"Pro Style" offenses

This is a quote from mgoblog:

"Finally, the terms "pro style" and "spread" are meaningless distinctions. NFL offenses have the luxury of getting super complex: they have passing game coordinators who teach the QBs and WRs Air Raid things then run zone or power blocked things. The spread refers to formations and personnel—it doesn't say anything about whether the QB runs, if it's an option offense, or what tempo it runs at, or even what kind of blocking it uses."

I cite this because I know some may think I have been a smart--s when I've asked people to define pro style. I keep going back to the goal should be an effective, productive offense. People keep saying that RR tried to force Threet/Forcier into doing things there weren't good at when I've always contended there was no evidence they were good at any offense. Our 2008 offense was abysmal because we replaced 10 of 11 starters and had no viable QB. I also cite Urban Meyer as evidence that if you bring in good coaches and have talent on hand then it should not take 3 years to become good.

'shoes

well shoes there is no more old days pro style ... to me that term meant a TE , a FB and a TB with two WR .... no one plays that as a base Offense anymore .... every offense now is a pro style / spread hybrid .... New England and Tom are a perfect example .... so that is why if no Jim , I want Mullen .... he made a decent QB out of Leak and I feel Morris could at last improve with actual coaching ....

wshoes wrote:

This is a quote from mgoblog:

"Finally, the terms "pro style" and "spread" are meaningless distinctions. NFL offenses have the luxury of getting super complex: they have passing game coordinators who teach the QBs and WRs Air Raid things then run zone or power blocked things. The spread refers to formations and personnel—it doesn't say anything about whether the QB runs, if it's an option offense, or what tempo it runs at, or even what kind of blocking it uses."

I cite this because I know some may think I have been a smart--s  when I've asked people to define pro style. I keep going back to the goal should be an effective, productive offense. People keep saying that RR tried to force Threet/Forcier into doing things there weren't good at when I've always contended there was no evidence they were good at any offense. Our 2008 offense was abysmal because we replaced 10 of 11 starters and had no viable QB. I also cite Urban Meyer as evidence that if you bring in good coaches and have talent on hand then it should not take 3 years to become good.

'shoes

I watched Forcier for three years (two solid) in high school. Then I saw what he did at UM in his first month against inferior teams and ND (legitimate heisman numbers). So to say RR forced Forcier into something he wasn't good at might not be the right. Forcier was a solid fit for RR. too bad his head just wasn't in the game.

I think maybe you meant to say threet/sheridan.

I meant Threet/Sheridan- of course you are right about Forcier.

Semantics.

Regardless of what you call it, certain players fit better into certain systems. If you have Tom Brady at QB, you aren't going run much read option.

Take Air Force and their triple option offense, for example. They recruit a bunch of short, stalky, and quick offensive linemen. They put all emphasis on being able to pull rather than being able to sustain a pass block. If they suddenly brought in a coach that runs a different offense, those players are no longer being utilized to the best of their ability.

hailtoyourvictor wrote:

Semantics.

Regardless of what you call it, certain players fit better into certain systems. If you have Tom Brady at QB, you aren't going run much read option.

Take Air Force and their triple option offense, for example. They recruit a bunch of short, stalky, and quick offensive linemen. They put all emphasis on being able to pull rather than being able to sustain a pass block. If they suddenly brought in a coach that runs a different offense, those players are no longer being utilized to the best of their ability.  

I get what you're saying and I tend to agree but the service academies might not be the best example for smaller speedier lineman. they have serious height and weight restrictions. it almost forces the service academies to play option ball.

We are not talking RR spread... we are talking NFL pro style spread... hiring a Dan Mullen does not mean you have to revamp the roster like from Carr to RR to Hoke... we are more than capable of using a power run spread with all the talent on O

sandyeggo_blue wrote:

hailtoyourvictor wrote:

Semantics.

Regardless of what you call it, certain players fit better into certain systems. If you have Tom Brady at QB, you aren't going run much read option.

Take Air Force and their triple option offense, for example. They recruit a bunch of short, stalky, and quick offensive linemen. They put all emphasis on being able to pull rather than being able to sustain a pass block. If they suddenly brought in a coach that runs a different offense, those players are no longer being utilized to the best of their ability.  

I get what you're saying and I tend to agree but the service academies might not be the best example for smaller speedier lineman. they have serious height and weight restrictions. it almost forces the service academies to play option ball.

Ok, Georgia Tech.

BOLEACH7 wrote:

We are not talking RR spread... we are talking NFL pro style spread... hiring a Dan Mullen does not mean you have to revamp the roster like from Carr to RR to Hoke... we are more than capable of using a power run spread with all the talent on O

Oh, I'm definitely not saying that. I'm just saying the idea that there is no correlation between system and a player's ceiling within that system is false.

RR ran a spread option.  Not much different than the regular option, only the players are spread out.  

The Patriots run spread formations almost exclusively.  The Broncos run spread formations almost exclusively.  The TE position has been redefined.  He is a big slot receiver.  Look at Graham in New Orleans, what the Lions are trying to do with Ebron.  The spread is pro style.  

Just because you spread out doesn't mean the QB has to be a runner.  Do you think Brady and Manning are runners?  Nope,  but they play on spread teams.

fishgoblue22 wrote:

RR ran a spread option.  Not much different than the regular option, only the players are spread out.  

The Patriots run spread formations almost exclusively.  The Broncos run spread formations almost exclusively.  The TE position has been redefined.  He is a big slot receiver.  Look at Graham in New Orleans, what the Likns are trying to do with Ebron.  The spread is pro style.  

Just because you spread out doesn't mean the QB has to be a runner.  Do you think Brady and Manning are runners?  Nope,  but they play on spread teams.  

Was this directed towards me? Because that isn't what I'm saying at all.

hailtoyourvictor wrote:

fishgoblue22 wrote:

RR ran a spread option.  Not much different than the regular option, only the players are spread out.  

The Patriots run spread formations almost exclusively.  The Broncos run spread formations almost exclusively.  The TE position has been redefined.  He is a big slot receiver.  Look at Graham in New Orleans, what the Likns are trying to do with Ebron.  The spread is pro style.  

Just because you spread out doesn't mean the QB has to be a runner.  Do you think Brady and Manning are runners?  Nope,  but they play on spread teams.  

Was this directed towards me? Because that isn't what I'm saying at all.

No, I was just kind of agreeing with shoes and the original premiss of this thread.  Kind of a clumsy post.

We all want a winner dammit... we all agree that the pro style spread would work... Morris is not a speedster but he is closer to Aaron Rogers running than Tom Brady running ... as well we have a great stable of RBs for the power running game