The "Spread" is not an offense

by Rhapsode on Nov 24, 2008 2:27 AM PST Comment 17 comments

I am reading a lot about "spread offense" and how it benefits a team and gets wins. The problem is that "the spread" is not an offense. It is a formation.

The spread is a formation out of which a coach can run different offenses based on the talent available. Watch Florida, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and last year's West Virginia team and see what the offenses have in common. Here's a hint: nothing. Texas Tech almost never runs the ball while West Virginia tried not to throw the ball. Sam Bradford is a drop pack passer while Tim Tebow leads his team in carries . The only similarity between all of these teams is that they will often put just 5 men up at the line and always have multiple split out receivers.

Running an offense out of a spread formation does not guarantee wins or even a capable offense. A team's offense should fit its personnel (whether by adjusting to the players or recruiting the right players for the system) and the spread is generally geared toward teams with more skill players and less (in number) capable linemen and tight ends. The spread allows a team to use the presence of extra skill players on the field to negate a defense's size advantage.

Scheme is a great equalizer in college football, but only when the scheme is properly executed. A team with many able large bodied linemen would be wasting talent running a spread and would be better off converting some of those linemen to tight end and using them to block. A team with Texas Tech's personnel would be foolish to try and run a power running game like Ohio State when they have so many receivers and so few run blocking linemen.

What I am trying to say is that scheme and play calling, whether out of the spread formation or a more conventional formation, need to fit the personnel available. One offense or another does not guarantee more points, better recruits, or more wins. Besides, like in basketball, the true goal is efficiency. If you score on every possession, it doesn't matter if your drives take 1 minute or 10.

I am confident that our coaching staff, while not employing a "spread" offense, is leading the team in the right direction. By bringing in the necessary players to fit the system and getting them to execute properly, our coaches will set themselves up for an incredible run. As far as the offense goes, every offense (WCO, spread, pro style, A-11, etc.) tries to make the defense commit one way in order to go the other. If our coaches do that, they can run the single wing for all I care.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

3 recs | Comment 17 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Informative post

Thanks Rhapsode.

by Nestor on Nov 24, 2008 4:44 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

most of this is true

however, the “spread” can actually be referred to as an offense. The “Pro-Set Offense”, which USC runs, is actually just an offense based off of pro sets, or pro-set formations. Our offense, which is common in college football, is the multiple offense, because it is run out of multiple formations. Hence, since Leach, Meyer, etc use primarily spread formations, the offense is referred to as the “spread”.
Basically, the dominant formation that a coach chooses to use is just what the offense is called. The only offense that actually has a name is the West Coast Offense, and that’s just because it came from Bill Walsh on the west coast. Also, the option offense is called that because of the dominant play; which is basically what you’re describing with the spread. Otherwise, it’s the spread offense, the pro-set offense, and the multiple offense – all named after their formations.
And also, mentioning the “single wing” at the end – it’s a type of offense named for it’s formation. That’s just what happens nowadays.

I’m not trying to cut you down or anything, and I agree 100% that our team would not be any more successful running a spread this year because of our lack of team speed. I’m just saying that the term “Spread offense” is a perfectly acceptable term.

by bucknellbruin on Nov 24, 2008 8:13 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Also,

to my knowledge, isn’t the “spread offense” just a fancy new way of the “run and shoot offense”?

I mean, the principles are the same. Five on the line, Quarterback and Running Back / Tailback in the backfield with four wide receivers. Seems like the same as a “spread offense” anyway.

Rhapsode I totally agree though that a “spread offense” would not change anything, in fact, it would make our problems worse. Many of our pass plays we require the running back to block, sometimes even the tight end as well due to our offensive line issues. Spread would lead to a high frequency of sacks and Craft having to make even quicker throws, which, I don’t think would be best based upon how the season has transpired.

by dproduct on Nov 24, 2008 8:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I deliberately choose not to use any dairy or dairy substitute figures of speach

No comments about the high priced spread or the defensive butter knife easily slicing through the spread. Instead, I will hearken back to the wonderful days of the single wing, and serpentining out of the huddle. That looked VERY cool.

by Fox 71 on Nov 24, 2008 9:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think the Run and shoot

is just a type of a spread attack. The spread is the term used for both a run-based attack and a pass-based attack. The run and shoot is all about the pass.

by bucknellbruin on Nov 24, 2008 9:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ahhhh

Makes sense. Thanks for clarification. Something that also bugged me.

Announcers kept talking about this new “spread offense” and I also looked puzzled thinking it was the same thing I have been seeing for years with a new name.

Now, the Oregon spread option offense, especially last year under Dixon was one of the prettiest offenses I have ever watched. It was magic.

by dproduct on Nov 24, 2008 9:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

yep

Oregon’s offense, when it works, is a thing of beauty. It’s basically what West Virginia ran last year (and what Michigan will eventually be running), and somewhat similar to Urban Meyer’s system. I just love watching a run-based spread offense, because it just shows off the amazing athleticism these guys have.

by bucknellbruin on Nov 24, 2008 9:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I understand naming after formations

But the term “spread” does not define any offense. The original spread offense (as far as I can remember) was what Northwestern used to run when they were good in the late 90’s. They ran 4 wide receivers and always started out of the shotgun. This was primarily a passing offense that featured a very talented running back who could catch balls out of the backfield and run effectively when given the ball.

The problem with the term “spread offense” is that it no longer denotes any particular type of offense. The single wing is characterized by its formation and sweeps around the end. The pro set is poorly defined but is generally a balance of run and pass out of multiple formations using the same personnel: 1 tight end, 2 running backs, and 2 wide receivers. The option can take various forms but is characterized by a large presence on the line and the pitch play around the end. The west coast offense is not generally characterized by the personnel but by the use of the short pass to establish a rhythm. The A-11 is primarily a high school offense where teams run every play out of a modified fake punt formation. What little I have seen of this offense lends me to believe that teams running the offense should have 5 or 6 good backups as the starter will have to be dug out of the field after only a few plays.

Right now, the spread tends to refer to a personnel grouping (although Florida is using more and more blockers) but not to any defining characteristic. Teams running a spread offense can be balanced or exclusively pass or run. I think that more definition needs to be given when talking about a spread offense because saying your team runs “the spread” just means that your team passes a lot, runs a lot, or mixes the two up.

by Rhapsode on Nov 25, 2008 1:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The spread is an offense

The problem is that Urban Meyer and Rich Rodriguez run the spread option, which is different. Too often they get lumped together, even though the spread option is more just a variation on the triple option.

by SuperBruinMan on Nov 25, 2008 7:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Great and informative post

Rhapsode and everyone that followed put up some good thought provoking stuff. I felt I have learned something here.

OK, those of you who know me by now, know I can come out of deep left field sometimes so I’m doing it to you again. I want to see the return of the Flying Wedge formation! I really do! Here’s how I see it developing.

Take a team in a fourth and short situation. Preferably Fourth and Goal with the game on the line. You bring out your 11 biggest, burliest linemen regardless whether they play offense or defense on a regular basis. (Of course, you’ve been drilling these guys for weeks in case of just this kind of eventuality) Line ’em up in the wedge, and run ’em right down the middle. Maybe even off tackle. You are basically challenging the defensive unit to stop all that inertia and forward motion. Now while the defensive line will put up some resistance, there is no way the secondary will be able to compete.

Sounds crazy, I know! But you don’t need it to make huge gains. Just hard fought short yardage gains that are very important. What do you think? How crazy am I? How effective could this be?

A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden

by MexiBruin on Nov 24, 2008 11:11 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

some questions

Very helpful post. But it brings up some questions.

You seem to imply that all schemes are inherently equal, so long as they’re executed smartly and with the right personnel. Now of course all schemes have the same ultimate goal (fooling the defense) but it seems like certain ones are generally better at it in this stage of the college game than others. After all, coaches develop their philosophy for a reason and recruit players to fit it. Clearly they believe their own scheme promises the greatest and most consistent success.

All spread offenses seem to operate on the assumption that the best way to fool a defense is by spreading the field as much as possible. All of them are either run-heavy or pass-heavy — they eschew the traditional notion of playcalling balance for the sake of field balance. Clearly there’s a rift here. And right now the spread philosophy seems more successful. Leach for example thinks his system is simple and the least reliant on perfection, which helps out when you’re dealing with 18-22 year olds.

I’d be interested to hear your opinion on which systems might be the most prone to success right now (all things considered). I don’t see the WCO succeeding anywhere in college at the moment.

by bluebland on Nov 24, 2008 2:49 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

the WCO

is least successful in college because it takes tons of practice to get it right. The schemes are extremely complex and take time to learn. We saw this first hand with Dorrell’s “offense”. And you’re right, blueband – the spread is the one that requires the least amount of perfection and more improvisation. That’s one reason why it’s so effective in the college game.

IMO, if the pieces are there, then the spread is the offense that is toughest to defend. But it will stay that way only while plenty of teams play with power running games and such. The advantage of the spread, right now, is that when the field is so spread out, then the team with the most speed will have the advantage. And since coaches still have to recruit defensive guys with the power game in mind, it’s hard to get enough speed to match up with the spread; while not sacrificing defending a power run game.

However, if a majority of teams start to run a spread system, then defenses will start recruiting faster, smaller guys – then a power running game would be just as tough to defend as the spread is now.

It’s all about staying ahead of the curve. And for now, the spread is ahead of the curve. But it won’t stay that way forever, as more and more teams trend towards it. As for our offense, it’s safe to say that a multiple look scheme like CRN and NC run won’t ever go “out of style”. It has the elements to spread the field and power the ball up the gut; all we need is the players. And hopefully we’ll have them soon.

by bucknellbruin on Nov 24, 2008 3:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Took the words out of my mouth

My initial version of this post went deeper into why spread teams are more successful at the current time and how this would change as teams gear their defenses toward stopping the spread. Oklahoma’s defense is the perfect example of this, they have 7 players on the field who could be DB’s at many schools and their D line is undersized but very fast. If you watched, that defense was built to stop Mike Leach’s system (and the similar offenses that have taken over the Big 12). However, Texas was able to beat them with a power running game that kept OU’s offense off the field. OU just didn’t have the bodies to stop Texas’ giant offensive line.

by Rhapsode on Nov 25, 2008 1:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

One more thing

Stewart Mandel of SI.com recently wrote that he thinks some coach in the near future will be hailed as a genius for discovering a power running game. I really think that he is on to something.

If you haven’t watched Oklahoma’s defense, it is something to behold. I don’t think I have ever seen a faster defense. This defense was built to stop spread offenses, whether they run or pass. There is speed at every position and the defense can clearly (after TTU) keep up with 5 receivers streaking across the field. However, this defense is very vulnerable to a good power running game.

I really think that Oklahoma is running the future of college defenses. This will combat the up and coming programs that can now sling the ball around the field and run toward open space. Eventually, this kind of defense will probably become so prevalent that coaches who run dinosaur offenses (see Big 10) will become innovators. Suddenly, their slow, unoriginal, running offenses will be able to plow right through the middle of new quick defenses. Funny how that works, maybe we will see a return of the option and the wishbone.

by Rhapsode on Nov 25, 2008 1:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The spread preys upon the diminishing fundamentals on the defensive side of the ball

Defenses used to be far better than they are today at the college level. The NCAA has continued to limit the amount of practices, time of practices and contact coaches can have with players. The amount of time players have with coaches is far less than it used to be and it shows on the defensive side of the ball. For the same reasons the WCO is ineffective at the college level (not enough time to practice it), the spread is effective (not enough time to develop solid defensive fundamentals).

It is far easier to be successful offensively than it is defensively with limited practice time. The offense is in control and the defense has to react. On offense a player’s natural athletic ability can carry him very far. If you’re a dynamite athlete you will be successful in open space. If you can get athletes the ball in open space, you don’t need to coach them from that point on. Their athletic ability will handle the rest. On the other hand, if you get a defender in open space, he’s going to lose every time.

Think about the progression of a play. A receiver, running back or tight end just has to run his route. The defender has to read the play, find his way through bodies and get in position to tackle. If the quarterback can get the ball in a playmaker’s hands then he just has to use his athletic ability. A defender has to break down the offensive player, square him up, make a tackle and do all of this while he’s guessing what the offensive player will do. The offensive player is in control because he can do whatever he wants. He’s not bound by what the defensive player is doing. It’s far easier to be the chasee than the chaser. Now that’s just why is harder to be a defensive player than offensive player in one on one matchups.

There’s also the fact that defenders don’t practice the fundamentals often. With decreased practice time, there isn’t time to do intensive tackling, footwork and all the other individual drills. There’s barely enough time to work on scheming to get the players in position int he first place. Let’s see how the spread exploits this.

The spread, in any form, is one of the simpler offenses out there. It essentially works to get one on one matchups all over the field. If you’re going to pass out of the spread then the goal is to spread the field to either force a soft zone, which the offense can nibble at all the way down the field, or to force the defense to play man to man without any safety help or a personnel mismatch in coverage. If players are in one on one matchups the offense is going to win every time because #1, the offense if the chasee to the defense’s chaser and #2, the tackling and footwork of defenders has gone downhill with the amount of practice time.

Now when you’re talking about running out of the spread, the offense does the same thing as they do against the pass. To defend a 3 or 4 wide spead you must be in nickel or dime. If you’re not then you’re forced to play a soft zone that the offense can nibble at all the way down field. Now with a nickel or dime personnel spread wide because of the offensive formation the offense can run the ball against 5 or 6 in the box. That’s a win for the offense every time if they have a decent line because each lineman is allowed to get into a man on man matchup without the responsibility of getting onto a linebacker. At most, there will be one free linebacker and if one linebacker has to defend the entire box against the running back, he will lose to a decent running back nearly every time. The first time the runing back will face a challenge is once he gets to the safeties and by then he’s picked up 8 yards.

As you can see, the entire point of the spread is to create one on one matchups. One on one matchups, combined with the inherent advantage of the offense and the dimishing fundamentals of the defense caused by practice time, allows the offense to win nearly every battle. If a defense is far more talented then the offense, the spread can be stopped, but if the talent level is marginally close or the offense has better talent, the defense has close to no shot.

As a coach you just want to put your players in a position to succeed and one on one matchups does that if you’re calling the offensive plays. That is why the spread works. Take the spread to the NFL and it wouldn’t move the ball because #1, NFL defense are faster and #2, NFL defenses are far better fundamentally and schematically because it is their job. They work on it 24/7. College players don’t have that luxury.

The spread is here to stay, at least in the college game and that is why. One and one matchups.

by ryebreadraz on Nov 25, 2008 11:21 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Great stuff

By all. It stresses the point about adaptability.

As for the NFL, am I just imagining things, or have Arizona (this year) and New England (last few years) been running Leach-like offenses? Few plays, endless formations, mostly shotgun, tilted greatly toward pass. Watching the Patriots looks just like watching Tech. I remember reading that NFL teams were interested in that system and maybe now it’s bearing fruit.

Can anyone clarify?

by bluebland on Nov 25, 2008 12:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs