longhorn_mig
Rookie
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2013
- Messages
- 1,985
Interesting Read; Thoughts?
- Thread starter longhorn_mig
- Start date
J.B. TexasEx
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2012
- Messages
- 9,798
Yes, if you don't score often.
CFS and most every defensive coach knows this intuitively, that's why he didn't want to adopt a spread or HUNH offense when he came here. Unfortunately, most TXHSFB athletes now grow up in these offenses and are attracted to that style & pace. Get on board or get left behind.
CFS and most every defensive coach knows this intuitively, that's why he didn't want to adopt a spread or HUNH offense when he came here. Unfortunately, most TXHSFB athletes now grow up in these offenses and are attracted to that style & pace. Get on board or get left behind.
83Dee
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2015
- Messages
- 2,856
I hate to say this, because I am beginning to transition to the old man who yells, "Get off my lawn!" at kids. But, here goes....
The up tempo offense is a gimmick. It has it's purpose... the same purpose as Tom Pender's brand of "jack up a 3 every time you touch the ball" basketball has (which I didn't like Texas using) and that is this.... it enables smaller schools to somewhat compete with larger state schools who hold many advantages over them. It relies on gimmickry rather than defeating the man in front of you. Don't let the other team get ready, make the other team tired, run two times as many plays in a game. It is fine... I have no problem with it. But, it is for Baylor; it is for Texas Tech, it is for directional schools. Those universities can be very competitive with gimmickry.
It is not for Texas; it is not for Alabama; it is not for Ohio State; it is not for USC. Those schools should be able to line up and run over you. It is for teams that simply cannot do that on a high level. Again, it is great for smaller schools.... schools who want to compete but cannot in the traditional manner. However, as competitive as it makes the have-nots, you do not win a national championship with it. You win the Natty by winning the line of scrimmage on offense and playing great defense. Texas should be able to play like that; but we are acting like the University of South Central Texas rather than UT!
By the way, in this age of Art Briles / Mike Leach, who would be in the playoffs if the season ended right now?
1 Alabama 8-0
2 Michigan 7-0
3 Clemson 7-0
4 Washington 7-0
Now you kids..... GET OFF MY LAWN!
Drop mic...
The up tempo offense is a gimmick. It has it's purpose... the same purpose as Tom Pender's brand of "jack up a 3 every time you touch the ball" basketball has (which I didn't like Texas using) and that is this.... it enables smaller schools to somewhat compete with larger state schools who hold many advantages over them. It relies on gimmickry rather than defeating the man in front of you. Don't let the other team get ready, make the other team tired, run two times as many plays in a game. It is fine... I have no problem with it. But, it is for Baylor; it is for Texas Tech, it is for directional schools. Those universities can be very competitive with gimmickry.
It is not for Texas; it is not for Alabama; it is not for Ohio State; it is not for USC. Those schools should be able to line up and run over you. It is for teams that simply cannot do that on a high level. Again, it is great for smaller schools.... schools who want to compete but cannot in the traditional manner. However, as competitive as it makes the have-nots, you do not win a national championship with it. You win the Natty by winning the line of scrimmage on offense and playing great defense. Texas should be able to play like that; but we are acting like the University of South Central Texas rather than UT!
By the way, in this age of Art Briles / Mike Leach, who would be in the playoffs if the season ended right now?
1 Alabama 8-0
2 Michigan 7-0
3 Clemson 7-0
4 Washington 7-0
Now you kids..... GET OFF MY LAWN!
Drop mic...
Last edited by a moderator:
DrTrey
New member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2016
- Messages
- 88
Actually Clemson runs a spread system. At least, that's what it looks like.
But I get what you're saying. Spread offenses may be fun to watch, but I suppose pro-style offense is better for long term success.
Embrey
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2013
- Messages
- 967
Great article. I have been pondering this a lot lately. I am about half way through the comments section on the piece.
Here is what comes to mind after reading the article and part of the comments:
If you have studied the air raid offense you realize it is an option offense. Like the wishbone but the option is occurring downfield. For example, if you are a defensive back covering a receiver the option decisions by the receiver and quarterback are already taking place. You line up inside and you can bet the quick slant is not the route the receiver will run. Every receiver is assessing his option by the information he is given by the defender pre-snap. Throw in some receiver motion and the quarterback can probably decide if he is facing a zone or man or whatever. Unlike the wishbone there could be 5 places to 'pitch' the ball.
The inherent advantage the offense has always had is they know the play. Add to that the fact that the defense is not given time to substitute if the offense doesn't. The defense studies personnel, tendencies, down and distance, etc but on whole defense is a reactionary discipline. So, my simplistic mind asks this question: If I know I am facing an air raid offense and I know the route trees that the receivers will run based on the defensive backs alignment - why don't I dictate to the receiver what I want him to run by aligning myself to take away what might hurt my defense? At this point the defender is active and the receiver becomes more reactive. Actually it probably only evens the odds but that is a lot better than being dictated to. With this philosophy and the proper personnel I believe the offensive advantage can be lessened if not neutralized.
Easy to say but near impossible without having the proper personnel. The defensive back that can dictate to receivers must have the brains to conceptualize what he is doing to the receiver, he must be a tackling machine, a ball hawk and he must be able to run all afternoon long. I have another theory about defensive substituting but for now I will leave it in the bag.
Here is what comes to mind after reading the article and part of the comments:
If you have studied the air raid offense you realize it is an option offense. Like the wishbone but the option is occurring downfield. For example, if you are a defensive back covering a receiver the option decisions by the receiver and quarterback are already taking place. You line up inside and you can bet the quick slant is not the route the receiver will run. Every receiver is assessing his option by the information he is given by the defender pre-snap. Throw in some receiver motion and the quarterback can probably decide if he is facing a zone or man or whatever. Unlike the wishbone there could be 5 places to 'pitch' the ball.
The inherent advantage the offense has always had is they know the play. Add to that the fact that the defense is not given time to substitute if the offense doesn't. The defense studies personnel, tendencies, down and distance, etc but on whole defense is a reactionary discipline. So, my simplistic mind asks this question: If I know I am facing an air raid offense and I know the route trees that the receivers will run based on the defensive backs alignment - why don't I dictate to the receiver what I want him to run by aligning myself to take away what might hurt my defense? At this point the defender is active and the receiver becomes more reactive. Actually it probably only evens the odds but that is a lot better than being dictated to. With this philosophy and the proper personnel I believe the offensive advantage can be lessened if not neutralized.
Easy to say but near impossible without having the proper personnel. The defensive back that can dictate to receivers must have the brains to conceptualize what he is doing to the receiver, he must be a tackling machine, a ball hawk and he must be able to run all afternoon long. I have another theory about defensive substituting but for now I will leave it in the bag.
HORNfromETX
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2016
- Messages
- 2,797
I believe Ohio St runs a spread offense that is no huddle, but it is not hurry up. Similar to what Texas used to run with Colt and Vince. I dont mind the spread, even Bama started running it more, but you cant do the hurry up part, because it kills your Defense.
83Dee
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2015
- Messages
- 2,856
True... I didn't mention the spread, but the hurry up. I did make a reference to winning the line of scrimmage, which was more of a shot at offenses that abandon the run or any type of power running. I think that Tech threw around 90 passes against OU, for example.
The Urban Meyer spread is different than the Air Raid spread. I don't pretend to know all of the ins and outs to the various types of spread offense - but "spread" seems to be morphing into a generic term without much meaning behind it. If I ran the Fred Akers Power I - and had my O Line spread out more... and my receivers split out wider, I guess I could call this the spread offense?
I am not totally out on Sterlen Gilbert. I personally like much about his offense: I like the power running that is utilized. I mean.... if I had my druthers, I would prefer using the tight end on occasion and the middle of the field on passing routes - but we can't have our cake and eat it too now can we?
About Us
