The Option could be CU's only hope

[buffs04]

Were you under the impression that we had better talent in 1985 than we have now? Our talent was worse then. Embree was about the best player on the team.

And Ga Tech is sure doing a hell of a lot better than we are. The losses they do have are all close.

I mean, we can go on and on about how "our players suck" if you like...but you have to come up with a way to climb out of the hole we are in. We aren't getting top-flight name coach anytime soon (best bet is to get lucky with a guy no one knows yet, as we did with Mac, but "getting lucky" can't be your PLAN) and we aren't getting a slew of top-flight talent anytime soon. So, how do you rebuild a program "burned to the ground"? Gotta do it with wins (obviously)...but the wins are going to come slowly...a little at a time...are we all going to be patient with this (or th enext) coach's five or six year plan? Especially when the almost inevitable backslide occurs at some point?

Imagine changing coaches isn't an option...and imagine the calibre of players we have now is what we are likely to have for the next few years and NOW start thinking of ideas to improve win totals. Changing the offense is probably a pretty good thing to consider (if not the option, then something else).

I don't agree that changing coaches isn't an option for CU. We are middle-of-the-pack with respect to revenue in the Pac-12, if I recall correctly, and are getting outspent by all or almost all of the other teams on coaching dollars. We can afford to spend a lot more money.

 

[Daaah]

Great ! give us an idea from 2012 then ?????? becuase the ideas i see are nothing more then whining, and if you read the post and info this offense isnt from 1989, and it isnt the wishbone,.... let us know when you have some wisdom to through out there all of us have missed.

I admitedly did not see the USC game, but it seemed like we were moving the ball on them from the box score. I don't think it's time to scrap the offense yet. We neeeeed better line play. Without it, we're gunna be ****ed. And for the people who are advocating the spread - have you seen our WRs?!?!

 

[leftybuff]

Spread can be run oriented (Oregon) or pass oriented (WSU). The philosophy is to spread the D out, sideline to sideline and create spaces for your RB's or WR's or QB to exploit. Even though CU doesn't have playmkers at WR, could it be worse than watching teams put 9 in the box and watch CU run into it? Or overthrow long bombs to McCullogh?

 

[Daaah]

Spread can be run oriented (Oregon) or pass oriented (WSU). The philosophy is to spread the D out, sideline to sideline and create spaces for your RB's or WR's or QB to exploit. Even though CU doesn't have playmkers at WR, could it be worse than watching teams put 9 in the box and watch CU run into it? Or overthrow long bombs to McCullogh?

I dunno. Maybe?

 

[White_Rabbit]

There's a whole lot more than 2 teams that run the spread option these days..

 

[BuffUp]

I have been saying this since last year - the only problem I do see....What qb on our roster could rune the option?? Webb would not survive, Conner to slow, maybe Hirch? The play action pass does open up with the option also, but you only need really one receiver and one tight end - Kasa and Hobbs and Thomas??

I agree CU needs to try any and everything to break the funk

 

[leftybuff]

1	Alabama (59)	7-0	1499
2	Oregon	7-0	1424
3	Florida (1)	7-0	1380
4	Kansas State	7-0	1333
5	Notre Dame	7-0	1241
6	LSU	7-1	1172
7	Oregon State	6-0	1106
8	Oklahoma	5-1	1065
9	Ohio State	8-0	1028
10	USC	6-1	944
11	Florida State	7-1	872
12	Georgia	6-1	745
13	Mississippi State	7-0	739
14	Clemson	6-1	713
15	Texas Tech	6-1	653
16	Louisville	7-0	620
17	South Carolina	6-2	591
18	Rutgers	7-0	539
19	Stanford	5-2	421
20	Michigan	5-2	300
21	Boise State	6-1	258
22	Texas A&M	5-2	252
23	Ohio	7-0	181
24	Louisiana Tech	6-1	106
25	West Virginia	5-2	76

Source: http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings

How many run spread or zone read/ spread option? Pretty much all but 1, 6, 7, 10, 17 and 19. I don't like watching the spread, but as I said before, it is hard to argue with results. Somebody get Spike Dykes on the phone....

 

[MiamiBuffs]

Is Webb athletic enough to play option QB? Are our WRs big enough to block a safety or LB? Color me doubtful.

 

[leftybuff]

I have been saying this since last year - the only problem I do see....What qb on our roster could rune the option?? Webb would not survive, Conner to slow, maybe Hirch? The play action pass does open up with the option also, but you only need really one receiver and one tight end - Kasa and Hobbs and Thomas??

I agree CU needs to try any and everything to break the funk

JWebb was recruited by the fat man to run spread. Wood is supposed to be a dual threat. Hirsch is a pocket passer IMO, nice arm, not very nifty feet. Dillon, don't know but Liufau is supposed to be mobile.

 

[BuffUp]

The shootbone sounds kinda interesting. I like a pro style system but it just isn't working, we don't have the right personnel for it. I wouldn't mind changing to something else right now. Pretty sure Mac did that right before a Bowl against Bama once, I still hate Palmer btw, juking sumbitch lol.

mac switched it that year to try and get Hagan some looks from the pros, went to a pass attack after 2 weeks practice...and it almost work, almost won the game

 

[Quattro]

How many run spread or zone read/ spread option? Pretty much all but 1, 6, 7, 10, 17 and 19. I don't like watching the spread, but as I said before, it is hard to argue with results. Somebody get Spike Dykes on the phone....

You don't like seeing lots of points scored mixed with big plays?

 

[JimmyBuff]

I admitedly did not see the USC game, but it seemed like we were moving the ball on them from the box score. I don't think it's time to scrap the offense yet. We neeeeed better line play. Without it, we're gunna be ****ed. And for the people who are advocating the spread - have you seen our WRs?!?!

Agreed.

 

[CVilleBuff]

I despise the spread and pray it never comes to CU.

I despise being the laughingstock of CFB and will do whatever offensive philosophy it takes to win

 

[TDbuff]

I don't think whatever you call the current offense is what Embree envisioned obviously, it's just the result of him and EB failing to implement a power running game.

Embree at least gave the impression he was trying to emulate Wisconsin and Iowa's offense. They're pro-style, but they just rely on having a good OL, and a decent to great RB. The QB & WR's can get away with just being servicable. But he hasn't recruited or developed the OL, and we don't have an RB to make up for it, so now our weaknesses at QB and WR are glaring. Our offense is what happens when you can't run what you thought you could, so now they just throw sh*t against the wall every week to see what sticks.

 

[leftybuff]

It just isn't the kind of FB I like watching. Personally, I like watching triple option, but I am not advocating what I enjoy, but rather what I think would help the Buffs win.

 

[Daaah]

I don't think whatever you call the current offense is what Embree envisioned obviously, it's just the result of him and EB failing to implement a power running game.

Embree at least gave the impression he was trying to emulate Wisconsin and Iowa's offense. They're pro-style, but they just rely on having a good OL, and a decent to great RB. The QB & WR's can get away with just being servicable. But he hasn't recruited or developed the OL, and we don't have an RB to make up for it, so now our weaknesses at QB and WR are glaring. Our offense is what happens when you can't run what you thought you could, so now they just throw sh*t against the wall every week to see what sticks.

It's exactly the same thing that happened to hawks teams.

 

[Walter White]

However, I think the most important thing is to master the basics at whatever system you’re running, whatever it is. And to do that, you need consistency, continuity and attention to detail. You need to have everyone on the same page for many years in a row. You coach to a system and you recruit to a system. Everyone knows their stuff like the back of their hand. The same system you learn as a fish is the same system you're running as a senior. Plug and play. The recipe for failure is a lack of identity and changing systems every year. Get a clear identity. Train to mastery. Own it and run with it. Stay the course.

 

[leftybuff]

However, I think the most important thing is to master the basics at whatever system you’re running, whatever it is. And to do that, you need consistency, continuity and attention to detail. You need to have everyone on the same page for many years in a row. You coach to a system and you recruit to a system. Everyone knows their stuff like the back of their hand. The same system you learn as a fish is the same system you're running as a senior. Plug and play. The recipe for failure is a lack of identity and changing systems every year. Get a clear identity. Train to mastery. Own it and run with it. Stay the course.

Tony Robbins? Is that you?

 

[Daaah]

However, I think the most important thing is to master the basics at whatever system you’re running, whatever it is. And to do that, you need consistency, continuity and attention to detail. You need to have everyone on the same page for many years in a row. You coach to a system and you recruit to a system. Everyone knows their stuff like the back of their hand. The same system you learn as a fish is the same system you're running as a senior. Plug and play. The recipe for failure is a lack of identity and changing systems every year. Get a clear identity. Train to mastery. Own it and run with it. Stay the course.

I agree with the fish part.

 

[Walter White]

Of course, nobody likes to lose, but i think it would feel a lot different if your team is playing disciplined and fundamentally sound football, but losing to good teams because you're just outclassed in terms of speed/size/strength.

Also, if you're playign fundamentally sound, crisp and disciplined football you won't get smoked by teams with equal or lesser talent. It's unlikely that will happen very often.

 

[Tea Rex]

It just isn't the kind of FB I like watching. Personally, I like watching triple option, but I am not advocating what I enjoy, but rather what I think would help the Buffs win.

It worked for GT because they had athletes, once Gailey's players were gone GT has not had even close to the same success. In order to run wishbone or triple option you need a stout defense which we obviously lack.

There's a reason why you see teams like LT having decent success against far more talented teams. A spread offense compensates for a poor defense.

Even teams like Bama, SCAR, LSU incorporate spread elements into their offense with the Pistol.

 

[BlackNGold]

I don't care what system you run you need athletes to run it. After Mac switched to the option, he started recruiting players to run it. Hatcher was replaced by Marc Walters and Sal Aunese, then Hagen - just like today it all starts with the QB. In the 70s the option started entering the college game after gaining popularity in Texas High School football - there were tons of players coming out of HS that played the option. Mac switched to the option because it was becoming the rage (Nebraska and OU in the Big 8) and it could help shorten the game (as long as you kept getting first downs). Today you see the triple option less and less in HS and it is run by very few teams in college.

Mac switched away from the option because it was starting to impact recruiting...HS players wanted to go to programs that would help them get to the NFL (even 1 star players dream of playing in the NFL).

Now when you say option remember there are many different varieties of option. Most spread offenses use an option read for the QB which give the QB the flexibility to take off depending on his read of the defense - Tim Tebow, Cam Newton, etc. Once again you get the most success when you have a QB that can take advantage of it (CU does not have that guy). KSU has that guy in Klein.

Just to comment on some of the posts in this thread.

The 1985 team did have more talent than this team does.
Oregon has a great scheme but it has been made greater by top 25 recruiting classes year in and year out. They have had 22, 4 and 5 star recruits in their last two classes. To think they are out scheming people with inferior athletes is a little over the top.

 

[sackman]

I don't care what kind of offense we run if it leads to winning some games.

This.

 

[Finest]

Agree 100% 89Buff, I remember the media laughing at Mac when he switched to the wishbone, does anybody remember how they came up with the first "Wishbone QB" his name was Mark Hatcher. They lined up all the WR's and RB's and basiclly picked out the best "thrower".

Josh Moten time!!

 

[CanadianDuck]

I am a huge fan of the spread option offense because it gives teams like Oregon a chance to best teams with better athletes. Oregon is not the most talented but has won a lot of games where the opposing team had more talent. I think it would be a good idea.for Colorado to find a coach who works with the spread offense.

 

[leftybuff]

It worked for GT because they had athletes, once Gailey's players were gone GT has not had even close to the same success. In order to run wishbone or triple option you need a stout defense which we obviously lack.

There's a reason why you see teams like LT having decent success against far more talented teams. A spread offense compensates for a poor defense.

Even teams like Bama, SCAR, LSU incorporate spread elements into their offense with the Pistol.

I wasn't saying CU should go Triple...I was saying I like watching triple, I think they should look at the versions of the spread option that work (Miss. St., Oregon, Arizona etc.) and come up with something that will help them win/ You can scheme around lesser talent easier with a spread option than you can a prostyle, something thatought to be self-evident at this point.

 

[Walter White]

Here is the deal withing run first spread offense. Guys who are fast are a dime a dozen in high school. Guys who are big and fast are rare; those are the five star recruits. You can find great atheletes who are a little smaller or maybe a step slower. Put them in into space in the spread and they're awesome at the college level, yet they have no shot at the NFL. Those are the guys CU wants at this point. That's the sweet spot.

Running quarterbacks comign out of high school are plentiful. Tall guys who can read defenses and have a cannon arm...very rare.

 

[BlackNGold]

I am a huge fan of the spread option offense because it gives teams like Oregon a chance to best teams with better athletes. Oregon is not the most talented but has won a lot of games where the opposing team had more talent. I think it would be a good idea.for Colorado to find a coach who works with the spread offense.

And who are these more talented teams they are beating...I would argue that in almost 10 games a year Oregon is going onto the field with superior talent. This is not the Oregon of the 1980s. With the Nike money and facilities Oregon has been a recruiting powerhouse over the past several years.

 

[SECOBuffsFan]

There is one certainty about winning football and offense...it all starts up front and we could run the spread, run and shoot or option, but if you can't block you can't move the ball and you can't score. Just look at Wisconsin...their offensive line is not as good this year and they already have two losses and were almost beat by Utah State. The offensive line has got to be better and coached better for Colorado to even be competitive.

 

[buffalocu81]

Oregon has only one player on its roster right now from the state of Oregon. That point is moot. They are getting some of the top talent in the nation, in nationwide recruiting. They recruit both California and Texas very well.

As to the OP's point, I absolutely agree. But where he wanted to discount the service academies, I think the service academies are what make the point so strong. THEY LACK TALENT. They make up for it with scheme. We too lack talent.

In addition, the other point raised was excellent. Switch offenses and you become a destination for players who play more to an option style (a large pool of less highly recruited people). NU used to get people that never would have gone there had a warm weather school nearer to them had been running that option-type system.

One other benefit (and I remember Mac saying this at the time) is that the option (and going against it as the defense in practice) builds toughness and smarts. It fosters the understanding of fundamentals. I would disagree about using a spread version (because I think you run into the top-flight athlete problems again) and suggest doing it the way Air Force and Georgia Tech do. They still incorporate spread elements from time to time, but they are pretty old school for the most part.

Now, there ARE downsides. That offense likely is limiting wins-wise. You probably aren't winning conference championships with it. You probably are losing in BIG bowl games to powerhouse teams with the talent to counter your schemes. But, considering where we are right now, should we be worrying about that? Mac's plan when he brought that offense in was to use it to get our win totals up, not to get to the pinnacle of the game. It's part of a progressive improvement program. If it got us 5 wins next year, and 7 or 8 the year afterward, how many of us would think it was worth it?

I see few downsides (and considering our desperate circumstances, I think something desperate is called for. This losing tradition has to be derailed...by any means necessary. And there just aren't that many ways to do it without the athletes. An option offense is one proven way...and it has been proven right here at CU to bring us out of a similarly horrible era in our history).

Another reason I like this offense is that it would help us prepare for the spread option attacks we are seeing more and more. I have often wondered how we can sucessfully prepare our defense to play Oregon, ASU or AU when our scout team QB's are pro-style QB's? They simply cannot re-create the speed we will see from these teams and thus spread attacks have always created problems for us. I agree with the OP that we need to change the field and adding a option style QB to the recruit list would not hurt this team. Alas, like Superior Buff, this coaching staff has shown no imagination as we wouldn't be "physically beating teams". Remember EB's brilliant statement in his recent interview when he stated he was waiting for a team to "physically beat CU. Obviously we haven't been physically beat in 16 of our last 20 games.