Pro-style vs. college-style offense
There's an interesting article over at Football Study Hall penned by Ian Boyd: https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2017/6/29/15824578/pro-style-vs-college-style-offense-that-is-the-question-alabama-michigan-spread
Basically:
- The NFL's base offensive package is "11" personnel (one TE, one RB), while college's base offensive package is "20" (one RB, one H-back)
- The difference is caused by several things, including supply: "guys that are at least 6’3” and 230 pounds that can run routes in the seams against smaller defenders on one play and then do some blocking the next" are hard to find in college
- College offenses tend to be more run-oriented vs. pro pass-oriented
- So: "The question is how the big schools can maintain their advantages with the run game when the game is moving towards the “pro-style” spread passing game."
The interesting question, then, is how Michigan fits into this changing landscape. I suspect that this is a close approximation:
"If you’re recruiting at a high level, you can always trot out strong OL and blow people away with the run game while the QB executes a fairly simple play-action or RPO passing game. That can take some development, but it’s not the rare QB who can throw for 3k or 4k yards in a good college-style offense, it’s commonplace in the Big 12. Developing guys that can burn defenses with the dropback passing game is more difficult, yet potentially more rewarding as well."
How's it going these days? We wish you well enough.
It is an advantage that Coach Harbaugh utilizes a fullback and tight ends. That gives Michigan a formation that defenses are not used to playing against. Pep Hamilton will add more wide open elements to the attack.
Good combination to keep opponents off gaurd.
In my opinion, the best offenses in both the NFL and college are hybrid offenses that switch up the personnel, and do a multitude of different things well. Based on our recruiting, it certainly appears as if Harbaugh and company are developing a roster / system that is highly diverse. I think Harbaugh is going for an Alabama type offense that can do everything. From pounding the ball to 5wr spread, having a multiple offense is by far the toughest to stop.
I'm really excited about the WR's on this team!! Once the offensive line is up to Harbaugh's standards it's going to be us vs osu for the big ten and playoffs every single year.
I think as the season progresses, we will all realize just how spoiled we were with last season's pass protection. We complained about the run blocking, correctly, given that the inability to grind out first downs with a lead late in the 4th quarter cost us two games. It masked the fact that the OL was really good at pass pro, and Deveon Smith was one of the all time best blitzer-picker-upers we've ever had at RB.
I expect the run blocking will be improved, but the new WRs' production will be somewhat limited by the QB having less time that what we are used to seeing. Hopefully, Wilton Speightlisberger will become a regular thing.
That said, I'm still very optimistic about next season. Those who talk about losing starters from last year aren't fully accounting for the experience the new starters got by playing in rotations (and raw talent). I expect the defense to have as much potential as last season, thus if they aren't as good, it will be more because of regression to the mean rather that lack of talent. I expect the offense to be less explosive, but more consistent, which may mean they don't run up the score as much as last year, but they get those first downs in crunch time. Finally, I think we are overestimated the quality of the B1G East. I don't think Penn State's offense from last season (after they played us) is sustainable, and the the lucky breaks will not go their way as often. They don't intimidate me. We all fear Ohio State, and they have the track record against us to justify that. But, we are catching up to them talent wise, and even the unstoppable death machine of the last few years has lost to lesser teams when they played less than their best game (MSU and PSU). They will look invincible until we finally get a combination of playing well and luck that breaks the streak. Then they won't look so intiimidating any more, and we will realize that they were not as unstoppable as they seemed ot be in years past. The team on our schedule that I think folks are overlooking is Wisconsin.
Deveon was a national treasure as far as blitz pickups went, which is why it was so painful to see him miss horribly as Speight got hammered and Malik Hooker trotted into the endzone...
I agree that run blocking by the OL will likely pick up, but I also expect the blocking on the edge to take a step back. It's unfair to expect Chesson and Darboh's replacements to block at nearly their level.
I expect the defense to be great up front, which should see us pummel all of the average / below average teams on or schedule. The LB unit should be the fastest, most athletic unit at michigan in a long time. The secondary is very young, and inexperienced, though very highly touted.
I can't wait to start getting reports out of camp in July. I really can't wait to see what the offense looks like!!!
and i liked it alot. it helped that i was a TE/H-back and got the ball a bunch. that was post-college though and with guys who had a lot of experience so we could soak up the offense pretty well.
coaching kids now, we are running a much more run-oriented offense, ala georgia tech. it works great for younger kids where throwing is much less effective. i think the analogy holds at least somewhat true for college in that you can tilt more toward the passing game as a viable option as you move up the ladder in experience. passing is more difficult in a drop back situation, but as mentioned, more rewarding when its working right.
More than at least the 2 years Harbaugh has been here with a depleted OL
Saban's Alabama wasn't "Alabama" right away either.
We'll get there. The trajectory so far shows we will.
That they just line up and smash you in the mouth offensively, when that is really not true.
Yeah, they always have great offensive linemen. But, they are underratedly crafty with their schemes. Look at what Bama did with Hurts, he was basically on the perimeter every play.
And in their championship games, especially against MSU a few years back, they were spread out A TON. They always have fantastic WRs to compliment the interior, and know how to use them.
They basically were a smashmouth team until last season. Hurts' limited skillset forced them to adapt and while they were trending that direction under Kiffin, Alabama would still gladly run right over you if it was wide open.
Michigan spread it out all over the place against Alabama...in 2000.
For 600+ yards in 2 games against MSU and Clemson. Go back and watch those games. They were spread out all the time.
They are MUCH more creative on offense than people seem to think.
John Navarre threw for over 700 yards total in back-to-back games in 2003.
There was never any doubt Alabama will air it out. I just don't think that doing so is an example of a creative offense.
it’s not the rare QB who can throw for 3k or 4k yards in a good college-style offense, it’s commonplace in the Big 12.
There's a difference between Tom Brady picking apart any defense he sees in the NFL and a two-bit college QB racking up yards against the hot garbage they call Big 12 defenses.
One of the sub-links points to an interesting article about Wilson at Ohio State.
Urban Meyer is trying to change his core DNA on the fly. We'll see how it works out . . .
The article makes the point that the difference is not shotgun vs. under center, but rather the alignment of the TE or HB, and the propensity to pass vs. run out of the formation.
Tom Brady, the most "Pro-iest" of Pro-style QB's rarely lines up under center.
Read the article, it's a pretty good read.
"Rarely" might be overstating it, but the notion that Brady is an under-center drop back guy because he is in a "Pro" system is not true.
The original point was that a "Pro" system is not defined as an under center drop back system. It has a different distinction these days as pointed out by the article.
There are pros and cons to both drop-back style and shotgun style. I don't think you can necessarily declare one style better than the other. But one style might better fit with the other things you are trying to do offensively.
For instance, the drop-back style tends to work better with teams that run between the tackles. You can line up your RB deep in the backfield and let him get a head of steam going by the time he takes the handoff. The whole process of transferring the ball from C-->QB-->RB is more tightly-controlled and reliable, so it tends to minmize fumble risks, helps you develop very convincing play-fakes and so forth, and can be critical in offenses that rely on timing and rhythm. Bill Parcels also preferred under center so the QB wouldn't need to take his eyes off the defense to catch the snap--with post-snap reads being essential to his brand of WCO. If these kinds of advantages are helpful to the overall style of offense you want to run, then snapping from under center may be the way to go. If you're more of an outside running team and not as reliant on timing and precision, then these benefits aren't going to matter much and you might be better off going from shotgun (here's a Chris Brown article that goes over the advantages of the shotgun, BTW). So I think the one that's "better" just depends on what you are trying to accomplish with a particular offensive scheme, package, or even a specific play.
Another factor that I think plays into this is the landscape of opposing defenses. The spread option was very devastating back in the late '90s and early '00s because at that time most college defenses were built to stop physical inside running games, usually featuring bigger and more physical LBs and lacking the LB/s hybrids like Peppers or Darron Lee. As defenses started to adjust to the spread running games by recruting more speed, often at the cost of size and physicality in the defensive front, the spread option offenses became less effective--and power running attacks like the late '00s Wisconsin or Harbaugh's Stanford teams suddenly found themselves able to push a lot of opponents around.
I think pro-style is probably more effective in the long run. However at the college level it's harder to build a roster that can execute this style. Only a few programs can recruit enough bodies to successfully run this system. Even then it's hard to maintain. Even Alabama incorporates spread elements, UM has stated they will too.
The spread helps teams with a talent disadvantage more effectively compete.
In the NFL all defenses are big and fast, the spread doesn't work as well there. You can't edge or out tempo a defense in the NFL.
A lot of the modern-day NFL offenses "pro style?" More and more, teams are getting away from that fundamental line up and smash, as QBs become more and more protected and defensive players are basically not allowed to create any contact.
Teams like Atlanta, New England, New Orleans, I do not know how close we can consider that with the old style of "pro sets." Most Qbs take snaps out of the shotgun and teams are spreading out WRs early and often.
True. I guess I was thinking more of the "running QB", read option, jet sweep kind of spread offenses.
Those do not work in the NFL.
But, I think mobile QBs can work, as long as they are reigned in a little bit. Russell Wilson is the perfect exame of a guy with mobility who makes it work. Same with Aaron Rodgers. When you try and turn them into Michael Vick, that is when the system breaks down.
Cam Newton won an MVP as a mobile QB, so he seems to be perhaps the best example of how a mobile QB can succeed in the NFL.
For the most part the "mobile QB revolution" has proven its critics right. A running QB can add a dimension to the offense, but his success is still built on his ability to distribute the ball downfield using the passing game. Do it well and the running aspect adds value. But the passing game has to be there, because it's just plain effective, as this article suggests.
The injury issue that is often brought up ("mobile QBs are exposed to injury") seemed a red herring to me, but it isn't, exactly. First, because 10 QB carries a game are plays that are taking hits that would otherwise go to RBs while the QB still gets exposed on drop-backs; second, because when running is an essential aspect of the QB's game, injuries can have a more visible effect. Tom Brady can have a gimpy ankle and still throw the ball effectively, but Russell Wilson will move visibly slower.
For most pro offenses the mobility of a QB mainly results in a difference between scrambling to find that last, desperate receiver option and just taking off downfield. Or both, if it's Aaron Rodgers.
A mobile QB is not necessarily a running QB. If one thinks of the basic spread option running QB, like DRob and JT Barrett, they run first, throw if wide open. And they're effective throwing because of the threat of run. But when you take awy the run threat, they are not effective throwing the ball. In Barrett's case last year, UM's defense took away the run (until the 4th, anyway). In DRob's case, UM's coaching staff took away the run (F'in BS slow-roll into the pro style..).
A 'mobile' QB doesn't necessarily think to run first, he just has that ability to scramble out and make it work. But he's a passer, first. Wilson is the perfect example, and I think that Brandon Peters will be similar - he'll stay in the pocket as long as he can, but has the option to scramble away from trouble and effectively pick up 'rushing' yards.
I've heard people on here calling for O'Korn to come in and run some read-option type plays. But that is not who he is as a QB. Sure, he can run when needed, but he is not a DRob/Barrett type.
Sadly, Devin Gardner could have been more Wilson had his coaching been better...
"Jim Harbaugh’s reputation at this point should be based on executing pro-style schemes at a high level while still running the ball with physicality (and a fullback!) and utilizing limited quarterbacks. As soon as he finds his next Andrew Luck, look out."
My favoite part of the article. (Dear football gods please let Brandon Peters/Dylan Mccaffrey be his next Andrew Luck)
I think we will realize we were spoiled by a number of things. Last year's offense was a massive beneficiary of M's outstanding defense and return game. Tremendous field position allowed the offense to work under very little pressure most of the season.
How many times did M have to drive a long field after a kickoff during a meaningful part of a game? Not often, and while drive charts show the offense could respond, the sample size is small. This will be a major factor in how this season fares.
M's offense will not have the same luxuries as last year; we hope they can step up their game. In my view, Peppers impact will be most felt in the field position game.