The Option Offense - Making a Comeback?

knapplc

knapplc

International Man of Mystery
I got a kick out of this. Seems that boring old offense we used to run - and used to get mocked for running in the "modern" era - is now all the rage. So much so that Stewart Mandel and Andy Staples wrote a blurb about it in their latest project:

9. Option offense: Ready for a comeback?
The future won't belong solely to the pro/spread hybrid. As the spread flourished this past decade, defenses adjusted. More teams adopted a 3-4, allowing more flexibility to spy a quarterback who might double as a fullback.

That shift in defensive philosophy means it's time for a new-old offensive fad. And since bell-bottoms and platform shoes have already enjoyed minor renaissances, it seems only fair that coaches bring back that staple of the '70s football experience: the option. We're not talking about the occasional pitch play. We're talking about the holy trinity of the dive back, quarterback keeper or pitch.

Paul Johnson, who probably has leisure suits and tearaway jerseys in his closet, has proven at Navy and Georgia Tech that the option still works. How well? In Johnson's second season at Tech, he won the ACC title.

Most people think the option is a boring, grind-it-out scheme. Not true, said Tom Osborne, an option aficionado who coached Nebraska to national titles in 1994, 1995 and 1997. "Most of the zone plays you see now, if you block things perfectly, you may make seven, eight, nine yards," Osborne said. "If somebody misses a tackle, you might go a long way. In option football, if you execute correctly, you've got enough people to block everybody and theoretically score a touchdown on most every option play."

The option could be the answer for teams that recruit great defenses but struggle to assemble great offenses -- we're looking at you, Nebraska and North Carolina. Had Nebraska run the option last year, the Cornhuskers probably would have won the Big 12 title.

The three rarest specimens on the recruiting trail are, in order, elite defensive tackles, strong-armed quarterbacks and large, athletic offensive linemen. Nebraska already recruits elite defensive tackles, so that's not an issue. Running the option eliminates the need for the other two. Teams wanted former Cornhuskers quarterback Tommie Frazier as a safety, and he won two national titles running the option. Meanwhile, there is an ample supply of athletic, 6-foot-3, 280-pound linemen -- ideal for the trapping and cutting required by the option -- being ignored by most big-time programs. So what's the holdup? Johnson already has proven the option can work in a BCS conference. It's time to bring it back on a grand scale.
Click to expand...
It's funny how people still don't seem to get what Osborne was doing, though. Claiming that the Option offense eliminates the need for "athletic" linemen is absurd. Other than that, I thought this was pretty entertaining.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You might want to re-read the final paragraph. He claimed that LARGE athletic linemen aren't required by the option, and that there are a lot of athletic linemen in the 6-3, 280# range that we would have our pick of since other schools overlook them.

 
I would love for the Huskers to have a run-based offense with many different option looks out of the I, Ace, Shotgun, and Wildcat formations.

The option game, a solid inside run game, and the ability to pass would be a thing of beauty.

 
307husker said:
You might want to re-read the final paragraph. He claimed that LARGE athletic linemen aren't required by the option, and that there are a lot of athletic linemen in the 6-3, 280# range that we would have our pick of since other schools overlook them.
Click to expand...
We had large, athletic linemen. It's a minor thing, but something I noticed.

 
307husker said:
We had large, athletic linemen.
Click to expand...
But now they test for steroids...
Click to expand...
People are kidding themselves if they blame only one or only a few select teams for steroid abuse. There have been reported juicing cases at many division one football schools. Everybody did it. We had some steroid abusing linemen, but you can bet your last dollar that they faced some serious defensive linemen that juiced as well.

As far as the topic at hand, I love the option. It is a relatively simple offense to execute with easy to learn blocking schemes that can be perfected quickly. It favors schools that aren't recruiting hotbeds for talent.

Think about it. This team is based in Lincoln, Nebraska. It is a relatively small city in a state that has a relatively small population. The talent here isn't grand by any means, which makes recruiting difficult. Schools like Texas, Florida, USC, etc. have access to the talent to run whatever offense they want. But, when you live in a state that doesn't offer the same pleasantries, it makes sense to run an offense that doesn't require an abundance of highly rated talent.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My point (since it was missed) is that we built big linemen out of relatively athletic linemen through strength and conditioning and pharmacology. We have never been able to recruit the cream of the crop due to reasons mentioned above, yet we built great lines. This is in keeping with what the article describes, take athletic moderately sized linemen and run an offense that doesn't depend on lineman size as much as speed/skill of the players.

 
I think everyone's had enough of the steroid accusations to last a lifetime, hence the reaction to that statement. Sure, there were rampant steroids being used by NU and pretty much every other school back then. There most likely isn't a campus in America today without one dirty football player, let alone several. Bottom line - we weren't guilty of anything everyone else wasn't guilty of, so pointing that out is a non sequitur.

 
307husker said:
My point (since it was missed) is that we built big linemen out of relatively athletic linemen through strength and conditioning and pharmacology. We have never been able to recruit the cream of the crop due to reasons mentioned above, yet we built great lines. This is in keeping with what the article describes, take athletic moderately sized linemen and run an offense that doesn't depend on lineman size as much as speed/skill of the players.
Click to expand...
I understood your point. I was merely pointing out the problem with the steroid argument for my own venting purposes.

I couldn't agree more with you. The option offense is a relatively simplistic offense, and it doesn't require big 300 pound, 6'5" linemen to run it. Naturally, your linemen get bigger the further from the center you get. But, all a team would need is guys floating in the 275-295 pound range going anywhere from 6'1" to 6'4". Those guys are probably a lot easier to come by than the 6'6", 300 pound behemoths.

 
We may have simply capitalized on the steroid issue a bit more than the other teams due to a S&C program that was well ahead of its time. The juice doesn't do much without the iron...

Everybody's a bit testy about the steroid issue, eh?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top