What's Ahead for NFL Offenses?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Not to sound all Greg Easterbrook, but I watched a ridiculous amount of high school football this year, and came away with a simple conclusion: high school offense has gotten so good that it's almost impossible to defend it.

I was part of a 20th reunion of a high school team this year. We drank beer and watched game film from that season. It was amazing how tight the formations were then. We ran the wishbone most of the time. At lof of our opponents ran T-formations. It was like watching caveman football.

That day, we had watched our school score 60 points running a spread offense that the other team was simply unable to defend.

I've seen the same thing in the games I watched in Texas this year. Coaches at the top schools have figured out how to turn the game into a series of one on one drills all over the field. And most high school defenders simply can't handle that.

So, my thought is, Tackling may be poor because it's almost impossible to tackle in high school football. All you can do most of the time is hang on for dear life and hope that your teammates show up to rescue you. And if you get the opportunity, you have to blast your opponent because the only thing that ultimately wins these games is turnovers.

I followed Pearland this year completely by accident, and they ended up winning the state 5A title.

Here are the scores of the playoff games:

28-24

51-21

51-22

38-35

62-23

This is the arguably highest level of high school football in the country. And this was not a team with overwhelming offensive talent. They have a RB going to WVU, a receiver going to Boise State, and that's about it. They just spread teams out and distributed the ball. It was almost all scheme.

Think about this: how many high school football teams do you know that can put six defensive backs on the field and trust all of them to tackle?

[Conn]

Which makes you wonder what this will do to college football, and then the NFL, as well LKB. Because its quite obvious that at all levels of football already, the offense has the advantage.

But it only makes sense for high school coaches to put their best athletes on offense. No reason to change that in college. So outside of body-types/skill-sets that rule out offensive production entirely, the best athletes are going to play offense. The longer this goes on, the harder it is to eventually transition them into a defender...if anyone ever even attempts this.

[darrelgreenie]

I generally agree but speed does matter.

If to players are have everything else equal speed is an obvious tie breaker.

London Fletcher has world class speed for a LB. (I looked it up once it was something like 4.4 London swears he ran 4.3 though)

The rumors of Jerry Rices lack of speed are a tad bit exxagerrated I'm pretty sure Rice was a closer to a high 4.5 guy then a 4.7 guy.

Jerry Rice part of what made Rice great was that he could maintain his speed into and out of his breaks.

[Oldfan]

...London Fletcher has world class speed for a LB. (I looked it up once it was something like 4.4 London swears he ran 4.3 though)...

It's the COMBINATION of size and speed that coaches overrate, IMO. Fletcher was underrated because he was too squatty, not because he was too slow.

---------- Post added May-9th-2011 at 07:02 PM ----------

LKB: Think about this: how many high school football teams do you know that can put six defensive backs on the field and trust all of them to tackle?

For many years, it was taken as a given, that "kids can't cover." Maybe they can't cover and can't tackle, or maybe the coaching is just much better on the more interesting offensive side of the ball at the high school level.

[Conn]

For many years, it was taken as a given, that "kids can't cover." Maybe they can't cover and can't tackle, or maybe the coaching is just much better on the more interesting offensive side of the ball at the high school level.

And maybe, as I said above, coaches are molding the most athletic players into offensive skill players, rather than CB's, LB's, and Safeties.

[Oldfan]

And maybe, as I said above, coaches are molding the most athletic players into offensive skill players, rather than CB's, LB's, and Safeties.

Haven't they always done that, though? If you can run and catch a football, you're a receiver. If you can run, you're a corner.

[Mahons21]

Haven't they always done that, though? If you can run and catch a football, you're a receiver. If you can run, you're a corner.

If you're talking about HS, they'll probably be playing both ways. If I'm not mistaken leading hs RB in the state of Florida is Sean Taylor, Daquan Bowers was one of the leading HS backs coming into Clemson and so on. They start getting molded in college to the position they're probably best at, though as we've seen that's not always the case.

Bowers also averaged over 40 yards per kick return.

Taylor isn't the leading rusher in yards it's TDs with 44.

[Darth Tater]

Haven't they always done that, though? If you can run and catch a football, you're a receiver. If you can run, you're a corner.

No, I know in the 70s and 80s, the most athletic guys played defense (though often those guys went both ways) with the exception being the QB.

[Annonymous Source]

With High School football there are actually more players who are getting proper technique as defensive backs going into college now than ever. There is just not enough talent to have 5-6 good defensive backs at the highschool level. Coaching a WR is easy, there are a few routes to learn but if the tools are there then the actual process is fairly painless. Coaching a CB is difficult because they need to be taught reads and coverage techniques that take a great deal of practice to perfect.

[MartinC]

I generally agree but speed does matter.

If to players are have everything else equal speed is an obvious tie breaker.

London Fletcher has world class speed for a LB. (I looked it up once it was something like 4.4 London swears he ran 4.3 though)

The rumors of Jerry Rices lack of speed are a tad bit exxagerrated I'm pretty sure Rice was a closer to a high 4.5 guy then a 4.7 guy.

Jerry Rice part of what made Rice great was that he could maintain his speed into and out of his breaks.

Jerry Rices official combine time was 4.71 though some had him at 4.65.

Anquan Bolden - 4.71

Terrell Suggs - 4.81

Emmit Smith - 4.8

I could go on but you get the point. Lots of great players had poor 40 times. Speed does matter but its football speed that matters not what you run in shorts and tshirt in a straight line. Your right about Jerry Rice being able to USE his speed and get in and out of breaks, thats kind of my point.

[darrelgreenie]

Jerry Rices official combine time was 4.71 though some had him at 4.65.

I doubt its avaible online but according to Bill Walsh in Finding the Winning Edge Jerry Rice ran a 4.59 at the combine.

[MartinC]

I doubt its avaible online but according to Bill Walsh in Finding the Winning Edge Jerry Rice ran a 4.59 at the combine.

That might be what the 49ers timed him at but the official time recorded at the combine (which I assume is electronically measured?) was a 4.71.

Point is it's not timed speed but useable football speed which is important. We had a receiver when I played who was blazing in a straight line or even doing cone drills, but he played slow because he hesitated in and out of his breaks taking more steps than he needed to - I think in that case he was afraid of contact.