Here's A Controversial Topic For This Board

Arkstfan · October 5, 2007

When I was in HS, our team rarely passed. When we did attempt a pass, it was usually a joke. Either A) the QB made a bad throw, B ) the pass hit the receiver in the back, or C) the receiver dropped the pass. So we stuck with the wishbone option. Most HS coaches wanted to keep it very simple back then, so mediocrity was bred into the passing game.

A few years ago someone posted an article here about the dearth of college caliber receivers and QB's in Texas in proportion to the amount of talent turned out the Texas High School and discussed that heavy use of the wishbone was the cause.

Here in Arkansas a few years ago the state association approved spring drills for the first time and more importantly removed a lot of the limits on 7 on 7 football. Well practicing the run game out of 7 on 7 isn't that great of a set-up. Practicing a pass intense offense though... 7 on 7 is made for it. You get a ton of reps with little risk of injury due to limited or no contact rules for 7 on 7. The serious high schools will go to at least one 7 on 7 camp or tournament over the summer and some will go to as many as four.

You can't work that intensely on the ground game so we are developing high school players who get zillions of reps in passing situations and few in rushing situations.

Got5onIt · October 5, 2007

"Spread" just means spread the field. You can run just about any style of offense using this idea of multiple receivers, and in some cases, wide line splits. It doesn't mean run or pass, it's just how you align to do it.

So what should we call it then -- "No Run N' Shoot" ? :lol:

Quoner · October 5, 2007

So what should we call it then -- "No Run N' Shoot" ?

Cock 'n Pull!

Got5onIt · October 5, 2007

Cock 'n Pull!

:scared: :lol:

The Fake Lonnie Finch · October 5, 2007

No no, I totally agree with you. I was responding to D2007's statement about how well OU stops the spread when they play Tech or Texas (who doesn't really run the spread in my eyes anyway)... You're right, Boise moved on them big time. I'm just saying that saying OU stops something isn't really fair, because generally they stop everything.

Finally, some sense. OU has shut down the spread more than it hasn't. They regularly beat Tech, Mizzou, and Baylor's spread attacks.

Boise, and more recently, Colorado ran on them. The barometer of whether OU - or anyone - is having a good day defensively is whether or not they stop the run. OU allowed Boise's tailback to get 100 yards. The lost. Colorado ran all over them, their tailback got 130 or so, and won.

But to say OU's defense could handle the spread is not right at all. Even in those two games, one went into overtime, and the other was decided on a field goal with time expiring. It's not like both team went to start to finish dominating OU's defense by throwing the ball. Both did enough to win, and the thing that put them over the top was - like with any other team - keeping OU's defense out on the field with a good run game.

The spread is fun to watch, but winning is what matters. Everybody needs to run sometime. Passing alone doesn't chew up enough game clock or wear out defensive lines. Having a solid run game seal the deal when you have a lead.

eagle37 · October 5, 2007

you guys forgot that during the scott davis era we were running the "run and shoot" which in a particality is the spread in modern day. the problems we had in '88 were that we did not have enough of a running game to compensate for defenses that were putting 7 guys back in the secondary. we got away with it early in the season, but SFA and NW LA stopped us and that lead to two big loses.

85 and 86 we had the running game going, but no passing game to off set it and we ended up like last year where teams threw 7 guys in the box and manned up in the secondary to force us to throw.

running or passing game it has to be balanced. i like hayden fry theory of a multiple formation offense with a various of plays in every formation. if you can mix up the play calling enough with out showing too many tendencies then the defense has no idea of what is coming.

Smitty · October 5, 2007

Formations and systems don't win games. Football players and coaches who can get the most from those players are what win games. Every system that has ever been invented has eventually been overcome, from the single wing to the spread, and so it will remain.

Look at the Cowboys in the early 90s. It wasn't about system, it was about great players. Everyone knew what Dallas would do - run Emmitt and throw to Irvin - but nobody could stop them. They simply shoved the ball down the opponent's throat.

Nebraska didn't win because of its system - it won because of its athletes who executed that system to perfection. When the Huskers couldn't keep obtaining the necessary quality athletes, they declined. In part, their decline in recruiting was tied to the fact that Nebraska's system did not produce as many NFL stars, so a superstar QB or WR wasn't going to go the Nebraska, he was going to go to Miami and other programs running pro-style offenses to pave the way to a pro career. Nebraska made the switch because it had to.

Arkstfan · October 5, 2007

Finally, some sense. OU has shut down the spread more than it hasn't. They regularly beat Tech, Mizzou, and Baylor's spread attacks.
Boise, and more recently, Colorado ran on them. The barometer of whether OU - or anyone - is having a good day defensively is whether or not they stop the run. OU allowed Boise's tailback to get 100 yards. The lost. Colorado ran all over them, their tailback got 130 or so, and won.
But to say OU's defense could handle the spread is not right at all. Even in those two games, one went into overtime, and the other was decided on a field goal with time expiring. It's not like both team went to start to finish dominating OU's defense by throwing the ball. Both did enough to win, and the thing that put them over the top was - like with any other team - keeping OU's defense out on the field with a good run game.
The spread is fun to watch, but winning is what matters. Everybody needs to run sometime. Passing alone doesn't chew up enough game clock or wear out defensive lines. Having a solid run game seal the deal when you have a lead.

Don't forget that OU at one point held a 24-7 lead over CU. Colorado scored a FG after holding OU to 4 play 18 yard drive and a punt to make it 24-10. OU was intercepted on its next possession and CU drove for a TD to make it 24-17. Next OU possession was plays 12 yards and punt. CU missed a FG. Next possession one play and an interception setting up an CU touchdown drive. OU drives 3 yards on three plays and CU gets a 25 yard punt return for a net 14 yard punt setting up the winning field goal.

CU didn't dominate OU and if OU had taken care of the ball and moved the chains in the late 3rd quarter and in the fourth, OU wins.

HoustonEagle · October 5, 2007

Formations and systems don't win games. Football players and coaches who can get the most from those players are what win games. Every system that has ever been invented has eventually been overcome, from the single wing to the spread, and so it will remain.
Look at the Cowboys in the early 90s. It wasn't about system, it was about great players. Everyone knew what Dallas would do - run Emmitt and throw to Irvin - but nobody could stop them. They simply shoved the ball down the opponent's throat.
Nebraska didn't win because of its system - it won because of its athletes who executed that system to perfection. When the Huskers couldn't keep obtaining the necessary quality athletes, they declined. In part, their decline in recruiting was tied to the fact that Nebraska's system did not produce as many NFL stars, so a superstar QB or WR wasn't going to go the Nebraska, he was going to go to Miami and other programs running pro-style offenses to pave the way to a pro career. Nebraska made the switch because it had to.

While I don't disagree with your argument as a whole. Your comments towards Nebraska do not hold true. Tom Osborne was 60-3 in his last five years at Nebraska. The eventual fall of one of the winingest programs in Div 1-A had everything to do with losing their coach and little else. The current Corn Huskers coach runs a wide open offense and still has not come close to the results put up by Mr. Osborne and his run happy offense.

Still by no means do I want Dickey and his heralded triple run/punt offense back.

Edited October 5, 2007 by HoustonEagle

Varsity · October 5, 2007

I am still an old schooler that believes that a running game that is fine-tuned will beat an all-out passing team (even if it is fine-tuned) every time. I even liked the Wish Bone!

God bless you, real grad. I love the running game because it is the essence of offensive football. A solid, well-functioning ground game is as much of a defense as it is an offense because it drains the clock and leaves behind scortched earth (field position, field position, field position). But you have to have all the elements in place (good defense, sound kicking) to win titles. I would love to see the Wishbone, Veer, Wing-T, Side Saddle T come back to football

The idea that football is cyclical is not true. Styles are cyclical but football remains essentially the same game it has always been, at least since Pop Warner modified the rules. The biggest changes are substitution rules and pass defense rules.

Smitty · October 5, 2007

The eventual fall of one of the winingest programs in Div 1-A had everything to do with losing their coach and little else. The current Corn Huskers coach runs a wide open offense and still has not come close to the results put up by Mr. Osborne and his run happy offense.

Agreed, Osborne's departure was devastating, but I think the shift in emphasis in college football towards NFL-style offenses has also hurt Nebraska's recruiting. I just don't think they have as much talent as they did ten years ago, and that's a key reason for the Huskers' decline - not their system.

I agree with you, if Osborne were still there and he still had the talent, Nebraska could still be winning with their run-happy system. That's my point - it's not the system, it's the players and coaching.

Got5onIt · October 6, 2007

Agreed, Osborne's departure was devastating, but I think the shift in emphasis in college football towards NFL-style offenses has also hurt Nebraska's recruiting. I just don't think they have as much talent as they did ten years ago, and that's a key reason for the Huskers' decline - not their system.
I agree with you, if Osborne were still there and he still had the talent, Nebraska could still be winning with their run-happy system. That's my point - it's not the system, it's the players and coaching.

I think one of the biggest changes in College Football is the limiting of scholarships & the increased TV exposure for smaller schools. Talent began spreading out to different universities. The Big Boys could no longer recruit someone for the sake of keeping Player X from playing for Powerhouse Program Team Y. Granted, the Elite schools still have little problems in getting their "guy", they just don't dominate in sucking up high school talent like they used to.

I totally agree with you in that Nebraska's dominance came from the elite physical abilities of their players. When their talent began "watering down"( I use that phrase very loosely) they could no longer just pummel opposing defenses with the running game.

the real grad88 · October 6, 2007

Alright, I'll say it. I believe that if we could assemble the same talent level on each opposing team, with equally tough defenses, the running team with great talent would beat the pass-happy team with great talent. The running team wears people down and then beats them like a drum.

People can talk about how the spread has nothing to do with passing all they want...I understand that. A team can run out of the spread, but it is always after having been set up by 8 passes to every one run. No team has a spread offense for the sake of creating a dominating running game. Everyone knows that dominating running games require the linemen to be up close and tight. When the run is used in the spread, it's just a diversion...it's not the bread and butter.

I have really enjoyed reading everyone's comments.

NT80 · October 6, 2007

I think one of the biggest changes in College Football is the limiting of scholarships & the increased TV exposure for smaller schools. Talent began spreading out to different universities. The Big Boys could no longer recruit someone for the sake of keeping Player X from playing for Powerhouse Program Team Y. Granted, the Elite schools still have little problems in getting their "guy", they just don't dominate in sucking up high school talent like they used to.
I totally agree with you in that Nebraska's dominance came from the elite physical abilities of their players. When their talent began "watering down"( I use that phrase very loosely) they could no longer just pummel opposing defenses with the running game.

Yes there is more parity in college because of recruiting limits, however the main difference now is spending limits. There are none. When uT can spend $100 million a year on athletics and NT only $15 million there will be a difference in programs even if they had the same players.

Also a big factor is high school players at lower levels and in general are better than 20 years ago. Rarely do you find multi-sport athletes anymore in high school, they are sport specific year-round. They also have quality weight rooms, playing surfaces and some enjoy indoor practice facilities at lower high school levels. More athletes have become 1-A capable.

FirefightnRick · October 6, 2007

Yes there is more parity in college because of recruiting limits, however the main difference now is spending limits. There are none. When uT can spend $100 million a year on athletics and NT only $15 million there will be a difference in programs even if they had the same players.
Also a big factor is high school players at lower levels and in general are better than 20 years ago. Rarely do you find multi-sport athletes anymore in high school, they are sport specific year-round. They also have quality weight rooms, playing surfaces and some enjoy indoor practice facilities at lower high school levels. More athletes have become 1-A capable.

There's also more High Schools now, producing more High School Football Players. Not EVERYONE coming out of the High School ranks can play for the top 65 teams.

Rick

Got5onIt · October 6, 2007

Yes there is more parity in college because of recruiting limits, however the main difference now is spending limits. There are none. When uT can spend $100 million a year on athletics and NT only $15 million there will be a difference in programs even if they had the same players.
Also a big factor is high school players at lower levels and in general are better than 20 years ago. Rarely do you find multi-sport athletes anymore in high school, they are sport specific year-round. They also have quality weight rooms, playing surfaces and some enjoy indoor practice facilities at lower high school levels. More athletes have become 1-A capable.

Great points.

the real grad88 · October 6, 2007

Poop thread. Time to pinch it off.

Did we think an SLCer could say anything else? Especially when my bias obviously runs counter to the brand of football that put SLC on the national map? :rolleyes: Look, please do not take anything I say as a slam against Dodge. I couldn't be more excited about Dodge being at North Texas, but for me it has nothing to do with the scheme he brought, but just my confidence in the quality of coach that he is, and the man. Dodge would have done the same thing at SLC had he run the Wishbone or the old Vear. He had the metroplex's greatest atheletes, with quality families all 'round and through and through. He coupled that with great coaching and turned it into a dynasty. Here's to hoping he can do the same thing at good ole North Texas.

SLCoutsider · October 6, 2007

Did we think an SLCer could say anything else? Especially when my bias obviously runs counter to the brand of football that put SLC on the national map? Look, please do not take anything I say as a slam against Dodge. I couldn't be more excited about Dodge being at North Texas, but for me it has nothing to do with the scheme he brought, but just my confidence in the quality of coach that he is, and the man. Dodge would have done the same thing at SLC had he run the Wishbone or the old Vear. He had the metroplex's greatest atheletes, with quality families all 'round and through and through. He coupled that with great coaching and turned it into a dynasty. Here's to hoping he can do the same thing at good ole North Texas.

Sorry, I thought the thread was fizzling out. I haven't taken any of this as a slam against Dodge. It's an interesting topic and I've appreciated the different perspectives and learned from many of the replies.

CMJ · October 6, 2007

Alright, I'll say it. I believe that if we could assemble the same talent level on each opposing team, with equally tough defenses, the running team with great talent would beat the pass-happy team with great talent. The running team wears people down and then beats them like a drum.
People can talk about how the spread has nothing to do with passing all they want...I understand that. A team can run out of the spread, but it is always after having been set up by 8 passes to every one run. No team has a spread offense for the sake of creating a dominating running game. Everyone knows that dominating running games require the linemen to be up close and tight. When the run is used in the spread, it's just a diversion...it's not the bread and butter.
I have really enjoyed reading everyone's comments.

They don't have to be mutually exclusive. Just because Tech doesn't run from the "spread" doesn't mean others follow suit. Just look at Boise State last year. Ian Johnson was what made that offense run.

Edited October 6, 2007 by CMJ

Coach · October 6, 2007

Everyone knows that dominating running games require the linemen to be up close and tight.

Have you seen our line splits?

CaribbeanGreen · October 6, 2007

Alright, I'll say it. I believe that if we could assemble the same talent level on each opposing team, with equally tough defenses, the running team with great talent would beat the pass-happy team with great talent. The running team wears people down and then beats them like a drum.
People can talk about how the spread has nothing to do with passing all they want...I understand that. A team can run out of the spread, but it is always after having been set up by 8 passes to every one run. No team has a spread offense for the sake of creating a dominating running game. Everyone knows that dominating running games require the linemen to be up close and tight. When the run is used in the spread, it's just a diversion...it's not the bread and butter.
I have really enjoyed reading everyone's comments.

Generally and historically. you're right.... but it's not always the case. West Virginia is a good example - as much of a running-based team as there has been the last few years, and as much of a true spread as there is.