Why I do not like the spread-option offense

[AllWeatherFan]

I have coached against all of the types of Offenses and I would disagree with the initial post.

1- A spread offense is designed to force defenses to do things they are not use to doing.
2- It is designed to get mismatches all over the field.
3- It is designed for quick scores... which is a huge advantage near the end of the game.
4- It is made to be a crowd pleaser (Dont think for a second this is not part of the thinking).

As a coach it is VERY EASY to prepare for a traditional offense. You know what they are going to do and when they are going to do it. And unless they are very good at it, it is easy to defend.

The great advantage of the spread O is that it can be adjusted to take advantage of certain players, it can be adjusted in real time during the game and it is made to wear to defense out.

BTW... spread offenses are great for recruiting!

Good post, and you are exactly right about #4. The spread is fun to watch.

I have complete faith that our new OC will put a very productive offense on the field.

 

[BWahlberg]

I have coached against all of the types of Offenses and I would disagree with the initial post.

1- A spread offense is designed to force defenses to do things they are not use to doing.
2- It is designed to get mismatches all over the field.
3- It is designed for quick scores... which is a huge advantage near the end of the game.
4- It is made to be a crowd pleaser (Dont think for a second this is not part of the thinking).

As a coach it is VERY EASY to prepare for a traditional offense. You know what they are going to do and when they are going to do it. And unless they are very good at it, it is easy to defend.

The great advantage of the spread O is that it can be adjusted to take advantage of certain players, it can be adjusted in real time during the game and it is made to wear to defense out.

BTW... spread offenses are great for recruiting!

Please. Your first point is ridiculous. Everyone runs the spread now, so why would defenses be forced to "do things they are not used to doing"? Remember, there is a defense to stop EVERY OFFENSE, including the spread. The spread depends much more on being able to run AND pass effectively. Take one of the two elements out, and you have the 2010 grizzly spread offense. Your last point about being able to get "quick scores" from the spread is not true. We have no vertical passing game, so quick scores are not gonna happen with our spread.

The point though G1 is that with a spread you'll set-up mis-matches b/c the D will most likely stay in a base 4-3 rather than a nickel/5 DB package even though there may be 3 or even 4 WRs on the field. If the defense trots out 5 DBs then the offense can smash it at them and will have an advantage (assuming good technical blocking slot WRs aka Sam Gratton). If the defense stays with 3 LBs then you can play-action and either find the slot WR being covered by a linebacker, or covered deep by a safety but open for a shorter pass, or the split-out WR in 1on1 coverage as the safety is forced to come up and cover the slot.

Thus, it forces the D to do something it doesn't want to, use a 4-3 to stop a 4 WR set or a 4-2-5 to stop the run.

 

[Forshizzlegrizzle]

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Tim Tebow run a spread option offense while at Florida? Pretty sure he can't pass for shit.

 

[Grizfan-24]

Most defenses by structure (4-3 and the 3-4) are well suited to stop the spread. The 4-3 is maybe the most time tested flexible defense to hit football. Yet, depending how you deploy those personnel and the coverage's that are run in those defense can make the 4-3 ill equipped to handle spread offenses that deploy speed at the slot receiver position.

Traditional 4-3 (like the one Paulson ran) employed two very beefy middle linebacker types and one more mobile LB. Those defenses and the simple cover 2 cover behind the linebackers forced at least one of the LB's to carry receivers far longer than they should be rightly be expected to.

I could go on and on about why TCU's defense isn't really a 4-2-5 but rather a 4-3 or a 4-4, but really the genius behind those defense is to find personnel that can matchup against the spread concepts. Really the guys who play 'safety' are really two groups of people: Either safeties who don't have linear speed or quickness to play in the secondary or linebacker types who don't have the bulk to play inside.

Maybe more importantly is that these defenses have changed coverage concepts that allow OLB to win battles against slot receivers versus losing them. A lot more of sky and cloud coverage as well as mixed coverages (TCU specialty) where a team runs a cover 2 concept to one side and man to the other.

A defense has a chance to win if they put their players in the right place to execute the game plan. In the same vein, that is why not all spread offenses are created equal. I have seen an arse load of spread offenses that are just horrid conceptually and have no basis or idea in what makes spread offenses dangerous. Just because you run zone read/option and throw screens does not make a spread offense.

 

[BWahlberg]

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Tim Tebow run a spread option offense while at Florida? Pretty sure he can't pass for shit.

He did, Urban Meyer ran it. Also ran it at Utah with Alex Smith.

 

[Htowngriz]

I don't want to get into a semantic conversation about the spread, because I have a definite opinion of what it is and what it isn't.

I'll just say this if you are thinking that our 2010 program was ill equipped to run spread, I disagree. I would point out that if you are comparing Montana's offense to Oregon's version of the spread then you are correct. Spread is a multiple offense. Heck Nevada is spread, and they run veer which by the way is decidedly not most peoples idea of spread.

Spread is:
Louisiana Tech and Tony Franklin offense.
Nevada's old school pistol veer.
Oregon's 4.25 40 speed at every offensive position.
Georgia Tech's multiple option offense.

There are certain versions of the spread philosophy that don't match up with certain philosophies of spread. If you want to run zone read and option Selle isn't your best choice. If you want to sit back in the pocket and run intermediate passing game with a power run tendency, then Selle is a good choice.

Spread is flexible if you as the offensive coordinator allow to be so. The alignment and philosohpy take advantage of skill against less skilled (linebackers) players. There are many ways to skin a cat. Just saying.

I prefer the ram-it-down-their-throats and demoralize the fuck out of them method. :thumb:

 

[Grizfan-24]

I don't want to get into a semantic conversation about the spread, because I have a definite opinion of what it is and what it isn't.

I'll just say this if you are thinking that our 2010 program was ill equipped to run spread, I disagree. I would point out that if you are comparing Montana's offense to Oregon's version of the spread then you are correct. Spread is a multiple offense. Heck Nevada is spread, and they run veer which by the way is decidedly not most peoples idea of spread.

Spread is:
Louisiana Tech and Tony Franklin offense.
Nevada's old school pistol veer.
Oregon's 4.25 40 speed at every offensive position.
Georgia Tech's multiple option offense.

There are certain versions of the spread philosophy that don't match up with certain philosophies of spread. If you want to run zone read and option Selle isn't your best choice. If you want to sit back in the pocket and run intermediate passing game with a power run tendency, then Selle is a good choice.

Spread is flexible if you as the offensive coordinator allow to be so. The alignment and philosohpy take advantage of skill against less skilled (linebackers) players. There are many ways to skin a cat. Just saying.

I prefer the ram-it-down-their-throats and demoralize the f*** out of them method. :thumb:

Amen to that. As I have coached more and more, the more I love the pure simplicity of 'here is what we are going to run, try and f-ing stop it.

 

['68griz]

I don't want to get into a semantic conversation about the spread, because I have a definite opinion of what it is and what it isn't.

I'll just say this if you are thinking that our 2010 program was ill equipped to run spread, I disagree. I would point out that if you are comparing Montana's offense to Oregon's version of the spread then you are correct. Spread is a multiple offense. Heck Nevada is spread, and they run veer which by the way is decidedly not most peoples idea of spread.

Spread is:
Louisiana Tech and Tony Franklin offense.
Nevada's old school pistol veer.
Oregon's 4.25 40 speed at every offensive position.
Georgia Tech's multiple option offense.

There are certain versions of the spread philosophy that don't match up with certain philosophies of spread. If you want to run zone read and option Selle isn't your best choice. If you want to sit back in the pocket and run intermediate passing game with a power run tendency, then Selle is a good choice.

Spread is flexible if you as the offensive coordinator allow to be so. The alignment and philosohpy take advantage of skill against less skilled (linebackers) players. There are many ways to skin a cat. Just saying.

I prefer the ram-it-down-their-throats and demoralize the f*** out of them method. :thumb:

Amen to that. As I have coached more and more, the more I love the pure simplicity of 'here is what we are going to run, try and f-ing stop it.

That's essentially what Bobby did, and nine-tenths of the people on this board bitched about it.

 

[Grizzoola]

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Tim Tebow run a spread option offense while at Florida? Pretty sure he can't pass for shit.

He did, Urban Meyer ran it. Also ran it at Utah with Alex Smith.

Well, Tebow can "pass for shit."

See: http://www.steelers.com/video-and-audio/videos/Steelers-vs-Broncos-Highlights/661520e8-4353-431f-932f-038020d25b72" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, Tebow will probably never be a starter in the NFL, but is that what FCS football is about? Providing QBs for the NFL? Hardly. I believe the Griz will win whatever the O style. They've won w/ the pro-style; they've won with the S-O. Now that they're in the S-O style, they should stick with it. At the same time it's a mystery why they abandoned the pro-style of BH. So, here's another question: Why does a Griz AD change his mind on the O & D styles of play? Was it because Pflu was a "good ol' boy," or was it pressure from boosters to install a throwback to Air Read & more "exciting" football?

 

[garizzalies]

To run the spread-option effectively, you MUST HAVE a QB who is a good runner, as well as a good passer. He can NOT be basically a runner, who throws occasionally. The offense has to be balanced between running and throwing.
.....
We have offensive talent, but not the right offensive talent to feature the spread-option. We would be much more effective running Hauck's offense, or Joe Glenn's offense. It takes a very special QB to effectively run the spread-option.

Your rant makes no sense because you contradict yourself. You essentially claim McKinney isn't good enuf for the spread because he's not a great passer. However, you think he'd do better in Hauck's offense that relies even moreso on a good pocket passer? Do you truly believe McKinney would look better in Hauck's offense?

Rant? Please stay out of my threads unless you can discuss things like a man.

i raise a valid point that sinks your theory and you totally side-step it and claim i can't "discuss things like man." do you see the irony?

 

[tnt]

The thing is as the S-O has evolved from the 90's unless the QB is a great (note I didn't say good) runner, you end up with only 10 consistent offensive personnel giving the defense some pretty good advantage.

 

[AZGrizFan]

To run the spread-option effectively, you MUST HAVE a QB who is a good runner, as well as a good passer. He can NOT be basically a runner, who throws occasionally. The offense has to be balanced between running and throwing.
.....
We have offensive talent, but not the right offensive talent to feature the spread-option. We would be much more effective running Hauck's offense, or Joe Glenn's offense. It takes a very special QB to effectively run the spread-option.

Your rant makes no sense because you contradict yourself. You essentially claim McKinney isn't good enuf for the spread because he's not a great passer. However, you think he'd do better in Hauck's offense that relies even moreso on a good pocket passer? Do you truly believe McKinney would look better in Hauck's offense?

Rant? Please stay out of my threads unless you can discuss things like a man.

i raise a valid point that sinks your theory and you totally side-step it and claim i can't "discuss things like man." do you see the irony?

Growler's point (I think) is that were we running Hauck's offense we would never have recruited a McKinney-type QB....traditional drop-back QB's are easier to find/coach/train up...he's said many times he believes all the good SO QB's go FBS and we're left with the cream of the crap.

 

[WyomingGrizFan]

I don't want to get into a semantic conversation about the spread, because I have a definite opinion of what it is and what it isn't.

I'll just say this if you are thinking that our 2010 program was ill equipped to run spread, I disagree. I would point out that if you are comparing Montana's offense to Oregon's version of the spread then you are correct. Spread is a multiple offense. Heck Nevada is spread, and they run veer which by the way is decidedly not most peoples idea of spread.

Spread is:
Louisiana Tech and Tony Franklin offense.
Nevada's old school pistol veer.
Oregon's 4.25 40 speed at every offensive position.
Georgia Tech's multiple option offense.

There are certain versions of the spread philosophy that don't match up with certain philosophies of spread. If you want to run zone read and option Selle isn't your best choice. If you want to sit back in the pocket and run intermediate passing game with a power run tendency, then Selle is a good choice.

Spread is flexible if you as the offensive coordinator allow to be so. The alignment and philosohpy take advantage of skill against less skilled (linebackers) players. There are many ways to skin a cat. Just saying.

I prefer the ram-it-down-their-throats and demoralize the f*** out of them method. :thumb:

Amen to that. As I have coached more and more, the more I love the pure simplicity of 'here is what we are going to run, try and f-ing stop it.

That's essentially what Bobby did, and nine-tenths of the people on this board bitched about it.

Not necessarily. To begin with, as I recall, most running plays were handoffs to the RBs five to seven yards behind the line of scrimmage and forcing the offensive linemen to hold their blocks beyond a reasonable amount of time; resulting in needless holding penalties and a lack of open space to run. This compounded by the policy of not utilizing TEs in the passing game. Even at that, whenever the Griz under Hauck had a successful TD scoring play, I noticed that that was the last time that particular play would be seen for the rest of the season. This as if Hauck was afraid that his opponents would scout that play out and subsequently prepare for it and his fear of being outsmarted by such a happening. It definitely wasn't a smash-it-in-your-mouth stop-us-if-you-can type policy; not for the first four or five years. If it was I would have thought the Griz would have used Justin Green on more than three carries as against JMU.

 

[Hammer]

I don't want to get into a semantic conversation about the spread, because I have a definite opinion of what it is and what it isn't.

I'll just say this if you are thinking that our 2010 program was ill equipped to run spread, I disagree. I would point out that if you are comparing Montana's offense to Oregon's version of the spread then you are correct. Spread is a multiple offense. Heck Nevada is spread, and they run veer which by the way is decidedly not most peoples idea of spread.

Spread is:
Louisiana Tech and Tony Franklin offense.
Nevada's old school pistol veer.
Oregon's 4.25 40 speed at every offensive position.
Georgia Tech's multiple option offense.

There are certain versions of the spread philosophy that don't match up with certain philosophies of spread. If you want to run zone read and option Selle isn't your best choice. If you want to sit back in the pocket and run intermediate passing game with a power run tendency, then Selle is a good choice.

Spread is flexible if you as the offensive coordinator allow to be so. The alignment and philosohpy take advantage of skill against less skilled (linebackers) players. There are many ways to skin a cat. Just saying.

I prefer the ram-it-down-their-throats and demoralize the f*** out of them method. :thumb:

Amen to that. As I have coached more and more, the more I love the pure simplicity of 'here is what we are going to run, try and f-ing stop it.

Remember Lex's senior year in Bozo and Bobby just pounding the cats with Lex. Loved it!!!!!

 

[Htowngriz]

I don't want to get into a semantic conversation about the spread, because I have a definite opinion of what it is and what it isn't.

I'll just say this if you are thinking that our 2010 program was ill equipped to run spread, I disagree. I would point out that if you are comparing Montana's offense to Oregon's version of the spread then you are correct. Spread is a multiple offense. Heck Nevada is spread, and they run veer which by the way is decidedly not most peoples idea of spread.

Spread is:
Louisiana Tech and Tony Franklin offense.
Nevada's old school pistol veer.
Oregon's 4.25 40 speed at every offensive position.
Georgia Tech's multiple option offense.

There are certain versions of the spread philosophy that don't match up with certain philosophies of spread. If you want to run zone read and option Selle isn't your best choice. If you want to sit back in the pocket and run intermediate passing game with a power run tendency, then Selle is a good choice.

Spread is flexible if you as the offensive coordinator allow to be so. The alignment and philosohpy take advantage of skill against less skilled (linebackers) players. There are many ways to skin a cat. Just saying.

I prefer the ram-it-down-their-throats and demoralize the f*** out of them method. :thumb:

Amen to that. As I have coached more and more, the more I love the pure simplicity of 'here is what we are going to run, try and f-ing stop it.

Remember Lex's senior year in Bozo and Bobby just pounding the cats with Lex. Loved it!!!!!

And we saw a repeat of it with Dan Moore and company last year. A beautiful sight to behold. :clap:

 

[Hammer]

I prefer the ram-it-down-their-throats and demoralize the f*** out of them method. :thumb:

Amen to that. As I have coached more and more, the more I love the pure simplicity of 'here is what we are going to run, try and f-ing stop it.

Remember Lex's senior year in Bozo and Bobby just pounding the cats with Lex. Loved it!!!!!

And we saw a repeat of it with Dan Moore and company last year. A beautiful sight to behold. :clap:

Moore isn't hard to tackle, just ask jcu!! :shock:

 

[Growler1]

Your rant makes no sense because you contradict yourself. You essentially claim McKinney isn't good enuf for the spread because he's not a great passer. However, you think he'd do better in Hauck's offense that relies even moreso on a good pocket passer? Do you truly believe McKinney would look better in Hauck's offense?

Rant? Please stay out of my threads unless you can discuss things like a man.

i raise a valid point that sinks your theory and you totally side-step it and claim i can't "discuss things like man." do you see the irony?

Growler's point (I think) is that were we running Hauck's offense we would never have recruited a McKinney-type QB....traditional drop-back QB's are easier to find/coach/train up...he's said many times he believes all the good SO QB's go FBS and we're left with the cream of the crap.

Great summary of what I said, AZ. If this pin head does not understand that calling my opening post a "rant" is offensive to me, then he is one brick short of a load.

 

[Growler1]

The thing is as the S-O has evolved from the 90's unless the QB is a great (note I didn't say good) runner, you end up with only 10 consistent offensive personnel giving the defense some pretty good advantage.

Another great post. The spread offense REQUIRES the QB to be both a great runner, and great better-than-average passer, who can throw the deep ball, in order to utilize all of the elements which teams like Oregon and Florida use. We do not have that type of QB. Period.

 

[hm.grwn.grizfan]

I don't want to get into a semantic conversation about the spread, because I have a definite opinion of what it is and what it isn't.

I'll just say this if you are thinking that our 2010 program was ill equipped to run spread, I disagree. I would point out that if you are comparing Montana's offense to Oregon's version of the spread then you are correct. Spread is a multiple offense. Heck Nevada is spread, and they run veer which by the way is decidedly not most peoples idea of spread.

Spread is:
Louisiana Tech and Tony Franklin offense.
Nevada's old school pistol veer.
Oregon's 4.25 40 speed at every offensive position.
Georgia Tech's multiple option offense.

There are certain versions of the spread philosophy that don't match up with certain philosophies of spread. If you want to run zone read and option Selle isn't your best choice. If you want to sit back in the pocket and run intermediate passing game with a power run tendency, then Selle is a good choice.

Spread is flexible if you as the offensive coordinator allow to be so. The alignment and philosohpy take advantage of skill against less skilled (linebackers) players. There are many ways to skin a cat. Just saying.

I prefer the ram-it-down-their-throats and demoralize the f*** out of them method. :thumb:

 

[hm.grwn.grizfan]

I don't want to get into a semantic conversation about the spread, because I have a definite opinion of what it is and what it isn't.

I'll just say this if you are thinking that our 2010 program was ill equipped to run spread, I disagree. I would point out that if you are comparing Montana's offense to Oregon's version of the spread then you are correct. Spread is a multiple offense. Heck Nevada is spread, and they run veer which by the way is decidedly not most peoples idea of spread.

Spread is:
Louisiana Tech and Tony Franklin offense.
Nevada's old school pistol veer.
Oregon's 4.25 40 speed at every offensive position.
Georgia Tech's multiple option offense.

There are certain versions of the spread philosophy that don't match up with certain philosophies of spread. If you want to run zone read and option Selle isn't your best choice. If you want to sit back in the pocket and run intermediate passing game with a power run tendency, then Selle is a good choice.

Spread is flexible if you as the offensive coordinator allow to be so. The alignment and philosohpy take advantage of skill against less skilled (linebackers) players. There are many ways to skin a cat. Just saying.

I prefer the ram-it-down-their-throats and demoralize the f*** out of them method. :thumb:

ME TOO! It's a winning formula. The teams that can consistently run the ball, as well as stop the run, are the toughest to beat.