Any chance BYU will run the option a bit?

I can't help but wonder if the offense has been working on any special schemes? If so, will they wait until 9-15 to break them out? Supposing that everyone is in great shape, and they have great senior leadership at QB, will they be able to rush the offense and let RN call some of the plays on his own?



Statistically speaking, this is the very best time of the year to fantasize about how great the BYU offensive weapons are. ;)

I'd have to think that BYU is primed to run the option in modest amounts. (and spare us the "But that's not BYU football" comments) Dupaix and Doman are no stranger to the option and Riley seems like a natural fit as a option QB. Lark probably wouldn't be bad either. You just hope that they've prepared well and know that ball security is #1.

I'm a little mixed on the option. I'd like BYU's offense to stay in system as much as possible. Imagine if BYU switched to the option during Steve Young's years--we'd be deprived of one of the most accurate passers of all time.



On the other hand, Riley Nelson probably isn't the next Steve Young, so whatever it takes to win. If that means running so option to keep the D on its heels, so be it. I just don't want it to become a crutch.

Running the option is only effective if you've got a quality back to pitch to. Right now, I'm not sold on BYU's run game, but we do have beasts of receivers to throw to. With our stable of receivers and the question marks at running back, I think it might be counter productive to throw in the option. I'm not sure that it would be particularly effective either. In 2001, the option worked because Doman had Luke Staley to pitch to. When Staley went down, the option wasn't effective, and we lost 2 in a row.

Ungoy wrote:
Running the option is only effective if you've got a quality back to pitch to. Right now, I'm not sold on BYU's run game, but we do have beasts of receivers to throw to. With our stable of receivers and the question marks at running back, I think it might be counter productive to throw in the option. I'm not sure that it would be particularly effective either. In 2001, the option worked because Doman had Luke Staley to pitch to. When Staley went down, the option wasn't effective, and we lost 2 in a row.

Great point, I agree.

Dupaix and Doman will put in some zone read plays similar to what TX ran successfully against us last year. It's a hybrid option with short passing routes. Need to have QB who can make quick decisions and know when to run and when to pull up and pass. We are structured to do very well with this scheme.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

hawkwing wrote:

Running the option is only effective if you've got a quality back to pitch to. Right now, I'm not sold on BYU's run game, but we do have beasts of receivers to throw to. With our stable of receivers and the question marks at running back, I think it might be counter productive to throw in the option. I'm not sure that it would be particularly effective either. In 2001, the option worked because Doman had Luke Staley to pitch to. When Staley went down, the option wasn't effective, and we lost 2 in a row.

Great point, I agree.

This and what better way to bang up a QB you can't afford to lose.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I saw BYU run an option play for a TD against Oregon State. I was at the game and saw the option to JJ come right at me. It was pretty cool.



I don't remember many other option plays, so I think that a couple of plays sprinkled in could be effective.

Hill could run it or even put both of them in there at the same time for lots of possibilities. Crowton would do it.

scott715 wrote:
Hill could run it or even put both of them in there at the same time for lots of possibilities. Crowton would do it.

How about we put Lark under center with Hill and Nelson in the backfield? That way NO ONE would have a clue which way the ball is going?



Sorry couldn't resist to bring back the quadruple option attack a poster bantied about a few seasons back.

SpiffCoug wrote:

Hill could run it or even put both of them in there at the same time for lots of possibilities. Crowton would do it.

How about we put Lark under center with Hill and Nelson in the backfield? That way NO ONE would have a clue which way the ball is going?



Sorry couldn't resist to bring back the quadruple option attack a poster bantied about a few seasons back.

And then 2 Running backs, 1 on each side of the QBs! And a punter back there!

hawkwing wrote:

scott715 wrote:
Hill could run it or even put both of them in there at the same time for lots of possibilities. Crowton would do it.

How about we put Lark under center with Hill and Nelson in the backfield? That way NO ONE would have a clue which way the ball is going?



Sorry couldn't resist to bring back the quadruple option attack a poster bantied about a few seasons back.

And then 2 Running backs, 1 on each side of the QBs! And a punter back there!

Hawkwing's formation would give us 6 ball handlers and 5 blockers, and like Spiff said "NO ONE would know which way the ball is going" The problem is that the NO ONE would include the 11 cougars on the field.

vancouvercougar wrote:

SpiffCoug wrote:

Hill could run it or even put both of them in there at the same time for lots of possibilities. Crowton would do it.

How about we put Lark under center with Hill and Nelson in the backfield? That way NO ONE would have a clue which way the ball is going?



Sorry couldn't resist to bring back the quadruple option attack a poster bantied about a few seasons back.

And then 2 Running backs, 1 on each side of the QBs! And a punter back there!

Hawkwing's formation would give us 6 ball handlers and 5 blockers, and like Spiff said "NO ONE would know which way the ball is going" The problem is that the NO ONE would include the 11 cougars on the field.

Good point, too many blockers ... :lol:

I think we tried it last year against the Yewts.

hawkwing wrote:

hawkwing wrote:

scott715 wrote:
Hill could run it or even put both of them in there at the same time for lots of possibilities. Crowton would do it.

How about we put Lark under center with Hill and Nelson in the backfield? That way NO ONE would have a clue which way the ball is going?



Sorry couldn't resist to bring back the quadruple option attack a poster bantied about a few seasons back.

And then 2 Running backs, 1 on each side of the QBs! And a punter back there!

Hawkwing's formation would give us 6 ball handlers and 5 blockers, and like Spiff said "NO ONE would know which way the ball is going" The problem is that the NO ONE would include the 11 cougars on the field.

Good point, too many blockers ... :lol:

They could run the fumbleruskie where you leave it for the center to pick up and run with it. That would get you one less blocker - or I suppose you could fumble it to any of them and have no blockers. So with Fakslev at center, O'neil Chambers at left guard, Hine, Apo, Hoff all on the line.....



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

vancouvercougar wrote:

SpiffCoug wrote:

Hill could run it or even put both of them in there at the same time for lots of possibilities. Crowton would do it.

How about we put Lark under center with Hill and Nelson in the backfield? That way NO ONE would have a clue which way the ball is going?



Sorry couldn't resist to bring back the quadruple option attack a poster bantied about a few seasons back.

And then 2 Running backs, 1 on each side of the QBs! And a punter back there!

Hawkwing's formation would give us 6 ball handlers and 5 blockers, and like Spiff said "NO ONE would know which way the ball is going" The problem is that the NO ONE would include the 11 cougars on the field.

Dang it! I was so sure this offensive scheme would work.