Watch: Baylor DC Phil Snow on Spread Offenses: 'Things Might Be Changing'

gobears20
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
Timbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Snow sure hopes it changes back. Changing back to 3 yards and a cloud of dust? No way. Weaker teams know the spread can level the playing field against teams with better players. It's not going anywhere.
CorsicanaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Perhaps they are going to put bigger people on the field. But they are going to still run the RPO and Spread Option.
Illigitimus non carborundum
TellMeYouLoveMe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Smart man. I believe him.

Mr Tulip
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CorsicanaBear said:

Perhaps they are going to put bigger people on the field. But they are going to still run the RPO and Spread Option.

This can be the roughest play on the field.

The QB has meshed with the RB. They're both heading to the line of scrimmage. The TE is furiously sealing off the end. It's a sweep!

But wait, the TE then releases. He drifts downfield. The QB suddenly stops, jumps up and tosses the ball to the TE.

This play takes advantage of the dual nature of the TE and the current rules of football. You can't block a receiver, but you'd better block a TE - as long as he's blocking. Once he decides to stop blocking and run, he's a receiver. A defensive system usually relies on gap and flow, so a LB braced to play the run will strafe the LOS. When he sees the TE inline blocking, he has to commit to run support.

To have the TE release at that point, I guess it's legal, but it's starting to take unfair advantage of football's rules about receivers.
REX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Timbear said:

Snow sure hopes it changes back. Changing back to 3 yards and a cloud of dust? No way. Weaker teams know the spread can level the playing field against teams with better players. It's not going anywhere.

You are correct sir.
Wait till you see teams with better players running it.
It's going to be scary
Go noles
Dman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wow. Well. I've seen NO sign of Big 12 teams (the conference we play in and have to win to have a shot at any national importance) going big and ugly on offense. Therefore needing the same on defense. I see dual threat QBs and FAST receivers putting up LOTS of points. Does anyone see 10-3 or 14-10 college games again anytime soon on the horizon?.

I really hope he's not projecting wishful thinking to match his comfort zone and what he knows best.
xiledinok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
REX said:

Timbear said:

Snow sure hopes it changes back. Changing back to 3 yards and a cloud of dust? No way. Weaker teams know the spread can level the playing field against teams with better players. It's not going anywhere.

You are correct sir.
Wait till you see teams with better players running it.
It's going to be scary
Go noles



Wait until we see it against better athletes on defenses and NFL prospects that can actually run.

Watch Willie wash out!
dallas4bears
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bigger players, yes. Things are changing, yes. Evolving, yes. Innovation, yes. But going back? I'm almost 60 years old and I've heard that kind of stuff my whole life from people who have been wrong every time. I don't care if it's church, business, communications, marriage, sports. You name it. Things change, but they don't go back. That kind of thinking poises us to shut down the wishbone like no one has ever done it before.
Banned BarleyMcDougal
How long do you want to ignore this user?
REX said:

Timbear said:

Snow sure hopes it changes back. Changing back to 3 yards and a cloud of dust? No way. Weaker teams know the spread can level the playing field against teams with better players. It's not going anywhere.

You are correct sir.
Wait till you see teams with better players running it.
It's going to be scary
Go noles
Uhhh...pretty sure the team that won the natty last year runs a version of the spread. Bama even throws in some spread packages.
Banned BarleyMcDougal
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BTW, better players don't necessarily make for a better spread offense. It's built on timing, precision and the inherent advantage of space on the field. Leach never had amazing recruiting classes and his teams would still put up big stats...until he ran into teams loaded with NFL-caliber players on defense.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dman said:

Wow. Well. I've seen NO sign of Big 12 teams (the conference we play in and have to win to have a shot at any national importance) going big and ugly on offense. Therefore needing the same on defense. I see dual threat QBs and FAST receivers putting up LOTS of points. Does anyone see 10-3 or 14-10 college games again anytime soon on the horizon?.

I really hope he's not projecting wishful thinking to match his comfort zone and what he knows best.
^^^ This ^^^

"wishful thinking is never sound policy"

xiledinok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Programs like Clemson are able to mix in power with the spread. The great offenses can switch personnel to meet the situation.
Most spread only offenses get bogged down inside the 20s.
Bearish
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
Timbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't think Lincoln Riley's crying about it.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Timbear said:

I don't think Lincoln Riley's crying about it.
Nope, but like most spread coaches, Riley has all but abandoned the breakneck tempo that was all the rage just five or six years ago.

I know it's difficult for the "Art Briles invented football" crowd to recognize or acknowledge, but there is no question that a shift is taking place at all levels of football away from the HUNH and back to more traditional tempo -- and more conventional schemes in a lot of cases.

The spread won't go away because there are elements of it, such as the RPO game, that are very difficult to defend. But fewer and fewer coaches are willing to sacrifice their defenses to tempo the way Chip Kelly and Art Briles were. And many more are getting reacquainted with the tight end and fullback positions and realizing the value those players hold against defenses geared to defend wide-open spread attacks.

The spread is a good offense, and it's legacy on the game of football will be a lasting one. But as with every other offensive scheme in the history of the sport, defensive coaches have made their adjustments to it and are catching up to many of the aspects that made it seem unstoppable in its heyday.

Innovation in football a lot of times is cyclical because the adjustments you make to stop one scheme make you vulnerable to others. And if what's happening at the high school game is any indication of what we'll see at higher levels soon (and it usually is), Phil Snow's assessment is 100 percent correct.
TellMeYouLoveMe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
REX said:

Timbear said:

Snow sure hopes it changes back. Changing back to 3 yards and a cloud of dust? No way. Weaker teams know the spread can level the playing field against teams with better players. It's not going anywhere.

You are correct sir.
Wait till you see teams with better players running it.
It's going to be scary
Go noles

Well, assuming they don't have Michigan State or Central Florida on their schedule.

It will be more interesting to the world when one of his players does something atypical for FSU and the fearless leader you call coach freezes up like a petrified tree again.

He doesn't seem so cocky in front of a camera anymore.
EatMoreSalmon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Has Snow done a study of Norwood's defenses?
MilliVanilli
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

Timbear said:

I don't think Lincoln Riley's crying about it.
Nope, but like most spread coaches, Riley has all but abandoned the breakneck tempo that was all the rage just five or six years ago.

I know it's difficult for the "Art Briles invented football" crowd to recognize or acknowledge, but there is no question that a shift is taking place at all levels of football away from the HUNH and back to more traditional tempo -- and more conventional schemes in a lot of cases.

The spread won't go away because there are elements of it, such as the RPO game, that are very difficult to defend. But fewer and fewer coaches are willing to sacrifice their defenses to tempo the way Chip Kelly and Art Briles were. And many more are getting reacquainted with the tight end and fullback positions and realizing the value those players hold against defenses geared to defend wide-open spread attacks.

The spread is a good offense, and it's legacy on the game of football will be a lasting one. But as with every other offensive scheme in the history of the sport, defensive coaches have made their adjustments to it and are catching up to many of the aspects that made it seem unstoppable in its heyday.

Innovation in football a lot of times is cyclical because the adjustments you make to stop one scheme make you vulnerable to others. And if what's happening at the high school game is any indication of what we'll see at higher levels soon (and it usually is), Phil Snow's assessment is 100 percent correct.
Yep, the run and shoot fell out of fashion despite being all the rage for a while.

Run and Shoot 2.0 was fun for a while as well.
MilliVanilli
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Dman said:

Wow. Well. I've seen NO sign of Big 12 teams (the conference we play in and have to win to have a shot at any national importance) going big and ugly on offense. Therefore needing the same on defense. I see dual threat QBs and FAST receivers putting up LOTS of points. Does anyone see 10-3 or 14-10 college games again anytime soon on the horizon?.

I really hope he's not projecting wishful thinking to match his comfort zone and what he knows best.
^^^ This ^^^

"wishful thinking is never sound policy"


And yet you Cabers have practiced it daily for four years and counting...
Krieg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.


That's why Alabama lines up under center every play still with a drop back, pocket QB right?

Oh wait.

It's continued to tend towards spread formations and mobile QBs and will continue to do so until it doesn't work as well as something else. Clemson says it works quite nicely.
"Losing breeds toughness and toughness breeds winning."

-Matt Rhule
Bearish
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Krieg 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.


That's why Alabama lines up under center every play still with a drop back, pocket QB right?

Oh wait.

It's continued to tend towards spread formations and mobile QBs and will continue to do so until it doesn't work as well as something else. Clemson says it works quite nicely.


I don't think you watch much NFL football. It's a shotgun, throw it downfield league. But they do it with big players that can actually block somebody. Clemson runs some spread and RPO, but they can also line up and punch you in the mouth when they need to.

If the spread was truly unstoppable, Art Briles wouldn't have lost to Michigan State and Mike Leach would have won at least one conference championship by now.
JohnProctor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dman said:



I really hope he's not projecting wishful thinking to match his comfort zone and what he knows best.
I think you nailed it here.
JohnProctor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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?










SATXBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Timbear said:

I don't think Lincoln Riley's crying about it.


You are desperate to resurrect Briles. Really pathetic.
SATXBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bearish said:

Krieg 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.


That's why Alabama lines up under center every play still with a drop back, pocket QB right?

Oh wait.

It's continued to tend towards spread formations and mobile QBs and will continue to do so until it doesn't work as well as something else. Clemson says it works quite nicely.


I don't think you watch much NFL football. It's a shotgun, throw it downfield league. But they do it with big players that can actually block somebody. Clemson runs some spread and RPO, but they can also line up and punch you in the mouth when they need to.

If the spread was truly unstoppable, Art Briles wouldn't have lost to Michigan State and Mike Leach would have won at least one conference championship by now.


The NFL is starting to incorporate more college ideas. I don't think the spread is in vogue, but rather the teams are trying to help the quarterback release quicker on shorter developing plays. Help protect your star player by staying away from slow developing deep routes.
canoso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
MilliVanilli
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
Crap play calling and an inability to run the ball to run out the clock were the culprits.

Timbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hey, relax, Saxt. Lincoln Riley ain't crying about it. Where do you read Briles in that opinion?
Bearish
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
Beartrack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Spread teams need to score from outside the 20. TCU seemd to me to be good at getting Briles teams bogged down inside the 20
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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 to 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.
REX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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
SATXBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Timbear said:

Hey, relax, Saxt. Lincoln Riley ain't crying about it. Where do you read Briles in that opinion?


You have a track record.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.