The Spread Offense Conundrum

[xgeoff]

Guys, I've been hearing a lot of complaints about the readiness of College players (or lack thereof) and the blame is being heaped on the prevalence of the spread offense in the College game. This sounds like a lot of BS to me, but I thought that some of you might be able to educate me on why this is so.

There are a number of points that analysts are making, one of which is that Receivers coming out of college don't know route trees. Now, does the spread offense not have pass routes? I never heard of this and it sounds ridiculous to me. Even my High School team had pass routes. I mean, what do they do, draw it out on the QB's hand in the huddle like a backyard game?

And, frankly, we just recently had the best draft for WR's EVER. EVER. Let that sink in, EVER. So what is this nonsense about rookie WR's being unprepared for the NFL?

Next, I hear a lot of complaints about Offensive Line play in the NFL. I must admit, a lot of what I see in the NFL with respect to OLine play looks really bad. However, I attribute that to the fact that I mostly watch the Seahawks. And their line has mostly sucked.

But lets take a step back for a second. The NFL has seen a bunch of different offenses over time. I am assuming that the spread offense is similar to the K-Gun or the Run-n-shoot. Those linemen had to run block and pass block. Don't the Spread Offense guys in College have to do the same? We still have 1000 yd rushers coming out of College, so I am assuming some measure of run blocking is happening.

Frankly, with all the talent on Defensive Lines these days, you wouldn't have big passing performances without good line play. But we do. We do see monster games from QB's.

And let's look at some teams who tabbed rookies LAST YEAR who stepped in, played right away and played well. Tampa Bay had TWO rookies start on their OLine: Ali Marpet and Donovan Smith. They finished fifth in rushing yards per game, second in yards per carry and eighth in sacks allowed per pass play.

And what about Rob Havenstein for the Rams. According to Ram coaches he did not allow a sack or get called for a penalty the whole year and PFF calls him their most consistent performer (on an admittedly poor unit).

None of these guys were 1st round picks. So I guess what I am saying is that I get kind of fed up with a lot of the BS coming from NFL analysts. It's like one guy says something, then the rest of them pick it up and start repeating it.

Anybody out there think there is truth to the notion that the spread offense is making it hard to get NFL-ready talent?

 

[pehawk]

Alot of the whining around spread players coming into the pros speaks to scouting, not the actual players. Scouting departments need to alter their methods accordingly.

For RB's the reliant on spread principles has devalued physical traits while increasing the importance of the mental aptitude (patience and instinct). Think Rawls vs Michael. A decade ago they'd have swapped results for their rookie years. But, in this era, physical freakiness don't mean shit. It's all about feel.

In terms of OL, I think current DL needs to be given credit too. They're no longer space-eating cloggers. Nope. They're athletic freaks inside and outside. That's different than a decade ago.

WR's are coming into the league with understanding of routes and concepts it used to take 3 pro years to accumulate. They'll be the next devalued position because of it.

At least IMO.

 

[chris98251]

Alot of the whining around spread players coming into the pros speaks to scouting, not the actual players. Scouting departments need to alter their methods accordingly.

For RB's the reliant on spread principles has devalued physical traits while increasing the importance of the mental aptitude (patience and instinct). Think Rawls vs Michael. A decade ago they'd have swapped results for their rookie years. But, in this era, physical freakiness don't mean shit. It's all about feel.

In terms of OL, I think current DL needs to be given credit too. They're no longer space-eating cloggers. Nope. They're athletic freaks inside and outside. That's different than a decade ago.

WR's are coming into the league with understanding of routes and concepts it used to take 3 pro years to accumulate. They'll be the next devalued position because of it.

At least IMO.

I think you have some strong points, the college game has changed to where college coaches are now pressed to win and bring in dollars for the University's, Offenses are more quick then power, less three point stances, less holding your ground, little to no techniques taught, more shot guns. It will change again at some point, some school will begin teaching ball control and power game etc and win, the ten years after schools will adopt that. Think of it like basketball, team game pass pass shoot of the old days, then Michael Jordon made the spread and isolate popular with the one on one game and fast break no defense, things are going back to a team concept again. The same will happen in football, we buck the current trend and have won, it's because Cable and Pete teach technique and fundamentals, the players may or may not contribute right away, more like we redshirt players to teach. I also think it's why we have such a attrition rate when they go F.A., the have skills that transfer and other teams see that and sign them. CB's and O line especially.

 

[Smellyman]

Football isn't rocket science no matter what people like to say. It's not hard to learn.

Not a lot of rocket scientists play football

 

[pehawk]

OLineman are the worst athletic group on the field. That's always been the case, sure, it's just now that difference has widened to a new level. Also/and the passing game has advanced enough to compensate for that athletic deficit up front by getting the ball out quick.

The Seahawks are taking an interesting approach to the OL issue.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

OLineman are the worst athletic group on the field. That's always been the case, sure, it's just now that difference has widened to a new level. Also/and the passing game has advanced enough to compensate for that athletic deficit up front by getting the ball out quick.

The Seahawks are taking an interesting approach to the OL issue.

Slightly OT, but I don't know how comfortable I am with this strategy. It seems that just when you coach SPARQ athletes up with proper technique, they hit FA and become unaffordable. It might be one thing if guys like Sweezy were drafted in the first and had cheap fifth-year options to pick up, but two years of plus-level play before turnover happens seems like a massive de-stabilizer and maybe not worth the low cost of draft capital to acquire these guys in the first place.

I'd rather that Seattle primarily targeted high-level athletes who fall in the draft because of outside problems, whether injury- or legal-related, if their goal is to have these guys play out their first contracts and then get paid elsewhere. We need guys who become plus-players on the line more quickly. IOW, I'm hoping they draft Shon Coleman.

 

[pehawk]

Not my thread, so I can't say definitively, but I don't think it's off topic. It's all a symptom of spread principles and interesting to discuss.

 

[bigskydoc]

I could be completely wrong, but the feeling I get is that the Hawks want to have continual roster churn on a four-year basis on the O-line similar to what you have at the collegiate level with the bulk of the reps taken by the juniors and seniors while you are developing the sophomores and freshmen to take their place. I think the plans got off to a rough start and we haven't been able to keep the stable of developmental players like we initially planned. (for example Garrett Scott) This is the first year where we will have a full complement of freshmen and sophomores, and I would compare this year's starting line to a college line comprised entirely of juniors.

Interesting and novel idea

- bsd

 

[pehawk]

I could be completely wrong, but the feeling I get is that the Hawks want to have continual roster churn on a four-year basis on the O-line similar to what you have at the collegiate level with the bulk of the reps taken by the juniors and seniors while you are developing the sophomores and freshmen to take their place. I think the plans got off to a rough start and we haven't been able to keep the stable of developmental players like we initially planned. (for example Garrett Scott) This is the first year where we will have a full complement of freshmen and sophomores, and I would compare this year's starting line to a college line comprised entirely of juniors.

Interesting and novel idea

- bsd

Brilliant way to look at it.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

I could be completely wrong, but the feeling I get is that the Hawks want to have continual roster churn on a four-year basis on the O-line similar to what you have at the collegiate level with the bulk of the reps taken by the juniors and seniors while you are developing the sophomores and freshmen to take their place. I think the plans got off to a rough start and we haven't been able to keep the stable of developmental players like we initially planned. (for example Garrett Scott) This is the first year where we will have a full complement of freshmen and sophomores, and I would compare this year's starting line to a college line comprised entirely of juniors.

Interesting and novel idea

- bsd

Been saying this program is a modified college program for several years now.

It's no coincidence that Seattle almost always drafts OL/DL/LB/DB in every class (missed LB last year for first time). The result is to always be bringing in a 'new class' with a new class at every position. The UDFA group is also a part of that.

It's also one of the reasons PCJS always wants to have around 9 picks a year. Regardless of roster condition. It's why this team doesn't concede to the 'only so many can make the roster' argument. Because by design we're going to lose some to attrition.

We draft for need early. But we draft for breadth across the board. Our picks and even the terminology reflects that breadth first mentality. Pockets of talent and getting value throughout the draft. It's all the foundation for keeping a roster that for the most part is expected to churn every 4 years.

Seattle loves day 3 and day 4 (UDFA) guys because they can often be kept for additional years on the cheap. Those are the guys that get modest small extensions when their rookie deals end.

It's also why Seattle shows little regard for how old a rookie is when they come into the league. We're not looking for 10 year answers on this roster. We're presuming they're gone in 4-5 years.

There is a enormous host of examples that bear evidence to this concept for Seattle. And it's been ongoing for many years.

 

[mikeak]

Great posts in this thread thanks for sharing / discussing here

One other note on the churning. If you take 2 years to train them up, plays them for 2 years and then let them go then you do get some pay-back through the compensatory picks. So as long as you can keep a good enough group playing there is constant pay-back for this.

 

[Jville]

Excellent thread. Thanks to everyone for posting.

“If you’re going to develop line play, to do it in helmets and underwear and have all these contact limitations, what are you really getting done?” McCarthy said. “That’s definitely part of it. You need more time with those guys. If you’re lacking in fundamentals and technique, you have to spend more time on it.”

Or, leave it to Arians to present things a little more, um, colorfully.

“Twenty-one year olds, it’s just really tough for them to adjust to the league, let alone go out there against grown a-- men and play on the line of scrimmage, never practicing,” he said. “When we draft them, they just go through the entire spring without pads just doing stupid a-- drills that don’t get them any better.”

Source >>> [urltargetblank]http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2016/04/26/colts-struggling-offensive-line-has-company/83558326/[/urltargetblank]

“It’s extremely hard to get young linemen better,” said Arians, the Arizona Cardinals coach. “They’re not getting any better because they don’t ever get to practice football. And they’re not getting any better practicing soccer. Since we’ve made the (practice) rule changes, the quality of the athlete has gone way up, and the quality of the football has gone way down.”

 

[b8rtm8nn]

Jumping on the BA comments - they ran an article on our first round OT that was basically red-shirted last year and both BA and Goodwin basically agree with the premise of the most posters in this thread.

“A lot of them, you are starting from scratch,” said Cardinals offensive coordinator and offensive line coach Harold Goodwin. “For the things we do offensively, a lot of guys don’t do it in college anymore.”

http://www.azcardinals.com/news-and-eve ... c67dd39e07

 

[pehawk]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Curtis_Crabtree/status/725056335448969216[/tweet]

 

[mikeak]

^is this film for draft prospects or film of the Seahawks 2015?

 

[Jville]

^is this film for draft prospects or film of the Seahawks 2015?

He was referring to film on 2016 draft prospects.

 

[NINEster]

The idea that spread offenses are preferable for college over pro style offenses makes too much business sense when you look at it.

Easier to implement, easier to have success in college with the slower defensive players to deal with.

A college cares more about winning games, looking good than necessarily pumping out "NFL ready" prospects. A lot of times, the NFL ready prospects are all about the physical talent than football IQ.