Bill C knocked it out of the park with a great piece on the seesaw battle between offense and defense.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/29124560/how-spread-off...
I love this quote.
"Everything now is conflict," Iowa State defensive coordinator Jon Heacock said. "It's always been about conflict, but in the past, it was always some form of same-play conflict: run or pass." The triple option, for instance, put edge defenders in conflict when it came to the quarterback keeping the ball, giving it to the fullback on the dive or pitching it to the pitch man out wide. But if it was a run, it was a run.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Great article. Looking at the past few years, you can see where Tech was more dangerous with someone like Bucky / Sam on the field to "change the style" of the formation without changing the personnel. It highlights the need to find more versatile RBs to support the concepts.
Also shows the importance of getting great DB play to try and take away some of these concepts. It makes sense for people like Farley to play DB given his athleticism and length, and CJF / JHam's focus on length along the DL to disrupt those throwing lanes and screens. Great insight into this chess game.
Oh, like a Paul Johnson GT team? [ducks]
Great read and I can't wait for part 2. Bill C puts together some great stuff from both statistical and schematic standpoints.
I'm not as mad that we haven't been playing with more tempo offensively anymore...I had no idea that it wasn't as much as an advantage as I thought it was
I love the quote, which I'm only going to paraphrase "So, do you worry that the opponents offensive tempo will wear down your defense?" "I don't see how our guys will get tired when a three and out only takes 45 seconds of gameclock..."
The article - like almost every one on the topic - misses the most obvious reason for all of this. The rules - and they way they are enforced (or not enforced) - are the primary catalyst for changes in offensive schemes.
If the powers-that-be wanted to get rid of the spread offense (and I have no reason to believe they do at present), they could quickly do it by changing and enforcing a handful of rules and actually enforcing a few existing of the existing ones.
Which rules are allowing the spread to be so popular?
I can think of the rule allowing ineligible receivers three yards instead of one, and maybe an argument for the way offensive pass interference is /isn't called for rub routes.
Are there others I'm missing?
Well they could start enforcing holding on the 7-8 plays a game where our DL has an OL beat but the OL grabs then so we don't get the sack. Would stop a lot odd there longer routes.
I know there is holding every play but in the last 2-3 years these have been very very apparent, and they 100% change the outcome of the play.
EDIT: Those illegal rob routes that teams love also contribute to the issue.
Not calling holding is a big issue. I've seen many coaches suggest this has been one of the most impactful changes in the modern game. This is just an extreme example, because obviously it didn't have a huge effect on the team, but you all might recall that 2016 Alabama had a historically strong defense, arguably the best of the modern era, but their opponents only had holding called on their OL's three times the entire season. Pretty hard sell to convince me that defense of all NFL players were only held on three snaps over the course of a 15 game season.
whats more is that defense probably still had multiple sacks, hurries, and TFLs despite players being held.
A lot of the crackdown on the way defense can be played has helped this explode, in my opinion. The fact that receivers can now go through the middle of the field without needing to keep their head on a swivel has really opened up the game all over the field. And you know how they say holding occurs on practically every play, well... When you allow the offense to have that kind of advantage at the line, with the middle of the field opened up, Pass Interference that seems to have a different interpretation weekly, and defenders who know they are ejected and suspended if they hit the ballcarrier the wrong way, then you have a recipe ripe for an offense to exploit it with a wide open passing game.
Why don't we just take all of Banner Society, and move it over to ESPN with Bill? Although, probably would ruin their ability to actually make college football as interesting as they do.
Sounds like nows the time to be on the lookout for the next innovation since spread Offenses are clearly the main stream establishment.
That was going to be the direction of my comment as well.
People who know things about football,
Is there an offense (or defense) who we should be looking at as the future? Where will teams go from here? Is there any predicting this evolution?
The zone read was because of a bobbled snap in practice. Something like that isn't predictable.
But the next be revolution is whatever works. That's how the spread got popular, because it works. Defenders in conflict is a very old concept. Most of the passing concepts for the spread are really old. I dont want to say anyone say the spread coming a mile away. It's just that it's a combination of lots of concepts that worked for 40+ years.
in my very uninformed, inexperienced view there won't be another major offensive innovation until there are rules changes or a major defensive innovation which addresses the spread offense's advantage. Right now, the spread offense is producing really efficient results and until defenses (or rules changes) manage to bring that efficiency down significantly I don't see any reason to change or innovate offense dramatically. I would be on the lookout for defensive innovations before offensive ones. When some genius figures out how to consistently stifle spread offenses, and then everyone starts copying that genius's work to great effect, then we'll see major innovation offensively.
I think that's the nature of football. I believe there is a long and slow ebb and flow. A back and forth between offense and defense. It's not only a chess match during the series, the game or even the season. The chess match extends beyond seasons to eras. There is a lag to the higher level tactics. Right now, offense has the advantage but I wouldn't be surprised if sometime in our lifetime the defense regains the advantage through some defensive innovation. And it will take years for offenses to innovate, adjust, and regain the advantage. Then the defense will do it again years later. I think it's cyclical over long stretches of time.
But I don't really know what I'm talking about...perhaps this is wishful thinking. I came into my own as a VT fan when defense was king. Maybe, on some level, I'm pining for those days when watching great defense was really enjoyable. I'll admit that these days I want to see our offense light up the score board but there's a part of me that misses winning hard fought games with good defense. 21-17. 24-20. 17-0. Etc.
To this point, as defenses evolve to playing 5-6 DBs in their base set and schools are recruiting more 195 LBs to keep up with the slot receivers, will we see a school return to the i-formation. Revert back to being bigger, stronger and force these smaller defenses to commit 8-9 in the box to stop the run, opening up one-on-ones on the outside with bigger receivers. Its not new, and likely doesn't help recruiting kids that want to prep for the league, but could see someone evolve back to the this traditional set to control the ball, clock and out-muscle their opponent through 4 quarters.
I absolutely think this is possible. It may not be an innovation so much as going back to a different tactic to take advantage of an over-correction