So...what is the pro-style spread?

deeeznutz

deeeznutz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,329
Beerbrewingjacket said:
I posted this on another board, but I think it may be a good read for some.

After the game, there was much consternation on this board and in other outlets about the offensive balance GT displayed during the Clemson game. During the Spring game we all witnessed an offense hitting the TE over the middle, slant routes, go routes and a whole host of other concepts in the passing game that some of the detractors of the previous regime have been dying to see return to the flats. This along with practice reports building on what we saw in that Spring game led most of us to visions of Danny Wuerffel and Steve Spurrier.

Instead, the coaching staff had other ideas. Rather than opting to take an opportunity to showcase a drastically revamped offense, they instead chose to run a version of the spread that was more run heavy with less emphasis on the pass. I say version of the spread to highlight the point. What is meant by a pro-style spread? When I hear spread, I think of Ohio State, Oklahoma, Oregon and Auburn...to name a few. The first of those three, I think of the pass heavy spread with a complimentary RPO based running attack. Auburn has always been the opposite, more run heavy and passing out of the RPO. Florida was similar with Tim Tebow and Dan Mullen.

After the GT game last week, a lot of fans were quick with the hot take..."What are we doing? This is not what we were told we would see". (I am included in this). This was exacerbated by UNC coming back to win against South Carolina...by throwing the ball. However, UNC couldn't run the ball worth a lick opting to run the ball in the redzone their first three trips in that game and it resulting in 3 field goals. Their fans were irritated.

Back to GT. I have a stat line I wanted to share from last week.

Team X
Total snaps: 61
Passing: 24 (40%) - 20 of 24 for 332 yards and a QBR of 98.
Rushing: 37 (60%) - 354 Yards 9.6 YPC - QB Rush - 16 carries (43% of the rush snaps).
Total Yards: 686 (48% Passing/52% Rushing)

Georgia Tech
Total snaps: 63
Passing: 18 (30%) - 7 of 18 for 137 yards and a QBR of 63 (combined)
Rushing: 45 (70%) - 157 yards 3.6 YPC - QB Rush - 25 carries (55% of the rush snaps)
Total Yards: 294 (47% Passing/53% Rushing)

A few observations. Obviously team X operated a very high level. The QB was very efficient. The run game was strong. And, in terms of yardage, they were nearly 50/50 between run and pass, but in terms of snaps, they were more focused on the run. The leading rusher on this team QB going for 176 yards and led the backfield in terms of carries. Interesting.

For GT, our passing, compared to this historically great spread offensive team, was woefully lacking. GT played 3 QB's that combined for a total QBR of 63 that breaks down into Graham at 49, Oliver at 9 and Johnson at 5. Yikes. GT was slightly more reliant on the run by 10% in either direction compared to team X. GT's rushing YPC was also lacking, but the competition defensively between the two comparisons isn't comparable. So, I take that bit with a grain of salt. The purpose of this comparison is to see how GT compared to a historically elite spread offense program to add some much needed clarity to our fanbase on what exactly constitutes a spread offense. In terms of run/pass and QB rushing, both programs are surprisingly equal. Especially when you break it down in terms of total yardage by run and pass, both coming in at 50/50 run/pass yardage earned.

So...who is the comparison team? None other than Oklahoma. The offense that has seen Baker Mayfield and Kyler Murray slinging the ball around. Now, the offense looks different with a different QB at the helm in Jalen Hurts. Who GT fans clamored for in the offseason as a the perfect transition piece. Lincoln Riley has taken a passing attack and adapted it to his new QB who has been often referred to as a running QB who can pass it...sort of. It appears the major difference in success hinges on the efficiency of the conversions in the pass game. Going 20/24 in incredibly efficient. Most college QB's can't even do that in practice. The X factor here is that Oklahoma was facing Houston and GT was facing a much better defense in Clemson. But, let's focus less on the talent at QB and more on the balance of plays. And when you focus on that...GT's offensive playcalling wasn't much different. What you see is Lincoln Riley adapting his offense to the talent of what he had. This approach was one of the talks of the college football landscape this past week. While GT's coaches have been largely criticized for adapting the offense to the talent of what we had. The difference? 20 of 24 vs. 7 of 18. If GT can improve that stat, I think the criticizing will quiet.
Click to expand...

I stopped reading once I realized you were comparing us (in entire team’s first game in this system) vs Clemson to Oklahoma (full of veterans throughout the depth chart) vs Houston. I can’t emphasize enough how pointless that comparison is.
 

jackets55

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
130
Since the NFL doesn't use "spread" offenses, there really isn't a "pro-style" spread offense., unless you say using 5 linemen, TE, QB and any combination of rb/wr makes it "pro-style". The use of that term, as several have pointed out, is purely marketing. To be honest, the college game is almost exclusively not pro-style with the exception of a couple of schools. This is mainly because your quarterback is expendable in college and not so much in the NFL. In 2018 only 4 QB in the NFL rushed the ball more than 5 times per game. While some had a more balanced run/pass offense it wasn't due to the QB running the ball.

I keep hearing that our current OC and HC will fit the offense to the players and I hope they will. But if that was 100% the case, we would have left the spread option in the playbook for short yardage situations since 3/4ths of the players already could run them, especially our QBs. It is kind of ironic that our first TD was on an option pitch.

I think a lot of the people who finally got their wish and saw GT can the option, were either misled or misinformed that we were going to start flinging the ball all over the lot. As a matter of fact, the HC stated as much on the ACCN during game week.

This will be a work in progress and fans need to be patient. The good news is the team looked motivated even in defeat. We can give kudos to the players for that. Sometimes the other team is just better.

Go Jackets
 

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
YJMD said:
I think the words CGC used were "NFL offense and defense". But the main part of it is the verbiage, the route trees, the personnel used, the responsibilities of various groups to read the defense... That really has little to do with being effective or what plays actually are run. Obviously there is a recruiting ploy here, but the reality is talented athletes at several programs who didn't see the field or who weren't very productive or whose teams weren't very productive have made the leap to the NFL unencumbered by that. Having trained in a system which lessens the learning curve to the NFL and makes it easier for scouts to project your game at the next level is important. Examples I'm thinking of are LSU when their offense has been meh, backup players at Alabama, USC, etc.

But really the biggest challenge here is comparing our first game as a team under a new scheme against Clemson in their house vs the well-established juggernaut of Oklahoma against Houston in their house.
Click to expand...
The trouble of course with using "NFL style" offenses and defenses is what we learned from the Al Groh experience. While there was no question he was an outstanding technician, it was also true he was trying to implement a complex NFL defense with 20-year-olds he had 20 hours a week. In the pros he had them as long as he wanted, and 60 hour practice weeks in the fall were not unusual. So I don't get very excited when that terminology is thrown about. Call it what you will, it is college.
 
Top