|
One Dimension
or Two?
by Big Al McMordie
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.
Although many football observers favor defensive-oriented teams to win the Super
Bowl, I'm going to go out on a limb and predict Kansas City over Minnesota.
There aren't many teams with better offensive balance, and nobody has a better
coach than Dick Vermeil. Good luck as always....Al McMordie.
|
Back to Article Listing
