Option Football

[57jacket]

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.

It would be interesting.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

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.

Vince Lombardi said a team that could run the option against us “would embarrass us.”

Pros experimented with it in practice, and in preseason, back in the early 70s. The decision not to run it has to do with roster management. QBs were the biggest part of the team’s budget and you could not afford to lose that investment.

I think the option would work but, as you suggest, it would sacrifice “style points.” On the other hand, I would love to see the number of one on one matchups it would create for the passing game. Explosive plays might actually be more common.

 

[TechPhi97]

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.

Paul was an amazing coach and had command of his offense to such an extent that he was a great game day coach. Our recruiting wasn’t poor due to scheme, it was due to effort and money.

 

[apatriot1776]

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.

The RPO that is a staple of many pro offenses is pretty similar in concept to a triple option. They share the same QB/RB mesh point as the veer (option 1+2), just instead of pitching it out to an A-back the QB throws a quick out to a WR (option 3)

 

[MtnWasp]

I've never understood the assertion that the TO can't work at the pro level.

It is all about injuries. The pros don't want their valuable assets injured, especially the QBs. They don't want their QBs to take unnecessary hits. They want to protect their players' knees.

 

[jgtengineer]

Paul was an amazing coach and had command of his offense to such an extent that he was a great game day coach. Our recruiting wasn’t poor due to scheme, it was due to effort and money.

Wasn't really effort either. Was pretty much money

 

[Randy Carson]

It is all about injuries. The pros don't want their valuable assets injured, especially the QBs. They don't want their QBs to take unnecessary hits. They want to protect their players' knees.

Good point.

I would counter that if the TO were more prevalent, prima donna QB's would be replaced by less expensive QB's and B's that can run instead of throw on every down.

Maybe?

 

[MtnWasp]

Yeah, who wants to see Tom Brady or Mahomes thread the needle 30 yards down the field to a scintillating WR when they can watch a B-Back dive?

 

[stinger78]

The RPO that is a staple of many pro offenses is pretty similar in concept to a triple option. They share the same QB/RB mesh point as the veer (option 1+2), just instead of pitching it out to an A-back the QB throws a quick out to a WR (option 3)

Pros run option at times, some more than others. It’s usually a double option like an RPO with a veer and a quick pass as you mention. The play action pass is a derivative of the option. Without the option of a give to the RB the fake to the RB is meaningless.

 

[jgtengineer]

Wasn't really effort either. Was pretty much money

Self-quoting to clarify what I meant by this.

CPJ's staff had no recruiting staff, and even Chan Gailey had some positions most notably the one Collins filled under Smith, this meant that scouting fell to GAs and coaches. There are only so many hours in a day and the coaches had coaching tasks as well. This meant they had to focus on who they could conceivably get and spend their money and time accordingly. A kid barely pulling grades in technical classes in Gwinnett County with a prima-donna complex wasn't worth the time as it was entirely likely he was flipping the instance a Miami, Alabama, or Tennessee came calling anyway.

In Johnson's last 3 years with Stansbury, he finally got some recruiting staff and used that to start trying to get us back in the recruiting game. We signed several players in that time that were really good players. (Jordan Mason was a standout, and Dontae was the result of this, I'd even say James Graham which while he didn't turn out after the switchover would have probably been a hell of a QB under Johnson and if not a QB then an A back).

Recruiting was always a money and numbers game. The first thing Cutcliffe asked for when he got to Duke was a 4 person scouting and recruiting staff that later expanded. He got it. We saw how that changed the caliber of players Duke was able to recruit. If Johnson had that level of institutional buy-in from the start and we pumped money in marketing the way the SEC schools do, marketing Dwyer for Heisman in 2009 for instance even if he doesn't win, Tie-in with our big sponsors like having CPJ doing commercials with Mercedes talking about options as he's driving them. The options recruiting would not have been as big of a problem.

 

[JacketOff]

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.

NFL QBs change the protection scheme at the LOS without changing the play call before almost every snap. That alone is a huge reason why the gap between NFL QBs and college ones is so massive

 

[takethepoints]

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?

No. I know they do. But it is harder to adjust during a game that is already planned out and that involves more complex schemes. When you are only running 20 or so plays, including a couple of specials, then the whole process becomes a lot simpler and does not require a detailed game plan. This does mean that the job of an OL becomes both simpler and more complex at the same time. Option OL blocking is easier most of the time because the plays ae designed to catch the DL flat footed. Also, however, both the OL and the RBs have multiple blocking assignments for each play. It can get pretty crafty, especially when the guy calling the plays has been doing it for 25 years.

I loved watching this. I was encouraged when I saw King running more as last season progressed. More of that, say I.

 

[GT33]

Some non-option coach wins us a conference championship, I’ll start listening to their BS. Until then they need to STFU and produce something.

 

[takethepoints]

Good point.

I would counter that if the TO were more prevalent, prima donna QB's would be replaced by less expensive QB's and B's that can run instead of throw on every down.

Maybe?

And we would have got to watch J, C. Watts and Jack MIldren play QB in the NFL. Both would have been very dangerous QBs. Mildren reminded me of Joe Kapp, one of my all-time favorites.

Ah, well. What could have been if the front office was willing to sign 4 instead of 2-3 QBs.

 

[tomknight]

Some non-option coach wins us a conference championship, I’ll start listening to their BS. Until then they need to STFU and produce something.

You better hope they do.

 

[GT33]

You better hope they do.

I hope they do, but the sad reality is we’ve had two coaches that won anything since Dodd 60 years ago. Ross won a National Championship, Johnson won an ACC Championship. Curry, O’Leary, that other one, Gailey, the one worse than the other one and now Key who only has 1 season under his belt have collectively won ZERO.

 

[Blue&Gold1034]

I hope they do, but the sad reality is we’ve had two coaches that won anything since Dodd 60 years ago. Ross won a National Championship, Johnson won an ACC Championship. Curry, O’Leary, that other one, Gailey, the one worse than the other one and now Key who only has 1 season under his belt have collectively won ZERO.

O'Leary won the ACC in 1998

 

[stinger78]

O'Leary won the ACC in 1998

True, technically tied with F$U.

 

[GT33]

O'Leary won the ACC in 1998

Thought FSU was ahead of us. Pretty damn sure we lost pretty badly but maybe old age is kicking in. I would have thought I’d remembered beating FSU.

Edit: 1999 was the FSU game I remembered where Joe Ham nearly beat them. We got killed in 1998. I can keep looking but O’Leary never beat FSU
and they were ACC Champs every year for a pretty long stretch. We got the tied for 1st trophy in 1998 if that’s what you’re talking about and and consolation bowl that the #2 team got because we lost to FSU.

 

[TechPhi97]

Thought FSU was ahead of us. Pretty damn sure we lost pretty badly but maybe old age is kicking in. I would have thought I’d remembered beating FSU.

Edit: 1999 was the FSU game I remembered where Joe Ham nearly beat them. We got killed in 1998. I can keep looking but O’Leary never beat FSU
and they were ACC Champs every year for a pretty long stretch. We got the tied for 1st trophy in 1998 if that’s what you’re talking about and and consolation bowl that the #2 team got because we lost to FSU.

Still an ACC Championship. Rules is rules.