this has given me a lot to mull over and thanks to rich59 and the rest of you for contributing to one of the most interesting threads in a while. would be happy to see a few more of you weigh in. thanks.
the one comment that i will make this far is that i still don't quite see that you have to have more athletic superiority for success with run and shoot than with a run oriented offense.
if true, why isn't everybody in college football readopting the veer or something like it?
just another opinion...
Moderators: PonyPride, SmooPower
21 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
by originaloverthehilltop1 » Sun Jun 14, 2009 1:41 am
- originaloverthehilltop1
- Posts: 483
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 3:01 am
- Location: richardson,tx,us
by White Helmet » Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:36 am
So did JJ have better athletes at Hawaii than Fresno or Boise?
-
White Helmet 
- Posts: 2411
- Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 2:39 pm
- Location: Oro Valley, AZ
by ponyte » Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:30 am
For what it is worth, Ford wasn't benched in 1980 because he was out of shape or couldn't run the option. He was benched because his performance was subpar for most of the season. Against Baylor, he had some key mistakes (interception and fumbles) during key plays. In a close game they could have been the difference. Against Houston the week prior to UT, he had 4 interceptions. Once again in a close game these were key. And to clear up things, Ford came to camp in 1980 in very good shape. He had lost 20+ pounds and had worked on his conditioning. Ford was 4-2 that year with good wins against TCU and Tulane. He wasn't having a bad year, just his mistakes were key during key games.
Against UT in 1980, our game plan on offense was not much different than the previous 5 year game plans. We wanted to run between the tackles. Against UT and Baylor, we didn't try to go outside because of the defensive schemes those teams ran. The exception was an 'option' play that in now lore. Against Baylor and UT we wanted to go between the tackles and didn't even work on sweeps or pitches. It was just too hard to run on the outside against those defenses.
That was not a true option. Ford was benched as of Monday the week prior toUT. Mike Fisher and Lance McIlheney were to compete for the starters role. Fisher had started at least one game (TX A$M, 1979) and played more that McIlheney during the 1980 season. Fisher was the odds on favorite to start at the beginning of the week. Fisher was a strong arm quarterback with more mobility than Ford but certainly not a running QB. It would not be fair to any new QB to expect them to compete for a position and learn to read and run an option in one week. Thus, the play looked like an option but was a called pitch all the way. There was no option, just the illusion of one.
McIlheney won the job but keep in mind the game plan put in place for UT was determined before the starting QB was named. McIheney was flawless in the game plan execution which was to be one of his many hallmarks in his career.
The option play was a called pitch. There was nothing 'option' about it. It was about the only play we had that day to challenge the outside. We ran the play several times without much success before and after James' run. It was not a key play on our plan that day. But it paid a huge dividend.
The key to the UT win wasn't so much a new QB but one hell of a game by the entire offensive line. That line dominated the interior of the UT defense. Prior to 1980, the offensive line had been very inconsistent. In 1980, a senior laden line became consistent and competent. This coupled with extraordinary backs made for a perfect rushing storm.
Also, the defense played a marvelous game that day. Solid plays were made at every position and great plays were made by the great players. The week after UT, against Tx A$M, that same defense literally won the game. 1980 saw one of the best overall defenses SMU had had in decades.
Experience and talent won the day for SMU back in the glory days prior to the DP. We didn't start a bunch of Freshman and Sophomores. We started players that had been there a while and had gradually gained experience. Meyer had the vision to utilize his talent to the best of its ability. Prior to the UT game, SMU had never been a run oriented team. We had been a passing team for 4 & 1/2 years under Meyer. The fact that the team changed entirely from passing to running in one week is extraordinary but predictable based on the talent and experience we had. However, the defense remained the same.
And that Meyer and his coaches had recruited players that could run both a pass and run offense is also an unrecognized talent of that coaching staff. We currently talk about new coaches recruiting players for their system. Meyer recruited players that could fit into his system or anyone's system. He recruited top notch athletes.
As to pass vs. run, I think passing offensives place a greater burden on most defenses. Defenses with utterly superior athletes are the exception. And an offense at SMU that depends on the pass can be very successful. However, until we get enough athletes on defense to slow and stop folks, all the offense in the world will not turn the corner.
Against UT in 1980, our game plan on offense was not much different than the previous 5 year game plans. We wanted to run between the tackles. Against UT and Baylor, we didn't try to go outside because of the defensive schemes those teams ran. The exception was an 'option' play that in now lore. Against Baylor and UT we wanted to go between the tackles and didn't even work on sweeps or pitches. It was just too hard to run on the outside against those defenses.
That was not a true option. Ford was benched as of Monday the week prior toUT. Mike Fisher and Lance McIlheney were to compete for the starters role. Fisher had started at least one game (TX A$M, 1979) and played more that McIlheney during the 1980 season. Fisher was the odds on favorite to start at the beginning of the week. Fisher was a strong arm quarterback with more mobility than Ford but certainly not a running QB. It would not be fair to any new QB to expect them to compete for a position and learn to read and run an option in one week. Thus, the play looked like an option but was a called pitch all the way. There was no option, just the illusion of one.
McIlheney won the job but keep in mind the game plan put in place for UT was determined before the starting QB was named. McIheney was flawless in the game plan execution which was to be one of his many hallmarks in his career.
The option play was a called pitch. There was nothing 'option' about it. It was about the only play we had that day to challenge the outside. We ran the play several times without much success before and after James' run. It was not a key play on our plan that day. But it paid a huge dividend.
The key to the UT win wasn't so much a new QB but one hell of a game by the entire offensive line. That line dominated the interior of the UT defense. Prior to 1980, the offensive line had been very inconsistent. In 1980, a senior laden line became consistent and competent. This coupled with extraordinary backs made for a perfect rushing storm.
Also, the defense played a marvelous game that day. Solid plays were made at every position and great plays were made by the great players. The week after UT, against Tx A$M, that same defense literally won the game. 1980 saw one of the best overall defenses SMU had had in decades.
Experience and talent won the day for SMU back in the glory days prior to the DP. We didn't start a bunch of Freshman and Sophomores. We started players that had been there a while and had gradually gained experience. Meyer had the vision to utilize his talent to the best of its ability. Prior to the UT game, SMU had never been a run oriented team. We had been a passing team for 4 & 1/2 years under Meyer. The fact that the team changed entirely from passing to running in one week is extraordinary but predictable based on the talent and experience we had. However, the defense remained the same.
And that Meyer and his coaches had recruited players that could run both a pass and run offense is also an unrecognized talent of that coaching staff. We currently talk about new coaches recruiting players for their system. Meyer recruited players that could fit into his system or anyone's system. He recruited top notch athletes.
As to pass vs. run, I think passing offensives place a greater burden on most defenses. Defenses with utterly superior athletes are the exception. And an offense at SMU that depends on the pass can be very successful. However, until we get enough athletes on defense to slow and stop folks, all the offense in the world will not turn the corner.
-
ponyte 
- Posts: 11212
- Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2003 4:01 am
- Location: Nw Orleans, LA region
by SoCal_Pony » Sun Jun 14, 2009 1:01 pm
Great Stuff Ponyte...
for those looking for a great SMU gift
http://www.athletichistory.com/web/pc-1958-10-1980-smu-vs-texas-color.aspx
for those looking for a great SMU gift
http://www.athletichistory.com/web/pc-1958-10-1980-smu-vs-texas-color.aspx
-
SoCal_Pony - Posts: 5901
- Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2003 4:01 am
by rich59 » Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:01 pm
The best evidence I can give you to back up my claim that an option attack can give a team that is overmatched by another team a chance is the success that Navy and Air Force have had during the past years. The Air Force was a perennial winner with Fisher DeBerry as coach and they ran the triple option and the new coach there is still running a lot of option. Navy under Paul Johnson became a consistent winner running the triple option and the new coach seems to be following in Johnson's footprints. I don't believe it is arguable that Navy and Air Force have better athletes than the majority of the teams they play. The reason that the option attack gives teams like Navy and Air Force an edge is that it is a finesse, ball control offense that does not require big powerful athletic linemen to work and because their defenses get to sit on the sideline a lot and rest and when the other team's offense gets the ball it is often deep in it's own territory. It will be most interesting to see if Johnson sticks with the triple option at GA Tech. I wish we had gotten him.
- rich59
- Posts: 490
- Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 8:12 am
21 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 9 guests