I was curious who else runs the flexbone/option offense in D-1

johncu said:
You absolutely could not be more wrong.

Almost every single team listed above has had their best years recently while running the option. Navy was an absolute doormat until CPJ brought the option there, and then they slaughtered Army for years until Monken turned things around at Army. Georgia Southern has foolishly tried time and time again to switch away from the option, and they are immediately terrible every time until hiring another option coach. Air Force has been consistently competitive running the option offense, and Citadel beat South Carolina a couple years ago after adopting the option.

Now if you want to argue that the kids don't like it and it affects recruiting - perhaps. But the offensive scheme is not the reason we're struggling right now. In fact, it's the reason we have beaten Clemson 5x, UGA 3x, FSU 3x, etc. despite being at a massive talent disadvantage.
Click to expand...

If you aspire to be Navy, Air Force, or Army (or God help you, Southern), then yeah, the Option is ööööing awesome.

If you aspire to be anything better, then our O needs to go. 2014 was clearly a fluke and even in that outlier, we still lost to Puke and UNC and absolutely should've lost at home to lowly Southern. And still couldn't beat FSU in the ACC-CG.

The scheme is the total package, btw. And I don't have to make the argument that kids don't want to play in it and that it's tough to recruit for - that's self-evident now. Our recruiting hasn't gotten better in 10 years running it and, after the glory year of 2014, the best WR we could recruit was Brad Stewart and the best QB we got was a converted running back Taquon Marshall.

When a team like PITT (that just got ass-raped by Pedo St) shuts down the offense, it's indicative that the scheme isn't helping us at all anymore and hasn't for at least 4 years. Am tired of hearing about rushing stats after losses.

0 pts in a half of football ööööing sucks esp. when the opponent is Shittsburg.
 
RamblinWreck92 said:
If you aspire to be Navy, Air Force, or Army (or God help you, Southern), then yeah, the Option is ööööing awesome.

If you aspire to be anything better, then our O needs to go. 2014 was clearly a fluke and even in that outlier, we still lost to Puke and UNC and absolutely should've lost at home to lowly Southern. And still couldn't beat FSU in the ACC-CG.

The scheme is the total package, btw. And I don't have to make the argument that kids don't want to play in it and that it's tough to recruit for - that's self-evident now. Our recruiting hasn't gotten better in 10 years running it and, after the glory year of 2014, the best WR we could recruit was Brad Stewart and the best QB we got was a converted running back Taquon Marshall.

When a team like PITT (that just got ass-raped by Pedo St) shuts down the offense, it's indicative that the scheme isn't helping us at all anymore and hasn't for at least 4 years. Am tired of hearing about rushing stats after losses.

0 pts in a half of football ööööing sucks esp. when the opponent is öööötsburg.
Click to expand...
You said it's not an equalizer and that it's not effective. You are wrong about that - plain and simple. The schools in the OP are clear examples of that, as is Georgia Tech. We beat lots of teams that we never would have beaten with a traditional offense. We recruit in the 50s but our offense performs in the 20s or better more often than not. TWICE we have posted one of the top 5 offenses in the country (2009 and 2014) with mediocre (at best) talent. Explain that.

That said, the system we are running now needs to change, along with the coach. Regardless of how well it works, the perception is beyond the point of no return and is affecting us negatively on defense and in recruiting. If we bring in an "option" guy it needs to look and feel like a modern, innovative offense, even if a lot of the principles are the same. When it comes to recruiting, perception > reality and I do agree with you that the scheme isn't helping us like it used to.
 
johncu said:
You said it's not an equalizer and that it's not effective. You are wrong about that - plain and simple. The schools in the OP are clear examples of that, as is Georgia Tech. We beat lots of teams that we never would have beaten with a traditional offense. We recruit in the 50s but our offense performs in the 20s or better more often than not. TWICE we have posted one of the top 5 offenses in the country (2009 and 2014) with mediocre (at best) talent. Explain that.

That said, the system we are running now needs to change, along with the coach. Regardless of how well it works, the perception is beyond the point of no return and is affecting us negatively on defense and in recruiting. If we bring in an "option" guy it needs to look and feel like a modern, innovative offense, even if a lot of the principles are the same. When it comes to recruiting, perception > reality and I do agree with you that the scheme isn't helping us like it used to.
Click to expand...

2009 talent wasn't mediocre, nor was 2014's. Both had NFL talent on the O side. And with the exception of Navy beating Notre Dame, the other service academies aren't going out and beating teams that are much better than they are.

Regardless, you & I want the same thing and I'm 100% in agreement with you on your last paragraph.
 
johncu said:
Probably the best answer, IMO. I still believe that, given a talented group of athletes, we could literally win the national championship with the offense we're running now. Problem is, I don't think we're ever going to get that group of athletes, and our horrible defense doesn't look like it will ever be fixed.

I'd like to hire another option coach, but it needs to look different than what we're running now, even if just for perception's sake.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with another option coach, either. But talking about why we're not winning national championships seems a little beside the point these days. I want to know why we can't win run-of-the-mill games.
 
RamblinWreck92 said:
2009 talent wasn't mediocre, nor was 2014's. Both had NFL talent on the O side. And with the exception of Navy beating Notre Dame, the other service academies aren't going out and beating teams that are much better than they are.

Regardless, you & I want the same thing and I'm 100% in agreement with you on your last paragraph.
Click to expand...
The NFL talent on the offensive side in 2009 was... DT. The NFL talent on the offensive side in 2014 was... Shaq Mason. (Or do you think guys who get drafted or signs as UDFA but then don't contribute are "NFL talent"?) Lots and lots of college teams have *1* quality NFL player on the offensive side and aren't Top 5 offenses. There's a lot more going on in our success in recent years than having occasional good players. CPJ and his offensive techniques deserve the lion's share of the credit for 2009 and 2014.

That doesn't change the fact that he's not getting it done recently. You don't have to argue about the "system" in the abstract to see that we need some kind of change now.
 
18in32 said:
The NFL talent on the offensive side in 2009 was... DT.
Click to expand...
Huh? Stephen Hill was on the team in 2009 and played as a true freshman. Andrew Gardner was LT. Jonathan Dwyer was the B-back. And, of course, Demaryius Thomas.

All 4 of those played in the NFL.
 
daBuzz said:
Huh? Stephen Hill was on the team in 2009 and played as a true freshman. Andrew Gardner was LT. Jonathan Dwyer was the B-back. And, of course, Demaryius Thomas.

All 4 of those played in the NFL.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I guess it depends on what we think NFL talent amounts to. Only DT was a success in the NFL by my metric. But I grant you that just getting the chance, making camp, playing in a few games, etc., is better than not.
 
18in32 said:
The NFL talent on the offensive side in 2009 was... DT.
Click to expand...
And Dwyer and Ant Allen and Stephen Hill.

18in32 said:
The NFL talent on the offensive side in 2014 was... Shaq Mason. (Or do you think guys who get drafted or signs as UDFA but then don't contribute are "NFL talent"?)
Click to expand...
And Waller and Smelter and Butker and to a lesser degree, JT. And yes, a guy who gets drafted by an NFL team has to be considered NFL talent.

18in32 said:
Lots and lots of college teams have *1* quality NFL player on the offensive side and aren't Top 5 offenses. There's a lot more going on in our success in recent years than having occasional good players. CPJ and his offensive techniques deserve the lion's share of the credit for 2009 and 2014.

That doesn't change the fact that he's not getting it done recently. You don't have to argue about the "system" in the abstract to see that we need some kind of change now.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's much to argue. Other than those 2 years and to a lesser degree, 2016, there hasn't been very much "success" from this scheme unless a rate of 4 good seasons in 11 is considered "success"? Take away the highs and lows and its Chan Gailey numbers, sans decent recruiting.

but yeah, we need a change.
 
18in32 said:
Yeah, I guess it depends on what we think NFL talent amounts to. Only DT was a success in the NFL by my metric. But I grant you that just getting the chance, making camp, playing in a few games, etc., is better than not.
Click to expand...
Two first rounders and a second round draft pick don't count as "NFL talent"? :crazy:
 
doyojob said:
I agree that GT would fare better with an option. Hell Auburn runs it. They just don't cut block it. They get the big mules and run defenders' asses over. Malzone's offense is at least 65-35 run to pass every year. Willie Fritz's version is similar to Auburn's and its pretty damn good. He resurrected Southern and beat the Gators in Gainesville. He left for Tulane for way more $$$ than GSU was paying. I'd love to have his version.
Click to expand...
This is actually what I really want to articulate. It's not the option I hate, rather it's PJ's version of the option I hate. There is no RPO. It uses formations from the 60s and 70s. Every year it seems like we run less and less plays. I watch other teams run the option and even Navy and AF seem much more modern with shotgun snaps, at least. We tried shotgun for 4 games and the one time it didnt work, we abandoned it. I just want a RB to read a frickin hole for once rather go to the same spots over and over again. I want a QB to be able to complete simple throw and catch passes. I want a route tree that is more complicated than seams and wheels. It is just so ööööing stale right now and getting worse each year.
 
daBuzz said:
Two first rounders and a second round draft pick don't count as "NFL talent"? :crazy:
Click to expand...
You ain't reading the thread very carefully. I was talking about offensive players. DT is the only CPJ-era offensive first rounder, and I agree he's NFL talent. Stephen Hill is the only CPJ-era offensive second rounder. And no, I'm afraid I don't consider Stephen Hill to have much NFL talent. He had "measurables" but never did anything on the field. He was drafted six years ago and has a 595 career reception yds.

But as I said, getting the opportunity to play in the NFL at all is obvs a better indicator of talent than not getting the opportunity. It just doesn't prove that our talent was overwhelming compared to the teams we played that year.
 
RamblinWreck92 said:
the service academies don't play ACC or SEC schedules. Army plays Duke but not Clemson, etc.

When's the last time a service academy made a New Year's Day bowl game?
Click to expand...
I'm not going to research that one, but I am willing to bet it was long before CPJ was at Navy, or that the other two academies had their versions in place. Air Force was all air force years ago, and weren't making NYD bowls much then either. Army has been bad for decades, until the last three years, including 2018. What changed, Army adopted a version of the 3O/Flexbone under Monken. The wikipedia page says 2009 for Army, but it sure didn't seem that way to me. It feels more like from 2014 onward. As I am in Annapolis, I follow Navy pretty closely, and the annual Army-Navy game only recently seemed to feature two teams running it, imho.
 
When Fisher DeBerry was coach at Air Force, they ran the option out of the wishbone before adopting CPJ’s familiar flexbone formation.

They called it the flexbone probably because they passed more, as mentioned in a previous post.

 
The style of triple option Georgia Southern runs is basically what Fritz ran here prior to him leaving for Tulane. Our OC DeBesse was the OC for Fritz once upon a time. I'm sure once all 4 wheels are in sync, it'll look better than it did against this past weekend. Hopefully.
 
doyojob said:
I agree that GT would fare better with an option. Hell Auburn runs it. They just don't cut block it. They get the big mules and run defenders' asses over. Malzone's offense is at least 65-35 run to pass every year. Willie Fritz's version is similar to Auburn's and its pretty damn good. He resurrected Southern and beat the Gators in Gainesville. He left for Tulane for way more $$$ than GSU was paying. I'd love to have his version.
Click to expand...
When Southern beat Florida, Monken was still the coach.
 
Please, someone with more knowledge than me can feel free to chime in, but here are some differences between our "option" and most option plays you see in CFB right now:

1) We are under center vs. most read option is out of shotgun
-We're better in short yardage and less likely to lose yardage
-It's more difficult to pass out of our formation

2) We have man blocking to create a numbers advantage in space vs. other teams use zone blocking schemes
-Wide spacing allows our blockers to get to the 2nd level and forces defenders to choose, but makes us more vulnerable to penetration
-This is the equalizer part of the option- we can create a big play through crisp execution rather than physical dominance
-Man blocking seems to be much more complicated and missing an assignment has serious consequences

3) We use run 'n shoot passing schemes vs. traditional spread passing or RPOs
-Completely different route tree - run n shoot relies on option routes where QB and receiver read the defense (we are doing a poor job this year)
-"New school" spread passing gets the ball out on the perimeter quicker and utilizes much more short and horizontal passing
 
TampaBayJacket said:
How is this different than the standard college RPO offense that is common today? Actually curious and not trolling.
Click to expand...
As noted otherwise, running RPO from shotgun allows time for more pass plays while conceding yardage on the snap. It is fair to consider lots of the A-Back rollout/option plays as pass plays relative to other offenses, they’re just run slightly differently. Realistically, we could go pass heavy without changing a thing on the offense if we had a QB with an arm. Someone has to be working on that Cam Newton clone...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top