Paul Johnson explains his offense...

[CajunNation]

http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/i...option-offense

[RaginWaldo]

and whats the point of this??

[CajunNation]

Sewak learned the offense from Johnson.

[CajunFan64]

The point is that everyone is scared of the triple option without really looking into how it works. Like Johnson said, he's not reinventing the wheel here; this is a basic offense that is run in alot of successful programs. The only difference is that most other schools do it from the shotgun while they do it from under center. Its the same principle.

You know; I've seen Blaine mature. You know Blaine and Spikes running the triple option sounds pretty effective. With Blaines arm and our "slot style" "smaller receivers" (with some obvious exceptions) I think we could do well with this offense. I mean guys, if it wins games......who gives a ____?

Geaux Cajuns

[RaginWaldo]

If we get the triple option we would lose 4 huge weapons on offense and honestly our QBs and O-Line are not strong enough to average your Gauranteed 40 points per game.

As successful as this scheme may be or that you are perceiving that it may be. It is not always a good fit for every school.

Keep rocking that hard on though

[CajunZ1]

_ If we get the triple option we would lose 4 huge weapons on offense and honestly our QBs and O-Line are not strong enough to average your Gauranteed 40 points per game.

What are our "huge" weapons?

I count 2, maybe 3.

Ladarius Green:
You are correct, a triple option would limit his touches. However, do we really think he'll be here next year? The guy is a Marques Colston in the making.

Aaron Spikes:
Would THRIVE in this system.

Surgent or Butler (im assuming this is who you're referring to):
They were good, but were they unbelievable? Also, is our QB play and OLINE play strong enough to feature them prominently?

I'm not completely turned on by the Triple Option, but I do enjoy playing devil's advocate.

[wcd35]

_ What are our "huge" weapons?

I count 2, maybe 3.

Ladarius Green:
You are correct, a triple option would limit his touches. However, do we really think he'll be here next year? The guy is a Marques Colston in the making.

Aaron Spikes:
Would THRIVE in this system.

Surgent or Butler (im assuming this is who you're referring to):
They were good, but were they unbelievable? Also, is our QB play and OLINE play strong enough to feature them prominently?

I'm not completely turned on by the Triple Option, but I do enjoy playing devil's advocate. _

No doubt in my mind that Green will be here next year. SBC players, no matter how good, dont typically leave early. Also, there is not much talk of him in any draft ratings or on boards (all include obvious early exit Jrs.) He's not going to get drafted that high right now, much less go to the Combine, etc. I dont think there's any buzz on him for 2011 and its assumed he'll go in 2012. Typically only 50 players or so from the entire nation declare themselves eligible for the draft as underclassmen. If he wants to, the deadline is in Jan. There's a possibility that could change if we go triple option, but I dont think he will ditch yet.

Comparing to Colston isnt that great, Green probably doesnt want to come out early and get drafted 7th rd. Obviously thats not what you were comparing but just wanted to make that point.

----

From USA Today's post season analysis on the SBC:

PRO PROSPECTS:

TE Ladarius Green — Green is a potential candidate for at least a look in a later round if he decides to skip his senior year to enter the NFL draft.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/colle...nbelt/home.htm

[RaginWaldo]

I think coming from the background of receivers Deforest would actually be very useful in exploiting Greens talents as a true WIDE RECEIVER with NFL talents even though Bustle seemed to suppress that fact or that because we lacked a skilled TE on our team and he was forced to play that position.

Just my hypothesis

[Hammer58]

_ http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/i...option-offense _

From this blog:

"That's usually how it works. Do you think that you guys will be more efficient running the ball because it's the second year?

PJ: We're way better right now then we were a year ago. It's not even close. If you took the first spring and this spring, it's like two different teams. Do we have a ways to go? Yeah, we're still not there yet, but we're a lot better off than we were a year ago, no question."

That sounds an awful lot like he is reinforcing the concerns many of us had about a transition period (translated as losing seasons) until you can get the right people in there or get the existing people to learn the system to have success.

[rhineaux]

_ From this blog:

"That's usually how it works. Do you think that you guys will be more efficient running the ball because it's the second year?

PJ: We're way better right now then we were a year ago. It's not even close. If you took the first spring and this spring, it's like two different teams. Do we have a ways to go? Yeah, we're still not there yet, but we're a lot better off than we were a year ago, no question."

That sounds an awful lot like he is reinforcing the concerns many of us had about a transition period (translated as losing seasons) until you can get the right people in there or get the existing people to learn the system to have success. _

Not really a big deal if you ask me. Most people say the talent is subpar, so it will have to be upgraded regardless of the new offense. And, it will take time for current players to get comfortable with plays, terminology, etc, of any new coach.

[RaginWaldo]

_ From this blog:

"That's usually how it works. Do you think that you guys will be more efficient running the ball because it's the second year?

PJ: We're way better right now then we were a year ago. It's not even close. If you took the first spring and this spring, it's like two different teams. Do we have a ways to go? Yeah, we're still not there yet, but we're a lot better off than we were a year ago, no question."

That sounds an awful lot like he is reinforcing the concerns many of us had about a transition period (translated as losing seasons) until you can get the right people in there or get the existing people to learn the system to have success. _

I guess the question to answer would be "do we throw away everything we gave Bustle credit for in turning this program around from what it was with Baldwin and start at scratch all over again and try to accomplish success down the road, or do we try and build off of the current personnel that we have and try to have immediate success?"

[CajunNation]

That sounds an awful lot like he is reinforcing the concerns many of us had about a transition period (translated as losing seasons) until you can get the right people in there or get the existing people to learn the system to have success.

Georgia Tech

2007 -- (7-6) Chan Gailey running a pro set

2008 -- (9-4) Johnson running the option

2009 -- (11-3) Johnson running the option


Georgia Southern

2009 -- (5-6) Chris Hatcher running wide open passing attack

2010 -- (9-4) Monken running the option, and still in the playoffs*


No transition seems to be needed, and we have a couple of QB's and a couple of RB's who would fit right in here.