[Redrum]

Focuses on cal's Jared Goff.  Funny, my adrenaline and heart rate levels didn't rise reading about an ex- cal guy.  Maybe because we beat him like a redheaded stepchild?  Would hate to think I'm growing more tolerant in my old age.

But the gist of the article, about how the NFL is anachronistic about adopting a spread offense,  just makes this Stanford fan wonder if we are on the endangered species list.

"The Rams selected Goff with the first overall pick in hopes he could lift their franchise, both in a new city and a league bereft of quality quarterbacks. The future of the NFL may depend on the ability of evaluators and coaches to translate the skills of passers who, like Goff, played their whole lives in spread offenses, the dominant system in college and every level beneath the NFL. The league so far has flailed with mixed success in turning prolific spread passers into capable NFL quarterbacks. Goff will be another data point, and perhaps the best illustration yet of the role coaching plays.


In his rookie season under Coach Jeff Fisher, Goff averaged a paltry 5.3 yards per attempt, completed 55 percent of his passes and threw seven interceptions against five touchdowns. The Rams lost all seven of his starts, and many around the league doubted any chance at future success despite the fact he was just 22 years old.

Oh, yeah...the link.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/ja...dc4d53047c

[Redrum]

Focuses on cal's Jared Goff.  Funny, my adrenaline and heart rate levels didn't rise reading about an ex- cal guy.  Maybe because we beat him like a redheaded stepchild?  Would hate to think I'm growing more tolerant in my old age.

But the gist of the article, about how the NFL is anachronistic about adopting a spread offense,  just makes this Stanford fan wonder if we are on the endangered species list.

"The Rams selected Goff with the first overall pick in hopes he could lift their franchise, both in a new city and a league bereft of quality quarterbacks. The future of the NFL may depend on the ability of evaluators and coaches to translate the skills of passers who, like Goff, played their whole lives in spread offenses, the dominant system in college and every level beneath the NFL. The league so far has flailed with mixed success in turning prolific spread passers into capable NFL quarterbacks. Goff will be another data point, and perhaps the best illustration yet of the role coaching plays.


In his rookie season under Coach Jeff Fisher, Goff averaged a paltry 5.3 yards per attempt, completed 55 percent of his passes and threw seven interceptions against five touchdowns. The Rams lost all seven of his starts, and many around the league doubted any chance at future success despite the fact he was just 22 years old.

Oh, yeah...the link.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/ja...dc4d53047c

[stupac2]

I mean, Goff looked better, but he was also playing what might be the worst defense in the NFL. Let's give it a few weeks before saying that he's turned a new page.

[stupac2]

I mean, Goff looked better, but he was also playing what might be the worst defense in the NFL. Let's give it a few weeks before saying that he's turned a new page.

[lex24]

Franklin is a true believer in that bullsh-t air raid garbage. Puts up numbers. Doesn't win. In the NFL QB's would get killed. 

Stanford already is on an endangered list.  Their offense along with their pace of play is distinctly different from most teams. Which frankly I think is a positive not a negative.

Focuses on ןɐɔ's Jared Goff.  Funny, my adrenaline and heart rate levels didn't rise reading about an ex- ןɐɔ guy.  Maybe because we beat him like a redheaded stepchild?  Would hate to think I'm growing more tolerant in my old age.

But the gist of the article, about how the NFL is anachronistic about adopting a spread offense,  just makes this Stanford fan wonder if we are on the endangered species list.

"The Rams selected Goff with the first overall pick in hopes he could lift their franchise, both in a new city and a league bereft of quality quarterbacks. The future of the NFL may depend on the ability of evaluators and coaches to translate the skills of passers who, like Goff, played their whole lives in spread offenses, the dominant system in college and every level beneath the NFL. The league so far has flailed with mixed success in turning prolific spread passers into capable NFL quarterbacks. Goff will be another data point, and perhaps the best illustration yet of the role coaching plays.


In his rookie season under Coach Jeff Fisher, Goff averaged a paltry 5.3 yards per attempt, completed 55 percent of his passes and threw seven interceptions against five touchdowns. The Rams lost all seven of his starts, and many around the league doubted any chance at future success despite the fact he was just 22 years old.

Oh, yeah...the link.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/ja...dc4d53047c

[lex24]

Franklin is a true believer in that bullsh-t air raid garbage. Puts up numbers. Doesn't win. In the NFL QB's would get killed. 

Stanford already is on an endangered list.  Their offense along with their pace of play is distinctly different from most teams. Which frankly I think is a positive not a negative.

Focuses on ןɐɔ's Jared Goff.  Funny, my adrenaline and heart rate levels didn't rise reading about an ex- ןɐɔ guy.  Maybe because we beat him like a redheaded stepchild?  Would hate to think I'm growing more tolerant in my old age.

But the gist of the article, about how the NFL is anachronistic about adopting a spread offense,  just makes this Stanford fan wonder if we are on the endangered species list.

"The Rams selected Goff with the first overall pick in hopes he could lift their franchise, both in a new city and a league bereft of quality quarterbacks. The future of the NFL may depend on the ability of evaluators and coaches to translate the skills of passers who, like Goff, played their whole lives in spread offenses, the dominant system in college and every level beneath the NFL. The league so far has flailed with mixed success in turning prolific spread passers into capable NFL quarterbacks. Goff will be another data point, and perhaps the best illustration yet of the role coaching plays.


In his rookie season under Coach Jeff Fisher, Goff averaged a paltry 5.3 yards per attempt, completed 55 percent of his passes and threw seven interceptions against five touchdowns. The Rams lost all seven of his starts, and many around the league doubted any chance at future success despite the fact he was just 22 years old.

Oh, yeah...the link.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/ja...dc4d53047c

[Goose]

Franklin is a true believer in that bullsh-t air raid garbage. Puts up numbers. Doesn't win. In the NFL QB's would get killed. 

Stanford already is on an endangered list.  Their offense along with their pace of play is distinctly different from most teams. Which frankly I think is a positive not a negative.

I am not sure how endangered it is. There is another private school in southern California doing quite well with it.

[Goose]

Franklin is a true believer in that bullsh-t air raid garbage. Puts up numbers. Doesn't win. In the NFL QB's would get killed. 

Stanford already is on an endangered list.  Their offense along with their pace of play is distinctly different from most teams. Which frankly I think is a positive not a negative.

I am not sure how endangered it is. There is another private school in southern California doing quite well with it.

[lex24]

True. 

[quote author=lex24 link=topic=17401.msg200663#msg200663 date=1505581652]
Franklin is a true believer in that bullsh-t air raid garbage. Puts up numbers. Doesn't win. In the NFL QB's would get killed. 

Stanford already is on an endangered list.  Their offense along with their pace of play is distinctly different from most teams. Which frankly I think is a positive not a negative.

I am not sure how endangered it is. There is another private school in southern California doing quite well with it.
[/quote]

[lex24]

True. 

[quote author=lex24 link=topic=17401.msg200663#msg200663 date=1505581652]
Franklin is a true believer in that bullsh-t air raid garbage. Puts up numbers. Doesn't win. In the NFL QB's would get killed. 

Stanford already is on an endangered list.  Their offense along with their pace of play is distinctly different from most teams. Which frankly I think is a positive not a negative.

I am not sure how endangered it is. There is another private school in southern California doing quite well with it.
[/quote]

[BostonCard]

I would add that I think spread offenses are at a disadvantage against fundamentally sound defenses.  Think Oregon when they struggled against us or had trouble against Auburn in the national championship.  So spread works well against 90% of college defenses but can be shut down by most NFL defenses.

I suspect some of the concepts will find success in the NFL, but it will be tough to make a base spread option offense successful.

Of course, what happens when college football stops producing QB's capable of running a pro offense?

BC

[BostonCard]

I would add that I think spread offenses are at a disadvantage against fundamentally sound defenses.  Think Oregon when they struggled against us or had trouble against Auburn in the national championship.  So spread works well against 90% of college defenses but can be shut down by most NFL defenses.

I suspect some of the concepts will find success in the NFL, but it will be tough to make a base spread option offense successful.

Of course, what happens when college football stops producing QB's capable of running a pro offense?

BC

[lex24]

Chip Kelly. You saw how quickly NFL defenses adjusted.

I would add that I think spread offenses are at a disadvantage against fundamentally sound defenses.  Think Oregon when they struggled against us or had trouble against Auburn in the national championship.  So spread works well against 90% of college defenses but can be shut down by most NFL defenses.

I suspect some of the concepts will find success in the NFL, but it will be tough to make a base spread option offense successful.

Of course, what happens when college football stops producing QB's capable of running a pro offense?

BC

[lex24]

Chip Kelly. You saw how quickly NFL defenses adjusted.

I would add that I think spread offenses are at a disadvantage against fundamentally sound defenses.  Think Oregon when they struggled against us or had trouble against Auburn in the national championship.  So spread works well against 90% of college defenses but can be shut down by most NFL defenses.

I suspect some of the concepts will find success in the NFL, but it will be tough to make a base spread option offense successful.

Of course, what happens when college football stops producing QB's capable of running a pro offense?

BC

[Goose]

I would add that I think spread offenses are at a disadvantage against fundamentally sound defenses.  Think Oregon when they struggled against us or had trouble against Auburn in the national championship.  So spread works well against 90% of college defenses but can be shut down by most NFL defenses.

I suspect some of the concepts will find success in the NFL, but it will be tough to make a base spread option offense successful.

Of course, what happens when college football stops producing QB's capable of running a pro offense?

BC

I am old enough to remember when they said the same about the wishbone. While the spread offense is molded somewhat by the college rules, it was greatly helped initially by the fact people didn't know how to defend it. That is now a solved problem, and, like the wishbone, the spread offense isn't the panacea it once was. The "pro" offense is what it is because it provides the best compromise between all the strategic options. The two-back set has now given way to a one-back set under many circumstances, and there is a lot more shotgun than their used to be. You can do that with the pro set. That is why it has survived. Any offense that concentrates on a few aspects of the game at the expense of all others is fatally handicapped. The wishbone didn't work well if you were behind and the spread has trouble on third and 2. (these are just a few of the issues). Rule changes have favored the passing game over the running game, but in both NCAA and NFL football, if you can't run, you don't win.
Also, one should not confuse tempo with the style of offense. You can operate up-tempo with a pro-style offense if/when you wish. For these reasons, there will always be "pro-style" QBs coming from the college ranks. Some, probably very few, spread-option QBs will make it in the pro game, not because they weren't trained for it in college, but rather because they had a different skill set. The "Bear raid" was not a typical spread offense. It was not Oregon, it was WSU. Therefore, Goff may not be a good reference point. RG III is, I think, a better example.

[Goose]

I would add that I think spread offenses are at a disadvantage against fundamentally sound defenses.  Think Oregon when they struggled against us or had trouble against Auburn in the national championship.  So spread works well against 90% of college defenses but can be shut down by most NFL defenses.

I suspect some of the concepts will find success in the NFL, but it will be tough to make a base spread option offense successful.

Of course, what happens when college football stops producing QB's capable of running a pro offense?

BC

I am old enough to remember when they said the same about the wishbone. While the spread offense is molded somewhat by the college rules, it was greatly helped initially by the fact people didn't know how to defend it. That is now a solved problem, and, like the wishbone, the spread offense isn't the panacea it once was. The "pro" offense is what it is because it provides the best compromise between all the strategic options. The two-back set has now given way to a one-back set under many circumstances, and there is a lot more shotgun than their used to be. You can do that with the pro set. That is why it has survived. Any offense that concentrates on a few aspects of the game at the expense of all others is fatally handicapped. The wishbone didn't work well if you were behind and the spread has trouble on third and 2. (these are just a few of the issues). Rule changes have favored the passing game over the running game, but in both NCAA and NFL football, if you can't run, you don't win.
Also, one should not confuse tempo with the style of offense. You can operate up-tempo with a pro-style offense if/when you wish. For these reasons, there will always be "pro-style" QBs coming from the college ranks. Some, probably very few, spread-option QBs will make it in the pro game, not because they weren't trained for it in college, but rather because they had a different skill set. The "Bear raid" was not a typical spread offense. It was not Oregon, it was WSU. Therefore, Goff may not be a good reference point. RG III is, I think, a better example.

[washingtonismoney]

I think it's amusing we're all debating spread vs. pro style. The NFL has taken basically all the spread stuff that'll work in the league -- which is a pretty substantial amount, as it turns out -- and then went and denigrated the college stuff anyway. It's one step beyond the old "terrible food and tiny portions" joke -- because they're cleaning their plates.

[washingtonismoney]

I think it's amusing we're all debating spread vs. pro style. The NFL has taken basically all the spread stuff that'll work in the league -- which is a pretty substantial amount, as it turns out -- and then went and denigrated the college stuff anyway. It's one step beyond the old "terrible food and tiny portions" joke -- because they're cleaning their plates.

[Goose]

I think it's amusing we're all debating spread vs. pro style. The NFL has taken basically all the spread stuff that'll work in the league -- which is a pretty substantial amount, as it turns out -- and then went and denigrated the college stuff anyway. It's one step beyond the old "terrible food and tiny portions" joke -- because they're cleaning their plates.

I would argue that the NFL already had all the spread stuff that will work in the league. They may have been reminded that it existed, but I don't think there are any new plays out there. The "read option" is as old as the T formation, or maybe older. Some of the stuff that is being run now will soon fall into disuse in the NFL for the same reasons it did previously. Too many QBs will get hurt. You may want a 40 year old Tom Brady, but he isn't running any read options. Once you find a "franchise" QB, you aren't going to risk him running for 5 yards in a designed play. It isn't worth the risk, even when he is young enough to do it.

[Goose]

I think it's amusing we're all debating spread vs. pro style. The NFL has taken basically all the spread stuff that'll work in the league -- which is a pretty substantial amount, as it turns out -- and then went and denigrated the college stuff anyway. It's one step beyond the old "terrible food and tiny portions" joke -- because they're cleaning their plates.

I would argue that the NFL already had all the spread stuff that will work in the league. They may have been reminded that it existed, but I don't think there are any new plays out there. The "read option" is as old as the T formation, or maybe older. Some of the stuff that is being run now will soon fall into disuse in the NFL for the same reasons it did previously. Too many QBs will get hurt. You may want a 40 year old Tom Brady, but he isn't running any read options. Once you find a "franchise" QB, you aren't going to risk him running for 5 yards in a designed play. It isn't worth the risk, even when he is young enough to do it.