|
Post by goldenbear76 on Dec 26, 2007 20:11:28 GMT -6
I'll take the "OTHER" Option. What is that "other" Option? well..its called not being predictable. You can be spread and double tight. You don't have to box yourself into a corner. Don't call plays that are predictable..or follow a pattern. If your team is slow and weak..you can help them out by calling things that 1) put them in a good position to make a play, and 2) out of the norm..that a defense isn't going to key on.
We've had threads about that before..its called being balanced. If you are able to pound 3 and 4 yards everytime..by all means..do it. But after awhile..if your guys are slower and weaker..they're going to figure you out. Why can't you run double tight, and spread. The only adjustment is alignment. Thats the nice thing about football..you don't have to follow any pattern..make it your own.
|
|
|
Post by fbairattack on Dec 26, 2007 21:03:19 GMT -6
wing-t....before this thread turns down THAT road...I would counter argue with "it is much easier to teach a kid to throw semi accurate passes, and to catch..than it is to teach two 165 Ol's to get movement on a combo back to a backer, or to be able to cut off penetration. My intention was to say that are there OTHER factors...such as shortening the game, limiting possession..even public perception...that would say one is better than the other. We were not overly big and for sure not fast last year but we made up for it by being very weak up front. That being said we ran spread cuz thats what I know and what I coach. But.. We compressed it alot this year with two tight and ran a ton of IZ and Lead for our Qb. So we were a spread team that primarily ran the ball and treid to shorten the game, the most we threw the ball in one game was 24 times and 8 of those were at the end of the first half in a 2 minute drill. I agree that you coach what you know, I also agree that certain offensive schemes hide your team flaws better than others, but I think that ANY scheme can be molded to the athletes you have.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Dec 27, 2007 0:04:11 GMT -6
Dubber--I would argue that "mathmatically" the best chance to win when you don't believe your team can win...is to limit the chances. Like in casinos, your "BEST" chance to hit a payday is to place a large black or red bet on a single zero roulette wheel. When the house has odds, each opportunity allows them to enjoy those odds. Which is exactly why you gotta change the stakes (take a risk), otherwise, you bleed out.......
I really like the casino analogy for this type of thing
The greater opponent is the HOUSE
The lesser opponent is the gambler
Now, every hand involves risk----every play involves some, even the slightest, risk (even wedge)
The gambler only has a certain amount of $ (talent)----far less than the house.
IMO, he has two choices:
1. To place the minimum bet everytime, which, because the house has the odds in its favor, will merely delay the enevitable losing of the game/money
*Never change the stakes, and the house will win*
2. You wisely pick your spots, and you bet BIG! (onside, blitz 7, PAP, fake punt, 4th down try, etc.)
Now, if you always bet big, then your lack of funds (talent) will show......and true, even if you diligently wait to bet BIG you can still lose..........the game ends more quickly, but it was going to end anyway so what the hell? At least there was the POTENTIAL for victory.
*When that perfect hand comes along and you bet big and take the house*
And yes, I got this piece of philosophy from this movie:
I'm not saying you gotta throw 40+ times to win------I'm saying you gotta take a chance to give yourself a chance whenever you are THAT MUCH outmanned. I understand being conservative versus "better" opponents, but if you are going to take down the big buck, you need to take a risky shot.
Go for it on 4th down in your own territory, onside, use some creative special teams.............all this can be done with any type of offense
and imo, you NEED to roll the dice when you are big underdogs.....
There is no such thing as a respectable loss-------and playing for such a thing is to sell out (not that I am suggesting anyone here is doing that)
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Dec 27, 2007 0:04:55 GMT -6
I'll take the "OTHER" Option. What is that "other" Option? well..its called not being predictable. You can be spread and double tight. You don't have to box yourself into a corner. Don't call plays that are predictable..or follow a pattern. If your team is slow and weak..you can help them out by calling things that 1) put them in a good position to make a play, and 2) out of the norm..that a defense isn't going to key on. We've had threads about that before..its called being balanced. If you are able to pound 3 and 4 yards everytime..by all means..do it. But after awhile..if your guys are slower and weaker..they're going to figure you out. Why can't you run double tight, and spread. The only adjustment is alignment. Thats the nice thing about football..you don't have to follow any pattern..make it your own. good stuff.................goes right along with what Ted was saying
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Dec 27, 2007 0:11:24 GMT -6
watching the run and shoot video...coach says "we are faster then them"...then catches himself and says "well in high school that might be different, there are times when their backers are faster than your receivers".... Conversely..... there are times when their 3 tech.'s are bigger and stronger than the offense's double teams or trap blocks playing from the shotgun and throwing quick could nuetralize such a player Or the 5 tech that is EVERYWHERE........stopping power AND sweep, rushing the passer, etc. utilizing some Veer, or some type of shotgun read now makes that stud 5 ALWAYS "wrong" (take that, and we got this, etc.) throwing out an alternative perspective
|
|
|
Post by touchdowng on Dec 27, 2007 10:56:37 GMT -6
Run the Triple Option. You can move the ball without blocking 2 to 3 people on playside. The clock keeps running. YIPEEEEE! We did this at a school where we were JUST HORRIBLE. No backs under 5.0 in the 40. No OL with Benches heavier than 200 or bodies with less than 20% body fat. We had fun frustrating our superior opponents and even snuck one upset in on a team that had a winning record and went to post-season. We ran for 300 plus per game. Went 1-8 but only lost by a margin of 13 points or less per game. We just couldn't play defense. It was the same group of kids. The following season we went 3-6. If we would have spread it out, we would have gone 0-9 and we'd still be on the field trying to drain the clock. "Oh crap, another drop." "Oh shoot, another overthrown pass." Hand it off, keep, or pitch.
|
|
|
Post by wingt74 on Dec 27, 2007 12:45:53 GMT -6
Run the Triple Option. You can move the ball without blocking 2 to 3 people on playside. The clock keeps running. YIPEEEEE! We did this at a school where we were JUST HORRIBLE. No backs under 5.0 in the 40. No OL with Benches heavier than 200 or bodies with less than 20% body fat. We had fun frustrating our superior opponents and even snuck one upset in on a team that had a winning record and went to post-season. We ran for 300 plus per game. Went 1-8 but only lost by a margin of 13 points or less per game. We just couldn't play defense. It was the same group of kids. The following season we went 3-6. If we would have spread it out, we would have gone 0-9 and we'd still be on the field trying to drain the clock. "Oh crap, another drop." "Oh shoot, another overthrown pass." Hand it off, keep, or pitch. Ditto. I can't believe this is even an arguement. I think where the difference in opinion comes in is exactly what this means In saying that, there should be "But, you do have a kid that can throw a football a little, and a couple 3 kids who can catch." Now, it becomes more of an argument...to which, I'd still be 80/20 run pass.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Dec 27, 2007 13:02:55 GMT -6
personally I do not think 40 rushing attempts is really that much. I ran a double wing(before my passing days), no huddle team and we had 60 to 75 rushing attempts a game.
I have upwards of 60 passing attempts in a game. as many as 70.
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on Dec 27, 2007 13:48:29 GMT -6
This thread has gone from football to boxing to gambling and back to football. All along the way the discussion has hinted at factors such as clock management, risk taking, public perception, and others while trying to say/not say that "running" or "passing" the ball is better if you stink. Neither one is better! Option is not better than Power I and Run n Shoot is not better than Double Wing. They all have pros and cons. We run what we run because we know it, played it, saw it, liked it or we're smart enough to see that IT provides the best chance for for the kids we coach to be successful. Its better for us, because of the variables that make up our team - which is not necessarily better for someone else.
|
|