Embree on the QB situation, position changes etc.

[Liver]

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.

If only they had been coached better. Oh well. Better days ahead hopefully.

 

[UrbanaBuff]

Ok fine, lets remove Stanford from the debate, even though they've had the Heisman runner-up the past two years.

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.

 

[absinthe]

Ok fine, lets remove Stanford from the debate, even though they've had the Heisman runner-up the past two years.

Ok lets remove them and build this entire argument over the fact the two teams in the BCS game are spread option teams. We'll ignore all the other dumb **** you said or flat made up, especially the inconvenient ones that run contrary to your theory.

BTW Gerhardt was a mid-level 3star prospect. Luck was more of a cant miss but graded out lower than Scott, or Miller did, and inline with Kasa.

 

[UrbanaBuff]

You are one stubborn dude. Your wife must hate your guts.

Ok lets remove them and build this entire argument over the fact the two teams in the BCS game are spread option teams. We'll ignore all the other dumb **** you said or flat made up, especially the inconvenient ones that run contrary to your theory.

BTW Gerhardt was a mid-level 3star prospect. Luck was more of a cant miss but graded out lower than Scott, or Miller did, and inline with Kasa.

 

[absinthe]

You are one stubborn dude. Your wife must hate your guts.

I have my moments.

 

[wsp4820]

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.

You are missing the point. People aren't necessarily anti-spread. They are pro-running a system you believe in and running it better than anyone else. You are right, "Oregon is a great example." Oregon is in the BCS championship because they are committed to a system and they run it better than anyone else in the nation. They get plays off every 20 seconds without fail and rarely make mental mistakes. They don't get procedure penalties, they don't false start, they don't end up with the wrong personnel on the field, etc. And, they do this all in 20 seconds. They've even developed new ways to signal plays onto the field to ensure it all works.

They simply wear out the opposing defense and pile on the points. This is because they have perfected the system they run and they don't waiver for any reason.

 

[BlackNGold]

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.

I don't think people are anti-spread but they are questioning some of your statements.

Further, why is Embo dissing the running QB / spread-option offense? After all, that's what CU was known for during our glory days. Maybe he's still bitter that Mac implemented the wishbone while he was in school, and it cut down on his numbers.

CU did not run anything like a spread-option, they ran the I-bone which was a variant of the wishbone. Not to overlook the fact they had the best athletes in college football.

Some of you call the pro-style "smashmouth" football, yet what would you call the running styles of Bieniemy and Salaam, who played in an option system?

As pointed out...when Salaam was rushing for the Heisman CU was running the pro style offense.

1.) Hawk's offense (whatever it was that he ran) was more pro-style than spread... and it failed miserably.
2.) Most elite programs run the spread, including the two team in the BCS title game.
3.) The spread is gimmicky for a reason... it neutralizes talent gaps with schemes. This explains Oregon playing for the title with a bunch of 3-star recruits. Considering that our roster is low on talent, wouldn't we want to maximize this talent with a scheme?
4.) The pro-style offense is easier to defend, especially if your skill players aren't 5-star guys (which we don't have)

Once again the facts don't back you up Oregon Recruiting 2007 - Class Ranked 9th, 11 -4 star players; 2008 - Class 23 - 6-4star and 1-5 star; 2009 - ranked 26th 6- 4 star players; 2010 - Ranked 13th 7 - 4 star and 1- 5 Star. Oregon has been recruiting top 25 classes and their OB is a 4 star out of Texas with offers from Florida and LSU among others. So trying paint Oregon as the little sisters of the poor who overcame adversity is off target.

I could go on but it is not that people hate the spread they just are not buying your arguments but don't quit now.

 

[Darth Snow]

You are missing the point. People aren't necessarily anti-spread. They are pro-running a system you believe in and running it better than anyone else. You are right, "Oregon is a great example." Oregon is in the BCS championship because they are committed to a system and they run it better than anyone else in the nation. They get plays off every 20 seconds without fail and rarely make mental mistakes. They don't get procedure penalties, they don't false start, they don't end up with the wrong personnel on the field, etc. And, they do this all in 20 seconds. They've even developed new ways to signal plays onto the field to ensure it all works.

They simply wear out the opposing defense and pile on the points. This is because they have perfected the system they run and they don't waiver for any reason.

Yup. Just like Wisconsin.

 

[SuperiorBuff]

The spread could be compared to snow boarding in that it is easier to get better fast but very difficult to become elite. Take a look at the teams who have won the BCS running the spread option, they all had a very elite player running the show. Without that elite player they fall back to the good category, i.e. Florida (Tebow) Texas (Radio & Colt).

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

Yup. Just like Wisconsin.

Interesting to note that Wiscy's seniors were in a recruiting class ranked 7th in their conference that year.

 

[Daaah]

The spread could be compared to snow boarding in that it is easier to get better fast but very difficult to become elite. Take a look at the teams who have won the BCS running the spread option, they all had a very elite player running the show. Without that elite player they fall back to the good category, i.e. Florida (Tebow) Texas (Radio & Colt).

I'm not sure about that. I don't think cam newton is a particularly good snowboarder so you are completely wrong. FACT.

 

[Spanky]

"stocked with 5 and 4 stars" is an exageration.

From ESPN Recruiting:
2010
Crabb: 3
Munyer: 2

2009
Handler: 3
Harris: 3
Baktiari: NR
Simon: NR

200eight
Mariner: 4 (has suffered 3 separate ACL tears)
Givens: 3
Danowitz: NR

200seven
Miller:4
Bahr:3
Tau: 3
Daniels:2
Behrens:2
Iltis:2
Adkins:1

Stocked with 3 stars is even a stretch.

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.

 

[The Guest]

For what it's still worth, wasn't Miller a five star and Givens a four-star?

 

[Spanky]

I think some other services had it that way, but that's not what ESPN had. They gave Miller an eighty-one grade which corresponds to four stars. Givens had a seventy-eight grade which corresponds to 3 stars.

 

[sackman]

How do you think Boise beat Oklahoma, Utah beat Alabama, Appalachian State beat Michigan?

Are you truly this thick?

OK, I'll answer your question, although I'm questioning my own sanity for engaging in this conversation at this point. Those teams all had run the spread for a long time. They practiced it. They recruited for it. They knew it inside and out. Every player on the offensive side of the ball knew his assignments inside and out.

Come to think of it, Boise never ran the spread, so that just goes to show that it's not the offense that is run, but the players and coaches that run it that is important.

 

[absinthe]

we most commonly use rivals, as they pay the most attention to CU their ranks are as follows:

2010
Crabb: 3
Munyer: 3

2009
Handler: 2
Harris: 4
Baktiari: 2
Simon: 2

200eight
Mariner: 4 (has suffered 3 separate ACL tears)
Givens: 4
Danowitz: 3

200seven
Miller:5
Bahr:3
Tau: 3
Daniels:3
Behrens:2
Iltis:2
Adkins:3

 

[Denver_sc]

I think some other services had it that way, but that's not what ESPN had. They gave Miller an eighty-one grade which corresponds to four stars. Givens had a seventy-eight grade which corresponds to 3 stars.

I don't know how other posters feel, but I find ESPN to be the worst of the three big recruiting sites. FWIW, Rivals and Scout both had Miller as a 5* (number 2 and 3 rated OT in the nation, respectively), and Givens as a 4* (number 12 OT on both sites). I think if you did those numbers again with Scout and Rivals, you would find that the O-Line as a unit has been fairly highly rated coming out of high school.

 

[prime teets]

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?

 

[UrbanaBuff]

Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_offense

"Defenses are left with the challenge of defending more of the field than ever before, while the offense was given the advantage of having numerous running and passing lanes created by the defense being so spread out."

Take particular note of the spread origins influencing the West Coast offense, lauded as the best ever NFL offense. Guess which other team has been running more of a "pro spread" than a traditional pro-style? The Patriots. It led them to their dominant '07 season, and again has them whipping opponents this year... they depantsed the Jets and Bears, two stellar defenses.

If App State ran a pro-style offense, Michigan would have handed them their lunch.

If the pro-style was tougher to defend, why do so few college and HS teams use it? And why has the spread had such sweeping success?

Are you truly this thick?.

 

[Daaah]

I don't know how other posters feel, but I find ESPN to be the worst of the three big recruiting sites. FWIW, Rivals and Scout both had Miller as a 5* (number 2 and 3 rated OT in the nation, respectively), and Givens as a 4* (number 12 OT on both sites). I think if you did those numbers again with Scout and Rivals, you would find that the O-Line as a unit has been fairly highly rated coming out of high school.

Just because a recruiting service ranks our guys high does not make it particularly good. Judging by the performance of the olilne (if you take coaching issues out of it), it seems as though espn were better evaluators in this particular instance.

 

[UrbanaBuff]

Psst...

In your link there, click on the words "spread option" and tell me what you find.

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?

 

[leftybuff]

How do you think Boise beat Oklahoma, Utah beat Alabama, Appalachian State beat Michigan?

They scored more points?

 

[SanDiegoBuff]

How do you think Boise beat Oklahoma

Boise doesn't run the spread, unless you consider anything run out of the shotgun a spread offense, and after reading your comments around here, that wouldn't surprise me. At any rate, Boise won that game largely because they have a system they know well and have run for years. It's not the system, it's the execution

How do you think Utah beat Alabama

Utah had arguably the best DEFENSE in the country that year stocked with well practiced, experienced players running a system they had down pat. Gonna go ahead and chalk this up to a Utah defense that forced 3 turnovers and had 8 sacks. I don't care what offense you run, if you can't score 31 points off of 3 turnovers and 8 sacks, you're doing it wrong.

How do you think Appalachian State beat Michigan

Scholarship limits have allowed even FCS schools to compete with the big boys early in the year. Some FCS schools are every bit as good as the upper middle FBS teams starter for starter, they just don't have the depth to compete ona game by game basis for a year. And really, Michigan at best is a middle of the pack program and has been since before Ap State. Seeing more and more FCS teams win in the first two weeks of the year. And oh yeah, Michigan might be one of the few defenses slower than ours.

 

[BuffsNYC]

Maybe I'm crazy, but since CU's head coach and OC have been coaching pro style offenses for several years I am more comfortable with them using such an offense at CU.

 

[leftybuff]

Maybe I'm crazy, but since CU's head coach and OC have been coaching pro style offenses for several years I am more comfortable with them using such an offense at CU.

Exactly. JE is playing to his strength, I have no problem with that.

 

[Liver]

this thread has degenerated.

opcorn:

 

[dply]

The spread is just the new thing. A few years ago when a select number of teams were running it, it was hard to defend. Now that every team seems to run it the defenses are learning. I believe that is partly why Stanford is so successful. They play a different style than the rest of the teams in their conference and that makes the DC's actually game plan for them. The same thing can be said for AFA.

DC's seem to only have to game plan for the players in the spread offense. Not the offense itself.

PS I ****ing hate the prarie dog look the ****ing players in spread offenses do towards the bench. How the hell do the QB's learn to make decisions for themselves? That is why all of Leach's and Jones' QBs don't do **** in the pros. If this is the way college football keeps going then I'm done. Game over man!

 

[UrbanaBuff]

Maybe I should clarify some things. The spread has multiple variants. Some are pass-happy with 5-WR sets (Patriots, Purdue under Brees/Orton, Texas Tech). Others are set up to run via the zone-read option (West Virginia, Michigan, Oregon). Some use a combo of both.

Given our personnel, I would prefer to utilize a run-oriented spread option. To me, this will be reminiscent of the Mac era, and it will also provide us with more ammo (read: schemes) to compete right away in the Pac 12. We could be the Mizzou of our new league. Its also a very exciting brand of ball, no "three yards and a cloud of dust." If we run a pro-style offense, I fear that we'll get out-athleted.

Most of you pro-style guys want to pound the ball. At least we can agree on that.

 

[Spanky]

"Maybe I'm crazy, but since CU's head coach and OC have been coaching pro style offenses for several years I am more comfortable with them using such an offense at CU."

Good point.

 

[Daaah]

Good point.

Thanks.