The Spread Is Way Over Rated

the real grad88 · January 2, 2010

There will probably be a lot of disagreement, but it does make discussion more interesting, so here goes. The last 10 years has seen a complete change in offensive football in favor of the Spread. This has been to the deteriment of real, traditional football as we have known it. For a while, I was intrigued. The change was exciting. I now find the Spread offense that practically EVERYONE is running so boring that I can hardly keep interested in College and High School ball. It's like watching flag/sandlot football as for as offense is concerned. And, when everyone does the same thing, it is pretty boring.

AND THEN came this year's bowl games that included Air Force and Navy, and I suddenly found myself interested. After thinking about it, I realized it was because there was a contrast between the team matchups...the Spread against the Triple Option. It made those bowl games more interesting. I also find it interesting that the Triple Option teams (Air Force and Navy) absolutely dominated the Spread teams. Go figure.

I'm tired of seeing the single back right at the QBs side. Boring as dust. Give me a team that can cram it down your throat (combined with a dominating defense), and you've got a winner most of the time. That's my take.

I'm not saying that I want every team to have the Triple Option. I'm just saying that I would like to see variety return to college football the way it used to be.

Edited January 2, 2010 by the real grad88

FirefightnRick · January 2, 2010

There will probably be a lot of disagreement, but it does make discussion more interesting, so here goes. The last 10 years has seen a complete change in offensive football in favor of the Spread. This has been to the deteriment of real, traditional football as we have known it. For a while, I was intrigued. The change was exciting. I now find the Spread offense that practically EVERYONE is running so boring that I can hardly keep interested in College and High School ball. It's like watching flag/sandlot football as for as offense is concerned. And, when everyone does the same thing, it is pretty boring.
AND THEN came this year's bowl games that included Air Force and Navy, and I suddenly found myself interested. After thinking about it, I realized it was because there was a contrast between the team matchups...the Spread against the Triple Option. It made those bowl games more interesting. I also find it interesting that the Triple Option teams (Air Force and Navy) absolutely dominated the Spread teams. Go figure.
I'm tired of seeing the single back right at the QBs side. Boring as dust. Give me a team that can cram it down your throat (combined with a dominating defense), and you've got a winner most of the time. That's my take.
I'm not saying that I want every team to have the Triple Option. I'm just saying that I would like to see variety return to college football the way it used to be.

I couldn't agree more. That was the most fun about attending the Armed Forces Bowl yesterday, watching the Falcon's run it to perfection. Another thing that makes it so successful is a point Adler made about it several years ago. As you said, everyone is running the read option spread. And nearly every week they prepare for the spread. Then comes the one week they have to face AF,Navy,Army. They get just that, one week to prepare for it. Advantage, AF,Navy,Army.

Makes perfect sense.

Rick

Side Show Joe · January 2, 2010

There will probably be a lot of disagreement, but it does make discussion more interesting, so here goes. The last 10 years has seen a complete change in offensive football in favor of the Spread. This has been to the deteriment of real, traditional football as we have known it. For a while, I was intrigued. The change was exciting. I now find the Spread offense that practically EVERYONE is running so boring that I can hardly keep interested in College and High School ball. It's like watching flag/sandlot football as for as offense is concerned. And, when everyone does the same thing, it is pretty boring.
AND THEN came this year's bowl games that included Air Force and Navy, and I suddenly found myself interested. After thinking about it, I realized it was because there was a contrast between the team matchups...the Spread against the Triple Option. It made those bowl games more interesting. I also find it interesting that the Triple Option teams (Air Force and Navy) absolutely dominated the Spread teams. Go figure.
I'm tired of seeing the single back right at the QBs side. Boring as dust. Give me a team that can cram it down your throat (combined with a dominating defense), and you've got a winner most of the time. That's my take.
I'm not saying that I want every team to have the Triple Option. I'm just saying that I would like to see variety return to college football the way it used to be.

I kind of agree. I really liked seeing Air Force yesterday, but I didn't like it so much when Navy ran all over us in '07.

I don't think everyone needs to go out and start running the triple option, but teams need to be more balanced in their formations. Especially ours. I think the spread is fine, but I would love to see a larger variety of offensive sets within our offensive scheme. At lest a few times a game, I would love to see us line up in a power I. I think we need to be able to run the ball with power.

I totally agree that a team that can cram it down your throat, combined with a dominating defense, will win most games.

jtm0097 · January 2, 2010

We ran the triple option when I was in high school. It was a fun offense to run, then my senior year we tried to put in the spread. From an offensive linemens perspective, the triple option was exciting to run.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · January 2, 2010

You know what I like...

I liked watching Ohio State's offense. Sometimes they went shutgun spread. Sometimes they went Power I with a fullback and tight ends. They did empty sets, one back sets, two back sets. Fullbacks. Tight ends. The point is, they mixed it up. We don't mix it up.

Ditto watching Oklahoma yesterday. They'd pound the ball for two yards on the ground just to keep Stanford honest. Then, their freshman QB would wing the ball downfield for big gains. Like Ohio State, they had many looks that included tight ends and fullbacks. They had versatility and kept Stanford's defense off kilter.

Look at the Nebraska game. The day before that game my dad and I were discussing the Stoops-Pelini matchup. I told him that if Nebraska kept trying to run their spread, Arizona would beat them the same way Virginia Tech did earlier in the year. In that game, the Huskers had the ball inside the redzone several times, but never scored a touchdown they lost 16-15. Zach Lee was 11-30 for only 136 yards, no TDs and two interceptions.

Against Texas in the Big 12 Championship, same thing. Zach Lee went 6-19 for 39 yards and three three picks. Texas, like Virginia Tech earlier in the year, won on their final drive of the game, 13-12.

Pelini woke up for his bowl game and ran the the ball by a 2-to-1 ratio over pass plays and won big. If he'd pulled his head out of his backside before the season started, Nebraska may have been in a BCS game with as few as one loss!

Those are just a few simple examples. Many other teams - check that - most other teams make you respect the run. We just don't. We are hell bent on doing this high school spread offense whether it's first and 10 or 3rd and inches. It's crazy.

Edited January 2, 2010 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

Mean Green 93-98 · January 2, 2010

Those are just a few simple examples. Many other teams - check that - most other teams make you respect the run. We just don't. We are hell bent on doing this high school spread offense whether it's first and 10 or 3rd and inches. It's crazy.

Did you watch any North Texas football this year? Do you know what our run/pass ratio was? Did you see how teams keyed in on Lance? Obviously we weren't successful in other areas, but making our opponents respect the run was really not one of our problems.

Green Mean · January 2, 2010

I like a well balanced and well versatile offense. I like different formations and styles to play virtually any type of game. Personally, I am not a big fan of the spread only offense nor just a triple option offense.

January 2, 2010

Did you watch any North Texas football this year? Do you know what our run/pass ratio was? Did you see how teams keyed in on Lance? Obviously we weren't successful in other areas, but making our opponents respect the run was really not one of our problems.

What they are saying is that all of our running is also done out of the spread formation. Had you had a Power I or other formation featuring another runner/blocker wouldn't that have been much more effective? Can you imagine Dunbar and Montgomery in the same backfield and you don't know which one will get the ball and/or if the other will also be a blocker? Add to that Mosley, Hamilton (capable of passing) and Mathis, all valuable replacements, at times and a defense can't key on Lance.

SilverEagle · January 2, 2010

I couldn't agree more. That was the most fun about attending the Armed Forces Bowl yesterday, watching the Falcon's run it to perfection. Another thing that makes it so successful is a point Adler made about it several years ago. As you said, everyone is running the read option spread. And nearly every week they prepare for the spread. Then comes the one week they have to face AF,Navy,Army. They get just that, one week to prepare for it. Advantage, AF,Navy,Army.
Makes perfect sense.
Rick

Does anyone remember the "flying wishbone" that we ran in the late 80's early 90's?.

The first year we ran it was 88.

Total offense

1985- 2818

1986- 3094

1987- 3028

1988- 4526 2716 passing and 1810 rushing.

1989- 3452

1990- 3647

trivia question, what was the year of our highest total offense output? I'll give you the number 4845.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · January 2, 2010

Did you watch any North Texas football this year? Do you know what our run/pass ratio was? Did you see how teams keyed in on Lance? Obviously we weren't successful in other areas, but making our opponents respect the run was really not one of our problems.

Dunbar piled up yards because teams didn't key on him. That allowed him to break some long runs. It didn't matter. When we needed short yardage or to kill clock or move the ball, the run game wasn't dominant, effective, or even consistent.

Opposing defenses didn't waste time keying him much because they knew our offensive braintrust wouldn't put the game in his hands.

When Todd Dodge drove up from his high school job, he talked about killing the will of the opponent. Nothing does that more than a dominating run game. The Nebraska and Air Force bowl games were textbook examples of it.

We don't have the components to push people around. And, we don't have good enough athletes to finesse opponents either.

Here's the other smart thing about the teams going back to the run - to counter the spread, many school have started recruiting smaller, faster linebackers and employing unorthodox defenses (3-3-5s, 4-2-5s, 4-1-6s). With the smaller backers, you can really do damage with a run game.

Mean Green 93-98 · January 2, 2010

Dunbar piled up yards because teams didn't key on him. That allowed him to break some long runs. It didn't matter. When we needed short yardage or to kill clock or move the ball, the run game wasn't dominant, effective, or even consistent.
Opposing defenses didn't waste time keying him much because they knew our offensive braintrust wouldn't put the game in his hands.

I agree about our inefficiency in short yardage situations, but that doesn't mean that other teams didn't respect the run. Opposing coaches specifically said that their goal was to slow down Lance. And we ran the ball last season 420 times, and threw 413 times. And the number of passes is inflated by how often we were playing catchup. Again, it doesn't seem like you watched much North Texas football at all, because we were basically a running team last year.

the real grad88 · January 3, 2010

Does anyone remember the "flying wishbone" that we ran in the late 80's early 90's?.
The first year we ran it was 88.
Total offense
1985- 2818
1986- 3094
1987- 3028
1988- 4526 2716 passing and 1810 rushing.
1989- 3452
1990- 3647
trivia question, what was the year of our highest total offense output? I'll give you the number 4845.

Yep, 88 was my senior year. The Wishbone and Shoot (the way I remember it) was the best offensive scheme I ever saw the Mean Green run. Teams really did not know how to prepare for that offense. Texas sure didn't!! It was exciting to watch and I am sure fun to play. If I were a player today, I would hate the Spread, with the One-back option. I just wish that these fads wouldn't dominate the game so much. Anybody remember TCU Veer offense? That was a fun offense to watch, and very effective.

Green Dozer · January 3, 2010

I couldn't agree more. That was the most fun about attending the Armed Forces Bowl yesterday, watching the Falcon's run it to perfection. Another thing that makes it so successful is a point Adler made about it several years ago. As you said, everyone is running the read option spread. And nearly every week they prepare for the spread. Then comes the one week they have to face AF,Navy,Army. They get just that, one week to prepare for it. Advantage, AF,Navy,Army.
Makes perfect sense.
Rick

Rick,

Also, you see what happens to a pass happy scheme like Keenum and his offense when they have not played for a while. There timing is completely off, so the option looked really good, and there timing does not skip a beat.

FirefightnRick · January 3, 2010

You know what I like...
I liked watching Ohio State's offense. Sometimes they went shutgun spread. Sometimes they went Power I with a fullback and tight ends. They did empty sets, one back sets, two back sets. Fullbacks. Tight ends. The point is, they mixed it up.

LOL, I'm reading this and thinking "Corky Nelson". Just like SilverEagle mentioned above, in '88 Scott Davis threw for over 400 yards against Texas. Two years later he runs for over 200 against SMU.

I loved that offense. You never knew what formation they were going to break out of the huddle into.

Rick

NT03 · January 3, 2010

I agree about our inefficiency in short yardage situations, but that doesn't mean that other teams didn't respect the run. Opposing coaches specifically said that their goal was to slow down Lance. And we ran the ball last season 420 times, and threw 413 times. And the number of passes is inflated by how often we were playing catchup. Again, it doesn't seem like you watched much North Texas football at all, because we were basically a running team last year.

So you think all of Riley's 104 rushing attempts were on designed runs ?

Mean Green 93-98 · January 3, 2010

So you think all of Riley's 104 rushing attempts were on designed runs ?

A. Are all of any QB's rushing attempts designed running plays?

B. A rushing attempt is not a pass.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · January 3, 2010

So you think all of Riley's 104 rushing attempts were on designed runs ?

No. What he's not understanding is that we're talking about formations and schemes. We have one basic scheme with the QB in the shotgun all the time. The other schools we have discussed give multiple looks. Sometimes the QB is alone and in the shotgun, sometimes behind the center in a Power I. There are fullbacks and tight ends used - really used - in other schemes.

He's just counting up plays, which means nothing. The majority of plays run at the end of the Troy and Alabama games were rushing plays to get out there because we were getting blown out. In our two wins, rush plays were called at the end to preserve clock. It means nothing. There is no mystery in those decisions.

What matters is when the game is on and within reach. In the vast majority of those instances - short or long, regardless of down and distance - we are standing there in the shotgun. No fullback. No tight end threat. The opposing defense knows what is going to happen - especially with Riley at the helm. (1) He'll hand off to a running back, (2) he'll keep, or (3) he'll throw a short pass.

Thus, opposing defenses crowd the line, use man coverage, and blitz a lot against us. They've got nothing to lose. And, there's no extra blocking help. The only downside is that they may blitz and miss leaving Dunbar free to run.

However, they didn't miss often enough to impact the games overall. We still went 2-10. And, 14 of Dunbar's 19 TDs were scored while we trailed, so it isn't as if we were jamming the ball down people's throats from the gun. We caught a bunch of teams in blitzes while they were ahead...or already had their second or third teams in the game.

Someday, we'll have multiple looks again. It just won't be with this coaching staff. They are unable to change, and unwilling to despite ample evidence over 36 games that what they do is ineffective against everyone except for FCS/FBS fledgling Western Kentucky.

Edited January 3, 2010 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

Got5onIt · January 4, 2010

I'm all for a triple option attack at NT! Bring in one of the service academy coaches! You'll always have a chance to win with a good ground game, clock control, & a decent defense.

SilverEagle · January 4, 2010

I'm all for a triple option attack at NT! Bring in one of the service academy coaches! You'll always have a chance to win with a good ground game, clock control, & a decent defense.

We already have a service academy coach in Coach Peterson. He coached under Fisher DeBerry.

LongJim · January 4, 2010

Here's a photo of Air Force running a variation of the "Maryland I", except with 2 wides. It allows for all kinds of misdirection and power running plays, as well as play action passing. Note how many defenders are setting up to stop the run. Also, it appears that Air Force has much smaller players than Houston, especially on the line, or is it just me?

Quoner · January 4, 2010

I strongly support the practice of watching what is hot in college football offense, waiting a few years until more schools adopt it and then acting shocked when people quickly adjust to us doing what everyone else did a few years ago. That's how you get ahead of the curve with less talent - follow the back end!

The Fake Lonnie Finch · January 4, 2010

Here's a photo of Air Force running a variation of the "Maryland I", except with 2 wides. It allows for all kinds of misdirection and power running plays, as well as play action passing. Note how many defenders are setting up to stop the run. Also, it appears that Air Force has much smaller players than Houston, especially on the line, or is it just me?

Sad. Houston has nine in the box here and still couldn't stop Air Force's ground game.

LongJim · January 4, 2010

That's how you get ahead of the curve with less talent - follow the back end!

"There you go."--Cesar Millan

Mean Green 93-98 · January 4, 2010

No. What he's not understanding is that we're talking about formations and schemes.

I wasn't referring to the comments others were making about formations and schemes--I don't disagree with many of those comments. I disagree with your misinformed statements implying that last year's team was an almost exclusively passing team.

Many other teams - check that - most other teams make you respect the run. We just don't.

And again in this last post, you clarify that you are not just talking about schemes and formations.

He's just counting up plays, which means nothing. The majority of plays run at the end of the Troy and Alabama games were rushing plays to get out there because we were getting blown out. In our two wins, rush plays were called at the end to preserve clock. It means nothing.

So, according to you, our runs in the two wins game almost exclusively at the end? Look at the first fifteen plays (usually scripted) from our first game of the season, a win against Ball State:

V 1-10 V45 Dodge, Riley pass complete to Outlaw, Michael for 19 yards to the BSU36,

1ST DOWN NT (KNIPP, Alex;BAKER, Sean).

V 1-10 H36 Mathis, Jeremi rush for 6 yards to the BSU30 (CRAWFORD, .

V 2-4 H30 Montgomery, C. rush for 5 yards to the BSU25, 1ST DOWN NT (EDDINS,

Robert;WOODWORTH, Sam).

V 1-10 H25 Dodge, Riley rush for 12 yards to the BSU13, 1ST DOWN NT (BAKER,

Sean).

V 1-10 H13 Dunbar, Lance rush for 1 yard to the BSU12 (DUFFIN, Drew).

V 2-9 H12 Dodge, Riley pass complete to Outlaw, Michael for 5 yards to the BSU7 (TODD,

Charlie;WOODWORTH, Sam).

V 3-4 H07 Dodge, Riley rush for 4 yards to the BSU3, 1ST DOWN NT (JONES,

Davyd;BAKER, Sean).

V 1-G H03 Dunbar, Lance rush for 3 yards to the BSU0, TOUCHDOWN, clock 09:24.

Knott, Jeremy kick attempt good.

V 1-10 V07 Dodge, Riley pass incomplete.

V 2-10 V07 Dodge, Riley pass complete to Montgomery, C. for 19 yards to the NT26,

1ST DOWN NT, out-of-bounds (KNIPP, Alex).

V 1-10 V26 Dodge, Riley pass complete to Outlaw, Michael for loss of 3 yards to the

NT23 (BURCH, Koreen;JONES, Davyd).

V 2-13 V23 Montgomery, C. rush for 17 yards to the NT40, 1ST DOWN NT (KNIPP,

Alex;TODD, Charlie).

V 1-10 V40 Dodge, Riley rush for 9 yards to the NT49 (TODD, Charlie).

V 2-1 V49 Montgomery, C. rush for 14 yards to the BSU37, 1ST DOWN NT,

out-of-bounds (FREEMAN, Travis;KNIPP, Alex).

V 1-10 H37 Dodge, Riley pass complete to Dickerson, K. for 2 yards to the BSU35

(WOODWORTH, Sam).

The first 15 plays against Ball State included 6 passes and 9 runs. These were not called at the end of the game to "preserve clock" (? I think you mean the opposite, or else you need to be made aware that passing plays use up less clock than rushing plays).

Again, look at the first 15 plays against Western Kentucky:

Nt 1-10 at Nt32 Dodge, Riley pass complete to Jackson, Jamaal for 11 yards to the NT43, 1ST DOWN NT (Gothard, Mike;Jones, Erik).

Nt 1-10 at Nt43 Dunbar, Lance rush for 2 yards to the NT45 (Majors, Thomas).

Nt 2-8 at Nt45 Dodge, Riley pass complete to Lewis, B.J. for 7 yards to the WKU48 (Jones, Erik;Majors, Thomas).

Nt 3-1 at Wku48 Dunbar, Lance rush for 6 yards to the WKU42, 1ST DOWN NT (Bullard, Chris).

Nt 1-10 at Wku42 Dodge, Riley pass complete to Carey, Darius for 8 yards to the WKU34 (Santoro, Mark;Smith, Taurean).

Nt 2-2 at Wku34 Dunbar, Lance rush for 13 yards to the WKU21, 1ST DOWN NT (Santoro, Mark).

Nt 1-10 at Wku21 Dodge, Riley rush for 10 yards to the WKU11, 1ST DOWN NT, out-of-bounds.

Nt 1-10 at Wku11 Dunbar, Lance rush for 9 yards to the WKU2 (Santoro, Mark).

Nt 2-1 at Wku02 Hamilton, J. rush for 2 yards to the WKU0, 1ST DOWN NT, TOUCHDOWN, clock 11:13.

Nt 1-10 at Nt34 Dodge, Riley pass complete to Lewis, B.J. for 9 yards to the NT43.

Nt 2-1 at Nt43 Mosley, Micah rush for 4 yards to the NT47, 1ST DOWN NT (Hartnett, Nick;Majors, Thomas).

Nt 1-10 at Nt47 PENALTY WKU pass interference (Jones, Erik) 15 yards to the WKU38, 1ST DOWN NT.

Nt 1-10 at Wku38 Dodge, Riley pass complete to Rucker, Forrest for 21 yards to the WKU17, 1ST DOWN NT (Morris, Jihad).

Nt 1-10 at Wku17 Dodge, Riley rush for 2 yards to the WKU15 (Peterson, K.).

Nt 2-8 at Wku15 Dunbar, Lance rush for 1 yard to the WKU14 (Morris, Jihad;Majors, Thomas).

Again, 6 passing plays and 9 rushing plays to start the game.

Listen, I would love to see more 2-back sets. I would like to see more plays from under center. I would like to see us create more of a deep threat. But the coaches generally tried to establish the run early--this was not a major problem.