Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

If You Were In Charge Of The Offense

Jalapeno said:
Can be both. Georgia Southern used to run the flexbone which has the QB under center all the time while in FCS ball and now their triple option operates out of the shotgun most of the time if not all the time. The triple option does not have to be run heavy and you can even do it 50-50...the only problem is the ground game version has been so effective most of the time that the play action passing game isn't needed as much.

Given that Tyson Summers, the new CU DC, was the Georgia Southern head coach when he tried to move the program away from the triple option; I'm not sure what Tucker could do in this case.



It wasn't always like that and even if you have access to the talent out there as Georgia Tech did, it still can be run pretty well. It isn't that much different from the Air Raid offenses. In the flexbone, the running backs on the outside would be akin to the inside WRs of the Air Raid. Those jet sweeps were used in those flexbone offenses as well and even in the offenses from pre-WWII.
Click to expand...
I know it wasn't always that way, but that's the way it's been for 15-20 years. As I said, there are always some exceptions to the rule, but Triple Option is not conducive to winning big consistently anymore. Paul Johnson and GT is the gold standard for successful Triple Option football, particularly at the P5 level over the last 10-15 years, and he averaged about 7.5 wins/season. Honestly, it's the same with the Air Raid. Oklahoma is really the only team that runs a full blown Air Raid (which is different than Mike Leach WSU/TTU Air Raid) that is a consistent CFP threat. It's also why Leach has had a few really good seasons, but both TTU and WSU had/has mostly been 7-8 win kind of programs under his direction.

Air Raid and Triple Option/Maryland I/Flex Bone/Wing T/etc are all gimmicky offenses that rely on a scheme to create the mismatches, rather than individual talent.
 
I think it would be cool to see CU go back to the triple option and be a niche program in the Pac-12 but I doubt it works in the Pac-12 due to the overall speed of Pac-12 defenders. Something more like those Rich Rod & Chip Kelly UO offenses would work better.

One can dream tho!
 
Jalapeno said:
I think it would be cool to see CU go back to the triple option and be a niche program in the Pac-12 but I doubt it works in the Pac-12 due to the overall speed of Pac-12 defenders. Something more like those Rich Rod & Chip Kelly UO offenses would work better.

One can dream tho!
Click to expand...
It has been discussed many times before, but the RPO/spread concepts of say, Chip Kelly's O, use the same basic concepts of the triple option. It is just the latest evolution of the offense.

Basic triple concepts:
Tempo
One on one matchups
force defenders to take themselves out of plays by optioning them
quickly attack weaknesses presented by the D


The triple and Chip Kelly's offense use the above. It is just a question of alignment, really.
 
Triple option is not an effective offense anymore. The size and speed of players has drastically changed and mitigates the advantages you have with that type of offense.
 
leftybuff said:
It has been discussed many times before, but the RPO/spread concepts of say, Chip Kelly's O, use the same basic concepts of the triple option. It is just the latest evolution of the offense.

Basic triple concepts:
Tempo
One on one matchups
force defenders to take themselves out of plays by optioning them
quickly attack weaknesses presented by the D


The triple and Chip Kelly's offense use the above. It is just a question of alignment, really.
Click to expand...
RPO is exactly that. It was guys like Morris, Kelly, Tiller, Holgerson and Briles noticing an opportunity and asking a great question: what if my QB read the CB instead of the DE? It all stems from that.
 
patebuff said:
Triple option is not an effective offense anymore. The size and speed of players has drastically changed and mitigates the advantages you have with that type of offense.
Click to expand...

By that logic Army shouldn't have taken Oklahoma to overtime last season in Norman which actually happened.
 
When a team faces a true triple option team once every few years (like CU against the AFA this season) there is a definite advantage for the option team that can at times make up for a difference in talent. It is hard to prepare for.

It has been figured out though. If you have a couple of big athletic guys as DE/OLBs who can penetrate and shut off the outside run/pitch allowing the interior DL and ILBs to focus on shutting down anything between the tackles you can pretty well make it ineffective. CU destroyed a lot of triple options when they had Alfred and Kanavis dominating on the edges. Being effective though requires a lot of discipline.

In today's game with the passing focus most teams try to find guys who can pass rush from those edges, those same pass rushers are the kind of athletes who can take away the big plays in the option.

The RPO in many ways shares a lot of concepts with the triple option. The big difference is that if the defense crashes down on the edges the QB has the option of throwing the ball over those rushing defenders and into the spaces vacated by them.

When conference opponents start seeing the triple option each year the better D coordinators get good at preparing for it. We saw that with Georgia Tech as the years went by and they were forced to add wrinkles including some stuff that looked a lot like RPO to loosen up the defenses.
 
I’m not sure I see the connection between an RPO offense and the option. I guess in that they both rely on misdirection to an extent.

RPO capitalizes on 60 years of offenses basically giving the same keys to the defense ie. o-line goes forward-defense plays run. RPO basically throws all that out the window. Defenders can’t trust their eyes anymore and the offense takes advantage.

I wonder how long it will last honestly. I think we will eventually see an officiating focus on keeping those lineman in the neutral zone and people will be forced to back away from it.
 
Jalapeno said:
CU won a national championship with an option offense, why should I tell you more?
Click to expand...

You just seem to have an odd fascination with option and cannot understand why few share that fascination.

CU won a national championship with that offense. Did they win in large part because of that offense or because Mac was recruiting ridiculous talent to run that system (and across the board)?
 
Buffnik said:
There's good reason why no one runs it at the P5 level. It's just too limiting.
Click to expand...
The triple, in the form of a wishbone variant could still be successful in CFB. It is a question of players. GT, AFA, Army and others, with lesser talent, still compete. If you took USC level talent and ran the wishbone, you would be very successful. The thing is, if you have that talent, why not use an O that is more versatile? That is why USC and other elites do not. NU was the last name school to use a totally run-based triple...they waned when there talent base waned. NU's demise was not scheme oriented. It was talent.

Moreover, a wide open variant of the triple like Oregon is appealing to elite athletes, while a closed wishbone is not. Elite QB's want to go to the next level, and they surely are not going to, or stay at, a wishbone school, see, Troy Aikman. Again, it is about the players.

The idea defenses are too fast and strong now is a silly one, it is as if the O cannot get stronger or faster too. Silly.
 
leftybuff said:
The triple, in the form of a wishbone variant could still be successful in CFB. It is a question of players. GT, AFA, Army and others, with lesser talent, still compete. If you took USC level talent and ran the wishbone, you would be very successful. The thing is, if you have that talent, why not use an O that is more versatile? That is why USC and other elites do not. NU was the last name school to use a totally run-based triple...they waned when there talent base waned. NU's demise was not scheme oriented. It was talent.

Moreover, a wide open variant of the triple like Oregon is appealing to elite athletes, while a closed wishbone is not. Elite QB's want to go to the next level, and they surely are not going to, or stay at, a wishbone school, see, Troy Aikman. Again, it is about the players.

The idea defenses are too fast and strong now is a silly one, it is as if the O cannot get stronger or faster too. Silly.
Click to expand...
GT got rid of Johnson and that offense. Much of the problem was that they're one of the all-time winningest programs in the nation sitting in one of the absolute best recruiting locations and they developed a talent deficit by having that system.
 
If you had the folks to run the option, sure it could still work. How are you gonna convince today's players to want to play in that type of system? Therein lies the problem.
 
Buffnik said:
GT got rid of Johnson and that offense. Much of the problem was that they're one of the all-time winningest programs in the nation sitting in one of the absolute best recruiting locations and they developed a talent deficit by having that system.
Click to expand...
As you and Uncle Luko point out, it is the players. It isn't the system.

Elite players do not want to go to a wishbone offense. I would not either, if I were elite.
 
It is the system as well.

If you have a program that can't compete talentwise it is an equalizer, a way to have a chance at beating better teams.

If your aspirations are to win championships it is a way to lose enough games not to have a chance.

The problem is that in today's game you will be playing some teams that can score silly numbers on offense. In the triple option if you get significantly behind your chances of catching up are slim.

And yes, if Saban or Swinney decided to run the triple option they could probably be highly successful with it. They have the athletes to run almost anything. They believe they can be more successful running what they run.

And as to the argument that CU won a NC with the triple option, Army won three national championships running the single wing but that doesn't mean it makes sense now. The game evolves and successful programs evolve with it.
 
Jalapeno said:
CU won a national championship with an option offense, why should I tell you more?
Click to expand...

30 years ago I'm sure the wishbone was on the cutting edge. Now? I'm all for incorporating some option, we had success with Sefo doing it and definitely need to use Montez's running ability more. But adopting an antiquated offence because of nostalgia is no way to go.
 
Triple Option creates a high floor and low ceiling for a program, similar to the Air Raid. Once you have the personnel to run it, a program should win 7-8 games a year, with the occasional 4-5 win and 9-10 win seasons, but it will almost assuredly never be good enough to win a P5 conference and get into the CFP and win two games there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top