-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
TRIPLE OPTION
- Thread starter 77Grizz
- Start date
CV Griz Fan
Well-known member
Defending this offense certainly hasn’t been a Griz strength for the last six years. We’ll see.....
Correct me if Im wrong, CalPoly's version of the option is more simular to the wing T, than it is to Armys version of the tripple option where the fullback is the dive option for every play. You will do alright against it if you get ahead early, and make them play from behind. #5 is going to get his yards, just be toughin the red zone, take advantage of every penalty, force 3rd an 6 or 8, get tough on those plays. This is a harder offense to stop than Army's because of various formations and motion. OU had a hard time with Army because they all wanted to make the play, and didn't play assignment football. Good Luck, youall will do great , Im rooting for the Griz on this one!!! Eagles own the SKY!!AZGrizFan said:
Bearcountry92
Well-known member
Read your keys and play. As it was previously stated one guy takes dive one takes q.b and one takes pitch. It’s just a matter of reading keys being disciplined and trust your brothers.
And since wooford got brought up. DAMN never seen wa Griz so silent after a missed field goal. That was an eerie moment
And since wooford got brought up. DAMN never seen wa Griz so silent after a missed field goal. That was an eerie moment
...
I have noted this elsewhere on the interwebs before, and a lot of has been written about it...
The coaching emphasis really hasn't changed over the years. Focusing on sectional responsibilities. Where from my perspective where coaches (myself included) have gotten into the weeds a bit over the years in regards to option defense is how much your scheme for stopping option deviates from your normal scheme. In recent years I have chosen to simplify my approach and stay within my already existent scheme.
Here is the most basic element to understand: Most schemes don't natively align to option and especially wing option/veer very well. Most coaches, as do I, prefer an even front. That isn't to say that running odd fronts don't work but rather I just prefer 40 personnel because of philosophy.
Anyhow playing within your normal defensive philosophy affords you the ability to play faster and give players as close to normal in game reads and from the positions and angles you normally might. If you don't ask your DE's to be box ends normally, don't ask them to be them against option. If your safety normally plays from depth and has alley support, keep it that way. You can ask players to work on techniques to help against certain elements (such as wrong-arming, double team defense, hi-lo tandem stuff) but I just think you don't change your players eyes or mind.
THe only thing you end up changing is coverage concepts because of alignment, but again I am a strong believer you run a coverage concept that you'd normally run and the CB's and Safetys are comfortable make run/pass read diagnosis from.
This scheme has the type of responsibility redundancy to make it successful at the second level. The 4-2-5 and the 3-3-5 allows overlapping support outside in, inside out, as well as level to level so that you wouldn't have to change much alignment wise to stay within your scheme.
You are going to give up yards. Deal. Sort of like death and taxes.
The coaching emphasis really hasn't changed over the years. Focusing on sectional responsibilities. Where from my perspective where coaches (myself included) have gotten into the weeds a bit over the years in regards to option defense is how much your scheme for stopping option deviates from your normal scheme. In recent years I have chosen to simplify my approach and stay within my already existent scheme.
Here is the most basic element to understand: Most schemes don't natively align to option and especially wing option/veer very well. Most coaches, as do I, prefer an even front. That isn't to say that running odd fronts don't work but rather I just prefer 40 personnel because of philosophy.
Anyhow playing within your normal defensive philosophy affords you the ability to play faster and give players as close to normal in game reads and from the positions and angles you normally might. If you don't ask your DE's to be box ends normally, don't ask them to be them against option. If your safety normally plays from depth and has alley support, keep it that way. You can ask players to work on techniques to help against certain elements (such as wrong-arming, double team defense, hi-lo tandem stuff) but I just think you don't change your players eyes or mind.
THe only thing you end up changing is coverage concepts because of alignment, but again I am a strong believer you run a coverage concept that you'd normally run and the CB's and Safetys are comfortable make run/pass read diagnosis from.
This scheme has the type of responsibility redundancy to make it successful at the second level. The 4-2-5 and the 3-3-5 allows overlapping support outside in, inside out, as well as level to level so that you wouldn't have to change much alignment wise to stay within your scheme.
You are going to give up yards. Deal. Sort of like death and taxes.
Mike Keys Split backs, and when one crosses the tee he fills flow side" B" gap.Sam and will, Key near back, and can do deals with DE, Plug, or scrape. Easy stuff huh.BTW,our secondary could also play Halves, That is man under two,Free and Strong Safeties have to be in read coverage because They can throw some. As we know already! we have been burned,.in our first 4 games. Go Griz
They’ll get rushing yards when the game is close. You can also set your watch by 2-5 balls deep when the safeties cheat up to cover it.
EWU did what everyone tries to do, sustain their own running game & @ 400 plus yards, exceeded expectations. Something that’s missing with CPSLO this last couple of years are the kinds of all-conference pro defensive prospects they’d had in the past. Run the ball & stop the run are the game cliches everyone notes. It’s been their calling card for a long time, but it’s been a tough task for CPSLO recently.
EWU did what everyone tries to do, sustain their own running game & @ 400 plus yards, exceeded expectations. Something that’s missing with CPSLO this last couple of years are the kinds of all-conference pro defensive prospects they’d had in the past. Run the ball & stop the run are the game cliches everyone notes. It’s been their calling card for a long time, but it’s been a tough task for CPSLO recently.
nzone said:
Would be very surprised to see Vika on the field.
UMcheer2000
Well-known member
dupuyer griz said:
This.
Thank you! I am a novice whose oldest played college ball in south dakota, and the youngest is playing for Eastern. Every time I ask them to explain technical things about the game, they get testy. I really appreciate this board becaause stuff like this helps me understand the game better. I really respect yourfan base, your pride in your team, and cant wait till next year to come to montana to watch a great game. I love Big Sky football , this is what Intercolegiate athletics is all about! Thanks again good luck , win win win , so we can have a great game in the playoffs.Go Eagles and Grizzlies!Grizfan-24 said:
UNDSU gave up a single stinkin' field goal to these clowns. Watch the video of that game and do what UNDSU did. Simple.
Bearcountry92 said:
It sure wasn't quiet at my home. I'm sure the string of obscenities are still floating around those vaulted ceiling.
Grizfan 24, i agree with your philosophy, Implementing the concept for one game is a problem. It presents conceptual problems that simply cannot be coached and perfected within the 4 practice days between games. We have to defend with basic responsibilities, and have the right pegs in the right holes. Go Griz
AllWeatherFan said:
Well not exactly what they did. Let 'em score a field goal?
#slackers