Jump to content

spread offense???


Recommended Posts

well i know most of the teams that run spread will have a QB that can run expecially. its better to have a running QB if there isnt alot of talent at the recievers. but if there is talent on the outside then a running QB isnt needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the spread offense is a read scheme. The QB must recognize a opening and attack, quick desisions. The talent of the team determands what your team will do. Of course a good running QB with a good arm is more effective. Recievers must be pretty successful at catching the ball also. A good RB helps to. spreading the defense opens a lot of lanes. It's up to the offense to fine those lanes and attack. I like the spread. But I also like versitility. Teams are geering up more and more to stop the spread. It's a fun offense to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well it depends on What kind of players you have around you.

If you have fast quarterback, but below average receivers your going to concentrate

On your running game more.....

Personally i perfer a Dual threat quarterback , that way that can balance my attack

in running and passing ....

and set up my option pass .....which is a very good play

when excetuted very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Navy does run a spread offense.  I chose them and Tech for my examples because they are opposite extremes of the spread "spectrum".

Here is a decent article on the spread:

This is the hidden content, please

The spread can be very effective in the running game at the high school level because by spreading the defense out, you can overcome a lack of size on your offensive line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The spread can be effective with a very high-intelligent Coach calling the plays. If it is used about 20% of the time to augment conventional hard-nose football: then it is a good tool.

It seems that the 100%er type Coaches just modify their schedules down to finding the weakest teams they can play to keep their win/loss record good enough to get another job when the time comes. ;D

My beef is the poor training for conventional "fire out line football" that big kids in the line never learn in HS; playing for the 100%er spread coaching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...