How the Spread Changed Perception

Submitted by Shalom Lansky on
Remember a few years back after the 2007 Rose Bowl when USC DE/LB Brian Cushing said this about Michigan: "We just knew what they were going to do. They're a traditional offense -- they're not trying to trick you. They rely on their players being better than yours. We had the better players today." That statement made me cringe. It could have been some post-victory smack talk but I think most of us accepted this as truth about the old Michigan offense. Those days are long gone, two ND linebackers had this to say regarding facing MSU one week after Michigan: “It’s going to be easier for us this week because they line up in an I pro (formation) and they’re going to come at you and try to run between the tackles,” linebacker Brian Smith said. “It ain’t as much razzle-dazzle and tricky,” linebacker Toryan Smith said. “Michigan State, what you see is what you get.” Given those comments alone, which program do you think is on the rise and which on the decline (as if history and last weekend didn't say this loudly enough)? If the spread is dead, then Notre Dame fears our spread zombies.

cargo

September 18th, 2009 at 3:09 PM ^

I remember another quote along the lines of you knew when they were this formation they were running, and in this you were passing. Yet it was a lot more bitchy. I want to say Dawayne Jarrett made the comment.

Rescue_Dawn

September 18th, 2009 at 3:12 PM ^

It does feel nice to be ahead of the curve on this trend. Its such a unique scheme it will take the defensive coordinators a long time to develop a gameplan to neutralize the threats that can be created from these formations. The spread can expose your defense in so many ways.....I love it.

M-Go-Bleu

September 18th, 2009 at 3:19 PM ^

I know that everyone is hyped up now with the spread, but give our offense some credit under Lloyd (at least when we were healthy). We did take an undefeated season up agains the Buckeyes in Columbus and put up numbers against a very good D-fense. Under Lloyd every passing record in Michigan's history came down. It wasn't like we weren't doing some things right. And biggest of all, let's not forget the last game under Lloyd, the Florida victory. This was against a vaunted SEC defense and our defense proved they could play with a Spread offense (unlike our early game against Oregon). Not to mention a game in Florida that played like a home game for them. I've always been on the side of supporting Lloyd, although I was frustrated as well by his playcalling at times and Brian's poker analogy fit him to the T. I just don't think our offense under Lloyd (especially in the last four years) was that horrible or outdated.

M-Go-Bleu

September 18th, 2009 at 4:20 PM ^

I am excited about our offense now. The spread seems great right now. My only concern is that like any offensive system it has its limits. It takes a very special QB to be effective in one. Hopefully we have two of those now. I also kind of liked having Michigan put so many quality QB's into the NFL. I don't see that streak continuing with the type of QB that plays in the spread, but who knows maybe the NFL will move more towards the spread. Michigan's former system was generally geared more towards developing the offensive players for their pro careers. Now, it seems more about winning winning with a difficult to defend offensive system. Don't forget too that our system of old did seem to adapt a bit. Look at Henson (wow I wish he'd have stayed). I felt the same way when I saw Henson as I do now with Tate on the field.

dmccoy

September 18th, 2009 at 3:54 PM ^

but I feel you are completely, unequivocally, WRONG. Here's why: In 2006 we were better than every team leading up to the OSU game. That OSU defense, while good statistically, got demolished by Florida (A SPREAD TEAM!). Second, bringing down all the passing records from Moeller and Bo etc. wasn't exactly an amazing feat. Third, the "vaunted" SEC defense of Florida was not vaunted a all, it was loaded with freshmen and sophomores in the secondary. (Joe Haden was a true freshman that was a high school quarterback. His task? Defend Mario Manningham. Thanks Coach.) Naturally these young players were shelled by two future NFL wide receivers and a healthy Chad Henne, also in the NFL. Was our offense horrible? No. Was it outdated? Yes. For sure. Absolutely. Without question. And finally, our defense didn't exactly shut down Florida. Harvin ran wild against us. We just made a few key plays and outscored the Gators.

M-Go-Bleu

September 18th, 2009 at 4:11 PM ^

You bring up very good points. I would say though that in 2006 our Offense put up points 39 points on the Bucks in Columbus while our defense didn't help us out allowing 41. Meanwhile Florida put up 41 points in the NC on the same Bucks D, but only allowed 14 points. I think our problem in Columbus was our Defense rather than our offensive production. As for offense, we came out about the same as Florida's spread. Maybe we'd have put up even more points in Columbus if we had Florida's D to keep them to 14 points...

jmblue

September 18th, 2009 at 4:25 PM ^

I just don't think our offense under Lloyd (especially in the last four years) was that horrible or outdated. Here are our scoring averages for those seasons: 2004 - 30.8 2005 - 28.8 2006 - 29.2 2007 - 27.2 Despite boasting some of the very best offensive talent in the conference, we were perennially middle-of-the-pack in team offensive categories. I have a feeling that in the near future, we'll look back on the Carr years and be amazed at how inefficient his offenses were.

tomhagan

September 18th, 2009 at 3:28 PM ^

Disagree with the "razzle dazzle" part... its just basics of getting the ball to players in space using some misdirection and counters... its football 101 on juice and has been around since the 30s...

Keeeeurt

September 18th, 2009 at 3:36 PM ^

The term "razzle dazzle" seems to have some sort of "circus act, just for show, it's not for real" connotation to it, at least to me it does and I disagree with it. It exploits match-ups and it is as for real as traditional I-form football.

In reply to by The King of Belch

Jeff

September 18th, 2009 at 9:58 PM ^

I love fondly recalling the days of Chris Perry. During the Notre Dame game of 2003 I brought a sign that said "Notre Dame may have God but we have Chris Perry."