Around the Big Ten

[iam416]

I think you either have the athletes in the secondary to play press man or you go Heacock/Parker. I guess you could also have a dominant DL that allows more S help in the passing game. It's an interesting question -- refuse to give up easy yards at the risk of big plays or concede easy yards but just not too many.

I do think, rather obviously, the value of guys like Darron Lee and, soon, Peppers is immense in defending good spread teams.

[WM Wolverine]

What a lot of people don't realize about Oregon's and Urban Meyer's offenses is they are VERY effective running inside the tackles, more so than traditional power run offenses. AND they are able to do that with less blockers than say a Dantonio type offense.

[entropy]

I still think you have to put the QB in a position to make decisions faster than they want.. I'd rather give up a 27 sec drive, than one that is 6 mins long. At least the 27 sec, you get your offense back on the field.

I think good defesnes hold teams in the 20's today, vs the teens just 20 yrs ago. I think rules on holding add points that D's can't offset. I also think someone will have the guts to say the LB position is eliminated... and you go with safeties who can run and cover. This probably means you're larger up front (4 2 tech's for example), but it's tough to sack spread teams with the DL alone... and I'd rather use speed to do it. I think the next turn in defense is really about getting faster in your back 7

[Hannibal]

That maybe and you may also see teams adopt an NHL style approach to defense -- clutch and grab the shit out of people and count on the referees not calling everything. Take four pass interference penalties in a game but give up 120 less yards as a result.

[Wild Hoss]

One reason you see less pro style stuff these days is that you can line up in spread sets but still get the "ball control passing" aspect normally associated with I-Form football. Many of the base passing concepts of the Mumme/Leach passing game that OU broke onto the scene with in 1999/2000 are spread-versions of what's found in Bill Walsh's old WCO playbooks.

You can line up in 4 wides and rack up first downs all day along.

[iam416]

Or you can line up in the I and ram your RB between the tackles for shit near 3 yards a pop!

[Wild Hoss]

The tipping point might have been in the 1980s when the Miamis, Florida States, and Texas A&Ms all converted to heavy blitzing and attacking defenses that piled up against the run and applied pressure to the QB. For about a decade and a half, the national powerhouses in the Southeast played tons of low scoring games, even with a ton of offensive talent on the field. The spread offenses have broken those defenses. You can no longer pack guys to the line of scrimmage because you will give up 60 second TD drives and you can't run downhill on every play because you will get constantly burned by all of the option and misdirection.

This, in a nutshell, is what happened in the Big 12 when OU brought in Mike Leach. It was a Cover 1, 8-man-front league and after a year of refining, Oklahoma fucking ran wild. They picked the hell out of all those man-free CBs, screened those attacking DLs to death, and picked on those manned-up OLBs and big SS types with skinny posts. It was the beginning of the end of the "FSU 43" defense, and alot of us in the Big 12 kind of sensed it at the time.

[Wild Hoss]

Or you can line up in the I and ram your RB between the tackles for shit near 3 yards a pop!

IMO it really becomes a matter of defense...can you play D well enough for that style to be effective? Is it worth the resources and effort to try and be that good on defense?

[entropy]

I also believe that TO's 90's offense led to some changes across CF. Teams didn't adopt the option, but what they did adopt was some of the pace concepts in the running game and the speed of the running game. You brought more people to the point of attack by getting their quicker, not necessarily bringing more people in the box. I keep going back to TO's comments regarding the FSU 4-3 and they really didn't know how to attack it until they adopted it. Then they changed their option concepts. I see spread teams that run the ball effectivly using these concepts.

Like most things there were several influencers that led to fundamental changes.

[WM Wolverine]

If you can do Bielema ball, it's little risk if you can pick-up about 6 yards per carry. If you can run the ball at that clip, not much reason to throw other than to keep defenses honest.

[iam416]

This, in a nutshell, is what happened in the Big 12 when OU brought in Mike Leach

And now his boys are mustering up 17 against a shitass FCS team.

IMO it really becomes a matter of defense...can you play D well enough for that style to be effective? Is it worth the resources and effort to try and be that good on defense?

Yeah, that's the question isn't? I said today I think JH views his team as a "coherent whole" that tries to dominate the LoS and grind its way to wins. But in the process, the offense isn't a juggernaut. And that's a liability. It certainly was when he played Oregon.

As I've said, I've completely changed my mind. It seems illogical at this point to NOT try to put as any gamebreakers on the field as possible. Especially when you can use those players to run power. I can't fathom Braxton Miller losing snaps for OSU's 2nd string TE (Marcus Baugh!).

The other answer to your question is you run the most aggressive offense possible AND you play really good defense.

[iam416]

If you had do Bielema ball, it's little risk if you can pick-up about 6 yards per carry. If you can run the ball at that clip, not much reason to throw other than to keep defenses honest.

Yeah. The only problem is when you don't. It's not an offense that plays behind the sticks well. They have far fewer viable routes to picking up a 3rd and 6. And there's a smaller likelihood of big plays.

[entropy]

If you can do Bielema ball, it's little risk if you can pick-up about 6 yards per carry. If you can run the ball at that clip, not much reason to throw other than to keep defenses honest.

and that might work even better in the future if Defenses move to stop the spread or 4 wr sets

[WM Wolverine]

Yup, you need to be able to throw the ball when you do face one of the 2-3 teams on your schedule that can shut (or slow) down a power run game like Wisky's. You still need a QB that can move the chains, convert 3rd downs and not give the opposition the football.

[froot loops]

As I've said, I've completely changed my mind. It seems illogical at this point to NOT try to put as any gamebreakers on the field as possible. Especially when you can use those players to run power. I can't fathom Braxton Miller losing snaps for OSU's 2nd string TE (Marcus Baugh!).

The other answer to your question is you run the most aggressive offense possible AND you play really good defense.

It is absolutely imperative your game breakers are able to block in that case, and it goes without saying you better have a really good QB who can read the play.