kad02002 said:oski003 said:
What offense doesn't rely on skill players winning one on one match ups? All of them do. The misdirection works because the defense has to actually focus on defending someone. If the defense can cover everyone one on one, it will be a long day for an offense, even with the best OC in the NFL. On a side note, the longer the line holds blocks, the harder it is for defenders to cover.
Actually...a whole lot of them. The spread is the most dependent one on one matchups, which is why I said from the start and have been saying that it is not a good fit for cal to be running the spread anymore. Be different or be better. The spread had an advantage for years because no one else was doing it. Well guess what. Everyone is doing it now. So Cal will not gain an advantage and does not have superior talent, so...what do we think is going to happen.
Back to the original question, pretty much any non-spread, run based offense does not depend on one on one matchups. I'm talking everything from the Houston Veer family (aka wishbone, flexbone) to the traditional mash em up power stuff that has made our dear friends in red a prominent program to what Shanahan and McVay are doing in the NFL. Yes, that is right - as much as the talking heads love the high flying wunderkind genius angle (and I personally love what they are doing, so this is in no way a negative), they are basically running variations of the same zone run/boot pass based offense made famous by the elder Shanahan. And the zone scheme is based upon double teams at the point of attack. It's not about winning one on one matchups in these offenses - it's about creating double teams, advantages, or in some cases in creating a phone booth brawl.
It's so funny how the spread offense is now the "safe" offense, and any coach who doesn't run it is taking a risk in being called a Stone Age creature.
Long story short, spread offenses are an extreme example of one on one based football, but there is an endless supply of tried and true schematics that aren't.
Great post. In short, offenses that create numerical advantages at the point of attack (including 1 on zero) do not need to rely on winning one on one match ups. The Rams are the latest great example.
It is the same in basketball. Monty's offense (especially at Stanford) relied heavily on screening to free up open shots and allowed them to defeat more athletic and talented teams for years. Then when Monty got top talent he had teams ranked #1.
Some basketball coaches just recruit the most athletic and skilled players, roll out the ball, and let the players win one on one match ups without much of a structured offense. That works if you have superior players, but is horrible if you don't.
