|
|
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 9,711
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 9,711 |
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.
If you had more roster spots you could field more "teams" in practice and get more snaps for everyone. With more spots, you could carry more developmental type guys instead of having to worry about having enough injury replacement guys. Why doesn't the league just not have the cutdowns in the preseason? Stick to 90 man rosters all year (are they 90 man? seems high but came from somewhere), no practice squad, no "active" list. College teams carry 85 scholarship players and they don't seem to have a shortage of time/coaches for practicing them all.
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/fkjZc8B/Bull-Dawg-Sig-smaller.jpg) You mess with the "Bull," you get the horns. Fiercely Independent.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,958
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,958 |
I think that the NFL is worried that if they expand rosters to that point, there will be super teams who will get all of the better UDFA types, and the weaker teams will not be able to improve themselves. A weaker team can keep an eye on reports about players on the PS lists of other teams, and add a guy if they have a need.
I also can't see the NFL or the union going that far with rosters. The NFL is not going to want to expand the salary pool, and the union is not going to want players making less per contract.
I still like an auxiliary league makes the most sense. Heck, maybe even take 15 players from each NFL team and play a 6 or 8 game season. That way teams get a look at guys in real game action, and then teams can recall their roster players, and sign the PS players they want to sign. That would allow the NFL teams to have their players available for the 2nd half of the season. The NFL team could recall a player under contract to them at any time they needed to. Heck, we could have Tuesday and Wednesday Night football with these players, and the NFL could have an extra product.
I dunno. I like the idea of guys getting a chance to show what they can do. I think that there are guys at the bottom of a lot of rosters who can be useful, if they get a look. We have stunk in so many areas that we see a lot of these guys come up and play for us, and play well, but imagine if we had a league where we could have sent Manziel for a 6 week period to get used to playing under Center for a few weeks before being put into a game.
I just think that it would be a good idea, and better than just exploding the rosters. (which I find unlikely for the reasons I mentioned)
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,257
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,257 |
YTown, problem I see with an auxiliary or minor league football is shelf life. Where is the market for this league? I believe Arena Football is the only successful league outside of the NFL. Minor leagues are money pits.
I think keep the current system in place. One exception not draft kids until they completed four years of college or equivalent age. I don't feel kids who come out early are mentally and physically prepared. Colleges have time developing knowing student athletes will be around 4 years. It's a pipe dream I know.
Reason colleges switched to the spread is they are successful teaching it to two year and done students. I applaud schools who continue to commit to the four year student. Yes, their football program doesn't attract superstars, but they are developing students which is what colleges are suppose to do.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,958
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,958 |
YTown, problem I see with an auxiliary or minor league football is shelf life. Where is the market for this league? I believe Arena Football is the only successful league outside of the NFL. Minor leagues are money pits.
I think keep the current system in place. One exception not draft kids until they completed four years of college or equivalent age. I don't feel kids who come out early are mentally and physically prepared. Colleges have time developing knowing student athletes will be around 4 years. It's a pipe dream I know.
Reason colleges switched to the spread is they are successful teaching it to two year and done students. I applaud schools who continue to commit to the four year student. Yes, their football program doesn't attract superstars, but they are developing students which is what colleges are suppose to do. There would be more major lawsuits if you tried to limit the entry of players into the NFL in that manner. The NBA lost such a lawsuit, and the NFL has fought (and lost) them as well. While the NFL does enjoy a limited antitrust exemption, it does not extend to all things. The idea that a player must play all 4 years in college before being allowed to enter the draft has already been defeated. Yeah, minor leagues can cost money ... but why? In the case of NFLE, it was more about expanding the NFL's brand into Europe than anything else. If set up properly, an NFL Minor League with a 6-8 game schedule could be relatively inexpensive. Each team could contribute 10-15 players, maybe 10 practice squad type players, and 5 other players ... either from the bottom of their roster, or other free agents signed by the team. These player assigned to the Minor League would either make their regular salary, or a salary equal to at least 1/2 of the veterans' minimum. (since teams can play their practice squad players anything they want, as long as it fits within the salary cap) Once the Minor League season ends, maybe with a Championship game for the 2 top teams, then teams can resign their practice squad players, either to their practice squad, or their regular rosters, or they can attempt to sign players from other teams, It would be like a round of UDFA free agency. I don't see a huge outlay of cash required to pull this whole thing off.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 9,711
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 9,711 |
I think that the NFL is worried that if they expand rosters to that point, there will be super teams who will get all of the better UDFA types, and the weaker teams will not be able to improve themselves. A weaker team can keep an eye on reports about players on the PS lists of other teams, and add a guy if they have a need.
I also can't see the NFL or the union going that far with rosters. The NFL is not going to want to expand the salary pool, and the union is not going to want players making less per contract.
I still like an auxiliary league makes the most sense. Heck, maybe even take 15 players from each NFL team and play a 6 or 8 game season. That way teams get a look at guys in real game action, and then teams can recall their roster players, and sign the PS players they want to sign. That would allow the NFL teams to have their players available for the 2nd half of the season. The NFL team could recall a player under contract to them at any time they needed to. Heck, we could have Tuesday and Wednesday Night football with these players, and the NFL could have an extra product.
I dunno. I like the idea of guys getting a chance to show what they can do. I think that there are guys at the bottom of a lot of rosters who can be useful, if they get a look. We have stunk in so many areas that we see a lot of these guys come up and play for us, and play well, but imagine if we had a league where we could have sent Manziel for a 6 week period to get used to playing under Center for a few weeks before being put into a game.
I just think that it would be a good idea, and better than just exploding the rosters. (which I find unlikely for the reasons I mentioned) I feel like funding a "minor league" would cost owners just as much if not more than expanding rosters. 30-40 guys per team who would probably only make the league minimum would probably be less expensive than the infrastructure a new league would require. Plus, a minor league would have to pay the players something, too. The NFL facilities are also likely to be of higher quality and better for those lower tier players development. There are already kind of those super teams. UDFA's gravitate towards certain teams, but at the same time, players will want to go to teams where they will eventually see playing time on Sundays. Or they could expand the draft in addition to roster count. We've talked about scheme transitions in other threads and I think it would also be more beneficial to be coached by the people whose system you'll eventually be playing in. It's not like the meeting rooms are overflowing now. There are limits on how much time coaches can spend with players, but not on watching film of them. You can have your starters together and really work with them most of the time, but having the other players working the same bit elsewhere under a quality control coach or whatever and the HC/OC/DC whatever can watch the film and see how they're progressing and who to try shuffling in and out of the starters later.
You mess with the "Bull," you get the horns. Fiercely Independent.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
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. Not sure Iowa makes your argument... good program but the majority of people they put into the NFL are OL, DL, LB... with some DBs and a few TEs... these are generally not the positions being "ruined" by the spread offense. How many QBs and WRs has Iowa put into the NFL?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,958
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,958 |
I think that the NFL is worried that if they expand rosters to that point, there will be super teams who will get all of the better UDFA types, and the weaker teams will not be able to improve themselves. A weaker team can keep an eye on reports about players on the PS lists of other teams, and add a guy if they have a need.
I also can't see the NFL or the union going that far with rosters. The NFL is not going to want to expand the salary pool, and the union is not going to want players making less per contract.
I still like an auxiliary league makes the most sense. Heck, maybe even take 15 players from each NFL team and play a 6 or 8 game season. That way teams get a look at guys in real game action, and then teams can recall their roster players, and sign the PS players they want to sign. That would allow the NFL teams to have their players available for the 2nd half of the season. The NFL team could recall a player under contract to them at any time they needed to. Heck, we could have Tuesday and Wednesday Night football with these players, and the NFL could have an extra product.
I dunno. I like the idea of guys getting a chance to show what they can do. I think that there are guys at the bottom of a lot of rosters who can be useful, if they get a look. We have stunk in so many areas that we see a lot of these guys come up and play for us, and play well, but imagine if we had a league where we could have sent Manziel for a 6 week period to get used to playing under Center for a few weeks before being put into a game.
I just think that it would be a good idea, and better than just exploding the rosters. (which I find unlikely for the reasons I mentioned) I feel like funding a "minor league" would cost owners just as much if not more than expanding rosters. 30-40 guys per team who would probably only make the league minimum would probably be less expensive than the infrastructure a new league would require. Plus, a minor league would have to pay the players something, too. The NFL facilities are also likely to be of higher quality and better for those lower tier players development. There are already kind of those super teams. UDFA's gravitate towards certain teams, but at the same time, players will want to go to teams where they will eventually see playing time on Sundays. Or they could expand the draft in addition to roster count. We've talked about scheme transitions in other threads and I think it would also be more beneficial to be coached by the people whose system you'll eventually be playing in. It's not like the meeting rooms are overflowing now. There are limits on how much time coaches can spend with players, but not on watching film of them. You can have your starters together and really work with them most of the time, but having the other players working the same bit elsewhere under a quality control coach or whatever and the HC/OC/DC whatever can watch the film and see how they're progressing and who to try shuffling in and out of the starters later. It seems like you are thinking that every team would stock and support an entire team on their own. That would not be the case. If each team contributed 15 players, that would be 480 players. That would support 10 teams with 48 players on each, playing a 6-8 game season, with one championship game for the top 2 teams. The player investment would be minimal in the larger scheme of things. Give practice squad players a bump while playing on these teams, from the minimal salaries many of these players make, to a new "minor league minimum" of maybe $100K for the shortened season, and a $20,000 bonus for the players on the losing team in the championship, and a $30,000 bonus for the players on the winning side in that game. How much would that cost each team? Assuming even the highest number of games, estimating $150K per player, 15 players per team would only be $2.25 million .... a drop in the NFL bucket. (and not all teams would pay out that level) If teams don't want the championship teams' "home: teams being penalized for success, then maybe take the $20,000 and $30,000 bonuses and divide the 48X each amount among all of the NFL teams. That would be 15X$100K for base salaries, and then a team's portion of the championship bonuses would be only $75,000, which would bring their total cost to the $150,000 for the $100K salaries for their 15 players, and then the $75,000 for each team's share of the championship bonuses, for a total of $1,575,000 ... which is absolutely nothing for the NFL. Money would not be an issue. The only downside would be if the NFL was worried about overexposure, and watering down the ratings for their regular games.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 9,711
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 9,711 |
It seems like you are thinking that every team would stock and support an entire team on their own. That would not be the case. If each team contributed 15 players, that would be 480 players. That would support 10 teams with 48 players on each, playing a 6-8 game season, with one championship game for the top 2 teams. The player investment would be minimal in the larger scheme of things. Give practice squad players a bump while playing on these teams, from the minimal salaries many of these players make, to a new "minor league minimum" of maybe $100K for the shortened season, and a $20,000 bonus for the players on the losing team in the championship, and a $30,000 bonus for the players on the winning side in that game. How much would that cost each team? Assuming even the highest number of games, estimating $150K per player, 15 players per team would only be $2.25 million .... a drop in the NFL bucket. (and not all teams would pay out that level) If teams don't want the championship teams' "home: teams being penalized for success, then maybe take the $20,000 and $30,000 bonuses and divide the 48X each amount among all of the NFL teams. That would be 15X$100K for base salaries, and then a team's portion of the championship bonuses would be only $75,000, which would bring their total cost to the $150,000 for the $100K salaries for their 15 players, and then the $75,000 for each team's share of the championship bonuses, for a total of $1,575,000 ... which is absolutely nothing for the NFL.
Money would not be an issue. The only downside would be if the NFL was worried about overexposure, and watering down the ratings for their regular games.
But where are they playing? Are they renting a stadium, are they building them? How are they staffing them? Are they paying officials? Are they paying coaching staffs? Are they paying TV crews? Who is providing the equipment? Who is designing the equipment? How much are they spending on advertising? What training facilities/equipment are they using? etc. You don't have to worry about these if you just expand rosters.
You mess with the "Bull," you get the horns. Fiercely Independent.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,958
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,958 |
The players also don't get real, on the field, in game experience with expanded rosters. Aldo you still have the problem of how you pay all of those extra players, under the cap. if you simply expand rosters.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,573
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,573 |
Pull back on the reins a bit.
The jist of this debate is how to get the young guys pro ready.Expanding the roster doe not accomplish that.
Ytown is correct,sort of.Looks is not the important thing.
Reps,experience in a pro system,with pro coaching would be the best way to get kids up to speed.
They could play in a cornfield in front of scarecrows,doesn't matter.Getting the reps does.
Indecision may,or maynot,be my problem
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,435
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,435 |
I like the idea of a Spring developmental league for incoming rookies.
Spend a month in the film room and on the practice field with NFL coaches learning playbooks, adjustments, reads, proper fundamentals and techniques, ect. Then have 4 to 6 games/scrimmages against other developmental teams.
There is injury risk, sure, but guys can get injured the very first day of OTA's (Dante Fowler Jr. for example).
More of a way for guys to improve draft stock, knowledge of the game, and it could give them more of a competitive edge in training camp in July.
Does anyone see any glaring holes in this idea?
"You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Pull back on the reins a bit.
The jist of this debate is how to get the young guys pro ready.Expanding the roster doe not accomplish that.
Ytown is correct,sort of.Looks is not the important thing.
Reps,experience in a pro system,with pro coaching would be the best way to get kids up to speed.
They could play in a cornfield in front of scarecrows,doesn't matter.Getting the reps does. If the NFL were to consider this, they would want it to be a money making venture or at least not a total expense. So looks would matter, the stadium would matter, they would want some kind of return on their investment. Why? Because they are making a crap load of money with the system the way it is.... getting a couple more guys pro-ready through this system is not worth a multi-million dollar annual expense because they would see no return on that. In theory it wouldn't give any team an advantage because all 32 teams would be using it.. so it all 32 teams get marginally better from the players this produces... the net effect is zero to the league. So the marginal fan, the one that isn't already completely committed to the NFL.. are they going to go to a couple more games or buy a jersey because the WR that came out of this system is a little more polished than the one that came out of college? Not likely. You may be a die-hard Xs and Os guy who would value 4 or 5 better OGs in the NFL, the average fan doesn't care... and isn't willing to pay more for it. The only benefit to this system (if its not making money on its own) is that it might create fewer high draft pick busts because you have watched them for a few years in a pro-style system.. but they already neutralized that with the rookie cap.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,573
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,573 |
Well of coarse you're right.This minor league will never happen for the reasons you so eloquently detailed.
But,staying true to the thread,I was givign my opinion on how to better prepare young non star players for the NFL.
Honestly,the NFL has been using colleges as a pseudo minor league for generations at no cost.Coach Cable can gripe and complain all he wants,but the NFL is not going to change.
Indecision may,or maynot,be my problem
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,475
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,475 |
Our Semi Pro League...a decent one. We utilize 6 Refs in each game - They get paid $110 each. They also go through an NFL rule certification (which we use) So refs is not the hard part. Insurance for a team is very very difficult but if its only Catastrophic Insurance its not that bad.
We play a Charity game every year in Brooklyn for a kid there who became paralyzed and has no insurance.
Paying coaches is tough - To get players there 5-6 days a week you got to pay them. Of course the bigger the market the more living expenses are so they would need more people but you hope you can get a field.
Fields with Stadium seating...1000, 5000, Probably wouldn't need too much more. Usually no Door the price is minimal, Use of lights more expensive and if you charge at the gate usually the venues will charge around 5 times more for the field.
A lot has to go into it. Heck we spend several Grand in Water and Ice a season.
Its one of the most expensive sports to fund. When they add it all up the NFL probably goes...ummmm well maybe the Spread offense isn't that bad!
What they need to do is re negotiate this NO PRACTICING MUCH BS!!! That is where the big trouble lies not in the NCAA!
jmho
Defense wins championships. Watson play your butt off!
Go Browns!
CHRIST HAS RISEN!
GM Strong! & Stay safe everyone!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Thanks for that inside info. I had no idea what goes into it and now I realize that it's even more than the few things you mentioned.
If you don't charge at the gate how do you make the money for all the expenses?
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,475
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,475 |
Us we are suburbs - Cities they been there some teams 40 years and have a following they get the HS fields (Sunday) and charge.
Us and most teams - Players pay dues like a football club. Unless you get a rich owner - players still pay but they get a Bus, practice field with lights. Poland Springs water...lol 
We do get donations - We are almost done getting our None for Profit. We raise money doing Walkathons, for LUPUS, BREAST CANCER, Sunrise Camp (local camp for kids with Cancer). So we do get some sponsorships. Some guys get their bosses at work to be a sponsor...its still cool to play Real Football 
Defense wins championships. Watson play your butt off!
Go Browns!
CHRIST HAS RISEN!
GM Strong! & Stay safe everyone!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
All that is cool. Fund raisers I hadn't thought of. I can see players paying dues to get to play football. When you love it, you love it.
If I could pay dues to get to be in a rock band and be allowed to sit in a chair and play... sign me up. LOL
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,257
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,257 |
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. Not sure Iowa makes your argument... good program but the majority of people they put into the NFL are OL, DL, LB... with some DBs and a few TEs... these are generally not the positions being "ruined" by the spread offense. How many QBs and WRs has Iowa put into the NFL? I think you answered your own question. Other schools emphasizing play maker game will attract the better. It is why I think four years is the way to go. Give Iowa a QB you'll see a leap. I understand why students wish not to take the four year commitment.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
j/c:
I am not getting into the "philosophical" debate. All I know is that I have been saying this for years:
The abundance of Spread offenses in colleges has made it increasingly harder to evaluate quarterbacks.
It's all about reads and progressions. You simply cannot evaluate a qb in those areas if they are never required to so while in college.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,958
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,958 |
j/c:
I am not getting into the "philosophical" debate. All I know is that I have been saying this for years:
The abundance of Spread offenses in colleges has made it increasingly harder to evaluate quarterbacks.
It's all about reads and progressions. You simply cannot evaluate a qb in those areas if they are never required to so while in college. I don't see how anyone can dispute that. In fact, outside of Mariota, it seems like more NFL teams have started to come around to that as well. Look at the 3rd and 4th QBs taken in the draft, Grayson and Mannion, both QBs who played in pro style offenses. Then we got to the spread and read options types, but not until much later in the draft. In past years, I suspect that guys like Hundley and Petty would have been taken much higher than they went this year. However, I do think that NFL teams are seeing that these guys cannot be "plug and play", so they cannot risk those high picks on them. This may actually be better for these QBs though, because teams may start to see that they cannot throw them into the fire right away. Maybe they are now taking these QBs with an eye on actually developing them. That might wind up being a positive long term.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,942
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,942 |
j/c:
I am not getting into the "philosophical" debate. All I know is that I have been saying this for years:
The abundance of Spread offenses in colleges has made it increasingly harder to evaluate quarterbacks.
It's all about reads and progressions. You simply cannot evaluate a qb in those areas if they are never required to so while in college. Vers - wait for it - wait for it...... I agree 100% (not that that means much, I know)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 9,711
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 9,711 |
j/c:
I am not getting into the "philosophical" debate. All I know is that I have been saying this for years:
The abundance of Spread offenses in colleges has made it increasingly harder to evaluate quarterbacks.
It's all about reads and progressions. You simply cannot evaluate a qb in those areas if they are never required to so while in college. I don't see how anyone can dispute that. In fact, outside of Mariota, it seems like more NFL teams have started to come around to that as well. Look at the 3rd and 4th QBs taken in the draft, Grayson and Mannion, both QBs who played in pro style offenses. Then we got to the spread and read options types, but not until much later in the draft. In past years, I suspect that guys like Hundley and Petty would have been taken much higher than they went this year. However, I do think that NFL teams are seeing that these guys cannot be "plug and play", so they cannot risk those high picks on them. This may actually be better for these QBs though, because teams may start to see that they cannot throw them into the fire right away. Maybe they are now taking these QBs with an eye on actually developing them. That might wind up being a positive long term. Vers, you have a point, but only up to a certain extent. It is harder to evaluate QBs because the reads are simpler in spread offenses. But, the spread QBs never make reads argument doesn't hold water. They still have to make reads on every play. It's not like QB's in pro-style college offenses are truly ready for the disguises they'll see in the NFL. Even Peyton Manning took some time to adjust. I think the issue in college is the limited amount of time coaches are actually allowed to spend with their players. It's hard to effectively install a pro style offense with all of the turn over in rosters and the time limitations. College student athletes also have a ridiculous amount of distractions outside of football, especially if they are expected to live up to the student portion of student athlete. It just seems disingenuous to blame college systems for players not being ready when college coaches are expected to win, graduate their players, parent their players, etc all within the restrictions they have to deal with. Football players are amateurs in college and NFL players are pros. Of course there is going to be a transition. .02
You mess with the "Bull," you get the horns. Fiercely Independent.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
I did not blame college coaches for anything. I even said I wasn't getting into that discussion.
There are exceptions, but Spread QBs have one read. This does not mean they can't learn to read defenses post-snap, but it's a crap shoot and it's made drafting a qb an even riskier proposition.
This is also part of the reason why I was so high on Luck and Bridgewater. They actually made reads and went through their progressions in college and both proved to be very good at both.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Other things that are "huge disservices" to players: Tom Cable
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,510
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,510 |
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 I agree with Arch. A college coach is there to coach his team, not run some system the pros might want him to run. Colleges run spreads because HS players run spreads, and sooner or later so will the pros unless they start a minor league system and develop their own players. I say NFL teams are doing a disservice to players and fans by making players play in old, antiquated systems in which their grandfathers played.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
I say NFL teams are doing a disservice to players and fans by making players play in old, antiquated systems in which their grandfathers played.
That is a so completely wrong. NFL offenses have evolved and when they have tried to incorporate the Spread, their QBs have gotten killed because of the sophistication and speed of opposing defenses.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
I say NFL teams are doing a disservice to players and fans by making players play in old, antiquated systems in which their grandfathers played.
That is a so completely wrong. NFL offenses have evolved and when they have tried to incorporate the Spread, their QBs have gotten killed because of the sophistication and speed of opposing defenses. They've also been to a few Super Bowls. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-foot...-offense-leagueThis was a decent piece written about the NFL evolving into the spread offense.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,510
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,510 |
I say NFL teams are doing a disservice to players and fans by making players play in old, antiquated systems in which their grandfathers played.
That is a so completely wrong. NFL offenses have evolved and when they have tried to incorporate the Spread, their QBs have gotten killed because of the sophistication and speed of opposing defenses. Of course it's wrong, just as is the guy saying colleges are doing a disservice. Colleges aren't a minor league system for the NFL no matter what the NFL might think.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
Again, I wasn't arguing that point. In fact, it amazes me that is the focus of the conversation on this thread. Of course it is a ridiculous statement.
However, the interesting aspect of the article is how much harder it is to evaluate quarterbacks in particular and other positions in general as they move from a collegiate Spread offense into more sophisticated NFL offenses.
I think that would be a great topic of conversation. Instead, we are wallowing around over one stupid statement.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,475
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,475 |
I say NFL teams are doing a disservice to players and fans by making players play in old, antiquated systems in which their grandfathers played.
That is a so completely wrong. NFL offenses have evolved and when they have tried to incorporate the Spread, their QBs have gotten killed because of the sophistication and speed of opposing defenses.
Peen - Remember the Mouse Davis O the Run n Shoot - it didn't succeed then cause the QB got hammered. In the NFL the QB is too valuable to lose them to a scheme. And the NFL has gotten Bigger and faster on Defense! To say we should have this College Circus of an offense evolve here is not practical. Now keep in mind we have the best of the best here in OC's they will incorporate some of the nuances of this. But you will see - those QB's will get killed.
The only - ONLY QB I saw able to take the beating and be successful was the Great Warren Moon. That was it.
jmho
Defense wins championships. Watson play your butt off!
Go Browns!
CHRIST HAS RISEN!
GM Strong! & Stay safe everyone!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
And Warren Moon was a pocket passer. One of the best arms I ever saw. Ever!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Peen - Remember the Mouse Davis O the Run n Shoot - it didn't succeed then cause the QB got hammered. In the NFL the QB is too valuable to lose them to a scheme. And the NFL has gotten Bigger and faster on Defense! To say we should have this College Circus of an offense evolve here is not practical. Now keep in mind we have the best of the best here in OC's they will incorporate some of the nuances of this. But you will see - those QB's will get killed.
jmho[/color]
Peyton Manning has torched the league with an updated Run and Shoot...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
Peyton Manning makes multiple reads and goes through progressions. Spread QBs do not.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Peyton Manning makes multiple reads and goes through progressions. Spread QBs do not. There's a difference between the spread and the run n shoot. I have no problem with you, old guards, talking bad about systems, but at least get your facts right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
Gee, I didn't know that.  And you may want to check your "facts."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,475
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,475 |
Well let me tell you this about us old guys...wait a second...pffft Oh another thing us old guys do..
Run & Shoot and spread - correlation. Run and shoot was the first time a as a BASIC O they went with 5 OL and one RB for protection. There is no assist for chip blockers. because of this the QBs got clobbered. It was THE SPREAD birth place. So don't give me this Old Guard Crap...Its called WISDOM.
Learn from history. Look even a good OC like Shanny tried to put in an NFL version and RG3 got killed as did Manziel.
Kapernick...Spread offense and pistol - Big strong kid but his game is falling off due to the punishment.
Cam Newton is getting beat up too.
The one thing that will probably stick is the one read and cut RB from those systems. You watch Chip Kelly...yeah I know he makes us OLD guys look like Methusala - but before all crown him this supposed success. Btw he has won squat. Lets see how long his QBs last. And not cause they are brittle but because they will get hit hard and often.
Payton...Brady they run a form of Spread but neither is the One Read Pistol from colleges. The only successful game plan is without proper protection to hit them..Hard and often.
When Payton came out for the first 10 seasons his uni didn't even get dirty. He had a running game and a good pass blocking scheme. The so called spread Payton uses now...oh yeah how's a broken neck sound to you.
You give up the FB and TE for pass blocking and add two WRs instead. The best ways Defenses will adjust is to go hit that QB often and hard! Let me know as you youngsters loose your shirts in your fantasy league as your two QBs are on IR
lol...btw all is good just funning with you - figured the OLD Guard opened that door. 
Defense wins championships. Watson play your butt off!
Go Browns!
CHRIST HAS RISEN!
GM Strong! & Stay safe everyone!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Well let me tell you this about us old guys...wait a second...pffft Oh another thing us old guys do..
Run & Shoot and spread - correlation. Run and shoot was the first time a as a BASIC O they went with 5 OL and one RB for protection. There is no assist for chip blockers. because of this the QBs got clobbered. It was THE SPREAD birth place. So don't give me this Old Guard Crap...Its called WISDOM.
Learn from history. Look even a good OC like Shanny tried to put in an NFL version and RG3 got killed as did Manziel.
Kapernick...Spread offense and pistol - Big strong kid but his game is falling off due to the punishment.
Cam Newton is getting beat up too.
The one thing that will probably stick is the one read and cut RB from those systems. You watch Chip Kelly...yeah I know he makes us OLD guys look like Methusala - but before all crown him this supposed success. Btw he has won squat. Lets see how long his QBs last. And not cause they are brittle but because they will get hit hard and often.
Payton...Brady they run a form of Spread but neither is the One Read Pistol from colleges. The only successful game plan is without proper protection to hit them..Hard and often.
When Payton came out for the first 10 seasons his uni didn't even get dirty. He had a running game and a good pass blocking scheme. The so called spread Payton uses now...oh yeah how's a broken neck sound to you.
You give up the FB and TE for pass blocking and add two WRs instead. The best ways Defenses will adjust is to go hit that QB often and hard! Let me know as you youngsters loose your shirts in your fantasy league as your two QBs are on IR
lol...btw all is good just funning with you - figured the OLD Guard opened that door. Interesting thoughts, but I think that the Single Wing would be the birthplace of all the spread offenses. Really an interesting formation. Honestly, Shanny was a hack. He looked at the spread offense and copied it, but he didn't really know it. And yeah, I get it. The teams that are running spread offenses that you can clearly see are getting their QB's hurt, but what about the rest of the teams who are starting to go spread who haven't had their QB's hurt. To be fair to Chip Kelly, he did win a conference title in his first year. In his second year his offense still did amazing despite missing 5 out of 8 linemen at one point in the season. To put that into perspective, the Browns' lost one lineman and our season was completely cooked. Peyton doesn't use the spread. He uses the run and shoot/Air Coryell and has been since he's entered the league. Tom Moore is just a genius. But you are right about the WR's and needing a TE to block, which is why the Colts used a TE in their formations most of the time (The Broncos are basically the Peyton Colts offense). You bring up some good points about the spread's protection. As offenses get some more years to develop the system, we won't see all that many concerns about safety.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 9,711
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 9,711 |
Well let me tell you this about us old guys...wait a second...pffft Oh another thing us old guys do..
Run & Shoot and spread - correlation. Run and shoot was the first time a as a BASIC O they went with 5 OL and one RB for protection. There is no assist for chip blockers. because of this the QBs got clobbered. It was THE SPREAD birth place. So don't give me this Old Guard Crap...Its called WISDOM.
Learn from history. Look even a good OC like Shanny tried to put in an NFL version and RG3 got killed as did Manziel.
Kapernick...Spread offense and pistol - Big strong kid but his game is falling off due to the punishment.
Cam Newton is getting beat up too.
The one thing that will probably stick is the one read and cut RB from those systems. You watch Chip Kelly...yeah I know he makes us OLD guys look like Methusala - but before all crown him this supposed success. Btw he has won squat. Lets see how long his QBs last. And not cause they are brittle but because they will get hit hard and often.
Payton...Brady they run a form of Spread but neither is the One Read Pistol from colleges. The only successful game plan is without proper protection to hit them..Hard and often.
When Payton came out for the first 10 seasons his uni didn't even get dirty. He had a running game and a good pass blocking scheme. The so called spread Payton uses now...oh yeah how's a broken neck sound to you.
You give up the FB and TE for pass blocking and add two WRs instead. The best ways Defenses will adjust is to go hit that QB often and hard! Let me know as you youngsters loose your shirts in your fantasy league as your two QBs are on IR
lol...btw all is good just funning with you - figured the OLD Guard opened that door. You have some good points, but I also think you are not giving the defenses and rule changes enough credit for the increase in injuries to QBs. Since the contact with receivers rules have changed, the league has gone more towards the pass. If you pass more, your QBs will get hit more. Hit more, Hurt more. Teams didn't drop back to pass 50 or 60 times a game in the past. I don't think it's so much the schemes, as the nature of the game. D schemes are designed to get free rushers at the QB now. Players are bigger, stronger, and faster. When they hit you, you feel it. The human body isn't designed for those kind of forces (physics-> F=ma->Force equals Mass times acceleration). A QB getting blindsided by an OLB (270 lbs at "X" m/s [where the instantaneous velocity/accelaration can be immense]) is almost the equivalent of him being in a car wreck. The spread concept is to simplify the reads so the QB can get the ball out faster. If you can get it out before the rusher gets there, your QB doesn't get hit. The pro-style 5 route read takes more time to go through the complete progression. jmho
You mess with the "Bull," you get the horns. Fiercely Independent.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,510
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,510 |
I say NFL teams are doing a disservice to players and fans by making players play in old, antiquated systems in which their grandfathers played.
That is a so completely wrong. NFL offenses have evolved and when they have tried to incorporate the Spread, their QBs have gotten killed because of the sophistication and speed of opposing defenses.
Peen - Remember the Mouse Davis O the Run n Shoot - it didn't succeed then cause the QB got hammered. In the NFL the QB is too valuable to lose them to a scheme. And the NFL has gotten Bigger and faster on Defense! To say we should have this College Circus of an offense evolve here is not practical. Now keep in mind we have the best of the best here in OC's they will incorporate some of the nuances of this. But you will see - those QB's will get killed.
The only - ONLY QB I saw able to take the beating and be successful was the Great Warren Moon. That was it.
jmho I don't disagree. I am just saying the colleges are taking what is given to them. Their job isn't to develop QBs for the NFL. Their job is to win for their schools. If the NFL wants drop back QBs, they are going to have to develop their own or go with what is handed to them. Here is another thought, a bit in left field I admit....what if the idea is to turn QB in to a throw away position much like running back has become a throw away position. Spend your money on a solid offensive line and keep on plugging in new QBs like teams keep plugging in new backs. I think that is what Kelly has in mind. It's a heck of a lot easier to find a QB who can be a good spread QB then it is to find one who can be a good drop back QB....especially now that there aren't that many drop back QB's. I brought all of this up 6-7 years ago and got laughed at when I said spread QBs was all we were going to see at some point down the road. Now we are seeing articles about the disservice because there aren't any QBs able to play the drop back position. It is what it is. You guys need to face the facts, there won't be any drop back QBs in another 3-5 years unless he NFL starts it's on minor leage system and starts training them. Just look at the HS programs. You don't see drop back systems being played anymore. Guys like Nick Saben aren't going to try to train drop backs when they can take their pick of the best spread QBs and win national championships...heck...look at OSU, the coach is the king of the spread. OSU had to go spread to win a national championship. Sorry guys, it's all about weapons, and when you have a QB you have to account for in all aspects of the game, you just weakened the defense.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 55,499 |
j/c:
I am not going to embarrass any particular posters, but 2 or 3 of you are just making things up.
Stop now and I will let it go.
If not, be prepared for some "facts."
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Spread offenses in college are
“a huge disservice” to players
|
|
