ulfr
Sisyphean Spermophile
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2008
- Messages
- 507
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
I HATE to say it, but I agree with KFAN
Off Tackle Empire had a good article on the spread and its sustainability within the Big Ten over the summer.
Little in the Brewster era frustrated me more than seeing third down and short distance situations lined up in a shotgun formation and four receivers split wide. I didn't shed tears over Dunbar's departure, that is for sure.
I just don't care for the spread in this conference. I just don't find myself envious of the purer spread teams in conference. Yes, Indiana has perhaps competed better since it installed the spread, and Illinois had its oh-too-brief moment of glory. But they have hardly sustained success. Joe Tiller, who initially ran systems most similar to what many associate with the prototypical spread (wide open passing attacks predicated on a mobile quarterback and 4 or 5 receiver sets), saw progressively decreasing returns in his long career. Meanwhile Iowa and Wisconsin, our arch-rivals and closest analogs in conference in terms of home demographics and recruiting access, have put together long periods of being in the top third of the conference while emphasizing the power running game. Wisconsin in particular went from a cellar dweller to being relevant for going on 20 years while carving a niche in 'dinosaur' offenses.
'Basketball on grass' is dying in this league. Northwestern's coaching staff is talking about its run game, if not demonstrating it. Indiana has gone to the pistol formation to give it some running potency with some increased success, and Purdue has done much to reemphasize the running game (except for keeping backs healthy) under Hope. A spread option running game might be something I would be open to like Oregon, Georgia Tech [Paul Johnson fan for life, even if they are proving my anti-spread sentiments this year] or Michigan. Perhaps a similar system would have been a smoother transition from the Mason/Mitch Browning era offense.
Of the two 'spread advocate' names thrown around the most on this board, Mike Leach and Kevin Sumlin, I want nothing to do with either. Not even addressing the carts of baggage that Leach drags with him, both he and Sumlin ran/run systems that scream 'unsustainable in Minnesota'. Perpetually empty backfields and using shovel passes and quick routes in replacing the run is just not an experiment I am interested in reliving up here. Much of the offensive production of Texas Tech and Houston, furthermore, has been garnished using recruits who aren't likely to end up at Minnesota, be it for our distance from the Texas heartland or our stricter recruiting standards. If these don't scream 'Wacker's Wacky Adventure : part deux!' I don't know what does. Further our young offensive lineman, the element of the offense hardest to steer towards a new course developmentally, has clearly been recruited with run blocking in mind not a two point stance. Flushing their potential away now seems like a guarantee of more heartbreak in the next half decade.
Am I open to seeing spread elements in the offense? Yes. Especially in cases where personnel dictate its wisdom (see Terrell Pryor and SweaterVest). But to see it in the pure passing forms seen in Houston, Texas Tech, late '90's Purdue, etc. This isn't something I want to sign on for.
Off Tackle Empire had a good article on the spread and its sustainability within the Big Ten over the summer.
Little in the Brewster era frustrated me more than seeing third down and short distance situations lined up in a shotgun formation and four receivers split wide. I didn't shed tears over Dunbar's departure, that is for sure.
I just don't care for the spread in this conference. I just don't find myself envious of the purer spread teams in conference. Yes, Indiana has perhaps competed better since it installed the spread, and Illinois had its oh-too-brief moment of glory. But they have hardly sustained success. Joe Tiller, who initially ran systems most similar to what many associate with the prototypical spread (wide open passing attacks predicated on a mobile quarterback and 4 or 5 receiver sets), saw progressively decreasing returns in his long career. Meanwhile Iowa and Wisconsin, our arch-rivals and closest analogs in conference in terms of home demographics and recruiting access, have put together long periods of being in the top third of the conference while emphasizing the power running game. Wisconsin in particular went from a cellar dweller to being relevant for going on 20 years while carving a niche in 'dinosaur' offenses.
'Basketball on grass' is dying in this league. Northwestern's coaching staff is talking about its run game, if not demonstrating it. Indiana has gone to the pistol formation to give it some running potency with some increased success, and Purdue has done much to reemphasize the running game (except for keeping backs healthy) under Hope. A spread option running game might be something I would be open to like Oregon, Georgia Tech [Paul Johnson fan for life, even if they are proving my anti-spread sentiments this year] or Michigan. Perhaps a similar system would have been a smoother transition from the Mason/Mitch Browning era offense.
Of the two 'spread advocate' names thrown around the most on this board, Mike Leach and Kevin Sumlin, I want nothing to do with either. Not even addressing the carts of baggage that Leach drags with him, both he and Sumlin ran/run systems that scream 'unsustainable in Minnesota'. Perpetually empty backfields and using shovel passes and quick routes in replacing the run is just not an experiment I am interested in reliving up here. Much of the offensive production of Texas Tech and Houston, furthermore, has been garnished using recruits who aren't likely to end up at Minnesota, be it for our distance from the Texas heartland or our stricter recruiting standards. If these don't scream 'Wacker's Wacky Adventure : part deux!' I don't know what does. Further our young offensive lineman, the element of the offense hardest to steer towards a new course developmentally, has clearly been recruited with run blocking in mind not a two point stance. Flushing their potential away now seems like a guarantee of more heartbreak in the next half decade.
Am I open to seeing spread elements in the offense? Yes. Especially in cases where personnel dictate its wisdom (see Terrell Pryor and SweaterVest). But to see it in the pure passing forms seen in Houston, Texas Tech, late '90's Purdue, etc. This isn't something I want to sign on for.
