2 Comments

  1. Cameron

    Been thinking about this article for a while now, and just can’t bring myself to like the moniker TOFKAP. The issue I’m having is that when I think of a “pro-style” offense, I envision a small set of running and passing concepts (e.g., power, inside zone, iso, spot, three verticals, levels, etc.) and those concepts being run from a variety of personnel groups and formations. As in, installing a smash concept just like every other offense, but running 32.5 different ways based on the formation and personnel because “match ups.” I don’t really see “pro-style” as necessarily having a particular personnel grouping or formation, but a narrow set of concepts that are considered “pro style.”

    When I turn on NFL football, most of the time it feels like I’m seeing the same 20 or concepts over and over and over again, but just run from an infinite variety of looks. When done well, I suppose it has a certain aesthetic beauty to it, but never as interesting as the contrarian strategies frequently adopted by college/high school football teams.

    What you described in your article, however, I just think of as a “21 Under Center” offense. As in, being committed to 21 personnel and the QB running it from under center. To me, the two are distinct things.

    I’m not trying to be critical here – I gave your idea a lot of thought and time before responding – but at the end of the day, I find the name unsatisfying for the above reasons. I must admit, however, that my perception of “pro style” may be the minority.

    • ianaboyd

      Thanks for the response.

      The issue I saw was this: Under center and 21-based formations have been described as “pro-style” for some time now.

      The issue I saw was that these offenses are generally run-centric, that’s why they put big bodies on the field at the #2 and #3 WR positions rather than guys that can stress a defense spread out, running routes.

      If you watch pro teams, they are defined by precision passing games. They may be simple in concept like you’re noting but they are built around executing the passing game at a high level.

      So the under-center, I-formation and Aces type teams aren’t really “pro-style” because they don’t mirror what the pros do. But there’s not really any doubt that their strategy used to be called “pro-style.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *