Offensive Football Changing

[Padreruf]

The game we have known is changing faster than we think...beginning with the NFL. Running is no longer a primary option for teams...everyone wants to pass as much as possible. NO just abandoned the run entirely yesterday -- and they won. (MI had 2 yds on 2 carries.) Dallas had 33 pass attempts in the 1st half alone. Runners were lucky to average 3.5 yds per carry. Adrian Peterson had a 78 yd td run -- and then 17 more attempts for only 15 yds.

This will filter down to the NCAA -- probably already has. We will see more and more teams throwing the ball 70% of the time -- look @ Baylor -- and using the run only as a diversion or when they have teams spread across the field. The dominating, run-first (between the tackles) offense we have seen at UA is a dinosaur...probably due to safety issues as well as rule changes and how the game is called.

BTW, I don't consider a "run offense" when a QB like Johnny M. drops back, sees no one open, and takes off. This is still the same philosophy: spread the field and put the ball in the hands of a great athlete. On offense, space is your friend.

Not sure if this is good...but it is coming...this is at least the 3rd change I have seen in my life. The late sixties were pass happy -- then came the wishbone and option football. I and pro offenses returned in the 80's and 90's -- with the spread and run and shoot developing on the sides.

The difference is that those offensives were designed for teams with different players -- fast and lean as opposed to powerful. (In some cases, players with lesser athletic abilities.) Now we see them being used by teams with great players.)

If you want to see the future, go watch the replay of the Baylor -- Buffalo game. BU scored 56 points in the first half -- they had over 500 yds of offense by then. A quote from their coach. "We try to score on every play. I have learned that if you don't try to score, you usually don't score." This is the same Buffalo team that played OSU fairly well in their first game.

OK -- what will CNS do? Will we see our offensive mindset change?

 

[AlexanderFan]

It's changed because someone decided it was more" fun " to watch offensive football. The smaller, faster players dominate because the rules have dictated less physical play by the defensive side. Leaner offensive lineman can dive at knees instead of blocking stronger players. Bump and run coverage has been nullified by rule changes. You breathe on a receiver, flag. That same receiver " rubs" a defender to the ground on the goalline? No flag. It won't be too much longer and you will see an exodus of athletes away from the defensive side of the ball.

 

[JessN]

You're not going to see an abandonment of the running game at the college level. There's still more than enough separation of speed between running backs and linebackers at the college level, separation of skill level between OL/DL as well. The reason the NFL teams are throwing it all over the place is (a) when you get to NFL-level talent concentration, there aren't as many physical advantages to exploit between the skill groups, and (b) it's easier to legislate a soft spot at the WR-CB matchup, which offensive teams can exploit. Hardest position to play in the NFL right now might very well be CB.

For all the speed-up changes to college offenses, the reason it's being done is primarily to run the ball. Urban Meyer's offense is a running offense. The Hugh Freeze/Gus Malzahn offenses are run-first offenses, as is Oregon's. Texas A&M gets its offensive design from Art Briles, and it's basically the pro-style passing spread. But they still have to have a rushing element to make it work. Ben Malena is very talented, and 2012 RB Christine Michael is playing for the Seahawks now.

Unless there's an NFL-style rule change aimed directly at the WR-CB matchup, college won't change much in terms of balance. The scores are already high enough without the help; the NFL was in danger of turning into a steady stream of 10-6 scores.

 

[Padreruf]

Interesting...I like your analysis...I guess the biggest change I see is a desire for offenses to "play in space" as opposed to off tackle...regardless of whether they get there through run or pass.

I do believe that we will see more rule changes of the nature you mentioned...WR/DB. A lot of the more violent collisions occur in that realm -- or a DB coming up to take on a RB.

Fun to speculate and try to think 5 years ahead...what is coming next?

 

[CrimsonProf]

To further butress Jess' point - do y'all recall what Danielson said after one of our touchdown runs during the SECCG? He noted that the elite teams have to run a power, pro-style offense - there's too much talent in your favor. What he said by implication is that less talented teams have to run more wide open offenses. Of course at the NFL there's so much talent to go around, you have to be able to sling the rock.

 

[RTR91]

The game we have known is changing faster than we think...beginning with the NFL. Running is no longer a primary option for teams...everyone wants to pass as much as possible. NO just abandoned the run entirely yesterday -- and they won. (MI had 2 yds on 2 carries.) Dallas had 33 pass attempts in the 1st half alone. Runners were lucky to average 3.5 yds per carry. Adrian Peterson had a 78 yd td run -- and then 17 more attempts for only 15 yds.

Jess alluded to it - the OL/DL matchups are even in the NFL. Not many teams are going to win the LOS. We like to say games are won in the trenches. That is true in college and high school, not NFL because the talent gap is minimal. Just look at those stats. Peterson didn't average a yard a carry after that 78 yard run.

 

[bamaslammer]

I think the advantage tends toward the unusual. As more and more teams go to this "girl ball" the "man ball" becomes harder to defened. I mean seriously Notre Dame looked like a girl scout in an MMA match against us. It's easier for us to adjust our defense to stop the spread than it is for them to grow a set and stop our run right at you offense. I realize this year we aren't going to be as good at that as we have been in the past but eventually we will get the lineman going forward again.

 

[JessN]

Interesting...I like your analysis...I guess the biggest change I see is a desire for offenses to "play in space" as opposed to off tackle...regardless of whether they get there through run or pass.

I do believe that we will see more rule changes of the nature you mentioned...WR/DB. A lot of the more violent collisions occur in that realm -- or a DB coming up to take on a RB.

Fun to speculate and try to think 5 years ahead...what is coming next?

I don't see why college would go down the path of the NFL rules, vis-a-vis WR-CB interplay. The changes I'm referring to are not concerning player safety. The NFL rule changes dealt with issues like hand-checking and even minor contact beyond the five-yard zone.

Players are safer in a pro-style attack more than they are in the HUNH or any kind of option attack. People made fun of Saban for saying so, but he's right. In traditional power football, the most contact a RB will get is in the box, when he's expecting it and is wrapping up to protect. In option offenses, a QB on the pitch is taking a straight shot to the breastplate in most cases. The quick bubble-screens and soft drags expose receivers to free shots across the middle. While you do have some middle-zone contact from a pro-style attack, take a look at the route trees Alabama runs -- primarily they're seam routes, square-outs, hooks, flies and posts, along with screens to the RB. When Alabama does go across the middle to a RB, it's typically on a middle hook, and first contact he's going to take then is to his back. Alabama does do some square-ins and deep ins, but that's not the bread-and-butter of the offense.

The more wide open you go offensively, the more opportunities there are to create collisions with a lot of speed involved. So if that's the way they're going to go legislatively, I expect them to go the OTHER way and start legislating huddles or some change to basic tackling technique. Surely not opening things up for more stuntman antics across the middle.

 

[BamaRickandLisa]

3 of the last 4 NCG's ! I like Sabans theory !

 

[RTR91]

I don't see why college would go down the path of the NFL rules, vis-a-vis WR-CB interplay. The changes I'm referring to are not concerning player safety. The NFL rule changes dealt with issues like hand-checking and even minor contact beyond the five-yard zone.

Players are safer in a pro-style attack more than they are in the HUNH or any kind of option attack. People made fun of Saban for saying so, but he's right. In traditional power football, the most contact a RB will get is in the box, when he's expecting it and is wrapping up to protect. In option offenses, a QB on the pitch is taking a straight shot to the breastplate in most cases. The quick bubble-screens and soft drags expose receivers to free shots across the middle. While you do have some middle-zone contact from a pro-style attack, take a look at the route trees Alabama runs -- primarily they're seam routes, square-outs, hooks, flies and posts, along with screens to the RB. When Alabama does go across the middle to a RB, it's typically on a middle hook, and first contact he's going to take then is to his back. Alabama does do some square-ins and deep ins, but that's not the bread-and-butter of the offense.

The more wide open you go offensively, the more opportunities there are to create collisions with a lot of speed involved. So if that's the way they're going to go legislatively, I expect them to go the OTHER way and start legislating huddles or some change to basic tackling technique. Surely not opening things up for more stuntman antics across the middle.

Heard someone last week (think it was on Mike and Mike) talk abut this. The person said the spread offenses cause offensive players to get injured more because the scheme spreads the defense. By spreading the defenders, the WR may be open but is also more vulnerable to a defender coming with a head of steam from across the field.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

I watched both pro and collegiate football this weekend and it seems the collegiate game is changing the NFL game. Not the other way around. I watched the 49ers use a lot of the pistol for Kapernick that he used in college. I saw a lot more teams using a form of the HUNHO. I saw more option read than I've ever seen before in the NFL game.

To be honest when watching the Packers/49ers game I realized that the game had definitely changed. It seemed all those teams did was pass. Neither one could run the ball. Though it was an exciting game I didn't enjoy or maybe I should say "appreciate" the style of play.

 

[JessN]

I watched both pro and collegiate football this weekend and it seems the collegiate game is changing the NFL game. Not the other way around. I watched the 49ers use a lot of the pistol for Kapernick that he used in college. I saw a lot more teams using a form of the HUNHO. I saw more option read than I've ever seen before in the NFL game.

To be honest when watching the Packers/49ers game I realized that the game had definitely changed. It seemed all those teams did was pass. Neither one could run the ball. Though it was an exciting game I didn't enjoy or maybe I should say "appreciate" the style of play.

As long as we get straight what's what:

* Pistol offense isn't the HUNH or read-option. The Pistol offense, as designed by Chris Ault, is a power-running offense with the quarterback moved up so that defenses have to respect play-action on every snap. It gives the QB more vision than being under center, but doesn't lock him into a RB draw if he wants to run inside, which is a weakness of the shotgun.

* HUNH isn't read-option. HUNH can be either flex-option based (which was Rich Rodriguez's baby, modified later by several people, one of them Dennis Franchione) or straight-up pro-style. The only given of HUNH is tempo. You can make it whatever you want after that.

* Read-option can be run out of any set, but typically refers to shotgun/pistol starting sets and has more in common with single-wing than anything else. Urban Meyer essentially developed the modern version of it originally, incorporating some of Rodriguez's blueprint.

* When people talk about "pro-style" offenses, I think most of them are thinking of the I-formation, but there are about four or five distinct "pro-style" offenses. The Patriots' offense is the Erhardt-Perkins (yeah, that's UA's own Ray Perkins) version -- kind of interesting to me, given that Ray himself varied from it at UA.

In other words, this isn't a video game where you pick one rigid style and stick with it; people are constantly incorporating parts of one into the other.

The pro game has gone to a passing attack because, as I said before, most teams find it difficult to get sufficient talent advantage to run the ball, while legislative changes in the passing game make DBs much easier to exploit.

 

[257WBY]

JessN, some good points. Baylor stats from Saturday vs. Buffalo: 55 rushes for 342 yards, 25 passes for 452 yards. This doesn't fit the perception that many have of the Baylor offense. In the 49-26 Holiday Bowl win against UCLA, Baylor passed 13 times for 188 yards, and rushed 67 times for 306 yards. I do agree that the threat of the pass opens up a lot of running lanes. The QB often reads a LB. It the LB walks out to cover the slot, you run. If he stays in, pass. With Alabama, you have to say, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". I do have to wonder what you could do with all that talent if you opened things up a bit. In the VT game, it almost looked like the offense was playing with a hand tied behind it's back.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

I understand the differences. My point is that we're starting to see predominantly passing in the pro game and A LOT less rushing. Some are using the read option to do it, the pistol, the HUNH etc. But the end result is the same. Pass, pass, pass. I still watch but I don't appreciate the style of play as much.

As long as we get straight what's what:

* Pistol offense isn't the HUNH or read-option. The Pistol offense, as designed by Chris Ault, is a power-running offense with the quarterback moved up so that defenses have to respect play-action on every snap. It gives the QB more vision than being under center, but doesn't lock him into a RB draw if he wants to run inside, which is a weakness of the shotgun.

* HUNH isn't read-option. HUNH can be either flex-option based (which was Rich Rodriguez's baby, modified later by several people, one of them Dennis Franchione) or straight-up pro-style. The only given of HUNH is tempo. You can make it whatever you want after that.

* Read-option can be run out of any set, but typically refers to shotgun/pistol starting sets and has more in common with single-wing than anything else. Urban Meyer essentially developed the modern version of it originally, incorporating some of Rodriguez's blueprint.

* When people talk about "pro-style" offenses, I think most of them are thinking of the I-formation, but there are about four or five distinct "pro-style" offenses. The Patriots' offense is the Erhardt-Perkins (yeah, that's UA's own Ray Perkins) version -- kind of interesting to me, given that Ray himself varied from it at UA.

In other words, this isn't a video game where you pick one rigid style and stick with it; people are constantly incorporating parts of one into the other.

The pro game has gone to a passing attack because, as I said before, most teams find it difficult to get sufficient talent advantage to run the ball, while legislative changes in the passing game make DBs much easier to exploit.

 

[RTR91]

JessN, some good points. Baylor stats from Saturday vs. Buffalo: 55 rushes for 342 yards, 25 passes for 452 yards. This doesn't fit the perception that many have of the Baylor offense. In the 49-26 Holiday Bowl win against UCLA, Baylor passed 13 times for 188 yards, and rushed 67 times for 306 yards. I do agree that the threat of the pass opens up a lot of running lanes. The QB often reads a LB. It the LB walks out to cover the slot, you run. If he stays in, pass. With Alabama, you have to say, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". I do have to wonder what you could do with all that talent if you opened things up a bit. In the VT game, it almost looked like the offense was playing with a hand tied behind it's back.

We see it somewhat at Oregon. The spread was created to give slower, less talented teams a chance against the "big boys." When a spread offense has elite athletes like Alabama and Oregon, the spread only magnifies the talent gap.

 

[Al A Bama]

I watched both pro and collegiate football this weekend and it seems the collegiate game is changing the NFL game. Not the other way around. I watched the 49ers use a lot of the pistol for Kapernick that he used in college. I saw a lot more teams using a form of the HUNHO. I saw more option read than I've ever seen before in the NFL game.

To be honest when watching the Packers/49ers game I realized that the game had definitely changed. It seemed all those teams did was pass. Neither one could run the ball. Though it was an exciting game I didn't enjoy or maybe I should say "appreciate" the style of play.

Do we need to just get rid of Linebackers and put safeties in all those positions who can defend both pass and run?

So, if you have a 3 - 4 Defense, you'd have two Clowneys up front with a Mount Cody in the middle plus 6 Safeties and 2 CB's (or maybe 4 Safeties and 4 CB's). Well, maybe you could have 1 Linebacker #32. How would this work against Mr. Johnny Camera, Johnny Heisman, Johnny Cash, Johnny Paycheck, Johnny Autograph, and all the other Johnnys??

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Do we need to just get rid of Linebackers and put safeties in all those positions who can defend both pass and run?

So, if you have a 3 - 4 Defense, you'd have two Clowneys up front with a Mount Cody in the middle plus 6 Safeties and 2 CB's (or maybe 4 Safeties and 4 CB's). Well, maybe you could have 1 Linebacker #32. How would this work against Mr. Johnny Camera, Johnny Heisman, Johnny Cash, Johnny Paycheck, Johnny Autograph, and all the other Johnnys??

From what I saw this weekend in the NFL there's no need for big LB's anymore. Nothing over 250 is needed. Your LB's better be able to pursue, cover a receiver and be very good in space. Stuffing the run was a very, very small part of the game this weekend.

 

[Padreruf]

I don't see why college would go down the path of the NFL rules, vis-a-vis WR-CB interplay. The changes I'm referring to are not concerning player safety. The NFL rule changes dealt with issues like hand-checking and even minor contact beyond the five-yard zone.

Players are safer in a pro-style attack more than they are in the HUNH or any kind of option attack. People made fun of Saban for saying so, but he's right. In traditional power football, the most contact a RB will get is in the box, when he's expecting it and is wrapping up to protect. In option offenses, a QB on the pitch is taking a straight shot to the breastplate in most cases. The quick bubble-screens and soft drags expose receivers to free shots across the middle. While you do have some middle-zone contact from a pro-style attack, take a look at the route trees Alabama runs -- primarily they're seam routes, square-outs, hooks, flies and posts, along with screens to the RB. When Alabama does go across the middle to a RB, it's typically on a middle hook, and first contact he's going to take then is to his back. Alabama does do some square-ins and deep ins, but that's not the bread-and-butter of the offense.

The more wide open you go offensively, the more opportunities there are to create collisions with a lot of speed involved. So if that's the way they're going to go legislatively, I expect them to go the OTHER way and start legislating huddles or some change to basic tackling technique. Surely not opening things up for more stuntman antics across the middle.

I get what you are saying about the NFL...their rule differences accentuate the ability to throw the ball as WR's can get open easier. I do think the NCAA and NFL will start to look at where the most violent collisions occur and work to minimize if not eliminate those. Now, that would be a combination of rule changes and tackling/running technique. If runners are not made to keep their heads up and not lead with the crown, it does no good to make the defense do the same. Then you are making them sitting ducks for tough rb's with a head of steam.

Thanks for the analysis of UA's attack...I have never gone that deep into it.

 

[JessN]

Multiple responses:

* Oregon's offense is read-option based; however, if you look at their offense vs. Alabama's 2012 offense, the 2012 Alabama offense had better efficiency numbers.

* Alabama is not going to "open up" the offense any further than it absolutely has to in order to control clock and time of possession. That has been Saban's trademark on offense for the entirety of his career and as long as he's coach here, that's the way it will stay. Given that such an offense typically makes fewer mistakes, I have no problem with it. We're in no danger, scheme-wise, of reverting to the offenses of Shula, DuBose, or Curry under Rip Scherer. Alabama might be talent-limited at OL, but no scheme will help you dig out from under that rock, at least not in the SEC.

* Linebacker changes: We're already starting to see this somewhat with teams that run full-time 4-2-5 or 3-3-5 setups. Had Joe Kines remained at Alabama, you would have seen it here. He was already starting to move that direction with Terrence Jones and Demarcus Waldrop at OLB. In the modern 3-3-5, you have a typical nosetackle, typical MLB, the DEs are the size of OLBs and the OLBs are the size of safeties. Most 4-2-5s have LBs in the 225-pound range. It's easier to recruit to those numbers. What keeps this from being widespread is that if you take the beef totally out of the second level, the other team is going to draw an H-back into the formation and start pounding your face. Kines (underrated here by most, IMO) borrowed the opposite-shoulder, inside-out philosophy from the Johnson/Erickson Miami teams, which helped mitigate the matchup problems somewhat. I think it's telling that, as these hybrid defenses start to become the rule rather than the exception, we are now seeing college teams bringing back the fullback, or at least recruit to a split-back system with one RB a lot bigger than the other. This leads into one of the arguments surrounding the HUNH (sub packages vs. spotting the ball quickly) where defensive coaches are stumping for more time to adjust to the offensive personnel. If teams do eventually get rid of the larger (re: 240 pounds and up, built like fireplugs) linebacker, you'll see a reversion to the pure I-formation and the power game. Of the 14 SEC teams, at least 11 have either pure fullbacks or a fullback/H-back hybrid who is more the former than the latter. It might be 12, I just need to see more of Tennessee. Missouri and Texas A&M are the only two that don't at the moment.

 

[graydogg85]

Offensive football has always been cyclical. Defenses adjusted to the wishbone attacks of the 1970s and 1980s by putting leaner, faster players on the field that could tackle in space, so the response from offensive tacticians was the I-based power running game that blew those smaller defenders off the ball. And now we have the spread offenses that were designed to counter the behemoths that defenses were putting on the field to stop the power run games. Defenses and offenses are constantly trying to counter one another schematically.

I guess my point is that I don't blame the offensive coaches for doing whatever it takes to gain the upper hand. It's what they're paid to do. I don't think it's necessarily a case of "what will put fannies in the seats?" or "how can we be more exciting?". I think it's just a case of finding exploitable weaknesses in defenses and then exploiting the heck out of them. People forget that wishbone offenses were just as prolific when they first came out, numbers-wise, as some of the spread offenses are today. In 1973, Alabama beat Virginia Tech 77-6 and totaled 883 yards of offense (748 on the ground).

Defenses today present more challenges for running the football than ever before. You're starting to see more and more beefy linebackers and defensive ends that can also run like deer. Teams with average (or worse than average) talent simply cannot line up in the I-formation and pound the ball off-tackle 45 or 50 times a game and reasonably expect to win. So I don't think it's any major surprise that passing is becoming more and more prolific. But eventually, someone will figure out another way to be effective running the ball and it will be back "en vogue".