Pro Style Offense Questions

I realize there are a lot of very smart football minds here, and I'm unsure on a couple things so I was hoping you could enlighten me.



Which teams currently in the NCAA run the traditional Pro Style offense that Ty Detmer has said he wants to implement?



How long have they run them?



What has been their record for the years they've run it?



I would like to learn more about the Pro Style offense and who's using it now and how successful it has been.

Top-of-the-head short list:



Alabama

Ohio State

Michigan

Duke

USC

Maryland

Stanford

K-State

Penn State?

Vanderbilt's D, which I think is respectable, was helpless against the Bama pro offense. I don't think the physical talent difference was that special.

Wisconsin has run the Pro Style Offense since Barry Alvarez arrived as coach in 1990.

I can see a few of those teams. Others (and I am not saying they're not pro-style) I just can't remember them using TEs as much.



On the other hand, Clemson last year had a TE they used a lot, though DeShaun Watson's athleticism was used more in a spread than pro-style offense.

cougarnerd wrote:

I can see a few of those teams. Others (and I am not saying they're not pro-style) I just can't remember them using TEs as much.



On the other hand, Clemson last year had a TE they used a lot, though DeShaun Watson's athleticism was used more in a spread than pro-style offense.

We have recently played Michigan, Wisconsin (x2), and Notre Dame (x2) that ran pro style offenses. We lost every single game - 3 were close in score, but only in the '12 Notre Dame game did BYU really have a chance at the win.



These pro style offenses each gained about 250 rushing yards (usually multiple RBs with decent games) and had about 195-225 passing yards. Ball control offense with usually about 70-75 offensive plays per game. No huge passing game needed, though I note that excellent TEs like Eiffert, Butt, and Fumagalli had nice catches against BYU.

Despite that horrible scene on the field this year, I continue to believe that BYU's best potential to be a *real* contender is to play pro style, ball control offense. We can recruit offensive linemen and solid running backs and tight ends, solid pocket quarterbacks, and good-enough receivers. We cannot consistently recruit for the spread offense like Clemson, Oregon, Washington, etc. We were spoiled by Taysom's athleticism. That's not the type of quarterback that BYU can easily recruit.



If we want to run the Anae offense, we can beat the occasional P5 team (at about a 40% victory margin) and can beat most MWC/AAC level teams (at about a 80% margin). BYU could finish ranked in that system, with the right schedule, but BYU would be more of a pretender (with a nice and shiny win-loss record behind a weaker schedule) than a true contender.



For me, the glaring weaknesses in this year's offense are:



1) Quarterback play - decision-making and executing the throws. Dye was open on that little delay route all game - ESPECIALLY on 3rd down. Didn't start hitting him until the second half, when we were playing catch-up. Different game against Boise if Mangum hits Dye for big 3rd down conversions in the 2nd quarter. Mangum focuses too much on his #1 route and forces way too many throws, often into double coverage. He has been lucky and completed some forced throws - but has also resulted in too many interceptions and tons of (lucky) incomplete passes.



2) Fumbles - killed us against Utah St. and we were fortunate that lost fumble turnovers weren't a huge problem against Boise St.

This has nothing to do with the type of offense BYU runs. Pro style, spread, option, it doesn't matter. BYU is losing games right now because the current coaching staff isn't preparing the players correctly in order to get them ready to win games. This has nothing to do with style, it is about coaching.

From my research it looks to me like pro style offenses are very up and down teams based a lot on the intelligence of the QB they happen to have.

hawkwing wrote:

From my research it looks to me like pro style offenses are very up and down teams based a lot on the intelligence of the QB they happen to have.

What's your definition of up and down? 0 losses to 3 losses? I don't think any of the following teams are "up and down teams". Each of these teams typically has a very high % of red zone possessions for TDs. Why? Because every year each of these teams has a very good OL and can run the ball!



Alabama

Ohio State

Michigan

Wisconsin

USC

Stanford

Penn State



Each of these also dominates time of possession which wears out the opponent's defense and keeps their own D off the field.

frdbtr wrote:

This has nothing to do with the type of offense BYU runs. Pro style, spread, option, it doesn't matter. BYU is losing games right now because the current coaching staff isn't preparing the players correctly in order to get them ready to win games. This has nothing to do with style, it is about coaching.

This. Real pro-style offense coaches could come in and run that much more successfully.

YNot wrote:

Despite that horrible scene on the field this year, I continue to believe that BYU's best potential to be a *real* contender is to play pro style, ball control offense. We can recruit offensive linemen and solid running backs and tight ends, solid pocket quarterbacks, and good-enough receivers. We cannot consistently recruit for the spread offense like Clemson, Oregon, Washington, etc. We were spoiled by Taysom's athleticism. That's not the type of quarterback that BYU can easily recruit.



If we want to run the Anae offense, we can beat the occasional P5 team (at about a 40% victory margin) and can beat most MWC/AAC level teams (at about a 80% margin). BYU could finish ranked in that system, with the right schedule, but BYU would be more of a pretender (with a nice and shiny win-loss record behind a weaker schedule) than a true contender.



For me, the glaring weaknesses in this year's offense are:



1) Quarterback play - decision-making and executing the throws. Dye was open on that little delay route all game - ESPECIALLY on 3rd down. Didn't start hitting him until the second half, when we were playing catch-up. Different game against Boise if Mangum hits Dye for big 3rd down conversions in the 2nd quarter. Mangum focuses too much on his #1 route and forces way too many throws, often into double coverage. He has been lucky and completed some forced throws - but has also resulted in too many interceptions and tons of (lucky) incomplete passes.



2) Fumbles - killed us against Utah St. and we were fortunate that lost fumble turnovers weren't a huge problem against Boise St.

Agree 100%. Pro-Style is the key to BYU's future. We just can't be a spread team because we can't recruit the speed for it to have legitimate mismatches with our front loaded schedules. A ball control, pro-style offense makes much more sense. But you have to have a QB for it to work, and right now, that just isn't happening.

Riley Jensen (former USU QB) was on 1280 this morning talking about why we are not seeing the "freshman version" of Tanner Mangum this season as a junior since it is obvious he has regressed since then. He indicated in his book it was 2 things:



1) Pro-style offense. Usually guys hit this wall when they go from playing spread in college to playing in the NFL. The big difference is what is asked of the QB in the offense. In the spread there was something you key on when they are lining up--maybe it is finding where they are matched up 1:1 and you know you are going there with the ball. Then when the ball is snapped, you know where you are going and look for your receiver to beat his man 1:1 for the play. In Detmer's pro-style, the QB needs to read the defense and make quick decisions about where they are going. Too often Mangum is sitting on that 1st option and staring it down rather than scanning for what is open and taking the open man. Being hesitant and unsure means your throws are going to get you in trouble and things will be happen under greater duress as your line can't hold protection that long. The problem isn't necessarily Detmer's offense--but generally it is more complicated than the guys who are currently in the program had been asked to run to date. Recruiting to bring in people who have been playing this type of system will make a huge difference. My note: Critchlow reportedly played a pro-style offense in high school so the adjustment may be easier for him than the others all things being equal.



2) Confidence. He feels like Mangum has lost that "almost ignorant" confidence he had as a freshman where the pressure didn't bother him. The one he sees now looks like he is pressing and feeling every bit of the pressure on him to do the right thing with the ball.

Eric Drage basically confirmed the idea in 1) above in his interview on ESPN960 this afternoon:



"It seems that the QBs are just struggling with their reads" Eric Drage



"As a freshman in Anae's offense, Tanner had one read. If that one read wasn't there, he scrambled out of the pocket" - Eric Drage

A few guests have also pointed out that Ty Detmer's pro style offense may be old and outdated and be fairly easily defended by modern defenses and that Ty needs to update his game plan from what he was used to running 25 years ago.



I don't know that I buy into all of that, but it has been brought up by at least 2 or 3 guests on ESPN 960 over the last week.

Fido wrote:

Eric Drage basically confirmed the idea in 1) above in his interview on ESPN960 this afternoon:



"It seems that the QBs are just struggling with their reads" Eric Drage



"As a freshman in Anae's offense, Tanner had one read. If that one read wasn't there, he scrambled out of the pocket" - Eric Drage

Drage would have been a better receivers coach than the one that we have. No one on this coaching staff is a get in your face hard nosed coach. Sitake did this on purpose. He wanted guys to coach "with love". Well now we have a bunch of marshmallows who don't like to play with contact. Who are we going to get that is a Roger French, or Mike Holmgren? Pillows and feathers is what they are coaching and that is what we are seeing on the field.