Articles that say the TO won't work in a BCS conference?

BuzzCzar said:
why do you always have to butt in when i am responding to someone else? if you dont like me, then avoid or ignore me, or interact with me in a way that can resolve your issue. you are accomplishing nothing here with these stupid responses that you post on here in defence of the most annoying poster on the board by far (of those that are regulars)

Kyle is disrespectful to many on this board, and never owns up to his bs crap. and then you defend him when someone calls him out. so, i dont like you either, but whatever.

i guess that GT and GSU are coming together..., but not in the way some suggested, its just "GT"Kyle and GSU_paintballs that are coming together
Click to expand...

I bet you're ugly
 
GTROY said:
Kyle, I feel like we have a special bond. We're both EE majors graduating in 2009. But, if you want to argue the point that one of MY posts was unnecessary, you're "barkin' up the wrong tree," as they like to say.

That being said, I think this entire discussion just goes to show that we're all really bored.
Click to expand...

:hsugh:
 
GTKyle said:
Every article about PJ always states, "people say the TO won't work in a major conference."

WHERE ARE THESE PEOPLE?!?
Click to expand...
In the BCS Conference Schools Defensive Coordinator's Offices that have to try to stop it. :laugher:
 
GTMensLax&SoccerD1Soon! said:
All the UGA people say "The Triple O won't work against the speed and size of an SEC defense."

..
Click to expand...

I've heard this too; but don't understand the logic. If the TO offense has the size and speed of an SEC defense, then what? If they are implying it takes too long for the play to develop, then I would think the TO would exploit the overly aggressive defense.
 
aeromech said:
I've heard this too; but don't understand the logic. If the TO offense has the size and speed of an SEC defense, then what? If they are implying it takes too long for the play to develop, then I would think the TO would exploit the overly aggressive defense.
Click to expand...

The bigger and faster the defense, the "smaller" the field is. If the defense is good enough, then it doesn't really matter how good the offense is, the TO won't work. That's why you don't ever see it being run in the NFL. The Falcons tried an option with Vick, and it worked for a couple games and then teams had tape and shut it down. NFL teams are a lot bigger and faster though, and they have a lot more time to practice.
 
aeromech said:
I've heard this too; but don't understand the logic. If the TO offense has the size and speed of an SEC defense, then what? If they are implying it takes too long for the play to develop, then I would think the TO would exploit the overly aggressive defense.
Click to expand...
Good Point, to play well against the 3-O you have to play assignment football, speed negated, next (and the doggies will start complaining sometime next week), cut blocks (legal cut blocks), size negated, discipline and execution WIN, I like a PJ coached team's chances:D
 
GTROY said:
Kyle, I feel like we have a special bond. We're both EE majors graduating in 2009. .
Click to expand...

That remains to be seen. "GTKyle, IE 2010". He wouldn't get off the internet and do his wiring diagrams.
 
gth816f said:
The bigger and faster the defense, the "smaller" the field is. If the defense is good enough, then it doesn't really matter how good the offense is, the TO won't work. That's why you don't ever see it being run in the NFL. The Falcons tried an option with Vick, and it worked for a couple games and then teams had tape and shut it down. NFL teams are a lot bigger and faster though, and they have a lot more time to practice.
Click to expand...
I disagree completely. If the defense is that much bigger and faster than the offense then nothing they try is going to work. But if the speed is comparable, the equation works just fine. Also they don't run a TO in the pros because since players are bigger, stronger and faster, when they get to the QB they deliver more punishment and no pro team is going to subject someone they have that much invested in to that much punishment.
 
I guess I analyze this from a different perspective than whether or not you can run the option successfully based on defenses. I want to ask, "Why would you choose to run the option offense today?"

The best reasons I can come up with are:
1. Smaller, quicker offensive lineman as opposed to bigger, stronger linemen.
2. A stable of good running backs
3. The lack of an effective pocket passer
4. A preparation challenge for the defense

Reasons #1, 3, and to a lesser extent #4 explain why service academies have favored an option attack. I have a hard time seeing that the reasons above would indicate that we need to go to a triple option.

The Houston veer and Texas wishbone became popular in the seventies because people wanted to find a better way to run the football against wide tackle six and other eight in the box defenses that were stifling traditional inside running games. Integrated football teams in the south brought a lot more speed to college football and the triple option was the way to get that speed on the corner.

In 2008 there is now speed all over the field at every position. But, we are seeing a new interest in the option with the West Virginia spread. You can run an effective option game with a great ball handling QB, a good running back, and use three to four wideouts to spread the field. This option does not go east-west nearly as much as the old triple option did.

My hope with Coach Johnson is that he will be open to transitioning more to a spread-type option offense if his Navy type triple option struggles. Much of the criticism of Gailey was his stubborn tendency to keep doing the same thing over and over again, even if it was not working well. If Coach's offense leads to a great season this year I will be the first to praise him. But, if not, I hope he will be open to a more up to date version of the option offense like the one at WVU.
 
Could someone clarify:

Didn't Nebraska run the 3-0 in the 90's to great effect, including against a "fast" and "speedy" and "athletic" SEC team, by the name of UF, who had several weeks to prepare?
 
77GTFan said:
If Coach's offense leads to a great season this year I will be the first to praise him. But, if not, I hope he will be open to a more up to date version of the option offense like the one at WVU.
Click to expand...

I don't know about you, but with Johnson's success everywhere he's been, I'm going to give him more than 1 year to get his offense into place.

As to why run it? It's his offense, he's been ULTRA successful with it EVERYWHERE he's been. The better question should be, why wouldn't he run it?

I'm not about ready for CPJ to try his offense one year, see somewhat poor results, and then abandon it...and I seriously doubt he will.
 
TechSBP said:
Could someone clarify:

Didn't Nebraska run the 3-0 in the 90's to great effect, including against a "fast" and "speedy" and "athletic" SEC team, by the name of UF, who had several weeks to prepare?
Click to expand...

They demolished UF 62-24. This is why the 1995 Nebraska team was named the #1 team of all time.

I believe Nebraska ran the option out of the I formation, while PJ uses the flex and motions guys before the snap.
 
TechSBP said:
Could someone clarify:

Didn't Nebraska run the 3-0 in the 90's to great effect, including against a "fast" and "speedy" and "athletic" SEC team, by the name of UF, who had several weeks to prepare?
Click to expand...

Nebraska ran a lot of option out of a an I-backfield on their two champion teams. Frazier was as good an option QB as I have ever seen. But, their set was pretty traditional with a big FB (Schlessinger?) and a TB set deep off the line. Most of Frazier's passes faked the option before dropping back. But their TB's followed the FB on a lot of inside runs.

The Huskers under Osborne are a great example of offenses that can utilize the option without going to a three running back set.
 
ramblinwise1 said:
That remains to be seen. "GTKyle, IE 2010". He wouldn't get off the internet and do his wiring diagrams.
Click to expand...

Haha! :laugher:

I think I remember hearing about where along the line Kyle was in the curriculum in a previous thread. I'm pretty sure that I remember thinking he was past most of the really horrible classes.
 
GTROY said:
Haha! :laugher:

I think I remember hearing about where along the line Kyle was in the curriculum in a previous thread. I'm pretty sure that I remember thinking he was past most of the really horrible classes.
Click to expand...

Nah, I still have to take 3042 this fall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top