Questions on option offenses

[MR2-Sooner86]

Alright, I'll be the first to admit that my Football I.Q. ranks down there with your average 4th grader. So I've been thinking, what really is an "option" type offense?

I've seen so many definitions it's hard to pin it down. I know an option offense relies heavily on the run but outside of that I get lost.

One site said an option offense typically starts with the quarterback running to the left or right and once he gets tackled, if he does, he pass the ball off to another player if he so chooses. Well, to me, this sounds like a bootleg that ends with a lateral pass.

Another place said an option offense boils down to the quarterback having the "option" to either run with the ball, pass it off to another player, or throwing it to a receiver depending on what the defense shows. If that's the case, wouldn't the 2005 Longhorns, 2008 Florida Gators, and others be an option offense? Or were those teams with quarterbacks with legs that ran once a play blew up? If so, where's the difference?

Also, from what little I've seen, Switzer's Wishbone is considered an option offense but from videos I've watched it comes across as a very advanced running play offense. How was the wishbone different from the option ran by Nebraska in the 90's?

Finally, why isn't the option run anymore from the traditional powers? You won't see Miami, Penn State, USC, or others use that as their offense because it's considered to be "dead" but last I checked, the best most dominate team ever, considered by many, was '95 Nebraska which ran an option offense. It worked for them, why can't it work today?

[soonerfromgeorgia]

Finally, why isn't the option run anymore from the traditional powers? You won't see Miami, Penn State, USC, or others use that as their offense because it's considered to be "dead" but last I checked, the best most dominate team ever, considered by many, was '95 Nebraska which ran an option offense. It worked for them, why can't it work today?

Georgia Tech runs a option offense and has some good success with it.

Most college programs think that defenses are faster now than they were back in the day and this will limit the effectiveness of the option. I grew up loving the option and the local high school I support has run the split back veer for the last 19 years, they have a number of region championships and 5 state titles during that time. Speed on defense doesn't help contain the option, but the defense also has to be disciplined about how they play vs. a option team. I think the main reason you don't see it anymore is it is considered "old school" and not many of todays coaches teach it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSR3Y-yl1iQ&feature=related

[Frozen Sooner]

Alright, I'll be the first to admit that my Football I.Q. ranks down there with your average 4th grader. So I've been thinking, what really is an "option" type offense?

I've seen so many definitions it's hard to pin it down. I know an option offense relies heavily on the run but outside of that I get lost.

One site said an option offense typically starts with the quarterback running to the left or right and once he gets tackled, if he does, he pass the ball off to another player if he so chooses. Well, to me, this sounds like a bootleg that ends with a lateral pass.

Another place said an option offense boils down to the quarterback having the "option" to either run with the ball, pass it off to another player, or throwing it to a receiver depending on what the defense shows. If that's the case, wouldn't the 2005 Longhorns, 2008 Florida Gators, and others be an option offense? Or were those teams with quarterbacks with legs that ran once a play blew up? If so, where's the difference?

The 2005 Longhorns and 2008-2009 Florida Gators ran spread option attacks. Texas relied mainly on variations of the shotgun zone read. Urban Meyer has long been considered an option attack coach. Watch film of how he used Alex Smith at Utah.


Also, from what little I've seen, Switzer's Wishbone is considered an option offense but from videos I've watched it comes across as a very advanced running play offense. How was the wishbone different from the option ran by Nebraska in the 90's?

The wishbone (like OU ran in the 70s and 80s) is a formation that lends itself very well to option plays. The Wishbone has a QB, a FB behind the QB, and two wings offset to either side of the QB. Nebraska ran many plays out of the Power I, which is an I formation with an extra back offset. The basic play out of both formations is the triple option, in which the QB has the option to hand the ball to the fullback on a belly, to keep the ball himself, or to pitch to a back. There are other option plays and formations out there, of course. CU used to run what was called a Flex or Broken Bone, which was a wishbone with one of the wings flexed out to slot. Eric Bienemy was deadly running out of that formation.


Finally, why isn't the option run anymore from the traditional powers? You won't see Miami, Penn State, USC, or others use that as their offense because it's considered to be "dead" but last I checked, the best most dominate team ever, considered by many, was '95 Nebraska which ran an option offense. It worked for them, why can't it work today?

'95 Nebraska was 15 years ago. Most teams won't run it for a few reasons. The first is that college LBs are simply too fast at the highest levels of competition to get to the corner. The second is that the top players don't want to play in an option offense-the best players want to go to the NFL, and QBs in particular don't want to play in an offense that's going to get them popped in the ribs 15-20 times a game-guys like Tim Tebow notwithstanding.

[westbrooke]

N/m. Frozen Sooner just said everything I was going to.

[westbrooke]

Alright, I'll be the first to admit that my Football I.Q. ranks down there with your average 4th grader. So I've been thinking, what really is an "option" type offense?

I've seen so many definitions it's hard to pin it down. I know an option offense relies heavily on the run but outside of that I get lost.

Not a dumb question, by the way. With so many variations on the concept, it's easy to get lost. Wikipedia has an easy-to-follow breakdown of the different option flavors Frozen is talking about (wishbone, I, flex, spread).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_offense

[GottaHavePride]

Yeah. Teams don't run the option because NFL teams don't run the option. The best kids want to go to the NFL, so they're not going to go play under a system that doesn't show off the right skills to the NFL. This is particularly big for QBs, WRs, and linemen. I'd wager RBs would LOVE to see more running option teams.

[Leroy Lizard]

I don't buy the defensive speed reasoning. I think the option has largely disappeared because coaches tend to follow a herd mentality and right now the option is passe. Fans today want quick strike capabilities in an offense and get restless if an option attack is struggling. Also, limited practice time affects the option more than most offenses because of the intricate timing required.

[GottaHavePride]

Also, scholarship limits. You can't keep 8 running backs and 15 O-line around to swap in and out to keep fresh legs on the field anymore.

[Crucifax Autumn]

I'm of the opinion that it's not the raw speed of the defense, but rather their discipline and ability to "stay at home" on the plays more than anything else. Back when Miami was killing our option it had more to do with them sticking to assignments than outrunning us.

[Fraggle145]

It is also more difficult to make a comeback from behind with an option offense. Your qb isnt used to passing, and rushing eats the clock.

[agoo758]

It is also more difficult to make a comeback from behind with an option offense. Your qb isnt used to passing, and rushing eats the clock.


The flip side to that is that the offense chews up the clock, which not only gives your opponent fewer possessions, but keeps your defense fresh and therefore you are less likely to trail by a large margin.

[Frozen Sooner]

It is also more difficult to make a comeback from behind with an option offense. Your qb isnt used to passing, and rushing eats the clock.

An option QB will also generally be wearing bulkier pads to protect him from the multiple hits he takes, which impedes his throwing motion. And, as mentioned earlier, he's taking several hits to the ribs-which impacts your throwing motion towards the end of a game.

[Frozen Sooner]

I'm of the opinion that it's not the raw speed of the defense, but rather their discipline and ability to "stay at home" on the plays more than anything else. Back when Miami was killing our option it had more to do with them sticking to assignments than outrunning us.

I'd be more willing to buy that argument if teams who run options that aren't predicated on getting to the edge weren't able to do so. Florida's option is based around interior runs, as was Texas'.

You're not going to be able to convince me that defenses stay at home better now than they did when they had more practice time. Or that they stay home better against the one or two option teams they see all year than they did against the five or six they used to see.

[Crucifax Autumn]

But didn't both sides of the ball get faster? Seems to me that part might be a wash. Also, the teams that ARE able to run the option may just be doing better partly due to defenses not facing as many option attacks.

[Leroy Lizard]

It is also more difficult to make a comeback from behind with an option offense. Your qb isnt used to passing, and rushing eats the clock.

True, but by the same token it's hard to stay in front with a passing offense.

[goingoneight]

There's many reasons it's "out-dated." Don't buy the reasoning that it doesn't work, though.
Another reason not mentioned yet is technology in the film review department. Switzer said it himself on the SA a few years back that it's amazing how much a coaching staff can cover with the click of a mouse. I would assume that means more playbook is covered and offered as well.

Most of all reasons, kids like the throwball/pro-style offenses, and that's typically where you find the best athletes nowadays.

[Frozen Sooner]

But didn't both sides of the ball get faster? Seems to me that part might be a wash. Also, the teams that ARE able to run the option may just be doing better partly due to defenses not facing as many option attacks.

They did get faster. And bigger. Which means that it takes much less time to get to the corner to cut off an option-and while both the ptichman and the defender have gotten faster, I don't think their relative speeds have remained the same. The pitchman simply doesn't have the time to outrun the LB by enough to turn the corner. If the field was wider, then yes, it'd be a wash.

You can't have it both ways, man! You can't say that teams stay at home better against the option, so people don't run the option as much, so when teams do run the option, teams don't stay at home as much! :D

[Leroy Lizard]

An option QB will also generally be wearing bulkier pads to protect him from the multiple hits he takes, which impedes his throwing motion. And, as mentioned earlier, he's taking several hits to the ribs-which impacts your throwing motion towards the end of a game.

Not much anymore. The days of the JC Watts "getting crushed just as I pitch" are pretty much over. Watch Holieway run the option and you will notice he pitches much sooner and leans away from the hit.

Just consider our overall health at QB over the years:

Mildren, Robertson, Davis, were never hurt that I can recall. Lott missed a few games in one season, but I don't think Watts was ever hurt. Bradley missed the last part of the 1984 season (ankle?). Aikman was hurt throwing the ball, as was Thompson. Holieway hurt himself out in the open and wasn't even being tackled. Collins hurt his thumb, but that's all.

I can't think of a single time that our option QB was hurt while being hit while running the option, with the possible exception of Lott or Bradley.

[Leroy Lizard]

There's many reasons it's "out-dated." Don't buy the reasoning that it doesn't work, though.
Another reason not mentioned yet is technology in the film review department. Switzer said it himself on the SA a few years back that it's amazing how much a coaching staff can cover with the click of a mouse. I would assume that means more playbook is covered and offered as well.

Actually, that would hurt passing offenses more than options. There is no mystery to the option. By the second week you know exactly what the other team plans on doing, with or without film.

[Frozen Sooner]

I didn't say "hurt," I said "their throwing motion is affected by their pads and by the number of hits to the ribs they take."

[Leroy Lizard]

They did get faster. And bigger. Which means that it takes much less time to get to the corner to cut off an option-and while both the ptichman and the defender have gotten faster, I don't think their relative speeds have remained the same. The pitchman simply doesn't have the time to outrun the LB by enough to turn the corner. If the field was wider, then yes, it'd be a wash.

They've gotten bigger. I don't think they've gotten much faster. I don't see defensive speed as a factor at all. Georgia Tech ran up 49 points on FSU last year, and FSU certainly had team speed on defense. The team that gave them the most trouble was Iowa, which has never been noted for being exceptionally fast.

If there is anything about modern day defenses that could be different, it's their ability to stop the fullback dive. I'm not sure how many good run-blocking centers and guards are being turned out in high schools anymore.

[MR2-Sooner86]

'95 Nebraska was 15 years ago. Most teams won't run it for a few reasons. The first is that college LBs are simply too fast at the highest levels of competition to get to the corner. The second is that the top players don't want to play in an option offense-the best players want to go to the NFL, and QBs in particular don't want to play in an offense that's going to get them popped in the ribs 15-20 times a game-guys like Tim Tebow notwithstanding.

I know '95 Nebraska was a while back but they ran over everybody including Miami a year before. When it comes to speed Ahman Green and Lawrence Phillips ran 4.3s which is fast for today.

I know this is a big "what if" but suppose Peterson stays an extra year and in the backfield you have Adrian Peterson, Allen Patrick, Demarco Murray, and Chris Brown. Could an offense based on those four generate results or would there have to be a strong passing attack?

[Leroy Lizard]

I didn't say "hurt," I said "their throwing motion is affected by their pads and by the number of hits to the ribs they take."

Okay. My bad.

[ndpruitt03]

I don't really know if speed is different but size is why the option as it was isn't effective as much as it was. You have 300 lb guys filling moving better than some guys that were 250 lbs in 1971. LBs are about 250 pound guys which was probably the average size of most of the OU offensive lines in the 70s.

[Crucifax Autumn]

I may be hard-headed here, but I still see teams with extremely disciplined defenses with a pro mindset stop the option and more average defenses get killed on the ground by the likes of Air Force and Georgia Tech.

That said, I sure hope our D shows a lot of discipline in the AF game this year. But just in case, I hope our guys are fast as hell too.

I'm fairly certain our guys can get out there on the corner plenty fast, but I hope if there's one guy on the QB and one on the pitch man that both of our guys stay there instead of the outside guy thinking "he's gonna run and leaving his guy out there. That's the discipline I speak of and Froze and I are probably both right about this one.

All the discipline in the world doesn't help if the pitch man has already hit the corner and hit the afterburners down the sideline. Likewise all the speed in the world doesn't help much if everyone jumps on the QB and he pitches the ball as they close on him.

[Frozen Sooner]

Yeah, I'd agree with that

[Leroy Lizard]

I don't really know if speed is different but size is why the option as it was isn't effective as much as it was. You have 300 lb guys filling moving better than some guys that were 250 lbs in 1971. LBs are about 250 pound guys which was probably the average size of most of the OU offensive lines in the 70s.

Today's offensive linemen are much bigger as well. I'm not sure why this would matter.

[Leroy Lizard]

I may be hard-headed here, but I still see teams with extremely disciplined defenses with a pro mindset stop the option and more average defenses get killed on the ground by the likes of Air Force and Georgia Tech.

That's always been true. If anything, defenses were probably more disciplined in the past then they are now.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Well yeah. In the 70s all those dudes looked 40 so perhaps they acted more mature too.

[Leroy Lizard]

More practice time and less stupidity.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Maybe on the practice, but definitely on the stupidity.

[ndpruitt03]

Today's offensive linemen are much bigger as well. I'm not sure why this would matter.

True but I think size and speed are the big difference. The bigger guys today are filling up gaps more making options have a little less of a speed factor in them. I think if options work now at the top college football level you need to have a deep ball threat.

[Crucifax Autumn]

I miss the days where the pitch man WAS the deep threat.

I'd rather see a perfectly executed option play break down the sideline than a 50 yard pass any day.

[Leroy Lizard]

True but I think size and speed are the big difference. The bigger guys today are filling up gaps more making options have a little less of a speed factor in them. I think if options work now at the top college football level you need to have a deep ball threat.

We heard all these arguments in 1982, then in 1989. Frankly, I think if your offense executes what it practices the option will work just fine.

What I find interesting about the option is that it typically gets dropped near the height of its success.

Texas dropped it in only one year removed from a 10-1 season.

Alabama dropped the wishbone at the height of its success.

OU had one of their most successful offenses in 1989, then moved away from the option the following year.

Colorado dropped the bone the year after it won a national title.

Nebraska had tremendous success with the option, then dropped it shortly thereafter.

It's strange, but coaches taking over option teams have this inane need to switch offenses, no matter how well the offense is performing. They then get canned.

[ndpruitt03]

Why has the NFL never had a good option offense? It's because the speed and the size. They've had it that same way for decades. You see some teams that are good run teams between the tackles but outside of maybe Barry Sanders who would just run away from his blockers to go outside and make play. Most runs in the NFL are between the tackles or just off tackle. You hardly see even a pitch out to someone anymore. The size and speed is too good for it to work a lot.

[Leroy Lizard]

Why has the NFL never had a good option offense?

NFL coaches tend to be more conformist than even college coaches. They consider the option beneath them. With the low career span of head coaches in the NFL, no one wants to gamble.

The biggest problem with the NFL is that you would need to revamp the talent at a large number of skill positions. No problem at the college level where the talent changes over every four years. At the NFL level that is a huge problem.

[Crucifax Autumn]

I hate to fall back to what I was arguing earlier, but the reason it's never worked in the NFL is that the defenders stick with their assignment and don't bite early. The size and speed is better on both sides of the ball.

[Crucifax Autumn]

NFL coaches tend to be more conformist than even college coaches. They consider the option beneath them. With the low career span of head coaches in the NFL, no one wants to gamble.

The biggest problem with the NFL is that you would need to revamp the talent at a large number of skill positions. No problem at the college level where the talent changes over every four years. At the NFL level that is a huge problem.

Remember during the strike in the 80s when the "scrubs" were playing. Some coach (Parcells maybe?) had his team line up in the bone and literally gave a "WTF do you expect me to do with these guys" shrug at the camera. Funny crap, but also an indication of what pro coaches think of the option.

[Leroy Lizard]

Remember during the strike in the 80s when the "scrubs" were playing. Some coach (Parcells maybe?) had his team line up in the bone and literally gave a "WTF do you expect me to do with these guys" shrug at the camera. Funny crap, but also an indication of what pro coaches think of the option.

I found it interesting because the bone is the one offense you don't want to run with little practice time. I would have used something like the run-n-shoot.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Probably wouldn't have worked well with some QB that was a backup all the way through college and had been working as an electrician for 10 years and receivers furloughed from prison. lol

[Leroy Lizard]

Probably wouldn't have worked well with some QB that was a backup all the way through college and had been working as an electrician for 10 years and receivers furloughed from prison. lol

Wasn't it John Robinson that said: "Look, it isn't like we found these guys searching in bars. Okay, so maybe we did find some of these guys in bars."

Remember David Letterman's Top-10 List for watching the replacement games? I remember one in particular: "The NFL. It's Scab-tastic!"

[Crucifax Autumn]

Those same guys are back in bars drunkenly telling stories of "that one time when I scored a TD against the Dallas Cowboys!" or "back when I was in the NFL...".

[Leroy Lizard]

Those same guys are back in bars drunkenly telling stories of "that one time when I scored a TD against the Dallas Cowboys!".

That's nothing to brag about even now.

[Crucifax Autumn]

If your biggest achievement prior to or since then is that one time you picked up a 2x4 and it was already the right length without walking over to the saw with a tape measure, then maybe it is.

[OUTrumpet]

The option offense is all about what it's name is: options. A lot of college teams run the option still - Florida, Michigan, West Virginia, Georgia Tech, Air Force, Okie St, Texas, A&M, Oregon...the list goes on.

A typical option offense has a very single-minded attack philosophy - either make the defense make a mistake (overpersue, out of position, whatever) or have someone they can't match up with and get them the ball. It is basically the same play each time, just the quarterback has the opportunity to do a lot of improv.

For the shotgun option with just the quarterback and running back (think Vince Young) - it's a very simple play really. The quarterback pushes the ball forward towards the running back's breadbasket as the running back runs towards one side, and the quarterback plans to run the opposite direction. The defensive end (playside) that is directly in front of the quarterback isn't blocked - he is typically blocking a linebacker in the running back's hole. If the unblocked man looks like he's going to hit the running back, the quarterback keeps it. If the defensive end or linebacker stays home, the quarterback lets the running back have it.

Now when you start adding play action off that, and then you have maybe 2 guys committing to one player - say the defensive end and the linebacker both going for the quarterback to shut down the play? The quarterback just throws it to the open man, as someone will not be covered.

The option forces the defense to account for every player on the offense. If one person gets beat, it is the quarterback's job to see quickly where the error happened and then get the ball there. The quicker the quarterback can read the defense, the quicker the ball gets somewhere where it can do some damage.

The option works quite well today. The big reason it doesn't work in the pros is largely due to more disciplined defenses (keeping the play in front of them, keeping their man accounted for) as well as a more even playing field between the offense and defense.

The run-and-shoot offense is just as complex as the option reads. Basically each receiver will have between 2-4 routes per play that they are supposed to execute based on the defensive allignments/coverage. So it requires both the quarterback and receivers to do the same read, throw, and catch the ball in roughly 2-4 seconds. It's a little like backyard football...just more organized and a LOT faster.

[Crucifax Autumn]

So what do you think? Is stopping a run option based more on speed or discipline?

[Leroy Lizard]

So what do you think? Is stopping a run option based more on speed or discipline?

Discipline. Speed has little to do with it. IMO, of course.

[texaspokieokie]

switzer was once quoted as saying "wish bone would work in pros, it's too hard on QBs" or something similar.

frank broyles, after studying film of 71 OU/tx game said, mildren was tackled 48 times, & 14 were "slobber knockers".

mildren was very tough.

[swardboy]

As a former college QB who ran the Houston Veer option offense I unhesitantly say "discipline" is the key to defensing the option. In fact, the faster the defense, the more likely we could exploit their reactions.

[rawlingsHOH]

Discipline. Speed has little to do with it. IMO, of course.
Football is about athletes. You can teach a dog to sit and stay. Good football players win. Big, strong, fast, explosive, smart, it's a package thing.

[Sooner04]

I know this is a big "what if" but suppose Peterson stays an extra year and in the backfield you have Adrian Peterson, Allen Patrick, Demarco Murray, and Chris Brown. Could an offense based on those four generate results or would there have to be a strong passing attack?
It wouldn't have happened. Peterson would've received 90% of the carries in the meaningful parts of games. I'd like to think having him back would've helped ice the clock in Boulder, but hell we had him in Eugene the year before and couldn't get the crucial yards in the 4th quarter either.

[steebu]

So what do you think? Is stopping a run option based more on speed or discipline?

Definitely based more on discipline.

OUTrumpet is hitting the nail on the head. The goal of any option play is to reduce defenders to a 2-on-1 situation. Read this article by a former Florida high school coach:

http://www.steebu.com/cwilson/Offense/OptionTheory/Triple.pdf

Paul Johnson realized back in the 80's while at Hawaii that the best offensive system you can run (for various reasons I won't get into here) was an option-based attack. By moving the halfbacks in the wishbone to the slots you can now run with a 4 WR set or, by motioning one of the slotbacks (A-Backs in his offense) you can achieve an I-Formation by snapping the ball when the A-Back is at the top of his path just behind the B-Back (the defacto fullback). From this formation, and with this motion, you can run all kinds of option plays: triple, midline, speed with the A-Back, speed with the B-Back, etc.

I don't have it diagrammed out yet, but a quick look at his base inside veer triple option play shows that as the blocking scheme develops, the offense encounters two two-on-one situations. The first is the QB/B-Back mesh vs. the DE. While the QB and B-Back are "meshing", the DE must decide who to tackle. If he goes for the B-Back, the QB pulls the ball. If the DE stays home or shoots up the field to try to stop the QB the QB will release the ball to the B-Back. If the blocking goes as planned, the simple "B-Back dive" portion of the ISV (Inside Veer) will go for 4+ yards.

Let's assume the DE goes for the B-Back. The QB correctly pulls the ball from the B-Back, and now we hit the second two-on-one situation: the OLB vs. the QB/A-Back (pitch back). Again, if the blocking scheme goes as planned, there is no safety support because he will be cracked by the WR. The CB will be arc-blocked by the playside A-Back. If the OLB goes for the QB, the QB will pitch. If the OLB stays wide and sticks with the A-Back, the QB keeps and turns upfield.

So how does the blocking work?

All the backside linemen will scoop block. Depending on DL alignment, the playside guard will combo the NT and move to the MLB or he'll go straight for the MLB. The most important part is that the OL, particularly the tackles, must get to the second level quickly, hence the need for smaller, quicker tackles. Now Johnson has repeatedly said that if he can find a guy 6-5, 320, who can stay low, move quickly, and get to the second level he'll gladly take him. The notion that option offenses only succeed with converted TE's at OT is ridiculous; if Johnson could find 'em, he'll gladly take 'em.

The playside WR will crack the playside Safety.

The playside A-Back will arc block (his path is an arc) and stalk the playside corner and block him.

Here's an example of Johnson's triple option working EXACTLY as it should. Watch it a few times, then watch the OL, then watch the playside A-Back arc block, then watch the playside WR crack the playside safety.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S81xw6fwHKM

Well, why doesn't it always work?


Defenders can beat blocks or flow more defenders to the point of attack.
The QB can make the wrong read and pull the ball from the B-Back when he shouldn't, or vice-versa.


That's it.

Forget this nonsense of "Speed will kill you!" Johnson has always maintained that brute force that can defeat blocks will always trump scheme. If you watch the Orange Bowl against Iowa, GT's 270lb tackles got MANHANDLED by that Iowa kid, Claiborne, at DE. Clemson has one of the fastest defenses in the country (they're not too bright, tho), and they got ripped for an 85-yard TD here by GT running their most basic play.

Point being, if my 340-lb NT can defeat the block of your 280-lb Center and disrupt the QB/B-Back mesh, you're in for a long night. And it probably doesn't matter that my NT runs a 5.8 40-yard dash.

As for the other reason, well, remember, the goal is to get a 2-on-1. If the QB makes a bad decision that can ruin the whole play. Here's my post on the GT board about getting the B-Back dive read correct. Once you read it, you'll realize just how difficult it is and why every triple option play doesn't go for 85 yards.

http://www.bbuzzoff.com/forum3/17171-1.html

And believe me, I'd sure love it if we went back to the option.

Oh, and Johnson's thoughts on if his offense would work in the NFL?

http://www.accsports.com/articles/201007208152/one-on-one-with-paul-johnson-part-2.php

[GKeeper316]

theres also a big difference between a run option and a triple option.

run option is fairly easy to defend, assuming similar athletic ability on each side of the ball.

a well run triple option can make a defensive coord need adult diapers and lots of pepto.

[Curly Bill]

Defending the option is primarily based on each defender carrying out his assignment. Big plays out of the option offense usually happened because someone on defense did something he wasn't supposed to, or didn't do something he was supposed to.

The correct answer is discipline is most important to defending the option.

Having big strong fast athletes is of course always a plus.

[gaylordfan1]

Doesn't AF run a option style offense?

[Frozen Sooner]

Remember during the strike in the 80s when the "scrubs" were playing. Some coach (Parcells maybe?) had his team line up in the bone and literally gave a "WTF do you expect me to do with these guys" shrug at the camera. Funny crap, but also an indication of what pro coaches think of the option.

I want to say it was a 49ers-Bears game.

To clarify what I was getting at earlier, yes, of course discipline is incredibly important to defending any offensive scheme.

However, the question presented was why option football isn't as successful or heavily used TODAY versus the 70s and 80s. I have a hard time believing that teams are much more disciplined on defense than they were back then, considering the limitations on practice time. I DO know that given my druthers between a disciplined defense full of slow fat kids and a disciplined defense with big fast kids, I'll take the second one every time.

How this relates to the conversation is that the trend in college football towards faster, more mobile LBs has hurt the option game. Sure, if you put a sub-4.5 dummy out there the option is going to eat him alive. On the other hand, if you put a sub-4.5 guy out there who knows how to read his keys and also has a sub-4.5 guy who's covering the pitchman, the offense is going to run out of real estate even on the strong side pretty quickly.

I will concede that the most important part of defending the option is team discipline. Absolutely. But the reason why option football is an anomaly in today's game is that the same teams that used to be disciplined in the past are now both disciplined and FAST.

[Leroy Lizard]

Football is about athletes. You can teach a dog to sit and stay. Good football players win. Big, strong, fast, explosive, smart, it's a package thing.

True, but that applies to all offenses.

We are discussing the option. Why is no one using the option anymore? Therefore, the reasoning should single out the option as opposed to other offenses.

To say, "because defenses are really good" is pointless. Yeah, they are. So why does any offense work?

[Leroy Lizard]

I want to say it was a 49ers-Bears game.

To clarify what I was getting at earlier, yes, of course discipline is incredibly important to defending any offensive scheme.

However, the question presented was why option football isn't as successful or heavily used TODAY versus the 70s and 80s. I have a hard time believing that teams are much more disciplined on defense than they were back then, considering the limitations on practice time. I DO know that given my druthers between a disciplined defense full of slow fat kids and a disciplined defense with big fast kids, I'll take the second one every time.

I disagree. I just don't see defensive speed being a big factor.

Sure, having a fast defense helps. But that goes for defending any offense.


switzer was once quoted as saying "wish bone would work in pros, it's too hard on QBs" or something similar.

frank broyles, after studying film of 71 OU/tx game said, mildren was tackled 48 times, & 14 were "slobber knockers".

mildren was very tough.

This is mostly hogwash, imo. I already pointed out OU's wishbone QBs as examples.

[Salt City Sooner]

I want to say it was a 49ers-Bears game.

To clarify what I was getting at earlier, yes, of course discipline is incredibly important to defending any offensive scheme.

However, the question presented was why option football isn't as successful or heavily used TODAY versus the 70s and 80s. I have a hard time believing that teams are much more disciplined on defense than they were back then, considering the limitations on practice time. I DO know that given my druthers between a disciplined defense full of slow fat kids and a disciplined defense with big fast kids, I'll take the second one every time.

How this relates to the conversation is that the trend in college football towards faster, more mobile LBs has hurt the option game. Sure, if you put a sub-4.5 dummy out there the option is going to eat him alive. On the other hand, if you put a sub-4.5 guy out there who knows how to read his keys and also has a sub-4.5 guy who's covering the pitchman, the offense is going to run out of real estate even on the strong side pretty quickly.

I will concede that the most important part of defending the option is team discipline. Absolutely. But the reason why option football is an anomaly in today's game is that the same teams that used to be disciplined in the past are now both disciplined and FAST.
It was Niners/Giants. I remember when they (Frisco) first broke it out, the camera caught Parcells looking across the field at Walsh, & he gave him a big old "get outta here with that crap" wave, with a big grin the whole time he was doing it. Walsh countered with a "what else was I supposed to come up with for these scrubs" shrug.

[Leroy Lizard]

It was Niners/Giants. I remember when they (Frisco) first broke it out, the camera caught Parcells looking across the field at Walsh, & he gave him a big old "get outta here with that crap" wave, with a big grin the whole time he was doing it. Walsh countered with a "what else was I supposed to come up with for these scrubs" shrug.

Well, what happened?

[BoulderSooner79]

Lots of issues already stated and true. But one I didn't see is that a true option allows the defense to dictate who gets the ball. After the '71 record setting season, the other schools altered their defenses to force the QB to keep as often as possible. Tackle the FB every time, and cover the pitch man then try to knock the QB's teeth out. Switzer/Lacewell adjusted by running more set plays, but out of the same wishbone formation. Lott was a tough back and a good runner, but no way you let the defense take Billy Sims out of the offense.

The option is alive and well in the passing game as almost every QB goes through a progression trying to locate the open receiver. The rules prohibit the defense from taking away options in the same way as they do in the run game. They can't tackle the receiver like they can tackle an RB who doesn't have the ball. They do get away with a fair amount on a the tight end if he is not flexed out a bit.

[Captain Cob Mob]

I know '95 Nebraska was a while back but they ran over everybody including Miami a year before. When it comes to speed Ahman Green and Lawrence Phillips ran 4.3s which is fast for today.

I know this is a big "what if" but suppose Peterson stays an extra year and in the backfield you have Adrian Peterson, Allen Patrick, Demarco Murray, and Chris Brown. Could an offense based on those four generate results or would there have to be a strong passing attack?

Oklahoma's wishbone was a true "triple option" scheme. Nebraska didn't run a triple option, just an option since most of the fullback carry plays were designated fullback carries. NU usually put in the fake to the FB before the QB rolled out on an option, but in the Sooner's wishbone the QB actually made the LB read prior to giving (or pulling from) the FB.

So OU's first option was to the FB, or then QB keeper, or then pitch to halfback. The wishbone relied on a lot more misdirection/trickeration etc than NU's I formations. OU's wishbone really put a lot more heavy stress on the edges while NU's I, Ozbone, and power I formations leaned more towards the power run up the middle, with some speed options to the edges to suck the safeties in to help with run support. Pulling the safeties in like that out of the I formation option package was, in Osborne's opinion, essential to open up the passing game (which he used more than most remember). And while the wishbone was usually thought of as hurting the passing game, most of you probably remember Switzer torching teams with his TE's. I remember Jack Mildren passing pretty well out of the bone also.

One of the reasons the 94,95, and 97 NU teams tore teams up so late in the game with the option was most of the good defenses around that time were based in the Florida State/Kansas State D philosophy of "blitzing your azz off up the middle". This wreaked havoc on passing teams of the day and blew QB's up, but the NU teams were one of the last option teams with good talent that stretched the defenses horizontally in that era.

Why the wishbone and a lot of the option teams died out? Not really sure, I think the defenses getting smaller and a LOT faster did contribute quite a bit, but I also think some folks have touched on the DE's responsibility really tore things up. I read an article that explained it one time, but can't remember the exact assignment. Something along the lines of the DE always nukeing the qb right off the bat and just taking the "option threat" right away. It wasn't that simple, but something along those lines. Happened some time in the mid 80's if I remember.

And even with AD's buttery fingers, Adrian Peterson, Allen Patrick, Demarco Murray, and Chris Brown imo would wreak havoc today in an option run type attack (with a comparable qb and even average OU O-line). I think NU is slowly migrating back to a power run offense with options and moderate passing sprinkled in.

jmo

[PLaw]

I don't buy the defensive speed reasoning. I think the option has largely disappeared because coaches tend to follow a herd mentality and right now the option is passe. Fans today want quick strike capabilities in an offense and get restless if an option attack is struggling. Also, limited practice time affects the option more than most offenses because of the intricate timing required.


Hmmm, I'm almost agreeing with "double L"?? Here is a "What If" scenario for ESPNU - What if OU had beaten Thug U in the 80's with the 'bone? It was getting harder to recruit athletes to play in the system, but I recall Nebbish won a few MNC in the 90's with their version of the option.

And "double L" is spot on about the practice time required for the option to be effective. As I recall, it wasn't until about the 5th game of the year until it really clicked.

BOOMER

[rawlingsHOH]

And even with AD's buttery fingers,

myth

[texaspokieokie]

don't think it took 5 games in 71. of course with mildren,crosswhite,pruitt
& wylie, it was a group of relative vetarans. also had good line.

mildren was recruited as a passing QB, but didn't pass much out of wishbone.
about 90ypg.
in 71.

[Sooner04]

It was Niners/Giants. I remember when they (Frisco) first broke it out, the camera caught Parcells looking across the field at Walsh, & he gave him a big old "get outta here with that crap" wave, with a big grin the whole time he was doing it. Walsh countered with a "what else was I supposed to come up with for these scrubs" shrug.
This is correct. And the Niners went right down the field on them too.

The strike killed a very good Vikings team in '87. They lost all the games that featured replacement players, but still managed to get into the playoffs. They beat SF at Candlestick before losing 17-10 to the Redskins in Washington. Maybe they wouldn't have had to travel to RFK if not for the strike.

[Mississippi Sooner]

I never played or coached a game of football (other than on a video game), so I can't explain all the science behind it.

I just know that when Thomas Lott pitched out to Billy Sims, Keith Jackson took it on an end around or Steve Davis tossed it to Billy Brooks, it was always a beautiful thing.

[rawlingsHOH]

This is correct. And the Niners went right down the field on them too.

The strike killed a very good Vikings team in '87. They lost all the games that featured replacement players, but still managed to get into the playoffs. They beat SF at Candlestick before losing 17-10 to the Redskins in Washington. Maybe they wouldn't have had to travel to RFK if not for the strike.

That damn Shane Falco went 3-0!

[Salt City Sooner]

Well, what happened?
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/198710050nyg.htm

Stevens was the 'bone QB, Gagliano was brought in when they wanted to throw.

Parcells recounting that game:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2007/07/31/2007-07-31_former_niners_coach_dies_-3.html

[steebu]

Hmmm, I'm almost agreeing with "double L"?? Here is a "What If" scenario for ESPNU - What if OU had beaten Thug U in the 80's with the 'bone? It was getting harder to recruit athletes to play in the system, but I recall Nebbish won a few MNC in the 90's with their version of the option.

And "double L" is spot on about the practice time required for the option to be effective. As I recall, it wasn't until about the 5th game of the year until it really clicked.

BOOMER

Running an option-based offense is easier than running these other "Pro-style", "spread", or insert-whatever-is-hip-right-now offenses. Why do the service academies run the option? Because they can concentrate solely on one thing and it's simple. Yes, it takes a while to get guys up to speed - GT's offense didn't really click until 2009, a full year after Johnson had put it in. But once established it's much easier to manage than any other offense.

Consider what one ND blogger once wrote after Navy beat ND two years ago for the first time in 43 years. He commented that Navy ran a total of six different plays, albeit from multiple formations. SIX. How hard do you think it is to practice six plays?

Now consider the "our playbook is the size of a phonebook" offenses. Which do you think is easier to gameplan and implement?

Which would you rather have? Guys who are OK at running lots of plays or guys who are spectacular at running a few, but the few they run are difficult to defend and have the chance to go to the house on EVERY play? The base ISV triple option accounts for EVERY defender. Every single one of 'em. Show me a zone-blocked stretch play that accounts for all 11 defenders.

Point is, once your offense is established, your practice time can concentrate solely on a few things so you can do those extremely efficiently.

On the flip side, defenses are accustomed to playing against "pro-style" offenses now, so playing against an option-based team, especially on a short turnaround, can be deadly. Instead of practicing getting zone blocked and all 11 players flying to the ball, guys have to be disciplined and stay with their assignments. It's hard for the backside linebacker who is used to running to the ball to stay home and not overpursue. It's hard for the CB who is used to running with WR's suddenly getting cut blocked by a slotback.

It's a good thing we have a full week before playing AF, although they've gotten away from the under-the-center option and are more shotgun-based now.

[texaspokieokie]

steebu;

good post !!

[Leroy Lizard]

Some of the comments imply that the effectiveness of the wishbone (or option) diminished over time. I don't think it did. Again, teams quit running it when new coaches came in and wanted to put their pro-style mark on the team. Whether it was Nebraska, OU, Alabama, Texas, or Colorado, the option was effective right up to the point where it was dropped.

And in many cases it was stupid to move away from it. But coaches that take over successful programs often do some stupid things.

[Sooner04]

Good stuff there, steebu.

I remember his grace, Mike Stoops, commenting on how difficult it was to throw off your whole practice routine and work solely on defending the option.

[texaspokieokie]

i feel that running the bone (which i really like) keeps you from being able to recruit some of the top players.

i also think defenses caught up with it, some.

even tejas couldn't defend it against OU & they invented it.

[Crucifax Autumn]

It may have been scrubs and all, but the wishbone team got 242 rushing yards and a 20 point victory in the NFL.

[LHSooner]

A few thoughts on this:

1) OU didn't run the 3x option as much as you may think. They rode the FB on every option play, but that doesn't mean that was any kind of read or option for the QB. It all depends on the blocking scheme. If the OT rips inside or loops around the 5 technique, then it's the 3x option. If the OT blocks the 5 technique or combos him w/ the OG, then it's a 2x option play w/ the QB reading the DE or CB, depending on the playside RB's assignment.

We ran the wishbone in HS & went to a clinic put on by the OU coaches. This was in 86. They said they only ran the true 3x option on about 20-25% of their option plays. Most of their option looks were either 2x options w/ the QB/FB mesh to freeze the LB's, or they were straight pre-designed gives to the FB. Why was this? The FB read of the 5 technique is VERY HARD. It's very fast & everybody is in tight it's just hard to read what the DT is doing.

2) Even though the wishbone is dead, the option is alive and well. It just comes out of a different look these days. The zone read is a core concept/play fr a lot of teams: *, Clemson, FL, & others all use the zone read. The spread option is a core concept for WV, Mich, FL, Utah, Baylor, Houston, etc.

I remember distinctly OU running a 3x option play out of the shotgun back when Heupel was QB. He read the DE with the RB mesh. Josh Norman was in the backside slot & came in presnap motion. After the snap, he arced back into a pitch relationship with Heupel.

3) Why did the wishbone/Neb power-I/flexbone die out as a formation? I think it was OU/Miami, as well as some other factors. Miami was the first team to truly embrace speed at all levels of the defense. Up until that point, most teams featured hulking LBs who could plug a whole, but roaming sideline to sideline wasn't their strong suit. This is why OU beat Neb & * routinely in the 70's & 80's. Miami took HS CBs & made them safeties; they took HS safeties & made them LBs; LBs turned into DEs; DEs into DTs. A couple things will destroy an option play: penetration & speed. Miami was able to do both against OU. Of course, having boatloads of NFL talent didn't hurt either.

Another reason those formations died was b/c they limited the areas defenses were forced to account for by formation. With all 11 players bunched in tight, defenses faced a limited passing threat, and they could bunch in tight & not have to line up to defend the formation horizontally, either.

I also think the option diminished in prominence b/c of turnovers. If you're going to run the option, you're going to have a lot of fumbles. I think coaches were unwilling to accept giving opposing offenses more possessions, especially the high-power spread offenses that were rising in popularity.

3) Can the option offense still be successful in today's college football? Absolutely. Urban Meyer seems to be doing just fine with it. Can the wishbone be successful? No. It doesn't force the defense to account for enough of the field. Running it out of spread formations, though, will work & work well. That's what Meyer, Johnson @ GT, and others do to be successful with it.

4) People have already covered the issues with an option offense: limited practice time. Like I mentioned earlier, the option is all about timing. It takes a LOT of practice to perfect it.

You're not going to get a lot of NFL talent running an option offense. QB's want to throw the ball 30 times per game to show off their arms; RBs want to carry the ball 20-25 times per game. The option doesn't allow either to happen.

[soonerboomer93]

Probably wouldn't have worked well with some QB that was a backup all the way through college and had been working as an electrician for 10 years and receivers furloughed from prison. lol

Yeah, but at least the cop had plenty of practice hitting people ;)

[steebu]

i feel that running the bone (which i really like) keeps you from being able to recruit some of the top players.

i also think defenses caught up with it, some.

even tejas couldn't defend it against OU & they invented it.

nobody runs the bone anymore. For reasons others have already stated, it does not stretch the field and force defenses to spread out. Hence Johnson's realization that running it from the double slot (the 'ol Fisher DeBerry Flexbone formation) is far more effective. So yes, recruiting might be difficult for the wishbone.

It is NOT difficult to recruit top players for Johnson's spread. In fact, James Wilder, a 5* guy in Florida and one of the top guys in the nation (like #3 or something?) contacted GT and said, "Hey, I wanna play B-Back for you because I wanna carry the ball and you run it like a zillion times." Most interesting is that GT didn't contact him first.

The only real problem you're going to have in recruiting is WR's, but if Johnson unleashes hell this season (300 yards rushing per game, 200 yards passing per game) then that's going to change a lot of perceptions. Sheesh, his WR last year, Demaryius Thomas went in the 1st round of the NFL draft! That should be proof enough that you'll get touches and chances to make big plays.

Anyway, defenses caught up with the wishbone, not the option. The wishbone allowed defenses to collapse the field. Running the option out of spread formations forces defenses wider and allows for running lanes inside and out, regardless whether you run it from the gun (Florida) or under center (GT).

Bah - the point of all of this is I get frustrated by the offensive fads that get thrown around every year and the infatuation with slinging the ball around 58 times a game, as if slinging it with reckless abandon equals a national championship. I don't seem to recall Alabama lining up in 5-wide sets and throwing it 58 times last year. How many national titles have Hawaii and Texas Tech won? (Granted, we won one in 2000 slinging it 58 times a game but I don't want to open that can of worms - and believe me, I totally don't mind slinging it 58 times if that wins us another national title).

Do you not remember how we all stupidly (in my opinion) gasped and kept track of how many times we opened with a pass when Steve Collins was our QB and Gary Gibbs said we would make an effort to throw more? You don't achieve offensive success by statistical balance - you achieve it by imaginative and "correct" playcalling. How else do teams like the Ravens win the Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer at the helm? Runrunrunrunrun. OK, safeties crept up. THROW IT OVER THEIR HEADS! TD!!!

I get frustrated when I see us in a flow; we line up and everyone's ready to go. OH, WAIT A SEC. Everyone look over to the sideline, then have the QB walk up and down the line and change stuff. Whoops, sack. Get rid of that ball quicker, Senor 'Stache. Or worse, OOPS, couldn't punch it in from the 1 yard line in the title game.

Meh - I'm just hyped up from all the coffee this morning and ranting. Have a great Friday everyone! :)

[royalfan5]

I think it would be fun to see somebody dust off the old Bill Yeoman Veer and run it. I got to play defense against every variety of option offense in high school, and the veer teams were the biggests pains in the ***, imo.

[OUTrumpet]

Now consider the "our playbook is the size of a phonebook" offenses. Which do you think is easier to gameplan and implement?

Yes, the playbooks maybe thick, but this is a bit exaggerated. A playbook tends to be just a group of plays that you can pick and choose from. All the receivers know all the basic routes - curls, hooks, digs, posts, corners, drags, whatever. You might have 2-5 different blocking schemes depending on personnel.

When scouting, you see where the coverage of the defense is weak, the coaches select about 10-15 passing plays out of the playbook to practice in a week. At least half are ones you run every week.

The coaches know the playbook and just have the players learn a different set of routes. Quarterbacks are coached so they know here's my first / second read, here's what we expect the defense to do.

We won't just pull some play out of some random play in the playbook, say we're going for it, and hope all the players remember exactly what they're supposed to do.

Heck you could scratch the playbook and just come up with the plays when you're scouting based on the opposition but that would take too long.

To give another example as a teacher, I have 2-3 lessons based to teach the same unit to my students. Based on their strengths and weaknesses, I might choose one over the other to use to help my students succeed. Could I come up with a brand new one every night? Yes, but that would take a stupid amount of time. Would it always be effective? No. That's why I save the good stuff and trash the bad.

[Curly Bill]

I think it would be fun to see somebody dust off the old Bill Yeoman Veer and run it. I got to play defense against every variety of option offense in high school, and the veer teams were the biggests pains in the ***, imo.

Against the veer defenses have to play assignment football or you get burned. It keeps defenses from being as aggressive as they'd like, and likewise it prevents aggressive players from just running all over the field like a wild man. Ya gotta play your assignment.

[oudavid1]

I think it would be fun to see somebody dust off the old Bill Yeoman Veer and run it. I got to play defense against every variety of option offense in high school, and the veer teams were the biggests pains in the ***, imo.

Yeah, people dont realize how hard it is to switch up and gameplan against a triple option or veer. Navy almost beat Ohio State in Columbus last year.

[Leroy Lizard]

Navy almost beat Ohio State in Columbus last year.

Everyone knows the option cannot work today, so you're a goddamn liar.

[ashley]

An option QB will also generally be wearing bulkier pads to protect him from the multiple hits he takes, which impedes his throwing motion. And, as mentioned earlier, he's taking several hits to the ribs-which impacts your throwing motion towards the end of a game.

You missed on this one. QB"s threw the ball good for years before the lighter, smaller pads came along.

[ashley]

They did get faster. And bigger. Which means that it takes much less time to get to the corner to cut off an option-and while both the ptichman and the defender have gotten faster, I don't think their relative speeds have remained the same. The pitchman simply doesn't have the time to outrun the LB by enough to turn the corner. If the field was wider, then yes, it'd be a wash.

You can't have it both ways, man! You can't say that teams stay at home better against the option, so people don't run the option as much, so when teams do run the option, teams don't stay at home as much! :D

You missed on this. How about blocking the LB. Except for the man the Q B is reading you are going to be dead in the water if you don't block a bunch of them. In the option you did not read backer, you had to block them.

[LHSooner]

You missed on this. How about blocking the LB. Except for the man the Q B is reading you are going to be dead in the water if you don't block a bunch of them. In the option you did not read backer, you had to block them.

Not true at all. You can read whoever you like. While the 3x option does have 3 people who can get the ball, each play is "designed" for one person to get the ball. In the "traditional" 3x option, you read the DT (technically, the first man heads up to outside the OT), then the DE for the pitch/keep option. The DE's traditional assignment is the QB & to force the pitch, so if the DE is the read key, it's anticipated that the RB will wind up with the ball. However, depending on the playside RB's blocking assignment, you can read other people. For example, the RB can load block the DE, and the CB is the read key. The CB traditionally takes the pitch man, so if you block the DE, it's anticipated that the QB will keep. Now, the DE or CB may take someone else in either one of these scenarios, so it's not "guranteed" to work out like this - hence the option.

Likewise, the TE can stay on the DE, the playside rb arc blocks the CB, & the playside LB or the safety can be the read key. With the advent of the mid-line option, you just shift all your reads inside one man (read the 3 technique for the FB give, & the 5 technique for keep/pitch). If you can figure out the blocking angles, you can make anybody your read key.

Blocking schemes for the option are all about angles and technique. With the speed and precision of an option attack, you don't have to maul the defense, just get in their way & slow them down a little bit. This is why running the option out of the spread makes more sense. It spreads the defense out & gives the offense more angles of attack, as well as more running lanes.

[rawlingsHOH]

church

[Izzycohen]

I think that the definition of "option offense" means that the ball carrier is not identified until the ball is snapped and, depending upon defensive alignment, the ultimate ball carrier is decided by the "option" chosen by the QB.