Offensive Style: Nature or Nurture?

[CrunchGriz]

Football teams win with both great natural talent and superior scheme. Some championship teams have a large measure of both, while others have a large dose of one and a much smaller dose of the other. As an example of the latter, Montana had a superior QB and very good line and receivers in 1995, but while only maroon-glasses-wearing Griz fans would claim that the Grizzlies' overall offensive talent was greater than Marshall's, the Griz scheme and execution still helped them to a title that year over an offense with more physically talented players (at least on paper). GSU, as an example of the former, had a large measure of both for many years, with an offensive scheme and execution that was nearly impossible to stop and great athletes to run it.

I would call this football's offensive "nature vs. nurture" argument. Nature (natural talent), versus Nurture (scheme, execution, coaching).

A couple of questions for the assembled masses here on AGS:

1. Which of the two is more important to team success?

2. Which of the two do you enjoy seeing more, if you had to make a choice? (i.e., would you rather see your team just physically run roughshod over your opponents with demonstrably greater skills, or would you rather see them out-scheme, outsmart, and out-execute them with physically less impressive athletes?)

[CSUBUCDAD]

At this point it is definitely nurture for the Bucs.

[appfan2008]

asu the last two years have had a very large combo of both... there is no denying we had superior speed and talent over umass and uni but i think the bigger factor was jerry moore, his staff and our spread offense... teams are still trying to figure it out and how to play against and as of yet no one has... i think that offense may be the most effective offense currently being used in fcs football

[ngineer]

In the past Lehigh has relied on more 'nurture' with a very complex offensive scheme. While that worked most of the time, it failed to hold onto leads against very good teams in the fourth quarter by being able to muscle the opposition with a time consuming running game. Coen's plan is to become more 'physical' and be more 'nature'. Balance is necessary. but of course, you always would like to have the 'horses'. To have 'smart' horses that can handle a complex offense can be devastating.

[DFW HOYA]

2. Which of the two do you enjoy seeing more, if you had to make a choice? (i.e., would you rather see your team just physically run roughshod over your opponents with demonstrably greater skills, or would you rather see them out-scheme, outsmart, and out-execute them with physically less impressive athletes?)

Since my team hasn't run roughshod over opponents since the 1950 Sun Bowl team, I'll go with that.

[McNeese75]

Nurture without a doubt! xnodx (but it would be nice to have both)

[OB55]

Adaptation of philosophy based upon the strengths of the players currently in the program, is the mark of coaching versus anal retentativeness.

[MplsBison]

I don't think that the type of overall scheme you run matters that much, as long as it's fundamentally sound.

Doing triple reverse throwbacks to the qb and doing an sort of pitch on the run are not examples of sound football.

3, 5, 7 step drops, solid routes, solid blocking patterns, and secure handoffs are sound.



I think the thing that matters more than scheme when you talk abou "nurture" is having a OC that knows how to call the right play for the right time. He knows his team well enough and he knows the other team's defense and DC well enough that he knows what will work and when is the best time to call it.

If you can get someone who knows how to do that and you have any of the numerous sound schemes, you'll score.

[fuEMO]

Crunch… Furman is an excellent example of nature or nurture.

I can't ever remember a year that anyone thought Furman had the best athlete's in the SoCon. When Furman is good or dare I say dominate it's been the execution. Furman's offensive line has always been masters of technique. Furman's scheme has served them well from the 70's to the present. Times do change, this season if every one is healthy Furman can scheme you to death on offense. Power I, triple option, wingback sets, shotgun sets, spread option. Still I think Furman's success in 07 will come from a defense that has relied for years on a bend don't break philosophy. When Furman has had this much returning experience the coaches usually take the chains off the players. At Furman it will always be nurture over nature because Furman recruits student athlete's that fit a system that has been in place for over 30 years.

[PapaBear]

I don't think that the type of overall scheme you run matters that much, as long as it's fundamentally sound.

Doing triple reverse throwbacks to the qb and doing an sort of pitch on the run are not examples of sound football.

3, 5, 7 step drops, solid routes, solid blocking patterns, and secure handoffs are sound.



I think the thing that matters more than scheme when you talk abou "nurture" is having a OC that knows how to call the right play for the right time. He knows his team well enough and he knows the other team's defense and DC well enough that he knows what will work and when is the best time to call it.

If you can get someone who knows how to do that and you have any of the numerous sound schemes, you'll score.

This guy gets it. Great summary, MBison. Gimmicks become obsolete and stars fade. A sound scheme, practiced thoroughly and executed flawlessly by quality players, is the key to consistent success.

[UAalum72]

Doing triple reverse throwbacks to the qb ... not examples of sound football.

Except when they work, like that very play and a quick-kick punt vs. Delaware last year.

Wait, that was only a double-reverse with a pass at the end.

But that's not your scheme, just a change-up. It can also be fun to watch when the O-line gets in a rhythm and crunches out 86 yards on 13 smashes.

[andy7171]

I don't think that the type of overall scheme you run matters that much, as long as it's fundamentally sound.

Doing triple reverse throwbacks to the qb and doing an sort of pitch on the run are not examples of sound football.

3, 5, 7 step drops, solid routes, solid blocking patterns, and secure handoffs are sound.
.
Where does the Boise State victory over Oklahoma this past year fit into this theory?

When you are the superior team you can rely on "nature" to beat a team. But in games versus equal or better talented team, you have to rely on the "nurture" aspect. When you are vastly over matched, you have to think outside of the norm and do what you can to confuse the other team from beating you with their "nature"

[pete4256]

This guy gets it. Great summary, MBison. Gimmicks become obsolete and stars fade. A sound scheme, practiced thoroughly and executed flawlessly by quality players, is the key to consistent success.


I guess that depends on how one defines success.

I don't think a team could do what GSU's done at the I-AA level without a sophisticated "contrarian" scheme.

[MplsBison]

[QUOTE=andy7171;540052]Where does the Boise State victory over Oklahoma this past year fit into this theory?[QUOTE]


Those plays they ran were unsound, simple as that.


I never said that unsound plays can't work now and then.

[james_lawfirm]

Interesting thread - nature v. nurture, which if I understand the posters correctly means the natural athletes vs. the well-organized & team oriented, but not-so-natural athletes. UMass may be a good example of the former and Furman may be a good example of the latter. OK, good points so far.

But I propose that there is yet a third valid category. The natural assumption when one says "natural athletes" in a football context, one pictures great big boys w/ no neck, who run fast & possess lots of football skills. These "natural" athletes are the living image of strength and brawn. In the past, this was an accurate picture.

But it seems to me that this third category would possibly be composed of natural athletes, but those who are built less like a load of bricks & more like a greyhound - lean, lanky, very quick & fast. If you haven't guessed yet I refer to ASU's team of the last two years. I cannot count the times when I heard opposing teams say they were going to run over us like a peewee team. The counter to these big fellers is speed. Speed in the backfield, speed in the DBs, speed on both the OL & DL, and obviously speed in the WRs. Put simply, you can't hit what you can't catch. You simply would not believe the moves ASU QBs Richie Williams and Armanti Edwards can put on LBs in the open field until you see it for yourself. If I had not seen it, I would not have believed it.

I heard one AGS poster say that track speed is irrelevant in FCS football. 'Splain that to Gardner Webb after track star Dexter Jackson ran back consecutive punt returns for TDs last year. I agree that there is a difference between speed and quickness, but track speed is important as long as the trackster possesses good football skills too.

Last, my final argument is that it was no accident that the two Champions of Div. 1 football, ASU & UF had VERY fast teams. Not only was it not an accident, speed was the REASON for their success.

So, I would modify said phrase to nature v. nurture v. speed. Other teams are going to have to figure out how to defend ASU's spread offense. If speed is not part of their equation, they will have a tough time doing it.

[travelinman67]

Great topic!


Adaptation of philosophy based upon the strengths of the players currently in the program, is the mark of coaching versus anal retentativeness.

OB55 holds the key. The greatest playbook/calling in the world cannot win games with consistency unless the coaches can adapt their philosophies to the players they have. If they can, then Nurture gets the nod.

Absent the ability to adapt philosophies to the players, even with the greatest playbook/calling, the ONLY way a team can win is through Nature, but then, not with consistency.

For those Dan Hawkins fans...I recall he once said at BSU (when Peterson was OC) that each play was tailored to match the attributes of the players in each unit, and several players could be crossed to multiple units to screw up the read. Obviously a complex scheme, changing each year based upon the players in the program, but one that worked extremely well for several years, Nature be damned. The OU/Boise game this last year was just another example of Nurture over Nature (Kudos to Peterson and the players for one of the best games played last year). Again, the key is the ability to adapt philosophies based upon the strengths of the players in the program.

Nice call, OB55.

[TXST_CAT]

What good is Natural tallent if not Nurtured. A team can have all the tallent in the world but if not used correctly will amount to little. Execution is what wins the game in the end, a team relying solely on tallent only wins by luck!xpeacex

[Mountaineer#96]

Speed kills..........on the highway and the field.

[BrevardMountaineer03]

I'm not sure whcih I prefer. I like good schemes as well as seeing Natural athletes just dominate.
ASU has had a mixture. But there are times when schemes win out over talent.

[BEAR]

Speed kills..........on the highway and the field.


Hence the reason the NFL players are so good. Ask any rookie what is the one thing he notices when he jumps to the NFL...speed of the game.