Article on Spread Option

[catfish]

article from nfl.com regarding spread option and its viability in the nfl using Tebow and Newton as examples. Also has video analysis of Tebow to date

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d824d289c/article/newton-tebow-prove-spread-option-will-work-in-the-nfl

[Dzone]

Excellent article. It's working. Critics are hoping it fails.
Sometimes one player is all it takes to revolutionize the game. If the Broncos go deep in the playoffs,The copy cat NFL will be searching for their own Tim Tebows.
Hey catfish, your new avatar is kick ass

[FlyByU]

I knew it would work because it is like running a 2min O all game and a D cannot handle that without being worn down.

[Ravage!!!]

I knew it would work because it is like running a 2min O all game and a D cannot handle that without being worn down.

Not really...because it takes us more like 6 minutes to get down the field. Thats the biggest concern we will have when we are down by more than 7 points down at the end of the 4th quarter.

[lgenf]

Not really...because it takes us more like 6 minutes to get down the field. Thats the biggest concern we will have when we are down by more than 7 points down at the end of the 4th quarter.

But we can score in 45 secs like last weeks game

[NightTerror218]

Not really...because it takes us more like 6 minutes to get down the field. Thats the biggest concern we will have when we are down by more than 7 points down at the end of the 4th quarter.

Well it is not a 2 min offense because we are running a huddle. It becomes a 2-min offense on those last minute heroics by Tebow like Miami, and Jets. Where its the no-huddle spread offense rather then the option.

[Ravage!!!]

But we can score in 45 secs like last weeks game

yeah. Thats not really the 2 minute drill and you can't just hope a completely blown coverage happens like that. Not exactly what I'm talking about.

[Ravage!!!]

Well it is not a 2 min offense because we are running a huddle. It becomes a 2-min offense on those last minute heroics by Tebow like Miami, and Jets. Where its the no-huddle spread offense rather then the option.

You can huddle in the two minute offense.

But the last "minute" heroics in Miami included Tebow making a 2:31 second drive, and then the Defense recovering an onside kick, and then the defense causing a fumble on their side of the field in which the offense didn't move the ball... letting our kicker kick a long FG to win the game.

In the Jets, the offense had a 5:48 minute drive at the end of the game, where he was in shotgun and spread on every play. Which is what I'm talking about. Its not exactly an offense that is a "fast scoring" or one that moves down the field in a hurry because our passing game isn't strong and we rely on the run game....which isn't exactly conducive to the two-minute offense.

[Dreadnought]

You can huddle in the two minute offense.

But the last "minute" heroics in Miami included Tebow making a 2:31 second drive, and then the Defense recovering an onside kick, and then the defense causing a fumble on their side of the field in which the offense didn't move the ball... letting our kicker kick a long FG to win the game.

In the Jets, the offense had a 5:48 minute drive at the end of the game, where he was in shotgun and spread on every play. Which is what I'm talking about. Its not exactly an offense that is a "fast scoring" or one that moves down the field in a hurry because our passing game isn't strong and we rely on the run game....which isn't exactly conducive to the two-minute offense.

Correlation is not causation. We didn't score fast v. the Jets, in large part because there was no need to. In fact, it would have arguably been a mistake. We didn't score the go ahead TD versus the Pack in SB XXXII fast either. The ideal is of course to score without leaving them time to return the favor, not to score fast.

[Ravage!!!]

Correlation is not causation. We didn't score fast v. the Jets, in large part because there was no need to. In fact, it would have arguably been a mistake. We didn't score the go ahead TD versus the Pack in SB XXXII fast either. The ideal is of course to score without leaving them time to return the favor, not to score fast.

Come on, Dread.

That would be a reasonable conclusion IF we had been able to move the ball the ENTIRE game instead of punting 9 times. We didn't score fast against the Jets because we COULDN'T score fast. We weren't going all shotgun and 5 wide with 5+ minutes to go because we were happy with our offensive production and wanting to run time off the clock. We NEEDED to score. We were NOT trying to take our leisurely time because we certainly did not have complete control of that game.

[hotcarl]

id like to have a little spread option if you know what i mean

[Joel]

What becomes critical when having a quarterback who might not be able to carry the team to victory is developing a scheme that highlights his strengths and hides his weaknesses.
It's called "coaching," guys. Coaches, particularly new ones like Fox in Denver or his successor in Carolina, often lack the luxury of the exact 53 players they want. Even were that not so, even the best players do some things better than others. Coaching is not simply teaching plays (most pro players already know most plays pretty well.) Great coaches gameplan to maximize strengths and minimize weaknesses.

Much of the NFLs modern character is because the shoe string budgets and second tier players avialable to the upstart AFL forced coaches to grab a strong armed QB and a couple fast receivers since they couldn't get a fast versatile back and five exceptional blockers. They played sandlot ball for the same reason kids on sandlots do: They had to.

Recently, many coaches seemingly forgot how to actually COACH, in the rush to duplicate the Patriots offensive success (which evidently depends more on cameramen than players) and the Steelers defence, but their job is still the same: Not to fit players to any one offense/defence, but win games. The best way is to fit style to ability; the reverse is far more difficult and time consuming. Time is another luxury coaches often lack.

The prototypical hybrid quarterback was Jim Thorpe under Pop Warner; the NFLs was probably Bronko Nagurski or Sid Luckman ahead of Roethlisberger or Tebow. In the Super Bowl era it would be Bobby Douglass, and since the NFL started passing more than running, Randall Cunningham. Cunningham was always a dangerous runner, yet I'll never forget seeing him throw a football 72 yards in the NFL QB Challenge. Arnie Herber ran more than he passed in several of his first Green Bay seasons in the '30s, yet when teammates bet him he couldn't throw the length of the field with the roll, he only lost because the ball it at the 15 and bounced BACKWARD due to the steep angle.

Point being, NO ONE can be the NFLs first successful hybrid QB, because it's been done many MANY times, with such success that it directly or indirectly led to virtually every aspect of todays pro offenses. It's literally the reason rules no longer require passes be thrown from five yards behind the line, an ex post facto rule resulting from the first NFL Championship Game (in 1932; the non-regulation field also introduced hashmarks, so teams no longer line up on with their center on the end of the line following a tackle out of bounds.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_formation

He's doing a variety of nice things, largely because of the kind of freakish athleticism Thorpe and Nagurski had, I'm sure Tebow would be the first to agree there's nothing new under the sun. ;)

[Joel]

I knew it would work because it is like running a 2min O all game and a D cannot handle that without being worn down.
Yeah, that's why Buffalos Hurry Up offense won four straight Super Bowls. What? They LOST four straight? Never mind then. :tongue:

Come on, Dread.

That would be a reasonable conclusion IF we had been able to move the ball the ENTIRE game instead of punting 9 times. We didn't score fast against the Jets because we COULDN'T score fast. We weren't going all shotgun and 5 wide with 5+ minutes to go because we were happy with our offensive production and wanting to run time off the clock. We NEEDED to score. We were NOT trying to take our leisurely time because we certainly did not have complete control of that game.
I think you both make some valid and not mutually exclusive points. No, run dominant offenses can't quickly overcome large deficits, hence it's dependent on smothering defences to avoid those situations. However, long low risk running drives are still the best way to win WHEN POSSIBLE. Sometimes the D breaks (as in MN last week) and getting out of the hole requires a strong passing attack, but nearly every dominant team in NFL history preferred safely slogging it out on the ground when they could, only going to the pass when that failed and left them on the wrong side of the scoreboard. Lombardi did it, Landry did it, Shula did it, Noll did it; even the '49ers in their prime preferred handing it to Roger Craig for 30 rushes and 150 yards over Montana flinging balls to Rice, Clark or Jones.

In the Jets game, we went to the shotgun spread because the power run wasn't working, yet at the same time we were not trying to score as quickly as possible, give the ball back to Sanchez and risk him finally getting lucky on a drive. There were a fair number of runs on that drive, and we'd have burned time outs after several had we been worried about the clock. It was in our best interest to make that drive from deep in our own territory the games final one, an all or nothing proposition that let our offense rather than theirs dictate its outcome. Realistically, with >5:00 left in the game, a punt or turnover was the only way we weren't going to score.

We used a different offense of necessity, but whether it could've scored quicky is a moot point since the objective was scoring LAST. In that, Tebow and the coaches beautifully balanced the contradictory priorities of getting downfield before time expired yet not leaving the Jets enough time for an answering score.

[horsepig]

But we can score in 45 secs like last weeks game

You're right about this. Some are calling Denver's off. "the chunk offense", because it tends to make yardage in big chunks rather than grinding ou 12 play drives. In that regard, it can score very quickly.

[catfish]

So far the response to the read, or the option in the pros has been to sell out to stop the run, this is actually a big mistake as it created 1 on 1 coverage downfield which is why when Tebow manages to complete a pass it tends to be for large gains. If a team decides to defend the pass, then they go back to the ground and gash you with the run. Th eonly way to defend the spread option is to play smart, assignment football and have the first guy to the ball carrier make a tackle.

The spread option causes 11 on 11 football, so if the first guy doesn't make the tackle it is off to the races. You hear people keep saying it is a gimmick, but if ypu have a QB that is a threat to both run and throw, and add in the disadvantages the league has put DB's in this could be a very dangerous offense. Sell out to keep a team from running and get beat deep, play the pass and have a team run for 250 yds....I don't see a lot of pro teams playing with discipline over aggressiveness as they haven't really needed to in the past