Top 10 reasons to run the option

[3option]

When the new staff started, I was hoping they would choose an option offense over a pro set. Doesn't a pro set require serious skill at QB, RB, and WR to create the balance that makes it work? While we do have some talent on offense, we don't have an approximation to the Favre/Peterson/Harvin combination. We might in the future, but I don't see it this year. Let's hope JE and EB chose their offense well; we'll see in a couple months. Should we falter, here are my top 10 reasons for returning to the wishbone:

10. Hansen has wheels
9. We need to run to keep an inexperienced defensive backfield off the field
8. Pac-12 teams don't normally prepare for option football
7. Option football makes the most of average talent (see AFA)
6. JE and EB both know the option
5. Switching to the option transformed the team in the mid 80s
4. The option works against all but the most talented teams (just getting to bowl would be huge)
3. A well-run wishbone is beautiful to behold
2. Running + altitude + a big o-line leaning on defenders = big yards late in games
1. Throw for show and run for dough

 

[Mick Ronson]

option OL does more pulling than just being big and leaning on people. you need guys with agility.

tougher to beat people to the corner these days than in the 70's and 80's.

 

[The Guest]

In his first post, 3option has presented his arguement and then supported it with a combination of facts/opinion and evidence. I like this guy. Rep.

If he would have additionally presented a counter-argument and then addressed it, it would have been perfect.

 

[Buffnik]

Welcome to the site.

I know a lot of fans were hoping to see a return to option football. I wasn't one of them. I think we're going the right direction, actually. A pro style offense attracts the type of players who have NFL aspirations. That's a benefit in recruiting. Also, since we're run-based with efficient west coast offense style passing and big pass plays coming off play fakes, it's a very low-risk and efficient offense. It doesn't require an elite QB, just one who is a good decision maker. Same thing with other skill position guys. What it requires is a big, physical offensive line that will wear teams out.

I think the great comparison is Wisconsin, since they run that offense. When they have a great college RB (Dayne) or QB (Tolzien) or WR (Evans), they make runs at conference titles and top 10 finishes. When they don't, they're still damn good. And we will be able to bring in a lot more talent than them at CU. Wisconsin has all that success while never landing a top 30 class.

On a similar note, I'd like to see us convert to a 3-4 defense so that we're able to recruit all those super-talented tweeners other programs either ignore or end up playing out of position. It's a great run defense, gives a natural speed bump to the defense, and is very difficult for offenses to figure out when paired with a zone blitz scheme (something that Brownie is cerebral enough to really make work). And, like with our offense, it attracts recruits with NFL dreams since it's the favored defense in the League.

 

[SINKRATZ]

Agree with Nik. After watching the cluster f**k the past 5 years on offense, I want the staff to pick an offense and recruit players to run it, rather than change offenses every season based on the perceived strengths of the roster in a given year.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

I'm afraid the speed of the Pac 12 would eat up the option. Not to mention, our QB would get killed if we ran the option.

That being said - I am all for a return of serious power running football. I want to see some traps. I want to see some counter plays. I want to see some pulling linemen. I want to see a fullback smashing into a LB to open a lane for the RB.

If we trot out a 3 wide receiver offense I am going to be hella-pissed.

 

[Darian3Hagan]

Welcome to the site.

I know a lot of fans were hoping to see a return to option football. I wasn't one of them. I think we're going the right direction, actually. A pro style offense attracts the type of players who have NFL aspirations. That's a benefit in recruiting. Also, since we're run-based with efficient west coast offense style passing and big pass plays coming off play fakes, it's a very low-risk and efficient offense. It doesn't require an elite QB, just one who is a good decision maker. Same thing with other skill position guys. What it requires is a big, physical offensive line that will wear teams out.

I think the great comparison is Wisconsin, since they run that offense. When they have a great college RB (Dayne) or QB (Tolzien) or WR (Evans), they make runs at conference titles and top 10 finishes. When they don't, they're still damn good. And we will be able to bring in a lot more talent than them at CU. Wisconsin has all that success while never landing a top 30 class.

On a similar note, I'd like to see us convert to a 3-4 defense so that we're able to recruit all those super-talented tweeners other programs either ignore or end up playing out of position. It's a great run defense, gives a natural speed bump to the defense, and is very difficult for offenses to figure out when paired with a zone blitz scheme (something that Brownie is cerebral enough to really make work). And, like with our offense, it attracts recruits with NFL dreams since it's the favored defense in the League.

Tough to find NTs though.

 

[BuffLuke80]

Im with the style we picked on O. However, nobody ever said we still couldnt throw some option in there with a QB thats capable of it. Showing it every now and again makes a team have to prepare for it.

 

[MtnBuff]

Agree with Nik. After watching the cluster f**k the past 5 years on offense, I want the staff to pick an offense and recruit players to run it, rather than change offenses every season based on the perceived strengths of the roster in a given year.

Completely agree. The biggest failing (among many) of Hawkins was his failure to create a team identity. Team needs a mission statement, this is who we are, what we do, and what you have to stop to beat us.

That said the option isn't it. I love watching it but like everything coordinators have figured it out. Defensive speed and discipline will stop the option and spread offenses (which are really a form of throwing option) have forced teams to be faster and more disciplined.

The option lets a bad team get good but won't let a good team be great. You can beat a lot of medium and below teams with it but to beat the top teams you have to be able to do multiple things. Remember that when Mac wanted to take the step from winning to winning big he went away from the option to a mulit-dimensional set, still run based but a multi variation offense with a pure passing component.

What teams are not prepared for now because of the spreads is the pro-set. They are not used to a multi-dimensional (block/catch) TE, they are not prepared for protections that give the QB time to wait for deep patterns to develop. They are not prepared to deal with power sets that can also be passed out of.

Embree and Bienemy know the option but they really know the pro-set. Embree has been working for the guy who knows the west coast better than anyone for the last few years in Shanny.

 

[BuffLuke80]

Completely agree. The biggest failing (among many) of Hawkins was his failure to create a team identity. Team needs a mission statement, this is who we are, what we do, and what you have to stop to beat us.

That said the option isn't it. I love watching it but like everything coordinators have figured it out. Defensive speed and discipline will stop the option and spread offenses (which are really a form of throwing option) have forced teams to be faster and more disciplined.

The option lets a bad team get good but won't let a good team be great. You can beat a lot of medium and below teams with it but to beat the top teams you have to be able to do multiple things. Remember that when Mac wanted to take the step from winning to winning big he went away from the option to a mulit-dimensional set, still run based but a multi variation offense with a pure passing component.

What teams are not prepared for now because of the spreads is the pro-set. They are not used to a multi-dimensional (block/catch) TE, they are not prepared for protections that give the QB time to wait for deep patterns to develop. They are not prepared to deal with power sets that can also be passed out of.

Embree and Bienemy know the option but they really know the pro-set. Embree has been working for the guy who knows the west coast better than anyone for the last few years in Shanny.

Just mho but I dont think D coordinators have figured it out really. It's just not a sexy offense and kids dont wanna play in it. I agree with the Mac take but in 1994 we ran alot of speed option and that's what kept opposing coaches up at night. If you had the right pieces and kids willing to play in it, you could still run the option. Could you win a title, my answer would be yes. Only if you have the horses to run it tho. All that said, Im happy with where we are going with the O. I dont really disagree with you at all, jmho.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

Taylor Martinez (he was a 3-star QB, btw) and Denard Robinson (he was a 4-star cornerback, btw) disagree with the assertion that you can't play option football anymore.

Unfortunately they do reinforce the idea that the game is too physical for option QB's these days - as both went down during the season to injury.

 

[Mick Ronson]

the other thing an option team needs is a great D. look at the great NU, OU, and CU teams...they all had 3 and out type defenses (that were very much overshadowed by the flashy O and playmakers). in today's game controlling the clock can be a good thing against a spread O, but you down 2 scores and it takes you 8 minutes to score....the game is significantly shortened and the spread takes you down the field in less than a minute.

spread is also predicated on getting more possessions per game by lengthening the game with clock stoppages for incomplete passes or 3 and outs**. teams will trade a 3 and out for more possessions. spread is also a lot more effective on 3rd and long than the option ever was....basically, everybody knows you are going to try and pop one on the corner or throw (not your strength) to the one or two guys who catch all your passes.

i think you can still win with the option, but the field is much smaller these days with the size and speed teams have.

**I remember watching a Leach Tech-Pinkel MIzzou game that lasted damn near 4 hours....and it wasn't JUST the commercials.

 

[leftybuff]

Count me in among those who say the triple can still be run effectively in CFB. Others are right, it is hard to attract top flight recruiits who are looking for a path to the NFL, but if a major program made the commitment, there are always athletic QB's in HS who are perfect for the triple but are being recruited to CFB as CB's, WR's etc. because they cannot throw. Why NU ever went away from the triple I'll never understand, they were tweeking it into a spread/Power I variant but still ran a lot of option. Coupled with a solid D it is awfully hard to beat becasue defending it requires discipline, and more importantly, reps. With a 20 hour a week practice limitation that is hard to achieve, add in most teams only practice against it during the game week before they face it...it can work in CFB. GT will be the laboratory now instead of NU.

That said, I have no heartburn CU is going to a pro set.

 

[GregInArlington]

I try it next Tuesday in the NCAA video game before sharing my opinion...

 

[RalphieSpeaks]

When the new staff started, I was hoping they would choose an option offense over a pro set. Doesn't a pro set require serious skill at QB, RB, and WR to create the balance that makes it work? While we do have some talent on offense, we don't have an approximation to the Favre/Peterson/Harvin combination. We might in the future, but I don't see it this year. Let's hope JE and EB chose their offense well; we'll see in a couple months. Should we falter, here are my top 10 reasons for returning to the wishbone:

10. Hansen has wheels
9. We need to run to keep an inexperienced defensive backfield off the field
8. Pac-12 teams don't normally prepare for option football
7. Option football makes the most of average talent (see AFA)
6. JE and EB both know the option
5. Switching to the option transformed the team in the mid 80s
4. The option works against all but the most talented teams (just getting to bowl would be huge)
3. A well-run wishbone is beautiful to behold
2. Running + altitude + a big o-line leaning on defenders = big yards late in games
1. Throw for show and run for dough

10. But not the typical wheels needed to run a wishbone offense
9. This is true but quite a few three and outs while running this would not help with that
8. Nobody does but that doesn't mean Oregon wouldn't blow us up in the backfield
7. It also would recruit average talent in todays game of players wanting to play in either a fast paced offense, one that gets them to the NFL, or both.
6. They also know the pro system
5. This is not the Mid 80's
4. This is not a fact
3. So is a qb that can throw
2. And hopefully not down by 2+ scores or you are royally screwed
1. The best teams are very balanced

 

[Duff Man]

We do not have the speed/athleticism to run the option at the BCS level.

 

[rodrigo]

We do not have the speed/athleticism to run the option at the BCS level.

I concur. If you remember, Mac's option qb was a converted running back (Mark Hatcher), so the backfield was essentially four guys whose skills were oriented around running the ball. Hansen might be a pretty good runner but a lot of that comes from the expectation that he might be going to pass. No one is gonna confuse him with a running back.

In the end a CU 'bone backfield in 2011 would be Hansen, Speedy... uh... B-Lock? Tony Jones? Josh Ford? Cordary Allen? With a true freshman next in line? No thanks, especially when you do have at least some potential/some budding firepower at TE and WR.

 

[Mick Ronson]

as inexperienced as we are behind TH, you can't have him taking those kinds of hits on the pitch, being tackled etc.

 

[Tatanka™]

Remember that when Mac wanted to take the step from winning to winning big he went away from the option to a mulit-dimensional set, still run based but a multi variation offense with a pure passing component.

Uhhhh, what? I'd say Mac won big in '89 and '90 with the triple option and lost three straight to Nebraska (who ran the triple option) when we went away from it. Just sayin'.

 

[Darian3Hagan]

Uhhhh, what? I'd say Mac won big in '89 and '90 with the triple option and lost three straight to Nebraska (who ran the triple option) when we went away from it. Just sayin'.

Darian.Hagan.

 

[sackman]

I appreciate the execution and athleticism of a triple option offense as much as the next guy. But what really gets me going is a road grading running game coupled with a sick play action passing attack. It's damn near impossible to stop, especially if you have a dual threat TE that can block and catch. College defenses are simply not equipped to defend the tight end. Only the very top of the college football landscape has the talent at LB to account for a tight end.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

Uhhhh, what? I'd say Mac won big in '89 and '90 with the triple option and lost three straight to Nebraska (who ran the triple option) when we went away from it. Just sayin'.

Notre Dame totally shut down the offense in the 1990 Orange Bowl, and greatly slowed down the offense in the 1991 Orange Bowl - which I think led McCartney to totally scrap the I-bone and move to the 3-wr set for the bowl game the following year (1991 Blockbuster bowl). McCartney drastically eliminated the fullback and the wing-back from the offense, moving to a more traditional WR/TE offensive gameplan with only the 1 RB in the backfield.

 

[Tatanka™]

Notre Dame totally shut down the offense in the 1990 Orange Bowl, and greatly slowed down the offense in the 1991 Orange Bowl - which I think led McCartney to totally scrap the I-bone and move to the 3-wr set for the bowl game the following year (1991 Blockbuster bowl). McCartney drastically eliminated the fullback and the wing-back from the offense, moving to a more traditional WR/TE offensive gameplan with only the 1 RB in the backfield.

Yes, I remember each game in detail. My points were:

1) Saying that Mac wanted to go from winning to winning big was a ridiculous statement. It doesn't get any bigger than a MNC. The correct statement would have been that Mac thought he had to change to stay ahead of the game.

2) NU's success suggests that Mac was premature with the switch. I think Kordell wins a Heisman instead of Salaam if we stick with the I-bone with a little more play action mixed in. That would have been a sight to behold. I think Kordell would have been remembered as one of the all time greats along with Tommy Frazier.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

Yes, I remember each game in detail. My points were:

1) Saying that Mac wanted to go from winning to winning big was a ridiculous statement. It doesn't get any bigger than a MNC. The correct statement would have been that Mac thought he had to change to stay ahead of the game.

2) NU's success suggests that Mac was premature with the switch. I think Kordell wins a Heisman instead of Salaam if we stick with the I-bone with a little more play action mixed in. That would have been a sight to behold. I think Kordell would have been remembered as one of the all time greats along with Tommy Frazier.

Kordell's passing was underrated. Don't know if Kordell would have won the Heisman, though. As great as Tommie Frazier was, he never won the Heisman trophy. Salaam won the Heisman because he ran for 2,000 yards, and history said that every back who ever did so was awarded the Heisman trophy.

 

[SBG]

The option still works and I hope we see a few option plays here and there, but what I really want to see more of are designed PA bootlegs and rollouts. Those will be the cream of our passing game this year with Hansen. After that we can have guys like Hirsch just sit back in the pocket. I don't think you design an offense around your team, but you definitely have to tailor it to the skills of your QB.

 

[Burrito]

Run the option to keep the defense honest. Don't run the 'bone.

 

[Buffnik]

Tough to find NTs though.

Agree.

But I'd think it's at least as probable that we could find one good NT per class as we could find two good DTs per class.

 

[ThndringHerd]

I'm a big option fan, but it's not going to happen due to personnel. Even if Hansen could run the option, he's only here for another year. Hirsch is a dropback passer, and Dillon's more of a PA/rollout guy. None of our top 3 backs going into this fall are suited for the wishbone or the flex.

I like the direction they're going, anyway. I'm sure Bieniemy will put quite a few little wrinkles into the running game. I don't think we'll be seeing many of those idiotic draw plays Hawkins seemed to call 10X per game. The receivers we have run well after the catch, and can probably get open deep on PA passes. We may see Hansen running quite a bit on PA bootlegs and pass-option rollouts. Should be fun.

 

[Hugegroove]

I gotta agree with Sacky, smashmouth grind it down the field with some play action mixed in has a higher percentage of success. The option is cool but as someone pointed out earlier, your QB can be lost for the season and we don't have two Tyler Hansons. I would be shocked if JE ran it at all.

 

[MtnBuff]

Running a pro-set doesn't mean you can't be committed to running the ball. The earlier comments about Wisconsin are correct. They line up with two wides and a TE and proceed to pummel people. Part of what makes it work for them is the fact that any time that opponents try to cheat up to stop the run they just play action and drop one over the top. They have a bunch of big, but average talented O-linemen, decent but not great recievers and QBs, and running backs who have great statistics but rarely do much in the pros. With this they just keep winning football games on a very regular basis.