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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

I don't think the o-line performed well at all this year. We have a massively subpar line especially when it comes to run blocking. It is hard to NOT blame them for our running woes as opposed to just saying "can't run from the spread" over and over.

I agree that if you are 90%+ spread, you limit yourself severely... but I think a team with a SOLID O-line could easily run an 80/20 offense and be successful

Yikes dude!

I don't know about that...

I remember SEVERAL times we'd get the ball 1st and Goal at the 1 and I'd tell my friends (who didn't give a shit) that we wouldn't score because we are TERRIBLE inside the 5...

LJ isn't the best goal to go back in the league...never was, never will be...but he scored 20+ TD's a couple of seasons in a row so he knows how to find the end zone...but our line wasn't capable of opening up ANY holes...

He only averaged what he did because of the spread...how many long runs did LJ have last year?

I thought his best game of the season was against Oakland when he didn't really have any long runs, but he consistently fought for yards and gained 3+ at a time...

I'd rather take 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 5, 3, 2, 3, 3, 5, 5 then 15, 1, 0, 0, -2, 25, 0, 1, 2, 1, 2, 0, 20...

I thought Thigpen's ability to run really kept the opposing DE's in check and that allowed our offensive line to look representable even though Niswanger/Jones/Smith/Taylor/McIntosh have no business being in the starting lineup.

I would like to see the Chiefs go QB #3...

But I won't call it the end of the world if we see what Thigpen has in 2009...

Worst case scenario?

He flops and we get another top 5 pick and we go QB in 2010...

I don't see another 2 win season in the horizon...we no longer have an inept coach...I think Haley will at least know how to finish games...if we had a coach like that last year we would have won 6 games.

The fact Gailey drew up an offense that allowed the Chiefs to compete last year was amazing to me...our defense had 10 sacks...10 friggin' sacks! We should have been the Lions last year...but somehow we competed week in and week out because of the spread offense.

That's funny because the numbers will show you that QBs, including our own, get hit more often when they go to a spread than from a traditional drop under center.

True.

But most of the hits Thigpen took were the ones he took when he was running the ball.

Thigpen never really made any reads...he pretty much knew where he was throwing the ball before he took the snap. Obviously, this isn't really a good thing...but it did prevent him from taking hits when throwing the ball.

Hootie, if there were any QBs in the 2010 class I'd agree with you, but there is no way to properly express how shit awful that class is. Every QB is coming from the spread. They aren't going to know how to read a defense. The best Pro-Style prospect is Jevan Snead.

Otherwise, you are left with a bunch of insurance salesmen like McCoy or Tebow, or a guy like Sam Bradford, who is basically Chad Pennington with less accuracy, if Pennington couldn't read a defense.

I kind of like Sam Bradford...but that's beyond the point.

I get what you're saying.

I'm all for Sanchez at #3. I really am...

But I flat out trust Pioli/Haley...

and a part of me is kind of rooting for Crabtree...only because of my newly acquired infatuation for Larry Fitzgerald.

Has anyone ever made a bigger name for themselves in one postseason? Christ...Fitzy put on a SHOW...

If Crabtree is 80% as good as Fitzgerald...

Hits are different than getting creamed. Show me numbers on QB injuries in the NFL showing that QBs get INJURED more out of a spread.

The fact is they don't. I will take 10 hits I see over 1 I don't. In the spread you almost always see it coming.

Now I will give you that TRADITIONAL QBs get hurt more often when they try to run... but those aren't the type of QBs I am talking about. I am talking about QBs built to run the ball and who know how to take hits. Not you Palmer's or Leinharts but your Youngs and Brees.

Most teams probably go to a spread in 2nd or 3rd and long situations. QB's are more likely to get sacked in known passing downs. It doesn't necessarily mean it is the spread.

You're thinking with your heart, not with your head.

You've admitted you don't really watch college football. I really cannot stress enough how wary you have to be of prospects coming from the spread.

Michael Crabtree has never shown that he can run a square in, a skinny post, or anything other than a two yard dig, a crossing route, or a 9 route.

Not only that, but the guy is slow. There's no other way to put it. He doesn't have the hands or the jumping ability of Fitzgerald.

And Sam Bradford has the easiest position to play in major college football. He was surrounded by three first day picks on the o-line, has pro receivers all around him, and he never has to throw the ball more than 12 yards.

His offense also allows him to throw to WRs matched up against the 4th and 5th CBs on Baylor and Iowa State. It's not exactly boot camp for the NFL.

Hence my ENTIRE point. Do you really think Michigan, Texas, OU, Florida, etc etc etc etc are going to give up the spread anytime soon?

(Yes I know U-M sucks right now but they will be back to prominence soon...)

How many top ten teams this year DID NOT use the spread as their primary formation? 2?

If all your QB talent coming out of college is gonna be based on the spread... wouldn't it make sense to adapt?

True. I don't really watch college football...so I am pretty pointless around this time of the year.

If Crabtree is slow how does he gain all those YAC? He seems to get pretty good separation after making a short catch and turning on the burners.

I haven't said anything about running. You are inventing an argument. Thigpen wasn't getting hit more because he was running. He was getting hit more because the D knew they were passing on every down.

Furthermore, you are basing your entire argument on something that is unprovable. The fact that getting a blindside hit is 10 times as bad as getting knocked on your ass when you see it coming.

And explain to me why you see it coming in the spread. As soon as you turn to make your first read, you've cut your field of vision in half. You can't throw when your body is parallel to the line of scrimmage unless you are a girl.

QBs in the spread don't take big hits eh?

Like Ben, who got a severe concussion, ****ed his shoulder, and broke his ribs this year?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1mXVJKRbzSc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1mXVJKRbzSc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Because he's running away from two-star, fourth string CB recruits from Baylor. He's not being matched up against Malcolm Jenkins and Vontae Davis.

When CBs run a 4.7, it's not hard for a receiver to get good YAC.

No. There is a quantum leap between the ability of the 4th CB on an NFL roster and that of the 4th CB on a mid-level college team. That's the only reason why the spread works. Funny how when Oklahoma played a real defense for the first time this year they were shut down.

The Big XII South was a joke in the bowl season. Tech got handled by a mid-level SEC team, OSU got beaten soundly by Oregon, and Texas barely escaped a pretty average Ohio State.

Remember when the option was all the rage? How many teams adopted the option as their primary attack in the NFL? Perhaps there is a reason why they didn't?

The speed of the defense.

I never said that QBs in the spread don't take big hits.

I simply pointed out that since YOU made the arguement regarding injury, YOU need to supply the proof. Give me numbers on it or you are just pissing in the wind. Just because you state it as fact doesn't make it so. Your statement... your proof to provide.

In a word, no. The spread only works in college because DLs, and defenses in general, suck ass. How'd the highest-scoring offense in CFB history, running a spread, do against Florida's defense?

Your argument fails on a number of levels.

#1 who the fuck mentioned the option? apples/oranges.
#2 so, OU scored 60+ 5 times 50+ 4 times 40+ 2 times 30+ 2 times (and lost one of those) and 14 pts in the BCS title game. So in ALL those games only Florida had a "real" defense? You base this on what statistics?
#3 The CB/WR argument... yes the 4th CB on a mid-level college team sucks compared to the 4th corner on an NFL team.... but the #2 WR on a mid level college team sucks compared to a #2 on an NFL team.. etc etc easier to find a ton of #1 spread wrs right now than a bevy of shutdown corners. hence a mid level #1 WR at the college level could end up a #3 or 4 WR at the pro level.

The Pats, Steelers, Chiefs and Dolphins all used the spread as their primary formation for at least the 2nd half of the last year. It worked pretty well for everyone but us. We have a crap o-line. Maybe it was the spread maybe it was out line maybe it was our constant red zone DROPS. Can you tell me unequivocally you know which it was that made us fail and the others succeed?

You don't understand the history of your argument is the problem.

The fact that an offense is en vogue in college does not mean it will be so in the NFL, hence the option.

Secondly, look up the defensive rankings of Big XII teams, or just look at how many legitimate NFL prospects are coming from Big XII defenses. You'll find almost none.

Finally, the spread works in college because there isn't enough speed on defense for the corners to adequately cover the field, even in a zone. That's not a problem in the NFL. Speed doesn't matter for a #2 WR in college in the spread because he's going to be running a short route against soft zone coverage against guys that run in the 4.6s and 4.7s who don't challenge their man. Think Tommie Saunders. Probably couldn't run a 4.8, but was a productive college #2.

A #2 WR in the NFL has to be able to beat press man coverage and run with guys that run a 4.4. There is a world of difference there.

I wish people would get in their heads about the differences in spread. The one the NFL team runs sans the Chiefs last year is not the college one.

I never made that argument. I stated that as a majority of the schools move to a spread offense, there will be more and more very talented QBs coming from that system and would it not make sense for the NFL to adapt to the talent. I am also not really advocating the spread so much as debunking all the people who cast it aside without any thought simply because they were TOLD it can't work.

In regards to the Big 12 defenses rankings.. what are they?I don't doubt that the SEC had better defensive numbers but to say that ONLY ONE team that OU played was a "real" defense is ludicrous. Maybe it is acurate, but you'll need to provide numbers.

As to your argument about speed in the NFL etc etc.
I can see that being a legitimate concern... but if that is true why did a PRIMARILY spread formation offensive strategy work for three playoff teams this year?

I agree, hence where I clarify that I can see the Pats/Steelers/Dolphins spreads (anywhere from 60/40 to 80/20) being adopted.

It is hard to say with the Chiefs because we had to cobble something together AND we just plain suck. Who knows what we would have run had we planned for running it AND had some talent... ANY talent.

New England, Pittsburgh is not the spread offense. Being in shotgun doesnt mean you are a spread offense.

Both teams employed spread formations more often than not. Especially as the year wore on.

I watch football with a buddy who is a huge Steelers fan and a friend whose girlfriend is a huge Pats fan... I had to watch WAY too many of their games this last year.

As for the Dolphins, I didn't watch them much so my data is hearsay.

Both new england and pittsburgh are spread teams, there's no doubt at all about that.

As for whether the 'spread' is the new 3-4, no, it's not. It's been in the NFL for years and years, it's just gone under different names. The run-and-shoot used the spread, different variants of the WCO and coryell offense used the spread. It's nothing new and it's not a gimmick.

Now, if you want to talk about variants like the spread option or the pistol, I don't think either of those will ever be standard in the NFL. And I think the wildcat's a gimmick that was worn out even before the 2008 season ended.

Now, as to whether the spread will ever be the in-vogue offense in the NFL, it's hard to say. But my guess is since it's a copycat league, since so much emphasis in the rules has been put on offense, and because of how it's proliferated through college football, it wouldn't entirely surprise me if it did.

I agree entirely with this EXCEPT that I think you are missing the comparison I was making... the 3-4 has been around for years as well... but I think that over time people realized it was easier to get the "talent" for a 3-4 and so it has become extremely popular... I am wondering if the entire league moves to spread heavy offenses for the same reason.

AT NO POINT am I advocating a spread option (hell I am not advocating anything...) but I am not sure that a spread team like the Pats couldn't also employ some of the "gimmicky" pistol and wildcat or spread-flex formations at some point as well.

I don't know that I agree with the idea that over time the 3-4 has gotten more popular for personnel reasons. I think it's cyclical. The 3-4 will be popular, then the 4-3 will be popular, round and round we go. And I think it's a combination of what's most popular (read:effective) at the time (copycat league, so if the 3-4 seems to be working, more teams will use it) and entire coaching trees being built around certain schemes.

I think offenses are the same way.

Fair enough. And that was what I was looking for... an argument for or against the actual premise :D

I can see what you are saying but I think the personnel issue could really become important as more of the big colleges move to a spread.

Harder and harder to find "traditional" QBs...

College is cyclical, too. The spread probably won't be around forever. My guess is that eventually there'll be a fashionable defense for stopping it, and we'll see a return towards power-based offense.

And I tend to think that the quarterbacks with enough talent and brainpower will be able to transition to a pro-style offense. Brady never ran a spread in college but flourishes at it in the NFL. Roethlisberger did run a spread, but does fine in playaction mode behind center.

I think true franchise-level quarterbacks will excel in whatever situation they're put in, assuming there's talent around them. Whereas I think players like Chase Daniel and Drew Brees will be limited to certain schemes because of their physical attributes and players like Vince Young and Michael Vick will be limited by the truth behind their wonderlic scores (although I guess I should be fair, guys like Marino and Favre didn't score well, either). But I think the smart guys with legitimate NFL size and arms (and the ability to make NFL throws) will be fine whatever they're eventually asked to do.

people deploy a 3-4 primarily because it is proven to work, it isn't a gimmick, and people win titles with it....the fact that it is easier to replace components is a secondary benefit..


if teams were to adopt a spread offense based primarily off the fact that the pieces are easier to find and replace (because of trends in college say), then we're talking about something different...in that scenario actual success as measured in titles is a secondary benefit/concern...

so the two examples are not analogous....

and if you have a great QB you can run damn near any offense...the spread makes limited QBs look better than they are...but the truth will remain that it almost always requires a great QB to win a title....

which is why it is imperative we find a QB, and not at all imperative that we worry about the spread or its future...or thigpen....

Team Defense Rankings of the teams that Oklahoma Played last year:

Chattanooga: N/A
Cincinnati: 26
TCU: 2
Texas A&M: 114
Texas: 20
Oklahoma State: 68
Texas Tech: 66
Kansas State: 109
Kansas 86
Baylor 85
Washington 116
Nebraska: 82
Missouri: 73
Florida: 5


Other Big XII defense's left out:

Iowa State: 110
Colorado: 83


SEC Defensive Rankings:

Florida: 5
Alabama: 6
Georgia: 62
LSU: 63
Tennessee: 11
Mississippi: 14
Auburn: 15
Miss. St.: 56
Vandy: 25
South Carolina: 28
Kentucky: 39


So, yeah, I think it's safe to say the SEC has superior defenses to the Big XII. I stand by my statement that the one time Oklahoma played a real D, they got squashed, but I do recognize the mighty power that is the Horned Frogs of TCU.

If anyone thinks the spread doesn't make your QB get hit more then you disagree with every NFL person there is. You're putting your QB back there and having lineman block one on one..and the way some NFL teams defend the spread is to kick the shit out of your QB.

The Ravens blitz that look every single time.

It has nothing to do with being able to get talent for a 3-4 defense. Hell, it's harder to find talent for a 3-4. There are dozens of prospects in this draft who are prototypical size for a 4-3 under-tackle or a 3 technique, but only a handful who can play the nose. Combine that with the fact that 3-4 OLBs aren't just undersized DEs, but also need to have fluid enough hips to occasionally cover the flats and the passing lanes, and it's significantly harder to find talent for it.

The only reason why people are switching to a 3-4 is because the Pats and Steelers have won 5 of the last 8 Super Bowls using it, and the fact that they use a 3-4 is not why they won. They won because they have excellent player personnel (Pitt) or good player personnel (NE) who hit on a once in a lifetime QB jackpot.

The 3-4 requires ridiculously specialized front 7 personnel...this idea that any small DE can play OLB to me is pretty stupid.

Nope. All you need is a NT (grow on trees), two 290 pound ends who are strong as shit, 6'5", and are stout against the run, two 250-260 lb. MLBs, and two OLBs who not only possess an arsenal of pass rushing moves, but who are able to defend tight ends and running backs in coverage.

That IS safe to say, and also something I already conceded. Again, please refrain from trying to REDFINE my arguments.

I asked you to show that there were no other "real" defenses... but I guess #2 and #20 aren't good enough to be real in your world.

And don't talk trash on TCU, I doubt you even watched a single game of theirs this year. They had a "real" defense this year, regardless of whatever made up support you want to use against them.

It pains me to defend OU's offense due to my blind hatred of them, but your pig headedness on the subject is beyond comprehension.

I am done arguing this with you as you have yet to once show anything remotely resembling an open mind on the subject.

Oh and lastly on your 3-4 related post, it is easier to get talent for a 3-4 EXCEPT for NT... a point I already made and you failed to see or just decided to ignore and try to frame an argument against me as if I hadn't.

It's really only easier to get 3-4 talent because teams are predominantly running 4-3 right now. There's not a whole lot of competition. As the 3-4 spreads, it becomes more difficult, and then, voila, it's easier to get 4-3 players.

Wow, and we have our second poster who lacks fundamental reading comprehension skills or maybe only reads what Hamas SAYS I said, as oppossed to MY ACTUAL POSTS. I never once said they get hit less.. I said that I don't believe his ASSUMPTION that they get injured MORE is correct and I want data to show it. The fact is if you KNOW a hit is coming, you are less likely to be injured. (can we agree on that because if not I doubt I can show facts but I can get anecdotal data for you)

If you can show where more QB injuries in the NFL have occured while in a spread formation than any other... I will happily agree that I am wrong. Until then, quit putting words in my mouth.

No its not. If it was the majority of the league wouldnt be in a 4-3 or college football.

If you want your QB to get hit as much as possible more power to you, I think that's awful strategy but hey.

Never thought about it that way... that may well be true... of course I never really went into the WHY part of it... not germane to my initial posit.

Again, NOT ON TOPIC.. I was just debunking a blanket statement that your QB is more likely to be injured out of a spread formation. To me, the statement is ridiculous with out something to back it up.

HUH? Let me see if I understand your post.

If it was (easier to find talent for a 3-4)... the majority of the league and college football would be using the 3-4?

Sorry KEG, but now I will steal your argument... as KEG pointed out .. maybe BECAUSE the majority of the league doesn't use it is WHY it is easier to find the talent... and college defense is a whole different ballgame.

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.

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.

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:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TuA4YvH2hj8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TuA4YvH2hj8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

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

:D

...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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.