College football: Spread Option Vs. Pro-Style Offense

[Tailback U]

I am looking for a fight.

In my opinion, the spread option offense being run in places like Oregon, Florida, West Virginia, and many other schools is not as difficult to execute as a pro-style offense that so few colleges seem to be running efficiently these days.

The spread option is based on more on speed and individual talent rather than execution like the pro-form offense.

The spread option attack allows teams to create 1 on 1 matchups all over the field a bit easier while forcing defenses to also focus on containing the mobile quarterback simultaneously.

The pro style offense is more based on execution because a greater emphasis is put on the quarterback's ability to read defenses, developing playaction, and pass protection.

Why else is it that we are seeing an increase in spread offenses and a decrease in the pro-style offense in the college game?

Do you guys agree, disagree, or feel that neither offense is "easier" to run than the other?

 

[Esjay]

You answered your own question. It's very hard to find an 18 year old QB who can run the pro style offense as well as some kids run the spread.

 

[Archer]

I would imagine it's easier to recruit athletic beasts who have to make few reads

 

[Tailback U]

Well then should teams that run the pro-style offense like USC deserve more credit for the type of offense they are running?

And does it take credit away from a guy like Tim Tebow who runs a simpler offense and has a plethora of talent all around him?

Also, do you think more and more teams are going to start running the spread offense scheme? I mean, why should USC continue to run this type of offense when they can obviously recruit with the best of them and run the same scheme since it is much easier than trying to find and develop a pro-style QB.

This is the reason USC tends to lose 1 or 2 games a season to teams that they aren't supposed to lose to. There really is no other excuse for losing to teams like Washington and Stanford because USC is so much more talented than them. Comes down to execution rather than team talent.

 

[Vinsane]

USC loses those games because they just flat out get outplayed. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the scheme.

This.

 

[Senser81]

I am looking for a fight.

In my opinion, the spread option offense being run in places like Oregon, Florida, West Virginia, and many other schools is not as difficult to execute as a pro-style offense that so few colleges seem to be running efficiently these days.

The spread option is based on more on speed and individual talent rather than execution like the pro-form offense.

The spread option attack allows teams to create 1 on 1 matchups all over the field a bit easier while forcing defenses to also focus on containing the mobile quarterback simultaneously.

The pro style offense is more based on execution because a greater emphasis is put on the quarterback's ability to read defenses, developing playaction, and pass protection.

Why else is it that we are seeing an increase in spread offenses and a decrease in the pro-style offense in the college game?

Do you guys agree, disagree, or feel that neither offense is "easier" to run than the other?

What about the Georgia Tech/Navy/Air Force triple option?

 

[Senser81]

This is the reason USC tends to lose 1 or 2 games a season to teams that they aren't supposed to lose to. There really is no other excuse for losing to teams like Washington and Stanford because USC is so much more talented than them. Comes down to execution rather than team talent.

Last I checked, USC has won a few more national titles than West Virginia, and Michigan is once again at the bottom of the Big10 standings with Dick Rod organizing their spread.

 

[NAHSTE]

I think you can successfully blend elements of both. See Ohio State, Georgia and LSU for examples of offenses that blend power elements, pro style elements and spread elements.

Sadly, these all seem like shitty examples right now, since all three are having down years on offense, but when the right personnel is in place a pro/spread hybrid can have great success.

 

[JeremyHight]

The best team ever in my opinion (Miami with... well, every 1st round draft pick for the next 3 years) ran the pro style offense. Is it tough? Yes, but will a solid QB and a great O-Line, you can tear apart anyone. A spread option can still be beat because a lot of the guys are built for one thing, speed. Speed can always be beaten with a nice balance of speed and power.

 

[FedEx227]

I would imagine it's easier to recruit athletic beasts who have to make few reads

Indeed. I think that plays into a lot of why some smaller schools or mid majors run the spread. It allows them to grab recruits that might not be great quarterbacks or whatever in the grand scheme but are athletic and fast enough to fit perfectly into the spread.

West Virginia ran into a rough patch, Rich Rod came in and brought the spread and they won something like 4 conference titles in 6-7 years.

 

[Sportsbuck]

I think you can successfully blend elements of both. See Ohio State, Georgia and LSU for examples of offenses that blend power elements, pro style elements and spread elements.

Sadly, these all seem like shitty examples right now, since all three are having down years on offense, but when the right personnel is in place a pro/spread hybrid can have great success.

I still say my favorite offense of all-time was that 2006 Buckeye squad...

One play we could four wide with four current NFL starters at WR (Ginn, Gonzalez, Hartline, Robiskie), and Antonio Pittman who was more than servicable as a back, and the next we'd bring Beanie or Pittman in off the bench and line up in the power I.

When a Jim Tressel coached offense is in the top 30 in the nation in total offense, its a very special offense.

 

[Tailback U]

I pretty much agree with what everyone has said.

Just wanted to get a general idea of what most fans think regarding the offenses in CFB today.

 

[FedEx227]

I see no problem in mid majors using it to level the playing field and attempt to compete with the big dogs despite lesser recruits.

I'm kind of on the fence about the big schools using it, because they really don't NEED to. Texas obviously did and I really think Ohio State should think about adapting to it.

 

[Sportsbuck]

I see no problem in mid majors using it to level the playing field and attempt to compete with the big dogs despite lesser recruits.

I'm kind of on the fence about the big schools using it, because they really don't NEED to. Texas obviously did and I really think Ohio State should think about adapting to it.

Ohio State will never go to a pure spread under Tressel... he wants to be as versatile as possible.

The 3 WR, 1 RB, 1 TE will probably be the Bucks base offense until Tressel retires... he likes it because you could run the spread, pro-style, or even power schemes out of it.

 

[ChemTheThriller]

The triple option is the future!

 

[DSpydr84]

I am looking for a fight.

In my opinion, the spread option... offense being run in places like Oregon, Florida, West Virginia, and many other schools ...is not as difficult to execute as a pro-style offense that so few colleges seem to be running efficiently these days.

I would disagree with that. The only position that is more difficult in a pro-style offense is quarterback, everything else is actually harder in the option - and even quarterback is more challenging in its own way.

We ran a Wing-T in high school which is essentially a spread option and it was 10x harder than running the "pro-style" offense we ran the season's before (granted, it was a much less complex system because it was high school). There's a lot of motion and ball fakes which sometimes can be confusing to remember.

The spread option attack allows teams to create 1 on 1 matchups all over the field a bit easier while forcing defenses to also focus on containing the mobile quarterback simultaneously.

The pro style offense is more based on execution because a greater emphasis is put on the quarterback's ability to read defenses, developing playaction, and pass protection.

This too I would disagree with. Both systems rely heavily on execution, and if run correctly, both systems create one-on-one matchups all over the field.

The hardest part of a pro-style offense for a quarterback is usually play-action, because he has his back turned away from the defense and that would obviously slow down his read. That's why most play-action plays are flood plays so the quarterback only has to read half the field.

Why else is it that we are seeing an increase in spread offenses and a decrease in the pro-style offense in the college game?

I think it's because the spread offense is "fresh". It's just as easy to run a successful pro-style offense, but defenses are more acustomed to seeing Pro-I 40 Iso as opposed to shotgun misdirection runs. It's still assignment football, just different assignments. Instead of reading the quarterback, the safeties might probably key on the wing man or whoever the offense sends in motion. The middle linebacker might read the fullback in a triple option instead of the guards in a pro-style offense.

No matter what though, if you don't have good athletes, and you can't execute, it doesn't matter what system you run. You could have an offense with 15 plays if you can execute effectively.. spread or pro-style or whatever. Just like a defense uses a 4-3 or a 3-4, an offense uses a spread option or a pro-style scheme. It's nothing but preference.

 

[Shayn•Da•Pain]

Good read here guys, glad to see some common sense on these boards.

In response to the OP's question about credit given to a pro-style offense. Lahey made a great point in that it's a recruiting tool. On top of that, I think the school gains credit when QB's, RB's, and such are drafted in the first round year after year making truck loads of dollar$. It's a recruiting tool yes, but credit is due to those teams who produce young QB's who are successful in the NFL on a more consistent basis.

 

[Shayn•Da•Pain]

I would disagree with that. The only position that is more difficult in a pro-style offense is quarterback, everything else is actually harder in the option - and even quarterback is more challenging in its own way.

We ran a Wing-T in high school which is essentially a spread option and it was 10x harder than running the "pro-style" offense we ran the season's before (granted, it was a much less complex system because it was high school). There's a lot of motion and ball fakes which sometimes can be confusing to remember.

Not a shocker that the new system would be harder at first than the old system, especially after leaving a system you've been using for seasons.

And the Wing-T is not a pro-style offense...not at all.

This too I would disagree with. Both systems rely heavily on execution, and if run correctly, both systems create one-on-one matchups all over the field.

Every system attempts to create 1 on 1 matchups at some point.

I think it's because the spread offense is "fresh". It's just as easy to run a successful pro-style offense, but defenses are more acustomed to seeing Pro-I 40 Iso as opposed to shotgun misdirection runs. It's still assignment football, just different assignments. Instead of reading the quarterback, the safeties might probably key on the wing man or whoever the offense sends in motion. The middle linebacker might read the fullback in a triple option instead of the guards in a pro-style offense.

The Spread Option is so successful because it spreads the field out, so the few guys left inside to defend have to decode the option that much faster and chase down a RB or athletic QB in space, one missed tackled and it could spell a big gain, one bad read on defense, one extra defender in the box and you leave a guy open. The spread option is crazy good when you're not facing pro-speed at every position on defense.

No matter what though, if you don't have good athletes, and you can't execute, it doesn't matter what system you run. You could have an offense with 15 plays if you can execute effectively.. spread or pro-style or whatever. Just like a defense uses a 4-3 or a 3-4, an offense uses a spread option or a pro-style scheme. It's nothing but preference.

It's a LOT more than just preference. Personnel often dictates the system, and teams recruit to fill the need of their systems. I'm sure no 3-4 defense is going to go without scouting/recruiting a shit load of LB's for very long.

 

[Tailback U]

I would disagree with that. The only position that is more difficult in a pro-style offense is quarterback, everything else is actually harder in the option - and even quarterback is more challenging in its own way.

How again is every position other than QB harder to play in the spread than in the pro-style offense?

We ran a Wing-T in high school which is essentially a spread option and it was 10x harder than running the "pro-style" offense we ran the season's before (granted, it was a much less complex system because it was high school). There's a lot of motion and ball fakes which sometimes can be confusing to remember.

That has no absolutely no bearing on the difficulty of executing the play. The execution that I am referring to is based on reading the defense and executing the play itself based on what formation/scheme/coverage/blitz/etc. the defense is running.

This too I would disagree with. Both systems rely heavily on execution, and if run correctly, both systems create one-on-one matchups all over the field.

The spread is known as the "spread" because it literally spreads out the offense and defense over the entire width of the field in order to create 1-on-1 matchups and get offensive players in space.

In essence, every offense's goal is to create 1 on 1 matchups, but the spread offense allows the quarterback to identify 1v1 much quicker than in a pro-style offense.

The hardest part of a pro-style offense for a quarterback is usually play-action, because he has his back turned away from the defense and that would obviously slow down his read. That's why most play-action plays are flood plays so the quarterback only has to read half the field.

I would argue that the hardest part of pro-style offense for a quarterback is recognizing coverages from the get go and accuracy.

Recognizing coverages and accuracy matters more in a pro-style offense because the quarterback needs to know where to go from the snap of the ball because he has less options than he would in a spread offense. Accuracy matters more in the pro-offense for the same reason. The less receivers there are running down field = more defenders in coverage.

I think it's because the spread offense is "fresh". It's just as easy to run a successful pro-style offense, but defenses are more acustomed to seeing Pro-I 40 Iso as opposed to shotgun misdirection runs. It's still assignment football, just different assignments. Instead of reading the quarterback, the safeties might probably key on the wing man or whoever the offense sends in motion. The middle linebacker might read the fullback in a triple option instead of the guards in a pro-style offense.

Obviously, I disagree that the spread offense is just as difficult to run as the pro-style offense.

First of all, the spread offense adds an addition weapon that the defense must account for at all times in the quarterback. This alone can change the entire face of a defense from front to back, especially an inferior defense.

Also, the spread offense puts an increased amount of pressure on the defensive line because defenses typically want to get more speed on the field to cover the increased amount of receiving options all over the field. This could force more defensive backs on the field instead of linebackers.

Not only that, but I'd also argue that the spread option puts more pressure on the safeties as well because they must be involved in run defense, especially on plays where the QB has the option of running.

No matter what though, if you don't have good athletes, and you can't execute, it doesn't matter what system you run. You could have an offense with 15 plays if you can execute effectively.. spread or pro-style or whatever. Just like a defense uses a 4-3 or a 3-4, an offense uses a spread option or a pro-style scheme. It's nothing but preference.

It's obvious that the gap in physical talent between college teams is much wider than in the pros. This is the reason why there are no spread option offenses in the pros and pretty much proves that running the pro-style offense is based more on execution.

The NFL has linebackers with defensive back speed and down linemen with linebacker speed. The drop off in speed from a college safety to a college linebacker is immense. Not so much in the pros.

 

[Senser81]

I would disagree with that. The only position that is more difficult in a pro-style offense is quarterback, everything else is actually harder in the option - and even quarterback is more challenging in its own way.

I think this is completely wrong...or, missing the point. The spread option is heavily dependent on the QB, much moreso than the pro-style. Also, the QB in the spread needs to have a wider range of abilities. A bad QB can be "covered up" in the pro-style -- a bad QB in the spread option kills the team. Look at Michigan. John Navarre was a big stiff, but he excelled because he could hand off to Chris Perry whenever the game got tight. But in Dick Rod's spread, a guy like Threet or even Forcier has their weaknesses exposed.

The advantage to the spread is that your recruiting focus is narrowed...if you can get a good QB to run it, then the other positions on offense fall in line. The disadvantage is that you are putting all your eggs in one basket. If your QB isn't all that great, or has a bad game, you have no recourse. Look at Ohio State. Terrelle Pryor is horrendous, and the Buckeyes lost to a vastly inferior Purdue team. I don't think the Buckeyes would lose that game if they just gave the ball to their RBs and let their defense take over the game.

In response to the OP's question about credit given to a pro-style offense. Lahey made a great point in that it's a recruiting tool. On top of that, I think the school gains credit when QB's, RB's, and such are drafted in the first round year after year making truck loads of dollar$. It's a recruiting tool yes, but credit is due to those teams who produce young QB's who are successful in the NFL on a more consistent basis.

I think West Virginia has had their share of top picks, no? And Florida is having their guys go to the NFL. Even a tweener like Percy Harvin was a top pick and is having success in the NFL. So yes, its a recruiting tool, but its not like these spread schools are Air Force and Army...they are top teams with top NFL picks.