|
|
Post by groundchuck on Jun 27, 2008 17:52:24 GMT -6
Year to year do you take the approach that
A: This is the system and we will fit the players to it.
Example: "We are a triple option team....period." OR "We are a gun 4-5 wide team....period" Basically find the players to make the system work.
B: Look at the skill set coming back and decide what will be good or not. Example: "We base from the I but if we have a thrower at QB and some recievers might run more 1-back sets." OR "This year we have a monster OL and FB lets focus on pounding the football." Basically emphasize different aspects of the system depending on the personnel at hand that year.
|
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on Jun 27, 2008 18:55:05 GMT -6
We stick with the same basic system - spread Fly Sweep - from year to year but usually lean toward running what best fits that year's team. By design, our FB usually gets 1,000 yards but other than that we've had QB's who threw for 500 and 1800, one sweeper who would score 20 TD's or 5 sweepers who scored 2-3 each. Our staff knows the system and we also run it at the Jr. High level so keeping a familiar base helps with the transition from JHS to Varsity. Thats how we do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jhanawa on Jun 27, 2008 19:13:30 GMT -6
We are very flexible in "system". Our terminology and system stay the same, we will feature different aspects of our offense based on kids. Same goes with defense and special teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Klemme on Jun 27, 2008 19:25:24 GMT -6
B-
We were fortuante enough to have a QB start for 3 years who had a gun. Now we have an imcompitent douschebag of a kid (I mean that is the nicest way possible) who thinks he's D1 bound too. We look at the type of kids we have in the system and adjust things to them. I loved going spread and running the option and smash series out of them. This season we have a bunch of small chippy backs who are undersized but very strong and aggressive and like to compete. We are installing the Wing-T with them. We look to keep it for the next few seasons. When we develop another QB I don't know if we'll change or not. One thing that always his us hard is kids we count on don't show up in the fall because they get the "Hoop Dreams" going. Our school has a solid b-ball program (2nd in state last season Ranked the last 4) and that coach (who is a good guy and can "recruit" from other sports) gives these kids the idea that they are all varsity starters. We already lost 1 soph QB and 1 varsity WR to the b-ball program. I personally feel that the kids don't like the contact and the competition and they feel the sport is to much work for 9-10 games. Not the kind of kids I would want when the game is on the line. The pressure would kill them.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 27, 2008 19:32:56 GMT -6
At the high school level...without the benefit of recruiting, and since the variance between players is VERY small, I think the best approach is to find a system, find the best way to teach the kids the skills necessary to succeed in that system, and then make your kids execute that system to the best of their ability.
However ground--i think it is hard to differentiate between your two situations. You could be a triple team, who finds themselves without a gamebreaking QB one year. I would think you would find ways to get the pitchback and diveback the ball more often than the qb keeping. You could be a flexbone team, with a good thrower and a good split, and you could really work the sprint out game that year....
So, i think the more important point is to avoid changing core skill sets. For example, going airraid gun one year because you have a guy who can "sling it", and then the having to teach the QB to turn his back and deal cards (wing-t) the next is probably the LEAST effective method. Spending a season firing out of the chutes and hitting a sled straight on one year because you are a veer/zone team, and then changing next year to sever angle blocking is probably not a great plan
|
|
|
|
Post by CVBears on Jun 27, 2008 22:05:30 GMT -6
we have our base offensive system that is based on a power gap scheme. we can run it from every formation imaginable. If our talent fits more backs in the backfield, then that is what we will use more of. If we have more WR types, then that is what our formations that we use for that year will be geared towards. Our systems if flexible enough that we still stick to our base packages every single year and what we install after the base depends on what we have that year, but it is still within our system. We will never be a spread zone read staple team one year and switch to the single wing or wing t the next. We are always going to have the same identity, only the periphery changes.
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Jun 27, 2008 22:22:21 GMT -6
our offensive system is very modular
meaning--it is based on basic concepts and we then just adjust it from year to year to fit the talent on hand
we go into three areas
1. throw it around
2. misdirection
3. option
we will run zone
we will run jets
the qb crop pretty much determines how much we go into the different phases
|
|
|
|
Post by kcbazooka on Jun 28, 2008 5:00:10 GMT -6
same as most of the other coaches -- I didn't vote in the polll because -- we have a system that we can feature pretty much anything out of - winged-t and shotgun wing - so if we have a great passer we can take advantage of that -if we are a better running team we can do that -- also can run power, misdirections or option depending on the skills of the team...
|
|
|
|
Post by touchdownmaker on Jun 28, 2008 6:13:33 GMT -6
simply put, the type of athletes we have year to year will influence play calling but wont change our blocking rules or pattern system etc.
|
|
kakavian
Sophomore Member
Where's the ball, boy? Find the ball.
Posts: 175
|
Post by kakavian on Jun 28, 2008 9:03:13 GMT -6
I voted towards players, but that is because like many of you, I have a good enough core system that we can flex it towards ther players we have, and take advantage of that. We have our staple stuff that EVERY team of ours must do, but as far as the dressing, and alternate plays, that all depends on what we have.
|
|
|
|
Post by shotgun321 on Jun 28, 2008 9:49:30 GMT -6
We shifted are mind set right in the middle of spring. The quarterback we were hoping to start wasn't going to get the job done. Our best receiver know is there, fast kid, decent arm, and smart. We were multiple on offense, under center and gun. We now went to gun, still run the same plays just out of a spread look. The biggest thing is direct the offense to fit the kid we have at qb now. Now I sit back and self reflect why didn't I make this decision back in january, that way I could coach myself up on how to utilize this kid the best to his ability.
|
|
|
|
Post by highball007 on Jun 28, 2008 10:08:12 GMT -6
my philosophy is to keep as much the same as possible, but as a coach you must account for what type of athletes you have year to year. My base would be out of a single back spread, but we have formations with two backs and two TE's. Our job as coaches is to analyze the type of athletes and put them in the best situation to succedd. If I have 3 good WR, I am not going to run thw wing T and have 3 of my best athletes fighting for one spot. Same thing on the other side. I would not run some much spread if I didn't have QB and WR, that could catch.
|
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Jun 28, 2008 10:45:05 GMT -6
I am really a fan of Tog's "modular" approach.
An offensive system, a good one at least, has answers for contingencies.
What if my starting QB goes down first series?
What if my plan is to do A, but the defense takes A away?
What if it rains?
These what ifs also need to apply to your offensive system. Mainly, you need to know how you will utilize different talent on hand.
5-wide coaches need to know how to utilize a true TB type of kid.
DW coaches need to understand how to use a a WR type kid.
I formation and Spread coaches need to know how to capitalize on their QB's strengths.
Coaches place a high emphasis on preparation for games.......the same level of prep should be put into a system.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 28, 2008 11:14:09 GMT -6
Coaches place a high emphasis on preparation for games.......the same level of prep should be put into a system. Great statement. It amazes me when I see staffs spend 20+ hours each weekend game planning...and yet they didn't spend even 20 hours total in the offseason looking into their own methodology. |
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jun 28, 2008 11:18:20 GMT -6
This was the issue I had when we were exclusively a splitback/I form. veer team. The scheme is so QB dependent; tough to work around sometimes.
For example, when I started coaching, I worked at a junior high that fed exclusively into a SBV/I form high school. The entire program had run veer with great success for over a decade; basically only throwing the ball off of PA.
However, the program had two down years because the had a QB with a D1 caliber arm but was one of the slowest athletes on the team. They also had a 6'4'', 210 WR who ended up playing D1 basketball. Needless to say, running veer 30-40 times a game wasn't in the cards for this unit and it was hard to make a switch into a more balanced scheme.
|
|
trojan
Junior Member
[F4:wingtcoach.com] [F4:wingtcoachdon]
Posts: 494
|
Post by trojan on Jun 28, 2008 11:40:23 GMT -6
I coach the 7th grade. We run the Wing-T, as we are a feeder for our Wing-T high school. With about 45-55 kids coming out each year, we can often find a kid that fits well into each Wing-T position. Having said that, we will try to run the Wing-T series and plays that best fit our personnel. This year, we have a kid that appears to be able to throw, so we will try to exploit some of the passing plays that are often absent. The coaches know the Wing-T, its drills, its plays, and its advantages. We can choose the facets of the system that will work best with our players.  |
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Jun 28, 2008 22:46:41 GMT -6
Most offensive schemes are "flexible" and allow themselves to be adapted to the skill set of the kids coming in. Every system I have coached under allowed us to highlight the strengths of the kids while reducing their weaknesses. I am not sure I would ever want to be in a system where you couldn't adapt (year to year) to the skill sets available while staying within a basic scheme/approach.
|
|
|
|
Post by drfootball99 on Jun 29, 2008 0:25:01 GMT -6
Would you put a square peg thru a circle hole? No. Then why would we put power players in a finesse system? Or vice versa?
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jun 29, 2008 5:17:53 GMT -6
Would you put a square peg thru a circle hole? No. Then why would we put power players in a finesse system? Or vice versa? You probably could if you hit the peg hard enough and often enough. |
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jun 29, 2008 5:30:17 GMT -6
At the high school level...without the benefit of recruiting, and since the variance between players is VERY small, I think the best approach is to find a system, find the best way to teach the kids the skills necessary to succeed in that system, and then make your kids execute that system to the best of their ability. However ground--i think it is hard to differentiate between your two situations. You could be a triple team, who finds themselves without a gamebreaking QB one year. I would think you would find ways to get the pitchback and diveback the ball more often than the qb keeping. You could be a flexbone team, with a good thrower and a good split, and you could really work the sprint out game that year.... So, i think the more important point is to avoid changing core skill sets. For example, going airraid gun one year because you have a guy who can "sling it", and then the having to teach the QB to turn his back and deal cards (wing-t) the next is probably the LEAST effective method. Spending a season firing out of the chutes and hitting a sled straight on one year because you are a veer/zone team, and then changing next year to sever angle blocking is probably not a great plan As others have said, the key is to have a system that is extensive enough to allow you to adjust it to your personnel- Brophy's Tool Box principle. You may not use all of your playbook every year-in fact you probably shouldn't- but you'll have all of the tools for whatever you have and whatever problems you need to overcome. I agree whole-heartedly that it's difficult to achieve sustained success if you switch systems from year to year. |
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Jun 29, 2008 8:03:48 GMT -6
Most offensive schemes are "flexible" and allow themselves to be adapted to the skill set of the kids coming in. Every system I have coached under allowed us to highlight the strengths of the kids while reducing their weaknesses. I am not sure I would ever want to be in a system where you couldn't adapt (year to year) to the skill sets available while staying within a basic scheme/approach. We take this same approach. We are a DW team, but from year to year we may look different based on the kids on the roster. This year we are looking at throwing more because we have kids with speed and good hands and we aren't quite as big. We will still be a DW team, but we have enough flexibility to be able to take advantage of what our kids do well. |
|
|
|
Post by touchdownmaker on Jun 29, 2008 8:54:30 GMT -6
So If I have coached the power T for 9 years, winning my conference title 4 years in a row but suddenly we are "blessed" with 4 guys who can fly and jump and catch and a qb who can wing it and zing it...
Do we change to fit those kids? Or what if suddenly we have 5 smurfs? Do we install the run and shoot just for that class of kids? [glow=red,2,300]Do we really think we can coach all of these different systems that well?[/glow]
Also, does that put a damper on my desire to have the lower levels act as carbon copy feeders for my power T program?
|
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Jun 29, 2008 9:06:15 GMT -6
No, you don't change your offensive system. You just use different tools. Certainly the Power T playbook has a section on passing. You just use more of that section of the playbook.
I agree that coaching all the different systems well is not likely. We will still be a true DW team, but our playbook has more than enough passing in it to allow us to take advantage of what we have.
|
|
|
|
Post by drfootball99 on Jun 29, 2008 20:58:43 GMT -6
Phantom - Yes - But then the peg isn't really a peg anymore - It's beaten up with no identity unable to do the job of a square peg or circle peg. I get what you mean but I would argue otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by drfootball99 on Jun 29, 2008 21:03:01 GMT -6
Winning is an illusion..... If you win by 20 with 5 TO and no offensive touchdowns do you consider that a victory? I wouldn't. I'd ripping pissed and work to fix what is broke. If your playing a superior team - Let's say Dallas Cowboys - Would you consider a 10 point loss a true loss? Everything is relative. If you have the most talent you should win the most games. That is unless your in the SEC.
|
|
|
|
Post by optionguy on Jun 30, 2008 13:45:33 GMT -6
During my years as a head coach, we were an option-oriented team that was based on the Fisher Deberry one-back wishbone system (i.e., SE and slot to one side, TE and WB to the other side). However, even though we always established an option-oriented identity, the ratio of option:full-flow runs and their complementary misdirection runs varied yearly according to our personnel. In addition, our pass offense, while based on the play-action, was adapted to fit our talent and abilities; that is, if the personnel dictated it, we would use more show pass schemes (drop-back, sprint-out) than playaction. In addition, we implemented formations yearly that took advantage of our personnel while maintaining our option identity---I, full-bone, broken-bone, shotgun, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by touchdownmaker on Jun 30, 2008 15:28:28 GMT -6
The coaches we most admire are the old legends that "run the same stuff year after year" clearly putting players in the right position to be successful. Some of the coaches around here are approaching 250-300 wins running the wing-t or wishbone for years. What they do well is put the kids in the correct position and then call the right kind of plays to get the most out of those kids. I do not recall any of them doing anything different or shockingly strange with that talent. Maybe a few more trick plays or a few more passes or some option but they run what they run and they run what gives the program an identity.
|
|
|
|
Post by airmale on Jun 30, 2008 17:49:30 GMT -6
We run everything from the gun. But, you can easily adapt this to a spread option or Air Raid attack year to year. You do what the kids can do. I would love to throw every play. It is just my preference. But, we are flexible enough to do what the kids can. We keep our base offense and philosophy, but adjust the focus to give us the best chance for success.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachdawhip on Jul 1, 2008 8:25:21 GMT -6
We are a flexbone system team, but we base our plays for the year off of the kids.
|
|
|
|
Post by airman on Jul 1, 2008 14:15:37 GMT -6
I believe in running the same offense year in and out. I find you do not need to change much is you are a detail coach. I think you are ahead of the game when you platoon as well. I have a qb theory when it comes to platooning. Ideally we would have a sr qb, a jr backup and soph waiting in the wings. However if we have two qb who are equal, the youngest plays and the other person moves to a different position. it is not uncommon for our 2nd string qb to be a starting wr.
|
|
