|
Post by realdawg on May 21, 2009 9:08:43 GMT -6
Wofford still does mix a little wing T with their option. Not as much this year. This year they were mainly gun-veer with two back backfield. The year before they got in the gun and ran veer then got under center and ran belly (down), buck, and belly pass.
|
|
|
Post by rpetrie on May 21, 2009 13:55:19 GMT -6
It still goes back to $$$ and what puts people in the stands. You could also make a point to "fan intelligence" in that they are incapable of appreciating the Wing-T. Spread Air Raid & Option have detailed coaching points, but the excecution and explosion is based much more on athleticism. This part of football can be observed, understood & appreciated by the average spectator. The Wing-T doesn't do it with flashy open field moves or "speed in space" concepts and fans can't dissect what is working or not. A 4 yard gain to them is not productive enough. They don't understand "run progressions" and how plays compliment each other. I guess fans would rather see 40+ attempts, with 5 INT's, 50% completions and lose the game than a grind-it out 14-10 win, with 300 yards rushing on 50 carries.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on May 21, 2009 14:03:46 GMT -6
It still goes back to $$$ and what puts people in the stands. You could also make a point to "fan intelligence" in that they are incapable of appreciating the Wing-T. Spread Air Raid & Option have detailed coaching points, but the excecution and explosion is based much more on athleticism. This part of football can be observed, understood & appreciated by the average spectator. The Wing-T doesn't do it with flashy open field moves or "speed in space" concepts and fans can't dissect what is working or not. A 4 yard gain to them is not productive enough. They don't understand "run progressions" and how plays compliment each other. I guess fans would rather see 40+ attempts, with 5 INT's, 50% completions and lose the game than a grind-it out 14-10 win, with 300 yards rushing on 50 carries. I disagree in part. If you're grinding out 14-10 victories the fans will love you. Yout just have a much shorter leash when things go south.
|
|
|
Post by charger109 on May 21, 2009 14:08:33 GMT -6
Wins put fans in the stands no matter how it is done.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on May 21, 2009 15:37:42 GMT -6
Wins put fans in the stands no matter how it is done. Not when they have other choices in either football, other spectator sports, or other entertainment. In 2000, the NY Sharks promoted themselves on WABC. They were winning games, but the m.c. of the sports program said, "They shouldn't use that formation." I phoned in to ask him to describe it. It was a dual-snap double wing that coach Al Rose (former Jets running back O'Neil was a figurehead "head coach" for p.r. purposes) used as an alternative offense, subbing in a squad to do so. Their main offensive squad used (heh) wing T along with a little pro & shotgun. When I saw some games their dual-snap DW did neither spectacularly nor badly compared to their regular O, but apparently the "expert" on the air thought it was beneath them. Al Rose said in a written interview that he also liked single wing and the [Owen] A formation. So who did they get to go to games with their out-of-fashion offense as a change of pace? Me and whoever I dragged with me. It wasn't a selling point, obviously. Even I lost sight of the ball sometimes, but those used to "TV football" must've been really perplexed.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on May 21, 2009 15:40:02 GMT -6
Wins put fans in the stands no matter how it is done. But it doesn't necessarily save jobs. If it's an established program then when if they go 9-3 boosters will wonder how good they'll be if they weren't running that "boring" offense (see Solich, Frank). If a perennial loser starts winning the fans will be thrilled until they have a bad year. That's how it works at most schools, too. Most programs don't have the luxury of "reloading every year. They have up years followed by some down years. In the down years the boosters will blame the offense and the coach will be fired.
|
|
|
Post by coachinghopeful on May 21, 2009 20:51:04 GMT -6
Wins put fans in the stands no matter how it is done. But it doesn't necessarily save jobs. If it's an established program then when if they go 9-3 boosters will wonder how good they'll be if they weren't running that "boring" offense (see Solich, Frank). If a perennial loser starts winning the fans will be thrilled until they have a bad year. That's how it works at most schools, too. Most programs don't have the luxury of "reloading every year. They have up years followed by some down years. In the down years the boosters will blame the offense and the coach will be fired. Don't forget Tommy Tuberville at Auburn, Houston Nutt at Arkansas, Lou Holtz at Notre Dame, Hal Mumme at Kentucky, etc. You can't be too old fashioned, nor can you be too unconventional, unless you're winning championships and packing the house doing it. You still see fans and boosters crapping themselves over the prospect of their favorite school hiring a "spread" OR "non-spread" coach, even though they have no clue what any of that means. A few years ago I sat in the stands at a game behind a HS principal, who was ripping his own coach a new one to anyone who would listen. His team was playing a fairly evenly matched team in a game with playoff implications, and one of their CBs kept getting beat deep on fades. The principal kept blabbering on about how they needed to have 2 safeties back there to stop the pass and they were only getting shredded because they didn't have enough people deep and his coach was obviously stupid blah blah blah. The coach in question was running Cover 3. The CB just kept falling down and getting caught out of position. Maybe you can blame the coach for not properly getting his CB up to speed, but those passes should have never been completed against that coverage. This coach was fired when his team missed the playoffs that year, which was their best season in over a decade.
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on May 22, 2009 9:08:22 GMT -6
It still goes back to $$$ and what puts people in the stands. You could also make a point to "fan intelligence" in that they are incapable of appreciating the Wing-T. Bingo, I have been in the stands and watched a wing-t team play. The fans will say things like "they have ran the same play the last five times". When in reality the last five plays were Trap, belly, double dive, power, down, and fullback dive.
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on May 22, 2009 11:56:06 GMT -6
It still goes back to $$$ and what puts people in the stands. You could also make a point to "fan intelligence" in that they are incapable of appreciating the Wing-T. Bingo, I have been in the stands and watched a wing-t team play. The fans will say things like "they have ran the same play the last five times". When in reality the last five plays were Trap, belly, double dive, power, down, and fullback dive. True true. Last year when I came in we changed from a spread team to an option team and some of the parents told me they could not find the ball carrier. "Good" was my reply. BUT a lot of the parents said they thought it was neat and interesting how well we faked and it forced them to pay greater attention during the game.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on May 22, 2009 12:26:55 GMT -6
It still goes back to $$$ and what puts people in the stands. You could also make a point to "fan intelligence" in that they are incapable of appreciating the Wing-T. Bingo, I have been in the stands and watched a wing-t team play. The fans will say things like "they have ran the same play the last five times". When in reality the last five plays were Trap, belly, double dive, power, down, and fullback dive. 6 plays, meaning the fans actually missed a play completely!
|
|
coachgeorge51
Sophomore Member
Cliches and mottos is mindless verbal nonsense.
Posts: 151
|
Post by coachgeorge51 on May 22, 2009 12:43:59 GMT -6
Bellevue in Washington is a "Belly" and "double dive read" offense, as was Augustana and Joliet Catholic. I was talking true Delaware Wing-T Buck Series. You can't line up in tight wing and run sweep, trap, quick pitch, and counter with play-action in major college football. Are you kidding me? Sure, even pro teams will line up in an off-set and run a power scheme or Belly Iso (Packers and 49ers for years), but it doesn't make them a wing-t team. Pros and colleges went to single back zone schemes because taking a great back and giving him one track to run through in a prescribed hole is ridiculous. O.K. - Let's take Barry Sanders or Ladamlian Tomlinson and give them the ball on the Buck Sweep off the hip of the TE's down block as the base TB running play..............come on? ?? You guys have got to be kidding. Off setting your Tailback makes for a 1/2 line offense with your best running back.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on May 22, 2009 15:15:10 GMT -6
Bellevue in Washington is a "Belly" and "double dive read" offense, as was Augustana and Joliet Catholic. I was talking true Delaware Wing-T Buck Series. You can't line up in tight wing and run sweep, trap, quick pitch, and counter with play-action in major college football. Are you kidding me? Sure, even pro teams will line up in an off-set and run a power scheme or Belly Iso (Packers and 49ers for years), but it doesn't make them a wing-t team. Pros and colleges went to single back zone schemes because taking a great back and giving him one track to run through in a prescribed hole is ridiculous. O.K. - Let's take Barry Sanders or Ladamlian Tomlinson and give them the ball on the Buck Sweep off the hip of the TE's down block as the base TB running play..............come on? ?? You guys have got to be kidding. Off setting your Tailback makes for a 1/2 line offense with your best running back. Let's get back to the topic- which colleges run Wing T. If you want to debate the usefulness of that or any other offense start another thread, please.
|
|
|
Post by CVBears on May 22, 2009 15:25:50 GMT -6
I think that it is knowledge and money. Knowledge of the game by the fans and knowledge of the coaches on the system. I'm sure a minority of coaches at the big time college level or NFL could implement wing-t, but, I don't believe, many could with a high degree of confidence. It's a coaching fraternity and we learn from each other. Very few coaches start in HS and work to big time college. Where are these coaches going to learn the wing-t? A lot of times new coaches graduate then get their foot in the door with a GA spot. Is joe blow GA going to the OC or HC with the idea of running wing-t?
GA: Let's install the wing-t. No one has defended it in decades. We'll roll through conference. OC: I like your thinking. Who has knowledge that we could tap? GA: I remember a lot of it from HS
I do think that a team running wing-t at those levels could do well. I just can't connect the dots of the knowledge factor. Most coaches run what they know. Running what you know is usually what you've been doing for the most recent 10 years.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on May 22, 2009 16:20:20 GMT -6
Is joe blow GA going to the OC or HC with the idea of running wing-t? GA: Let's install the wing-t. No one has defended it in decades. We'll roll through conference. OC: I like your thinking. Who has knowledge that we could tap? GA: I remember a lot of it from HS That's like me here with the sidesaddle version, except the answers are: "I practiced one series in skelly with Pee Wees before I got canned as HC" and ""it used to be run at the college level" and "maybe I can get Ron Jaworski to finally answer my inquiries". So I'm reduced to re-inventing it from scratch with anyone who wants to experiment with me. But compared to sidesaddle, the standard wing T was much more popular, so it must have a bigger knowledge base. And yet, new systems do percolate upward & downward thru football, so you'd think it'd be that much easier with something already proven like wing T. Not saying it'd sweep football as the new sensation, nor even that it should, but you'd think wing T would be more represented at college level than it is now. A decade ago the NY Jets, to some extent the Dolphins, and some other NFL teams were using a good deal of wing I, or variant sets with a deep back, an "H" back, and a wingback, and using if not the classic wing T stuff yet a fun-looking package of play action passes, scissors to the wing or H back, etc. from it with false pulls, QB reversing out, and so on, but shortly into the new century that stuff was phased out.
|
|
|
Post by coachguy83 on May 22, 2009 17:04:45 GMT -6
The single wing offense has come back into vogue at both the major college and NFL level even if it is a trick package. It will only be a matter of time before some starts playing around with the wing t again.
|
|
|
Post by coachinghopeful on May 23, 2009 11:39:44 GMT -6
The single wing offense has come back into vogue at both the major college and NFL level even if it is a trick package. It will only be a matter of time before some starts playing around with the wing t again. I don't know of anyone who runs an old school single wing, even as a trick package. One of the hallmarks of the SW was the C looking back between his legs like a long snapper, prepared to make a direct snap to any one of four backs on any play, with the others faking like they had the ball, blocking defenders from unexpected angles, or possibly handing off on a misdirection play. Those single wing teams weren't so strict about who they'd let throw the ball, either. Lots of WB and HB passes in those old playbooks, from what I've seen. When I see pro and college teams line up in their single wing packages, it's always a RB (or Tim Tebow) lined up in the gun taking the snap. They use SW type formations, but the actual plays that they run out of their "Wildcat" packages are much more like the Delaware Wing-T. If they do throw at all out of these, it's always their "QB" doing it.
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on May 23, 2009 11:53:57 GMT -6
A few years ago McKendree College in Illinois ran wing-t...not sure if they do anymore. It is still their base offense, but they are mixing in more and more spread every year. Still don't believe Coach Poelker will ever let it go fully, but he's loosening his grip...
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on May 23, 2009 13:20:19 GMT -6
The single wing offense has come back into vogue at both the major college and NFL level even if it is a trick package. It will only be a matter of time before some starts playing around with the wing t again. I don't know of anyone who runs an old school single wing, even as a trick package. One of the hallmarks of the SW was the C looking back between his legs like a long snapper, prepared to make a direct snap to any one of four backs on any play, with the others faking like they had the ball, blocking defenders from unexpected angles, or possibly handing off on a misdirection play. Those single wing teams weren't so strict about who they'd let throw the ball, either. Lots of WB and HB passes in those old playbooks, from what I've seen. When I see pro and college teams line up in their single wing packages, it's always a RB (or Tim Tebow) lined up in the gun taking the snap. And the back taking the snap catches it flat footed instead of moving to it. In the 1990s the NY Jets had some plays out of a standard looking unbalanced single wing formation; however, the TB took the snap flat footed directly behind the snapper, and their only plays that looked single wing style were the sweep and the quick kick. However, while today's wildcat packages do resemble wing T, some of them also resemble single wing half spin series.
|
|
|
Post by coachharring10 on May 25, 2009 19:32:01 GMT -6
Bellevue in Washington is a "Belly" and "double dive read" offense, as was Augustana and Joliet Catholic. I was talking true Delaware Wing-T Buck Series. You can't line up in tight wing and run sweep, trap, quick pitch, and counter with play-action in major college football. Are you kidding me? Sure, even pro teams will line up in an off-set and run a power scheme or Belly Iso (Packers and 49ers for years), but it doesn't make them a wing-t team. Pros and colleges went to single back zone schemes because taking a great back and giving him one track to run through in a prescribed hole is ridiculous. O.K. - Let's take Barry Sanders or Ladamlian Tomlinson and give them the ball on the Buck Sweep off the hip of the TE's down block as the base TB running play..............come on? ?? You guys have got to be kidding. Off setting your Tailback makes for a 1/2 line offense with your best running back. Bellevue runs the buck series just as often as the belly series. We play them every year, and for the 5 years I have been coaching against them, and for 4 years I was a player for those coaches (at a different school, still running the wing-t), never to my knowledge have they run a "read" dive/belly. Now I'm no expert on what is considered "Delaware wing-t" over any other kind, but they run every one of those plays you listed up there (Trap, Sweep, Toss, Counter, Play Action) as well as belly, belly sweep, sally, and play actions. So from what I know about the subject there as close to a "Delaware Wing-T team" as I have seen. But back to the point of the thread. I think the reason the wing-t is not as prevalent, and the point coachgeorge51 was alluding to, is that most teams want a "feature" running back. Most big time players out of high school want to be that feature running back also. Having an offense that has 3 running backs with more or less equal share, with less of a passing threat, doesn't attract the big time players. Running backs want to carry the ball 30 times a game, Quarterbacks want to throw the ball, and receivers want to catch it. Not to mention big offensive tackles want to beat the man in front of them 1 on 1, not attack them with a double team or pull across the formation to kick them out. Do I think exceptional athletes could work in a wing-T offense? Absolutely, Reggie Bush and Alex Smith were both on the same High School team which ran the wing-t. But the reasons that the wing is successful in lower levels, is the same reason that its not used in higher levels. Spreading the wealth with misdirection and angle blocking, does not allow big time players to shine. I think when it comes down to it, big time players go to big time schools to help their chances of going pro, and big time college coaches use the offense they run as a way to attract them. As we we all know "It's not as much about the X's and O's, as it is about the Jimmies and the Joe's". So over time, the offenses that spread the wealth, have fallen way-side to teams that can get the blue chips, because the blue chips choose teams that can showcase their talent. On a (somewhat) side note, Bellevue, a 3A school running the "Delaware" Wing-T, is playing against Katy, Texas a 5A school who runs a "pro style" offense, in Katy, Texas at the beginning of this season. Will that answer some critics? Doubtful, but it should be a good game, none the less.
|
|
|
Post by mariner42 on May 25, 2009 20:21:12 GMT -6
I just recently got around to watching that Bellevue vs DLS game and that offense they've got going was downright brutal. The shifts, the motion, the EXECUTION, dear Lord I could watch their film for days. Also, the phrases "Wildcat formation" and "Spread formation/offense" may send me into epileptic seizures any day now. When I hear parents say "I dunno why we don't use the spread offense" or "We should put in the Wildcat formation" or similar phrases, makes me want to pull this out: Anyways, staying on topic, the leash of any major-college Wing-T coach would be so short that they would essentially be unable to move without strangling themselves. Unless they managed to find a neat way to label it, like Bunched Receivers In Various Backfield Positions Spread Run Attack With Optional Pie Included. Or Wildcat Formation Without The Same Motion And With A Real Quarterback And More Than Five Plays. Or the Wonderfully Interesting New Groundbreaking- Technique Offense, which happens to be from the awesome state of Delaware!
|
|
|
Post by coachks on May 25, 2009 22:07:48 GMT -6
Coachharrig, I believe what your saying is true...but it's just so....uh..dumb.
Northwestern isn't drawing enough blue chips to justify using that excuse. Akron, Utah State, Rice....they just don't have any talent to take a huge hit talent wise by not attracting the blue chips.
In fact, they should be able to convince a back that's a "step slow" that being a Wing-T fullback will make him look better to a pro scout.
We won't see it, because nobody is putting their neck on the line. It's too bad too, because it would really improve the quality of some of these small conference. The entire MAC conference is running the spread. Each team is trying to lure in the same exact kids, and somehow the goal is to get their "athletes in space". What athletes? There's 12 schools going after the same kids (Which are already being thinned with more Big 10 teams going to the spread)....somebodies gotta lose out on the athletes anyway.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on May 25, 2009 23:10:06 GMT -6
The entire MAC conference is running the spread. Wow, and the MAC used to have so many innovative and contrarian programs in football. Oh, I get it...it's like those kiddie leagues. They must've put in a rule saying they all had to run the same offense & defense. You know, to make it easier for the coaches, and so the players can attend whichever school's practice sessions are most convenient for them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2009 6:04:24 GMT -6
Similar to a nightmare of mine where I finally become some kind of Wing-T "expert" and then we get a new HC that wants to run spread... been there done that last year. back to back playoff appreances, new coach comes in and HATES the wing T even though we are set up to be super successfull running it. we run I. 1-9, fired. end of that story! nightmare became a reality and now were back to the dream it was before.
|
|
bgj
Sophomore Member
Posts: 154
|
Post by bgj on May 26, 2009 19:30:23 GMT -6
Here is the real reason you don't see the wing T on higher levels. The coaches are not good enough to run it, they don't know it and can't coach it. It is too easy to just throw the ball to an athlete and let him make a play. ;D Now there is nothing wrong with that. I'm just saying.
But seriously, I stopped talking to "bigger" colleges about defense, because when I asked them a question they had one of two responses. 1. We don't see that. 2. Get a better player.
Its the same with offense, they just don't know.
|
|
|
Post by rpetrie on May 26, 2009 21:17:10 GMT -6
The spread is this generations version of the Wing-T, particularly at the collegiate level. Lack superior talent and size use wing-t to equalize the playing field and try to control the game. SELL and BELIEVE in that team concept and you can achieve more. Now-a-days, lack talent...try to spread the field & isolate your best athlete(s) in space and see what happens. (oh yea...run the odd stack defense and BLITZ every darn play). I know it's more detailed than that, but that's why many go to it. RIDE THAT HORSE as long as she'll carry you, not realizing until too late that it doesn't produce consistent results UNLESS you know how to coach it and have SEVERAL athletes to distribute the ball with/to....and I'm referring to those athletes including OL positions. I just think that coaches at the college level REALLY believe that they can do more with less by spreading the field, and letting scheme solve their dilemmas. No patience or true knowledge base about the diversity of the Wing-T to run it effectively.
If you've never seen an old Delaware practice "on the field" you've missed a beautiful circus. I've been to a few different spring practices of different schools, but I've never seen anything like what Kempski, Perry, Raymond, etc used to put on. I doubt that with current restrictions on practice/contact time that coaches can be as detail oriented to get the necessary results....Spread is simply easier not necessarily better or more effective.
|
|
jwh
Freshmen Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by jwh on May 27, 2009 19:18:55 GMT -6
Endicott is no longer Wing-t. Played them this year. Alot of 2 back stuff. jwh
|
|
|
Post by wiaa3 on May 27, 2009 19:37:58 GMT -6
Great post rpetrie!
I couldn't agree with you more.
|
|