The Triple Option IMO...

ncjacket said:
Well, let's forget for a minute that we have Booker still, but who do you think emulated him last year? Someone on the scout team. It's not like we're not going to have people who can throw the ball, it's about formations, etc. Besides, when the Patriots practice who do you think emulates Brady? No offense man, but that's not a very good question.
Click to expand...

And were we well prepared for him,or Glennon, even the freshman from Maryland?
I think every NFL team has several qb's that actually throw the football--practice team or not.
 
Yukon, so you're saying we need a star QB to practice against to be able to play a team on Saturday? It's not about being able to replicate a particular player, it's about getting used to and prepared for the style of play, the kind of plays they run in particular situations, etc. We'll be fine next year. Coaches actually deal with this kind of thing all the time. The reason people point out that playing an option team is difficult to prepare for is that so few teams run it. An option team preparing for a passing team will do it pretty often over the course of the year so it's not such a stretch.
 
ncjacket,Guys like Yukon and Jacketup hate the TO, and they want everyone to know it. Every possible disadvantage of running this system is brought up ad nauseum....Yukon you are answering your own criticism. We had a "traditional" pro-style offense last year to practice against, and we still got torched by Glennon and UM...Obviously practicing against that offense every day mattered not........Listen, we all understand your concerns. But we just got a 6 year course on how inneffective we are with a pro offense.... It is time for some innovation on offense, and it definately was time for a change in leadership.
 
Since we're still all speculating, I'll throw in my two cents. Many of you are overly optimistic, predicting national championships and undefeated seasons. There is a reason that Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, and numerous other schools abandoned the triple option. It worked to get them to the 10 victory level, but eventually, a good, disciplined defensive team would eat it up. See WVU's losses this year or Navy's losing streak to ND for examples. When it doesn't work, it gets ugly, much like our defense against certain teams.

On the other hand, the ones that predict utter failure are also wrong. There are plenty of undisciplined teams and ones that are less athletic than GT, that we could easily get to the 8-9 wins per year plateau. I would argue that Chan would have eventually got us there, but it really doesn't matter.

Basically, I see the triple option leading to 1 or 2 more wins per year. For some, that will be enough. However, be prepared for a couple of really ugly games per year where the other team is prepared and capable of stopping it. Either way, we're committed and it would take several years to recover if it doesn't work as expected.
 
Yukonwreck said:
A query, if I may:
The weeks we play, oh I don't know, say Georgia and Matthew Stafford--who on God's green earth emulates the Georgia QB in practice when we are a team that throws once or twice a month?
Click to expand...


HELL, I say CPJ puts Mover and his fat arse (since Stafford is overweight) on contract for Georgie week and let him throw it around.

Afterwards Mover can go lift himself a keg and get in better shape!!!:laugher::laugher:
 
GT1992 said:
Since we're still all speculating, I'll throw in my two cents. Many of you are overly optimistic, predicting national championships and undefeated seasons. There is a reason that Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, and numerous other schools abandoned the triple option. It worked to get them to the 10 victory level, but eventually, a good, disciplined defensive team would eat it up. See WVU's losses this year or Navy's losing streak to ND for examples. When it doesn't work, it gets ugly, much like our defense against certain teams.

On the other hand, the ones that predict utter failure are also wrong. There are plenty of undisciplined teams and ones that are less athletic than GT, that we could easily get to the 8-9 wins per year plateau. I would argue that Chan would have eventually got us there, but it really doesn't matter.

Basically, I see the triple option leading to 1 or 2 more wins per year. For some, that will be enough. However, be prepared for a couple of really ugly games per year where the other team is prepared and capable of stopping it. Either way, we're committed and it would take several years to recover if it doesn't work as expected.
Click to expand...

IMO, it was the pro game filtering down to college that ended the triple option for most teams. Wasn't Nebraska winning 10 games a year when they fired an option coach and brought in the pro "offensive genius" Callaghan? Other very successful offenses, such as Florida and WVU, also run variants of the option that would never be seen on a pro teams.
 
Our fans' football intelligence is next to stupid sometimes. The last few weeks, I have read more dumb posts by people that think they understand the type of offense PJ runs. This is all the boards, not just this one.

To give you an idea of some of the better idiotic comments, here's a taste.

am 54 years old and saw my first Tech game in 1962. I have given my money, my passion and my love to Tech. I just feel that we missed a golden opportunity to captilize on our location and recent recruiting sucess. If we could have hired a Coach running a Pro set or spread, we could have really jumped into the recruiting market big time and secured some top recruits and went back to being a major player every year!!! Remember as it was pointed out several weeks ago by someone, we live in Ryan Stewart's "Black Hollywood".
Click to expand...

Lets see, ran a pro set under Chan and failed miserabley, spread is a form of the triple option,recruiting was only good one year under Chan, 1 year. Yep. Proof that this guy doesn't understand the game all that well.

And another beauty:
GT is de-emphasizing football. Going forward, I see Georgia Tech's football program as becoming less and less "glamorous" in comparison to the premiere programs in our region, including, but not limited to Georgia. This may be exactly what the administration wants. I am not predicting that we will not be good, or that we will not be successful. But it appears to me that we have hired a coach that has a little bit of a bent toward proving his system to the world---being successful without all the Calvin Johnsons or Tashard Choices. Our recruiting promises to be mundane. No big signees ("don't want, don't need" comments), thus a dimished recruiting budget. If we win without star players, more credit for the coaching. The aura of recruiting has become the vehicle by which the bigger programs maintain the public relations buzz during the offseason. Our guy does not strike me as desiring to be the center of a cult of personality ala Spurrier, or Saban, or Mack Brown. And maybe the West Stands Mafia likes it that way. A quieter, under-the-radar program that gets a lot of mileage out of its players and wins enough games to hit a decent bowl once in a while. I think we may have taken ourselves off center stage, desirous of being a little lower profile, a little less flamboyant--we haven't been able to compete in that arena anyway for a long, long time. I worry, however, that this lower profile will eventually lead us to a stature similar to Tulane, or Rutgers of before three years ago, or dare I say, Duke. There is an aversion in the Tech psyche to being viewed as rabid football fanatics----even though most of us are, or wannabee.
Click to expand...

The above might be the dumbest thing I've seen. We are de-emphasizing football by paying a $4 million dollar buy out and hiring a coach at $700K per year more than the last one. Brilliant.

And these two quotes weren't even from Stingtalk. There's some gems around here as well.
 
GT1992 said:
Since we're still all speculating, I'll throw in my two cents. Many of you are overly optimistic, predicting national championships and undefeated seasons. There is a reason that Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, and numerous other schools abandoned the triple option. It worked to get them to the 10 victory level, but eventually, a good, disciplined defensive team would eat it up. See WVU's losses this year or Navy's losing streak to ND for examples. When it doesn't work, it gets ugly, much like our defense against certain teams.
Click to expand...
Sorry man, but I can't resist. Please link to anyone who's predicting undefeated seasons and MNCs.

The TO went the way of every offense...teams constantly play with their attack and adjust to what defenses are doing. They also use whatever their current OC is comfortable with. Couple of thoughts though. First, this is the HC offense and he's never been stopped consistently anywhere he's ever coached....must be doing something right.

Second, this offense has many, many "options" that he hasn't shown yet...just wait and see. If we have an ugly game it will be because we are physically manhandled, not because someone is disciplined. To stop an option you do have to play assignment football. But you also have to make every tackle and every assignment. No one is that good. When Pepper got beat it was physically up front.
 
ncjacket said:
Sorry man, but I can't resist. Please link to anyone who's predicting undefeated seasons and MNCs.

The TO went the way of every offense...teams constantly play with their attack and adjust to what defenses are doing. They also use whatever their current OC is comfortable with. Couple of thoughts though. First, this is the HC offense and he's never been stopped consistently anywhere he's ever coached....must be doing something right.

Second, this offense has many, many "options" that he hasn't shown yet...just wait and see. If we have an ugly game it will be because we are physically manhandled, not because someone is disciplined. To stop an option you do have to play assignment football. But you also have to make every tackle and every assignment. No one is that good. When Pepper got beat it was physically up front.
Click to expand...

Might have been on the hive. I do recall a lot of posts about how this move will put us on top, etc.

The manhandled comment is the point. We don't get the recruits of Virginia Tech, Miami, FSU, UGA, Clemson, or even a UVA. There will be games where we are physically stuffed. Navy had these games too. As far as the offense working in BCS football, we'll see. At GSU, he had as good of athletes as anyone else he played. At Navy, they weren't exactly playing BCS teams every week.

Nebraska gave up the triple option specifically to compete for national championships. That worked out well.

By the way, what I call discipline is what you call assignment football. Same idea, you can't freelance. I'm actually in a wait and see mode. I don't know whether hiring CPJ was brilliant or a moronic move that will set the program back a decade, but I'm willing to give him a fair chance.
 
GT1992 said:
There is a reason that Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, and numerous other schools abandoned the triple option. It worked to get them to the 10 victory level, but eventually, a good, disciplined defensive team would eat it up. See WVU's losses this year or Navy's losing streak to ND for examples.
Click to expand...

WVU and Navy are bad examples to me. WVU beat the two best teams they've faced, OU and UGA, despite having less overall talent. That's our goal, right? And there is no program with even close to the talent advantage over us that ND has over Navy. That's like us against a 1AA.

Nebraska is the best comparison and they certainly had the problem you describe. For 20+ years, other than 94-97, they usually lost to teams with elite talent. It's not a TO team, but VT is similar -- they have a terrible record against elite teams. Ditto KSU from 93-03.

Being VT or Snyder's KSU would be disappointing to FSU fans, no doubt. But that stature would still be a gigantic leap up for GT, and I'd take it in a heartbeat. And it's about the upper limit of my realistic hope for GT in the next decade. It's a lot more than I had before we hired CPJ.

There are plenty of undisciplined teams and ones that are less athletic than GT, that we could easily get to the 8-9 wins per year plateau. I would argue that Chan would have eventually got us there, but it really doesn't matter.

Basically, I see the triple option leading to 1 or 2 more wins per year. For some, that will be enough.
Click to expand...
You apparently have seen more people predicting MNC's than I have.

1-2 wins a year is a hell of a lot to me.

1998-2007 is the best 10-year period in UGA history. If Gailey had won 9 more games (1-2 more wins per year) then GT would've been very close to UGA in that period. We'd have probably 2 ACC titles and be 4-6 or 5-5 vs. UGA in that 10 years.

Clean Old Fashioned Hate would be the nation's most watched in-state rivalry, the heir to UF-FSU. VT-GT would be a national phenomenon and the new UT-UF.

1-2 more wins a year would've made GT .688 since 2002. Johnson was .694 after the first 2-win season at Navy. So let's call .690 a pretty fair expectation.

If Johnson goes .690 for 10 seasons at GT he'll enter 2018 as a GT legend. He'll have 200 wins and a career record over .700, and he'll already be a first-ballot hall of fame head coach. And the two decades from 1998-2017 would unquestionably be the best period at GT since the Dodd years, and not very far behind them.

Count me in for 1-2 more wins a year. :biggthumpup:
 
If our defensive success is entirely dependent on the talent level of our SCOUT TEAM qb, we're F'ed no matter what. I find the whole argument silly.
 
MoverofFridge2 said:
IMHO...the 5-2 was originally designed to keep the wishbone, triple option in check. Problem was once the offense figured out they could out flank the defense things began to change. In the 50 defense it is hard to balance up unless you roll both of your corners up and play a hard cover 2 (2 deep). The normal 50 defense has a strong safety off the shoulder of the TE and when the offense throws in some motion the Defense has to react which can lead to being outflanked to the motion side.

There are a few who still run the 50 but very few. They disguise it in the 3-4 in order to adjust to the various motions the offenses deplore nowadays.
Click to expand...

I know this thread went crazy, but I love talking defense. CJT ran the 5-2 all the time and it's easy to go to a 5-2 from any defense. In CJT's 4-3, all he had to do was move the Sam linebacker over the tight end and reduce the front 4 toward the weak side -- 5-2. We lined up in this defense more often than any other. It was just called UNDER. Then he could also bring down a safety to linebacker level -- 5-3. Or he could bring the safety all the way down to the LOS opposite Sam -- 6-2. He did all of these frequently. Of course it didn't matter what we started in, there were zone dogs, blitzes, and line stunts that resulted in a completely different defensive alignment a split second after the snap. This is why CJT's defense was considered exotic with all kinds of exotic blitzes. You can have a multiple defense with multiple fronts no matter what your base personnel grouping is. And, it's not really THAT complicated to accomplish it. I don't see how an offensive line could be prepared for everything our D threw at them.
 
Gee I thought re ran a base 4-3-4 defense for most of the past years. Also, I remember when the wishbone came out and there were a lot of teams running the 5 man front before that. Back in that day there were a lot of teams that ran a 6-2-3 defense, including UGAy.
 
ramblinwise1 said:
Gee I thought re ran a base 4-3-4 defense for most of the past years. Also, I remember when the wishbone came out and there were a lot of teams running the 5 man front before that. Back in that day there were a lot of teams that ran a 6-2-3 defense, including UGAy.
Click to expand...

The 4-3 was our base personnel grouping, meaning we had 4 DL's and 3 LB's (and 2 CB's and 2 S's). But, we lined up in multiple fronts. Interestingly enough the front we lined up in most of the time in '03 was Under, which was a 5-2. The Sam (A. Brown) lined up on the LOS over the TE, with the Mike (D. Smith) and Will (K. Fox) as the 2 Backers. The blitz we ran most was called Falcon from this front. It sent the Sam on a contain blitz, the Mike through the strong B gap, the strong end down inside hard to the A gap, the Will free to roam, the weak end hard stepping and then dropping into coverage and containing, the strong safety coming up for run support and covering the curl/flat with cover 3 behind it. We used a conventional 4-3 look every now and then and called it OVER. It was usually played straight up (maybe with a line stunt) cover 2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top