Why is college football so different from pro?
December 7, 2008 11:35 AM Subscribe
Football philosophy: All of the outstanding college teams these days use the "spread" offense, with four or five wide-outs on every play. They run out of the shotgun (when they do run; mostly it's a passing man's game), and they never huddle up, getting the plays from the sidelines before the snap. Why doesn't this philosophy work in the NFL? Why is pro football more "traditional," with huddles, infrequent shotguns, fullbacks, multiple tight-ends, et cetera?
Much of it has to do with the parity of NFL players and teams. The skill level, size, and speed of players are basically the same across teams thanks to redistributive draft procedures and salary caps. Therefore, playing a purely passing game will quickly get shut down by a decent NFL offense.
posted by proj at 12:04 PM on December 7, 2008
posted by proj at 12:04 PM on December 7, 2008
Best answer: The relative popularity of offenses goes in cycles, both in college and the NFL. The NFL (and to a similar extent, college football) is often referred to as a "copycat league," meaning that if a team has particular success with an offense, many other teams imitate that offense, whether they have suitable personnel. An example of this is Rich Rodriguez, the current Michigan coach, who had great success with the spread at West Virginia, and who had recruited the right players to run that system. When he took over at Michigan this season and attempted to install the same offense, he failed miserably, because the current Michigan players were/are not suitable to run the system. The offensive line was not mobile enough to pull and stunt as needed, and the QB was not mobile enough to be a serious running threat. (Which is why former Western PA high school and current Ohio State QB Terrell Pryor was such a huge recruiting loss for Rodriguez last spring when he took the Michigan job.) While the spread has been popular in college for a few years now (I think of Eric Crouch winning the Heisman in Nebraska in 2001, especially), I think a large part of it is what gnutron says: you can't fool an NFL defense like you can a college defense. The players are much bigger, faster, and smarter in the NFL than in college, and they have a LOT more experience, generally speaking.
However, that doesn't mean that the spread, option, and other non-traditional offensive sets have gone the way of the dodo in the NFL. I'm a Patriots fan, so I can speak generally to what they do more than I can to other teams' offenses, and the Pats have utilized direct snaps every couple of games throughout the Belichick era. The no-huddle offense has been an absolute staple of the Patriots' offense throughout Belichick's tenure, as well. (Although less so this season due to the season-ending injury to QB Tom Brady) One game in particular that comes to mind was a 2006 game against the Minnesota Vikings, who at the time had a 4-2 record and were considered to have a good pass defense. Brady operated almost exclusively with an empty backfield spread offense, many times with five wide receivers, and picked the Vikings apart the entire game. The final was 31-7, and it wasn't even that close. (Apologies to MeFi Vikes fans).
More presciently, the wildcat offense has become the offense du jour in the NFL. Miami demolished the Pats with it early this season, and a number of other teams have incorporated it (although not fully and to the extent Miami has) in other games.
posted by diggerroo at 12:08 PM on December 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
However, that doesn't mean that the spread, option, and other non-traditional offensive sets have gone the way of the dodo in the NFL. I'm a Patriots fan, so I can speak generally to what they do more than I can to other teams' offenses, and the Pats have utilized direct snaps every couple of games throughout the Belichick era. The no-huddle offense has been an absolute staple of the Patriots' offense throughout Belichick's tenure, as well. (Although less so this season due to the season-ending injury to QB Tom Brady) One game in particular that comes to mind was a 2006 game against the Minnesota Vikings, who at the time had a 4-2 record and were considered to have a good pass defense. Brady operated almost exclusively with an empty backfield spread offense, many times with five wide receivers, and picked the Vikings apart the entire game. The final was 31-7, and it wasn't even that close. (Apologies to MeFi Vikes fans).
More presciently, the wildcat offense has become the offense du jour in the NFL. Miami demolished the Pats with it early this season, and a number of other teams have incorporated it (although not fully and to the extent Miami has) in other games.
posted by diggerroo at 12:08 PM on December 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
Maybe it's a risk/reward thing?
It seems to me that pro teams aren't as willing to go for big plays if there's any significant chance that they could backfire. Even though Tennessee (arguably the best team in the NFL) trounced Detroit (looking to get its first win this week) 47-10 on Thanksgiving, there were only two plays in the entire game longer than 50 yards—as bad as the Lions are, they still play football for a living, and their defense didn't get to the NFL by being surprised by what the other team was going to do.
I think you're more likely to see wide-open play in college because there's a bigger chance that a hole will open up somewhere in the defense, and the offense will be able to punch through that hole. And it does backfire—I've probably only seen 10-12 hours of college football this season, and I've seen at least three plays where the quarterback takes the snap out of the shotgun, looks to throw a medium-to-long pass, it bounces off of someone, and then is intercepted by the other team.
posted by oaf at 12:16 PM on December 7, 2008
It seems to me that pro teams aren't as willing to go for big plays if there's any significant chance that they could backfire. Even though Tennessee (arguably the best team in the NFL) trounced Detroit (looking to get its first win this week) 47-10 on Thanksgiving, there were only two plays in the entire game longer than 50 yards—as bad as the Lions are, they still play football for a living, and their defense didn't get to the NFL by being surprised by what the other team was going to do.
I think you're more likely to see wide-open play in college because there's a bigger chance that a hole will open up somewhere in the defense, and the offense will be able to punch through that hole. And it does backfire—I've probably only seen 10-12 hours of college football this season, and I've seen at least three plays where the quarterback takes the snap out of the shotgun, looks to throw a medium-to-long pass, it bounces off of someone, and then is intercepted by the other team.
posted by oaf at 12:16 PM on December 7, 2008
I don't think I've seen much if any success re: Wildcat since midway through the season. Another Pats fan here - they figured out how to stop that in the second Miami game & seemed to use the spread offense pretty well, but Miami's pass defense is terrible.
Cosign the problem = defenders are generally much bigger and faster in the NFL. And are most teams' wideouts going to get down the field quickly enough, when the defense is going to get to the quarterback faster & put on constant pressure? Pats were starting to get slowed down by this toward the end of last season. If I remember correctly the Philadelphia game seemed like a point where opponents started to figure it out. Reid had an outside linebacker basically making moves at random: sometimes blitzing, sometimes dropping back, with no rhyme or reason to it, one thing that rattled Brady enough that.. game was very close, at least, and McNabb wasn't even playing. (jeez though, I just read the stats and TB still torched them for 380 passing yards. how good were the Pats last year?!)
I don't watch much college football but I caught a few games this year to see what was up with this, esp Texas Tech who impressed me vs Texas, but the Oklahoma game was possibly the sorriest football disaster I've ever witnessed. Am I correct in that Tech is effective with this offense sometimes, but if they can't get it going, the risk is being so one-dimensional you have a pretty epic crash and burn?
posted by citron at 12:43 PM on December 7, 2008
Cosign the problem = defenders are generally much bigger and faster in the NFL. And are most teams' wideouts going to get down the field quickly enough, when the defense is going to get to the quarterback faster & put on constant pressure? Pats were starting to get slowed down by this toward the end of last season. If I remember correctly the Philadelphia game seemed like a point where opponents started to figure it out. Reid had an outside linebacker basically making moves at random: sometimes blitzing, sometimes dropping back, with no rhyme or reason to it, one thing that rattled Brady enough that.. game was very close, at least, and McNabb wasn't even playing. (jeez though, I just read the stats and TB still torched them for 380 passing yards. how good were the Pats last year?!)
I don't watch much college football but I caught a few games this year to see what was up with this, esp Texas Tech who impressed me vs Texas, but the Oklahoma game was possibly the sorriest football disaster I've ever witnessed. Am I correct in that Tech is effective with this offense sometimes, but if they can't get it going, the risk is being so one-dimensional you have a pretty epic crash and burn?
posted by citron at 12:43 PM on December 7, 2008
The spread isn't so new, and the NFL model isn't so old. Read this article at SI on how the single wing principles are influencing the modern formations.
posted by stevis23 at 12:44 PM on December 7, 2008
posted by stevis23 at 12:44 PM on December 7, 2008
For anyone really interested in the spread, where it came from, and why it does and does not work I highly recc this blog post
posted by JPD at 2:10 PM on December 7, 2008
posted by JPD at 2:10 PM on December 7, 2008
This thread is closed to new comments.
Running from the spread offense doesn't work in the NFL the same way it does in college because the NFL players are so much bigger & faster across the board. Someone like Tim Tebow has a great advantage running out the backfield in college b/c he matches up well with the defense athletically...that advantage would be negated by the size and speed of NFL defenders
posted by gnutron at 11:45 AM on December 7, 2008