PDA

View Full Version : spread offense vs .......



Spider
09-21-2008, 09:18 AM
got a good thread going on , on a different board about the spread offense .....
got some good info going on .....
what do you guys think ?

elsid13
09-21-2008, 09:44 AM
Spider you need to add to the thread.

The questions folks -

1. Do you see the spread working it way into the NFL as viable option as base offense for some team like Denver?

2. Does the spread offense in college hurt the ability of NFL teams to find good runners and QB in pro style attack?

Spider
09-21-2008, 09:46 AM
Spider you need to add to the thread.

The questions folks -

1. Do you see the spread working it way into the NFL as viable option as base offense for some team like Denver?

2. Does the spread offense in college hurt the ability of NFL teams to find good runners and QB in pro style attack?

;D I knew someone would be along to do it , I just wanted to see the direction it would go ......

Dean
09-21-2008, 09:47 AM
got a good thread going on , on a different board about the spread offense .....
got some good info going on .....
what do you guys think ?


Spider, I assume that you are talking about OrangeMane. Leave a URL so it is easier to find.

Spider
09-21-2008, 09:54 AM
Spider, I assume that you are talking about OrangeMane. Leave a URL so it is easier to find.

if i wanted the omane posters opinion I wouldnt have brought it up here ......

MOtorboat
09-21-2008, 10:08 AM
1. Do you see the spread working its way into the NFL as a viable option as a base offense for some teams like Denver?

Interesting question. I think it can to a degree. The reason that the option run, and subsequently the spread-option, doesn't work in the NFL is the quickness of the defensive ends and outside linebackers. I don't see that changing. If you look at the speed in the SEC and then compare that to when Urban Meyer brought the spread offense to Florida, I think you could see he couldn't compete with the speed at linebacker (and just about every linebacker on those top SEC teams can play at the next level). He still has to line it up and punch people in the mouth at times.

Also, I think in the spread formation at the college level, you can hide lacking fundamentals a bit, and that's where the translation doesn't convert from college to the pros. That goes for offensive lineman, quarterbacks and running backs in the spread.

We'll see guys like Tim Tebow and Terrell Pryor in the NFL possibly as soon as next year, and of course Vince Young, a spread-option quarterback in college, is already in the NFL. He's already won some games and got that team to a playoff berth, but eventually teams will learn to beat a quarterback who can't throw the ball more than 30 yards downfield, and can't get past his second read. Tebow has the arm, but he has to learn to read a defense.

The best viable way to run the spread in the pros is by passing out of it, and giving your quarterback more options. Its too hard to run out of for it to be a base set, but rushing totals were down last year, and might be down again this year, and that might be part of a transition league-wide.

So...I guess to end the rant on question one...as a "base" probably not, but there will be lots of teams using spread formations and being successful. But, sometimes, you have to line it up and smack someone in the mouth. The run-and-shoot (a similar offense) had that exact problem.

2. Does the spread offense in college hurt the ability of NFL teams to find good runners and QB in pro style attack?

Yes. Its definitely going to hurt players entering the NFL who aren't in pro-style offenses, as far as offensive lineman, quarterbacks and running backs. I do think NFL teams have to take that into consideration when drafting those positions. Because of how quickly that ball comes out, there's a lack of having to have perfect fundamentals on the offensive line, and I definitely think that will be a factor in a few years.

There is going to be a quarterback who becomes a huge star in the NFL after running a spread-option offense in college. Maybe its Pryor, maybe Tebow, maybe VY turns it around...we'll just have to see. But, for the most part, the top-tier NFL quarterbacks will run a pro-style offense in college as well. A guy to keep an eye on, that runs a spread offense in college: Graham Harrell, Texas Tech. I can see you rolling your eyes from here..."ugh, a Texas Tech quarterback?" Yes...because he's the first to come through with an NFL arm and the size of an NFL quarterback. But, then again their spread is different than Florida's spread by a million miles.

Definitely an interesting questions, though.

Spider
09-21-2008, 10:20 AM
1. Do you see the spread working its way into the NFL as a viable option as a base offense for some teams like Denver?

Interesting question. I think it can to a degree. The reason that the option run, and subsequently the spread-option, doesn't work in the NFL is the quickness of the defensive ends and outside linebackers. I don't see that changing. If you look at the speed in the SEC and then compare that to when Urban Meyer brought the spread offense to Florida, I think you could see he couldn't compete with the speed at linebacker (and just about every linebacker on those top SEC teams can play at the next level). He still has to line it up and punch people in the mouth at times.

Also, I think in the spread formation at the college level, you can hide lacking fundamentals a bit, and that's where the translation doesn't convert from college to the pros. That goes for offensive lineman, quarterbacks and running backs in the spread.

We'll see guys like Tim Tebow and Terrell Pryor in the NFL possibly as soon as next year, and of course Vince Young, a spread-option quarterback in college, is already in the NFL. He's already won some games and got that team to a playoff berth, but eventually teams will learn to beat a quarterback who can't throw the ball more than 30 yards downfield, and can't get past his second read. Tebow has the arm, but he has to learn to read a defense.

The best viable way to run the spread in the pros is by passing out of it, and giving your quarterback more options. Its too hard to run out of for it to be a base set, but rushing totals were down last year, and might be down again this year, and that might be part of a transition league-wide.

So...I guess to end the rant on question one...as a "base" probably not, but there will be lots of teams using spread formations and being successful. But, sometimes, you have to line it up and smack someone in the mouth. The run-and-shoot (a similar offense) had that exact problem.

2. Does the spread offense in college hurt the ability of NFL teams to find good runners and QB in pro style attack?

Yes. Its definitely going to hurt players entering the NFL who aren't in pro-style offenses, as far as offensive lineman, quarterbacks and running backs. I do think NFL teams have to take that into consideration when drafting those positions. Because of how quickly that ball comes out, there's a lack of having to have perfect fundamentals on the offensive line, and I definitely think that will be a factor in a few years.

There is going to be a quarterback who becomes a huge star in the NFL after running a spread-option offense in college. Maybe its Pryor, maybe Tebow, maybe VY turns it around...we'll just have to see. But, for the most part, the top-tier NFL quarterbacks will run a pro-style offense in college as well. A guy to keep an eye on, that runs a spread offense in college: Graham Harrell, Texas Tech. I can see you rolling your eyes from here..."ugh, a Texas Tech quarterback?" Yes...because he's the first to come through with an NFL arm and the size of an NFL quarterback. But, then again their spread is different than Florida's spread by a million miles.

Definitely an interesting questions, though.

wow , a lot of info to digest ..... but it all boils down to the T.E. position , as in any offensive Scheme you want to run ,The T.E. has to be able to dominate the hashmarks , from the LOS on down past 10 yards .......

elsid13
09-21-2008, 10:34 AM
I actually believe the spread is really going to hurt NFL teams when comes to the running back position. As the college are going to smaller slasher then the guys that can grind it out

Spider
09-21-2008, 10:36 AM
I actually believe the spread is really going to hurt NFL teams when comes to the running back position. As the college are going to smaller slasher then the guys that can grind it out
that could be .

Tned
09-21-2008, 01:48 PM
It seems like with most offensive schemes in the NFL, it comes down to matchups. If a team has a good o-line that can block straight up, without TE/RB help, then it has the option to start spreading things out.

So, the first thing I would say is that if a team's O-line isn't good enough to maintain a pocket, then there is no way that a spread offense can be the base scheme.

So, once you get past that, I think you have to look at matchups. If you are playing a team that generates great pressure with their front four, and also excels in coverage (very good nickel and dime backs) and coverage LB's, then much of the advantage of spreading things out would get you go away, if your receivers are covered and you can't protect your QB. So, matchups are key.

I think it is far more beneficial as a tool in the playbook, then a base formation. First, few teams have enough talent on offense (an RB that can run without a FB or TE leading the way), a QB with a quick release, receiving threats that are real threats, and will draw real coverage, so that the defense doesn't just blitz the QB.

I kind of rambled all over the place with my answer, but I don't see it as an offense that will become pervasive throughout the NFL, in the same way the WCO became pervasive, because many teams simply don't have the personell to spread things out and still be productive.

MOtorboat
09-21-2008, 02:00 PM
It seems like with most offensive schemes in the NFL, it comes down to matchups. If a team has a good o-line that can block straight up, without TE/RB help, then it has the option to start spreading things out.

So, the first thing I would say is that if a team's O-line isn't good enough to maintain a pocket, then there is no way that a spread offense can be the base scheme.

So, once you get past that, I think you have to look at matchups. If you are playing a team that generates great pressure with their front four, and also excels in coverage (very good nickel and dime backs) and coverage LB's, then much of the advantage of spreading things out would get you go away, if your receivers are covered and you can't protect your QB. So, matchups are key.

I think it is far more beneficial as a tool in the playbook, then a base formation. First, few teams have enough talent on offense (an RB that can run without a FB or TE leading the way), a QB with a quick release, receiving threats that are real threats, and will draw real coverage, so that the defense doesn't just blitz the QB.

I kind of rambled all over the place with my answer, but I don't see it as an offense that will become pervasive throughout the NFL, in the same way the WCO became pervasive, because many teams simply don't have the personell to spread things out and still be productive.

Defenses are just too fast, too. You may even feel like you have matchups, but if you take the zone-read type plays from college and put them to principle with even the low-end of starting linebackers in this league, it's not going to work. The Pass spread is a little different, but I definitely agree that it won't ever be successful as a team's base offense.

If you look at the run and shoot...they still could run the ball, and ran from under center...but they still never made it that far in the playoffs, because once you get there you have to have a way to grind things out, and the spread formation doesn't do that.

If you take a look at a team like Missouri, they struggle to run the clock out and make themselves vulnerable to high-scoring shootouts and comebacks. And all Gary Pinkel would have to do is to lineup in the eye and punch 'em in the mouth at the end of games, and you wouldn't see Illinois make a huge comeback on 'em. He simply refuses to put that in the playbook, because, "that's not part of the system.' It has cost him games.

I think it is examples like that why you'll never see wide-spread use of it in the NFL.