Chiefs sticking with spread offense?

[htismaqe]

Let's get this straight - no team in the NFL runs the "spread" as it's base offense.

The spread has nothing at all to do with the shotgun, and only indirectly does it have anything to do with the WR's.

The spread is defined by the number of blockers on the line and the SPACING between them. That's where the term "spread" came from.

4 WR's in a shotgun formation does not always equal the "spread" offense. A true spread offense is used to mask defeciencies in the OL, not only by moving LB's out of the box into coverage but also by forcing the DL to spread out, creating zone reads for the running game.

In the NFL, it's not an every-down system. The LB's are too fast and can cover too much ground, taking away the zone runs, and the difference between #1 CB and #3 CB isn't as great as it is in college.

[SenselessChiefsFan]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Let's get this straight - no team in the NFL runs the "spread" as it's base offense.

The spread has nothing at all to do with the shotgun, and only indirectly does it have anything to do with the WR's.

The spread is defined by the number of blockers on the line and the SPACING between them. That's where the term "spread" came from.

4 WR's in a shotgun formation does not always equal the "spread" offense. A true spread offense is used to mask defeciencies in the OL, not only by moving LB's out of the box into coverage but also by forcing the DL to spread out, creating zone reads for the running game.

In the NFL, it's not an every-down system. The LB's are too fast and can cover too much ground, taking away the zone runs, and the difference between #1 CB and #3 CB isn't as great as it is in college.

No, but the Cards, Chiefs and Pats ran it as their primary passing offense.

Now, the spread offense doesn't 'require' the shotgun... however, every team that uses the spread uses the shotgun BECAUSE of the wider spacing between the blockers. The spacing gives defenders easier lanes to get to the QB.

Simply adding blockers to the backfield mask deficiencies in the line. Going max protect, or rolling the QB out of the pocket mask those deficiencies. The spread is designed to get spread the field to give the QB the best view of the field AND to allow him to read the defense more quickly without using motion.

Finally, you are correct about the run game being ineffective in the NFL because of the quicker defenders.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

No, but the Cards, Chiefs and Pats ran it as their primary passing offense.

I only watched the Cards in the playoffs because I don't watch FOX football, but they didn't run it as their base passing offense during the playoffs. They were running 3 and 4 WR out, but the offensive linemen weren't in the "spread".

[Chiefnj2]

TMQ on the spread from 2007

Bartender, shotgun spreads for everyone!
Considered quirky just a few seasons ago, the shotgun spread has taken over football as completely as if it were a Ukrainian virus targeting Microsoft Outlook. Friday night at my kids' high school game, both sides were running it; I've seen maybe two dozen high school teams since September 2006, and most of the offenses were shotgun spread. Come Saturday, LSU and Virginia Tech slugged it out in prime time with both teams in the shotgun spread. Imagine telling the Gipper that Notre Dame just played at Penn State, and both spent most of the game in a shotgun formation with multiple wideouts, including the Nittany Lions' opening snap being shotgun spread with five wide. Almost every big-college game this weekend featured at least one team that had shotgun as its base look. Miami, Ohio State, West Virginia, Washington, Florida, Georgia, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Christian, Hawaii, Louisville -- we could save space by listing the major teams that currently don't go shotgun as their base offense. The shotgun spread offense has taken over Division I-AA, Div. II and Div. III, as well, and lest we forget, Appalachian State used the shotgun spread for its historic upset of Michigan. Come the NFL's opening weekend, Atlanta, Dallas, Green Bay, Indianapolis, Jersey/A, Miami, Minnesota, New England, Philadelphia and Tennessee regularly lined up in a shotgun spread, even on rushing downs. Almost every NFL team now uses multiple-wide formations: According to Pro Football Prospectus 2007, 28 of the 32 NFL clubs went five wide on offense at least once in 2006. And of course, Indianapolis just won the Super Bowl from a shotgun spread. All hail the shotgun spread!

Fads come and go in sports, of course. Beginning in the late 1960s, the veer-option offense went from being rare to nearly universal to rare again, the cycle taking about a decade. How long until the shotgun spread is passé? A couple of seasons, most likely. Who gets credit for the popularity of the shotgun spread? Mike Leach and Urban Meyer are the most prominent names. Beginning in the early 1990s, Leach developed a shotgun spread attack at Valdosta State, then at Kentucky, now at Texas Tech; beginning about the same time, Meyer perfected a similar offense at Bowling Green, then at Utah, now at Florida. In high school, the shotgun spread has proliferated partly because coaches have heard that Southlake Carroll used the offense to win four Texas high school championships in the past five seasons, and Hoover of Alabama, which had its own show on MTV, won a lot of games with a shotgun spread. My guess is that in 2006 and 2007, hundreds of high school coaches have switched to the shotgun spread hoping to surprise opponents -- only to find their opponents opening in the shotgun spread, as well. At the NFL level, teams copy other teams. About five years ago, offensive coordinator Tom Moore of the Colts made it clear that a shotgun formation with two or three wide receivers and a wide-spread tight end could work on a consistent basis. Since then, every NFL team has shown this look at least occasionally.
Shotgun spread

AP

Shocking proof -- Franco Harris invented the shotgun spread.
The shotgun itself usually is attributed to former Niners coach Red Hickey, who in 1960 had John Brodie stand well behind the center for a direct snap. Hickey's theory was that because the quarterback has to use time and energy dropping back on a passing play, why not just start the play with the quarterback dropped back? But when Brodie went into the shotgun, the rest of the formation stayed the same -- traditional two backs, two wide receivers -- and Hickey's Niners only shifted to the shotgun on long yardage downs. Few teams, college or pro, seemed interested in the shotgun until 1975, when Tom Landry of the Cowboys began to employ the set with Roger Staubach sometimes lining up in the shotgun on downs other than third-and-long. This was seen as a major innovation at the time, though many coaches thought the idea was stupid: because you couldn't run out of the shotgun, lining up shotgun announced you would pass. (Hold that thought a moment.) Despite the high profile of Staubach's Cowboys, shotgun sets did not catch on, except for third-and-long situations.

About the same time, Bill Walsh -- first as an assistant for the Cincinnati Bengals, then as head coach at Stanford -- conceived what eventually would become the West Coast offense: or as this column calls it, the West Coast Offense®. Walsh's big idea was not, as football pundits are wont to say, "timing routes"; all pass plays involve timing. Walsh's big idea was a pass designed to gain 8-15 yards. Until the West Coast Offense®, coaches viewed runs as plays intended for short gains and passes as plays intended for long gains. A 2-to-1 or 3-to-1 run-pass ratio prevailed, with runs called to raise clouds of dust and occasional passes called to attempt deep strikes: Think of the Packers' game plan in the first Super Bowl. Walsh's idea of frequent short passes that would pick up a first down but probably not lead to a big gain, struck most coaches of the late 1970s and early 1980s as nonsense. But when Walsh showed during San Francisco's Super Bowl runs that a team could control the clock with short throws, this revolutionized football's concept of the pass. Soon run-pass ratios were 1-to-1 or even favored the pass. Last year in the NFL regular season, there were 17,552 called passes -- attempts plus sacks -- versus 14,448 rushes. If your goal is to throw mostly short passes that leave the quarterback's hands quickly, having the quarterback take the snap already several yards deep made sense. (Hold that thought, too.)

Next came the thankfully brief era of the run 'n' shoot. Several teams, prominently Atlanta, Detroit and the old Houston Oilers, lined up with four wide receivers and no tight end, often favoring short receivers on the theory that they could dance around linebackers, and passed like mad, hitting 2-to-1 pass-run ratios. The Lions reached the 1991 NFC Championship Game as a run 'n' shoot team, and entered the contest with no tight end on the roster. Run 'n' shoot teams actively disdained the run, saying the future of football was all passing. The armageddon of the run 'n' shoot came in the 1992 playoffs, when the Oilers used this strategy to take a 35-3 second-half lead over the Bills, then plummeted to the largest lost lead in NFL annals. From the point at which the Oilers attained the 35-3 edge till they walked off the field with heads hanging, Houston coaches called 22 passes and four rushes -- endlessly stopping the clock with incompletions, thus keeping Buffalo alive. After the Oilers' meltdown on national television, the run 'n' shoot fell from vogue and has not been heard from since.
Red Hickey

AP

What would have happened if Red Hickey had been hired to coach Southlake Carroll?
The next fad offense was the no-huddle, started by the Bengals with Boomer Esiason, perfected by Jim Kelly's Super Bowl Bills, and by the late 1990s seen on occasion from most NFL teams. The point of the no-huddle was not, as football pundits commonly said, to pass like crazy: In its four Super Bowl years, Buffalo either had a 1-to-1 run-pass ratio or rushed more than passed. The points of the no-huddle were these: first, to prevent situation substitutions by the defense; second, to lure the defense into using simplified tactics without presnap movements (because defenders would be worried about getting into position in time); third, to increase the number of plays the offense runs (playing defense is more tiring than playing offense, so an accelerated pace favors the offense); and fourth, to entice the defense into using a relatively light "prevent" set with five or six defensive backs, then run against the skinny guys.

I mention these trends because the good aspects of all of them came together in the Leach-Meyer-Southlake-Moore conception of the shotgun spread. West Coast-style, most passes are designed to be short, and thus can be thrown quickly, before blitzers reach the deep-set quarterback. With four receivers running quick routes, somebody will be open; as long as the throws are accurate, the chains will move. Because the shotgun spread is up-tempo, the offense increases its number of plays executed. Offensive linemen are usually in two-point stances, which improves pass-protection performance. The key difference between the shotgun spread and previous philosophies, such as the run 'n' shoot, is that shotgun spread coaches love the run. In my kids' high school's shotgun spread performance Friday night, the run-pass ratio was 3-to-1. On Saturday, Nebraska beat Wake Forest 20-17 on a late 22-yard touchdown run by tailback Marlon Lucky. The line score of the game looks like something from 1953, but Wake rushed 53 times from the shotgun spread and Nebraska's winning touchdown run came from the shotgun spread. The Indianapolis Super Bowl win? The Colts won that game on the ground, rushing from the shotgun spread. The old-timers' assumption that you can only pass from the shotgun turns out to be totally wrong. Old-timers also would have said you can't rush-block from a two-point stance, which also turns out to be wrong. The shotgun spread is a great formation to run from, in part because you often are facing a light defense with one fewer linebacker than normal.

Defenses will soon find ways to counter shotgun-spread mania. When Alabama held Texas Tech to 10 points in the 2006 Cotton Bowl, you were seeing the beginning of the end of the shotgun spread fad. But often fads reach their peak just before collapsing, and the shotgun spread is at its peak right now. Shotgun spread advocates, enjoy your moment in the sun!

Shotgun footnote: TV announcers and sportswriters, please stop saying the point of this offense is to "spread the field." The field remains 160 feet wide regardless of where the players line up. Having multiple split receivers does reduce bunching of linebackers between the tackles, but then again, by moving defenders outward, spreading makes it a lot harder for the tailback to break a big run by turning the corner. Shotgun spread passing routes have more to do with giving the quarterback a clear view of the receiver than with spreading players outward. If spreading were in itself a good idea, all five offensive linemen wouldn't always be together. And by the way, what if not having all five offensive linemen together is the next big fad?

[keg in kc]

Both the Pats and the Cards ran primarily from the spread.

Steelers, too.

[Kyle DeLexus]

Heading to class so I didn't read all this, but wanted to throw out that it's hard to establish a running game from the spread formation. I believe that is what people dislike the most of it. When you get in the redzone, there is only so much you can do without having a running attack. So, I agree with whoever posted that there is nothing wrong with the spread formation in between the 20's. Yet, you can't be like we were last year and look like a Junior High JV squad when you line up behind center.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by MWagg72

Heading to class so I didn't read all this, but wanted to throw out that it's hard to establish a running game from the spread formation.

The Chiefs were in many ways a spread team from 2001-2005, and they ran the ball fine for the most part (the problem I mentioned earlier in the thread being the exception). Beyond that, some would argue that the types of passes emphasized by spread routes are basically an extension of the running game - short passes geared towards giving receivers a chance at yards after the catch. As we saw a lot, you can also exploit aggresive defensive tendencies by using traps, draws and throwing in screen passes. What you can't do is power run, because you don't have the right personnel on the line (no TE or a pass-catching TE spread wide) and often no FB. And generally, the teams that run it go for athletic linemen over drive blockers, which exacerbates the problem.

In other words, you can run, you just have to go about it a little differently...

[Kyle DeLexus]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

The Chiefs were in many ways a spread team from 2001-2005, and they ran the ball fine for the most part (the problem I mentioned earlier in the thread being the exception). Beyond that, some would argue that the types of passes emphasized by spread routes are basically an extension of the running game - short passes geared towards giving receivers a chance at yards after the catch. As we saw a lot, you can also exploit aggresive defensive tendencies by using traps, draws and throwing in screen passes. What you can't do is power run, because you don't have the right personnel on the line (no TE or a pass-catching TE spread wide) and often no FB. And generally, the teams that run it go for athletic linemen over drive blockers, which exacerbates the problem.

In other words, you can run, you just have to go about it a little differently...

Exactly, I didn't mean you can't run out of it at all, but that it's harder to do. You have to be creative and have good playcalling. It is not designed with the running game in mind though. That is why you see the shotgun in obvious passing situations. I like the options that we could have using the spread as part of our offense, but not to the extent that some teams have taken it to. As you said, you can't establish a power run out of the formation. That is a problem. That power running game controls the clock and helps in the redzone. If we had a better running game to go with our spread, we could have been a completely different team W-L wise. I guess I agree with your other post that you have to find the right balance.

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

The Chiefs were in many ways a spread team from 2001-2005, and they ran the ball fine for the most part (the problem I mentioned earlier in the thread being the exception). Beyond that, some would argue that the types of passes emphasized by spread routes are basically an extension of the running game - short passes geared towards giving receivers a chance at yards after the catch. As we saw a lot, you can also exploit aggresive defensive tendencies by using traps, draws and throwing in screen passes. What you can't do is power run, because you don't have the right personnel on the line (no TE or a pass-catching TE spread wide) and often no FB. And generally, the teams that run it go for athletic linemen over drive blockers, which exacerbates the problem.

In other words, you can run, you just have to go about it a little differently...

I agree with this statement. Its all about exploiting mismatches. Especially with Gonzales the occassional spread play can improve our passing game. Gonzo was spread wide in Saunders' offense too. The biggest problem that we had with Saunders running the show is the offense often tried to get their yards in too big a chunks. I thought too often we went three and out. One of the keys in improving our defense is keeping them off the field by being able to sustain drives.

An NFL offense that can do many things well is going to be successful. The Cardinals last year were not successful when they couldn't run. The Chiefs will be the same.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

The Chiefs were in many ways a spread team from 2001-2005, and they ran the ball fine for the most part (the problem I mentioned earlier in the thread being the exception). Beyond that, some would argue that the types of passes emphasized by spread routes are basically an extension of the running game - short passes geared towards giving receivers a chance at yards after the catch. As we saw a lot, you can also exploit aggresive defensive tendencies by using traps, draws and throwing in screen passes. What you can't do is power run, because you don't have the right personnel on the line (no TE or a pass-catching TE spread wide) and often no FB. And generally, the teams that run it go for athletic linemen over drive blockers, which exacerbates the problem.

In other words, you can run, you just have to go about it a little differently...

See that's NOT the spread. The linemen weren't at all in a spread formation in the base offense, despite how many WR's were on the field.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

See that's NOT the spread. The linemen weren't at all in a spread formation in the base offense, despite how many WR's were on the field.

I think "spread" has been bastardized to mean more than the OL formation.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

I think "spread" has been bastardized to mean more than the OL formation.

That's been my exact point all along.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

See that's NOT the spread. The linemen weren't at all in a spread formation in the base offense, despite how many WR's were on the field.

That might be why I said "in many ways a spread team" rather than "were a spread team".

I would add that I'd be wary of making sweeping generalizations. Not every iteration of the spread features 3-foot or wider splits and not every iteration has their linemen in two-point stances.

All-in-all, this looks to me like a pretty silly exercise in philosophical masturbation.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

That might be why I said "in many ways a spread team" rather than "were a spread team".

I would add that I'd be wary of making sweeping generalizations. Not every iteration of the spread features 3-foot or wider splits and not every iteration has their linemen in two-point stances.

All-in-all, this looks to me like a pretty silly exercise in philosophical masturbation.

All I'm trying to say is that what the Chiefs did on offense was RADICALLY different than what the Cardinals or Patriots did. What the Chiefs did WAS a gimmick, designed to compensate for linemen that couldn't block and a QB that couldn't play in a pro offense. And we STILL won only 2 games.

So suggesting that we're going to do it again is crazy talk. You're going to see 3 and 4-WR sets next year. You're going to see the shotgun. Hell, I'd bet it all we'll see the wildcat a half dozen times.

But you won't see anything like what we did last year.

[Red Dawg]

The spread limits the running game pure and simple. It's allows an offense to become predictable.