Is the "spread" the new 3-4?

**AustinChief** · 02-18-2009, 02:43 PM

I personally like the 3-4 for ONE very important reason... once you have found your NT the rest of your defense is much easier to find talent for than a 4-3 is.

With so many colleges running the spread and althetes like Tebow, McCoy and Bradford becoming the norm... will the NFL adjust to a hybrid (running a PURE spread wouldn't work) offense that relies heavily on the spread?

It seems to me that it carries the same advantage that the 3-4 does... easier to find talent for it.

Again, I am talking more of a pistol/wildcat/spread-flex with enough traditional under-center formations to keep it interesting.

Let's try to think of what's NEXT here and not just jump into the "never worked in the past" mode... the people that think like that are always a step behind the curve.

Sully · 02-18-2009, 02:44 PM

I don't believe the spread will ever work consistently as a stand-alone offense in the NFL.

However, if I'm wrong....

The teams that run a 3-4, and can slip into a 3-3 stack, are going to be miles ahead in defending it.

Brock · 02-18-2009, 02:45 PM

I think if we learned anything from this last season it is that the spread works fine between the 20s. From the goalline, not so much.

Hootie · 02-18-2009, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

I think if we learned anything from this last season it is that the spread works fine between the 20s. From the goalline, not so much.

True.

We were incapable of running a pro style offense last season.

Was it Tyler Thigpen?

Was it the offensive line?

That's something for the coaching staff to figure out.

**AustinChief** · 02-18-2009, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

I think if we learned anything from this last season it is that the spread works fine between the 20s. From the goalline, not so much.

We learned that it worked great FOR US between the 20s... other not so crappy teams were able to utilize effectively in the red zone as well (i.e. Dolphins, Pats, Steelers)

...

but the real point is not to say the spread is better ... just EASIER to find talent for... I don't think a probowl 3-4 defense versus a probowl 4-3 defense is BETTER... but it is easier to find players for. That is the logic that I think is going to see more and more spread-hybrids coming to the NFL.

Brock · 02-18-2009, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

We learned that it worked great FOR US between the 20s... other not so crappy teams were able to utilize effectively in the red zone as well (i.e. Dolphins, Pats, Steelers).

Those teams were all able to vary their attack though. The Chiefs couldn't. The spread is fine for situational matchups, but it can't be your bread and butter.

**AustinChief** · 02-18-2009, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

Those teams were all able to vary their attack though. The Chiefs couldn't. The spread is fine for situational matchups, but it can't be your bread and butter.

I disagree. WHY can't it be your bread and butter IF you can also run under center ENOUGH to be versatile? What if the team ran a 80/20 spread/standard?

Hootie · 02-18-2009, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I disagree. WHY can't it be your bread and butter IF you can also run under center ENOUGH to be versatile? What if the team ran a 80/20 spread/standard?

I agree with this.

The spread did wonders for our offense last season. We were TERRIBLE goal to go...

We adjusted to the spread halfway through the season...Gailey pretty much drew something up and said "this is what we're going to do!"

Who's to say a whole offseason with OFFENSIVE minded coaches won't do wonders for Thigpen/the spread/the offense/red zone packages/etc...

I'm in the Stafford/Sanchez camp, but I don't think it will be the end of the world if we give Thigpen another go around.

Brock · 02-18-2009, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I disagree. WHY can't it be your bread and butter IF you can also run under center ENOUGH to be versatile? What if the team ran a 80/20 spread/standard?

What do you do when a team neutralizes your spread? If you're the Steelers, you have a built in ability to go to a power running offense. There are probably at least a few games the Chiefs would have been able to win this last year if they could have changed it up. I'm not against running the spread a lot, but only if you can immediately change in mid-drive to something else.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 02-18-2009, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I disagree. WHY can't it be your bread and butter IF you can also run under center ENOUGH to be versatile? What if the team ran a 80/20 spread/standard?

They better have a litany of QBs, because most of them are going to get killed. QBs get hit more under the spread, and it hampers your ability to run the ball.

Yeah, you could run it successfully if you had the line of the '03 Chiefs, or if you have receivers like Moss and Welker who can beat 1 on 1 coverage.

What are the odds of being able to field either one of those units?

'Hamas' Jenkins · 02-18-2009, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

What do you do when a team neutralizes your spread? If you're the Steelers, you have a built in ability to go to a power running offense. There are probably at least a few games the Chiefs would have been able to win this last year if they could have changed it up. I'm not against running the spread a lot, but only if you can immediately change in mid-drive to something else.

Except for the fact that the Steelers can't run the ball.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 02-18-2009, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hootie

True.

We were incapable of running a pro style offense last season.

Was it Tyler Thigpen?

Was it the offensive line?

That's something for the coaching staff to figure out.

Your first question is your answer.
Thigpen can't read a defense. The O-line performed better in the traditional set than it did under the spread, even when we were getting the ball out ASAP.

**AustinChief** · 02-18-2009, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

They better have a litany of QBs, because most of them are going to get killed. QBs get hit more under the spread, and it hampers your ability to run the ball.

Yeah, you could run it successfully if you had the line of the '03 Chiefs, or if you have receivers like Moss and Welker who can beat 1 on 1 coverage.

What are the odds of being able to field either one of those units?

I disagree on the QBs getting creamed... a running or shotgun QB is more "prepared" for the hit than a QB in the pocket who often gets blindsided.

Last year proved that we can run it effectively everywhere except the red zone. Other teams COULD run it effectively in the red zone. My theory is that it's because we weren't even close to the talent level of the Pats or Steelers.

AND if you recall, our red zone offense suffered most from DROPS and ineffective running. The drops were bad luck/inconsistent wrs and have nothing to do with what offense you play. The lack of running could be due to the spread but I will argue it equally could be due to a GOD AWFUL OL. We had a rookie LT that showed promise and a veteran guard that played well. Other than that you could've replaced the rest of them with traffic cones and done as well.

ChiefsCountry · 02-18-2009, 03:02 PM

Spread offense is just like the option in the 70's and 80's. Great for college and high school but not so much for the pros.

**AustinChief** · 02-18-2009, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

I'm not against running the spread a lot, but only if you can immediately change in mid-drive to something else.

I agree with this entirely. I think our inability to do so may be due to Tyler's limits OR it may be because we half-assed our way all season and ended up with a hobbled together offense. Who knows what a full off season could produce.

02-18-2009, 02:43 PM
AustinChief Administrator Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Austin Casino cash: $2719112	Is the "spread" the new 3-4? I personally like the 3-4 for ONE very important reason... once you have found your NT the rest of your defense is much easier to find talent for than a 4-3 is. With so many colleges running the spread and althetes like Tebow, McCoy and Bradford becoming the norm... will the NFL adjust to a hybrid (running a PURE spread wouldn't work) offense that relies heavily on the spread? It seems to me that it carries the same advantage that the 3-4 does... easier to find talent for it. Again, I am talking more of a pistol/wildcat/spread-flex with enough traditional under-center formations to keep it interesting. Let's try to think of what's NEXT here and not just jump into the "never worked in the past" mode... the people that think like that are always a step behind the curve.
Posts: 19,494

02-18-2009, 02:44 PM	#2
Sully It Goes On Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Lees Summit Casino cash: $10026331	I don't believe the spread will ever work consistently as a stand-alone offense in the NFL. However, if I'm wrong.... The teams that run a 3-4, and can slip into a 3-3 stack, are going to be miles ahead in defending it. __________________ "And I don't wish that girl any bad luck," he said, "but I hope she gets hit with a car." - Tommy Lasorda
Posts: 18,295

02-18-2009, 02:45 PM	#3
Brock Say hello to my little friend Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Larryville Casino cash: $9598422	I think if we learned anything from this last season it is that the spread works fine between the 20s. From the goalline, not so much.
Posts: 47,314

02-18-2009, 03:02 PM	#14
ChiefsCountry The Insider Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Lake of the Ozarks Casino cash: $2368752	Spread offense is just like the option in the 70's and 80's. Great for college and high school but not so much for the pros.
Posts: 49,558