bear2be2 said:

---

There have been some interesting points made here, but to get anywhere substantive in this conversation requires more nuance than some have shown in this thread so far. "The spread" is a really nebulous term as its being used here. Almost every team has shotgun, three- or four-wide sets in their arsenal that are, by definition, spread formations.

I think most would agree that's a good thing. The more multiple you are offensively, the harder you are defend, and if you don't have a means of getting down the field quickly when necessary, your box is missing a very important tool.

But I think the game is absolutely trending away from the extreme tempo "basketball on grass" we've seen the last five to 10 years. And a big reason for that is that the coaches who've had the most success with it (Kelly and Briles) are either out of the college game or out of the incubator that helped their schemes thrive, and their disciples haven't had near the success with those same schemes that they themselves experienced.

Maybe it's not so much Briles' offense or Kelly's offense as it is that those guys were uniquely qualified to get the most out of those schemes. I think the fact that their success has gone largely unrepeated by members of their own coaching trees would suggest that's the case.

---

Yes
The success of the Baylor offense of past was more about Briles' unique touch rather than the fact that he ran a spread. Not necessarily repeatable at Baylor with a different coach.

Thanks, proud of it. But...Rhule can have a great year if Snow's D comes through.

Timbear said:

---

Thanks, proud of it. But...Rhule can have a great year if Snow's D comes through.

---

My impression of you is a bitter old man who will never get over the fact that Briles was fired. You will never accept or enjoy Baylor football again without him. Pretty pathetic since we have a pretty good thing going right now. Sorry you live in the past of which you cannot change. Never seen anything like it.

Thank you. Saxt.

REX said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

There have been some interesting points made here, but to get anywhere substantive in this conversation requires more nuance than some have shown in this thread so far. "The spread" is a really nebulous term as its being used here. Almost every team has shotgun, three- or four-wide sets in their arsenal that are, by definition, spread formations.

I think most would agree that's a good thing. The more multiple you are offensively, the harder you are defend, and if you don't have a means of getting down the field quickly when necessary, your box is missing a very important tool.

But I think the game is absolutely trending away from the extreme tempo "basketball on grass" we've seen the last five to 10 years. And a big reason for that is that the coaches who've had the most success with it (Kelly and Briles) are either out of the college game or out of the incubator that helped their schemes thrive, and their disciples haven't had near the success with those same schemes that they themselves experienced.

Maybe it's not so much Briles' offense or Kelly's offense as it is that those guys were uniquely qualified to get the most out of those schemes. I think the fact that their success has gone largely unrepeated by members of their own coaching trees would suggest that's the case.

---

Yeah CKB and Leb's offensives have been largely not successful

---

CKB just helped get his head coach fired before bolting for greener pastures. His offense sure looked good in the team's 1-4 finish to the season, which was punctuated by a 70-14 ass whipping by freaking Army.

And Lebby's a **** bag who's been really lucky to ride some impressive coat tails throughout his career. Let's see how he does when he's not coaching a team built by Art Briles or Scott Frost.

bear2be2 said:

---

REX said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

There have been some interesting points made here, but to get anywhere substantive in this conversation requires more nuance than some have shown in this thread so far. "The spread" is a really nebulous term as its being used here. Almost every team has shotgun, three- or four-wide sets in their arsenal that are, by definition, spread formations.

I think most would agree that's a good thing. The more multiple you are offensively, the harder you are defend, and if you don't have a means of getting down the field quickly when necessary, your box is missing a very important tool.

But I think the game is absolutely trending away from the extreme tempo "basketball on grass" we've seen the last five to 10 years. And a big reason for that is that the coaches who've had the most success with it (Kelly and Briles) are either out of the college game or out of the incubator that helped their schemes thrive, and their disciples haven't had near the success with those same schemes that they themselves experienced.

Maybe it's not so much Briles' offense or Kelly's offense as it is that those guys were uniquely qualified to get the most out of those schemes. I think the fact that their success has gone largely unrepeated by members of their own coaching trees would suggest that's the case.

---

Yeah CKB and Leb's offensives have been largely not successful

---

CKB just helped get his head coach fired before bolting for greener pastures. His offense sure looked good in the team's 1-4 finish to the season, which was punctuated by a 70-14 ass whipping by freaking Army.

And Lebby's a **** bag who's been really lucky to ride some impressive coat tails throughout his career. Let's see how he does when he's not coaching a team built by Art Briles or Scott Frost.

---

He actually bolted before Major was fired but don't let facts get in your way.
Leb hurt your feelings ?

REX said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

REX said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

There have been some interesting points made here, but to get anywhere substantive in this conversation requires more nuance than some have shown in this thread so far. "The spread" is a really nebulous term as its being used here. Almost every team has shotgun, three- or four-wide sets in their arsenal that are, by definition, spread formations.

I think most would agree that's a good thing. The more multiple you are offensively, the harder you are defend, and if you don't have a means of getting down the field quickly when necessary, your box is missing a very important tool.

But I think the game is absolutely trending away from the extreme tempo "basketball on grass" we've seen the last five to 10 years. And a big reason for that is that the coaches who've had the most success with it (Kelly and Briles) are either out of the college game or out of the incubator that helped their schemes thrive, and their disciples haven't had near the success with those same schemes that they themselves experienced.

Maybe it's not so much Briles' offense or Kelly's offense as it is that those guys were uniquely qualified to get the most out of those schemes. I think the fact that their success has gone largely unrepeated by members of their own coaching trees would suggest that's the case.

---

Yeah CKB and Leb's offensives have been largely not successful

---

CKB just helped get his head coach fired before bolting for greener pastures. His offense sure looked good in the team's 1-4 finish to the season, which was punctuated by a 70-14 ass whipping by freaking Army.

And Lebby's a **** bag who's been really lucky to ride some impressive coat tails throughout his career. Let's see how he does when he's not coaching a team built by Art Briles or Scott Frost.

---

He actually bolted before Major was fired but don't let facts get in your way.
Leb hurt your feelings ?

---

Are you trying to suggest that Kendal left before the late-season collapse that got Applewhite fired? Uh ... no he didn't. Just because he wasn't there when the ax came down doesn't mean he didn't help contribute to that outcome.

And Lebby didn't hurt my feelings at all. I would literally never think about him if his name wasn't posted here by hangers-on like yourself. But there is nothing elite about Jeff Lebby as a football coach, and giving him credit for other people's accomplishments seems silly to me. Let's see how his fat, probation-inducing ass does when his work stands alone as his own.

REX said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

There have been some interesting points made here, but to get anywhere substantive in this conversation requires more nuance than some have shown in this thread so far. "The spread" is a really nebulous term as its being used here. Almost every team has shotgun, three- or four-wide sets in their arsenal that are, by definition, spread formations.

I think most would agree that's a good thing. The more multiple you are offensively, the harder you are defend, and if you don't have a means of getting down the field quickly when necessary, your box is missing a very important tool.

But I think the game is absolutely trending away from the extreme tempo "basketball on grass" we've seen the last five to 10 years. And a big reason for that is that the coaches who've had the most success with it (Kelly and Briles) are either out of the college game or out of the incubator that helped their schemes thrive, and their disciples haven't had near the success with those same schemes that they themselves experienced.

Maybe it's not so much Briles' offense or Kelly's offense as it is that those guys were uniquely qualified to get the most out of those schemes. I think the fact that their success has gone largely unrepeated by members of their own coaching trees would suggest that's the case.

---

Yeah CKB and Leb's offensives have been largely not successful

---

FAU and UCF are adorable things to crow about.

How'd that brilliant offense fair against Army? Guess it's a family tradition to embarrass yourself in a bowl.

bear2be2 said:

---

JohnProctor said:

---

Bearish said:

---

This is why he's probably right - at least for our conference:

Per https://footballscoop.com/news/nfl-draft-picks-conference-years/

NFL Draft picks per capita since

Since 2018
1. SEC 4.17
2. Pac-12 2.63
3(t). ACC 2.61
3(t). Big Ten 2.61
5. Big 12 2.30

Since 2017
1. SEC 4.05
2. ACC 2.76
3. Pac-12 2.75
4. Big Ten 2.57
5. Big 12 2.00

Since 2016
1. SEC 3.95
2. Pac-12 2.73
3. Big Ten 2.67
4. ACC 2.54
5. Big 12 2.15

NFL Draft picks per capita, 2010-19
1. SEC 3.85
2. Big Ten 2.93
3. Pac-12 2.70
4. ACC 2.67
5. Big 12 2.31

Something's gotta give, guys. The top athletes want to go to the NFL and are playing at schools that best prepare them for that.

---

Well, I want to win the Big 12. Sending guys to the NFL is just sprinkles on the cake.

Tier 1 lineman schools that consistently get the top athletes on the line of scrimmage shouldn't run the spread (at least consistently). Just dominate at the line of scrimmage and keep it mostly simple. These superior athletes will end up in the NFL and those teams will win a lot of games and play in quality bowl games almost every year.

Tier 2 lineman schools that don't get these top linemen should run the spread if they have aspirations of 10+ win season and conference championship hopes. A more traditional style or pro style might best case get you to 6 or 7 wins if all goes well against superior line talent (and most of those wins will be against the lesser talented schools in the conference). The spread gives those schools a good chance to win against better talented line if run properly. The same second tier line schools have very little chance to consistently win against superior line talent running a more traditional offense.

Just my opinion, but the evidence seems to support this pretty overwhelmingly with only the occasional aberration.

Which tier is Baylor?

---

There are a lot of really bad football teams that run the spread. The offense itself isn't some magic bullet that makes bad teams good. And there are enough examples of mid-tier teams winning with defense and ball control (Pat Fitzgerald and Northwestern come immediately to mind) to suggest that your "one size fits all" approach is oversimplifying this discussion.

Because Briles was so successful at Baylor with his offense, many here have convinced himself that that's the only way to win at a school like ours. It's not. There are coaches all over the country proving that, and it's possible -- if not likely -- that one of those resides in Waco currently.

---

I agree with your first point. Spread does not equal success. A well run spread with fast athletes and a solid qb is required.

Your Northwestern example is a pretty good and we are the Northwestern of the Big 12 I suppose. If Rhule were to stay (which I doubt) Its about what I expect from Rhule which is not horrible but a definite step backward. 6-8 wins a year and a bowl game. With a sniff a Big 12 championship every 10 years.

JohnProctor said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

JohnProctor said:

---

Bearish said:

---

This is why he's probably right - at least for our conference:

Per https://footballscoop.com/news/nfl-draft-picks-conference-years/

NFL Draft picks per capita since

Since 2018
1. SEC 4.17
2. Pac-12 2.63
3(t). ACC 2.61
3(t). Big Ten 2.61
5. Big 12 2.30

Since 2017
1. SEC 4.05
2. ACC 2.76
3. Pac-12 2.75
4. Big Ten 2.57
5. Big 12 2.00

Since 2016
1. SEC 3.95
2. Pac-12 2.73
3. Big Ten 2.67
4. ACC 2.54
5. Big 12 2.15

NFL Draft picks per capita, 2010-19
1. SEC 3.85
2. Big Ten 2.93
3. Pac-12 2.70
4. ACC 2.67
5. Big 12 2.31

Something's gotta give, guys. The top athletes want to go to the NFL and are playing at schools that best prepare them for that.

---

Well, I want to win the Big 12. Sending guys to the NFL is just sprinkles on the cake.

Tier 1 lineman schools that consistently get the top athletes on the line of scrimmage shouldn't run the spread (at least consistently). Just dominate at the line of scrimmage and keep it mostly simple. These superior athletes will end up in the NFL and those teams will win a lot of games and play in quality bowl games almost every year.

Tier 2 lineman schools that don't get these top linemen should run the spread if they have aspirations of 10+ win season and conference championship hopes. A more traditional style or pro style might best case get you to 6 or 7 wins if all goes well against superior line talent (and most of those wins will be against the lesser talented schools in the conference). The spread gives those schools a good chance to win against better talented line if run properly. The same second tier line schools have very little chance to consistently win against superior line talent running a more traditional offense.

Just my opinion, but the evidence seems to support this pretty overwhelmingly with only the occasional aberration.

Which tier is Baylor?

---

There are a lot of really bad football teams that run the spread. The offense itself isn't some magic bullet that makes bad teams good. And there are enough examples of mid-tier teams winning with defense and ball control (Pat Fitzgerald and Northwestern come immediately to mind) to suggest that your "one size fits all" approach is oversimplifying this discussion.

Because Briles was so successful at Baylor with his offense, many here have convinced himself that that's the only way to win at a school like ours. It's not. There are coaches all over the country proving that, and it's possible -- if not likely -- that one of those resides in Waco currently.

---

I agree with your first point. Spread does not equal success. A well run spread with fast athletes and a solid qb is required.

Your Northwestern example is a pretty good and we are the Northwestern of the Big 12 I suppose. If Rhule were to stay (which I doubt) Its about what I expect from Rhule which is not horrible but a definite step backward. 6-8 wins a year and a bowl game. With a sniff a Big 12 championship every 10 years.

---

I disagree with your Northwestern comparison. We are more wide open than them. Also, Rhule has said he will be at Baylor for quite a while. Definitely not a step back with Rhule.

Bearish said:

---

canoso said:

---

I always thought we lost to Michigan State because we left at least 14 points on the field due to our own miscues. Didn't know the spread had anything to do with those points.

---

We scored 41 points in a New Year's 6 bowl. And we won the turnover battle. "Leaving points on the field" and "miscues" are not why we lost.

MSU had the ball for 13 more minutes than we did. They had a rested defense in the fourth quarter, while we trotted out a bunch of beaten up scrubs (that were never great to begin with) and couldn't stop a soul, giving up 21 points in 12 minutes. That, my friend, is why we lost.

---

This,

And leaving 14 points on the field due to our own miscues ...

If his D can actually stop a runny nose, that'll be a step.

BUGWBBear said:

---

If his D can actually stop a runny nose, that'll be a step.

---

A cure for the common cold would be a medical breakthrough and bestow Coach Snow with Nobel Prize consideration and vast research grants.

The "phil snow is a defensive yoda" articles from 2017 look laughable now. 11 takeaways in 2017 and 10 in 2018. If the defense isn't vastly improved this year, his seat should be hot.

Timbear said:

---

We'll see if Rhule is committed to good D, or to his friend Snow, if the D doesn't improve this year.

---

You are going out on a limb aren't you?

Timbear, where is Norwoo getting smoked this season?

REX said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

REX said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

There have been some interesting points made here, but to get anywhere substantive in this conversation requires more nuance than some have shown in this thread so far. "The spread" is a really nebulous term as its being used here. Almost every team has shotgun, three- or four-wide sets in their arsenal that are, by definition, spread formations.

I think most would agree that's a good thing. The more multiple you are offensively, the harder you are defend, and if you don't have a means of getting down the field quickly when necessary, your box is missing a very important tool.

But I think the game is absolutely trending away from the extreme tempo "basketball on grass" we've seen the last five to 10 years. And a big reason for that is that the coaches who've had the most success with it (Kelly and Briles) are either out of the college game or out of the incubator that helped their schemes thrive, and their disciples haven't had near the success with those same schemes that they themselves experienced.

Maybe it's not so much Briles' offense or Kelly's offense as it is that those guys were uniquely qualified to get the most out of those schemes. I think the fact that their success has gone largely unrepeated by members of their own coaching trees would suggest that's the case.

---

Yeah CKB and Leb's offensives have been largely not successful

---

CKB just helped get his head coach fired before bolting for greener pastures. His offense sure looked good in the team's 1-4 finish to the season, which was punctuated by a 70-14 ass whipping by freaking Army.

And Lebby's a **** bag who's been really lucky to ride some impressive coat tails throughout his career. Let's see how he does when he's not coaching a team built by Art Briles or Scott Frost.

---

He actually bolted before Major was fired but don't let facts get in your way.
Leb hurt your feelings ?

---

quite honorable

LOL!!!!!!!


Wow that was a great laugh.


Offenses will NEVER go back to 3 yards and a cloud of dust. High schools across the country have mostly gone to the spread. Most colleges have gone to the spread or some sort of modified version of it.

A few schools still run older style offenses and one of the reasons it works for them is that it is now the unique offense and no one has experience defending against it. Players don't understand/know the wing t so playing that one game against the team that does run it is different for them and hard to read everything in it.

Heck even the NFL is adapting (and has been for years) and the passing game has grown larger and larger with more teams spreading the field more and more.

RBs used to be the stars of the NFL along with QBs. Now they are just plug and play pieces. The stud running back can hold out, demand a trade, etc and the teams just put next man up in and chug right along. However, not with the QB. They need more mobile and pass speedy QBS who know the spread. In the 90s to early 2000s fullbacks were even still big names.

Now I don't think I could name but 2 NFL fullbacks. And one of them I think is an RB who plays FB in goal line packages.

The only difference why the spread is not as big in the NFL as college and below is the speed of players prevents it from taking over as much/ completely.

cowboycwr said:

---

LOL!!!!!!!


Wow that was a great laugh.


Offenses will NEVER go back to 3 yards and a cloud of dust. High schools across the country have mostly gone to the spread. Most colleges have gone to the spread or some sort of modified version of it.

A few schools still run older style offenses and one of the reasons it works for them is that it is now the unique offense and no one has experience defending against it. Players don't understand/know the wing t so playing that one game against the team that does run it is different for them and hard to read everything in it.

Heck even the NFL is adapting (and has been for years) and the passing game has grown larger and larger with more teams spreading the field more and more.

RBs used to be the stars of the NFL along with QBs. Now they are just plug and play pieces. The stud running back can hold out, demand a trade, etc and the teams just put next man up in and chug right along. However, not with the QB. They need more mobile and pass speedy QBS who know the spread. In the 90s to early 2000s fullbacks were even still big names.

Now I don't think I could name but 2 NFL fullbacks. And one of them I think is an RB who plays FB in goal line packages.

The only difference why the spread is not as big in the NFL as college and below is the speed of players prevents it from taking over as much/ completely.

---

It's more power spread like Oklahoma Ohio State and Texas than veer spread finesse. No team will ever win a championship without being able to physically whip teams.
New England has the best football operations and they use TE\H Backs and effectively mix personnel sets. Very few teams are going with Steve Spurrier\ Kliff Klingsbury Chuck & Duck offenses and hoping the QB can get the ball off without getting killed.

S11 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

LOL!!!!!!!


Wow that was a great laugh.


Offenses will NEVER go back to 3 yards and a cloud of dust. High schools across the country have mostly gone to the spread. Most colleges have gone to the spread or some sort of modified version of it.

A few schools still run older style offenses and one of the reasons it works for them is that it is now the unique offense and no one has experience defending against it. Players don't understand/know the wing t so playing that one game against the team that does run it is different for them and hard to read everything in it.

Heck even the NFL is adapting (and has been for years) and the passing game has grown larger and larger with more teams spreading the field more and more.

RBs used to be the stars of the NFL along with QBs. Now they are just plug and play pieces. The stud running back can hold out, demand a trade, etc and the teams just put next man up in and chug right along. However, not with the QB. They need more mobile and pass speedy QBS who know the spread. In the 90s to early 2000s fullbacks were even still big names.

Now I don't think I could name but 2 NFL fullbacks. And one of them I think is an RB who plays FB in goal line packages.

The only difference why the spread is not as big in the NFL as college and below is the speed of players prevents it from taking over as much/ completely.

---

He isn't claiming the Big 12 going to 3 yards and a cloud of dust. He's accurately saying schools like OU, UT, ISU, the new Tech staff, OSU, and others have made use of bigger personnel to stress defenses. Many of those use the same guys in both bigger sets and 4 wide sets. That makes it tougher on defenses to adjust, makes it tougher on DC's to scout tendencies, and still allows the offense to leverage successful spread tactics.

The Pats won the super bowl on a drive where they used I formation personnel to get predictable defensive adjustments and then went Five wide with the same guys.

---

This, this, this. Just because he said players and certain formation packages are getting bigger doesn't mean they are going back to the power I all the time. Like you said, he is recognizing that these teams are starting to look like power spread teams that can pound and throw the ball with bigger formations while keeping the spread playbook.

Bear8084 said:

---

S11 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

LOL!!!!!!!


Wow that was a great laugh.


Offenses will NEVER go back to 3 yards and a cloud of dust. High schools across the country have mostly gone to the spread. Most colleges have gone to the spread or some sort of modified version of it.

A few schools still run older style offenses and one of the reasons it works for them is that it is now the unique offense and no one has experience defending against it. Players don't understand/know the wing t so playing that one game against the team that does run it is different for them and hard to read everything in it.

Heck even the NFL is adapting (and has been for years) and the passing game has grown larger and larger with more teams spreading the field more and more.

RBs used to be the stars of the NFL along with QBs. Now they are just plug and play pieces. The stud running back can hold out, demand a trade, etc and the teams just put next man up in and chug right along. However, not with the QB. They need more mobile and pass speedy QBS who know the spread. In the 90s to early 2000s fullbacks were even still big names.

Now I don't think I could name but 2 NFL fullbacks. And one of them I think is an RB who plays FB in goal line packages.

The only difference why the spread is not as big in the NFL as college and below is the speed of players prevents it from taking over as much/ completely.

---

He isn't claiming the Big 12 going to 3 yards and a cloud of dust. He's accurately saying schools like OU, UT, ISU, the new Tech staff, OSU, and others have made use of bigger personnel to stress defenses. Many of those use the same guys in both bigger sets and 4 wide sets. That makes it tougher on defenses to adjust, makes it tougher on DC's to scout tendencies, and still allows the offense to leverage successful spread tactics.

The Pats won the super bowl on a drive where they used I formation personnel to get predictable defensive adjustments and then went Five wide with the same guys.

---

This, this, this. Just because he said players and certain formation packages are getting bigger doesn't mean they are going back to the power I all the time. Like you said, he is recognizing that these teams are starting to look like power spread teams that can pound and throw the ball with bigger formations while keeping the spread playbook.

---

Cowboycr is just your typical CABer who is willing to minimize Rhule's success in order to prop up anything remotely associated with Briles. Kinda pathetic.

MilliVanilli said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

S11 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

LOL!!!!!!!


Wow that was a great laugh.


Offenses will NEVER go back to 3 yards and a cloud of dust. High schools across the country have mostly gone to the spread. Most colleges have gone to the spread or some sort of modified version of it.

A few schools still run older style offenses and one of the reasons it works for them is that it is now the unique offense and no one has experience defending against it. Players don't understand/know the wing t so playing that one game against the team that does run it is different for them and hard to read everything in it.

Heck even the NFL is adapting (and has been for years) and the passing game has grown larger and larger with more teams spreading the field more and more.

RBs used to be the stars of the NFL along with QBs. Now they are just plug and play pieces. The stud running back can hold out, demand a trade, etc and the teams just put next man up in and chug right along. However, not with the QB. They need more mobile and pass speedy QBS who know the spread. In the 90s to early 2000s fullbacks were even still big names.

Now I don't think I could name but 2 NFL fullbacks. And one of them I think is an RB who plays FB in goal line packages.

The only difference why the spread is not as big in the NFL as college and below is the speed of players prevents it from taking over as much/ completely.

---

He isn't claiming the Big 12 going to 3 yards and a cloud of dust. He's accurately saying schools like OU, UT, ISU, the new Tech staff, OSU, and others have made use of bigger personnel to stress defenses. Many of those use the same guys in both bigger sets and 4 wide sets. That makes it tougher on defenses to adjust, makes it tougher on DC's to scout tendencies, and still allows the offense to leverage successful spread tactics.

The Pats won the super bowl on a drive where they used I formation personnel to get predictable defensive adjustments and then went Five wide with the same guys.

---

This, this, this. Just because he said players and certain formation packages are getting bigger doesn't mean they are going back to the power I all the time. Like you said, he is recognizing that these teams are starting to look like power spread teams that can pound and throw the ball with bigger formations while keeping the spread playbook.

---

S11 studies the game, cabers watch 2011 highlight reels in the fetal position if you tell them it's 2019.

---

That is funny.

MilliVanilli said:

---

S11 studies the game, cabers watch 2011 highlight reels in the fetal position if you tell them it's 2019.

---

I prefer 2013 highlights if I'm in the fetal position.

SATXBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

S11 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

LOL!!!!!!!


Wow that was a great laugh.


Offenses will NEVER go back to 3 yards and a cloud of dust. High schools across the country have mostly gone to the spread. Most colleges have gone to the spread or some sort of modified version of it.

A few schools still run older style offenses and one of the reasons it works for them is that it is now the unique offense and no one has experience defending against it. Players don't understand/know the wing t so playing that one game against the team that does run it is different for them and hard to read everything in it.

Heck even the NFL is adapting (and has been for years) and the passing game has grown larger and larger with more teams spreading the field more and more.

RBs used to be the stars of the NFL along with QBs. Now they are just plug and play pieces. The stud running back can hold out, demand a trade, etc and the teams just put next man up in and chug right along. However, not with the QB. They need more mobile and pass speedy QBS who know the spread. In the 90s to early 2000s fullbacks were even still big names.

Now I don't think I could name but 2 NFL fullbacks. And one of them I think is an RB who plays FB in goal line packages.

The only difference why the spread is not as big in the NFL as college and below is the speed of players prevents it from taking over as much/ completely.

---

He isn't claiming the Big 12 going to 3 yards and a cloud of dust. He's accurately saying schools like OU, UT, ISU, the new Tech staff, OSU, and others have made use of bigger personnel to stress defenses. Many of those use the same guys in both bigger sets and 4 wide sets. That makes it tougher on defenses to adjust, makes it tougher on DC's to scout tendencies, and still allows the offense to leverage successful spread tactics.

The Pats won the super bowl on a drive where they used I formation personnel to get predictable defensive adjustments and then went Five wide with the same guys.

---

This, this, this. Just because he said players and certain formation packages are getting bigger doesn't mean they are going back to the power I all the time. Like you said, he is recognizing that these teams are starting to look like power spread teams that can pound and throw the ball with bigger formations while keeping the spread playbook.

---

Cowboycr is just your typical CABer who is willing to minimize Rhule's success in order to prop up anything remotely associated with Briles. Kinda pathetic.

---

LOL.

I'm a caber??? That is news to me. Seeing as I have not mentioned him once in this thread. Or defended him or anything like that.

I spent my entire post talking about how more teams are adapting their offenses to include more spread, gave examples and pointed out Snow was wrong.

I get flack though for pointing out that Rhule lost to the mighty powerhouse of Liberty.

Because apparently it is blind support or nothing.

I get flack for pointing out that Rhule will be gone after this year or next when the NFL comes calling with a job he likes.

And then because I do not blindly support the coach I am a caber......

This site is such a good laugh.

cowboycwr said:

---

SATXBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

S11 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

LOL!!!!!!!


Wow that was a great laugh.


Offenses will NEVER go back to 3 yards and a cloud of dust. High schools across the country have mostly gone to the spread. Most colleges have gone to the spread or some sort of modified version of it.

A few schools still run older style offenses and one of the reasons it works for them is that it is now the unique offense and no one has experience defending against it. Players don't understand/know the wing t so playing that one game against the team that does run it is different for them and hard to read everything in it.

Heck even the NFL is adapting (and has been for years) and the passing game has grown larger and larger with more teams spreading the field more and more.

RBs used to be the stars of the NFL along with QBs. Now they are just plug and play pieces. The stud running back can hold out, demand a trade, etc and the teams just put next man up in and chug right along. However, not with the QB. They need more mobile and pass speedy QBS who know the spread. In the 90s to early 2000s fullbacks were even still big names.

Now I don't think I could name but 2 NFL fullbacks. And one of them I think is an RB who plays FB in goal line packages.

The only difference why the spread is not as big in the NFL as college and below is the speed of players prevents it from taking over as much/ completely.

---

He isn't claiming the Big 12 going to 3 yards and a cloud of dust. He's accurately saying schools like OU, UT, ISU, the new Tech staff, OSU, and others have made use of bigger personnel to stress defenses. Many of those use the same guys in both bigger sets and 4 wide sets. That makes it tougher on defenses to adjust, makes it tougher on DC's to scout tendencies, and still allows the offense to leverage successful spread tactics.

The Pats won the super bowl on a drive where they used I formation personnel to get predictable defensive adjustments and then went Five wide with the same guys.

---

This, this, this. Just because he said players and certain formation packages are getting bigger doesn't mean they are going back to the power I all the time. Like you said, he is recognizing that these teams are starting to look like power spread teams that can pound and throw the ball with bigger formations while keeping the spread playbook.

---

Cowboycr is just your typical CABer who is willing to minimize Rhule's success in order to prop up anything remotely associated with Briles. Kinda pathetic.

---

LOL.

I'm a caber??? That is news to me. Seeing as I have not mentioned him once in this thread. Or defended him or anything like that.

I spent my entire post talking about how more teams are adapting their offenses to include more spread, gave examples and pointed out Snow was wrong.

I get flack though for pointing out that Rhule lost to the mighty powerhouse of Liberty.

Because apparently it is blind support or nothing.

I get flack for pointing out that Rhule will be gone after this year or next when the NFL comes calling with a job he likes.

And then because I do not blindly support the coach I am a caber......

This site is such a good laugh.

---

Your reputation precedes itself.

SATXBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

SATXBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

S11 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

LOL!!!!!!!


Wow that was a great laugh.


Offenses will NEVER go back to 3 yards and a cloud of dust. High schools across the country have mostly gone to the spread. Most colleges have gone to the spread or some sort of modified version of it.

A few schools still run older style offenses and one of the reasons it works for them is that it is now the unique offense and no one has experience defending against it. Players don't understand/know the wing t so playing that one game against the team that does run it is different for them and hard to read everything in it.

Heck even the NFL is adapting (and has been for years) and the passing game has grown larger and larger with more teams spreading the field more and more.

RBs used to be the stars of the NFL along with QBs. Now they are just plug and play pieces. The stud running back can hold out, demand a trade, etc and the teams just put next man up in and chug right along. However, not with the QB. They need more mobile and pass speedy QBS who know the spread. In the 90s to early 2000s fullbacks were even still big names.

Now I don't think I could name but 2 NFL fullbacks. And one of them I think is an RB who plays FB in goal line packages.

The only difference why the spread is not as big in the NFL as college and below is the speed of players prevents it from taking over as much/ completely.

---

He isn't claiming the Big 12 going to 3 yards and a cloud of dust. He's accurately saying schools like OU, UT, ISU, the new Tech staff, OSU, and others have made use of bigger personnel to stress defenses. Many of those use the same guys in both bigger sets and 4 wide sets. That makes it tougher on defenses to adjust, makes it tougher on DC's to scout tendencies, and still allows the offense to leverage successful spread tactics.

The Pats won the super bowl on a drive where they used I formation personnel to get predictable defensive adjustments and then went Five wide with the same guys.

---

This, this, this. Just because he said players and certain formation packages are getting bigger doesn't mean they are going back to the power I all the time. Like you said, he is recognizing that these teams are starting to look like power spread teams that can pound and throw the ball with bigger formations while keeping the spread playbook.

---

Cowboycr is just your typical CABer who is willing to minimize Rhule's success in order to prop up anything remotely associated with Briles. Kinda pathetic.

---

LOL.

I'm a caber??? That is news to me. Seeing as I have not mentioned him once in this thread. Or defended him or anything like that.

I spent my entire post talking about how more teams are adapting their offenses to include more spread, gave examples and pointed out Snow was wrong.

I get flack though for pointing out that Rhule lost to the mighty powerhouse of Liberty.

Because apparently it is blind support or nothing.

I get flack for pointing out that Rhule will be gone after this year or next when the NFL comes calling with a job he likes.

And then because I do not blindly support the coach I am a caber......

This site is such a good laugh.

---

Your reputation precedes itself.

---

Then please provide posts where I have defended CAB, praised him or anything.

I will wait.

And it will be a long wait because I haven't.

BaylorLit 01 said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

S11 studies the game, cabers watch 2011 highlight reels in the fetal position if you tell them it's 2019.

---

I prefer 2013 highlights if I'm in the fetal position.

---

That Fiesta Bowl put most of us in one.

cowboycwr said:

---

SATXBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

SATXBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

S11 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

LOL!!!!!!!

You ragged on the BOR all the time and propped up Briles all the time. Had to put you on block for a while you were so ridiculous and biased. You are definitely a CABer.

Wow that was a great laugh.


Offenses will NEVER go back to 3 yards and a cloud of dust. High schools across the country have mostly gone to the spread. Most colleges have gone to the spread or some sort of modified version of it.

A few schools still run older style offenses and one of the reasons it works for them is that it is now the unique offense and no one has experience defending against it. Players don't understand/know the wing t so playing that one game against the team that does run it is different for them and hard to read everything in it.

Heck even the NFL is adapting (and has been for years) and the passing game has grown larger and larger with more teams spreading the field more and more.

RBs used to be the stars of the NFL along with QBs. Now they are just plug and play pieces. The stud running back can hold out, demand a trade, etc and the teams just put next man up in and chug right along. However, not with the QB. They need more mobile and pass speedy QBS who know the spread. In the 90s to early 2000s fullbacks were even still big names.

Now I don't think I could name but 2 NFL fullbacks. And one of them I think is an RB who plays FB in goal line packages.

The only difference why the spread is not as big in the NFL as college and below is the speed of players prevents it from taking over as much/ completely.

---

He isn't claiming the Big 12 going to 3 yards and a cloud of dust. He's accurately saying schools like OU, UT, ISU, the new Tech staff, OSU, and others have made use of bigger personnel to stress defenses. Many of those use the same guys in both bigger sets and 4 wide sets. That makes it tougher on defenses to adjust, makes it tougher on DC's to scout tendencies, and still allows the offense to leverage successful spread tactics.

The Pats won the super bowl on a drive where they used I formation personnel to get predictable defensive adjustments and then went Five wide with the same guys.

---

This, this, this. Just because he said players and certain formation packages are getting bigger doesn't mean they are going back to the power I all the time. Like you said, he is recognizing that these teams are starting to look like power spread teams that can pound and throw the ball with bigger formations while keeping the spread playbook.

---

Cowboycr is just your typical CABer who is willing to minimize Rhule's success in order to prop up anything remotely associated with Briles. Kinda pathetic.

---

LOL.

I'm a caber??? That is news to me. Seeing as I have not mentioned him once in this thread. Or defended him or anything like that.

I spent my entire post talking about how more teams are adapting their offenses to include more spread, gave examples and pointed out Snow was wrong.

I get flack though for pointing out that Rhule lost to the mighty powerhouse of Liberty.

Because apparently it is blind support or nothing.

I get flack for pointing out that Rhule will be gone after this year or next when the NFL comes calling with a job he likes.

And then because I do not blindly support the coach I am a caber......

This site is such a good laugh.

---

Your reputation precedes itself.

---

Then please provide posts where I have defended CAB, praised him or anything.

I will wait.

And it will be a long wait because I haven't.

---

Your endless criticism of Baylor, Rhule, BOR and how unfairly Briles was treated became ridiculous. I had you on ignore for several months.

SATXBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

SATXBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

SATXBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

S11 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

LOL!!!!!!!

You ragged on the BOR all the time and propped up Briles all the time. Had to put you on block for a while you were so ridiculous and biased. You are definitely a CABer.

Wow that was a great laugh.


Offenses will NEVER go back to 3 yards and a cloud of dust. High schools across the country have mostly gone to the spread. Most colleges have gone to the spread or some sort of modified version of it.

A few schools still run older style offenses and one of the reasons it works for them is that it is now the unique offense and no one has experience defending against it. Players don't understand/know the wing t so playing that one game against the team that does run it is different for them and hard to read everything in it.

Heck even the NFL is adapting (and has been for years) and the passing game has grown larger and larger with more teams spreading the field more and more.

RBs used to be the stars of the NFL along with QBs. Now they are just plug and play pieces. The stud running back can hold out, demand a trade, etc and the teams just put next man up in and chug right along. However, not with the QB. They need more mobile and pass speedy QBS who know the spread. In the 90s to early 2000s fullbacks were even still big names.

Now I don't think I could name but 2 NFL fullbacks. And one of them I think is an RB who plays FB in goal line packages.

The only difference why the spread is not as big in the NFL as college and below is the speed of players prevents it from taking over as much/ completely.

---

He isn't claiming the Big 12 going to 3 yards and a cloud of dust. He's accurately saying schools like OU, UT, ISU, the new Tech staff, OSU, and others have made use of bigger personnel to stress defenses. Many of those use the same guys in both bigger sets and 4 wide sets. That makes it tougher on defenses to adjust, makes it tougher on DC's to scout tendencies, and still allows the offense to leverage successful spread tactics.

The Pats won the super bowl on a drive where they used I formation personnel to get predictable defensive adjustments and then went Five wide with the same guys.

---

This, this, this. Just because he said players and certain formation packages are getting bigger doesn't mean they are going back to the power I all the time. Like you said, he is recognizing that these teams are starting to look like power spread teams that can pound and throw the ball with bigger formations while keeping the spread playbook.

---

Cowboycr is just your typical CABer who is willing to minimize Rhule's success in order to prop up anything remotely associated with Briles. Kinda pathetic.

---

LOL.

I'm a caber??? That is news to me. Seeing as I have not mentioned him once in this thread. Or defended him or anything like that.

I spent my entire post talking about how more teams are adapting their offenses to include more spread, gave examples and pointed out Snow was wrong.

I get flack though for pointing out that Rhule lost to the mighty powerhouse of Liberty.

Because apparently it is blind support or nothing.

I get flack for pointing out that Rhule will be gone after this year or next when the NFL comes calling with a job he likes.

And then because I do not blindly support the coach I am a caber......

This site is such a good laugh.

---

Your reputation precedes itself.

---

Then please provide posts where I have defended CAB, praised him or anything.

I will wait.

And it will be a long wait because I haven't.

---

Your endless criticism of Baylor, Rhule, BOR and how unfairly Briles was treated became ridiculous. I had you on ignore for several months.

---

Rhule- yes I criticize him a lot. Liberty. UTSA. 1-11. Flirting with the NFL after both seasons.

BOR- yes. The created, deepened and pushed much of the mess we were/are in.

Baylor- never really criticized the school.

Briles- yes I do think he was/is treated unfairly and given way more blame than he deserves.

But you couldn't provide a single post to back up your claim. Because you have nothing.

Put me on ignore again. I don't care because I know you have nothing against me and can't stand that I am right and pointing out the truth.

cowboycwr said:

---

SATXBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

SATXBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

SATXBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

S11 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

LOL!!!!!!!

You ragged on the BOR all the time and propped up Briles all the time. Had to put you on block for a while you were so ridiculous and biased. You are definitely a CABer.

Wow that was a great laugh.


Offenses will NEVER go back to 3 yards and a cloud of dust. High schools across the country have mostly gone to the spread. Most colleges have gone to the spread or some sort of modified version of it.

A few schools still run older style offenses and one of the reasons it works for them is that it is now the unique offense and no one has experience defending against it. Players don't understand/know the wing t so playing that one game against the team that does run it is different for them and hard to read everything in it.

Heck even the NFL is adapting (and has been for years) and the passing game has grown larger and larger with more teams spreading the field more and more.

RBs used to be the stars of the NFL along with QBs. Now they are just plug and play pieces. The stud running back can hold out, demand a trade, etc and the teams just put next man up in and chug right along. However, not with the QB. They need more mobile and pass speedy QBS who know the spread. In the 90s to early 2000s fullbacks were even still big names.

Now I don't think I could name but 2 NFL fullbacks. And one of them I think is an RB who plays FB in goal line packages.

The only difference why the spread is not as big in the NFL as college and below is the speed of players prevents it from taking over as much/ completely.

---

He isn't claiming the Big 12 going to 3 yards and a cloud of dust. He's accurately saying schools like OU, UT, ISU, the new Tech staff, OSU, and others have made use of bigger personnel to stress defenses. Many of those use the same guys in both bigger sets and 4 wide sets. That makes it tougher on defenses to adjust, makes it tougher on DC's to scout tendencies, and still allows the offense to leverage successful spread tactics.

The Pats won the super bowl on a drive where they used I formation personnel to get predictable defensive adjustments and then went Five wide with the same guys.

---

This, this, this. Just because he said players and certain formation packages are getting bigger doesn't mean they are going back to the power I all the time. Like you said, he is recognizing that these teams are starting to look like power spread teams that can pound and throw the ball with bigger formations while keeping the spread playbook.

---

Cowboycr is just your typical CABer who is willing to minimize Rhule's success in order to prop up anything remotely associated with Briles. Kinda pathetic.

---

LOL.

I'm a caber??? That is news to me. Seeing as I have not mentioned him once in this thread. Or defended him or anything like that.

I spent my entire post talking about how more teams are adapting their offenses to include more spread, gave examples and pointed out Snow was wrong.

I get flack though for pointing out that Rhule lost to the mighty powerhouse of Liberty.

Because apparently it is blind support or nothing.

I get flack for pointing out that Rhule will be gone after this year or next when the NFL comes calling with a job he likes.

And then because I do not blindly support the coach I am a caber......

This site is such a good laugh.

---

Your reputation precedes itself.

---

Then please provide posts where I have defended CAB, praised him or anything.

I will wait.

And it will be a long wait because I haven't.

---

Your endless criticism of Baylor, Rhule, BOR and how unfairly Briles was treated became ridiculous. I had you on ignore for several months.

---

Rhule- yes I criticize him a lot. Liberty. UTSA. 1-11. Flirting with the NFL after both seasons.

BOR- yes. The created, deepened and pushed much of the mess we were/are in.

Baylor- never really criticized the school.

Briles- yes I do think he was/is treated unfairly and given way more blame than he deserves.

But you couldn't provide a single post to back up your claim. Because you have nothing.

Put me on ignore again. I don't care because I know you have nothing against me and can't stand that I am right and pointing out the truth.

---

There you go proving my point. You have a track record and can't get over the Briles' firing. You will never accept Rhule because you think Briles should have never been fired. That is all your posts essentially revolve around. Your opinions are wrong also. BOR did the right thing getting rid of Briles. School had to move on and clean house top to bottom.