Rehashing old post - Installing a triple-option for players not on 2-deep

[blacklistedbully]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and wanted to see if the board might still be interested in discussing the feasibility of teaching some triple-option offense to players not on the 2-deep.

I just can't help but think a team could really create havoc with opponents if they had the ability to run a triple-option offense onto the field just once-in-a-while. We already know it's more about technique than size or even skill, so I'm thinking we could put together an offensive unit of non-starters that could spend enough time practicing TO to make them dangerous versus an opposing defense that has not had the time to prepare for our standard offense and a traditional triple-option.

You know damned well the other team is going to have their hands full prepping for the Dak Attack. No way they are going to spend time preparing for a Flexbone, Wingbone, etc. So imagine what might happen if we could suddenly roll out this special offense, say around every 3rd of 4th possession?

You're not taking time away from our own offense's normal prep because you're not using the 2-deep. What would you need to get it done? Wouldn't necessarily have to have just O-linemen on the O-line for it, could use tight ends, D-linemen not on the 2-deep. Might even help them become better D-linemen if they spent a season working a little on blocking. Might the experience of doing this, and getting into game situations offset some disadvantage of not spending 100% of practice time learning their ultimate position?

Keep in mind, the triple option is run from the same set pretty much every time. so the squad wouldn't have to learn multiple sets. Teach them 3 or 4 plays, practice them enough to be efficient, then set them loose once-in-a-while in a real game versus an opponent who has simply not had the time to prepare for it.

What say the board?

[dawgs]

Taking out dak to run a gimmick with the 3rd string makes as much sense as subbing your entire D out on a drives instead of using more standard rotations to keep guys fresh and gain experience for backups.

[SheltonChoked]

Not enough practice time. Not enough coaches. Not enough players. Delays development of the players involved. Probably burn the redshirt of young OL.


Why not just play 2 RB and no TE as a base formation. That combined with Ross in the slot makes the LB cover a RB out of the backfield, or pulls a safety down to cover. Either way its an advantage for us.

With 2 RB's you get some option looks without a special package.

[MSUDawg4Life]

Dan Mullen has been consistently putting the best offenses in MSU history on the field and you guys want to "fix" it ... with the damn triple option.

smh

[FlabLoser]

Nyeht. Depth chart guys needs to learn out offense, not a gimmick.

But I would support special teams guys learning some solid fakes.

I am also intrigued by what Gus did last year in going for 2 on nearly every TD, especially early. If you REALLY have your short yardage stuff together and its not going to be a low scoring game, why not? Puts a lot of pressure on the other team.

[spiritual_machine2005]

I'm of the opinion that it wouldn't work. Your basically taking your scout team away at practice to perfect a completely different offense. They are usually installing some form of the opposing team's offense at this time so the first team defense can practice against it. The triple option can't be run effectively without the time it would take away from this. Also, who would coach it? G.A's?

[5 Star]

What say the board?
Bad idea in my opinion. Takes a ton of practice. To me, you're either in or out regarding that type of thing. Back during the Croom years, I was sort of intrigued by the possibility of Paul Johnson at MSU, but since that time I think our offensive system is better for the players we routinely get. I like Rich-Rod's system best of all, I think we on average would successfully sign more D-Robs and Pat Whites than Tebows and Daks. But I ain't complainin' either.

[blacklistedbully]

Taking out dak to run a gimmick with the 3rd string makes as much sense as subbing your entire D out on a drives instead of using more standard rotations to keep guys fresh and gain experience for backups.

A) Not a "gimmick", an actual offense.
B) Not the same as what we did on defense last year. Last year we took out our best defense to run the same scheme every other series. This would be running an entirely different scheme, and not nearly as often.

[Drugdog]

No.

[blacklistedbully]

I'm of the opinion that it wouldn't work. Your basically taking your scout team away at practice to perfect a completely different offense. They are usually installing some form of the opposing team's offense at this time so the first team defense can practice against it. The triple option can't be run effectively without the time it would take away from this. Also, who would coach it? G.A's?

This is a good point. If we could not do it without messing up our ability to have an effective scout team, that would be a real problem.

As far as coaches go, I bet you actually could get GA's perhaps with the assistance of a coach to teach it. It's not rocket-science, it just needs to be precise. It's pretty simple from a technical POV.

[blacklistedbully]

Bad idea in my opinion. Takes a ton of practice. To me, you're either in or out regarding that type of thing. Back during the Croom years, I was sort of intrigued by the possibility of Paul Johnson at MSU, but since that time I think our offensive system is better for the players we routinely get. I like Rich-Rod's system best of all, I think we on average would successfully sign more D-Robs and Pat Whites than Tebows and Daks. But I ain't complainin' either.

I agree that it would take a ton of practice if it were our bread-and-butter offense. But I wonder if you could teach 4 or 5 plays well enough with limited time to make it a threat versus an unprepared defense.

[LC Dawg]

This is a good point. If we could not do it without messing up our ability to have an effective scout team, that would be a real problem.

As far as coaches go, I bet you actually could get GA's perhaps with the assistance of a coach to teach it. It's not rocket-science, it just needs to be precise. It's pretty simple form a technical POV.

Running GA coached 3rd and 4th team freshman and sophomores out against SEC defenses is a recipe for disaster in my opinion. It's not really that crazy as far as a concept but there are far too many things working against it to even consider it.

[smootness]

A) Not a "gimmick", an actual offense.
B) Not the same as what we did on defense last year. Last year we took out our best defense to run the same scheme every other series. This would be running an entirely different scheme, and not nearly as often.

If you're using guys at positions they don't usually play and running something here and there that was taught by GA's, it is a gimmick.

Others have brought up most of these points, but it's a negative on pretty much every front. You put the young guys behind on development, you probably unnecessarily burn redshirts, and you have an entire chunk of the team pulling in a different direction.

I would MUCH rather have Dak and our starters running our offense than some young guys and D-linemen coming in to run a triple option taught by GA's, guys who probably have little experience in the offense.

It took Georgia Tech's starters, taught by Paul Johnson, a full year or two before they really got comfortable in the offense. You're risking a ton of turnovers and stalled drives in addition to all the other negatives. I appreciate trying to come up with a creative idea, but this one would just be a disaster.

[blacklistedbully]

Running GA coached 3rd and 4th team freshman and sophomores out against SEC defenses is a recipe for disaster in my opinion. It's not really that crazy as far as a concept but there are far too many things working against it to even consider it.

Another good point. SEC size and speed could overcome a lack of preparation. But then again, if those defenses have been spending all week preparing for our usual offense, they just might have trouble handling an occasional TO.

Lord knows we had trouble with GT. Yes, GT runs that scheme every day, coached by the top TO coach, etc. But we also had plenty of time to prep, yet our SEC studs couldn't stop it.

[blacklistedbully]

Not enough practice time. Not enough coaches. Not enough players. Delays development of the players involved. Probably burn the redshirt of young OL.


Why not just play 2 RB and no TE as a base formation. That combined with Ross in the slot makes the LB cover a RB out of the backfield, or pulls a safety down to cover. Either way its an advantage for us.

With 2 RB's you get some option looks without a special package.

Different blocking technique. We're not going to teach our O-linemen to cut-block. But I do like the idea of running this, and said as much last preseason.

MSUdawg4life, nobody is suggesting, "fixing" Mullen's offense, it's just about wondering how effective it might be supplementing it. I'm talking about keeping his existing offense, yet wondering if we could have a, "nasty curveball" we could throw at the opposition from time-to-time.

[dawgs]

Another good point. SEC size and speed could overcome a lack of preparation. But then again, if those defenses have been spending all week preparing for our usual offense, they just might have trouble handling an occasional TO.

Lord knows we had trouble with GT. Yes, GT runs that scheme every day, coached by the top TO coach, etc. But we also had plenty of time to prep, yet our SEC studs couldn't stop it.

Our problem with GT was losing our DC during bowl prep and lack of consistency and continuity on the defensive coaching staff during our prep.

[dawgs]

Different blocking technique. We're not going to teach our O-linemen to cut-block. But I do like the idea of running this, and said as much last preseason.

MSUdawg4life, nobody is suggesting, "fixing" Mullen's offense, it's just about wondering how effective it might be supplementing it. I'm talking about keeping his existing offense, yet wondering if we could have a, "nasty curveball" we could throw at the opposition from time-to-time.

I don't think it'd be effective. For pretty much all the reasons listed. On top of that it would take away from what we do best by taking meaningful snaps away from our #1 offense (dak, derunnya, Ross, etc) AND would take away our scout team from best preparing our defense each week.

[Ifyouonlyknew]

I don't think this is a good idea. If you want to change it up 4 or 5 plays a game then install 4 or 5 new plays each week for Dak & the actual starters instead of guys not in the 2 deep. You can catch defenses off guard without having to take your best players off the field for any period of time.

[blacklistedbully]

Our problem with GT was losing our DC during bowl prep and lack of consistency and continuity on the defensive coaching staff during our prep.

I agree, but also consider we still had LOTS of time. Though in this scenario the opposing defense would have their coaching staff, they would not have time to prep.

[blacklistedbully]

I don't think this is a good idea. If you want to change it up 4 or 5 plays a game then install 4 or 5 new plays each week for Dak & the actual starters instead of guys not in the 2 deep. You can catch defenses off guard without having to take your best players off the field for any period of time.

Love this idea. Again, this is something I brought up the year we lost to Oklahoma State, when we struggled versus that Diamond formation. Would we need to change and teach new blocking techniques to the O-linemen for those plays? That would be my concern about having our starters run it.

[Ifyouonlyknew]

Love this idea. Again, this is something I brought up the year we lost to Oklahoma State, when we struggled versus that Diamond formation. Would we need to change and teach new blocking techniques to the O-linemen for those plays? That would be my concern about having our starters run it.

Yea I'm not changing my whole offense for a few "unprepared plays". I could see adding some new formations or a few wrinkles out of the formations we run but I'd never run something totally different. That's like asking Paul Johnson in the middle of the game to go away from the triple option & bring in the 3rd string QB to run the Mike Leach spread. You're asking for disaster.

[SheltonChoked]

Add another negative. Non optimal blocking scheme.

If this was the NFL, or it was the pre-85 scholarship limit football, then sure. Then you'd have the time, the coaches, and the talent to do it.

But it would not work now

[blacklistedbully]

Yea I'm not changing my whole offense for a few "unprepared plays". I could see adding some new formations or a few wrinkles out of the formations we run but I'd never run something totally different. That's like asking Paul Johnson in the middle of the game to go away from the triple option & bring in the 3rd string QB to run the Mike Leach spread. You're asking for disaster.

Not talking about changing our whole offense. CPJ would be more likely to have a disaster because he doesn't have the athletes to run a different offense, IMO. What he runs is perfect for what he recruits, but not so much for other offenses.

For the record, I'm tending to agree with much of what those of you who disagree are saying, just not on every point necessarily, and I'm still interested in hearing other opinions. For instance, as I said earlier, if it takes away from our ability to have the scout team be useful, that's reason enough for me. If it truly retards the development of 3rd and 4th string players, that's also reason enough for me.

But does it, in fact hurt the scout team? Does it, in fact, retard overall development of the freshmen and sophomores who would take part? Do we really need to dedicate that much time to get them able to execute a handful of plays well enough to actually use effectively for 2 or 3 drives a game?

Maybe the correct answer to these questions is, "yes", but I don't know this for certain. I do know I've seen a lot of people fail at things in life because they were so sure, "it couldn't be done", without at least giving it serious consideration.

[dawgs]

Love this idea. Again, this is something I brought up the year we lost to Oklahoma State, when we struggled versus that Diamond formation. Would we need to change and teach new blocking techniques to the O-linemen for those plays? That would be my concern about having our starters run it.

I'd love for us to run some diamond formation, but that's not materially altering the offense. The blocking scheme doesn't change. Dak is still in the pistol or shotgun. You just put 3 RBs around him to increase the amount of misdirection, confusion, and backfield blocking.

[Ifyouonlyknew]

Not talking about changing our whole offense. CPJ would be more likely to have a disaster because he doesn't have the athletes to run a different offense, IMO. What he runs is perfect for what he recruits, but not so much for other offenses.

For the record, I'm tending to agree with much of what those of you who disagree are saying, just not on every point necessarily, and I'm still interested in hearing other opinions. For instance, as I said earlier, if it takes away from our ability to have the scout team be useful, that's reason enough for me. If it truly retards the development of 3rd and 4th string players, that's also reason enough for me.

But does it, in fact hurt the scout team? Does it, in fact, retard overall development of the freshmen and sophomores who would take part? Do we really need to dedicate that much time to get them able to execute a handful of plays well enough to actually use effectively for 2 or 3 drives a game?

Maybe the correct to these questions is, "yes", but I don't know this for certain. I do know I've seen a lot of people fail at things in life because they were so sure, "it couldn't be done", without at least giving it serious consideration.

My biggest question is why would we want to take out Dak, Bear, Ross, our starting OL, etc to bring in Fitz or Staley, Jesse Jackson, & our 3rd string OL to try to "fool" the defense 2 or 3 drives a game. How are they better equipped to drive down the field than our Heisman contending QB & the rest of the starters? I guess that's my biggest confusion with your plan. What coach would take out their starting offense & not even bring in their backup offense but the guys lower than that in during the middle of a game to show the other team a different look? It just seems like some NCAA Football on PS4 type stuff. Not rooted in real life.

[spudd21]

Not only are you taking away snaps from our better, more experienced players. You are taking away practice of our offense to the younger less experienced players that need it.

[BrunswickDawg]

I think the only way something like this could work is if we had a large number of players on O who had experience in running the TO - regardless of where they sit on the depth chart. We know for a fact Fitz excelled in HS at it (and in Bowl Prep for GT), and I am sure we have others with experience running it. But, why take your foot off the gas? I think the short term gain of something like this working for a game or two would not be worth it.

[blacklistedbully]

My biggest question is why would we want to take out Dak, Bear, Ross, our starting OL, etc to bring in Fitz or Staley, Jesse Jackson, & our 3rd string OL to try to "fool" the defense 2 or 3 drives a game. How are they better equipped to drive down the field than our Heisman contending QB & the rest of the starters? I guess that's my biggest confusion with your plan. What coach would take out their starting offense & not even bring in their backup offense but the guys lower than that in during the middle of a game to show the other team a different look? It just seems like some NCAA Football on PS4 type stuff. Not rooted in real life.

Why would a premier fastball pitcher ever throw a changeup? I get what you are saying about taking front-line guys out. Yes, it seems crazy to think about limiting Dak & Company's touches. This is another great point.

That said, I'm not just talking about this in context of this year, but as a potential scheme going forward. We all have high hopes our QB position will be solid for years to come under Dan and Co., but what is the likelihood we will consistently have a QB of Dak's caliber?

As far as, "how are they better equipped to drive down the field", the concept is that, unlike our first team offense who will be facing a defense that has spent all their time prepping for them, the TO offense would be facing a defense with no prep time whatsoever to defend the TO.

It is well known that a strength of the TO in the regular season is the fact that opposing defenses have only a week to prepare for it, and it takes discipline and repetition to get ready and play against it. Granted, what I'm talking about is running an alternate offense out there with relatively little experience themselves, but also only doing it occasionally, and with just a few plays that they will actually run. The reasoning being, we wouldn't need very many plays to be effective if we only run it out there every 4th or 5th drive, or less, and they'd be doing it versus a defense that has spent zero time prepping for it.

Also, is it not possible Dak and our first team could be even more effective if we were able to get the opposing defense off-balance by throwing this, "monkey-wrench" in there every so often? Seems to me it would stand more chance of disrupting the opposing team's rhythm than it would ours, as we'd have prepped for it every week, and them, probably not at all.

Again, I want to be clear, I'm not trying to insist I'm correct, and have, in fact cooled on the idea considerably based on the many responses given. But I still like the overall concept, depending on personnel, etc, and do enjoy a lively debate.

[Ifyouonlyknew]

Why would a premier fastball pitcher ever throw a changeup? I get what you are saying about taking front-line guys out. Yes, it seems crazy to think about limiting Dak & Company's touches. This is another great point.

That said, I'm not just talking about this in context of this year, but as a potential scheme going forward. We all have high hopes our QB position will be solid for years to come under Dan and Co., but what is the likelihood we will consistently have a QB of Dak's caliber?

As far as, "how are they better equipped to drive down the field", the concept is that, unlike our first team offense who will be facing a defense that has spent all their time prepping for them, the TO offense would be facing a defense with no prep time whatsoever to defend the TO.

It is well known that a strength of the TO in the regular season is the fact that opposing defenses have only a week to prepare for it, and it takes discipline and repetition to get ready and play against it. Granted, what I'm talking about is running an alternate offense out there with relatively little experience themselves, but also only doing it occasionally, and with just a few plays that they will actually run. The reasoning being, we wouldn't need very many plays to be effective if we only run it out there every 4th or 5th drive, or less, and they'd be doing it versus a defense that has spent zero time prepping for it.

Also, is it not possible Dak and our first team could be even more effective if we were able to get the opposing defense off-balance by throwing this, "monkey-wrench" in there every so often? Seems to me it would stand more chance of disrupting the opposing team's rhythm than it would ours, as we'd have prepped for it every week, and them, probably not at all.

Again, I want to be clear, I'm not trying to insist I'm correct, and have, in fact cooled on the idea considerably based on the many responses given. But I still like the overall concept, depending on personnel, etc, and do enjoy a lively debate.

So your plan would be only good for 1 game correct? After we do it 1 game then everybody else would spend some time practicing on it. So is teaching a whole new offense & the time it takes worth it for only 1 game?

[blacklistedbully]

So your plan would be only good for 1 game correct? After we do it 1 game then everybody else would spend some time practicing on it. So is teaching a whole new offense & the time it takes worth it for only 1 game?

No, I think if we were to do it, other defenses would still not take time away from prepping for it if we were only using it 2-3 drives a game. And if they did, that would take away from their prep work for our first team.

That's the beauty of the concept. By using non-starters, we don't take away from our regular offense's prep. We don't take away from our defense's prpep either. But the opponent either has to prep for it just-in-case, or face it with no real prep. If defenses have a hard to preparing for the TO with a whole week, how in the hell are the going to prep for one, even a simplified one, if they are busy prepping for our normal offense?

Oh, and just because we have that arrow in our quiver, that doesn't mean we have to use it each and every game. It's just another weapon in our arsenal, and one the opposing defense has probably spent no time at all prepping for, hopefully making up some for the fact that we wouldn't be running a full version like GT, AF, Navy, etc.

[blacklistedbully]

I get all the downsides being mentioned. They make sense. But are we also down-playing the potential upside? Try looking at it from the opposing DC's POV.

Most will probably say he'll be thanking us for the easy outs. But it's only an easy out if we use it and it doesn't work. Isn't it at least possible we could run Fitz, a couple of our many capable RB's, etc out there and have them actually be a real threat versus a defense likely unprepared to face a TO, given it was not our primary offense?

You take a select group of athletes to play O-line, modify their usual training by enhancing cut-block techniques, and add them to Fitz, the RB's, a WR and you're ready to give it a shot. The biggest issue is QB, and we have that already.

[Ifyouonlyknew]

I get all the downsides being mentioned. They make sense. But are we also down-playing the potential upside? Try looking at it from the opposing DC's POV.

Most will probably say he'll be thanking us for the easy outs. But it's only an easy out if we use it and it doesn't work. Isn't it at least possible we could run Fitz, a couple of our many capable RB's, etc out there and have them actually be a real threat versus a defense likely unprepared to face a TO, given it was not our primary offense?

You take a select group of athletes to play O-line, modify their usual training by enhancing cut-block techniques, and add them to Fitz, the RB's, a WR and you're ready to give it a shot. The biggest issue is QB, and we have that already.

Most if not all DC's would say thank you. Thank you for taking off your obviously more talented players & replacing them with 3rd string guys & a patch work OL. Do I know what's coming? No but I don't care because my vastly superior talented 1st string defense will be ok.

[blacklistedbully]

Most if not all DC's would say thank you. Thank you for taking off your obviously more talented players & replacing them with 3rd string guys & a patch work OL. Do I know what's coming? No but I don't care because my vastly superior talented 1st string defense will be ok.

Because a, "vastly superior talented 1st string defense" has never struggled versus a GT, Air Force, Navy, Georgia Southern, when they've had only a week to prepare, and had to prepare only for the TO, right?***

[Ifyouonlyknew]

Because a, "vastly superior talented 1st string defense" has never struggled versus a GT, Air Force, Navy, Georgia Southern, when they've had only a week to prepare, and had to prepare only for the TO, right?***

That's a total apples to oranges comparison. Those schools live, eat, sleep, breath the triple option. Again it would be comparable if those schools ran the Leach spread 2 or 3 drives per game to "fool" those vastly superior talented 1st string defenses.

[codeDawg]

Are you going to trot out a cold 3rd string QB and WR and attempt a pass? What about a toss? If no, then you are basically running a zone-read, which is a lot of our offense that I would rather run with Dak and the 1st or 2nd string.

[codeDawg]

One other thing, those 3rd string players should be learning how to be 1st string players in our standard offense. We don't have a stack of guys sitting around that we don't expect to ever play meaningful snaps. The scout team adds value, not sure a 3rd responsibility of gimmick offense makes sense given the restrictions we already have on practice time.

[blacklistedbully]

That's a total apples to oranges comparison. Those schools live, eat, sleep, breath the triple option. Again it would be comparable if those schools ran the Leach spread 2 or 3 drives per game to "fool" those vastly superior talented 1st string defenses.

That's why I also said those schools are running it versus defenses who spend all week prepping for it, and only it. So my question becomes, could we limit our TO to 3-5 plays and still expect possible success due to the trade-off of the opposing defense being forced to prep for our 1st team standard offense.

[blacklistedbully]

Are you going to trot out a cold 3rd string QB and WR and attempt a pass? What about a toss? If no, then you are basically running a zone-read, which is a lot of our offense that I would rather run with Dak and the 1st or 2nd string.

Pass would not be likely option, just the threat of one as a possibility. Yes, I think a 3rd-string QB in the SEC could handle coming into a game cold and make the pitch, particularly one with previous TO experience.

[blacklistedbully]

One other thing, those 3rd string players should be learning how to be 1st string players in our standard offense. We don't have a stack of guys sitting around that we don't expect to ever play meaningful snaps. The scout team adds value, not sure a 3rd responsibility of gimmick offense makes sense given the restrictions we already have on practice time.

This point was already made earlier, and is a good one. I countered questioning whether or not, and to what extent it would take away from their development. I'm guessing many of the skills learned by TO teams are transferable.

[Ifyouonlyknew]

That's why I also said those schools are running it versus defenses who spend all week prepping for it, and only it. So my question becomes, could we limit our TO to 3-5 plays and still expect possible success due to the trade-off of the opposing defense being forced to prep for our 1st team standard offense.

At the end of the day I just think the risk far far outweigh the rewards. There's way more bad that could happen instead of good IMO.

[blacklistedbully]

At the end of the day I just think the risk far far outweigh the rewards. There's way more bad that could happen instead of good IMO.

"Three Things Can Happen When You Pass and Two of Them Are Bad" - Darrell Royal

[I seen it dawg]

Sorry but it's about as feasible and prudent as Smitty coaching a baseball team.

[smootness]

Blacklisted, again, I appreciate the attempt to get creative, but it just isn't a good idea.

[blacklistedbully]

Sorry but it's about as feasible and prudent as Smitty coaching a baseball team.

Damn, now that's insulting! Did you really have to go there?

[blacklistedbully]

Blacklisted, again, I appreciate the attempt to get creative, but it just isn't a good idea.

I appreciate the feedback. As I said before, I'm not as inclined to think it will work as I was when I first posted, but I do really enjoy debating it, and imagining it.

I do think it could work for certain programs, though. Maybe even for us if our current circumstances were a little different.

[tcdog70]

we used to run Sleepy Robinson out when he was a freshman or soph on the Goal line and we would run the wishbone as our red zone offense. it worked pretty good. Also in short yardage situations.

[SheltonChoked]

I appreciate the debate. It's an interesting thought experiment, I just don't think it would work.