The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Any options in the NFL at all?

I'm pretty sure I've never seen an Option...

Is it illegal or something, or just rarely used?

No. It just doesn't work.

I saw the Chargers use the option once this year on a third down. I think it verse the Chiefs.

It's about as effective in the NFL as the Run & Shoot (aka Red Gun and Fun & Gun). Oh, sorry, I'm overstating...the option is even less effective than the Run & Shoot.

If the option is never run, how do you know it doesn't work?

You do occasionally see the option run in the NFL, it never works, and it has nothing to do with the defense. The option is a play that takes a lot of practice to be able to execute well. When you do see it in the nfl it simply isn't executed well. The quarterback won't attack the pitch read, the back won't be in good pitch relationship and the whole play just looks discombobulated. If a team really committed to having a complete option package with the complimentary counters and play action passes, and worked on it, there is no doubt in my mind that it would be successful. The option is a well designed play. It gives you the ability to block every single man in an 8 man front, not to mention the fact that by reading a playside defender, that is just one less player that you have to physically move at the point of attack.

There are only two somewhat legitimate arguments against the option, although I don't buy either one. I don't buy the argument that defenses are too fast. Yes they are faster now, but so is the offense. The problem is that the linebackers line up so far off the ball that you would have to really pound the fullback and also be able to hit some quick playaction passes to the tightend to keep them from being too aggressive. I also don't buy the argument that you open the quarterback to undue punishment. When running the option, the quarterback can see the hits coming, and is taught how to handle the hits coming from the pitch read. Quarterbacks can take some pretty vicious hits while standing in the pocket. Besides that, I have never liked the argument against doing something because a player might get hurt. If you are afraid of getting hurt, then football isn't the game for you.

I don't think I've ever said this, but I agree with a Pukes fan.

- Experience: look up Miami / Nebraska, Orange Bowl. About the year that Warren Sapp was DT. Miami ran a more professional defense, and their attacking killed the Nebraska wishbone.

- Issue is that the offense is running sideways while the defense, as always, attacks. The option / veer / wishbone works only if the defense gets confused and backs away. Otherwise, one fast, mean, hard-charging defender goes for the QB, and makes the pitch a risky play.

- Passing: the wishbone teams never found a good way to run a professional-quality passing attack. Great wishbone / option QB's didn't usually didn't make much of a dent in the NFL. Consider Rick Mirer. The training was different.

- Again on the QB: is your QB a runner/blocker, or a passer? It takes a different type of player, just as the single-wing tailback was more of a runner than a thrower. The option won't be respected unless the QB really is willing to tuck the ball away, duck his head, and slash through the defenders. Bobby Douglass was one the the last guys who could do that (as Casey Stengel said, "Ya gotta look 'im up!") and Douglass was one of the worst passers ever to start in the NFL. I heard that Bears fans cheered when Douglass got hurt.

yeah it just doesnt work

Yeah, Miami beat Nebraska in 92' and FSU beat Nebraska in 93', however, after that Nebraska became one of the most dominant college football teams of all time, running a mixture of the option and power football out of the I formation (they never ran the wishbone). In 94' they beat Miami in the Orange Bowl for the National Championship, in 95' they were maybe the best team ever and put up more than 60 points on Florida in the Fiesta Bowl. They won 3 championships in 4 years, and I believe from 93' through 97' they lost only like 3 games in those 5 years. That wasn't that long ago. I simply find it hard to believe that the option offense was successful for 30 years and then within the last 8 years defenses have figured it out.

I disagree with your point that the option is only a horizontal offense. One of the reasons that Nebraska was not as successful after Osborne retired (besides the recruiting dropoff) was that they failed to utilize the fullback as often. The fullback in many ways is the key to an option offense. If he is successfull, you open up the outside, and you open up the possibility for the big play. The fact is that if the linebackers have to worry about the fullback, they will not be able to flow to the outside as quickly, thus giving your blockers enough time to get to them. I also disagree with your point about the option being a play that only works if the defense is fooled. The option is an offense. it is not merely a gimmick play like a flea flicker or a reverse. It is based on good execution and sound fundamentals. And option quarterbacks work on pitching quickly with an aggressive defensive end. That is only one of many tactics that the defense can use to try and stop the option, and good option teams practice against all of them.

Option offenses don't need to run a passing attack with the proficiency of a pro style offense. If they can execute the playaction pass well, they don't need much of a dropback game. Remember, the option is a play that can work against an 8 man front. That means that the free safety is going to have to get involved in the running game, and you have one on one coverage with no deep safety help. A pro style running game can be stopped by dropping a safety down, and the defense can still play cover 3 and prevent the big play down field.

As to your last point, there are quarterbacks who can run and throw. Depnding on how much option a team would run would depend on how well their quarterback would need to be able to pass.

working upward:

- the QB has to be more like a Clinton Portis or Walter Payton than a passer. So start by imagining that you have to teach Portis to throw.

- QB's are padded and taped differently. A runner is taped up like a battering ram...including his hands. When the SB highlights come around, look closely at John Riggins' hands. As he used to say (repeated by a current player, and discussed on another thread), defenders scratch and claw at anything they can grab. Then consider Joe Montana or Dan Marino or Tom Brady: they depend on their touch...their hands, and on being limber.

- Yes, NFL QB's will run, but no one wants Steve Young, Troy Aikman, Steve McNair (get the drift?), or even Michael Vick to hit defenders unless absolutely necessary.

- Texas began using the wishbone about 1970, as did Alabama and Oklahoma. They did fine against 90% of college opponents, since they had out-recruited and then outmanned them. The wishbone teams (and all the variations) usually crumbled when they ran against a team just as big, fast, and well-practiced. Consider the Oklahoma fiasco aginst Miami in the Orange Bowl: when Oklahoma fell behind, they "opened up" their offense by running more intricate pitches. Against an NFL defense?

- (No, I'm not impressed by "college powerhouse" records. Consider: who had more success in the NFL? Stanford's Bill Walsh, or Florida's Steve Spurrier?)

- The option succeeds when the defense is passive, reacting to the pitch. NFL defenders don't wait and react. They cut through the gaps in the offensive blocking. If the QB is running sideways, it still looks like a sideways play, at least to me. Imagine Testaverde running to his right (OK, I'm joking about Vinny, so imagine my old 3rd baseman, Drew Henson), ball in his right hand, looking left as an outside
LB charges, looking ahead and to the right to pitch to a runner. Henson is even less protected than if he drops back in the pocket...at least that way he might see the rushers.

- If Henson wants to pass, does he run right, stop, turn around, and throw? How does a pocket form? Or does it? At what depth?

- Now imagine that the defensive coordinator is any one of a dozen creative and aggressive coordinators. They will blitz from the corners, or the safeties, or any of the LB's. What does Henson do, out there with a halfback, if <name a good CB> has blitzed and is pinching toward him, while the charging LB comes from his left? Does he risk pitching over the CB? Or is that an invitation to a defensive TD?

- Same conclusion: the NFL has had more than 30 years to look at this offense, and they have ignored it.

I disagree with you about the quarterbacks. They don't have to run as well as a running back to be successful and they don't have to be as good a passer as a Peyton Manning or Tom Brady. Their main job is simply to make the correct reads. If an option quarterback has some athleticism (he doesn't have to be Michael Vick) and can make the correct reads, the option will work. Much like any offense, most of the work is being done by the offensive line.

Again I disagree with you. If you look at Riggins, he actually didn't wear any extra padding. Not even gloves. The backs don't really wear much extra padding. But look at qb's. Do you see any running backs wearing flak jackets?

No one wants Steve Young to get hit, but he was a passer not a runner, and his job was as a passer. An option quarterback is really a running back who doesn't have to be very proficient throwing the ball. Also, an option quarterback would be easier to replace if he did get hurt. He doesn't have to be excellent at any one thing like a pro style qb does.

Texas won won a national championship running the wishbone. Oklahoma won 3. Nebraska won 3 running an option offense. Notre Dame won a national championship, as did Colorado. Alabama won 3 running the wishbone. Did all of these teams crumble against tough competition? They really must have had some amazing talent to win all those national championships with an inferior offense. Yes the option struggles against great defenses, but name any system that doesn't. And option offenses have progressed. Navy's offense is much more complex than the wishbone that Texas was running. They have many more ways of attacking with misdirection and through the air. The option offense is a lot like any other offense. If the defense is stopping one thing, they are leaving somehting else open, find it and attack it.

And you can't use college teams as an example to prove your point, and then discredit them when I use college teams to prove my point. By the way Barry Switzer won a super bowl in the nfl, ironically because the Cowboys were just more talented than everyone else.

Now, please don't discuss the option on a technical level unless you know what you're talking about. It doesn't matter if the defense is passive or aggressive. Actually one technique used by the defense is to have the pitch read play passively to try and string out the play. An option team works on the different techniques that the defense uses. They work on having the pitch read fly down to force a quick pitch and they work on him slow playing it. They work on a technique where the dive read and pitch read exchange responsibilities. If the defense is penetrating through the gaps, the offense adjusts. There are different blocking schemes available to counter what the defense is doing. Qb's are taught to give with the hit as they pitch the ball. That is a much safer way to get hit than to take a blindside hit from a defender running full speed. Not to mention the fact that in the pocket the qb often has guys falling all over his legs thus increasing the likely hood of some kind of knee or ankle injury.

On the playaction there is no pocket. The qb will fake the option then back off the line to gain some depth. There isn't really a pocket formed when a pro style offense runs a play action pass either.

Let me tell you this, option coaches love it when defenses blitz. That just means more big plays. Sure the defense would have a few negative plays thrown in there, but blitzing is a huge gamble against an option team. If you blitz up the middle and the play goes outside, or vice versa, the offense will have a great shot at a big play. Also, if a defense chooses to run an assortment of blitzes against an option offense, it just screws with their option responsibilities. Confusion is never a good thing, but especially not against an option offense. The best plans are always the simplest.

The reason an option offense hasn't been run in the nfl is that first off, no coach is going to get hired if he tells the owner that he will run the option, second, no coach will keep their job if they run the option offense. Owners think that the fans think the option is boring, and above all else, the nfl isn't about winning, its about making money.

So:

- the QB just has to makes reads, but doesn't have to pass like Marino or Brady. That sounds like no passing attack, or only a feeble passing attack. Which is what the option teams always had.

- The QB has to move his arms. He has to be able to throw. Flack jackets protect the ribs and kidneys, but don't impede throwing. Again, the option QB looks more like an old-fashioned Woody Hayes QB. That is, you take Clinton Portis (or each team's equivalent) and teach him to throw a pass as best he can.

- If, as you say, an option QB is really a running back, rather than a passer, you've given up passing. Defenses became more and more complex after 1960; for details, look into the George Halas / George Allen defense that the Bears ran to win the NFL championship around 1963. With a simplified "last ditch" passing game, how world the option work?

- The point about college football is that most of the games are not real contests. The wishbone/veer/option offenses, like the run&shoot, work in collge when they go against a much weaker team. There is hardly ever the same mismatch in the NFL, because owners and GM's start with an equal chance to get good players. What they do with the players is what decides the games. Some coaches pull their teams together, some don't.

- For the "technical" level, lets assume that the defense plays aggressively, and that the defensive players are every bit as big fast as the offensive players. What happens with that lateral offensive movement when the defense runs through the gaps, and holds their position? My guess is that every play would be fought out three yards behind the line of scrimmage.

- What if the defense is blitzing inside and outside? It still sounds like the option offense lives because its players can react, just as the run and shoot. And that it depends on having bigger faster players. But in the NFL, the defnsive players aim to hit before the offense can adjust. And the defenders are not just heavier, but taller. Pitch through/over/around Jevon Kearse? Fake the option toss with Junmior Seau running you down (to step back ten years) or Lawrence Taylor?

-

The reason an option offense hasn't been run in the nfl is that first off, no coach is going to get hired if he tells the owner that he will run the option, second, no coach will keep their job if they run the option offense. Owners think that the fans think the option is boring, and above all else, the nfl isn't about winning, its about making money.

Where is your evidence? Yes, the NFL is about making money, but for the rest? Were the Packers a razzle-dazzle team under Lombardi? Or the Parcells Giants? Or today's Patriots?

An option offense doesn't need to have a great passing attack to succeed. If the play action game is succesful enough to both keep the defense from being too aggressive and at the same time take advantage of the defense when it is being too aggressive, that is a successful passing attack in an option offense. The passing game doesn't have to be all that complex in a two minute drill because the defense is playing simple coverages.

Where are getting this from that option qb's where a ton of extra padding? For that matter, where are you getting that running backs wear a lot of extra padding? Frankly, I haven't seen it, and I think you're making it up.

Are you forgetting the fact that the run and shoot was a very successful offense in the nfl? It was executed very well by Warren Moon in Houston, as well as in Atlanta with Jeff George where in one they had something like a 4,000 yard passer, 3 or 4 1,000 yard receivers, and a 1,000 yard rusher. You can discredit the option and the run and shoot all you want, but you have to prove it. I have 11 national championships in 30 years by option teams that shows that the option works. The run and shoot has been proven to work in the nfl, and so would the option if it would only be given a chance.

Again, I'm going to say this. You obviously don't have much knowledge of the game on a technical level, so stop pretending you do. Why are you assuming that the defense will always have their guys 3 yards in the backfield? Won't the offensive line have something to say about that? If a defense is being too aggressive, an option offense does the same thing that a pro style offense does, it adjusts. The offense could fake to the fullback and hit the te on a dump pass over the heads of the linebackers. I can promise you that if the defense keeps getting hit with 15 to 20 yerd passes, it will back off.

If the defense is blitzing from both the outside and the inside, who is covering the receivers? The defense not only has to guess right on whether to blitz inside or outside, they also are gambling that the play isn't going the other way.

Also, you may be the first person ever to say that the option and the run and shoot require more talent than a pro style offense. It simply isn't true, and you aren't doing yourself any favors by insisting on debating a topic in which your knowledge is severely limited.

Lombardi and Parcells still threw the ball. Lombardi in fact was actually a very aggressive coach in that he threw the ball on both first down and in situations such as 3rd and short and 4th and short. The Patriots are a very aggressive offense. The come out in empty formations and throw the ball all over the field. You can't compare them to the Packers or Giants.

Welch... save your breath and your fingers... if PG68 said there was no such thing as white filling in twinkies... you wouldn't be able to convince him otherwise.... I'd rather argue with my wife....

I had no idea this thread would become so popular.

I was asking becaue I ran an option offense in NCAA 2005 with my Created School and QB and it seemed cool to me because you could run like 3 yards with the QB then flip it when you got hit. Thus leaving an open gap.

But I understand why it wouldnt work now...it kindof makes the QB position limited and pointless..Less passing and more pitching.

I suppose it would be good to try and option play everyone once in a full moon then, just to catch the NFL off guard.

If you don't feel strong enough about your beliefs to defend them, why have them?

patrickg68 wrote:If you don't feel strong enough about your beliefs to defend them, why have them?

If your talking to me, I was just asking why they didnt run options. I didnt have any particular "belief".

Not you. BringthePain. He seems to think that just because I defend what I believe in, I must be wrong. The simple fact is that welch hasn't shown any evidence that the option offense doesn't work.

patrickg68 wrote:Not you. BringthePain. He seems to think that just because I defend what I believe in, I must be wrong. The simple fact is that welch hasn't shown any evidence that the option offense doesn't work.

You got it exactly right.... because your "defending" instead of "debating".... that's why I told welch to save his breath.... People who "defend" aren't able to see outside the box... the definition of "defend" is to protect, to stand up for, to attempt to disprove or invalidate.... a Lawyer "defending" his client doesn't ever reason and say, "Well, maybe the defendant could have hidden the gun in his glove compartment".... during a trial, a lawyer defending his client, even if he thinks he might have done wrong, will never turn to the jury and say he could be guilty....

People who "debate" are able to see outside of their box... able to stand up for what they believe in, and also keep an open mind on why their opponent thinks otherwise.... instead of attacking them... they are able to reason .....something if you read over many of your own posts with an outsiders mind... you'll see that you don't do very often... that is why I told welch to save his breath... it was not about not letting you express your opinion or you being wrong..... Think outside your box, and maybe more people will attempt to see & agree on the way you think...

Now to get back on topic.... Though I am sure you are probably one of the more wiser one's here when it comes to college football.... When there is 32 Coaches in the NFL who specialize in "football"... and none of them, if ever rarely use the option... it seems to me that it would be because it doesn't work at the NFL level... if it did work..... they would use it plain and simple...

I tend to believe they know more about "football" than any of us and if they ain't using it... it means it doesn't work...wouldn't you agree?

Well, if thats the case, then welch is "defending" his argument too. And since when have you ever said to someone during a "debate" that they were right and you were wrong. Don't be a hypocrite. You are also showing that you don't have any evidence that an option offense won't work either because if you did, you would present it rather than attack me (having a lack of evidence is not evidence in your favor).

How do you know that coaches think the option won't work? Have you asked them? Have you seen any coaches state that the option won't work in the nfl? I don't see how anyone can say for certain that something won't work until it is tried. Thats just common sense. Think about it this way. Every single play, every single stategy ever devised in the history of football has not worked until it has been tried. 50 gut didn't work until it was tried. Neither did the counter trey or the one back offense.

.... like I said... when the twinkie has no filling... the twinkie has no filling....

I don't want to get this topic off track any more so feel free to PM me and I'll be more than happy to respond to any "defending" you want to do...

Against my better judgement and your sound advice, BTP, but, once more:

How do you know that coaches think the option won't work? Have you asked them? Have you seen any coaches state that the option won't work in the nfl? I don't see how anyone can say for certain that something won't work until it is tried. Thats just common sense. Think about it this way. Every single play, every single stategy ever devised in the history of football has not worked until it has been tried. 50 gut didn't work until it was tried. Neither did the counter trey or the one back offense.

Darrel (or Daryl?) Royal began using the wishbone at Texas about 35 years ago. Oklahoma picked it up about the same time.

As BTP observes, NFL coaches have had a very, very, very long time to look at the wishbone, veer, option offense.

I am old enough to remember that reporters asked NFL coaches about the wishbone (and its cousins) back then, and people like George Allen just laughed. Coaches laughed. The answers were, approximately:

- some things that work with kids won't work with the big boys.

- is this a joke?

- do you want me to bring back the single-wing?

- we would love to plan a defense for a team that can't throw a pass.

- You mean we should use <Griese / Tarkenton / Stabler / Jurgenson> as a running back?

*

To make the talent issue clear: both of the college offenses can win if you have recruited bigger, faster, stronger players. They collapse when you face a team with more or less equal talent.

On the run and shoot, see Spurrier's misadventures in 2002 and 2003. For backup, look at the results of Redskins / Lions and Redskins Falcons in 1991. The Skins played each team twice, counting the playoffs, and neither the Lions nor the Falcons scored more than about 10 points in any of the four games. The closest was the Skins/Falcons NFC semi-final, played in rain and mud that took away the Skins long passing game.

Are you seriously trying to say that the "Red Gun" was effective in the NFL?

Did you watch Jack Pardee's last hurrah, the classic Oilers - Bills playoff before SB 27?

And, incidentally, the Redskins defense showed how to beat the Bills hurry-up offense. Petibon had his players practice and practice their substitutions until they could get all of their normal defensive packages on the field during the time the offense gathered for the snap. The Bills no-huddle, hurry up, two minute offense was shown to be fundamentally crude. Simple.

On the wishbone family, we all watched Oklahoma/Miami, and that was enough proof.

*

(The comments about Lombardi and Parcells make no sense. Are you confusing the half-back option pass with the option offense? What does throwing on first down have to do with the wishbone/veer/option?)

OK, you're right, BTP. Enough. If this has anything to do with when Bart Starr chose to pass, which was, like any other QB, on any down, then we are floating into the Clouds.

*

So: You can run the option offense in high school. You can run it in college. NFL coaches have looked at it, and they use an option play about as often as they use a reverse or the Statue of Liberty play. A trick play that might fool a defense once, but not twice, not for an entire game or an entire season.

John Welch

Art Monk HOF

You are blatantly wrong when you say that the run and shoot and option offenses require more talent to work than a pro style offense. There is a reason that Navy and Air Force run the triple option. It allows them to compete against teams with far more talent. I don't know where you have gotten this notion from but I'm guessing that you are making it up because you are clearly wrong.

Spurrier doesn't run the run and shoot. It is a completely different offense. Many run and shoot principles can be seen in most nfl offenses. The run and shoot is an offense that is based on having the receivers read the defensive coverage and adjust accordingly. It is done out of a 4 wr formation. Spurrier does have his receivers read the coverage at times, but he also runs a lot of I formation.
His staple play is the flat/curl pass. Spurriers offense is an example of an offense that only works with superior talent. His downfall was that he insists on using 5 man protections, yet he doesn't have any hot reads, audibles, or adjustments that the offense can make if the defense blitzes. Spurriers offense is a poorly designed one.

Oh, well now I agree. The run and shoot wasn't successful in four games so it must not work.

Do you mean the "K Gun" that was run by the Bills? If you do, I wouldn't use a team that went to 4 consecutive Super Bowls as an example. Besides that, they didn't run the run and shoot.

What exactly was the problem with an offense that put up a 30+ point lead in the first half? They had a very good offense being run by Warren Moon. In 90' and 91' he put up almost 4700 yards passing each year running a "college" offense against nfl teams. If the run and shoot only works against inferior talent, and the talent levels of the teams in the nfl are too similar to permit such an offense to work, then how did the Oilers go 11-5, 10-6, and 21-4 in 91', 92' and 93'?

I never said anything about a no huddle offense. Besides that, the no huddle isn't an offense. Any offense can be run without a huddle.

Did you happen to see the option offense not work to the tune of 62 points in the 96' Fiesta Bowl against Florida? As a matter of fact, the option offense is so bad, Navy won only 10 games this year.

You were saying that the systems run by Lombardi and Parcells were run only and were using to try and disprove my argument that owners don't like the option because it is perceived as boring. Thats not the case. Lombardi was throwing in situations in which very few coaches at the time would. They may have been run oriented, but they were still pro style systems. The option offense is perceived as boring by owners and that is the reason it is not run in the nfl.

The option is not a trick play. It is an offense, or at the very least a package of plays. Of course you think the option doesn't work. When it is run in the nfl, the execution is piss poor. If any of those teams actually used it as something other than a trick play, it might actually work.

Finally, you may be tired of me debating this topic with you, but I feel that I have to counter the false information that you are putting out. You very clearly don't have much knowledge on the strategic side of football. You don't know the run and shoot from a spread offense. You don't know the wishbone from the I formation option offense that Nebraska traditionally has run. You need to learn a lot more about football before you can reasonably expect to debate with me the merits of different football offenses.

OK, I'll try to make this as clear as can be.

- the variations on the run and shoot are so similar that I lump them together. Spurrier's difference is trivial.In it's pure form, and I mean precisely the form introduced by Mouse Davis into the NFL, it failed.

- What? Failed? The various run&shoots ran up yardage in the first couple of seasons in the NFL -- end of '80s and early '90s. Defensive coordinators studied how Petibon killed it, and followed his lead. That's the point about the Lions and Falcons games in 1991. Before the NFC chamionship, reporters asked Petibon "How can you stop Detroit? They made the Cowboys look silly". He said something like, "Well I don't know, but I guess we won't do what the Cowboys did." Petibon did not give the Lions time to adjust -- on the first play of the game, as a matter of fact, Charles Mann broke through the protection and cut Erik Kramer, the Lions QB, in half. Fumble, Redskins TD in the next play, and so on. Repeat: the Redskins defense went right after the run and shoot and strangled it. Once Petibon had showed how, other teams followed. The fad died away. How many teams run that offense today?

- The point about equal talent is that the wishbone family and the run and shoot family both collapse when facing big, tough, aggressive teams with equal talent and proper coaching.

- I mentioned the Bills no-huddle because you explained that such and such was designed to give a defense no time to change, just like the two-minute offense. The Bills ran a two minute offense, and Petibon still made his substitutions and called his plays. It was the Bills offense, not the Redskins defense, who were frozen. Again, a lesson from which other could learn. How many teams run the old Bills offense today?

- The comments about Lombardi and Parcells make no sense, or at least appear to have no relevance.

- Are you trying to say, and have you been trying to say all along, that the main reason no professional team runs the option offense is that the fans or the owners think it is boring? I have watched the games, and fans always want to win. They don't care as much about how. In the '60's, the Redskins had no defense, no running game, and the best passing in football. No fans were all that thrilled about going 6 - 8 every year. Think, now, about the '80s and early '90s, when the NFC crushed the AFC year after year. The AFC had the "class of '83" super-star QB's: Elway, Marino, Kelley, Esiason. Big deal. Fans liked seeing the Bears frighten the Patriots off the field in SB 21. Nobody complained that the Parcells Giants were boring. The "smash mouth" teams like the Giants and Redskins munched on the small, quick, agile teams like the Broncos. Nobody complained.

- How would a professional defense stop the option offense? Probably the same way we have seen it done in college: big, fast LB's and DB's would get into the middle of the QB tosser and his tossees. The play depends on making that outside guys hesitate -- take the QB or the halfback? An NFL defender would go for the hard and fast, depending on the other defenders to take their assignments, stay in their lanes almsot like defending against Randall Cunningham or Daunte Culpeper.

- Did you see the Redskins defense this year? Most of the time, even against Pittsburgh, they hit a couple of yards behind the line of scrimmage. A sideways-moving offense like the option would have real problems.

- Finally, as BTP and I pointed out, the wishbone family has been around for 35 years. NFL coaches see it in game films they study when they evaluate college players. They don't take it seriously. Not once in 35 years. Are they incompetent?

Spurriers offense is not the run and shoot. Lumping his offense in with the run and shoot is like lumping Bill Walsh's system in with the Gilman/Coryell system. His offense may share a few similarites with the run and shoot, but virtually every offense in the nfl does.

Where is this proof that the option "collapses" when facing equal talent? That is pure bull. If the option requires superior talent to be successful, then why do teams with talent shoratages like the service acadamies run the option? The option requires less talent to be successful than a pro style offense. If what you mean to say is that an option offense "collapses" when going against superior talent, then I agree with you. But no system will work well when facing a superior team.

Yes, I'm saying that owners think that fans want to watch teams throw the football. I still stand by my point that despite the fact that Parcells' offense was based around the run, it was still a PRO STYLE offense. Not throwing much to Parcells was still 15 to 20 times a game. If an option offense is being run well, there may be only between 5 to 10 passes a game. Owners are also afraid to try the option simply because it hasn't been tried before. It has no track record of success in the nfl.

I disagree with this notion you have that teams can stop an offense. They can't. There is a reason teams run offenses and not plays. The principle of an option offense is the same as a pro style offense. If the defense is taking one thing away, they are opening up something else. Find the weakness and exploit it. What the option does is put pressure on the defense to never be out of position or risk giving up the big play. Defenses have to worry about giving up the big play in the pass against a pro style offense, but not the run so much. That is not the case when a defense is facing an option offense.

There is a hole in your theory about how to stop an option offense. If the offense gets all of its blocks, for the most part, there will be a player unblocked, the FS. That puts a lot of pressure on him to come up and make the tackle on whoever has the ball. If he is going to be very aggressive against the run, then your cb's had better be pretty damn good because they will have the receivers one on one with no safety help at all. With todays pass interference rules, I would like my chances in that situation. Also, if the defenders are going to get inbetween the qb and the pitch man, they are just opening the way for the qb to keep the ball. Unless of course you are talking about the rest of the defense and not the pitch read. In that case the defense would have to totally abandon the back side of the play as well as pass defense. The offense would adjust by running some misdirection and some playaction passes in order to get the defense to loosen up a bit. Then they could go back to their base stuff.

There is a reason that Pittsburgh was getting hit in the backfield. The running game from the I formation is very slow developing. Unless you have superior blocking, the basic running game utilizing a deep back will not work.

How long did it take for the passing game to become a basic part of nfl offenses after it was first developed? Yes believe it or not, the pass was once thought not to work or to be a gimmick play. Look at what happened when it was given a chance.