🏈 The Spread is here to stay

[Guest]

The Spread is here to stay; this was not Tebow and the Gators that tore us a part but the Utah and the spread. Clearly you could see they created one on one match ups. Which allowed them to take advantage of there speed that there team has. It limited the defense by formation and seemed the longer the game went it on we reduce blitzing package.

When you do spread the defense it reduces the number of blocks that need to be made. Plus helps negate the amount of time that blocks have to be held. Clearly we could all see that the spread is all about timing between the quarterback and his receivers. Teams don't have to necessarily sack the quarterback, but you need to break him out of his comfort zone. Which we failed to do last night. I’m wondering if we have the players to stop it? Seeing how the Gators ran it so well and now Utah, I do believe it is here to say. We have to get better on defense.

We have got to get some pressure up front in order to stop this mess. We really need to get some big boys up front that can push the pocket in and cause the QB to move around forceing bad throws. On the other side we need more the #8 to throw to and a better Oline with a big time QB. Well see I’m wondering if we have those kinda of players coming in.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJOm-IJcbg0&eurl=http://www.fanblogs.com/ncaa/007645.php[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV3X3g4AOws&eurl=http://www.cornnation.com/2008/8/10/590867/defending-the-spread-offen[/youtube]

 

[Sixpack]

This is where I think some teams make a mistake. Bigger isn't better against a spread team. You have to have quickness off the line to get pressure on the QB.

They also have to be players that can take a few reps as many spread teams run hurry up from time to time. Personally I think the hurry up was key. If you can't sub players depth doesn't matter. The Utah coaches noted that the Bama DL often got winded after 2-3 plays, hence they wanted to keep them on the field.

Plus you have to have the DBs to play bump and run more. I was surprised the Bama DBs played so far off the Utah WRs.

Zone doesn't work as well against this type of offense either. To many holes to cover with 4-5 wide sets.

With the QB in the shotgun its difficult to get pressure since he is so far back to begin with and has an extra count or two and drop back passer doesn't have. You have to make that up with pressing the WRs, knocking off timing, giving the DL time to get pressure.

Just some thoughts and observations...

 

[TerryP]

You make the tackle, the spread is stopped. Period.

I'll agree with you that pressure on the QB really beats it down...and when that happens it looks like a high school offense.

But, it wasn't a scheme that won that game. It was poor execution of fundamental football.

 

[Guest]

You make the tackle, the spread is stopped. Period.

I'll agree with you that pressure on the QB really beats it down...and when that happens it looks like a high school offense.

But, it wasn't a scheme that won that game. It was poor execution of fundamental football.

Poor tackling was the only reason the two teams we have faced both ran the spread and both picked us a part. We need some pressure up front, the LBs are great but our secondary got torched and they (Utah) played lights out.

Our offense didn't help any one and Jackson should have been the MVP for Utah. I wonder next fall will we be running any spread? I don't think well will have a great oline next fall. After watching the smacking last night, I'm a bit on the fearful side to think of things that might come out way.

 

[bcgoody44]

If we can land some of these playmakers (Randle, Bumphis) I expect us to start running some of the same things that Saban did at LSU with Jimbo at the helm. That involved spreading the field and utilizing the bubble screen very effectively.

 

[Guest]

I think its on the upswing, but it is just another fad in the long run. The same was said about the Wishbone, the Wing-t, and the Notre Dame Box before that.

There is no system immune to the rule changes that happen (e.g. Platooning, scholarship limitations, blockers allowed to use their hands, the forward pass...) The game evolves.

 

[pimpsahoy]

The spread has been around for about 25 years. It isn't some genius offense that was put together a few years ago. There are plenty of ways to stop it. IMO if you want to be ahead of the curve, go back to power football. Teams are building smaller and smaller defenses that can easily be exploited by the bigger and stronger teams.

 

[reger60]

Terry's right. Make the tackle and stop the spread. The entire system depends on man-to-man match-ups right off the line of scrimage. If that one defender doesn't make the tackle, it's yards after the catch.

 

[alagator]

Terry's right. Make the tackle and stop the spread. The entire system depends on man-to-man match-ups right off the line of scrimage. If that one defender doesn't make the tackle, it's yards after the catch.

Can you guys name me an offense that is NOT neutered if 'you make the tackle?'

Of course, if you have five DBs and a pair of LBs who can all run in the 4.5-to-4.6 second range and to a man NEVER miss a tackle the Spread will become a relic of history.

The beauty of the spread is that by design it isolates defenders in space and requires them to play after play after play after play after play tackle a quick and elusive offensive player with little to no help. Tackle a Harvin or Rainey or Demps (for instance) one-on-one for no gain on first down and you have achieved a great feat. Now, repeat that on second down. Now, repeat that again on third down. To have an explosive play, all it takes is one defender to miss his one-on-one tackle and the chase is on.

The Spread has its weaknesses, short yardage and milking the clock at the end of the game being two. But it can neuter certain All-American quality players (see Cody last night and versus Florida) and quickly expose a weakness on the defense (see #24 for us in the last two games). #24 obviously has a little trouble in one-on-one coverage and the spread, by design, took away any safety help he so desperately needed. All night long versus Florida and Utah, when our opponent needed a big play in the passing game they put him on an island and he consistently failed to produce.

Yes, 'all he had to do was tackle or knock the pass down, and the spread was stopped.' But the fact of the matter was he could not, and the system eliminated any possibility of hiding him - or giving him any help.

Ask any defensive coach and they will tell you they preach gang tackling and having eleven men run to the ball. Hard to do that when the offense lines up with one WR about five yards from the left sideline and another WR lined up about five yards from the right sideline (already you have the the CBs over 40 yards apart. Now toss in a slot guy to each side (or two to one side) and you have the secondary spread even further. Flip a quick screen out to one of the wideouts and you have basically eliminated about half your defenders from being able to make a play on the ball. Have just ONE defender miss and you have very positive yardage. Spread your defense out to outnumber the WRs and you are exposed to a counter or quick hitting run play. This stuff is really just a game of numbers.

Someone mentioned that the best way to stop the spread is by running a power offense - since most defenses are becoming smaller and quicker to counter the spread. Can it be said that all these smaller and quicker defenders have to do to stop power ball is to just 'make the tackle.' Look, absent some major rule changes, the old Gene Stallings style of offense is a thing of the past.

 

[TidePride50]

(see #24 for us in the last two games). #24 obviously has a little trouble in one-on-one coverage and the spread, by design, took away any safety help he so desperately needed. All night long versus Florida and Utah, when our opponent needed a big play in the passing game they put him on an island and he consistently failed to produce.

I'm not going to dog the kid, but wondered if I was the only one that noticed this. I've tought all season that our secondary was a weakness, but it wasnt exposed until UF and now Utah.

Look, absent some major rule changes, the old Gene Stallings style of offense is a thing of the past.

I don't neccesarily agree with that. Just because not many are doing right now doesnt mean it's a thing of the past. I believe you can still be successful with power runnning and PA passing. The "spread" will come and go just like all other gimmick offenses. The defenses will catch up and the offenses will evolove into something else.

 

[pimpsahoy]

Terry's right. Make the tackle and stop the spread. The entire system depends on man-to-man match-ups right off the line of scrimage. If that one defender doesn't make the tackle, it's yards after the catch.

Someone mentioned that the best way to stop the spread is by running a power offense - since most defenses are becoming smaller and quicker to counter the spread. Can it be said that all these smaller and quicker defenders have to do to stop power ball is to just 'make the tackle.' Look, absent some major rule changes, the old Gene Stallings style of offense is a thing of the past.

I am that someone but I never said that a power offense would stop the spread. I said that a power offense is ahead of the curve at this point. I think it is a little late to be installing a "Run and Shoot" offense.

I'm not sure what a Gene Stallings offense is but I think this whole season proved that you can line up with 2 TE's and have a power run game and be extremely effective.

You also made the point that the "Run and Shoot" is effective because it puts players in space one on one over and over. Well that's pretty much every offense in football. Isolate a teams weakness and attack. The wishbone was designed to do the very same thing. The "Run and Shoot" is effective because of its' short timing routes. The QB gets the ball out of his hands quickly before most pass rushes can get to him. You want to stop it, you have to disrupt the timing either by putting pressure on the QB or playing very good press coverage.

I think the point about tackling was mainly directed towards last night. Awful tackling made their very good offense... unstoppable.

 

[alagator]

My question of "is the only thing necessary for a smaller and quicker defense designed to counter the spread to also stop a power run game that the players 'make the tackle?'"

My point being that yes, simply making the tackle on the spot is ALL ANY defense need to do to stop ANY offense. But the spread makes this a much more difficult task.

Not 'every offense' puts people in isolated space. The two Power I offense with two TEs or an Ace formation with a TE and H-Back by design puts more people in closer proximity to each other and relies more on brute force. Yes, the ultimate objective is to block every player save one and have a one-on-one contest (say between a RB and Safety). But with all those other players drawn in by the formation, the offense has to have almost EVERY single player win their individual one-on-one battle for the play to succeed. There are many more defensive players in the specific area of the play who can win their battle and make the tackle and stop the play.

With the spread, by design you scatter the defense all across the length of the field to obtain multiple one-on-one matchups. Where in a bunched formation the defense has to win only one player-on-player battle (read block) to help make the tackle, when facing a spread the defense more often has to win EVERY matchup to stop a play - partially because help is either non-existent or is a long way away.

Look, eventually better teams composed of better players should usually win. Gene Stallings was famous for saying 'formations and schemes do not win games, players making plays win games.' He said this to defend his outdated offensive philosophy. A philosophy born in an era when the skill level of college players was such that they could not play an up-tempo offensive attack without making critical mistakes to lose games. Today however, players, especially QBs, can and do use their talents in more productive ways. Yes, Stallings was correct in principle, but wrong in so many ways. 'Formations and schemes' do not win games, but they 'help' far more than they did even fifteen years ago.

('Stallings Ball' was also predicated on milking the clock and shortening the game by running the ball and taking the play clock down to near zero every time. He wanted to reduce the number of plays in the game. Great theory when you are the outmatched team - like he may have been at Texas A&M and with the NFL Cardinals. But when you coach at a place like Alabama - or Florida or LSU or USC or Texas or Oklahoma, there is little reason you should not have better players than most of your opponents and you should seek to LENGTHEN the game. Run more plays to give your better athletes MORE chances to apply their greater skills. Unless of course you still buy into the theory that players are not talented enough to 'win' games as opposed to making mistakes to 'lose' games.)

You hear the old 'when you pass, three things can happen and two are bad' - a mistake because FIVE things can happen (completed pass, incomplete pass, intercepted pass, QB sack, QB scrambles for positive yardage). So three potential outcomes are bad versus only two good - or the odds are 40% that a successful outcome is possible. This is an odd way of thinking when moderately good college QBs today complete 60%-or-more of their passes and (a presumption) QBs scramble for positive yardage about as often as they are sacked.

And let's look at running the ball. Are there not three possible outcomes (positive run of 4 yards or more, negative run of less than four yards, fumble), with two being 'bad?'

 

[TidePride50]

Look, eventually better teams composed of better players should usually win. Gene Stallings was famous for saying 'formations and schemes do not win games, players making plays win games.' He said this to defend his outdated offensive philosophy. A philosophy born in an era when the skill level of college players was such that they could not play an up-tempo offensive attack without making critical mistakes to lose games. Today however, players, especially QBs, can and do use their talents in more productive ways. Yes, Stallings was correct in principle, but wrong in so many ways. 'Formations and schemes' do not win games, but they 'help' far more than they did even fifteen years ago.

('Stallings Ball' was also predicated on milking the clock and shortening the game by running the ball and taking the play clock down to near zero every time. He wanted to reduce the number of plays in the game. Great theory when you are the outmatched team - like he may have been at Texas A&M and with the NFL Cardinals. But when you coach at a place like Alabama - or Florida or LSU or USC or Texas or Oklahoma, there is little reason you should not have better players than most of your opponents and you should seek to LENGTHEN the game. Run more plays to give your better athletes MORE chances to apply their greater skills. Unless of course you still buy into the theory that players are not talented enough to 'win' games as opposed to making mistakes to 'lose' games.)

You can say all you want about Stallings philosophy being outdated, but you can't argue with the his success at Bama. Didnt he average like 10 wins a season? He is the most successful coach Bama has had since Coach Bryant.

 

[Crimson&WhiteGecko]

Alagator, you have very good points about the spread & how it is designed to nuetralize the gang tackling concepts of traditional defenses as well as creating more plays for you great athletes to make GREAT plays (just increasing the odds).

The only issue I see (although not much of one) is that the Defenses that Stallings had could:

A.) Cover man to man very well, thus reducing # of completions & increase the # of sacks (secondary coverage sacks as they say).

&

B.) Tackle well for the most part, thus reducing the # of big plays, as Saban calls it.

Stallings Defenses could do these well & they usually played a 4-3 & not a 3-4.

For me it comes down to BOTH players AND positioning them to be successfull. Our secondary is one of a few examples where this team doesn't have the greatest players but they have been executing relatively well all season. They just got beat last night in coverage & tackling as a result.

 

[musso]

Terry's right. Make the tackle and stop the spread. The entire system depends on man-to-man match-ups right off the line of scrimage. If that one defender doesn't make the tackle, it's yards after the catch.

Can you guys name me an offense that is NOT neutered if 'you make the tackle?'

Of course, if you have five DBs and a pair of LBs who can all run in the 4.5-to-4.6 second range and to a man NEVER miss a tackle the Spread will become a relic of history.

The beauty of the spread is that by design it isolates defenders in space and requires them to play after play after play after play after play tackle a quick and elusive offensive player with little to no help. Tackle a Harvin or Rainey or Demps (for instance) one-on-one for no gain on first down and you have achieved a great feat. Now, repeat that on second down. Now, repeat that again on third down. To have an explosive play, all it takes is one defender to miss his one-on-one tackle and the chase is on.

The Spread has its weaknesses, short yardage and milking the clock at the end of the game being two. But it can neuter certain All-American quality players (see Cody last night and versus Florida) and quickly expose a weakness on the defense (see #24 for us in the last two games). #24 obviously has a little trouble in one-on-one coverage and the spread, by design, took away any safety help he so desperately needed. All night long versus Florida and Utah, when our opponent needed a big play in the passing game they put him on an island and he consistently failed to produce.

Yes, 'all he had to do was tackle or knock the pass down, and the spread was stopped.' But the fact of the matter was he could not, and the system eliminated any possibility of hiding him - or giving him any help.

Ask any defensive coach and they will tell you they preach gang tackling and having eleven men run to the ball. Hard to do that when the offense lines up with one WR about five yards from the left sideline and another WR lined up about five yards from the right sideline (already you have the the CBs over 40 yards apart. Now toss in a slot guy to each side (or two to one side) and you have the secondary spread even further. Flip a quick screen out to one of the wideouts and you have basically eliminated about half your defenders from being able to make a play on the ball. Have just ONE defender miss and you have very positive yardage. Spread your defense out to outnumber the WRs and you are exposed to a counter or quick hitting run play. This stuff is really just a game of numbers.

Someone mentioned that the best way to stop the spread is by running a power offense - since most defenses are becoming smaller and quicker to counter the spread. Can it be said that all these smaller and quicker defenders have to do to stop power ball is to just 'make the tackle.' Look, absent some major rule changes, the old Gene Stallings style of offense is a thing of the past.

great post alagator.

you can't totally separate "scheme" and "execution."

terry, i love ya man, but i can't help but think back months ago to my huge thread on how to stop the spread offense. this game validated so many points that i and the other coaches made. Saban's big, heavy players are not suited to stopping that kind of offense. and yes, execution was a problem, but you can't say scheme wasn't also.

consider Saban's post-game comments:

it's a difficult matchup for us [on defense], 4 and 5 receivers in the game … systematically we’re going to have to do some things different in the future … we didn’t get any pressure early in the game … we probably kept it too simple early in the game and didn’t create enough problems in pass rush … it was a good matchup for them and maybe not a good matchup for us …

granted, not all of our mistackles were excusable, but i think it's unreasonable to expect Jackson at 5-11 to take down Utah's Brown at 6-4 by himself.

speaking of Jackson listen to this:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BnQl0q7L9c&eurl=&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

sure, this was a tough matchup for us, but Saban got his ass handed to him, period. this may be tough for all the Saban worshippers on this board to accept, i know.

 

[Argo]

At 5-11 / 190 pounds, Kareem is one of the lightest players on our defense. I don't understand how you can say our heavy players won't work against the spread, but in the same post say a light player shouldn't be expected to tackle a bigger player all by himself.

Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but it appears to me that if a smaller player shouldn't be expected to tackle a bigger player all by himself, then we need bigger players. :?

 

[musso]

argo,

do you remember that massive thread early in the season (or maybe in the preseason) that talked about how to defend the spread?

it talked about the need to have a lighter defensive front.

fact is, we should have been using our LBs as DEs and moved our DEs to DT the whole game, not just the 2nd half. evidently Saban wised up at halftime. notice on Utah's first possession of the 3rd qt we used Hightower at DE and he created that crucial turnover.

in no way am i saying we need lighter DBs. i used Jackson's crucial mistackles as an example that you can't simply put our defensive woes in this game on the shoulders of the players by saying it was a lack of "execution" when Jackson was isolated on a much bigger receiver.

hell, we weren't even set half the time before Utah snapped the ball. that's not "execution" problems! that's on the coaches!

 

[Argo]

For the record, we didn't do a bad job against Utah's spread, once we adjusted to it.

1. 17 plays, 165yds, 3 td
2. 13 plays, 45yds, 0 td
3. 14 plays, 89yds, 1 td
4. 19 plays, 60yds, 1 fg

1st quarter; 9.7 yards per play.

Rest of the game; 4.2 yards per play.

 

[pimpsahoy]

Our defense had ONE bad game and now we need to overhaul the entire system?

I'm not exactly sure when it happened but we did move to a 3 man front with 3 DE's pretty early in the first half. At that point Hightower became a pass rusher and McClain blitzed more than he had all year. The adjustments that you wanted, happened... and we only marginally improved. The problem wasn't system, scheme, or size. We didn't have the DB's to play man to man coverage, we didn't have a speed rushing DE, and we didn't tackle.

For the love of all that is good... Nick Saban knows more about defense than anybody on this board. If he wants McClain playing the Mike... then just trust him and go with it.

 

[Guest]

For the record, we didn't do a bad job against Utah's spread, once we adjusted to it.

1. 17 plays, 165yds, 3 td
2. 13 plays, 45yds, 0 td
3. 14 plays, 89yds, 1 td
4. 19 plays, 60yds, 1 fg

1st quarter; 9.7 yards per play.

Rest of the game; 4.2 yards per play.

Yeah that game was lost before it even started(I gathered this from the quotes from players). First quarter was the difference. Think during the game they even said Saban made the defensive adjustments himself.