Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:37 pm EST
The major strategic revolution of the last few years is obviously the upward mobility of "the spread," in its myriad forms, from backwaters like Northwestern and Purdue to heavier hitters on the food chain. However you configured your final poll, four of the top five teams this year (Florida, Utah, Texas and Oklahoma) operated overwhelmingly from spread formations, along with Oregon, Texas Tech, Ole Miss, Oklahoma State, Cincinnati, Missouri, BYU and West Virginia in the year-end top 25. Illinois, Kansas and South Florida all started the season in the polls after winning big with various iterations of the spread in 2007, to say nothing of staunch power-running schools like Michigan and Auburn (and sometimes Penn State), whose wholesale adoption of multiple-receiver, shotgun-based systems signaled their final stage of their "arrival" for the foreseeable future. Every team in the NFL occasionally empties the backfield in the course of its regular gameplan. Anyone who continues to refer to "the spread" as a novelty at this point is hopeless.
The most important point in the jejune-ification of the trend isn't just that so many teams are succeeding with four and five-receiver formations, but that so many talent-rich outfits are now failing with them, too. The transitions to the spread at Michigan and Auburn were unmitigated disasters, while Kansas, USF, Missouri, West Virginia and Illinois all regressed to various extents on the heels of steady offensive gains since first spreading it out and moving athletic quarterbacks into the shotgun. Arizona State, Purdue, Washington, Washington State and Louisville had horrible seasons. Nobody expected much from Arkansas' first stab at implementing Bobby Petrino's pass-oriented system, and they didn't get much. With these obvious diminishing returns, 2008 was perhaps the year "the spread" finally graduated from a gimmick to just another standard that depends on athletes and execution.
Some people have been asking for years if the spread was at its apex in terms of effectiveness, but in terms of sheer influence, more and more teams have continued to adopt it. Now we're beginning to see signs that the spread window has closed. Chris at Smart Football suggests today that Purdue, beacon of the spread in the salt-of-the-earth Big Ten, is probably done as a spread-only team with the ascension of new coach Danny Hope and "NFL-esque" offensive coordinator Greg Nord from Florida Atlantic. In the same conference, Minnesota cut loose offensive coordinator Mike Dunbar, a spread guru from Northwestern, shortly after hiring a new offensive line coach in an effort to return to its power-oriented roots, at least in part; it remains to be seen where the Gophers are going to go with their offensive coordinator hire, but indications are that head coach Tim Brewster wants more balance after bottoming out as the worst rushing team in the Big Ten. West Virginia offensive coordinator Jeff Mullen's background is with the triple option, and the move to a more multiple offense last year might be the first step in the Mountaineers' long-term deceleration from the Rich Rodriguez-era spread with its main proprietors, Rodriguez and Pat White, both memories.
Meanwhile, there's a good chance that there won't be any new adoptees to the spread-as-philosophy in 2009.
Nobody will be able to evolve totally away from the spread, whose useful adaptations -- especially the concept of "spread to run," and forcing the defense to account for the quarterback as a potential ballcarrier -- are already a subsection even of almost all "conventional" offenses, and will remain so. But watch as the pendulum swings away from the "pure spread," and toward balance and variety with shotgun and multi-receiver concepts sprinkled in rather than serving as the basis for an entire system; the effective elements of the system will remain, but the days of ubiquitous read options, bubble screens and spring practice chatter about "going spread" are likely over. For coaches stuck without much talent, a new innovation will have to come along to take its place (and I wouldn't hold my breath for the A-11).
Dr. Saturday is a college football blog edited by Matt Hinton. Email him tips and feedback.

Posted Feb 3 2010
RivalsMinute: Bama wins the title
Posted Feb 3 2010
Posted Feb 3 2010
Edited by MJD
Edited by 'Duk
Edited by J.E. Skeets
Edited by Greg Wyshynski
Edited by Matt Hinton
Edited by Chris Chase
Edited by Jay Busbee
Edited by Jay Busbee
Edited by Steve Cofield
Edited by Chris Chase
Edited by Chris Chase
Edited by Brooks Peck
Edited by Andy Behrens
15 Comments
1 - 15 of 15
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Yes it is.
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Michigan's offense (and offense only, since we are talking about that side of the ball) was talent-rich? And it failed because of the spread?
1. ZERO seniors got ANY playing time of note.
2. Six/seven juniors were on the ENTIRE offensive 2-deep, depending on whether you consider the base set 4WR or 3WR/1TE. Of these juniors only two had any significant playing time the year before, as 3rd WR and starting TE.
3. Freshman quarterback backed up by a walk-on who also got significant time.
4. The five o-linemen came in with a total of 1 year of combined starting experience.
I'd like to see a program in a BCS conference, spread or not, that had to undergo even just 3 out of these 4 factors and ended up with at least a 50th percentile offense.
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Not quite as bad as Michigan, but here is a similar one:
1. Three seniors with ANY playing time of note. 1 as a starter, hurt and out after 9 games. Other 2 played little.
2. 4 juniors on entire offensive 2-deep.
3. sophomore QB backed up by a true freshman QB, who played significantly, and another backup QB who was a walkon who played some important minutes.
4. At end of year, 2 jrs, 1 soph, 2 freshman on the staring OL. 2 years of starting experience. The hurt senior had an additional 3 years. This includes a 250# lb converted TE sophomore starting at RT.
Like I said, not quite as bad as Michigan, although #2 is much worse than Michigan. Oh, and Michigan's freshman QB was in the same recruiting class as the starting soph QB (same school even), so it isnt like he was really younger. Just didnt get to play after transferring before his freshman year.
Georgia Tech did fine with their offensive conversion.
Report Abuse
Chris wrote that article three years ago. Maybe that apex was three years ago. Even it if has hit an apex, I don't think that means it is over or that the "spread" has "jumped the shark." I think we will see variations begin to develop. The "spread's" effectiveness begins to be lost, as Chris noted in the article, when more teams run the offense, which by the way has various schools and families from which it comes.
As far as new spreads go, one commenter above may be on to something with the hiring of Dan Mullen at Miss State. Further, TCU has been migrating some form of the spread for the past two years, and, in spite the fact that the O Coordinator left, they plan to hire within to keep the continuity (which translated means they are keeping their plans).
I think that "spread" offenses will still be used (there is no one "spread"), but we will begin to see coaches tinker with their own unique twists.
Besides, I don't think that Arkansas did that bad, and in fact, almost made a bowl game. Razorback fans weren't expecting much more than about 4 wins. Next year, they have Ryan Mallet and the Razorbacks should be much better at Petrino's "power spread" offense.
Report Abuse
I suppose Georgia Tech's offense was right around that 50th percentile mark, depending on if you look at points or yards. But as you point out, those differences are big. They're equivalent to Ryan Mallet not transfering, and maybe Adrian Arrington staying for another year. That would have changed Michigan's offense tremedously.
I mean my point is, if any BCS team came into the season with the kind of sorry depth chart Michigan had going, which was not affected by injuries in any way at that point, it would have been a bad offense, whether it used the spread or not.
The fact that GT was able to withstand a down year in terms of depth chart and a big injury using a spread-style offense is further evidence against "the end of the spread."
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
watch gatech and see how far apart their line splits are - about 3 feet, which forces the defense to align wider and gives OL better angles. the flexbone is derived from the wishbone - the wishbone spread out, with the slotbacks up as hybrid WR/RBs.
how is that different than when florida lines up with a tight end, h-back, quarterback, and runningback, they have just as many guys inside the hash marks as georgia tech does - only real difference is that they are in shotgun, but even then they still work to attack the defense in a similar way. the only difference is just cosmetic.
Report Abuse
I will avoid the long argument, but there is one fact wrong in your post #10. Johnson's flexbone isnt derived from the wishbone, it is derived from the run & shoot they played at Ga Southern before he became the OC. Same formation, similar plays, different derivation.
Oh, a second mistake. Army hired the Cal Poly coach who learned the offense from Johnson at Hawaii. So, that is another team replicating his offense. Yeah, its Army and they were running option before, but they werent running it like Navy and GT do. In the last year it has gone from 1 (Navy) to 3.
Report Abuse
The differences between Michigan and GT arent as big as you state - 1, UM had Michigan level recruiting classes, GT didnt (well, 2008 was ranked #18, which is awesome by GT standards, but that ranking included Threet).
Both had 6/7 upperclassmen in the two deep on offense. GT had more seniors, UM more juniors. At that point, the difference is negligible. UM had a redshirt frosh QB, GT had a soph QB. Threet actually had an advantage over Nesbitt, he early enrolled at GT. It was assumed this would put him ahead of Nesbitt in the QB race, if he hadnt transferred. Of course, that was under Gailey, if he had stayed, he would have lost the job to Nesbitt anyway.
I think that is the big difference in why the change worked better at GT than at UM. Michigan didnt have a QB designed for the offense. While Nesbitt had never played a spread TO, it fits him well. The game when both he and Shaw (freshman who played Johnson's offense in high school) were hurt and we started a drop back QB but didnt have any plays for him to run accept our normal offense, we looked worse than Michigan. That was the 10-7 win over Gardner-Webb.
Why RichRod didnt do like Johnson did and find some kid who had committed to some small school and offer him a scholly to make sure he had someone who could run the offense I will never understand. Jaybo Shaw had verballed to Middle Tennessee. Navy was the only other FBS school that offered him, I think. He wasnt interested in the military. When Johnson called him after getting to Tech, he dropped MTSU and committed to Tech immediately. There had to be someone similar who had run some kind of spread option in high school that Michigan could have grabbed in case Threet didnt work out.
Report Abuse
Some have derided the labeling of Johnson's offense a "spread option" at all. The charge is that it doesn't look like other "spread" teams. But all this view does is highlight the meaninglessness of the term "spread." The bone itself began as an option offense, and became the "spread option" -- i.e. the flexbone -- when coaches began flexing the tight-ends out to become split ends. The purpose was to provide more of a horizontal stretch to create the lanes and the leverage for the offense....Johnson's triple-option, in Mark Richt's rueful words, "stretches you from sideline to sideline."
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
1 - 15 of 15