The Option Offense - Making a Comeback?

[Notre Dame Joe]

mm. This discussion is floating around ND boards too. I mention that Ga Tech got stuffed agaist the good defenses. Even Navy didn't do that well against our inept D last year, with 7 2nd half points.

[Enhance]

always liked our offense but under solich we became slow at it in the later years. guy couldn't recruit the speed Osborne was able to.

dedhoarse

Not only that, but if you compare the style of offense between Solich and Osborne it becomes quite clear where Solich failed. You really have to wonder just how successful Nebraska would have been without Crouch at the helm. Solich ended up relying far too heavily on the quarterback and less on the beauty of the power offense in general. Once Osborne's recruits graduated, the home grown talent that Solich spent far too much time recruiting ended up hurting us. He didn't grasp what it meant to successfully run the Nebraska offense.

 

If we were to fire Watson I think we might want to try going to the option. Navy and Georgia Tech have shown it still works and we have the QB's for it.

My only qualm with this is the transition. Going from Solich's offense to this offense resulted in a bowl-less season and a 70 point loss to Texas Tech. Everybody offensive player was recruited to play our current offense. As much as I love the power run/option offense of old, I shutter to think of it's implementation. Besides, T.O. and the staff were extremely experienced and well versed in that offense. I can't think of anybody at the college level who could implement a system similar to the one we had.

 

mm. This discussion is floating around ND boards too. I mention that Ga Tech got stuffed agaist the good defenses. Even Navy didn't do that well against our inept D last year, with 7 2nd half points.

Interesting. GT's problem is more than just doing bad against good defenses, imho. They played pretty good defenses and came out victorious multiple times in 2009. Their two problems are defense and the passing game. Last year, they gave up 25+ points six times and four games where they gave up 30+ points. You can't do that with an option offense, because it is tough to come back from deficits. And as far as the passing game is concerned, Nesbitt went 2/9 for 12 yards and one interception. Eventually, the opposing defenses are going to figure out your scheme, which is why every offense needs the passing game at some point. There's was non existent against Iowa, and it cost them dearly.

[Hercules]

'The magic of the option offense at Nebraska left when TO retired'.

It ain't coming back. Jeez, let it go people, let it go. please...

 

Yeah, thank God it's gone and not coming back. Now we've got all those awesome horizontal passes and a running threat that does great vs SunBelt teams.

 

 

TO or Solich for 31 years never had an offense that could match last year.

 

Notice I said at Nebraska, the option offense by itself isn't a miracle worker, but it can be effective. It just ticks me off when people think the option itself made Nebraska effective, it was TO and the coaching staff that did it! There were TONS of teams in the 70's, 80's and 90's that ran it with little success. Heck, even when TO didn't have the proper athletes it sometimes didn't work, especially in big games. And it was even worse when Solich took over, our 2003 offense was arguably worse than our 09 offense, and our 2002 offense was pretty bad also.

 

 

The problem we had in big games (bowl games) in the 80s were generally a result of our defense more than our offensive system. Everybody thought we needed to switch to an air-it-out offense like Florida State and Miami in order to beat them, and TO thought in order to beat Miami and Florida State, we needed to play defense like they did. The switch to the 4/3 and getting way more speed on the defensive side of the ball while basically keeping the offense the same = 60-3 record from 1993-1997 with 3 national championships.

 

Similarly, it's a little tough to compare the 2002 and 2003 offenses to the 2009 offense, because both of those teams had defenses that were far inferior to the one we fielded last year. If we had either one of those offenses playing along with last year's defense, forget about it. Big 12 champs, at least. Jammal Lord nearly single-handedly beat a good Texas team without the help of Ndamukong Suh (just now thinking about him scrambling for 30 yards on nearly every pass play we called may have just made me change my mind and hope that Martinez wins the job...)

 

What made the 2009 offense truly memorable was just how awful they were even with all of the opportunities afforded them by our fantastic defense.

 

The opposite of this, of course, would be the 2007 team, where the defense was SO bad that they gave up touchdowns in the same amount of time it would take last year's defense to get a 3 and out. So, the offense could score 51 points and still lose by 2 touchdowns.

[bshirt]

'The magic of the option offense at Nebraska left when TO retired'.

It ain't coming back. Jeez, let it go people, let it go. please...

 

Yeah, thank God it's gone and not coming back. Now we've got all those awesome horizontal passes and a running threat that does great vs SunBelt teams.

 

 

TO or Solich for 31 years never had an offense that could match last year.

 

Notice I said at Nebraska, the option offense by itself isn't a miracle worker, but it can be effective. It just ticks me off when people think the option itself made Nebraska effective, it was TO and the coaching staff that did it! There were TONS of teams in the 70's, 80's and 90's that ran it with little success. Heck, even when TO didn't have the proper athletes it sometimes didn't work, especially in big games. And it was even worse when Solich took over, our 2003 offense was arguably worse than our 09 offense, and our 2002 offense was pretty bad also.

 

2003

24.8 PPG

345 YPG

4.9 Yards Per Play

24 Turnovers

37% 3rd Down Conversion %

 

2002

27.4 PPG

373 YPG

5.4 Yards Per Play

24 Turnovers

37% 3rd Down Conversion %

 

2009

25.1 PPG

323 YPG

5.2 Yards Per Play

23 Turnovers

38% 3rd Down Conversion %

 

 

Yeah, those two years were pretty downright bad....no doubt. However, as the topic is in reference to running the ball and as TO himself says "a yard running is worth more than a yard passing".

 

2009

99th in TO

147 rush ypg

 

2003

83rd in TO

236 rush ypg

 

2002

61st in TO

268 rush ypg

 

I don't have any sos stats but I'm sure you would agree 09's stats were helped dramatically with "three" patsy SunBelt teams (49, 38 & 55 points). 02's ooc of Arizona St, Troy St, Utah St & Penn St was vastly more rigorous. 03's ooc of Utah St, Penn St, Troy St, So. Miss was no murderer's row but still more difficult than 09's VT and three junior high school teams.

 

Lastly please recall that the BigXII North back then had two other good/ranked teams in KSU & CU. Also the Clones in 2002 & Missouri in 2003. In 09 the BigXII North was in the toilet with only Missouri (besides us) being ranked (barely @ 24th).

 

Heh...anyway, you're right that our offense stunk up the place then too. I would just argue not quite as badly.

[ESPY]

In response to Enhance89 above ----

 

We would've been just fine without Crouch b/c we had a great QB went by the name of Bobby Newcombe. He may not have won the Heisman that Crouch did, but even with Solich as HC, Newcombe was the type of QB who would've led us to another national title. Dude ran like a gazelle, ran the option efficiently, had fantastic touch on his passes (something Crouch never possessed), & most importantly he was a leader & team player who did whatever it took to win (see: becoming WR b/c Crouch threatened to leave NU if he didn't start).

 

And not to travel too far down that road, I'd like to add one more thing...

 

Wasn't Paul Johnson in the running to become our HC before Callahan's name even came up?

[bshirt]

'The magic of the option offense at Nebraska left when TO retired'.

It ain't coming back. Jeez, let it go people, let it go. please...

 

Yeah, thank God it's gone and not coming back. Now we've got all those awesome horizontal passes and a running threat that does great vs SunBelt teams.

 

 

TO or Solich for 31 years never had an offense that could match last year.

 

Notice I said at Nebraska, the option offense by itself isn't a miracle worker, but it can be effective. It just ticks me off when people think the option itself made Nebraska effective, it was TO and the coaching staff that did it! There were TONS of teams in the 70's, 80's and 90's that ran it with little success. Heck, even when TO didn't have the proper athletes it sometimes didn't work, especially in big games. And it was even worse when Solich took over, our 2003 offense was arguably worse than our 09 offense, and our 2002 offense was pretty bad also.

 

 

The problem we had in big games (bowl games) in the 80s were generally a result of our defense more than our offensive system. Everybody thought we needed to switch to an air-it-out offense like Florida State and Miami in order to beat them, and TO thought in order to beat Miami and Florida State, we needed to play defense like they did. The switch to the 4/3 and getting way more speed on the defensive side of the ball while basically keeping the offense the same = 60-3 record from 1993-1997 with 3 national championships.

 

Similarly, it's a little tough to compare the 2002 and 2003 offenses to the 2009 offense, because both of those teams had defenses that were far inferior to the one we fielded last year. If we had either one of those offenses playing along with last year's defense, forget about it. Big 12 champs, at least. Jammal Lord nearly single-handedly beat a good Texas team without the help of Ndamukong Suh (just now thinking about him scrambling for 30 yards on nearly every pass play we called may have just made me change my mind and hope that Martinez wins the job...)

 

What made the 2009 offense truly memorable was just how awful they were even with all of the opportunities afforded them by our fantastic defense.

The opposite of this, of course, would be the 2007 team, where the defense was SO bad that they gave up touchdowns in the same amount of time it would take last year's defense to get a 3 and out. So, the offense could score 51 points and still lose by 2 touchdowns.

 

 

That's a good point.

 

Also, as to the option "not being able to come back and win games".....Callahan's WCO (that we dumped the option for)was 0 - 19 when down at halftime.

[druski_2k5]

The only problem I would have running a true option game, would be a pass-run ratio. Let's be honest, you cannot win big games in today's college football world with a 95-5, 90-10, 85-15 RUN to PASS ratio, you just can't. We could get away with running the ball every play almost back then, because no one could touch us in the weight room, and we changed up our defense which in-return brought us National Championships. Defense wins championships and with that I think you could run any offense, but I just can't see a RUN to PASS ratio like the ones I listed above, I think you need to be able to do both.

 

I would be all in favor of keeping our current "style" of offense [Ace, I-Form, Shotgun, Wildcat [that pains me to say it] Pro, Flexbone multiplicity of formations] but have the THREAT to run the OPTION as well has have a POWER RUNNING game out of ANY and EVERY formation, WITH the decent threat of a downward pass. What made our passing solid during those years, was the fact we RAN so well it SET UP the play-action pass.

 

It would take a little bit of time to get the pitches down and some of the blocking formations, but if we kept it a little limited, sprinkled it in for every formation but didn't rely on running the option the entire game, I think it could be do-able. You definitely need to work with the running backs for a power game between and outside the tackles and not just hope your quarterback can outrun the defense like Crouch did most of the time, and yes, I shudder to think how things could have been for Solich without him.

 

For example,

 

On first down you could come out in a Maryland I formation and run straight at them. Then on 2nd and 4 come out in an Ace Trips formation and run a 5 step drop passing play, and then on 3rd down or if you convert 1st down on the pass play, come out in a 5 WR set and run a motion option with the slot receiver. Then on the next play you could line up in a Shotgun formation with 2 running backs and throw some Playaction Zone Read , with the slot going underneath, the X receiver on a fly route, and the Y receiver on a post route, if nothing is open take off and run, and then after that, run the Wildcat formation, after that line up in I-Form Twins WR set and run an Option to the weak side away from the wide receivers unless it's zone, then you motion one of the receivers over to help chip the corner-back.

 

The bottom line I think is Multiplicity with Balance. The effective ability to keep the defense guessing, while having a solid passing attack and a brutal running game. A good RUN to PASS ratio to me would be 65-35, 60-40, or 55-45, and this would have the ability to use ball control when ahead, and to be able to pass when needed to or when behind.

[Hercules]

The only problem I would have running a true option game, would be a pass-run ratio. Let's be honest, you cannot win big games in today's college football world with a 95-5, 90-10, 85-15 RUN to PASS ratio, you just can't. We could get away with running the ball every play almost back then, because no one could touch us in the weight room, and we changed up our defense which in-return brought us National Championships. Defense wins championships and with that I think you could run any offense, but I just can't see a RUN to PASS ratio like the ones I listed above, I think you need to be able to do both.

 

I would be all in favor of keeping our current "style" of offense [Ace, I-Form, Shotgun, Wildcat [that pains me to say it] Pro, Flexbone multiplicity of formations] but have the THREAT to run the OPTION as well has have a POWER RUNNING game out of ANY and EVERY formation, WITH the decent threat of a downward pass. What made our passing solid during those years, was the fact we RAN so well it SET UP the play-action pass.

 

It would take a little bit of time to get the pitches down and some of the blocking formations, but if we kept it a little limited, sprinkled it in for every formation but didn't rely on running the option the entire game, I think it could be do-able. You definitely need to work with the running backs for a power game between and outside the tackles and not just hope your quarterback can outrun the defense like Crouch did most of the time, and yes, I shudder to think how things could have been for Solich without him.

 

For example,

 

On first down you could come out in a Maryland I formation and run straight at them. Then on 2nd and 4 come out in an Ace Trips formation and run a 5 step drop passing play, and then on 3rd down or if you convert 1st down on the pass play, come out in a 5 WR set and run a motion option with the slot receiver. Then on the next play you could line up in a Shotgun formation with 2 running backs and throw some Playaction Zone Read , with the slot going underneath, the X receiver on a fly route, and the Y receiver on a post route, if nothing is open take off and run, and then after that, run the Wildcat formation, after that line up in I-Form Twins WR set and run an Option to the weak side away from the wide receivers unless it's zone, then you motion one of the receivers over to help chip the corner-back.

 

The bottom line I think is Multiplicity with Balance. The effective ability to keep the defense guessing, while having a solid passing attack and a brutal running game. A good RUN to PASS ratio to me would be 65-35, 60-40, or 55-45, and this would have the ability to use ball control when ahead, and to be able to pass when needed to or when behind.

 

The problem I think most of us see with this is that it's incredibly difficult to have that on a yearly basis. It would be a highly complex offense to learn and therefore you might struggle to get your best athletes on the field immediately, which is something Osborne was always able to do.

 

I also get a little tired of hearing people say you have to be "multiple" in order to keep the defense guessing. Just because you run the ball most of the time doesn't mean you're not keeping the defense off-balance. There's a huge diversity of blocking schemes and running plays and playaction passes that Osborne used to constantly keep defenses honest.

[Spooky Tooth]

Let's not forget the always-entertaining argument that a power option attack can no longer work in CFB because defensive athletes have gotten too fast. That notion ignores the fact that OFFENSIVE athletes have also gotten faster.

[bshirt]

Let's not forget the always-entertaining argument that a power option attack can no longer work in CFB because defensive athletes have gotten too fast. That notion ignores the fact that OFFENSIVE athletes have also gotten faster.

 

HA! If only I had a dollar for every time I've heard that ridiculous argument. It would be move over Bill Gates.

[druski_2k5]

The only problem I would have running a true option game, would be a pass-run ratio. Let's be honest, you cannot win big games in today's college football world with a 95-5, 90-10, 85-15 RUN to PASS ratio, you just can't. We could get away with running the ball every play almost back then, because no one could touch us in the weight room, and we changed up our defense which in-return brought us National Championships. Defense wins championships and with that I think you could run any offense, but I just can't see a RUN to PASS ratio like the ones I listed above, I think you need to be able to do both.

 

I would be all in favor of keeping our current "style" of offense [Ace, I-Form, Shotgun, Wildcat [that pains me to say it] Pro, Flexbone multiplicity of formations] but have the THREAT to run the OPTION as well has have a POWER RUNNING game out of ANY and EVERY formation, WITH the decent threat of a downward pass. What made our passing solid during those years, was the fact we RAN so well it SET UP the play-action pass.

 

It would take a little bit of time to get the pitches down and some of the blocking formations, but if we kept it a little limited, sprinkled it in for every formation but didn't rely on running the option the entire game, I think it could be do-able. You definitely need to work with the running backs for a power game between and outside the tackles and not just hope your quarterback can outrun the defense like Crouch did most of the time, and yes, I shudder to think how things could have been for Solich without him.

 

For example,

 

On first down you could come out in a Maryland I formation and run straight at them. Then on 2nd and 4 come out in an Ace Trips formation and run a 5 step drop passing play, and then on 3rd down or if you convert 1st down on the pass play, come out in a 5 WR set and run a motion option with the slot receiver. Then on the next play you could line up in a Shotgun formation with 2 running backs and throw some Playaction Zone Read , with the slot going underneath, the X receiver on a fly route, and the Y receiver on a post route, if nothing is open take off and run, and then after that, run the Wildcat formation, after that line up in I-Form Twins WR set and run an Option to the weak side away from the wide receivers unless it's zone, then you motion one of the receivers over to help chip the corner-back.

 

The bottom line I think is Multiplicity with Balance. The effective ability to keep the defense guessing, while having a solid passing attack and a brutal running game. A good RUN to PASS ratio to me would be 65-35, 60-40, or 55-45, and this would have the ability to use ball control when ahead, and to be able to pass when needed to or when behind.

 

The problem I think most of us see with this is that it's incredibly difficult to have that on a yearly basis. It would be a highly complex offense to learn and therefore you might struggle to get your best athletes on the field immediately, which is something Osborne was always able to do.

 

I also get a little tired of hearing people say you have to be "multiple" in order to keep the defense guessing. Just because you run the ball most of the time doesn't mean you're not keeping the defense off-balance. There's a huge diversity of blocking schemes and running plays and playaction passes that Osborne used to constantly keep defenses honest.

 

Point well taken, and I agree with what you said about Osborne, but if I were running the show, I would make SURE the BEST athletes got on the field, in some way shape or form. Which is why we have to get Mike McNeill more involved, get Robinson involved, and even have Martinez on the field in some capacity. I know we got speed, and size on the sideline. If it takes "dumbing down the playbook" to get them on the field, then that's what I would do, or at least simplify it. Our quarterback needs to be balanced or a mobile one, as much as I loved Zac Taylor, the way we are going is mobile quarterbacks, because it's just another weapon the defense has to account for, to create a mismatch obviously.

 

I agree things need to be more simple and shortened, it amazes me how simple some of our playbooks were when I saw the 1997 and 2001 playbooks, simply astonishing. Having multiple formations with fewer plays, instead of multiple formations with multiple plays, may solve some of the problem where guys aren't seeing the field. And I would totally be against having a guy need to know "the whole playbook" before entering, but make sure everyone feels comfortable with what they got or what we can run if it came down to simplifying or dumbing it down.

 

I believe Pelini also said he wanted to go to a Spread Option attack, and I know Osborne said recently if he were still coaching that is what he would run, something that West Virginia or Florida runs, with a few traditional sets I'm sure too.

[Hercules]

The only problem I would have running a true option game, would be a pass-run ratio. Let's be honest, you cannot win big games in today's college football world with a 95-5, 90-10, 85-15 RUN to PASS ratio, you just can't. We could get away with running the ball every play almost back then, because no one could touch us in the weight room, and we changed up our defense which in-return brought us National Championships. Defense wins championships and with that I think you could run any offense, but I just can't see a RUN to PASS ratio like the ones I listed above, I think you need to be able to do both.

 

I would be all in favor of keeping our current "style" of offense [Ace, I-Form, Shotgun, Wildcat [that pains me to say it] Pro, Flexbone multiplicity of formations] but have the THREAT to run the OPTION as well has have a POWER RUNNING game out of ANY and EVERY formation, WITH the decent threat of a downward pass. What made our passing solid during those years, was the fact we RAN so well it SET UP the play-action pass.

 

It would take a little bit of time to get the pitches down and some of the blocking formations, but if we kept it a little limited, sprinkled it in for every formation but didn't rely on running the option the entire game, I think it could be do-able. You definitely need to work with the running backs for a power game between and outside the tackles and not just hope your quarterback can outrun the defense like Crouch did most of the time, and yes, I shudder to think how things could have been for Solich without him.

 

For example,

 

On first down you could come out in a Maryland I formation and run straight at them. Then on 2nd and 4 come out in an Ace Trips formation and run a 5 step drop passing play, and then on 3rd down or if you convert 1st down on the pass play, come out in a 5 WR set and run a motion option with the slot receiver. Then on the next play you could line up in a Shotgun formation with 2 running backs and throw some Playaction Zone Read , with the slot going underneath, the X receiver on a fly route, and the Y receiver on a post route, if nothing is open take off and run, and then after that, run the Wildcat formation, after that line up in I-Form Twins WR set and run an Option to the weak side away from the wide receivers unless it's zone, then you motion one of the receivers over to help chip the corner-back.

 

The bottom line I think is Multiplicity with Balance. The effective ability to keep the defense guessing, while having a solid passing attack and a brutal running game. A good RUN to PASS ratio to me would be 65-35, 60-40, or 55-45, and this would have the ability to use ball control when ahead, and to be able to pass when needed to or when behind.

 

The problem I think most of us see with this is that it's incredibly difficult to have that on a yearly basis. It would be a highly complex offense to learn and therefore you might struggle to get your best athletes on the field immediately, which is something Osborne was always able to do.

 

I also get a little tired of hearing people say you have to be "multiple" in order to keep the defense guessing. Just because you run the ball most of the time doesn't mean you're not keeping the defense off-balance. There's a huge diversity of blocking schemes and running plays and playaction passes that Osborne used to constantly keep defenses honest.

 

Point well taken, and I agree with what you said about Osborne, but if I were running the show, I would make SURE the BEST athletes got on the field, in some way shape or form. Which is why we have to get Mike McNeill more involved, get Robinson involved, and even have Martinez on the field in some capacity. I know we got speed, and size on the sideline. If it takes "dumbing down the playbook" to get them on the field, then that's what I would do, or at least simplify it. Our quarterback needs to be balanced or a mobile one, as much as I loved Zac Taylor, the way we are going is mobile quarterbacks, because it's just another weapon the defense has to account for, to create a mismatch obviously.

 

I agree things need to be more simple and shortened, it amazes me how simple some of our playbooks were when I saw the 1997 and 2001 playbooks, simply astonishing. Having multiple formations with fewer plays, instead of multiple formations with multiple plays, may solve some of the problem where guys aren't seeing the field. And I would totally be against having a guy need to know "the whole playbook" before entering, but make sure everyone feels comfortable with what they got or what we can run if it came down to simplifying or dumbing it down.

 

I believe Pelini also said he wanted to go to a Spread Option attack, and I know Osborne said recently if he were still coaching that is what he would run, something that West Virginia or Florida runs, with a few traditional sets I'm sure too.

 

Yeah, based on what Pelini has said in the past and what we started to see in the Holiday bowl, I think our offense will probably be a mixture of the Spread Option and the type of offense Alabama runs, whatever that might be called.

[zoogs]

A spread option? What, like what RichRod ran?

 

I'd like to see a source on this, since Pelini has apparently wanted different kinds of offenses according to various reports. I think for the most part it's Shawn's show and that's how Pelini considers it. No?

[skerman]

Just score points and we will love you!!!

[Enhance]

A spread option? What, like what RichRod ran?

 

I'd like to see a source on this, since Pelini has apparently wanted different kinds of offenses according to various reports. I think for the most part it's Shawn's show and that's how Pelini considers it. No?

It's like a marriage.

 

Bo wears the pants, but he lets Watson have responsibility for half of the relationship. If Watson gets out of line, Bo pulls the strings