Spread offense - fad or evolution?
by kirkd on Jul 20, 2009 4:57 PM PDT
135 comments
A pretty good article on ESPN.com today about the history and evolution of the spread offense. Or, to be more accurate, the evolution of spread offenses, since there are many flavors of the spread.
Given all the debate on this blog about the spread (mainly fueled by crazidawg's dislike and dismissal of it), I thought this was an interesting read.
To me, it's pretty clear that spread offenses aren't really a fad, but an evolution. It's not the only way to succeed offensively, but it can be a very effective one, and has been proven to be one that championships can be won with versions of the spread (Florida, Texas).
I'm not going to argue that spread offenses are the only way to go in modern college football - I think the variety of offenses that defenses have to face makes each of them more effective in their own right - but they certainly have a place in the game, and unless the rules are changed in a significant way, I think spread offenses (in various guises) will be continue to be successful.
It will be interesting to see how defenses evolve to solve the spread, and whether the number of teams utilizing spread offenses and defenses designed to stop them will help teams like the UW and USC that run pro-style attacks.
Here's the article: Mark Schlabach on the history of the spread
0 recs |
135 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Lappano's Theory vs Belloti
I’m just throwing this out there. I want to make a comparison here. Lappano believed that to have an offense that could “shift gears” so to speak and run more than one style of offense was a strength. Belloti on the other hand, felt that staying with one mode offensively, and being good at it, was the way to go. So who was right? Well it’s obvious that with those two examples to choose from, it’s a “no brainer”, right? I mean Belloti’s offense (the spread) was “more successful” than Lappano’s so it’s not even a fair comparison.
Let’s throw another example into the mix. In 1999 Marques Tuiasosopo convinced Rick Nueheisel to incorporate the “Option” offense into the already existing “one back/spread” offense that the Huskies were running. If I’m not mistaken, at the time, the Huskies were 0-2 when that decision was made. The next game the Huskies played was against Colorado, who at the time, were a heavy favorite and a top ten team nationally. The Huskies upset Colorado at Husky Stadium. Not only that, they went on a run that season that was one loss away from going to the Rosebowl. The next season, as we all know, the Huskies only lost one game and were crowned Rosebowl Champions. This was done with a “dual” offensive system. If we compare Oregon’s theory with Washington’s “dual” offense theory of 1999/2000, which one is more successful? I think it’s clear that both of them are. There are obviously different ways to have success moving the football. The bottom line is, whatever you do, you have to be able to execute.
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
by dawgfan22 on Jul 20, 2009 5:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Correction
I guess beauty and success is in the eye of the beholder. Which one do you think is more successful?
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
by dawgfan22 on Jul 20, 2009 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not quite a spread
A spread is dependent on the word itself…. “spread” what Washington ran depended on blocking TE’s and a big strong Line. Oregon does it in a way where having 3 WR at least out at a time creates more lanes naturally rather than thorugh the power of blocking, not to say they don’t block. Washington used formations that you’ll see Oregon use maybe one or two times a game such as the “I” and two tight end sets. While the Spread is essentially the offense of “options” despite that phrase already being its own formation What washington was doing was creating options but not through the spreading of wide outs in effect to lessen the strength and capability of the defense in a sheer numbers game. even though the odds are the same running through 7 on 7 is a lot easier than 11 on 11
by duckyou on Jul 27, 2009 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed...
…it was more of a hybrid. The offense Washington ran with Tui (1999/2000) was the old style “option”. These terms can get really confusing. The spread part of that offense was based on the one back/offense which spread the way the “old” way by putting a lot of wide receivers across the line of scrimmage. Gilby had always run the one back but when it wasn’t working so well by itself they incorporated the “option” and combined them.
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
by dawgfan22 on Jul 28, 2009 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't call the UW's offense in 1999 a "spread."
It was more a multiple formation.
Some one-back three receiver, some one-back two tight end, and once Tuiasosopo and Conniff taught the ricker the option, it was a lot of I-formation, and the option with a pulling guard and Conniff leading the way, or the more traditional triple option with Conniff diving the middle.
I’d say their base formation was two backs, one tight end, and two receivers after the BYU and Air Force debacles.
by Sundodger on Jul 21, 2009 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, they really weren’t spreading the field – they took the standard I-formation and started running a lot more option football. I don’t recall a whole lot of formations that spread the defense wide.
by kirkd on Jul 21, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It must have been multiple then...
…because they definitely went no backs with multiple wideouts. That added to the option attack of course.
by doubledeucedawg on Jul 21, 2009 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
With the right personnel ...
The Spread Offense is powerful but like most schemes it requires good players from the QB to the OL to the WR and the RB. In the end I think it’s just another flavor in the milieu. I still believe the best offense is a GREAT Defense.
by murchy on Jul 20, 2009 6:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I was thinking about that
How much better would ANY offense look with a great defense? It’s disheartening to a defensive unit to constantly be coming back on the field because their offense keeps going three and out. Statistically the 91 offense was one of the best but how much credit should be given to that Mondo 91 defense?
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
by dawgfan22 on Jul 20, 2009 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How many more opportunities does...
…that provide?
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
by dawgfan22 on Jul 20, 2009 6:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You wanna see something crazy? Compare the 91 Dawgs to the 08 Trojans statistically. Points scored, points allowed they are pretty much dead even. Only difference is the Dawgs went undefeated.
I don’t like the spread, at all, but I really wanna have a kick ass defense more than anything. Gimme a shutdown defense and a QB that’s a true field general and I’m happy. The reason I say a field general QB is due to the fact that if you get a guy that can manage a game the way it’s supposed to be managed you will usually ALWAYS win. Look at Oregon. Their offense scores so fast that their defense spends too much time on the field. In close games the last thing you want is a tired defense, you’re destined to lose. Manage the clock, the field, score when you need to score, and win baby.
by ChazzReinhold on Jul 21, 2009 7:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It requires a total commitment
I remember when Jim Owens tried the Veer and other things. It didn’t work because it was an experiment they weren’t completely committed to. Oregon went in 110% and they made it work. Sark is going in 110% fir the pro set and it will work over time because of it.
by John Berkowitz on Jul 20, 2009 6:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
kirkd- You are really daring Crazi and Lear aren't you?
I’m going to pass on this topic for the sancity of mankind- Yippee!
All I saw was purple
by crazidawg on Jul 20, 2009 8:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The last paragragh from the topic above is completely accurate. The spread will be effective and will continue to be utilized until a coaching staff figures out how to blow it up. The spread is realitively still fresh, new, and young and we don’t know what the potential it offers.
But like most gimmick offenses, a defense has to play assignment football. If you free lance on defense, you’ll find yourself out of position on the play. It forces a defense to play assignment defense, thus one on one matchups are a direct result.
Honestly why do I dislike the spread? I think it is getting away from the foundation of the game. I like the huddle and dislike fast break offenses, which the fast break offense (no huddle offense) has come out of the spread. It’s getting away from the game too much almost as if the game is evolving into something that is not football.
P.S. I said I was going to “pass” on the subject but couldn’t resist
All I saw was purple
by crazidawg on Jul 20, 2009 8:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It’s getting away from the game too much almost as if the game is evolving into something that is not football.
Yeah… 694 yards of total offense in one game and 42 points per game sure is rugby. We need to play REAL football! 3 yards and a cloud of dust! Win the game 14-7! 230 yards of total offense!
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Good luck in the WNBA, Kamyron!
by qrsouther on Jul 23, 2009 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rugby is a lot more fun to play
at least after you learn the rules. It’s too bad I didn’t learn them until I was 30.
by hairofthedawg on Jul 23, 2009 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll say.
My high school has a rugby team that I regret not joining last year.
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Good luck in the WNBA, Kamyron!
by qrsouther on Jul 23, 2009 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do it.
I played until I was 39 and would have continued if I wasn’t overseas. There’s a thriving old boys community in the States. It’s a great way to network too because most cities have teams. I’m pleasantly surprised your high school has a team. It’s slowly taking hold and once you play, you’re hooked.
Personally, I think it’s an excellent off-season conditioner for football players. I asked the dawgman guys to ask coach Sarkisian about it on their radio show and he said that it’s becoming more common, especially among Polynesian kids. He’s all about competition though and while acknowledging the chance for injuries, more or less told the kids to compete.
I’m not sure if you’re from Eugene or not, but they used to have a decent team. Ben Clegg, an internet rugby pioneer, used to be involved. He was a professor of some sort at the U of O.
by hairofthedawg on Jul 24, 2009 12:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Kirkd is picking a fight for us!!!
Well, if the blog seems a little quiet, just post something about the spread offense, that is a sure fire way to liven things up.
Obviously I’m not going to argue with kirkd, there are so many different versions of the spread offense it makes my head spin. Until college football players acrross all 120 teams get faster and stop making mistakes the spread is going to very popular, and there will be a lot of scoring. Like crazi said, it forces one on one assignments, you make one man miss and big yardage is going to happen.
Crazi – I don’t buy that the spread is a gimmick, any offense could be labeled a gimmick. As far as getting away from the “foundation of the game”, I’ve got one name for you: Tom Landry, creator of the 4-3 defense, and the guy who made the shotgun formation popular (Red Hickey of the 49ers gets credit for creating it). I guess Landry was the first to break the mold and get away from the “foundation of the game”. Speaking of the spread being a new thing, I have to disagree, seen as how Bobby Bowden and Steve Spurrier were quite successful with it in the early to mid 90’s.
P.S. – The “spread” can be run from under center, the pistol, and the shotgun formation. It’s not just a shotgun formation offense.
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
by Lear Pilot on Jul 20, 2009 9:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If it ain't main stream in the pros then...
in my book it is gimmick. Just as is the fly and pistol offenses are gimmick. I’ll even go way back and say the run and shoot, wing t, veer, and option offenses were gimmick. And my reasoning? The only place you have to look towards is in the pro game. The only true constants in pro football in terms of offense have been the pro style and the west coast offenses. And in my book that is cutting edge football, just like coach Sark said.
Again only two true constants have stood the times in modern day football- the pro and the west coast offenses. Why? Because football evolves and defensive coaches find ways to destroy the productivity of gimmick offenses. Why are some of these offenses considered dinosaurs nowadays? Because like evolution, defensive coaches have evolved with the latest trends.
Like the 46 Bear defense- won’t work in today’s football because of the evolutionary process or discoverey of the hot route system. The 46 Bear became an artifact that may take a generation or two in order to gain popularity again.
But mark my words, the pro style and West Coast offenses are the only true constants in modern day football, they have withstood the time and aren’t going away. The reason is because of one position on the field- the QUARTERBACK. Get a good pro style QB that can read defense and make all the throws and you’ve got one helluva great pro style offense, no matter of personnel. But the spread is all about the system and not centered on the QB. The spread QB doesn’t have to read defense nor have the ability of making all the throws. The spread is a system. The pro is all about the QB BABY!
On a different note, I am not going to get into a heated debate with my buddy Lear on this topic. We both have debated our stances until we were blue in the face. I’m sick of the pro vs. spread debate. I’m moving on…
All I saw was purple
by crazidawg on Jul 21, 2009 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sick of the debate??
Debate’s aren’t much fun when you lose.
You are right, it is a gimmick offense, really when you break it down the forward pass is just a big gimmick. I guess we should blame Walter Camp for destroying the “foundation of the game.”
I wouldn’t call the west-coast offense a true “constant” of the game, well unless you are 20 years old or younger. But really, Bill Walsh just created a gimmicky offense based around short quick passing routes.
“The spread QB doesn’t have to read defense nor have the ability of making all the throws.” – You are kidding right? You are letting your loyalties cloud your judgement again! Last time I checked, spread QB’s aren’t allowed to skip the ball off the turf to the wr, or did I miss a rule change? And I’m all most positive that a spread QB still has to go through his progressions, just like a pro-style QB.
“The spread is a system. The pro is all about the QB BABY!” – Last time I checked, every team runs a system, and every team has a QB. How in your right mind can you tell me that the spread isn’t all about the QB BABY, when it has guys like Colt McCoy, Sam Bradford, Tim Tebow, Graham Harrell and Chase Daniels? What a bunch of nobody’s, their stats/production must really suck!!!
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
by Lear Pilot on Jul 21, 2009 6:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep they suck!
Not one of them will become a legit NFL QB- NOT ONE! And they can’t make all the throws. Sure they can hit the skinny post, but none of these guys can hit the fade route to the outside corner with any sort of consistency- usually not a route college programs use in their passing arsenal except if the college program has a pro style system like the NFL.
McCoy, Brandford, Tebow, Harrell, and Daniels are nice college QBs. But they will become career backups in the pros. The only one that has a chance to play in the pros from your list is Tebow, who actually plays folks that play defense. The Big 12 is laughable at defense.
Find something else to argue Lear, the freakin’ West Coast is another version of the pro style. It utilizes the TE and you’ll see a two back set most often. Where are you from? And the west coast has been implemented since at least 1981, darn near 30 years NOT 20 years like you indicated.
Keep bringing up guys like Walter Camp, I appreciate a good history lesson now and then. You just can’t allow yourself to fail in this argument can you? The spread is realitively still fresh, young, and new. The first year I saw it in action was the Oklahoma vs. Washington State Rose Bowl, was that 2003? The thing isn’t even 10 years old yet. Who knows, maybe Will Mustchamp, DC at Texas this year will formulate some sort of new fangled defense that blows up Oklahoma’s, Oklahoma State’s, and Texas Tech’s pathetic spread offense. It’s possible, but not so much involving the pro.
If the fly, pistol, run & shoot, veer, option, wishbone, and wing T are gimmicky then so is the stinkin’ spread offense. YUCK!
All I saw was purple
by crazidawg on Jul 21, 2009 8:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
10 years old??? HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You’ve got an awfully short memory, weren’t we just talking about “The ol’ ball coach” a few days ago. I know you don’t want to admit it, but the spread offense has been around for much longer than 10 years. Steve Spurrier and Bobby Bowden have been running versions of the spread offense since AT LEAST the early 90’s! The Houston Oilers (you might not be old enough to know of them) were running a run and shoot offense in the 80’s, so the spread offense has been around a long time, and it still works. Case and point, read the article mentioned in the original post, people with a lot more knowledge than us think it’s going to be around to stay, so get use to it.
Which would you prefer: a college football nobody like Derek Anderson who has an average college career, with 7-8 wins per season, but turns out to be a NFL starter, or Sam Bradford who lights up the scoreboard, sets college records, will win 10+ games per season, and will be a nobody in the NFL?
This IS NOT about the NFL, it’s about winning games in COLLEGE. I don’t care about how our QB’s do in the NFL, I WANT THE WASHINGTON HUSKIES TO WIN GAMES, THAT’S ALL I CARE ABOUT!!!!!!!
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
by Lear Pilot on Jul 22, 2009 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hammer meet nail.
“This IS NOT about the NFL, it’s about winning games in COLLEGE. I don’t care about how our QB’s do in the NFL, I WANT THE WASHINGTON HUSKIES TO WIN GAMES, THAT’S ALL I CARE ABOUT!!!!!!!”
Bingo. While I wish success for every player on the team when they finally move on, it’s what they do as Huskies that really matters.
by Sundodger on Jul 22, 2009 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
I don’t care if we never throw a pass all year, we could run the veer and a 3-3-5 defense, who cares as long as we WIN football games. I’m with you, I love seeing Huskies do well in the NFL, but all that matters is winning on Saturdays. Win and the stands will be full, Win and money will be flowing, win and Husky stadium will get renovated, win and recruits will come, WIN games and everything else will take care of itself.
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
by Lear Pilot on Jul 22, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You seem to have completely changed your tune since we last talked.
So now college success matters to you more than NFL success? I’m so proud of you Lear.
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Good luck in the WNBA, Kamyron!
by qrsouther on Jul 23, 2009 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You must have me confused with some one else
I’m pretty sure that has always been my take. Don’t get me wrong, I really don’t like the ducks, but it has nothing to do with their offensive system.
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
by Lear Pilot on Jul 23, 2009 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hm, maybe.
I thought I remember arguing with you before and you using the argument that production in college takes a backseat to grooming for/production in the pros.
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Good luck in the WNBA, Kamyron!
by qrsouther on Jul 23, 2009 6:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope, that's crazi
One of the many reasons he like the pro style offense. Me, I just want the Huskies to win, don’t care what offense they use.
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
by Lear Pilot on Jul 23, 2009 9:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The spread originated from option football. Both use the same principles of spreading you out on the L.O.S. The reason option football became an artifact was due to not being able to compete vs. the pro style or west coast offenses that stressed the passing game. This is why you see the spread offense operating heavily in places that traditionally used wishbone and option football, i.e. Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Missouri, and Arkansas. And coming really soon to Nebraska.
What you saw from Bobby Bowden and Steve Spurrior was in a nutshell a shotgun pro style offense. The term shotgun wasn’t conceived out of the spread offense Lear. It goes way back to the days of Tom Landry w/ the Dallas Cowboys and a QB named Roger Staubach. Did Landry and the Cowboys run a pro style offense? Yes I believe they did. Are you telling me that John Elway used the spread offense w/ the Denver Broncos just because he was in shotgun formation? What the hell are you talking about Lear? You see “shotgun” and you think spread. Got news for you Lear, the shotgun was coined in the early 70’s and … oh yeah … in the pro style of all offenses.
I know this has nothing to do with the NFL, you wanted my opinion on McCoy, Brandford, Tebow, Harrell, and Daniels and I gave you my opinion- they will suck in a NFL pro style offense. And yeah I’ll gladly take a Derek Anderson, who has been groomed as a pro style QB over a spread guy any day as an NFL offensive coordinator. Name one college spread guy that has made an impact in pro football- they all come from pro style offenses.
Then you come up with the Run and Shoot. WRONG Lear. The run and shoot was a four receiver offense, but it operated like the pro style- same routes and same schemes. Now in terms of the running game the Moon-led Oilers running game consisted of draws, zones, and maybe a counter now and then. But was it a spread offense? The run and shoot’s principles weren’t to spread out the defense on the L.O.S. The run and shoot designed to create mismatches in the secondary using pro style routes, they wanted to put more quality receivers on the field then what could be defended- get it?
And I don’t care what that dam article says, Bobby Bowden and Steve Spurrior used a shotgun formation in their pro style systems- both are still using pro, so where on earth did the author come up with them using a spread system? Again the fundamentals of the spread were derived from option football- a way to spread the defense out horizontally on the L.O.S., the beatty of the spread nowadays is that teams that were tradtional run oriented option offenses can now compete vertically with the passing game.
All of this is based upon my opinion, so what the hell do you care anyways? My question to you is why do you defend the spread so dam much? If the QBs were as good as you advertise from these spread offenses, then why aren’t they making a living in pro ball? Why are all the QBs in the pros coming from pro style systems? Don’t give me freakin’ stats, college football is not played on an even playing field. Of your list the only QB I respect is Tim Tebow, because he plays in a league that actually has a pulse on defense. Again what is it to you that I have a different opinion?
All I saw was purple
by crazidawg on Jul 22, 2009 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This discussion leads me...
…to believe that there are a lot of parts of offenses that “cross over” so to speak. Some of this and some of that. It becomes hard at times to qualify some of these because they are “hybrid” containing elements of more than one offense.
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
by dawgfan22 on Jul 22, 2009 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're right, dawgfan22.
There are some misconceptions floating around about what the spread is and isn’t. The spread is a formation, not an offense. When people talk about teams running “the spread,” what that really means is that said team’s basic offensive formation is going to be run with three or more receivers stretched horizontally across the field. The plays are exactly the same as any other formation, but the formation itself puts pressure on the defense and lends itself to certain strong points (the run-and-shoot is the predominant spread passing philosophy, and the spread option is the dominant run philosophy – but there are degrees and variations of each). It takes a commitment to actually run this formation as a base offense, because it requires different athletes at receiver and on the line, significant practice in reading pre-snap defensive alignments, knowing how a defense will adjust after the snap, etc. That commitment is what people use today to define a team as a “spread offense.”
Similarly, “pro style” isn’t an offense. It means that a team is going to use multiple formations to try to create mismatches, gain advantages, or disguise tendencies. The spread formation is part of a pro style offense. The Huskies under nuehiesal were a pro-style team that utilized the spread formation some, but they were by no means a “spread” team. Again, this type of offense is going to need different athletes than a spread team will (for starters, a fullback and more depth at tight end). The West Coast Offense (which is a commitment to short, precision passes, and heavily involving the backs and tight ends in the passing attack) can be run out of any formation, but is typically a pro-style system as opposed to a spread system. In the spread, the WCO is basically considered the dink-and-dunk run-and-shoot.
The same pass routes are used in every offense. The same running plays are used in every offense. The frequency will vary, as dictated by formation and defensive alignment. You won’t see a lot of blasts or traps out of the spread, because they defeat the point of the formation to an extent. Similarly, you won’t see much option out of a pro-style team except as a change of pace, because the athletes are usually different.
And so on. I’m not trying to sound like a know-it-all or anything like that, but it’s important to understand what is meant with the terminology.
by Sundodger on Jul 22, 2009 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd be curious...
…to find out Lambright’s take on defending the spread. I know some of you think the guy is “out to pasture” so to speak but I’d still like to hear his take on it. I remember listening to him on KJR and I believe it was in reference to this, he said that it put even a “greater premium” on not “showing” what the defense was bringing on every snap. I think if your a defense you have to show different things “presnap” and then get out of it or “bring” it to keep opposing offenses off balance. he said that if you just come out defensively and “sit” in a certain defensive formation, then these offenses will pick you apart.
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
by dawgfan22 on Jul 22, 2009 6:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sundodger
Great post, I couldn’t agree more.
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
by Lear Pilot on Jul 22, 2009 6:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, time to admit you are clueless.
You know what my problem is Crazi, you ramble on and on, and you don’t LISTEN. Do you even read my comments? You know how I know? Because if you go back and check, I lectured you on Tom Landry and the shotgun formation just DAYS ago. OPEN YOUR EYES AND ACTUALLY TAKE THE TIME TO READ WHAT OTHERS WRITE!
This discussion is over, you don’t listen and you don’t read the post, so why waste my time. But for your education, which I have said many times before (you must not have read them, or you have a really short memory) there are many different versions of the spread, a pass heavy spread, a spread option, and even a spread offense run from under center. ANYTHING WITH 4 WR THAT AREN’T BUNCHED TOGETHER IS A SPREAD FORMATION. Get over yourself and your hatred of the spread and start listening to others.
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
by Lear Pilot on Jul 22, 2009 6:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just read it- my rebuttal
Sundodger I have no beef with you and don’t want one because I have my plate full now with Lear and I sure as hell don’t want to be ganged up on.
But Sundodger their is no such thing as a spread formation. They don’t call 91X spread in the huddle, nor do coaches from the sideline. Each formation has a name, i.e. twins, trips, trey, and doubles. I’ve been in football for quite along time and never have I heard of a formation called the “spread”. So if it isn’t a formation then it can’t be a formation.
On the other hand I agree with you on “spreading the field vertically”. It spreads the defense out and opens up the field. Yet back to my point. When operating out of the spread offense in formations such as twins, trips, treys, or doubles with receivers aligned all over the dam L.O.S., surely you can see the principles of the spread offense from the L.O.S.
In the pro style the offense runs it’s offense between the hashmarks, but the spread offense runs it’s offense from sideline to sideline. And when you operate from sideline to sideline rather from hashmark to hashmark, you open up the field horizontally from the L.O.S. therefore their are mulitiple routes run are all over the dam field and the defensive backs have to scramble to all the open space to cover- so in essence my friend Lear I am correct, in the spread you open up the field vertically by opening up the L.O.S. horizontally. You can’t acheive vertical space without horizontal space first and it lends itself brilliantly to the running game too.
Likewise for running the football out of the mulitple receiver sets. The L.O.S. is sprawled out from sideline to sideline and with the L.O.S. spread out it opens up running lanes for the running game- how HUGE is the alley with muliple recievers sets? Then to counter running thru the alley you can opt into a QB counter in the opposite direction with the dual threat spread QB.
I may say I hate the spread and I have every reason to hate it. What I saw last season from Lappano was largely pathetic. I actually have great respect for the spread. The way I see it, it has revolutionalized option football and teams that use to operate out of the option now have a passing game to compete with pro style passing teams.
Remember the talk in the late 80s early 90s? Option football was on the way out because Oklahoma and Nebraska couldn’t compete with Miami’s pro style offense- now they can.
Note to Lear: I will listen with great intent and have an open mind to those that don’t seem to be standing on my desk and screaming at me with all the exclammation points, bold font, and capitalized phrases.
All I saw was purple
by crazidawg on Jul 22, 2009 7:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who are you and what did you do with Crazi???
I read that a few times, do you realize that you just proved how great the spread is??
Stop using my quotes as though they were your own, and I’ll stop yelling.
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
by Lear Pilot on Jul 22, 2009 8:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We disagree and that is okay
You are a spread guy, I am a pro guy. Their are advantages in both, but to be successful at either one requires a committment to that particular offense.
I love the idea of us going to the pro for many reasons. One reason is because Oregon is all-in on the spread- we can recruit very well against it. Two, kids who have a dream of playing professionally someday might want to play in a pro style system to get acclimated to the NFL’s offense of choice. Third the pro is easier on the eyes. You have a legit backfield, a prototype QB, use of a TE along with a few wideouts.
In the spread you have maybe one RB, a QB that could be mistaken for an ugly LB, no TE, and a bunch of skinny receivers flying around.
With Oregon all-in on the spread (gimmick), with Oregon State operating out of the fly (gimmick), and with Washington State doing whatever they are doing- no huddle (big time gimmick). Do you realize Lear we are the only Pac 10 northern school that offers the pro? HUGE recruiting advantage if you ask me.
It’s all good Lear, sorry about the stalking thing. You got me a little rivited last night and I didn’t have a good day at work. I think we both check in now and then to see what bizzare stuff Crazi or Lear have posted.
P.S. They don’t call me crazi for nothing!
All I saw was purple
by crazidawg on Jul 23, 2009 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you actually arguing the cosmetics of an offensive system?
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Good luck in the WNBA, Kamyron!
by qrsouther on Jul 23, 2009 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Easy on the eyes brotha
The spread suits Oregon, stay in it PALeeeeeZe!
All I saw was purple
by crazidawg on Jul 23, 2009 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
His arguments don't make sense to normal people
I thought the spread would be considered sexy with all the yards and points it produces!
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
by Lear Pilot on Jul 23, 2009 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is...
but I really enjoy a good defense and a tough team more than flash.
I equate it to boxing or MMA, everyone loves a good knockout but those in the know can appricate the footwork, combo work and game planning that goes into a superb boxing match or the wrestling and jiu jitsu that goes into an MMA / grappling match.
by B Money on Jul 23, 2009 6:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I love the passion, Crazi.
Is your complaint that I said “the spread is a formation” instead of “the spread the generic name for a series of formations?” Even though it was most obviously implied when I stated that a “team’s basic offensive formation is going to be run with three or more receivers stretched horizontally across the field.”?
Fine. You’re correct. I could’ve been more clear as to what I was saying.
Most of the rest of what you said is purely situational. A pro style offense can be either horizontal or vertical. The west coast offense would be an example of the former, the vertical passing attack that teams like the Raiders use would be an example of the latter. The same holds true with the spread. Pro style offenses try to spread the field horizontally by using wide splits and motion. Similarly, spread offenses will try to compact the defense into the middle of the field with tight splits and bunch receiver groups.
Option football didn’t die because of anything related to Miami’s (or any other team’s) offense. It died because defenses got bigger, and faster, and more disciplined. The spread option revived the veer because it can isolate a single defender in a way that split or I backs can’t. It also creates a playground atmosphere for exceptional athletes to run out of the QB position. That, and the spread makes throwing the ball easier, because reads are simple and almost always can be done pre-snap.
by Sundodger on Jul 23, 2009 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry Sundodger, I knew where you were going with it, but I needed to clarify.
It’s not just one formation, yet it is a mulitple receiver set formation that can be twins, trips, trey, or doubles spread out from sideline to sideline. I respect it and hate it at the same time and as of now it is very effective “if” mastered. But it can be ineffective as any other offense without proper execution and proper personnel.
Still think it is gimmick though and you gotta give it to me, I stand by my word.
All I saw was purple
by crazidawg on Jul 23, 2009 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No sweat.
You are definitely consistent.
I’m no real fan of the spread myself. I like the way some teams run it, and hate the way others do.
One thing I’m in full agreement with you on is what you said above to Lear: I find the pro style offense far more aesthetically pleasing. I also think it’s easier to sustain, although the fact that Texas Tech’s last five QB’s have led the nation in passing flies in the face of that to a degree.
Good point about the recruiting, too.
by Sundodger on Jul 23, 2009 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That post was all over the place...
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Good luck in the WNBA, Kamyron!
by qrsouther on Jul 23, 2009 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A Storm is Approaching
Love Oregon in the spread- stay with it fellas. In a couple years you’ll see what the advantages are for us going towards the pro. We’ll be the only Pac 10 North school that offers the pro and I’m willing to wager anything Kelly’s job may be at risk. Hell Sark might find himself in Pasadena and the hottest college coaching comodity in the land.
Stay in the spread. I’m trying to keep this hush-hush, because many Oregon fans haven’t grasp what the future could hold for the ducks and Dawgs. Can you say “flip – flop”? It will come fast and furious, swift and bold. Hell I see it already with the 2010 recruiting class.
Fast & Furious … Swift & Bold! WOOF!!!
All I saw was purple
by crazidawg on Jul 23, 2009 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hahaha
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Good luck in the WNBA, Kamyron!
by qrsouther on Jul 23, 2009 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Was that a nervous laugh?
It should be. Sark hasn’t even coached a game yet and all the talk up and down the coastline has been Steve Sarkisian, Nick Holt, and Washington.
Not too worried up here though, we plan on blowing your doors off and catching USC in full stride baby! Prediction: Washington wins the Pac 10 and goes to the Rose Bowl before the ducks. Better get it done in the next 3 years because that is your only window of opportunity.
Go Dawgs! WOOF!!!
All I saw was purple
by crazidawg on Jul 23, 2009 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed Crazi...
…I think oregon is on the way down and Washington is on the rise.
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
by dawgfan22 on Jul 23, 2009 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
But it has everything to do with coaches, and nothing to do with offensive systems. Besides, we are forgetting the whole other half of the equation, defense.
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
by Lear Pilot on Jul 23, 2009 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed...
…and totally for the reasons you stated. I started comparing Oregon to Washington and there really isn’t any. Yes they’ve won the last 5 games in a row but that’s only recent history. If you compare overall for Football, the Athletic Dept, Basketball, the City, the State and the Universities. Washington wins hands down.
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
by dawgfan22 on Jul 23, 2009 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
^ Truth...
I was on ATQ the other day stating my disdain for UO, I put it like this. I was born in raised in the Seattle area, but a large majority of my family are Ducks (almost all are from Eugene/Springfield) . I spent my summers as a child in Thurston, OR (about 10 mintues east of Eugene). It’s Gods blind spot, I hate it there. I can’t stand the pride that eminates from the greater Eugene area. Portland and Bend arenice cities, but everything else mostly sucks.
UW has a much more rich history in athletics and academics, it’s a fine institution and one that I am proud to call myself a fan of.
by B Money on Jul 23, 2009 6:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh yeah definitely.
Seattle is the Bee’s Knees, especially compared to Lame [sic] County.
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Good luck in the WNBA, Kamyron!
by qrsouther on Jul 23, 2009 6:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
...and I don't know why I capitalized bee's knees.
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Good luck in the WNBA, Kamyron!
by qrsouther on Jul 23, 2009 6:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The offensive and defensive systems are the coaches...
They’re the ones that put it all together. I know you love the spread, but you really need to get on board with the pro. We are pro now and the sooner you learn to love it the better off your’re going to be.
We can recruit very well against Oregon out of the pro style, but it would be touch and go recruiting wize vs. Oregon if both are spread. See the beautty of it?
All I saw was purple
by crazidawg on Jul 24, 2009 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never said I was anti-pro style
I think we can be very successful running it. I think it will take a few years to really get it up to speed, but who doesn’t think that?
Believe it or not, you can actually like every type of offense/defense. Love of one, doesn’t mean hatred of another. When it comes to offense, I want to score a lot of points. When it comes to defense, I don’t want to give up any points. I really don’t give a damn what system Sark runs, as long as it works.
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
by Lear Pilot on Jul 24, 2009 5:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
P.S.
Crazi – Take the time to read Sundogers reply to dawgfan22, it has a great break down of the spread and of the pro-style. It’s not his OPINION, IT IS FACT. I know you won’t listen to me, so listen to him, you might learn something.
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
by Lear Pilot on Jul 22, 2009 6:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You sure about that?
The Run-and-Shoot was actually the forebear of the Spread. That’s just a fact.
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Good luck in the WNBA, Kamyron!
by qrsouther on Jul 23, 2009 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's not necessarily true craz...
while I would agree it “appears” that way, the pro offenses do change and evolve and are very multiple.
by doubledeucedawg on Jul 21, 2009 8:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I love the single back spread offense
The one Rick ran with Tui…good stuff in my mind.
by bigdave967 on Jul 21, 2009 6:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Pretty Tough to Defend
When one minute you’re looking at the option with the pitch and the next you’ve got no backs a 4 wideouts! I remember playing Miami at Husky Stadium in 2000, when Jeremy Stevens went out wide in the no back formation and bingo six points!
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
by dawgfan22 on Jul 21, 2009 6:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its the combo of all things offense
it takes the High Flying Lear Spread with the Tough Run at you Crazi Under Center offense. Its a great combo that allows you to do anything you want.
by bigdave967 on Jul 21, 2009 8:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's the best part
You can have a run heavy offense, an option heavy offense, or a pass heavy offense and do it all from spread formations. The basic concept is simple and effective: make the other team defend the ENTIRE field, not just between the hash marks.
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
by Lear Pilot on Jul 21, 2009 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree that you can run a heavy offense with the spread.
If you are going to run up the middle with a blast or a trap, you have to have a tight end in the game. And, you likely have to have two backs (for sure with the blast).
By their very nature, those aren’t spread formations.
Florida leaves the spread on short-yardage and goal line situations. Oregon does sometimes, but not as much. Texas Tech never does.
by Sundodger on Jul 21, 2009 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hhmmm
Part of it depends on is a three wr formation a spread formation? I think it is.
Oregon is proof that you can have a run oriented spread offense. But it is easier to run when it’s more of a balanced run oriented offense.
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
by Lear Pilot on Jul 21, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying in your prior post.
Your first sentence says, “You can run heavy offense, option he…..”
Heavy offense has always meant a power attack the way I’ve heard it used. Am I not getting your meaning right?
by Sundodger on Jul 21, 2009 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just checked again....Definitely my reading skills. My fault.
And you are 100% correct.
by Sundodger on Jul 21, 2009 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No Problem
Ya, I meant a run oriented offense out of the spread, not a power running game.
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
by Lear Pilot on Jul 21, 2009 6:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You don't have to have either of those things.
Oregon, as I’ve watched every single Oregon game in the past 8 years, features at least one TE in their goal line sets almost everytime. It is out of the gun of course. Pretty much 3 WR, 1 RB, 1 TE typically.
As seen below I think you did misconstrue what Lear was trying to say. Run heavy as in run-centric, not necessarily with a blast. Florida doesn’t necessarily even leave the “Spread” on short-yardage. They use a Gator-Heavy set, which is a part of their offense. Just Tebow behind two big fullbacks behind the guards. Even a bunch(ed) set is a part of the Spread. Wanna know why? It’s out of the no-huddle. The QB will most likely have to make a read. There’s a good chance a new play had been audibled in according to the look the defense was projecting.
I think even you, Sundodger – who seem to know your stuff on this subject – with all due respect, may not quite know it all on the spread yet.
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Good luck in the WNBA, Kamyron!
by qrsouther on Jul 23, 2009 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I certainly don't know the intricacies of the spread all that well.
As you mentioned, I did misread what Lear wrote. He wrote “You can have a run heavy offense, a….” For whatever reason, I missed the words “have a.” Multiple times when I read what his post. A dumb mistake on my part.
A “Heavy Offense” isn’t a generic term. It’s what a lot of teams get into on short yardage and goal line situations (up to three tight ends, replace the halfback with another fullback, that sort of stuff). By definition, you can’t do that from the spread formation unless you’re working to defeat the purpose of bringing in the big bodies.
Coming from the no huddle has nothing to do with something being part of the spread or not. It’s something that a lot of spread teams do because it puts additional pressure on the defense, but in and of itself is not a required part of that system. That said, I agree that bunch formations are totally legit parts of the spread offense, just as multiple recievers and a wide horizontal spread are a part of any pro style system.
I can see what you’re saying about what Florida and Oregon do in short yardage situations. The fact is, though, that even though you’re still in a spread formation, you changed your offense. You can’t do all of the same things with Dickson in the game that you can without him, just like Florida’s playbook certainly changes with the set you describe. You’re not going to run a wide option with a fullback playing halfback, even if that’s what the defense is giving you. I guess that we’re sort of arguing a semantical point. The biggest weakness in any running attack in the spread offense is the ability to line up and come right at a defense.
by Sundodger on Jul 23, 2009 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the spread is the cat's meow then...
…why is it the pros use it very sparingly? When I say that I know some teams use the “wildcat” but how many run the “spread”? If the answer is “zero” then, why not?
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
by dawgfan22 on Jul 23, 2009 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because they don't really have to.
They have huge, fast players in the pros. That’s why they’re the pros. The Spread is utilized as an advantage for college teams who like smaller, faster players.
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Good luck in the WNBA, Kamyron!
by qrsouther on Jul 23, 2009 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe they're smart not to...
…I don’t think they want their QB to get pounded. Kinda like Massoli was…
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
by dawgfan22 on Jul 23, 2009 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So now you are saying he was speared in the Boise State game last year?
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Good luck in the WNBA, Kamyron!
by qrsouther on Jul 23, 2009 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't even remember him playing...
…in the game. The only thing I remember is that BSU was ahead by 3 or 4 touchdowns going into the 4th. It was a very lopsided game.
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
by dawgfan22 on Jul 23, 2009 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep.
And I’m the first to admit we were absolutely outcoached in that game. You have to have an able-bodied passer behind your second stringer. We had a running back who could hoist a wobbly ball over his shoulder and we called it good.
The huge mistake in that game was waiting to put in Thomas until it was out of reach at the beginning of the 4th quarter. He nearly saved our asses but we just couldn’t get that last onside kick. And really, we wouldn’t have deserved to win that game.
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Good luck in the WNBA, Kamyron!
by qrsouther on Jul 23, 2009 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah...
…and you guys smoked us when we played you down there at your house. I can call a spade a spade.
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
by dawgfan22 on Jul 23, 2009 7:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You mean in last year's game?
Because… I’m seriously drawing a blank on that entire game. Was it just really uneventful?
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Good luck in the WNBA, Kamyron!
by qrsouther on Jul 23, 2009 7:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Simple Answer
This is college football, not the NFL, the two are different. NFL players are much faster, which makes the field so much smaller. What works in college doesn’t always work in the NFL and vice versa. Same game, but very different game.
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
by Lear Pilot on Jul 23, 2009 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still think..
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
by dawgfan22 on Jul 23, 2009 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm still thinking....
…sorry I had a brain fart! My initial thought is you can’t risk your franchise QB against those NFL defenses.
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
by dawgfan22 on Jul 23, 2009 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree 100%
That explains why a spread option offense wouldn’t work. I’d be tempted to try a Texas Tech offense in the NFL.
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
by Lear Pilot on Jul 23, 2009 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You answered your own question after you posted this – NFL teams are highly risk-averse, and don’t want to risk seeing the huge investments they make in their QB’s go down the tubes with an injury. I’m not sure if it’s a valid concern or not, but it’s there.
And is Lear points out, the pro game is a faster game, and the field is effectively not as spread out at that level by a spread formation because of it. But you do see some elements of the spread there – the 4 wide WR sets, the experimentation with “wildcat” offense, etc.
by kirkd on Jul 23, 2009 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can’t do all of the same things with Dickson in the game that you can without him
I’m not sure what you mean by this… yes, Ed Dickson is a TE, but he’s utilized 85% as a receiver too. See, in Oregon’s offense, the TE is used also as a big receiver and even an H-back. It’s a totally unconventional use of the TE, but it still is getting TE play. He can line up or be split out wide. You’ll see Arizona do it with Gronkowski too.
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Good luck in the WNBA, Kamyron!
by qrsouther on Jul 23, 2009 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
From a running standpoint.
He’s a pretty good receiver, too, by the way.
He doesn’t stretch the field the same way a wideout does, and on the goal line and short yardage, which is what we’re talking about here, he’s typically down (from the – albeit – little of Oregon I’ve watched). You’ve brought the D in tighter, you’ve changed blocking assignments, running lanes, etc.
Look, if you want to tell me that things don’t change one iota at Oregon, that’s fine. I’ll believe you. I don’t watch enough Duck football to know. If you want to talk about the other teams that run a spread option attack, that’s a different story.
by Sundodger on Jul 23, 2009 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pardon, I'm not quite catching what you mean.
That things don’t change as in when we get to the goal line? Because yes, they sometimes do, but not as much as you’d think. What some people may forget is that when we spread the field with 4-wide when we’re on the 2-yard line, the D still has to cover them. They can expect the run and stack the box for it, but that’s why you have audibles.
It is true that we can put in our Jumbo set (still running out of gun) for a goal line punch-in, and we sometimes do. But I don’t feel like it’s abandoning the Spread, because the Spread is way more than just the idea of the stretching of the field. It’s the no-huddle. It’s, for the most part, in Oregon’s offense, running from the gun. It’s also the QB making a zone read on a run in the event of a called running play.
Ha, I don’t really think we’re actually arguing, Sundodger!
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Good luck in the WNBA, Kamyron!
by qrsouther on Jul 23, 2009 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As a bona fide college football junkie,
and self-titled student of the game, I’ll watch any game that’s on, including the rebroadcasts.
That means I’ll even watch the Duck reruns on that new comcast northwest sports channel. So, I’ll pay more attention to what the Ducks do to see what you’re talking about.
No, we aren’t really arguing, but we probably should be. You’re a Duck, and I’m a Husky. That’s what we do.
by Sundodger on Jul 23, 2009 6:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, just of note...
Oregon hasn’t used the I-form or any offset-I in a game once since Chip Kelly was offensive coordinator. Our only set in which we’ve had Masoli under center was a 5-wide formation on the opening play of the Holiday Bowl, which was a flysweep-tossback-hail mary trick play.
So that’s another quality to our all-in spread – we are a strictly shotgun team save for a play or two a year.
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Good luck in the WNBA, Kamyron!
by qrsouther on Jul 23, 2009 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
P.S.
In an ideal world I would run a balanced offense out of spread formations. What made the 91 Husky offense effective was the ability to run and pass effectively. The defense can’t focus on just stopping the run or just stopping the pass or they’ll get beat by the other.
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
by Lear Pilot on Jul 21, 2009 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What is that offense called?
It “spread” the field too but I’m not sure what the exact name was. One Back or ? If I’m not mistaken Eriksen invented it at Idaho or did he just perfect it?
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
by dawgfan22 on Jul 22, 2009 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That was the one-back in 1991.
A lot of what Oklahoma and Texas do is really just the one-back out of a three receiver set as opposed to a two tight end set. Erickson didn’t invent it, but he is definitely a proponent of it. ASU runs a lot of 11 and 21, just like Oregon State did when Erickson was there. Don James hired Gilbertson because of his knowledge of the one-back offense, and it paid off in ’91. The Dawgs used a lot of fullback as well that year.
It was the Erickson connection that got me excited when Lappano was originally hired here. I thought, great. The one back offense. I’m totally fine with that. Then, I learned that Willingham wanted to run the spread, an offense that Lappano admitted to not knowing at all. So, rather than hire an offensive coordinator familiar with the offense the head guy wants to run, Willingham sent Lappano on a nation-wide crash course in the spread, so he could learn it prior to spring practice and teach it to the team.
Lappano never fully bought into the spread option offense, and it totally showed, as several people here have already mentioned. The best game that Lappano called here was Cal in ’07, when he just ran straight at the Bears all game long.
by Sundodger on Jul 22, 2009 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good question
If it is run from under center, it would probably fall under the one back offense. Out of the shotgun it’s just another version of the spread. Ideally I like the idea of 3 wr’s with a TE sets, and on occaison 4 wr’s or more.
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
by Lear Pilot on Jul 22, 2009 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A lot of things are called the "spread" now.
Not incorrectly so, but it’s really just the vogue term.
Shotgun or under center, it’s the same formation. Whether you want to call it a one-back set or the spread is just nomenclature. What’s different today (and over the last 5 or so years) is the number of teams that utilize three or four wides and a single back as a running formation, and in particular, as a split-back (when two are in the game) or single-back veer.
Even using this formation as a running set isn’t new. The Detriot Lions were called a “run-and-shoot” team in the 90’s when Barry Sanders was there, but they used the spread formation to run most of the time. It’s actually kind of surprising that nobody copied it back then. I guess it’s because the Lions were pretty bad, even with the best running back of all time.
by Sundodger on Jul 22, 2009 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's what I thought it was too but...
…maybe it just had a lot fo multiple formations. Karl Dorrell probably didn’t do any of the one back spread but then Gilby came in and he definitely would! The play I remember so distinctly was the Miami game in 2000 where Tui spread out the Miami D with at least 4 wideouts and then hit Jerramy Stevens open and free down the middle of the field.
by doubledeucedawg on Jul 21, 2009 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My long and rambling thoughts on the spread formation
It isn’t really an offense per se, it’s a formation. Teams like Oregon, West Virginia, and Michigan run an offense that looks a lot like a passing version of Nebraska’s I option offense. The veer out of the shotgun to an extent. Teams like Texas Tech, Texas, and Oklahoma run Davis’ vision of the spread – the run and shoot.
Schematically, it’s an offense that has an advantage over the defense, but that’s due in large part to the ebb and flow of offense and defense, and the current rules. So, here are the two ways that the spread will go out of vogue:
1. Convince these 6’4" uber-athletes that chicks dig defense.
Right now, offense is sexy, kind of the way defense was 20 or so years ago. Until defensives can physically shut down receivers with only one defender, the spread will work. Until coaches can convince some of these really big, really fast receivers that they should eschew touchdowns for high tackle counts, offense will dominate. The little cornerbacks today can man up and cover receivers but they can’t tackle them, and they can’t get off their blocks. Once the better athletes are playing defense instead of offense again, the spread will lose it’s effectiveness, and offenses will again have to scheme to win.
2. Get rid of all of these false incentives to pass.
About 20 years ago, the rules were changed to increase scoring. In particular, the rules regarding defensive pass interference were tightened way up, and the ones regarding offensive holding were loosened. Today, DB’s might get flagged if they make eye contact with a receiver after the offense breaks the huddle. Meanwhile, receivers can push, pull, grab, hold, cajole, and fondle the DB’s all the way down the field. After just about every incompletion, you see the intended receiver making that “throw the flag!” motion. All to often, the refs oblige. On the offensive line, linemen are now allowed to get away with the rule book definition of holding. It used to be that arms extended, two fists full of jersey was an automatic flag. Now, that’s the technique that’s taught. Because of that, QB’s get one, two, three, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, throw the flag! That’s holding! seconds back in the pocket to throw.
There just isn’t a defensive scheme that’s going to be invented that’s going to stop the spread. As with the veer 50 years ago, it came down to the athletes on the defensive side of the ball getting better.
The one natural factor that could curb the growth of spread formations might be if QB’s from these offenses continue to fail in the NFL. I don’t see the NFL adopting spread offenses that utilize running QB’s. QB’s make way too much money in the NFL to risk getting hurt running the ball, and the position is so complex that by the time most players actually “get it,” their athletic skills will have peaked and begin declining. Not only that, but guys like Vince Young, who were simply the best athletes on the field in college, find that particular advantage significantly reduced at the next level, if not gone altogether.
If this is the case, and we won’t know for a decade or so, then high school QB recruits with NFL aspirations might not want to go to Florida or Texas anymore. They might start to look at schools that can help them get where they want to go.
All that being said, I don’t hate the spread formation. I don’t love it, either. I actually like the way Oregon runs it, because it’s such a basic offense. The QB read is such a simple play. I like the run and shoot that Texas Tech runs. Both of those systems are based on execution. I hated Texas with Vince Young, because that was basically just playground ball. Kind of like watching 8-man football – the team with the fastest player is going to win. Same with Florida. It’s not a system, it’s about having a once-in-a-generation talent. That’s not sustainable. If either of those guys were to get injured, the team falls apart. And once they graduate, you have to, in effect, reinvent yourself to a degree.
If I was a coach, and I had Tebow or Vince Young on my team, I’d tell them to go win me games. If I didn’t, I’d run a pro-style offense.
Thank you for the significant investment in your time it took to read all of this.
by Sundodger on Jul 21, 2009 9:59 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Liked your Post
The sex angle was pretty good.
I wouldn’t argue for running a mix of spread and pro (Ty-style), but a spread may be worth having as a wrinkle in the playbook.
I remember being introduced to the Mouse Davis style in the 70’s. It’s relatively easy to learn, fun for the players, and works as a hurry-up offense or two-minute drill. You can even spring it in the midst of a drive, and it will often cause the defense to burn a time-out. It does though, require a regular commitment of practice time in order to run well.
by Verge on Jul 21, 2009 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You bring up some great points
I couldn’t agree more on your take on defenses. There isn’t going to be a defensive scheme to stop the spread, until the top players, like Taylor Mays, choose the defensive side of the ball, the spread offense will continue to rack up a lot of points.
I love the spread for one reason, it scores a lot of points.
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
by Lear Pilot on Jul 21, 2009 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What was Boise State doing?
Remember last year? They shut oregon down for 3 quarters. One guy said running for “200 plus” yards isn’t shutting them down but the scoreboard indicated otherwise and I don’t recall many turnovers in that game.
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
by dawgfan22 on Jul 22, 2009 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't get to see the game
Would love to have seen how they kept Oregon out of the endzone, or if it was Oregon keeping Oregon out of the endzone.
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
by Lear Pilot on Jul 22, 2009 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oregon lost Masoli on his first pass attempt to a concussion.
The guy that came in was entirely ineffective as a passer, and only marginally so as a runner. He was a true freshman that was moved to receiver later in the season.
Boise State played lights-out on both sides of the ball in the first half, and really, it was Oregon’s defense that lost the game.
I don’t think it would’ve mattered, but that wasn’t an Oregon team at full strength.
It makes me feel dirty to write things that could be taken as me defending the Ducks.
by Sundodger on Jul 22, 2009 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I recall...
…was oregon couldn’t run effectively on BSU and they didn’t pass hardly at all in the first 3 quarters. In the last quarter they finally put some freshman in who started them coming back strong. BSU had built a large lead and was at risk of having oreogon make the comeback happen. BSU finally put a clinching drive together for a TD that cemented the win. BSU could NOT run the ball at all! Instead they threw for 400 yards. I don’t recall Massoli getting injured but I can tell you that he didn’t look good when he was in the game. Oregon was having problems from the get go.
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
by dawgfan22 on Jul 22, 2009 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Umm...
Masoli was knocked out in the first quarter as the result of spearing by an asshat defensive back. We then had Chris Harper, our only remaining non-redshirt healthy QB on the depth chart. Who was basically a running back taking snaps as a QB. So we didn’t pass until the 4th quarter when Darron Thomas came in after we broke his redshirt.
And actually, Masoli was ultra effective until he suffered his concussion. It was also his first start.
You should talk about things you know.
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Good luck in the WNBA, Kamyron!
by qrsouther on Jul 23, 2009 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I watched the game...
…and I don’t recall Masoli tearing boise a new one. In fact all I really remember is the fact that you guys got pounded in the first three quarters of that game AND in YOUR house!
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
by dawgfan22 on Jul 23, 2009 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You watched the game but don't remember Masoli getting injured?
Just like I watched you guys win 9 games last year.
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Good luck in the WNBA, Kamyron!
by qrsouther on Jul 23, 2009 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't even know who he was?!
I don’t think you guys did either until later in the year when you crowned him. Correct me if I’m wrong. Did you guys EVER lead against Boise State last year?
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
by dawgfan22 on Jul 23, 2009 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Um...
We led 6-0 after the first quarter, when Masoli was playing. Do you wanna scrape under my fingernails or something?
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Good luck in the WNBA, Kamyron!
by qrsouther on Jul 23, 2009 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Masoli
He had 1 carry for 9 yards in that game. BSU led 37-13 after 3 quarters.
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
by dawgfan22 on Jul 23, 2009 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was in for 2 drives, ending midway through the 1st quarter.
3-4, 27 yards passing, no interceptions. You’d understand how this could be considered effective if you knew the QB production we (hadn’t) been getting out of Roper previously. I’ll admit that “ultra effective” was an exaggeration, but he was effective and was running the offense well in the game up until he suffered a concussion.
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Good luck in the WNBA, Kamyron!
by qrsouther on Jul 23, 2009 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I think most people knew who he was after we played you guys in the opener.
Seeing as he operated the entire second half.
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Good luck in the WNBA, Kamyron!
by qrsouther on Jul 23, 2009 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We try are best not to remember that game.
It was embarrassing on every possible level.
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
by Lear Pilot on Jul 23, 2009 5:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was?
I actually, even though it was a win, thought it was pretty pedestrian of a game. I don’t really remember any play from it except for Terence Scott’s big long catch and run in like the first quarter. That’s about it…
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Good luck in the WNBA, Kamyron!
by qrsouther on Jul 23, 2009 6:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My recollection is that Oregon didn’t really take firm control of that game until the 2nd half. I didn’t think the Huskies looked good in the 1st half, but they were only down 10-14. But in typical UW fashion under Ty, they wilted in the 2nd half and especially the 4th quarter.
by kirkd on Jul 23, 2009 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah that's what I recall too...
….we didn’t look good but were in it at the end of the first half. Then the wheels came off.
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
by dawgfan22 on Jul 23, 2009 7:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe that's why it's more memorable for you guys.
I remember a Scott catch and run, Roper getting a concussion and Masoli taking over the second half, throwing an absolutely beautiful pass… and that’s all. Maybe it was just the uneventful uniform combination of green on green ;)
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Good luck in the WNBA, Kamyron!
by qrsouther on Jul 23, 2009 7:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was actually scared . . . .
that Ty would go 6-6 and get a contract extenstion.
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
by Lear Pilot on Jul 23, 2009 9:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I remember the hype before the game
The Huskies were finally going to break through, all the hard work during the summer, Locker’s second year, and all the other crap. Just to find out Willingham had killed the spirit of the team. After that game, I knew we were going to be 1-11, too bad I under estimated how bad Ty could get.
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
by Lear Pilot on Jul 23, 2009 9:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I personally hate watching whOregon’s fake handoff every other play bullsh*t spread, it makes me gag. Next time I need to induce vomiting i’ll watch an old Vegas or Holiday bowl with Dennis “Chiknlegs” Dixon at the helm. Yuck.
by ChazzReinhold on Jul 21, 2009 7:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You gotta admit...
…the guy did a great job with the fakes. If it makes the defender freeze for just a moment it can be very effective.
by doubledeucedawg on Jul 21, 2009 8:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought...
Dixon ran that spread option very well.
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
by dawgfan22 on Jul 22, 2009 8:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's no different . . .
than a play action pass out of a pro style offense.
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
by Lear Pilot on Jul 22, 2009 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you hate play action and ballfakes?
Does the forward pass and lack of leather helmets in football today make you queazy?
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Good luck in the WNBA, Kamyron!
by qrsouther on Jul 23, 2009 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I personally loved the goal posts in front of the end zone
..just my 2 cents.
by bigdave967 on Jul 23, 2009 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Me too actually.
I mean, there’s a reason they took em away, but damn, they looked pretty cool!
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Good luck in the WNBA, Kamyron!
by qrsouther on Jul 23, 2009 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting Reading
Found this on wikipedia when I looked up “West Coast Offense”.
[edit] College Origins
The use of the West Coast Offense started primarily being used in college ranks on the west coast in the late 60’s and 70’s to create a passing game to go up against the running attack of the University of Southern California — often referred to as “Tailback U” because of their running backs. 5
The University of Washington Huskies were among the first of the PAC 10 teams and in 1970, under coach Jim Owens and quarterback Sonny Sixkiller, used the "Sixkiller" variation of Coryell’s West Coast Offense with great success. Years later in 2002, under coach Keith Gilbertson and quarterback Cody Pickett, the Huskies ran a variation of Walsh’s West Coast Offense to a conference championship and a top four passing attack averaging 352.4 yards per game. 6 Today, the West Coast Offense no longer only resides on the west coast, but can be found in schools across the nation, including Boise State7, Nebraska, Auburn8, and Florida9 among many others.
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
by dawgfan22 on Jul 22, 2009 5:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm...
I just noticed that wikipedia was wrong.
Years later in 2002, under coach Keith Gilbertson and quarterback Cody Pickett, the Huskies ran a variation of Walsh’s West Coast Offense to a conference championship and a top four passing attack averaging 352.4 yards per game.
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
by dawgfan22 on Jul 22, 2009 6:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Good source of info
It isn’t 100% accurate, but it’s a good way to quickly verify info.
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
by Lear Pilot on Jul 22, 2009 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When did Gilbertson actually coach you guys?
I remember his tenure a few years back but when exactly was it?
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Good luck in the WNBA, Kamyron!
by qrsouther on Jul 23, 2009 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ahh, sounds about right.
Was he the only coach between Neuheisel and Ty?
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Good luck in the WNBA, Kamyron!
by qrsouther on Jul 23, 2009 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually coach? Never.
Hold the title? Like kirkd said, ’03 and ’04.
The beginning of the Dark Ages of Husky Football, or DAHF as it is simply known in Seattle.
I can’t think of a better example of the Peter Principle in action than Gilbertson. Except for Willingham, of course, who completed the Dawgs descent into DAHF with the foot-on-the-throat aggression that always seemed lacking in his players. I guess it’s tough to motivate a football team when you’re too busy killing a program.
by Sundodger on Jul 23, 2009 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
