Power I and option

[Unleash Hell]

Does anybody think that we could really give teams some problems if we made Hansen the starter, and ran out of the I with Scott, Speedy and Polk while mixing in some option. Everybody is going to this spread out offense style and they are recruiting and coaching kids to play it and defend it, I would put money down that if we came in with an old school type offense running out of the I, not many teams could stop us. It would totally throw teams off. They are not used to defending that.

Personally if I were a coach, I would go this route, but what do I know, maybe thats why I'm not a coach. Just a random thought of mine right now.

 

[Mick Ronson]

Francione tried bucking the trend with McGee, Goodson, and co. running the option at ATM (with top 20 type recruiting classes) and is now out of work. i don't know the answer, but it does shorten the game (versus the spread type O's where the clock stops with incompletions and first downs) which puts a lot of pressure on your D because the spread-type O's can score fast, early and often. there are just fewer offensive possessions in a game with the old school I or option.

 

[sackman]

I think you can do both. All the spread is is a formation that you run plays from. There's nothing that says you have to run the entire offense out of one formation or a variation thereof.

 

[dio]

I love the Power I in NCAA video game... but the Buffs would need a bruising FB to pull it off methinks. They are certainly going to be challenged to get enough touches for all the talented RB's.

 

[Wise Old Man]

Bruising Fullback! like Maiva. ! Oh. Wait. We lost him too.

 

[Duff Man]

Bruising Fullback! like Maiva. ! Oh. Wait. We lost him too.

Try and keep your wisdom to yourself more often.

 

[MtnBuff]

I have advocated this idea for a while. Don't abandon the passing attack but as teams focus on having lots of speed including LB's who are basically blown up safeties and D-Linemen who are focused on rushing the passer with speed throw some sheer power at them and see how they respond. A lot of teams are not even equiped to practice against a two TE power I. Some don't even have a fullback in their program.

If you can have some success you can suck them up tight to try to stop the run and pass righ over their heads.

 

[buffalo30]

I have lots of thoughts on this, but will just mention a couple quickly right now. A mixture of power I and shotgun is something I would like to see in the Buffs offense. They will likely have the personnel on the line and the backfield to establish a good, hard-nosed running game from the power I. A little option can be put in and used if the opponent is weak defending it. A play action pass attack that has a quarterback who can throw into the entire field including over the line into the middle of the field from the power I in addition to the run plays mixes it up.

Also have pass and run plays from the shotgun in the offense. A mixture of both offenses, power I and shotgun would create many difficulties for defenses. You would have plenty in the playbook to use whatever is necessary for the given opponent or given situation in games. Adjust to what is working in the game.

The pure spread requires a quarterback who can throw all over the field and who can escape pressure. I think a pure spread can be beat and it is beginning to look like it can. How many championships... division, conference and national are won by pure spread offenses? A pure running attack can also be beat.

I think the mixture of power I and shotgun with a quarterback like Hansen would be pretty effective. The mixture offense will require a QB who can run, pass, escape pressure and throw all around the field including over the linemen. He wouldn't necessarily have to be great in all of those things, but good enough at all of them to cause lots of trouble for a defense.

Now lets see if some full time coaches who pull down a full time salary can put together the schemes and personnel to make it work.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

Bruising Fullback! like Maiva. ! Oh. Wait. We lost him too.

Lost him?

He quit.

 

[leftybuff]

I have lots of thoughts on this, but will just mention a couple quickly right now. A mixture of power I and shotgun is something I would like to see in the Buffs offense. They will likely have the personnel on the line and the backfield to establish a good, hard-nosed running game from the power I. A little option can be put in and used if the opponent is weak defending it. A play action pass attack that has a quarterback who can throw into the entire field including over the line into the middle of the field from the power I in addition to the run plays mixes it up.

Also have pass and run plays from the shotgun in the offense. A mixture of both offenses, power I and shotgun would create many difficulties for defenses. You would have plenty in the playbook to use whatever is necessary for the given opponent or given situation in games. Adjust to what is working in the game.

The pure spread requires a quarterback who can throw all over the field and who can escape pressure. I think a pure spread can be beat and it is beginning to look like it can. How many championships... division, conference and national are won by pure spread offenses? A pure running attack can also be beat.

I think the mixture of power I and shotgun with a quarterback like Hansen would be pretty effective. The mixture offense will require a QB who can run, pass, escape pressure and throw all around the field including over the linemen. He wouldn't necessarily have to be great in all of those things, but good enough at all of them to cause lots of trouble for a defense.

Now lets see if some full time coaches who pull down a full time salary can put together the schemes and personnel to make it work.

Well said.

I look at teams in the bowl games and it looks like everybody's base offense is a version of the spread. Excepting GT and the service academies who still use a version of the triple option.

Almost everybody else is lining the QB up in a shotgun with one or sometimes two RB's and their base play is the draw. But those teams have the ability to adjust by either having a QB who is a threat to run (Oregon) or a QB with a gun (Cal) or a QB who can do both (Ole Miss). CU has none of the above, at least we haven't seen a QB who can do it regularly. I am hoping and praying TH is given some reps because he looks like he has the skills to be a run threat, or maybe even a guy who can do both.

Even those teams like Ole Miss, Cal and UGa who use the spread shotgun look as their base will still go I formation and pound people. The two just aren't mutually exclusive and CU's almost complete abandonment of the I after the WVU game strikes me as, well, let's just say I don't understand it. And don't tell me you can't run because of DL slants.

 

[Timbuff10]

Does anybody think that we could really give teams some problems if we made Hansen the starter, and ran out of the I with Scott, Speedy and Polk while mixing in some option. Everybody is going to this spread out offense style and they are recruiting and coaching kids to play it and defend it, I would put money down that if we came in with an old school type offense running out of the I, not many teams could stop us. It would totally throw teams off. They are not used to defending that.

Personally if I were a coach, I would go this route, but what do I know, maybe thats why I'm not a coach. Just a random thought of mine right now.

Couldn't agree more!! Use the talent with what it is good at.

 

[BuffNut99]

I am a believer in the idea that a team (such as CU) going against the trend (spread attack) of its conference (Big 12) can have success simply by virtue of being unique. It has been demonstrated to work throughout history, most recently this season with Georgia Tech. GA Tech runs the triple option (newly implemented) in the ACC (which has some spread teams, but mostly balanced attacks) and had alot of success, to include completely running over Georgia. Air Force wrote the book on how to sneak up on people by running an unconventional offense.

It is very difficult for a team to play against the spread for several weeks and to then, all of the sudden, have to prepare for something vastly different and inherently confusing. The only problem with such a switch would be that CU would lose recruiting battles over WRs and pass happy QBs.

As many have stated, the spread, as run by certain teams (Oregon, West Virginia, Florida), is more run/option focused anyway. If CU continues in the spread, I would like to see it molded more after these schools. The spread that CU opened with last year was pretty incoherent.

 

[96 Buff]

As many have stated, the spread, as run by certain teams (Oregon, West Virginia, Florida), is more run/option focused anyway. If CU continues in the spread, I would like to see it molded more after these schools. The spread that CU opened with last year was ****ing completely incoherent.

Fixed.

 

[leftybuff]

I am a believer in the idea that a team (such as CU) going against the trend (spread attack) of its conference (Big 12) can have success simply by virtue of being unique. It has been demonstrated to work throughout history, most recently this season with Georgia Tech. GA Tech runs the triple option (newly implemented) in the ACC (which has some spread teams, but mostly balanced attacks) and had alot of success, to include completely running over Georgia. Air Force wrote the book on how to sneak up on people by running an unconventional offense.

It is very difficult for a team to play against the spread for several weeks and to then, all of the sudden, have to prepare for something vastly different and inherently confusing. The only problem with such a switch would be that CU would lose recruiting battles over WRs and pass happy QBs.

As many have stated, the spread, as run by certain teams (Oregon, West Virginia, Florida), is more run/option focused anyway. If CU continues in the spread, I would like to see it molded more after these schools. The spread that CU opened with last year was pretty incoherent.

Fixed.

:lol: Don't beat around the bush '96, tell us what you really mean.

 

[jjbuffs13]

I agree. I watched the 02 Fiesta Bowl today and we had tons of offensive weapons that I can see today. Hansen is our Pesavento/Ochs. Speedy is our Purify. D Scott is our Chris Brown. Polk is our Johnson. I think we move Sumler to FB and he becomes a smaller, faster version of Drumm. With the group of WR's we have coming in they can finally spread the field out. The only thing we are missing is that huge, mature offensive line which is a work in progress.

 

[Timbuff10]

The only problem with such a switch would be that CU would lose recruiting battles over WRs and pass happy QBs.

Yeah, that would really suck to miss out on all those great QBs that have been coming down the pipeline to CU. For that matter, since Westbrook we haven't had any great receivers either.

 

[SBG]

Watching the OSU/UT game makes me wish we had a power running game. Badly.

 

[BornRed]

Watching the OSU/UT game makes me wish we had a power running game. Badly.

I know I sure as hell miss the days of power I and option football. I am old, what can I say. :smile2: However...I think it would be really hard to catch up once you fall behind. Look at Ga Tech for instance....once they got behind....they couldn't rebound. I still think their coach Paul Johnson is a hell of a coach though!

 

[BuffNut99]

Yeah, that would really suck to miss out on all those great QBs that have been coming down the pipeline to CU. For that matter, since Westbrook we haven't had any great receivers either.

I agree with you about the lack of great QBs coming through, but WRs since Westbrook? Carruth, Green, Savoy, McCoy, Hackett - where have you been?

Don't let the recent dearth of WRs take away from a very strong recruiting tradition here.

 

[NW Buff]

I have a major issue with the coaching staff making any significant changes in the offensive scheme for next year. I know that this has been dictated by the personnel that they have had to work with but Hawk and Co have gone through three schemes in three years. Making another significant change next year means four offenses in four years. How can you have any hope for success doing that?

 

[SBG]

I have a major issue with the coaching staff making any significant changes in the offensive scheme for next year. I know that this has been dictated by the personnel that they have had to work with but Hawk and Co have gone through three schemes in three years. Making another significant change next year means four offenses in four years. How can you have any hope for success doing that?

I think most of us want consistency, but a strong running game is something we DEFINITELY need. Given the talent we have, I think a lot of us are frustrated in our lack of a successful running game. Throwing the ball 40 times a game when you don't have a great QB is dumb. We have a good QB in Cody, but he certainly is more productive with a strong running game and PA passes. The jury is still out on Hansen, but some triple option plays with him could be devastating.

It's not too hard to put in a new package and teaching the Oline to run block in such a scheme should be easily done. We don't need 40 new plays, maybe only 6 or 7 to keep the opposing defenses a bit honest. GT was able to implement an entirely new scheme with very young Oline men in Johnson's first year.

 

[sackman]

It's not a matter of scheme, it's a matter of talent. Mac converted to the wishbone in 1985 by taking a wide receiver (Mark Hatcher) and inserting him as QB. Good coaching staffs take the talent they have and work a system around them. The offensive talent that we have on this team positively SCREAMS for a power running game. If Simas is able to come back, we'll have Simas and Smith at WR, both of which can stretch the field and keep the safeties off the LOS.

 

[Unleash Hell]

It's not a matter of scheme, it's a matter of talent. Mac converted to the wishbone in 1985 by taking a wide receiver (Mark Hatcher) and inserting him as QB. Good coaching staffs take the talent they have and work a system around them. The offensive talent that we have on this team positively SCREAMS for a power running game. If Simas is able to come back, we'll have Simas and Smith at WR, both of which can stretch the field and keep the safeties off the LOS.

And don't forget a couple good WR's coming in too.

 

[sackman]

And here's the other thing - all this talk about not being able to recruit good WR's if we're running a power running game is bunk. A WR, if he's lucky, gets 6-8 catches a game. Even Michael Crabtree only gets 10-12 catches per game. But a running back can realistically expect 15-20 carries per game.

 

[Timbuff10]

And here's the other thing - all this talk about not being able to recruit good WR's if we're running a power running game is bunk. A WR, if he's lucky, gets 6-8 catches a game. Even Michael Crabtree only gets 10-12 catches per game. But a running back can realistically expect 15-20 carries per game.

Wxactly... any WR that wouldnt go to a school becasue they are a bad ass running team is a moron. If you are good at running the ball and defenses have to focus on that, it can make a good WR great since they will never deal with double teams.

I think running everydown sucks, I just want to see a good balance and none of this gimmick running from the shotgun.

 

[Coloradosker]

I know I sure as hell miss the days of power I and option football. I am old, what can I say. :smile2: However...I think it would be really hard to catch up once you fall behind. Look at Ga Tech for instance....once they got behind....they couldn't rebound. I still think their coach Paul Johnson is a hell of a coach though!

Agree 100%! It is nearly impossible to come from far behind when that is all that you run. By that same token, it also leaves you high and dry when you have nothing but a passing game (Tech) and get that taken away in a game. Balance is important in this day and age and offenses need to be flexible enough to adjust to whatever the D throws at you.