So what is wrong with the Triple-O?

Why aren't any BCS programs running the triple-O as their primary offense?

Hell, people wanted Gailey out because he ran a 90's style pro offense. Why don't we take it back the 70s?
 
ContactBuzz said:
Why aren't any BCS programs running the triple-O as their primary offense?

Hell, people wanted Gailey out because he ran a 90's style pro offense. Why don't we take it back the 70s?
Click to expand...

A ton of great offenses in the NCAA are running a version of the Triple O. We need this kind of innovation at GT to win because we are going to get a little less talent then the big dogs. PJ has proven beyond a doubt that he can win with a LOT LESS talent. Wake Forest comes to mind immediately. PJ would certainly pass the ball more and spread it out more if he came to GT.

I think Muschamp is DRad's boy and he will get the job. My questions would be what about Muschamp makes him a better candidate than the others? I hope he has some solutions on the offensive side of the ball? I don't really know what makes him better than Tenuta? WM will be digging out of a hole day one from a lot of alumni because of the UGA thing. I am not one of them but there will be many that will make waves.
 
scatman22 said:
A ton of great offenses in the NCAA are running a version of the Triple O. We need this kind of innovation at GT to win because we are going to get a little less talent then the big dogs. PJ has proven beyond a doubt that he can win with a LOT LESS talent. Wake Forest comes to mind immediately. PJ would certainly pass the ball more and spread it out more if he came to GT.

I think Muschamp is DRad's boy and he will get the job. My questions would be what about Muschamp makes him a better candidate than the others? I hope he has some solutions on the offensive side of the ball? I don't really know what makes him better than Tenuta? WM will be digging out of a hole day one from a lot of alumni because of the UGA thing. I am not one of them but there will be many that will make waves.
Click to expand...
Name 1 BCS conference school that is running the triple option as their base offense.

The triple option is an alternative for schools that can't compete talent-wise. And if we start running it, the talent will go away - high school talent will know the peak of football careers will be at the college level (aside from the very occasional Olineman).
 
ContactBuzz said:
Name 1 BCS conference school that is running the triple option as their base offense.

The triple option is an alternative for schools that can't compete talent-wise. And if we start running it, the talent will go away - high school talent will know the peak of football careers will be at the college level (aside from the very occasional Olineman).
Click to expand...

Contact, give me some "facts" about why Muschamp is a better hire then say Tenuta? My only point is it seems a there are a lot of opinions about Muschamp but no facts. Lay out your case for me?
 
scatman22 said:
Contact, give me some "facts" about why Muschamp is a better hire then say Tenuta? My only point is it seems a there are a lot of opinions about Muschamp but no facts. Lay out your case for me?
Click to expand...
Scatman - I'm not latched on to any one candidate. I just don't want GT running the option - we can recruit enough talent to run a big boy offense.

To answer your question directly - I don't care one way or the other on Tenuta/Muschamp, I think Muschamp fits D-Rads "profile" for the next HC better than Tenuta. Tenuta's a fine coordinator and may make a fine HC and I won't be terribly disappointed if he gets it.
 
ContactBuzz said:
Name 1 BCS conference school that is running the triple option as their base offense.

The triple option is an alternative for schools that can't compete talent-wise. And if we start running it, the talent will go away - high school talent will know the peak of football careers will be at the college level (aside from the very occasional Olineman).
Click to expand...

That is exactly the mantra that took Nebraska from a 9 to 10 win team to the gutter.

Verbatim.

Lets be real clear, dude, Georgia Tech had one of the most high powered offenses in the country from 98 to 2000, were widely regarded as extremely talented, innovative, and our recruiting didn't suffer A LICK because of our schemes, and we were a triple option offense.

Oh, and btw, that 1999 triple option offense had a NFL QB and 2 NFL WRs. So much for the myth that skill players don't want to play for triple option teams.
 
ContactBuzz said:
Scatman - I'm not latched on to any one candidate. I just don't want GT running the option - we can recruit enough talent to run a big boy offense.

To answer your question directly - I don't care one way or the other on Tenuta/Muschamp, I think Muschamp fits D-Rads "profile" for the next HC better than Tenuta. Tenuta's a fine coordinator and may make a fine HC and I won't be terribly disappointed if he gets it.
Click to expand...

I understand your feelings. You "think" WM is the better hire. I "know" what we would be getting with a Paul Johnson.
 
beej67 said:
That is exactly the mantra that took Nebraska from a 9 to 10 win team to the gutter.

Verbatim.

Lets be real clear, dude, Georgia Tech had one of the most high powered offenses in the country from 98 to 2000, were widely regarded as extremely talented, innovative, and our recruiting didn't suffer A LICK because of our schemes, and we were a triple option offense.

Oh, and btw, that 1999 triple option offense had a NFL QB and 2 NFL WRs. So much for the myth that skill players don't want to play for triple option teams.
Click to expand...
And I still agree with Nebraska...they just thought they could flip a switch and change decades of history.

And we were not a triple option offense. We were a multiple formation offense, with the option used less than half (probably closer to one third) of all snaps.
 
scatman22 said:
I understand your feelings. You "think" WM is the better hire. I "know" what we would be getting with a Paul Johnson.
Click to expand...
I don't "think" anything. I "know" I'm not qualified to know who is the better choice, therefore I'm leaving it up to the guy who is paid to "know" and I'll be happy when the decision is made.

If the choice is PJ, I'll be concerned about our offense going back in time but I'll give him a chance and will be hopeful that (as many have intimated) he will adapt to the talent on the team and available in his recruiting base.
 
ContactBuzz said:
I don't "think" anything. I "know" I'm not qualified to know who is the better choice, therefore I'm leaving it up to the guy who is paid to "know" and I'll be happy when the decision is made.

If the choice is PJ, I'll be concerned about our offense going back in time but I'll give him a chance and will be hopeful that (as many have intimated) he will adapt to the talent on the team and available in his recruiting base.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And I will give WM a chance if he is hired also. Gomer is gone and that is all that matters for now.
 
ContactBuzz said:
And I still agree with Nebraska...they just thought they could flip a switch and change decades of history.

And we were not a triple option offense. We were a multiple formation offense, with the option used less than half (probably closer to one third) of all snaps.
Click to expand...

Yup.

And I don't think anyone is arguing for an offense that is 80% or more triple option.

Are they?

I'm not.

I doubt WracerX is.

I just agree with WracerX, that there's nothing wrong with having the triple option as the core of your spread option attack instead of the shotgun speed option like so many other schools do it nowadays. It can work either way.
 
beej67 said:
Yup.

And I don't think anyone is arguing for an offense that is 80% or more triple option.

Are they?

I'm not.

I doubt WracerX is.

I just agree with WracerX, that there's nothing wrong with having the triple option as the core of your spread option attack instead of the shotgun speed option like so many other schools do it nowadays. It can work either way.
Click to expand...

I like the traditional triple-O better because it keeps the QB closer to the line. Out of the shotgun, you have to run a few yards just to get to the line of scrimmage. Out of the shotgun, you may buy a little more time to pass, but things get jammed up in the redzone. Also, if run out of the gun, you need a freak for a QB like Oregon or WV. The traditional set works nearly as good with a serviceable QB and a solid RB. We have a lot more luck recruiting RB's.
 
Watching the Mizzou-Kansas game I got kind of nostalgic for Fridge's offenses. Mizzou was a juggernaut when firing on all cylinders and some of the comment made about that offense reminded me of comments made by/about the Fridge's offenses at GT.

The first common factor was the NECESSITY for a good decision making QB. The offense depended on the QB making snap decisions for the right receiver, the right "option" in the running attack, or the right decision to change a play.

Like Fridge's offense, it looked complex, but we were told it actually was a very few plays run from many different formations. The players had less to remember, but it still confused the defense.

The offense was great, but it would be a disaster in the hands of a mediocre QB. It maximizes and exploits the skills of a smart and multi-talented QB like Hamilton, Jones or Godsey. Godsey proved it didn't require a running QB, but it absolutely requires a QB who can read a defense and who doesn't hesitate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top