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

GTKyle said:
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.
Click to expand...
What I've read says that we'll be running out of the I as well.
 
GTKyle said:
Nah, I still have to take 3042 this fall.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry too much about 3042. Don't get me wrong, it's one of the worst classes I've ever taken. But, it's not the kind of class that people fail. Now, 3025 is, unless you get a good professor.

Back to the topic: If I remember correctly, a lot of plays at the spring game were run out of the I-formation instead of the standard TO double set-backs.
 
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.
Click to expand...
I just flat disagree with all that.

Each option in the option still has to be 'marked,' so running the 3O actually neutralizes defensive speed. It makes assignments more important than speed to the football. Also, the reason it isn't run in the NFL is financial. QBs cost too much, and every NFL team runs essentially the same system, because with free agency you want your players to understand terminology instantly, so trying to implement something completely unique isn't worth the effort.

I believe Nebraska ran the option out of the I formation, while PJ uses the flex and motions guys before the snap.
Click to expand...
Nebraska ran it primarily out of the I, sometimes out of variants on the wishbone, but never out of the flex, to my knowledge, but the core running plays (inside veer, outside veer, midline option) were the same for both offenses, according to what I've read. The flex is just a way to try and do Nebraska type stuff while still having 4 potential WRs near the line.

What I've read says that we'll be running out of the I as well.
Click to expand...
I have not seen that anywhere, and I don't recall seeing anything that said PJ ran plays out of the I at Navy, or at GSU. I would be highly surprised if we saw the I at any point next year. I think we'd likely see the classic wishbone before we saw the I.
 
beej67 said:
I just flat disagree with all that.

Each option in the option still has to be 'marked,' so running the 3O actually neutralizes defensive speed. It makes assignments more important than speed to the football. Also, the reason it isn't run in the NFL is financial. QBs cost too much, and every NFL team runs essentially the same system, because with free agency you want your players to understand terminology instantly, so trying to implement something completely unique isn't worth the effort.
Click to expand...

The faster the game moves, the shorter the time to sideline, and the less time you have to make the pitch. At some point, even if the defense and offense both increase at speed equally, there simply won't be enough time to make the pitch to run the offense effectively. And while finance IS one of the reasons an option wouldn't be viable in the NFL, it's not the only reasons, because the Falcons did in fact run one with Vick. Like I said, it worked for a couple games, but then it just became completely unproductive. All the analysts seemed to know it was going to happen that way, too.
 
gth816f said:
the Falcons did in fact run one with Vick. Like I said, it worked for a couple games, but then it just became completely unproductive. All the analysts seemed to know it was going to happen that way, too.
Click to expand...
Using Michael Vick as an example for running an offense based on a semi-intelligent QB isn't a very convincing argument.

Kyle, 3042 is bad, but it's not the worst. Remember, Tom Brewer hates you and does not want you in his class again. He will be more then happy to tell you this, repeatedly.
 
The faster the game moves, the shorter the time to sideline, and the less time you have to make the pitch. At some point, even if the defense and offense both increase at speed equally, there simply won't be enough time to make the pitch to run the offense effectively.
Click to expand...
What you're describing is a great reason why the toss sweep doesn't work in the NFL, and I agree 100% for the toss sweep. But the effectiveness of the toss sweep has to do with beating the defenders to the edge, and the effectiveness of the triple option does not.

Triple option is about marking and blocking. It's not about getting to the edge. It's about forcing the defenders to each mark one guy, and if any of them fail to mark that guy, that's where you distribute the ball. The option pitch is not supposed to go to the edge of the field, it's just supposed to stay wide enough to force a defender out wide to deal with it. Go back and watch Navy film, and you'll see that they only pitch the ball maybe 25% of the time, and that's just for the outside veer. For the inside veer, the pitch guy is actually a total decoy / downfield blocker.


http://cfn.scout.com/2/749057.html

 Where it says "What to look for on offense"
Click to expand...
The first-year coach promises a power-based playbook that’ll use elements of the wishbone, the I-formation, the veer, and the run-and-shoot.
Click to expand...
The flexbone formation is widely regarded as "taking elements of" the above formations and employing them, which I think is what the writer meant. I doubt very seriously we see the I, the Houston Veer, or the Glanville R&S, from a formation perspective. The point of the flexbone is to incorporate the potential for plays from all those formations in the same formation - the double slot.
 
beej67 said:
I just flat disagree with all that.

Each option in the option still has to be 'marked,' so running the 3O actually neutralizes defensive speed. It makes assignments more important than speed to the football. Also, the reason it isn't run in the NFL is financial. QBs cost too much, and every NFL team runs essentially the same system, because with free agency you want your players to understand terminology instantly, so trying to implement something completely unique isn't worth the effort.
Click to expand...

Beej,
I would argue that it is not just financial, but also at the pro level, assignment football is that much better as well. You have players being drilled day and night for 6 days on assignment football--and not worrying about anything else but football. The NFL coach would allow no pitches, as the TB can hurt you worse than the QB -- and keep pounding the QB until you get to the backup, and then pound him some more.

On your second point, I completely disagree with you. Most NFL teams run different systems --that is why free agency/trades occur in the off season in football -- it is exceedingly rare for a player to be traded/picked up midseason (occaisonally a DL will) -- and when they are new, they usually do not play for a week or two to get the system down. Yes, certain teams run systems similar to each other -- but it depends on under whom that head coach trained under. But even then they will branch apart -- you cannot tell me Parcells' Dallas team was running the same system as Belichek's NE team -- even though Belichek was assistant under Parcells. Even blocking schemes will be completely different -- one example of this was the Falcons -- prior to last year, they were running the Gibbs cut-blocking style of blocking--which needed smaller, more agile players. Last year, they went to a more traditional blocking scheme, but with these same smaller players -- probably one (of many) reasons the rushing was not as effective.
 
gth816f said:
The faster the game moves, the shorter the time to sideline, and the less time you have to make the pitch. At some point, even if the defense and offense both increase at speed equally, there simply won't be enough time to make the pitch to run the offense effectively. And while finance IS one of the reasons an option wouldn't be viable in the NFL, it's not the only reasons, because the Falcons did in fact run one with Vick. Like I said, it worked for a couple games, but then it just became completely unproductive. All the analysts seemed to know it was going to happen that way, too.
Click to expand...

This is a funny statement, as Vick's rushing numbers generally increased throughout his career.

2001: 8 games/289 yards/9.3 avg.
2002: 15 games/777 yards/6.9 avg.
2003: 5 games/255 yards/6.4 avg.
2004: 15 games/902 yards/7.5 avg.
2005: 15 games/597 yards/5.9 avg.
2006: 16 games/1039 yards/8.4 avg.

But the Falcons weren't running the option. Bad comparison, IMO.

Option ball is predicated on removing players, and gaining the advantage, on the play side by forcing them to commit first, creating gaps, and then pushing the ball past them. You can option a pro player as well as a college player, but pro players will pursue faster and cover the gap quicker, making it more difficult to make the large gains that are possible in college ball. The gains you do make will not be worth the wear and tear on your franchise QB. Further, the quality of DB's in the pro game will allow far more man coverage, thus negating the advantage gained in college ball from forcing a DB into constant run support.

In short, option ball would work in the NFL, but the not hardly more than the typical pro-set, and it will put your most critical player at a huge risk.

There are 32 NFL teams in the NFL, 120 D1A teams in college. QB's play for an average of about 14 seasons, for college it's about 3 seasons. Finding and keeping a solid pro-set quality QB is much less difficult in the NFL than it is in college. This is a major driver for colleges running some form of run-based offense. It is not easy to find the QB in college every 3 years who can run your pro-set the way it needs to be run. There are far more 6'0" fast, athletic guys who can run a college option offense than there are 6'4" future Dan Marino's out there in high schools today.
 
I would argue that it is not just financial, but also at the pro level, assignment football is that much better as well. You have players being drilled day and night for 6 days on assignment football--and not worrying about anything else but football.
Click to expand...
I can totally see that angle.

you cannot tell me Parcells' Dallas team was running the same system as Belichek's NE team -- even though Belichek was assistant under Parcells.
Click to expand...
You have to admit they're similar. They may not be calling all the same plays, because of their personnel differences, but I'll bet you the play books have a lot of overlap, as do the play books in every other franchise.
 
Beej--they are similar because Belichek trained under Parcells. But a Walsh protege's offense is different than Belichek's. Hell, even Coughlin studied under Parcells, but the Giants do not resemble the Patriots offense.

I would defer to RM, or any other pro player then, but I think different teams run lots of different plays, and takes at least a couple of weeks of good studying to even learn the terminology. The plays that I have seen Joe Gibbs' Redskins run look vastly different than Walsh's WCO which looks different than Belichek's spread offense. Teams start copying what is effective, but you have to admit even the Giants did not run the same plays that the Patriots did in the Superbowl.
 
Go ahead and pound the qb, then watch him either pitch it sooner or give it to the A-back up the gut who now won't be tackled by the guy who is pounding the qb, and if they stop all of the above by focusing on pounding then drop one out to the wide open receiver.

I think you'd find this to bee pretty close to CPJ's answer. Actually, ND might tell ya how that qb pounding strategy worked for their 4 & 5 star defensive players.
 
Pretty much throughout the league most playbooks are the same but with different terminology. Houston had the run and shoot and we had the K Gun, pretty much the same plays again but different terminology. Can't really speak for the west coast offense but just watching tells me the same thing.
 
Sweet.

I love it when I spout uninformed crap out my ass and it turns out to be essentially right.

:)
 
refrigeratormover said:
Pretty much throughout the league most playbooks are the same but with different terminology. Houston had the run and shoot and we had the K Gun, pretty much the same plays again but different terminology. Can't really speak for the west coast offense but just watching tells me the same thing.
Click to expand...

RM, would you agree that a major difference in the pro and college game is as follows:

In the pro game, the offenses are all well known throughout the league, and the focus is on identifying and exploiting trends of the upcoming opponent, and upon professionals simply out-executing their opponent.

In the college game, where weaknesses are more significant, schemes are more varied and players are less developed, the focus is learning the opponent's scheme as best as possible, finding and forcing their weaknesses, and executing well enough to take advantage of them. Plus keeping players positively focused about the potential outcome of the game.
 
Well, damn. I stand corrected. My apologies, beej. I always thought there were pretty big differences between offenses run by different teams, and not just terminology being the main difference. Thanks RM for setting me straight.

But real quickly, RM, you all had the K gun, and Houston had the run and shoot, but other teams were much more 3 yards and pile of dust offenses, right? Like Washington with its Hogs was rarely in shotgun -- or is that not really a big deal? Maybe I am putting more into it, but I think there are big differences between a K gun formation offense as your dominant set, and a what the Redskins ran in the 80's, or other dominant running teams (but I did not even make the high school football team, so mainly blowing smoke, probably from listening to too many analysts and playing too much video games).
 
I think it makes sense that pro teams would all end up with similar offenses, because they're all copying each other all the time, and they're all perpetually trading players amongst themselves due to free agency. Running a truly unique offense is actually a disadvantage in the NFL, because by the time your player grows accustomed to it, he's off playing for another team.

(but I did not even make the high school football team, so mainly blowing smoke, probably from listening to too many analysts and playing too much video games).
Click to expand...

Same here. I read books and blogs about football tactics, I've got jack for squat for real football experience. Don't let me fool you otherwise. I'm just glad we've got RM here to keep us nerds honest.
 
beej67 said:
Sweet.

I love it when I spout uninformed crap out my ass and it turns out to be essentially right.

:)
Click to expand...
And IMO you really are, This is the Wishbone and/or the I-Pro Set from the run and shoot formation(s). The threat of the 3-O and the threat of 4 quick recievers is the beautiful part, the OC must then decide what the Defense is designed or made a decision to stop and what to give up and take advantage of it. The QB then has his reads and the shell game begins. You'll see both slots on the same side of the field, there is a package for counter options to the fullback, a shuttle pass, and my favorite the WR all alone on the sideline or the slot over the deep middle... As far as speed shrinking the field, most teams will stack the wide side of the field, you'll see alot of option to the short side, which will seem ludicrous until you see that the formation has given you a man advantage to that side of field and a quick corner (the goal is to make positive north south yardage). Penetration will disrupt the 3-O more than speed...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top