Triple Option anyone?

Donate To GopherHole
RodentRampage

RodentRampage

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
9,474
Reaction score
209
Points
63
If we're to have a new OC, and therefore a new offense, how about going with the triple option? This would really take advantage of Gray's abilities. It's better to have a small number of plays that we do well than have a large playbook that we do poorly. You can get a lot of use out of triple option left, triple option right. Get that down pat, and you can add to it from there.

Some people have called the triple option "gimmicky", but it's really just old school football.
 

I'd be on board with that.

The major problem right now is that we do not have the personnel at offensive line
 

I love the triple option. I love it out of the old school wishbone the most. It would also abhor me to see another full fledged offensive scheme change at this point.
 

RodentRampage said:
If we're to have a new OC, and therefore a new offense, how about going with the triple option? This would really take advantage of Gray's abilities. It's better to have a small number of plays that we do well than have a large playbook that we do poorly. You can get a lot of use out of triple option left, triple option right. Get that down pat, and you can add to it from there.

Some people have called the triple option "gimmicky", but it's really just old school football.
Click to expand...

Gross. Not a fan of a strictly option offense. It's fine to throw it in once and a while, but not your entire offense. You'll never get athletes to come here that want to go to the NFL. Great receivers don't want to spend their time blocking, they want to show off their catching ability to go pro. Option QBs and small, fast lineman don't go pro.
 

3 years ago, I would have said yes. We've already had 3 major scheme changes since the 2006 season and I don't think another one would be productive right now. I'm in the "continuity" camp and believe we should find someone who can take what Fisch was trying to do and simplify it a bit.
 


Go for it. I am sure Iowa would love to see it.
 

FreakyDeke said:
Gross. Not a fan of a strictly option offense. It's fine to throw it in once and a while, but not your entire offense. You'll never get athletes to come here that want to go to the NFL. Great receivers don't want to spend their time blocking, they want to show off their catching ability to go pro. Option QBs and small, fast lineman don't go pro.
Click to expand...

I am not saying we should go to the option because we need some continuity right now but the beauty of it is that you are not required to fill a roster full of future NFL'ers to win with it and it allows you to recruit some different athletes that fit your system well. That may be easier than trying to compete with the big programs for the same exact type of athletes (i.e. pro style QB's). In regards to the lineman, you do not necessarily have to run it with small lineman, they just have to be able to move. Look back at when Nebraska was running the option, they had gigantic lineman and many of them went to the NFL. They were also not having to compete with the Miami's and Florida programs at the time for the same QB or WR recruits, yet they could more than hold their own when it came to playing on the field.
 

FreakyDeke said:
Gross. Not a fan of a strictly option offense. It's fine to throw it in once and a while, but not your entire offense. You'll never get athletes to come here that want to go to the NFL. Great receivers don't want to spend their time blocking, they want to show off their catching ability to go pro. Option QBs and small, fast lineman don't go pro.
Click to expand...

If it won games for the Gophers, I wouldn't care if we got players who wanted to go to the NFL. It's great if the Gophers can get players into the NFL, but that is secondary. Of course it doesn't need to be option left, option right on every play. But if we can get that down pat, we could add to it from there. I think the Gophers need to focus on doing what they can do well rather than attempting to keep the defense guessing by attempting a lot.

I'd like to see it as a significant part of the offense, but not the whole offense.
 

Nope. Can't set back winning another 3-5 years.
 



No way the Gophers go to the triple option. Brewster wants to keep the offense the same, and not introduce the 4th different scheme in five years. Also, even though the triple option has been very successful in the past, and even in the current landscape of college football like at Rice, Air Force, Navy, and Georgia Tech, it would be hard to get top recruits to come and play for Minnesota if they ran that type of offense. Kids want to play in a scheme that is similar to a pro style, and also a scheme that will show off their talents. It would be almost impossible to get Wrs and QBs to come to Minnesota because the Gophers wouldn't throw enough.
 

It's not Brews style. He wants future NFL'ers to make their way through here to the NFL. It's what he's trying to sell to recruits. I think it pretty much would nullify anything Brew offers as a head coach (insert jokes here), it just doesn't make sense for this program at this time.
 

No.

If we switch to the TO, my buddy and I are buying Tommy Frazier and Eric Crouch jerseys and cheering for Nebraska circa 1995 from our seats in TCF.

I'd rather Hohensee be our OC.
 

The desire not to have another radical transition is understandable. If the offense we have works down the road, staying with it will have been worth it. If it doesn't, then we just put off the transition to something else for a while.

If we did go with the triple option, it would change the type of recruits we got, but we might be getting the recruits we needed. Could we add some option to the current offense? I think we will need running by the QB to be something opposing defenses have to take very seriously for the offense to work.
 



MBAGuy said:
No.

I'd rather Hohensee be our OC.
Click to expand...

At the very least, the triple option would work better than anything from the Arena League. The triple option has the benefit of being played with 11 men on a 100 yard field.
 

RodentRampage said:
At the very least, the triple option would work better than anything from the Arena League. The triple option has the benefit of being played with 11 men on a 100 yard field.
Click to expand...

I was being sarcastic. Neither seem like great options to me.
 

RodentRampage said:
At the very least, the triple option would work better than anything from the Arena League. The triple option has the benefit of being played with 11 men on a 100 yard field.
Click to expand...

I don't want to sound like a Hohensee or AFL proponent here, but why do you assume that AFL principles wouldn't work? I don't watch arena ball at all, but it seems to me that they are able to move the ball with almost no room to work with (granted with less guys on the field, but it still looks really tight). I would think that if you took an AFL type of offense and got 11 guys and a full field it would look similar to Texas Tech or something. Quick, tight routes. I don't know, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate I guess.
 


I would absolutely hate to move to a triple option offense. I don't think it will work in the Big 10, and furthermore, I don't even think it really fits Gray that well. Gray is a big, tall, fast QB. If you are hell bent on suiting an offense for Gray, that is the spread option.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I would absolutely hate to move to a triple option offense. I don't think it will work in the Big 10, and furthermore, I don't even think it really fits Gray that well. Gray is a big, tall, fast QB. If you are hell bent on suiting an offense for Gray, that is the spread option.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind the Triple Option and Gray would probably be good in it IMO. However, we lack many of the other necessary pieces needed to make it work. If we went to the TO offense Brew would be gone in a year and we would have gone through a MAJOR offensive scheme overall in 2010 only to endure the same in 2011 (unless we were to hire Paul Johnson or Troy Calhoun).

So for me Triple Option = good...just not in these circumstances.
 

Nope

Intriguing, but nope.

Brew has used up his 10 year limit of scheme changes in under 4 years.

I'd rather have my eyebrows shaved.
 

an out dated offense

No legitimate program runs the triple option anymore and we would lose all recruiting ability we have and kids would transfer. Its a terrible idea
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom