|
|
Post by Coach JR on Sept 28, 2009 10:00:59 GMT -6
Heard him say last week during the WVU vs Auburn broadcast that "Tony Franklin helped pave the way for this 'spread offense' at Auburn". He went on to opine that Auburn last year was like Mich. was last year and Auburn people weren't patient enough. While the latter might be true to a point, the former is just idiotic! Franklin and Malzahn's offfense don't resemble one another past the fact that there are 11 playes on the field running it, and they line up in the shotgun 'spread' formation. Beyond that, there is little resemblence. Why are these talking heads allowed to proffer such BS to the football watching public?
|
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Sept 28, 2009 12:51:31 GMT -6
Eh, I didn't think it was an awful point. There are similarities. Differences too but many of the principles apply. No-huddle, tempo, some of the routes and reads, shotgun techniques, etc. Malzahn has his own spin but I didn't think it was a flat ridiculous statement.
Certainly Malzahn is getting much better results.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Sept 28, 2009 13:04:55 GMT -6
Mahlzahn/Hand are actually quite similar to TFS. In fact, Hand is a regular speaker at TFS clinics.
His point may have been the hard break forced on the Tigers with under-center, ground pound philosophies....and showing them that they CAN be successful moving the ball when in the gun (even though one of their biggest problems last year was the shotgun snap)
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on Sept 28, 2009 13:09:37 GMT -6
Eh, I didn't think it was an awful point. There are similarities. Differences too but many of the principles apply. No-huddle, tempo, some of the routes and reads, shotgun techniques, etc. Malzahn has his own spin but I didn't think it was a flat ridiculous statement. Certainly Malzahn is getting much better results. I understand what you're saying I guess, but philisophically they are pretty different, or it would seem so to me. Tempo is part of both, but to Malzahn it is the basis of what he does. Every playbook has some overlap for the most part. Beyond the fact that both Franklin and Malzahn each have 4 verts, Smash, a "Mesh" type play, Zone runs, and Power runs, etc...in their exectution they bear little resemblence to one another, at least to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on Sept 28, 2009 13:15:05 GMT -6
Mahlzahn/Hand are actually quite similar to TFS. In fact, Hand is a regular speaker at TFS clinics. His point may have been the hard break forced on the Tigers with under-center, ground pound philosophies....and showing them that they CAN be successful moving the ball when in the gun (even though one of their biggest problems last year was the shotgun snap) Deferring to the more knowledgable, you and spreadattack, maybe my vision is clouded. Based on the product I see, and understanding a bit about each offense, they seem very different to me...at least in so far as "spread offenses" can differ from one another. |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Sept 28, 2009 13:21:54 GMT -6
Mahlzahn / Hand are going to run the ball like a mofo (see Rodriguez), and their passing game is based out of a vertical-play-action look. Think bottom-up
Franklin / AR is going to pass the hell out of the ball (Texas Tech) and their run game is based off of the horizontal seams the passing game creates. Think top-down.
Chris Hatcher may be the go-between, because when you rely on heavy option in the AR, you end up in a similar spot as Rodriguez.
They would, imo, reside in the same genus of offense.....but the philosophy in which they are employed is what "sets them apart". Yes, they share commonalities and DO attack defenses in much the same way.
However, this isn't much different from a 4-3 Cover 2 team that will read-and-react versus a 4-3 Cover 2 team that will penetrate and attack. It is still pretty much the same enchilada.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on Sept 28, 2009 13:35:27 GMT -6
Mahlzahn / Hand are going to run the ball like a mofo (see Rodriguez), and their passing game is based out of a vertical-play-action look. Think bottom-up Franklin / AR is going to pass the hell out of the ball (Texas Tech) and their run game is based off of the horizontal seams the passing game creates. Think top-down. Chris Hatcher may be the go-between, because when you rely on heavy option in the AR, you end up in a similar spot as Rodriguez. They would, imo, reside in the same genus of offense.....but the philosophy in which they are employed is what "sets them apart". Yes, they share commonalities and DO attack defenses in much the same way. However, this isn't much different from a 4-3 Cover 2 team that will read-and-react versus a 4-3 Cover 2 team that will penetrate and attack. It is still pretty much the same enchilada. Well, when you look at it that way, you made me look like the idiot for calling Davie the idiot! Thanks!  |
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Sept 28, 2009 13:44:05 GMT -6
good post brophy. I think the Davie point is just that the transition for Malzahn from TFS-hybrid at Auburn was easier than transition from what they did before Franklin showed up. He still had to install his own system and his own stuff with his own way of doing things, but it's an easier transition
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Sept 28, 2009 13:58:18 GMT -6
it makes a lot easier transition to remodel your house, not when everything is paid off and looking nice, but when a thunderstorm knocks an oak tree into your living room. Which, when referring to Auburn 2008, would fit nicely.
Shocking Auburn fans with TF spread forced them to see the pass-every down outlook in contrast with the 2-back TE sets of old......."okay, we'll make the concession with shotgun....but make sure you RUN the ball a lot".
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on Sept 28, 2009 14:04:05 GMT -6
it makes a lot easier transition to remodel your house, not when everything is paid off and looking nice, but when a thunderstorm knocks an oak tree into your living room. Which, when referring to Auburn 2008, would fit nicely. Shocking Auburn fans with TF spread forced them to see the pass-every down outlook in contrast with the 2-back TE sets of old......."okay, we'll make the concession with shotgun....but make sure you RUN the ball a lot". You do seem to understand the rank and file Auburn fans, and I get your point too. But, though the lines drawn up in the playbooks may resemble one another, in their employment, they differ a good deal, wouldn't you agree? Run vs. Pass, Vertical vs. Horizontal...fast tempo vs light speed tempo? |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Sept 28, 2009 15:18:08 GMT -6
But, though the lines drawn up in the playbooks may resemble one another, in their employment, they differ a good deal, wouldn't you agree? Run vs. Pass, Vertical vs. Horizontal...fast tempo vs light speed tempo? Absolutely and I'm not saying your Bob Davie gripe isn't valid, I'm just pointing out the possible intent Davie may have been alluding to. The difference between removing a band-aid and yanking it off (the temporary pain vs the prolonged torture). Both "systems" look to dictate tempo at varying speeds (yes, TF has more than NASCAR), stretch the field by formation horizontally and vertically, kill you with screens of all types, attack you with 3-5 step and rollout from the gun.... The main difference is the emphasis on option and power schemes by Hand/Malazhn/Rodriguez. The run game for AR/TF is an after-thought (which is why you see so many TFS clients running so many different types of runs besides zone). The passing game is comprised of staples of 3 and 5 step concepts....so, other than the run game (philosophy) how much does it really differ? It is like arguing McDonalds over Burger King.....yeah, they're different, but really the menu is exactly the same. Would I call Malzahn and Franklin the same offense? No.....but I also wouldn't argue straws with Davie's point. |
|
|
|
Post by joelee on Sept 28, 2009 20:00:06 GMT -6
The main thing Malzahn has that Franklin did not is A head coach that buys in and assistants that buy in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on Sept 29, 2009 8:40:45 GMT -6
But, though the lines drawn up in the playbooks may resemble one another, in their employment, they differ a good deal, wouldn't you agree? Run vs. Pass, Vertical vs. Horizontal...fast tempo vs light speed tempo? Absolutely and I'm not saying your Bob Davie gripe isn't valid, I'm just pointing out the possible intent Davie may have been alluding to. The difference between removing a band-aid and yanking it off (the temporary pain vs the prolonged torture). Both "systems" look to dictate tempo at varying speeds (yes, TF has more than NASCAR), stretch the field by formation horizontally and vertically, kill you with screens of all types, attack you with 3-5 step and rollout from the gun.... The main difference is the emphasis on option and power schemes by Hand/Malazhn/Rodriguez. The run game for AR/TF is an after-thought (which is why you see so many TFS clients running so many different types of runs besides zone). The passing game is comprised of staples of 3 and 5 step concepts....so, other than the run game (philosophy) how much does it really differ? It is like arguing McDonalds over Burger King.....yeah, they're different, but really the menu is exactly the same. Would I call Malzahn and Franklin the same offense? No.....but I also wouldn't argue straws with Davie's point. I agree with you 100%. I'm sure I had my "Auburn Fan" ears on...on it's face it sounded ridiculous, but I get your points too, and it may be more about "what I heard" rather than "what he said". |
|
