Miami and the Spread Offense

[JaxonCane]

It seems like a lot of Miami fans hate the spread offense and think we have always been pro style. I would argue that 2 of our Titles were won running the spread offense. Dennis Erickson. He was a spread offense guy not so different than what they do today - just more under center. But same concepts - 1) presnap read the over coverage 2) post snap read the under coverage 3) run the ball vs light box. Not to different from what they do now. In fact I think an argument could be made that we are one of the originators of the spread success. (BYU did win it before us running the spread.)
Why do Miami fans hate the spread offense?

 

[CanesFiend]

Jesus, the Bethune-Cookman game can't get here fast enough.

 

[Memnon]

I don't hate Spread Offenses, I hate gimmick Offenses like TTech, GTech & Wash St etc..

I think the Spread can be very effective vs Defenses & creates great mismatches that force opposing Defenses to basically pick their poison.

The problem with most Spread teams is they tend to be soft at the point of attack, Oregon probably had one of the best Spread Offenses in the modern era, but teams like Arizona, Mich St, Oh St would always whoop their *** because they were simply a weak finesse team.

I think most fans associate Spread teams with weak teams that don't play any Defense & that's probably what most people reject.

I actually would like to see us implement some variations of Spread in our Offense, not become a full Spread team, just a few concepts in some of our packages.

We actually have the personnel for it, just don't want to see us go full out gimmick style.

 

[Cash]

I don't hate Spread Offenses, I hate gimmick Offenses like TTech, GTech & Wash St etc..

I think the Spread can be very effective vs Defenses & creates great mismatches that force opposing Defenses to basically pick their poison.

The problem with most Spread teams is they tend to be soft at the point of attack, Oregon probably had one of the best Spread Offenses in the modern era, but teams like Arizona, Mich St, Oh St would always whoop their *** because they were simply a weak finesse team.

I think most fans associate Spread teams with weak teams that don't play any Defense & that's probably what most people reject.

I actually would like to see us implement some variations of Spread in our Offense, not become a full Spread team, just a few concepts in some of our packages.

We actually have the personnel for it, just don't want to see us go full out gimmick style.

Well stated response. Also to add even when we ran spread we also ran Pro I. Erickson's big thing was a single back set if I remember correctly.

 

[ghost2]

That's the big hangup - the "spread offense" can mean as many different things as there are coaches out there.

Clemson's "spread offense" is different than Leach's "spread offense" which is different from Briles' "spread offense" which is different from Malzahn's...

Personally, I would love to see us run something similar to a Clemson, Ohio State under Meyer, or Lincoln Riley at Oklahoma (or even Bama with Kiffin.) Spread offense but with a lead-power run game.

 

[sstcane]

Clemson, Alabama and OSU have all won using spread offenses. The key is all the teams had strong offensive and defensive lines, as well as lots of playmakers on offense.

I would think that we will primarily be running 11 personnel this year to get our best players on the field. We have Walton, Homer, Herndon, Richards, Berrios, Harley, Thomas and Mullins who are big play threats. As long as Malik takes care of the ball and distributes the ball we should have an explosive offense.

 

[jmiller]

I don't hate Spread Offenses, I hate gimmick Offenses like TTech, GTech & Wash St etc..

I think the Spread can be very effective vs Defenses & creates great mismatches that force opposing Defenses to basically pick their poison.

The problem with most Spread teams is they tend to be soft at the point of attack, Oregon probably had one of the best Spread Offenses in the modern era, but teams like Arizona, Mich St, Oh St would always whoop their *** because they were simply a weak finesse team.

I think most fans associate Spread teams with weak teams that don't play any Defense & that's probably what most people reject.

I actually would like to see us implement some variations of Spread in our Offense, not become a full Spread team, just a few concepts in some of our packages.

We actually have the personnel for it, just don't want to see us go full out gimmick style.

Well stated response. Also to add even when we ran spread we also ran Pro I. Erickson's big thing was a single back set if I remember correctly.

Wait aren't Arizona and Ohio State spread teams?

 

[ghost2]

I don't hate Spread Offenses, I hate gimmick Offenses like TTech, GTech & Wash St etc..

I think the Spread can be very effective vs Defenses & creates great mismatches that force opposing Defenses to basically pick their poison.

The problem with most Spread teams is they tend to be soft at the point of attack, Oregon probably had one of the best Spread Offenses in the modern era, but teams like Arizona, Mich St, Oh St would always whoop their *** because they were simply a weak finesse team.

I think most fans associate Spread teams with weak teams that don't play any Defense & that's probably what most people reject.

I actually would like to see us implement some variations of Spread in our Offense, not become a full Spread team, just a few concepts in some of our packages.

We actually have the personnel for it, just don't want to see us go full out gimmick style.

Well stated response. Also to add even when we ran spread we also ran Pro I. Erickson's big thing was a single back set if I remember correctly.

Wait aren't Arizona and Ohio State spread teams?

Yup. Rich Rod and Meyer. Pioneers of the spread.

 

[Memnon]

I don't hate Spread Offenses, I hate gimmick Offenses like TTech, GTech & Wash St etc..

I think the Spread can be very effective vs Defenses & creates great mismatches that force opposing Defenses to basically pick their poison.

The problem with most Spread teams is they tend to be soft at the point of attack, Oregon probably had one of the best Spread Offenses in the modern era, but teams like Arizona, Mich St, Oh St would always whoop their *** because they were simply a weak finesse team.

I think most fans associate Spread teams with weak teams that don't play any Defense & that's probably what most people reject.

I actually would like to see us implement some variations of Spread in our Offense, not become a full Spread team, just a few concepts in some of our packages.

We actually have the personnel for it, just don't want to see us go full out gimmick style.

Well stated response. Also to add even when we ran spread we also ran Pro I. Erickson's big thing was a single back set if I remember correctly.

Wait aren't Arizona and Ohio State spread teams?

Yes, but I referenced them because of their DLine.

Their Offenses weren't the reason they would beat Oregon, it was because they had very good Pass rushers & would overpower Oregon's OL.

 

[Memnon]

I don't hate Spread Offenses, I hate gimmick Offenses like TTech, GTech & Wash St etc..

I think the Spread can be very effective vs Defenses & creates great mismatches that force opposing Defenses to basically pick their poison.

The problem with most Spread teams is they tend to be soft at the point of attack, Oregon probably had one of the best Spread Offenses in the modern era, but teams like Arizona, Mich St, Oh St would always whoop their *** because they were simply a weak finesse team.

I think most fans associate Spread teams with weak teams that don't play any Defense & that's probably what most people reject.

I actually would like to see us implement some variations of Spread in our Offense, not become a full Spread team, just a few concepts in some of our packages.

We actually have the personnel for it, just don't want to see us go full out gimmick style.

Well stated response. Also to add even when we ran spread we also ran Pro I. Erickson's big thing was a single back set if I remember correctly.

Wait aren't Arizona and Ohio State spread teams?

Yup. Rich Rod and Meyer. Pioneers of the spread.

I wasn't comparing Offenses, I was saying that Oregon's great Offense would lose to teams with a good Defense, that was the point.

 

[ghost2]

I don't hate Spread Offenses, I hate gimmick Offenses like TTech, GTech & Wash St etc..

I think the Spread can be very effective vs Defenses & creates great mismatches that force opposing Defenses to basically pick their poison.

The problem with most Spread teams is they tend to be soft at the point of attack, Oregon probably had one of the best Spread Offenses in the modern era, but teams like Arizona, Mich St, Oh St would always whoop their *** because they were simply a weak finesse team.

I think most fans associate Spread teams with weak teams that don't play any Defense & that's probably what most people reject.

I actually would like to see us implement some variations of Spread in our Offense, not become a full Spread team, just a few concepts in some of our packages.

We actually have the personnel for it, just don't want to see us go full out gimmick style.

Well stated response. Also to add even when we ran spread we also ran Pro I. Erickson's big thing was a single back set if I remember correctly.

Wait aren't Arizona and Ohio State spread teams?

Yes, but I referenced them because of their DLine.

Their Offenses weren't the reason they would beat Oregon, it was because they had very good Pass rushers & would overpower Oregon's OL.

That's why I like the kind of spread Clemson and Ohio State run now - the so-called "smashmouth" spread, designed to implement power-run concepts and isolate one-on-one matchups in the run game. Riley runs something similar as well at OU.

 

[RepTheGables]

That's the big hangup - the "spread offense" can mean as many different things as there are coaches out there.

Clemson's "spread offense" is different than Leach's "spread offense" which is different from Briles' "spread offense" which is different from Malzahn's...

Personally, I would love to see us run something similar to a Clemson, Ohio State under Meyer, or Lincoln Riley at Oklahoma (or even Bama with Kiffin.) Spread offense but with a lead-power run game.

Flaming hot take- I think that the power spread is the best offense around right now.

You get the most out of your playmakers without sacrificing strength up front. The power run game allows you to control clock and ease the pressure on the defense.

 

[ghost2]

That's the big hangup - the "spread offense" can mean as many different things as there are coaches out there.

Clemson's "spread offense" is different than Leach's "spread offense" which is different from Briles' "spread offense" which is different from Malzahn's...

Personally, I would love to see us run something similar to a Clemson, Ohio State under Meyer, or Lincoln Riley at Oklahoma (or even Bama with Kiffin.) Spread offense but with a lead-power run game.

Flaming hot take- I think that the power spread is the best offense around right now.

You get the most out of your playmakers without sacrificing strength up front. The power run game allows you to control clock and ease the pressure on the defense.

Absolutely agree.

 

[Memnon]

I don't hate Spread Offenses, I hate gimmick Offenses like TTech, GTech & Wash St etc..

I think the Spread can be very effective vs Defenses & creates great mismatches that force opposing Defenses to basically pick their poison.

The problem with most Spread teams is they tend to be soft at the point of attack, Oregon probably had one of the best Spread Offenses in the modern era, but teams like Arizona, Mich St, Oh St would always whoop their *** because they were simply a weak finesse team.

I think most fans associate Spread teams with weak teams that don't play any Defense & that's probably what most people reject.

I actually would like to see us implement some variations of Spread in our Offense, not become a full Spread team, just a few concepts in some of our packages.

We actually have the personnel for it, just don't want to see us go full out gimmick style.

Well stated response. Also to add even when we ran spread we also ran Pro I. Erickson's big thing was a single back set if I remember correctly.

Wait aren't Arizona and Ohio State spread teams?

Yes, but I referenced them because of their DLine.

Their Offenses weren't the reason they would beat Oregon, it was because they had very good Pass rushers & would overpower Oregon's OL.

That's why I like the kind of spread Clemson and Ohio State run now - the so-called "smashmouth" spread, designed to implement power-run concepts and isolate one-on-one matchups in the run game. Riley runs something similar as well at OU.

I agree.

I actually think the future of our program could be headed in that direction personnel wise with Perry, Lingard, Cam & the type of WR's we have.

 

[NVA CANE]

I don't hate Spread Offenses, I hate gimmick Offenses like TTech, GTech & Wash St etc..

I think the Spread can be very effective vs Defenses & creates great mismatches that force opposing Defenses to basically pick their poison.

The problem with most Spread teams is they tend to be soft at the point of attack, Oregon probably had one of the best Spread Offenses in the modern era, but teams like Arizona, Mich St, Oh St would always whoop their *** because they were simply a weak finesse team.

I think most fans associate Spread teams with weak teams that don't play any Defense & that's probably what most people reject.

I actually would like to see us implement some variations of Spread in our Offense, not become a full Spread team, just a few concepts in some of our packages.

We actually have the personnel for it, just don't want to see us go full out gimmick style.

Are the weak defenses a result of the spread offenses in the sense that they move the ball so quickly and score so quickly that their defense is on the field too often, or do those coaches just not focus on defense?

 

[DTP]

Let's be real, it's 2017 and everybody outside a handful of teams runs some variation of the spread now. Erickson's one back was certainly a precursor to pretty much everyone's base offense now (although the shotgun is more prevalent). When you think about it, it's common sense for a team like Miami to spread out defenses and put an extra wideout or two on the field. In order to run a successful pro-style offense (think Coker/Chud) you need a dominant offensive line. That's why the Coker/Chud offense worked so well from 2000-2002 but started to peter out in the following years. Super dominant offensive linemen aren't exactly a dime a dozen in Florida but lightning quick receivers are. Trying to overpower opponents is literally playing right into their hands. Slower, less athletic teams (almost everyone we face) want Miami to lineup in the I and try to run it right at them. It puts less of a premium on quickness and teams can just overload the box knowing a fullback is no threat to beat them.

 

[Memnon]

I don't hate Spread Offenses, I hate gimmick Offenses like TTech, GTech & Wash St etc..

I think the Spread can be very effective vs Defenses & creates great mismatches that force opposing Defenses to basically pick their poison.

The problem with most Spread teams is they tend to be soft at the point of attack, Oregon probably had one of the best Spread Offenses in the modern era, but teams like Arizona, Mich St, Oh St would always whoop their *** because they were simply a weak finesse team.

I think most fans associate Spread teams with weak teams that don't play any Defense & that's probably what most people reject.

I actually would like to see us implement some variations of Spread in our Offense, not become a full Spread team, just a few concepts in some of our packages.

We actually have the personnel for it, just don't want to see us go full out gimmick style.

Are the weak defenses a result of the spread offenses in the sense that they move the ball so quickly and score so quickly that their defense is on the field too often, or do those coaches just not focus on defense?

It's a combination of both.

It also is a result of recruiting & what those staffs put the emphasis on in building their team.

I'm not saying every single team that runs a Spread Offense is weak, I'm saying what some people don't like about them is that they have that tendency.

That obviously doesn't apply to schools like Oh St, Clemson & others.

 

[LustNCanes]

I don't hate Spread Offenses, I hate gimmick Offenses like TTech, GTech & Wash St etc..

I think the Spread can be very effective vs Defenses & creates great mismatches that force opposing Defenses to basically pick their poison.

The problem with most Spread teams is they tend to be soft at the point of attack, Oregon probably had one of the best Spread Offenses in the modern era, but teams like Arizona, Mich St, Oh St would always whoop their *** because they were simply a weak finesse team.

I think most fans associate Spread teams with weak teams that don't play any Defense & that's probably what most people reject.

I actually would like to see us implement some variations of Spread in our Offense, not become a full Spread team, just a few concepts in some of our packages.

We actually have the personnel for it, just don't want to see us go full out gimmick style.

Are the weak defenses a result of the spread offenses in the sense that they move the ball so quickly and score so quickly that their defense is on the field too often, or do those coaches just not focus on defense?

It's a combination of both.

It also is a result of recruiting & what those staffs put the emphasis on in building their team.

I'm not saying every single team that runs a Spread Offense is weak, I'm saying what some people don't like about them is that they have that tendency.

That obviously doesn't apply to schools like Oh St, Clemson & others.

WE'RE ON THE VERGE of something SPECIAL. #watchthis

 

[dg151]

Good offensive schemes let less talented teams perform better than you'd expect. It's why 'lower' teams would absolutely shred bad teams but not be able to win big games against top defenses. Scheme can only get you so far. If you have a not talented OL, you can get away with just tempoing teams to depth if their DL isn't good and/or deep enough to win at the POA. If their DL is good enough tho, you're gonna get shut down because they can stop the base of the offense without having to throw numbers at it.

It's not that the old Oregon teams were weak because of their scheme, they were just weak and the scheme masked that until it couldn't.

 

[CaneSince4Ever]

In order to run a successful pro-style offense (think Coker/Chud) you need a dominant offensive line.

You need a dominant O-Line regardless of what you run. And that whole "Florida doesn't produce O-Linemen" is a fallacy at best...IIRC, all of our current starting O-Linemen are from Florida.