Future of college football Offenses...

[vkj91]

The romantic in me loves the Pro Set but it's a dinosaur model. Watching Fresno State and with 40 seconds to go in the half, down by 7 inside the 20, Fresno goes for it on 4th down. Could you ever see us going for it on 4th and 4 down only 7 and in FG range?

 

[vkj91]

Tie game..........
Edit. Missed xp

 

[robcac26]

I have been saying for over a decade now that coaches have no balls and don't go for it on fourth down nearly as much as they should. Within field goal range at the end of the half may be different, but it makes no sense to me that just giving the ball to the other team if you don't get the first down on the first 75% of your set of downs is the widely accepted thing to do. The only reason coaches punt, unless their defense is way better than their offense, is because punting is never considered as a reason for why they lose games (because that's just the normal thing to do for some reason), but if they go for it on fourth down and they don't win, then it becomes an issue, and obviously they don't want to get fired.

Suppose punting wasn't normal and everyone went for it on fourth down. Imagine how stupid you would sound if you were the one who decided, "You know what, we give up on this drive and we're just going to kick the ball over to the other team now." By punting instead of going for it on fourth down, you decrease the amount of plays you have to get the ten yards by 25%, which is a pretty big deal. I know it sounds crazy because it is just different from how we are taught to understand football, but Kevin Kelley gets it, and even NFL teams are starting to consider his aggressive philosophy.

 

[Bamm Bamm Rubble]

Alabama doesn't even use it anymore.

 

[NickyNewark51]

I have been saying for over a decade now that coaches have no balls and don't go for it on fourth down nearly as much as they should. Within field goal range at the end of the half may be different, but it makes no sense to me that just giving the ball to the other team if you don't get the first down on the first 75% of your set of downs is the widely accepted thing to do. The only reason coaches punt, unless their defense is way better than their offense, is because punting is never considered as a reason for why they lose games (because that's just the normal thing to do for some reason), but if they go for it on fourth down and they don't win, then it becomes an issue, and obviously they don't want to get fired.

Suppose punting wasn't normal and everyone went for it on fourth down. Imagine how stupid you would sound if you were the one who decided, "You know what, we give up on this drive and we're just going to kick the ball over to the other team now." By punting instead of going for it on fourth down, you decrease the amount of plays you have to get the ten yards by 25%, which is a pretty big deal. I know it sounds crazy because it is just different from how we are taught to understand football, but Kevin Kelley gets it, and even NFL teams are starting to consider his aggressive philosophy.

IT'S THE CONSERVATIVE NATURE OF THE GAME BUT I LIKE THE THOUGHT. WAZZOU AND ''PIRATE'' Mike Leach thinks that way and it puts lots of stress and anxiety on the D.

 

[Ru2bnj]

The spread offenses have changed a lot in college football. However, i'm not a big fan. It's effective with the right players and difficult to defend without a lot of speed. I still think a pro style attack with some spread concepts mixed in is very effective and works. Football is losing some of it's fundamental and physical aspects. Tackling at both the college level and in the NFL has become pretty atrocious. Many players on defense don't know how and don't want to tackle. Watching the Jet/Raider game last week ..one of the worst tackling performances by the Jet secondary I've seen in many years. No one wraps up...they just dive at the legs with their shoulders or grab at the player....terrible stuff. Also the NFL really has a problem finding QBs who can operate a pro style offense rather than the very simplified spread stuff you see on Saturdays. It's not the college's job to produce NFL ready players but all the spread offenses have impacted how the game is played and has made it more difficult for the NFL personnel people.

 

[knightfan7]

Not that it matters but someone on TV was saying the NFL hates all these spread offenses in CFB. They said it makes it hard to evaluate players, especially OL. Also said players from Spread schools are not as prepared to play in the NFL as those from schools that run Pro Sets.

 

[Scarlet16E]

The great teams still have to play great defense.
Use whatever offense you like, but without great defense you can't win the championship.

I do agree about going for it on 4th down.

 

[RUskoolie]

I am a big fan of the zone read that Rich Rod, and Oregon run and OSU to a lesser extent because it puts tremendous strain on the other teams defense to have high caliber athletes who can run and tackle in space.

Not every "spread offense" is successful though. That's a pretty broad term, there are lots of variations.

 

[miketd1]

I hate the hurry-up spreads too because they seem to take away from the strategy of the game. Set-up plays, different formations, different shifts, multiple personnel packages, specialists -- all going the way of the dinosaur. You can barely find a FB on a roster these days. How about a "sack specialist"? That guy will never see the field against a HUNH (hurry-up-no-huddle) team.

The most effective offenses keep it simple and defenses have followed suit (MSU pretty much stays in base defense 90% of the time. TCU has like 3 coverages and a handful of blitzes).

That's what I dislike about it. I'm the type that really appreciates the perfectly timed play-call. These days, you can go down the field with 1 packaged play (RB run, QB run, a bubble-screen, and a stick route).

It's also why I enjoy watching the New England Patriots (even though I really hate them).

 

[RUGT]

The spread offenses have changed a lot in college football. However, i'm not a big fan. It's effective with the right players and difficult to defend without a lot of speed. I still think a pro style attack with some spread concepts mixed in is very effective and works. Football is losing some of it's fundamental and physical aspects. Tackling at both the college level and in the NFL has become pretty atrocious. Many players on defense don't know how and don't want to tackle. Watching the Jet/Raider game last week ..one of the worst tackling performances by the Jet secondary I've seen in many years. No one wraps up...they just dive at the legs with their shoulders or grab at the player....terrible stuff. Also the NFL really has a problem finding QBs who can operate a pro style offense rather than the very simplified spread stuff you see on Saturdays. It's not the college's job to produce NFL ready players but all the spread offenses have impacted how the game is played and has made it more difficult for the NFL personnel people.

I think the spread (and spread is a pretty vague term encompassing lots of formations and sets) works more often than not in CFB because it takes advantage of the talent mismatches that exist at virtually all colleges among offense / defense. A much higher percentage of the best players in high school go on to play offense in college, so you get many instances where WRs are playing opposite inferior defense backs. This coupled with the fact the DB position is probably the second most difficult position to play, is the most unforgiving, and the current rules favor passing, and it's absolutely no surprise why a lot of college game scores resemble that of a madden video game.

These mismatches don't exist nearly as much at the NFL level, where talent gets majorly filtered. Some teams still run many spread formations, but I see that more from teams who have extremely good QBs (patriots, saints, etc).

 

[bac2therac]

pro style offenses suck

 

[Hap129]

Agreed. Pro style is hard to run unless you have pro style offensive lineman. And recruiting high level oline is very difficult.

 

[LotusAggressor]

Not that it matters but someone on TV was saying the NFL hates all these spread offenses in CFB. They said it makes it hard to evaluate players, especially OL. Also said players from Spread schools are not as prepared to play in the NFL as those from schools that run Pro Sets.

The proliferation of spread offenses in CFB has eroded the quality of play in the NFL at QB and on the OL. Most QBs that come out of college have never played under center, learned to read defenses, or learned proper footwork. Remember the RGIII vs Andrew Luck debate? That seems to have been settled, even with Luck's struggles this year. Luck played in a pro-style offense at Stanford. That clearly helped him in the NFL. Most of the o-linemen from spread teams coming into the NFL are ineffective run blockers because they never really learn to do it. The new CBA doesn't allow enough practice time for QBs and o-linemen to develop and learn how to play NFL football. As a result, offensive line play in the NFL is at a historic low point, despite the fact that o-linemen are bigger, stronger, and more athletic than they've ever been, and there is a lot of bad QB play once you get past about the top 5 guys.

 

[rutgersdave]

I mentioned that most of the Big Ten is no longer using the Pro Set but someone tried to say there are a still many teams using it. I see only one other team that has a fullback in the backfield and the other line up 3 WR s. It might be a variation of the pro set but not exactly the same.