It has never been tried as a standard offense, though the formation has popped up on rare occasions. Bill Walsh ran it during the strike year, but that was scab players, not pros, and so it made sense under those conditions.
In the NFL the speed of the defenses neutralizes the potential for mismatches, and the option hangs out the QB to dry too much.
I was watching the Cleveland/KC game this afternoon. One of the commentators noted that you don’t see a pitchout type thing from the quarterback to a running back because of the speed of defensive llinebackers these days. They’re beasts.
I remember the 49ers running the wishbone against the Giants on a Monday night game during the strike. Bill Parcells was laughing his ass off when he saw it, while Bill Walsh gave Parcells a shrug that said, “What the hell, we have to try SOMETHING, don’t we?”
The trouble with the wishbone is that the quarterback gets hit, and usually hit hard, on every play. The linebackers are speedy and they aim to take the QB out. Exposing the QB to that too much is a needless risk.
Back in 1971 when the NY Giants were trading away QB Fran Tarkenton, Howard Cosell said Kansas City Chiefs coach Hank Stram was intrigued with the idea of getting Tarkenton and running the wishbone about 6 times a game. Tarkenton went to the Minnesota Vikings and lost three Super Bowls without using the wishbone.
I think the QB risk is the biggest factor. Remember, in college, you’re going to lose your QB in one or two years anyway, so it’s not such a long-term problem if he gets ground into a fine paste, and because you’ve only got a couple years worth of kids to choose from (and the one you choose only has a year or two of experience), your college QB isn’t as good at passing as a pro QB, so losing him hurts less in the short-term, as well.
The speed of defenders in the NFL may factor in, but NFL teams do run other plays that require the QB to choose an option based on defender’s movements (for instance there are run-pass options where the QB motions the ball to a running back, then decides whether to pull it back; and nearly every pass play requires the QB to choose an option based on the defence’s actions). But, option-action or not, NFL teams run almost no plays that include the QB running the ball (other than QB sneaks where collisions are much lower speed).
Finally, NFL teams do run plays where the primary ball-handler has options, one of which is keeping the ball and running, but these are always run in special personnel packages (often called some variant of ‘Wildcat’) where the passing QB isn’t the primary ball handler.
I remember seeing an option play near the goalline once a few years ago, but I’ll be darned if I can remember the circumstances. It may have been Vick in Atlanta 4 or 5 years ago. You do see the full house formation at times, but I haven’t seen anyone run an option play out of that.
Jimmy Johnson ran it with the Cowboys against the Giants… Troy Aikman said that Carl Banks hit him so hard that Banks told him why is your coach running this dumbass play…
The Bears flirted with it with Vince Evans years ago… its not something that can work long term in the League…
Not even Barry Switzer was crazy enough to try it. A good defensive end can shed the tight end and make the QB pitch it. Then the linebackers move in for the kill and a 5 yard loss.
And that’s part of the reason it’s not going to catch on even with Wildcat formations, IMHO: there’s no advantage in having your running backs constantly hit on plays where they don’t carry the ball. They get hit enough on plays where they are carrying it. There just aren’t enough good running backs in the league to allow your guys to take unnecessary hits.
Actually, there is an advantage to having your running back hit when he doesn’t have the ball: it’s one less defender for the guy who does have the ball to worry about.