Ok... this tweet made me feel better. That's the national title winning Tide that gave up 7.7 ypc.

Quote:Stephen Michael‏ @Cincyfan1980
Stats from when Alabama played Georgia Southern (who ran the triple option) back in 2011. Oh yeah Ga southern was a FCS school then too.

If the triple option is so difficult to defend why don't all teams run it?

(09-25-2017 12:26 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  If the triple option is so difficult to defend why don't all teams run it?

What makes it difficult is that only a hand full of teams runs it. If everyone ran it, teams would be better prepared to defend and have the right personnel/schemes to stop it.

(09-25-2017 12:31 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(09-25-2017 12:26 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  If the triple option is so difficult to defend why don't all teams run it?

What makes it difficult is that only a hand full of teams runs it. If everyone ran it, teams would be better prepared to defend and have the right personnel/schemes to stop it.

So if a bottom feeder like Tulane starts running it they could win the league.

(09-25-2017 12:48 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-25-2017 12:31 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(09-25-2017 12:26 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  If the triple option is so difficult to defend why don't all teams run it?

What makes it difficult is that only a hand full of teams runs it. If everyone ran it, teams would be better prepared to defend and have the right personnel/schemes to stop it.

So if a bottom feeder like Tulane starts running it they could win the league.

They are running a form of it and have improved. They will continue to get better as they build their program.

(09-25-2017 12:31 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(09-25-2017 12:26 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  If the triple option is so difficult to defend why don't all teams run it?

What makes it difficult is that only a hand full of teams runs it. If everyone ran it, teams would be better prepared to defend and have the right personnel/schemes to stop it.

Randy Cross was pretty explicit regarding D scheme, soft corners. It is why Navy ran outside so much. If you don't bring a corner or corners up, at least show it, to stop the run......toss in some corner run blitzes it makes it real easy to get them blocked 5 yards off of the ball. I don't watch Navy a ton but I have not seen them run outside, so successfully, as often as they did against UC.

The corner comes off the edge takes on one of the blockers and forces the run back inside or changes the QB option.

(09-25-2017 12:26 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  If the triple option is so difficult to defend why don't all teams run it?

It's hard to have a defense that can prepare for the rest of what they'll see running the triple option as well. I think struggling programs would be smart to look into it. If you really commit to it and practice it, defending is really hard right now because it is so much different than everything else you see. Hard to recruit the best talent to go play in it...hard to develop a defense that can play against spread with it... there are issues.

(09-25-2017 01:02 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-25-2017 12:31 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(09-25-2017 12:26 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  If the triple option is so difficult to defend why don't all teams run it?

What makes it difficult is that only a hand full of teams runs it. If everyone ran it, teams would be better prepared to defend and have the right personnel/schemes to stop it.

Randy Cross was pretty explicit regarding D scheme, soft corners. It is why Navy ran outside so much. If you don't bring a corner or corners up, at least show it, to stop the run......toss in some corner run blitzes it makes it real easy to get them blocked 5 yards off of the ball. I don't watch Navy a ton but I have not seen them run outside, so successfully, as often as they did against UC.

The corner comes off the edge takes on one of the blockers and forces the run back inside or changes the QB option.

Navy also modified it a bit for our game this week. They had one of their WR's come in and take out the MLB (he was 6'4 225 lbs).

(09-25-2017 01:11 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(09-25-2017 01:02 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-25-2017 12:31 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(09-25-2017 12:26 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  If the triple option is so difficult to defend why don't all teams run it?

What makes it difficult is that only a hand full of teams runs it. If everyone ran it, teams would be better prepared to defend and have the right personnel/schemes to stop it.

Randy Cross was pretty explicit regarding D scheme, soft corners. It is why Navy ran outside so much. If you don't bring a corner or corners up, at least show it, to stop the run......toss in some corner run blitzes it makes it real easy to get them blocked 5 yards off of the ball. I don't watch Navy a ton but I have not seen them run outside, so successfully, as often as they did against UC.

The corner comes off the edge takes on one of the blockers and forces the run back inside or changes the QB option.

Navy also modified it a bit for our game this week. They had one of their WR's come in and take out the MLB (he was 6'4 225 lbs).

It worked.

(09-25-2017 01:02 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  The corner comes off the edge takes on one of the blockers and forces the run back inside or changes the QB option.

This is what I don't understand. Back in my glory days in high school when I was a 5'5" fourth string strong safety, I was told that a run was not to get outside of me (The SS played really far up like the old Leviticus Payne role).

So if they pitched to the outside I would take such an exaggerated angle that I'd take a block, but the runner would be forced to the inside for the LBs to make the play. Containment was the name of the game.

That's what i was saying up above, the safeties were very late to close, and in general did nothing to turn the play inside or tackle the ball carrier. It's easy for folks to look at the triple option in all it's variations and say everyone else will do it, but it's much harder than it looks. Most teams if they tried to adopt it would turn the ball over often with all of the pitches, qb hits, etc. If you run it all the time you develop guys who can run it without the turnovers which Navy does a nice job of. The reason it doesn't work at the highest levels of div. 1 is the top teams have guys on the edge who can basically blow the lanes up against the personnel Navy has at the line of scrimmage. We do not have those guys at this moment. You need an explosive guy like a Malik Vann. If you take away the edge, it's a very containable scheme.

(09-25-2017 01:21 PM)AeroCat Wrote:  

(09-25-2017 01:02 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  The corner comes off the edge takes on one of the blockers and forces the run back inside or changes the QB option.

This is what I don't understand. Back in my glory days in high school when I was a 5'5" fourth string strong safety, I was told that a run was not to get outside of me (The SS played really far up like the old Leviticus Payne role).

So if they pitched to the outside I would take such an exaggerated angle that I'd take a block, but the runner would be forced to the inside for the LBs to make the play. Containment was the name of the game.

Defending the triple option, assignment football is the name of the game.

I used to coach DB's at a Division III school back in the day and our rules for defending the option rules were something like this:

1. Take away the first option - the FB dive. It all starts here. Usually you got a LB on the dive guy, another scraping to help as well as DL's playing gaps to fill take it away. DL guys have to get off the block and if double teamed, just fall where you are make a pile and don't get washed out. Against Veer type teams where they might leave a DL unblocked and the QB is reading the DT or DE for give/keep - the unblocked DL/DE is taking the FB dive away period.

2. Option 2 is defending the QB - can have a DE slow play/feather in an effort to delay the QBs decision to pitch. Gives the D a little more time for pitch support(still have to get off blocks) mainly secondary pitch support to the pitch guy. You can also run the DE to the pitch guy to take that away and try to play the QB with a LB but if your LB gets blocked, you're in trouble. Also, if I did this it would always be in a scheme where the backer is already over or outside a 5-technique and I would never try to play QB pitch with a LB on the inside way too risky as the OL has better angles for blocking the inside LB. You can also have the DE take the QB right away to force a quick pitch and reduce the option to a single option - the pitch guy, but if you play it quick like that you better have run support from CBs, Safeties, and LBs. I like a mix of these, keep them guessing how you're going to play it BUT easy to have defensive mix ups too.

3. The third option is defend the pitch and this is where I think UC failed miserably Saturday. Our CBs were manhandled by Navy's WR and could not get off blocks.
We balanced up on D with cover 2 look but the safeties when running the alley for pitch support either couldn't get there or came too flat with a bad angle. The LBs couldn't get there either. Also the safeties running the alley can't get blocked and they did.

Now with all of the above, the triple option offense is going to adjust blocking based on how the defense is playing the option so...you have to be able to adjust or dictate to them by mixing up the dive/QB/pitch responsibilities.

I know the UC coaches know more than me in terms of scheme and personnel but I was shocked we sat in our defensive look like we did. LB 8 yards off the ball (Minor) they did this to defeat the blocking angles for the OL, but by the time the LB was getting into the play - they ball carrier was 8 yards down the field. Also, we would move or stem our D front, Navy would check at the line, we stayed in our stemmed front and didn't check out after Navy checked, allowing Navy to get into the play they wanted against the look we were giving.

Finally, did we run blitz at all Saturday? Before giving up 600 yards on the ground, I would have started bringing guys in an effort to blow up the option before they could get it going. I'm bringing guys in the middle, off the edge, not going to sit back and read and react like we did. The risk in bringing guys is you make yourself vulnerable to the big play and them popping one, the risk of not bringing any pressure is you give up 600 yards rushing. Also I bet next time we see these guys you'll see guys closer to the LOS, not safeties playing at 12 yards deep and a LB 8 yards off the ball. In theory, I get it, but it didn't work Saturday at all.

Go Cats.

(09-25-2017 02:54 PM)AABearcat Wrote:  

(09-25-2017 01:21 PM)AeroCat Wrote:  

(09-25-2017 01:02 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  The corner comes off the edge takes on one of the blockers and forces the run back inside or changes the QB option.

This is what I don't understand. Back in my glory days in high school when I was a 5'5" fourth string strong safety, I was told that a run was not to get outside of me (The SS played really far up like the old Leviticus Payne role).

So if they pitched to the outside I would take such an exaggerated angle that I'd take a block, but the runner would be forced to the inside for the LBs to make the play. Containment was the name of the game.

Defending the triple option, assignment football is the name of the game.

I used to coach DB's at a Division III school back in the day and our rules for defending the option rules were something like this:

1. Take away the first option - the FB dive. It all starts here. Usually you got a LB on the dive guy, another scraping to help as well as DL's playing gaps to fill take it away. DL guys have to get off the block and if double teamed, just fall where you are make a pile and don't get washed out. Against Veer type teams where they might leave a DL unblocked and the QB is reading the DT or DE for give/keep - the unblocked DL/DE is taking the FB dive away period.

2. Option 2 is defending the QB - can have a DE slow play/feather in an effort to delay the QBs decision to pitch. Gives the D a little more time for pitch support(still have to get off blocks) mainly secondary pitch support to the pitch guy. You can also run the DE to the pitch guy to take that away and try to play the QB with a LB but if your LB gets blocked, you're in trouble. Also, if I did this it would always be in a scheme where the backer is already over or outside a 5-technique and I would never try to play QB pitch with a LB on the inside way too risky as the OL has better angles for blocking the inside LB. You can also have the DE take the QB right away to force a quick pitch and reduce the option to a single option - the pitch guy, but if you play it quick like that you better have run support from CBs, Safeties, and LBs. I like a mix of these, keep them guessing how you're going to play it BUT easy to have defensive mix ups too.

3. The third option is defend the pitch and this is where I think UC failed miserably Saturday. Our CBs were manhandled by Navy's WR and could not get off blocks.
We balanced up on D with cover 2 look but the safeties when running the alley for pitch support either couldn't get there or came too flat with a bad angle. The LBs couldn't get there either. Also the safeties running the alley can't get blocked and they did.

Now with all of the above, the triple option offense is going to adjust blocking based on how the defense is playing the option so...you have to be able to adjust or dictate to them by mixing up the dive/QB/pitch responsibilities.

I know the UC coaches know more than me in terms of scheme and personnel but I was shocked we sat in our defensive look like we did. LB 8 yards off the ball (Minor) they did this to defeat the blocking angles for the OL, but by the time the LB was getting into the play - they ball carrier was 8 yards down the field. Also, we would move or stem our D front, Navy would check at the line, we stayed in our stemmed front and didn't check out after Navy checked, allowing Navy to get into the play they wanted against the look we were giving.

Finally, did we run blitz at all Saturday? Before giving up 600 yards on the ground, I would have started bringing guys in an effort to blow up the option before they could get it going. I'm bringing guys in the middle, off the edge, not going to sit back and read and react like we did. The risk in bringing guys is you make yourself vulnerable to the big play and them popping one, the risk of not bringing any pressure is you give up 600 yards rushing. Also I bet next time we see these guys you'll see guys closer to the LOS, not safeties playing at 12 yards deep and a LB 8 yards off the ball. In theory, I get it, but it didn't work Saturday at all.

Go Cats.

Good analysis. I was at the game. UC was manhandled by Navy's option and Navy's excellent blocking schemes. When a team only throws the ball three times and completes two, including one for a TD, and gains about 600 yards rushing, it's an indictment of the defense. Our corners couldn't get off the block and were in too many one-on-one situations against Navy's speedy slotbacks. Don't underestimate how good Navy is. They are much bigger on both the OL and DL than you think and they have excellent speed at all the skill positions. Given nearly two weeks to prepare for UC, the Mids were more than ready. UC played decently on offense, but fell behind for the 4th consecutive game this year, which is of concern. Our running game continues to be sluggish, frequently having difficulty converting on third down or fourth down and short. This puts UC in a must-pass situation, and allows the defense to drop linebackers and extra secondary players into the defensive backfield. Most of UC's passes were of the 10-15 yard variety. Moore has yet to show much ability to throw it deep.

I preface this by stating that I've never been a football coach, so I hope those of you with far more experience than me can enlighten me.

Considering that most of Navy's WR are TE sized and playing close to the OLine, why keep CBs out there?

(09-24-2017 07:35 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  the UCF/USF game should be a really good one, I intend on watching it if both teams are still doing well


I don't see UC beating either of them

Same.

I think things could get somewhat ugly....or at least the opportunity for the games to become ugly with either of these teams.

Idk that there's another team in the East I fear tho....FWIW.

Gonna take Frost bailing, or us stocking up on more/ better recruits before we catch them. I think USF takes a step back once their QB leaves. Either way, looks like it's going to be a 3 horse race (UC, USF, UCF) in the East going forward in years to come.




mc

(09-26-2017 08:12 AM)marcuscan Wrote:  

(09-24-2017 07:35 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  the UCF/USF game should be a really good one, I intend on watching it if both teams are still doing well


I don't see UC beating either of them

Same.

I think things could get somewhat ugly....or at least the opportunity for the games to become ugly with either of these teams.

Idk that there's another team in the East I fear tho....FWIW.

Gonna take Frost bailing, or us stocking up on more/ better recruits before we catch them. I think USF takes a step back once their QB leaves. Either way, looks like it's going to be a 3 horse race (UC, USF, UCF) in the East going forward in years to come.




mc

The big key for UC season this of the way will be defending Nippert, that includes going at least 4-2 on the year and hopefully 5-1 or 6-0. In this order difficulty we have UCF, SMU, Marshall, Temple, and UConn. After that Marshall UC plays three of the top six teams in the league in UCF, USF, and SMU. Odd that the conference schedule is front loaded this season. My upset pick is UC over UCF.