AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Embree on the QB situation, position changes etc.
- Thread starter Jens1893
- Start date
1.) You sure about Hawks offense being more prostyle? Pretty sure he threw the ball damn near 60% of the time, took 80+% of the snaps from the shot-gun, and rarely if ever used a two back or two tight-end set. But hey keep digging.
2.) You are correct on the BCS point this year, however this has nothing to do with the point i was addressing and you still fail to understand that the current spread is nothing like the option we ran.
3.) The run and shoot was gimmicky as well for the same reason, we are in an inefficient point right now where defenses were built to handle one type of offense, and need to adjust to defending the spread.
4.) The Pro-style offense is not easier to defend if it was the NFL would run the spread. It is far, far harder to execute. You need to be much more disciplined, you need your quarterback to be bright and able to audible and read defenses a true coach on the field. You can't just rely on him turning to the sidelines to get a new play like most college teams do today. As matter of illustration look at Stanford, they certainly dont have better athletes than 18 out of 20 of the teams below them. But they run a prostyle offense, they execute it well and they are a top 5 team.
UrbanaBuff
Member
Since NFL defenders are bigger and faster, QB's wouldn't survive in the spread on the pro level. Further, the talent is distributed evenly throughout the League. This is not true on the college level.
The strangest thing happened, I looked this up, and you are wrong. Shocker. 2 out of every 3 Wisconsin players in the pros are offensive players, and 55% of MSU players in the pros are offensive players.
UrbanaBuff
Member
1. Speedy took a huge number of handoffs this year, most from a traditional set. Rarely any counters or options. Hawk definitely did not run a spread variation.
2. Four of the last five BCS champs ran the spread. Five of the last six if you count this year's eventual winner.
3. If defenses can handle the spread, why are teams like Oregon and Auburn putting up 60+ on conference (read: big boy AQ schools) opponents with regularity?
4. Philly is the closest thing to a spread in the NFL right now because of Vick. And he is absolutely destroying teams. Read my post above. It is not employed because it is not feasible in the long-term because QB's would get hurt too often. On the college level, all bets are off, since a QB at Auburn is likely a better athlete than most defenders he faces.
2. Four of the last five BCS champs ran the spread. Five of the last six if you count this year's eventual winner.
3. If defenses can handle the spread, why are teams like Oregon and Auburn putting up 60+ on conference (read: big boy AQ schools) opponents with regularity?
4. Philly is the closest thing to a spread in the NFL right now because of Vick. And he is absolutely destroying teams. Read my post above. It is not employed because it is not feasible in the long-term because QB's would get hurt too often. On the college level, all bets are off, since a QB at Auburn is likely a better athlete than most defenders he faces.
Last edited:
UrbanaBuff
Member
Nice circular logic. Who cares about the % breakdown of a school's pro players... that may just mean that their defenders were worse than than offensive guys. Those are mostly O-linemen anyways. Go find me a Badger RB (or any skill player for that matter... Lee Evans?) that has done anything in the league, including their Heisman winner.
urbana, go read smart football.
Del
Well-Known Member
Look how well running the bubble screens worked for TexASS this year with all the talent they have. It worked well enough to get Greg Davis fired after being with Mack Brown for 13yrs and going to 2 National Championships
We have tried running plays mostly out of the shotgun for the past 5 years and have been throwing bubble screens and balls out in the flat and look where that has gotten us.
We have tried running plays mostly out of the shotgun for the past 5 years and have been throwing bubble screens and balls out in the flat and look where that has gotten us.
Last edited:
LongHaulBuff
Club Member
I don't care if the rbs make the NFL. Give me a back that puts up Ron Daynes numbers at CU and I'll be very happy.
9 of their 13 players in the pros who are on the offensive side of the ball are skill players.
This comment does nothing to address the assertion that the pro-style offense is suppesedly easier to defend.
Why would he? He didnt address the fact he thinks the McCartney era Option is basically the same as the spread option, that CU was still running the option come 1994, or that he thinks we've been watching a pro-style offense for the past 5 years.
I would like him to name the type of option we ran in that era.
I will reiterate what Mac said. He said, just the other day, that he thinks the spread option is very difficult to defend because if you have a QB that is a running threat, you can't commit to either the pass or the run. Mac believes that the spread option will be adopted, more and more, by the pros. Now, as I said before, I think NFL defenders are too big, fast, and strong for this to work. A running QB in the NFL has a short life expectancy, so to speak. But that isn't true at the college level. So, really, Mac seems to believe differently than JE/EB as far as spread vs. pro style.
Are you now arguing that a college offense should be judged by how much success All-Americans have in the NFL? Then I guess the spread doesn't work. Alex Smith was a bust!
Just out of curiosity, how old are you? (I'm not trying to be a smart ass by asking this.) Are you old enough to have seen the wishbone/I-bone triple option offenses of the '80s and early '90s? If so, I don't know how you could possibly think the modern spread bears any resemblance to or is in any way related to what we ran back then.
The spread most certainly DID NOT evolve from the triple option. See the Wikipedia page for the spread if you don't believe that. Spread Offense
The triple option was smashmouth football in the truest sense. It was far more run oriented than any pro style offense. It was common for teams that ran it to pass the ball fewer than ten times per game. The few pass plays we called were almost always play action. In 1989 Darian Hagan was a Heisman trophy finalist. He averaged 7.7 pass attempts per game. The team ran the ball 666 times. We passed it 102 times. That's right, we ran the ball 86% of the time! Hell, we'd run the ball on 3 and 10+ and make it half the time! We lined up with a FB and TE on almost every play. In short yardage or when we just really wanted to pound the ball, we brought in a second TE. Our #1 receiver, Mike Pritchard, was actually a wingback. He often lined up in the backfield and blocked. There was NO SHOTGUN EVER!
Does that sound anything like the modern spread? Have I have convinced you that the spread and the triple option are unrelated yet?
Last edited:
:lol:
+1
:rofl: :congrats:
Not the wishbone. The veer.
now THIS is what i LOVE to hear:
jon embree:
"We're going to run the football, but we're really going to run it," Embree said. "What I call, 'real runs' not necessarily zone reads. We're going to hand the ball off, not bubble screens. They're going to be runs. We'll use a fullback. We'll mix our personnel. We're not going to have personnel groups but we will have times where we will go to two tight ends and two backs."
jon embree:
"We're going to run the football, but we're really going to run it," Embree said. "What I call, 'real runs' not necessarily zone reads. We're going to hand the ball off, not bubble screens. They're going to be runs. We'll use a fullback. We'll mix our personnel. We're not going to have personnel groups but we will have times where we will go to two tight ends and two backs."
Hmmmmm, sounds like the option to me.
But you said the premier college programs are running the spread? They are talented right? I am having a hard time seeing how the various issues you raise, some of which have no factual basis, support your contention that the spread is great for college. Oh well, whatever. Go Buffs!
BlackNGold
Club Member
I am not a system guy...I am an execution guy. When you execute well your system works better. Texas is whining about everything because they had a bad year - but the same system had them in the MNC game last year. They did not execute as well.
One problem with the spread is your team is totally reliant on the QB, if the QB cannot get it done then your team will suffer. Texas example again - Gilbert was not good in their offense. I wonder if Malzahn will still be an offensive genius without Cam Newton. That was a the real genius of Mike Leach, he had a system but he got his team to execute it well and it does not take a superstar QB to execute it.
CU had a double whammy - they had no real system and executed poorly at times.
One problem with the spread is your team is totally reliant on the QB, if the QB cannot get it done then your team will suffer. Texas example again - Gilbert was not good in their offense. I wonder if Malzahn will still be an offensive genius without Cam Newton. That was a the real genius of Mike Leach, he had a system but he got his team to execute it well and it does not take a superstar QB to execute it.
CU had a double whammy - they had no real system and executed poorly at times.
i mostly agree with this. having an identity and a system and sticking to it helps you execute better, whatever the system is. we never had a philosophy or solid system with the last staff. that doesn't work when you have a bunch of college kids at various levels of experience.
i also believe that the best system for CU involves running the ball. all of our best teams have been dominant running teams. stanford is showing that if you run well in the p10, you win.
and having "the next P. Manning" does not hurt
UrbanaBuff
Member
How do you think Boise beat Oklahoma, Utah beat Alabama, Appalachian State beat Michigan? If these underdogs employed a pro-style offense, they all would have been worked. The spread uses schemes and deception to make up for size/talent/speed disadvantages.
To effectively run the pro-style offense you either need hella skill players (USC, Stanford, Bama) or 5-star offensive lines (Wisconsin).
We have neither of those. So it stands to reason that our best chance at getting right quickly is with the spread. Oregon is a great example. They have a only few 4-stars players and no 5-stars. Similar to us. Yet they are running roughshod over everyone because of their system.
I am surprised that so many posters here are anti-spread.
To effectively run the pro-style offense you either need hella skill players (USC, Stanford, Bama) or 5-star offensive lines (Wisconsin).
We have neither of those. So it stands to reason that our best chance at getting right quickly is with the spread. Oregon is a great example. They have a only few 4-stars players and no 5-stars. Similar to us. Yet they are running roughshod over everyone because of their system.
I am surprised that so many posters here are anti-spread.
The triple option was smashmouth football in the truest sense. It was far more run oriented than any pro style offense. It was common for teams that ran it to pass the ball fewer than ten times per game. The few pass plays we called were almost always play action. In 1989 Darian Hagan was a Heisman trophy finalist. He averaged 7.7 pass attempts per game. The team ran the ball 666 times. We passed it 102 times. That's right, we ran the ball 86% of the time! Hell, we'd run the ball on 3 and 10+ and make it half the time! We lined up with a FB and TE on almost every play. In short yardage or when we just really wanted to pound the ball, we brought in a second TE. Our #1 receiver, Mike Pritchard, was actually a wingback. He often lined up in the backfield and blocked. There was NO SHOTGUN EVER!
The running game of the beast!
The running game of the beast!
hrrrmmmm. a line stocked with 5 and 4 stars and returning FOUR starters who just had 1300 yard rusher (and got a lot better throughout the year) is about as close to that as you are gonna get. Oh, and please feel free to disagree with me. I have Ryan Miller on my side.
Strangest thing, I checked Stanford's "hella skill players" since 2006 we've out recruited them at the 5 star level 2- 0, and been comparable to them at the 4 star level 15-12 and beaten them handily at the 3 star level. Before you say it hey've also had a number of top recruits wash out or fail to produce, so you cant blame that.