Is the "spread" the new 3-4? - Page 5

**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.

**AustinChief** · 02-18-2009, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

You mean like saying that your QB will be fine aslong as he knows he's gonna get hit?

again not what I said, I just pointed out I would rather take 10 hits I see as opposed to 1 I don't see coming.

I highly doubt any NFL QB will disagree on that.

Didn't say QB would fine... hell, Elway tore himself up on a roll out...

So please stop rewriting my words and just ask for clarification if my writing is too obtuse.

Mecca · 02-18-2009, 10:04 PM

Ok stop acting like the spread doesn't risk your QB then.

**AustinChief** · 02-18-2009, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

Ok stop acting like the spread doesn't risk your QB then.

I am not acting like it won't.. I am SAYING until I see DATA showing that a QB is more likely to be injured from a spread formation..I will WITHHOLD JUDGEMENT.

And anyone who doesn't have said data... shouldn't be forming opinion based on hunches. It is amazing how many assumptions scatter under the light of FACT.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 02-18-2009, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I am not acting like it won't.. I am SAYING until I see DATA showing that a QB is more likely to be injured from a spread formation..I will WITHHOLD JUDGEMENT.

And anyone who doesn't have said data... shouldn't be forming opinion based on hunches. It is amazing how many assumptions scatter under the light of FACT.

Like your moronic assumption that because a QB is in shotgun he somehow is able to see a blindside rusher once he makes a read and turns his body to the right side of the field?

I know, I know. You didn't "say" that. You only implied it through your argument, because spread quarterbacks still have to have proper fundamentals when they throw the football. Namely, you need your lead shoulder and plant foot to face the direction in which you throwing. You can't stand parallel to the line of scrimmage and throw the football.

That's why I posted the above Roethlisberger clip. QBs get creamed just as often in the spread as they do in any other formation, and they get hit more overall.

Look at this spread QB, and all the patty cake taps he takes:

**AustinChief** · 02-19-2009, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

You can't stand parallel to the line of scrimmage and throw the football.

oh I can.. I can drop that sucker a good 5 yards on a rope!

...and that wasn't what I was implying. Either way, the argument stands, I am not going to accept that the spread is more injury prone than any other offense until I see some figures to back it up.

I know it is a commonly held ASSUMPTION.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 02-19-2009, 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

oh I can.. I can drop that sucker a good 5 yards on a rope!

...and that wasn't what I was implying. Either way, the argument stands, I am not going to accept that the spread is more injury prone than any other offense until I see some figures to back it up.

I know it is a commonly held ASSUMPTION.

Fair enough. We can agree to disagree.

keg in kc · 02-19-2009, 03:23 AM

I would imagine the amount the quarterback is hit is proportionate to the quality of the offensive line and skill players around him as much as it's a product of the system in place. Spread offenses are often built around quick throws, as well.

**AustinChief** · 02-19-2009, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Fair enough. We can agree to disagree.

fair enough... but I really can throw it a solid 5 WHOLE yards while squared up incorrectly.

**AustinChief** · 02-19-2009, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

I would imagine the amount the quarterback is hit is proportionate to the quality of the offensive line and skill players around him as much as it's a product of the system in place. Spread offenses are often built around quick throws, as well.

I agree.. ALOT of the arguments are predicated on a ton of what ifs... we had SO many holes on offense that it is hard to judge ANYONE accurately. And even hard to judge a scheme.

I REALLY could care less what we run so long as we get enough talent to run SOMETHING and expose what weaknesses we have left, whether they be in the scheme or the leftover "talent"

Which is why.. as much as we need players on defense I REALLY want us to invest some mid round picks on OL.. right now its a complete farce.

keg in kc · 02-19-2009, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Which is why.. as much as we need players on defense I REALLY want us to invest some mid round picks on OL.. right now its a complete farce.

I'd do as much of it in free agency as I can, myself. Make the Ravens' center (Brown I think it is?) a priority, find a guard and at least look for a tackle. Salvage what they can out of what's here for depth and future development.

I don't think mid- to late-round draft picks on the line are necessarily the best way to go to find starters these days, as most of our drafts in the last 10 years would seem to indicate.

Frosty · 02-19-2009, 11:01 AM

Does anyone remember the offense that the Chicago Bears ran around 2000? It was the one that Gunther derisively called a "circus offense" and then went down there and got his ass handed to him. I remember it used a lot WR screens and slants with the QB in the shotgun most of the time.

Was that a version of the spread? I seem to remember the OC was right out of the college ranks. It made a big splash and disappeared quickly. I don't think it was the run and shoot as there was talk about it being innovative.

ChiefsCountry · 02-19-2009, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arc

Does anyone remember the offense that the Chicago Bears ran around 2000? It was the one that Gunther derisively called a "circus offense" and then went down there and got his ass handed to him. I remember it used a lot WR screens and slants with the QB in the shotgun most of the time.

Was that a version of the spread? I seem to remember the OC was right out of the college ranks. It made a big splash and disappeared quickly. I don't think it was the run and shoot as there was talk about it being innovative.

Gary Crowton's offense. Came from Louisiana Tech and then went to BYU as their head coach, cant remember where he is now. But yes that is the college spread.

Frosty · 02-19-2009, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

Gary Crowton's offense. Came from Louisiana Tech and then went to BYU as their head coach, cant remember where he is now. But yes that is the college spread.

So, it has been tried in the NFL. It seemed to go away quickly but I don't follow the Bears so I don't know what happened.

02-18-2009, 02:43 PM
AustinChief Administrator Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Austin Casino cash: $2689112	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: 19,495

02-18-2009, 10:04 PM	#62
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $2637050	Ok stop acting like the spread doesn't risk your QB then.
Posts: 110,840

02-19-2009, 03:23 AM	#67
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	I would imagine the amount the quarterback is hit is proportionate to the quality of the offensive line and skill players around him as much as it's a product of the system in place. Spread offenses are often built around quick throws, as well.
Posts: 58,682

02-19-2009, 11:01 AM	#71
Frosty Go Beavers! Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Warshington Casino cash: $5698243	Does anyone remember the offense that the Chicago Bears ran around 2000? It was the one that Gunther derisively called a "circus offense" and then went down there and got his ass handed to him. I remember it used a lot WR screens and slants with the QB in the shotgun most of the time. Was that a version of the spread? I seem to remember the OC was right out of the college ranks. It made a big splash and disappeared quickly. I don't think it was the run and shoot as there was talk about it being innovative.
Posts: 14,495