I had this discussion with a friend one time, and thought I would share it with this board...the spread offense will never take ISU to the heights it wants to be.
The spread became such a popular phenomenon in college football a decade ago because it was an equalizer for teams that did not have the talent to match up with the more talented teams on their schedule. The idea of the offense was to spread out the defense, demphasizing the importance of OL play, and split out WRs until the offense finds a speed/height/talent mismatch against the defense. This worked pretty well for a lot of teams a decade ago because defenses were still geared to stop more "traditional" college offenses. That is not the case anymore.
The spread made it possible for average offensive talent to look impressive simply because of the mismatches it posed to defenses. It demphasized the traditional strengths of the D, such as the DL and LB, and placed more of an emphasis on the play of the DB's. As defenses in the last decade have adjusted (gotten faster across the board, increased DB depth, and gameplanning to stop the spread), the advantage gained by running the spread has been lessened. Furthermore, whereas the spread O was only run by mostly "less prestigious" college football programs in the past, it is now being run by some of the most prestigious programs throughout the country. Michigan, Ohio State, Florida, and Texas all run some form of the spread in their offenses today.
A decade ago the only teams recruiting "spread like" high school athletes were the more traditional "bottom feeder" teams and mid majors, today, major players in the college football world are going after talent for the spread offense (dramatically increasing the demand for WR's/DB's). Almost every team in the Big 12 runs some form of the spread offense, it is the most "spread-heavy" league in the country...this brings me to my point on ISU...
With ISU being the least able of Big 12 teams to recruits (in terms of geography and reasources) it makes little sense, IMO, to implement an offense that is nearly identical to Texas, TTech, Kansas, Missouri, etc. because every one of those teams can recruit BETTER than ISU. Essentially, ISU will be left with the talent for their offense that nobody else wants...this recruiting conundrum has been part of the reason for ISU's struggles in football throughout their history...but today I would say it is even more relevant because of the similarity in the offensive style between all of the Big 12 teams, however, I think there is a solution.
IMO, ISU would be best suited to run an option offense...please here my argument. In today's Big 12, EVERY defense has adjusted to the advent of the spread by recruiting as many CB's as possible and by becoming as fast as possible (and in the process, on average, becoming lighter across the board), I think ISU can exploit that by running a power run offense that keeps the opposing offense off the field and creates match up problems for defenses.
Defenses gameplan week in and week out in the Big 12 to stop the spread, imagine the advantage one could gain by running an offense entirely different than that of the rest of the league. Furthermore, if ISU ran an option offense they would be better suited to "plough through" the faster and lighter Big 12 defenses of today with their power running attack.
Also, as Kirk Ferentz has proven, you don't have to recruit elite talent on the OL to have an excellent OL. The OL is one of the easiest positions to coach up on the offense, supposing the teams OL coach is good, and the skill position players in an option offense are VERY coachable...it is more about execution than talent, so recruiting becomes less of an issue.
A couple of obvious replies that I can forsee:
1.) We tried a power run attack under Jim Walden.....
Yes, ISU did implement a wishbone offense under Walden, but back then, there were many power rushing attacks in the Big 12 and that greatly limited its effectiveness at ISU. Also, does anyone here really want to argue that Walden was a good coach? If Rhoads isn't a better coach than Walden, ISU football is in trouble.
2.) The option is a dinosaur, it doesn't work in today's college football world...
Paul Johnson at Georgia Tech disagrees, he compiled a 9-3 record in an ACC jwith an option offense in 2008. Of course, he did get his butt kicked in their bowl game, but it is pretty easy to argue that LSU had far superior athleticism on their team than what GT did. I will grant that when a team has a full month to prepare for an option attack, it is much easier to shut down, however, I think most ISU fans are worried primarily with regular season victories before bowl victories become a concern :wink:
Thoughts?
The spread became such a popular phenomenon in college football a decade ago because it was an equalizer for teams that did not have the talent to match up with the more talented teams on their schedule. The idea of the offense was to spread out the defense, demphasizing the importance of OL play, and split out WRs until the offense finds a speed/height/talent mismatch against the defense. This worked pretty well for a lot of teams a decade ago because defenses were still geared to stop more "traditional" college offenses. That is not the case anymore.
The spread made it possible for average offensive talent to look impressive simply because of the mismatches it posed to defenses. It demphasized the traditional strengths of the D, such as the DL and LB, and placed more of an emphasis on the play of the DB's. As defenses in the last decade have adjusted (gotten faster across the board, increased DB depth, and gameplanning to stop the spread), the advantage gained by running the spread has been lessened. Furthermore, whereas the spread O was only run by mostly "less prestigious" college football programs in the past, it is now being run by some of the most prestigious programs throughout the country. Michigan, Ohio State, Florida, and Texas all run some form of the spread in their offenses today.
A decade ago the only teams recruiting "spread like" high school athletes were the more traditional "bottom feeder" teams and mid majors, today, major players in the college football world are going after talent for the spread offense (dramatically increasing the demand for WR's/DB's). Almost every team in the Big 12 runs some form of the spread offense, it is the most "spread-heavy" league in the country...this brings me to my point on ISU...
With ISU being the least able of Big 12 teams to recruits (in terms of geography and reasources) it makes little sense, IMO, to implement an offense that is nearly identical to Texas, TTech, Kansas, Missouri, etc. because every one of those teams can recruit BETTER than ISU. Essentially, ISU will be left with the talent for their offense that nobody else wants...this recruiting conundrum has been part of the reason for ISU's struggles in football throughout their history...but today I would say it is even more relevant because of the similarity in the offensive style between all of the Big 12 teams, however, I think there is a solution.
IMO, ISU would be best suited to run an option offense...please here my argument. In today's Big 12, EVERY defense has adjusted to the advent of the spread by recruiting as many CB's as possible and by becoming as fast as possible (and in the process, on average, becoming lighter across the board), I think ISU can exploit that by running a power run offense that keeps the opposing offense off the field and creates match up problems for defenses.
Defenses gameplan week in and week out in the Big 12 to stop the spread, imagine the advantage one could gain by running an offense entirely different than that of the rest of the league. Furthermore, if ISU ran an option offense they would be better suited to "plough through" the faster and lighter Big 12 defenses of today with their power running attack.
Also, as Kirk Ferentz has proven, you don't have to recruit elite talent on the OL to have an excellent OL. The OL is one of the easiest positions to coach up on the offense, supposing the teams OL coach is good, and the skill position players in an option offense are VERY coachable...it is more about execution than talent, so recruiting becomes less of an issue.
A couple of obvious replies that I can forsee:
1.) We tried a power run attack under Jim Walden.....
Yes, ISU did implement a wishbone offense under Walden, but back then, there were many power rushing attacks in the Big 12 and that greatly limited its effectiveness at ISU. Also, does anyone here really want to argue that Walden was a good coach? If Rhoads isn't a better coach than Walden, ISU football is in trouble.
2.) The option is a dinosaur, it doesn't work in today's college football world...
Paul Johnson at Georgia Tech disagrees, he compiled a 9-3 record in an ACC jwith an option offense in 2008. Of course, he did get his butt kicked in their bowl game, but it is pretty easy to argue that LSU had far superior athleticism on their team than what GT did. I will grant that when a team has a full month to prepare for an option attack, it is much easier to shut down, however, I think most ISU fans are worried primarily with regular season victories before bowl victories become a concern :wink:
Thoughts?
