Why North Texas needs to run the triple option

Ben Gooding · November 23, 2015

I have said it on this forum several times that North Texas needs to run the triple option. We can't recruit. We have a bad brand and that is in large part due to our own administration throwing us down to the FCS level for several years. It is apparent that we can't climb out of that hole. The option offense allows teams to plug nontraditional QB's in a systematic offense. Offensive lineman do not have to be towering tree trunks and backs within the system do not have to be speedy, powerful, or even work horses; they just have to be average. I looked up the most traditional option teams and what kind of prolonged success they have had...

Air Force -

2000 - 9-3

2001 - 6-6

2002 - 8-5

2003 - 7-5

2004 - 5-6

2005 - 4-7

2006 - 4-8

2007 - 9-4

2008 - 8-5

2009 - 8-5

2010 - 9-4

2011 - 7-6

2012 - 6-7

2013 - 2-10

2014 - 10-3

2015 - Currently 8-3 -------- bowl record since 2000 4-5

Overall Record Since 2000 - 110-87

Navy

2000 - 1-10

2001 - 0-10

2002 - 2-10

2003 - 8-5

2004 - 10-2

2005 -8-4

2006 - 9-4

2007 - 8-5

2008 - 8-5

2009 - 10-4

2010 - 9-4

2011 - 5-7

2012 - 8-5

2013 - 9-4

2014 - 8-5

2015 - Currently 9-1-------- Bowl record since 2000 5-6

Overall Record Since 2000 - 111-85

Georgia Tech (Since Paul Johnson's arrival)

2008 - 9-4

2009 - 11-3

2010 - 6-7

2011 - 8-5

2012 - 7-7

2013 - 7-6

2014 -11-3

2015 - Currently 3-8

Overall Record Since 2008 - 62-43

It's a system that we could truly plug and go. We will never blow the doors off of teams and it will not be an "exciting" brand of football to watch, but it wins. And winning puts people in the stands and will get this program out of its current dumpster fire that we are flailing around in. If RV implemented this as his plan and went after an assistant at one of these programs I could forgive a lot of what he has done. By doing this, I would know that he is putting the effort into really winning and not just keeping this program under budget. To me, it's not even a roll of the dice decision. It's a very good decision.

TheReal_jayD · November 23, 2015

Tim Horton stated in the article Harry posted that he wants to run. and he was on the Air Force staff for several years running the triple option. I am definitely okay with running the triple option. With Wilson and Ivery and Smith as qb you are already got a good started pack. because we sure as hell cant throw the ball

Tyler Maryak · November 23, 2015

I started thinking this right about the time Navy was putting a beat down on #22 Memphis.

rcade · November 23, 2015

I don't care if our style of play is entertaining. I'm entertained by wins.

MeanGreenZen · November 23, 2015

I've been advocating this for 10 years. With everyone running some form of the spread now, we could take advantage of market inefficiencies by recruiting good players that spread teams don't highly value: running QBs, fullbacks, stud run-blocking OL who might struggle in pass protection. If you can't beat 'em, change the game.

caseyorourke · November 23, 2015

Cal Poly runs a triple option mainly because as Head Coach Tim Walsh admits that because of the high admission standards of the institution, he can't recruit the same players other schools can,so the triple option is the best option for him.

Even then his teams are usually very competitive in the Big Sky. This year they led the FCS in rushing wish an average of 387 yds per game and tied for 8th in total offense with an average of 488 yds per game.

Don't let their current record fool you, Many of the Big Sky considered Cal Poly the best 4-7 team in the conference. They did beat playoff bound Montana 20-19, Big Sky bottom dwellers Idaho State 58-26, Sacramento State 36-14 and UC-Davis 55-36.

Cal Poly had an extremely tough OOC schedule (AZ State (6-5 Pac-12) L 35 -21, University of Northern Iowa (7-4 playoff qualifier) L 34-20, plus tough losses to us (PSU) 38-35, Eastern Washington 42-41 in OT. The only games they got blown out in was against Southern Utah(Big Sky Champion) 54-37 who has the best defense in the conference and leads the nation in turnovers and North Dakota (whom many believe was screwed out of a playoff spot) 45-21.

Would a triple option work for UNT? It might mainly because it can be a "copper-plated bitch" to plan for because it allows for so many options in an offense.

Cal Poly Stats

Edited November 23, 2015 by caseyorourke

Got5onIt · November 23, 2015

I'm all for whatever makes NT a consistent winner. This program needs any advantage it can get and running a system most schools don't gameplan for week-in and week-out could surely do it. There's a rich pool of FBS caliber RB's to recruit from every year, OL that can runblock are much easier to find than those that can pass block, running QB's are all over the country in today's high schools. As stated earlier, NT has a good starter pack with it's current roster. Why not?

eulessismore · November 23, 2015

I have said it on this forum several times that North Texas needs to run the triple option. We can't recruit. We have a bad brand and that is in large part due to our own administration throwing us down to the FCS level for several years. It is apparent that we can't climb out of that hole. The option offense allows teams to plug nontraditional QB's in a systematic offense. Offensive lineman do not have to be towering tree trunks and backs within the system do not have to be speedy, powerful, or even work horses; they just have to be average. I looked up the most traditional option teams and what kind of prolonged success they have had...
Air Force -
2000 - 9-3
2001 - 6-6
2002 - 8-5
2003 - 7-5
2004 - 5-6
2005 - 4-7
2006 - 4-8
2007 - 9-4
2008 - 8-5
2009 - 8-5
2010 - 9-4
2011 - 7-6
2012 - 6-7
2013 - 2-10
2014 - 10-3
2015 - Currently 8-3 -------- bowl record since 2000 4-5
Overall Record Since 2000 - 110-87
Navy
2000 - 1-10
2001 - 0-10
2002 - 2-10
2003 - 8-5
2004 - 10-2
2005 -8-4
2006 - 9-4
2007 - 8-5
2008 - 8-5
2009 - 10-4
2010 - 9-4
2011 - 5-7
2012 - 8-5
2013 - 9-4
2014 - 8-5
2015 - Currently 9-1-------- Bowl record since 2000 5-6
Overall Record Since 2000 - 111-85
Georgia Tech (Since Paul Johnson's arrival)
2008 - 9-4
2009 - 11-3
2010 - 6-7
2011 - 8-5
2012 - 7-7
2013 - 7-6
2014 -11-3
2015 - Currently 3-8
Overall Record Since 2008 - 62-43

It's a system that we could truly plug and go. We will never blow the doors off of teams and it will not be an "exciting" brand of football to watch, but it wins. And winning puts people in the stands and will get this program out of its current dumpster fire that we are flailing around in. If RV implemented this as his plan and went after an assistant at one of these programs I could forgive a lot of what he has done. By doing this, I would know that he is putting the effort into really winning and not just keeping this program under budget. To me, it's not even a roll of the dice decision. It's a very good decision.

I actually thought Navy was pretty exciting when I saw them play us at Fouts under Paul Johnson. It would have even been fun to watch if it wasn't so scary seeing those big running backs coming around the corner after taking the pitch. Heck, some of these big Polynesian guys I see all over my neighborhood would be natural for an option offense.

FirefightnRick · November 23, 2015

I've been advocating this for 10 years. With everyone running some form of the spread now, we could take advantage of market inefficiencies by recruiting good players that spread teams don't highly value: running QBs, fullbacks, stud run-blocking OL who might struggle in pass protection. If you can't beat 'em, change the game.

Yup, plus opponents who spend the majority of their time preparing to defeat the spread would only get 5-6 days a year to prepare for the triple option.

Rick

SilverEagle · November 23, 2015

If our next coach is going to run the triple option, then they ought to dig out those old films from the late 80's when we ran the "flying wishbone" (4526 total offense). For the young fans on board here, the best example would be the 1988 NT/UT game.

But regardless of the offense we run, we still need to be able to play defense. THAT's as big a priority as anything.

Edited November 23, 2015 by SilverEagle

UNT90 · November 23, 2015

Well, you guys have just complicated the coach decision for RV. First you said you wanted a young throw it around coach, now you want a triple option guy?

How the hell is RV gonna be reactive if you mofos keep changing your minds?????!!!!11!1!!

SilverEagle · November 23, 2015

Well, you guys have just complicated the coach decision for RV. First you said you wanted a young throw it around coach, now you want a triple option guy?
How the hell is RV gonna be reactive if you mofos keep changing your minds?????!!!!11!1!!

Ok then....flying wishbone........definitely flying wishbone.

VideoEagle · November 23, 2015

Ok then....flying wishbone........definitely flying wishbone.

Hey, it could work. Look how many championships were won with a single wing offense.

</sarcasm>

Ben Gooding · November 23, 2015

Well, you guys have just complicated the coach decision for RV. First you said you wanted a young throw it around coach, now you want a triple option guy?
How the hell is RV gonna be reactive if you mofos keep changing your minds?????!!!!11!1!!

My first option is a coach to put in the triple option. Everything else is s far second.

Mean_Green09 · November 23, 2015

My first option is a coach to put in the triple option. Everything else is s far second.

So who is on your list then? Dont tell me Fritz, because he runs a modern option offense. If he came here his offense would look more like Sam Houston, than GSU. It wouldnt be a Navy/Army/Air Force flexbone option offense. There would be more passing.

Ben Gooding · November 23, 2015

So who is on your list then? Dont tell me Fritz, because he runs a modern option offense. If he came here his offense would look more like Sam Houston, than GSU. It wouldnt be a Navy/Army/Air Force flexbone option offense. There would be more passing.

Horton from AU understands what needs to be done because of our incapabilities in recruiting. He also spent 7 years at Air Force. I think he understands the recruiting here and what kind of system would work. So, if he is willing to come here to implement what he picked up along th way, particularly at Air Force, I am all for him.

NT93 · November 23, 2015

If our next coach is going to run the triple option, then they ought to dig out those old films from the late 80's when we ran the "flying wishbone" (4526 total offense). For the young fans on board here, the best example would be the 1988 NT/UT game.
But regardless of the offense we run, we still need to be able to play defense. THAT's as big a priority as anything.

Agree, but the triple option would immediately make our defense better by keeping them off the field for longer periods of time.

Edited November 23, 2015 by NT93

meangreendork · November 23, 2015

I don't care if our style of play is entertaining. I'm entertained by wins.

Horton could be a good grab for us. Success at Auburn and at Arkansas, recruited and coached top RBs for both schools, recruiting coordinator, as well as having been a WRs coach. The big sellers are his time at successful SEC programs and more importantly, being a successful recruiter. I'd worry about him having trouble with recruiting at "our" level, but he seems like an alright fit. I wouldn't hire him off the bat, though.

TheColonyEagle · November 23, 2015

You know......

That actually makes a lot of sense.

We live in a hotbed of recruiting but we also live in a hotbed of competition for those recruits and we've proven time and time again that we've never been able to win those battles. So get off that battle field and go to one less crowded. If everyone runs some variation of the spread and is fighting all over themselves to recruit talent to run the spread, do we want to be one of 20, 30, 40 + all after the same type of athlete or do we want to be one of a few after a different type of athlete that others may not be looking for.

I get the logic.....it might just work

Harry · November 23, 2015

I think Horton knows good talent. That is a plus. I think he has been at places who have good recruiting systems and staff. Another plus.

My concern is he has been at big places that have tons of reputation and resources. We don't have that here as much as say an Arkansas. Would he be able to be as successful at a place lower down the food chain? In other words, he can sell Mercedes can he sell a Ford? Will he enjoy selling a Ford? Will he be frustrated selling a Ford?

HarringtonFishSmeller · November 23, 2015

Interesting post because I've heard Joel Klatt say that in order to really have a successful spread, you have to be able to out-athlete the your opponents' secondaries week in and week out. As posted before, we don't have the athletes to do it.

We put up many yards and points with Todd Dodge, but still lost a lot of games.

The years we have gone to bowls games, we've been more balanced, but with good, strong run games.

In a way, I agree with you. I wouldn't go whole hog to the triple option. But, I'd like to see that kind of balance we had in the early 00s with Hall-Cobb/Galbreath-Marshall/Quinn/Blount and 2013 with Thompson-Byrd/Jimmerson-Chancellor/Smith

2001: 141 passing yards per page, 160 rushing
Hall - 1,453 passing yards, 17 TDs, 11 Ints
Galbreath - 1,119 yards, 4 TDs rushing
Marshall 546 yards, 11 TDs receiving

2002: 108 passing, 182 rushing
Smith - 1,080 passing, 7 TDs, 8 Ints
Galbreath - 1,168 yards, 8 TDs, rushing
Cobbs - 732 yards, 7 TDs, rushing
Marshall - 377 yards, 2 TDs receiving
Branch - 357 yards, 2 TDs receiving

2003: 149 passing, 179 receiving
Hall - 1,580 passing, 13 TDs, 5 Ints
Cobbs -1,570, 17 TDs rushing
Quinn - 653, 3 TDs receiving
Blount - 359, 5 TDs receiving

2004: 157 passing, 186 rushing
Hall - 1,818 passing, 14 TDs, 4 Ints
Thomas - 1,801 rushing, 17 TDs rushing
Quinn - 785, 9 TDs receiving
Blount - 427, 5 TDs receiving

2013: 229 passing, 180 rushing
Thompson - 2,896 passing, 16 TDs, 13 Ints
Byrd -1,075, 11 TDs rushing
Jimmerson - 446, 7 TDs rushing
Pegram - 338, 6 TDs rushing
Chancellor - 792, 4 TDs receiving
Smith - 791, 4 TDs receiving
Harris - 553, 2 TDs receiving

So, anyway. During the seasons we've been to bowls, we had pretty decent run games, and somewhat decent passing. As much as we castigate Dickey and McCarney as "run-first" coaches, the 2013 squad under McCarney had more yards through the air.

With Dickey, Scott Hall developed into a pretty efficient passer who "drove the bus and took care of the ball" when not handing it off to Cobbs or Thomas...or Galbreath.

The other thing is, we had excellent defenses during the Dickey bowl seasons, and a salty defense in 2013 with McCarney.

I'll be just as excited to get a "spread coach" as the next guy. But, the truth is, many schools run some form of spread without great success because they don't have the athletes year in and year out to win consistently with it.

These days, there are many good runners out there that get overlooked during the recruiting process because of the prevalence of the spread in the high schools. In my heart, I know we will not get the talent to be a top spread team. We might win here and there with it. In the Big 12, Texas Tech has been married to it for well over a decade now, but have no Big 12 titles to show for it...because, they don't get the best athletes that compete at that level.

I'd like to see, honestly, the offense we had in 2013 paired with our 2003 and 2004 defenses. Is that too much to ask?

UTSA Fan · November 24, 2015

I will vote no on this one. When I played at Lewisville we ran the triple option/wishbone. The problem is the qb reads the d.e. to keep or pitch. If the defense is coached correctly, the d.e. will plant the qb in the turf every play wether he has the ball or not (does not take pitch man or fake) and the lb will key the rb. It works in hs and lower competition college because you can get a competitive advantage with an athletic qb, but if size is about the same that qb will be pulling his teeth out of his stool by halftime. The lack of prep for it may work once, but conference teams are played yearly. Dl plays gap run and keeps ol off lb so they can string out the play to the sideline. See de assignment above, hit qb all day every play. Also, what hs runs that now? Not sure you want to teach a whole new offense (to the players) and they have only the spring to learn, parctic and perfect well enough to play . Seems your recruiting options would be very slim and you will suck for a long time trying to get the players who can be converted to an offense they never played in. Now your compounding your recruiting problem from "can he do what he does at the next level" to "can he play something he has never played before at the next level."

Edited November 24, 2015 by UTSA Fan

Ben Gooding · November 24, 2015

I will vote no on this one. When I played at Lewisville we ran the triple option/wishbone. The problem is the qb reads the d.e. to keep or pitch. If the defense is coached correctly, the d.e. will plant the qb in the turf every play wether he has the ball or not (does not take pitch man or fake) and the lb will key the rb. It works in hs and lower competition college because you can get a competitive advantage with an athletic qb, but if size is about the same that qb will be pulling his teeth out of his stool by halftime. The lack of prep for it may work once, but conference teams are played yearly. Dl plays gap run and keeps ol off lb so they can string out the play to the sideline. See de assignment above, hit qb all day every play. Also, what hs runs that now? Not sure you want to teach a whole new offense (to the players) and they have only the spring to learn, parctic and perfect well enough to play . Seems your recruiting options would be very slim and you will suck for a long time trying to get the players who can be converted to an offense they never played in. Now your compounding your recruiting problem from "can he do what he does at the next level" to "can he play something he has never played before at the next level."

You need to increase your football IQ. Does RowdyGarbage allow this stuff.

UTSA Fan · November 24, 2015

You need to increase your football IQ. Does RowdyGarbage allow this stuff.

why be offensive? Tbh, someone who has actually done something knows more and is more credible than one who only talks about it. Btw i.q. is diffent than knowing. Bring reasoning and apply that with facts, if not you look small, petty and ignorant. Most major medical covers butt-hurt in network.

aztecskin · November 24, 2015

I will vote no on this one. When I played at Lewisville we ran the triple option/wishbone. The problem is the qb reads the d.e. to keep or pitch. If the defense is coached correctly, the d.e. will plant the qb in the turf every play wether he has the ball or not (does not take pitch man or fake) and the lb will key the rb. It works in hs and lower competition college because you can get a competitive advantage with an athletic qb, but if size is about the same that qb will be pulling his teeth out of his stool by halftime. The lack of prep for it may work once, but conference teams are played yearly. Dl plays gap run and keeps ol off lb so they can string out the play to the sideline. See de assignment above, hit qb all day every play. Also, what hs runs that now? Not sure you want to teach a whole new offense (to the players) and they have only the spring to learn, parctic and perfect well enough to play . Seems your recruiting options would be very slim and you will suck for a long time trying to get the players who can be converted to an offense they never played in. Now your compounding your recruiting problem from "can he do what he does at the next level" to "can he play something he has never played before at the next level."

Paul Johnson changes his blocking schemes to counter all the "just do X to stop the option" things. And there are a lot of those. "Just" hit the QB. "Just" key the pitch. As any good coach does, he adjusts. He'll read the DT, he'll zone block, he'll man block. He'll change the angles.

Count me among the "just a good coach" crowd. Auburn runs the ball a ton, and it uses a lot of old school option concepts. I'd be fine with that. We shouldn't be so concerned with scheme. Anyone remember when Guy Morris took over Baylor and was going to throw it around like Mike Leach? They had *some* success but nothing amazing. Art Briles came through and actually transformed the program.

We want someone that can build a program, and even if they run the triple option, it should be part of a larger identity change. Kind of like how Bob Davie is using it, but really changing the whole program at UNM.