In partnership with CBSSports.com
The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web
The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts
"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion
"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion
This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion
The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I really don't get the dual-threat obsession these days. They can be nice, but a true dual-threat is incredibly rare. More often than not, you get a good runner with extremely questionable throwing mechanics and decision-making. Is the trade-off worth it sometimes? Sure, and I can probably accept that we'd have been better off THIS YEAR with a QB who could run. But I have a hard time imagining people would rather have Drew Stanton than Kirk Cousins at QB.
Yeah, Oregon OSU and Florida never have future NFL players
This post was edited by Greenup 20 months ago
I remember watching Stanton play behind a subpar OL. It was great early in the season, but whenever he got hurt (and it was inevitable), things went south in a hurry. Having a dual threat isn't going to make up THAT much for poor OL play (See what Nate Scheelhaase is doing, err, not doing, at IL this season).
People for get Johnny Manziel is playing with 2 NFL OTs right now, including at least 1 who's going to be a 1st rounder.
This post was edited by MalibuMan 20 months ago
Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.
I look at MSU and Iowa.
Then I look at Braxton Miller and OSU. I love what Northwestern is doing on offense. Neither OSU or Northwestern have elite defenses or even good defenses. And sad to say even UM has impressed me with Gardner. Roll an athlete out with one pass option and one run offense and that is a better scenario than a drop back qb with a shaky line trying to get to a 2nd or 3rd option at WR.
Iowa was at its best with Brad Banks at qb. Wisconsin with Russell Wilson, although they fall under the "elite O-line and running game" category.
Wisconsin actually had a better record in 2010, with the immobile Scott Tolzien.
1. Offenses that get the right players for their schemes will be productive and give their teams a chance to win a lot of games.
2. It is easier to get the right players for a spread scheme, and deficient talent is far more glaring in pro-style schemes (see Iowa and MSU this season).
Don't believe that. It is, however, difficult to win a lot of games with a pro-style attack combined with average or sub-average OLine play. If you have talent, a decent QB, and a solid OLine, you can win a lot of games.
Alabama makes it work. They don't have a great offense, but a stable one. If Wisconsin could get a 4 or 5 star behind their line with their backs, they'd be perennial BCS contenders. We saw what Stanford did with Andrew Luck. USC would be a force but Lane Kiffen is an idiot.
Alabama doesn't have a great offense because it doesn't want to have a great offense. Playing aggressive on that side of the ball makes Saban's sphincter pucker.
It's also even harder to win with a shitty defense.
MSU has a dominant defense and with that we can in fact acheive glory with an average overall offense. Most teams can't acheive that elite level of defense - just like MSU and most teams can't get it done on the O-line.
In the era before 85 scholarships the power teams were able to line up and dominate up front against inferior foes. Nowadays there are few teams that can accomplish that. I love the Pound Green Pound mentality, but so far the rushing stats have been atrocious.
What if we had Stanton and Baldwin's offense with this defense?
Baldwin and Drew? Would not happen as coach D loves ball control. However Baldwin knew when fo run those option plays. That call against ND in overtime was cool; nd could not tackle.so there is that too.
It's okay to admit that the landscape is starting to change while still being respectful of what got you to where you are.
3 of the top 4 teams in the country have mobile/dual threat QBs. But half of the top 10 teams don't.
It all depends on so many other factors.
Does a true dual-threat make it easier to win? I'd believe it.
Is it necessary? Absolutely not. Even if your O-line is sub-standard, there are schematic and mitigating variables that can still positively affect outcome.
"When I was in school they told me practice makes perfect. Then they told me nobody's perfect. So I stopped practicing." --Steven Wright
Then you wouldn't have this defense. Unless you're recruiting the highest caliber of athlete at every position, it's hard for a D to be excellent when it's going up against a spread offense in practice. Too much emphasis on pushing guys out of bounds and making shoe-string tackle; not enough practice on fundamentals.
UF with Tebow was the last time I've seen a truly elite D playing with a spread O. Even Cam Newton's Auburn team was just so-so on defense. I think they were 25th against the fun, but in the 50s and 60s in most defensive categories.
Look at the nose dive tOSU took after just one offseason practicing against the spread, and that's with several top-level DL and more (recruiting) talent than any other Big 10 team has.
No. Last two years. Lock it.
The "going against it every day in practice" doesn't happen nearly as often as you suggest though. Even when teams do run a 1s vs. 1s period in practice, the only area where there's anything close to game-level contact is between offensive and defensive lineman.
I think the tendency for spread teams to give up more points happens for two reasons
1) Increased number of plays/speed of the game. Spread coaches like Kelly, Holgorson, and Dykes do not care about TOP at all. They think it's a completely worthless stat. They want to run as many plays as they can as fast as they can. Their defensive focus is more on playmaking to get the ball back, rather than being solid and forcing 3-and-outs.
2) Philosophy. Most head coaches lean toward one side of the ball or the other. Most spread coaches want to score, score, score, and are not particularly concerned about putting their defenses in bad spots. Saban, Miles, and Dantonio seem to be more concerned with "where will the ball be when my defense gets back on the field?"
I guess those are sort of the same reasons, but whatever.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Omar Comin19758 20 months ago
Pocket awareness is a big intangible for a drop back passer. Sometimes its as easy as one step forward in the pocket. Being able to stretch a play for an extra two seconds is the difference between a good QB and a great QB. Doesnt need to be able to take off and run. Avoiding the rush and delivering the throw is better than tucking too early, giving up on a play and running.
Don't know why people are penciling Terry in as the starter. Believe it or not, I think Tyler Oconnor has a great chance to be a 3 year starter.
Dynamic play calling and very fast players as well.
Just saying that he's going to be a an option in a couple of years. It's going to be a fight between Cook, O'Connor and Terry. I think Terry is in the mix for the back-up as a true FR, and at least 1 of those 3 transfers in '14.
Great point there Rocky. I would never trade in the dominant defense if that is the cost.
I should be happy with where MSU is at because the defense is a program thing. We'll be like Iowa and win a minimum of 6 games with fundamentals, we'll average 7 or 8 wins long-term, and then every ten years we will get a qb like Cousins and and playmakers to win 10 games and have a possible shot at the Rose Bowl. That is as good as we have been in my 41 years I guess.
So I wonder, with Nebraska, Michigan's, and OSU's running qbs does that mean MSU is actually outsmarting them in offensive philosophy?
It's also a big intangible for dual threats. Too often dual threats over-estimate their escapability and are sacked more frequently as a result. The 2 most sacked QBs in the league are Miller and Martinez (21 and 20 sacks respectively). Scheelhaase and Vandenberg are 3rd with 19.
McGloin and Maxwell have been sacked 15 and 14 times respectively, but McGloin has thrown over 120 more passes than Miller and Maxwell has tossed the rock over 90 times more.
Basically any offensive "system" works when you have the right players to run it.
FWIW, UM is moving BACK to a pro-style passing attack as soon as Shoelace/Gardner graduate.
I've thought about the same thing a lot recently. Every time I try to tell myself teams are winning without a dual threat QB / some kind of spread offense, I find myself naming a team that is elite in the field of recruiting a monster OL.
I'm very grateful for the season we had last year but a year like this will be more often than not if we ignore the obvious. We'll always be in tight games with this defense and a conservative, pro-style offense but you need a QB with poise and experience, a kicker that doesn't miss 40 yard FGs regularly, an ability to capitalize on mistakes, an efficient red zone conversion rate, etc. You just can't expect those things from a young team and that's not going to change. Pros run a pro-style offense for plenty of reasons but one of them is that they can sit on the same player base for 10 years instead of 2 or 3 in college.
BGS, my first reaction to your post was also "Bama! Lock it!"
But then I thought more about what you were asking. Is it DIFFICULT to win without a dual threat QB. And I think that's why I answered yes.
Anyone can point out exceptions. Bama. MSU with Cousins. Wisconsin. USC. But let's look at the entire landscape. Look at the Top 25. By my completely unofficial, incompetent quick glance, at least half of the teams have a mobile/spread QB. It is definitely trending upward. Look at the MAC. Everyone seemingly runs a spread option. It's much easier to become competitive with that type of offense than it is to find a quality, pro-style QB. That is a very unique talent. Finding a guy who is athletic, can run, and can throw the ball a little bit is much easier to do.
So yeah, I think you can still win with a pocket QB in college football. Definitely. But it's becoming increasingly difficult - even moreso if you aren't a program that marches in 4 and 5 stars like it's going out of style.
Knibb High football rules
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports