Triple Option

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,668
Lol Iowa had 12 players DRAFTED from that defense alone
We finally double teamed Claiborne and ran to the opposite side. That guy was a beast.

Last nite Army played Wisconsin 14 to 20.
Army passed under 10 times but completed 80%.

For some reason with out NFL talent we were never m really effective at passing .
 

billga99

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
821
I'm not sure why anyone would say this. TO offenses have always worked wherever they are used. Tech usually averaged 30+ points a game; our problem was always on D during Paul's time.

The probelm isn't the O; it's finding coaches who know how to teach TO offenses. There are still a lot of coaches who know how to teach double option plays, but knowing how to coach, especially, QBs and OLs to run a real TO calls for skill set that is rarer these days. That doesn't have diddly to do with the effectiveness of the TO, however.

Btw, I know that some kids don't want to play in a TO. Still, Paul usually seemed to get the players he needed to make the O work. Again, the D - and getting DCs - was another story
The 3O had two main issues from my perspective. First is recruiting which many have commented on. Obviously a lot of that was overcome with scheme on offense (except against top tier talent). But the equally big issue is the defense could never practice against skills they would face against most teams in terms of QB passing and talented receivers. When you never have comparable talent to practice against and simulate what you will see almost every week, you just can't be prepared to stop the passing offenses of today. The argument is the QBs we recruited could pass effectively in high school. But a big jump from HS to Power 5 college football.
 

Dress2Jacket

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
225
Location
Marietta
The 3O had two main issues from my perspective. First is recruiting which many have commented on. Obviously a lot of that was overcome with scheme on offense (except against top tier talent). But the equally big issue is the defense could never practice against skills they would face against most teams in terms of QB passing and talented receivers. When you never have comparable talent to practice against and simulate what you will see almost every week, you just can't be prepared to stop the passing offenses of today. The argument is the QBs we recruited could pass effectively in high school. But a big jump from HS to Power 5 college football.

I think the recruiting was as much CPJ choosing to not play "the game" as the scheme. He just wasn't gonna deal with 17 year old prima donna's and their baggage.

As far as mismatches of "their" offense vs "our" defense, we saw "modern" offenses every weekend. The opposition saw the TO once a season. That was advantageous to us.
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,096
But the equally big issue is the defense could never practice against skills they would face against most teams in terms of QB passing and talented receivers. When you never have comparable talent to practice against and simulate what you will see almost every week, you just can't be prepared to stop the passing offenses of today. The argument is the QBs we recruited could pass effectively in high school. But a big jump from HS to Power 5 college football.
I've never bought this. As was mentioned before, it isn't as if the D never saw shotgun spread Os during the season. I would also add that the players on the scout team that mimicked opposing Os had all played pretty mu8ch the same O in high school, just as the majority of the players on the team in general.

Our problems on D had more to do with coaching and recruiting then anything else. Because, while we could get recruits who could run the TO effectively, recruiting first class D talent was more difficult. We usually got decent LBs and DBs; the problem - then and now - was DLs. Paul usually went with the "recruit long guys who can run and coach them up" route and th5at often paid off . But never in a first class DL across the board. If we had kept Kelly or Woody things might have been different. But they weren't.
 

Wrecked

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
581
I've never bought this. As was mentioned before, it isn't as if the D never saw shotgun spread Os during the season. I would also add that the players on the scout team that mimicked opposing Os had all played pretty mu8ch the same O in high school, just as the majority of the players on the team in general.

Our problems on D had more to do with coaching and recruiting then anything else. Because, while we could get recruits who could run the TO effectively, recruiting first class D talent was more difficult. We usually got decent LBs and DBs; the problem - then and now - was DLs. Paul usually went with the "recruit long guys who can run and coach them up" route and th5at often paid off . But never in a first class DL across the board. If we had kept Kelly or Woody things might have been different. But they weren't.
Woody is Army's DC who basically held Wisconsin to 13 pts with a D that consistently practices against nothing but the TO. UW's final TD was off a questionable Army fumble call at their own 1. Army also missed a very makeable FG. Not saying Army was going to win, but there was not a player on Army's roster that would make the 2 deep at Wisconsin, and they were an onside kick away from really making it interesting. The TOsid is an equalizer. Now that being said, I don't want to go back but we need our current staff to start landing some elite talent or up their sideline abilities. Still seeing six wins this year.
 

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,668
Woody is Army's DC who basically held Wisconsin to 13 pts with a D that consistently practices against nothing but the TO. UW's final TD was off a questionable Army fumble call at their own 1. Army also missed a very makeable FG. Not saying Army was going to win, but there was not a player on Army's roster that would make the 2 deep at Wisconsin, and they were an onside kick away from really making it interesting. The TOsid is an equalizer. Now that being said, I don't want to go back but we need our current staff to start landing some elite talent or up their sideline abilities. Still seeing six wins this year.

I am liking your point about we need to keep getting some real rain makers like gibbs. We need to see at least 2 freshmen and r freshman playing because they are that good.
The old comparision of what starter on our team would start on our opponents team has shown improvement but we need to get some ready made talent in the mix.


6 wins would be amazing.

Just a thought.
Uga and BC are tough big boy match ups that make win seem remote.
That leaves uva, vt, mia, nd from which to pick 3. Going w uva, vt, mia - we are in hunt for coastal. Ha! I think that would cause cgc to go into hyper platitude drive .

I think we will just play tough man football , show real flashes of being being very good, and a little less looking clueless.
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
10,797
Lol Iowa had 12 players DRAFTED from that defense alone
Yeah, it was a whole other level of defense but that was my point. Even with our highest rated recruiting class of the modern era we still fell short of the elite level of Iowa.

Wonder how the 2014 team would have done against that Iowa defensive line? I know we pushed Georgia all over the field and made mincemeat of a Collins coached Miss State defense. But that Iowa defensive line made me despair about whether we would ever recruit at a level sufficient to beat the best lines in the country.
 

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
I'm not sure why anyone would say this. TO offenses have always worked wherever they are used. Tech usually averaged 30+ points a game; our problem was always on D during Paul's time.

The probelm isn't the O; it's finding coaches who know how to teach TO offenses. There are still a lot of coaches who know how to teach double option plays, but knowing how to coach, especially, QBs and OLs to run a real TO calls for skill set that is rarer these days. That doesn't have diddly to do with the effectiveness of the TO, however.

Btw, I know that some kids don't want to play in a TO. Still, Paul usually seemed to get the players he needed to make the O work. Again, the D - and getting DCs - was another story
I think it telling that the further away from the true spread option, or commonly the Triple Option, Navy gets the worse it is for them and now coaches are getting fired, starting with the supposed guru of the triple, Ivin Jasper. Meanwhile Monken has Army looking like a Johnson team and they roll along, playing anybody who will tee it up. I do admire that.
Lol Iowa had 12 players DRAFTED from that defense alone
Well, that explains it.
 

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
Look up Demaryius Thomas quotes when asked why he was so successful in the NFL. He always said something along the lines of working on the beating up the corner every every play the ball wasn't thrown his way, just wearing them down. There's a reason the NFL loved CPJ receivers.
I forget the VT safety, Kam Chancellor, a good one who played many years in the NFL, mouthing before the Tech game that he had the triple option figured out, that Tech was tipping it off. (I have no idea what he was talking about.) Come game day and our WRs beat on him like a drum on every play from every direction. It was made pretty clear that Paul Johnson was not going to have his offense insulted so.
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,096
I think it telling that the further away from the true spread option, or commonly the Triple Option, Navy gets the worse it is for them and now coaches are getting fired, starting with the supposed guru of the triple, Ivin Jasper. Meanwhile Monken has Army looking like a Johnson team and they roll along, playing anybody who will tee it up. I do admire that.

Well, that explains it.
I generally agree with this, but both Army and Air Force are, like Navy, using some shotgun spread plays. I think it is more a matter of Navy not having the personnel needed to make the O work. Both Army and AF have that really good option QB that Navy doesn't. It was the same at Tech, though we had a run of pretty decent country TO QBs in there; Nesbitt, Washington, and Thomas in charge of Navy's O = the same record as Army or better, imho.
 

Heisman's Ghost

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,866
Location
Albany Georgia
I forget the VT safety, Kam Chancellor, a good one who played many years in the NFL, mouthing before the Tech game that he had the triple option figured out, that Tech was tipping it off. (I have no idea what he was talking about.) Come game day and our WRs beat on him like a drum on every play from every direction. It was made pretty clear that Paul Johnson was not going to have his offense insulted so.
He was just yapping as so many of them do. You will recall that he was a disruptive force in the first half and then Johnson got an A back to split out just a tad wider and get the angle on him and it was lights out for him and the Hokie defense. Great player and fine athlete though, I will give him that. The announcers kept talking about how he was a great basketball player.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,499
JFC Coastal runs pretty offense
Fun game, too. App State has huevos. Coastal isn’t afraid to throw it, and has a couple of different run-friendly formations. I haven’t seen many new ingredients, but they combine them in fun ways.

The coach has this “half-mullet” haircut.
 
Top