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!

Top 10 reasons to run the option

The Walrus said:
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.
Click to expand...

A bit sexist perhaps? 3option might be a female.
 
DallasBuff said:
A bit sexist perhaps? 3option might be a female.
Click to expand...

Umm no. He/she didn't give the top ten ways to make a sammich. :smile2:



j/k my girl probably knows more about football than half the posters on this site. Maybe even including me.
 
Many of the counterarguments in this thread are very well made. However I do have some counterpoints...

To those who say that Hansen will get injured running the option, did you see the Cal game last year? Did we stop their DEs once? Its hard to see how he could take more of a pounding.

I agree that it is hard to go from good to great with an option attack. However, at this point, we aren't even good. In the first quarter of the aforementioned Cal game it seemed that we couldn't run a play without a penalty. Had we ever practiced? That said, given the the intensity of Spring ball, I expect us to be ready for each and every game this year.

As for being unable to get good recruits for the option, our recent performance likely has more influence than does the type of offense. Also, didn't we lose Berglund due to the pro set (his current difficulties aside).

Does the plan for going from bad to good need to be the same as that for going from good to great?
 
A few option plays doesn't mean running any bone exclusively. I agree that it shouldn't be the base offense but giving opposing D coordinators some concerns is kinda good. The best play action pass I've seen is an option, if it has worked a few times and the corner gets drawn up and commits....and it can and has been run out of a pro set. The blocking angles are better for linemen and ends and one defensive guy is eliminated without being blocked.
 
dply said:
Umm no. He/she didn't give the top ten ways to make a sammich. :smile2:



j/k my girl probably knows more about football than half the posters on this site. Maybe even including me.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I'm sure she also makes a damn good sammich. :smile2:
 
3option said:
Many of the counterarguments in this thread are very well made. However I do have some counterpoints...

To those who say that Hansen will get injured running the option, did you see the Cal game last year? Did we stop their DEs once? Its hard to see how he could take more of a pounding.

I agree that it is hard to go from good to great with an option attack. However, at this point, we aren't even good. In the first quarter of the aforementioned Cal game it seemed that we couldn't run a play without a penalty. Had we ever practiced? That said, given the the intensity of Spring ball, I expect us to be ready for each and every game this year.

As for being unable to get good recruits for the option, our recent performance likely has more influence than does the type of offense. Also, didn't we lose Berglund due to the pro set (his current difficulties aside).

Does the plan for going from bad to good need to be the same as that for going from good to great?
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that you think the path from bad to good is shorter if we install a triple option attack?

I just don't see that. We don't have the personnel for it. And even if we did, I don't think you're placing enough importance on the value of having a system and an identity. Many of the programs that have been consistently good owe much of their success to running the same system and recruiting to it for a long time (VA Tech, Boise State, Wisconsin, West Virginia, TCU, etc.). If you like the triple option, that's fine. Lots of programs have success with it. But it has limitations that a pro style offense doesn't have. I prefer building to something that has a higher ceiling.
 
3option said:
Many of the counterarguments in this thread are very well made. However I do have some counterpoints...

To those who say that Hansen will get injured running the option, did you see the Cal game last year? Did we stop their DEs once? Its hard to see how he could take more of a pounding.

I agree that it is hard to go from good to great with an option attack. However, at this point, we aren't even good. In the first quarter of the aforementioned Cal game it seemed that we couldn't run a play without a penalty. Had we ever practiced? That said, given the the intensity of Spring ball, I expect us to be ready for each and every game this year.

As for being unable to get good recruits for the option, our recent performance likely has more influence than does the type of offense. Also, didn't we lose Berglund due to the pro set (his current difficulties aside).

Does the plan for going from bad to good need to be the same as that for going from good to great?
Click to expand...

I am not a fan of dumbing down the offense to suit our current personnel - I'd much rather we install the offense we want to run long-term and recruit better players to run it if the current group can't.
 
Buffnik said:
So what you're saying is that you think the path from bad to good is shorter if we install a triple option attack?

I just don't see that. We don't have the personnel for it. And even if we did, I don't think you're placing enough importance on the value of having a system and an identity. Many of the programs that have been consistently good owe much of their success to running the same system and recruiting to it for a long time (VA Tech, Boise State, Wisconsin, West Virginia, TCU, etc.). If you like the triple option, that's fine. Lots of programs have success with it. But it has limitations that a pro style offense doesn't have. I prefer building to something that has a higher ceiling.
Click to expand...


:yeahthat:
 
I'm thinking that if Embree had come in here and installed the option that our best offensive player, Paul Richardson, would have been out the door in about 5 minutes.
 
You may be right. I guess you would say the '97 Huskers with Crouch at QB was an option team. Same for the '95 version with Tommy Frasier. But those championships were: 1) something of an anomaly even in that age, and 2) a long time ago. My point is most all quality programs go with the pro set which right now is the winning strategy. Even Ohio State uses it. That school so influenced by Woody Hayes, resisted for many years.
 
Also the schools who do run the triple option no longer run the traditional offense. The service academies and Georgia Tech are the only schools that are really identified as triple option teams. GT is the most traditional but they have some sets that look almost pro-set. AFA has abandoned the wishbone entirely for a set that allows them to use the wingbacks as much as recievers as they are RBs. AF is usually not successful unless they are passing well along with running the ball.

Trouble is that the athletes on defense now are much faster than they were 15-20 years ago. LBs can get sideline to sideline as fast as the RBs, fast safeties hit like LBs used to. DEs are quicker. All this means that the gaps that the triple option used to take advantage of aren't consistently there any more.
 
MtnBuff said:
Trouble is that the athletes on defense now are much faster than they were 15-20 years ago. LBs can get sideline to sideline as fast as the RBs, fast safeties hit like LBs used to. DEs are quicker. All this means that the gaps that the triple option used to take advantage of aren't consistently there any more.
Click to expand...

This is even true in high school ball. Speed made the option great and defensive speed has made it a limited success at best.
 
kalbuff said:
You may be right. I guess you would say the '97 Huskers with Crouch at QB was an option team. Same for the '95 version with Tommy Frasier. But those championships were: 1) something of an anomaly even in that age, and 2) a long time ago. My point is most all quality programs go with the pro set which right now is the winning strategy. Even Ohio State uses it. That school so influenced by Woody Hayes, resisted for many years.
Click to expand...
Think '97 was Frost.
 
I am not a believer that a system will make an average team a good or great team...that comes from the talent you put on the field.

They (the coaches) are not going to implement a totally new offense in August and have any semblance of an effective offense.
 
A few thoughts:

-We've had a new offense practically every summer, and we've all gotten excited about it before seeing one game, primarily because we hear the term (in this year's case, "pro-style"), we envision our our personal ideal for what that offense is going to look like, and we buy in to that scheme working before a game is played. We don't know what Embree's pro-style is going to look like, or if it is going to work.
-When Mac went to the wishbone, we really didn't have the personnel for it. Guys adapted. We no more have the personnel today than we did back then.
-Hansen got hurt on an option play last year. We only ran the option maybe 20-30 times all season.

All that being said, I think our 2001-2002 model of offense is probably what is going to work best in 2011 and satisfy our collective hunger for smashmouth football. I'd love to see the option again myself, but we'd need a Hagan-type on the roster to make me feel good about the switch.
 
Another issue is that we imagine the option as it looked in the heyday of Mac's teams with Hagan and CJ running it. We think about the great OU option teams with their QB's like Holloway and Watts, kNU guys like Frazier and Crouch, even some of the AFA QBs like Beau Morgan.

The thing these guys all had in common what that they got to college having already developed their basic option skills, they had each run the option in HS as their primary offense for at least a couple of years.

As an occasional throw in to surprise a defense the option may be a posibility but if you are going to really run it you have to have a QB who can make it happen. A guy with the athletic ability to match a true running back and who can make the repeated instant decisions that are the heart of the offense and then execute the plays.

Those guys just aren't out there any more. How many HS's run and coach the triple option? How many outstanding HS triple option QBs are there? Answer, not enough to base your programs future on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top