I found this evaluation of a Stanford offense from 2016 which gives some insight into what Rice may be doing.

https://www.ruleoftree.com/2016/8/5/1237...le-offense

Let the discussions begin. I have had some time to fill since I have a break from COVID stuff right now.

I'll start with what I liked here:

• Solid premise to the article. Most laymen's discussions of a team strategy are overly reductionist. I know I'm not immune to that.
• The chart is clear to read
  

My gripes, because what good is an internet message board if not for complaints?

• Anybody can draw lines on chart and say "My guy winds up with the ball because I said the defenders will get out of the way."
• There's no setting the defensive strategy. A good offensive coordinator predicts what the defense will do and should explain why his play will work against theirs. Obviously, the writer knew what the defense was doing because he drew the chart, but the discussion needs to be in those terms to be convincing. I would rather have him write "The Sam LB is on the line pre-snap, but he's going to drop with the TE because the call is Cover 2 Zone with only a 3-man rush" or "because he's making a certain read." Instead, the Sam drops back because the Sam will drop back.
• Was anybody on the Stanford schedule even running a 3-3-5 in 2016? Oregon State? I know that's pedantic (just re-label the defenders for a 4-3 and they'll be in the same spots), but it still seems weird. I know I would have wanted more than a six-man box.
• What defense would play two-gap all across the line against 2016 Stanford's o-line with McCaffrey motioned into the backfield?
• When is Rice going to simultaneously have an all-conference runningback/slot receiver, an all-conference offensive line, and a TE who can be told to run a sub-optimal route and just "get open anyway?"
  

Tear it apart.

(04-15-2020 05:13 PM)franklyconfused Wrote:  I'll start with what I liked here:

• Solid premise to the article. Most laymen's discussions of a team strategy are overly reductionist. I know I'm not immune to that.
• The chart is clear to read
  

My gripes, because what good is an internet message board if not for complaints?

• Anybody can draw lines on chart and say "My guy winds up with the ball because I said the defenders will get out of the way."
• There's no setting the defensive strategy. A good offensive coordinator predicts what the defense will do and should explain why his play will work against theirs. Obviously, the writer knew what the defense was doing because he drew the chart, but the discussion needs to be in those terms to be convincing. I would rather have him write "The Sam LB is on the line pre-snap, but he's going to drop with the TE because the call is Cover 2 Zone with only a 3-man rush" or "because he's making a certain read." Instead, the Sam drops back because the Sam will drop back.
• Was anybody on the Stanford schedule even running a 3-3-5 in 2016? Oregon State? I know that's pedantic (just re-label the defenders for a 4-3 and they'll be in the same spots), but it still seems weird. I know I would have wanted more than a six-man box.
• What defense would play two-gap all across the line against 2016 Stanford's o-line with McCaffrey motioned into the backfield?
• When is Rice going to simultaneously have an all-conference runningback/slot receiver, an all-conference offensive line, and a TE who can be told to run a sub-optimal route and just "get open anyway?"
  

Tear it apart.

Heck no, I wouldn't tear your stuff apart. You have more gripes than I do.

I just noticed that it was labeled as a great post and re-posted on the Stanford site. The author states that he is a former HS and college assistant. I noticed the part about how great the Stanford athletes are and that they are expected to get open just because....they are Stanford.

It is hard to figure out just what the defense is supposed to be doing. It is an odd front like you say and fits into the 3-3-5 look especially if NS stands for nickel safety.

Is the defense running a Cover 2 or Cover 4? The issue is that he relies too much on "the concepts" and athleticism to beat the defense. He also drops the defenders in a way that they are not going to react. Also, with motion across the formation out of empty, the defense can react in several ways and not just the one way he describes. They can slide the LBs but also roll safeties around to adjust. They thing that the defense has to do is cover the eligible receivers with a defender as well as cover the gaps for the QB and the motion back. The reason Cover 2 or Cover 4 is important is because it changes the responsibility of the NS and W with regards to their coverage. If it is Cover 2, the corners will be in the flat and they will be less likely to fly out as drawn in the play. As such, their reaction to the routes run by the receivers will look much different (and that crappy TE route will be even more difficult to get open just because). Basically, the defenders are not going to be where he says they are going to be. To be effective as a receiver, it needs to go beyond labeling it as a specific defense. The true key is to understand the universal requirements of the defense. They have to cover eligible receivers at the snap of the ball and they have to account for the gaps. When you realize this, it makes it easier to "see" what the defense is actually doing. And once you recognize who is responsible to get inside and underneath the primary read, multiple receivers can manipulate this defender as well as recognize a catastrophic break down in defensive integrity and capitalize on it in a big way.

It does kind of verify what I see Rice do at times. Concepts break down when you don't get the look you expect. To increase effectiveness, both the receivers and QB need to understand what they are seeing and reading. It is more than just running concepts hoping that it "beats" the defense or hoping that your athleticism "beats" the defense. Your line play could be stellar on this play but if your receivers fail to get open then all you have left is a simple QB run play.

(04-15-2020 05:55 PM)ruowls Wrote:  It does kind of verify what I see Rice do at times. Concepts break down when you don't get the look you expect. To increase effectiveness, both the receivers and QB need to understand what they are seeing and reading. It is more than just running concepts hoping that it "beats" the defense or hoping that your athleticism "beats" the defense.

Exactly. Which is why I think Rice needs to run things that allow adjustments after the snap, depending upon what you see the defense is doing. That's not easy to teach, but if Rice guys are supposed to be smarter than the other guys, that seems to me to be one way to make use of those smarts. You can practice enough that everybody gets it.

I have wondered in the past if the problem wasn't that the Rice players were smart enough to do it, but that the Rice coaches weren't smart enough to teach it.

Run-n-shoot and wishbone both rely heavily of after-snap reads. That's why I liked that Hawaii offense so much, because it combined the best of both. And if Hawaii guys can learn it, Rice guys can learn it.

But any offense where the players have at least. some ability to read and adjust on the fly, if taught properly, has the ability to elevate team play above individual abilities. And it takes advantage of what should be Rice's strength.

(04-15-2020 07:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-15-2020 05:55 PM)ruowls Wrote:  It does kind of verify what I see Rice do at times. Concepts break down when you don't get the look you expect. To increase effectiveness, both the receivers and QB need to understand what they are seeing and reading. It is more than just running concepts hoping that it "beats" the defense or hoping that your athleticism "beats" the defense.

Exactly. Which is why I think Rice needs to run things that allow adjustments after the snap, depending upon what you see the defense is doing. That's not easy to teach, but if Rice guys are supposed to be smarter than the other guys, that seems to me to be one way to make use of those smarts. You can practice enough that everybody gets it.

I have wondered in the past if the problem wasn't that the Rice players were smart enough to do it, but that the Rice coaches weren't smart enough to teach it.

Run-n-shoot and wishbone both rely heavily of after-snap reads. That's why I liked that Hawaii offense so much, because it combined the best of both. And if Hawaii guys can learn it, Rice guys can learn it.

But any offense where the players have at least. some ability to read and adjust on the fly, if taught properly, has the ability to elevate team play above individual abilities. And it takes advantage of what should be Rice's strength.

But it is even more than just read and adjust. You can actually manipulate. So, it is a combination of reading, adjusting, manipulating, reading and adjusting.
I referenced the you tube video with Dan Mullin discussing his passing game. It had very little reading in it and the reads were less effective than they could have been. And he is a QB and offensive guru.

(04-15-2020 07:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-15-2020 05:55 PM)ruowls Wrote:  It does kind of verify what I see Rice do at times. Concepts break down when you don't get the look you expect. To increase effectiveness, both the receivers and QB need to understand what they are seeing and reading. It is more than just running concepts hoping that it "beats" the defense or hoping that your athleticism "beats" the defense.

Exactly. Which is why I think Rice needs to run things that allow adjustments after the snap, depending upon what you see the defense is doing. That's not easy to teach, but if Rice guys are supposed to be smarter than the other guys, that seems to me to be one way to make use of those smarts. You can practice enough that everybody gets it.

I have wondered in the past if the problem wasn't that the Rice players were smart enough to do it, but that the Rice coaches weren't smart enough to teach it.

Run-n-shoot and wishbone both rely heavily of after-snap reads. That's why I liked that Hawaii offense so much, because it combined the best of both. And if Hawaii guys can learn it, Rice guys can learn it.

But any offense where the players have at least. some ability to read and adjust on the fly, if taught properly, has the ability to elevate team play above individual abilities. And it takes advantage of what should be Rice's strength.

I have been thinking about this and your view of the wishbone and run-n-shoot.

The issue with triple option is one of compression. The passing game can employ many of the same "reading" components. However, due to the precision of the run meshes, run tracks and the spacing of the defenders in relation to the gaps, the running game has great difficulty in manipulating the defense as they respond to their responsibilities. The run game relies much more on brute force to manipulate defenders at the LOS. It is almost exclusively a 2 dimensional orientation with in a much more compressed area. The reads of the triple option attempts to mitigate the defense through the reads relating to movement of the defense. So, it involves both reading but also moving defenders via physical means with the latter to a much more extent.
The passing game has significant advantages. It is 3 dimensional as well as covers a much greater area. As such, it is possible to manipulate the defenders positioning with more than physical means. It is possible to not only read their movements but actually alter them. This is the component that differs from conventional teaching. But to do this, you have to understand the dynamics of a defense and extrapolate the vectors. Because, we all know that if you can change a vector early by a degree or two and with the decompression of the area being defended, the positioning of defenders down the field can be just enough to create a throwing lane or receiver separation to create a successful play.

(04-17-2020 11:36 AM)ruowls Wrote:  

(04-15-2020 07:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-15-2020 05:55 PM)ruowls Wrote:  It does kind of verify what I see Rice do at times. Concepts break down when you don't get the look you expect. To increase effectiveness, both the receivers and QB need to understand what they are seeing and reading. It is more than just running concepts hoping that it "beats" the defense or hoping that your athleticism "beats" the defense.

Exactly. Which is why I think Rice needs to run things that allow adjustments after the snap, depending upon what you see the defense is doing. That's not easy to teach, but if Rice guys are supposed to be smarter than the other guys, that seems to me to be one way to make use of those smarts. You can practice enough that everybody gets it.
I have wondered in the past if the problem wasn't that the Rice players were smart enough to do it, but that the Rice coaches weren't smart enough to teach it.
Run-n-shoot and wishbone both rely heavily of after-snap reads. That's why I liked that Hawaii offense so much, because it combined the best of both. And if Hawaii guys can learn it, Rice guys can learn it.

But any offense where the players have at least. some ability to read and adjust on the fly, if taught properly, has the ability to elevate team play above individual abilities. And it takes advantage of what should be Rice's strength.

I have been thinking about this and your view of the wishbone and run-n-shoot.
The issue with triple option is one of compression. The passing game can employ many of the same "reading" components. However, due to the precision of the run meshes, run tracks and the spacing of the defenders in relation to the gaps, the running game has great difficulty in manipulating the defense as they respond to their responsibilities. The run game relies much more on brute force to manipulate defenders at the LOS. It is almost exclusively a 2 dimensional orientation with in a much more compressed area. The reads of the triple option attempts to mitigate the defense through the reads relating to movement of the defense. So, it involves both reading but also moving defenders via physical means with the latter to a much more extent.
The passing game has significant advantages. It is 3 dimensional as well as covers a much greater area. As such, it is possible to manipulate the defenders positioning with more than physical means. It is possible to not only read their movements but actually alter them. This is the component that differs from conventional teaching. But to do this, you have to understand the dynamics of a defense and extrapolate the vectors. Because, we all know that if you can change a vector early by a degree or two and with the decompression of the area being defended, the positioning of defenders down the field can be just enough to create a throwing lane or receiver separation to create a successful play.

But here's why I like the combination of triple and run-n-shoot. The threat of the triple manipulates the defenders by requiring run defenders to play assignment football. That helps determine where they can and cannot be for defending the passing game. You look at the Hawaii offense, and how many times they were running plays into vast gaping holes in defenses, and they weren't doing it by pancaking people. Take your outside linebacker on the play side. He has a run assignment (probably QB or pitch back) and he has a pass assignment (hook or flat zone). He simply cannot be both places. So he has to cheat, and if he cheats run you throw it, and if he cheats pass you run.

Yes, the run is only 2D and the pass is 3D, but if you control the first 2D's with the run, then the pass gets really easy. I think Rice has to beat people with scheme and execution, because I don't think we're ever going trout-athlete many opponents. And I think it helps do that if our scheme is unique.

Actually, I've used the run-n-shoot as the passing game for discussion, because the two mesh well together, but it could be Homer Rice's triple pocket combination to Air Raid to your West Coast (all of which I like) or any passing scheme. I just think if you can execute the option effectively as your running game, and marry it to some effective passing scheme, you can move the ball against anyone. The knock against that approach is that it is hard to perfect both at the same time. But Hawaii did it, and I'm guessing Rice players are smarter than Hawaii players. What I'm not sure of is whether Rice coaches are smart enough to teach it. Unless you came onto the staff, I would worry about that.

(04-17-2020 04:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-17-2020 11:36 AM)ruowls Wrote:  

(04-15-2020 07:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-15-2020 05:55 PM)ruowls Wrote:  It does kind of verify what I see Rice do at times. Concepts break down when you don't get the look you expect. To increase effectiveness, both the receivers and QB need to understand what they are seeing and reading. It is more than just running concepts hoping that it "beats" the defense or hoping that your athleticism "beats" the defense.

Exactly. Which is why I think Rice needs to run things that allow adjustments after the snap, depending upon what you see the defense is doing. That's not easy to teach, but if Rice guys are supposed to be smarter than the other guys, that seems to me to be one way to make use of those smarts. You can practice enough that everybody gets it.
I have wondered in the past if the problem wasn't that the Rice players were smart enough to do it, but that the Rice coaches weren't smart enough to teach it.
Run-n-shoot and wishbone both rely heavily of after-snap reads. That's why I liked that Hawaii offense so much, because it combined the best of both. And if Hawaii guys can learn it, Rice guys can learn it.

But any offense where the players have at least. some ability to read and adjust on the fly, if taught properly, has the ability to elevate team play above individual abilities. And it takes advantage of what should be Rice's strength.

I have been thinking about this and your view of the wishbone and run-n-shoot.
The issue with triple option is one of compression. The passing game can employ many of the same "reading" components. However, due to the precision of the run meshes, run tracks and the spacing of the defenders in relation to the gaps, the running game has great difficulty in manipulating the defense as they respond to their responsibilities. The run game relies much more on brute force to manipulate defenders at the LOS. It is almost exclusively a 2 dimensional orientation with in a much more compressed area. The reads of the triple option attempts to mitigate the defense through the reads relating to movement of the defense. So, it involves both reading but also moving defenders via physical means with the latter to a much more extent.
The passing game has significant advantages. It is 3 dimensional as well as covers a much greater area. As such, it is possible to manipulate the defenders positioning with more than physical means. It is possible to not only read their movements but actually alter them. This is the component that differs from conventional teaching. But to do this, you have to understand the dynamics of a defense and extrapolate the vectors. Because, we all know that if you can change a vector early by a degree or two and with the decompression of the area being defended, the positioning of defenders down the field can be just enough to create a throwing lane or receiver separation to create a successful play.

But here's why I like the combination of triple and run-n-shoot. The threat of the triple manipulates the defenders by requiring run defenders to play assignment football. That helps determine where they can and cannot be for defending the passing game. You look at the Hawaii offense, and how many times they were running plays into vast gaping holes in defenses, and they weren't doing it by pancaking people. Take your outside linebacker on the play side. He has a run assignment (probably QB or pitch back) and he has a pass assignment (hook or flat zone). He simply cannot be both places. So he has to cheat, and if he cheats run you throw it, and if he cheats pass you run.

Yes, the run is only 2D and the pass is 3D, but if you control the first 2D's with the run, then the pass gets really easy. I think Rice has to beat people with scheme and execution, because I don't think we're ever going trout-athlete many opponents. And I think it helps do that if our scheme is unique.

Actually, I've used the run-n-shoot as the passing game for discussion, because the two mesh well together, but it could be Homer Rice's triple pocket combination to Air Raid to your West Coast (all of which I like) or any passing scheme. I just think if you can execute the option effectively as your running game, and marry it to some effective passing scheme, you can move the ball against anyone. The knock against that approach is that it is hard to perfect both at the same time. But Hawaii did it, and I'm guessing Rice players are smarter than Hawaii players. What I'm not sure of is whether Rice coaches are smart enough to teach it. Unless you came onto the staff, I would worry about that.

Let's carry this out a little further. The Air Raid is the opposite of what you propose (and what I agree with). The Air Raid uses the pass to set up the run by trying to get a defense to over commit to the pass. In the option, you are trying to make the pass easier by getting a defense to over commit to the run. But there is a variable that a defense can do to mitigate that somewhat. Furthermore, the opposite isn't true.
Since a defense has to cover the pitch and the QB, this basically can be just man coverage for the defense. In other words, a defender who has man responsibility in pass defense can combine it to the option man responsibility. This lets a defense maintain gap coverage and man pass coverage. Plus, the option will pull receivers into the backfield to run the triple option. This compresses the offense and thus isolates receivers from working in tandem. It is possible to vice the outside receivers while covering the gaps and manning up on interior receivers. If you spread out the receivers it weakens the triple option unless you motion somewhat back in which makes it easier for a defense to cover the option man responsibilities as well as man pass responsibilities.
In the Air Raid or spread passing game, if the threat of the pass is greater then a defense will weaken gap responsibility and there is no way for them to compensate as responsibilities no longer overlap.

(04-17-2020 06:34 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(04-17-2020 04:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-17-2020 11:36 AM)ruowls Wrote:  

(04-15-2020 07:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-15-2020 05:55 PM)ruowls Wrote:  It does kind of verify what I see Rice do at times. Concepts break down when you don't get the look you expect. To increase effectiveness, both the receivers and QB need to understand what they are seeing and reading. It is more than just running concepts hoping that it "beats" the defense or hoping that your athleticism "beats" the defense.

Exactly. Which is why I think Rice needs to run things that allow adjustments after the snap, depending upon what you see the defense is doing. That's not easy to teach, but if Rice guys are supposed to be smarter than the other guys, that seems to me to be one way to make use of those smarts. You can practice enough that everybody gets it.
I have wondered in the past if the problem wasn't that the Rice players were smart enough to do it, but that the Rice coaches weren't smart enough to teach it.
Run-n-shoot and wishbone both rely heavily of after-snap reads. That's why I liked that Hawaii offense so much, because it combined the best of both. And if Hawaii guys can learn it, Rice guys can learn it.

But any offense where the players have at least. some ability to read and adjust on the fly, if taught properly, has the ability to elevate team play above individual abilities. And it takes advantage of what should be Rice's strength.

I have been thinking about this and your view of the wishbone and run-n-shoot.
The issue with triple option is one of compression. The passing game can employ many of the same "reading" components. However, due to the precision of the run meshes, run tracks and the spacing of the defenders in relation to the gaps, the running game has great difficulty in manipulating the defense as they respond to their responsibilities. The run game relies much more on brute force to manipulate defenders at the LOS. It is almost exclusively a 2 dimensional orientation with in a much more compressed area. The reads of the triple option attempts to mitigate the defense through the reads relating to movement of the defense. So, it involves both reading but also moving defenders via physical means with the latter to a much more extent.
The passing game has significant advantages. It is 3 dimensional as well as covers a much greater area. As such, it is possible to manipulate the defenders positioning with more than physical means. It is possible to not only read their movements but actually alter them. This is the component that differs from conventional teaching. But to do this, you have to understand the dynamics of a defense and extrapolate the vectors. Because, we all know that if you can change a vector early by a degree or two and with the decompression of the area being defended, the positioning of defenders down the field can be just enough to create a throwing lane or receiver separation to create a successful play.

But here's why I like the combination of triple and run-n-shoot. The threat of the triple manipulates the defenders by requiring run defenders to play assignment football. That helps determine where they can and cannot be for defending the passing game. You look at the Hawaii offense, and how many times they were running plays into vast gaping holes in defenses, and they weren't doing it by pancaking people. Take your outside linebacker on the play side. He has a run assignment (probably QB or pitch back) and he has a pass assignment (hook or flat zone). He simply cannot be both places. So he has to cheat, and if he cheats run you throw it, and if he cheats pass you run.
Yes, the run is only 2D and the pass is 3D, but if you control the first 2D's with the run, then the pass gets really easy. I think Rice has to beat people with scheme and execution, because I don't think we're ever going trout-athlete many opponents. And I think it helps do that if our scheme is unique.
Actually, I've used the run-n-shoot as the passing game for discussion, because the two mesh well together, but it could be Homer Rice's triple pocket combination to Air Raid to your West Coast (all of which I like) or any passing scheme. I just think if you can execute the option effectively as your running game, and marry it to some effective passing scheme, you can move the ball against anyone. The knock against that approach is that it is hard to perfect both at the same time. But Hawaii did it, and I'm guessing Rice players are smarter than Hawaii players. What I'm not sure of is whether Rice coaches are smart enough to teach it. Unless you came onto the staff, I would worry about that.

Let's carry this out a little further. The Air Raid is the opposite of what you propose (and what I agree with). The Air Raid uses the pass to set up the run by trying to get a defense to over commit to the pass. In the option, you are trying to make the pass easier by getting a defense to over commit to the run. But there is a variable that a defense can do to mitigate that somewhat. Furthermore, the opposite isn't true.
Since a defense has to cover the pitch and the QB, this basically can be just man coverage for the defense. In other words, a defender who has man responsibility in pass defense can combine it to the option man responsibility. This lets a defense maintain gap coverage and man pass coverage. Plus, the option will pull receivers into the backfield to run the triple option. This compresses the offense and thus isolates receivers from working in tandem. It is possible to vice the outside receivers while covering the gaps and manning up on interior receivers. If you spread out the receivers it weakens the triple option unless you motion somewhat back in which makes it easier for a defense to cover the option man responsibilities as well as man pass responsibilities.
In the Air Raid or spread passing game, if the threat of the pass is greater then a defense will weaken gap responsibility and there is no way for them to compensate as responsibilities no longer overlap.

If you're just going to sit in man coverage, then you've simplified the reads for my QB substantially. I don't think that's what you meant, but it is what triple option teams get a lot of the time. The question is whether they spend enough time on the passing game to take proper advantage. I am somewhat more inclined to run to set up the pass, but I can also go with pass to set up the run with the right athletes.

I had a chance to visit with David Lee at the letterman's golf outing the year Ken came, and based on that conversation I got the distinct impression that David wanted to run the Hawaii offense at Rice, particularly with Josh LaRocca. We didn't, and I think Ken got way too committed to the run. I don't know that all of Ken's QB's could have thrown the ball well enough to make the Hawaii offense work, but I'm pretty sure Kyle Herm could have. By then, Ken was fooling around with trying to run the option out of the spread, and the geometry was just different from the Wishbone/Flexbone. Instead of messing around with a new formation, I wish he would have kept the formation he had and used the time to put in the Hawaii passing game. But we didn't.

I just like the combination of the triple option running game with whatever passing scheme we can run effectively. Paul Johnson did flexbone with run-n-shoot at Georgia Southern with Tracy Ham, and at Hawaii with Garrett Gabriel. Ham had a long pro career in Canada, Gabriel never played pro ball, and Ivin Jasper, who replaced Gabriel, became a coach. Jasper was the QB when they scored 42 against Notre Dame, 3 years after the Domers won the national championship. Unfortunately, their defense let in either 49 or 56 (can't remember which) and they lost. But that was a fun game to stay up late, late Saturday night and watch.

(04-17-2020 06:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-17-2020 06:34 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(04-17-2020 04:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-17-2020 11:36 AM)ruowls Wrote:  

(04-15-2020 07:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Exactly. Which is why I think Rice needs to run things that allow adjustments after the snap, depending upon what you see the defense is doing. That's not easy to teach, but if Rice guys are supposed to be smarter than the other guys, that seems to me to be one way to make use of those smarts. You can practice enough that everybody gets it.
I have wondered in the past if the problem wasn't that the Rice players were smart enough to do it, but that the Rice coaches weren't smart enough to teach it.
Run-n-shoot and wishbone both rely heavily of after-snap reads. That's why I liked that Hawaii offense so much, because it combined the best of both. And if Hawaii guys can learn it, Rice guys can learn it.

But any offense where the players have at least. some ability to read and adjust on the fly, if taught properly, has the ability to elevate team play above individual abilities. And it takes advantage of what should be Rice's strength.

I have been thinking about this and your view of the wishbone and run-n-shoot.
The issue with triple option is one of compression. The passing game can employ many of the same "reading" components. However, due to the precision of the run meshes, run tracks and the spacing of the defenders in relation to the gaps, the running game has great difficulty in manipulating the defense as they respond to their responsibilities. The run game relies much more on brute force to manipulate defenders at the LOS. It is almost exclusively a 2 dimensional orientation with in a much more compressed area. The reads of the triple option attempts to mitigate the defense through the reads relating to movement of the defense. So, it involves both reading but also moving defenders via physical means with the latter to a much more extent.
The passing game has significant advantages. It is 3 dimensional as well as covers a much greater area. As such, it is possible to manipulate the defenders positioning with more than physical means. It is possible to not only read their movements but actually alter them. This is the component that differs from conventional teaching. But to do this, you have to understand the dynamics of a defense and extrapolate the vectors. Because, we all know that if you can change a vector early by a degree or two and with the decompression of the area being defended, the positioning of defenders down the field can be just enough to create a throwing lane or receiver separation to create a successful play.

But here's why I like the combination of triple and run-n-shoot. The threat of the triple manipulates the defenders by requiring run defenders to play assignment football. That helps determine where they can and cannot be for defending the passing game. You look at the Hawaii offense, and how many times they were running plays into vast gaping holes in defenses, and they weren't doing it by pancaking people. Take your outside linebacker on the play side. He has a run assignment (probably QB or pitch back) and he has a pass assignment (hook or flat zone). He simply cannot be both places. So he has to cheat, and if he cheats run you throw it, and if he cheats pass you run.
Yes, the run is only 2D and the pass is 3D, but if you control the first 2D's with the run, then the pass gets really easy. I think Rice has to beat people with scheme and execution, because I don't think we're ever going trout-athlete many opponents. And I think it helps do that if our scheme is unique.
Actually, I've used the run-n-shoot as the passing game for discussion, because the two mesh well together, but it could be Homer Rice's triple pocket combination to Air Raid to your West Coast (all of which I like) or any passing scheme. I just think if you can execute the option effectively as your running game, and marry it to some effective passing scheme, you can move the ball against anyone. The knock against that approach is that it is hard to perfect both at the same time. But Hawaii did it, and I'm guessing Rice players are smarter than Hawaii players. What I'm not sure of is whether Rice coaches are smart enough to teach it. Unless you came onto the staff, I would worry about that.

Let's carry this out a little further. The Air Raid is the opposite of what you propose (and what I agree with). The Air Raid uses the pass to set up the run by trying to get a defense to over commit to the pass. In the option, you are trying to make the pass easier by getting a defense to over commit to the run. But there is a variable that a defense can do to mitigate that somewhat. Furthermore, the opposite isn't true.
Since a defense has to cover the pitch and the QB, this basically can be just man coverage for the defense. In other words, a defender who has man responsibility in pass defense can combine it to the option man responsibility. This lets a defense maintain gap coverage and man pass coverage. Plus, the option will pull receivers into the backfield to run the triple option. This compresses the offense and thus isolates receivers from working in tandem. It is possible to vice the outside receivers while covering the gaps and manning up on interior receivers. If you spread out the receivers it weakens the triple option unless you motion somewhat back in which makes it easier for a defense to cover the option man responsibilities as well as man pass responsibilities.
In the Air Raid or spread passing game, if the threat of the pass is greater then a defense will weaken gap responsibility and there is no way for them to compensate as responsibilities no longer overlap.

If you're just going to sit in man coverage, then you've simplified the reads for my QB substantially. I don't think that's what you meant, but it is what triple option teams get a lot of the time. The question is whether they spend enough time on the passing game to take proper advantage. I am somewhat more inclined to run to set up the pass, but I can also go with pass to set up the run with the right athletes.

I had a chance to visit with David Lee at the letterman's golf outing the year Ken came, and based on that conversation I got the distinct impression that David wanted to run the Hawaii offense at Rice, particularly with Josh LaRocca. We didn't, and I think Ken got way too committed to the run. I don't know that all of Ken's QB's could have thrown the ball well enough to make the Hawaii offense work, but I'm pretty sure Kyle Herm could have. By then, Ken was fooling around with trying to run the option out of the spread, and the geometry was just different from the Wishbone/Flexbone. Instead of messing around with a new formation, I wish he would have kept the formation he had and used the time to put in the Hawaii passing game. But we didn't.

I just like the combination of the triple option running game with whatever passing scheme we can run effectively. Paul Johnson did flexbone with run-n-shoot at Georgia Southern with Tracy Ham, and at Hawaii with Garrett Gabriel. Ham had a long pro career in Canada, Gabriel never played pro ball, and Ivin Jasper, who replaced Gabriel, became a coach. Jasper was the QB when they scored 42 against Notre Dame, 3 years after the Domers won the national championship. Unfortunately, their defense let in either 49 or 56 (can't remember which) and they lost. But that was a fun game to stay up late, late Saturday night and watch.

I didn't say sit in man coverage. The defense can still combo coverages and double cover receivers (which is basically what a zone coverage does to a receiver).
As a side note, in 1984 and 1986, Hatfield had an All-SWC receiver out of the wishbone. He wasn't All-SWC in 1985 because of some other stud receiver.
You know what else was a fun game to watch? 1980 Holiday Bowl. BYU 46 SMU 45. Pass beats the run. SMU blew a 20 point lead in the last 2 minutes.

(04-17-2020 07:50 PM)ruowls Wrote:  I didn't say sit in man coverage. The defense can still combo coverages and double cover receivers (which is basically what a zone coverage does to a receiver).
As a side note, in 1984 and 1986, Hatfield had an All-SWC receiver out of the wishbone. He wasn't All-SWC in 1985 because of some other stud receiver.
You know what else was a fun game to watch? 1980 Holiday Bowl. BYU 46 SMU 45. Pass beats the run. SMU blew a 20 point lead in the last 2 minutes.

I said you didn't say sit in man coverage. What I said was that's what option teams get a lot, and they do.
And I know who that 1985 All-SWC receiver was, too.
Pass beats run sometimes, run beats pass sometimes. IIRC, SMU had a couple of bad kicking game breakdowns to help BYU out.

Play sound defense, win the kicking game, and do something different on offense. I'm not as concerned about what you do that is different as I am that you do something different.

(04-17-2020 08:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-17-2020 07:50 PM)ruowls Wrote:  I didn't say sit in man coverage. The defense can still combo coverages and double cover receivers (which is basically what a zone coverage does to a receiver).
As a side note, in 1984 and 1986, Hatfield had an All-SWC receiver out of the wishbone. He wasn't All-SWC in 1985 because of some other stud receiver.
You know what else was a fun game to watch? 1980 Holiday Bowl. BYU 46 SMU 45. Pass beats the run. SMU blew a 20 point lead in the last 2 minutes.

I said you didn't say sit in man coverage. What I said was that's what option teams get a lot, and they do.
And I know who that 1985 All-SWC receiver was, too.
Pass beats run sometimes, run beats pass sometimes. IIRC, SMU had a couple of bad kicking game breakdowns to help BYU out.

Play sound defense, win the kicking game, and do something different on offense. I'm not as concerned about what you do that is different as I am that you do something different.

I would say that we have a theoretical difference. I would postulate that RPOs are an extension of the triple option. It is essentially the same thing as reading a defender and then "pitching" to a secondary offensive player based on the read's play of an initial run. Again, this is a reactionary read with minimal manipulation of the defense. It follows the basic rules of an option team. Read a defender's response to a run and either give or pitch. The RPO occupies more of the secondary with receivers in the pattern but still relegates them to a secondary role because the QB still is reading the "dive" and pulling for the "pitch" or QB run.
If you looked at the video of Dan Mullen, the passing game has a reading component. There are subtle adjustments to routes or changing of a route based on coverage or drop of a defender. What I would advocate is that receivers can act more proactively instead of mostly passively. In other words, a receiver can alter the drops of defenders (manipulate the coverage) instead of just responding to the coverage. It is a huge distinction. You can teach the receivers to manipulate and QBs to recognize the manipulation and augment their standard reads. A team that can do this will be even more effective and consistent. It mitigates pure athleticism and allows less athletic offensive players to be highly effective against superior athletes.
As a side note, I once read an article about Frank Ryan. He minimized the effects of mathematics on his game and instead insinuated that athletic ability was a strong determinate of success. I do agree that players needs a minimum level of athleticism to be successful but it doesn't have to be the overwhelming factor.