Triple Option Coaches

Lou,

Having run the triple out of the bone and the "I" for years, we always found that power, counters, sweeps,
and iso's worked well as did play action passes that were all off option action. AS coach Campbell has already mentioned, my play calling of complimentary plays on game night were always based on what the opposing DC was trying to do to us and in what formations he used to accomplish his purpose.

Coach Easton

I'm hoping you guys will be able to help me organize our running / option game. We are adding the triple option for the first time this year. We have a very smart and quick junior QB returning (started 4 games last year when our #1 was injured and was 4-0), a 1000 yard rusher back at TB, and some very good FB prospects coming back. Problem is that we lost 3 outstanding receivers and return only one that can be considered a "game changer". I think the FB and option game can replace our void at receiver.
Anyway, We will run a toss play, a power play, iso, FB G, and A QB lead play off of a FB fake. Those are set in stone. Last year we really didn't run any counter, but we booted a lot and ran a little bit of trap with moderate success. We also have a sprint out, a 3 step passing package, and a shotgun package. In the shotgun package we use one back - the only additional running play we have outside of our normal lead, power and toss/sweep (now to the QB), is a QB read play.
Last season we ran a double dive series. I am thinking about replacing it with midline and inside veer. My thinking is that we already have a lot of plays that attack the C gap (power, G plays to FB and QB).
I am proposing that we run midline vs an even front and IV vs an odd front. If both C and G are covered, we will probably run a C gap play.
I realize this is very vague, but it's a start. I'll look forward to your feedback.

I also love the idea of outside veer, and we may be able to run it as well. However, since we are very new to the option and don't want to do too much, I think we should stick with the midline and IV.
I actually think the ONE option to have is outside veer, however, we already have more C gap plays than we probably need and I do not want to do lots of things but do nothing well, so I came to this conclusion. ALso, my OC isn't familiar with option at all so we are going to have to do a lot of learning / teaching ourselves. Does that make sense or do you guys still think I'm making a mistake not making the OV a staple?

CUI:

Maybe the other option guys will disagree with me, but I think it would be hard to add a triple option to an already existing offense. It is a time intensive play. Did you read your double dive series? If so, you're already running option.

We had always run some option, (double options only like speed/lead, or simple dive option) but once we committed to running the triple, due to the amount of time it takes to get good at it and teach it, we had to give up alot of other plays. Our first year or running the triple, we had six running plays. (Veer, FB trap, trap option, iso, and speed option. After struggling with a 3 tech for the first 2 games, we added Midline.) Now that we have been teaching it for several years, we feel comfortable adding other plays back to our option game, but only if practice time allows. We will not sacrifice time to implement and rep our triple option. Don't get me wrong, I love the option and I think everyone's offense can benefit from some kind of option concept. But I strongly feel that if your going to add triple option, and you want to run it well, you need to be willing to spend the time its going to take. If that isn't the direction you want to go, you may be better off calling the give and option seperately. Of course, its just my opinion.

Thanks for the replies. We did not read the Double dive. It was predetermined. Jerry said on his "installing the option" video that he worked on option 10 mins per day. I feel like we can find the time to do that.
About the OV, isnt the mesh / footwork the hardest of the options? I thought the midline was the easiest read since it was so close to the QB to start with?
BUT, you guys are makeing me think again about the midline and IV, and the option in general. Now I'm confused.

Also forgot to mention, we are replacing the double dive with the option stuff. I like JE's suggestion of working during the summer. I think we can get a lot of stuff done this summer with our key players. Thanks for the feedback, keep it coming.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: CUI
About the OV, isnt the mesh / footwork the hardest of the options? I thought the midline was the easiest read since it was so close to the QB to start with?

---

We like OSV because we get a double on the 4 or 5 and read the EMOL, who is usually the QB player and has been drilled all week to "kill the QB".

If he does that, the FB is running for an 80 yard TD.

We played a team that decided they were going to kill our QB every play. They coached up the 50 DE to tackle the QB "when they run the Option". Our FB had 200+ yards and 3 TD's and i believe 2 50 yd runs). They "adjusted: and tackled the Fb and our Qb ripped them up. Then we just ran Power and ISO until they croaked.

Option (all three) from the I can be an impressive thing to see.

I agree in principle, that time is often wasted on the practice field because of poor planning and lack of preparation. My statement that if you want to get good at running the triple, a coach might have to be willing to give up something else, for lack of enough time, is based on my own experinces.

Spring ball, unfortunately, is a luxury that coaches here in Kansas are not afforded. In addition, we are limited to working with 3 players at a time during summer months (a rule often times overlooked by less scrupulous coaches) except for a one week camp (no pads, no helmets) which can be any 7 consecutive days prior to Aug. 1. We cannot even coach our own kids in 7-on-7 passing leagues.

When I was researching and studying making our team an option offense, rather than a offense that runs option, one of the most consistent comments in books, videos, and personal sit downs with other option coaches was the fact that the coach would have to be willing to spend enough time on working on the various subtleties of an option offense, that the triple option was not just a play but an offense. In my situation, that meant we were going to have to give up teaching, drilling, etc. other parts of our pre-existing offense, because time was a factor.

Maybe I'm wrong; I'm sure that in someone else's experince/situation, learning about, installing, and practicing the triple option does not have to come at the expense of some other part of the offense. I simply contend that it might.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: CUI
Does anybody else run something similar to what I am thinking about?
Running Plays / Schemes
Toss / sweep, Lead, Power, Counter, FB trap, MIDLINE, INSIDE VEER, OUTSIDE VEER
Passing Plays / Schemes
3 step (one protection) and sprint out (one protection), boot, and playaction (1 or 2) off of our running plays

We are a small school where our best 5-9 players will be playing both ways. We do not have spring football, but I think I can get the key players in during the summer to work on the veer steps and mesh. Is this too much? If so, what should go? I realize I am going to have to make a decision because I am the one who really knows what we are capable of, but I am looking for opinions and experiences.

---

We run all that except Trap. Throw Wedge in there, it's great if your FB is a good runner (which he has to be to run option) and if they try to run 3 man schemes like the 3-3-5.

Option Coach - I should have been more clear. That is a very good point. We need to decide how much we will actually run the option. Last year we threw the ball about 1/3 of the time. We will still throw it as much as possible, but due to personnell, I think it will probably be more like 20-25 % of the snaps being passes.

VeerOption - describe how you run the wedge please.
I feel like all three runners will be very good (FB, QB, TB). I do have a decision to make as to who we put at FB, but our 2 choices are probably 2 of the top 3 or 4 players we have, maybe the 2 best.

That's actually one of the toughest decisions we are going to have to make. Last year our #1 FB tore his tricep muscle and was unable to play the last 5 games of the year. Our backup FB was our undersized (maybe 160 lbs) inside LB on defense, who ended up being our leading tackler. He filled in very well and did an outstanding job. We were scared to death he would get hurt, but never did, at least not to the point where he couldn't play at a high level.
We also had a sophomore FB who we played at guard last year since we had a good senior FB. The soph if probably our best football player overall. Right now he's about 6-1/2, 200 lbs, which is up about 20 since the fall. They both run very well. The soph (junior to be) is obviously bigger, which is one reason I want to move him - he might be able to absorb more punishment as both of them are going to play in the middle of the defense (NG and LB). The soph/jr is more skilled (hands, etc), but both love to hit and are great blockers. Both would be very good linemen at our level, but the so/jr would probalby be better there. I think the soph/jr is a better runner, but the Jr/senior has proven he can be very effective at the varsity / playoff level. Both of them are working their butts off. The jr/sr would like to stay at FB, but would move if that's what I think is best for the team. I could argue it both ways.
I guess I just wanted to write it out to put it out there for myself one more time. If anyone has any advice about this, go ahead.

We do not have sprint football, but we can get the players together during the summer. Besides workouts, we have about 8 2 hour practices with everyone and I take a lot of guys to my alma mater for a skills and lineman camp. Like I said, I can the FB and QB together regularly during the summer. They are willing.
With no spring ball, though, are you saying don't add the option?

Tiger:

I actually posted earlier about some of the rules I have to coach under. I'm not sure what the rational is for the rules, to be honest. I've never coached in another state (probably won't) and I guess its just one of the things we have to live with. Right now, its only the honest coaches that are hurt by the rules. Kind of like baseball and steroids; the only ones the ban hurts are the ones too honest to use them.

We do the best with what we can leagally do, which basically means we can work on mesh drill, or I will get three lineman together and work on footwork. We have to work around the kids' summer schedule, but it's getting better.

We decided this weekend to run the inside and outside veers, and leave out midline at least initially. It seems like the footwork is similar (still want to learn more about that), and I like how the two can make it hard on a defensive end.
It seems like you could run outside veer vs a 4 front (4-4 is most common even front we see) and inside vs a 5 front (5-3/2 is most common odd front). What do you think about that - always running the FB to the bubble?

CUI,

Midline to a 3 tech is the EASIEST OPTION FOR YOUR QB TO LEARN BECAUSE OF THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF HIS READ KEY. However, I ran the ISV AND OSV AGAINST ANY DEFENSE THEY PUT UP AGAINST US.
You just have to be able to coach it correctly and make sure your kids work on it all the off season!!! I, personally, ascribed to the theory that the defense was not going to be able to stop us if we had the kids properly prepared to BLOCK IT! Sure, just as in any offense, they are going to stop you some but the way to insure a win is to make certain your guys win the battle of each individual play MORE OFTEN than they do. Just my way as always.

Coach Easton