Spread vs West Coast

M

manHands

< 25 Posts
Okay. Somebody tell me the darn difference (in simple terms) between the spread and west coast offense. I've always thought of the west coast as quick timing patterns and lots of motion. What does the spread do differently?

Sorry if this is too simple for some of you. A friend and I are going back and forth and I'm convinced he's full of it.

Could use the help.

Hook 'Em!
 
Okay, thanks! I think we get it now. Its more about formation and personnel than just an overall system.

Well, off to a new argument.

Hook 'Em!
 
So, spread = no fullback? Is that it? You replace the fullback in a traditional offense with another receiver, and you have a spread?
 
Since we are in class today let me ask another question HP. Florida's offense, and the one Meyer ran at Utah before that, is considered a "spread" option correct?

I assume that is because they line up in the spread and work all of their play calling out of an option.

Please correct if wrong oh FB master.

Hook'em

cow_rose.gif
 
There's a lot of confusion between spread, west coast and the old run and shoot.

1.) Spread = 3 receivers, TE/H-back and half back with QB in the shot gun. Running = trap option(zone read) and counters. Passing = mostly seam and outside. I think announcers just like to sound like they've discovered the greatest thing, but there are only a few true spread teams in college. West Virginia was, Texas in the Vince Young era was. I've seen credit given to everyone from Rich Rodriguez to Todd Dodge. The first I saw of it was Stephenville when Art Briles was there in the early 90s. They were putting up huge passing and rushing numbers running the zone read and lots of outside passing. Vince's offense seemed to resemble that offense most which was very balanced.

2.) West Coast = QB under center, short drops, quick timing patterns. Mostly short controlled passing to replace the running game somewhat. Conventional running place with fullback and tailback. This came from Bill Walsh and his descendent coaches. Holmgren runs it. Florida ran a similar version under Spurrier with lots more shotgun. To me this is more of what New England runs. Not a spread. Its very controlled, but out of the shotgun like Florida in the 90s.

3.) Run and Shoot was like the spread with lots of roll out and out patterns at different depths. Lots of floods.

Florida does not run the spread. Tech does not run the spread, but rather is like Florida in the 90s.
 
West Coast offenses are much more balanced than Spread Offenses. They will be threats to run and throw the ball on just about every down. The TE and FB are key in the passing gmae but also key in run blocking. The QB will also be under center. TE and FB are also used for the underneathe passing game and in the middle of the field. This keeps the defense in certain sets to cover the threat of the run. LB's are key and are at a premium over the DB's.

Spread offenses as mentioned above can come in many varieties. But generally they are pass oriented offenses. The difference is the more recent advent of offenses that contain a very mobile QB where the thread to run is always there even on passing downs. You could almost call this a hybrid spread offense and the next evolution. Defenses can often get away with 2 LB sets and 5 DB's. Speed is at a premium for the defense. spread offense is generally about quick short passes.

Problem as I see UT's offense is that sometimes they go into spread offense formation with a certain RB who really is going to go out for a pass. The defense is expecting pass and this really puts the offense at a disadvantage early.

I am wondering how many of the spread offenses will do this year with the new 40 second clock. With receivers running all over the place they may have to substitute to get the next play off. You will have to have a very deep WR unit. Either that or the defense could expect a run look the next snap.
 
Every offense is an answer to the fundamental question- "How do you plan to score?" Some offenses are evolutions from previous offenses; others are dramatically different answers to the fundamental question.

The WCO is an evolution from the "I", which evolved from the "T". The "T" was revolutionary when it was created. It replaced the single wing, which fundametally involved snapping the ball into the backfield (to the halfback or wingback), who would then run or pass. Holes were a function of chance, to a large extent, and much depended upon the back's shear athletic talent. The ball was pitched quite a bit, and so the offense tended to turn the ball over a lot.

The "T" formation snapped the ball to the QB under center. The QB had very simple reads, and functioned much like a point guard. There were pre-determined blocks to create (hopefully) holes, and he would hand the ball to the halfback or fullback based on the play call, and the back would read the hole. This was not explosive, but it reliably moved the ball on the ground and had very few turnovers (because there were more handoffs than pitches). In the '40s, the "T" rapidly replaced the single wing in the pros and college.

Coaches learnd to defend the "T", and offensive coaches adapted by throwing deep, forcing the defense to back up. Later, the WCO developed as a credible ball control mid-range attack. Still, the WCO was a viable running and deep threat offense. I would argue that the WCO is the final-evolved form of what started as the "T".

The modern spread is much like the old single wing. Much depends on the backs' reads. Blocks are not as scripted. Many of the facets of the WCO and "I" were incorporated to eliminate the turnovers that plagued the old single wing. I think defenses will catch up with the spread at some point, but currently it is still fresh, and many bright minds are doing innovative things with it.
 
That only accounts for those running offenses you described. It does not, however, account for the offenses that predicate themselves on throwing the ball. That's kinda my point. The spread does not limit itself to a philosophy. The word itself implies that it puts more people outside of the interior than any normal offense would. That's it.

Or to put it in a more rhetorical way, here's an example: It was very common under Rich Rodriguez to see WVU line up with 2 wide receivers 17 yards away from the tackles and 2 slot receivers bisecting that distance with the QB in the shotgun and the RB off his hip. June Jones uses this exact same formation. How is only one of them a spread formation?
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
Unfortunately for this discussion, very few offensive coaches are true doctrinaires. They don't feel obligated to stick entirely to one philosophy or another, and will steal ideas from all offenses and sources. This can bog us down in arguments over who has a spread offense and who doesn't.

Here's another shorthand way of looking at it. One approach to running the ball is to get more blockers in an area than there are defenders. This is the goal of every "I" formation running play- to overpower the defenders and advance the ball.

Another approach is to use the formation to get the runner into space. This is what spread teams try to do, and I feel represents a difference in philosophy. One offense can have both kinds of plays.
 
Very interesting discussion.

You state:
"Well the zone read has only been around for 10 years. It started at Tulane, at least according to Rich Rodriguez.".

It seems to me the zone read is a type of option play and option plays have been around since the 50's I think (eg: the wishbone was an option play). The zone read is more reliable in that there are no laterals but the key concept is the same: the QB reads the D to decide whether to keep the ball or give it to the running back.

Secondly, did anyone mention the the key concept in the run and shoot is that the receivers and QB both read the D to decide what patterns will be run?
 
In a technical sense, that's an effect. The key concept is to get the WR's in open areas of the field (and that's at any depth, contrary to what some self annointed web gurus will tell you) and in order for this to be accomplished, they have to read the D to decide what patterns will be run. This applies both to pre-snap (Check With Me's, Automatic Passes) and mid-play (choice routes, secondary breaks)

As to the zone read, I know the inside option is an old concept that pre-dates anything Tulane or RichRod did, but that's not the point. The point is that shotgun spread offenses never tried something like that before them. Before them, the shotgun run game was all about predetermined inside handoffs and maybe even a speed option here and there. It definitely was not used at Stephenville during Briles' first few years. In fact, I never saw Briles use that at all.
 
I understand what you said. But you also said you NEVER saw him run it at Stephenville. Just pointing out that he did run it at some point.
 
I should have added "granted I didn't see all that much." It wouldn't surprise me that he put that in in 99. That was the same year Ennis put it in their offense. That play was a major success in Tulane's offense in 98.
 
Just to make sure that I'm understanding this correctly, the run and shoot works thusly:
* the QB and receivers survey the D to understand the D (hopefully they see the D the same way even though they have different perspectives)
* they run this mental picture of the D through a common mental algorithm that their coach has taught them
* the results of processing this algorithm (using their perception of the D as input) is a plan that describes the patterns the receivers run and where they end up getting the ball
* result: everybody knows what to execute without having to communicate verbally or with signals (is this true? Neither verbal or hand signals or required?), and the receivers go to the optimal spots on the field (i.e. some go to open spots, some simply distort the D as desired.

To me, the key brilliance/innovation of the run and shoot is this idea of shared processing of an algorithm (which must also include a shared algorithm for analyzing the D to provide input to this algorithm) to call a play without communication. This seems amazing to me. I would not call this an "effect" but rather is the central idea of the run and shoot.

Getting the receiver open is a goal shared by all passing offenses.

Regarding the zone read, adding it to the spread was an advance for the spread but was not a major intellectual/inspirational innovation. The innovation was the idea of the QB reading the D and deciding whether to keep it or give it to somebody else in realtime (i.e. as the play is progressing). I believe the wishbone triple option (based on this concept) was the biggest offensive weapon of DKR's teams. Once this idea existed, it was inevitable that coaches would do it not only when the QB was under center but also when he is in the shotgun (kind of obvious, right?).

I would be amazed if Roger Staubach did not do some option out of the shotgun but I don't actually remember because it was so long ago.

Anyway, thanks again for the very interesting football discussion.
 
Hpslugga,

wonderful stuff! I need to study the whole thread. Thanks especially for the book recommendation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top