|
|
McMordie: One Dimension or Two?
September 14, 2004
By Al McMordie
VegasInsider.com
NFL football is the big time. The players represent the best of all college football athletes, the cream of the crop. It’s interesting, then, that some of the best college football coaches fail to achieve success in the pros. And others (wisely) choose to stay in College so they don't risk failure in the NFL arena.
Very few coaches are able to succeed at both the college and the pro level (Dick Vermeil is a rare example); most fail (e.g., Bud Wilkinson, Lou Holtz, Steve Spurrier). Pro football is a different animal than the colleges. The talent pool is spread out, which makes rolling over patsies impossible. Spurrier learned this when he couldn’t run up the score as he did in the SEC against programs like Vanderbilt and Kentucky.
Athletes are different, too, as most have greater job security than the coaches, and some possibly make more money than the team's owner!
Perhaps the primary reason why it's more difficult for successful college coaches to succeed in the NFL is that you can't get away with one-dimensional offenses. In the colleges, programs can, and often do, get away with a one-dimensional offense. Nebraska was almost exclusively a running offense for many decades before Bill Callahan arrived this year. Oklahoma, too, ran the Wishbone with enormous success during the 1970s and 80s, and won three national titles. Schools like BYU, Boston College, Houston, and Texas Tech have had success at various times by emphasizing wide-open passing games. BYU even won a national title in 1984.
But this doesn’t happen in the pros because the talent is far more spread out. A successful Wishbone quarterback in college, for example, will find that linebackers in the pros are much quicker, and can prevent him from getting outside, which had been so easy in college. With a few exceptions, then, offensive balance is essential to success in the pros. The Chiefs and Colts are the best examples today, with outstanding spread-formation attacks that are never out of any game. Contrast those two offenses with the Ravens' and Dolphins' attacks. If either Miami or Baltimore get behind 13-0, one gets the sense that the game is over.
I know what you’re thinking: wait a minute -- the Ravens won the Super Bowl four years ago with a terrible offense that just ran the ball. Well, yes and no. The Ravens were primarily a running team that year (No. 5 in the NFL), but they did have pass options in TE Shannon Sharpe and WR Qadry Ismail. That team was 22nd at throwing the football -- not great balance, but a far cry from this current Baltimore unit which was the worst passing team in the league last season, but the No. 1 rushing offense. That Ravens' Super Bowl team was an exception. Most playoff/championship teams have balance to offset the opposition. Look at some current NFL teams that have none or little offensive balance: the Ravens, Dolphins, Bears and Bucs. What do they all have in common? They went 0-4 straight up and ATS this past weekend. They combined to average 9 points --not enough for a win or cover on most NFL Sundays.
It’s easier to map out a game plan defensively against teams that are one-dimensional like this. The Browns completely took away the Ravens running game, and Baltimore had to ask young QB Kyle Boller to lead them to victory. He couldn’t even lead them to a TD! And poor Miami had a miserable pre-season, and lost key offensive players. The Dolphins went under the total in the opener, something that is likely to occur with increased frequency this season if they can’t find some offensive punch or balance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
