Question on Triple Option for Former Players

L

lonestarjacket

Dodd-Like
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
10,278
This question goes to former players or those who have coached at HS level or above. I am less interested in the speculation or opinions of fellow armchair QBs and coaches.

Given that there are detailed articles about how the TO works (specifically how Paul Johnson's TO works) and how QB reads are made to exploit the defense, why wouldn't a DC counter by lining up to bait the offense into a certain TO play?

If the defense knows how the QB is reading it, why can't they exploit that fact to always know where the play is headed?

I realize much of it comes down to execution regardless of what system you are running. But I would think the advantage of running a system that reads and reacts to a defense would be lost of the defense knew how you were reading it.

What am I missing?
 
lonestarjacket said:
This question goes to former players or those who have coached at HS level or above. I am less interested in the speculation or opinions of fellow armchair QBs and coaches.

Given that there are detailed articles about how the TO works (specifically how Paul Johnson's TO works) and how QB reads are made to exploit the defense, why wouldn't a DC counter by lining up to bait the offense into a certain TO play?

If the defense knows how the QB is reading it, why can't they exploit that fact to always know where the play is headed?

I realize much of it comes down to execution regardless of what system you are running. But I would think the advantage of running a system that reads and reacts to a defense would be lost of the defense knew how you were reading it.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...

Not a former player but my guess is that it starts with the DE. This D lineman has to go somewhere at the snap. He can't just sit motionless. Whatever he chooses to do determines the course of the play.

Since the QB is a threat to both run and pass the defense has to respect everything on every play.

I would not want to try and defend it.
 
lonestarjacket said:
If the defense knows how the QB is reading it, why can't they exploit that fact to always know where the play is headed?
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, that's pretty much what happened to the Falcons when they tried to run the QB option with Vick.
 
lonestarjacket said:
This question goes to former players or those who have coached at HS level or above. I am less interested in the speculation or opinions of fellow armchair QBs and coaches.

Given that there are detailed articles about how the TO works (specifically how Paul Johnson's TO works) and how QB reads are made to exploit the defense, why wouldn't a DC counter by lining up to bait the offense into a certain TO play?

If the defense knows how the QB is reading it, why can't they exploit that fact to always know where the play is headed?

I realize much of it comes down to execution regardless of what system you are running. But I would think the advantage of running a system that reads and reacts to a defense would be lost of the defense knew how you were reading it.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...

not a coach but my high school team was a TO team and the point here is you can't bait an offense that read's and reacts!!! They call it a triple option, technically there are more than that on any one play. The QB can hand to FB up the middle, can keep it go off tackle, keep it go wide, keep it go off WR, can pitch to RB, RB can cutback, go wide. Frankly, you just can't bait an offense that dynamic. You can bait a more rigid offense, particularly bait a QB with secondary coverages, but it is VERY hard, nearly impossible to bait an OL or RB's at the point of attack. Its too quick and too easy to exploit.

If in the essence the unblocked DE or DT baits a certain move then goes the other way...all the qb has to do is pitch it!!! then what, the LB and S bait too? Nope...by then its 6.

TO is very hard to prepare for and defend...but, if you have superior athletes and speed on the D side you can overcome the quick hit and reads TO gives you as a problem. The issue then becomes, you usually will sacrifice pass coverage to do that.

Which is why, PJ, here in the ACC, will have to pass more and will...it can make a well executed TO with good athletes virtually unstoppable.

For instance one play a-back 1 goes in motion play goes a-back ones way; same formation, a-back 1 goes in motion play goes a-back twos' way. A-back two goes in motion, goes b-back....a-back two goes in motion, goes a-back ones way....just too many damn variations on pre-read snaps as well.....the variations are nearly endless.

This is why PJ says only 40% of his O will be installed by sept. And that 40% probably won't be executed at full speed until mid year or end year and not nearly as smooth as it will in year 2.
 
I have no direct knowledge, but I would guess that because with the TO you get many one-to-one matchups, anytime you attempt to bait an offense into doing something you have to give up another one-to-one matchup to cover that option. And since it's an option (obviously) the QB can read that shift and take advantage of it.
 
Ex-defensive player. My two cents:

PJ runs a spread option.

The spread part is very important, and everyone seems to overlook it. Not only are there two ends split wide in each formation, but the linemen take very large splits. This spreads the defense out and creates advantageous blocking angles. It's a lot like WVU's offense, but it's run with the QB under center and using a triple option rather than a single back read option from the shotgun. Thus it has an old timey look to it. But the formation is not old. Also, no one runs it like PJ. He has a lot of variations on the option play itself that he pulls from fluently.

Defenses can and do make adjustments to try to confuse blocking assignments and QB reads. One of the advantages of the big splits/spread formation is that it makes it easier for our coaches in the box & players on the field to see what the defense is trying to do and to make counter adjustments.

PJ is known for an uncanny ability to adjust his playcalling in real time to what defenses are doing. He is also known for making effective adjustments to blocking schemes.

As others have mentioned, both the spread formation and the option play itself have a similar effect:they force the defense into honoring one on one match ups. If defenses blitz or stunt to to try and confuse the offense they are likely to give up a big play. Why? This offense is taught to make machine-like reads, and can do so under duress because they are well-practiced. Blitzes and stunts leave weak spots that get exposed and exploited.

Defenses are better served sitting back an playing assignment football. In addtion to assignment football, the defense has to string out plays laterally, staying in its lanes all along the way, and playing from the inside out. That can be very un-natural for defenders who are used to flying to the ball. PJ has reverses and misdirections in his arsenal as well that can be devasting. Not to mention the play action passes.

I think to stop this offense you have to out physical it, win the battle up front, and limit the running game to short gains. It has to be done by stringing plays out in a disciplined fashion. If you have to cheat, the offense can find the hole and exploit it if it can execute.

If the offense executes like it is supposed to, plays hard-nosed as PJ's teams are apt to do, doesn't make a lot of mistakes, and has decent talent, it is going to be awfully hard to stop.
 
Agreed w/ 33jacket. I think that the NFL has alot of speed on the ends and the quickness off the ball is better. I think Vick had so many problems in certain games (PHI, TB) where they had a lot of speed on the ends.

That being said, I REALLY think CPJ will have to spend some time getting the playbook installed in some brains. Speed on defense will definetly be when the TO runs into some problems for us.....until we get more speed in our depth chart.
 
I played in the triple o my junior year in high school, played d against it in high school and played defense at shorter (who runs the TO), and have coached d against it and am currently learning the playbook of TO in my new coaching job where ill be coaching RBs.

From a defensive point of view, it can drive you, as a coach or player, nuts. You have to play very disciplined assignment football and just one over aggressive move by the defense can turn into a big gain. Teams cant blitz very much and have to give up a great deal on pass coverage but is still frustrating because if the qb is good enough then he only has to find one mistake by the d to turn it into a big gain.

From an offensive point of view, the first read is usually fullback if there is a gap. Then it progresses to the defensive end and outside linebackers, where the qb can either turn it up or eventually pitch it, and even turn it up and pitch it downfield if the rbs are good at keeping a pitch relationship. Also, if teams start biting up to much then you can run all kinds of option passes out of it which keeps DBs from coming up to help too much. As I said it can drive a D nuts when it is run right because it requires so much discipline that a lot of hs and college players do not have.

Hope this was helpful.
 
ramblinwreck:
UGA takes a week off before they play us for a reason. UGA fans can sit here and tell you that Tech is not important but their athletic management acts totally differently. The game matters more than any and Richt plans on having a week off before our game as often as he possibly can.
 
If the defense knows how the QB is reading it, why can't they exploit that fact to always know where the play is headed?
Click to expand...
Your question assumes that the D can funnel the 3O into one option (pitch, hold, whatever) and therefore know where the play is going to go. Here's the rub. If it's done right, the only way they can funnel it into one place is by overcommitting elsewhere, which in a best case scenario for the defense still yields 1 v 1 matchups. Good offensive systems prey on 1 v 1 matchups, because that's the very prerequisite of a mismatch.

Here's another way to look at it. If by hook or crook a defense were to somehow overcommit the inside guy, force a pitch, and overcommit on the pitch guy, then we've got some WRs that are wide friggin open, just by sheer arithmetic.
 
Many here are missing my point.

I am not talking about the inherent advantages of the triple option itself (that the QB can occupy tacklers with those options rather than blockers.)

For example, I am talking about lining up to make it seem you have a numbers advantage on one side to bait the TO to run to that side. Then, you overwhelm that side from the snap. That is certainly "easier said than done" and requires a defense with players fast enough to close the ground given up by lining up to confuse the offense.

You would still have to execute to stop the play, but the defense would have a numbers advantage when the QB was assuming a numbers advantage for the offense.

The wide spread answer makes the most sense. As the defense might penalize itself more by being out of position than it would gain by baiting a particular play.

The biggest advantage I see is the simple fact that the defenses won't see enough TO to justify spending time perfecting a defense designed to exploit it. I am less convinced that an enterprising DC (with a fast and disciplined defense) couldn't devise a defensive reaction to force a TO offense out of its comfort zone.
 
lonestarjacket said:
Many here are missing my point.

I am not talking about the inherent advantages of the triple option itself (that the QB can occupy tacklers with those options rather than blockers.)

For example, I am talking about lining up to make it seem you have a numbers advantage on one side to bait the TO to run to that side. Then, you overwhelm that side from the snap. That is certainly "easier said than done" and requires a defense with players fast enough to close the ground given up by lining up to confuse the offense.

You would still have to execute to stop the play, but the defense would have a numbers advantage when the QB was assuming a numbers advantage for the offense.

The wide spread answer makes the most sense. As the defense might penalize itself more by being out of position than it would gain by baiting a particular play.

The biggest advantage I see is the simple fact that the defenses won't see enough TO to justify spending time perfecting a defense designed to exploit it. I am less convinced that an enterprising DC (with a fast and disciplined defense) couldn't devise a defensive reaction to force a TO offense out of its comfort zone.
Click to expand...

I think you're on to something there. One of Coach Tenuta's favorite phrases was "make them beat you left handed." ... meaning take away what they are best at (running/slant routes/etc.) and make them beat you with what they aren't very good at. We lived and died by this (we lived a lot more often than we died). Theoretically defenses against this type of offense should stack up against the run and stop it no matter what it takes and tell the secondary it is up to them to make plays against the pass.

The thing is, at Navy, you know teams did EXACTLY that ... stacked to defend the run ... and STILL couldn't stop it ... AGAINST NAVY!!! It worked a lot more often than it didn't. Navy had success with the run even when it was the focus. Then you throw in Navy's success with the pass, with a very below average arm at QB vs. what we should have at QB, and wow, it makes for exciting thoughts.

The thing is also, people keep talking about 1 on 1 matchups. But it's better than that. Try to line up a balanced defense against the balanced Tech Spread formation. Then draw the triple option play with one of the A-backs going in motion toward the play side. You end up with a 7 on 5 matchup in favor of the offense, on either side. For example, if you line up a 5 man front, say a 3-4 scheme, on defense you have an end, an inside backer, an outside backer, a corner, and a safety (this assumes the center can block the nose without help) ... VS. on offense you have a guard, a tackle, an a-back and a WR all blocking, and 3 options to carry the ball - QB, B-back, motioned A-back. There's no good way to defend it. Throw in the variations in blocking shemes, plays, misdirections, and PASSES, and look out!

When the QB can run, an offense can outnumber the defense every time. This is why our Choice/Nesbitt at QB running the ball every time worked last year most of the time even though you knew what was coming. In traditional offenses, the QB is a wasted player on most running plays. Good running QB's will ALWAYS give DC's nightmares at any level.

This is the same reason why West friggin Virginia became an offensive Juggernaut.

I think Coach Tenuta would try to do what you are saying though ... He would line up a certain way and then blitz and stunt (or zone dog) in a way to confuse the QB and offensive line to miss there assignments and fail to execute properly. But then again, you saw what West friggin Virginia did to us in the Gator. We confused them and stopped them at first, but the coaching and players caught up with it eventually and beat us (38 points, mostly in the second half).

When run at a high level of execution (which CPJ is best at), you can't stop it, you can only hope to contain it. :bowdown::wow::fingersx:
 
lonestar, you're asking a good question but when it comes down to people having to risk their jobs as coaches by taking a chance on getting burnt big time, you will not find to many guys out there willing to do that, even on the HS level. To do what you suggested in your latest post, you would have to re-train what you coach your defensive players to do all season. Besides that, you are taking a big risk in "hoping" your guys are fast enough to make up the head start the offense has on you in knowing what play they are running, as well as the snap count. I know that our HC, at the HS team I coach at, would go absolutely ballistic and fire every defensive coach if we were taking a chance like that in hoping to bait the offense to run to a particular spot or to run a specific play.
 
Overplaying one direction and coming back to compensate only works if your defense is faster than the offense you're playing against.

We've got lots of speed. Defenses who try to weight one direction in order to force us the other direction are going to get burned. The only way they'll be able to defend us is with disciplined assignment football, which isn't often taught in the modern age of "penetrate and swarm to the football" defenses.
 
I Think The Defense Can Influence Which Way The Play Runs

But not guarantee it.

I would think quite a few defensive coordinators would position a linebacker or safety to be part of the pre-snap read and "force" the play to one side, particularly the short side of the field.

One thing to remember is that our quarterback does not have to follow the read. If the defense overloads the field side, they will have players move towards the boundary side on the snap, or they will have safeties in the box. The offense can then run the play to the field side, and it becomes just another counter play.

Or they can pass.
 
That is almost impossible to do. Don't forget. The Aback is only a few yards off the LOS. If the defense overloads one side, we would run away. At the snap, an A back is often in motion already. We can hit the Buzz Back up the middle where a single cutback gets about 20-30 yards (maybe a TD w/ Dwyer), reverse with the playside A-Back, run the regular option with A-Back & QB, or drop back and hit one of the wide open WRs, RB, or A-Back.

The beaty of the option is all 11 players are accounted for. Defenses are designed to account for 10 players. This is why with no offense line or WRs, Vick was some devastating.
 
As a defense, if you keep a tackle and an inside LB home on both sides of the ball you can take away the inside option. If you crash a DE or outside LB hard down the line of scrimmage you can take away the QB option. And, if you send the CB and S quick to the corner you take away the pitch.

But, if you keep tackles and LB's frozen, DE's pinching horizontally, and CB's and S going quick to the corner you are in real trouble with counters, reverses, and play action passes. If you commit to stopping all three options of the triple option the spread will kill you in a different way.

If I were a coordinator. The one thing I would do is hit the QB hard and often - the same philosophy you use against a passing offense.
 
The key to stopping most TOs is

1.stop the FB/B back,if they can stop that threat with a NT and 2 LBs inside or 2 DTs and a mid LB,then it allows the rest of D to play from inside to out FAST and shut down or string out the option pitch.and keeps the DBs from committing up too fast

2.the other way is play straight up depending on all DEF men to fight off blockers successfully(they have leverage with their hands),esp 180lb A backs blocking 230lb LBs -you can do this by playing one on one with WRs and daring the QB throwing to beat you because one incomplete will stifle the Offense that needs that positive yardage on EVERY play .If you can't make the def pay for taking the risk then the def gets even more aggressive toward the line of scrimmage..
 
lonestarjacket said:
For example, I am talking about lining up to make it seem you have a numbers advantage on one side to bait the TO to run to that side. Then, you overwhelm that side from the snap. That is certainly "easier said than done" and requires a defense with players fast enough to close the ground given up by lining up to confuse the offense.
Click to expand...

This is why you cant play one side because eventually this will happen

xb.jpg


They back in the back field will fake left between guard and tackle...the right wing will fake option left and the left tackle will go right to lead for the left wing who goes against the flow of the offense...this is just one of many plays designed for teams that try to choose a side and play it
 
lonestarjacket said:
This question goes to former players or those who have coached at HS level or above. I am less interested in the speculation or opinions of fellow armchair QBs and coaches.

Given that there are detailed articles about how the TO works (specifically how Paul Johnson's TO works) and how QB reads are made to exploit the defense, why wouldn't a DC counter by lining up to bait the offense into a certain TO play?

If the defense knows how the QB is reading it, why can't they exploit that fact to always know where the play is headed?

First of all I am not a coach or a former player. I am only parrotting what I have read and/or heard about the veer/wishbone/triple option. The secret of success for the system is the combination of the ability to "option" into a significantly different play once the play is underway--and execution of the blocking scheme. If the play is blocked properly there will be several available play choices that will present themselves "on the fly" . And when properly executed it is very difficult limit the play to 4 or 5 yards. Navy moved the chains with an almost robotic efficiency. Adjustment of the defense to attempt to make the big, stifling stop, opens up big play potential that Coach Johnson has taken advantage of on numerous occasions. The hype is that we should see three or four +20 yard runs every Saturday, regardless of the opponent.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top