The "pro-style" offense

[wang_chi7]

Got a stupid question but at draft time always makes me wonder. We always hear about how QB X played in a spread offense and that can't transition to an NFL offense cause he never took snaps under center and blah blah blah. Its a valid concern don't get me wrong.

My question though is why do NFL teams all stick with basically the same offenses (or at least same formations/personnel)? Why has the option really never been tried before? Or the spread option or the normal spread for that matter? Afraid of change? I've always heard the option won't work because of defensive speed at the pro level, but do we really know that's true?

The wildcat is a sort of option that has worked (obviously not as a full time offensive attack though.) The Pats have basically run a spread for years and are in shotgun quite often. Hell the Run N Shoot is a cousin of the spread and worked very well years ago. So why are teams afraid of a guy who only ran the shotgun in college? If you're a team that is at the bottom of the standings why not try something new? You would at least give the opposing defense something new to worry about when they play you rather than just another pro-style offensive attack to plan for this week.

[elgreazy1]

Most reasons I would assume is the ability to assimilate players to the scheme. Much like it takes a big roster overhaul to convert from a 4-3 to 3-4 and vise versa it would probably require the same for an offense. The personel would need to be more personalized to fit the offense and it would take a lot of ground-work initially to teach players the new scheme. On top of that, I don't think an organization woudl want to invest so much in a QB if he has the higher propensity to get injured due to the nature of the scheme (ie: option = more straight on hits, spread = less pass protection).

With the rules nowadays it seems that the spread/option would work. Schemes and offenses are geared more towards getting the hands of their playmakers in any way with screens to RBs & WRs, OL zone schemes, bubble screens, wildcat, end-arounds, etc. Look at guys like Hester, Cribbs, etc where the offense creates packages simply to utilize the player.

I honestly think it can work it simply takes one team to get it done successfully and the rest of the league will copy it. Happens all the time.

[SPTO]

Well first of all the Run n' Shoot isn't just a cousin of the spread it's the ORIGINAL spread offense. I think coaches and execs are hesitant about those kind of offenses because they haven't really fared well. Those offenses tend to favor smaller guys and in the rigors of the NFL season they tend to tire out. Just look at most of the R & S teams in the early '90s who flamed out in the playoffs. The exception would be the Bills but they were more of a proto-current day spread offense.

As for the shotgun formation that's a moot point as a lot of teams use that formation often it's just that coaches and scouts want to see a young QB being adept at the traditional formations and being under the snapper. I think that's not an unreasonable request. Most QBs that operate under the center have to be able to read defenses before the snap and make judgment calls as to call audibles or not and that's something you don't often see QBs that run the spread/shotgun do very often.

As for "all the same formations" eh, that's a bit of a misnomer. The league isn't as creative as it was in the '80s and early '90s but there are a ton of formations and shifts that can be used under the center. Ron Erhardt used to come up with some pretty evocative formations while he was OC of the NY Giants. You just need to have creative offensive minds running the show.

[Cebby]

Quote: Originally Posted by wang_chi7

My question though is why do NFL teams all stick with basically the same offenses (or at least same formations/personnel)? Why has the option really never been tried before? Or the spread option or the normal spread for that matter? Afraid of change? I've always heard the option won't work because of defensive speed at the pro level, but do we really know that's true?

Yes, we do know it's not true.

Look at 2001 Miami/Nebraska or 2006/2007 Auburn Florida. Fast defenses can shut down horizontal offenses. Now combine that every NFL team is not only faster than those defenses, but much stronger.

Plus, as is always the problem with QB oriented offenses (as every option team is), one injury and the team will be done. While this is true for most teams, even the worst of offensive lines only allow 5-10 hits on the quarterback a game while option offenses will be allowing 20-30 hits.

Quote:

The Pats have basically run a spread for years and are in shotgun quite often. Hell the Run N Shoot is a cousin of the spread and worked very well years ago. So why are teams afraid of a guy who only ran the shotgun in college?

If you have Randy Moss, Wes Welker, and decent enough 3rd-5th options, you can operate out of the shotgun, but it's also worth noting that their competition in 2007 was pretty bad and after 2 years of defensive adjusting, they were good but hardly special.

The biggest problem with collegiate spread QBs as I understand is the lack of reads they're asked to make combined with generally being able to physically dominate defenses that simply doesn't exist in the NFL as seen with VY and Tebow.

[Rocky]

Quote: Originally Posted by wang_chi7

Got a stupid question but at draft time always makes me wonder. We always hear about how QB X played in a spread offense and that can't transition to an NFL offense cause he never took snaps under center and blah blah blah. Its a valid concern don't get me wrong. My question though is why do NFL teams all stick with basically the same offenses (or at least same formations/personnel)? Why has the option really never been tried before? Or the spread option or the normal spread for that matter? Afraid of change? I've always heard the option won't work because of defensive speed at the pro level, but do we really know that's true? The wildcat is a sort of option that has worked (obviously not as a full time offensive attack though.) The Pats have basically run a spread for years and are in shotgun quite often. Hell the Run N Shoot is a cousin of the spread and worked very well years ago. So why are teams afraid of a guy who only ran the shotgun in college? If you're a team that is at the bottom of the standings why not try something new? You would at least give the opposing defense something new to worry about when they play you rather than just another pro-style offensive attack to plan for this week.

I would love to see somebody try to run the triple option in the NFL. I've played in the triple option at the D-1A level and have really grown to appreciate it. Contrary to popular belief...speed doesn't stop the option. Of course it helps, but discipline and coaching are the two things that really hurt the option the most. It is also hard to playaction from because run blocking in the option looks so different than pass blocking. Playaction is the reason pro offenses are "pro".

If a good passing game is developed from the TO set, than I think it would be successful in the NFL, especially with these big NT's and pass rushers who go upfield.

[Cebby]

Quote: Originally Posted by Rocky

If a good passing game is developed from the TO set, than I think it would be successful in the NFL, especially with these big NT's and pass rushers who go upfield.

And if 2004 era Michael Vick was more accurate and made better reads and he was throwing to a prime Randy Moss and Jerry Rice and handing off to Ladanian, their offense would have been unstoppable.

If college teams can't develop good passing games out of the triple option, it's certainly not going to happen in the pros.

There's a reason that the option and wishbone went from the base offense of top 10 teams to the gimmick offense used by the academies and Georgia Tech.

[Rocky]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cebby

And if 2004 era Michael Vick was more accurate and made better reads and he was throwing to a prime Randy Moss and Jerry Rice and handing off to Ladanian, their offense would have been unstoppable. If college teams can't develop good passing games out of the triple option, it's certainly not going to happen in the pros. There's a reason that the option and wishbone went from the base offense of top 10 teams to the gimmick offense used by the academies and Georgia Tech.

Actually, it has little to do with skill players and the alot with the offensive line. The tackles in an option scheme are better served if they are very mobile, unlike the behomeths that we see at T in the NFL.

The wishbone of the 80's is quite different than the "gimmick" offenses used by the academies and GT. The current triple option can be used to spread out the defense and the slot backs are more viable receiving threats.

[SPTO]

Quote: Originally Posted by Rocky

The current triple option can be used to spread out the defense and the slot backs are more viable receiving threats.

It doesn't help that most QBs in that system have noodle arms.