The Spread versus Pro Style

[Mean_Green09]

The North Texas Case:

North Texas has gone from a Spread during the disastrous Dodge era to a very conservative Pro Style offense under McCarney. I think the main pulse around UNT fans is that they want to see things spread out a little more, which is understandable after watching last year. But what percentage would you like to see UNT in a spread formation? Do you want it to be 75% of the time? Or are there fans out there who don’t want to see much change other than efficiency?

For me I would like to see us just be more efficient. I like the fact that we are different than most teams in CUSA. Seems like 90% of the league would prefer to be a passing spread team. I also like that we have so many Tight Ends. My only hope is that they will used to create mismatches. Use those guys the way Penn St does. Make them a focus on offense and I guarantee our offensive output will go up. My hope for this UNT team is to be run focused with an efficient passing attack. I don’t need to see Derek Thompson put it up in the air 30 times a game. I would like him to stay around 20-25. He needs to be completing 65% of those throws as well and not throwing int’s or missing open guys.

My belief is that if UNT is able to open things up a little bit and become more efficient on the offensive side of the ball then having 7-9 wins is not unbelievable. I don’t think we need to go 4 wide 70% of the time to be successful.

So which style do you prefer and why?

[LongJim]

The best football, and football that wins consistently at the highest level, is played by power running teams that can throw when necessary, play good special teams, and stop the run. That is always the way is has been, and barring some drastic human physiological changes, and changes in how football games are timed and scored, it is the way it will always be.

[LongJim]

To answer your question--I believe UNT should keep working toward pretty much what they're trying to put in place now.

[chrisfisher]

We have multiple great running backs to choose from, a QB with a questionable (to be nice) arm, and a huge offensive line - power running game with an occasional, efficient air game to keep the defense honest. I also want to see liberal use of our tight ends to further tie up defensive players and to keep the defense honest and guessing.

[FirefightnRick]

The best football, and football that wins consistently at the highest level, is played by power running teams that can throw when necessary, play good special teams, and stop the run. That is always the way is has been, and barring some drastic human physiological changes, and changes in how football games are timed and scored, it is the way it will always be.

Can't say it better than this but I'll be surprised if our tight end usage in the passing game goes up?

Rick

[Graddean]

If our defensive tackles are small, we may be able to compensate against spread teams if two factors are present: 1. If we have enough to rotate to prevent fatigue. 2. If they possess good speed. Spread formations put a premium on defensive speed. Unfortunately, as my high school basketball coach said, " You may be short, but you make up for it by being slow.

[DentonAmerica]

To be successful running a pro style system you have to have better players than your opponent. It is a mano y mano style of play. Spread systems allow teams with lesser talent to be successful by controlling the tempo and utilizing players in space. Until we have better players than everyone else we wont consistently win running a prostyle offense.

[LongJim]

To be successful running a pro style system you have to have better players than your opponent. It is a mano y mano style of play. Spread systems allow teams with lesser talent to be successful by controlling the tempo and utilizing players in space. Until we have better players than everyone else we wont consistently win running a prostyle offense.

That's simply not true.

If it were, Dodge's teams would have won the SBC a couple of times. Now, I will agree that you have to have good players to run a "pro" offense, but you have to have good players to run the spread, as well. Teams with lesser talent physically can run the ball and throw the ball effectively with lesser athletes. The spread is WAY overblown as an offensive panacea.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

--Run the offense that fits the personal you have... and if you have a good-throwing type QB then throw and use the spread.. If you have "monsters" that can create holes ..run and a lot.. in any case you have to be able to do both some... Many successful teams do not look the same every week ... they emphasize whichever the opponent can't defend well. Running almost ever down is not as exciting but can be successful (ala Dickey era or especially D.Royal era) but throwing a lot can too (ala TxTech in Leach era). Tubberville at Tech was not liked much here in West-Texas because he ran so much and was not near as exciting or successful.

But the bottom line is win... people like throwing the ball a lot but they like winning more.

[oldguystudent]

The spread looks like sixth grade recess everybody go long to me. If I ever see another shotgun formation on 4th and microinches again, I'll puke in my seat.

[MeanGreenTexan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8zZRBTOcnY

I loved Riley, but he's no Vince Young. If you have a Vince Young on your team (I'm talking College, not pro!), you can pretty much run whatever scheme you want and you're going to win. A Lot.

[oldguystudent]

That was hardly fourth and inches.

[LongJim]

Well, that was 4th and 5 I believe. And note that this play was run from the spread and designed as a pass play. Which USC had no issue defending, and in fact, stifled. Superior athleticism overcame scheme on that play.

[NTXCoog]

To be successful running a pro style system you have to have better players than your opponent. It is a mano y mano style of play. Spread systems allow teams with lesser talent to be successful by controlling the tempo and utilizing players in space. Until we have better players than everyone else we wont consistently win running a prostyle offense.

That's simply not true.

If it were, Dodge's teams would have won the SBC a couple of times. Now, I will agree that you have to have good players to run a "pro" offense, but you have to have good players to run the spread, as well. Teams with lesser talent physically can run the ball and throw the ball effectively with lesser athletes. The spread is WAY overblown as an offensive panacea.

The Spread obviously doesn't guarantee success. And yes, you have to have talent in both systems. But the type of talent required is often quite different. Schools like UH and UNT just aren't going to get 4 and 5 star OL and DLs. Meanwhile schools like OSU and Bama will fill their entire 2 deep with those types of players.

OTOH those schools don't have a use for the 5'6" WR even if they have 4.3 speed, great hands, and dominate in HS. Those guys just aren't big enough to block well in a pro-style offense. So these guys with great hands and speed flourish in spread offenses when they would do nothing on a pro style team. Same thing happens with QBs. Bama doesn't want a 5'10" QB that's been playing in a spread style since junior high putting up monster number in HS. They want the 6'3" NFL prototype. That works for them. But that 5'10" QB can continue to put up monster stats in college in the spread.

Need an example of the spread being effective when pro style wouldn't... look at UH vs Penn State in 2011. PSU had the #5 scoring defense/#20 total defense. Dominant DL with 3 of the 4 being drafted by the NFL. 1 of the 3 LBs drafted. What do you think the odds UH would have had against that type of defense going pro style? Maybe we could do it. Although the RBs only had 59 total yards rushing, that was on just 8 carries. But that success was more based on surprise and even backwards passes that count as rushes. I'd say our chance of winning a game like that would be slim. But using the spread, it was a pretty easy win with our tiny speedsters going crazy and those PSU lineman getting frustrated because they had little impact due to passes going out so quickly.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

The best football, and football that wins consistently at the highest level, is played by power running teams that can throw when necessary, play good special teams, and stop the run. That is always the way is has been, and barring some drastic human physiological changes, and changes in how football games are timed and scored, it is the way it will always be.

This. This is the Gospel of Football. Be able to run. Be able to stop the run. Don't give the game away on special teams.

[Mean_Green09]

What about Boise St? They never recruited the big time players, but where able to win in a pro-style offense. I think that right now in today's game a team in CUSA or a smaller conference could switch to a pro-style and be successful without recruiting the big time players. It's possible because of the face that so many teams now a running some form of the spread. So defenses are forced to adjust so they recruit the faster and sometimes smaller guys who can help them cover more space.

[LongJim]

Need an example of the spread being effective when pro style wouldn't... look at UH vs Penn State in 2011. PSU had the #5 scoring defense/#20 total defense. Dominant DL with 3 of the 4 being drafted by the NFL. 1 of the 3 LBs drafted. What do you think the odds UH would have had against that type of defense going pro style? Maybe we could do it. Although the RBs only had 59 total yards rushing, that was on just 8 carries. But that success was more based on surprise and even backwards passes that count as rushes. I'd say our chance of winning a game like that would be slim. But using the spread, it was a pretty easy win with our tiny speedsters going crazy and those PSU lineman getting frustrated because they had little impact due to passes going out so quickly.

That was a bowl game, and the flip side of that is Houston struggling against Air Force and other teams (ECU, UCF) that can run the football. Neither of those teams have superior athletes at OL and DL.

I would argue that the main reason PSU lost was because they were not geared to play against a spread offense on a typical Saturday--as they play in a league known for smash-mouth, grind it out football games. It's never a good idea to bet against a spread team when they face a team that is not geared to stop the spread on a weekly basis. Tech has proven this in their bowl games more than once. But it's also not a good idea to bet against a team that can run the football effectively either--particularly when each defense does not typically face that type of offense week in and week out.

Look, your argument is valid. I'm just saying that you do not have to have superior athletes to be effective running the football and passing when necessary. There are too many teams that can do it effectively to say that.

[Mean Green 93-98]

What about Boise St? They never recruited the big time players, but where able to win in a pro-style offense. I think that right now in today's game a team in CUSA or a smaller conference could switch to a pro-style and be successful without recruiting the big time players. It's possible because of the face that so many teams now a running some form of the spread. So defenses are forced to adjust so they recruit the faster and sometimes smaller guys who can help them cover more space.

Boise State has a pro-style offense, but it's not a conventional offense, and it's a far cry from the ram-it-down-your-throat running offense most of the guys in this thread are discussing. They create mismatches through motion and unusual formations, and are known for running a lot of trick plays (e.g., the statue of liberty play that won the game against OU). It doesn't hurt that they have one of the best coaches in all of football, either.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

Houston? Is this a joke? One time they beat Penn State and so the whole paradigm of football is shifted?

There's a school in Tuscaloosa, Alabama faring much better year in and year out than gimmicky Houston. Two 5-7 records in the past three seasons. Wow. That Houston spread is just confounding the college football world, I tell ya.

[Mean_Green09]

Boise State has a pro-style offense, but it's not a conventional offense, and it's a far cry from the ram-it-down-your-throat running offense most of the guys in this thread are discussing. They create mismatches through motion and unusual formations, and are known for running a lot of trick plays (e.g., the statue of liberty play that won the game against OU). It doesn't hurt that they have one of the best coaches in all of football, either.

Why couldn't UNT take its ground and pound game and infuse some of the Boise St. offense into it? I for one would much rather see that than a spread. If we were able to run the ball effectively, but yet still create mismatches with our passing game. That would be an offense that I don't many people would complain about around here.

[Mean Green 93-98]

Why couldn't UNT take its ground and pound game and infuse some of the Boise St. offense into it? I for one would much rather see that than a spread. If we were able to run the ball effectively, but yet still create mismatches with our passing game. That would be an offense that I don't many people would complain about around here.

Preach on, brother.

[NTXCoog]

Houston? Is this a joke? One time they beat Penn State and so the whole paradigm of football is shifted?

There's a school in Tuscaloosa, Alabama faring much better year in and year out than gimmicky Houston. Two 5-7 records in the past three seasons. Wow. That Houston spread is just confounding the college football world, I tell ya.

Are you deliberately being obtuse? How did UNT's Pro Style do vs UH's Spread the last 2 years? All I'm going to say about putting down UH.

So I'll look at UH vs UH. From 1993 to 2002, UH ran a pro style offense. We went 32-79-1 although we did go to 1 bowl and won the first CUSA championship going 7-5. In those 10 years, UH wasn't ranked for 1 year.

From 2003-present, UH has run a spread offense. We went 75-53, won 1 conference championship and 2 additional division championships. We went to 7 bowls and have been ranked 22 weeks including finishing in the top 20 one year. So call me a believer.

Look at Baylor, the ultimate Big XII doormat with their best season having 5 wins and most seasons having 3 wins or less. Briles then comes in and implements the spread. RGIII is a great help, but even without him, last year they go 8-5 and win a bowl game, something they could old dream of prior to implementing the spread.

Now on to your Bama statement: of course they're the best. They have the best talent by far. It doesn't matter what system you run, if you have the best players, you will win more consistently than without it. That's kind of the question about this thread, if you don't have the best talent, does the spread help? To help answer that question, didn't Bama lose a game last season? Who did they lose to and what style offense did they run? That would be aTm and the Spread. Do you think aTm had more talent than Bama? So what was the equalizer? How does aTm go from being 7-6 in the Big XII to 11-2 in the SEC, beating the eventual national champion, finishing in the top 10 for the first time in 20 years, and top 5 for the first time since the 1950's? New coaching staff helped. Great QB play helped. The Spread was the biggest factor. Do you think Manziel wins the Heisman as a pro style QB? Do you think he's as successful running Bama's offense?

Pro Style is great for beating your talent level and worse. It's quite possible you could dominate those below you fairly consistently. But I think the Spread gives you a chance to beat those teams at a more traditional higher talent level by using alternative, less recruited high level talent.

[EagleD]

I believe the phrase, "coach 'em up" applies here. Run whatever system you want, teach your players how to run your system. OU won a national championship with Leach as the OC running a wide open offense. I believe it was Stoop's 2nd year. So he was using player's from a different staff (mostly).

To make this NT related, I firmly believe our coaching staff is doing just that, "coaching 'em up".

[NTXCoog]

That was a bowl game, and the flip side of that is Houston struggling against Air Force and other teams (ECU, UCF) that can run the football. Neither of those teams have superior athletes at OL and DL.

I would argue that the main reason PSU lost was because they were not geared to play against a spread offense on a typical Saturday--as they play in a league known for smash-mouth, grind it out football games. It's never a good idea to bet against a spread team when they face a team that is not geared to stop the spread on a weekly basis. Tech has proven this in their bowl games more than once. But it's also not a good idea to bet against a team that can run the football effectively either--particularly when each defense does not typically face that type of offense week in and week out.

Look, your argument is valid. I'm just saying that you do not have to have superior athletes to be effective running the football and passing when necessary. There are too many teams that can do it effectively to say that.

Air Force is definitely not a pro style offense either. Run based (non pro style) offenses like the pistol/wishbone/veer can work in a similar way to Spread offenses and be equalizers. They can recruit smaller, fast offensive linemen and the highest level of HS option QBs that the big name schools don't recruit. Teams can be very successful using that. Just look at TCU. They had a great amount of success running an option oriented attack, especially early in their run.

I just think spread offenses have higher upsides because 1) the highest level teams generally have too much team speed for those types of offense (one of the reasons why even very few high level teams run them anymore when in the 70s all of them ran it) and 2) if you get behind, non-pro style run offenses have very little chance to come from behind.

[PlummMeanGreen]

Surprised with UH's W/L record with the pro style offense.

Of course, I grew up watching Bill Yeoman's Houston Veer which I actually think he had first developed when he was an assistant coach at Army (West Point).

One of the best darn college football games ever listened to on (KPRC) radio down there was UH playing with its Houston Veer and UT-Austin's newly debuted wishbone offense (created by then UT assistant coach *Emmory Bellard). Game ended in a 20/20 tie and next thing you knew was Darrell K. Royal sponsoring UH for SWC membership.

If North Texas has a grind it out offense with our RB's by committee and superb UNT offensive line (as I think they will be that kind of offense this Fall) who would object to that if we win? Of course, an occasional called pass at the appropriate (or even inappropriate) time would be fine, too.

I tell you I'm pumped for Game Day in just 4 days now. 35 to 7 or 35 to 10 is my prediction. I think we find out we have a defensive line, but one that can ill afford the you know what bug.

Like a new year when we all start out fresh with new outlooks while wiping the previous year's slate clean, this is a new football season so why not do the same for that, too?

BEAT THE HELL OUT OF IDAHO, MEAN GREEN ! (Don't take it personal, Vandal fans).

* Emmory Bellard Bio and Obit':

http://www.chron.com/sports/college-football/article/Pioneering-football-coach-Bellard-dies-at-83-1688466.php

Edited August 27, 2013 by PlummMeanGreen