• Contact
Posted by Scipio Tex on April 9th, 2009 under Uncategorized

Let’s talk spread
A thought-provoking interview from Bruin Nation with Rick Neuheisel about myriad subjects of great interest. Neuheisel has grown a lot since his days at Colorado (hiding behind Cedric Cormier’s couch – allegedly) and I respect his views though I don’t find myself in raging agreement with all of them.
This comment about Vince Young and the feasibility of a true NFL spread captured my attention:
That being said, the other thing that kids are interested in today is the chance to go to play on Sundays. You are not seeing spread offenses played on Sundays. Vince Young would have been the perfect guy to go and do it, but even Vince Young didn’t want to do it. And I have it on authority, because Norm was there, because he doesn’t want to get hit anymore. He doesn’t want to get beat up on an every-Sunday basis and shorten his career length. So, quarterbacks that are interested in going to the NFL would like to be in pro-style offenses. So, you can go and attract guys.
For clarification, Neuheisel’s definition of spread here clearly involves the QB as a significant runner – he’s not talking about a pure passing spread like Tom Brady in New England, Graham Harrell at Tech, or Colt Brennan at Hawaii.
So, Vince: that’s the first time I’ve read that. This is NEW. If I were Thomas Friedman, I would write an entire book around this premise….five years too late. I know Vince was more than willing to scramble in his rookie season and ran some draws, but I agree that running zone read consistently in the NFL is absolutely out of the question. Except that the Titans (or Vince, or both) took it too far in removing the run from his game. By trying to extend Vince’s career, you effectively kill Vince’s career by not allowing Vince to put pressure on the defense with his legs. All told, I’d rather strive for Gale Sayers’ career – brief, brilliant, beloved – rather than Marc Wilson’s.
As for the spread endangering your QB more than the pro-set at the college level, odd that a UCLA coach would opine thusly when you consider the Greek tragedy that has been UCLA QB depth over the last three years running out of pro-sets and 3 wide. I’d like to see the numbers on that rather than just the Dennis Dixon anecdote.
More good stuff….
Here’s the pitch being made to Jake Matthews (albeit from USC and A&M):
[Likewise,] offensive linemen, frankly, would like to be in offenses that are going to be like the NFL because they’d like to have a chance to play in more of that scheme. It goes on down the line; the more you play like an NFL offense, the more the NFL can look and see your skill level and adapt it to that.
That doesn’t seem to be impacting Baylor’s Jason Smith and his draft status, but there’s no question that the NFL is a league without a great deal of imagination when it comes to player projection at certain positions. They want to see you doing the things in college that they project you to in the NFL. That was the inherent advantage of an organization like the Patriots under Scott Pioli (before he left for KC) who can see Mike Vrabel as a great football player who can line up at DE, OLB, ILB, and catch goalline TDs while the rest of the league has him designated as a tweener with marginal talent.
It’s a classic definitional problem: change the definitions and suddenly some very marginal football players trapped in the NFL positional straitjacket become Pro-Bowlers. Conversely, some great college spread players are rendered scrubs.
As for the spread in general, Ricky isn’t necessarily hatin’:
It’s a great question, and there are times when I look at spread offenses and I see value. The key to the spread offense, and the reason why its successful, is that it adds an extra player. It diminishes the need for great offensive linemen, because you’ve got a little longer because you are always in the gun, and the quarterback’s a runner. So, in essence, he becomes a blocker, and can account for an extra defender. All great thoughts, all great thoughts. The problem at UCLA is that you have to beat the Trojans. And it’s also the benefit at UCLA, because when you beat them, you’re going to be among the nation’s elite. So you have to be a physical offense. I know that two years ago SC got beat by Oregon up in Eugene, but his last year, SC with their physical defense was able to beat the heck out of a very, very good spread offense Oregon team.
Neuheisel understands the benefits of a running QB (he had Tuiasosopo at Washington) and ran quite a bit of option at CU with Kordell, but you can also see that his experience in the NFL as a QB coach and coordinator as well as watching his cross-town rival has tempered his view. I wonder if he considers the ‘05 Texas offense physical? Is there merit in his trying to create USC II in Westwood or should the Bruins blaze their own trail?
What do you think?
absolut said:
April 9th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Wonder how he did in his March Madness pool this year?
Kafka said:
April 9th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Rick will have to blaze his own trail. He is not going to out recruit USC anytime soon. Might as well imitate Texas Tech. One of the good points of the spread is that you can win without requiring the very best athletes.
Vince did not get hit much at UT, considering how much he ran. He usually was able to get out of bounds (or at least usually avoided taking the big direct hits).
The longer a QB holds onto the ball (whether he is in the pocket or running), the more likely he is to get pounded. Best to get rid of the ball quickly when possible.
Having a running QB is great if the QB can figure out how to avoid getting hit too much (no disgrace in going to the turf or out of bounds to avoid the big hit). Colt (IMHO) takes way too many big hits.
Show Horn said:
April 9th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
If that statement is true about Vince not wanting to get hit any more, I think him being successful in the NFL will be diminished.
The reason Vince dominated in college was because of his running ability, even though he did posses an adequate passing game.
However, he is not the typical drop back passer and will not excell in that role imo.
Mike Sherman said:
April 9th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
im fat.
CrazyJoeDavola66 said:
April 9th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
“If I were Thomas Friedman, I would write an entire book around this premise….five years too late.”
All Thomas Friedman books are written 5 years too late.
Pete Carroll said:
April 10th, 2009 at 2:31 am
Let Vince be Vince.
It works, trust me.
TaylorTRoom said:
April 10th, 2009 at 5:06 am
Yes, Oregon was two pushover games away from the MNC game, where they would have been matched with the Buckeyes. Then Dixon got hurt. Wasn’t it a non-contact injury, from making a hard cut in the field? The kind of injury that could happen to any QB scrambling? The problem for Oregon was they really didn’t have a backup QB with the needed skills for the offense.
I’m not sure that I would take Norm Chow at his words when talking about Vince. Did that seem like a healthy relationship to you?
uthookem said:
April 10th, 2009 at 5:56 am
“The longer a QB holds onto the ball (whether he is in the pocket or running), the more likely he is to get pounded. Best to get rid of the ball quickly when possible.”
I know very little about football, but whenever I watch a game, any game, I always watch the QB and have a sense of when the ball needs to get out of his hands. It is amusing, because I sit on the couch and scream, “ball, ball, ball!” thinking it will make him get rid of it faster.
Whatever UCLA does, I hope it makes them very good or very bad when we get to play them – very good and we get a boost, very bad and we get to repay for 97.
Hook ‘em!
Nordberg said:
April 10th, 2009 at 6:08 am
If Vince doesn’t want to run, then we’ve seen the last of Vince at QB in the NFL.
groover said:
April 10th, 2009 at 10:16 am
I find it highly implausible that Norm Chow wanted Vince to run more but Vince refused to do so. I find it more plausible that Norm told Vince he’d cut his nuts off if he ran the ball before going through all 9 of his checks.
hot wire said:
April 10th, 2009 at 10:40 am
With Chow and Neuheisel at UCLA, USC will finally face some stiff competition in the Pac 10. I look for UCLA to come even or pass USC in the next two to three years. Chow and Neuheisel are both excellent coaches, and will beat Carroll and USC once they get some talent that is within the same zip code as the Trojans. Neuheisel has a point: UCLA did beat down the Trojans with a physical D just a few years ago.
Carroll is overrated as a coach. He just rides off the immense talent advantage he has over everyone else. It’s easy to win in college ball when you have two to four first rounders on your team at any given year. USC had no business losing to Texas in ‘05 with the talent level they had on that team. Aside from Texas deserving it, chalk up that win to poor to average coaching by Carroll and his boys.
the Bobs said:
April 10th, 2009 at 11:13 am
“USC had no business losing to Texas in ‘05 with the talent level they had on that team.”
not too sure about that…
I’d still bet on the Texas team that year over USC every time. I think they were just plain better all around. Kind of agree w/you on Carroll though, it’s funny how he was a marginal at best NFL coach and then became a great coach in college – once he had gathered a ton more talent than most of his opponents.
WhoooTex said:
April 10th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Accurate: Vince doesn’t want to get hit/”beat up” on a weekly basis.
Inaccurate: Vince is afraid that is what will happen when he runs.
The guy’s got a healthy ego. I don’t think he stopped running because he was afraid he couldn’t make things happen without getting injured. He proved in his rookie year he could do so. It’s my Anonymous Internet Asshole theory that Tennessee was worried Vince wouldn’t hold up, anchored him in the pocket, inadvertently reduced his effectiveness, and then benched him when he threw a shit fit out of frustration while playing poorly in the opener of his third season.
That fits a lot better with Jeff Fisher’s “Jesus Christ, we have to play offense AGAIN? This stupid game” mentality towards his QBs than it does with what we (think we) know about Vince’s bravado.
I don't have a middle name said:
April 10th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Scipio, I hate it when you mention people I dislike.
3-DRP said:
April 10th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Although I think you pretty much nailed it, I’m in perpetual agreement with much of what you write. I’m afraid if I disagree I’ll end up losing in a debate, anyway, ayya.
SlickStreet said:
April 11th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
I have watched very little of UCLA the last couple years, excepting part of LY’s 59-0 drubbing taken against BYU. Maybe, though, a lack of mobility led to some of those QB injuries and, if so, you need someone more agile than a traditional drop-back style guy.
I hope it’s not true of Vince. Hard to trust Chow, personally, but who knows. If it’s true, then he’s done. People talk of how much his passing improved, but it was always when D’s knew he was in aggressive mode and ready to take off that his aerial aspect really flourished.
USC’s ‘05 team had sick talent on offense, especially, but I think it’s ‘04 team was better. If their D had been close to that, I don’t think we win even with Vince.
Water cooler said:
April 13th, 2009 at 6:09 am
I’m going to spray some of Tom Brady’s All-”America”n cologne on Doperbo’s azz just to annoy him. Tom will be behind him where ever he roams.
Water cooler said:
April 13th, 2009 at 6:11 am
I’m going to spray some of Tom Brady’s “America” cologne on Doperbo’s ass just to annoy him.
torre said:
April 14th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Vince wants to WIN and will run, walk, or fly. He has done that since PeeWee football.
He does need some receivers and blocking. The Titans defense was responsible for their success last year. Collins, to his credit, drove the car without hitting the curb. (making mistakes)
Nanette Summerlin said:
January 15th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
I wanted to thank you for this great read. I definitely enjoyed every little bit of it. I have you bookmarked and will be visting.