Lucy, you got some 'splaining to do!

I just assumed he was a large proponent of NASA.

Just saying?

Getting players into space does not mean "We want them open". It means getting players away from the congestion of the O- and D-lines and allowing them to make plays against one or two defenders, instead of trying to run through or behind the O-line (like Wisconsin. Or Carr.)

you used one of your life lines didn't you?

FAIL!

The usage of space is the difference between spread and non-spread (80's UM) offenses. The whole point of a non-spread is to outnumber your opponent at the point of attack, and overwhelm them with superior talent, and of course superior numbers. The spread is almost an opposite philosophy.

Caw.

most excellent.

you sir, are a genius.

CAW!

I wouldn't put RR in a box. He says he learned some of his theory by listening to his players.

The spread stretches the field by formation horizontally, creating space in the defense. The recievers and RBs read the D and run routes in reaction to the D formation and coverage. Often these routes are deep to commit the secondary to stretch the field vertically as well.

Where Bo would have a play depend on 4-5 well executed blocks, RR has many plays that depend on 2-3 (or more) well executed reads and 1-2 key blocks that release a receiver into the space the O formation created.

I have a hard time seeing all the routes that are possible in the playbacks. Most of the time, when the Force is making BRs he and the receiver are not on the same page. With Bo, you were either on his page or not playing.

Power football is the opposite of the spread. Tight ends, fullbacks, off tackle ... I like both styles. Most offenses are a combo (including Wisconsin) that offer some spread and read along with smash mouth.

i can feel the smartness creeping into my brain already!

even the ghey duckhead makes a little sense.

BOOM Route66'd errrrr...my bad, I read that wrong. Please fogive and don't shoot me.

The offense UM played in the Cap One bowl vs Florida seemed like a great combination of spread and pro style. The downfield, or, "vertical" passing attack was still there, and that seemed to open up the sideways stuff, some reverses, and of course, Mike Hart's running lanes.

If there is one complaint about the spread, it is the lack of vertical passing. What I'm optimistic about with the offense this year is that UM DOES seem to be attempting to open up the passing attack. We've seen the tight end being used downfield, some over the top stuff with Hemingway (expecially against WMU), and some great stuff to the running backs (Indiana and ND).

I think, Elno, that one more aspect of the spread entails having so many options that something should always be there--and this works perfectly with a QB like Tate who, even when scrambling, is looking downfield for open receivers.

I hope the UM offense NEVER resembles what RR ran at WVU. It is just aesthetics, but I like the passing game--about 25 passes per game, and I love what Tate can do with it.

I have a question, though, for others as well: Does pure pass blocking suffer? What about those times when you do straight dropback passing (if you are behind or just because you want to)?

ARe you sure you have enough mogopoints to post here?

It's probably the Viton

back in my days in the European League we ran an offense called the circle. 10 guys form a circle around the ball carrier and then we slowly fight out way down the field. that's kinda anti-spread. impossible to stop as well.

says the guy who keeps responding.

Its kewl. I understand.

CAW muthafuckas! CAW!

with a side of potato salad.

Hey, King of Belch--you da man! (BTW)

why don't YOU sing kumbaya with IM4UMich? It seems like you'd make a lovely couple.

potato salad.

Brian, I think it's ban hammer time.

(BTW, Let me guess. He's going to write a completely new comment to slam me rather than replying to this one.)

I'm gonna apologize. I am sorry. Please forgive me. It just got good to me and I couldn't stop.

I'll take you seriously for a moment:
"And, is there actually an anti-spread offense? I guess you'd call it a "bunched up offense", or a compacted offense? I mean, that would seem to make sense. (yeah, i know...goal line offense yada yada yada)"

The WING-T.

http://www.fbforyouth.com/Resources/wingt.jpg

"I also expect some humorous sarcasm and vitrolic insults--which is acceptable as long as it is done in good taste, mind you."

Me

What part of that don't you understand?

CAW! Potato Salad.....what Belch said. Listen, if you guys can be insulted by an internet eblog, you have serious emotional issues and should seek therapy immediately, or just freakin shoot yourself in the face. Were you munged enuf as children?

some great responses in this thread. seriously. thank you.

got a kick out of sgt. wolverines diagram. but he looks a little old to be in high school.

Really really really simplified version:

The Spread is a formation, yes, but use of the formation in recent years has been accompanied by a change in philosophy.

A bunch formation's philosophy is to attack from such a small area that the key actions of the play will take place very soon after the snap. It tries to maximize exploitation of the offense's advantage of knowing what play is being called first. From a Wing-T, the blockers' assignments are nearby, and it's very hard to figure out who has the ball before it's too late. Before the defense can react to the play, the offense has already executed its key blocks/routes/etc.

In doing so, the offense minimizes turnovers (a killer for offenses) and has a very small chance of negative or short yardage. In effect, you end up maximizing blockers at the line of scrimmage each play.

WWII analogy: Battle of the Bulge -- the Germans send in a concentration of power that is nigh undefendable, able to strike in whichever direction it sees a crease. The strategy is guaranteed to have initial success, but the gains become progressively less the longer the push lasts.

The philosophy that accompanies the spread formation is that you give up the surprise factor and instead just make the defense cover as much field as possible. Plays take a lot longer to develop, but they also can potentially hit so much more space that somewhere you're likely to end up with an open area.

WWII analogy: Operation Overlord -- the Allies hit targets along almost the entirety of the French coastline, making heavy use of subterfuge, so that German defenses will become too spread out to adequately cover any one spot -- then that spot is hit and the offense is either repelled spectacularly, or breaks through spectacularly.

Both philosophies are used by all offenses -- the difference is in how often one or the other is relied on, and the strategic soundness of how each is deployed. DeBord actually ran a hybrid of these two strategies, but was less effective than he could have because he was way too predictable in his choice of point-of-attack. In converse, RR/Magee are perhaps the best in college football at making the point-of-attack unpredictable.

the war analogy was exceptionally kewl. thank you.

aside from a couple of ultrasensive priacks in this thread, it has been very educational for me. keep it coming.

Here is an advantage of being Lost In Space involving even more Robinson's than M football, and one evil Smith, Dr. Smith. God what a horrible show.

I cannot understand why Brain Cook has not moved this thread to the front page yet. It has diagrams, charts, explanations, pictures, video, music, controversy--its the one stop shop for the eblogs on the interwebs!

DANGER WILL ROBINSON!

dude, was just messin with ya.

i enjoy the hs games too. never a bad seat. no real bad traffic. honest, entertaining competition. hot young girls. no, scratch that last one.

Go Blue!

CAW!

I'm pretty sure that NASA is ripping off RichRod's offense. Just today I heard that they shot a rocket out into SPACE.

Way too many carbs in potato salad, btw.