Grantland: The End of the Run-and-Shoot Offense?

[gord]

1) you need a QB who has mastered all the reads and who is on the same page as the WRs. Other offenses make things easier for young QBs by simplifying the reads.
2) the lack of a TE makes the RNS a liability in the red zone
3) the lack of 2 back sets limits running options
4) the lack of any kind of power running game makes it predictable
5) the RnS really doesn't have the QB run options that Mumme brought with him

If it was so good, why doesn't anyone else use it? College, Pro, HS?

Those are all limitations that you're imposing on the offense - there's nothing saying that any coach that uses the RnS can't implement what you're saying. When Jones was with the Falcons, he did all of that: tight end, two-back sets, power running, etc... All except quarterback runs, which he wasn't using with his personnel, but did use last year. He even used some two-back sets too. Have you watched Baylor tonight? No tight end, no two-back sets, no power running game. How much do you really know about these other spread offenses that you refer to, other than generalities you've heard people say? Can you give specific packages that they use or reads in their passing game?

Your other point, that it can't be any good if no one else is using it, is another example of short-sighted and faulty logic. The RnS tree was rather narrow to begin with, and the ones that were really familiar with it coached with Jones. I've already proven that it can, and does, work, so you keep arguing against something that has proven you wrong. Besides, nobody else is running Baylor's offense except Baylor, so it must not be any good either, right?

[Glenn Sosbee]

It seems like we've been running some form of the run and shoot offense since we were executed back in the eighties. I'm sick and tired of being gimmicky. Line up in an I formation every damn once in a while and pound the damn ball down their throats!. Not to blow every ones mind, but the option play used to work just about every time it was tried as well.

Run the ball and play defense. It works every time it's tried.

[floridianstang]

The talent was ok for where we were and June's scheme is inflexible when it takes a QB more than one season to adapt to it. It cannot beat ranked or opponents with winning records. Then again, Baylor's offensive scheme along with their recent talent upgrade is what makes them very successful. Then again it's just another system.

[floridianstang]

We need to get with the times, the next coach needs to be able to coach a high octane modern spread and we need to get in the running for those athletes. Barring P5 affiliation, we should still be able to load up on 3 stars all across and steal a couple of 4 stars every class. Get a coach that can sell the program and shows excitement about SMU, the direction of the program/future

[gord]

To quote Jim Mora: "You think you know, but you don't know. And you never will."

It cannot beat ranked or opponents with winning records.

Were you watching the TCU game in 2011? Reminder: it was AT TCU.

Baylor's ... recent talent upgrade is what makes them very successful.

Please read this over and over and over again until it sinks in.

Line up in an I formation every damn once in a while and pound the damn ball down their throats!

We can line up in whatever formation you want cowboy, it won't make a bit of difference.

It's the players, not the scheme. This is not a hard concept to understand.

[couch 'em]

You people are pretty silly. It is both. Scheme must maximize the advantages of the talent you have but talent matters. that said, nobody is going to line up in the 1950's split-T and win at the college level. Some things are obsolete.

[Stallion]

It is both but its also true that the Run N Shoot is a tad light on Championship and signature wins-no I'll rephrase-it has failed miserably

[Digetydog]

1) you need a QB who has mastered all the reads and who is on the same page as the WRs. Other offenses make things easier for young QBs by simplifying the reads.
2) the lack of a TE makes the RNS a liability in the red zone
3) the lack of 2 back sets limits running options
4) the lack of any kind of power running game makes it predictable
5) the RnS really doesn't have the QB run options that Mumme brought with him

If it was so good, why doesn't anyone else use it? College, Pro, HS?

Those are all limitations that you're imposing on the offense - there's nothing saying that any coach that uses the RnS can't implement what you're saying. When Jones was with the Falcons, he did all of that: tight end, two-back sets, power running, etc... All except quarterback runs, which he wasn't using with his personnel, but did use last year. He even used some two-back sets too. Have you watched Baylor tonight? No tight end, no two-back sets, no power running game. How much do you really know about these other spread offenses that you refer to, other than generalities you've heard people say? Can you give specific packages that they use or reads in their passing game?

Your other point, that it can't be any good if no one else is using it, is another example of short-sighted and faulty logic. The RnS tree was rather narrow to begin with, and the ones that were really familiar with it coached with Jones. I've already proven that it can, and does, work, so you keep arguing against something that has proven you wrong. Besides, nobody else is running Baylor's offense except Baylor, so it must not be any good either, right?

Right now, I am watching the UCF v. Missouri game.

UCF is hanging in there AT #20 Missouri (They took the lead 10-7 as I was typing). Typically, UCF has at least 1 RB and some sort of WB. Often they bring another player in motion and can Run/Pass from all of their formations. When they need to run, they can push. When the need to pass, they have options all over the field.

If the RnS was really "all that," June's minions would always be in demand to bring the RnS to new programs. With the exception of Klemm, I don't recall any of his assistants being "stolen" by other programs.

[GiddyUp]

It is both but its also true that the Run N Shoot is a tad light on Championship and signature wins-no I'll rephrase-it has failed miserably

That's all we need to know. Can't compete in the big time. SEC teams would kill it. Other teams run the draw with the same WR sets and bubble screens. You need a DJ stretching the field up the middle and a ES on the outside. Maybe with 4-5* at every position, but I still hate the offense.

[PonySnob]

To quote Jim Mora: "You think you know, but you don't know. And you never will."

It cannot beat ranked or opponents with winning records.

Were you watching the TCU game in 2011? Reminder: it was AT TCU.

JJ was also something like 6-33 against teams with a winning record at SMU. Did you happen to be at the TCU game in 2011 to see them come back and tie the game and lose in overtime? A blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DanFreibergerForHeisman]

Did you happen to be at the TCU game in 2011 to see them come back and tie the game and lose in overtime?

Exactly - one of the fundamental problems of the run and shoot - the inability to put games away when they are in hand.

See Oilers vs. Bills.

[malonish]

To quote Jim Mora: "You think you know, but you don't know. And you never will."

It cannot beat ranked or opponents with winning records.

Were you watching the TCU game in 2011? Reminder: it was AT TCU.

Baylor's ... recent talent upgrade is what makes them very successful.

Please read this over and over and over again until it sinks in.

Line up in an I formation every damn once in a while and pound the damn ball down their throats!

We can line up in whatever formation you want cowboy, it won't make a bit of difference.

It's the players, not the scheme. This is not a hard concept to understand.

#JuneIsThatYou?

[gord]

Correlation does not equal causation - you should look that up.

Funny how the Oilers blow a big lead in the playoffs one time and that becomes the major failing of the offense. Let's ignore the fact that the franchise went the playoffs seven straight years, which is almost as many times as the franchise had in its history prior to that, and has never won the Super Bowl, regardless of what offense it runs, so that must mean whatever offense they're running now "can't win championships" with it.

http://www.profootballhof.com/history/s ... backs.aspx - there are 24 games listed here. Only one involves a run-and-shoot team. Does that mean all of those other offenses can't close out games too?

Texas A&M tears up the SEC with a four-WR offense (when nobody said it would work) but a different four-WR offense, with some minor differences from TAMU's that nobody here could possibly know about (and please don't try because you make yourself sound foolish and don't really know anything about football), wouldn't work in the SEC.

How many other pass-first offenses have won national championships in the last 15 years? I'll wait.

UCF is hanging in there AT #20 Missouri

They didn't hang with them very long.

[ftworthmustang]

I'm going to generalize here, because anything could happen on any given day.
The run & shoot worked well early on, because it took advantage of mismatches. Defenses with run-stopping LBs and safeties, were at a disadvantage, even against smaller, less talented receivers, who could exploit the mismatches. Over time as more and more offenses ran some sort of spread offense, the defenses adjusted with more pass oriented LB and DBS. The mismatches have diminished. The problem is not really with the run & shoot, but with JJ's theory that it can work with less talented players. That is no longer the case, because the 5'-9" 4.6 40 receiver has no advantage over the 6'-2" 4.5 40 LBs in todays defenses. I would say that if the offense had four receivers that ran 4.3 40s, could catch and ran good routes, the run & shoot would be effective (assuming the OL and QB were good as well). This also assumes that the players are motivated and execute, unlike the UNT game.

[couch 'em]

Correlation does not equal causation - you should look that up.

Funny how the Oilers blow a big lead in the playoffs one time and that becomes the major failing of the offense. Let's ignore the fact that the franchise went the playoffs seven straight years, which is almost as many times as the franchise had in its history prior to that, and has never won the Super Bowl, regardless of what offense it runs, so that must mean whatever offense they're running now "can't win championships" with it.

http://www.profootballhof.com/history/s ... backs.aspx - there are 24 games listed here. Only one involves a run-and-shoot team. Does that mean all of those other offenses can't close out games too?

Texas A&M tears up the SEC with a four-WR offense (when nobody said it would work) but a different four-WR offense, with some minor differences from TAMU's that nobody here could possibly know about (and please don't try because you make yourself sound foolish and don't really know anything about football), wouldn't work in the SEC.

How many other pass-first offenses have won national championships in the last 15 years? I'll wait.

UCF is hanging in there AT #20 Missouri

They didn't hang with them very long.

What are you even arguing? If you are expanding R&S to every modernized pass oriented 4 wide offense then great, we all agree it works great. If you mean the strict run n shoot or the RnS west coast mix Jones has been running, well, theoretically even the single wing can win football games.