Comparative Advantage, Mike Leach, and Duane Brown

Duane Brown is getting better. He's becoming more and more adept at the Texans' offensive-line system, and that is becoming more and more evident in his play.

At the time of the draft, many thought Brown was a bit of a stretch for the Texans. But, as was noted by at least one writer at the time, Alex Gibbs values a different type of lineman than do other teams. He wants more athletic linemen - those best suited to his zone-blocking scheme - rather than larger, more powerful players. So valuing Brown more highly than other teams allowed the Texans to trade down.

Tom Kirkendall has criticized Mike Leach for not being quite as awesome as the media seem to think he is. I think he makes an excellent point - Leach really hasn't accomplished much, and it seems stupid to say that Leach's offensive system is the magic everyone believes it to be.

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding (amongst both the media and coaches) about what the spread offense can accomplish, as well as what it is designed to do.

I don't think that we can reasonably say the spread offense gives a substantial advantage over the best defenses in either the NCAA or NFL. Good defenses will do well against any offense, regardless of how many five receiver plays you bring out.

But what the spread offense does is level the playing field somewhat. It allows college recruiters to value speed and skill over size and power (particularly in running backs), while the even more unconventional spread option offenses of Rich Rodriguez and his ilk allows coaches to use glorified running backs under center. The top recruits are still going to go to schools like USC, OSU, UT, etc., but spread offenses allowed schools like Tulane to briefly compete.

The key was not that spread offenses offered a spectacular advantage on the field - they offered a spectacular advantage in recruiting, because one could select athletes who could run the "system," rather than the blue-chip recruits out of high school who were destined to go to one of the powerhouses.

Of course, now that spread offenses have been run by the largest schools in every conference (the SEC seems to be made up mostly of such offenses), there isn't such an advantage anymore. At least not for Tech.But look at how Tulsa and Rice dominated Conference USA this past year. Bob Toledo can't possibly hope to recruit the type of athletes he needs to run his standard, West-Coast offense and win (Matt Forte was a fluke created by LSU's recruiting priorities and family history). Those athletes are going to go elsewhere. Meanwhile, Rice, Tulsa, and Southern Miss will kick his ass again and again.

So this brings me back to Duane Brown. The Texans don't have to worry about recruiting. The NFL has the draft, so they get to select essentially whomever they want to play on their offensive line.

But the zone-blocking system (shared only by the Redskins, Panthers, Packers, and - of course - the Broncos) allows the Texans to select smaller linemen, exploiting the same type of market inefficiency that the spread offense was designed to exploit: find undersized but agile players and put them to work. That system turned the much-maligned Texans offensive line into a very good set of blockers, and made the tiny Steve Slaton into the league's leading rookie halfback.

This was what "Moneyball" supposedly did (and does). You look for players who can do something very well but who have been, for whatever reason, overlooked by other scouts and organizations. Billy Beane looked for players who could work the count. Mike Shanahan looked for running backs who could make a quick cut and get downfield.

The intersting thing to me is whether or not the spread offense would give any advantage in the NFL. As I said, I doubt it will be any better at picking apart defenses than the West-Coast or conventional offense. At the same time, however, I don't think (like so many pundits) that such a system would fall apart in the NFL from turnovers. Like any offensive system, it requires a quarterback that makes good decisions and can recognize what his coach and coordinator tells him to recognize from the defense.

So what if a team adopted the spread this offseason? I have no idea which teams would be best suited to such a system, but that's not really the point.

In the first round, they really should obey the same principles as everyone else: build your offensive and defensive lines first, then work outwards. The situation doesn't become interesting until about the third round, when you start to see guys like Pat White or Tebow present.

Now, I'm no NFL scout, so I have no idea if Tebow or White can really make decent NFL quarterbacks, even in a spread attack. But both are probably going to enter the draft as something other than QB (TE and WR, respectively). That means you can get them at a good price, and (provided they can work in the NFL) you have someone who can run the new system.

Maybe the same can apply to wide receivers. Tom Brady and the Patriots made use of much worse WRs than Welker and Moss for years, and I think the same types can be used in a full spread attack.

Again, the point isn't to destroy defenses - it can't do that. But the spread offense would confer the same type of advantage that it does for smaller NCAA programs: find guys nobody else wants and use them in your system.

Besides, if nothing else, the run-and-shoot was awesome back in the day. Shame nobody uses its succesor in the NFL.