Under the philosophy of "if you can't beat em-join em, let's just switch to the triple option. I've got a bad feeling about the GSU game in a couple of weeks.

GSU runs the same scheme with better athletes and we will be on the road.

I still don't understand how the TO is legal. The blocking scheme is literally to dive at the defenders' legs... How is that legal?

appalum2003 wrote:I still don't understand how the TO is legal. The blocking scheme is literally to dive at the defenders' legs... How is that legal?

As long as your at the line of scrimmage and the player isn't already engaged you can legally chop all day.

The triple option didn't stop our non existent offense...

AppGrad1 wrote:The triple option didn't stop our non existent offense...

No, our QB accomplished that with more and more poor decision making.

Why do we INSIST on playing 5 defensive backs all day against triple option teams that pass the ball 5 times or less? 4 linemen, 2 linebackers and 5 DB's is not going to cut it. If we try it again in Statesboro, it could get ugly.

Karl Anderson looked great today after Grier went down. Am I missing something or would it not make a ton of sense to play Kimbrough, Grier and Anderson behind the line? A 6-man front just won't slow down an option team consistently. Our corners are good enough to play their wideouts one on one.

asumike83 wrote:Why do we INSIST on playing 5 defensive backs all day against triple option teams that pass the ball 5 times or less? 4 linemen, 2 linebackers and 5 DB's is not going to cut it. If we try it again in Statesboro, it could get ugly.

Karl Anderson looked great today after Grier went down. Am I missing something or would it not make a ton of sense to play Kimbrough, Grier and Anderson behind the line? A 6-man front just won't slow down an option team consistently. Our corners are good enough to play their wideouts one on one.

Thank you, I was at the game yesterday and have been wandering the same thing. App plays 3 triple option teams. Yet App plays a defense with essentially 5 DB's!!!! And whats worse, the infamous 3-4 alignment, allows for 2 safety, roughly 12 yds off the ball. Most football types realize that against running teams you need to play "8 guys in the box". But App has and always has played "7 guys in the box". How is that conducive to stopping a team that runs 95% of the time? Are we scared they are going to beat us deep? Do the coaches not realize that the triple option is essentially a 3 yds and cloud of dust offense? You are guaranteeing them 5 yds or more everytime they touch the ball? If you put more players closer to the ball, you have more of a shot of stopping it.

gaapp78 wrote:

asumike83 wrote:Why do we INSIST on playing 5 defensive backs all day against triple option teams that pass the ball 5 times or less? 4 linemen, 2 linebackers and 5 DB's is not going to cut it. If we try it again in Statesboro, it could get ugly.

Karl Anderson looked great today after Grier went down. Am I missing something or would it not make a ton of sense to play Kimbrough, Grier and Anderson behind the line? A 6-man front just won't slow down an option team consistently. Our corners are good enough to play their wideouts one on one.

Thank you, I was at the game yesterday and have been wandering the same thing. App plays 3 triple option teams. Yet App plays a defense with essentially 5 DB's!!!! And whats worse, the infamous 3-4 alignment, allows for 2 safety, roughly 12 yds off the ball. Most football types realize that against running teams you need to play "8 guys in the box". But App has and always has played "7 guys in the box". How is that conducive to stopping a team that runs 95% of the time? Are we scared they are going to beat us deep? Do the coaches not realize that the triple option is essentially a 3 yds and cloud of dust offense? You are guaranteeing them 5 yds or more everytime they touch the ball? If you put more players closer to the ball, you have more of a shot of stopping it.

How quickly we forget that ASU beat GSU last season in the first year of this 3-4 scheme.

IMO it all comes down to pressure up the middle from the defensive tackles. Bronson, Harris and Burns are all redshirt freshmen and this may be only their second time defending an offense like this at game speed. Makes you appreciate guys like Wylie and Aiken. Five DBs isnt an issue when you stuff the middle and force the offense to become one dimensional.

At one point, Anderson, Scott, and Blalock were all out on the field together. They're all decent players, but that's three walk-ons getting significant playing time, and eventually depth was going to catch up with us. I thought they played admirably given the circumstances.

Your point is valid about having 3-4 last year. And it would help to have a couple of big nasties up front. But you don't need 2 safeties put an extra guy in the box.

cbarrier90 wrote:

gaapp78 wrote:

asumike83 wrote:Why do we INSIST on playing 5 defensive backs all day against triple option teams that pass the ball 5 times or less? 4 linemen, 2 linebackers and 5 DB's is not going to cut it. If we try it again in Statesboro, it could get ugly.

Karl Anderson looked great today after Grier went down. Am I missing something or would it not make a ton of sense to play Kimbrough, Grier and Anderson behind the line? A 6-man front just won't slow down an option team consistently. Our corners are good enough to play their wideouts one on one.

Thank you, I was at the game yesterday and have been wandering the same thing. App plays 3 triple option teams. Yet App plays a defense with essentially 5 DB's!!!! And whats worse, the infamous 3-4 alignment, allows for 2 safety, roughly 12 yds off the ball. Most football types realize that against running teams you need to play "8 guys in the box". But App has and always has played "7 guys in the box". How is that conducive to stopping a team that runs 95% of the time? Are we scared they are going to beat us deep? Do the coaches not realize that the triple option is essentially a 3 yds and cloud of dust offense? You are guaranteeing them 5 yds or more everytime they touch the ball? If you put more players closer to the ball, you have more of a shot of stopping it.

How quickly we forget that ASU beat GSU last season in the first year of this 3-4 scheme.

IMO it all comes down to pressure up the middle from the defensive tackles. Bronson, Harris and Burns are all redshirt freshmen and this may be only their second time defending an offense like this at game speed. Makes you appreciate guys like Wylie and Aiken. Five DBs isnt an issue when you stuff the middle and force the offense to become one dimensional.

At one point, Anderson, Scott, and Blalock were all out on the field together. They're all decent players, but that's three walk-ons getting significant playing time, and eventually depth was going to catch up with us. I thought they played admirably given the circumstances.

I understand your point but my suggestion was not that we ditch the 3-4. Last year against GSU, we started 3 linemen, 4 linebackers and 4 defensive backs. I like Joel Ross at the star position against traditional offenses but he cannot stop the run as well as a linebacker. Putting a third linebacker in there could add the beef we need to help out that young defensive line and get some push up front.

One guy who I feel could help us at LB is Frazier. I never understood moving him to RB if he rarely plays there. He is a good tackler regularly makes plays on special teams.

Regardless of how many we have in the box if we continue to put one defender on the QB and pitch man the option will beat us. One cannot defend two if the two keep their pitch relationship where it should be. That is what led to the fumble return for TD. The defense did not cause that fumble as much as the pitch relationship did.

goapps93 wrote:Regardless of how many we have in the box if we continue to put one defender on the QB and pitch man the option will beat us. One cannot defend two if the two keep their pitch relationship where it should be. That is what led to the fumble return for TD. The defense did not cause that fumble as much as the pitch relationship did.

I dont think the same man has the QB and the pitch man. Usually the DE has the Qb, because he is the one the QB options off of, the pitch man is usually covered by , in App's case the Star (Joel Ross) on one side, not sure who has the pitch on the other side, most likely one of the safeties. I saw Ross come up a lot but most time he did go with the pitch man, the problem was whoever was responsible for the QB was getting blocked or simply not getting there. I kept hoping a couple of times that Ross would string it out and then turn back and take the Qb.

gaapp78 wrote:

goapps93 wrote:Regardless of how many we have in the box if we continue to put one defender on the QB and pitch man the option will beat us. One cannot defend two if the two keep their pitch relationship where it should be. That is what led to the fumble return for TD. The defense did not cause that fumble as much as the pitch relationship did.

I dont think the same man has the QB and the pitch man. Usually the DE has the Qb, because he is the one the QB options off of, the pitch man is usually covered by , in App's case the Star (Joel Ross) on one side, not sure who has the pitch on the other side, most likely one of the safeties. I saw Ross come up a lot but most time he did go with the pitch man, the problem was whoever was responsible for the QB was getting blocked or simply not getting there. I kept hoping a couple of times that Ross would string it out and then turn back and take the Qb.

You're right on how it should be covered but I've noticed it enough to make me wonder how we're actually covering it. I need to go back and watch the game again and study a little more. Our end must be getting blocked which is why the TO works so well out of the wingbone formation, the play side wing back can downblock on the end. But fairly simple adjustments could be made with safeties and LBs to counter that. I'm not seeing that.

I watched the youtube video of the Wofford Coach's show, it only showed the runs that Wofford did break for big plays. I must admit that many of their runs were a result of guys being out of positioned. Kimbrough and Grier were out of place on a couple of their big runs. There were a couple of blitzes called and they had the right play called. As far as a couple of the plays where the qb optioned off of the end, the DE should have been the one optioned off of, but they were engaged with the tackles and didnt get off the block well and the qb simply ran by him. When that happen, the qb could simply get to the next level and if the olb/s takes the pitch, the qb can press the hole and turn it up and get 6-8 yds, which happen several times. The option is hard to stop, its hard to take away everything. I think you cant really play it one way, you have to play the "game within the game" and hope you can limit their big plays.

I still hate the triple option - sick of seeing it

WVAPPeer wrote:I still hate the triple option - sick of seeing it

I agree; it's pretty boring to watch. I would hate to ever see the option at Appalachian as the OP suggested. But, it is effective at this level of football.

Here's my idea against the Triple option. Go back to the old 5-3 defense. Let the corners and the 1 safety play man against the 3 receivers. That is usually all a TO offense has. Tell the DE their responsibility is to go down the line and hit the qb and force him to pitch the ball. The outside line backer and corners then get the pitchman. How hard is that? I bet you could teach a middle school team to that. If you hit the qb enough times he will start pitching the ball earlier and earlier or giving to the fullback.

ASU-FTW wrote:

WVAPPeer wrote:I still hate the triple option - sick of seeing it

I agree; it's pretty boring to watch. I would hate to ever see the option at Appalachian as the OP suggested. But, it is effective at this level of football.

We ran it in the 1970's. I can assure you that when you win with it, boredom is not an issue.
QB Robbie Price was a lot of fun to watch during those years.
I like our current offense, but I'm not sure we have the right QB for the offense. And I don't think that Satterfield thinks so, either.