that O'leary left us in such a state that 2002 happened when chan took over (it took chan how many years to have a decent recruiting class and you can't even count calvin as he sort of recruited himself to us). It was not the option that was hampering our recruiting. It hasn't been until we majorly increased budgets we had any difference. You are just blinded by a hatred for all things option.
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
11,136
Especially the bolded part. Texas, Alabama, Oklahoma and others figured out in the 80's that the TO was a disadvantage when it came to recruiting. Our athletic board had not figured that out in 2007, and for some reason thought that it was an advantage. The results of 2008-2009 vs the results from 2010-2018 confirm what other the leadership of other schools already knew. We are just now recovering from that decision.
I think you have it backwards. We were falling further and further behind in recruiting from the late 60s on. Other than a few outlier years the gap between us and other schools was growing wider and wider each year. Hiring CPJ was an attempt to do more with less. Unfortunately the powers that be thought their work was done after that and cut off the funding spigot making it increasingly difficult to recruit.
 

Randy Carson

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,386
Location
Apex, NC
Then why didn't we win more games?
IMO, the only reason we didn't win more games was because CPJ didn't prioritize recruiting to the extent that we see from CBK. Weren't we averaging 500+ yds and dominating TOP at one point?

I don't buy the line that opposing defenses caught up with the TO. No, they just had better players, and our D couldn't get off the field.
 

stinger78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,910
IMO, the only reason we didn't win more games was because CPJ didn't prioritize recruiting to the extent that we see from CBK. Weren't we averaging 500+ yds and dominating TOP at one point?

I don't buy the line that opposing defenses caught up with the TO. No, they just had better players, and our D couldn't get off the field.
The defenses that had the players were stuffing the dive and playing the pitch, forcing the QB to run. They weren’t shutting us down, but they were getting us behind the chains more often and it was having an effect. Still, CPJ was moving the ball well. The degradation of the D was just as bad a problem, IMPO.
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,142
Let's not start another pro or con Paul Johnson debate. I think the issue was how a transfer could take their knowledge of our schemes to another school via transfer. I think most offenses have enough flexibility in things such as route running or the modern QB option from shotgun formation that no one would have a big advantage. It still comes down to calling the right plays, teaching the QB to make the right reads and having enough talent to make it work.
Yes, let's not. I like option football and miss it, but that ship has sailed. The only point I was trying to make is that option teams usually don't have game plans but instead use plays and blocking schemes to exploit the opportunities opposing Ds give them as games progress. That's different and makes most of the usual scouting of football teams more difficult. Full Stop, Nothing More. Sorry I even mentioned the topic.
 

stinger 1957

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,523
CBK summed it up when asked about GT recruiting when he was recruiting at AL. "I Don't know, we never ran across them" (GT). The TO recruits athletes others don't want, (not totally true) it's one of the reasons the academies run it. They can be effective WO the great athlete. I totally agree with Jacketup we are just now recovering from a decision that was made roughly 17 years ago.
I enjoyed the TO through the Justin Thomas years, think CPJ was the best at doing it and deserves all the honors and especially his development and caring of young men.

After the '09 season I noticed a very different looking type athlete when I watched them, many of the Chan recruits were gone.

Chan's greatest ability IMO was evaluation of athletes, Jerry Jones told me he was the best at evaluation he had ever seen, thus his hiring as OC at KC and hiring as HC at Buffalo, they were both heading into a rebuild at the time. The TO is appearing to me to have run it's course at least as it presently is being run. It may show up in a different form again in future years. As Grandpa Holtz once said if it's new they'll figure out how to defeat it eventually.

I was not around during the 70s and 80s but my understanding is GT's administration mindset was to get out of athletics, and even though they hired Homer Rice in the 80s ( a really good AD IMO) the school still was not fully behind it, at least that is the way it appeared to me. This is the reason I got so excited when our current school Pres. made his comittment.
 

tomknight

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
697
Yes, let's not. I like option football and miss it, but that ship has sailed. The only point I was trying to make is that option teams usually don't have game plans but instead use plays and blocking schemes to exploit the opportunities opposing Ds give them as games progress. That's different and makes most of the usual scouting of football teams more difficult. Full Stop, Nothing More. Sorry I even mentioned the topic.

is it your belief that pro-style offenses do not take advantage of blocking schemes to exploit opportunities opposing Ds give them as the game progresses? that's exclusively an option offense thing?
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
11,136
is it your belief that pro-style offenses do not take advantage of blocking schemes to exploit opportunities opposing Ds give them as the game progresses? that's exclusively an option offense thing?
Good question.

Hope some football geeks will answer this. I hate to admit it but it’s been a lot of years since I’ve paid close attention to Xs and Os. Just not interested enough to spend that much time on it.

The premise is this. For pros to take advantage of defensive schemes they often change the blocking by changing the play. For CPJ’s Flexbone, you don’t necessarily have to change the play because there are multiple blocking schemes possible within the same play which can be changed in real time.

This strikes me as mainly true but not exclusively true. But, again, haven’t payed close attention or kept up with this for years.
 

Randy Carson

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,386
Location
Apex, NC
This is random, but whatever.

I've never understood the assertion that the TO can't work at the pro level. If a bunch of 3-star offensive players can use the TO to beat a team of 4 & 5-star defensive players in college, why can't professional offensive players beat professional defenses players? It's not about size, speed or quickness (which would be equal) - the TO is about having a man advantage at the point of attack. That wouldn't work in the pros? I think it would.

I think the real problem is that fans in the stadium or watching on TV don't want to see an 8-minute death march. They don't want the Packers beating the Bears 7-3 in a blinding snow storm. They want to see touchdowns every 2-3 minutes from the climate-controlled comfort of their indoor stadiums and living room recliners.

Now get off my lawn.
 

stinger78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,910
This is random, but whatever.

I've never understood the assertion that the TO can't work at the pro level. If a bunch of 3-star offensive players can use the TO to beat a team of 4 & 5-star defensive players in college, why can't professional offensive players beat professional defenses players? It's not about size, speed or quickness (which would be equal) - the TO is about having a man advantage at the point of attack. That wouldn't work in the pros? I think it would.

I think the real problem is that fans in the stadium or watching on TV don't want to see an 8-minute death march. They don't want the Packers beating the Bears 7-3 in a blinding snow storm. They want to see touchdowns every 2-3 minutes from the climate-controlled comfort of their indoor stadiums and living room recliners.

Now get off my lawn.
I’ve thought about this too from time to time. Seems to me two major differences exist. First, pros are in average far more athletic and are able to make plays the average college player cannot. Second, pros have no other distractions to keep them from working on ways to stop the option. They will figure out how to do it. My personal take is they would stuff the dive and spy the pitch man, forcing the QB to keep far too often. In the pros, that means multiple injuries (e.g.: Cam Newton and RG III).

The option gives you a system advantage, not necessarily an athletic advantage. In fact, it may even be an athletic disadvantage at times. The pros win, largely all running the same or similar O’s, with athletic advantage and superior execution.

I do think that the pros could run some triple option packages from time to time when advantageous.
 
Top