Justifying the Option

Coach,

This argument is made to order for a small school with limited number of players to choose from:

REMEMBER (I CAPITALIZE FOR EMPHASIS) THE OPTION WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED FOR TEAMS WITH SMALLER OFFENSIVE LINEMEN WHO WERE FORCED TO TAKE ON BIGGER DEFENSIVE LINEMEN ONE ON ONE
AND SIMPLY COULD NOT GET THE JOB DONE ON THIS BASIS. THE OPTION ALLEVIATES THIS BY PUTTING TWO SMALLER BLOCKERS ON ONE BIG ONE! THUS THE DOUBLE TEAM CAME INTO PROMINENCE AND HAS REMAINED TO THIS DAY AND WILL ALWAYS BE WITH US, IMO. in addition, it forces the defense to play strict assignment football with absolute discipline, especially on the backside! The triple option (ISV-OSV)
forces the defense to have to defend three athletes on every play (QB,Dive Back, Pitch Back). It puts pressure on your opponent in preparing for you, because it takes a great deal of preparation on the defensive side of the ball to prepare a solid game plan without doing extensive scouting, breaking down film, etc. to arrive at a conclusion of who they do not want to get the ball on game night. They must game plan for special PSL reads by the opposing QB in order to do this, i.e. do I want my read man in a 5 or a 4 or a 4i to predertermine which back I am going to force to get the ball, etc. IT TAKES SPECIAL PREPARATION TO DEFEND THE OPTION OF ANY KIND!!! It is a very easy thing to accomplish to run the option out of any number of formations by incorporating motion ( DW, GUN, etc.). Just a few of the many things that come to mind why the option is a solid choice for your program!

Coach Easton

I'll give you information that I usually present to people when they ask me the same question.

Philosophy of the Triple Option

• Reduces the need for a dominant offensive line. Since the quarterback's reads eliminate defenders, there are fewer defenders to block.
• Enables a physically inferior team to control the ball by running it, thus giving its defense more time to rest on the sideline.
• Means that the option quarterback can be an athlete who is skilled at other positions.
• Is adaptable to the team's personnel—if the team does not have a great running back, it can simply spread the ball around.
• Enables the coach to have to train only one player to read a defense, rather than his entire offense.
• Enables the coach to have his game plan set from week to week, thus leaving him more time to ten to details and fine-tune his offense.
• Forces the defense to play assignment football.
• Reduces the number of coverages that the defense can use.
• Hampers the ability of the defense to blitz the quarterback, because he will be mobile and not stationary.
• Is a goal-line to goal-line attack that requires no special red-zone or goal-line plays.
• Uses a variety of perimeter blocking schemes, thus simplifying the task of making game adjustments.
• Enhances the passing game, because it forces the secondary to get involved with the run; therefore, it makes for a more complete offense.
• Puts "speed in space" and therefore helps fast runners score points.
• Forces the defense to run with "cover guys."
• Is easily adaptable to any formation.
• Is easily adaptable to any style of offense (ex. run-and-shoot, I, Wing-T).
• Is a sideline-to-sideline attack. As such, it stretches the defense horizontally and thus enables the offense to stretch and pierce as well.
• Is adaptable to multiple variations of motion.
• Is a great overtime attack.
• Opens the door to more big plays, because it spreads the defense—the playaction pass will create big plays.

Here's a good argument: A lot of schools are still running the option and winning games with it.

John Curtis Christian has about 20 (maybe 21) state titles in 30 years of football in Louisiana, and their playbook hasn't changed in 30 years. De La Salle in California also runs a lot of split back veer.

People looking for an offense more suited for "today" are watching too much TV. Any offense can work if it's backed by a sound philosophy and good coaching.

I am certainly not saying that option football is obsolete. However, if you are running the option every year but aren't winning with it, shouldn't you try something else? I'm not talking about the occasional lean years that all programs go through - I'm talking about losing that has become institutionalized. When you are running the Bone or the Wing-T but are getting killed every Friday and ending your seasons with 18 kids on the roster and 1-8 records, don't you, as a coach, have a responsibility to "jump start" things by trying something new?

I am not dogging out the option, the Wing-T, the Wishbone, or the Double Slot. There are lots of coaches who have a lot of success with these attacks. I am not talking about those coaches! Obviously, if you are moving the football and scoring points, what you are doing on offense is working. However, if what you are doing on offense is not producing results, I believe that you have to try and find a way to get results no matter what hand you are dealt.

What's the old saying? Something about the definition of "dumb" being to do the same thing over and over yet expect different results each time?

Coach Cella -

I respect your posts here and I don't mean to be argumentative, but I just have to disagree with you on the option. We ran the option out of the "Bone forever before we went to the spread. We never had success with it, largely, IMO, because everyone else in the conference ran it. So, when we had a game, not only were we at a disadvantage due to the fact that our kids just weren't as good as the kids on the other team, we were also at a disadvantage because everyone knew the option inside, outside, upside, downside, backward, and forward.

When we went to the spread, two things were accomplished. 1. We started to move the ball, score points, and win games (in 1997, our third year running the spread, we made the playoffs for the first time in 13 years). 2. Kids started to get interested in football again and we didn't have to start freshmen and sophomores on Friday night any more.

Again, I am not suggesting that the spread is the answer to anyone's offensive woes. What I am suggesting is that coaches need to be flexible and embrace change when all other options (no pun intended) have been exhausted. For example, if you are trying to run the spread offense, and after 5 years, you are still 1-8, maybe it's time to try something else.

Also keep in mind that I am not talking about the occasional lean years that everyone endures (we have a few of these coming up. We are not planning drastic changes to our offense). I am talking about jump-starting a program where losing has become institutionalized.

Coach Easton has a great post in another thread about "Death of a Salesman". I think his post would fit perfectly over here.