|
Post by windigo on May 4, 2009 14:42:55 GMT -6
I would like to comment but I have to go get my tongue bitten off by a hooker in a Miami hotel room.
|
|
|
Post by coachinghopeful on May 4, 2009 15:33:40 GMT -6
I have to disagree with his basic premise, which is that football on the high school level will continue to use ever-expanding spread formations. If anything, I believe the pendulum is swinging back towards double-tight end, multiple-running back sets. I think defenses have largely caught up with defending 4-and 5-receiver formations and the advantage that you had offensively 5-6 years ago has been largely eliminated. That is not to say that the spread is "dead" at the high school level but the days of simply sending your kids out in a 4 or 5 receiver formation and having the defense crap their pants have been over for a while. I believe that to be an effective spread team, there are lots of things you have to be good at and a long list of "answers" you will need for the "questions" the defense is going to pose to you. Furthermore, without the deceptive benefit of putting all players in an eligible jersey number, I think that BYU-type formations will be an interesting change-of-pace, but will largely remain a novelty. The problem I have is that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to take a big, fast, kid with good hands and put him in a position where he is wearing 50-79 and has to line up on the LOS and can't go downfield to catch the ball. In my opinion, that is a wasted asset. What do you mean, a wasted asset? You mean, you'd waste an eligible number on him and put him at a position tight to the formation where you never throw him the ball because God knows that anyone who doesn't run 4.4 can't do anything with it??? Don't you know that FBs and TEs are wastes of jerseys? Park him at LT so he can at least block on bubble screens I agree that I see the pendulum swinging back to more "traditional" formations over the next few years. It's {censored} hard for any defense to stop a tough smashmouth team even when they're not clicking on all cylinders. Just like you can't coach speed (in a game, at least) you can't coach size or strength. Personally, I see the rise of pattern reading Cov 4, the lost art of inside play faking, combined with the DW's use of the QB as a passer, runner, and blocker swinging things back in the direction of under C offenses in a few years. I think "the Wildcat" packages that everybody's falling all over themselves to install as compliments to their spread passing attacks are going to lead people in this direction. It's only a matter of time before someone realizes you can get better deception from under C and unleashes a big time play action and inside running game on a league of 3-3 stacks and pattern reading Cov 4s and just mauls everyone. The I and Wishbone will rise again, as will the TE and FBs (though they may be called "H-back," "Blocking Back," "Big Slot Receiver," or "Extra Lineman" etc. to make the coach sound "innovative").
|
|
|
Post by coachinghopeful on May 4, 2009 16:03:46 GMT -6
Football has always been a numbers game. For this offense to work, I would suggest: X-----T-----------------G-C-G--------------T--------Y --------------A-----------------------B ---------------------------Q--R Getting this to work out number's wise. If T is the inside guy, we lose the ability to run bubble screen well, and he is truly a wasted player. However, in this set, he blocks force on bubble and kicks out corner on Fast screen. Plus, this becomes an interesting matter of what to do with your #2 defender. If you cover up A/B and leave T alone, you still have a 3-on-2 advantage for the offense. If you have him split the difference, now A/B has a clean inside release. Then's there is the matter of it still being 3 on 2. If you can apply the uncovered rules and make them go 3 to each side that would leave you with 4 in the box, unless they DO NOT want safety support----the defense always has the ability to out number the box, but they give up safety support to get it. The "negative bubbles" by ineligible are most trash plays, but they do interest me. Would they be good enough for flare control? Enough to pull the flat defender's attention? If so, you could get some legitimate triangle stretches out of this deal......on both sides. Potential........but it needs a smarter coach than myself or Bryan to make it work. I can see a lot of BYU type formations that work simply because it would take defenses a while to figure out how to line up to them. The trade off is that the funky alignments also limit the offense to only being able to run a very few plays well. An attempt to build an entire offense with a complete "toolbox" around this sort of thing could be painfully complex and probably full of all sorts of tendencies/"tells" presnap. It would be great for short passing and attacking different areas of the field horizontally in hopes of breaking a long run (as you said, the defense must give up safety support just to match up numbers-wise), but how you'd work downfield with it when the situation requires, I don't know. Now, I can also see lining up A and B tight to the Gs as blockers/receivers, effectively using them as TEs to go deep inside. It would basically be taking that annoying "RB deep down the middle" play that only works in 7 on 7 and making it workable in a real game situation. Basically, this sort of thing is little more than a good platform for screens, IMO. If you do that, you've got to invent some special blocking rules to work out how to handle whatever looks a defense would use against you, and that would take time. Then again, a lot of great offenses have been built around a single play or play concept, so maybe this is the future of football...
|
|
|
Post by outlawjoseywales on May 4, 2009 18:35:01 GMT -6
Windigo, that's just not right, man. So this is how Vince came up with the "Slap-Chop." OJW
|
|
|
Post by coachweav88 on May 4, 2009 19:26:32 GMT -6
I would like to comment but I have to go get my tongue bitten off by a hooker in a Miami hotel room. Or your nose
|
|
coachbigelow
Junior Member
Coach at Southern Virginia University
Posts: 261
|
Post by coachbigelow on May 5, 2009 0:16:44 GMT -6
Hmm anyone find it interesting you can't leave comments on the articles? Or is it just my browser that isn't letting me comment?
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on May 5, 2009 0:41:08 GMT -6
It's only a matter of time before someone realizes you can get better deception from under C and unleashes a big time play action and inside running game on a league of 3-3 stacks and pattern reading Cov 4s and just mauls everyone. The I and Wishbone will rise again, as will the TE and FBs (though they may be called "H-back," "Blocking Back," "Big Slot Receiver," or "Extra Lineman" etc. to make the coach sound "innovative"). Very nice post here. I like it.
|
|
coachriley
Junior Member
"Tough times don't last; Tough people do."
Posts: 406
|
Post by coachriley on May 12, 2009 11:43:11 GMT -6
No offense, but my favorite "game breaker" is the one who is a consitent blocker who can pancake kids and finish blocks. I was just listening to Jason Smith in an interview (the tackle from Baylor drafter by the Rams), he says, " I play with a chip on my shoulder". Yes! That is my kind of game changer. I think coachorr has it correct here. The real game breakers are in fact the offensive linemen. I can't believe how incredibly intelligent this comment is. Good job coach orr. Wow that was so hilarious, LMAO. Really, laughin that much made my day.
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on May 12, 2009 11:57:22 GMT -6
I roll deep in this mother.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on May 12, 2009 17:14:18 GMT -6
I am not a blogger but do you usually quote yourself on your blog in a story about yourself? [/quote] He writes these as press releases intending for others to pick them up. He just reposted it on his blog. He spams the boxes of journalists and others hoping that they will copy this stuff verbatim and treat it as news. It's the same way the tabloid magazines and things work. The publicists send our press releases quoting themselves and their celebrities and the outlets pick it up as independent news.
|
|
|
Post by coryell15 on May 12, 2009 21:15:03 GMT -6
Francis Schmidt was doing similar things in his tenure at OSU....
there is little new under the sun*
*other than gimmicking a willful misuse of the punt exception evidently.
|
|