Attractiveness of Spread'n'Shred to NFL?

Submitted by NYWolverine on

Coach Rod made a living at WV by implementing a formula that could plug 3-Star talent into a wide-open field to optimize output from the skill positions in the process.  The results have been excellent from a national rankings standpoint, and brought WV into the forum for NC contention.  However, the results aren't so hot on draft day (in 2008, WV saw 3 players drafted to Michigan's 6).  

Two part question: 1) how successful will the spread'n'shred be from a 5-Star recruiting standpoint, particularly in the Big Ten? 5-Stars want to go to a program that will help them get drafted high, so the bottom-line of my query really is...

2) With the right players running it, how attractive is Coach Rod's system to NFL talent scouts?

mjv

August 20th, 2008 at 4:17 PM ^

The Pats ran a lot of spread looks (shotgun, 3-4 receiver sets, etc.) last season.  While I doubt that the NFL will having running QBs like Pat White, due to the risk in injuring the most important player on a given team, it is very realistic that the passing spread will become more mainstream. 

NYWolverine

August 20th, 2008 at 4:19 PM ^

If run optimally, how does the spread'n'shred skill positions look on draft day?  Does the QB go high? Not every team is looking for a dual-threat.  Actually, most NFL teams aren't (why the latter are called "pro-style", and not vice versa).  Do Michigan RBs get looked at as hard when we're not producing all-down backs?  Is there a big void in the NFL for all purpose slot backs?  How about spread'n'shred WRs?

If this thread gets any attention, maybe someone with stronger Michigan football blogging chops can post something about Shafer's impact on NFL scouts.  

rlc

August 20th, 2008 at 5:02 PM ^

I think the actual number of players that go to the NFL is a pretty useless number. Nice for bragging rights or the such, but not much more. That said, running a pro-style offense gives experience to players that could translate into draft value. Of course Michigan always gets great recruits, and that will continue to translate to draft day.

I think an interesting question might be how will this effect recruiting? Will recruits devalue Michigan because they want a Pro-Style offense? And with the unique skill sets required for this offense, would it even matter if we lose pro-style offense players?

also, FOOTBALL!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

mjv

August 20th, 2008 at 5:53 PM ^

Pro teams will want players that have the requisite skill and physical abilities to execute what they want them to do.  They will look very closely at the individual player's ability.  If one school's "pro-style" offense doesn't place much emphasis on throwing the ball down field, QBs from that school will face that question.

Casting a blanket statement that spread or pro-style or whatever will lead to a fall off or increase in draft picks is too general.  A spread offense like Purdue that utilizes non-threatening possession receivers instead of the Cap1 Bowl Michigan Spread that utilizes the downfield abilities of tall, fast receivers represent two different things to recruits and the NFL, but both are the spread.

dex

August 20th, 2008 at 7:51 PM ^

+1000 to you today for a stellar outing.

 

NFL GMs don't dismiss guys because of the offense. If you have the talent, you'll play in the NFL.

 

What does this mean for Michigan? If RR recruits good talent (and he is), they will play in the NFL. If RR is successful at Michigan, he will have to have NFL caliber players. Look at the rosters of every BCS Championship team since the beginnning of the system. They all have multiple NFL players. If we are winning, we're going to be putting talent in the NFL.

That's why this argument is pointless, to me. We aren't going to win if we don't have NFL caliber guys. If we are winning games, those guys will come here. If RR doesn't win, they won't.

The offense doesn't matter. Urban Meyer is running "the spread" and has big time talent. Texas did it with VY. "The spread" is a formation. Is it different than what we're used to? Yes. Is it a gimmick offense like a literal single wing or a straight wishbone? Not so much. 

 

chitownblue (not verified)

August 20th, 2008 at 6:28 PM ^

Just to point it out - the Big East, since the departure of BC, Miami, and VaTech, has a huge talent defecit (I think 2 schools have had top 25 recruiting classes since those schools left). So yeah, Rodriguez has played well with 2 and 3 star talent - but much of his competition has has equivalent talent levels. He did have good bowl wins, but still.

Ellipses Man

August 21st, 2008 at 12:15 AM ^

There is a Ghost in the Machine element to the spread. Or you never really know what may happen kind of feel. West Virginia, since Rich's departure is looking to throw more(?) I do not know if that is a,"Blame Rich for Pat not throwing," rallying point or a,"Rich is that guy on College Football 08 who has one play he has mastered and runs it every time and at the end of the season his one guy has like 90000 yards rushing,"kind of quote or,"Pat White finally figured out coverages," quote. Look at some of the spread QB's and look at Michigans. Some will the game is changing but you still need a guy who can throw or else just get rid of WR's you know! Check out my board post where Bill Stewart hints at the over simplication. He does not say anything but he walks the line. Who knows, 6 years from now there may be a ton of players in the NFL from MI. And MI may win a ton of titles. The variables are so wide and many to pin it down to spread non spread though. But whoever said you dont want to run a QB in the NFL and get him hurt was right. Owners would be cautious to put a franchise tag on a running QB or the deal would have multiple clauses. WR's on NFL teams who drafted a run oriented spread offense QB would ask to be traded through their agents over night. I cannot say that for a fact but in the NFL stats equal money and loyalty in the NFL is spelled with commas and zeros so they say.