I was looking for stats of NFL QBs who came from a spread offense vs. NFL QBs who didn't. And stumbled upon this article. Some good points. It's not one of the usual writers that we've been used to reading on this site and elsewhere.For those of you who are sick of these Pro-Mariota posts, I'll be working/shooting (finally!) the next two days and probably won't post anything new unless it's really, really good. ;-)* * * * *...if the spread is becoming the "pro-style," what difference does it make whether Winston is defined as more "pro-style" (traditional) and Mariota more spread? None. If you are the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the deciding factor between drafting Winston over Mariota is based purely on who is the pro-style guy versus the spread guy then your evaluation process is flawed.If the contention is correct that Mariota has a higher ceiling than Winston if the Oregon QB is drafted by a team running what he's used to, then wouldn’t you pick the guy with the highest ceiling regardless of his style? http://www.footballbyfootball.com/column/is-spread-offense-the-new-pro-style Is Spread Offense the New "Pro-Style"?by Brady PoppingaFebruary 24th, 2015 Why is a "Pro-Style" QB Like Winston Favorable in a League Playing So Much Spread?In the eyes of many experts after the NFL Combine, Jameis Winston solidified his draft status as the No. 1 quarterback, while Marcus Mariota stayed at No. 2. Many of these experts say the difference between the two is that Winston is a “pro-style” quarterback while Marcus is a “spread” quarterback. They believe Winston should have an easier transition learning the “pro-style” offense while Marcus would have to retool his entire game. The transition vs. no-transition seems to be the real driver behind Winston’s higher draft grade. But many of these same experts hint that if Mariota was drafted to a team playing an offense similar to the one he ran in college, then the Heisman Trophy winner from Oregon would have a higher ceiling. Two questions arise: First, with so many offenses opting for pass-first looks in traditional run-first situations, has the spread infiltrated even "pro-style" offenses? The league is full of spread concepts as obvious as the "spread" formation itself (below)...(GIF at the link)...and other play design elements like this “fake zone, boot pass.” (GIF at the link)In addition to the concepts sprinkled into most NFL offenses, franchises like Philadelphia and Miami essentially run the same offense Mariota used at Oregon. That’s thanks to Eagles head coach Chip Kelly, who recruited Mariota to Oregon and coached him the first few years in college. The Dolphins use elements of the spread because offensive coordinator Bill Lazor brought it with him from Philly after serving as Kelly’s quarterbacks coach. The Miami and Philly offenses were very effective last season, finishing in the top third of scoring offenses without the presence of a top-tiered quarterback (Dolphins 11th, Eagles 3rd). NFL offenses are trending towards more spread concepts based on the supply-and-demand relative of quarterbacks coming out of the college game, as well as the success these more pure spread teams have experienced in relatively short order. Although the spread shouldn't be confused with the methods of pro-style offenses, considering how often spread concepts are used in today's game, it just may be the new "pro-style."The second question is if the spread is becoming the "pro-style," what difference does it make whether Winston is defined as more "pro-style" (traditional) and Mariota more spread? None. If you are the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the deciding factor between drafting Winston over Mariota is based purely on who is the pro-style guy versus the spread guy then your evaluation process is flawed.If the contention is correct that Mariota has a higher ceiling than Winston if the Oregon QB is drafted by a team running what he's used to, then wouldn’t you pick the guy with the highest ceiling regardless of his style? Wouldn’t you want to build your offense to fit that player’s skill-set? That seems to be the more prudent choice. But the error teams make in evaluating and developing quarterbacks is that they don’t believe spread offenses can be effective long-term in the NFL. That's because many teams are stuck in their ways. Arizona Cardinals head coach Bruce Arians said this about spread quarterbacks: “Seeing the guys coming out of the systems now where the coach holds a card up, the players line up, he kicks his foot and they play football — the hardest thing for them is to get into a huddle and call a play. They’re stuttering, they’re stammering, the guys around them don’t believe in them. That’s that leadership thing. That’s the hardest thing for these young quarterbacks who play in these systems. They have to learn how to play quarterback at this level and sometimes that’s overwhelming.”I highly respect Arians, but he doesn’t speak for the entire NFL. If you ask Kelly about his no-huddle, card-holding, simple spread offense he will tell you that during his NFL tenure it has been one of the most prolific in scoring (4th in 2013 and 3rd in 2014). The importance of calling a play in the huddle means nothing since spread teams don’t huddle at all. That’s where the problem lies with evaluating and developing quarterbacks league wide. Instead of drafting the best quarterback and building a scheme around his abilities, teams attempt to reinvent the wheel and convert a spread player to a pro-style system. That usually results in the player falling short of his potential. Teams should be more open-minded. You would be forced to acknowledge that there is more than one way of playing effective offensive football in the league. Problem is, most teams aren’t open-minded enough to do so. Football by Brady PoppingaFormer BYU Linebacker, 8 Years in NFLSuper Bowl Champion with Green Bay PackersAuthor, "True Spirit of Competition"
