(11-27-2013 09:43 AM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  

(11-27-2013 09:37 AM)panama Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 11:36 PM)fencereagle Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 11:27 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 11:21 PM)fencereagle Wrote:  And for others on the thread, of course a good 3O team can come back from being down 14 points, as has been done many many times by GaSo. I'm too lazy to look it up but I would bet we've done it more times than Ga St has victories... (glass houses doncha know)

Jesus christ, how did this turn into a "rag on Georgia State" thread? Do you really think Panama was saying something that many other folks, who are fans of many other teams, haven't already said? Why so touchy about the triple option?

Nice deflection, yeah it's all us horrible GaSo fans explaining the factual inaccuracies in the snarky troll bait piling on GaSt. If your brethren hadn't chimed I with his bit of snark the thread no doubt wouldn't have become a 'rag on GaSt' thread.

But you know ok, please accept my apologies. I recognize that not all GaSt fans spew snark and on more than one occasion I've agreed with Panama so I recognize he isn't snarky all the time. I'll refrain from continuing the snark since in general this is an interesting thread about an offense that most of us Eagles love passionately (and of course feel the need to passionately defend because it is tied to our identity.) If you really want to see this degrade into GaSo infighting try asking for differing opinions on running the 3O out of the shotgun... *ducks and covers*

Someone asked a question as to why more schools do not run the 3O. I answered the question factually. There was zero snark. Out of 126 FBS schools there are like 5 3O teams. So why not try answering the original question instead of deflecting. Because three posts in there was no pointingat GaSouthern and no demeaning comments.

some start viewing any comment against the school or offense as a direct offense. But also certain posters bring out the worst in certain fans. In the past you have been known to poke fun at GS any chance you got and now it's a reaction to anything you post even if it isn't meant to be that offensive. your reputation proceeds you

I doubt you could find a comment I have ever made "poking fun" at GS stat exists in a vacuum. They are almost always in response to something derogatory by a GS fan. In this instance if you look at the progression of the thread it is clear that nobody misunderstood the intent of my post. As he said it was left dangling, that is, an opportunity at a pot shot.

(11-27-2013 12:19 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  

(11-27-2013 11:15 AM)GATA Wrote:  

(11-27-2013 11:11 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 08:05 PM)panama Wrote:  Because if you fall behind by two TDs you have less than zero chance of winning.

not true

They know first hand

And...I love it when things come full circle.

The idea of the TO "negating talent" confuses me, too. My impression has been that if a defense remains disciplined, sufficient athleticism will hold it in check. Thus, high school: very viable, FCS: successful niche, FBS: tough sell, NFL: worthless.

the only answer I keep seeing is not true. So then what is the answer. Why is the 3O run by only one Power Conference school and zero NFL teams? That WAS the original question.

(11-27-2013 01:37 PM)panama Wrote:  

(11-27-2013 12:19 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  

(11-27-2013 11:15 AM)GATA Wrote:  

(11-27-2013 11:11 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 08:05 PM)panama Wrote:  Because if you fall behind by two TDs you have less than zero chance of winning.

not true

They know first hand

And...I love it when things come full circle.

The idea of the TO "negating talent" confuses me, too. My impression has been that if a defense remains disciplined, sufficient athleticism will hold it in check. Thus, high school: very viable, FCS: successful niche, FBS: tough sell, NFL: worthless.

the only answer I keep seeing is not true. So then what is the answer. Why is the 3O run by only one Power Conference school and zero NFL teams? That WAS the original question.

The 3O is indeed commonly used at all levels including the NFL. I am no more an expert on the 3O than 20 years of watching it could make so I will gladly defer to someone more educated on the subject. Perhaps someone that has coached it or played in a offense that ran it could chime in with more specifics. But as I understand it, really the 3O is more about increasing the deception about where the ball is going to go until AFTER the defense commits to a particular option. As a result there are many flavors of 'triple option' that get run out of many sets and many teams running it successfully.

Here is a link that describes the various flavors and contains a list of teams that have had success with it and those who are running it currently. Though the list seems to be rather incomplete.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_offense

And while I'm no fan of Tim Tebow it is curious that UF played a decent amount of 3O while he was there. Even won a National Championship with it as part of their offense. Here's a sample.
http://youtu.be/A13tYMcmEf4

(11-26-2013 08:51 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 08:48 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  If you can find a triple option quarterback who can actually throw the ball accurately then you really have something.

Problem is that most triple option QB's come out of High School systems where they didn't throw. If you were a good High School QB who could throw, chances were your coach created an offense to utilize that.

I see a lot of that in Arkansas. Some teams almost never throw the ball, while others line up in the spread and throw it 40 times a game. In almost every situation, the playbook was set around the skillset of that particular QB.

True. I have a game in 1986 that I would like you to watch where an option QB did pretty well in the air and on the ground. I believe the game was played in Tacoma, WA.

(11-27-2013 12:19 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  

(11-27-2013 11:15 AM)GATA Wrote:  

(11-27-2013 11:11 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 08:05 PM)panama Wrote:  Because if you fall behind by two TDs you have less than zero chance of winning.

not true

They know first hand

And...I love it when things come full circle.

The idea of the TO "negating talent" confuses me, too. My impression has been that if a defense remains disciplined, sufficient athleticism will hold it in check. Thus, high school: very viable, FCS: successful niche, FBS: tough sell, NFL: worthless.

If the offense executes, it is hard to stop and it starts and ends with a QB that can execute. We shall see how it works for us in FBS. I don't know. It has worked well for the service academies. GT results have been mixed at best. Personally, I wish we were the only team running it. would allow us to recruit the best TO players and defenses would not be used to seeing it. The trouble with playing in the SoCon is defenses see the TO three times a year and they become adjusted. That will not be the case in the Belt - scout teams have a hard time replicating the TO in practice. That is not to say we will do well next year - I really dont know. Had to say that or my comments would be misconstrued as a prediction of Belt champions 2014 forward.

(11-27-2013 02:56 PM)NashvilleEagle Wrote:  If the offense executes, it is hard to stop and it starts and ends with a QB that can execute. We shall see how it works for us in FBS. I don't know. It has worked well for the service academies. GT results have been mixed at best. Personally, I wish we were the only team running it. would allow us to recruit the best TO players and defenses would not be used to seeing it. The trouble with playing in the SoCon is defenses see the TO three times a year and they become adjusted. That will not be the case in the Belt - scout teams have a hard time replicating the TO in practice. That is not to say we will do well next year - I really dont know. Had to say that or my comments would be misconstrued as a prediction of Belt champions 2014 forward.

Oh, don't worry, we all heard it that way anyway.

The TO is going to be interesting to watch in the Belt. We should all probably say thank you to this year's GaSo team for the the Florida win, which will help ensure that all of our coaches take it seriously enough.

Also, regarding the use of the the TO at the NFL and P5 FBS level, I realize that there are TO-like plays that are run by some offenses, at times, but I think we'd all admit that a GaSo-like commitment to the flexbone would be absolutely unheard of. Once again...0-3 passing vs. UF. That's a whole different animal from the NFL's passing fancy with the read option.

One day soon, we will inevitability have a game where we get shut down, and as always the roaches who hate the flexbone or Georgia Southern or the 3O will come out and scream "That offense will never work" or "We now have the blueprint" or "Today's defenses are too fast" ect.

I've watched this play out for over a decade with fans who don't understand our offense, or don't like it, or don't like our team.

Then, as always, when we have a good season, or beat their team or have a big win like the UF game, then all of the roaches scurry away again and wait.

It's a never ending cycle of ignorance.

(11-27-2013 03:18 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  

(11-27-2013 02:56 PM)NashvilleEagle Wrote:  If the offense executes, it is hard to stop and it starts and ends with a QB that can execute. We shall see how it works for us in FBS. I don't know. It has worked well for the service academies. GT results have been mixed at best. Personally, I wish we were the only team running it. would allow us to recruit the best TO players and defenses would not be used to seeing it. The trouble with playing in the SoCon is defenses see the TO three times a year and they become adjusted. That will not be the case in the Belt - scout teams have a hard time replicating the TO in practice. That is not to say we will do well next year - I really dont know. Had to say that or my comments would be misconstrued as a prediction of Belt champions 2014 forward.

Oh, don't worry, we all heard it that way anyway.

The TO is going to be interesting to watch in the Belt. We should all probably say thank you to this year's GaSo team for the the Florida win, which will help ensure that all of our coaches take it seriously enough.

Also, regarding the use of the the TO at the NFL and P5 FBS level, I realize that there are TO-like plays that are run by some offenses, at times, but I think we'd all admit that a GaSo-like commitment to the flexbone would be absolutely unheard of. Once again...0-3 passing vs. UF. That's a whole different animal from the NFL's passing fancy with the read option.

No one runs the 3O as often as the detractors think they do. (Not calling you a detractor mind you, just making a point.) Here is GT FB coach Paul Johnson saying they only run the 3O about 20% of the time. The rest of the time they are running plays out of a set that earlier they used to run the 3O. I think the 3O is as much about the set up as it is about the knock down. So when you say commitment to the flexbone, there is really far less commitment to a particular flavor of play as there is to insuring that the opposing team doesn't know whats coming even after the ball has been snapped.

http://youtu.be/MSR3Y-yl1iQ

So if 80% of the time something other than the 3O is being run why do certain offenses get labelled 3O? I would guess because those are the memorable ones because they rip off big yardage.

(11-27-2013 03:24 PM)GaSouthern Wrote:  One day soon, we will inevitability have a game where we get shut down, and as always the roaches who hate the flexbone or Georgia Southern or the 3O will come out and scream "That offense will never work" or "We now have the blueprint" or "Today's defenses are too fast" ect.

I've watched this play out for over a decade with fans who don't understand our offense, or don't like it, or don't like our team.

Then, as always, when we have a good season, or beat their team or have a big win like the UF game, then all of the roaches scurry away again and wait.

It's a never ending cycle of ignorance.

Yep, every year that I can remember watching GSU football that we ran the TO, someone has done a good job at stopping us at least once. Coaching Xs and Os against the option isn't the big problem, coaching discipline against the TO is what is difficult. You live by the sword and you die by the sword, and our sword is the option.

I watched this whole video because it's interesting to see how they were effective in running this offense against an SEC defense. One thing this video obviously didn't show is Southerns defense though. Holding Florida to 20 points is just as incredible as them scoring 27 on them.

(11-26-2013 08:05 PM)panama Wrote:  Because if you fall behind by two TDs you have less than zero chance of winning.

Not True - in the past GSU was behind plenty of times by 10 -14 points and came back to win.

(11-26-2013 08:42 PM)gsu2583 Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 08:05 PM)panama Wrote:  Because if you fall behind by two TDs you have less than zero chance of winning.

What the hell would you know about winning?

Dang man, zinnnnnnger!!!!

(11-26-2013 08:05 PM)panama Wrote:  Because if you fall behind by two TDs you have less than zero chance of winning.

Georgia Southern down 21-35 vs Old Dominion in 2012 Quarter Finals.



Final score: Georgia Southern 49
Old Dominion 35
Never say never, we "rose [and will rise] to the occasion" !

The "today's defenses are too fast" is the dumbest thing I've ever heard in regards to everything. Speed means zero when it comes to stopping the offense. Speed is relative on both sides if the ball in any generation. Faster defenses are because of faster offenses.

(11-28-2013 10:03 AM)GSUsTALON Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 08:05 PM)panama Wrote:  Because if you fall behind by two TDs you have less than zero chance of winning.

Not True - in the past GSU was behind plenty of times by 10 -14 points and came back to win.

(11-28-2013 12:03 PM)ATLGSUEAGLE Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 08:42 PM)gsu2583 Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 08:05 PM)panama Wrote:  Because if you fall behind by two TDs you have less than zero chance of winning.

What the hell would you know about winning?

Dang man, zinnnnnnger!!!!

(11-28-2013 08:44 PM)DawggoneEagle Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 08:05 PM)panama Wrote:  Because if you fall behind by two TDs you have less than zero chance of winning.

Georgia Southern down 21-35 vs Old Dominion in 2012 Quarter Finals.



Final score: Georgia Southern 49
Old Dominion 35
Never say never, we "rose [and will rise] to the occasion" !

The question was why do more teams not run the 3O. So answer the question.

(11-29-2013 07:40 AM)panama Wrote:  

(11-28-2013 10:03 AM)GSUsTALON Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 08:05 PM)panama Wrote:  Because if you fall behind by two TDs you have less than zero chance of winning.

Not True - in the past GSU was behind plenty of times by 10 -14 points and came back to win.

(11-28-2013 12:03 PM)ATLGSUEAGLE Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 08:42 PM)gsu2583 Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 08:05 PM)panama Wrote:  Because if you fall behind by two TDs you have less than zero chance of winning.

What the hell would you know about winning?

Dang man, zinnnnnnger!!!!

(11-28-2013 08:44 PM)DawggoneEagle Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 08:05 PM)panama Wrote:  Because if you fall behind by two TDs you have less than zero chance of winning.

Georgia Southern down 21-35 vs Old Dominion in 2012 Quarter Finals.



Final score: Georgia Southern 49
Old Dominion 35
Never say never, we "rose [and will rise] to the occasion" !

The question was why do more teams not run the 3O. So answer the question.

I will try and giving you my reason why more teams do not run the 30. Back in the 70' and 80' the 3O was in voge. There were coaches that came up the coaching ladder with programs that used the 30. Programs adjusted to the point where they could finally stop the 30 because they saw it so much each and every season. Teams started moving away from the offense due to the lack of sucess. As more and more schools moved away from the offense the pool of new coaches using the system dried up. Coaches that move up the ladder are usually going to use the same systems that got them there which is not the 3O. For this reason you do not see more programs changing to the offense.
The Coaching tree using the system has gotten very small. Can this change. Yes it can but only time will tell.

(11-29-2013 08:34 AM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 07:40 AM)panama Wrote:  

(11-28-2013 10:03 AM)GSUsTALON Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 08:05 PM)panama Wrote:  Because if you fall behind by two TDs you have less than zero chance of winning.

Not True - in the past GSU was behind plenty of times by 10 -14 points and came back to win.

(11-28-2013 12:03 PM)ATLGSUEAGLE Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 08:42 PM)gsu2583 Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 08:05 PM)panama Wrote:  Because if you fall behind by two TDs you have less than zero chance of winning.

What the hell would you know about winning?

Dang man, zinnnnnnger!!!!

(11-28-2013 08:44 PM)DawggoneEagle Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 08:05 PM)panama Wrote:  Because if you fall behind by two TDs you have less than zero chance of winning.

Georgia Southern down 21-35 vs Old Dominion in 2012 Quarter Finals.



Final score: Georgia Southern 49
Old Dominion 35
Never say never, we "rose [and will rise] to the occasion" !

The question was why do more teams not run the 3O. So answer the question.

I will try and giving you my reason why more teams do not run the 30. Back in the 70' and 80' the 3O was in voge. There were coaches that came up the coaching ladder with programs that used the 30. Programs adjusted to the point where they could finally stop the 30 because they saw it so much each and every season. Teams started moving away from the offense due to the lack of sucess. As more and more schools moved away from the offense the pool of new coaches using the system dried up. Coaches that move up the ladder are usually going to use the same systems that got them there which is not the 3O. For this reason you do not see more programs changing to the offense.
The Coaching tree using the system has gotten very small. Can this change. Yes it can but only time will tell.

Also, you don;t have to use the flex bone that was developed at Georgia Southern by Paul Johnson to run the triple option, which is just a play, albeit the best single play in college football IMHO.
It can be run out of the I-formation, the wishbone, the veer, etc.

Much of its current success is due to it being a contrary offense. But I think too many people think it is a college coach's job to put players in the NFL. I think it is simply their job to win games! After the advent of the forward pass and the NFL's shift to a passing league, it became harder for offensive lineman, receivers and QBs with a different skill set to advance to the pros. Lack of success with the 3-0 a at the college level had little to do with its fade from popularity. The passing offenses were unfamiliar to the defenses at the time, passing offenses were "contrary to what they knew how to defend best and so were more effective
It certainly is harder to defend any scheme that you rarely see. Offenses are just like work out plans, devices and weight loss programs in that most of them will work if you sick to it and execute it correctly. It is what we have s stuck to, except for our five year experiment ( see the rise of the APP STATE Dynasty. ). Currently it is contrary to most other schemes although many are becoming lot similar. It will be more contrary in the sun belt than the SoCon ... not sure what that will translate to but those guys certainly have a lot of experience defending it due to several conference teams running a version of it.

(11-27-2013 01:37 PM)panama Wrote:  

(11-27-2013 12:19 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  

(11-27-2013 11:15 AM)GATA Wrote:  

(11-27-2013 11:11 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 08:05 PM)panama Wrote:  Because if you fall behind by two TDs you have less than zero chance of winning.

not true

They know first hand

And...I love it when things come full circle.

The idea of the TO "negating talent" confuses me, too. My impression has been that if a defense remains disciplined, sufficient athleticism will hold it in check. Thus, high school: very viable, FCS: successful niche, FBS: tough sell, NFL: worthless.

the only answer I keep seeing is not true. So then what is the answer. Why is the 3O run by only one Power Conference school and zero NFL teams? That WAS the original question.

The 30 isn't run in the NFL because of the beating a QB takes. With small rosters and large contracts, NO NFL teams want their QB taking those kinds of hits. The top tier BCS teams are going to run whatever the NFL does so they can pitch to the kids that their scheme will help them get into the NFL. GSou will never produce a drop back passer QB with this scheme. But it gives a kid that will be player CB or WR and doens't have much of a shot at the NFL, a chance to play QB. I'm willing to bet our QB Jerrick McKinnon (#1) will be on a NFL roster as a RB this year. Outside of that, every other position still has a chance to make an NFL roster as the position they play on our college roster.

What the offense (just like all others) boils down to is execution. The scheme isn't some magic wand or inherently unstoppable. It's the execution at which we execute our scheme. We Keep It Simple Stupid. Everyone knows their assignments and blocks. We execute those and you or I could be running through the holes our guys open up.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 2

(11-30-2013 03:00 PM)The Black Flag Wrote:  

(11-27-2013 01:37 PM)panama Wrote:  

(11-27-2013 12:19 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  

(11-27-2013 11:15 AM)GATA Wrote:  

(11-27-2013 11:11 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  not true

They know first hand

And...I love it when things come full circle.

The idea of the TO "negating talent" confuses me, too. My impression has been that if a defense remains disciplined, sufficient athleticism will hold it in check. Thus, high school: very viable, FCS: successful niche, FBS: tough sell, NFL: worthless.

the only answer I keep seeing is not true. So then what is the answer. Why is the 3O run by only one Power Conference school and zero NFL teams? That WAS the original question.

The 30 isn't run in the NFL because of the beating a QB takes. With small rosters and large contracts, NO NFL teams want their QB taking those kinds of hits. The top tier BCS teams are going to run whatever the NFL does so they can pitch to the kids that their scheme will help them get into the NFL. GSou will never produce a drop back passer QB with this scheme. But it gives a kid that will be player CB or WR and doens't have much of a shot at the NFL, a chance to play QB. I'm willing to bet our QB Jerrick McKinnon (#1) will be on a NFL roster as a RB this year. Outside of that, every other position still has a chance to make an NFL roster as the position they play on our college roster.

What the offense (just like all others) boils down to is execution. The scheme isn't some magic wand or inherently unstoppable. It's the execution at which we execute our scheme. We Keep It Simple Stupid. Everyone knows their assignments and blocks. We execute those and you or I could be running through the holes our guys open up.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 2

so the triple option is an offense where you have a large likelihood of crippling whatever poor dummy plays the qb position? and the nfl cares?

nice.