Subtle draft trends

[Elmgrovegnome]

I understand what your points are but I remain unconvinced that those same weaknesses can't be exploited using an NFL style offense. NFL offenses attack the perceived weaknesses of their opposing teams too. The only difference I can see is that the absolute level of weakness isn't the same in the NFL as it is in college. The relative weaknesses remain about the same. If an NFL team has a weak secondary their opponents devise game plans to attack that secondary. That "weak" secondary might be considerably better than every single secondary in college but then the offenses attacking it are also considerably better than every offense if college too. It's all relative. Bur not necessarily equal.
What's the relative difference between the NFL and a Division I college team and a Division I college team and a Division II college team? From a relative talent level standpoint I'd contend that there is no difference. From an absolute talent level standpoint there is of course a huge difference.

Division I level CBs play against Div I level WRs. It's all relative. Of course there are players within each division, whether it's Div I, Div II or the NFL who don't have a talent level commensurate with the average talent level of their peers. They will either exploit their difference in talent level or suffer from that difference in talent level. Just as there will always be JAGS and Pro Bowlers in the NFL.

To answer your other point that I quoted (from both of you), there is no equality in any division. There will always be teams like Duke who will suck within a conference/division just as there will always be teams like Alabama who excel within that same conference/division. There will always be teams like Oakland who will suck within a conference/division/league just as there will always be teams like Denver who will excel within that same conference/division/league. There is no equality in sports or there wouldn't be winners and losers. But barring some strange anomaly, all NFL teams will have a talent level higher than all Division I colleges and all Division I colleges will have talent levels higher than all Division II schools. But they all play against teams with the same relative talent levels and when they don't, as in when Alabama starts its season by playing a Division II school it will usually result in a huge mismatch.

Do you follow college recruiting at all? Every year the same teams are at the top with best recruiting classes. Other teams continually have to make due. Some teams are above the curve, like Michigan State whose classes are mostly filled with 3 star level talent, but they have a very good coaching staff and are good at evaluating players. There are just far too many colleges out there and not enough top talent to go around. The NFL draft proves that every year, when most of the first round players come from major conferences and in some cases the same schools. College football has become 75% recruiting and 25% scheme these days. Top teams know that if you have more athletes on your team than the your opponents then your chance to win is much better. Urban Meyer said he does not like recruiting kids that only played football. He wants multi sport athletes on his team. That is a predominate strategy in college football these days.

 

[Alan]

Elmgrovegnome with this:
So, Clayton believes that teams didn't realize the value of a power run scheme until they saw Marshawn Lynch and Seattle in the Superbowl?

I can't claim to speak for Clayton but isn't he talking about the greater degree to which teams are valuing the power run scheme?

Elmgrovegnome with this:
Do you follow college recruiting at all? Every year the same teams are at the top with best recruiting classes. Other teams continually have to make due. Some teams are above the curve, like Michigan State whose classes are mostly filled with 3 star level talent, but they have a very good coaching staff and are good at evaluating players. There are just far too many colleges out there and not enough top talent to go around. The NFL draft proves that every year, when most of the first round players come from major conferences and in some cases the same schools. College football has become 75% recruiting and 25% scheme these days. Top teams know that if you have more athletes on your team than the your opponents then your chance to win is much better. Urban Meyer said he does not like recruiting kids that only played football. He wants multi sport athletes on his team. That is a predominate strategy in college football these days.

Do you think something I said disagrees with what I quoted above? Because what I said doesn't fly in the face with anything you say here and I agree with it all. I'm not sure you're reading me correctly. Or I'm not saying what I mean correctly.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

I can't claim to speak for Clayton but isn't he talking about the greater degree to which teams are valuing the power run scheme?

I still think that they were aware of Seattles success a few years ago with Lynch. They didn't watch the Superbowl this year and suddenly say " Wow that power run scheme is really working, what a great discovery!"

Coaches have known about it since time began and it has never purely gone away. The Niners have used it with Gore for his entire career. The Jets and Rex Ryan employed it with some success. The Vikings have been doing it with AP. I don't think NFL coaches forgot about it. Maybe fans forgot about it.

Now maybe what Clayton should have said is that NFL coaches watched Seattles success this year with the power run scheme and it caused them to feel that it may be time to take it out of the mothballs and use it again. But even that is not accurate because other teams have been using it. Dallas uses it. Like I said SF has used it for years. Seattle has used it since they had Lynch and Minnesota has been using it still. Just because those teams didn't make the Superbowl didn't mean that scheme was no longer useful. They just didn't have good enough rosters to get there.

 

[Alan]

Elmgrovegnome back with this:
Now maybe what Clayton should have said is that NFL coaches watched Seattles success this year with the power run scheme and it caused them to feel that it may be time to take it out of the mothballs and use it again. But even that is not accurate because other teams have been using it. Dallas uses it. Like I said SF has used it for years. Seattle has used it since they had Lynch and Minnesota has been using it still. Just because those teams didn't make the Superbowl didn't mean that scheme was no longer useful. They just didn't have good enough rosters to get there.

True but there's success and there's success. How many SBs has Dallas won doing that? How many times has SF made it to the big dance with that scheme much less won it all. I think they see success but but don't/didn't consider that to be one of the top things you need to be successful. I think they still don't. The Vikings have had pretty good success with AP running the ball but how's that working out for them? They seem to be drafting in the top 10 pretty often.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

True but there's success and there's success. How many SBs has Dallas won doing that? How many times has SF made it to the big dance with that scheme much less won it all. I think they see success but but don't/didn't consider that to be one of the top things you need to be successful. I think they still don't. The Vikings have had pretty good success with AP running the ball but how's that working out for them? They seem to be drafting in the top 10 pretty often.

Well in a way yes. Maybe those teams just didn't have complete enough rosters to see the benefit of a power run scheme. A power run scheme only really works if your defense is stout enough to slow the pace of opponents with high powered offenses. If a team does not have the right defense to go with it then the power run scheme is too slow and plodding to keep up.

Another part of the equation could be that the advent of more' no huddle' offenses and faster paced offenses, we see teams subbing Dlinemen more often than they used to years ago, and most teams don't have a plethora of 300+lb All Pro Dlinemen to sub with so they are subbing with smaller faster Dlinemen. So, maybe we are seeing a bit more success with the power run scheme than before, because it takes advantage of teams substituting with less adequate talent on the defensive line.

San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis all have the defense to make a slower paced offense work. I am actually surprised that Dallas got as far as they did with their bad defense but Marinelli had it playing much better than the personnel would have indicated.

 

[Alan]

Elmgrovegnome with this:
Maybe those teams just didn't have complete enough rosters to see the benefit of a power run scheme.

If you have a team with "a complete enough roster" does it really matter what scheme you run?