You cannot reliably win enough in today's game against top competition playing Johnson's game. Aside from the fact that great great physicality and athleticism beats this execution reliant offense, there is sound logic that tells us why people abandoned this archaic offense.
1) You have to play perfectly (no holding or chop blocks or fumbles at all) and if you do, you'll be difficult to defeat BUT if you don't, you will not consistently defeat elite teams that have greater room for error, more paths to victory, and greater variation toleration and can hedge better against bad luck.
2) If you get down in the game, coming back is so difficult. A team that can throw the ball has more paths to victory. If you're running this option, your path to victory is to play well throughout and play with the lead. There is NO stealing games (in which you do nothing most of the game but get hot for a quarter) with this offense and hence, fewer paths to victory. Why limit your paths to victory? This offense doesn't allow for much adversity, bad luck, etc. An offense that can throw the ball can hedge against bad luck better.
3) It is very difficult to run a two minute offense with this offense. At the end of the first half, ND didn't worry at all about throwing incomplete passes and having to punt back to GT with about a minute left on the clock because GT cannot throw it. ND could be very aggressive with the ball without fear of stopping he clock and having to punt. GT's inability to throw took pressure off of ND in that situation at the end of the half; sure, Jones fumbled in that situation but that was a player error and had nothing to do with system. As for the end of the game, ND played an ultra cushion defense that didn't mean anything.
TL;DR: The triple option is great if you play perfectly but not so much if you don't. You want an offense that hedges against as much bad luck/mistakes as possible and the triple option is not that offense.
1) You have to play perfectly (no holding or chop blocks or fumbles at all) and if you do, you'll be difficult to defeat BUT if you don't, you will not consistently defeat elite teams that have greater room for error, more paths to victory, and greater variation toleration and can hedge better against bad luck.
2) If you get down in the game, coming back is so difficult. A team that can throw the ball has more paths to victory. If you're running this option, your path to victory is to play well throughout and play with the lead. There is NO stealing games (in which you do nothing most of the game but get hot for a quarter) with this offense and hence, fewer paths to victory. Why limit your paths to victory? This offense doesn't allow for much adversity, bad luck, etc. An offense that can throw the ball can hedge against bad luck better.
3) It is very difficult to run a two minute offense with this offense. At the end of the first half, ND didn't worry at all about throwing incomplete passes and having to punt back to GT with about a minute left on the clock because GT cannot throw it. ND could be very aggressive with the ball without fear of stopping he clock and having to punt. GT's inability to throw took pressure off of ND in that situation at the end of the half; sure, Jones fumbled in that situation but that was a player error and had nothing to do with system. As for the end of the game, ND played an ultra cushion defense that didn't mean anything.
TL;DR: The triple option is great if you play perfectly but not so much if you don't. You want an offense that hedges against as much bad luck/mistakes as possible and the triple option is not that offense.
