Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Alabama has moved away from the pro-style a bit with Jalen Hurts at QB.
Arkansas State fired Brett Bielma to pick up Chad Morris.
Florida cans Jim McElwain to hire Dan Mullen, who they should've been hired in the first place.
Nebraska wises up and chooses Scott Frost after years of irrelevance and mediocrity under Bill Callahan, Bo Pelini, and Mike Riley.
UCLA fires Jim Mora to take Chip Kelly.
And reality has set in for Michigan that Urban Meyer is going to own them as long as they're running a lesser offensive system.

The only question is when the NFL will finally recognize reality and start changing their offensive approach.

Other than a few elite QB's hasn't the NFL been slowly heading in this direction?

But ppl complain these QBs can't adjust to pro-style offenses once they enter the NFL.

I've often fantasized about a pro franchise deciding "what the heck we're going to run the triple option" then focus on acquiring players suited to run that system. I think it'd be an interesting experiment because there's relatively little variation in the way NFL teams do things offensively as compared to college. I think it'd be interesting to see NFL defenses built to address NFL offenses all of a sudden having to deal with something like what Georgia Southern's offense used to be with the best players possible that are suited to that offensive system manning it. I suspect that what I think is the myth that a triple option offense wouldn't work against NFL defenses would be pretty quickly exploded.

JohnStOnge wrote:I've often fantasized about a pro franchise deciding "what the heck we're going to run the triple option" then focus on acquiring players suited to run that system. I think it'd be an interesting experiment because there's relatively little variation in the way NFL teams do things offensively as compared to college. I think it'd be interesting to see NFL defenses built to address NFL offenses all of a sudden having to deal with something like what Georgia Southern's offense used to be with the best players possible that are suited to that offensive system manning it. I suspect that what I think is the myth that a triple option offense wouldn't work against NFL defenses would be pretty quickly exploded.

I believe the theory for why the trip-op wouldn't work in the NFL is because the front-7s are too quick. I don't know if that's actually how it would play out, but it's probably a sound theory. Also: extremophile offenses generally require a team to overload at relatively few positions, which could be difficult in an organization where people are playing for star-level contract money (e.g., run-&-shoot/air-raid teams tend to spread the wealth at WR, so stars may not get the ball as much as they'd like).

In college its about recruiting. Pro football is just different.

I don't think the triple option would succeed in the NFL for multiple reasons. It might work for the first 5-8 games, but after that, professional defenses will adjust have have strict rules for preparing for each option. Man on man assignments is key to defending the option. Pros can spend that time and effort and shut it down.

Mvemjsunpx wrote: I believe the theory for why the trip-op wouldn't work in the NFL is because the front-7s are too quick. I don't know if that's actually how it would play out, but it's probably a sound theory.

I have heard may times that the triple option actually exploits quick defenses. And I've seen it. It burns defenses for flowing to the ball.

One of the primary reasons teams like Army, Navy, and Air Force use the triple option is, as I understand it, because it allows them to have a chance to succeed against teams with superior athleticism on defense.

andy7171 wrote:In college its about recruiting. Pro football is just different.

I don't think the triple option would succeed in the NFL for multiple reasons. It might work for the first 5-8 games, but after that, professional defenses will adjust have have strict rules for preparing for each option. Man on man assignments is key to defending the option. Pros can spend that time and effort and shut it down.

If you had one team running the triple option in the NFL I don't think it would play out like that. They build their defenses to stop pro style offenses. They prepare every week for pro style offenses.

Why is it that we should think a pro style offense should work any better anyway given the factors you talk about? Pros can spend time and effort to shut pro style offenses down. Why is it that people think any particular offense shouldn't have the same problems related to the time and effort pros can spend?

JohnStOnge wrote:

Mvemjsunpx wrote: I believe the theory for why the trip-op wouldn't work in the NFL is because the front-7s are too quick. I don't know if that's actually how it would play out, but it's probably a sound theory.

I have heard may times that the triple option actually exploits quick defenses. And I've seen it. It burns defenses for flowing to the ball.

One of the primary reasons teams like Army, Navy, and Air Force use the triple option is, as I understand it, because it allows them to have a chance to succeed against teams with superior athleticism on defense.

I think it's more because the LBs can get to the edge quicker, so the D can focus on the dive & not have to worry about containing the outside as much.

JohnStOnge wrote:

andy7171 wrote:In college its about recruiting. Pro football is just different.

I don't think the triple option would succeed in the NFL for multiple reasons. It might work for the first 5-8 games, but after that, professional defenses will adjust have have strict rules for preparing for each option. Man on man assignments is key to defending the option. Pros can spend that time and effort and shut it down.

If you had one team running the triple option in the NFL I don't think it would play out like that. They build their defenses to stop pro style offenses. They prepare every week for pro style offenses.

Why is it that we should think a pro style offense should work any better anyway given the factors you talk about? Pros can spend time and effort to shut pro style offenses down. Why is it that people think any particular offense shouldn't have the same problems related to the time and effort pros can spend?

Come on. It's not hard, you just have to have discipline.
Three DL, 2, 0, 2. Classic Bear defense inside.
DE on either side to hammer the QB every play, every single play, depending on which side he goes.
A contain man on either side to ghost the RB option man, be it OLB or who ever.
That leaves 3-4 in the secondary to cover what? 2 WRS at most?

Pros prepare 40+ hours a week. College kids don't.

It really is that simple. Where is the Pistol these days in the NFL, The Wildcat? Pro's figure it out and stop it.

andy7171 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
If you had one team running the triple option in the NFL I don't think it would play out like that. They build their defenses to stop pro style offenses. They prepare every week for pro style offenses.

Why is it that we should think a pro style offense should work any better anyway given the factors you talk about? Pros can spend time and effort to shut pro style offenses down. Why is it that people think any particular offense shouldn't have the same problems related to the time and effort pros can spend?

Come on. It's not hard, you just have to have discipline.
Three DL, 2, 0, 2. Classic Bear defense inside.
DE on either side to hammer the QB every play, every single play, depending on which side he goes.
A contain man on either side to ghost the RB option man, be it OLB or who ever.
That leaves 3-4 in the secondary to cover what? 2 WRS at most?

Pros prepare 40+ hours a week. College kids don't.

It really is that simple. Where is the Pistol these days in the NFL, The Wildcat? Pro's figure it out and stop it.

Kill the quarterback which means more injuries to your starter.

kalm wrote:

andy7171 wrote: Come on. It's not hard, you just have to have discipline.
Three DL, 2, 0, 2. Classic Bear defense inside.
DE on either side to hammer the QB every play, every single play, depending on which side he goes.
A contain man on either side to ghost the RB option man, be it OLB or who ever.
That leaves 3-4 in the secondary to cover what? 2 WRS at most?

Pros prepare 40+ hours a week. College kids don't.

It really is that simple. Where is the Pistol these days in the NFL, The Wildcat? Pro's figure it out and stop it.

Kill the quarterback which means more injuries to your starter.

It's seriously way to end that offense quick. He's a RB, plain and simple. I remember in HS, I played 6 with a stand up DE. I would crash in, and hit the QB with my outside arm extended to knock out any late toss. My DE would either fire up the RB, or recover the toss/fumble I caused. Dive, pass, who cares? There are 9 other guys for that. If the ball comes my way, the rules are very simple.

JohnStOnge wrote:I've often fantasized about a pro franchise deciding "what the heck we're going to run the triple option" then focus on acquiring players suited to run that system. I think it'd be an interesting experiment because there's relatively little variation in the way NFL teams do things offensively as compared to college. I think it'd be interesting to see NFL defenses built to address NFL offenses all of a sudden having to deal with something like what Georgia Southern's offense used to be with the best players possible that are suited to that offensive system manning it. I suspect that what I think is the myth that a triple option offense wouldn't work against NFL defenses would be pretty quickly exploded.

Any NFL franchise owner brave enough to buck the orthodox and the run the option would crush the rest of the league.

Your offensive roster would be the cheapest in the league by a big margin and you could spend a lot more on your defensive roster.

A lot of people seem to think that you would only a play some 35-year-old non-athlete at QB, but the QB doesn't have to be that great a thrower and you can put a younger and more durable athlete there.

kalm wrote:


Kill the quarterback which means more injuries to your starter.

Been proved time and time again. Mobil QB comes into the league and runs a lot and career is what 1 - 2 years before major injury? Never the same after that.

To much speed in the pro's for that kind of nonsense.

JohnStOnge wrote:I've often fantasized about a pro franchise deciding "what the heck we're going to run the triple option" then focus on acquiring players suited to run that system. I think it'd be an interesting experiment because there's relatively little variation in the way NFL teams do things offensively as compared to college. I think it'd be interesting to see NFL defenses built to address NFL offenses all of a sudden having to deal with something like what Georgia Southern's offense used to be with the best players possible that are suited to that offensive system manning it. I suspect that what I think is the myth that a triple option offense wouldn't work against NFL defenses would be pretty quickly exploded.

The NFL would sniff out a Option based offense in a heart beat and everyone would be fired!!!!

Again: All the stuff about NFL players having time to prepare, etc., applies to any offense. And look at all the injuries to quarterbacks in current pro style systems. Aaron Rogers and Carson Wentz are both out right now. NFL quarterbacks get hurt all the time. Last year Oakland was doing great then their quarterback got hurt.

I actually think that with an option offense would be more robust with respect to quarterback injury because a team could get 3 guys that could run it about as well as each other. Who the person is at quarterback would actually become less important.

JohnStOnge wrote:Again: All the stuff about NFL players having time to prepare, etc., applies to any offense. And look at all the injuries to quarterbacks in current pro style systems. Aaron Rogers and Carson Wentz are both out right now. NFL quarterbacks get hurt all the time. Last year Oakland was doing great then their quarterback got hurt.

I actually think that with an option offense would be more robust with respect to quarterback injury because a team could get 3 guys that could run it about as well as each other. Who the person is at quarterback would actually become less important.

All the more reason to disregard the pass, load up on the line to stuff the middle and contain.

kalm wrote:

andy7171 wrote: Come on. It's not hard, you just have to have discipline.
Three DL, 2, 0, 2. Classic Bear defense inside.
DE on either side to hammer the QB every play, every single play, depending on which side he goes.
A contain man on either side to ghost the RB option man, be it OLB or who ever.
That leaves 3-4 in the secondary to cover what? 2 WRS at most?

Pros prepare 40+ hours a week. College kids don't.

It really is that simple. Where is the Pistol these days in the NFL, The Wildcat? Pro's figure it out and stop it.

Kill the quarterback which means more injuries to your starter.

I believe that's the rationale for not running the Wishbone, but if that's the case, then why are teams running the zone read? It leaves the QB just as exposed, IMO.

And that's ALSO why many teams don't run 10 Wedge, and wonder why they just got stuffed after bringing the ball into the backfield on 3rd or 4th and 1. Jus' sayin'....

SuperHornet wrote:

kalm wrote:


Kill the quarterback which means more injuries to your starter.

I believe that's the rationale for not running the Wishbone, but if that's the case, then why are teams running the zone read? It leaves the QB just as exposed, IMO.

They aren't as much now. For 2 or 3 years, NFL teams didn't really know how to deal with the read option. That's how Colin Kaepernick became a temporary success, but defenses have now adapted. Also: the read option comes out of formations NFL teams use anyway, while the wishbone and the trip-op (assuming it's the typical, modern flexbone variety) require teams to learn new formations.

What gets me is that we often hear that teams/programs that can't get top level talent run the option because it gives them a chance to win. So...if running the option gives you a chance to win when you can't match the other team in terms of talent, why would it not give you even more of a chance to win if you CAN match the other team in terms of talent?

Mvemjsunpx wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:
I believe that's the rationale for not running the Wishbone, but if that's the case, then why are teams running the zone read? It leaves the QB just as exposed, IMO.

They aren't as much now. For 2 or 3 years, NFL teams didn't really know how to deal with the read option. That's how Colin Kaepernick became a temporary success, but defenses have now adapted. Also: the read option comes out of formations NFL teams use anyway, while the wishbone and the trip-op (assuming it's the typical, modern flexbone variety) require teams to learn new formations.

Maybe. While the 'Bone is certainly an odd (in NFL terms) formation with three RBs, one can easily run the triple out of the I, which is still a semi-common NFL formation. At UOP, we had the triple look out of many of our two-back formations, including the I, but we pre-determined the fake, thereby eliminating one of the reads, which would be great for the NFL, where there are too many reads anyway. Another common college deal is the speed option, which can be run both out of an ace set or out of a two-back set with the fullback going in another direction. Heck, while I was at Sac, we ran option out of a field goal set with great success, with the pitch going to the kicker. In a league where the Seahawks famously lined up K Efren Herrera at WR on Monday Nights, that "Oregon" option would be great. (Our FG/PAT fakes were alliteratively coded with state/college names....)

The FB dive in the Option Offense is always pre-determined. I'm done with this thread.

andy7171 wrote:The FB dive in the Option Offense is always pre-determined by the QB based on a pre-snap read. I'm done with this thread.

FYP

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

How soon everybody here forgets...
The NFL did have a short stint of "spread option" called "The Wildcat"
and it did indeed work... for about two months

and it was all about getting 3 great athletes in the backfield (as noted already)
and making the defense defend the entire width of the field from the line of scrimmage

all that said:
Pro-Set isn't obsolete if:

1) you have a guard (or two) that can pull
2) A Tight end that can run fast down the seam
3) And that same tight end can also wham block from the same play set
4) You have one good vertical threat wide out
5) a running back that can catch
6) and a quarterback that can step forward in the pocket (instead of running away) when it gets tight

Another factor to consider is whether the triple option is intended to be the be-all and end all of the offense a la Oklahoma/Nebraska/Texas/Army/Navy of c. 1960-1990 or as a tool in the tool box, particularly on third and short, on the goalline, and for two-point plays.

Clearly, due to the injury factor (not to mention the lack of an ability to pass if you have to start a comeback), you probably can't run an entire offense predicated on the triple in the NFL, at least not without a stable of about six quarterbacks, all skilled in the triple. And that's not really practical given modern NFL roster limits. But I still think it can be successful if used the other way. It's very hard to stop the triple (or even the double with a pre-determined FB fake or a speed option out of an ace set) if one is only looking to gain 2-5 yards or nab the deuce. Yes, what happened to likely the best QB ever to come out of NDSU is a factor to consider, but when used OCCASIONALLY for the purpose of short yardage, TDs, and two-point conversions, I think that injury factor can be mitigated to some degree, with a great expectation for success.