last night was just one game but college spread beat nfl smash

[Millhouse]

just sayin.

 

[CIL]

just sayin.

Who'd Oregon lose to?

 

[wfschrec]

Yeah worked real well against LSU ... yawn ... there is a reason it isn't run in the NFL ...

 

[Stern]

You obviously didn't watch the National Championship Game last year

 

[cusestudent]

Let's be honest here, Stanford relies on Andrew Luck (they have no one else!). He had a subpar game, turned the ball over five times while Oregon turned it over twice, and a defensive unit that wasn't all that great couldn't stop the Oregon offense as it came out hard and fast as usual. A college spread is easier to run because it is less complex and more geared towards athletes and not great football minds at quarterback. The NFL style offense needs a good all around offensive unit to support a good/great qb. Alabama has this (outside of the qb). All you need to do is look at what Alabama has done the past five years and then USC before them. The best schools in the country run the NFL style offense except for Oregon, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma St.

 

[Chip]

So is the argument against implementing it that there would be 1-2 SEC defenses each year that could shut it down?

I could settle with being the 2nd best team in the country I guess.

 

[wfschrec]

So is the argument against implementing it that there would be 1-2 SEC defenses each year that could shut it down?

I could settle with being the 2nd best team in the country I guess.

No the argument is that its only one side of the ball and just running a spread doesn't make you an instant success like some here would have you believe. If that is all it took Texas Tech would have won a Big 12 title by now ... the issues with a spread driven offense are easily uncovered by teams with lesser talent just like a team with lesser talent can run the spread and outscore teams as many here claim.

We controlled the ball and kept the air out of WVUs offensive balloon and because they weren't able to run up and down the field at will and it cost them. The point of the post is that this was an argument as to why we should "run the spread" and my point as is the point made by others is that a.) it doesn't guarantee success and b.) personnel is a driving factor in what you run. We don't have the friggin speed to run the spread when will people just get over it?

And if you make a post nebulous like ... "a spread team beat an NFL style offense" then you are making a generalization that was easily dismissed by multiple posters ... its as simple as that.

 

[Stern]

Let's be honest here, Stanford relies on Andrew Luck (they have no one else!).

Nobody else? They have 3-4 guys who will be picked in Rd 1 of the NFL Draft, 2 in the Top 10!!! That team is loaded!

 

[wfschrec]

Nobody else? They have 3-4 guys who will be picked in Rd 1 of the NFL Draft, 2 in the Top 10!!! That team is loaded!

Don't let facts get in the way of the spread argument ...

 

[Stern]

Don't let facts get in the way of the spread argument ...

The fact is Stanford has 2 Top 10 picks on their team. And 2 other guys who will be picked in Rd 1. That's a fact! For you or anyone to say Stanford is Luck and nobody else is just 100% wrong.

 

[wfschrec]

The fact is Stanford has 2 Top 10 picks on their team. And 2 other guys who will be picked in Rd 1. That's a fact! For you or anyone to say Stanford is Luck and nobody else is just 100% wrong.

I was actually siding with you ... hence my sarcasm ... you really need to take a Xanax or something ...

 

[Stern]

I was actually siding with you ... hence my sarcasm ... you really need to take a Xanax or something ...

Or you need to make it more clear you are being sarcastic

 

[Chip]

Texas Tech lost one game. To a good Oklahoma team. It happens. I don't know if spread is the answer on offense but other than against some heavyweight programs it seems to be more successful than not.

 

[wfschrec]

Or you need to make it more clear you are being sarcastic

I figured you would have picked up on it based on my prior post ... my bad.

 

[wfschrec]

Texas Tech lost one game. To a good Oklahoma team. It happens. I don't know if spread is the answer on offense but other than against some heavyweight programs it seems to be more successful than not.

You could make the same argument for all the schools that run pro-style offenses ... again you shouldn't start a thread off one game's results like this .. something people on this board love to do.

 

[Millhouse]

You could make the same argument for all the schools that run pro-style offenses ... again you shouldn't start a thread off one game's results like this .. something people on this board love to do.

i hoped by immediately saying "it's just one game" right there in the title, it would be enough of a disclaimer

lsu has held everyone under 300 yards except oregon and wvu.

bama shuts down everyone but god forbid they play a spread team. when they do and win, everyone will say AHA it doesn't work. people set the bar so incredibly high for any offense that is different. no one cares that bama shuts down every other offense too

 

[Franz69]

The issue for me is not pro style vs. spread. It's running Bailey up the gut three straight times and then punting. We're running the cha cha offense. 1,2,3, kick. 1,2,3, kick. It's like they just concede with the play calling. Well, our QB is eh, our RB is small, our line is ok, so let's just play it safe. If you are willing to run up the middle three straight times, why not be equally willing to throw a bomb three straight times? Have Chew, Graham and Kobena, run fly patterns three straight times. Mix it up, take a chance, do something creative. Anything. The whole world knows that the first play is a run up the middle to Bailey. Catch them off guard with a flea flicker. Worked in the bowl, right? Try it. What do they have to lose, besides another shanked punt 3 plays later.

 

[wfschrec]

i hoped by immediately saying "it's just one game" right there in the title, it would be enough of a disclaimer

lsu has held everyone under 300 yards except oregon and wvu.

bama shuts down everyone but god forbid they play a spread team. when they do and win, everyone will say AHA it doesn't work. people set the bar so incredibly high for any offense that is different. no one cares that bama shuts down every other offense too

Yep and you throw in the "but" clause so please spare me the disclaimer line ... the fact is those teams you cited can't play a lick of defense and LSU scored on them at will immediately putting their D back on the field. The "its just one game" is merely using semantics because you turned around and said "but" which means "on the contrary" so obviously you were implying that it is the signal of a trend.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Silly argument without equal talent. Bet USC and Bama could run the spread as well

Sent from my Vortex using Tapatalk

 

[RF2044]

Question: let's just say we had a system that was conducive to a spread [I know that there are many variations on that theme--so pick your favorite flavor of spread offense]--do we have the WR talent to make it work?

Because I look at this group of WRs and see Chew who has regressed, and would ideally be a #3 WR type, Lemon / West who are bigger possession receivers, and Graham who has the top playmaking potential of the group but is inconsistent.

I have high hopes for Kobena / Hale / Foster, and hope that Cornelius is the real deal. FWIW, I think that WR is a position where a stud recruit can see the field / make a more immediate impact than most.

But do we even have appropriate personnel to make it work? Not considering the ability of the QB to scramble / OL in this discussion to focus specifically on the WRs.

 

[Millhouse]

Yep and you throw in the "but" clause so please spare me the disclaimer line ... the fact is those teams you cited can't play a lick of defense and LSU scored on them at will immediately putting their D back on the field. The "its just one game" is merely using semantics because you turned around and said "but" which means "on the contrary" so obviously you were implying that it is the signal of a trend.

Take my posts at face value. I try not to beat around the bush.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk

 

[wfschrec]

Take my posts at face value. I try not to beat around the bush.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk

Then don't say "it's only one game, but" because you make an implication ... pretty simple concept in the English language. You definitely don't beat around the bush in some circumstances I will give you that ... but if you are only looking at a one game sample then the thread is pretty friggin useless but you already knew that because that wasn't the point you were trying to make was it? It wasn't just about one game.

 

[Millhouse]

Then don't say "it's only one game, but" because you make an implication ... pretty simple concept in the English language. You definitely don't beat around the bush in some circumstances I will give you that ... but if you are only looking at a one game sample then the thread is pretty friggin useless but you already knew that because that wasn't the point you were trying to make was it? It wasn't just about one game.

i didn't realize every thread had to be something incredibly profound

 

[wfschrec]

i didn't realize every thread had to be something incredibly profound

Not expecting profound ... I expect more than a backhanded contradiction ... but then again we have a plethora of useless posts on this site ... whats a few more ...