Is the Option Dead?

[lkplayer]

Since the beginning, it has been apparent to me that the dump-off, slant, sissy-formation-switching WCO is completely inferior to any form of run-oriented offense. If you look at football on its most fundamental level, running the ball--especially with the duel threat of a running quarterback and running back--is far more effective than a pass offense with a slow, unathletic quarterback.

Why?

1. The ball is in what is probably your best athlete's hands every single play, thus increasing your chances for a big play or, at least, a first down.

2. Even in a three and out, your defense gets a bit of a breather, and the clock is controlled with every first down made.

3. You don't have to get 5-star, phenomenal receivers (who, BTW, have NO REASON to ever come to Nebraska from Florida or Cali)--just a decent tight end and one speedy receiver, both for play-action purposes. Running backs, on the other hand, will be lining up if you do it right.

4. There is still a pass threat when you can run the ball--the ever so effective play action. We had more long throws 5 years ago than we do today, and this is supposed to be a passing offense?

5. IF run successfully, the defense who has to play against the option will tire in the second half, a lot.

6. Nebraska culture is running the football. You may think that doesn't matter, but it does. It is who we are. We are used to the best (or among), fastest athlete at quarterback.

We should be looking for a new coach to lead us into--at the very least--some sort of Illinois model. I was thoroughly impressed with what I saw from them. It looked like an evolution of where Nebraska was going. I honestly believe such a change, with the entire overhaul of this coaching staff, could save the program.

 

[HuskerKing130]

Great post. 100% agree

 

[Washusker]

So why, exactly, is the option almost extinct?

Are coaching staffs across the nation stupid?

 

[Oklahoma Husker]

2. Even in a three and out, your defense gets a bit of a breather, and the clock is controlled with every first down made.

Although I can see the point of the other 5 this one doesn't really make sense. While running 3 plays and not getting a first will take more of the game clock than 3 incomplete passes, in actual time (not the game clock) they will take the same amount of time.

 

[DaveH]

Are coaching staffs across the nation stupid?

Seemingly, that's what he'd have you believe. :lol:

 

[lkplayer]

So why, exactly, is the option almost extinct?

Are coaching staffs across the nation stupid?

It isn't. West Virginia, Illinois, Texas A&M.. not to mention all the of the duel threat quarterbacks who consistently keep their teams in the game on athletic ability. Also, keep in mind, the option was damn near extinct in the Osbourne era, but no one said a damned thing then.

Yes.

 

[lkplayer]

2. Even in a three and out, your defense gets a bit of a breather, and the clock is controlled with every first down made.

Although I can see the point of the other 5 this one doesn't really make sense. While running 3 plays and not getting a first will take more of the game clock than 3 incomplete passes, in actual time (not the game clock) they will take the same amount of time.

At the end of the game, the defense is on the field less, period. So when the fourth quarter rolls around, unsuccessful drives still result in more defensive energy.

 

[DaveH]

So why, exactly, is the option almost extinct?

Are coaching staffs across the nation stupid?

It isn't. West Virginia, Illinois, Texas A&M.. not to mention all the of the duel threat quarterbacks who consistently keep their teams in the game on athletic ability. Also, keep in mind, the option was damn near extinct in the Osbourne era, but no one said a damned thing then.

Yes.

Having the option as part of your game != to basing your offense on it. Two completely different things. Hell, NU ran the option this year. Doesn't mean they are an option team.

Most of the teams you mention could fit more under a spread attack description than an option description.

 

[Foppa]

So exactly how is this thread relevant? Is your rant going to get NU to magically switch the offense? The option offense is DEAD. Get over it.

 

[Glendower]

5. IF run successfully, the defense who has to play against the option will tire in the second half, a lot.

And your D will have to practice against that O-- that's why our defense used to be full of indefatigable monsters. If they had to step up and take on Green or LP a few days a week during practice, they were going to be ready for *anything*. When you have an entire offensive backfield (and receivers!) who love to crush defenders, the people who play against them the most are going to be able to murder anyone who isn't will to give at least that much.

 

[lkplayer]

So why, exactly, is the option almost extinct?

Are coaching staffs across the nation stupid?

It isn't. West Virginia, Illinois, Texas A&M.. not to mention all the of the duel threat quarterbacks who consistently keep their teams in the game on athletic ability. Also, keep in mind, the option was damn near extinct in the Osbourne era, but no one said a damned thing then.

Yes.

Having the option as part of your game != to basing your offense on it. Two completely different things. Hell, NU ran the option this year. Doesn't mean they are an option team.

Most of the teams you mention could fit more under a spread attack description than an option description.

Spread Option, yes... the evolution of the option... all "option" means is a play-action run--i.e., a faked handoff and misdirection. West Virginia runs the option every play, and if they don't, it is a playaction. Texas runs the spread--there are more passes, more draws, not a lot of option running. Huge difference to what WV or Illinois does.

 

[lkplayer]

So exactly how is this thread relevant? Is your rant going to get NU to magically switch the offense? The option offense is DEAD. Get over it.

There are evolutions of it being used today which could change the scope of Husker football.

 

[Glendower]

So exactly how is this thread relevant? Is your rant going to get NU to magically switch the offense? The option offense is DEAD. Get over it.

I think these things can be cyclical, though. If no one does it, no one will be ready for it or conditioned for it.

 

[lkplayer]

5. IF run successfully, the defense who has to play against the option will tire in the second half, a lot.

And your D will have to practice against that O-- that's why our defense used to be full of indefatigable monsters. If they had to step up and take on Green or LP a few days a week during practice, they were going to be ready for *anything*. When you have an entire offensive backfield (and receivers!) who love to crush defenders, the people who play against them the most are going to be able to murder anyone who isn't will to give at least that much.

And the opposition D has one week to prepare against something they won't see all year until they face you... a hell of an advantage!

 

[DaveH]

Since the beginning, it has been apparent to me that the dump-off, slant, sissy-formation-switching WCO is completely inferior to any form of run-oriented offense. If you look at football on its most fundamental level, running the ball--especially with the duel threat of a running quarterback and running back--is far more effective than a pass offense with a slow, unathletic quarterback.

Why?

1. The ball is in what is probably your best athlete's hands every single play, thus increasing your chances for a big play or, at least, a first down.

Your best player isn't always the QB. Are you saying you really only need one good athlete?

2. Even in a three and out, your defense gets a bit of a breather, and the clock is controlled with every first down made.

The clock is controlled with first down's period. Doesn't really matter how you got there. Do you have any comparisons of 3 and outs and the time consumed? The only time I would buy that it would be shorter is on three straight incomplete passes. There is almost always a run mixed in there.

3. You don't have to get 5-star, phenomenal receivers (who, BTW, have NO REASON to ever come to Nebraska from Florida or Cali)--just a decent tight end and one speedy receiver, both for play-action purposes. Running backs, on the other hand, will be lining up if you do it right.

So let's check our "How to Win a MNC with an Option checklist." So far we have

1. A good QB

2. A decent tight end. Whatever decent means.

3. A single good receiver.

4. A running back.

What's missing from this picture?

4. There is still a pass threat when you can run the ball--the ever so effective play action. We had more long throws 5 years ago than we do today, and this is supposed to be a passing offense?

So a passing offense must contain a bunch of vertical routes and use them almost constantly? I'm sorry, but I didn't know there was a yardage that a pass must travel before it's considered a pass. Huh. I'll have to look that one up.

5. IF run successfully, the defense who has to play against the option will tire in the second half, a lot.

This could be said for any offense. Keep the defense on the field and you will wear them down eventually. The type of offense doesn't matter.

6. Nebraska culture is running the football. You may think that doesn't matter, but it does. It is who we are. We are used to the best (or among), fastest athlete at quarterback.

Not really sure what all that means.

In review, It's quite impossible to say that one offense is inferior to another. All offenses have their strong suits and their weaknesses. Unless it's fundamentally flawed, "Like oops I forgot that the defense has 11 guys as well, oh well, back to the drawing board", it comes down to executing the play. Considering it's age, it's pretty uninformed to say that the WCO has fundamental flaws.

Now, am I saying that the WCO is the best offense ever and NU should stick to it forever? No. I just think it's dumb to say that the WCO is inferior to another type of offense given the reasons you listed.