The always astute Allen Kinney reiterates a point I blogged about earlier.
The spread really started to take root as a way for outmatched teams to overcome physical disadvantages in the trenches. The scarcest prospects in football are elite defensive linemen, specifically defensive tackles, and they tend to congregate at powerhouses.
Playing stacked teams on their terms with traditional personnel groupings and formations didn’t make sense for middle- and lower-tier programs. Spacing out players, leveraging advantageous one-on-one matchups and moving the action outside the tackle box helped level the playing field, metaphorically speaking.
Those days are over. The upper crust is now playing the same game as spread teams. The knock-on effects beyond offensive style are significant.
Instead of building their programs around the idea that they will see a “pro-style” offense every week, the Alabamas and Ohio States are organizing as though the spread is the norm. They are recruiting spread personnel and scheming to both run their own offense and to stop it. Consequently, a Texas Tech or a Northwestern no longer benefit from playing style the elites eschew.
The playing field has been leveled, just not in the way that the spread pioneers intended.
So, where do things go from here? In the absence of rules changes (hello, RPOs!), Allen suggests a little contrarianism might be in store for some programs.
More likely, teams on the lower rungs will look to revert back to manball-ish styles of play. A consensus is forming around the idea that the best path to defending the spread is flooding the field with hybrid defenders along the lines of the 3-3-3 scheme dreamed up by Iowa State defensive coordinator Jim Heacock. The trade-off: taking some size off the field.
That may create openings for underdogs to push around opponents using heavier personnel and downhill rushing attacks. At the very least, opposing defenses may be forced to abandon their base schemes and lineups to handle sets with two and three tight ends. For example, consider what Kansas State is doing now under Chris Klieman and how that played out versus OU in 2019.
Throwback styles won’t generate eye-popping statistics and impressive headlines. For overmatched teams that can’t afford to play sexy and hope to win, though, they may still be the way forward.
To which I can only say: eh, maybe. Allen is suggesting that for overmatched teams, not elite ones. With regard to the latter, I don’t think a slugging style of offense is going to succeed in this day and age without being coupled to a top-flight defense capable of slowing down spread offensive attacks. And even saying that, isn’t that what we had in Georgia last season? How well did that work out at crunch time?
You can tell me all you like that last season’s LSU offense was generationally exceptional. The problem with that take is that the Tigers didn’t finish first in yards per play last season. That would have been Oklahoma. And Alabama was tied with LSU in that metric.
You can also tell me that Georgia’s problem at the SECCG was an offense that saw it ypp production drop a full yard from 2018. Except Georgia dropped that SECCG, as well, to another dynamic Alabama offense.
I know I’m singing a different tune than the one I used to warble. The main reasons for that are alluded to in Allen’s post.
Everything about the football landscape is pushing college coaches toward the spread. It’s proliferating at the high school level, and 7-on-7 passing leagues are booming in the offseason. Prep quarterbacks are training year-round with passing gurus. Rules have tilted dramatically in favor of offenses. As such, the “blocking and tackling” of football are now spread skills and concepts.
Equally importantly on the college level: The rules are undeniably hospitable towards RPOs.
The undertow at this point is too strong, I believe, for a traditional ground and pound offense to maintain its footing. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think so.
I’d love to hear Kirby discuss this. Maybe we’ll hear more once we see how Georgia’s offense looks in 2020.
Get The Picture 
The only disappointing thing about all this and how it applies to us is how Kirby, after seeing Saban give in and join the spread offensive revolution late in the game and win a national title with a spread-influenced offense, still came to Georgia and still thought he could make manball work. Would we have won in 2017 with a spread-style offense like Bama had, and like Jake Fromm ran to perfection in high school, that took advantage of our WRs and backs in space instead of continually running Chubb up the middle for less than one yard per carry in that game? I say yes.
We know, based on his OC hire at Arkansas, that Sam Pittman was not the guy standing in the way of a more wide-open offense. So it was always Kirby. It’s why we were saddled with Chaney. It’s why he promoted an in-over-his-head Coley.
Only after getting his ass destroyed and embarrassed by a head coach willing to change after he had stubbornly refused for so long did Kirby finally admit he could possibly maybe be wrong. We still don’t know if Monken’s offense will spread it out, not for sure, until the games are played. We can only hope.
LikeLike
“More likely, teams on the lower rungs will look to revert back to manball-ish styles of play.”
The hybrid type of defensive player at an elite program can take on that overweight, 2 star offensive lineman who is trying to block downhill on power running plays. Playing manball successfully requires you to have better players (Jimmies & Joes > Xs and Os). As you mentioned, that same team has to field a defense that can defend elite athletes in spread schemes.
Can you say Paul Johnson? He used a contrarian approach in the ACC with the triple option until defensive coordinators figured out how to best deal with his offense. Because of his offense, he couldn’t recruit players on either side of the ball (and he sucked at recruiting). There was no path to the NFL that ran through the North Avenue Trade School.
LikeLike
Not buying what you are selling here Senator. RPO is just another form of the triple option. You all for going back to the wishbone? How about the veer? In HS we ran the option out of the Wing T. There’s really nothing new in football. You beat the other team at the LOS and particularly late when they are beaten up and exhausted you run all over them. What you can’t do is allow the other team to do is stack the box with 8-9 players. That’s why you have to have an effective passing attack—to keep the other team’s D honest. We didn’t have that last season and it wasn’t because of the QB. It was because the receivers couldn’t get open and when a pass did arrive they couldn’t catch it. I hope you are right about Monken but I really don’t think Coley was the whole problem. We got rid of Coley for a significant upgrade at OC but we kept the guy who really is the problem—Hankton. Honestly, I don’t think Newman is an improvement over Jake either. I hope I’m wrong but I expect the same problems on O we had last year. One really good receiver, one pretty good receiver and the rest…….
LikeLike
Wut
LikeLike
Receiver downfield takes the place of the trailing back. Option 1 is to hand off to the HB inside. Option 2 is the QB runs it. Option 3 is passing to a receiver usually on the same side of the field as the QB is moving. Used to be that option 3 was pitching to a trailing back.
LikeLike
You don’t have to have a running quarterback for RPOs. Blocking schemes are totally different. Receiver target can be anywhere on the field.
But, yeah, there’s more than one thing you can do on the play, so they’re the same. Might as well say the same thing about play action.
LikeLike
So… play-action pretends to be a double option but is really only a single option? Am I doing this right? 😂
LikeLike
Infinite variations Senator. That’s why they have “plays.” And that’s why the “O” in RPO stands for “option.” The QB has to option to run, pass or in some plays hand off.
LikeLike