Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Montana is in the top-15 nationally in both rushing offense & rushing defense, yet their record is 3-5.

Not a kind of thing you see very often.

Cal Poly is third in the nation in rushing and they are 7-0.

So far, CP has been fortunate. With the Triple Option, particularly if you're running a Wishbone or Oregon Veer set, you better get up on your opponent early. If you are down big early, it's VERY hard to come back without passing. Teams that predicate their attack on the option (as opposed to using the option as a tool within a much larger package) tend not to work the passing game, recruiting QBs who are good at running and the deception required to run the TO, but not necessarily good at passing.

A perfect example of this is '80s-era Nebraska, which ran up the score at will during the regular season, but got spanked in bowl games by passing teams.

There's a LOT to be said for controlling the clock by running the ball. But you better be able to throw the ball as well, and not just at the end of the game on the losing end, because then you'll have to deal with defenses that KNOW you have to pass.

This is not to say that this is DEFINITELY a problem for CP. It's just food for thought.

What is just as important is how is your defense

CP

um

SuperHornet wrote:So far, CP has been fortunate. With the Triple Option, particularly if you're running a Wishbone or Oregon Veer set, you better get up on your opponent early. If you are down big early, it's VERY hard to come back without passing. Teams that predicate their attack on the option (as opposed to using the option as a tool within a much larger package) tend not to work the passing game, recruiting QBs who are good at running and the deception required to run the TO, but not necessarily good at passing.

A perfect example of this is '80s-era Nebraska, which ran up the score at will during the regular season, but got spanked in bowl games by passing teams.

There's a LOT to be said for controlling the clock by running the ball. But you better be able to throw the ball as well, and not just at the end of the game on the losing end, because then you'll have to deal with defenses that KNOW you have to pass.

This is not to say that this is DEFINITELY a problem for CP. It's just food for thought.

Agreed. When the triple option is the only thing you can do, and you face a good defense, you will lose. See NDSU Georgia Southern last year.

cats2506 wrote:What is just as important is how is your defense

CP

um

He didn't say our defense as a whole was good, princess, he said our rush defense was.

BisoNation wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:So far, CP has been fortunate. With the Triple Option, particularly if you're running a Wishbone or Oregon Veer set, you better get up on your opponent early. If you are down big early, it's VERY hard to come back without passing. Teams that predicate their attack on the option (as opposed to using the option as a tool within a much larger package) tend not to work the passing game, recruiting QBs who are good at running and the deception required to run the TO, but not necessarily good at passing.

A perfect example of this is '80s-era Nebraska, which ran up the score at will during the regular season, but got spanked in bowl games by passing teams.

There's a LOT to be said for controlling the clock by running the ball. But you better be able to throw the ball as well, and not just at the end of the game on the losing end, because then you'll have to deal with defenses that KNOW you have to pass.

This is not to say that this is DEFINITELY a problem for CP. It's just food for thought.

When the triple option is the only thing you can do, and you face a good defense, you will lose. See NDSU Georgia Southern last year.

Cal Poly has 11 passing TDs (only 1 INT) this season and lead the Big Sky in passing efficiency.

BisoNation wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:So far, CP has been fortunate. With the Triple Option, particularly if you're running a Wishbone or Oregon Veer set, you better get up on your opponent early. If you are down big early, it's VERY hard to come back without passing. Teams that predicate their attack on the option (as opposed to using the option as a tool within a much larger package) tend not to work the passing game, recruiting QBs who are good at running and the deception required to run the TO, but not necessarily good at passing.

A perfect example of this is '80s-era Nebraska, which ran up the score at will during the regular season, but got spanked in bowl games by passing teams.

There's a LOT to be said for controlling the clock by running the ball. But you better be able to throw the ball as well, and not just at the end of the game on the losing end, because then you'll have to deal with defenses that KNOW you have to pass.

This is not to say that this is DEFINITELY a problem for CP. It's just food for thought.

When the triple option is the only thing you can do, and you face a good defense, you will lose. See NDSU Georgia Southern last year.

Um, no. It's not facing a "good defense." It's facing a "good defense" that is familiar with the assignment football required to stop the option. A defense that is good at stopping a conventional running game and a modern passing game can easily become befuddled by an archaic offense, such as the 'Bone or the Single Wing. At the HS level, this is exactly why some coaches go to these offenses. At the college level, that may enter into the decision process to some degree, but the primary reason would be recruiting. Most of the teams in the last 30 years or so at the college level that have run any form of the TO have been service academies, who can't do the open recruiting that other schools do, but usually get lesser-caliber but quite disciplined players, thereby making the TO an attractive choice. But whoever is running it, to stop it, the defense must be similarly disciplined in assignment football. If the defense is generally good but liable to mental breakdowns, look out!

SuperHornet wrote:

BisoNation wrote:
When the triple option is the only thing you can do, and you face a good defense, you will lose. See NDSU Georgia Southern last year.

Um, no. It's not facing a "good defense." It's facing a "good defense" that is familiar with the assignment football required to stop the option. A defense that is good at stopping a conventional running game and a modern passing game can easily become befuddled by an archaic offense, such as the 'Bone or the Single Wing. At the HS level, this is exactly why some coaches go to these offenses. At the college level, that may enter into the decision process to some degree, but the primary reason would be recruiting. Most of the teams in the last 30 years or so at the college level that have run any form of the TO have been service academies, who can't do the open recruiting that other schools do, but usually get lesser-caliber but quite disciplined players, thereby making the TO an attractive choice. But whoever is running it, to stop it, the defense must be similarly disciplined in assignment football. If the defense is generally good but liable to mental breakdowns, look out!

You're right, but I consider a good defense to be a defense that is mentally sound enough to defend the triple option. Doesn't mean they can't be out executed by better offensive personnel but generally the triple option can at least be slowed down by a good defense.

SloStang, I wasn't implying Cal Poly can't do anything else, just that Georgia Southern couldn't

The difference between the Oregon hurry-up running game (Montana) and say, a Cal Poly type running game is that you aren't burning up a lot of clock with the former. That means your defense is on the field a lot, which, in UM's case is not a good thing. Even though UM ran against us for 400 some yards, EWU still held the time of possession advantage at the end of the game IIRC. The hurry-up is fine if you have a defense that can make stops. If not, well...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EWURanger wrote:The difference between the Oregon hurry-up running game (Montana) and say, a Cal Poly type running game is that you aren't burning up a lot of clock with the former. That means your defense is on the field a lot, which, in UM's case is not a good thing. Even though UM ran against us for 400 some yards, EWU still held the time of possession advantage at the end of the game IIRC. The hurry-up is fine if you have a defense that can make stops. If not, well...

TOP isn't really important, though. The number of plays is—Montana won that 78-73.

The result of the EWU game had nothing to do with that, though. The redzone decided that one: Eastern scored 17 points in 3 redzone trips while Montana scored just 19 points in 6 redzone trips.

Mvemjsunpx wrote:

EWURanger wrote:The difference between the Oregon hurry-up running game (Montana) and say, a Cal Poly type running game is that you aren't burning up a lot of clock with the former. That means your defense is on the field a lot, which, in UM's case is not a good thing. Even though UM ran against us for 400 some yards, EWU still held the time of possession advantage at the end of the game IIRC. The hurry-up is fine if you have a defense that can make stops. If not, well...

TOP isn't really important, though. The number of plays is—Montana won that 78-73.

The result of the EWU game had nothing to do with that, though. The redzone decided that one: Eastern scored 17 points in 3 redzone trips while Montana scored just 19 points in 6 redzone trips.

TOP isn't important? Disagree. When you have a shitty defense, it most definitely is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EWURanger wrote:TOP isn't important? Disagree. When you have a shitty defense, it most definitely is.

How, exactly? The more the opponent runs the clock between plays, the more the defense gets to rest between plays.

It really doesn't make a difference whether a team is no-huddle or not. A no-huddle team tires out both defenses more, while a milk-the-clock team gives both defenses more resting time. When you have a no-huddle team playing a non-no-huddle team: number of plays, yards-per-play, etc., are all far more important than TOP. TOP is just an occasional indicator of things you can more accurately gauge through other stats.

EWURanger wrote:The difference between the Oregon hurry-up running game (Montana) and say, a Cal Poly type running game is that you aren't burning up a lot of clock with the former. That means your defense is on the field a lot, which, in UM's case is not a good thing. Even though UM ran against us for 400 some yards, EWU still held the time of possession advantage at the end of the game IIRC. The hurry-up is fine if you have a defense that can make stops. If not, well...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't want to be argumentative but there's a lot of differences (including clock time) between triple options and speed read options. The reads and who you read are completely different. In a triple option a pass play is called in the huddle in the speed option a pass play is an option off the read. Also they are staffed with completely different personnel. Just saying

perfect example of this is '80s-era Nebraska, which ran up the score at will during the regular season, but got spanked in bowl games by passing teams.

Nebraska had 42 straight years without a losing season. They got five of those mythical national championships the big boys get. They had what I think is the most dominant college football team of my football watching lifetime in 1995/1996. That team outscored opponents by an average of 53-15. It's the only team in my college football watching lifetime such that no outcome was ever even in doubt. If I remember correctly it never trailed except for a few minutes early in the first quarter of one game when the other team got a long run. Then it blew that team out. All of its games were over by halftime.

It beat four teams that FINISHED in the top 10 by 23, 38, 37, and 38 points. It played a Florida team that ran roughshod over the SEC and itself had not been challenged...narrowest win by 12 points...by 62-24 in the de facto national championship game and it could've been worse if Nebraska had wanted it to be. That matchup, by the way, was one involving a run oriented team (Nebraska) vs. a very pass oriented team (Florida).

You're going to have a hard time finding program that embraced pass oriented offense...or ANY offense...that had the kind of sustained success Nebraska had while it was running that system. Not Miami. Not Florida State. Not Florida during the fun and gun days. None of them enjoyed the kind of sustained success Nebraska did. And none of them won more national championships.

I think that the majority of I-AA/FCS national championships have been won by run oriented teams. Different styles. But run oriented teams. Right off the bat you've got Georgia Southern with 6 and Youngstown State with 4. Appalachian State was also a run oriented team when it won it's 3. North Dakota State was a run oriented team last year. Western Kentucky was a run oriented team when it won it. Southern Illinois was a run oriented team when it won. Eastern Kentucky was a run oriented team when it won its 2. That's already 18 out of 34. Marshall was run oriented for at least one of its 2. There were a number of teams such that one would have to say they were balanced...neither run nor pass oriented. I think only a small minority of I-AA/FCS championships have been won by what one would truly call "pass oriented" teams.

JohnStOnge wrote:I think that the majority of I-AA/FCS national championships have been won by run oriented teams. Different styles. But run oriented teams. Right off the bat you've got Georgia Southern with 6 and Youngstown State with 4. Appalachian State was also a run oriented team when it won it's 3. North Dakota State was a run oriented team last year. Western Kentucky was a run oriented team when it won it. Southern Illinois was a run oriented team when it won. Eastern Kentucky was a run oriented team when it won its 2. That's already 18 out of 34. Marshall was run oriented for at least one of its 2. There were a number of teams such that one would have to say they were balanced...neither run nor pass oriented. I think only a small minority of I-AA/FCS championships have been won by what one would truly call "pass oriented" teams.

Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I think that the majority of I-AA/FCS national championships have been won by run oriented teams. Different styles. But run oriented teams. Right off the bat you've got Georgia Southern with 6 and Youngstown State with 4. Appalachian State was also a run oriented team when it won it's 3. North Dakota State was a run oriented team last year. Western Kentucky was a run oriented team when it won it. Southern Illinois was a run oriented team when it won. Eastern Kentucky was a run oriented team when it won its 2. That's already 18 out of 34. Marshall was run oriented for at least one of its 2. There were a number of teams such that one would have to say they were balanced...neither run nor pass oriented. I think only a small minority of I-AA/FCS championships have been won by what one would truly call "pass oriented" teams.

Pass-oriented in that game, maybe. But a large part of the reason we were ever there was because Taiwan Jones was running wild throughout the majority of the season. We had a decent passing game, but I think we were more run-oriented that season, with a really good defense.

EWURanger wrote:

Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:

Pass-oriented in that game, maybe. But a large part of the reason we were ever there was because Taiwan Jones was running wild throughout the majority of the season. We had a decent passing game, but I think we were more run-oriented that season, with a really good defense.

While TJ certainly racked up the yards on the ground and we were an almost 50/50 run/pass offense, I'd contend we were still primarily a passing team. We certainly weren't a ground and pound unit... we passed to get TJ open space on the edges and on draws up the middle because of his big play ability.