PDA

View Full Version : Spread Option a viable offense?



CrazyHorse
11-07-2011, 04:59 PM
OAKLAND, Calif. — Football on Sundays has become an aerial show. Knowing that Tim Tebow is not a conventional Sunday quarterback, the Broncos' coaching staff came up with an innovative idea against the Oakland Raiders: They brought football back to Saturdays.

Using a read-option running attack that hasn't been seen in the NFL since . . . since . . . since when? Since before helmets had face masks? Anyway, the Broncos defeated the Oakland Raiders 38-24 at O.co Coliseum on Sunday in an AFC West game that was widely characterized as an upset.

Rest of article http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_19278169?source=rss

From what we saw yesterday it CAN be effective at the NFL level. I'm not sure it's worth building around but I think it's something that should continue to be used even if sparingly to catch defenses off guard.

MOtorboat
11-07-2011, 05:06 PM
Two reasons it worked yesterday. One because Tebow completed that touchdown pass early and second because the Oakland defensive ends were selling out the dives to McGahee which was set up by his fantastic runs.

It will work, but not as the primary base of an offense. You have to have a lot of other stuff clicking.

broncohead
11-07-2011, 05:11 PM
Another reason is because moss was the DE

Cugel
11-07-2011, 05:13 PM
Rest of article http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_19278169?source=rss

From what we saw yesterday it CAN be effective at the NFL level. I'm not sure it's worth building around but I think it's something that should continue to be used even if sparingly to catch defenses of guard.

Sure you can win a few games with that offense. But, NFL defenses can easily adapt to stop it, which is WHY the option hasn't been used much in the NFL for about 35 years. :ranger:

How many shots do you think Tebow can take and still keep getting up? He's taking a pounding every game. Well, he's a tough guy, and he's holding up -- for now.

But, project that into the future. How many seasons will the guy last if he's taking hits like a RB? The toughest RBs normally don't last more than about 5 years in the NFL.

And they don't pay them $9-$15 million a year either. :rolleyes:

slim
11-07-2011, 05:15 PM
Two reasons it worked yesterday. One because Tebow completed that touchdown pass early and second because the Oakland defensive ends were selling out the dives to McGahee which was set up by his fantastic runs.

It will work, but not as the primary base of an offense. You have to have a lot of other stuff clicking.

It they would throw from that formation they would kill.

I hope they add more than a few of those to next weeks game plan.

Lancane
11-07-2011, 05:18 PM
Rest of article http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_19278169?source=rss

From what we saw yesterday it CAN be effective at the NFL level. I'm not sure it's worth building around but I think it's something that should continue to be used even if sparingly to catch defenses of guard.

The Spread Option isn't viable, not at the NFL level at least. I remember that a lot of people said the Wildcat Option would eventually invade the NFL and be considered a Pro Offense, guess what happened, it flamed out. Problem is that the Spread Option requires not so much talent as deceptiveness to be successful, once a defense, especially the faster more hard hitting defenses at the professional level understand what they're facing then the offense becomes a liability for the team using it. No option offenses have been successful in the modern NFL for that very reason, they're gimmick offenses that once the flaws are discovered can not be adjusted.

Now that doesn't mean that an offense can not utilize certain aspects of that offensive system. After all, a quality offensive coordinator will take aspects of many different offenses in order to create a more dynamic offense. Wasn't that long ago that the shotgun formation was introduced to the Spread Options, look at the success of those offenses with the formation in play.

catfish
11-07-2011, 05:18 PM
wasn't the knock on the west coast offense when it first entered the league that it required too high a completion% to be effective?(too young to remember) Just saying if the spread is the next thing down the pipe the talent will adapt, all it takes is one team to prove it can work(my money is on Carolina)

Lancane
11-07-2011, 05:21 PM
wasn't the knock on the west coast offense when it first entered the league that it required too high a completion% to be effective?(too young to remember) Just saying if the spread is the next thing down the pipe the talent will adapt, all it takes is one team to prove it can work(my money is on Carolina)

Carolina's base offense is the Air-Coryell, they've added parts of the Spread Offense into their scheme, but the backbone of that offense is still a Coryell based system.

Cugel
11-07-2011, 05:21 PM
The Spread Option isn't viable, not at the NFL level at least. I remember that a lot of people said the Wildcat Option would eventually invade the NFL and be considered a Pro Offense, guess what happened, it flamed out. Problem is that the Spread Option requires not so much talent as deceptiveness to be successful, once a defense, especially the faster more hard hitting defenses at the professional level understand what they're facing then the offense becomes a liability for the team using it. No option offenses have been successful in the modern NFL for that very reason, they're gimmick offenses that once the flaws are discovered can not be adjusted.

Now that doesn't mean that an offense can not utilize certain aspects of that offensive system. After all, a quality offensive coordinator will take aspects of many different offenses in order to create a more dynamic offense. Wasn't that long ago that the shotgun formation was introduced to the Spread Options, look at the success of those offenses with the formation in play.

This is true, but it's only 1/2 the picture. I'm still going to write a thread about why the NFL went to a system designed for pocket-passing QBs.

But, the other half of the equation is that you're paying an NFL franchise QB WAY too much money to let him run around much.

In the NFL there is ONE rule: Troy Polomalu and Ray Lewis are bigger and faster and they hit harder than you. Stay away from guys like that and your career will last longer. :ranger:

Cugel
11-07-2011, 05:26 PM
wasn't the knock on the west coast offense when it first entered the league that it required too high a completion% to be effective?(too young to remember) Just saying if the spread is the next thing down the pipe the talent will adapt, all it takes is one team to prove it can work(my money is on Carolina)

The West Coast system did have some problems when it was first introduced into a run-first league. But, then the NFL changed the rules to favor passing.

Step 1: Can't touch the WR after 5 yards rule.

Step 2: Defenses react by trying to hit the QB on every play to prevent him passing for 300 yards a game.

Step 3: NFL owners got together and realized that QBs were getting hit too much and hurt too much and teams were paying these guys too much money to let a LB earning $500,000 a year blow up your $10 million QB and put him out for a month.

It's bad for the League, it's bad for the fans, it bad for the owners' pocket books.

Step 4: The NFL cracked down on hitting the QB in the pocket. Now you can't even give the QB a dirty look without it being a 15 yard penalty and maybe a league fine.

Step 5: This season several NFL QBs could possibly throw for close to 500 yards a game. In the future, 400 yards a game will be the average standard you want your QB to achieve, and 500 yards will be the "gold standard" for an elite QB.

For that very reason, the spread offense will NEVER be the rule because it requires your QB to run too much. And if he runs he's going to get hit. And the more he's hit the more he's hurt and soon he'll be so slowed by injuries he'll be out of the league.

And you're paying him vastly too much money to allow that.

catfish
11-07-2011, 05:29 PM
The Spread Option isn't viable, not at the NFL level at least. I remember that a lot of people said the Wildcat Option would eventually invade the NFL and be considered a Pro Offense, guess what happened, it flamed out. Problem is that the Spread Option requires not so much talent as deceptiveness to be successful, once a defense, especially the faster more hard hitting defenses at the professional level understand what they're facing then the offense becomes a liability for the team using it. No option offenses have been successful in the modern NFL for that very reason, they're gimmick offenses that once the flaws are discovered can not be adjusted.

Now that doesn't mean that an offense can not utilize certain aspects of that offensive system. After all, a quality offensive coordinator will take aspects of many different offenses in order to create a more dynamic offense. Wasn't that long ago that the shotgun formation was introduced to the Spread Options, look at the success of those offenses with the formation in play.

I disagree, I think a modified spread option isolates the defense and allows you to pick on the mismatch as well as giving you an extra player on the field by requiring a qb spy. (This whole thread is a mirror of the one whn Urban Meyer came to the SEC, just replace NFL with SEC)

wayninja
11-07-2011, 05:30 PM
Meh, just like statistics, people get too caught up by labels.

The bottom line is that any offense can be viable and work as long as it is executed well and you keep the other team guessing. If you can pull those two things off, you will do fine on offense.

CrazyHorse
11-07-2011, 05:33 PM
Sure you can win a few games with that offense. But, NFL defenses can easily adapt to stop it, which is WHY the option hasn't been used much in the NFL for about 35 years. :ranger:

How many shots do you think Tebow can take and still keep getting up? He's taking a pounding every game. Well, he's a tough guy, and he's holding up -- for now.

But, project that into the future. How many seasons will the guy last if he's taking hits like a RB? The toughest RBs normally don't last more than about 5 years in the NFL.

And they don't pay them $9-$15 million a year either. :rolleyes:

That's actually my biggest concern. Tebow took a massive beating out there. You can't have that and expect a quarterback to last. Just look at Vick. He's never completed a full season. Then again you could also make the argument that Tebow took just as much of a beating the last two weeks while trying to remain in the pocket.

I'd rather have my quarterback get hit by safeties and corners over linemen. Of course there isn't any rule to protect a quarterback running as there is when they are in the pocket. As long as he learns to take what's given rather than taking defenders head on and can become a more consistent passer I think he'll be pretty effective.

catfish
11-07-2011, 05:36 PM
The West Coast system did have some problems when it was first introduced into a run-first league. But, then the NFL changed the rules to favor passing.

Step 1: Can't touch the WR after 5 yards rule.

Step 2: Defenses react by trying to hit the QB on every play to prevent him passing for 300 yards a game.

Step 3: NFL owners got together and realized that QBs were getting hit too much and hurt too much and teams were paying these guys too much money to let a LB earning $500,000 a year blow up your $10 million QB and put him out for a month.

It's bad for the League, it's bad for the fans, it bad for the owners' pocket books.

Step 4: The NFL cracked down on hitting the QB in the pocket. Now you can't even give the QB a dirty look without it being a 15 yard penalty and maybe a league fine.

Step 5: This season several NFL QBs could possibly throw for close to 500 yards a game. In the future, 400 yards a game will be the average standard you want your QB to achieve, and 500 yards will be the "gold standard" for an elite QB.

For that very reason, the spread offense will NEVER be the rule because it requires your QB to run too much. And if he runs he's going to get hit. And the more he's hit the more he's hurt and soon he'll be so slowed by injuries he'll be out of the league.

And you're paying him vastly too much money to allow that.

I actually agree with you, I don't think the spread option will be a BETTER option than the west coast offense until the NFL changes the rules back to put more pressure on the passing game. ( I assume the pendulum will swing back towards Defense eventually)

Lancane
11-07-2011, 06:03 PM
I actually agree with you, I don't think the spread option will be a BETTER option than the west coast offense until the NFL changes the rules back to put more pressure on the passing game. ( I assume the pendulum will swing back towards Defense eventually)

Don't count on it. I don't remember who said it, I believe it was Lou Saban who once said that "Football is to America what Gladiatorial games were to Romans. It was the fierce hitting defenses of old that popularized it with the American people, but what made it a world wide phenomenon was the introduction of the passing quarterback."

If you truly believe that the majority of NFL fans want to watch the likes of Tim Tebow or Vince Young over the likes of Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady, then your sadly mistaken. The NFL favors what makes money and no one makes more for the league then the quarterbacks, from jersey sales to toys, the most popular players in the league has been and will remain the quarterbacks, particularly those who are as we would say elite.

G_Money
11-07-2011, 06:17 PM
I agree with you, Cugel, for the most part.

One of the reasons for QB longevity is that the rules have been changed to keep them upright. Leave the pocket, especially when looking to advance the ball, and the rules stop favoring you.

That hasn’t stopped Carson Palmer and Tom Brady from suffering horrific in-pocket knee injuries, Peyton Manning needing neck fusion and Matthew Stafford from self-destructing at the first hint of pocket pressure.

There’s a thought that the way you keep people from being injured when they get hit is by hitting them enough for them to be used to it. Wouldn’t help with the knee injuries, obviously, but there’s a line to walk between wrapping the QB in bubble wrap and letting him act as your fullback.

Portions of the spread option included in the offensive game plan could be a nightmare for opposing defenses if run by the right offensive personnel. Part of it is that it can be damn hard to stop with a Tebow-type running it, and part is that it just isn’t seen much.

When the Broncos were one of just a couple max-ZBS teams, others hated preparing for the cutblocks, and even though the trend in the league was “bigger, stronger lines on both sides of the ball” our little line crushed the Green Bay massive one. They didn’t see nearly as much of that from other teams, and our guys were the best at performing it.

As more teams went ZBS, fewer bargains were there in the overlooked players needed to run an effective full-time ZBS system and teams saw it often enough that it wasn't scary-new…but there will come a time when the ZBS falls back out of favor and the few teams that do run it have perfect personnel to do so because no one else wants them for their schemes.

Nobody in a “traditional” offense wants Tebow. If we’re going to use Tebow, then certainly at first and for parts of his entire career he’ll have to be used non-traditionally. That’s not to say he can’t win that way – he’ll be hard to prepare for, especially if we get an offense based around his skillset rolling.

And we’ll have our choice of backup QB, as well, because nobody else is really using that offense at this point.

But if Tebow succeeds, and Newton succeeds (and they incorporate more of his skills in their ongoing offense) and somebody like RGIII comes out and succeeds in a run/throw hybrid offense…

Then you’re going to see a lot of articles on a new style of quarterbacking.

IMO, the NFL has managed to slow the progression of offenses by changing the QB rules to maintain the high-percentage West Coast passing ideals that Walsh came up with because they liked how it changed the game and how visually appealing (as well as scoreboard appealing) it could be.

But I don’t think they can crystallize it in this form forever, and I do wonder if putting special athletes with incredible size and strength at QB is a next step. It depends on whether there are enough NFL-caliber athletes who can play the position, obviously, but more and more of them are showing up in the farm system…er, college football.

We’ll see if the NFL allows the game to be played that way. With defenses geared to stop pocket passers and get them on the move, having moving passers is especially important, and having ones who are dangerous in the open field is even better. One way to hurt a 3-4 defense is with a mobile QB. As 3-4 teams increase (because they’re a good way to hurt the pocket passing of Brees, Manning, Brady, etc) it makes it harder for those teams to contain a runner at the position. And even 4-3 teams aren’t used to seeing a QB run like Tebow or Newton can run.

I agree, they also have to be able to perform from the pocket… but once that criteria is satisfied, how we move forward at the position will continue to shift, IMO, both to counter defensive adjustments and because nothing stays static forever.

~G

catfish
11-07-2011, 06:21 PM
Don't count on it. I don't remember who said it, I believe it was Lou Saban who once said that "Football is to America what Gladiatorial games were to Romans. It was the fierce hitting defenses of old that popularized it with the American people, but what made it a world wide phenomenon was the introduction of the passing quarterback."

If you truly believe that the majority of NFL fans want to watch the likes of Tim Tebow or Vince Young over the likes of Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady, then your sadly mistaken. The NFL favors what makes money and no one makes more for the league then the quarterbacks, from jersey sales to toys, the most popular players in the league has been and will remain the quarterbacks, particularly those who are as we would say elite.

you are more than likely right about the game not changing.it makes me sad because I feel like the NFL is set up to only play half the game. I think it means the NFL is creating qb posterboys instead of QB heroes. would some of the Hero quarterbacks have the same legend if defenses werent allowed to cut them in half on every play like they used to. I think some of the legend is because the NFL was a MUCH more difficult place to play in the past. Just my 2 cents on that

I'm not saying Tebow/young. I was trying to answer whether the spread could be effective, not so much whether Tebow was the one to run it. How about Newton(if he stays on pace) he seems fun to watch and runs the closest offense to the spread option currently in the NFL.

TT15Superman
11-07-2011, 06:40 PM
I disagree, I think a modified spread option isolates the defense and allows you to pick on the mismatch as well as giving you an extra player on the field by requiring a qb spy. (This whole thread is a mirror of the one whn Urban Meyer came to the SEC, just replace NFL with SEC)The problem is that the spread option was pretty much neutralized when Florida played Alabama in the SEC CG of 2009. Alabama contained Tebow and made him stay in the pocket and try to beat them with his arm. Tebow was pressured, sacked, and had an INT while in the pocket (I believe; I try to block that game from memory), and his receivers were not doing him any favors. The offense never really got it going.

I would think that any DC would get a copy of Alabama's tape, Detroit's tape and design a scheme to beat Tebow.

I'm a Tebow fan, but he has to improve from the pocket. That will (1) make the zone option more effective; (2) get the media/Elway off his arse.

catfish
11-07-2011, 06:49 PM
The problem is that the spread option was pretty much neutralized when Florida played Alabama in the SEC CG of 2009. Alabama contained Tebow and made him stay in the pocket and try to beat them with his arm. Tebow was pressured, sacked, and had an INT while in the pocket (I believe; I try to block that game from memory), and his receivers were not doing him any favors. The offense never really got it going.

I would think that any DC would get a copy of Alabama's tape, Detroit's tape and design a scheme to beat Tebow.

I'm a Tebow fan, but he has to improve from the pocket. That will (1) make the zone option more effective; (2) get the media/Elway off his arse.

I agree that he need to improve, I also think Alabama was superior talent wise to Fla that year. IMO talent trumps scheme 9 times out of 10

Skacorica
11-07-2011, 07:05 PM
The problem is that the spread option was pretty much neutralized when Florida played Alabama in the SEC CG of 2009. Alabama contained Tebow and made him stay in the pocket and try to beat them with his arm. Tebow was pressured, sacked, and had an INT while in the pocket (I believe; I try to block that game from memory), and his receivers were not doing him any favors. The offense never really got it going.

I would think that any DC would get a copy of Alabama's tape, Detroit's tape and design a scheme to beat Tebow.

I'm a Tebow fan, but he has to improve from the pocket. That will (1) make the zone option more effective; (2) get the media/Elway off his arse.

I distinctly remember him having absolutely no time at all to throw during that game. The FL O line looked like a bunch of Jr High kids against college kids.

T. Tebow 20/35 for 247 1 TD/1 INT, plus 60 yards rushing on 10 carries - I wouldn't exactly call that contained, more like the rest of FL sucked, including demps dropping like 5 passes.

To be fair, I think if you collapse middle, our zone read becomes an outside option and we are SOL. You don't even need a QB spy.

Ravage!!!
11-07-2011, 07:11 PM
Running the option in the NFL, on a regular basis, is an embarrassment.

catfish
11-07-2011, 07:14 PM
Running the option in the NFL, on a regular basis, is an embarrassment.

so is the forward pass, if we are going to fight against change...real men run it up the gut 3 times in a row and let the ref sort it out

wayninja
11-07-2011, 07:16 PM
Running the option in the NFL, on a regular basis, is an embarrassment.

More or less embarrassing than losing on a regular basis?

Lancane
11-07-2011, 07:27 PM
you are more than likely right about the game not changing.it makes me sad because I feel like the NFL is set up to only play half the game. I think it means the NFL is creating qb posterboys instead of QB heroes. would some of the Hero quarterbacks have the same legend if defenses werent allowed to cut them in half on every play like they used to. I think some of the legend is because the NFL was a MUCH more difficult place to play in the past. Just my 2 cents on that

I'm not saying Tebow/young. I was trying to answer whether the spread could be effective, not so much whether Tebow was the one to run it. How about Newton(if he stays on pace) he seems fun to watch and runs the closest offense to the spread option currently in the NFL.

Of course it won't change Fish, every year they change the rules to favor the passing offenses and protect those same said quarterbacks. In fact, it's understandable if you look at Cugel's assessment of protecting their investment at the position. Out of the top ten highest players in the NFL for 2011 only four - Haloti Ngata, Elvis Dumervil, Gerald McCoy and Richard Seymour are not quarterbacks. And it would be fair to say that McCoy and Dumervil are not worth the combined 26.8 million they're receiving. Whereas Ngata and Seymour are worth the combined 26.5 million that they'll receive.

It's a shining example of the focus at the position, six of the top ten paid players are the quarterbacks the four defensive players on the list are those paid to get in the backfield and stop them.

And I wouldn't say there are no hero quarterbacks, it's just that with the era change that the aspect of the definition has undergone change regarding the position, even though we considered Denver's victory over Oakland to be a good game, if you ask the majority of football fans which games were the best the answer would be New York/New England, San Diego/Green Bay, Baltimore/Pittsburgh and New Orleans/Tampa Bay...and why? Because it showcased quarterback duels of those teams quarterbacks - that's the standard.

Denver's Super Bowl win, XXXII is still considered one of the greatest and why? Because it featured two elite quarterbacks in a duel of wills and even though neither had great statistics, the game was in a sense a shootout between their respective offenses.

In short, not only is the spread option offense hard to maintain at a successful level, but it endangers the quarterbacks for which the league relies on in many different aspects.

Lancane
11-07-2011, 07:33 PM
More or less embarrassing than losing on a regular basis?

That would depend, do you actually think that a spread option can win more then lose at this level?

Beating Oakland and Miami are one thing, beating Green Bay, New England, New York (G), New York (J), Pittsburgh, Baltimore and so on is different.

If people think a spread option would bring victory against such teams then they lying to themselves. Using the spread option would require people to be happy with just beating the weaker, more mundane teams. Which I guess is fine in our division, but I wouldn't start counting on the team to be a true contender.

catfish
11-07-2011, 07:34 PM
Of course it won't change Fish, every year they change the rules to favor the passing offenses and protect those same said quarterbacks. In fact, it's understandable if you look at Cugel's assessment of protecting their investment at the position. Out of the top ten highest players in the NFL for 2011 only four - Haloti Ngata, Elvis Dumervil, Gerald McCoy and Richard Seymour are not quarterbacks. And it would be fair to say that McCoy and Dumervil are not worth the combined 26.8 million they're receiving. Whereas Ngata and Seymour are worth the combined 26.5 million that they'll receive.

It's a shining example of the focus at the position, six of the top ten paid players are the quarterbacks the four defensive players on the list are those paid to get in the backfield and stop them.

And I wouldn't say there are no hero quarterbacks, it's just that with the era change that the aspect of the definition has undergone change regarding the position, even though we considered Denver's victory over Oakland to be a good game, if you ask the majority of football fans which games were the best the answer would be New York/New England, San Diego/Green Bay, Baltimore/Pittsburgh and New Orleans/Tampa Bay...and why? Because it showcased quarterback duels of those teams quarterbacks - that's the standard.

Denver's Super Bowl win, XXXII is still considered one of the greatest and why? Because it featured two elite quarterbacks in a duel of wills and even though neither had great statistics, the game was in a sense a shootout between their respective offenses.

In short, not only is the spread option offense hard to maintain at a successful level, but it endangers the quarterbacks for which the league relies on in many different aspects.

I will concede your point that the spread option most likely will not become popular, we may just agree to disagree on whether it could be successful

catfish
11-07-2011, 07:35 PM
That would depend, do you actually think that a spread option can win more then lose at this level?

Beating Oakland and Miami are one thing, beating Green Bay, New England, New York (G), New York (J), Pittsburgh, Baltimore and so on is different.

If people think a spread option would bring victory against such teams then they lying to themselves. Using the spread option would require people to be happy with just beating the weaker, more mundane teams. Which I guess is fine in our division, but I wouldn't start counting on the team to be a true contender.

I think if the talent levels on both teams are even, then yes a spread option can be successful, if you are asking can Denver beat Green Bay because they are using the spread option that is a whole nuther question

Rick
11-07-2011, 07:40 PM
I think it can work but ONLY if Tebow can make the defense pay when they shut the running down.

It won't be too long before defenses can be geared towards stopping an attack that no matter what SOMEONE is coming out of the back field with the ball.

He will HAVE to keep the defense honest by throwing the ball down the field and burning the defense when they leave someone wide open.

Also the only way it can be a viable offense to build around is they will HAVE to have a backup QB with a similar style.

The offense is geared towards one basic style what happens if Tebow does get hurt?

Orton or Quinn going to run that offense?

Who does THAT fool?

For now so it can be used but if they go with Tim long term and they develop that offense along with him then next year they sure as hell better be bringing in another scrambler.

catfish
11-07-2011, 07:44 PM
I think it can work but ONLY if Tebow can make the defense pay when they shut the running down.

It won't be too long before defenses can be geared towards stopping an attack that no matter what SOMEONE is coming out of the back field with the ball.

He will HAVE to keep the defense honest by throwing the ball down the field and burning the defense when they leave someone wide open.

Also the only way it can be a viable offense to build around is they will HAVE to have a backup QB with a similar style.

The offense is geared towards one basic style what happens if Tebow does get hurt?

Orton or Quinn going to run that offense?

Who does THAT fool?

For now so it can be used but if they go with Tim long term and they develop that offense along with him then next year they sure as hell better be bringing in another scrambler.

I don't think there is a prayer that that happens. I am hoping he plays his way into at least earning Denver a decent trade value

wayninja
11-07-2011, 07:53 PM
That would depend, do you actually think that a spread option can win more then lose at this level?

Beating Oakland and Miami are one thing, beating Green Bay, New England, New York (G), New York (J), Pittsburgh, Baltimore and so on is different.

If people think a spread option would bring victory against such teams then they lying to themselves. Using the spread option would require people to be happy with just beating the weaker, more mundane teams. Which I guess is fine in our division, but I wouldn't start counting on the team to be a true contender.

I think any scheme can win. As long as it's well executed and not overly predictable. So far we are 1-0 using it, so that doesn't exactly hurt the argument. Creativity trumps categorizing any day. I don't care what we call the scheme. If it works, use it.

If there was some magical scheme that always worked and always resulted in a touchdown every time, that would be the scheme all teams used exclusively and all records would be 0-0-9 or 0-0-8

bcbronc
11-07-2011, 08:18 PM
The Spread Option isn't viable, not at the NFL level at least. I remember that a lot of people said the Wildcat Option would eventually invade the NFL and be considered a Pro Offense, guess what happened, it flamed out. Problem is that the Spread Option requires not so much talent as deceptiveness to be successful, once a defense, especially the faster more hard hitting defenses at the professional level understand what they're facing then the offense becomes a liability for the team using it. No option offenses have been successful in the modern NFL for that very reason, they're gimmick offenses that once the flaws are discovered can not be adjusted.

Now that doesn't mean that an offense can not utilize certain aspects of that offensive system. After all, a quality offensive coordinator will take aspects of many different offenses in order to create a more dynamic offense. Wasn't that long ago that the shotgun formation was introduced to the Spread Options, look at the success of those offenses with the formation in play.

Lan, I don't agree that the Spread Option is a gimmick play. At least no more of a gimmick play than a play-action bootleg or a HB counter. It's a misdirection play, and as we saw on Sunday an offense based on misdirection can be, and are, successful at every level.

The reason you don't see any successful option offenses in the NFL is two fold, both already more or less pointed out: the importance/cost of the QB, and how hard NFL defenses hit. The way you defend any QB option is have your DE/OLB completely ignore the other option and tee off on the QB. If KC's defense is worth a damn, next week the first time Tebow runs an inside hand-off out of the shot-gun the outside contain guy will be hitting Tebow.

That does take a tackler out of the run defense and is why Willie had such a big 2nd half. But no QB can hold up over 16 games running the spread option 10+ times a game, especially now that teams will be talking about how to defend it in pre-game meetings (see above). So no, I don't think having an offense based on the Option Spread is viable (unless you had 2 or 3 QBs you were comfortable with I guess) but it can be effective as a wrinkle or a package, especially if you involve a passing element.

Last year Michigan did that (I assume this year as well, but haven't seen them play), they added a third option where a slot receiver ran a seam...if the OLB played contain, it opened a quick passing lane. We've got TEs that can catch, RBs that can catch and big WRs...there's potential for an interesting Spread Option package, where Tebow pulls the ball out from the HB maybe 5-7 times per game. If we're going to be a run first team, it adds another dimension to the ground game.

Superchop 7
11-07-2011, 08:32 PM
Spread offense has ability to help teams in pass protection By Pat Kirwan NFL.com
Senior Analyst
Published: June 28, 2010


During a recent sit-down with two NFL offensive line coaches, I was taken by surprise. What caught my attention is the apparent shift in philosophy when it comes to using the spread formation to protect the quarterback in passing situations.

The coaches, one active and the other retired, surprisingly favored five-man protections over six or seven blockers under certain conditions.

Years ago, both old-school coaches believed in getting everyone blocked, but now see the potential benefits of less protectors and the use of spread sets to neutralize the opposing pass rush. As one coach pointed out as a criticism of using six or seven men, "The more people I crowd in around the QB to get the blitz blocked up, the more people are capable of rushing the passer."

First, let's explore how a spread formation with an empty set (no back in the backfield) or a formation with one running back, who has a free release, can protect the passer. Both strategies are known as "scat" protection, which means the offensive line will declare the five defenders they will block, leaving the quarterback responsible for the other rushers with a quick release and an accurate pass.

While there's risk involved, the spread formation also moves the extra defenders away from pass rush lanes and makes it very difficult to get to the signal-caller in time.
* By moving these players away from the tackles, potential pass rushers have to move out with them, and it becomes easy for the quarterback to identify which defenders are rushing.


So, when is it time to spread out your offense to try to neutralize the blitz?

Percentage of pressure calls
Situation Team Percentage
Third down Jets 80
Third down Cardinals 56
Third down Saints 55
Third down Ravens 53
Third down Eagles 51
Second down Browns 54
Second down Saints 52
Second down Jets 51

That kind of question gets answered when looking at an opponent and their desire to pressure an offense. Down and distance also has to be considered, as does field position. Both coaches agreed that most blitzing defenses will reveal tendencies about themselves and by examining those trends, the offense can figure out when the five-man protection scheme is most effective.

There were 1,101 sacks last season and 496 (45 percent) came when more than four rushers were employed, but the most important tidbit is when those calls were made.

Upon further examination, you can see in the chart which teams want to dial up pressure. In turn, the offense, according to the two line coaches, needed to spread the field to better protect the quarterback.

Unless a team is over 50 percent on pressure calls in any down-and-distance situation, it's not wise to build a plan based on the numbers.

Interceptions on pressure calls
Team Interceptions
Saints 15
Packers 13
Ravens 12
Bills 11
Eagles 11

Another big reason to spread out in obvious pressure situations is the risk of an interception by a quarterback under heavy durress.

The most interesting portion of our protection conversation centered on the red zone. As one coach pointed out, the best time to neutralize pressure is inside the 20-yard line, and some of the numbers back that. Last year, there were 2,123 pass plays in the red zone and 675 of them (32 percent) involved a blitz call.

Teams must score touchdowns as often as possible in the money zone, and they certainly can't get knocked out of field goal range. The good news for offenses was that only five percent of those pressure calls wound up in a sack and the five-man protection schemes played a big part in that success.

Play-calling is dictated depending on the team and which down it is in the red zone. Third down proved to be the predominant time to bring pressure.

Pressure calls on third down in red zone
Team Interceptions
Jets 67 percent
Cowboys 60 percent
Colts 58 percent
Saints 54 percent
Dolphins 54 percent

It's interesting to note that teams like the Cowboys, Dolphins and Colts aren't heavy-blitz teams outside the red zone on third down, but will change their way of thinking inside the 20.

Dallas used pressure on close to 40 percent of plays outside the red zone, but that number increased 20 percent inside it. Miami went up 10 percent when opponents entered its 20. Indianapolis also used a more aggressive style, up 24 percent. Point being, an offensive line coach who knows that kind of information is going to adjust protection by field position.

The active offensive line coach told me his team only gave up two sacks in five-man protections last year and over 30 in their six and seven blocker looks.

Trying to pressure a passer on fourth down in the red zone has proven difficult of late. Over the last two years there were 135 such pass attempts and defenses blitzed 45 times, but delivered just two sacks. Most fourth-down pass plays call for the quick fade route to a wide receiver, when the defense has no chance of getting to the quarterback.

Expect to see even more spread formations this year. Offensive line coaches appear to be on board with the protection merits of spreading out a defense.

catfish
11-07-2011, 08:42 PM
Spread offense has ability to help teams in pass protection By Pat Kirwan NFL.com
Senior Analyst
Published: June 28, 2010


During a recent sit-down with two NFL offensive line coaches, I was taken by surprise. What caught my attention is the apparent shift in philosophy when it comes to using the spread formation to protect the quarterback in passing situations.

The coaches, one active and the other retired, surprisingly favored five-man protections over six or seven blockers under certain conditions.

Years ago, both old-school coaches believed in getting everyone blocked, but now see the potential benefits of less protectors and the use of spread sets to neutralize the opposing pass rush. As one coach pointed out as a criticism of using six or seven men, "The more people I crowd in around the QB to get the blitz blocked up, the more people are capable of rushing the passer."

First, let's explore how a spread formation with an empty set (no back in the backfield) or a formation with one running back, who has a free release, can protect the passer. Both strategies are known as "scat" protection, which means the offensive line will declare the five defenders they will block, leaving the quarterback responsible for the other rushers with a quick release and an accurate pass.

While there's risk involved, the spread formation also moves the extra defenders away from pass rush lanes and makes it very difficult to get to the signal-caller in time.
* By moving these players away from the tackles, potential pass rushers have to move out with them, and it becomes easy for the quarterback to identify which defenders are rushing.


So, when is it time to spread out your offense to try to neutralize the blitz?

Percentage of pressure calls
Situation Team Percentage
Third down Jets 80
Third down Cardinals 56
Third down Saints 55
Third down Ravens 53
Third down Eagles 51
Second down Browns 54
Second down Saints 52
Second down Jets 51

That kind of question gets answered when looking at an opponent and their desire to pressure an offense. Down and distance also has to be considered, as does field position. Both coaches agreed that most blitzing defenses will reveal tendencies about themselves and by examining those trends, the offense can figure out when the five-man protection scheme is most effective.

There were 1,101 sacks last season and 496 (45 percent) came when more than four rushers were employed, but the most important tidbit is when those calls were made.

Upon further examination, you can see in the chart which teams want to dial up pressure. In turn, the offense, according to the two line coaches, needed to spread the field to better protect the quarterback.

Unless a team is over 50 percent on pressure calls in any down-and-distance situation, it's not wise to build a plan based on the numbers.

Interceptions on pressure calls
Team Interceptions
Saints 15
Packers 13
Ravens 12
Bills 11
Eagles 11

Another big reason to spread out in obvious pressure situations is the risk of an interception by a quarterback under heavy durress.

The most interesting portion of our protection conversation centered on the red zone. As one coach pointed out, the best time to neutralize pressure is inside the 20-yard line, and some of the numbers back that. Last year, there were 2,123 pass plays in the red zone and 675 of them (32 percent) involved a blitz call.

Teams must score touchdowns as often as possible in the money zone, and they certainly can't get knocked out of field goal range. The good news for offenses was that only five percent of those pressure calls wound up in a sack and the five-man protection schemes played a big part in that success.

Play-calling is dictated depending on the team and which down it is in the red zone. Third down proved to be the predominant time to bring pressure.

Pressure calls on third down in red zone
Team Interceptions
Jets 67 percent
Cowboys 60 percent
Colts 58 percent
Saints 54 percent
Dolphins 54 percent

It's interesting to note that teams like the Cowboys, Dolphins and Colts aren't heavy-blitz teams outside the red zone on third down, but will change their way of thinking inside the 20.

Dallas used pressure on close to 40 percent of plays outside the red zone, but that number increased 20 percent inside it. Miami went up 10 percent when opponents entered its 20. Indianapolis also used a more aggressive style, up 24 percent. Point being, an offensive line coach who knows that kind of information is going to adjust protection by field position.

The active offensive line coach told me his team only gave up two sacks in five-man protections last year and over 30 in their six and seven blocker looks.

Trying to pressure a passer on fourth down in the red zone has proven difficult of late. Over the last two years there were 135 such pass attempts and defenses blitzed 45 times, but delivered just two sacks. Most fourth-down pass plays call for the quick fade route to a wide receiver, when the defense has no chance of getting to the quarterback.

Expect to see even more spread formations this year. Offensive line coaches appear to be on board with the protection merits of spreading out a defense.

interesting article. I think it is important to differentiate between the spread and the spread option. The spread does have benefits as stated in the article, but does not rely on the QB running the ball. The spread option includes the qb participating as a runner in a large percentage of the run game. The previous posts have been pointing out the possibility/impossibility of the spread option working. Basically asking the question if the option is viable in the pros and in addition how will a running QB fare in such a system(success vs. early grave) I do however appreciate the post as it brought to light some of the benefits the spread portion of the spread option has for the passsing game. Thank you

Superchop 7
11-07-2011, 08:53 PM
interesting article. I think it is important to differentiate between the spread and the spread option. The spread does have benefits as stated in the article, but does not rely on the QB running the ball. The spread option includes the qb participating as a runner in a large percentage of the run game. The previous posts have been pointing out the possibility/impossibility of the spread option working. Basically asking the question if the option is viable in the pros and in addition how will a running QB fare in such a system(success vs. early grave) I do however appreciate the post as it brought to light some of the benefits the spread portion of the spread option has for the passsing game. Thank you
__________________________________________________ ________________________________

In regards to the spread option.

It seems to me that.....If a running back is reading A-B-C gaps on one side of the line and the QB is reading A-B-C gaps on the other side of the line....AND.....(most importantly) you have the green light to hit any gap thats open.......your gonna get some yards.

If everything is out of the shotgun.....the defense has to respect the pass, if they don't.....make them pay.

Trying to defend this ? Not easy.

catfish
11-07-2011, 09:06 PM
__________________________________________________ ________________________________

In regards to the spread option.

It seems to me that.....If a running back is reading A-B-C gaps on one side of the line and the QB is reading A-B-C gaps on the other side of the line....AND.....(most importantly) you have the green light to hit any gap thats open.......your gonna get some yards.

If everything is out of the shotgun.....the defense has to respect the pass, if they don't.....make them pay.

Trying to defend this ? Not easy.

I think that is why you are seeing it more at the college lvl now. It is my opinion that it will eventually make its way to th NFL level with some measure of success. Not everyone feels the same way of course

Rick
11-07-2011, 09:49 PM
If everything is out of the shotgun.....the defense has to respect the pass, if they don't.....make them pay.

That is the real key. Tim will have to make them pay or it won't matter.

Here is hoping he does....I REALLY do not want to draft a QB in round 1 with so many needs still on the defense.

rcsodak
11-07-2011, 10:49 PM
I agree that he need to improve, I also think Alabama was superior talent wise to Fla that year. IMO talent trumps scheme 9 times out of 10

Players ALWAYS beat out schemes.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

rcsodak
11-07-2011, 10:54 PM
Running the option in the NFL, on a regular basis, is an embarrassment.
Rav, you were embarrassed on sunday?

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

rcsodak
11-07-2011, 11:00 PM
Of course it won't change Fish, every year they change the rules to favor the passing offenses and protect those same said quarterbacks. In fact, it's understandable if you look at Cugel's assessment of protecting their investment at the position. Out of the top ten highest players in the NFL for 2011 only four - Haloti Ngata, Elvis Dumervil, Gerald McCoy and Richard Seymour are not quarterbacks. And it would be fair to say that McCoy and Dumervil are not worth the combined 26.8 million they're receiving. Whereas Ngata and Seymour are worth the combined 26.5 million that they'll receive.

It's a shining example of the focus at the position, six of the top ten paid players are the quarterbacks the four defensive players on the list are those paid to get in the backfield and stop them.

And I wouldn't say there are no hero quarterbacks, it's just that with the era change that the aspect of the definition has undergone change regarding the position, even though we considered Denver's victory over Oakland to be a good game, if you ask the majority of football fans which games were the best the answer would be New York/New England, San Diego/Green Bay, Baltimore/Pittsburgh and New Orleans/Tampa Bay...and why? Because it showcased quarterback duels of those teams quarterbacks - that's the standard.

Denver's Super Bowl win, XXXII is still considered one of the greatest and why? Because it featured two elite quarterbacks in a duel of wills and even though neither had great statistics, the game was in a sense a shootout between their respective offenses.

In short, not only is the spread option offense hard to maintain at a successful level, but it endangers the quarterbacks for which the league relies on in many different aspects.

Everybody acknowledges Dline has a large learning curve, cane.
doom is in his 3rd new scheme in 4yrs? And mcCoy, by his HC's words, was becoming a play disruptor until his torn bicep.
and did you forget about Suh?

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

rcsodak
11-07-2011, 11:01 PM
That would depend, do you actually think that a spread option can win more then lose at this level?

Beating Oakland and Miami are one thing, beating Green Bay, New England, New York (G), New York (J), Pittsburgh, Baltimore and so on is different.

If people think a spread option would bring victory against such teams then they lying to themselves. Using the spread option would require people to be happy with just beating the weaker, more mundane teams. Which I guess is fine in our division, but I wouldn't start counting on the team to be a true contender.
It might beat NE

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

rcsodak
11-07-2011, 11:03 PM
I think it can work but ONLY if Tebow can make the defense pay when they shut the running down.

It won't be too long before defenses can be geared towards stopping an attack that no matter what SOMEONE is coming out of the back field with the ball.

He will HAVE to keep the defense honest by throwing the ball down the field and burning the defense when they leave someone wide open.

Also the only way it can be a viable offense to build around is they will HAVE to have a backup QB with a similar style.

The offense is geared towards one basic style what happens if Tebow does get hurt?

Orton or Quinn going to run that offense?

Who does THAT fool?

For now so it can be used but if they go with Tim long term and they develop that offense along with him then next year they sure as hell better be bringing in another scrambler.
Theyre just plays theyve installed. If he goes down, the system is already there for the backups.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Superchop 7
11-08-2011, 12:08 AM
Not sure what the answer is.....but I would try to find a way to mix Doom at LB. (he is more effective) Perhaps.....you bring Mays to the line....drop Doom to Mike....and send them both. Kind of a hybrid 50 defense.

sneakers
11-08-2011, 01:28 AM
All the douche experts on ESPN will say no. Partly because they are so enamored on what a QB should be that they don't understand the point of the game is not who can throw 3-step out route for a 4 yard gain the best, but rather scoring points.

Ravage!!!
11-08-2011, 02:12 AM
__________________________________________________ ________________________________

In regards to the spread option.

It seems to me that.....If a running back is reading A-B-C gaps on one side of the line and the QB is reading A-B-C gaps on the other side of the line....AND.....(most importantly) you have the green light to hit any gap thats open.......your gonna get some yards.

If everything is out of the shotgun.....the defense has to respect the pass, if they don't.....make them pay.

Trying to defend this ? Not easy.


A couple things would cause some serious problems with what you are suggesting. One, the QB and the RB aren't going to the same hole for the exchange. If the RB is "changing his mind" as to what hole he is going to hit in the middle of the QB reading teh DE/T... then he's cutting while the QB's eyes are looking at HIS read. Thats going to cause problems.

Then you are trying to suggest that the offense can either pass or run on any given play. However, that means your OL can ONLy run block on every play... and even while doing that, they can't release and block on the second level (ie LBs)..because that would be illegal man downfield on pass plays.

So the QB can't simply have the option to run or pass on every play, because that would put the OL in some VERY suspect positions and problems. Pass blocking on run plays doesn't work, and run blocking on pass plays only blocks level one.

So the "pass or run" decision has to be made in the huddle (99% of the time). Not only that, your RB HAS to have a hole to hit so that your QB knows where to go, and where to make the QB-RB exchange while making a read. From there, the RB can decide to cut back or bounce, but thats not exactly what you are saying because RBs usually look for the open hole as is.

The problem is... when teams realize that you are making the simple reads as to "give or pull"...they will start giving up "false reads." Meaning their initial steps and moves will FORCE the QB to make a single decision that the Defense has determined. Then you have the speed of the DE's and LBs that you just don't have in college.

The spread "option" would work on an occasional play.. much like a bootleg...or reverse....or even the wildcat. But it would absolutelY NOT work on a regular basis in the NFL. There is a lot of reasons that its left for the HS can college levels. Mainly, the defensive speed is just TOOOO great in the NFL for it to work.

Ravage!!!
11-08-2011, 02:17 AM
All the douche experts on ESPN will say no. Partly because they are so enamored on what a QB should be that they don't understand the point of the game is not who can throw 3-step out route for a 4 yard gain the best, but rather scoring points.

So you are saying that the ex-players/QBs don't understand, but we, the guys on our couches watching and talking on a message board..... "get it?" :confused:

Ravage!!!
11-08-2011, 02:22 AM
Rav, you were embarrassed on sunday?

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Seeing that our offense couldn't pass, but had to choose to run the college "option" offense? I would say it didn't make me proud. I'm not going to change my perspective on what this season is about from game to game. This was a time to evaluate the QB to see what we would have and see if we need to draft a QB in the upcoming April. If we are running the "option", then that doesn't exactly prove anyone that says he's "our future" correct.

I get some want to change their mind from game to game, depending on the score. But I'm not looking at short term, here. One game doesn't really mean much. Even Jamarcus Fat-Butt won some football games.

sneakers
11-08-2011, 02:33 AM
So you are saying that the ex-players/QBs don't understand, but we, the guys on our couches watching and talking on a message board..... "get it?" :confused:

It hasn't been done in 35 years in the NFL, they haven't done it, so what do they know?

NorCalBronco7
11-08-2011, 02:59 AM
The spread option can be very effective for our offense as a wrinkle, like the wildcat is for some teams. NOT as a primary offense. Defenses are too good in NFL for it to work on a consistent basis. But every now and then it can be deadly.

I really dont mind Tebow running the ball like crazy this season, and even a couple years if hes our franchise guy (I still highly doubt it). But he will eventually have to turn the corner like Vick, and hopefully if he doesnt, he goes to prison for a couple years and thinks about his game.

Lancane
11-08-2011, 04:53 AM
Everybody acknowledges Dline has a large learning curve, cane.
doom is in his 3rd new scheme in 4yrs? And mcCoy, by his HC's words, was becoming a play disruptor until his torn bicep.
and did you forget about Suh?

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

I think you misinterpreted what I was getting at RC, I'm not demeaning the position...just showing the value of the position and what teams will pay to get to the quarterback, even if such players struggle but have shown some capability in that area.

Suh is actually not on the top ten list, I'm sure he's rather high and might be closer to the top twenty, which is still riddled with quarterbacks.

Lancane
11-08-2011, 05:13 AM
So you are saying that the ex-players/QBs don't understand, but we, the guys on our couches watching and talking on a message board..... "get it?" :confused:

Rav, it's the same thing that fans on a Miami message board said when they found a little success with the Wild Cat. Fans won't get it until they see it blow up in their faces. But, the same so-called experts are alright when they give Tebow credit!

And people are forgetting who runs this franchise, he's already said what he wants from the position...I don't see Elway being thrilled with a Spread-Option offense and having a quarterback that can not even complete 50% of his passes, let alone struggles to get over a 100 yards passing a game. No matter how many fans are enamored with it.

Joel
11-08-2011, 06:24 AM
Don't count on it. I don't remember who said it, I believe it was Lou Saban who once said that "Football is to America what Gladiatorial games were to Romans. It was the fierce hitting defenses of old that popularized it with the American people, but what made it a world wide phenomenon was the introduction of the passing quarterback."

If you truly believe that the majority of NFL fans want to watch the likes of Tim Tebow or Vince Young over the likes of Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady, then your sadly mistaken. The NFL favors what makes money and no one makes more for the league then the quarterbacks, from jersey sales to toys, the most popular players in the league has been and will remain the quarterbacks, particularly those who are as we would say elite.
I really hope you're wrong (though you may not be, of course) because the only thing more boring than watching Hail Marys on every down is watching non-stop dink and dunk. For all the praise it's gotten over the years, the need for major multiple rules changes to make it viable says something very negative about the WCO. I like the passing game, but don't think it should be the primary focus, because turnovers and incompletions are more likely when passing than when running. It was a grave mistake to change the rules so that defensive penalties are the most likely outcome when passing. That puts the outcome of games in the hands of officials, which I don't think anyone wants to watch.

What makes football interesting and fun for me to watch is the chess match, which is part of why I never enjoyed watching college teams that never pass OR those that never run. It used to be an axiom that, in football as in warfare, objectives cannot be won without boots on the ground. I don't think the presumption that overwhelming air power will obviate the need for a ground assault will be any better for American football than it was for the American military.

Reducing the NFL to the National Game of Catch League is not good for the sport in terms of either fan enjoyment or revenue. Part of what puts Tim Tebows and Vince Youngs on NFL fields is that many fans DO prefer watching them to the monotony of Brady and Mannings 400 yard aerial assault. The former bring a dimension of unpredictability that vital to preserving widespread interest.

Perhaps more importantly, the growth of passing using many receivers has produced defences with such aggressive speed that pure pocket passers are almost impossible to keep upright. Defences have, despite new rules protecting QBs, opted to just blitz more rather than using the added speed to cover check down men, TEs and backs. As a result, an elite pocket passer is no longer enough: Unless he has good toughness and mobility he will need an elite pass blocking line to be effective (hence, about a decade ago, offensive tackles suddenly became important to people who weren't offensive tackles or QBs.) Ten years ago, Dallas cut one of the best pure pocket passers in history because they couldn't or wouldn't keep LBs and DEs away from him and he lacked the elusiveness to avoid them.

Meanwhile, new rules over the past decade or so threaten to validate the snide comments rugby fans have made about American football for years: Football is turning into armored basketball on a 120 yard court. Some teams almost seem like they've forgotten HOW to run block, but with 2/3 plays being passes (counting "runs" out of the Victory Formation) perhaps that stands to reason. I've watched the game I grew up loving turn into a no-contact realm of thugs and prima donnas where very little actual football occurs. The one exception is when teams are foolish enough to still try running, but that is by nature temporary: Even though we've got a ton of new rules to protect passers and receivers, we have none to protect running backs, even with everyone knowing a top tier running back absorbs too much abuse to play at an elite level more than a half dozen years.

Historically, there has been an ebb and flow to pro offense and defense, with the rules committee acting annually to preserve the precision balance that made it possible for any team to beat any other team on any given Sunday. Currently, there is an extreme IMbalance in that equation that I fervently hope will be soon corrected before all the fun is sucked out of football.

Ravage!!!
11-08-2011, 10:45 AM
It hasn't been done in 35 years in the NFL, they haven't done it, so what do they know?

They know what anyone that has played football knows, that there is a reason its been practically RUN OUT of college football! The offenses no longer have athletes that are sooo superior to the defenses that they can just run around therm. College football is putting the best athletes on the DEFENSIVE side of the ball, and that just progresses into college. The QB isn't going to out speed the DEs anymore (and certainly not Tebow). They most CERTAINLY are not going to out run the LBs!

The option will work as a "gimmick" (for lack of a better word) from time to time if you want to take advantage of a DE that is getting too agressive and crashing down early.... much like a reverse or bootleg. But you try to run the option as a regular offense in the NFL, it would get us MURDERED. That doesn't take "experience" of running the option to know that (and I do)... it takes simple understanding of how fast the defensive players are, and what makes the option actually WORK.

I would say they know a great deal.

Dreadnought
11-08-2011, 10:59 AM
I really hope you're wrong (though you may not be, of course) because the only thing more boring than watching Hail Marys on every down is watching non-stop dink and dunk. For all the praise it's gotten over the years, the need for major multiple rules changes to make it viable says something very negative about the WCO. I like the passing game, but don't think it should be the primary focus, because turnovers and incompletions are more likely when passing than when running. It was a grave mistake to change the rules so that defensive penalties are the most likely outcome when passing. That puts the outcome of games in the hands of officials, which I don't think anyone wants to watch.

What makes football interesting and fun for me to watch is the chess match, which is part of why I never enjoyed watching college teams that never pass OR those that never run. It used to be an axiom that, in football as in warfare, objectives cannot be won without boots on the ground. I don't think the presumption that overwhelming air power will obviate the need for a ground assault will be any better for American football than it was for the American military.

Reducing the NFL to the National Game of Catch League is not good for the sport in terms of either fan enjoyment or revenue. Part of what puts Tim Tebows and Vince Youngs on NFL fields is that many fans DO prefer watching them to the monotony of Brady and Mannings 400 yard aerial assault. The former bring a dimension of unpredictability that vital to preserving widespread interest.

Perhaps more importantly, the growth of passing using many receivers has produced defences with such aggressive speed that pure pocket passers are almost impossible to keep upright. Defences have, despite new rules protecting QBs, opted to just blitz more rather than using the added speed to cover check down men, TEs and backs. As a result, an elite pocket passer is no longer enough: Unless he has good toughness and mobility he will need an elite pass blocking line to be effective (hence, about a decade ago, offensive tackles suddenly became important to people who weren't offensive tackles or QBs.) Ten years ago, Dallas cut one of the best pure pocket passers in history because they couldn't or wouldn't keep LBs and DEs away from him and he lacked the elusiveness to avoid them.

Meanwhile, new rules over the past decade or so threaten to validate the snide comments rugby fans have made about American football for years: Football is turning into armored basketball on a 120 yard court. Some teams almost seem like they've forgotten HOW to run block, but with 2/3 plays being passes (counting "runs" out of the Victory Formation) perhaps that stands to reason. I've watched the game I grew up loving turn into a no-contact realm of thugs and prima donnas where very little actual football occurs. The one exception is when teams are foolish enough to still try running, but that is by nature temporary: Even though we've got a ton of new rules to protect passers and receivers, we have none to protect running backs, even with everyone knowing a top tier running back absorbs too much abuse to play at an elite level more than a half dozen years.

Historically, there has been an ebb and flow to pro offense and defense, with the rules committee acting annually to preserve the precision balance that made it possible for any team to beat any other team on any given Sunday. Currently, there is an extreme IMbalance in that equation that I fervently hope will be soon corrected before all the fun is sucked out of football.

Absolutely. I Loathe the dink and dunk passing attack. I hate it even worse than, say, a College spread option. I can't bring myself to watch Eagles or Colts games because that kind of Andy Reid coached 70% passing attack is godawful boring. In my aged mind a proper football offense is balanced, 50/50 run/pass, and the passing attack should be focused on mid to long range "kill shots"

Pretty much what Shanahan and Kubiak ran here, come to think of it. Not a pure WCO, but neither was it a 3 yards and a cloud of dust ball control Dan Reeves snore-fest. The Texans offense is fun to watch, because they can hurt you with both a strong and explosive running game and a passing attack that can work any area of the field.

TXBRONC
11-08-2011, 11:03 AM
Rest of article http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_19278169?source=rss

From what we saw yesterday it CAN be effective at the NFL level. I'm not sure it's worth building around but I think it's something that should continue to be used even if sparingly to catch defenses off guard.


Two reasons it worked yesterday. One because Tebow completed that touchdown pass early and second because the Oakland defensive ends were selling out the dives to McGahee which was set up by his fantastic runs.

It will work, but not as the primary base of an offense. You have to have a lot of other stuff clicking.

I think the biggest thing is that quarterback takes way to many hits.

BigDaddyBronco
11-08-2011, 11:08 AM
I think the biggest thing is that quarterback takes way to many hits.

Yea, but if it's hits by DB's instead of hits from DE's and LB's I'll take that trade.

vandammage13
11-08-2011, 11:09 AM
Sure you can win a few games with that offense. But, NFL defenses can easily adapt to stop it, which is WHY the option hasn't been used much in the NFL for about 35 years. :ranger:

How many shots do you think Tebow can take and still keep getting up? He's taking a pounding every game. Well, he's a tough guy, and he's holding up -- for now.

But, project that into the future. How many seasons will the guy last if he's taking hits like a RB? The toughest RBs normally don't last more than about 5 years in the NFL.

And they don't pay them $9-$15 million a year either. :rolleyes:

I was more concerned with the hits he was taking in the pocket.

He took some tough hits running the ball too, but he got hit harder in the pocket IMO, taking shots to the chin.

Those hits in the pocket are concussion city...that will end your career faster than anything.

TXBRONC
11-08-2011, 11:29 AM
The spread option can be very effective for our offense as a wrinkle, like the wildcat is for some teams. NOT as a primary offense. Defenses are too good in NFL for it to work on a consistent basis. But every now and then it can be deadly.

I really dont mind Tebow running the ball like crazy this season, and even a couple years if hes our franchise guy (I still highly doubt it). But he will eventually have to turn the corner like Vick, and hopefully if he doesnt, he goes to prison for a couple years and thinks about his game.

I agree as wrinkle it's fine. But if you make it the base offense our quarterback will take a beating and think eventually it will catch up with your quarterback.

Cugel
11-08-2011, 04:34 PM
I actually agree with you, I don't think the spread option will be a BETTER option than the west coast offense until the NFL changes the rules back to put more pressure on the passing game. ( I assume the pendulum will swing back towards Defense eventually)

Are you serious? :laugh:

Check out Forbes Magazine's list of what NFL Franchises are worth! Pat Bowlen bought the Broncos for $78 million in 1984. Today Forbes estimates that his franchise is worth $1.1 BILLION!

And what is the biggest selling point for the league? Who puts fans in those box suites? Quarterbacks!

That's why this is a passing league and will NEVER go back to the "old rules" because 3 yards and a cloud of dust is BORING compared with 80 yard pass plays. The owners will protect their investment.

And the more they stiffen the rules to protect the QB the longer elite QBs will last. And the longer they last the more they are worth. And the more they are worth the more the teams must protect their investment.

Hence the endless cycle of keeping QBs in the pocket leads to a large number of pocket passing QBs leads to SBs being won by pocket-passing QBs, and round and round it goes.

And THAT is why Tim Tebow will NEVER be a "franchise QB." He's simply not an elite passer and never will be. His skills simply don't fit into the NFL financial and rules based system and the owners are NOT going to change that to suit the Tebowners. :ranger:

Cugel
11-08-2011, 04:40 PM
I was more concerned with the hits he was taking in the pocket.

He took some tough hits running the ball too, but he got hit harder in the pocket IMO, taking shots to the chin.

Those hits in the pocket are concussion city...that will end your career faster than anything.

First as Alfred Williams was pointing out on the Fan yesterday, they don't protect running QBs like Vick or Tebow the same way they do other more traditional QBs. Everybody knows they like to run so the refs tend to extend plays and let defenders get away with more hits on them that might be called penalties if it were a Kyle Orton.

Second, you can't avoid taking an occasional shot while standing in the pocket throwing the ball. It's a violent league and for all the rules that favor the QB in the pocket it's still legal to sack the QB after all.

Thus it is more important than ever for the QB to release the ball quickly to avoid taking extra hits. And Tebow does that very badly. He's not throwing to a spot anticipating where the WR will be before he makes his break, he's trying to wait until WRs get open and THEN throwing to them.

And you can't do that. It gives the defender too much time to react, and it gives them more time to hit Tebow.

Cugel
11-08-2011, 04:41 PM
Yea, but if it's hits by DB's instead of hits from DE's and LB's I'll take that trade.

That's the typical fan reaction. The Tebowners just want to see Tebow "run around and make plays."

Pat Bowlen and Elway have a different perspective since they are signing the checks. :ranger:

vandammage13
11-08-2011, 04:42 PM
Are you serious? :laugh:

Check out Forbes Magazine's list of what NFL Franchises are worth! Pat Bowlen bought the Broncos for $78 million in 1984. Today Forbes estimates that his franchise is worth $1.1 BILLION!

And what is the biggest selling point for the league? Who puts fans in those box suites? Quarterbacks!

That's why this is a passing league and will NEVER go back to the "old rules" because 3 yards and a cloud of dust is BORING compared with 80 yard pass plays. The owners will protect their investment.

And the more they stiffen the rules to protect the QB the longer elite QBs will last. And the longer they last the more they are worth. And the more they are worth the more the teams must protect their investment.

Hence the endless cycle of keeping QBs in the pocket leads to a large number of pocket passing QBs leads to SBs being won by pocket-passing QBs, and round and round it goes.

And THAT is why Tim Tebow will NEVER be a "franchise QB." He's simply not an elite passer and never will be. His skills simply don't fit into the NFL financial and rules based system and the owners are NOT going to change that to suit the Tebowners. :ranger:

Yeah 3 yards and a cloud of dust would be boring...good thing we were running at 8 yards per clip (TT at 10+ YPC).

I see what you're saying...after all, the last pocket passing QB we had was really exciting....:coffee:

Cugel
11-08-2011, 04:59 PM
I like the passing game, but don't think it should be the primary focus

You might want to switch to watching rugby. :ranger:

Passing is the primary focus for all the financial reasons I explained and those will only grow STRONGER not weaker as time passes. It's going to become more and more of a passing first league.

My guess is that eventually they will prohibit tackling below the waist like rugby. The more the league is worth, the more they pay the players.

The more they pay the players the more they need to protect their investment by allowing them to last longer. And they can only do that by changing the rules to restrict the ways defenders can hit offensive players. And to limit things like the crack-back block on offense.

Same reason why they don't allow the Flying Wedge. I keep arguing "it would be fun to see it come back." But, it led to injuries, so it was outlawed.

catfish
11-08-2011, 05:01 PM
Are you serious? :laugh:

Check out Forbes Magazine's list of what NFL Franchises are worth! Pat Bowlen bought the Broncos for $78 million in 1984. Today Forbes estimates that his franchise is worth $1.1 BILLION!

And what is the biggest selling point for the league? Who puts fans in those box suites? Quarterbacks!

That's why this is a passing league and will NEVER go back to the "old rules" because 3 yards and a cloud of dust is BORING compared with 80 yard pass plays. The owners will protect their investment.

And the more they stiffen the rules to protect the QB the longer elite QBs will last. And the longer they last the more they are worth. And the more they are worth the more the teams must protect their investment.

Hence the endless cycle of keeping QBs in the pocket leads to a large number of pocket passing QBs leads to SBs being won by pocket-passing QBs, and round and round it goes.

And THAT is why Tim Tebow will NEVER be a "franchise QB." He's simply not an elite passer and never will be. His skills simply don't fit into the NFL financial and rules based system and the owners are NOT going to change that to suit the Tebowners. :ranger:

The original question I was addressing is whether or not a spread option could be a viable offense. I believe it COULD be with a qb who is a legitimate run/pass threat. I do not think that an NFL team WILL implement it under the current rules in the league especially if it is a team with an elite talent at QB. I would be interested to see if a team that doesn't have an elite talent would take a shot at it as there are several benefits to such an offense in both the passing game and the running game. However for it to be a succes you need a qb who is a legitimate run pass threat(not a "mobile qb")you cant win relying only on the option(ex. Navy football) as an aside the Tewboners thing is getting a little old. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and I think there are some legitimate points to the argument that Tebow play if for no other reason than to see if he can add another threat to the team be it running passing whatever. Doesnt mean I think the sun shines out of his ass

Cugel
11-08-2011, 05:01 PM
Yeah 3 yards and a cloud of dust would be boring...good thing we were running at 8 yards per clip (TT at 10+ YPC).

I see what you're saying...after all, the last pocket passing QB we had was really exciting....:coffee:

Argue all you like. You're just wrong and bleating about returning to a past and dead age of football history. :coffee:

You don't own an NFL team and they do. Their statisticians and network TV executives tell them what sells and passing sells. QBs sell. They are not going to change the rules to favor running or defense. Not in the foreseeable future.

catfish
11-08-2011, 05:05 PM
Argue all you like. You're just wrong and bleating about returning to a past and dead age of football history. :coffee:

You don't own an NFL team and they do. Their statisticians and network TV executives tell them what sells and passing sells. QBs sell. They are not going to change the rules to favor running or defense. Not in the foreseeable future.

you are more than likely right, still be interested to see what a team could do with it if they didn't have an elite QB on the roster. I think a lot of people will be watching Denver try to run the scheme as they have the perfect scenario to implement it here. A team that was basically out of contention, no elite or even good QB on the roster with an experienced option QB that is basically expendable

Cugel
11-08-2011, 05:06 PM
The original question I was addressing is whether or not a spread option could be a viable offense. I believe it COULD be with a qb who is a legitimate run/pass threat. I do not think that an NFL team WILL implement it under the current rules in the league especially if it is a team with an elite talent at QB. I would be interested to see if a team that doesn't have an elite talent would take a shot at it as there are several benefits to such an offense in both the passing game and the running game. However for it to be a succes you need a qb who is a legitimate run pass threat(not a "mobile qb")you cant win relying only on the option(ex. Navy football) as an aside the Tewboners thing is getting a little old. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and I think there are some legitimate points to the argument that Tebow play if for no other reason than to see if he can add another threat to the team be it running passing whatever. Doesnt mean I think the sun shines out of his ass

Fair enough. I'm just tired of the Tebow apologists who keep inventing excuses as to why he wasn't getting a fair shake. We will see them howling in rage next year when the Broncos cut or trade Tebow, but for now they're happy their hero is "getting his shot."

As for your question "will a team that doesn't have an elite QB go to the option?"

NO. They will go to the draft over and over again until they find a franchise QB who can be a pocket passing QB. As Cam Newton, Christian Ponder and Andy Dalton are proving this season, a good franchise QB can immediately come in and help your team -- if you draft the right guy. Now all these teams have hope that in the next few years, if they make all the right personnel moves to put talent around their guys, they can make a playoff run.

And as Mike Shanahan said: "10-6 gets you in the playoffs and then anything can happen."

catfish
11-08-2011, 05:10 PM
Fair enough. I'm just tired of the Tebow apologists who keep inventing excuses as to why he wasn't getting a fair shake. We will see them howling in rage next year when the Broncos cut or trade Tebow, but for now they're happy their hero is "getting his shot."

As for your question "will a team that doesn't have an elite QB go to the option?"

NO. They will go to the draft over and over again until they find a franchise QB who can be a pocket passing QB. As Cam Newton, Christian Ponder and Andy Dalton are proving this season, a good franchise QB can immediately come in and help your team -- if you draft the right guy. Now all these teams have hope that in the next few years, if they make all the right personnel moves to put talent around their guys, they can make a playoff run.

And as Mike Shanahan said: "10-6 gets you in the playoffs and then anything can happen."

If tebow rounds out the season like he played against Miami and Detroit I would be first in line to hand him his walking papers. Anyone who was a Tebow fan in college and think he would have got a pass on that kind of play is kidding themselves.

vettesplus
11-08-2011, 06:50 PM
now that it is on video tape it will be studied by other dc's and will be shut down, it does not work in the nfl

catfish
11-08-2011, 07:25 PM
now that it is on video tape it will be studied by other dc's and will be shut down, it does not work in the nfl

it all comes down to execution, if our side executes better than their side they won't be able to shut it down. Oakland knew exactly what Denver was going to do and did everything in their power to stop them from doing it. Denver executed better so it still ended up working

nflfan
11-08-2011, 10:45 PM
In light of this, I think it's fair to say Bullgator's point was not as far fetched as some people thought ...

http://broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=301554

Kudos!

Ravage!!!
11-08-2011, 10:56 PM
it all comes down to execution, if our side executes better than their side they won't be able to shut it down. Oakland knew exactly what Denver was going to do and did everything in their power to stop them from doing it. Denver executed better so it still ended up working

That can be said for ANY play, not just offensive system. That was the entire philosophy behind Vince Lombardi's coaching and work ethic. ANY and ALL PLAYS, ON ANY NFL TEAM, will work ...if executed perfectly. So yes, if your offense "executes" better than the defense, the plays would work. But there is not an offense that "can't be shut down"... no matter how well its executed. The option is not so good, that it just can't be stopped.

Ravage!!!
11-08-2011, 10:59 PM
In light of this, I think it's fair to say Bullgator's point was not as far fetched as some people thought ...

http://broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=301554

Kudos!

Never judge anything based on such a small sampling. After all, Jamarcus Russell won some games, too. He threw some really good passes. But I'm not going to say he was good based on those 'few' times. Its sustained success that is important.

nflfan
11-08-2011, 11:09 PM
Never judge anything based on such a small sampling. After all, Jamarcus Russell won some games, too. He threw some really good passes. But I'm not going to say he was good based on those 'few' times. Its sustained success that is important.

Agree. We shall see how successful this offense will be now that teams have film on it.

wayninja
11-08-2011, 11:22 PM
Are you serious? :laugh:

Check out Forbes Magazine's list of what NFL Franchises are worth! Pat Bowlen bought the Broncos for $78 million in 1984. Today Forbes estimates that his franchise is worth $1.1 BILLION!

And what is the biggest selling point for the league? Who puts fans in those box suites? Quarterbacks!

That's why this is a passing league and will NEVER go back to the "old rules" because 3 yards and a cloud of dust is BORING compared with 80 yard pass plays. The owners will protect their investment.

And the more they stiffen the rules to protect the QB the longer elite QBs will last. And the longer they last the more they are worth. And the more they are worth the more the teams must protect their investment.

Hence the endless cycle of keeping QBs in the pocket leads to a large number of pocket passing QBs leads to SBs being won by pocket-passing QBs, and round and round it goes.

And THAT is why Tim Tebow will NEVER be a "franchise QB." He's simply not an elite passer and never will be. His skills simply don't fit into the NFL financial and rules based system and the owners are NOT going to change that to suit the Tebowners. :ranger:

Let me just understand this a second;

1. Owners want to sell their tickets for as much money as they can get.
2. Ticket demand is driven by Quarterbacks, largely
3. Quarterbacks are only exciting and drive demand through deep passes
4. Tebow doesn't throw deep passes well and therefore is not a large ticket draw, or he is destined to get hurt and is therefore not worth it.

I have a magical rock that keeps tigers away.

Joel
11-09-2011, 07:26 AM
Absolutely. I Loathe the dink and dunk passing attack. I hate it even worse than, say, a College spread option. I can't bring myself to watch Eagles or Colts games because that kind of Andy Reid coached 70% passing attack is godawful boring. In my aged mind a proper football offense is balanced, 50/50 run/pass, and the passing attack should be focused on mid to long range "kill shots"

Pretty much what Shanahan and Kubiak ran here, come to think of it. Not a pure WCO, but neither was it a 3 yards and a cloud of dust ball control Dan Reeves snore-fest. The Texans offense is fun to watch, because they can hurt you with both a strong and explosive running game and a passing attack that can work any area of the field.
I guess if I'm being fair I shouldn't give the Tebowites a hard time about only being Broncos fans because of him, since Shanahan made me a Broncos fan by simple virtue of a demonstrated understanding of the offensive lines importance. :tongue: It's kind of weird to see Wade Phillips as DC under a guy who was the backup QB when he was Denvers DC, but, as a native Houstonian, I'm psyched to see what that combination will do for the Texans (and any Houstonian is happy to see a Phillips back coaching Houstons football team.)

Your take on passing sounds similar to mine: I like passing a lot, but the elevated risk means I want most passes to be for first down yardage. High risk propositions are fine, provided they are accompanied by proportionately greater returns, but a 5 yard quick out that's a pick six if a DB or LB jumps the route is not such a case. Running for small but consistent and safe gains works very well with that attitude; it forces the defence to keep some guys people at home near the line to stop the run, which opens things up for the downfield passing game. Bad running outcomes are comparatively few and rare, basically just fumbles, injuries or offensive holding calls, offset by a virtually guaranteed gain of SOME quantitity, and an AVERAGE gain that was 4.2 yards in the 2010 NFL. Four yards and a cloud of dust wins games by relegating opposing offenses to the role of spectators, and offenses who spend most of their time watching their defence try to score points spend most of their off seasons watching the playoffs on TV.

Ultimately, the skill and talent of pro defences is what makes balance so critical: In football, offenses have the initiative; they call the plays, they snap the ball, simultaneous possession goes to the receiver and no quarter can end on a defensive penalty. As long as the defence has NO idea what an offense will do, the offense has the advantage, but that advantage instantly shifts to the defence when offenses exclusively commit to running OR passing. At that point the defence need only prevent what even ten year olds watching in their living rooms know the offense will attempt, and NFL defences are smart, fast and powerful enough that the days when Lombardi could diagram his sweep for them then dare them to stop it are long gone. Remove that element to make the NFL no more than a running OR passing League and I don't know what you've got, but it isn't football.


You might want to switch to watching rugby. :ranger:

Passing is the primary focus for all the financial reasons I explained and those will only grow STRONGER not weaker as time passes. It's going to become more and more of a passing first league.

My guess is that eventually they will prohibit tackling below the waist like rugby. The more the league is worth, the more they pay the players.

The more they pay the players the more they need to protect their investment by allowing them to last longer. And they can only do that by changing the rules to restrict the ways defenders can hit offensive players. And to limit things like the crack-back block on offense.

Same reason why they don't allow the Flying Wedge. I keep arguing "it would be fun to see it come back." But, it led to injuries, so it was outlawed.
Rugby has its moments, as does arena football, but neither is football, so I have no interest in seeing the NFL morph into either. When NFL running kills three dozen people in a single season, comparisons with the Flying Wedge will be appropriate, but not until then. The bottom line on the bottom line is no one wants to watch a game when they already know both the outcome and how it will be achieved.

The AFC owes its existence to that fact, but the days when you could just hire a strong armed QB and a couple fast receivers to chunk to are also long gone: NFL DBs are too good for sandlot football to succeed, and NFL LBs and DEs are too big and fast for it to SURVIVE without just as many quality pass blockers as the running game needs quality run blockers. If anything, payroll math now favors RUNNING, because the running game doesn't need three or four prima donna receivers to go with its well paid offensive line and back.

The NFL reacted to a series of devastating high profile injuries with a series of rules changes designed to prevent their recurrence, but the incidental result was that the rules now greatly favor offenses in general and passing in particular. The rules committee already began back pedaling on that this year by clarifying that ANY contact with a QBs head is not an automatic penalty, and I expect we'll see more things like that, because the owners are at least as concerned about competitiveness as injuries. They can and do limit the effect the latter has on their cash cow simply by limiting how much guaranteed money they pay star players, but when the League itself becomes predictable (currently a real and serious threat) fans stop buying tickets and tuning in games as assuredly as they did during the '87 strike. That specter haunts owners a lot more than Joe Theismanns broken leg does. Consequently, I expect the League will soon shift Uncle Mo back in favor of the defence like they did when they outlawed stickum in the '80s, or in the '90s when they took the head slap away from offensive tackles like Erik Williams just as they had previously taken it away from ends like Deacon Jones.

TXBRONC
11-09-2011, 07:36 AM
Yea, but if it's hits by DB's instead of hits from DE's and LB's I'll take that trade.

I think the hits add up all the same BDB.

TXBRONC
11-09-2011, 07:38 AM
That's the typical fan reaction. The Tebowners just want to see Tebow "run around and make plays."

Pat Bowlen and Elway have a different perspective since they are signing the checks. :ranger:

Not everyone who likes the kid is a Tebowner.

catfish
11-09-2011, 08:02 AM
That can be said for ANY play, not just offensive system. That was the entire philosophy behind Vince Lombardi's coaching and work ethic. ANY and ALL PLAYS, ON ANY NFL TEAM, will work ...if executed perfectly. So yes, if your offense "executes" better than the defense, the plays would work. But there is not an offense that "can't be shut down"... no matter how well its executed. The option is not so good, that it just can't be stopped.

I completely agree, I don't think there is an offense that cant be stopped. if the defense executes/has better talent that the offense it isnt going to matter what scheme you are running it aint going far

catfish
11-09-2011, 08:04 AM
Never judge anything based on such a small sampling. After all, Jamarcus Russell won some games, too. He threw some really good passes. But I'm not going to say he was good based on those 'few' times. Its sustained success that is important.

I would agree that I wouldnt call the performace good...but going from complete garbage to fairly decent is still improvement right?:D

Skacorica
11-10-2011, 02:13 PM
Not everyone who likes the kid is a Tebowner.

He can't debate without ad hominem

CrazyHorse
11-13-2011, 04:33 PM
Well it worked again to some some degree this week. The real test comes next week against the Jets.

vhatever
11-13-2011, 04:38 PM
uhh, they aren't and haven't been using the spread option. In fact, most of the time they are using an overload option, completely the opposite of a spread.