The Spread Offence in the S.E.C.

[Unreconstructed]

To those who say that the spread offence won't produce against the S.E.C. defenses, I say that an examination of the facts indicates otherwise. The first time a dominant S.E.C. defense came up against the spread was in the 2005 Sugar Bowl, I believe, when S.E.C. Champ Georgia faced West Virginia, one of the spread offence pioneers. Georgia had a top notch defense that year, and some members of that defense boasted that they were going to introduce the UWV running backs to some S.E.C. defense which would significantly reduce their high offensive output. At the end of the game. the Georgia defense had been totally shredded, with two West Virginia running backs well over one hundred yards apiece. The Georgia defense was not manhandled; there were just too many options for it to cover.

Last year, our offence was indeed woeful; but the defense was good, though, admittedly, not great. The UWV spread did against us what it had against Georgia a few years before. Again, our defense was not manhandled but just could not cover all the options.

Also, out on the Left Coast, Southern California, the premiere team of the decade, has repeatedly lost to spread teams like Oregon this year, whose spread offences shredded one of college football's top defenses (Admittedly, this year the Trojan defense has not performed up to usual levels). The key to any offence is personnel. No offence, regardless how well designed, will not produce unless it has the players with abilities suited to it. Florida this year is not scoring as it did last year because the departure of Percy Harbin and other deep threats allows the defense to crowd the line of scrimmage more, but last year they ran wild in the S.E.C. East, scoring over 50 points against most teams (LSU, Georgia, et al.).

That points up the key to any offence: the necessity of having players whose abilities are suited to that scheme. If we can recruit such players, Malzahn's offense will produce those 40 and 50 point games. This year the staff has had to make do with what they inherited, players who, largely, were not recruited with the spread offense in mind. It is absurd to condemn Auburn's use of the spread until we see if we can recruit the type of players who make it go. If we can't do this, in several years we should scrap it and get something more suitable to the kind of players we can recruit; but in view of the success other teams have had with the spread, we should at least give it a few years before we determine whether or not we can win with it.

As an aside, I have to admit that those successful spread teams, while often beating teams with superior personnel, do tend to lose some games to teams they should beat.

[LittleE4AU]

Good post....but I do believe that you have to have a QB that is versatile...that can run and throw. If he can complete 50% of his passes and run for 700-800 yds a year..it will be a dynamic offense. When the D can not account for the QB..it always produces problems. However, championships, as shown in the past, are usually won with good defense. Having both a great offense and great defense is a rarity.

[pado1974]

The spread could succeed, although unlikely.The gimmick gadget system will not.

[Auburn231]

Originally Posted by pado1974

The spread could succeed, although unlikely.The gimmick gadget system will not.

The Spread has succeeded. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Florida has won two national championships with the spread...Most every team whether college, pro, or high school has some spread plays in their playbook. You can question the longevity of the hurry-up-no-huddle-offense or the wildcat formation but the spread has already proven itself.

[SWBgHz]

Originally Posted by Unreconstructed

To those who say that the spread offence won't produce against the S.E.C. defenses, I say that an examination of the facts indicates otherwise. The first time a dominant S.E.C. defense came up against the spread was in the 2005 Sugar Bowl, I believe, when S.E.C. Champ Georgia faced West Virginia, one of the spread offence pioneers. Georgia had a top notch defense that year, and some members of that defense boasted that they were going to introduce the UWV running backs to some S.E.C. defense which would significantly reduce their high offensive output. At the end of the game. the Georgia defense had been totally shredded, with two West Virginia running backs well over one hundred yards apiece. The Georgia defense was not manhandled; there were just too many options for it to cover.

One game doesn't determine the viability of the spread becuase the whole point of the 'spread won't work in the SEC' argument is not about one game against a good defense but 5 or 6 or 7. The issue with the spread is about week in and week out relying on high flying, big play offense that is not build on a solid foundation of power running and at least some ball control ability.

Originally Posted by Unreconstructed

Last year, our offence was indeed woeful; but the defense was good, though, admittedly, not great. The UWV spread did against us what it had against Georgia a few years before. Again, our defense was not manhandled but just could not cover all the options.

Again, one game and one game amidst a year of severe turmoil and lacking leadership. Not relevant to the viability of the spread in the SEC overall.

Originally Posted by Unreconstructed

Also, out on the Left Coast, Southern California, the premiere team of the decade, has repeatedly lost to spread teams like Oregon this year, whose spread offences shredded one of college football's top defenses (Admittedly, this year the Trojan defense has not performed up to usual levels). The key to any offence is personnel. No offence, regardless how well designed, will not produce unless it has the players with abilities suited to it. Florida this year is not scoring as it did last year because the departure of Percy Harbin and other deep threats allows the defense to crowd the line of scrimmage more, but last year they ran wild in the S.E.C. East, scoring over 50 points against most teams (LSU, Georgia, et al.).

Again, not really on point. Nobody argues that the spread does wonders for second and third tier programs in a force multiplier way (getting more bang for the buck if you will). The question with the spread is again, week in and week out in a conference like the SEC with more talent top to bottom then anywhere else.

[quote=Unreconstructed;123484]That points up the key to any offence: the necessity of having players whose abilities are suited to that scheme. If we can recruit such players, Malzahn's offense will produce those 40 and 50 point games. This year the staff has had to make do with what they inherited, players who, largely, were not recruited with the spread offense in mind. It is absurd to condemn Auburn's use of the spread until we see if we can recruit the type of players who make it go. If we can't do this, in several years we should scrap it and get something more suitable to the kind of players we can recruit; but in view of the success other teams have had with the spread, we should at least give it a few years before we determine whether or not we can win with it./quote]

I really think you are delusional, borderline schizophrenic, if you think a team is going to go week in week out 40 to 50 points a game. Hell, look at Florida (an unusually non spread spread team in that they very much run a traditional power running offense from a spread formation). Florida doesn't put up 40 to 50 points a game and they are arguably as good a squad as you get and they got a once in a blue moon superman Heisman QB running that offense. Now, if you want to produce Auburn's Tim Tebow I am all for the spread and will expect it to do well - but short of that you will have a very hard time seeing even Florida's non traditional spread find consistent success.

Originally Posted by Unreconstructed

As an aside, I have to admit that those successful spread teams, while often beating teams with superior personnel, do tend to lose some games to teams they should beat.

And here is the rub with the spread, I applaud you for pointing it out. When you rely on scoring so much like spread teams do, on scheme getting the defense out of position or pace making them tired - you will hit that point at least once in a season where those things don't happen because the other teams steps up and is ready. When you are more traditional in offense you can out execute them and still find success, make your own success if you will. But spread teams rely on finding the mistake on the defense and capitalizing on it so are more prone to faltering against a team that is well prepared, up to the challenge physically, and/or possessing a good deal of team speed and quality athletes (sound like any teams you know - oh yeah, most of the SEC defenses).

I had a couple threads on this subject, one is here - lots of folks chimed in if you want to take a look.

Originally Posted by Auburn231

The Spread has succeeded. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Florida has won two national championships with the spread...Most every team whether college, pro, or high school has some spread plays in their playbook. You can question the longevity of the hurry-up-no-huddle-offense or the wildcat formation but the spread has already proven itself.

Florida actually has shown why the spread won't work in the SEC if you really look at what Urban Meyer's system was when he came to Florida and how he changed it after his first year. The short of it is that Meyer realized, and publicly talked about this, that to be succesful against the quantity of quality defenses in the league you had to have a solid power running game and from that foundation you could open up other parts of the offense. Ad a super talent like a Tebow and you get the success they have found. BUt remember, it was just last week that Tebow surpassed Herschal Walker for the SEC touchdown crown, rushing touchdowns. Florida is not at all a typical pass heavy spread team, not at all. They run to pass, the play ball control, and they use an inside option run/pitch/pass game to setup big plays. About the only common spread element in Florida's offense is the formation, beyond that they have a very traditional approach to offense with a good bit of read and react by the quarterback as to when to run/pitch/pass.

I don't think most people care what formation we use, the issue of contest is the philosophy of go-go-go big play metality we have seen so much of from CGM or a more modern way of power running and setting up big plays possibilities while controlling the ball and line of scrimmage (i.e. what Florida does).

[Lynx34]

Tired topic. I don't know why anyone tries arguing this beyond what has already been said. Not enough data to support it one way or the other. Let's move on.

[SWBgHz]

How can we move on until the question is answered. The very fact that it is unanswered is the reason it is a viable topic. And with our defensive issues this year (depth and talent) the topic is far more relevant than even last year as the defense is definitely buckling under the fast pace of the offense getting off and on the field whether from fast score or fast punt.

[Lynx34]

Not why the defense is buckling. They're buckling because they're simply not that good. Period. These are athletes that are active constantly; if they have 5 minutes (real time, not football time), they'll catch their breath and they always do. I'm tired of seeing that as an excuse. It's bull. They get tired if they're on the field for long drives. That's when they get tired. You like to use the ONE example of multiple consecutive 3-and-outs in the Ole Miss game (still yet to hear you mention a single other instance of that happening) and the defense held. In the 4th. End of story.

But to stay on topic, is it relevant? Yes. But all the points have been made. I haven't seen or heard a new valid argument in two weeks in the maybe 5 threads it's been discussed. At this point, we just have to wait while more data accumulates on the subject. Your yourself say that it isn't able to hold up week in week out in the big picture scale. Well let's wait until the year is actually over before we make an assertion like that. You can't make a "big picture" argument when the big picture doesn't exist yet.

[SWBgHz]

I don't know - that three game stretch where they could hardly get a first down seems like a pretty 'big picture' to me. So far, the only games where the offense has not looked like last year are games against poor teams, and even against a poor Ketucky team they look pretty anemic.

I just don't get what it will take to give up on this offense, or at least take a second look at how it is implemented like Urban Meyer did and man up and adapt to the league. MInd you I am not calling for 3 yards a cloud of dust next week - just some modification of the offense to account for the situation and I just don't see much of anything but the same thing from CGM.

Anyways, these next two games will tell a lot, there is no reason this offense shouldn't score decently against UGA and a win will be possible if our defense can hold them to a score less than we can get - man I hate track meet games but I think UGA is gonna be a track meet last one with the ball wins. Now Bama, I think a good solid disciplined defense like Bama's will shut our offense down like nothing but I hope I am wrong. We will see, even if we just get one of these next two it will have been a good first year overall - the important thing is to not have the team from that 3 week slide show up either of these next two.

[Lynx34]

That 3 game stretch was because of execution, not scheme. Could that mean maybe they weren't as well prepared by the coaches? Maybe. But we don't know. I disagree with your analysis. In fact, the teams we've played against where the offense looked like last year have horrendous defenses, with the exception of LSU, but even they have arguably a weaker defense than either UT and Ole Miss. Tennessee and Ole Miss both have defenses in the top half of the conference and are ranked in the top 30 nationally in both scoring and total defense. On the other side, Kentucky and Arkansas are both at the bottom of the conference in total and scoring defense. So what does that tell you? It says that our problems in those games had a lot more to do with our own execution (or lack thereof) than the actual defenses we played. We had some opportunities at LSU even, but they were missed. They deserve credit, but that 3 game stretch was mostly Auburn shooting themselves in the foot.

The key is to see that there is a distinction between failure due to execution and failure due to scheme. We had 400+ yards against a professionally coached defense in Tennessee and an Ole Miss defense that hadn't allowed more points in a single game than we scored in a single quarter on them. Our team just needs to keep chugging and continue on this streak they've started. Georgia will be a fun game to watch, and without this offense, we wouldn't even have a chance against Bama. Like you say, force multiplier.