Watched Cincinnati vs Duke Replay last night and....

[VOL6479]

Uh no my argument hasn't changed. People are just bringing up different points and that's good conversation. I STILL don't think that the spread has a lot of success in the SEC. With big play makers it's easier to have success. If it makes you feel better... I don't like the up tempo spread. I think Jones is a good coach and I hope he wins every game but I'm a little concerned that the Bamas and LSU's of the conference are going to whip our ass defensively.

Name one offense that's had success without play makers? it's probably easier to run a spread if you don't have big play makers than a pro style. That's why a lot of teams in college run a spread because they don't have the personnel to line up and play smash mouth.

 

[Burger]

Name one offense that's had success without play makers? it's probably easier to run a spread if you don't have big play makers than a pro style. That's why a lot of teams in college run a spread because they don't have the personnel to line up and play smash mouth.

There is no good offense with out a playmaker. With most spreads its the quarterback who is the main playmaker. Look at Sonny Dykes at LA Tech, his qb made the plays in the air.

We need Worley or Peterman to step up. I still think Nate will take the job from Worley as he completed 10 straight passes in scrimmage. I want to see separation during fall camp. That's when we will see our fall QB.

 

[VolBraniac]

daj2576
mybloodisorange.com

...gets it.

http://www.volnation.com/forum/tenn...innati-vs-duke-replay-last-2.html#post8536518

 

[99gator]

Read "The Blind Side". The movie didn't touch on most of the best information in that book. Not only do you find some incredible explanations of how the game has changed and why (most you would agree with) but the best statement is about the football conservatives versus the football liberals. To paraphrase: The football conservatives use brawn to beat you to death and do it so well that you would think they have it all figured out (think Saban/Miles and Fulmer) and the football liberals use tactics and skill to overcome the brawn. And, there are some liberals who do it so well as to make you think they have it all figured out.

In other words, several decades ago this same conversation was being had in the NFL between those in the Parcels camp and those in the Walsh camp. Parcels (and I don't think I am spelling his name correctly) was a brawn/defensive kind of guy, and Walsh was inventing the west coast offense (high percentage, short yardage passing plays). Walsh did this so well that he could double the yardage per play compared to the running brawny traditionalists, and dropped the turnover percentage down to match what you could expect by running the ball.

In other words, almost over night Walsh's 49ers changed the way football was played, and few even noticed (those who did notice discarded it as gimmicky).

We are here having the exact same conversation about the current evolution of football.

People will cite Oregon as the reason that the spread won't work against the SEC, but the explanation is simpler than that. Oregon doesn't really recruit all that well on average (compared to the SEC), and the SEC teams severely out recruited them at every position. Speed is great, but it needs to come with mass and strength.

Jones has consistently said, and rightfully so, that he will change his schemes to match his talent and not try to force his talent into a scheme. Whether that works or not with our talent is yet to be seen, but the spread can and will work against SEC defenses.

Top SEC defenses aren't currently equipped to stop similar talent in variable schemes. They are set up to stop similar talent running the ball (speaking generally), or to pound inferior talent doing variable schemes. If you play Bama's game without their talent, you will lose. That is why LSU v. Bama is a punching match. If you expose the schematic weaknesses of Bama/LSU and have talent that isn't substantially below theirs, you have exposed a weakness.

EDIT: I need to be clear about Oregon's recruiting. To get a comparison of the caliber of athlete that Oregon has on hand here is a good benchmark. Take a team and average the last four years of their rival recruiting rankings. Do that for every team in the NCAA for the 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010 classes. You will find that both UT and Oregon are tied at 14.75, and UT is 6th (mid pack) in the SEC. So, if Oregon was in the SEC you could then see the dearth in their talent compared to the top tier SEC recruiting schools (Bama, Florida, LSU, et al).

i disagree with a lot of this.

it's very rarely ever the scheme.

it was the scheme when spurrier first brought the fun n' gun to florida, because sec coaches like pat dye had no clue what the hell a passing offense looked like.

it was the scheme when the bears first ran the 46.

it was the scheme when walsh, as you said, first ran the west coast.

etc, etc, etc.

after a while, it stops being the scheme. the west coast offense may have caught the league off guard in the early 1980's, but that wasn't the problem as the 80's wore on. the problem was montana, rice, craig, taylor, etc, etc, etc. there are plenty of teams who run the west coast offense today that suck.

who runs the 46 today? no one.

there comes a point, where whatever system you are running isn't fooling anyone anymore. the question is do you have superior talent or not.

one of the things that has separated the sec from the rest of the country is that you see everything in the sec. there isn't a scheme you don't see. you have to stop anything from johnny football to alabama smashmouth.

and johnny football isn't fooling anyone now. it's just he's that damn good and a&m wins. the 3 games where a&m played the best defenses all followed the same pattern. a&m rolled early and was shut down late. lsu, florida, and alabama all had the same pattern. difference is they hung up more points quicker against alabama and held on.

all of this scheme stuff is non sense. urban meyer's offense looked a lot different with tebow, hernandez and harvin than without tebow, hernandez and harvin.

the fun n' gun wasn't the same without wuerffel, anthony, hillard, green and taylor.

tennessee's offense looked different without peyton manning. etc, etc, etc.

coaching matters. and when someone truly brings a revolutionary concept, it matters for a short while.

but, by and large, it's players, players, players and players.

 

[thebjd]

TAMU runs a spread offense, fla, and auburn did also. Outside of Bama all of the SEC championship caliber team ran some variation of the spread attack. I know you into the traditional style of power football but with the athleticism in the front 4 these days you need to run a spread attack to counter the players like Clowney

Sumlin runs the Mike Leech spread and put in some read option due to personnel at QB. I watched their spring game yesterday and the offense is not similar to Malzahn's offense or Meyer's for that matter. I like a pro-style offense and play-action passing. I will also like Butch's if it wins games. A&M was also third in the SEC West behind two pro-style teams.

 

[Burger]

i disagree with a lot of this.

it's very rarely ever the scheme.

it was the scheme when spurrier first brought the fun n' gun to florida, because sec coaches like pat dye had no clue what the hell a passing offense looked like.

it was the scheme when the bears first ran the 46.

it was the scheme when walsh, as you said, first ran the west coast.

etc, etc, etc.

after a while, it stops being the scheme. the west coast offense may have caught the league off guard in the early 1980's, but that wasn't the problem as the 80's wore on. the problem was montana, rice, craig, taylor, etc, etc, etc. there are plenty of teams who run the west coast offense today that suck.

who runs the 46 today? no one.

there comes a point, where whatever system you are running isn't fooling anyone anymore. the question is do you have superior talent or not.

one of the things that has separated the sec from the rest of the country is that you see everything in the sec. there isn't a scheme you don't see. you have to stop anything from johnny football to alabama smashmouth.

and johnny football isn't fooling anyone now. it's just he's that damn good and a&m wins. the 3 games where a&m played the best defenses all followed the same pattern. a&m rolled early and was shut down late. lsu, florida, and alabama all had the same pattern. difference is they hung up more points quicker against alabama and held on.

all of this scheme stuff is non sense. urban meyer's offense looked a lot different with tebow, hernandez and harvin than without tebow, hernandez and harvin.

the fun n' gun wasn't the same without wuerffel, anthony, hillard, green and taylor.

tennessee's offense looked different without peyton manning. etc, etc, etc.

coaching matters. and when someone truly brings a revolutionary concept, it matters for a short while.

but, by and large, it's players, players, players and players.

It's like science, when you find a new weapons tech, it stays exclusive for awhile. That exclusive nature is the advantage revolutionary offenses have. The shine wears off after awhile. It's about having a working philosophy that your program runs on. Adaption is a crucial part that plays into all this. Football is both evolutionary and retrospective at the same time. Football is the world's biggest recycler ever at the same time. The 3-4 has existed off and on since the 70's.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Uh no my argument hasn't changed. People are just bringing up different points and that's good conversation. I STILL don't think that the spread has a lot of success in the SEC. With big play makers it's easier to have success. If it makes you feel better... I don't like the up tempo spread. I think Jones is a good coach and I hope he wins every game but I'm a little concerned that the Bamas and LSU's of the conference are going to whip our ass defensively.

Like Bama did ATM... I see why you moved on from that point.

And every scheme needs play makers.

 

[99gator]

i also meant to include in my last post that the nfl is using the spread now in large measure because of rule changes.

they are coming very close to legislating "smashmouth" out of the game.

so, teams are realizing that drew brees, peyton manning, and tom brady don't grow on trees. we have to find another way. it would be stupid to employ a certain strategy because of the rules of the game. so, let's try something else. and so, rgIII, r. wilson, etc, etc, etc are being allowed to do their thing.

and for those who have great qb's, let's run a passing spread and throw the ball damn near every down because that's what today's nfl rules dictate is a smart decision.

 

[daj2576]

i disagree with a lot of this.

it's very rarely ever the scheme.

it was the scheme when spurrier first brought the fun n' gun to florida, because sec coaches like pat dye had no clue what the hell a passing offense looked like.

it was the scheme when the bears first ran the 46.

it was the scheme when walsh, as you said, first ran the west coast.

etc, etc, etc.

after a while, it stops being the scheme. the west coast offense may have caught the league off guard in the early 1980's, but that wasn't the problem as the 80's wore on. the problem was montana, rice, craig, taylor, etc, etc, etc. there are plenty of teams who run the west coast offense today that suck.

who runs the 46 today? no one.

there comes a point, where whatever system you are running isn't fooling anyone anymore. the question is do you have superior talent or not.

one of the things that has separated the sec from the rest of the country is that you see everything in the sec. there isn't a scheme you don't see. you have to stop anything from johnny football to alabama smashmouth.

and johnny football isn't fooling anyone now. it's just he's that damn good and a&m wins. the 3 games where a&m played the best defenses all followed the same pattern. a&m rolled early and was shut down late. lsu, florida, and alabama all had the same pattern. difference is they hung up more points quicker against alabama and held on.

all of this scheme stuff is non sense. urban meyer's offense looked a lot different with tebow, hernandez and harvin than without tebow, hernandez and harvin.

the fun n' gun wasn't the same without wuerffel, anthony, hillard, green and taylor.

tennessee's offense looked different without peyton manning. etc, etc, etc.

coaching matters. and when someone truly brings a revolutionary concept, it matters for a short while.

but, by and large, it's players, players, players and players.

You make some interesting points, most of which I have actually addressed in several other posts of my own.

http://www.volnation.com/forum/tenn...reakdown-objective-viewpoint.html#post8273815

Bottom line, talent can be used to predict the outcome of somewhere between 60-70% of every NCAA football game played. What that means, in the inverse, is that coaching can be used to explain the remaining 30-40%.

Some of that is great coaching with poor talent, and some of that is poor coaching with great talent.

When you isolate the successful coaches who succeed with less talent, you find guys like Jones and Chip Kelly who tend to use different players for different systems.

Right now, the greater college football universe is denying the validity of what those guys are doing, because it doesn't fit the accepted reality (Bama keeps winning, and doing it by being generally traditional).

So in a way, you are right on both counts. Talent is huge the majority of the time, BUT coaching can be used to overcome talent in the minority.

Find the coach who can both get talent AND out-coach his opponents and you will experience something truly amazing.

 

[daj2576]

i also meant to include in my last post that the nfl is using the spread now in large measure because of rule changes.

they are coming very close to legislating "smashmouth" out of the game.

so, teams are realizing that drew brees, peyton manning, and tom brady don't grow on trees. we have to find another way. it would be stupid to employ a certain strategy because of the rules of the game. so, let's try something else. and so, rgIII, r. wilson, etc, etc, etc are being allowed to do their thing.

and for those who have great qb's, let's run a passing spread and throw the ball damn near every down because that's what today's nfl rules dictate is a smart decision.

According to Lewis in "The Blind Side", what you are describing started decades ago when Walsh used QB's to start throwing high percentage, short yardage passes.

When that became widely adopted is when the turnover percentage dropped to about 3% and gained 7 yards per play, when running had a 3% turn over, and 3.5 yards per play.

Don't quote me on those numbers, I am quoting them from memory, so I might be off some but the ratios are basically the same.