|
|
Post by Coach JR on Oct 28, 2008 10:36:24 GMT -6
What makes a system a system? We just failed miserably at Auburn with a change to the Tony Franklin System. I wrote in the other Franklin thread what I know about it and what happened.
Anyway, Franklin is married to the Air Raid system. It's what he does. Seems to be that some other OC's do what they can do with multiple formations, and plays that let them take advantage of the personnel they have, and you don't hear of them being associated with any name "offensive system". Have they just develped a playbook over time of "things that work", and are able to adjust to what their players do? Or is every offense a "system"? Are there just things you can't do together in an offensive system? I read where many say that if you run the Air Raid, you have to 100% air raid, where as I hear other coaches say that use some Air Raid plays, but mix it in with other stuff? So what's the deal on this? Can you or can you not be a hard nosed team that can run the ball if you run a spread type offense? Is it impossible to be both?
Im young in my coaching career, and I'm a conservative type guy. I want to always stress fundamentals and discipline over all else. But scheming can be fun, and I'm just curious to know other coaches way of thinking on this. I've heard some say that you have to have certain "types of players" to run certain offenses? I've always been of the mindset that football players play football, and can run anything and be successful if properly coached in the fundamentals.
|
|
|
|
Post by touchdownmaker on Oct 28, 2008 10:41:30 GMT -6
I think a system is a l designed language/terminology/tag system that creates a series of plays that compliment each other in such a way that each play, formation and adjustment is designed to take advantage of a particular defensive adjustment or reaction. (if - then) A "play book" is just that, a collection of plays. A grab bag of sorts.
system= systematic approach to calling an offense rather than calling plays.
|
|
mce86
Junior Member
Posts: 281
|
Post by mce86 on Oct 28, 2008 10:50:41 GMT -6
Our system is very multiple. We run all types of sets, from two tights and two backs, to 5 wide! We try to find way s to take advantage of the defense. Our terminology for play calling remains constant through all our sets.
|
|
|
|
Post by assistantcoachp on Oct 28, 2008 11:06:40 GMT -6
We had a system of playcalling on offense where we would have a series, let's say a counter series for example numbered 10-19. All odd numbers 11-19 and all even numbers 10-18 were actually the same play. Odd's being left and Evens being right. so 11, 13, 15, etc was the same counter to the left. We did this for our different sets beginning from 0 and ending at 240, but really we only had about 10 series.
We went no huddle at the line, and we called a series of 3 or 4 numbers and we established what the live number was before we came out on offense.
Then after a few games we'd rotate the numbers from another series. For example if our smash series was 90-100 that would now be out counter series and 10-19 would be our smash series
Like the other posters said, a system is a terminology or compliment of plays and formations designed to exploit a defense.
It could be possible to turn a playbook which consist of a bunch of plays into a system after some adjustments, but at the surface a playbook is just a playbook.
|
|
|
|
Post by assistantcoachp on Oct 28, 2008 11:14:10 GMT -6
Also thats why you always hear about players struggling in other systems. For example, a dig route is a dig route now matter what system, but the terminology for calling that dig route and what read you to make in order to effectively run the dig maybe different.
In another system your dig maybe based on MOFO / MOFC rules, but in another system you may always run the dig to hold a safety because a post is always coming right behind it, or whatever. I'm just using examples.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on Oct 28, 2008 11:19:55 GMT -6
I guess I didn't ask it quite right. I understand you have to have a system of terminology. What I'm getting at more is do you have to be married to the Power I, Air Raid, West Coast to make it work, or can you choose a la carte things from different offenses that work, and cobble them together for a "multiple system" and really be successful? mce86 hit more on what I'm wondering about.
|
|
|
|
Post by assistantcoachp on Oct 28, 2008 11:38:18 GMT -6
My short answer is....I don't really know.
I will say the way a certain system takes advantage of a defense maybe different, which means your teaching different principles from two different playbooks which wouldn't coincide with what you're asking. One system may take advantage of a defense by pushing vertical while another may extend the field horizontally. I think whatever you run you have to be dedicated to it in order to be effective. I don't think the Air Raid "system" would be successful if they didn't adhere to the coaching principles, the way their drills are structured to the Air Raid along with the terminology.
Remember also that a system can include practice drills and the way your practice blocks are structured for the system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2008 11:44:03 GMT -6
I know as a wing T coach we run more series than system. It might be the same thing to some, but I dont think it is. I have explained to several this year, that you run trap out of the 20's(buck) series and you run it, run it, run it. Even when it doesnt work, you still run it. That way when you run buck sweep the Def think its trap. So is it a playbook, ya, is it a system, ya most definetly, but more than anything it is series football. Belly, belly, belly, belly option. Im not a big fan of just running plays to run plays.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on Oct 28, 2008 11:48:12 GMT -6
dcohio, asstcoachp, ncoc,
Good answers, and what I was looking for.
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Oct 28, 2008 12:20:18 GMT -6
we run a modular system that is adaptable to the talent on hand
it has elements of
1. standard spread
2. flexbone option
3. wing-t misdirection fly sweep stuff
it is all based on 3 basic run blocking schemes for the OL
veer
inside zone
outside zone
we then wrinkle in various things run wise to jazz it up
but those wrinkles all have carryover to those three things
we run power, zone leads, zone counters, all with jet motion and other things added on top
so
the basic system we hang our hat on is veer, zone, sweep
then all the wrinkles is how we adjust it to what we have
if we don't have a back that can kick out real well on power, then we run something else
or find another guy to do the kickout----but in the end--it is blocked like veer
|
|
|
|
Post by assistantcoachp on Oct 28, 2008 12:30:58 GMT -6
dcohio, asstcoachp, ncoc, Good answers, and what I was looking for. I was just thinking about this and I have an analogy that might be valid for your question. Think about if plays from different systems to be languages. if you learn some spanish words, some french words and some japanese words and combined them all into one sentence to make your own language, sure it might work for you b/c you understand how you put it together but you would confuse the hell out of a japanese person. lol. So just to reiterate, yes you could combine plays from other playbooks but the methods, and principles for each play is different, essentially teaching your kids different languages and trying to combine them into one. |
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on Oct 28, 2008 12:44:08 GMT -6
tog,
great stuff, thanks.
asstcoachp,
I'm catching on now I think. You can't just cobble together a bunch of plays, but at the same time, there could be some complimentary things in several systems that you can apply your own terminology and the techniques you coach to.
Ultimately, you have have an "identity", and be able to do a few things well, and build off that without getting too far afield is what I'm seeing in these answers. Correct?
|
|
|
|
Post by indian1 on Oct 28, 2008 20:02:57 GMT -6
Auburn,
4th year hc here. We started out with a playbook (collection of plays). After our first season we got together with a local college and settled on a system. Like the other coaches said a system is a language but its also a set of rules for how you do things. We are a shotgun spread team but we can get into a two back double tight set within our "system" if that makes sense. We teach about 6 blocking schemes in our run game so for example if we run inside zone out of 4 wide shotgun or inside zone out of two back double tight its quite a different play but for our guys up front its all the same. Thats the beauty of a system. A good one actually gives you a logical way to get into everything that you want/ need to. By the way before this season, we figured out that with all of our motions and formations we could run inside zone 84 different ways with nothing changing on the line. When you first mentioned systems vs playbooks you made it sound like you were thinking systems limited flexibility, actually a good system acts as a vehicle to do what you want because the rules and language are already in place.
If none of that makes sense I apologize. The drinks have been good tonight.
|
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 28, 2008 21:06:18 GMT -6
For auburn, I think that the comments regarding Franklin are a bit off. Franklin did not fail. Tuberville failed, because he did not do things necessary for the system to succeed. Six games is hardly sufficient. Two years is what Franklin needed in order to determine whether the system could work. Again, look at what Jones is doing at SMU. Right, wins and losses are immaterial; its about laying the foundation, same thing at Michigan. This is why they both will succeed in the long haul and Auburn will fail.
Personally, I am a system guy. Now, that system is adaptable based upon what you have; that does not mean that it changes radically, but certain things in a given year are emphasized and other deemphasized based on the nature of what you got. Meyer at Florida is arguably the best at this; he is a spread option coach, but what he is doing with Tebow is not what he did with Leak, let alone Alex Smith when he was at Utah. Florida is more of single-wing power team; when he had Smith, they were more of an option team out of the spread environment than a true zone/power running team.
What I like about "systems" is that you always have something to come home to. Look at TTech, for example. A couple weeks ago they ripped up K-State. In the first quarter, however, State was doing some things with the their coverages that were obviously throwing Harrell off. What did Tech do? They went back to the Mesh and ran it along with the basic Shallow exclusively for one drive. The goal was to figure out based on hash and alignment what State was rotating to and how they configured their fire-schemes based on formation and hash. It gave Harrell a security blanket until he knew what was going on. This is essentially inside veer for option guys. Again, its having a signature concept that you can do versus anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by caseyd123 on Oct 28, 2008 22:36:23 GMT -6
tog could you explain what you mean by 'modular'? I've noticed a couple times in threads where you mention you run a modular offense, does that mean that you have a very large system available but then mix and match from your big system once you get your personnel for the given year?
|
|
|
|
Post by ocinaz on Oct 29, 2008 2:15:39 GMT -6
Not going to speak for TOG, I am sure he will answer, but "modular" by definition is, easy to assemble, flexible..I ASSUME that is similar to what he meant, his offense is easy to install, lots of carryover, and the OL, which is at the top of the food chain, has to learn 3 basic blocking concepts...
|
|
|
|
Post by joelee on Oct 29, 2008 7:58:57 GMT -6
A la carte offenses are not as succesful for a variety of reasons. I am a system guy. I am a simplicity guy. Reps on schemes. The more schemes the less reps you get. The more you are a la carte the more grab bag your play calling will be. A system is a systematic way to attack and a framework for language and blocking schemes or route combos etc. Blending styles together is a recipe for not being good at either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on Oct 29, 2008 8:53:02 GMT -6
Auburn, 4th year hc here. We started out with a playbook (collection of plays). After our first season we got together with a local college and settled on a system. Like the other coaches said a system is a language but its also a set of rules for how you do things. We are a shotgun spread team but we can get into a two back double tight set within our "system" if that makes sense. We teach about 6 blocking schemes in our run game so for example if we run inside zone out of 4 wide shotgun or inside zone out of two back double tight its quite a different play but for our guys up front its all the same. Thats the beauty of a system. A good one actually gives you a logical way to get into everything that you want/ need to. By the way before this season, we figured out that with all of our motions and formations we could run inside zone 84 different ways with nothing changing on the line. When you first mentioned systems vs playbooks you made it sound like you were thinking systems limited flexibility, actually a good system acts as a vehicle to do what you want because the rules and language are already in place. If none of that makes sense I apologize. The drinks have been good tonight. Makes perfect sense! And is exactly the type info I was looking for. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on Oct 29, 2008 8:59:26 GMT -6
For auburn, I think that the comments regarding Franklin are a bit off. Franklin did not fail. Tuberville failed, because he did not do things necessary for the system to succeed. Six games is hardly sufficient. Two years is what Franklin needed in order to determine whether the system could work. Again, look at what Jones is doing at SMU. Right, wins and losses are immaterial; its about laying the foundation, same thing at Michigan. This is why they both will succeed in the long haul and Auburn will fail. Preachin' to the choir here. Tubs not only didn't give him enough time, he handcuffed him. Franklin wasn't given free reign over the offense. I'm an Auburn fan, but Tubs screwed up this thing from the beginning, BUT in fairness to Tubs, he layed the ground rules down for Franklin before hiring him, and Franklin, by his own admission, let his ego make the decision rather than his better judgement. Both were at fault. Tubs for messing around in offense when he's not an offensive guy, and Franklin for letting Tubs handcuff him instead of turning the job down. Good stuff, thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on Oct 29, 2008 9:05:51 GMT -6
There seems to be a common thread here with "systems" and that being that first and foremost you need to have blocking schemes that A: your linemen can execute, and B: fits what you're trying to do even though you might sometimes run 2 RB 2 TE, or 5 wide...there has to be some commonality and carry over in the blocking schemes and tactics. Am I reading that right?
|
|
|
|
Post by joelee on Oct 29, 2008 10:28:02 GMT -6
yes
|
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Oct 29, 2008 10:36:15 GMT -6
What makes a system a system? We just failed miserably at Auburn with a change to the Tony Franklin System. I wrote in the other Franklin thread what I know about it and what happened. Anyway, Franklin is married to the Air Raid system. It's what he does. Seems to be that some other OC's do what they can do with multiple formations, and plays that let them take advantage of the personnel they have, and you don't hear of them being associated with any name "offensive system". Have they just develped a playbook over time of "things that work", and are able to adjust to what their players do? Or is every offense a "system"? Are there just things you can't do together in an offensive system? I read where many say that if you run the Air Raid, you have to 100% air raid, where as I hear other coaches say that use some Air Raid plays, but mix it in with other stuff? So what's the deal on this? Can you or can you not be a hard nosed team that can run the ball if you run a spread type offense? Is it impossible to be both? Im young in my coaching career, and I'm a conservative type guy. I want to always stress fundamentals and discipline over all else. But scheming can be fun, and I'm just curious to know other coaches way of thinking on this. I've heard some say that you have to have certain "types of players" to run certain offenses? I've always been of the mindset that football players play football, and can run anything and be successful if properly coached in the fundamentals. There are two massive mistakes that offensive football coaches in HS make, in my opinion: 1. "Wow, we just went to Bob Zero U, and they run the Flamethrower Offense. We're going to install that because they cliniced us on it and we really like it. This is going to be our SYSTEM" Anyone else's system is going to be just that: SOMEONE ELSE'S system. No matter what someone trys to sell you on, that offense was not designed for your kids nor is it something that you and your staff know cold. You should always adapt other people's ideas to fit your methods, philosophy, rules, talent, etc. I am floored by how many coaches get "cliniced-up" by some "guru" on a new offense, and then go and make a wholesale change based on 1 or 2 days worth of talking. I think the best thing to do is adapt different ideas and approaches to your own existing system or philosophy, rather than trying to implement something in its entirety. 2. "Woah, I was on a message board the other day, and a bunch of guys were saying that I can't run zone blocking and gap blocking in the same offense (or triple option and power football, or spread and be tough up front, or I-formation and be unpredictable...etc. etc. etc.)" Never let someone tell you what can and cannot be done. You know your kids and your staff better than anyone else. If you want to be a spread team that also has a nasty run game, you can certainly pull it off if you coach it up properly and emphasize what is important to you!  |
|
