Why option works, and why it won't continue

[Verdict]

I think your underlying premise is sound. A few years back I suggested that a team that ran an option style of attack could be successful in the NFL for the very reasons you stated above (minus all of the Pokemon references) I suggested that it would be interesting if a really horrible team brought in a guy like Barry Switzer and let him do his thing that it would chance the poor team overnight.

Look at it like this .... there are many tons of mobile option types of QB's in the college ranks that could be drafted in the 5th round (or even acquired as free agents) you could keep four QB's on your roster and a stable of running backs. The Larry Warfords and Chance Warmacks of the world could be utilized to grind out and overpower the defensive side of the ball.

Moreover, running backs come cheap in the NFL. Time of possession is paramount. The only down side to that is that you don't really want to get behind or you would be in trouble. I think teams like that would put most of their resources into building a killer defense and assembling cheap but effective talent on offense.

The other advantage to this system is that instead of paying a QB 20 million per year, you spend maybe 4 or 5 million (or less) on all of the QB's on your roster. It would enable you to be competitive every year, and it wouldn't take players long to learn the offensive system. Speed in a QB (and decision making) would be much more important than his arm. The fact you are mining players no one else wants makes it very easy and cheap to acquire those players and improvement can be made much more swiftly than when every team wants the same players you do. Contrarian thinking pays off in some instances.

 

[Gadfly22]

We get it, you're too cool for pokemon references. Some of us may have enjoyed the novel approach. I know I did.

Speaking for myself, it's not that I'm "too cool" for such references. It's just that they didn't make sense to me. I thought for a second that a serious-sounding post had gone all trollish. "Squirtle" just sounded like a nasty dysentery-like defensive squat. Then "Charmander" rang a bell (my kids liked Pokemon for a while) -- but I still don't know if there is some characteristic of the Poke-critters mentioned that added meaning that I missed.

Not criticizing. It's just that I'm not the audience who can best make sense of those cultural references. I still don't know what "dubstep" is. Or "twerking".

 

[CooterBrown]

Count me in the "too old" to get it crowd. I followed the logic, but thought OP was just making up words.

 

[5Stars]

I have no friggen clue what is being said in this thread!

lol

 

[arglebargle]

I think your underlying premise is sound. A few years back I suggested that a team that ran an option style of attack could be successful in the NFL for the very reasons you stated above (minus all of the Pokemon references) I suggested that it would be interesting if a really horrible team brought in a guy like Barry Switzer and let him do his thing that it would chance the poor team overnight.

Look at it like this .... there are many tons of mobile option types of QB's in the college ranks that could be drafted in the 5th round (or even acquired as free agents) you could keep four QB's on your roster and a stable of running backs. The Larry Warfords and Chance Warmacks of the world could be utilized to grind out and overpower the defensive side of the ball.

Moreover, running backs come cheap in the NFL. Time of possession is paramount. The only down side to that is that you don't really want to get behind or you would be in trouble. I think teams like that would put most of their resources into building a killer defense and assembling cheap but effective talent on offense.

The other advantage to this system is that instead of paying a QB 20 million per year, you spend maybe 4 or 5 million (or less) on all of the QB's on your roster. It would enable you to be competitive every year, and it wouldn't take players long to learn the offensive system. Speed in a QB (and decision making) would be much more important than his arm. The fact you are mining players no one else wants makes it very easy and cheap to acquire those players and improvement can be made much more swiftly than when every team wants the same players you do. Contrarian thinking pays off in some instances.

I remember coming to roughly the same conclusions, down to the ease of getting QBs that would fit this type of system. Don't think I'd prioritized the building of a top defense due to difficulties of coming from behind, but that makes sense too.

Also as a certified 'old phart' I didn't get the Pokemon references, but I don't get the dudgeon about the comparison.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Preface, this is my opinion/thoughts. not to be states as fact, just didn't want a gargantuan thread title.. heh

I was thinking about the game and how it has progressed through the 80s>90s>00's.

It has steadily become more and more a passing game. I think that is obvious. And it occurs to me that at some point there was a thought..

Why was it so successful? Cause Defenses were built to stop the run.. So a team could pass on teams easier... Flash forward to today... for 30 years defenses have been transitioning to stop the pass.. you have 5th corners getting on the field, you get after the QB, you have LBs who can run with pass catching TEs...

Eventually someone is going to notice that 95% of Teams are trotting Squirtle out there on defense to counter the typical Charmander Offense and switch things up... One team throws a Bulbasoar offense out there and find a lot of success.. The NFL is a Copycat league. so there are going to be more Bulba offenses next season.. At some point the Bulbasaurs will outnumber the Charmander offenses. and Defensive coordinators will have to bench Squirtle for the Charmander Defense...

We might be going into a Option Era.. but everything happens quicker these days and defenses will adjust.. then you will see the next wave of Passing powerhouses dominate again.

Well, your theory is based on a fallacy.

It has gone to a passing game because the owners see the fans like scoring and have changed the rules and eroded any pass defense with interference penalties that allow the receiver unfettered access to the ball.

But as teams put more and more pass defenders on the field the pendulum will swing back and a running team will succeed.

I would suspect if the game swung to 100% passing - and that is difficult to conceive - the rules will be adjusted.

 

[TwoDeep3]

I have no friggen clue what is being said in this thread!

lol

How is this different than usual? :C)

 

[5Stars]

How is this different than usual? :C)

I don't know why I come here...

 

[TwoDeep3]

I don't know why I come here...

Because you feel the love, bro.

 

[coult44]

Preface, this is my opinion/thoughts. not to be states as fact, just didn't want a gargantuan thread title.. heh

I was thinking about the game and how it has progressed through the 80s>90s>00's.

It has steadily become more and more a passing game. I think that is obvious. And it occurs to me that at some point there was a thought..

Why was it so successful? Cause Defenses were built to stop the run.. So a team could pass on teams easier... Flash forward to today... for 30 years defenses have been transitioning to stop the pass.. you have 5th corners getting on the field, you get after the QB, you have LBs who can run with pass catching TEs...

Eventually someone is going to notice that 95% of Teams are trotting Squirtle out there on defense to counter the typical Charmander Offense and switch things up... One team throws a Bulbasoar offense out there and find a lot of success.. The NFL is a Copycat league. so there are going to be more Bulba offenses next season.. At some point the Bulbasaurs will outnumber the Charmander offenses. and Defensive coordinators will have to bench Squirtle for the Charmander Defense...

We might be going into a Option Era.. but everything happens quicker these days and defenses will adjust.. then you will see the next wave of Passing powerhouses dominate again.

What the H____ did I just read? LOL....

 

[Lonestar94]

Bunch of old farts in this thread.

- Proud 90's kid

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Good job. Good effort.

 

[AsthmaField]

"Everything is cyclical."

~Mutant Ninja Cabbage Patch

 

[Supercowboy1986]

Meh people on this forum are such babies. Yes it was a Pokemon analogy and yes I understood what the op meant. It's just nice to see something creative instead of the the same repetitive threads. So despite the flaming good job op.

 

[TheCount]

Speaking for myself, it's not that I'm "too cool" for such references. It's just that they didn't make sense to me. I thought for a second that a serious-sounding post had gone all trollish. "Squirtle" just sounded like a nasty dysentery-like defensive squat. Then "Charmander" rang a bell (my kids liked Pokemon for a while) -- but I still don't know if there is some characteristic of the Poke-critters mentioned that added meaning that I missed.

Not criticizing. It's just that I'm not the audience who can best make sense of those cultural references. I still don't know what "dubstep" is. Or "twerking".

The only thing you could possibly be missing is that the Pokemon he mentioned all have weaknesses and strengths against each other. Kind of a rock, paper, scissors thing as mentioned earlier. And just like rock, paper, scissors, there is no "one ring to rule them all", there is always a strength and a weakness.

The read open, in the OP's opinion, is simply taking advantage of defenses that have been built to stop the pass. I think there's probably some truth to that.

 

[john van brocklin]

Preface, this is my opinion/thoughts. not to be states as fact, just didn't want a gargantuan thread title.. heh

I was thinking about the game and how it has progressed through the 80s>90s>00's.

It has steadily become more and more a passing game. I think that is obvious. And it occurs to me that at some point there was a thought..

Why was it so successful? Cause Defenses were built to stop the run.. So a team could pass on teams easier... Flash forward to today... for 30 years defenses have been transitioning to stop the pass.. you have 5th corners getting on the field, you get after the QB, you have LBs who can run with pass catching TEs...

Eventually someone is going to notice that 95% of Teams are trotting Squirtle out there on defense to counter the typical Charmander Offense and switch things up... One team throws a Bulbasoar offense out there and find a lot of success.. The NFL is a Copycat league. so there are going to be more Bulba offenses next season.. At some point the Bulbasaurs will outnumber the Charmander offenses. and Defensive coordinators will have to bench Squirtle for the Charmander Defense...

We might be going into a Option Era.. but everything happens quicker these days and defenses will adjust.. then you will see the next wave of Passing powerhouses dominate again.

The option wont stick around long , because its gonna get the QB running it killed see RG3

 

[Verdict]

The option wont stick around long , because its gonna get the QB running it killed see RG3

If you could afford 3 or 4 RG3's on the roster you would run the hell out of the option, which is the point of this thread. RG3 is a rare guy who can run and pass but he is paid based mostly on his ability to pass the ball. If he was a marginal passer he could be had at a fraction of the cost.

 

[Fredd]

so, I turn 51 next week, and thus, to many of you I am old...I followed the thought process, but I didn't (and still don't) know the value of those names in pokemon....and, isn't pokemon getting stale?

I would offer that while the OP thinks of some of us as "too old" to get the reference, perhaps you are too young to field a response that all are capable of understanding or following?

 

[DogFace]

Your point here is valid. But I'm thinking Pokemon metaphors were, perhaps, not the best means of explaining your argument.

Is that what they were? Um all
Right.
Later.

 

[john van brocklin]

If you could afford 3 or 4 RG3's on the roster you would run the hell out of the option, which is the point of this thread. RG3 is a rare guy who can run and pass but he is paid based mostly on his ability to pass the ball. If he was a marginal passer he could be had at a fraction of the cost.

Sorry, I did not really get the point of the OP as I am not into Pokamon , LOL