|
|
Post by davecisar on Dec 4, 2008 12:17:00 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Dec 6, 2008 20:26:32 GMT -6
Good article.
Tom Osborne knows a few things about football.
|
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Dec 6, 2008 21:02:23 GMT -6
Nobody doubts Dr. Tom's knowledge, but he is stating the obvious. Most coaches worth their salt have never for minute doubted the effectiveness of the option.
What needs to be emphasized, however, as Johnson himself is quick to point out, is that he too runs the spread, only under center.
Florida runs the option too and when Meyer was at Utah they ran a lot more veer triple out of the gun than he does today.
|
|
|
|
Post by airman on Dec 7, 2008 15:14:31 GMT -6
I am a passing guy so that tends to put me in the spread category but I personally cannot wait for the telephone booth offenses to come back.
I know this sounds shocking but it is true. I say this because I want to be the only spread guy again. I want defenses to get back to be slow run stuffing lbers who can man up on a fullback in the I formation ISO play. IT was much more fun exploiting these type players then it is today with the defenses which are built for the spread.
I want to be the only spread guy because dbs will become tacklers when the phone booth offenses comes back instead of coverage guys like they are now.
I want it to be like when the U of Houston was the only spread run and shoot team. they put up huge numbers.. Yes I hope for the good old fashion t formation to comeback.
DR Tom is right about a run game being a Juggernaut. However what he does not say is when it takes them 7 min, to score and it takes us 2 min to score he is doing us a favor by running out the clock with the run game.
|
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Dec 7, 2008 16:28:20 GMT -6
Air, Yep, he never did very well against the spread teams.  BTW when NU beat #2 Spread Florida 62-24 in the Fiesta Bowl in 1995 Dr Tom had some real fast guys on the field on defense as well. |
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Dec 7, 2008 17:37:05 GMT -6
What Osbourne is saying is already happening.
In my neck of the woods, there are some really BAD spread teams...teams that don't have a quick game, don't throw uncovered, don't use play action, and don't have complimentary running plays. Heck, I coached for one of those teams last season!
There are A LOT of coaches who think you can simply put the quarterback in the shotgun and put trips out there and the defense will $hit the bed. That might have been the case 6-7 years ago, but not anymore. Around here anyways, the defenses have largely caught up with the spread teams, especially the spread running teams. Defenses are realizing that they don't have to cover all the receivers and they can keep an extra guy up in the box. Defenses do a better job of hiding and mxing up their coverages and the odd front defenses have really done a good job of coming up with alll sorts of blitz combos.
To be a good spread team, there are really a lot of things you have to work on and be good at if you are going to be successful whereas teams that use more compacted formations do not have to adjust as much in regards to different types of coverages and fronts and blitzing.
|
|
|
|
Post by dc207 on Dec 7, 2008 18:08:15 GMT -6
What Osbourne is saying is already happening. In my neck of the woods, there are some really BAD spread teams...teams that don't have a quick game, don't throw uncovered, don't use play action, and don't have complimentary running plays. Heck, I coached for one of those teams last season! There are A LOT of coaches who think you can simply put the quarterback in the shotgun and put trips out there and the defense will $hit the bed. That might have been the case 6-7 years ago, but not anymore. Around here anyways, the defenses have largely caught up with the spread teams, especially the spread running teams. Defenses are realizing that they don't have to cover all the receivers and they can keep an extra guy up in the box. Defenses do a better job of hiding and mxing up their coverages and the odd front defenses have really done a good job of coming up with alll sorts of blitz combos. To be a good spread team, there are really a lot of things you have to work on and be good at if you are going to be successful whereas teams that use more compacted formations do not have to adjust as much in regards to different types of coverages and fronts and blitzing. Amen to that! We faced a couple teams this year that were just TERRIBLE spread teams - in week one it was obvious that they did not have the ability to be effective out of the gun with three and four receiver sets. Maybe they would've been just as bad in a different offense, but their coaches should've been canned for staying with the spread as long as they did. Let's see, one historically DW team WENT TO the spread, got destroyed all year and came back to the DW and Power-I game. At least then they made the game shorter, and hung around a little ... just a little. Another team that historically has no offensive philosophy that I can identify, went to the spread then quickly switched to the DW (in week four, I think) and had some success. Went from throwing 30 times to throwing 3 times. A third program was just as bad, but they at least stayed with what they'd run since day one, and got a little better at it. I give their coach credit, because it looked really, really bad seeing them go three-and-out on three incompletions for weeks on end. We're lucky we have a big QB with a cannon for an arm. Kinda makes it easier. |
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Dec 7, 2008 18:15:44 GMT -6
so, football is cyclical and always evolving? um ... never thought of that  |
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Dec 7, 2008 21:29:04 GMT -6
Being different, among many other things, is a definite advantage.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoachMikeJudy on Dec 8, 2008 7:28:08 GMT -6
I know this sounds shocking but it is true. I say this because I want to be the only spread guy again. I hear that brother! I remember when I was one of the few guys in an area running jet/rocket, and our "ohh $hit" factor was at it's height...teams would literally be like "ohh $hit" when they had to prepare for us... Now EVERYONE runs jet/rocket in our league...but nobody runs option....hehehe <sinister laugh> |
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Dec 8, 2008 7:46:33 GMT -6
Most coaches worth their salt have never for minute doubted the effectiveness of the option. True; but many have doubted the cost-effectiveness of installing it, and that perception may change for some in a big hurry...especially if Georgia Tech can run on the vaunted LSU defense December 31. |
|
|
|
Post by robinhood on Dec 8, 2008 11:33:59 GMT -6
AMEN! Airman. I am with you on that. I can't wait to go back to 1977 when I first ran the Shoot. It was like black magic in those days. No one could defend it.
|
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Dec 8, 2008 11:47:49 GMT -6
I remember back in 2000-2001... Otto Zeman out of Riverside Brookfield in Illinois... jumped on the scene with his 5 Wide... earth shattering... Message Boards weren't around... and basically you just heard rumblings of what he was doing... and then he did the Illinois clinic. Room was packed... And as I sat there wide eye'd and bushy tailed... it hit me... I'm not the only one with my pen and pad writing everything down. By the time I got my HC gig to implement the system... it was old news... Not so old that good teams weren't going to run roughshod with it... but old enough whereas the bad teams lost their advantage. Otto lost his advantage... went from 11-1 two years in a row, to 7-4, 8-3, 5-5 and 3-6. And even worst... the talented teams that you would have to go spread to beat, were now going spread... what are you going to do with that!  The double secret, magic bullet offense, is as common place as the common cold... But that Double Wing... Hmmm... now that's good kool-aid! |
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Dec 8, 2008 12:45:07 GMT -6
AMEN! Airman. I am with you on that. I can't wait to go back to 1977 when I first ran the Shoot. It was like black magic in those days. No one could defend it. How many R&S teams won National Titles. Not tyring to be confrontational, but did any of these teams ever finish in the top 10? Fun to watch but have they ever contended? |
|
tarrant
Sophomore Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by tarrant on Dec 8, 2008 13:32:30 GMT -6
AMEN! Airman. I am with you on that. I can't wait to go back to 1977 when I first ran the Shoot. It was like black magic in those days. No one could defend it. How many R&S teams won National Titles. Not tyring to be confrontational, but did any of these teams ever finish in the top 10? Fun to watch but have they ever contended? I think it short changes a system to judge it by how many national titles the system has one. I hear this more and more often, it even came up here with a recent discussion about the flexbone. Just because a coach cold or could not relate it to his players on a given year doesn't mean that it is not a sound system. No one doubts the validity of the Double Wing, an yet how many national championships has it won in the last 50 years? Look at how many teams still incorporate many of the Run & Shoots principles in their offense. Many teams are running part of the R&S they aren't just running the whole package. The idea of route conversions and hot reads have their roots int eh R&S system. In my opinion many of the spread teams are not doing anything new or groundbreaking they are just running the next evolution of the shoot just like the flexbone guys are running the next evolution of the wishbone attack. 1983 Florida: 9-2-1 - Won Gator Bowl 1984 Houston Gamblers: Lost Division Game 1985 Georgia Southern: 13-2 - Won Division I-AA Championship 1985 Houston Gamblers: Lost Division Game 1989 Holy Cross: 10-1 Patriot League Champions 1989 Houston: 9-2 1990 Hofstra: 12-1 Lost Division III Semifinal Game 1991 Detroit Lions: 12-4 Lost NFC Championship Game 1991 Houston Oilers: 11-5 - Lost Division Game 1992 New Haven: 12-1 Lost Division II Semifinal Game 1993 Boston: 12-1 Lost Division I-AA Quarterfinal Game 1993 California-Davis: 10-2 Lost Division II Quarterfinal Game 1993 Houston Oilers: 12-4 Lost Division Game 1996 Jacksonville Jaguars: 9-7Lost AFC Championship Game 1996 Marshall: 15-0 Won Division I-AA Championship There are more but all of those teams were running some form of the shoot. Emporia State also had a good run. Perception by and large is what killed the shoot. The high visibility melt-down of the Oilers and the off field antics of a lot of those involved with the shoot gave people a bad taste for the offense. The numbers though for the teams that did run it show for themselves. There are many high schools who still run the R&S package either the original Ellison or the Mouse Davis/Al Black version and have success. ANY system can be successful the difference is in how you can relate and teach the system to your players. |
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Dec 8, 2008 13:51:04 GMT -6
AMEN! Airman. I am with you on that. I can't wait to go back to 1977 when I first ran the Shoot. It was like black magic in those days. No one could defend it. How many R&S teams won National Titles. Not tyring to be confrontational, but did any of these teams ever finish in the top 10? Fun to watch but have they ever contended? 1.) Is this the measure of an offense? How many titles it has won? 2.) Those who ran the shoot (Houston, SMU, Portland State, the proliferation of DIII teams) are those teams who lack the tools to compete in traditional offenses and play with the big boys. Eventually, however, scheme only takes you so far. Actually, Paul Johnson is an excellent example of this.....His scheme helped to level the playing field against the big boys, but Navy was never going to beat the big boys 9 out of 10 times. Now, however, with a higher level of talent, he can really compete (defense can hang, etc.). How long did it take Paul before he got a chance to run his system at a BCS school? I find it interesting that the Run and Shoot actually caught on in the NFL before it caught on at a major NCAA school (though Tiger Ellison did become a consultant to Woody Hayes). That being said, I imagine if Oklahoma was a run and shoot team right now, they'd still be playing for a national title. |
|
|
|
Post by coachmacplains on Dec 8, 2008 14:55:53 GMT -6
As to where the rubber meets the road here - ie when you decide what offense to run - I have come to the conclusion that so much is dictated by who is taking snaps. At our level of play, if you have a real QB, you can give yourself a chance to win, and it helps to open up the offense. The team that won our confernce championship this year, and was state runner-up, ran gun spread....a lot of Urban Meyer stuff. If any other school in our conference tried to run the same with their personnel, they would have had a rough time. We can argue systems forever, but to a certain degree you have to adapt to what you have. I think the trick is to find the right fit. That being said, I imagine if Oklahoma was a run and shoot team right now, they'd still be playing for a national title. Without a doubt....same thing could be said about '95 Nebraska; too many athletes. |
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Dec 8, 2008 16:08:00 GMT -6
What Osbourne is saying is already happening. In my neck of the woods, there are some really BAD spread teams...teams that don't have a quick game, don't throw uncovered, don't use play action, and don't have complimentary running plays. Heck, I coached for one of those teams last season! There are A LOT of coaches who think you can simply put the quarterback in the shotgun and put trips out there and the defense will $hit the bed. That might have been the case 6-7 years ago, but not anymore. Around here anyways, the defenses have largely caught up with the spread teams, especially the spread running teams. Defenses are realizing that they don't have to cover all the receivers and they can keep an extra guy up in the box. Defenses do a better job of hiding and mxing up their coverages and the odd front defenses have really done a good job of coming up with alll sorts of blitz combos. To be a good spread team, there are really a lot of things you have to work on and be good at if you are going to be successful whereas teams that use more compacted formations do not have to adjust as much in regards to different types of coverages and fronts and blitzing. Amen to that! We faced a couple teams this year that were just TERRIBLE spread teams - in week one it was obvious that they did not have the ability to be effective out of the gun with three and four receiver sets. Maybe they would've been just as bad in a different offense, but their coaches should've been canned for staying with the spread as long as they did. Let's see, one historically DW team WENT TO the spread, got destroyed all year and came back to the DW and Power-I game. At least then they made the game shorter, and hung around a little ... just a little. Another team that historically has no offensive philosophy that I can identify, went to the spread then quickly switched to the DW (in week four, I think) and had some success. Went from throwing 30 times to throwing 3 times. A third program was just as bad, but they at least stayed with what they'd run since day one, and got a little better at it. I give their coach credit, because it looked really, really bad seeing them go three-and-out on three incompletions for weeks on end. We're lucky we have a big QB with a cannon for an arm. Kinda makes it easier. That's not so much about the "spread being inferior to those other offenses" as it is about coaches trying to "put in" an offense because they see it on TV every week and think it is a magic bullit, but they have no idea how to coach it. I don't know who to blame more...the coaches who try to sell everyone on their spread system and try to jam the philosophy down everyone's throats or the coaches that blindly just follow and install offenses they really know nothing about. Both equally to blame I suppose. |
|
|
|
Post by knighter on Dec 8, 2008 16:27:35 GMT -6
Here are a couple of my thoughts....just thoughts on this topic.
If a team plays a run based offense, they become very good at stopping the run on defense.
If a team plays in a spread/air it out type system of offense, they become very good at defending it.
SO if my DW plays your spread what happens....we run the ball and run the clock while your offense stands on the sideline, only to come in and score on about 3 plays when they do get on the field. Sounds to me like some arena league scores would rival our game...
I guess in my thought process you can't score if you do not have the ball on offense very often. I will take my chances with my antiquated offense. Maybe, just maybe you will turn the ball over for us once or twice, or we will get lucky and your QB will trip and fall in the backfield to give you a bad down and distance to work with. In which case I have no problem winning 66 to 60.
BUT on the other side maybe just maybe you will cause a turnover yourself, or you will stop us on downs, or perhaps my wingback will mishandle the pitch giving me a bad down and distance to work with. In which case now I might lose 60 to 66.
(Point being we all believe what we believe, and as far as I know we ain't changing. Whoever has the chalk last wins). I know this there are fewer variables for me to deal with in the DW than in the Spread "Chuck and Duck" schemes. You have to be able to throw and catch in that system, all I need to have my kids do is learn how to handle the ball correctly. I try to take the variables out in order to help us be successful.
|
|
|
|
Post by morris on Dec 8, 2008 16:51:45 GMT -6
Dave: Georgetown College won I know at least 2 National Titles on the NAIA level running the R&S. They played in more and for a time put up crazy amounts of yards rushing, passing and scoring. There have been a number of HS to win state titles also.
tarrant: I know most of the teams on your list were for sure R&S teams. I am wondering how Jacksonville gets into that list or Marshall.
dubber: I never noticed it was run in the NFL before major college. I know Portland St. ran it in the 70s but I know they do not qualify as major college. I was fairly sure Houston was running it before the Lions started. The Oilers were running some of it as part of their Red Gun offense when Glanville took over.
I have noticed a surge in questions about "older" offenses such as single wing, veer and belly based systems.
|
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Dec 8, 2008 17:03:35 GMT -6
I don't think that any offense has ever won a national championship...far too simplistic to think in those terms. What about defense? Special teams? Coaching? Athletes?
|
|
|
|
Post by ccscoach on Dec 8, 2008 17:06:54 GMT -6
Morris
Georgetown won 3 national title 1991, 00,01 they were very good back then now not so much. But that is for different reasons.
I think Jacksonville gets on there because of Kevin Gilbride who has a lot of run and shoot concepts in the Giants offense from what I have been told. I wouldn't say they are run and shoot but I believe that is what he is thinking
|
|
tarrant
Sophomore Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by tarrant on Dec 8, 2008 17:09:24 GMT -6
tarrant: I know most of the teams on your list were for sure R&S teams. I am wondering how Jacksonville gets into that list or Marshall. i cheated and pulled up the wiki article since i wasn't on my computer with better information. Marshals passing game that year was the R&S but not the complete system not sure about Jacksonville. |
|
|
|
Post by indian1 on Dec 8, 2008 17:38:24 GMT -6
This is a good article but it isn't a passing vs. running thing. Osbborne talks about innovation and the evolving of offenses. Of course that's going to happen.
Florida is a good spread team and they can run the ball. T-Tech had a good team this year and Leach said he thought they were better this year because they could run the ball better.
Is Oklahoma a spread team? They line up in shotgun with one back most of the time but they are so effective offensively is because they can do both. They have a great line, great QB. They can run and pass to lots of threats. Sounds like a good offense to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by airman on Dec 8, 2008 18:15:40 GMT -6
I remember back in 2000-2001... Otto Zeman out of Riverside Brookfield in Illinois... jumped on the scene with his 5 Wide... earth shattering... Message Boards weren't around... and basically you just heard rumblings of what he was doing... and then he did the Illinois clinic. Room was packed... And as I sat there wide eye'd and bushy tailed... it hit me... I'm not the only one with my pen and pad writing everything down. By the time I got my HC gig to implement the system... it was old news... Not so old that good teams weren't going to run roughshod with it... but old enough whereas the bad teams lost their advantage. Otto lost his advantage... went from 11-1 two years in a row, to 7-4, 8-3, 5-5 and 3-6. And even worst... the talented teams that you would have to go spread to beat, were now going spread... what are you going to do with that! The double secret, magic bullet offense, is as common place as the common cold... But that Double Wing... Hmmm... now that's good kool-aid! he had d 1 qbs the first few years as well. ottos big problem is he fails to control the underneath of the defense. he wants to throw vertical the whole time and go one on one. |
|
|
|
Post by airman on Dec 8, 2008 18:33:32 GMT -6
running games are going to win more championships because there are more running offenses. very few coaches are willing to take the challenge of throwing the ball. anyone can tell their qb to turn around and hand the ball off. It takes a whole level of learning/training to be a coach who passes the ball. most coaches do not want to take on this and that is why they run the ball.
|
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Dec 8, 2008 19:32:26 GMT -6
Osborne and Johnsons offenses seem to be fairly intricate.
Leach seems to feel his offense is very simple, his playcard is a 1/4 piece of paper.
Tons of spread teams out there now(Big 12 is full of them and zero power running teams) , more part of the herd than the lonesome herdsman around here anyways.
I guess theyre all gutsy geniouses LOL.
|
|
|
|
Post by airman on Dec 8, 2008 19:38:09 GMT -6
Osborne and Johnsons offenses seem to be fairly intricate. Leach seems to feel his offense is very simple, his playcard is a 1/4 piece of paper. Tons of spread teams out there now(Big 12 is full of them and zero power running teams) , more part of the herd than the lonesome herdsman around here anyways. I guess theyre all gutsy geniouses LOL. leach/mouis davis say their respective offenses are wishone mentality in the passing game. few plays run to perfection. this is the philosophy of the wishbone. yes there are tons of spread teams all throughout college football I would say your true power teams are few adn far. I am talking at the high school level. |
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Dec 8, 2008 20:00:27 GMT -6
running games are going to win more championships because there are more running offenses. very few coaches are willing to take the challenge of throwing the ball. anyone can tell their qb to turn around and hand the ball off. It takes a whole level of learning/training to be a coach who passes the ball. most coaches do not want to take on this and that is why they run the ball. I really can't stand coaches who have this attitude...the "guru" types who are the smartest guys at the clinic. How do you know they are the smartest? Just ask 'em...they will tell you! |
|
|
|
Post by sgvcoach on Dec 9, 2008 1:21:14 GMT -6
I don't know how many have won natioanl titles but I do know a spread team will win the national title this year (Florida or OK) And if I am not mistaken Utah, Texas, TTech, Cincinnati, Penn St, are all running spread type offenses and they make up the bulk of the BCS.
|
|
