|
Post by dubber on Dec 21, 2009 0:14:18 GMT -6
I can tell you without hesitation, O-linemen in power style offenses walk taller and demonstrate more pride in their efforts than guys forced to pass set most of the game..... I will have to whole-heartedly disagree with you.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Dec 21, 2009 0:17:16 GMT -6
That the majority of schools across the nation, are running spread... and they are {censored} poor with it... everyone likes to point to the studs when arguing, but the truth of the matter, is that there are 10 times as many poor spread teams than successful. I'm not sayin'... I'm just sayin! Really? A majority of schools are running the spread? Sure doesn't feel that way in the mid-west.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Dec 21, 2009 0:30:55 GMT -6
What the heck does "soft" mean anyway?
Lack of toughness?
Or are we ultimately talking about lack of getting into run fits, due to less ancillary scout team reps?
And at that point, whose fault is that (kids or us)?
This is the ultimate perception versus reality. There may be a coorelation (though no one has but forth any quantifiable data to that end), but to jump straight to a causal position seems premature (and wrong).
That nasty, kill-your-dog-in-front-of-you attitude is not something we can teach.........it's either physiological, or the result of some ungodly upbringing you wouldn't want to re-create.
Our perception of physicality comes from players' confidence in fundamentals and techniques, in having the muscle memory and flash recognition down to beat their blocker to the point.
That seems much more reasonable to me than insisting a formation or style of attack is less conducive to toughness than another.
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Dec 21, 2009 1:02:07 GMT -6
What the heck does "soft" mean anyway? Deg... I have to define everything also? Soft: inability to defend the double tight! How's that for a definition? Cmon Dub... that's a straw man... toughness... why throw out some nebulous term, subjective, and lacking substance? Or are we ultimately talking about lack of getting into run fits, due to less ancillary scout team reps? That's exactly what we are talking about. And with all things being equal... two identical practice plans... one in which we both work our EDD's, our Indy's, our offensive and defensive team, the team that scouts against 8+ plus in the box, has a definitive advantage against the team that scouts against 5 or 6 in the box. Especially when that same team is then confronted with having to defend a team that specializes in the smashmouth. And at that point, whose fault is that (kids or us)? What's with this need to point fingers, place blame? It is what it is... the kid that practices playing the piano vs the kid that practices playing the harmonica, plain and simple, has a better chance of performing the classics. That's all I'm sayin. This is the ultimate perception versus reality. There may be a coorelation (though no one has but forth any quantifiable data to that end), but to jump straight to a causal position seems premature (and wrong). Its all we have. Until we get an research firm to start dissecting the numbers, analyzing the data... we'll have these hypothetical discussions... but for you to think, by simply pointing out the discussion is hypothetical, disproves the obvious... well that's the fallacy. Persuade, convince, manipulate... I don't care... but please... please, please... don't resort to the... well, we don't have the facts, so we'll never know argument... That's a given, why even have the debate?
|
|
kodiak
Sophomore Member
Posts: 120
|
Post by kodiak on Dec 21, 2009 3:55:38 GMT -6
I don't think spread teams are soft. The zone play is a physical, downhill, blocking scheme and a staple of that offense. We are a spread team and for last 6 years been in the top 3 defensively every year.
There is a team, Kahuku, that runs a power I and just BOBs everything and they play tough defense as well.
I would argue though, that the offense does need to hang onto the ball for your defense to be successful. How the offense does it, doesn't really matter to me. It's still the utlimate team game.
|
|
|
Post by redandwhite on Dec 21, 2009 6:35:39 GMT -6
Khalfie said "That the majority of schools across the nation, are running spread... and they are {censored} poor with it... everyone likes to point to the studs when arguing, but the truth of the matter, is that there are 10 times as many poor spread teams than successful."
Just because someone throws out some "facts" doesn't make it so! "Majority" run spread? "10 times" as many poor than successful? I'd love to see your data.
Now that's unquantifiable.
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Dec 21, 2009 9:09:49 GMT -6
Khalfie said "That the majority of schools across the nation, are running spread... and they are {censored} poor with it... everyone likes to point to the studs when arguing, but the truth of the matter, is that there are 10 times as many poor spread teams than successful." Just because someone throws out some "facts" doesn't make it so! "Majority" run spread? "10 times" as many poor than successful? I'd love to see your data. Now that's unquantifiable. You got me Red... I may be guilty of hyperbole... However... I'm just going off, what my fellow coaches have stated... I'm a big fan of the board, and every other day I'm reading someone stating the following... I have seen that "The System" has become red hot around Middle and Eastern Tennessee.The same thing happened in Alabama over a decade ago when Hoover and TF were starting their run. I have no doubt that 60-70 percent of high schools in the state of Alabama are running some sort of Air Raid. At the least they are running some of the passing game. So maybe I'm wrong... but i'm only wrong because our peers, our brotherhood, has been lying. Are you calling all of the coaches of Coachhuey liars, Red? I'm just asking?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 21, 2009 9:38:46 GMT -6
Aren't we only discussing teams then that go 1's vs 1's in scout? If teams don't exchange scouts (two platoon) then this ancillary practice is not as strong an argument.
Of course, on the flip side, if you are a 4 wide team two platoon team, couldn't it be argued that the opportunity to be MORE physical on defense exists because now all the FB/TE kids are defensive players.
That said, there MAY be a visible relationship between the two due to coaching. If a coach chose to run a 4 wide offense because he felt the team was not a physical group of boys....Probably will find yourself a self fulfilling prophecy.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Dec 21, 2009 10:28:41 GMT -6
What the heck does "soft" mean anyway? Deg... I have to define everything also? Soft: inability to defend the double tight! How's that for a definition? Cmon Dub... that's a straw man... toughness... why throw out some nebulous term, subjective, and lacking substance? That's exactly what we are talking about. And with all things being equal... two identical practice plans... one in which we both work our EDD's, our Indy's, our offensive and defensive team, the team that scouts against 8+ plus in the box, has a definitive advantage against the team that scouts against 5 or 6 in the box. Especially when that same team is then confronted with having to defend a team that specializes in the smashmouth. What's with this need to point fingers, place blame? It is what it is... the kid that practices playing the piano vs the kid that practices playing the harmonica, plain and simple, has a better chance of performing the classics. That's all I'm sayin. This is the ultimate perception versus reality. There may be a correlation (though no one has but forth any quantifiable data to that end), but to jump straight to a causal position seems premature (and wrong). Its all we have. Until we get an research firm to start dissecting the numbers, analyzing the data... we'll have these hypothetical discussions... but for you to think, by simply pointing out the discussion is hypothetical, disproves the obvious... well that's the fallacy. Persuade, convince, manipulate... I don't care... but please... please, please... don't resort to the... well, we don't have the facts, so we'll never know argument... That's a given, why even have the debate? Now I remember why I never quote something you say, I have an utter inability to wade through your condescending posts. Bottom line, there are too many other reasonable explanations that make this a corollary, not a causal, relationship (again, IF such a relationship exists). I think if such a relationship exists, it is due to an inability/unwillingness on the coaching staff to get better themselves at re-creating these scenarios in INDY, Group, and Team. Relying on that "rite of passage" scout team to "teach" does work, but in it's absence, to blame the offense is reactionary. You know, smaller and/or faster teams like the spread, and those teams can struggle (based on personnel) versus double tight. Which again, would not be the offense's fault. The proliferation of BAD spread teams (yes, it is the soup de jour) is another possibility. If you're a sucky DW team, you punt alot. If you're a sucky spread team, you turn the ball over alot. Which = short field = opponents scoring alot = perception the spread has made your team soft. You know, I think the same "logic" would work in reverse. You are a double tight I team, and when you play a spread team, you look slow. Is it because the your offense has made your kids slower on defense? They spent so much time playing downhill on scout team that now they look ridiculous in space? Perception v. reality. More than likely, the coaching staff hasn't prepped them well (or schemed them well), or the same personnel that lends itself to a 22 look is the same personnel that can't handle 4 wide. Or, because I believe there are as many grab-bagging, BAD smashmouth teams, it could just be suckiness abounds. Those explanations seems much more likely to me.
|
|
|
Post by robinhood on Dec 21, 2009 10:53:58 GMT -6
Our OLs are mean, rotten, and nasty when we run block AND mean, rotten, and nasty when we pass block. One is NOT less physical than the other UNLESS THEY ARE COACHED THAT WAY. We run the Spread, and we pass more than we run most of the time because we get more WRs than TEs, more TBs than FBs. That doesn't mean we can't rush for over 300 yards in a game because we have.
The passing game is NOT less physical that the running game; ask the WRs who go over the middle to catch a pass; ask the backs who pick up blitzing LBs. Your team is what its coached to be depending on the talent and mentality of the kids being coached.
This has turned into a turf war. Each defending what he believes to be the RIGHT way to play the game; you know, the way it was meant to be played.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Dec 21, 2009 11:56:55 GMT -6
Deg... I have to define everything also? Soft: inability to defend the double tight! How's that for a definition? Cmon Dub... that's a straw man... toughness... why throw out some nebulous term, subjective, and lacking substance? That's exactly what we are talking about. And with all things being equal... two identical practice plans... one in which we both work our EDD's, our Indy's, our offensive and defensive team, the team that scouts against 8+ plus in the box, has a definitive advantage against the team that scouts against 5 or 6 in the box. Especially when that same team is then confronted with having to defend a team that specializes in the smashmouth. What's with this need to point fingers, place blame? It is what it is... the kid that practices playing the piano vs the kid that practices playing the harmonica, plain and simple, has a better chance of performing the classics. That's all I'm sayin. Its all we have. Until we get an research firm to start dissecting the numbers, analyzing the data... we'll have these hypothetical discussions... but for you to think, by simply pointing out the discussion is hypothetical, disproves the obvious... well that's the fallacy. Persuade, convince, manipulate... I don't care... but please... please, please... don't resort to the... well, we don't have the facts, so we'll never know argument... That's a given, why even have the debate? Now I remember why I never quote something you say, I have an utter inability to wade through your condescending posts. Play nice, guys. It's Christmas and Santa's watching.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Dec 21, 2009 12:06:26 GMT -6
Now I remember why I never quote something you say, I have an utter inability to wade through your condescending posts. Play nice, guys. It's Christmas and Santa's watching. Yeah, well I'm Jewish.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Dec 21, 2009 12:23:23 GMT -6
Play nice, guys. It's Christmas and Santa's watching. Yeah, well I'm Jewish. OK, Hanukkah Harry.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Dec 21, 2009 12:38:56 GMT -6
Hanukkah's over, but your point is made. And for the record, I'm not Jewish.
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Dec 21, 2009 12:43:16 GMT -6
Hill Larry Us...
And for the record...
I'm easy.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Dec 21, 2009 12:43:44 GMT -6
Hanukkah's over, but your point is made. And for the record, I'm not Jewish. I don't think Harry is either.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Dec 21, 2009 12:58:09 GMT -6
Hanukkah's over, but your point is made. And for the record, I'm not Jewish. I don't think Harry is either. "Harold" would be........
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Dec 21, 2009 13:14:28 GMT -6
Thanks for making me feel really, really old.
|
|
|
Post by rcole on Dec 22, 2009 10:22:47 GMT -6
We do a 10 minute 11 on 11, number 1 D vs number 1 O, twice a week. Just to put them in highly competitive D and D situations. Other than that we don't scrimmage each other. Two platoon, mostly individual and group work. Minimal team time. We are spread and our D did well against more traditional offenses this year. Held a wing T team to under 50 yards in the playoffs, they didn't cross the 50 yd line. Couple of I/power teams didn't do much better. We were just good this year and the kids we were lucky enough to have were very physical. May not be true next year. Not buying the correlation to our offense, at least not the way we practice.
|
|