DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Spread offenses in college are “a huge disservice” to players

Tom Cable: Spread offenses in college are “a huge disservice” to players
Posted by Josh Alper on May 13, 2015, 3:53 PM EDT
Seattle Seahawks v Arizona Cardinals Getty Images

The increasing popularity of spread offenses at the college level have made it hard for NFL teams to evaluate the ability of rising quarterbacks to play in the more buttoned-down style seen at the professional level, but Seahawks offensive line coach Tom Cable says that the issue extends to other positions as well.

Cable said that part of the reason why the team has moved players like J.R. Sweezy and 2015 sixth-rounder Kristjan Sokoli from defense to offense is because he feels like he has to retrain linemen to play outside of a spread system anyway because of their poor fundamentals.

“I’m not wanting to offend anybody, but college football, offensively, has gotten to be really, really bad fundamentally,” Cable said Tuesday on 710 ESPN in Seattle. “Unfortunately, I think we’re doing a huge disservice to offensive football players, other than a receiver, that come out of these spread systems. “The runners aren’t as good. They aren’t taught how to run. The blockers aren’t as good. The quarterbacks aren’t as good. They don’t know how to read coverage and throw progressions. They have no idea.”

There are a broad range of offenses using spread principles at the college level and the teams employing them are making those decisions based on what they think will win them games. That may not match up with what Cable or other coaches are looking for, but we’ve seen teams adapt by installing some of those elements in their own playbooks. Without any developmental or minor league in place, that’s going to have to continue as long as those schemes remain in vogue at schools around the country.

link

He may have a point - if the point of college football is to put players in the nfl. However, the coaches at the college level are paid to..........win. They don't get paid to train players for the nfl - they get paid to win.

Now, granted, the more players a college coach has that go pro, the better for the coach. But that's not his job. Winning is his job.

How many D 1 schools are there? Multiply that by, say even 50 players per team? And how many get drafted per year? 224?

College coaches aren't paid to be a training ground for the nfl - they're paid to win. Having players drafted is a feather in the college coaches hat, no doubt.

Sour grapes.

Still true. Look at A&M and their offensive linemen. Some of the most physically talented I have ever seen but they absolutely suck at the pro level. Then you look at the receivers, the only thing they understand is how to sit in a zone. You look at the QBs from Manziel, Mariotta, Gabbert, Weeden, they dont even know how to call a damn play. They dont know how to call protections. Hell I remember Weeden at the senior bowl tripping over his own feet over just trying to complete a 5 step.

I think they should have a minor league just to teach these kids the game of football. I love the game and it is so disheartening to see these guys who have so much talent to be so completely lost out there.

I think if the NFL really wants to ever embrace expansion, they need a plan to develop these kids.

Then again, we had a pro style, "pro ready" QB in Brady Quinn, and he flopped too.

The NFL is hard. Players flop for all kinds of reasons. If you are not getting the kind of players from college you need, you have 2 choices .... change what you need, or else develop the players you get.

I don't know about the lineman, they still seem to get drafted, but I could certainly agree about the quarterbacks. Quality quarterbacks have been in extremely short supply in recent years and the spread option offenses are probably to blame in some cases. You do all of your maneuvering out of the shotgun, very rarely call your own plays, and yes you're making only one read. If I'm a college quarterback in hopes of making it in the NFL I would be looking at schools known for pro-style offenses: USC, Notre Dame, Florida State, Michigan State, Iowa, Louisville, LSU, Alabama. Ect. The gimmicky spread offenses ARE fun to watch, but I can certainly see what Cable is saying with the spread offenses putting certain players at a disadvantage.

Almost like "We can't (easily) do our jobs." If you can't evaluate talent, pass the job to someone better. Spread principles don't bury talent IMO. Speed, size, desire, and coaching matter. System can matter but doesn't guarantee success or mandate failure.

Probably truth here that is beyond simple me; perhaps we are making tougher at the NFL end of the tube. It is not all rocket science; sometimes algebra is enough. But some of the metrics are way overdone and their results way overvalued.

This is why I've always rebuffed the idea that college football is somehow supposed to be some sort of minor league or training ground for the NFL.

I think that most of us on here have been saying this for years, but it doesn't matter because as long as that offense lets the players be competitive at that level - e.g. it lets the coaches field competitive teams year after year with a high turnover rate - then they will persist.

Maybe the answer is a Minor league... dunno!

Is it not the goal of colleges to prepare/enhance you for a profession?

In the case of pro football, players have two options attend college for two years or wait until he is of age. If choosing college, what benefit does college provide preparing me for pro football job?

If they dont want to do an all out minor league NFLE type thing, (i loved NFLE) lol I think extending the roster to say 80 guys allowing the final 27 would be guys 4 years or less in experience. It would really help the NFL game and give these kids more of an opportunity to develop. Have an A team and a B team, since the B team isnt going to be playing much have different rules for their practice sessions. B team needs more practice and developmental sessions.

If you want to take that stance, then these coaches should be teaching most of these kids how to serve fries, work in real estate, or sell used cars instead of coaching football.

Yes, that is the (theoretical/alleged) purpose of college. That is not, however, the purpose/goal of extra-curricular activities like a sport.

My assertion comes from debates of the past. There have been threads discussing a minor league system for the NFL much like baseball. In those threads, a popular them arose. Many tried to say that college was in essence a minor league system for the NFL.

I disputed that on the exact same basis that many in this very thread have already pointed out. The NCAA is about success on their level. NCAA coaches are paid to win. Not to run systems that coincide with what the NFL runs. Often those systems are complete opposites from one another and do not prepare players for the NFL.

I understand the point you are making, but thus far that simply isn't the case. Whether or not the NCAA "should be" running systems that help prepare players for the NFL is another debate completely. I'm simply stating my beliefs that as of now, that's not what is occurring.

Yes, but that is not the goal of college athletics, as all of these players have other academic majors that they are theoretically pursuing...


If you had a son, a highly recruited, potentially NFL caliber son and two schools come calling...

Oregon, runs the spread, puts a bunch of kids in the NFL every year, high profile program, plays for championships, on television a lot, wins 11 games a year...

Fartblossom State, recruiter comes to your house, says they have a football staff of guys who all played and coached in the NFL, planning on running a complete pro-style O and D, training will be very much like the NFL, but they are only likely to win 4 games a year in the Mid-Eastern Southern athletic conference...

What would you do?

I've made this argument before, "Professional Athlete" should be a major. Hey, it's a legitimate job, it should be a major. If you choose that as your major and don't ever get good enough to make it come true.. hey, welcome to the world of thousands of pre-med kids every year..

The beauty of it is, you don't even really need to add any classes, you just have to organize classes you already have into one major.

For example, you would want the kid to take personal finance 1 and 2... if they are going to be rich, teach them how to be rich. You would want them to take public speaking 1 and 2.... teach them not to say "uh" and "y'know" twice in every sentence... probably want them to take nutrition classes, take some classes in kinesiology so they understand human movement, how the muscles, joints and tendons work.. take some classes in exercise and fitness designed specifically for pro athletes, take some management classes so they develop an understanding of how to surround themselves with good agents, PR folks, etc. take some broadcasting classes for the career after pro sports.... then they could take some classes through the actual sports program they are in... watching film 101, etc.. not exactly sure how to structure all of this but give them academic credit for the time they spend on their sport.

Benefits the kid because he/she is now fully committed to what they want to do instead of pretending they actually enjoy the history classes or the general studies classes they have to take.. benefits the sports program because they get more time with the athlete to actually TEACH them how to participate in that sport.. benefits pro sports because you have kids coming out who are a little more polished and ready for what being a pro athlete is going to throw at them...

If the kid doesn't make it as an athlete, they at least have a background in public speaking, broadcasting, physical training, etc. a lot of things around sports where they can get a job.

I've had this thought for a while and I still don't see who loses by doing this...

What Cable has said, and I believe you, and others, are confusing it, is that "Spread offenses in college are a huge disservice to players.

Many of you are responding to this story as if he said it is a huge disservice to the NFL. He didn't say that.

He's basically saying that for offensive players who work and dream for the chance to join the NFL as their future career are not being prepared for that and in his opinion that is a disservice to the players.

Just wait, in a few years when Brees, Brady and Manning are gone who will be the top 10 QBs? Rivers and Roth are not exactly spring chickens.

J/C

Way to go Tom Cable. That's how you lay the groundwork for your end of year excuse when your line is horrible this year. It won't be your fault that you didn't get them coached up, it's the college game's fault. They weren't ready.

I think he's a pretty good coach, but I find this pretty ridiculous. Bitonio stepped right in last year. He wasn't in a pro system. I don't think the college systems are the issue with linemen, I think it's the change in the level of competition that most struggle with.

I beleive in 4 years your top 10 Qbs will be be Luck, Wilson,Rodgers,Tannehill, Jimmy, Johnny, mallett, Teddy, Cam and Carr. Thats how much i believed in last years QB class and I still havent given up hope on Mettlenberger.

J/C

Imagine if the NFL was able to create some sort of a 3-4 year minor league for the highly recruited studs out of high school. This would be the best of the best, and the NFL could hire coaches that would prep them for the NFL game.

Obviously, the logistics would/could be a nightmare, and the NCAA would hate this, but it would certainly change the landscape of football at nearly all levels!

That's an interesting idea.

Kind of what NFL Europe used to be for NFL teams where they could send practice squad guys over to get some real game experience.

Take NFL draft hopefuls and pit them all into a Spring league. It could be something small, like four games, but they spend a few months studying an NFL playbook(s), practicing with NFL coaches, and then even having scrimmages/games against these other "farm teams".

I realize that's what training camp and preseason is for I guess, but doing something like that in the Spring could get them more prepared to make a bigger impact come the regular season.

Such a league doesn't need to be a requirement, but draft hopefuls wanting to improve their stock and knowledge could join.

There are probably a lot of holes in an idea like this, but it's certainly interesting.

Personally I think that would suck. I'm a big fan of college football and I can't see myself ever developing a serious allegiance to some minor league NFL team. The quality of college football would take a nose dive and would be replaced with some minor league team that nobody cares about.

the biggest problem I think they have, to put it in academic terms, is this... if you go to school for, let's say structural engineering... as soon as you get out of school, they don't expect you to design a 4 mile bridge over deep water with racing currents and high wind loads... nope, that's an incredibly complicated project... you start at the bottom, supporting a very experienced team and you learn and grow and maybe, MAYBE, by the time you are 35 you are leading a team to do something like that... you come out of college football and it's like, BAM, here it is, the best football players in the world, now lead your team to victory over them.. go get it. No other career in the world that I can think of are you expected to be a competent professional and leader on day 1 and have almost reached your full potential by about year 3 or 4 in your profession... it's just unheard of outside of professional sports.

Which I would love to see.

When it starts becoming a problem though, and more and more spread and read option type QBs drop to the bottom of the draft, players like top high school QBs will start looking for schools who play a pro style system so they can have a better chance to be drafted higher. Maybe schools running a spread system will not get the top QB prospects if they know that they won't have a real shot at the NFL. Who knows? Maybe the NFL will go to the spread instead?

This would effectively kill NCAA football, and you could expect a MAJOR backlash from them, and it would probably start with a grassroots smear campaign about how the NFL is against kids getting an education, blah, blah, blah..

More realistic scenario my son has an offer from either Oregon or Indiana University, an outstanding academic institution I might add being an alum. For s-and-grins, assume IU runs a pro style program. At the very least, IU becomes a contender for the B1G championship but falls short. Oregon wins the NCAA championship. IU students will be heavily sought after.

I have no proof, but I bet a DIV I school who plays a pro-style program will be highly sought after. One school I know for sure is Iowa. Average in B1G standing producing NFL ready kids every year.

Wish in one hand, defecate in the other, and see which one gets filled first.

If only you could get the CFL to change their playing rules to conform to the NFL's...

J/C

I don't think a minor league is the answer. College football does just fine. There are college teams that run "pro" systems and their players don't get drafted systematically higher. Players from those programs aren't more ready. Look at the success of USC's QBs. They ran a pro style offense, but still struggled in the NFL (Sanchez, Leinart, Barkley). Mariota just got drafted number 2 overall. Kevin White went top 10. The skills player develop still translate for the most part. There is just a difference between doing football part time as 18-24 y/o and full time with grown men. Even when pro teams switch systems there is an adjustment period to learning new schemes. Look at our history.

The whole college doesn't prepare them for the professional ranks argument is weak. In the broad sense, it may be "true", but nothing will really get them fully ready for playing in the pro's except playing in the pros. College does do a good job of developing players physically. Players do develop skills that translate. College does put athletes in front of large crowds to see how they perform in the spotlight.

I don't think a minor league system would really do that last one. I can't imagine 100k people going to a minor league game. I think you'd lose the whole team loyalty factor that makes college ball so popular. I feel like a minor league would just result in a seldom watched, pre-season quality series of games. Really who wants more pre-season level games? And they'd be like the 4th game where none of the starters would be playing. Meh.

They tried it with NFL Europe, but it was losing money and few players actually evolved from it to the NFL. The college system works pretty well. We're going to change things because one coach is complaining about actually having to coach his players?

Keep in mind, Grimm, that a minor league team would likely not be composed solely of college grads. There would also be team cuts, released veterans, etc. This would also do away with the practice squad. There is some potential to the thought...

Did you read past the first two lines? I addressed those bottom of the roster players later in the post. Yay, preseason quality games!

I'd much rather expand the size of practice/active rosters and feel like it would be more effective than a minor league.

Yes. In fact, I reread it twice and still don't see the "bottom of the roster" players mentioned as I specified in my post. This league could be located in cities of smaller population and would be attended by a significantly lower attendance that 100,000 fans. The CFL, for instance, typically attracts 25-35,000 fans/game...

How about this, NFL coaches, you adapt to your players instead of trying to fit a square peg in a round whole?

Watching Mariota play for Whisenhunt is going to be horrible.

What's crappy is that the Titans are probably going to expect Mariota to produce right away, and the reality is that he's a project and will likely need at minimum two or three full seasons before he blossoms (if he does) into an actual NFL pocket passing quarterback. The league has been spoiled rotten in the last 10 years or so by rookies who have experienced success at quarterback early on, it's almost like an expectation now. (by certain fans, GM's and franchises, ect).

And Whisenhunt is about as stubborn as you can get as a coach. He tried to force Jake Locker into being a pocket passer last year. Genius.

Someone brought up NFL Europe ..... well, without that "minor league" system, we probably bever would have heard of guys like James Harrison, Kurt Warner, Brad Johnson might never have made it back t a starting role, David Akers, Jake Delhomme, and Adam Vinatieri ..... maybe we never hear about these guys without NFL Europe.

Maybe our QB never materialized because we never had a chance to see him play in a season long evaluation league like NLFE.

...I wish I had not heard of all of those guys. None of them were good for the Browns. I really wish the Steelers could have gone without Harrison. I did say a few made it to the NFL, but I don't think the percentage was very good. Feel free to disprove me, I won't be offended. I'm not saying NFL Europe was a bad thing, I just think roster expansion is a better option now.

Maybe our QB is already on our roster. Maybe we're cursed and will never find one. It's easy to play the Maybe game.

Roster expansion is OK, but most of those guys at certain positions, especially QB, never get practice time, and never get to show the coaches what they can do. They never get extended exposure. They might get a look here or there, but not like they do while on the practice squad, or sitting at the bottom of the roster.