Started By
Message
re: Seahawks' Tom Cable: Spread systems do a huge disservice to offensive players
Posted on 5/14/15 at 9:55 am to eatatjoes
Posted on 5/14/15 at 9:55 am to eatatjoes
quote:
Explain Justin Britt example from above then please.
There are exceptions to every rule. Using this as a "gotcha" is both immature and intellectually dishonest.
1
Posted on 5/14/15 at 9:59 am to piggidyphish
quote:
I assume KC is rejecting great trade offers daily to keep aaron murray?
He's a qb on an NFL roster behind an entrenched starter. He very well could end up being a qb in the NFL. His issue was never ability ....his knock was height. He's small and until he gets his chance no one really knows how he will do.
Posted on 5/14/15 at 10:01 am to Prettyboy Floyd
quote:
He's a qb on an NFL roster behind an entrenched starter.
Ok.
Any qb's taken above him?
Posted on 5/14/15 at 10:02 am to eatatjoes
quote:
Explain Justin Britt example from above then please.
As it relates to other draft picks, he's one of the very few players the Seahawks have drafted from those systems, which tells me they felt like he knew more than the average player coming out of those systems, or they felt comfortable that he would be smart enough to learn very quickly. He was projected as a 4th or 5th round guy that Seattle took in the 2nd round.
In terms of his success so far - it goes back to the previous point of him obviously being more advanced that many OL that come from those systems.
He appears to be an obvious exception.
This post was edited on 5/14/15 at 10:03 am
Posted on 5/14/15 at 10:05 am to Tuscaloosa
Just like the forward pass, Shotgun offense, screen passes, bootlegs, & play action fakes were all gimmicks and were ruining football... The wishbone offense that's REAL MAN football...
Football is an evolving game. Coaches that embrace change & adapt are the ones that will be successful. The Patriots won with defense when it was a defensive league & now win with offense in a pass happy league. I am sure 10 years from now some new scheme will be introduced that will piss people off.
Line up and run right at people works when you have the biggest, strongest guys but if you don't why not utilize strategies that take the talent you have and maximize it? Why does that ruin the game? In fact I think the game is becoming even more about strategy & taking the talent you have and developing schemes that help you win. That's something exciting to watch. The Iron Bowl the past 2 years has been compelling TV watching Nick Saban's defensive schemes evolve to match Gus's or seeing Lane Kiffen spread out Bama's offense and hit home runs. We are watching great coaches actually having to try and outcoach each other. Which means developing players to execute the fundamentals of THEIR scheme the best.
I see his point about these new offenses producing players that don't fit into the old mold but my question is why take guys that have shined in other schemes and try to ram them into yours? Draft guys that fit the type of offense & defense you want or if you want a guy that will have to develop to learn your new scheme then do it with the realization it might take 2 seasons for the kid to be any good at something new just like in college some guys can step on the field day 1 as freshman and succeed while others take time before becoming elite
Football is an evolving game. Coaches that embrace change & adapt are the ones that will be successful. The Patriots won with defense when it was a defensive league & now win with offense in a pass happy league. I am sure 10 years from now some new scheme will be introduced that will piss people off.
Line up and run right at people works when you have the biggest, strongest guys but if you don't why not utilize strategies that take the talent you have and maximize it? Why does that ruin the game? In fact I think the game is becoming even more about strategy & taking the talent you have and developing schemes that help you win. That's something exciting to watch. The Iron Bowl the past 2 years has been compelling TV watching Nick Saban's defensive schemes evolve to match Gus's or seeing Lane Kiffen spread out Bama's offense and hit home runs. We are watching great coaches actually having to try and outcoach each other. Which means developing players to execute the fundamentals of THEIR scheme the best.
I see his point about these new offenses producing players that don't fit into the old mold but my question is why take guys that have shined in other schemes and try to ram them into yours? Draft guys that fit the type of offense & defense you want or if you want a guy that will have to develop to learn your new scheme then do it with the realization it might take 2 seasons for the kid to be any good at something new just like in college some guys can step on the field day 1 as freshman and succeed while others take time before becoming elite
Posted on 5/14/15 at 10:05 am to Tuscaloosa
Spread is causing sadness
Posted on 5/14/15 at 10:12 am to dallasga6
quote:Thsis X 10000000
I can agree with his sentiment. But the thing is, the NFL doesn't pay one red cent for this supposed bad training these kids are getting so he can go suck on a tailpipe...
Put another way, Cable is saying...."the minor leagues we (NFL) pay nothing for aren't training our prospective employees properly."
Screw these whining NFL coaches - they have the manpower and resources to mold these draftees into whatever product they want. They can get off their arse and "Coach" the hamburger meat that college offers instead of whining because college's aren't giving them a choice t-bone on a silver platter in the damn draft.
Posted on 5/14/15 at 10:12 am to TigerPaw1
quote:
Just like the forward pass, Shotgun offense, screen passes, bootlegs, & play action fakes were all gimmicks and were ruining football...
Can you link me to any news articles from the period that criticize any of those innovations?
Innovation is fine. No one should criticize it. However, a lot of spread offensive schemes take a step back in player development. They sacrifice development in order to simplify offenses to the detriment of the player. That's not to say that all spread offensive schemes are bad. Far from it. You can still read a defense from the spread formation. But too many coaches are having their QBs and offensive linemen look to the sidelines for adjustments instead of relying on the player to do it themselves. Thus making the players on the field less football-savvy, thus ruining football.
Posted on 5/14/15 at 10:13 am to Tuscaloosa
Coaches at any level are paid to teach players how to play. I remember when Wade Phillips was talking about how bad Kareem Jackson's fundamentals were and he had to teach him how to play DB in the NFL. That's his job. It's the OC job to teach his QB had to play QB in the NFL. This has become a lazy society where everyone wants someone else to do their job for them.
Posted on 5/14/15 at 10:14 am to RollTide1987
Forward Pass
Will the smithsonian suffice?
or are we going to draw a distinction between ridicule and criticism?
damn...this sounds familiar.
Will the smithsonian suffice?
or are we going to draw a distinction between ridicule and criticism?
damn...this sounds familiar.
quote:
Because of these rules and the fact coaches at that time thought the forward pass was a sissified type of play that wasn’t really football, they were hesitant to adopt this new strategy,” says Kent Stephens, a historian with the College Football Hall of Fame in South Bend, Indiana.
This post was edited on 5/14/15 at 10:16 am
Posted on 5/14/15 at 10:15 am to augrad00
McElroy and Mccarron tearing it up right now.
Posted on 5/14/15 at 10:32 am to Tuscaloosa
I get this relative to QB's but my impression was that OL play was actually more challenging in a spread/option offense in that it requires more athletic linemen blocking down the line as the offense moves down the line shifting the point of attack. But yea, in terms of pocket protection, I can see that there are likely techniques required to fend off powerful and athletic DL and LB.
This is one of the main reasons I like UGA's offense; we definitely prepare our offensive players for the NFL in a predominately pro-style offense.
This is one of the main reasons I like UGA's offense; we definitely prepare our offensive players for the NFL in a predominately pro-style offense.
This post was edited on 5/14/15 at 10:35 am
Posted on 5/14/15 at 10:38 am to AUCE05
quote:
Lol wut? Tom Brady and Payton Manning do well in a spread. They can read a D.
there is more to the spread than just taking snaps in the shotgun.
Posted on 5/14/15 at 10:57 am to piggidyphish
Ah...I missed the listing of the forward pass. Yeah...that one was ridiculed. Anyone who studies football knows this. I was speaking more on the shotgun offense, bubble screens, and the like.
But that is not what is being argued here. The HUNH argument is different from the spread argument and I think we should draw a distinction here. The HUNH is a gimmick used by coaches to gain a competitive advantage over defenses.
The spread is a scheme that may or may not be detrimental to player development, depending on which philosophy you are using. You can still run a spread offense and develop QBs and offensive linemen into pro-ready athletes. However, there are some spread schemes that are detrimental to player development, schemes that make the offense dependent on the sidelines for reading defenses and audibling out of plays. Such schemes are great for coaches because it makes it easier for them to win 8 or 9 games and keep their jobs. However, these schemes make it difficult on the player at the higher level because they were taught to depend on the coaches for guidance in their in-game decisions. That changes in the NFL when the QB pretty much becomes the offensive coordinator during games.
quote:
damn...this sounds familiar.
But that is not what is being argued here. The HUNH argument is different from the spread argument and I think we should draw a distinction here. The HUNH is a gimmick used by coaches to gain a competitive advantage over defenses.
The spread is a scheme that may or may not be detrimental to player development, depending on which philosophy you are using. You can still run a spread offense and develop QBs and offensive linemen into pro-ready athletes. However, there are some spread schemes that are detrimental to player development, schemes that make the offense dependent on the sidelines for reading defenses and audibling out of plays. Such schemes are great for coaches because it makes it easier for them to win 8 or 9 games and keep their jobs. However, these schemes make it difficult on the player at the higher level because they were taught to depend on the coaches for guidance in their in-game decisions. That changes in the NFL when the QB pretty much becomes the offensive coordinator during games.
Posted on 5/14/15 at 11:01 am to Tuscaloosa
Gus wreckin shite
Posted on 5/14/15 at 11:03 am to RollTide1987
quote:
But that is not what is being argued here
That the game evolves and some people are stuck in the mud? I think it kind of is what is being argued here.
Again with the simple solution of drafting players that fit the "fundamentals" better. Draft AJ and Aaron murray in the top rounds. That starts happening, these kids aren't going to go to non fundamental type offense schools. Or get with the times.
quote:
The HUNH is a gimmick
yea yea...and it's ruining the game...pussfied...less talent...i forget the rest of the rhetoric.
This post was edited on 5/14/15 at 11:16 am
Posted on 5/14/15 at 11:13 am to Tuscaloosa
I can understand his point, but you do have to separate the various spread offenses.
Drew Brees came out of Purdue when they were running a 4-wide, passing spread. His first year as a starter in San Diego was his 2nd yr out of college, passed for over 3000 yds (and the focus of the offense was Ladainian Tomlinson). I'd say he's done ok.
It's the read-option spread that doesn't work in translation to the NFL, and that's mostly because it isn't a smart long-term offense. A QB in that system would be broken down physically at around the age a passing QB would really be starting to blossom.
Drew Brees came out of Purdue when they were running a 4-wide, passing spread. His first year as a starter in San Diego was his 2nd yr out of college, passed for over 3000 yds (and the focus of the offense was Ladainian Tomlinson). I'd say he's done ok.
It's the read-option spread that doesn't work in translation to the NFL, and that's mostly because it isn't a smart long-term offense. A QB in that system would be broken down physically at around the age a passing QB would really be starting to blossom.
Posted on 5/14/15 at 11:22 am to piggidyphish
quote:
That the game evolves and some people are stuck in the mud?
The type of "evolution" you are talking about is actually de-evolution. If a player can't read a defense to save his life, isn't that to the detriment of the game?
Once again...the spread offense doesn't fit under one umbrella. There are multiple versions, some of which do not hurt the development of the QB and his ability to read a defense all by himself.
This post was edited on 5/14/15 at 11:24 am
Posted on 5/14/15 at 11:26 am to RollTide1987
quote:
If a player can't read a defense to save his life, isn't that to the detriment of the game?
Not if you like low scoring defensively dominated games.
I'm not going to make a blanket value judgement about the game being ruined because I do or don't like a style.
quote:
Once again...the spread offense doesn't fit under one umbrella. There are multiple versions, some of which do not hurt the development of the QB and his ability to read a defense all by himself.
So don't draft those guys super high, or coach them. Don't blame college.
This post was edited on 5/14/15 at 11:29 am
Posted on 5/14/15 at 11:28 am to AUCE05
quote:
Seahawks' Tom Cable
quote:
black people shouldn't be QB's
I guess Russell Wilson better find a new job.
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News