|
Post by Yash on Oct 17, 2007 21:25:23 GMT -6
So this is stemming from the Tom Osborne thread. People say Paul Johnson at nebraska and what not. Well heres my question, outside of the academies, can the under center, navy style triple option attack work at the division one level successfully. Schools such as Rice and Ohio used to run it but since have gone to spread. Can a team outside of the academy get kids to come to an offense that isn't the norm now days? I think it would be hard because navy has a special group of kids who will do whatever you tell them to and are there for a reason beyond football. They execute so well at what they do with undersized guys that it works for them. I'm not sure if boosters at any other school would allow a coach to give the option a chance and even if they did, I wonder if the program would draw interest from kids. I think it would be hard for Nebraska to get kids to play in an option attack when they can go to OK state or Missouri and play in a spread that might get them a job on sundays. Just my take, let the debate begin.
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Oct 17, 2007 23:12:39 GMT -6
you mean like the old nebraska and oklahoma teams used to in the not so distant past?
|
|
|
Post by coachmoore42 on Oct 18, 2007 0:45:59 GMT -6
IMO obviously:
Could the offense itself work? Yes.
Could a coach convince the higher levels of athletes to buy into the offense? Not likely.
The best bet would be for the D-1 coach to find the high schools who are already running an under center option offense. That way the kids haven't been running other stuff and might not feel as comfortable in a different offense.
|
|
|
Post by Yash on Oct 18, 2007 5:50:52 GMT -6
Coach Jerk, support your claim. Outside of Navy and Air Force, where is the under center option the basis of a teams offense? I'm not talking flordia's spread offense I'm talking old school Nebraska I formation option and wish bone stuff and the Navy flexbone triple option.
|
|
|
Post by sls on Oct 18, 2007 7:26:02 GMT -6
I believe that GSU is now running the Air Raid. Hatcher went there right?
|
|
fish
Junior Member
Posts: 485
|
Post by fish on Oct 18, 2007 7:41:56 GMT -6
isn't georgia southern where paul johnson was before the naval academy?
|
|
|
Post by Yash on Oct 18, 2007 7:47:26 GMT -6
I know it could be run with the athletes that are coming out today, the question is can you sell boosters and athletic directors on letting you run because 1. its not the eye candy that a spread offense is, and 2. are you able to get the athletes to run it. Obviously with the athletes people have it could be run, but would they stick around to run it is i the question.
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Oct 18, 2007 8:38:44 GMT -6
I am not a fan of option football, but I honestly think it could still work. A lot of defenses are getting away from the huge LB's and going more for smaller/faster kids at LB to compensate for spread teams that try and get a mismatch on WR vs. LBs. Obviously there are still elite LBs that have both size and speed and some MLB's are still 240 to 250 range. Not a lot of Brian Urlachers out there that are 260 and can run like a safety.
So with the smaller/quicker LB's I have long wondered if eventually the power game will make a comeback. Instead of trying to out flank those kids, run right at them.
The key is you have to find that elite level option QB from HS. Convince him that instead of moving to WR or RB in college (like a lot of HS Athlete QBs) that he can stay at QB. It could appeal to a recruit especially if the school is a big name.
You would have to recruit a good, talented offensive line that is full of masher types. Put a high emphasis on strength and not so much on NFL prototype size. Get those 6'2 kids that are strong as oxes that are overlooked because they aren't 6'5-6'7. Find a great blocking FB. One of the types that maybe don't have the pure speed to be LB's, but are cruncher blockers and tough runners to get the tough yards.
It would take a huge recruiting effort and a coach that could sell it, but yes it could work.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Oct 18, 2007 8:46:01 GMT -6
didnt navy just beat Pitt? thats division I
|
|
|
Post by Yash on Oct 18, 2007 9:01:15 GMT -6
We know navy and air force run it, I'm saying at a non academy school coach calande, where the boosters want a so called "sexy" offense. And Coach Jerk, I said under center option. Not spread, not gun, strictly under center old style nebraska power football with an option attack, and the navy style under center fineness attack. Those kinds of options. I pay attention and I see everyone running a spread option, the question is can a team outside of an academy recruit successfully enough to reach the level that the mid 90s nebraska teams were at, running a pure option attack.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 18, 2007 9:41:15 GMT -6
I would say NO. Kids are looking to showcase themselves and the upsets in college football show it. . (It is the singularly positive result of the me mentality). I don't think you could perform at the TOP echelon as those kids would not be excited to go to a school that didn't exhibit the range of skills the professional teams want to see. Heck you are seeing kids transfer because they have 4 and 5 deep at some big time schools, and the kids don't want that. They want to be 1 deep so they can show of their skills.
Also, you have to remember that it is cyclical in nature. If the top 10 all started doing it, then everyone would be defending it more regularly it would become less effective...and we would be back where we were when the spread came into play. You go into a coaches office 20 years ago, and Base defense was drawn up against an I, and it was tweaked from that. Now, Base is drawn up againt 1 back spread..and is tweaked from that.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Oct 18, 2007 10:37:09 GMT -6
I agree with Yash on this one- theoretically, it can and does work at the D1 level.
However- convincing today's top 50 Blue Chippers to play in an under-center option offense is going to be a tough sell. Top high school kids are being sold the "NFL-ticket" pitch as juniors and seniors in high school. This means they want to play in offenses that best display their talent to the NFL scouts.; something the under-center triple option isn't going to do.
Also; college coaches are being evaluated on their recruiting ability; maybe as much as their wins-loss record. A top D1 coach is going to have a tough time selling the triple option to top high school recruits; thus he's going to have to dip into the lower tiers to get athletes. Lets say that D1 coach does just that-
Now, assume said-coach goes out and wins 10 games with lesser athletes in a flexbone offense; there's still going to huge pressure on his shoulders. Idiot sports writers and boosters are going to contend that said-coach would have won a NC if they had top athletes. Thus; the coach's recruiting comes into question and as such; HIS JOB.
Under center option football (flexbobne, I option, SBV) could be a dominant offense in college football. However, because of the current media and recruiting trends in the game; it's just not going to happen. The only way this offense will come back in a big way is if a coach goes out, has several 10+ wins seasons, and wins a NC title with it. Its just the only way to shut the media up.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 18, 2007 11:19:27 GMT -6
I wouldn't say the Media has any problems with it. Rather, the media often builds up the option teams, saying multiple times "You can't simulate that in practice..."
I really think it is the Pro game. Keith Jackson (the PLAYER not announcer) doesn't go to OU today if they are running Wishbone. Doesn't happen. Heck I don't even know if you get your H.S option Qb's to go to run option, when they will be told they could be a lockdown cover corner....for millions.
|
|
|
Post by Yash on Oct 18, 2007 11:23:07 GMT -6
Lets keep this at the 1A level or Bowl subdivision level for those who recognize that name. The 1AA level is a bit different than 1A, there is more TV money in 1A influencing it a bit more than at the 1AA level.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Oct 18, 2007 11:30:10 GMT -6
I wouldn't say the Media has any problems with it. Rather, the media often builds up the option teams, saying multiple times "You can't simulate that in practice..." I really think it is the Pro game. Keith Jackson (the PLAYER not announcer) doesn't go to OU today if they are running Wishbone. Doesn't happen. Heck I don't even know if you get your H.S option Qb's to go to run option, when they will be told they could be a lockdown cover corner....for millions. I agree with you on that one- HS option QBs rarely play QB at the next level. The best option QBs I have been around both went to D1 to play WRs. Both of them had offers from smaller schools to play option QB, but neither of the took up the offer. There are those people in the media who tout the option attack; I agree with you. BUT, I have also heard the media attack it; commentators also. However, it's goes along with what your were sayin coachd- "the Pros don't run it, so why should we?"
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Oct 18, 2007 12:12:29 GMT -6
didnt navy just beat Pitt? thats division I Navy beats (barely) mediocre D1 teams. Navy, even under Paul Johnson, has a terrible record against opponents with >.500 record and gets crushed by opponents with greater than a >.600 record. Look at the smack down Rutgers put on them this year. Rutgers is a good, but not elite D1 program. I realize their constraints, but people act as if they are dominant.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 18, 2007 12:12:38 GMT -6
coachcb--I don't think the media, or boosters for that matter, every really attack the option offense per se. I DO think they tend to have some criticisms for offenses that are one dementional, and can't do multiple things when necessary. I don't think there is a booster out there who wouldn't want to see the same type of offensive production that Navy put up against Pitt a few weeks ago. I do think there are plenty of boosters/TV talking heads that are quick to attack a one dimentional style of attack, especially when it is exposed.
Coach J--While your point may or may not be valid about Navy's opposition (i haven't looked at there schedule, nor do I follow them closely) I would say two things make your the argument a bit off in this case 1) you could say that about many Division 1 football. You could say that about many football teams, at any level PERIOD. By definition, most teams are AVG, and therefore most teams don't beat teams that are better than they are.
2) Using NAVY as the example really doesn't provide a tremendous degree of evidence as to the effectiveness of the offense simply because of the MUCH MORE IMPORTANT mitigating factor that NAVY has to play football with NAVY kids.
So the message you are sending (as I interpret it) is simply, "hey guys, NAVY isn't all that good", while the message being discussed is "hey guys, could a good team do what NAVY does and still be good?"
|
|
|
Post by gacoach on Oct 18, 2007 12:14:03 GMT -6
Illinois is considered an "option" team.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Oct 18, 2007 12:25:40 GMT -6
I absolutely think that the under center option would work at any big time D 1 school. Just take Navy's offense and add in LSU's defense (or any other really good team) and special teams. Don't you think that would be a good team?
Now, add in LSU's offensive personnel (or any other really good team). Wow.
I do realize that LSU probably wouldn't get as many elite offensive players if the went option. But, come on guys, they would still get guys that are on a compeletly different level than Navy is getting. And if it was successful, they would continue to get great offensive players.
To sum it up, you still recruit defense and special teams just as well. Offense might not get recruited as well, but will still be better than anything the service academies are getting. You probably also would add in a much better passing game than service academies.
The real question is, is there any college (AD, fans, bosters) that wil actually do it, not if it will work.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 18, 2007 12:31:11 GMT -6
silky--I have to ask though...WHY? If the option had such a superior schematic design that the talent running was irrelevant, why did it dissapear? If it requires top notch kids to compete at the top notch level, then why would you implement it if you were worried that those kids wouldn't come to your school
|
|
|
Post by tog on Oct 18, 2007 12:32:57 GMT -6
yes it would work they would get shorter kids that ran 4.4 kids too "short" to play in the nfl, at other d1's but kids that can still fly
they would get smaller quicker ol that know they really don't have much future in the nfl defensively? they could get anyone they wanted
want to come to nebraksa and play on defense where when you go 3 and out, you get to chill for the rest of the quarter? and thus have the highest ranked defense in the country?
that's at least how I would spin it
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Oct 18, 2007 12:39:12 GMT -6
the "media" around here seemingly always refers to any spread offense as "the high scoring spread" and if you run anything else youre simply "old school" I guess. similarly, option teams, no matter how explosive and high scoring are always categorized as "unable to come from behind" or "cant play catch up"... (doesnt anyone see the spread teams in our league that abandoned the offense because it wasnt working for them?)- option football works at any level when its coached well and fits the athletes in place.
|
|
mojoben
Sophomore Member
Posts: 148
|
Post by mojoben on Oct 18, 2007 12:48:25 GMT -6
I believe Texas A&M still runs a lot of option. Both Kansas and Oklahoma State still use the option on many occasions. The option can still work and be a great offense on the D-1 level, but you are going to have to run other things as well to lure in the blue chip talent. I think it would be wise for Nebraska to implement something like the spread, but use the option out of it frequently.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 18, 2007 12:50:27 GMT -6
calande--you have to admit though, there is generally soem truth to those stereotypes (about option/heavily run oriented teams) not being able to come back or play catch up.
I realize those offenses have passing games built into them, BUT if your primary passing threats are from Play Action, I would argue it is indeed a bit harder to come back from.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Oct 18, 2007 13:19:56 GMT -6
some questions a coach should ask himself ...
WHY would the "under center" triple option (I formation or otherwise) work? HOW would the "under center" or "traditional" option attack improve my team's win/loss record? WOULD the "under center/traditional" option attack significantly improve my team's chances more so than another "offense" or even be better than another "style" (i.e. spread option) CAN we achieve the points we want running option from other sets plus increase our ability to run other schemes/plays (i.e. be more multiple should we need to)... or CAN we win without being as "multiple" or DO we need the ability to throw the ball some, spread people out some, use other schemes ... and CAN these other schemes be run from our "under center" formations we are using ... if not ARE WE better suited running our triple option & other option schemes from different formations (i.e. using oneback and shotgun)...
To me, the answer will depend on each program. Because, the next set of questions would be:
CAN we continually recruit the type of players we feel fit our scheme WILL these players be self-less for our program HOW MANY players will we lose (if any) to other programs because that program runs the same "scheme" but use other formations that "showcase" them
Does anyone really think coaches concern themselves with what the boosters think when they construct their offense? If you win, you have happy boosters. Now, if you lose, then you should have done it the other way .... i.e. if you are a "run" team, then you should have thrown more or if you are a "passing" team, then you should have run more ... lol.
I think a scheme is different from a formation. This is important. Option scheme is sound, sound, sound and proven, proven, proven. It is great football. Likewise, utilizing various formations and placing your athletes all across the field ('spread' so to speak) can be a great weapon and tough for the defense to defend. Smoke & mirrors with the option scheme may be better suited now days because a) you can potentially stress the defense more by formation & possible play call b) entice athletes to 'showcase' their abilities by being a runner & receiver, etc. c) ..... you get the point... lol
|
|
|
Post by coachdawhip on Oct 18, 2007 14:05:14 GMT -6
Yes, the coach just would need to find the right players.
I say this one of the school's I coached at sent the star WR to App. State the HC couldn't get any D-I offers for him App. State wanted him back because he ran a 4.41, they said we can teach him how to catch.
Get Paul Johnson at the right school, every TB who is 5'9, 185 and a 4.3 and FB's who are 4.6, are ATH QB's who are 5'11 will be there and it will work this kids are being told they can't play major ball, and yes SPEED is a equalizer, don't believe me, play a team with more than you and a good hard-nosed defense and it would work.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Oct 18, 2007 20:29:52 GMT -6
this guy does pretty well in the NFL, and he was under the center, I-formation option (though I bet he'd be running zone read if he played now) anyway.............. yes, it would work Who cares if you get blue chippers? Get that kid everyone said was too small and wants to get his education paid for. Also, a TON of big time programs recruit good offensive players to play DB (you gotta be xxx lbs and x' x'' to run the ball at so-and-so)-------this is the reason Kellen Lewis is at Indiana; he wanted to play QB and no one would let him (yeah, yeah I'm a freakin Hoosier------gimme a break ) It will work, and I think Nebraska is the place for it......they love the pound and ground game there-----boosters and all!
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Oct 18, 2007 21:02:48 GMT -6
I can't believe we are actually having this conversation...
The only reason I formation dive option has disappeared, is because coaching is a job. And the best way to keep your job is to limit all the tangibles that separate you from other coaches.
"We aren't losing because of the system... we run just what everyone else runs... its the kids!"
But let another strong minded, Tom Osborne, get at a big time university... What linemen wouldn't want to be the driving force behind 2000 yards of running? What FB... a dying position, wouldn't want to dress for a coach that gives the ball to the FB 20+ times...
Hell... every FB that didn't start, would slide to the defensive side of the ball... Not to mention running backs... what RB wouldn't want to be a feature back for a dive option I team?
Couple that with a passing game, when it is thrown, the throws are usually always for 25+ yards... what WR wouldn't want to be the next Irving Fryar... how'd he do being a WR for an option team...
And the QB's... sure, they may not get a look as QB's... but they definitely still get looks...
Its not the scheme that was faulty... its the coaches reticents to run the scheme that has it dying... but with Spread becoming so run of the mill... the first coach to go back to it... with D1 talent... we definitely have an established competitive advantage.
|
|
|
Post by Yash on Oct 18, 2007 21:10:00 GMT -6
I really wish we'd see more option under center teams in division 1. I love watching it. I started this because I wanted to see if you guys thought it could ever happen again. If anyone outside of the academies would try it.
|
|
mojoben
Sophomore Member
Posts: 148
|
Post by mojoben on Oct 18, 2007 23:37:35 GMT -6
I think the answer is YES it WOULD work at the D-1 level, but like many have stated it is just purely the disadvantage one has to recruiting NFL dreaming QB's and possibly some WR's. I still think a WR that gets the ball thrown to him on occasions out of the option is still a NFL worthy WR. I say that because he should be a excellent blocker on the edges and if he can catch the ball while running crisp routes... then he is worthy.
OL and RB's should love to go to a offense like that. Sure for the NFL there is a lot more pass blocking, but there are still many teams in the NFL that prefer to run the ball on most occasions.
Basically one couldn't be straight option all the time, but a little mix with the pass should cure any worries a blue chip WR recruit might have . You just won't have NFL QB's is the only downside.
|
|