In college football and the NFL the debate between pro-style and spread offenses often boils down primarily to the size and skill sets of the players used in the H and Y positions on the field.
For instance, a modern formation many would regard as being pro-style:
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2917302/pro-style_1.0.jpg)
When there is a tight end player at the Y spot who's 6'2" 240 or bigger and either another similarly sized player at the H or else a fullback (generally sub 6'2" and 220 or bigger) then you are looking at what many will call a pro-style offense.
Of course, if it looks like this:
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2917300/pro-style_shotgun.0.jpg)
It may very well be described as a "spread" offense even though all you've done is move the quarterback and running back a few paces while leaving everyone else in the same place. The major reason a team with bigger personnel at the H and Y positions would put a QB in the shotgun like this is to run option plays such as "zone read" which is considered a "spread" concept.
Then there's the pure spread offense, which generally replaces those bigger bodies at the H and Y positions with receivers that may range from 5'6" to 6'4" but generally weigh less than 230 pounds and specialize at either route running or catching short passes and running in open space.
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2913630/spread_1.0.jpg)
Teams will use smaller players here to execute the passing game with better receivers, get small and fast players in space, and to get the "spread out" effect on the defense that creates room to run the ball.
As many teams have learned over the years, and Oregon and Ohio State have demonstrated in their hunt for the national title, it can be easier to just space out defenders rather than trying to knock them all out of the way.
Interestingly, if a team does something like this they may not necessarily be considered a spread team but can preserve their "pro-style" street cred while running spread concepts:
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2913638/pro-style_2.0.jpg)
Florida State commonly uses formations such as this that will feature a tight end at the H spot who can both block and run routes, but then a 3rd receiver at the Y position and a QB aligned under center. They'll also run more classical pro-style formations like the first one drawn shown but they are generally keen on getting as many receivers out into passing patterns as possible for QBs like Jameis Winston.
Then there are several spread teams, like West Virginia, that make heavy use of formations such as this one:
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2916010/Spread-I_formation.0.jpg)
You can call this a "Spread-I Formation" and the H position is generally occupied by a player who most closely fits the profile of a fullback, although he might be a taller player who also serves as a TE. At any rate, for this formation's best concepts to work the player needs to be a great blocker and needn't be a good receiver.
That means that the Spread-I shown above can be more of a smashmouth, run-centric approach than a "pro-style" formation like the one above that Florida State often uses. While the 'Noles are getting four good receivers out into patterns quickly (and often the RB as well), West Virginia in the Spread-I only have three receivers that can easily get out into a pattern.
Nevertheless, the Spread-I gets the "spread" moniker while the more pass-friendly eleven personnel set (three WRs, one TE) from Florida State is labeled as pro-style.
Then there's this: very few teams exclusively play just receivers or just tight ends and fullbacks at H and Y. Many teams even strive to be "multiple," meaning that they can put bigger bodies on the field and hammer you from under center or spread receivers around the field and sling it around from the shotgun.
This isn't generally that hard either, structurally, as spread teams and pro-style teams are often using the exact same passing concepts just with different players and a few different routes.
A concept like "snag" is common both from a spread team:
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2916232/Spread_snag.0.jpg)
As well as a pro-style team:
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2917294/Pro-style_snag.0.jpg)
So what's the difference?
You can boil down the reason behind why teams are labelled as spread or pro-style teams not in how they use their H and Y positions, which is arguably most important, but whether they are in the shotgun or not.
If a team is under center even a modest amount of time, someone is going to call them a "pro-style" attack, even if they are a four-receiver run and shoot team. If a team runs option-plays from the shotgun on a regular basis, even if they are frequently doing so with tight ends and fullbacks on the field, they are going to be frequently labelled as a shotgun spread.
In general, any team that uses the option is not going to be counted as a pro-style team, even those the pros have started to incorporate some modern option looks.
In reality, a better metric is how often they flex out the H and Y positions in order to "spread" out the defense by alignment and use spacing to attack opponents. Teams that play larger bodies packed in tight aren't looking to use pre-snap spacing to attack their opponents but rather brute force and leverage at the line of scrimmage in combination with post-snap vertical stress.
Of course, the spread-I does both.
Pace is also confused with "spread" as spread teams are better known for using up tempo tactics while pro-style teams are only now catching on to the advantages.
Considering that many pro teams use both or either approach, in the future it might be best to retire the phrase "pro-style" in favor of something that more accurately describes offenses that go under center with big bodies at H and Y.
What's better?
Since both have track records of success with league and national titles to their credit, this really just depends on the kinds of players a program can reasonably expect to find and develop. The reason that the spread has really taken hold at smaller schools is that it's easier to find smaller athletes who can do damage in space than bigger bodies who can physically dominate opponents in the trenches.
Similarly, much of the hesitation from bigger schools about going spread is in the fact that if you can physically dominate your opponent, why would you choose any other path? There's simply no answer for a team that can knock you down and in an inherently violent game this approach makes a great deal of sense.
If a team isn't dependent on using the QB in the running game there's often enough flexibility in some systems to recruit the best players available and then either emphasize spread or packed-in formations based on which style best suits the players on campus.
In that event, a team has to be sure to have some big bodies to help the running game though or else they risk losing their balance. It's not hard to find bruisers who can serve primarily to create angles in the running game but if a team recruits only receiving talent at the H and Y positions, be they tight ends or slot receivers, they may still struggle to run the ball.
Another reason teams may choose one or the other would be whether they are playing in warm weather or cold weather environments. What's the last thing a defensive player wants to do in the heat? Chase fast people around. What's the last thing he wants to do in the cold? Endure repeated collisions with big people.
Why not both?
Lots of coaches will say "we want to be multiple" and "either spread and throw or run depending on situation" with loaded rosters of versatile talent. In reality, this is much easier said than done.
If you look at the approach of teams that use the tight end position heavily, you'll see that they recruit real numbers at that position to ensure they have the needed talent. Similarly, spread passing teams snatch up as many receivers as they can to ensure they have the difference makers they need for their system to work.
So is it possible to truly be multiple enough to switch back and forth between using two difference-making big bodies at tight end OR two electric slot receivers? Generally the answer is no, 2014 Alabama notwithstanding.
However, there are ways in which teams can be multiple and effective using lots of different formations. The first way is simply to find players that can do both. Iowa State'sEJ Bibbs lined up at H-back, tight end, slot receiver, and even as an outside receiver.
It takes a smart and versatile player to do all that but if a team can find tight ends who both block and run routes well there's no reason they couldn't also move all over the field. When the New England Patriots had Aaron Hernandez and Rob Gronkowski they were able to bring a wide variety of formations and tactics, either using their size to bulldoze opposing defenses or their route running to spread them and tear them apart.
No one could match up.
Of course, in lieu of finding such tremendous talent, there are some other options.
The Spread-I excels at mixing smashmouth and spread tactics by relying on the positional types in each system that are easiest to find, namely the effective slot receiver or the quality fullback, rather than finding the rare talents like the dual-threat tight end.
Another solution would be Boise State's "total roster" approach. The Broncos will recruit bigger bodies in order to play some pro-style schemes that pay special attention to creating leverage in the running game by moving big bodies around and playing games with the defensive front.
They'll also bring aboard speedsters and anyone who could conceivably threaten a defense with the ball in their hands and mix in four-WR spread plays with quick reads and triggers from the QB or sweeps featuring track star receivers receiving hand-offs at a run. They create play packages that utilize the abilities of every player on the roster, however limited that player might be.
It's essentially the opposite tactic of finding a Gronkowksi and a Hernandez, instead embracing limited players who can thrive in limited roles and then designing endless packages to allow them to shine in those roles. This is a challenging way to build a multiple offense but it seems to at least work in Idaho.
No doubt pro-style vs spread arguments will continue in the future, especially with more "spread" teams competing for the national title and with pro teams adding those concepts.
But keep two important notes in mind, first that systems like the spread-I are blurring the distinctions between the two offenses. Second, where you can really determine a team's identity is how they are attacking the field at the H and Y positions. Physicality? Finesse? Or both?
Credit to Ian Boyd for the diagrams.
For instance, a modern formation many would regard as being pro-style:
When there is a tight end player at the Y spot who's 6'2" 240 or bigger and either another similarly sized player at the H or else a fullback (generally sub 6'2" and 220 or bigger) then you are looking at what many will call a pro-style offense.
Of course, if it looks like this:
It may very well be described as a "spread" offense even though all you've done is move the quarterback and running back a few paces while leaving everyone else in the same place. The major reason a team with bigger personnel at the H and Y positions would put a QB in the shotgun like this is to run option plays such as "zone read" which is considered a "spread" concept.
Then there's the pure spread offense, which generally replaces those bigger bodies at the H and Y positions with receivers that may range from 5'6" to 6'4" but generally weigh less than 230 pounds and specialize at either route running or catching short passes and running in open space.
Teams will use smaller players here to execute the passing game with better receivers, get small and fast players in space, and to get the "spread out" effect on the defense that creates room to run the ball.
As many teams have learned over the years, and Oregon and Ohio State have demonstrated in their hunt for the national title, it can be easier to just space out defenders rather than trying to knock them all out of the way.
Interestingly, if a team does something like this they may not necessarily be considered a spread team but can preserve their "pro-style" street cred while running spread concepts:
Florida State commonly uses formations such as this that will feature a tight end at the H spot who can both block and run routes, but then a 3rd receiver at the Y position and a QB aligned under center. They'll also run more classical pro-style formations like the first one drawn shown but they are generally keen on getting as many receivers out into passing patterns as possible for QBs like Jameis Winston.
Then there are several spread teams, like West Virginia, that make heavy use of formations such as this one:
You can call this a "Spread-I Formation" and the H position is generally occupied by a player who most closely fits the profile of a fullback, although he might be a taller player who also serves as a TE. At any rate, for this formation's best concepts to work the player needs to be a great blocker and needn't be a good receiver.
That means that the Spread-I shown above can be more of a smashmouth, run-centric approach than a "pro-style" formation like the one above that Florida State often uses. While the 'Noles are getting four good receivers out into patterns quickly (and often the RB as well), West Virginia in the Spread-I only have three receivers that can easily get out into a pattern.
Nevertheless, the Spread-I gets the "spread" moniker while the more pass-friendly eleven personnel set (three WRs, one TE) from Florida State is labeled as pro-style.
Then there's this: very few teams exclusively play just receivers or just tight ends and fullbacks at H and Y. Many teams even strive to be "multiple," meaning that they can put bigger bodies on the field and hammer you from under center or spread receivers around the field and sling it around from the shotgun.
This isn't generally that hard either, structurally, as spread teams and pro-style teams are often using the exact same passing concepts just with different players and a few different routes.
A concept like "snag" is common both from a spread team:
As well as a pro-style team:
So what's the difference?
You can boil down the reason behind why teams are labelled as spread or pro-style teams not in how they use their H and Y positions, which is arguably most important, but whether they are in the shotgun or not.
If a team is under center even a modest amount of time, someone is going to call them a "pro-style" attack, even if they are a four-receiver run and shoot team. If a team runs option-plays from the shotgun on a regular basis, even if they are frequently doing so with tight ends and fullbacks on the field, they are going to be frequently labelled as a shotgun spread.
In general, any team that uses the option is not going to be counted as a pro-style team, even those the pros have started to incorporate some modern option looks.
In reality, a better metric is how often they flex out the H and Y positions in order to "spread" out the defense by alignment and use spacing to attack opponents. Teams that play larger bodies packed in tight aren't looking to use pre-snap spacing to attack their opponents but rather brute force and leverage at the line of scrimmage in combination with post-snap vertical stress.
Of course, the spread-I does both.
Pace is also confused with "spread" as spread teams are better known for using up tempo tactics while pro-style teams are only now catching on to the advantages.
Considering that many pro teams use both or either approach, in the future it might be best to retire the phrase "pro-style" in favor of something that more accurately describes offenses that go under center with big bodies at H and Y.
What's better?
Since both have track records of success with league and national titles to their credit, this really just depends on the kinds of players a program can reasonably expect to find and develop. The reason that the spread has really taken hold at smaller schools is that it's easier to find smaller athletes who can do damage in space than bigger bodies who can physically dominate opponents in the trenches.
Similarly, much of the hesitation from bigger schools about going spread is in the fact that if you can physically dominate your opponent, why would you choose any other path? There's simply no answer for a team that can knock you down and in an inherently violent game this approach makes a great deal of sense.
If a team isn't dependent on using the QB in the running game there's often enough flexibility in some systems to recruit the best players available and then either emphasize spread or packed-in formations based on which style best suits the players on campus.
In that event, a team has to be sure to have some big bodies to help the running game though or else they risk losing their balance. It's not hard to find bruisers who can serve primarily to create angles in the running game but if a team recruits only receiving talent at the H and Y positions, be they tight ends or slot receivers, they may still struggle to run the ball.
Another reason teams may choose one or the other would be whether they are playing in warm weather or cold weather environments. What's the last thing a defensive player wants to do in the heat? Chase fast people around. What's the last thing he wants to do in the cold? Endure repeated collisions with big people.
Why not both?
Lots of coaches will say "we want to be multiple" and "either spread and throw or run depending on situation" with loaded rosters of versatile talent. In reality, this is much easier said than done.
If you look at the approach of teams that use the tight end position heavily, you'll see that they recruit real numbers at that position to ensure they have the needed talent. Similarly, spread passing teams snatch up as many receivers as they can to ensure they have the difference makers they need for their system to work.
So is it possible to truly be multiple enough to switch back and forth between using two difference-making big bodies at tight end OR two electric slot receivers? Generally the answer is no, 2014 Alabama notwithstanding.
However, there are ways in which teams can be multiple and effective using lots of different formations. The first way is simply to find players that can do both. Iowa State'sEJ Bibbs lined up at H-back, tight end, slot receiver, and even as an outside receiver.
It takes a smart and versatile player to do all that but if a team can find tight ends who both block and run routes well there's no reason they couldn't also move all over the field. When the New England Patriots had Aaron Hernandez and Rob Gronkowski they were able to bring a wide variety of formations and tactics, either using their size to bulldoze opposing defenses or their route running to spread them and tear them apart.
No one could match up.
Of course, in lieu of finding such tremendous talent, there are some other options.
The Spread-I excels at mixing smashmouth and spread tactics by relying on the positional types in each system that are easiest to find, namely the effective slot receiver or the quality fullback, rather than finding the rare talents like the dual-threat tight end.
Another solution would be Boise State's "total roster" approach. The Broncos will recruit bigger bodies in order to play some pro-style schemes that pay special attention to creating leverage in the running game by moving big bodies around and playing games with the defensive front.
They'll also bring aboard speedsters and anyone who could conceivably threaten a defense with the ball in their hands and mix in four-WR spread plays with quick reads and triggers from the QB or sweeps featuring track star receivers receiving hand-offs at a run. They create play packages that utilize the abilities of every player on the roster, however limited that player might be.
It's essentially the opposite tactic of finding a Gronkowksi and a Hernandez, instead embracing limited players who can thrive in limited roles and then designing endless packages to allow them to shine in those roles. This is a challenging way to build a multiple offense but it seems to at least work in Idaho.
No doubt pro-style vs spread arguments will continue in the future, especially with more "spread" teams competing for the national title and with pro teams adding those concepts.
But keep two important notes in mind, first that systems like the spread-I are blurring the distinctions between the two offenses. Second, where you can really determine a team's identity is how they are attacking the field at the H and Y positions. Physicality? Finesse? Or both?
Credit to Ian Boyd for the diagrams.
Last edited:
good stuff