Discussion in 'Vols Football' started by CardinalVol, Apr 23, 2012.
Not if you think it can work in the SEC, but do you like it?
Personally, I don't.
Hate it. It has ruined the game at all levels. Any number of trap plays and dives don't exist anymore where a running back gets to try to run over somebody.(This is the spectator in me speaking, mind you. Not someone who is scheming to win football games.)
The rise of 7 on 7 passing camps have spawned this
I don't prefer it. I think the pro-style run the ball plus play-action pass is the best offense in football. That said I think spreading it out is a way for some teams to compete. I think it's tough to win a power league with it, but a team can win games with it. It doesn't make much sense to attempt to cram it down people's throats if you don't have/can't get the personnel.
I like playing to your strengths. Right now the spread accomplishes that.
I like some more than others. Oregon is fun to watch. I never cared for Urban's version at Florida. From what has been developed so far, I still prefer a pro set.
pro set has too much reliance on the qb. you guys have had good luck in that area historically, but the spread does seem to level the playing field a bit. if i have an nfl qb i'd prefer pro set, but i'm not sure high schools are pumping those guys out enough these days.
If it's clicking, and keeping offense on the field, I'm fine.
problem is the other side of the ball. If you're just trotting your defense out there that much faster, what's the point...
I think it puts too much of the game on the QB and a select set of receivers' shoulders. If it is no huddle, fast paced offense it limits the time your defense has to rest. Which I think is a hinderance.
Clearly it can work, but it almost doesn't seem sustainable in the long run, due to the offensive requirements. It just seems like it goes bad rather more quickly than the pro set.
Incidentally, are there any good books on the fundamentals of football strategy? Something like "The Diary of a Defensive Coordinator," that breaks down different philosophies, etc?
Would be interested to read some, especially if it is something a coach considers a "must read."
I could make an argument that 1 stud RB and one complimentary RB offset the need for great QB.
There are times in a game where the offense needs to hold the ball as long as possible regardless of if they score or not. It's easier to do that running a traditional offense than it is with a spread team.
And point directly to Alabama as evidence of that.
Or Tennessee's 98 team
I believe they call this the "Alabama approach".
You cam play ball control spread.
Not sure if this is a Freudian slip but I'd let that guy be my QB any day of the week no matter the offense. Panthers will be lethal this year.
Is that intentional? Cam Newton was a freak of nature.
When you have psuedo TBs for QBs, you can do that. Tebow and Newton have been the only two that were big enough to withstand the beating they took between the tackles (Tebow especially, Newton had two good RBs with him at Auburn).
Oregon couldn't do it against a weak Auburn team.
Worked out well though
Separate names with a comma.