Generic NFL Offenses..

This is why I prefer the college game.

Now, now, Wing...

I seem to remember Pitt lining up in a straight-I formation using "21" personnel for most of the game and beating the mighty WV spread / 335 defense hype sometime fairly recently...

I also seem to remember the Boomer-Sooners coming out about 80% under center and using a power running game to beat the spread game of Mizzou as well.



I too prefer the college game, because there is more diversity in what is being run on both offense and defense. But, yes...it seems like the majority of it is "spread," which is really too bad, because it's becoming very cookie-cutter and very boring to watch the same thing over and over again. I mean, I like watching spread as much as I like watching wishbone on "classic college sports"...or any other offense for that matter, but not every game, every team, every week. It gets real old real fast.

That's why I took so much joy in watching WV go down to a clearly inferior team with a straight-up "I" offense that is maligned by all the "modern geniuses."

I really think that Pitt outcoached WV (not turning this into a fan discussion, keeping it to coaching). I don't think there is any doubt about it. Some of Pitt's playcalling was phenomenal and very VERY ballzy. The defense played fantastic and was very well coached on scheme and fundamentals.

I LOVE IT!!

Just my opinion.

True dat, homeboy. True dat.

with the BSG folding around playside seam and the F kicking out (with no attempt to reach)....
Not your typical pin-and-pull stretch

San Diego, New York, Chicago, Pittsburgh, etc.....

Saw Fred Taylor run it a bunch of time this past weekend too.

speaking of Wanny........


did he REALLY get better at the end of the game, or did he just break his crutches over the head of his DB, Eric Thatcher, who had the celebration penalty?!

No offense brophy, but I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. What the "game" actually "is"? According to what? And to whom?

Last I checked there was no platonic ideal "football." This reminds me of that A-11 thread where people tried to say it was gimmick ball or whatnot. People try to say the same thing about the spread, particularly the spread run games these days with the fly. It's all "gimmick offense" etc., not "real football."

So now suddenly teams that run the I, 3-wide 1 back, no back, bunch, spread, power, bootlegs, fakes, the zone run game, most of the run and shoot pass game, quick screens, and hell, Vince Young and Vick even ran the zone read some (I'm not asking Peyton Manning to do so), are suddenly not "real football."

All this points to a simple point: there is no what the game "actually is" - there is no "is." Otherwise, when ideas like Ted's Wild Bunch come along, they should be appropriately blacklisted because they are some kind of ill mutation of what football truly "is." And make no mistake, many many people think this.

The irony now is that it is the Pros who don't resemble what the game actually "is" because they are (at least in outward perception) too generic! That idea must be shocking to the Woody Hayes's who also thought they knew what "true football" was.

I'm not really trying to go after you brophy, I know it was just a comment and I was just using it as a launching pad for something I've thought about since that A-11 thread not being real football, so nothing personal at all. ;D

But my point is this: there is no "ideal" football. There is no "right" way to play the game - it's a sport. If you line up in any legal formation and do anything legally (and not unsprortsmanlike like trying to hurt someone or doing dangerous things) you are within the notion of football.

There is no "Platonic" form. As long as you are within the (rather arbitrarily defined) rules, it is football.

Think about this. You might say that something is not "real football" because of some formation or "cosmetic look" but what is more fundamental than the size of the field or how many downs there are. Those are about as significant as it can get, yet both vary (see Canadian football).

Or think about 8-man football, they don't even have 11 players on each side. Thats way more significant than whether someone runs the power-F too much.

I understand the point of this thread was something else, that the NFL is boring or generic or whatever. This is wrong too, of course as I have documented previously: college "appears" more diverse for the reason that teams can simply execute fewer things, so each team has a small subset of plays that others teams do not run, unlike the Pros where, guess what, they have time and the resources to run it ALL. The irony about the position is not that they are "generic" because they do the same things, but you all are saying it is generic because each team runs just about everything. I know college and HS breeds some degree of diversity because the smaller schools with nothing to lose serve as laboratories for new ideas. This is true and is a virtue.

In any event, there is no "true" football. It's fair to say you enjoy watching the pros less - that is fine. Much of what goes on in the pros is the subtle micro game, and one of my biggest complaints is that the typical TV coverage (boo Fox) and announcers simply gloss over or fail to recognize these interesting and subtle nuances, or make it impossible to even see what Ed Reed just did on that play or what Tom Brady was looking at or even what stunt they brought and how the line picked it up. It's the micro-game, and TV coverage makes it hard to see. But it's there. College appears more easily digestible as something different because it simply appears that way, with few exceptions.

The one exceptions I'll grant are Navy and a few very small schools only talked about some on here. It's well documented that all the Airraid concepts get run every day in the Pros (and that is not the point of the offense). In fact, concededly most came from the pros (even the coveted "shallow" concept came from Mike Shanahan on admission by Mumme and Leach! The rest came from the Pros to BYU via Doug Scovil/Lavell Edwards/Norm Chow. ).

But show me the BCS conferences and EVERYTHING you see, with the exception of maybe the gun-triple stuff (i.e. Florida), and I can more than likely choose a single pro playbook and ALL of the playbooks for all of those teams will not amount to what a single pro team does. This is a reality of practice time and experience. Like it or leave it.

Sorry for having the ax to grind, but that's my view, in my humble opinion. And sorry brophy, it's not all directed at you, just sort of my general thoughts.

Coachnichols,

(Respectfully)-

Ummm...no...that's not what I said at all.

All I said was that I ENJOYED seeing a nice blue-collar power football approach beat the WV dazzle and hype philosophy. I had nothing to do with what "formation" anyone ran. Although, it sure was great watching Pitt tee-off on WV's defense with that nasty, straight-ahead power running. But, nowhere in my post did I attribute the use of a formation to the victory.

So, control your emotions chief.

I DO believe that they were ballz-out outcoached and out-toughed, though. I mean, isn't part of good coaching emotionally and mentally preparing your team to perform? If WV came out tight and Pitt came out swinging, then to me that's part of the coaching job that was done. I don't know how you can argue that. Also, Pitt's playcalling was exceptional.

I don't care about Pat White getting hurt. Last time I checked, it's a team game. And if it's not, and you have your whole destiny built around one player, then shame on you.

And, I'm not a fan of either team. I had not seen a single Pitt game before this one, and frankly I had forgotten that Wanny even coached any longer. I don't even remember the name of the TB who impressed me so much.

All I was doing was expressing my enjoyment of the game and my enjoyment of seeing an underdog win. Whatever else you got out of my post is purely in your head for whatever reason.

And, last time I checked, we can come out here and say anything we want as long as it's related to coaching football and it's respectful and appropriate. I don't remember calling anyone else a "joke" or getting all pissy like someone stole my sandwich...so what gives, ace?

Someone forget to take their happy pills this morning?

What about Dennis Dixon, Tim Tebow, or Darren McFadden?
losing a great player, likely has a significance in the outcome of a game.

I'll say the amount of smartassedness probably wasn't necessary in response to Mr.Nichols, however....and that says a lot coming from a smartassss like me.

....and also because I wanted to see WVU finally get to the NC (and see Wanny lose).

But then again, having watched OTHER WVU games, it was pretty clear that Pitt didn't really outplay them so-much as WVU just completely choking.

Isn't this just a result of having to dumb down playbooks because players move around so much (team to team), coaches don't have the time to really install anything crazy because they aren't getting the rebuild time it takes to be successful?

I wish I had a platonic relationship with the spread.



Everytime I face it, I get raped.

I keed, I keed[/font]

the nfl is a family tree with no fork in it. you cannot get differen results when you do not go outside the gene pool. they hated spurrier cause he poked fun at them.

I love the classic college sports games. There is so much cool stuff on offense and defense to watch...not to mention some of those great players.

i really think the only quoteon quote generic offense in the nfl is running ur O out of the I or having sum type of playaction system