Weird Hypothetical

johncu said:
The ööööing read option took the NFL by storm, and it's simplistic as hell. Triple option could absolutely work, but it won't happen. I guess it's possible that a team could use it as a part of their offense, but never as the base.
Click to expand...

Took the NFL by storm? That’s a stretch if you just look at every super bowl winning qb, ever...

The RPO stuff is successful in the NFL now, but that attacks defenses in a different way that a traditional run-based option those here are discussing
 
The Champ said:
Took the NFL by storm? That’s a stretch if you just look at every super bowl winning qb, ever...

The RPO stuff is successful in the NFL now, but that attacks defenses in a different way that a traditional run-based option those here are discussing
Click to expand...
The Eagles ran plenty of read option last year.
 
ThisIsAtlanta said:
One would have thought that Saban would be proof dispositive of the "program builder" type's effectiveness in the NFL.
Click to expand...

Saban is proof positive that a college coach's #1 skill is getting 18-year-olds to believe anything you say. Which does nothing for you in the NFL.

Probably why coaches so often appear in ads for used car dealerships.
 
TechRush said:
Technically the old Browns are the Ravens now. The new Browns have been terrible since birth.
Click to expand...

In 1995, owner Art Modell, who had purchased the Browns in 1961, announced plans to move the team to Baltimore. After threats of legal action from the city of Cleveland and fans, a compromise was reached in early 1996 that allowed Modell to establish the Baltimore Ravens as a new franchise while retaining the contracts of all Browns personnel. The Browns' intellectual property, including team name, logos, training facility, and history, were kept in trust and the franchise was regarded by the NFL as suspended, with a new team to be established by 1999 either by expansion or relocation. The Browns were announced as an expansion team in 1998 and resumed play in 1999.
 
IM79 said:
In 1995, owner Art Modell, who had purchased the Browns in 1961, announced plans to move the team to Baltimore. After threats of legal action from the city of Cleveland and fans, a compromise was reached in early 1996 that allowed Modell to establish the Baltimore Ravens as a new franchise while retaining the contracts of all Browns personnel. The Browns' intellectual property, including team name, logos, training facility, and history, were kept in trust and the franchise was regarded by the NFL as suspended, with a new team to be established by 1999 either by expansion or relocation. The Browns were announced as an expansion team in 1998 and resumed play in 1999.
Click to expand...

I’d make them great again.
 
I think the triple option offense could be successful just by adjusting the salaries by position.

You no longer need a a third of your line salaries for a left tackle. You can now spread that across for four guards (two will be “tackles”) and a center. Boom, best rushing offensive line in the NFL, no doubt.

The highest paid running backs are a fraction compared to WRs and similar to TEs. Now you get to spread that money evenly amongst three RBs (top ten salary wise) and two serviceable WRs. You can’t afford a Julio, but you can certainly get two WRs who can run a route tree.

Now for the QB. You could easily fill this position for a lot cheaper than the normal going QB price, and get if the not the best, but outstanding running QBs. The money you save on QBs could help with boosting a defensive line.
 
TechRush said:
Technically the old Browns are the Ravens now. The new Browns have been terrible since birth.
Click to expand...
technically you can go öööö yourself. Cleveland retained the franchise history after the move, because the NFL promised they would be coming back with a team.
 
samsgt02 said:
I think the triple option offense could be successful just by adjusting the salaries by position.

You no longer need a a third of your line salaries for a left tackle. You can now spread that across for four guards (two will be “tackles”) and a center. Boom, best rushing offensive line in the NFL, no doubt.

The highest paid running backs are a fraction compared to WRs and similar to TEs. Now you get to spread that money evenly amongst three RBs (top ten salary wise) and two serviceable WRs. You can’t afford a Julio, but you can certainly get two WRs who can run a route tree.

Now for the QB. You could easily fill this position for a lot cheaper than the normal going QB price, and get if the not the best, but outstanding running QBs. The money you save on QBs could help with boosting a defensive line.
Click to expand...
Yes, several people have mentioned this budgetary issue. The idea that you could spent a lot more on a great defense is a really interesting way to look at this. Think how it changes your draft strategy, too. You want JT5, nobody else does. Suddenly you can trade your 1st round pick and pick up a several lower-round picks, etc.

Now if only you can withstand the laughing...

Mark Twain said:
Against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand.
Click to expand...
 
Part of the problem is free-agency and the very small roster-size in the NFL. No agent will want his client to go to Cleveland unless they OVERPAY for his position. I don't think it suddenly becomes cheaper. I would love to see it attempted though. And I think it would be good for the league.
 
As long as looking at a QB the wrong way gets a 15 yd penalty and an auto 1st down and as long as PI rules favor the WR, it's stupid to instill any sort of run-heavy offense like the TO.

Plus, chop blocking is illegal and NFL OL men don't want to ankle dive and fish flop. Plus there are some good TEs that'd be out of a job.
 
samsgt02 said:
I think the triple option offense could be successful just by adjusting the salaries by position.

You no longer need a a third of your line salaries for a left tackle. You can now spread that across for four guards (two will be “tackles”) and a center. Boom, best rushing offensive line in the NFL, no doubt.

The highest paid running backs are a fraction compared to WRs and similar to TEs. Now you get to spread that money evenly amongst three RBs (top ten salary wise) and two serviceable WRs. You can’t afford a Julio, but you can certainly get two WRs who can run a route tree.

Now for the QB. You could easily fill this position for a lot cheaper than the normal going QB price, and get if the not the best, but outstanding running QBs. The money you save on QBs could help with boosting a defensive line.
Click to expand...
This was my point in less than 250 characters
 
quiomkoon said:
Like magic...

https://www.cleveland.com/browns/20...land-browns-win-over-the-atlanta-falcons.html
Click to expand...

I have nothing of value to add other than I wonder why, out of the countless topics, posts and threads, why this singular topic finally, after nearly 7 years of waiting silently and patiently, caused you to throw your ring in the hat. Is it your love of the TO? love of the Browns? hatred of the Falcons? or was it simply that you finally threw caution to the wind and said WTF, I too have a voice to be heard and I heretofore will be part of the vitriol, hyperbole, drunken debauchery, debate and pontification that transpires here on ST? Just curious.
 
B said:
I have nothing of value to add other than I wonder why, out of the countless topics, posts and threads, why this singular topic finally, after nearly 7 years of waiting silently and patiently, caused you to throw your ring in the hat. Is it your love of the TO? love of the Browns? hatred of the Falcons? or was it simply that you finally threw caution to the wind and said WTF, I too have a voice to be heard and I heretofore will be part of the vitriol, hyperbole, drunken debauchery, debate and pontification that transpires here on ST? Just curious.
Click to expand...
Inquiring minds want to know
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top