Is it insane to think we couldl add some good ole triple-option to our repitoire?

[blacklistedbully]

We already have a read-option based on a spread attack. Would it be completely crazy to think adding a triple-option might work for us, particularly if we were to roll it out in the 2nd half of games?

I'm just thinking, if we could do it, we would be very difficult to prepare for & defend, what with defenses needing to prepare for both on short notice. Imagine Prescott with any JRob or Shumpert at FB, Perkins at TB (JRob taking up the middle, Perk on the edges), Lewis in the slot, etc. We wouldn't need our WR's to be beasts, just effective enough to be a threat.

Thoughts?

[Op4isabitch]

Not crazy at all, *cough**cough**cough**cough**cough**cough**cough* first two years we used it frequently.

[ShotgunDawg]

I would love to throw a crazy wrinkle into the game plan on the first drive of the 2nd half. It would drive d-coordinators nuts. It would be just like a pitcher breaking out a usable curveball on the third time through the lineup. It would offer and extra push to keep the game under control.

[hacker]

I would love to throw a crazy wrinkle into the game plan on the first drive of the 2nd half. It would drive d-coordinators nuts. It would be just like a pitcher breaking out a usable curveball on the third time through the lineup. It would offer and extra push to keep the game under control.

Then when it doesn't work, everyone says "why didn't you stick to what was working in the first half!"

[ShotgunDawg]

Then when it doesn't work, everyone says "why didn't you stick to what was working in the first half!"

Very true, but we're doing that anyway, so why not try something different?

[QuadrupleOption]

Our issue Thursday night wasn't play calling, it was stupid mental mistakes costing us drives.