FB Coach Speculation

[zippy_the_cat]

This takes for granted that the option would consistently produce wins.

But would throwing the ball 35 times a game produce wins at Duke given the caliber of its quarterbacks? Cutcliffe was a known QB whisperer thanks to the Manning connection and struggled to find anyone who could 1) read a defense or 2) deliver the ball accurately. OTOH Durant just had a great rushing season. A good O line and some decent backs seems like not too tough an ask on the recruiting front.

[dukelifer]

The fans are the beggars, not Duke. We can't demand wins and then complain about the way that a future coach provides them.

Reminds me of this moment in A Few Good Men- modified for the current discussion

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the football wins that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.

I would rather that you just said "thank you” and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you put on some pads and defend the QB. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think you're entitled to!

[Acymetric]

But would throwing the ball 35 times a game produce wins at Duke given the caliber of its quarterbacks? Cutcliffe was a known QB whisperer thanks to the Manning connection and struggled to find anyone who could 1) read a defense or 2) deliver the ball accurately. OTOH Durant just had a great rushing season. A good O line and some decent backs seems like not too tough an ask on the recruiting front.

Something about Cut's recruiting approach or preferences did not lend itself to elite QBs, but I don't think it is impossible to get elite QBs to come to Duke. I thought rtnorthrup's response was simple and perfect.

This is the part that I have trouble accepting. One dimensional offenses are very difficult to win with consistently. Ga Tech had a lot of trouble after the changes to the blocking below the waist rules were implemented. If you could consistently produce wins with the option, more P5 schools would do it.

[uh_no]

Reminds me of this moment- modified for the current discussion

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the football wins that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.

I would rather that you just said "thank you” and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you put on some pads and defend the QB. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think you're entitled to!

one more win and Cut would have gotten a set of steak knives!

[TKG]

one more win and Cut would have gotten a set of steak knives!

Have you seen third prize?

[HoKogan]

The fans are the beggars, not Duke. We can't demand wins and then complain about the way that a future coach provides them.

fair enough. I just don't see it as a ticket for long term success. GT was the only power 5 team to run it for any length of time, and it certainly worked for a while. Eventually it got figured out and it limited the pool of recruits that GT was going to get. I think if the triple option was viable in a power 5 conference, you'd see some of the other schools that struggle with football run it, but they don't either.

[uh_no]

fair enough. I just don't see it as a ticket for long term success. GT was the only power 5 team to run it for any length of time, and it certainly worked for a while. Eventually it got figured out and it limited the pool of recruits that GT was going to get. I think if the triple option was viable in a power 5 conference, you'd see some of the other schools that struggle with football run it, but they don't either.

Yeah I agree with that. I think the argument should be "I think that offense is not a winning offense" is a much better argument than "I don't like that offense" when choosing a new coach. If I'm Pitt or BC, I'm not turning down Tony Bennett to be my new head coach because I don't like Pack Line defense.

[Acymetric]

Yeah I agree with that. I think the argument should be "I think that offense is not a winning offense" is a much better argument than "I don't like that offense" when choosing a new coach. If I'm Pitt or BC, I'm not turning down Tony Bennett to be my new head coach because I don't like Pack Line defense.

I think they are both fine arguments that go hand in hand together. I would rather win with an exciting offense than the triple option (a perfectly fine and, it seems, reasonably common preference), and I happen to not think the triple option gives us a better chance to win anyway.

[uh_no]

I think they are both fine arguments that go hand in hand together. I would rather win with an exciting offense than the triple option (a perfectly fine and, it seems, reasonably common preference), and I happen to not think the triple option gives us a better chance to win anyway.

sure. everyone would rather win with an exciting vs dull team...but given we're not winning at all, I'll take winning over not winning...and if the "option" is between winning with the option and not winning at all, I know which I'll choose. As I've said, I don't believe that is the choice, so this is academic.

[CameronBornAndBred]

How about Deion Sanders? He did ok this year.

https://www.espn.com/college-footbal...-freshman-year

[Acymetric]

sure. everyone would rather win with an exciting vs dull team...but given we're not winning at all, I'll take winning over not winning...and if the "option" is between winning with the option and not winning at all, I know which I'll choose. As I've said, I don't believe that is the choice, so this is academic.

But it isn't "win with the option" vs. "don't win", it is "maybe win with the option" vs. "maybe win with a normal offense". If you start from the premise that the option is the only way to win then certainly it becomes the most attractive option.

[uh_no]

sure. everyone would rather win with an exciting vs dull team...but given we're not winning at all, I'll take winning over not winning...and if the "option" is between winning with the option and not winning at all, I know which I'll choose. As I've said, I don't believe that is the choice, so this is academic.

But it isn't "win with the option" vs. "don't win", it is "maybe win with the option" vs. "maybe win with a normal offense". If you start from the premise that the option is the only way to win then certainly it becomes the most attractive option.

I hope there's no confusion, since I think we're on the same page here....

[Acymetric]

I hope there's no confusion, since I think we're on the same page here...

Failure of reading comprehension...we are indeed on the same page.

[paris95]

I hope there's no confusion, since I think we're on the same page here...

Yeah, I think we're all in violent agreement that we'd like to see a winning team with an exciting offense but that there are multiple ways to get to that "winning team" part, and each of those paths has a lot of uncertainty given our current state and restrictions.

[CameronBornAndBred]

How about Deion Sanders? He did ok this year.

https://www.espn.com/college-footbal...-freshman-year

By the way, while mostly in jest...recruiting and ticket sales would both be greatly increased, at least in year one, so there's that.

[PDDuke85]

This waiting for the hiring of a new head football coach has me giddy, like a child on Christmas Eve. To that,
Happy Hanukkah to our Jewish friends.

Back to the discussion

[53n206]

I think they are both fine arguments that go hand in hand together. I would rather win with an exciting offense than the triple option (a perfectly fine and, it seems, reasonably common preference), and I happen to not think the triple option gives us a better chance to win anyway.

In it's heyday the OU triple option was as exciting to watch as any passing offense we see today. 1: OU had superior players, suited to that style. 2: Players , especially QBs saw that the professional league preferred passers, and fast backs saw their pro future as receivers. 3: Really fast d-backs could stop even good triple option teams (think Fla State vs OU). Thus the triple option went away, except for the academies.
We, Duke, are now at the academy level. We can recruit QBs and backs to run the system well. Our academic prowess will appeal to many gifted athletes who may be a little small for the NFL, but who have the speed and intelligence to be effective in the triple option. When the option is run properly it is a thing of beauty. And is incredibly exciting.

[Acymetric]

Maybe the option raises our floor (I don't agree), but it definitely limits our ceiling. I don't think we come within spitting distance of knocking off Johnny Football running the triple option. OU was exciting, sure I can believe that, and they had superior players, but I thought the premise here was to overcome Duke's lack of superior players.

[Acymetric]

ESPN+ article mentioning some possible candidates for the Duke job: https://www.espn.com/college-footbal...avid-cutcliffe

What is the policy regarding quoting from paywalled articles? Most of the names have been heavily discussed here, but there are a few we haven't talked about much.

Coaches mentioned are Tony Elliot (Clemson OC), Marcus Freeman (Notre Dame DC), Jim Knowles (OKST DC), Jeff Monken (Army), Mike Houston (ECU), Greg Roman (Ravens OC), George Edwards (Cowboys defensive assistant), Bob Surace (Princeton).

[camion]

Not in its current iteration. Might have some option-style looks, but Sam Hartman averaged 35 pass attempts per game this season.
During Paul Johnson's last season at Ga Tech (2018), the Jackets averaged 9 attempts per game. That, I simply will not volunteer nearly 4 hours of a Saturday to watch.

Though it may not be "the" option offense it seems that Wake's offense has a lot of option plays and reads built into it's Pro-based offense.

"Now, Clawson says half of their passing plays start out as runs which makes it easier for the offensive line."