Find a Way to
Run the Option
I t is indeed an honor to be able to share
with you some thoughts and ideas from
our philosophy on option football at Furman
University. Everything we implement at
Furman on offense has come from the
combination of philosophies from former
head coaches; Art Baker, Dick Sheridan,
Jimmy Satterfield, Bobby Johnson and cur-
rent head coach, Bobby Lamb. These men
have developed an offensive system com-
bined with a tough defensive mentality that
has enabled us to win an average of 8.2
games per season since 1978 as well as a
national championship (1988), two appear-
ances in the finals (1985 and 2001), 11
Southern Conference championships and
11 playoff appearances. Along the way we
have been blessed to have players with
tremendous ability and outstanding charac-
ter and intelligence who have believed in
our system and worked very hard to exe-
cute it in practice and on game day. The
combination of a consistent system, stabil-
ity in our coaching staff, and top-notch
players has brought a winning tradition to
the Furman University football program.
The purpose of this article is to share the
way in which option football has played a
Tim Sorrells part in that success.
We have always believed that an option
Offensive Coordinator package is a great equalizer for an offen-
sive team that may not be as talented as
Furman University the defensive unit they are facing; the
option can also help to compensate for the
Greenville, S.C. lack of “difference-makers” in key offensive
positions. We are convinced a team does
not have to have a great running quarter-
back, a dominating offensive line, gifted
runningbacks and outstanding receivers to
successfully run option football. However,
we still acknowledge that skill at those posi-
tions helps tremendously! Our foundational
principle is that we will find a way to run the
option so that our opponent must prepare
for it. We have all spent too much of our
game-planning time asking the question,
“What if they do that?” We believe the
option package causes defensive coaches
to ask that question more and demands
more discipline and time in the opponents’
practice schedule than they would prefer. It
is also a great pressure reducer for us
offensively in that it can be an excellent
“blitz-buster.” We maintain that great blitz-
ing defenses are slowed down somewhat
when the option has to be a part of every
game plan. For the times when our players
are better than most of our opponents,
most schemes will work. However, when all
• AFCA Summer Manual — 2002 •
things are equal, or maybe even tipped in
our opponent’s favor, the option package
can make the difference.
As offenses have evolved over the
years, the definition of option football has
changed as well. Our description of options
at Furman have been altered by many fac-
tors. When I first came to Furman as a
player in the late 1970s, options were
defined here as the triple from an I forma-
tion versus a shade 50 defense and an
occasional counter option from the same
formation. As defenses became more mul-
tiple, we adapted by implementing the belly
G/Zone series, midline read, midline trap,
counter trap and lead option. All of these
schemes were used from a basic I forma-
tion. As we have evolved offensively and
felt the need to add more balance in our
passing game, we faced the age-old dilem-
ma of having too much in our total pack-
age. Consequently, we have concentrated
on more double option schemes than triple
since the triple takes up more practice time
to execute. We have also added a basic
lead option scheme from a one-back set as
well to give us option capabilities from our
predominantly pass-oriented sets.
As we game plan against the defenses
we face each week, we have to answer the
question of how to incorporate our option
package versus the looks we are facing. In
implementing our plan, we make the
assumption, like most option teams, that
our players can make adjustments and
communicate with each other at the line of
scrimmage. In finding a way to run the
option, it is critical that a quarterback can
keep his team in the right play and that the
offensive line can process information
quickly. We have been fortunate to have
had intelligent players capable of assimilat-
ing a great deal of information which, in
turn, has allowed us to execute many dif-
ferent schemes against a variety of defen-
sive schemes. Therefore, the balance of
this article will deal with some of the differ-
ent types of option schemes we like to run
versus the defensive alignments we prefer
to run them against.
Triple
Even though we do not run the triple
option as much now as in previous years,
our option package at Furman began with
the triple and so I will begin with it too. If we
face a defensive team that gives us a
shade nose guard and a five technique on
the nub side, we like to triple. Our scheme
may vary depending on the ability of our
center to block the nose guard or our effec-
tiveness in capturing the playside line-
backer. If the center can reach the nose
guard by himself, we could call a G veer
scheme. (Diagram 1) If the center needs
help on the nose guard, we could call a
seal veer scheme. (Diagram 2) The seal
scheme can only be executed if the play-
side tackle can capture the playside line-
backer. If the five technique slants inside,
the playside tackle should carry him down,
and the fullback should slide outside to cut
the playside linebacker. On both schemes,
the quarterback will read the five technique
and pitch off the underneath outside
defender (UOD). The execution of these
schemes takes considerable practice time
which has led us to steer away from it.
However, the lure of the triple may bring us
back to it in the future.
Diagram 1: G Veer
Diagram 2: Seal Veer
Belly G/Zone
The belly G and belly zone schemes
give us two different double option
schemes that we believe can put us on the
corner quickly and really stretch defenses.
They also have been a great response to
blitzing schemes when no other runs have
worked. The G scheme can be run to a
tight end or nub side against a variety of
defensive fronts, but we have liked it best
when run to a tight end versus the 4-3.
(Diagram 3) The key to the play for us has
been to capture/seal the middle linebacker.
The tight end must get a good rip inside
and up field to seal the middle linebacker.
The playside guard must get us around the
edge by cutting the nine technique or wrap-
ping around to help on the middle line-
backer. The fullback will make a token fake
and work around to block the strong safety
or if we add a “crack” call, he kicks out the
corner, and the Z cracks the strong safety.
The quarterback will reverse out, token
fake the belly to the fullback and pitch off
the Sam linebacker. Our nub side G has
been best from twins pro-set (Diagram 4)
when we see a two-deep shell coverage.
The frontside guard now has a tighter
G/wrap, and the frontside tackle will seal
inside. The fullback will now be responsible
for the playside linebacker, and the
frontside receivers block the strong safety
and corner. The belly zone option has been
our best option when we face eight man
fronts and outside blitzes. This option has
also been best toward a tight end (Diagram
5). The zone option requires that the tight
end and frontside tackle work together to
reach/seal the rush end (six or seven tech-
nique) and the playside Sam linebacker.
The center and frontside guard will
reach/seal the three technique and back-
side linebacker. The fullback will token fake
and work around to cut the linebacker level
to the free safety. The quarterback and tail-
back pitch relationship stays constant in all
G/zone options.
Diagram 3: TE Belly G
Diagram 4: Nub Belly G
Diagram 5: Belly Zone
• AFCA Summer Manual — 2002 •
Midline Trap
As we began to see a slant 50 defense,
that created some unique challenges to
options. Our focus turned to a midline trap
option. Our guards were already adept at
pulling and sealing or wrapping on a line-
backer in our belly G series, so the midline
trap scheme was a fairly easy transition for
them. If we face a slant Y (Diagram 6) then
the frontside tackle will seal the playside
Sam linebacker and the frontside guard
and center will double team the nose guard
to back middle linebacker. The backside
tackle will funnel and hinge to prevent any
quick penetration. The tight end will arc and
kick contain. The quarterback will drop step
with his backside foot, pull his shoulders
back and step deep to mesh with the full-
back, fake and pitch off of the end. Our full-
back will pause to allow the guard to clear
and stay on a center midline through the
ball and slide playside to cut the first
defender he sees. If we face a slant X
(Diagram 7) then all the paths stay the
same and the frontside tackle must stop
penetration, and the back guard will wrap
to the Sam linebacker. We will hope to get
the pitch to the tailback and get him down
hill in the alley off the tight end’s block.
Diagram 6: Midline Trap vs. Slant Y
Diagram 7: Midline Trap vs. Slant X
Lead Option
If we are facing a weak eagle defense,
our thinking turns to a lead option scheme
to the nub side (Diagram 8). The frontside
tackle has the key block in that he must cut
or seal the playside linebacker and give the
guard slight help on the three technique.
The center will step playside and up to the
back linebacker, and our backside will cut
off. The fullback will widen and kick out
contain, and the X receiver will block the
deepest threat. The quarterback and tail-
back will pause to allow the fullback to
clear, and the pitch will be off of the right
end. This nub side scheme has also been
effective against a slant Y 50 and toward
the tight end against a slant X 50.
Diagram 8: Lead Option

Conclusion
Option football has always been an inte-
gral part of our offensive philosophy at
Furman. I have shared with you a limited
number of ways we try to attack opponents
and give different threats that opposing
defenses must concern themselves with in
preparing to play us. Our players under-
stand that options give them chances to
make big plays and advantages other
schemes may not afford them. As we eval-
uate our schemes year after year and look
at the risks and rewards of option football,
Furman averaged 218 yards per game on the ground in 2001 and rushed for
35 touchdowns. Runningback Louis Ivory (34) won the Walter Payton Award as
I-AA’s player of the year in 2000 and rushed for 5,871 yards in his career.
it has continued to remain clear that we have helped us grow through the years and
must “find a way to run the option.” It is my we certainly would love the opportunity to
hope that this article has assisted you in share ideas with many of you who we have
some way as you continue to develop your not met and could help us all the more. You
offensive philosophies. The offensive staff are welcome at Furman, so give us a call
at Furman have so many to thank who and let’s get together.

Caution Your Team

About Player Agents
A problem for all coaches is the proliferation of agents and would-be agents who seek
to make agreements with players prior to the completion of their eligibility. The activ-
ity of these people has increased, and it is imperative that all of the consequences of
making an agreement with an agent are known by your players.

Contact with players by agents almost always is done without the knowledge of the
coach. Some agents openly admit they will continue to make contacts and agree-
ments with players before their final season has been completed.

This could lead to forfeiture of games. Some agents are advising players not to risk
injury by playing. Your players must be warned about this problem. Do it more than
once.

• AFCA Summer Manual — 2002 •