Overreaction

[RedDenver]

When I watched the BCS MNC game, it looked like (and I could be wrong) the zone read could be run with power blocking schemes.

I've often wondered about this. Is it the line splits which reduce the power blocking schemes? The only spread team that I recall running power was Florida with Tebow, and that was a pretty effective counter to go with all the runs outside.

 

[Danimal]

overreaction is what a message board is for

What the hell is that supposed to mean? This is the worst post EVER. Your shipment of fail should've arrived but the immense burden of your fail was too much for the tanker. Your fail is now polluting our oceans and creating ten-eyed fish. GRATEFULLRED = COSGROVE. *#^@ YOU

 

[307husker]

View Postgratefullred, on 22 January 2011 - 11:28 AM, saidverreaction is what a message board is for

What the hell is that supposed to mean? This is the worst post EVER. Your shipment of fail should've arrived but the immense burden of your fail was too much for the tanker. Your fail is now polluting our oceans and creating ten-eyed fish. GRATEFULLRED = COSGROVE. *#^@ YOU

Irony is fun.

 

[Hujan]

Using this year's MNC for an indictment of the spread offense is stupid. For one, both teams ran a spread offense, so by necessity, one of those spread offenses was going to be on the losing end of that game.

Second, offense is always going to drop off during the MNC. Why? Because (1) the defenses have four weeks to scheme for the opposing team's offense and figure out exactly what to do to shut it down, and (2) all offenses, but particularly the spread, requires precise timing, something that is hard to maintain without playing actual games.

It is for these reasons that I joked to my buddy the day of the MNC game that, "Both offenses combined for an average of 80 points per game this year. So I'm sure it will be a low-scoring affair."

I also think it's key that people define a "spread" offense. As I understand it, there are two forms: The pass-heavy spread, which relies on 4- and 5-WR sets as a base offense, with lots of crossing routes and short throws. The key is to get your speedy WRs in space and have them make plays after the catch. Has a heavier downfield presence than the WCO. Often best run by a QB who is an excellent passer, but also has the ability to run (e.g., Colt McCoy).

There is also the spread option, which relies on lots of motion and reads to get smaller, faster backs the ball in space. It is also traditionally run by a QB who runs first, and passes second (e.g., Vince Young, Dennis Dixon).

In either case, there is an emphasis on smaller, faster players who can move in space. And, as the name implies, the goal of the offense is to "spread" the defense laterally from sideline to sideline. This often involves just 5 down linemen (T-G-C-G-T), one or two backs in the backfield in some formation, a QB, and several WRs. Pass-heavy spreads often have an empty backfield. Both spreads often run out of the shotgun, which enables to the QB to make easy reads for the spread option, or to get off quick passes in the pass-heavy spread.

As we've seen, defenses and offenses engage in a came of action-reaction. Defenses begin to beef up in an effort to stop power run games? Offenses begin to utilize schemes featuring smaller, faster players. As defenses begin to respond by employing smaller, faster defenders (e.g., the Peso), offenses will take advantage by beefing up again. And so on.

So is the spread dead? No, but it is not a magic bullet that some might have thought it was 5 years ago. As we've seen, the right defense can stop it just as easily as any other.

Having said all of that, I sort of believe the Pistol offense is one that may survive the test of time. Something so simple---lining the QB up in a shorter shotgun with the RB directly behind---eliminates so many of the drawbacks with other formations. If you want, it can offer the spread aspect of the spread option to expose big and slow defenses. Alternatively, by tossing in a back or two on either side of the QB, it can provide a power running game to expose smaller, faster Ds.

We saw some pistol looks from the offense this year. I think it would be a great approach for our offense going forward. A quality Pistol along side Pelini's Peso, would be sweet. Pelini's Peso-Pistol! PPP!

 

[zoogs]

Offense doesn't always drop off in a bowl game. There were plenty of bowl games around the same time, and offense didn't necessarily drop off in all of them. There have been plenty of high scoring affairs in the MNC, too. It was just an ugly, miscue-filled game for both offenses largely, and I'm not sure that means anything in general. It was just that kind of day. I actually expected a low scoring game too.

I think the pass happy spread does not require a QB who can run at all, unless I am wrong about the scrambling abilities of Kliff Kingsbury, Sonny Cumbie, Graham Harrell, and the like (or New England, 2007). Not sure it has a more downfield presence necessarily than the WCO but you might be right. I thought a key part of those offenses were replacing runs with quick, lateral passes to RB/WRs in the slot that allowed them to make a few yards after the catch. So these short, quick passes. I agree that it does need a good passer though. I'm not sure how much it relies on speed so much as cutting and ability to make plays in space, out of those receivers. Wes Welkers moreso than Randy Mosses, so to speak.

I think WCO is even more of a timing-reliant offense.

Not sure about the pistol, don't know much about it other than how popular it is these days. Really, I think the best offense to combat a defense is an offense that can do anything. Or just enough of variety to keep defenses completely on their heels, because it's not practical that an offense can literally do anything. Again I'll cite New England as a great example of this. Versatility (on both sides of the ball) is what has made that offense dangerous for a long time.

 

[Hujan]

Offense doesn't always drop off in a bowl game. There were plenty of bowl games around the same time, and offense didn't necessarily drop off in all of them. There have been plenty of high scoring affairs in the MNC, too. It was just an ugly, miscue-filled game for both offenses largely, and I'm not sure that means anything in general. It was just that kind of day. I actually expected a low scoring game too.

True. Offense doesn't have to drop off in a bowl game, but it seems far less likely than an offense will OVER-achieve in the MNC game relative to their regular season than they will UNDER-achieve. I don't know how else to explain the fact that in 2009 and 2010, Oregon was averaging 35-40 points a game and was held to half those numbers in the Rose Bowl against Ohio State and then the MNC against Auburn. Something tells me if those games were played the week after the regular season rather than a month later, it would have been a different story.

I think the pass happy spread does not require a QB who can run at all, unless I am wrong about the scrambling abilities of Kliff Kingsbury, Sonny Cumbie, Graham Harrell, and the like (or New England, 2007). Not sure it has a more downfield presence necessarily than the WCO but you might be right. I thought a key part of those offenses were replacing runs with quick, lateral passes to RB/WRs in the slot that allowed them to make a few yards after the catch. So these short, quick passes. I agree that it does need a good passer though. I'm not sure how much it relies on speed so much as cutting and ability to make plays in space, out of those receivers. Wes Welkers moreso than Randy Mosses, so to speak.

You are right that Texas Tech does not feature scrambling QBs. Note I said it was not a requirement, but is usually a benefit. Cam Newton and Colt McCoy strike me as two QBs who are definitely pass-first, but can run as well. When this happens, the team is deadly. To be technical, I think Texas Tech has more of an Air Raid offense, which as far as I can tell, is basically a pass-heavy spread but without a mobile QB.

Not sure about the pistol, don't know much about it other than how popular it is these days. Really, I think the best offense to combat a defense is an offense that can do anything. Or just enough of variety to keep defenses completely on their heels, because it's not practical that an offense can literally do anything. Again I'll cite New England as a great example of this. Versatility (on both sides of the ball) is what has made that offense dangerous for a long time.

I agree that a versatile offense is the best offense. But if you can't have a versatile offense---and few teams truly can at the college level---then the next best thing is to find a few things and do them well. At least then you make the defense have to worry about conforming to YOU. The worst case scenario is not doing ANYTHING well, which is what we saw at the end of the year this year.

 

[Fuzzy]

The Huskers usually run the zone-read out of the shotgun, what else can you do succesfully except for pass it? Which we all can agree that Martinez is not a consistent passer. Therefore, it explains the problem we have running the zone-read.

 

[walksalone]

View Postgratefullred, on 22 January 2011 - 11:28 AM, saidverreaction is what a message board is for

What the hell is that supposed to mean? This is the worst post EVER. Your shipment of fail should've arrived but the immense burden of your fail was too much for the tanker. Your fail is now polluting our oceans and creating ten-eyed fish. GRATEFULLRED = COSGROVE. *#^@ YOU

Irony is fun.

I'm still smiling...

Another thing we've got to remember, there are probably just as many variations of the spread than there are of the WCO. There are certain elements that are fundamental to both, but a good D Coordinator will sniff those out and scheme a way to stop them.

In about 10 or 15 years, somebody will develop a new offensive scheme, that will be the flavor of the week. It's the defensive coordinators job to come up with a way to stop it, make that work, and shut em down.

 

[Hujan]

The Huskers usually run the zone-read out of the shotgun, what else can you do succesfully except for pass it? Which we all can agree that Martinez is not a consistent passer. Therefore, it explains the problem we have running the zone-read.

The main problem with the zone-read is that both potential handlers---the QB or RB---are starting off from a dead stop, so they don't have much time to accelerate to a higher speed before they encounter the D. The Pistol tries to account for this by lining the RB up behind QB, so he has a bit of a running start when he gets the hand-off.

The other problem with the zone-read is that the RB has to line up on one side of the QB or the other, so the running options are limited. If RB is on the left, he is going to go right and the QB is going to go left. All the D has to do is bisect the field and use a pair of spies: One stays home on the left and reads the QB; the other stays home on the right and reads the RB.

Again, the Pistol accounts for this by allowing the RB to line up behind the QB, making it ambiguous where the play is going.

Another option is to use a playaction bootleg out of the pro set with the QB under center. There is no true "read" component to such a play, but it does give the QB the ability to keep the ball while the D crashes on RB it thinks is running between the tackles with the ball. You see this a lot in short-yardage or goaline situations. For Martinez, it would be deadly because he needs the smallest of seams to produce a big play with his feet.

 

[bshirt]

Offense doesn't always drop off in a bowl game. There were plenty of bowl games around the same time, and offense didn't necessarily drop off in all of them. There have been plenty of high scoring affairs in the MNC, too. It was just an ugly, miscue-filled game for both offenses largely, and I'm not sure that means anything in general. It was just that kind of day. I actually expected a low scoring game too.

True. Offense doesn't have to drop off in a bowl game, but it seems far less likely than an offense will OVER-achieve in the MNC game relative to their regular season than they will UNDER-achieve. I don't know how else to explain the fact that in 2009 and 2010, Oregon was averaging 35-40 points a game and was held to half those numbers in the Rose Bowl against Ohio State and then the MNC against Auburn. Something tells me if those games were played the week after the regular season rather than a month later, it would have been a different story.

I think the pass happy spread does not require a QB who can run at all, unless I am wrong about the scrambling abilities of Kliff Kingsbury, Sonny Cumbie, Graham Harrell, and the like (or New England, 2007). Not sure it has a more downfield presence necessarily than the WCO but you might be right. I thought a key part of those offenses were replacing runs with quick, lateral passes to RB/WRs in the slot that allowed them to make a few yards after the catch. So these short, quick passes. I agree that it does need a good passer though. I'm not sure how much it relies on speed so much as cutting and ability to make plays in space, out of those receivers. Wes Welkers moreso than Randy Mosses, so to speak.

You are right that Texas Tech does not feature scrambling QBs. Note I said it was not a requirement, but is usually a benefit. Cam Newton and Colt McCoy strike me as two QBs who are definitely pass-first, but can run as well. When this happens, the team is deadly. To be technical, I think Texas Tech has more of an Air Raid offense, which as far as I can tell, is basically a pass-heavy spread but without a mobile QB.

Not sure about the pistol, don't know much about it other than how popular it is these days. Really, I think the best offense to combat a defense is an offense that can do anything. Or just enough of variety to keep defenses completely on their heels, because it's not practical that an offense can literally do anything. Again I'll cite New England as a great example of this. Versatility (on both sides of the ball) is what has made that offense dangerous for a long time.

I agree that a versatile offense is the best offense. But if you can't have a versatile offense---and few teams truly can at the college level---then the next best thing is to find a few things and do them well. At least then you make the defense have to worry about conforming to YOU. The worst case scenario is not doing ANYTHING well, which is what we saw at the end of the year this year.

...and all through 2009.

Great post, Hujan.

 

[Blaze1up]

The spread option works very well you just have to mix it up, keep them guessing. Throw in different formations and always keep a balanced attack.

 

[da skers]

The Huskers usually run the zone-read out of the shotgun, what else can you do succesfully except for pass it? Which we all can agree that Martinez is not a consistent passer. Therefore, it explains the problem we have running the zone-read.

Not saying this was 100% of the problem but you trying throwing a good pass when every time you try to bend your toes on your foot it creates a horrible pain. If you think that's bad try using it as a plant foot when you make a cut to run up field. It has a tendency to slow you down. It makes it really easy to make bad decisions when most of your options feel like a bad choice.

 

[Enhance]

I'll be the first to say that as of right now, I don't think Watson is a good fit for the spread option offense we're trying to run. At the same time, he knows infinitely more about football than I do, and next year's offense isn't going to be the lousy doormat we saw in the Holiday bowl. All of our coaches (Watson included) are smarter than that, and they've got an entire offseason to try to work out the kinks.

I have a tiny problem with this statement.

At the end of the 2009 season, people used the Holiday Bowl as evidence that Nebraska's offense wasn't going to be as bad as it was during the '09 season. Now, you're saying that the Holiday Bowl at the end of the 2010 is not a showcase of further things to come? Forget all the injuries and the motivation - this offense with Watson is NOT an offense.

I see no evidence to support that Watson will turn this around. We return a starter at quarterback - great. As soon as he gets injured again, does the offense spiral into oblivion once more? We lose a running back who, albeit quietly, had a great Husker career. WR, once again, is a huge question mark with guys that have made plays but have also been wildly inconsistent. We return many guys on the OL but lose a huge cog in Henry. Despite having a lot of talent in the cupboard on the OL, I'm still seeing little to no improvement. In fact, I would argue the offensive line got WORSE as the season went along, not better.

We have smart coaches, no doubt. And these coaches know more about football than I probably ever will. But we also have three coaches on offense (Cotton, Watson, and Gilmore) that have run ENTIRELY different offenses in their time, and then we have an OC who's specialty isn't even the offense he is running.

The offense will probably look good again early next season, but I fully believe next year we will have at least one or two games where we fail to score an offensive touchdown, maybe more. More than likely it will come against a team it shouldn't, as well.

 

[zoogs]

In 2009, we all thought we were going to build off the Holiday Bowl performance against Arizona. Partway through fall camp, that plan was scrapped in favor of a quick fix kind of thing that limited the scope of what we could do, and, while explosive, sort of sacrificed depth because Taylor going down would mean we either have to stubbornly ask his backups to do things that aren't best suited for them, or try to morph the entire offense into something that has been shelved and not worked on for a lot of the year.

 

[knapplc]

We didn't change horses midstream. That myth needs to end. We've been recruiting towards the offense we ran in 2010 since the day Bo got here. Claiming that we suddenly decided in the middle of Fall Camp to change our offense has no basis in fact. The offense we exhibited in the 2009 Holiday Bowl showed glimpses of the offense we ran in 2010. The decision wasn't made mid-August. It was made in 2008, and came to fruition in 2010.