Anyone watching the last two NFL World Champions play each other tonight understands now exactly what today's "Pro Set" offense looks like. With less than 9 minutes to go in the first half what we have seen so far on offense by both teams is as follows:

# of plays using 2RB's in backfield (1 as FB) = 1

# of plays using less than THREE receivers up on the line of scrimmage = 1 (same play as above - the Saints' first play from scrimmage)

# of plays using more than ONE tight end = 0

% of snaps being in the Shotgun vs Under Center = >80%

In fact, there have been more plays with 4 or 5 wide receivers than there have with only 3 WR's. Now, most times the 4th or 5th WR was in fact a TE or RB that moved out as a WR at the LOS.

# of plays using the exact same set two plays in a row = 0

If JT is going to continue to want to promote to recruits that Cal uses a "Pro Set" offense, then what we saw last Saturday needs to continue or even broaden further.

The professional game has moved way beyond the old two-back-two-WR sets. That formation is essentially gone now ... isn't even in the playbook any more ... at least among the very best NFL teams...

bad example

jesterno2;562969 said:

---

bad example

---

Bad example? You're kidding, right? The last two Super Bowl Champions is a bad example? What would be a good example? Teams in the NFL that suck?

How about the LAST TEN Super Bowl Champions? Would that be a better example? OK, then...

6 of the last 10 Super Bowls were won by these 4 franchises:

GB Packers
New Orleans Saints
New England Patriots
Indianapolis Colts

All four of these have offenses that look just like what we are seeing tonight. Heck, if you throw NE and Indy in there the percentage of shotgun snaps probably goes up.

So, that's 60% of the last decade of Super Bowl Champions. Is that a better example?

backs your observation.

One of the articles goes into some detail about the transformation of the league to a passing league. One of the statistics they present is the flipping of the number of passing plays vs. running plays. They said that in 1975 the run to pass plays per game was 36 to 27. The numbers were almost reversed in 2010 at 27 to almost 34.

Well Cal is sure going to foster such transformation....the pass is all that they really have at the moment........

It's definitely a pass-happier league, but run that same analysis this weekend when Baltimore and Pittsburgh play.

Cal threw the ball 35 times, and ran the ball 34 times. Several runs were QB on broken plays, and Fresno State had two sacks, which I believe count as runs in the box score. This balance is fairly close to that of professional teams... Not exactly numbers you'd expect from a "smash mouth" program... which we aren't. As for formations, Cal has favored a single back set for several years now, occasionally throwing in a fullback. The addition of multiback sets (not counting the several that send a back out as a receiver) can at least partially be explained by the need for better pass blocking due to an at times suspect o-line. You send less guys out on routes, give the qb more time for things to develop, and if one of the fewer wide receivers can't get open, well now we have a mobile qb who can make plays. Makes a lot of sense to me.

You can't really compare the pro game to college. It's apples and oranges. If you go back over the last 50 years (I'm too lazy to look), I think you'll find more NCAA champions that have a dual threat QB than not (Tommy Frazier, Tim Tebow, Vince Young, Newton, Crouch, to name just a few). In the pro's, it's all about precision passing. More games, older players, and bigger and better athletes make running from the QB position too big an injury risk. Also, I think developing a pro style passing attack requires a QB that is harder to find. Your pretty much forced to find one in the pro's (Newton will fail) because of the different dynamics.

don't feed the trolls

txwharfrat;562974 said:

---

Bad example? You're kidding, right? The last two Super Bowl Champions is a bad example? What would be a good example? Teams in the NFL that suck?

How about the LAST TEN Super Bowl Champions? Would that be a better example? OK, then...

6 of the last 10 Super Bowls were won by these 4 franchises:

GB Packers
New Orleans Saints
New England Patriots
Indianapolis Colts

All four of these have offenses that look just like what we are seeing tonight. Heck, if you throw NE and Indy in there the percentage of shotgun snaps probably goes up.

So, that's 60% of the last decade of Super Bowl Champions. Is that a better example?

---

nope, it's not a better example. that is still only 4 teams out of 32... only 1/8 of the teams, meaning not a very large sample size. it is called "PRO SET", as in Professional Football, not "SUPER BOWL CHAMP SET". it seems like you are arguing that the pro set is becoming irrelevant, but it is still used plenty. singling out 2, or even 4 teams, that dont use it and are successful with a different system doesn't statistically prove that those types of teams and systems are used more than the pro set.

i could care less and am far too lazy to look up statistics on this, but if you can show me that the spread/pistol etc etc is used more than the pro set on average amongst all 32 teams, i'll be impressed. recruits should think about being talented and lucky enough to even make it to the league, let alone be drafted by one of the few teams that doesn't have a pro set base for their offense.

and on another note, it is simply a Pro Base SET, not the only formation we run in our offense. if anything, the FSU game should've shown that we have A LOT of wrinkles in our offense and will run just about every type of formation you could want to play in as a recruit. as opposed to the spread or read option systems run by Oklahoma, Oregon, Auburn, etc, which continually pump out stats (and wins) in college, but not super high quality players that are ready to play in a non-system oriented offense in the league, our offensive system prepares players to play in just about any offense they'll encounter in the league, and Cal has a sterling reputation of putting guys at every position in the league in Tedford's tenure, with the current count at 42 players, easily in the top 10 in all of NCAA. if you look at the schools that pump athletes into the league every single year, the Pro Set Base schools outnumber the gimmicky offense set schools.

My only point here is that I'm tired of people using the term "Pro Set" for the formation that includings on RB, one FB, one TE and two WR's. That is the "Pro Set" from the 1975-2000 era. It is quickly becoming a thing of the past in football at any level, including the NFL.

txwharfrat;563137 said:

---

My only point here is that I'm tired of people using the term "Pro Set" for the formation that includings on RB, one FB, one TE and two WR's. That is the "Pro Set" from the 1975-2000 era. It is quickly becoming a thing of the past in football at any level, including the NFL.

---

Greenbay used that formation plenty. They also used spread formations, as you note, inverted freaking wishbone formations , offset I formations, empty backfield formations, etc. etc. etc. The point being that today's NFL is all about multi formation, multi set, multi personnel group, presnap motion offenses, except of course for the Singletary led 49ers.

I was very impressed, as an aside, with how many looks Cal was able to show FSU. I don't think we've seen this dynamic a look from Cal since maybe... 2005? 2006? Certainly the last few years of Cignetti and then Ludwig were very uncreative offensively, wherever the blame lies.

That's one thing that gives me hope that we might have turned a corner. The offense was error-prone but the creativity in the playcalling was legitimately exciting to see.

Bad example considering Rodgers and Brees are two of the most prolific passers in the NFL today. It's no surprise their offenses are designed primarily for passing.

Also, this is the pros (wrt the stay that no play was used more than once).

freshfunk;563167 said:

---

Bad example considering Rodgers and Brees are two of the most prolific passers in the NFL today. It's no surprise their offenses are designed primarily for passing.

Also, this is the pros (wrt the stay that no play was used more than once).

---

And where exactly is Green Bay's running game?

elpbear;563155 said:

---

I was very impressed, as an aside, with how many looks Cal was able to show FSU. I don't think we've seen this dynamic a look from Cal since maybe... 2005? 2006? Certainly the last few years of Cignetti and then Ludwig were very uncreative offensively, wherever the blame lies.

That's one thing that gives me hope that we might have turned a corner. The offense was error-prone but the creativity in the playcalling was legitimately exciting to see.

---

Hopefully it was just against FSU, but we are still predictably trying to run between the tackles on first down as if we are a power running team (and if we pass on first down it is almost always a "side pass"). That predictability is still putting us in too many 2nd and long and 3rd and long situations. The difference against FSU versus prior years is that Maynard (and Jones and Allen) made plays in those 2nd and 3rd (even 4th!) down situations for 1st downs. Once we extend the creativity in play calling to first down I think our offense will really begin to click, at least enough to score more points than our defense gives up.

calumnus;563180 said:

---

Hopefully it was just against FSU, but we are still predictably trying to run between the tackles on first down as if we are a power running team (and if we pass on first down it is almost always a "side pass"). That predictability is still putting us in too many 2nd and long and 3rd and long situations. The difference against FSU versus prior years is that Maynard (and Jones and Allen) made plays in those 2nd and 3rd (even 4th!) down situations for 1st downs. Once we extend the creativity in play calling to first down I think our offense will really begin to click, at least enough to score more points than our defense gives up.

---

+1. Great call. Yup, if we can more creative on 1st Down instead of running up the middle, that would be awesome to see.

Also agree with Haas8388 above about the presence of "multiple set" teams in the NFL and how that category encompasses/uses the typical "pro set" as just one of multiple formations. I say Cal's offense truly belongs in the "multiple set" category.

In the college game, our offense sort of looks like the FSU Seminoles now. All that's missing is the QB Draw...health-permitting.