Problem in NFL: WR (& other positions) not being adequately prepped by spread offenses

Submitted by StephenRKass on

There is an interesting article in today's Chicago Tribune looking at the upcoming draft of college football players.

LINK:  College spread offenses aren't preparing NFL-ready wide receivers

I'm not sure whether you'll be able to read the article, as I have a Trib subscription and it may not open for you (I can't tell.) The author's basic point is summed up in the title.

As for the idea colleges and spread offenses are producing more NFL-prepared wide receivers, well, you can forget about that.

The problem is that spread offenses have very limited route trees. If his stats are correct, of the last 13 WR taken in the first round from 2015 - 2017, there isn't a single true number 1 receiver.

In this year's Senior Bowl practice, the best of the bunch, Ok State's James Washington, apparently isn't wowing scouts. He averaged 66 catches 1339 yards and 11 TD's over the last 3 years. But he is limited.

"I have to expand my route tree because that was the thing most scouts talked about coming into this week — I have a limited route tree,” said Washington, the winner of the Biletnikoff Award as the nation’s top receiver this year. “I just want to prove I can do more.” Reality is the 5-foot-10, 210-pound Washington was asked to run about three, maybe four routes at Oklahoma State. Same thing goes for Jaleel Scott, the 6-foot-5, 216-pounder from New Mexico State who has an 81½-inch wingspan that makes you think of Calvin Johnson.

The problem isn't limited to wide receivers.

As one college scouting director said, the problem facing teams as they sort through potential wide receivers is the same one they battle when it comes to identifying quarterbacks. A guy who runs three routes in college could be asked to run dozens with options off of most of them as a pro. His playbook goes from being thin to a stuffed binder and there’s a ton of information that must be assimilated. The spread offense is simple reads for quarterbacks and simple routes for receivers. “We’re getting fundamentally unsound players,” one general manager said Wednesday between the North and South practices.

The article is interesting enough on its own merits. I thought of Michigan, because of the difference between Tariq Black and Donovan Peoples-Jones. What I've read here is that Black was more polished, and that DPJ struggled to learn routes. He just was faster and bigger than DB's in HS, but basically didn't really have to learn route trees, and so wasn't as prepared for Michigan.

If all this stated in the article is true, it gives me even more hope for Harbaugh and Michigan. My rudimentary understanding is that the coaching staff at Michigan is playing more of a pro-style offense, affecting especially the OL, QB, and WR group (also the TE, I suppose.) It is much harder to do, but we could reap benefits down the road.

My hope is that Michigan will eventually master concepts, which allow them to basically have an NFL offense playing against a spread defense. This will do two things. Most importantly, Michigan will be well equipped to win games. But secondarily, this is a huge, huge selling point to kids who want to be prepared for the NFL. If Harbaugh and Drevno and Hamilton are doing their job, they are identifying kids who have the ability to play in the NFL, regardless of ratings for college ball.

I don't know enough of football concepts to be sure, but I for one am willing to be patient, to see this come to pass. In the short term, I'd love to see this bring Anderson and Petite-Frere to Ann Arbor. We shall see.

PopeLando

January 25th, 2018 at 1:43 PM ^

This is the annual "bash spread offenses" season. Usually we get whining from the NFL about how spread QBs aren't adequately prepared for an NFL playbook. Occasionally it's OL. WR is new to me. It's almost as if college coaches have a limited amount of time to train their players, and so they install high-percentage athlete-driven playbooks rather than complex, cerebral offenses. Dear NFL: you have your choice of the best athletes across the nation each year, developed at NO COST to you for 3-4 years, and unlimited time to train them. Quit complaining.

LSAClassOf2000

January 25th, 2018 at 2:53 PM ^

I do agree with this - so long as the NCAA ranks essentially serve as a farm system for the NFL, you can only complain so much about preparation when they are two separate entities that aren't even working on the same goals and to the same ends. I mean, you can't really complain when you have no operational control over the other organization. 

Even so, it's interesting to see these articles appear as college offenses become more rich and varied and the NFL only reluctantly uses concepts from various college playbooks. The WR complaint is one I didn't see coming in what is now a passing league, but then again, NFL route trees always seemed needlessly complex sometimes. 

Tuebor

January 25th, 2018 at 2:57 PM ^

I'd imagine so, there are always exceptions as very few things in life are absolute.  That is why I didn't say "all engineering majors".

 

Check out page 11, it is a table of companies that hired UM COE graduates/students.  

http://career.engin.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/2017/02/annua…

 

Out of the 973 total hires on that list, I'd say only 64 (Goldman Sachs, Ernst&Young, Manhattan Associates, and PwC) weren't engineering companies. 

 

So 93% of engineering kids at UM start a career in engineering.  Do 93% of football players start an NFL career?

 

Plus, I'm pretty sure Brian has a degree in Computer Science (Could be Computer Engineering I'm not 100% sure).  And running a website probably requires a decent knowledge of programming languages, even if it is ancillary to his content creation at this point.

Magnus

January 25th, 2018 at 3:45 PM ^

Two things:

1. There's a difference in job outlook for both situations. Obviously, it's harder to get a job in the NFL (and/or the CFL or the AFL), because there are simply fewer jobs. The vast majority of football players would probably take a career in the NFL if they can make it to that level.

2. At Michigan 93% of guys making it to an active roster over a long stretch of time would be unlikely, but that chart you provided also contains "interns." It's no guarantee that some of those people will keep their engineering "careers" beyond a year or two. Of the 19 players who left Michigan after last year (seniors + early entrant Jabrill Peppers), every single one of them (a.k.a. 100%) found a job playing in the NFL:

1. Deveon Smith (Dolphins)
2. Jake Butt (Broncos)
3. Erik Magnuson (49ers)
4. Ben Braden (Jets)
5. Kyle Kalis (Colts/Redskins)
6. Jehu Chesson (Chiefs)
7. Amara Darboh (Seahawks)
8. Ryan Glasgow (Bengals)
9. Chris Wormley (Ravens)
10. Taco Charlton (Cowboys)
11. Matt Godin (Texans)
12. Ben Gedeon (Vikings)
13. Jeremy Clark (Jets)
14. Channing Stribling (Browns/Colts/49ers)
15. Jourdan Lewis (Cowboys)
16. Delano Hill (Seahawks)
17. Dymonte Thomas (Broncos)
18. Kenny Allen (Ravens/Hamilton Tiger-Cats)
19. Jabrill Peppers (Browns)

Furthermore, I believe David Dawson (who transferred but then didn't play anywhere) is now coaching high school football.

So if that's a one-year engineering study that puts the number at 93%, then there's a one-year football study that puts the football program's number at 100%. So yeah, I think the Michigan football program's job is to prepare those players for a football profession.

Tuebor

January 25th, 2018 at 4:25 PM ^

I'll note that you have moved the goalposts, pun intended, and perhaps I played into that.  You initially replied yes to the question, "is it the purpose of college football to prepare players for the NFL".   Now you claim to think that it is "Michigan football's job to prepare players for a football profession".  

 

Clearly a job in the "football profession" is much more broad than making an NFL roster, practice squad included.  As evidenced by including what is likely a volunteer position for David Dawson.

 

You can use the full time hiring column if you don't like including internships, and you can look up previous years COE careeer center annual reports.  I'm confident that the COE is going to have much more repeatable success in putting graduates into engineering companies than Michigan football will year after year putting guys in the NFL.  Not to mention this was a question about the NCAA as a whole and not a single a program.

 

But honestly, I do agree with you.  The school of Kinesiology and LSA general studies are both programs that are likely designed to put guys into professional sports.

Magnus

January 25th, 2018 at 4:42 PM ^

As for "moving the goalposts," preparing players for the NFL doesn't mean they're all going to make the NFL. But the list you provided says engineering students got jobs at those companies, but it doesn't necessarily mean they got ENGINEERING jobs. An engineering graduate who gets a job at Amazon could be in marketing or community outreach.

Tuebor

January 25th, 2018 at 4:23 PM ^

As Cardale eloquently put it, "We ain't come to play school".

 

That said what the players are there for can differ from the mission of the program.

 

The NCAA constantly puts out ads that say their "athletes will go pro in something other than sports".  It is hard to claim that the mission of college football is to prepare atheltes for the NFL when the explicitly deny and in fact claim the opposite.

Magnus

January 25th, 2018 at 4:46 PM ^

Two things:

1. Football players (and other athletes) almost certainly WILL go pro in something other than sports, because the average career is only a few years long, and you will usually have to find a job afterward. You might be an NFL linebacker for three years, but then you have to sell insurance.

2. There are a ton of NCAA athletes who play non-revenue sports like field hockey, rowing, tennis, etc. I don't know what the percentages are, but I would say the percentage of college FOOTBALL players who get jobs in football is much higher than the number of college FIELD HOCKEY players who get jobs in field hockey. I don't think the field hockey coach's job is prepare his/her team for a pro career in field hockey.

StephenRKass

January 25th, 2018 at 1:17 PM ^

The job of college coaches is to win games. Not to be a minor league for the NFL.

Having said that, there are lots of kids who are dreaming of going to the NFL. And if going to a school that preps them for the NFL is an option, I could see that weighing into decisions on where to go to college.

EGD

January 25th, 2018 at 1:51 PM ^

This is an interesting question.  I think it kind of depends on the program and what they promise to recruits.

At a program like Michigan, which prides itself on having staff with lots of NFL experience and connections and undoubtedly sells recruits on the promise of preparing them for the NFL, I think it kind of is the responsibility to fulfill that promise.  Obviously that's still ancillary to the main objective of winning games and championships, but if guys are showing up to NFL training camps without having learned important fundamental skills then I think it's fair to criticize their college coaches.

At the other end of the spectrum might be a service academy program, perhaps, where players enter with no expectation of ever playing professionally and the function of the football program is to help the players learn discipline, leadership, teamwork, and other important qualities.  It's certainly no knock on AIr Force that their wide receivers don't learn NFL route trees.

 

Tuebor

January 25th, 2018 at 2:04 PM ^

But I'm talking about college football as a whole, and FBS in particular.  I'm aware that FBS football operates the de facto minor league/development system for the NFL.  But if you were to ask the NCAA, and I'm sure most Athletic Directors, they would't claim to to be a minor league for the NFL.  In fact the NCAA runs advertisments that claim most of their athletes will go pro in something other than athletics, you can find them on youtube if you like.

 

Sure some individual coaches may recruit with promises of getting players to the NFL, but even that doesn't mean that those coaches will put the NFL futures of their players over the success of the team.  If they did then you wouldn't see guys like Denard, Devin Gardner playing QB.  Heck, You wouldn't see Scott Frost or Eric Crouch playing QB.  

 

 

EGD

January 25th, 2018 at 4:37 PM ^

The NCAA commercials about "going pro in something other than sports" are mostly focused on athletes in non-revenue sports, so I think that's a bit of a conflation.

As I said above, I completely agree that the main objective a college head coach has is to win games and championships, and that developing players into NFL prospects is secondary no matter what promises have been made.  But a secondary obligation is still an obligation.  If a program has held itself out as providing a path to a pro football career and if players have signed with that program in reliance on that professional development, then I think the program has a responsibility to try and fulfill that promise. It doesn't override the preogative to win, but I don't think it's a completely irrelevant consideration either.

You're sort of presenting this as a dichotomy where a coach must either win games and titles or develop pro players.  A program either has its own goals and objectives or it's part of a de facto minor league for the NFL.  But I really don't see it this way. Not only are the two things not mutually exclusive, but typically the more pro-oriented coaches sell the "path to the NFL" as a means of winning more games at the college level.  A coach teaches his players NFL skills because he presumes they will peform better that way and the team will win more games.   

 

Tuebor

January 25th, 2018 at 9:46 PM ^

I don't think I'm presenting a dichotomy at all. NFL prep could just be an externality of college football due to its de facto minor league status. Clearly coaches aren't teaching NFL skills which is why the NFL is complaining about unprepared players, wide receivers in this case.

micheal honcho

January 25th, 2018 at 3:29 PM ^

Is it the purpose of HS football to prepare players for CFB?

Obviously it IS the job of HS to prepare kids for college in general, but what about football?

Should a HS coach run the system that wins at the HS level OR should he run that system that best prepares players for what they will see in college? I'm a believer in the former. Coach to win the best way you know how(at every level) and let the next level deal with developing what THEY need.

Example, in Michigan HS football, many of the most succesfull programs run a version of the veer, wing T, double wing etc. which would help you prepare for playing at Goergia Tech & the academy's but other than that its pretty much obsolete in CFB. I've known parents that school of choice their kid out of districts BECAUSE they run these type of systems. They want junior to have his best chance at a scholarship so they look for a spread system coach and enroll him there. Even turning away from MORE successfull veer or wing T programs that have won multiple state championships to go to a less winning program that runs "the spread".

Its their choice and you do you but as a HS kid I'd rather win.

Magnus

January 25th, 2018 at 3:52 PM ^

The vast majority of high school football players are not choosing their high school based on their football program. You live in that district, and you attend that district's high school. That's how it is for 90% of kids.

If you go to a private school or magnet school for football (DeMatha, IMG, etc.), then yes, I think it's the job of those coaches to prepare those kids for college football. And those teams almost never run Wing T, Veer, Triple Option, etc. Some of those guys aren't going to make it to the next level, just like Russell Bellomy never had a shot to be an NFL QB, but you still prepare the team to be successful at football beyond the Big Ten.

canzior

January 25th, 2018 at 4:07 PM ^

especially, for the ones that are paying tuition...it isn't for them to NOT get a scholarship, as well as they extra hands on coaching and training. You're spending the "college" money to get them to college for free.  

I went to a prep school and in it's 100 year history, over 12 first round picks and i thnk 42 players in the NFL.  Kids went there expecting to get a scholarship.

Mr poonsniffle

January 25th, 2018 at 1:03 PM ^

This seems like even more of a reason for us to have a dedicated WR position coach.

We have a ton of young receivers trying to learn a more complex set of routes in our pro style offense.

Dennis

January 25th, 2018 at 1:10 PM ^

Players with enough intelligence, talent, and will should be able to close any skill gaps, but if they can't, I don't really feel sorry for college players/teams that RPO and trot their QB 8 yards at a time down the field (looking at you, Ohio State). The sad reality is that everyone wants something that's easy, whether it be courses, offensive scheme, whatever it is. Maybe it removes a certain edge from Michigan... I don't really care. Michigan's standards shouldn't be sacrificed for better winning odds and poorer player career outcomes. Leave that to Urban and his not-school-playing trogs

Dennis

January 25th, 2018 at 1:14 PM ^

Doing things differently, and the right way often will lead to a less than immediate outcome, but the people who matter will understand why we did it this way. Why we have a better legacy. Why our alumni and players love this school. Why gravel-headed losers have no respect for Michigan (despite their ongoing obsession). You think that jealousy comes out of thin air? Empires don't last by being ignorant thugs for a decade. Ohio State will fall, and Urban will leave in a scandal... Mark my words.

Perkis-Size Me

January 25th, 2018 at 1:21 PM ^

College coaches aren't going to stop running what works for them. And they shouldn't. Meyer isn't all of a sudden going to make his playbook more complex just so his players are better prepared for NFL schemes. His offenses have won him three national championships. A college coach has ZERO obligation run an NFL scheme. His only obligation (aside from keeping his players out of trouble) is to find and run a system that works and wins games. His obligation is to his school, not to the NFL. And the school doesn't give a shit if a coach's playbook only has five plays in it. As long as those five plays win you football games. 

Same goes for the NFL. If an NFL coach found a way to successfully run a simple spread offense in the league, they'd do it. Everyone likes to keep things simple. But it hasn't worked yet in the league, obviously, so here we are. So I honestly don't feel bad for NFL teams complaining about getting "fundamentally unsound" players. You're a coach. It's your job to COACH these kids how your scheme works. 

You don't like it? Go draft kids from only pro-style teams. Otherwise, sack the fuck up, go find kids who respond well to coaching, kids you can develop, and quit bitching about it. 

Michigan4Life

January 25th, 2018 at 1:46 PM ^

NFL has started to run a more simplistic offense because they heavily borrowed a lot of concepts from college offense.  RPO is incorporated into the plays for example.

Offense is a trickle up effect where HS coaches constantly had to adapt and innovate because every year is different with different kids with different skillsets. HS -> NCAA -> NFL.   NFL is simply 5-10 years behind in terms of offensive scheme/innovation.

reddogrjw

January 25th, 2018 at 1:52 PM ^

in the NFL, reading a defense is most important, as there are great athletes everywhere

 

there are almost always open receivers if a QB has time - the sooner a QB is able to find the open man, the less time they need

 

and the NFL is never going to be heavy QB run because the QB will get killed

 

so no, HS isn't ahead of everyone, not remotely close

Michigan4Life

January 25th, 2018 at 11:31 PM ^

In terms of offensive innovation, HS is absolutely ahead of NFL and NCAA. You haven't been to Texas HS.

I didn't say there will be heavy QB runs. I simply said NFL has borrowed a lot of concepts that originated from HS and college.

Mongo

January 25th, 2018 at 1:44 PM ^

to the NFL issue.  Black played his high school career at Cheshire Academy, an elite Prep school where many athletes go for a PG year - like being a fifth year senior - to imporve their skills to be college ready.  Cheshire runs a program like a small college would and has outstanding coaches for QBs and WRs.  They run more of a pro-set offense as well.  Cass Tech is an excellent football program but does not pass very much.  It is known for developing RBs and DBs, not QBs and WRs.  Its passing attack is rudimentary. 

Black was just much better prepared for the Harbaugh type offense.  DPJ is still learning, but with freakish athletic skills.  By the time they are juniors, it is very possible that they converge in effectiveness to be an outstanding WR duo.  Next year should be a big leap year for them and then 2019 is when they put it all together.  Hopefully our OL improves a lot and Shea stays his two years to make it an exciting run.

old98blue

January 25th, 2018 at 2:28 PM ^

Read option QBs don't check down like a pro style QB its generally a quick read and react, the best QBs in the NFL are pro style QBs with this in their background Drew Brees, Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers they also happen to be older QBs who came along before the college "back yard footbal" really started