• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

True option flex bone offense?

I think running a true option would be good for us. Who knows if we would have the players or coaches to execute it properly. The main thing is that we need an offense that chews up clock, limits possessions, and keeps the other team's offense off the field. Not only would it drive the other team crazy but it would hide a lack of depth on defense. I wish college football would go back to the 06 clock rules where the clock started after a change of possession. That was a huge part of our success that year.
 
siff said:
Because Baylor is a larger school? Really? Amuse me with your logic.
Click to expand...

Show me your evidence we have the ability to recruit skill talent like Baylor has recently? And yes size of the school has a lot to do with it, ask Rice or Tulsa.
 
Just give me something that will work. It will take three years to to rebuild for the option. The personnel for this is not on our roster. L+D, success will get us some better recruits. They want a staff that can out coach the other team when things aren't going well. (When was the last time that happen for us). The school size does matter, along with the hot chick factor.
 
Last edited:
Should only take 1 year to institute an offense like this, if it is the only thing you practice and the only blocking drill the O-line works on the players can develop some proficiency with two spring balls and one full season.
 
DEACS76 said:
Just give me something that will work. It will take three years to to rebuild for the option. The personnel for this is not on our roster.
Click to expand...

Among the problems that have plagued the football program over the past 4 years, is the complete inability to land a solid D-1 RB. Josh Harris appeared to have all the talent in the world, but he could not break a tackle. Brandon Pendergrass was a decent backup option, and otherwise, there have been a ton of misses. WF really suffered not having a Chris Barclay or even a Josh Adams type of RB. To run the option, WF would need to upgrade the quality of RBs on the roster.
 
liveanddie,

Show me evidence where Baylor was able to recruit skill talent like they have under Art Briles.

Baylor has, what, 12K undergrads (maybe 14K, not sure)? Sure, that's significantly bigger than Wake, but significantly smaller than other Big 12 schools. How is that not an issue for them?

The stadium does look fantastic, BTW. Then again, its appeal is probably negated by the other fantastic options right in Texas. Somehow, some way, Briles has made it work. I refuse to subscribe to the LOWF mentality. Can we beat Alabama? No. Can we compete at a high level without running an offense that no kid wants to run? I think so.
 
liveanddiedeac said:
Show me your evidence we have the ability to recruit skill talent like Baylor has recently? And yes size of the school has a lot to do with it, ask Rice or Tulsa.
Click to expand...

Rice and Tulsa? Rice isn't in a BCS conference. I can't even tell you what conference Tulsa's in. Does conference affiliation not matter?
 
Next year is going to be a disaster no matter what. Will this be the worst team since the '95 or '96 1-10 squad?
 
Ga Tech seems to find them and Navy's running backs can't be higher rated than ours were and certainly have to be academically qualified like ours have to be.
 
siff said:
Rice and Tulsa? Rice isn't in a BCS conference. I can't even tell you what conference Tulsa's in. Does conference affiliation not matter?
Click to expand...

Apparently not too much, because if you look at our recruiting those are the type teams (not necessarily Rice and Tulsa) from non-BCS conferences we end up recruiting against. Look I don't why Baylor has had such a hard time having success before, but I think if you really look at everything, their ability to recruit at a high lever far outweighs ours.

I don't like The LOWF mentality either, but ignoring our limitations doesn't get us anywhere either.
 
GTs OL averages under 6'3" and under 295 lbs. They cut block every day, we did the same all spring Supposedly and it didn't work out too well. Our problem is in player developement and finding what the players we have do well.
 
To answer your questions:

1. Winning is fun, if the team wins with the option we would love it.
2. I think we would expect to be bowl team by year three under whatever coach or system we use.
3. As long was we produce bowl eligible teams and beat the other Tobacco Road schools, I think we'll be fairly satisfied.
4. I have my doubts that Paul Johnson will still be at GT three years from now and I'm fairly certain his replacement will not run the option.

I think it's far more important to shell out the money for a proven winner as a coach than what system we use. If we decide to go the option route, that's fine by me. But our own success from a few years ago along with that of Vandy, BC, Stanford and Baylor shows that being a yearly bowl eligible team is an attainable goal.
 
liveanddiedeac said:
Apparently not too much, because if you look at our recruiting those are the type teams (not necessarily Rice and Tulsa) from non-BCS conferences we end up recruiting against. Look I don't why Baylor has had such a hard time having success before, but I think if you really look at everything, their ability to recruit at a high lever far outweighs ours.

I don't like The LOWF mentality either, but ignoring our limitations doesn't get us anywhere either.
Click to expand...

Briles can walk into a recruits living room and tell them how he took a track star and made him into a heismann trophy winner. Grobe can tell stories on how he going to make the NCAA career leader in punts.
 
DEACS76 said:
GTs OL averages under 6'3" and under 295 lbs. They cut block every day, we did the same all spring Supposedly and it didn't work out too well. Our problem is in player developement and finding what the players we have do well.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I think a big difference is Tech really runs the option. In my opinion, running the true QB down the line option with the option of either keeping or pitching without the fullback dive is pretty pointless. Without the threat of the fullback dive, our attempts to run the option meant the defense only had to account for the QB and the pitch RB, nobody in the middle of the defense had to stay home for the threat of the full back dive.
 
We won't have anything until we have a new staff. This one is totally incapable of making substantive and implementing a program with vision. Why does anyone believe that? Grobe has had years to adjust and hasn't. Believe what you see and not what you hear- and we have heard nothing different for years The first 4 games this year is the total of the GroLobo promises of "new" offensive imagination. It is an indictment of their abilities. Change is gonna come- just not soon enough. The Wellman legacy. Snot bubbles have become a runny nose.
 
dcon69 said:
We won't have anything until we have a new staff. This one is totally incapable of making substantive and implementing a program with vision. Why does anyone believe that? Grobe has had years to adjust and hasn't. Believe what you see and not what you hear- and we have heard nothing different for years The first 4 games this year is the total of the GroLobo promises of "new" offensive imagination. It is an indictment of their abilities. Change is gonna come- just not soon enough. The Wellman legacy. Snot bubbles have become a runny nose.
Click to expand...

So true. It's funny how obvious it is to anyone but Grobe. Our offense has struggled for years and during that time we implemented different offenses and had different position coaches and we still struggle. The one constant during that time is we've had the same OC and yet that is the one thing Grobe seems unwilling to change.
 
Grobe's 0 for Novembers during this 5 year losing streak has us dead in the water for any bowl eligibility.

The team has to go 6-2 in Sept and Oct. Not going to happen :mad:
 
liveanddiedeac said:
Yeah, but I think a big difference is Tech really runs the option. In my opinion, running the true QB down the line option with the option of either keeping or pitching without the fullback dive is pretty pointless. Without the threat of the fullback dive, our attempts to run the option meant the defense only had to account for the QB and the pitch RB, nobody in the middle of the defense had to stay home for the threat of the full back dive.
Click to expand...

L+D, call me old school, but I think it works better with the QB under the center. The QB can hide the ball better and can hand off or play fake with either hand. The shot gun/pistol formation shows too much to the defense, the backs have no momentum when the ball is handed to them. Give me Thomas Lott or J.C. Watts to run my option attack.
 
[QUOTE=DEACS76;15095
I completely agree. I know they call things the option now that we don't think of really being the true option. To me, the true option is the QB under center with a handoff/fake to the FB on the dive and then coming down the line reading the DE and OLB and either keeping the ball or pitching to the trailing RB. The way we run it with no fullback dive threat, makes it way too easy to defend, especially when your blocking isn't great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top