This is a matter I've tried to give a lot of thought because personally I like a power running game. I hear a lot of people shoot off the ESPN one-liner "the option's dead" and then sit around waiting for a bunch of goofy smiles and nodding heads. What I rarely hear is an argument as to WHY it is dead, aside from fallacious "because it doesn't work anymore," "or linebackers are too fast" arguments. Now, it may, in fact, be dead; I simply doubt it. I'll give some reasons here in a moment, and break down some arguments.
First of all let's define our terms. I think it's readily obvious that the "option" itself is not an offensive philsophy. The triple option that Nebraska 'ran' was a play that added flavor to a much more complicated running game. When I refer to the option as an offense, what I'm really saying is the power running game which features the option as a base play run out of the I-formation. So to avoid confusion that's how I think of the term.
Here is why I would say the option could be very much alive both as a play and a looser term for our old offensive system. To begin with, the play itself, run properly, is indefensible. Even if the opposing defense KNOWS that it is coming (which is unlikely given the versatility of the I-formation), it doesn't necessarily guarantee success defending it. Sure, linebackers are smaller and quicker these days, but if you run a standard triple option play, you have the opportunity to let the FB drive for a few yards (which sucks up an LB from the getgo), the QB can run or fake pitch, and obvioulsy pitch the ball off. Most plays on defense, it would seem, don't take that much thought in defending. Not only would your LBs have to be fast and strong to stop power backs and speedy quarterbacks, but they'd have to be sharp enough to read the play and react. This is made difficult when we consider that very, very few teams run the triple-option at all; LBs today would in all likelihood not have much experience defending it, which plays into our hands.
In larger terms, speaking of the option as a philosophy, I see even less of a problem. Any offensive philosophy can work under ideal conditions. The power running game has been dead ever since Columbus stepped off that ship in 1492, but somehow Nebraska managed to win 5 national championships and contend for several others using this archaic formula. Frankly I like the formula. It's a ball control offense; it becomes progressivly more effective as the game goes along; it's low risk. The option PLAY mixed in with a more complicated SCHEME should, I would argue, yield fine results. After all, why wouldn't it? So what if those LBs can run 4.40 times? If they try to jump on a fullback who all but doubles their weight, there is a very good chance he's going to get yards anyway. If your scheme is complex enough, they won't see the option coming, and that then frees you up to run the option, or a number of other running plays.
We haven't even spoken of the passing game yet, which PA opens beautifully in a running attack. I think we could probably number off quite a few amazing gains when lone corners dropped their assigments expecting the run only to see the receivers galloping off into the sunset with the ball in hand.
But overall I guess what I'm trying to make clear is that if you have a complex running system and players who can execute that system, I see no reason why it shouldn't work. As long as you have a defense that can keep you from playing catch-up (not a running game staple), and you can move the ball without going three and out, you wear down your opponent. Winning the war of attrition, in my opinion, is the best way to win. It secures victory much more easily and confidantly, breaking the morale of an opponent not on big plays, but with a steady, merciless grind up front. The power running game allows for a lot more underclassmen to see action, especially on the front lines and at the RB position.
In 2003 Nebraska won 10 games using a running/option system. I know, we lost a few of them big, and won a few others close, but let's remember, it was Frank Solich, after all. He didn't exactly have the cream of the crop coming into this fine state to play for the greatest football tradition in the world. If it worked well enough to win 10 games with a lousy coach in 2003, what is so different about 2007? What if we had a spectacular option coach to teach and run it? What is it specifically about the system that falls short?
I could be making myself look like an idiot posting this, but for those of you who disagree, I offer this only in the spirit of intellectual engagement, and if there truly are good reasons why the option is not viable (besides we now have WCO players), I would love to hear your arguments. I hold no great conceit for my opinion on the matter. Fire away.
X
