(05-15-2019, 03:14 PM)McC Wrote: The guy who made the original statement is Andy Reid.

The NFL is behind because of its own stubbornness.  The NFL was always ahead of colleges but that changed and the league resisted.  But now that there are teams using college systems and rolling up crazy numbers, eventually, everybody will be doing it.

Remember the Wildcat about 10 years ago? That came from college. Pretty crazy how well that worked in the NFL...until they adapted.

re: Innovation in college - I wonder if it's because there are soo many teams? You're bound to see someone do something different due to lack of personnel, etc.

In the Pro's IF you do something crazy, you may get ran off if it doesn't work.

(05-15-2019, 12:09 PM)grampahol Wrote: As opposed to MLB where they actually have teams dedicated to such ideas in the form of MiLB.. Perhaps someday, but the NFL has always left it to the college ranks to prepare players for the NFL.. 

What would a development league for the NFL look like? Would guys forego college to go? Would it be for undrafted guys because you have the CFL, and now the XFL. NFL Europa was kind of supposed to be that in some ways, but that never panned out.

(05-15-2019, 03:14 PM)McC Wrote: The NFL is behind because of its own stubbornness.  The NFL was always ahead of colleges but that changed and the league resisted.  But now that there are teams using college systems and rolling up crazy numbers, eventually, everybody will be doing it.

I don't think the NFL is behind college football at all.  And I know they are not "stubborn" about trying anything new because coaches are always looking for any slight edge to get ahead of the competition.

QBs just can't run in the NFL like they do in college because they will get broken.  Also every player on the defense is faster than in college so their running is not that effective.  Cam Newton and Michael Vick are absolute freaks.

(05-15-2019, 05:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't think the NFL is behind college football at all.  And I know they are not "stubborn" about trying anything new because coaches are always looking for any slight edge to get ahead of the competition.

Alabama & Clemson seem to run NFL style offenses & defenses and they take turns winning it all in College Football.

Both College & the NFL are ever evolving laboratories trying to find ways to win. Then counter that. Then counter the counter etc.

Coaches go from College to the NFL or the NFL to College with their differing ideas.

I'm not sure who is ahead of who but rather that they are all constantly experimenting, observing each other at times and exchanging ideas.

(05-15-2019, 05:44 PM)depthchart Wrote: Alabama & Clemson seem to run NFL style offenses & defenses and they take turns winning it all in College Football.

Both College & the NFL are ever evolving laboratories trying to find ways to win. Then counter that. Then counter the counter etc.

Coaches go from College to the NFL or the NFL to College with their differing ideas.

I'm not sure who is ahead of who but rather that they are all constantly experimenting, observing each other at times and exchanging ideas.

Quite interesting though that Belicheck saw teams with lighter, quicker LB's and went power football on them. So yeah, these new trends can be countered.

I've often felt that our defense, from a LB perspective was built to play in the AFC North 20 years ago. Seems, we favor the slower, bigger LB in general. Not coincidentally, pass coverage for our LB's has been bad...for well a long time.

When was the actual last time we had LB's who could cover? Maybe Spikes?

 

These guys changed everything.

The latest college offensive fad is no better than the old Run and Shoot college offenses of the early 90's, and the QBs from those systems flunked out badly in the NFL. Remember? The Bengals drafted one.

I hear that Harvard is 28 years behind my local kindergarten...

College Football is mostly unwatchable to me. Tim Tebow type of dudes just running roughshod over dudes who look like they're in middle school because they can't keep up.

(05-15-2019, 04:48 PM)NKURyan Wrote: I wonder if this won't change as more and more players start sitting out of games to keep themselves healthy for the NFL. I could see a player making the case that not only do they want to avoid injury, but there's just not much to learn in playing the style that these schools do. If schools eventually made a move back to a more pro-style game, maybe the schools could at least argue that hey, we really will help prepare you for the next level by teaching you actual skills and concepts you will use.

Wishful thinking on my part.

I can see that. I think a better option would be to allow the NFL to have a minor league system like NHL and MLB that allows for people to join rather than be forced to go to college. Then it becomes a decision for the individual whether he would prefer to go play in college or join the minor league. This should also permit the players to get paid (albeit not nearly the amount NFL would pay) and would be the same style playcalling and rules as the NFL.

Remember this QB coming out of college?

http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/robert-griffin,%20iii?id=2533033

His strengths turned out to be wishful thinking and his weaknesses were realized by a team who spent a bazillion draft picks to get him.

(05-15-2019, 05:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't think the NFL is behind college football at all.  And I know they are not "stubborn" about trying anything new because coaches are always looking for any slight edge to get ahead of the competition.

QBs just can't run in the NFL like they do in college because they will get broken.  Also every player on the defense is faster than in college so their running is not that effective.  Cam Newton and Michael Vick are absolute freaks.

It isn't just QBs ... and it isn't just "faster".

The typical college offense plays teams that may have 1 player on defense that has the quality to be drafted. Same with the typical college defense, playing teams where 1 player on offense has the quality to be drafted. (Except for the powerhouse teams like Alabama, Clemson, etc., of course, and then we're only talking about half-a-dozen players from each team).

In the NFL, all (or almost all) the players on the other team have been drafted. That's a big difference regardless of the position you play because you are going up against quality each and every play ... and each and every game.

(05-15-2019, 07:23 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Quite interesting though that Belicheck saw teams with lighter, quicker LB's and went power football on them. So yeah, these new trends can be countered.

I've often felt that our defense, from a LB perspective was built to play in the AFC North 20 years ago. Seems, we favor the slower, bigger LB in general. Not coincidentally, pass coverage for our LB's has been bad...for well a long time.

When was the actual last time we had LB's who could cover? Maybe Spikes?

The New Defensive Co-ordinator (Lou Anarumo) worked under Kevin Coyle who worked under Zimmer.

Zimmer's defenses in Minnesota seem to be very effective in today's NFL and Lou may try to model after what Zimmer does.

The Bengals don't have a top of the 1st round talent like Anthony Barr though but some of the other Viking linebackers like Eric Kendricks are not the fastest guys around.

Pratt may offer some newer school coverage ability and the Coaching change back to Lou being from the Zimmer tree could help.

Last season saw the Teryl Austin vision for a good portion of the season and then a number of platoon linebackers filling in due to injuries.

A healthy linebacker Unit in 2019 could surprise to the upside if Lou is on point.

(05-15-2019, 05:22 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Remember the Wildcat about 10 years ago? That came from college. Pretty crazy how well that worked in the NFL...until they adapted.

re: Innovation in college - I wonder if it's because there are soo many teams? You're bound to see someone do something different due to lack of personnel, etc.

In the Pro's IF you do something crazy, you may get ran off if it doesn't work.

The Wildcat was a bit of brilliance dreamed up by a team that had no other way to generate offense.  It worked for awhile but eventually got figured out.  Much like the Run and Shoot.  DC's eventually figure out most gimmicks.  Interestingly enough, the one thing that seems to have had the most staying power is the No Huddle.

So, finding the next gimmick is not a bad thing, but you'd better have a Plan B ready to go too.  Ask the Raven what happened in the playoffs against the Chargers.

But the variants of the spread offense are probably, in one form or another, here to stay.

(05-15-2019, 05:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't think the NFL is behind college football at all.  And I know they are not "stubborn" about trying anything new because coaches are always looking for any slight edge to get ahead of the competition.

QBs just can't run in the NFL like they do in college because they will get broken.  Also every player on the defense is faster than in college so their running is not that effective.  Cam Newton and Michael Vick are absolute freaks.

Your argument is not with me.  It's with Andy Reid and his apparently limited knowledge of football.  He's the one who said it.

(05-15-2019, 03:24 PM)NKURyan Wrote: Personally, while I realize that you are right and that the change will happen, I don't mind the stubborness and kind of hope it doesn't. I prefer the professional game to what we see in college. It already feels like offense has it too easy in the NFL, and as teams go more and more in the college direction it's only going to get worse.

I agree, i want our Offense to be great but at the same time i want our Defense to be great.

I don't want to just see shootouts all the time.

Need to keep the old school Defense wins championships mantra alive for as long as we can.

(05-15-2019, 05:22 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Remember the Wildcat about 10 years ago? That came from college. Pretty crazy how well that worked in the NFL...until they adapted.

re: Innovation in college - I wonder if it's because there are soo many teams? You're bound to see someone do something different due to lack of personnel, etc.

In the Pro's IF you do something crazy, you may get ran off if it doesn't work.

I find this to be my rationalization. There are over 100 FBS teams. People forget these are student athletes and need to pass classes to play.  And before people say this and that about the ease of college... schools like Notre Dame and Stanford do not teach down to players, and I assume there are others. Also, the positional players like to spread themselves out for playing time (i.e. you don't see too many top recruits stack themselves at the same school and thus fight for playing time).  Lastly, and in my opinion only, it seems like college offenses are a step or two ahead of defenses with raw talent. You see a lot of weak defenses all over the FBS. Everyone wants to play offense. This all changes when you hit the NFL and the raw talent on both sides of the ball is equalized. NFL defenses are stacked with talent (unless everyone is injured, demoralized, and poorly schemed). 

I never really thought of the gamble when coaches go outside the box with schemes. But I would have to agree as well. The NFL gets a lot of media versus the FBS. And a poor idea could cost someone's career, or at least a few years being demoted before getting another shot. How many people in their daily jobs drop everything and be creative? I would bet not many. 

College football experiments more because teams are not made up of the caliber of talent that NFL teams are. However, much of what is done in the collegiate game will not work at the NFL level because of the amount of talent there is on NFL teams.

Prime example if the high volume of running by the QB in college football. Not going to work in the NFL and has been proven time and time again. The athletes on the defensive side of the ball are all too big, strong, and fast to subject a player as valuable as the NFL QB to this form of constant abuse. These defensive players relish the idea of the QB turning runner so that they can hit him like the hit a RB. Look at a guy the size of Cam Newton. Even his running has become far more selective due to the abuse he was taking and the toll it was taking on a body as big and strong as his.

Yeah there is always going to be innovation and experimenting at the collegiate level and yeah there is going to be things that filter over to the NFL game and will be successful but I believe in large part a lot of the college game is not going to directly relate to the NFL game and that is because everyone at the NFL level is there because they have a high degree of talent relatively speaking in comparison to a collegiate roster.

(05-17-2019, 04:41 PM)PAjwPhilly Wrote: I find this to be my rationalization. There are over 100 FBS teams. People forget these are student athletes and need to pass classes to play.  And before people say this and that about the ease of college... schools like Notre Dame and Stanford do not teach down to players, and I assume there are others. Also, the positional players like to spread themselves out for playing time (i.e. you don't see too many top recruits stack themselves at the same school and thus fight for playing time).  Lastly, and in my opinion only, it seems like college offenses are a step or two ahead of defenses with raw talent. You see a lot of weak defenses all over the FBS. Everyone wants to play offense. This all changes when you hit the NFL and the raw talent on both sides of the ball is equalized. NFL defenses are stacked with talent (unless everyone is injured, demoralized, and poorly schemed). 

I never really thought of the gamble when coaches go outside the box with schemes. But I would have to agree as well. The NFL gets a lot of media versus the FBS. And a poor idea could cost someone's career, or at least a few years being demoted before getting another shot. How many people in their daily jobs drop everything and be creative? I would bet not many. 

Then take that to high school. There are actually some teams in high school that actually don't punt. No matter what. They have some statistics that make it appear like a good decision. I guess when you only have punters that can kick 20-30 yards that helps make it a better decision.

(05-19-2019, 08:55 AM)OSUfan Wrote: College football experiments more because teams are not made up of the caliber of talent that NFL teams are. However, much of what is done in the collegiate game will not work at the NFL level because of the amount of talent there is on NFL teams.

Prime example if the high volume of running by the QB in college football. Not going to work in the NFL and has been proven time and time again. The athletes on the defensive side of the ball are all too big, strong, and fast to subject a player as valuable as the NFL QB to this form of constant abuse. These defensive players relish the idea of the QB turning runner so that they can hit him like the hit a RB. Look at a guy the size of Cam Newton. Even his running has become far more selective due to the abuse he was taking and the toll it was taking on a body as big and strong as his.

Yeah there is always going to be innovation and experimenting at the collegiate level and yeah there is going to be things that filter over to the NFL game and will be successful but I believe in large part a lot of the college game is not going to directly relate to the NFL game and that is because everyone at the NFL level is there because they have a high degree of talent relatively speaking in comparison to a collegiate roster.

Exactly. Look at QB's in college, the DB may be 3 yards behind a WR so you just have to get the ball within a few feet of the WR.

In the Pro's...the DB is usually within a couple feet of the WR so that window is much smaller.

Then, take that to an offense where you have 5 WR's. Of course you will have a receiver or 2 very open as they will likely have a safety covering some of them. The throws QB's make don't have to be nearly as precise.

There were some rumors that we liked Andre Dillard and OT from Washington State. I was reading up on him and he rarely run blocked in college. And the pass blocking he did, they had wider splits to create more passing lanes.

How will that translate to the NFL?

Is that more complex than the NFL? It seems like it isn't as he's only being asked to do 1/2 the blocking types.