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

**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, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

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?

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.

CupidStunt · 02-18-2009, 03:54 PM

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?

**AustinChief** · 02-18-2009, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

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.

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.

**AustinChief** · 02-18-2009, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CupidStunt

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?

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?

'Hamas' Jenkins · 02-18-2009, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

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.

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.

ChiefsCountry · 02-18-2009, 04:16 PM

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.

**AustinChief** · 02-18-2009, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

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.

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?

**AustinChief** · 02-18-2009, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

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 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.

ChiefsCountry · 02-18-2009, 04:34 PM

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

**AustinChief** · 02-18-2009, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

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.

keg in kc · 02-18-2009, 06:13 PM

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.

**AustinChief** · 02-18-2009, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

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.

keg in kc · 02-18-2009, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

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

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.

**AustinChief** · 02-18-2009, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

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

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...

keg in kc · 02-18-2009, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

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

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.

02-18-2009, 02:43 PM
AustinChief Administrator Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Austin Casino cash: $-794998	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: 20,026

02-18-2009, 03:54 PM	#32
CupidStunt offense > defense Join Date: Jul 2005 Casino cash: $-806668	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?
Posts: 9,018

02-18-2009, 04:16 PM	#36
ChiefsCountry The Insider Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Lake of the Ozarks Casino cash: $-1651248	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.
Posts: 52,198

02-18-2009, 04:34 PM	#39
ChiefsCountry The Insider Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Lake of the Ozarks Casino cash: $-1651248	New England, Pittsburgh is not the spread offense. Being in shotgun doesnt mean you are a spread offense.
Posts: 52,198

02-18-2009, 06:13 PM	#41
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	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.
Posts: 58,682