The Spread.

CaribbeanGreen · September 29, 2008

Okay... I was initially enamored by the spread when Mike Leach and Hal Mumme rolled it out at Kentucky. It seemed like fast break football, like the run-n-shoot and the west coast offense had a lovechild (with much bigger OL splits). Being a copycat game if there ever was one, soon enough the spread made its way through college playbooks across the country -- from Hawaii to New Mexico State to Tulsa. From there, high schools across the country -- even in traditional run-first Texas -- began spreading it out.

I saw an instant comparison between the spread and the offense I ran in high school in the late 90's -- the triple option. Both offenses are gimmicky, both have a 80%+ dependence on the pass or run, both can help compensate for a lack of raw talent with scheme (see Navy, Hawaii, etc.), both have to be specifically gameplanned for and are defended differently than conventional offenses, both are all about assignments & spacing... and of course, neither could ever be run successfully the the pros.

The triple option is still effective in elevating talent above its natural level to be more competitive -- yet now its seldom run with big time athletes, and it eventually fell out of favor with the majority of schools that ran it as it was gradually solved by defenses and its limitations (playing from behind) became more obvious.

Now, as the spread is run with more and more frequency, the gimmick of no-huddles and WR screens isn't as surprising as it once was. Sure, there's still plenty of success in the college ranks with it, and if a high school can run it well it's assured a winning season -- but the clock is ticking here, isn't it? More and more defenses know how to defend it, and it can suddenly appear basic and predictable when it's not crisply run.

Not to mention, how much of an affect does this offense have on a defense?? Let's focus on NT here - I know our D is terrible, but it can't be getting any favors when you consider the complete lack of the long drive. We generally score quickly or punt quickly - period. Everything is sped up, no huddle, pass pass pass, and the D is back on the field. I have no doubt that a big part of the DeLoach defense Version 1 was helped to be as good as it was by DD's grind it out, control the clock offense - is the defense's potential severely limited by this offense, even when it's going well?

What true spread teams have had good defenses? I'm not talking the Texas/Florida/WVU zone-read spreads -- those are basically pro style or even run first offenses out of a shotgun formation -- but the true spread. Seems like spread teams -- TTU, Rice, Hawaii, etc. -- generally have below average defenses.

Edited September 29, 2008 by CaribbeanGreen

MGW · September 29, 2008

What true spread teams have had good defenses? ... It seems like spread teams -- TTU, Rice, Hawaii, etc. -- generally have below average defenses.

Your point is a good one. Of course, we have taken "below average" to a whole-nother-level.

Quoner · September 29, 2008

Seems like talented teams take elements of the spread and add it to a larger game plan and the teams mentioned in the first post are covering for a lack of depth.

The spread isn't the latest and greatest gimmick anymore. Our only hope is the A-11.

FirefightnRick · September 29, 2008

The triple option is still effective in elevating talent above its natural level to be more competitive -- yet now its seldom run with big time athletes, and it eventually fell out of favor with the majority of schools that ran it as it was gradually solved by defenses and its limitations (playing from behind) became more obvious.

I like the triple option and thought Paul Johnson was the best at utilizing it while at Navy. No one in the nation is playing with a more severe disability than the military service academies. Johnson realized this and took advantage of it by using the triple option which is easy to teach, but more importantly, is rarely if ever seen these days. The only time a team will prepare for it is the one week they play you. The rest of the year they work on defending the spread or read option.

What I would prefer is a multi offense like Corky Nelson used. The veer, the option, triple option, the read option and the spread. You never knew what they were going to run at you on any given play.

Question. Does Missouri use a tightend?

Rick

Edited September 29, 2008 by FirefightnRick

LongJim · September 29, 2008

Question. Does Missouri use a tightend?
Rick

Rick, I'm assuming your question is rhetorical, but if not: Yes, and a very good one in Chase Coffman.

KRAM1 · September 29, 2008

VERY GOOD question...I have been pondering the same thing in recent days. Seems to me that the spread may be a bit "past its prime" as a total offensive plan...I tend to think the future needs to be a variation of sets from the veer to the spread to the option to even some of the old t-fornation sets would be interesting and would certainly keep defenses "off balance". I just see the spread as the current "wish-bone". Nice until everyone figures it out. Seems folks are "figuring it out" on all levels from high school to the pros. You had to believe it would happen sooner or later.

I am sure Coach Dodge will figure all this out. The guy can coach and so can DeLoach. Believe it!

LongJim · September 29, 2008

Good topic, CG.

As I've said before--I don't personally like the spread. But it's an offense that can make teams that don't match up as well talent wise more successful quickly. The problem UNT is having right now (IMO) is several-fold, because there are basic tenets of football that will never change--whether you run the spread or not:

You MUST be able to STOP the run consistently.

You MUST be able to pressure the quarterback successfully in passing situations.

You MUST be able to use your kicking game to consistently win the battle of field position.

You MUST be able to run the football successfully, in order to more easily score in the red zone, and to eat clock when necessary--otherwise your defense will wear out. The spread is not geared for this. This is compounded by the fact that many teams which use the true spread do not have sufficient depth on defense (or offense for that matter) in the first place. When pitted against teams with superior depth and athletic ability, they will have problems. See Hawaii/Tech for this. Hawaii was exposed last year in their bowl by this very premise. Tech continues to play thriller bowl games, but in reality, they are very close to losing those bowls because their defense has been--at least recently--unable to keep them in games, because they wear down due to fatigue or lack of depth.

And again, teams with superior athletes and superior depth will stop the spread. The same as they stop the bone, or single-wing, or whatever.

Got5onIt · September 29, 2008

I agree with everyone here, you have to have a combination of things in an offense to be successful. I just flat out do not like the spread due to the offensive line constantly back peddling to pass black. There is no point of attack for the OL when you fail to fire off the ball to run block. They can't wear down a D-Line & it's linebackers. The game in the trenches revolves around being physical and winning those physical battles.

Edited September 29, 2008 by Got5onIt

Dodge2007 · September 29, 2008

Missouri has one of the best offenses in the country. Rick knows they use not only one TE but two TE's depending on the formation. They like to give max blocking schemes to assist in the blitz packages coming at Daniels.

I see Dodge trying to adjust his game and formations but Rick is right, we could use a TE to keep things more multiple and to assist in the passing game and the running game.

I hate agreeing with some people on this board but the better teams are more multiple than just the spread.

Quoner · September 29, 2008

Missouri has one of the best offenses in the country. Rick knows they use not only one TE but two TE's depending on the formation. They like to give max blocking schemes to assist in the blitz packages coming at Daniels.
I see Dodge trying to adjust his game and formations but Rick is right, we could use a TE to keep things more multiple and to assist in the passing game and the running game.
I hate agreeing with some people on this board but the better teams are more multiple than just the spread.

Southlake never had a tight end and they never lost. You can't argue with results!

Got5onIt · September 29, 2008

Southlake never had a tight end and they never lost. You can't argue with results!

Q,

Can you do a joker face on TD? Better yet, do him in a Two-Face setup.

TheTastyGreek · September 29, 2008

Q,
Can you do a joker face on TD? Better yet, do him in a Two-Face setup.

If I get a chance, I'll make it happen by this afternoon.

Harvey Dodge is a brilliant satirical concept. Thank you, sir.

UNT Mean Green · September 29, 2008

Good topic, CG.
As I've said before--I don't personally like the spread. But it's an offense that can make teams that don't match up as well talent wise more successful quickly. The problem UNT is having right now (IMO) is several-fold, because there are basic tenets of football that will never change--whether you run the spread or not:
You MUST be able to STOP the run consistently.
You MUST be able to pressure the quarterback successfully in passing situations.
You MUST be able to use your kicking game to consistently win the battle of field position.
You MUST be able to run the football successfully, in order to more easily score in the red zone, and to eat clock when necessary--otherwise your defense will wear out. The spread is not geared for this. This is compounded by the fact that many teams which use the true spread do not have sufficient depth on defense (or offense for that matter) in the first place. When pitted against teams with superior depth and athletic ability, they will have problems. See Hawaii/Tech for this. Hawaii was exposed last year in their bowl by this very premise. Tech continues to play thriller bowl games, but in reality, they are very close to losing those bowls because their defense has been--at least recently--unable to keep them in games, because they wear down due to fatigue or lack of depth.
And again, teams with superior athletes and superior depth will stop the spread. The same as they stop the bone, or single-wing, or whatever.

All good points. :clapping: