This is a discussion on Will Tebowmania help our recruiting? within the Georgia Tech Football forums, part of the Georgia Tech Sports Message Boards category; Is there a fish taking the bait emoticon available?...
Is there a fish taking the bait emoticon available?
My only claim is that the Flexbone won't work. Not because the players are too slow (that's retarded) but because the plays are too strung out.
And running is completely different than passing. So the comparison doesn't work.
Last edited by HelluvaMGTmjr; 12-09-2011 at 09:48 AM.
Just think about Dennard Robinson from Michigan playing the 3-O. If the NFL goes that way he will be a star.
BTW, it was my Detroit Lions that beat Tebow and the Broncs senseless.
And in Augusta, we set our clocks back 50 years...
Robinson would be hurt a lot. The Tebows and Cam Newtons can take it, but the Michael Vicks are a little too fragile.
The Lions are the most Classless team in the NFL. No offense. I cheered for them up until this year.
Why would an NFL team want to run the Flexbone? We all admit it is a good fit for GT and the service academies because of the talent defeciency...so why would the Falcons ever want to run it if they can buy Matt Ryan, Gonzalez, Turner, White, Jones?
Who says it works in college? Does it work at the higher level of competition? You going to cite GSU Bama again? If most college teams don't want to run it, why would a NFL team?
Even that's debateable: The Houston Oilers ran the Run-n-Shoot with Warren Moon and put up some outrageous numbers, as did Atlanta with Jerry Glanville and June Jones (as OC), and Detroit Lions for a bit in the '80's and early 90's. I'm sure "choice" route was a part of their offenses given that Mouse Davis was OC for Houston, and June Jones was a disciple of Mouse Davis. The argument that defenses caught up to the Run-n-Shoot were dispelled by this guy who did an analytical look at "modern defenses" versus the Run-n-Shoot in the NFL:
Run-and-Shoot Offense « Leafing Through Pages: Analysis of Sports and Other Topics
Stylee...I know you said "pass first teams", but this debate originates from the argument that CPJ's Spread Option wouldn't work in the NFL, so I'll have to frame it in that context. The beauty of CPJ's offense, which I've raved about in several threads, is the polar dichotomy of the defenses you have to use to defend it. Not only does it stretch to you out horizontally (to defend the option), it stretches you out vertically (to defend the pass). One of the reasons the Run-n-Shoot all but disappeared (even though some passing concepts still remain in the NFL) is because of the ball control (or lack of it) due to poor running game and its affects their own defense. Well, the "flexbone" solves that, and not only does that require the defense to defend the run in a unique way, but you also have to defend the pass in a unique way. Unfortunately for GT, we have not had the athletes to optimize the Run-n-shoot aspects of our passing game, and that's made opposing defenses "sell out" against our run game. This "problem" shows up against teams that are more talented than us (UGA, VT, LSU, etc.). When the talent disparity is the other way around (like against Kansas, Western Carolina, Mid. Tenn.) you can see the problem our offense poses to the defense. Again, that's where CPJ needs to improve recruiting...but that's a whole different discussion. Here's a piece on how certain NFL teams (namely New England and Indianapolis) use Run-n-shoot concepts for their passing game:
Thoughts on the spread and run and shoot offenses — Hemlock’s comment | Smart Football
Here's a fantastic in-depth look at how teams from various levels (yes, even in the NFL) specifically use the "choice" route (or the modern variant) today:
Smart Football: Run and Shoot Series Part 3 - The "Choice" Concept
GT needs a QB and 2 wide receivers that can make catches in tough situations.! I prefer the SO because it is not boring. Look at the games that are exciting in the NFL (count them on your one hand) then look at college. Why is college so popular to watch from the viewpoint of both sexes? OK you missed the first answer but you are right on the second answer.... the SO and the executing QB. That gives GT a full triple option...keep the ball and run, lateral off or pass. Then Gt will not be at the mercy of 3rd and long or sucking up the clock while a slow moving running games trudges down the field. I live in Florida and we have a multitude of athletes who can make that type of offense shine. However, the problem is most of the athletes who are capable of doing the above are not capable of passing GT courses nor do they want to.
And the point there would be...yes, WRs would have an advantage but not AS MUCH as an advantage.
What you seem to be saying is "Yes, we can average around six yards on every triple option we run, but the "advantage" of reading defenders and thus gaining extra blockers is nullified by superior athleticism."
So, for some reason, it's not just "The reading QB/dive back/pitch back has LESS of an advantage than he previously did" because of the superior athleticism of the defenders. It's that that he has NO advantage now.
Why the difference between this and the WR - who now just has less of advantage than he previously had?
Because it "takes longer" and requires more "dancing" ?
Take a stopwatch out and time how long it takes the BB to get to the LOS on a dive read of a triple option. Compare that to the time it takes a halfback to get to the LOS from the I-formation on an NFL inside zone run.
Do the same for how long it takes the QB to get to the LOS on a keep read of a triple option. Compare that to the time it takes a halfback to get to the LOS from the I-Formation on an NFL inside zone run.
Repeat for pitch back to reach LOS.
I think you'll find that the first two will be quicker than the inside zone run.
You'll find that the last option is a touch slower.
So, if the argument is that it "takes longer"... it takes longer on the least-commonly obtained read by a tiny fraction of second. That read, however, averages quite a bit more yardage than the other two.
But this also seems to cut against some other logic you've sometimes used: that our BBs and ABs can't "pick their hole" because the play develops so quickly. So is a triple option too quick hitting or not quick hitting enough?
Re: "too strung out"
The triple option does have one read that is a perimeter play. This read is the least common but biggest gainer, as stated above.
When the player gets the ball, he does so at or around the LOS in the vast majority of cases. The exceptions would be: a little behind the LOS, as when the pitch key blitzes - in which case the next player to "string it out" is the FS - and those instances when the pitch is actually beyond the LOS.
The B-Back's hole is roughly equivalent to where a HB aims on IZ, though he often cuts underneath it when facing a 3 tech (in the option world this is the "action" and we typically cut under him too...). The QB's hole is roughly where a HB aims on Outside Zone. Both are commonly used.
Look, I'm not saying that any NFL team WILL go to spread option a la Johnson.
But dismissing it as a priori inferior/impossible is silly.
People did that with pass-first teams. They did it with the inside zone (with/without read option) runs from shotgun. They did it with direct snaps/wildcat.
Why didn't NFL coaches run do these things from the start? Because they're a bunch of homogenous copycats with short leashes on them.
"Why would a team want to throw 40 times a game when they've got good RBs to choose from? Why would a team want to do anything but base from the I-formation when there are good fullbacks out there? Why would a team want to run Airraid or RNS concepts when they've got WRs like Jerry Rice who can run West Coast stuff so well?"
See how that works?
BTW...missed you. Not enough dissidents with your resolve!
Last edited by stylee; 12-09-2011 at 02:10 PM.