Is the spread option merely the single wing?

[dwmyers]

This began as a kind of argument in the comments of a blog article, really incidental to the actual article. It also didn't help that the fella who was assuming that, pretty much, any offense where the QB isn't behind the center is a single wing just couldn't get the gist of my argument..

To note, I don't consider the Wildcat to be the same as the spread option, and that's fundamental to this whole discussion. Even those ppl who agree with me have no question about single wing influences in the Wildcat.

http://codeandfootball.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/is-the-spread-option-merely-a-single-wing/

an excerpt:

The option itself dates back as far as Don Faurot and the Split T offense he developed for Missouri. With Don’s notion of keying off unblocked defenders, and getting the ball to the man the opposition can’t defend, football now had a running game that resembled a 2 on 1 fast break in basketball. This was only reinforced when the wishbone triple option, created by Emory Bellard, became a dominant offense in the late 1960s – early 1970s. Adding zone run concepts a la Alex Gibbs (check out, for example, John T Reed’s zone run entry in his dictionary) to unblocked keys leads to the zone read:

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Heh... I like these discussions... Maybe I'm the only one...

But as someone who briefly played in the single wing, I agree with you that the wildcat is basically the single wing, but the spread offense is something different -- although not that much different when it comes down to it.

The difference I would make is that the single wing is basically pure power football (which is why I would laugh when people claimed the NFL wildcat was so gimmicky) while the spread is about creating space in the defense. Though when we ran the single wing, we did use a wide split end in our base (90% of the time) set, and a pass to him was one of our four or five staple plays.

If anything, I would say the modern spread is more like the veer, only with a shotgun to free up a back to be used as a wingback.

I do agree that if all football history had somehow been wiped out, coaches would eventually try all these things on their own. There's really nothing new under the sun.

 

[dwmyers]

CL,

I'd love some day to just Q&A you about your single wing experience. I'm curious how it translated into modern times. I'm pretty sure it hasn't stuck with 6 inch spacing and modern football and contact rules surely have changed the way it was played.

D-

 

[dwmyers]

And of course, Brian Burke now tweeted and then posted the link to this article on his blog. I think there is some irony that someone who writes weekly in the WaPo about the Commanders has so much influence over the readership of my blog.

D-

 

[Chocolate Lab]

CL,

I'd love some day to just Q&A you about your single wing experience. I'm curious how it translated into modern times. I'm pretty sure it hasn't stuck with 6 inch spacing and modern football and contact rules surely have changed the way it was played.

D-

Go ahead and shoot.

It was unique because it was a long-dead offense even 20 years ago when I played. At that time we might literally have been the only team in the entire country running it, which I have to think was a big advantage. But then again, it was so simplistic, maybe it wasn't. I think we were just very well coached.

I can tell you ours had the spinner backs, but was almost totally a pure power offense. The blocking back, as we called him (sometimes you see him called the quarterback) was basically a guard, and maybe the best player on the team. There wasn't a single play where he ever touched the ball. He also called out the cadence, which was unique as far as I knew. Being at blocking back basically just gave him a running start to destroy people, which he did.

Anyway, ask away and I'll try to answer.