One problem with your assessment, NE, GB, both run variations of the west coast offense. Teams that run the read option quickly lose their QB's and shorten their career. And as pointed out in the article Players get slower as they get older, not faster. This is especially true as injuries and the stress of a 16 game season takes hold. This has been seen before, A college HC comes to the pros and brings college ideas to the pro's. It flashes for the first year or two, the other teams adjust and the 'next new thing' is out the window. Portions of it may stay but there are some major differences between the NFL and college, especially defenses. About half the guys you see in college on defense will never even see a pro contract of any sort, and far less than that will ever suit up or be on a 53 man roster. The worst NFL defenders are among the elite college level defenders. More importantly in college defenders are raw, they have little experience. A 4 year pro in the NFL has seen it all, they will adjust to whatever you're doing and lay some pain for doing it. Like was stated in one article by one football person. A player within arms reach is considered covered in college, in the Pros unless there's a breakdown in coverage, that's considered open. Why? Because in the NFL the defenders are much better as well.
Except for loving your Avatar you almost never say anything I agree with so I take that as a validation of my point. No where in my post did I suggest a read option or the QB running the ball. I said to adapt to incoming QBs strengths. I do believe QBs need to win from the pocket.
That's a large part of running that style of spread offense where it's all first read. NFL games is faster, Spread offenses have come and gone in the NFL over the decades, why? They're not sustainable over the long haul.
With the rise of spread/gimmick offenses in college, it would be really prudent if the NFL could put together a summer league like they had with NFL Europe. The thing that killed NFLE was that the game wasn't making much money in Europe. My cousins used to have season tickets to the Galaxy and told me that the stadiums were usually empty, and most of the people had no idea how the game was played. With the constant NEED for the NFL year round, why wouldn't they just have the league put in the US? I'm willing to bet it would still pull decent ratings if the NFL put it's name behind it. Especially with all the talk of a longer season or more playoff teams, the NFL is going to have to expand their roster size. So it would be a win/win to have a league run by the NFL that had real NFL teams attached to it, in the same way that MLB/NHL/NBA have their own "minor" league systems. Leagues like the Arena League and the other oddball leagues that pop up have no allegiance to the NFL, and are normally run entirely different than the NFL just to make things different. The FXFL is probably the closest thing to the NFL, but running their season along side the NFL is never going to work. There are a lot of college players with extreme athleticism that will never get the chance to play a down in the NFL because they either played in a college based system, injury history, or developed late. They could even have it totally independent of NFL teams and run their own draft (cause we all know how the NFL loves marketing their draft). Always something to ponder. I liked watching the NFLE games back in the day searching for guys that could transition to the NFL.
Funny, Oregon produced better NFL talent prior to Rich Brooks coming in 77 and turning the program into a winner. The plug and play system we have now, works for winning games, not creating a pipeline of talent to the NFL. We don't recruit those types of players.
Exactly, there are two multi billion dollar industries that have conflicting interests. College consumes players and if they get injured off to the side they go. The NFL has Millions committed to players that if the player gets injured the NFL team has to pay. College kid gets hurt and can't play no more the College usually just drops them and the scholarship disappears (this may have changed recently but I know it was true as of a few years ago). How profitable is college football? You won't get an answer from the schools or the NCAA...but you can get a glimpse through sports paraphernalia sales which schools receive a portion of, in 2003 NFL retail sales were 1.3 Billion (I'm using 2003 because they're the only solid numbers I could find for each sport in the same year), NBA 750 Million, NCAA 2.35 billion. And this illustrates why there's a difference, colleges aren't invested in or tied to their players, no contracts, no long term commitments (except those that favor school interests), other sports you are committed to players for years.
Well since you are always wrong except about my avatar I am happy to have you at least recognize I don't agree with your "points". And since I was not the only one who read your post to amount to a preference for the read option, perhaps the fault was in your post and not my reading of it. Needless to say you did not address the otehr points made that poked gaping holes in your previous post, so I take that as an acknowledgement you can't defend them.
