Opinions on the Option

[Pipe Line]

So at this point I value this board's opinion much more than RSS. I put this on twitter a few days ago but my follower/following twitter skills are weak, I'm proud of that, so didn't gain any traction. So wanted to ask this board since it's legit.....


In today's college football world, how would you guys like to see the old school playbook, that Osborne ran, and Frost ran as QB, run under Frost as the HC? Do you guys think he could teach it, run it effectively, get the right personnel in place, would it be effective in today's college football, can it be done at an elite level again?

Open discussion


I think yes and I think it'd be a super cool challenge to see in 2020 based on all the Spread Offenses.

 

[Drue629]

I think there''s no reason why it can't be part of the playbook, it works great to keep the other team on their toes but I don't think it's sustainable in today's football like it was in the '90s. Throw it in mid-drive like we did against Ohio State, stick with it for the rest of the drive if it's working.

 

[SoCal_Corn]

It was great

But you cannot find the personnel to run it.


Was.

Was Great.

 

[Alcaus]

I don't think it's a good idea if you want to win football games but then again we're not winning them now.

Who tf knows. I'd say do it for entertainment purposes once the program is fully engulfed in the dumpster fire.

 

[Dr.DrakeRamoray]

sprinkling in option looks is fine, a full speed option based offense just isn’t going to work. There is a reason no one runs it anymore.

 

[TrentMilfer]

Baltimore Ravens basically run a wish-bone/option offense. If we could do something like that, I would be in. But we dont have a Lamar Jackson or a decent offensive line(yet) or a stable of running backs.

 

[Huskersballz]

If it worked in today's game then you would see Clemson and Bama running it, the game has evolved too much for it to be efficient. While pounding the rock is just as important in todays game as it was in the past, you have to be able to get athletes in space if you want to be successful. Just look at the Bama and Clemson offenses, very much run oriented offenses but schemed to still get athletes into space. They have taken the spread offense and added a pro style run element into it.

 

[dsbigred1]

It is definitely tough to defend in today’s CFB world due to so few teams running it, but over time, it is going to be hard to recruit the best guys. The NFL isn’t lining up to to draft players from that offense. What makes it effective is essentially running a play that looks nearly the same to the D, and blocking it multiple different ways. Fuck, the OL we have can barely handle the simplest shit..
I’d say it’d be nice to incorporate more power football, but I feel like it’d be more of the same-where we aren’t great at anything, and suck at most things.

 

[Drue629]

The option died in the 2001 Rose bowl when Miami beat the living fuck out of us.

 

[Pipe Line]

So a few thoughts, questions, rebuttals....


1. A lot of people do say, "it wouldn't work long term" or "it just wouldn't work" but why wouldn't it work? Wouldn't it make more sense to run a power run based offense in the Big 10 where it's about physicality instead of pretty boy smoke and mirrors spread offense?

2. Atleast off the top of my head, the only 3 teams I can think of that really run what I would call a Spread Offense, would be KC, BAL, and SEA. Now I'm not crazy knowledgeable about X's and O's and I'll admit that, but A LOT more NFL teams I feel like still operate under center in more of that "pro style" offense than they do with a dual threat out of the shot gun. Atleast until more guys like Pat Mahomes take over the NFL that is.

3. Isn't the whole concept of an offense to get really good at the basics over time, and then get really good at expanding on those basics over time? I know we're struggling with the spread, but I think the same concept applies. Plus, if it comes with winning, you'd think you'd want to keep learning more and expanding and getting better at what's making you successful?

4. I know the question comes up with receivers and how they are less needed and QBs and all that. I personally think Adrian Martinez would make a sick option QB, assuming he can get back to making decisive reads and decisive running again. Running in his strength one he makes the decision. Also think Luke would be dynamic in that role too if he were to pick up a few more lbs first. Still have to recruit elite receivers regardless because you can't run the ball every play for 60 minutes. And honestly, with only about 30% throwing, if you're reliable you're just about guaranteed you'll get the ball every time it's thrown.

 

[Pipe Line]

The option died in the 2001 Rose bowl when Miami beat the living fuck out of us.

I would honestly, genuinely take that ass beating in the game right now over what we're currently doing.

 

[HuskerGarrett]

@10InchCorncob what are your thoughts?

 

[slattimer]

So at this point I value this board's opinion much more than RSS. I put this on twitter a few days ago but my follower/following twitter skills are weak, I'm proud of that, so didn't gain any traction. So wanted to ask this board since it's legit.....


In today's college football world, how would you guys like to see the old school playbook, that Osborne ran, and Frost ran as QB, run under Frost as the HC? Do you guys think he could teach it, run it effectively, get the right personnel in place, would it be effective in today's college football, can it be done at an elite level again?

Open discussion


I think yes and I think it'd be a super cool challenge to see in 2020 based on all the Spread Offenses.

Getting an OL coach that could teach IZ/OZ, as well as Milt did would make any offense go. Could Frost teach that system that Osborne ran, possibly? He'd have better insight in it than most, but he had what...3-4 years in it. Not exactly a long time to become an expert in the coaching world, not saying it isn't possible to do.

Would it be effective today, it could be. #1, it's drastically different than almost any team runs. But DL are bigger and freakier than ever too.

 

[Alcaus]

So a few thoughts, questions, rebuttals....


1. A lot of people do say, "it wouldn't work long term" or "it just wouldn't work" but why wouldn't it work? Wouldn't it make more sense to run a power run based offense in the Big 10 where it's about physicality instead of pretty boy smoke and mirrors spread offense?

2. Atleast off the top of my head, the only 3 teams I can think of that really run what I would call a Spread Offense, would be KC, BAL, and SEA. Now I'm not crazy knowledgeable about X's and O's and I'll admit that, but A LOT more NFL teams I feel like still operate under center in more of that "pro style" offense than they do with a dual threat out of the shot gun. Atleast until more guys like Pat Mahomes take over the NFL that is.

3. Isn't the whole concept of an offense to get really good at the basics over time, and then get really good at expanding on those basics over time? I know we're struggling with the spread, but I think the same concept applies. Plus, if it comes with winning, you'd think you'd want to keep learning more and expanding and getting better at what's making you successful?

4. I know the question comes up with receivers and how they are less needed and QBs and all that. I personally think Adrian Martinez would make a sick option QB, assuming he can get back to making decisive reads and decisive running again. Running in his strength one he makes the decision. Also think Luke would be dynamic in that role too if he were to pick up a few more lbs first. Still have to recruit elite receivers regardless because you can't run the ball every play for 60 minutes. And honestly, with only about 30% throwing, if you're reliable you're just about guaranteed you'll get the ball every time it's thrown.

1. I guess it depends on what level of success you classify "working" as. If you want Big10 West levels of success (i.e. trips to the B10 CCG every few years and OSU beating you down before heading to the CFP) then I think an option offense could work. But it's just too one-dimensional in my opinion. If it was feasible in today's game don't you think other teams would be doing it?
2. Ironically you've listed 3 of the best offenses in the NFL. I'd also include GB, CHI, and others. Are you talking about a spread specific offense or one that operates out of shotgun? I'd agree that most NFL offenses don't solely run spread but most incorporate it and many are west coast style, shotgun oriented offenses.
3. I think Frosts offense is what he knows best. If he can't teach this offense to the team is he going to have a better time teaching one from 23 years ago?
4. I think Adrian would be interesting in an option offense but I don't get the feeling that he or Luke have the "feel" when it comes to option football. They don't have great decision making and Adrian likes to fumble the ball.

Fun to think about but I don't see it as a realistic move. Nothing is more fun than a perfectly timed option pitch where the QB takes the hit and the RB takes it to the house.

 

[slattimer]

So a few thoughts, questions, rebuttals....


1. A lot of people do say, "it wouldn't work long term" or "it just wouldn't work" but why wouldn't it work? Wouldn't it make more sense to run a power run based offense in the Big 10 where it's about physicality instead of pretty boy smoke and mirrors spread offense?

2. Atleast off the top of my head, the only 3 teams I can think of that really run what I would call a Spread Offense, would be KC, BAL, and SEA. Now I'm not crazy knowledgeable about X's and O's and I'll admit that, but A LOT more NFL teams I feel like still operate under center in more of that "pro style" offense than they do with a dual threat out of the shot gun. Atleast until more guys like Pat Mahomes take over the NFL that is.

3. Isn't the whole concept of an offense to get really good at the basics over time, and then get really good at expanding on those basics over time? I know we're struggling with the spread, but I think the same concept applies. Plus, if it comes with winning, you'd think you'd want to keep learning more and expanding and getting better at what's making you successful?

4. I know the question comes up with receivers and how they are less needed and QBs and all that. I personally think Adrian Martinez would make a sick option QB, assuming he can get back to making decisive reads and decisive running again. Running in his strength one he makes the decision. Also think Luke would be dynamic in that role too if he were to pick up a few more lbs first. Still have to recruit elite receivers regardless because you can't run the ball every play for 60 minutes. And honestly, with only about 30% throwing, if you're reliable you're just about guaranteed you'll get the ball every time it's thrown.

#1 - Pretty Boy smoke and mirrors spread offense grinds the living fuck out of my gears. I'll just get that out of the way 1st. Many offenses are zone based. They use the exact same principles that Milt Tenopir taught in Nebraska's hay day running Inside and Outside zone to death. This notion that you need to be under center to play physical football, frankly, is just wrong.

#2 - More and more NFL teams are operating out of the spread. You listed 3, there's many more, Carolina, Arizona, Houston, Chicago, New Orleans, etc., etc.

#3 - Yes, that is true for any offense. Just because you're in the spread, I, bone, flexbone, wing-t, etc, etc, etc, does not change that. The nuances in Osborne's offense was just as multiple as a spread offense can be. The only real difference is in the RPO game.

#4 - IMO, Luke would be a better QB in Osborne's system, the PAP game would fit his arm strength level, not saying Martinez couldn't do it. Nebraska runs the ball at a clip right now from a Twitter state I saw today, one of the highest in the country.

 

[slattimer]

Also, this notion that Osborne's Offense was an option based is a common misconception. They were primarily and Inside/Outside Zone team with Outside Zone double options as a change up to exploit teams that played heavy box counts. In terms of run game, I'd have to go back and look at the stats of what they ran, but 25-30% were probably true double option plays. The rest were either IZ/OZ runs or Some form of Gap scheme trap or counter trey scheme.

 

[slattimer]

1995

1996

 

[SoCal_Corn]

1995
View attachment 907
1996
View attachment 908

Ahhhh....1995....😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍

 

[Jim14510]

but A LOT more NFL teams I feel like still operate under center in more of that "pro style" offense than they do with a dual threat out of the shot gun.

I would say you're wrong. Majority of teams basically run the spread without the qb run option.

 

[Pipe Line]

I would say you're wrong. Majority of teams basically run the spread without the qb run option.

Soooo hear me out.....could we run spread from under center when we pass, and also run the option and do all the running plays under the same offense?