The Spread versus Pro Style

LongJim · August 27, 2013

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.

I'm not going to argue about whether it's a good thing or has a "higher upside". It really doesn't have any higher upside, as has been proven here the last few years..

If you're going to be able to recruit at a level at which the spread is successful, then why not aspire to recruit at a level that will allow a more balanced attack to be successful? An offense that has many more advantages when implemented successfully?

I have mentioned this on the board many times, but I don't particularly care for the spread. It's not new, not innovative any more, (IMO), and to me, it is a give-up and resignation to your ability to recruit relative to other schools. That's probably a more than a bit distorted viewpoint, and I realize that, but I just hope UNT aspires to higher.

oldguystudent · August 27, 2013

I will admit to this much: Compared to the staring at the sidelines like a bunch of stunned deer sandlot mess we witnessed over at Fouts, when I see an NFL team or a high level college team running the spread offense, it usually takes me a while to recognize it. I therefore, by mere anecdotal evidence, have an ingrained biased against the very word.

DentonAmerica · August 27, 2013

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.

I never said it guarantees you to be good with lesser talent if you run the spread. I simply said that you can run a spread with lesser talent and win. You cannot run a pro style offense with lesser talent and win. That is a fact.

LongJim · August 27, 2013

I never said it guarantees you to be good with lesser talent if you run the spread. I simply said that you can run a spread with lesser talent and win. You cannot run a pro style offense with lesser talent and win. That is a fact.

1. I didn't say you did.

2. You cannot run any offense with lesser talent and win--consistently. You can win a bowl game here and there, and as I mentioned--knock off a team that seldom plays against that type of offense sure, but you can do the same thing with a run-based offense and a QB under center. Both styles have to have at least some talent at specific positions. UNT had little luck with the spread during Dodge's tenure. WKY did pretty well with a run-based offense last year and the year before, and they basically had 2 skill position players.

And we are turning this into semantics. VERY few college teams run a "pro-style" offense. They either have run first, or pass first offenses. I am saying that you can be successful with either one based on your personnel strengths, and you don't have to have superior athletes at all positions.

DentonAmerica · August 27, 2013

1. I didn't say you did.

2. You cannot run any offense with lesser talent and win--consistently. You can win a bowl game here and there, and as I mentioned--knock off a team that seldom plays against that type of offense sure, but you can do the same thing with a run-based offense and a QB under center. Both styles have to have at least some talent at specific positions. UNT had little luck with the spread during Dodge's tenure. WKY did pretty well with a run-based offense last year and the year before, and they basically had 2 skill position players.

And we are turning this into semantics. VERY few college teams run a "pro-style" offense. They either have run first, or pass first offenses. I am saying that you can be successful with either one based on your personnel strengths, and you don't have to have superior athletes at all positions.

Western Kentucky the past 2 years has a record of 14-13.....thats one game above average. There are countless examples of spread teams with average talent that are more successful. Example LA Tech, Ark state, Tulsa

LongJim · August 27, 2013

Western Kentucky the past 2 years has a record of 14-13.....thats one game above average. There are countless examples of spread teams with average talent that are more successful. Example LA Tech, Ark state, Tulsa

.

Yes, countless. Maybe UNT will be one of the countless one day. We can only hope.

NTXCoog · August 27, 2013

I have mentioned this on the board many times, but I don't particularly care for the spread. It's not new, not innovative any more, (IMO), and to me, it is a give-up and resignation to your ability to recruit relative to other schools.

I am intrigued by this statement, and I may partially agree with it. It's not a surprising offense anymore that no one has seen. But why is that? It has become mainstream because teams are having great success with it on every level of football from high school, college, and pro including Super Bowl champions. It's not just a gimmick.

Its run will end at some point like every other innovation.

The Veer was the most dominant offense in the late 1960s. It involved into the Wishbone and other triple option offenses and soon everyone ran some version of the triple option including the big powers. But that stopped. Oddly enough a Wishbone offense is now considered a gimmick while in the 1970s, it was pretty much a standard offense.

In the late 1980s, the Run and Shoot was the newest innovation and was nearly unstoppable. Eventually that evolved into the Spread and many teams run it, even some teams at the highest level of college football. Possibly it stops if the majority of the powerhouses adopt it and they dominate not only due to talent, but talent and scheme.

What's the next innovation? I don't know, but it's past due. It may be the dual threat running/passing QB option offense, but I don't think that's it. That involves too much dependence on one player instead of the system. Plus most of the biggest innovations start at a lesser known school and VERY slowly work their ways up the ranks as their effectiveness is proven. The dual QB has already been at the highest levels of college ball.

LongJim · August 27, 2013

I am intrigued by this statement, and I may partially agree with it. It's not a surprising offense anymore that no one has seen. But why is that? It has become mainstream because teams are having great success with it on every level of football from high school, college, and pro including Super Bowl champions. It's not just a gimmick.

Its run will end at some point like every other innovation.

The Veer was the most dominant offense in the late 1960s. It involved into the Wishbone and other triple option offenses and soon everyone ran some version of the triple option including the big powers. But that stopped. Oddly enough a Wishbone offense is now considered a gimmick while in the 1970s, it was pretty much a standard offense.

In the late 1980s, the Run and Shoot was the newest innovation and was nearly unstoppable. Eventually that evolved into the Spread and many teams run it, even some teams at the highest level of college football. Possibly it stops if the majority of the powerhouses adopt it and they dominate not only due to talent, but talent and scheme.

Good post.

Regarding the spread--and to be clear--I don't hate it. I simply view it as a lesser alternative to a well-executed power running offense. There are a couple of reasons, and they all have to do with Football 101.

One, the spread tends to bog down in the red zone when there is no effective running threat. Second, it uses the pass as a primary weapon, and by doing that, there is more margin for error, sacks, fumbles, and turnovers. Third, it does not burn clock. And if it is paired with a weaker defense, it will have trouble even outscoring a running team. Weaker defenses can be helped and camouflaged a bit if their offensive team is able to burn clock and shorten the game--as a run-based offense can often do.

All of these factors--IMO--make it less desirable as a main style of offense. Now, in its defense, it can score quickly and bury a lesser team--and some superior ones--when it gets cranked up. But enough schools are adopting it now that it is no longer an overwhelming, pinball game offense as it was even 5-10 years ago. It basically does what an effective run-first offense does--whip teams with less talent consistently.

But, there are many who believe it is the solution to all offensive woes. It simply isn't--IMO.

Cougar King · August 27, 2013

I am intrigued by this statement, and I may partially agree with it. It's not a surprising offense anymore that no one has seen. But why is that? It has become mainstream because teams are having great success with it on every level of football from high school, college, and pro including Super Bowl champions. It's not just a gimmick.

Its run will end at some point like every other innovation.

The Veer was the most dominant offense in the late 1960s. It involved into the Wishbone and other triple option offenses and soon everyone ran some version of the triple option including the big powers. But that stopped. Oddly enough a Wishbone offense is now considered a gimmick while in the 1970s, it was pretty much a standard offense.

In the late 1980s, the Run and Shoot was the newest innovation and was nearly unstoppable. Eventually that evolved into the Spread and many teams run it, even some teams at the highest level of college football. Possibly it stops if the majority of the powerhouses adopt it and they dominate not only due to talent, but talent and scheme.

What's the next innovation? I don't know, but it's past due. It may be the dual threat running/passing QB option offense, but I don't think that's it. That involves too much dependence on one player instead of the system. Plus most of the biggest innovations start at a lesser known school and VERY slowly work their ways up the ranks as their effectiveness is proven. The dual QB has already been at the highest levels of college ball.

If anybody has authority to speak on revolutionary offenses, it's a Coog.

+1

Varsity · August 27, 2013

If anybody has authority to speak on revolutionary offenses, it's a Coog.

+1

No, not really.

The spread has become mainstream, in part, because there is a heard mentality in the coaching ranks.

Cougar King · August 29, 2013

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.

BOOM!

NTXCoog just threw the knockout punch! n/

Edited August 29, 2013 by Cougar King

Mean Green 93-98 · August 29, 2013

BOOM!

NTXCoog just threw the knockout punch! n/

Ah, I see you found your dictionary to look up "obtuse" since you last posted.

Don't tell Cougar King a joke on Saturday night, or he'll bust out laughing in the middle of worship services Sunday morning.

Varsity · August 29, 2013

Ah, I see you found your dictionary to look up "obtuse" since you last posted.

Don't tell Cougar King a joke on Saturday night, or he'll bust out laughing in the middle of worship services Sunday morning.

Cougar King is handicapped by a lack of education.