The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

Having a hard time finding a run that Zach has had that was an option play. Closets thing to it was the td to win the game last week and I believe that was a called play for him to throw to braverman or throw away. We may develop into one as the OC keeps adding things. I am sure the staff wants people to believe we are making reads but we are not. Last week there were two plays that if we were reading it zach would have pulled the ball.

(10-19-2014 06:48 PM)Kimbosucks Wrote:  Having a hard time finding a run that Zach has had that was an option play. Closets thing to it was the td to win the game last week and I believe that was a called play for him to throw to braverman or throw away. We may develop into one as the OC keeps adding things. I am sure the staff wants people to believe we are making reads but we are not. Last week there were two plays that if we were reading it zach would have pulled the ball.

I agree. Got into a discussion with a guy in the game thread on MLive. Guy kept screaming for us to run the option like we have been, and I kept saying we don't run the option, and Terrell running the ball is never going to be a big part of the offense.

If WMU is going to run it, they want the ball in Franklin's hand.

That TD by Braverman in the Ball State game was an interesting wrinkle, and I think we will continue to see some more. This offense isn't fully implemented yet I don't believe. They even tried to hit a slant or two off of play action from the jet sweep this week.

Would like to see Jarvion involved in the screen game a little bit more, but really, offensively, there isn't a whole lot to complain about.

I agree. I have been pleasantly surprised. I think having Franklin has been huge! Braverman adds a dimension we didn't have last year. It now appears that last year we didn't really run the system we really wanted to run. I made the same mistake my first year as a head coach. I came into a situation where I had a successful DIII head coach on my staff and I let him run the offense and not put in my system. It was a big mistake and delayed our progress. I am happy with what type of attack we are seeing and I am impressed with the OC.

(10-19-2014 06:48 PM)Kimbosucks Wrote:  Having a hard time finding a run that Zach has had that was an option play. Closets thing to it was the td to win the game last week and I believe that was a called play for him to throw to braverman or throw away. We may develop into one as the OC keeps adding things. I am sure the staff wants people to believe we are making reads but we are not. Last week there were two plays that if we were reading it zach would have pulled the ball.

The play in the second half against BGSU looked like a QB keeper on the triple option... He faked the end around and then faked to Franklin up the middle then kept it around the left edge... gained 10+ yards on the play too... I don't think i'd seen him mix that in before... It always looks wide open when he gives it to Franklin most of the time... will be interesting to see if that develops in the future.

(10-20-2014 11:48 AM)flushtheherd Wrote:  

(10-19-2014 06:48 PM)Kimbosucks Wrote:  Having a hard time finding a run that Zach has had that was an option play. Closets thing to it was the td to win the game last week and I believe that was a called play for him to throw to braverman or throw away. We may develop into one as the OC keeps adding things. I am sure the staff wants people to believe we are making reads but we are not. Last week there were two plays that if we were reading it zach would have pulled the ball.

The play in the second half against BGSU looked like a QB keeper on the triple option... He faked the end around and then faked to Franklin up the middle then kept it around the left edge... gained 10+ yards on the play too... I don't think i'd seen him mix that in before... It always looks wide open when he gives it to Franklin most of the time... will be interesting to see if that develops in the future.

I will go back and look at the blocking scheme on that play which is the only way to really tell. Even if so, there is a big difference in running some option and being an option team. I have seen many other times that it is jammed up and he doesn't pull it. Could be adding that in slowly. I know we see alot of it nowadays but it is not an easy thing to master.

Unless I'm mistaken, an "option" is exactly that. An option.

There are nearly an unlimited amount of "option" plays in college football.

The option read that Terrell and Franklin run seems like an option, just as much as the pass option to Braverman was that we saw against Ball State.

I'm not sure how you can call what we're running NOT a form of the option in a lot of cases. It's clear to me that Terrell is having to make reads (i.e. "options") on a good portion of the plays.

(10-20-2014 07:20 PM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  Unless I'm mistaken, an "option" is exactly that. An option.

There are nearly an unlimited amount of "option" plays in college football.

The option read that Terrell and Franklin run seems like an option, just as much as the pass option to Braverman was that we saw against Ball State.

I'm not sure how you can call what we're running NOT a form of the option in a lot of cases. It's clear to me that Terrell is having to make reads (i.e. "options") on a good portion of the plays.

Dont agree. Blocking scheme tells you the play. If we run the read option then I take back all of the good things I have said about the OC this year. HJ u are either looking for a pissing contest or don't understand option football. Made my living runningthis offense.

Not looking for a pissing match at all.

If the quarterback has the "option" to hand off the ball or hold on to the ball... that's considered an "option".

Unless you disagree that Terrell isn't making reads and he's simply handing the ball off or keeping it from the get go.

It just appears to me that he's having to make reads out there at times. Maybe I'm wrong.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

As I said before we might have ran a few, very few actual option plays this year. Again would need to go back and look at the scheme on the the play flush mentioned.

(10-20-2014 07:29 PM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  Not looking for a pissing match at all.

If the quarterback has the "option" to hand off the ball or hold on to the ball... that's considered an "option".

Unless you disagree that Terrell isn't making reads and he's simply handing the ball off or keeping it from the get go.

It just appears to me that he's having to make reads out there at times. Maybe I'm wrong.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

99% of the time it is a give. It is not blocked with a read. Terrell might have pulled one this last game. But what your talking about is semantics. Option football is intentionally not blocking one or more people on a play to gain a blocking advantage given up when a qb just hands the ball off 11 on 10. When the qb makes two or three decisions and those players are not blocked to make the advantage 11 on 11 or 10 on 11. That is what option football means. Your talking about choices but those choices don't gain you a numerical advantage. Wr run choice routes all the time but gain no numerical advantage.

We always look for a numbers advantage of 2 on 1 or 3 on 2, when running the option.

I would say from what I have seen, we have the zone read and a few variations of the play in the playbook, but it is a call from the sideline or booth on when he pulls it or not. I would bet money they have a guy watching the read defender and letting Ciarocca know what to call. The end of the Ball State game they were baiting them the entire game for that last play off the jet sweep action. Most of the runs this past game against BGSU were straight gives because they only had 6 in the box a lot of the time.

most of the zones are blocked with a read option on the backside, but I still don't think Terrell has the option to pull it unless he gets told pre play

(10-20-2014 07:47 PM)jubbasubba Wrote:  most of the zones are blocked with a read option on the backside, but I still don't think Terrell has the option to pull it unless he gets told pre play

I am not sure that the backside is an intentional no block. I think we do use the jet sweep motion to hold the backside end but there is no read on Terrell part. The play against ball state was a called pass imo. We didn't even false pull the guard on that play straight zone down blocks across the board. Left Terrell to influence outside backer whom they had seen creep up.

2:04.58 mark of the ball state game we weakly blocked the play like an inside veer and the d end crashed as hard as I have ever seen and Terrell never thinks about the pull on first and 10. Your making me question whether or not the OC is doing a good job or we are just talented at a few spots. I never believe in making the call for a qb on the option, defeats the purpose in my mind. But I taught jr high kids how to read it. The shot gun options have taken away the old saying that you cant run "a little option". People get away with it but cant do what Georgia tech or (gulp) Auburn does with the offense.

I think the Ball State play was a called QB run or Pass play. I don't think he would have thrown in if the Corner went with Braverman right away.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/packag...-football/

(^very similar IMO)

(10-20-2014 08:30 PM)jubbasubba Wrote:  I think the Ball State play was a called QB run or Pass play. I don't think he would have thrown in if the Corner went with Braverman right away.

I agree but I believe the coaches were praying the corner would do what he did. Its a run pass option.

Put another way your series can have a lot of variations but if you are just depending on the OC to be watching tendencies and then calling a play variation without true reads the plays can look like active read options but they are not really. But they can work if the OC is doing his psychic thing on the D tendencies he sees, and/or has been running a play the same way a few times and then calls the wrinkle.

If we are having success on this basis, one way to look at it is we can still see a lot of further progress when they finally feel free to turn the kids loose. As you say, you can explain it to a junior high kid. Maybe the staff is just so super uptight over what happened last year they are just going to keep tight control on an extended basis. Keep doing it until it stops working kind of thing, throw in a couple more variations or feature players each week.

(10-20-2014 08:34 PM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  http://grantland.com/the-triangle/packag...-football/

(^very similar IMO)

I don't agree because we are not blocking the play the same. Those are combinations off of the same blocking schemes and reads. I see what you are saying and we might work our way to that but zach is not making that decision on his own. Those combos are decisions pre snap by the qb most of the time without anyone else knowing. Or late check call by coaches but the Oline will rarely know of the change. Watching that play at ball state we didn't block it the way we would normally. Close but not there yet. I would be excited if we went in that direction.

Using the D-End to stop the jet motion is so flawed in my mind. I don't understand how you can be a D1 coach and go into the game with that as your game plan.