|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Aug 17, 2010 11:50:19 GMT -6
Schemtically, I'm a little torn over whether I should focus on a proper, sound scheme or one that I know will work, because of the vagaries of the league. Some coaches blitz all-out pretty much every play, or kick onside every time, but I'm thinking this can be taken much further.
I know most teams in the league have their front, and their two corners, and never mind the offensive formation, so I could run a trips with two big blockers in front of a speedy kid, and throw hitch, get a block on the lone cornerback and spring the receiver. I know I could run this play all the way down the field, no need for a complimentary play. The other cornerback would be standing way on the other side of the field, guarding nothing.
Or, I could go unbalanced, then put every back as wings to the heavy side, and have my QB run behind a wall of blockers, and the defense would never adjust
Some teams just adapt a 3-down high school offense their coaches use for our 4 down kids game, and they have to DT's outside shade on the guards, so I could run QB wedge for 4 yards every single play.
Defensively, I could have two DT's pinch on the centre and drive him into the QB, and force a fumble at least once every 6-7 plays, even though it would leave a lot of running options that the opponent would neither notice nor take advantage of.
So, the question, is it proper to manipulate the inherent "flaws" of the youth game, by running extreme plays and formations, that are not completely sound, even though it would be more effective than a proper sound offense.
Note that I'm unconcerned about scouting (non-existent in our league) or adjustments (impossible to implement in our league)
|
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Aug 17, 2010 12:18:16 GMT -6
Really, the coaches in your league are that awful- never ever adjust to anything?
Heck in our league the players would have adjusted on their own to that stuff
"Adjustments" are just applying your defensive alignment rules, Dont really see how hard that is, not rocket science, little league football
|
|
|
|
Post by coachdoug on Aug 17, 2010 13:53:19 GMT -6
Nothing you mentioned sounds "unsound" to me. Take what the defense is giving you. I'm a big fan of WR screens and have written about that here extensively. You don't even need to go from trips - twins will do the trick - one WR blocks the corner and the other catches the pass and runs off the block. If the defense never adjusts, just keep running it. If they do move a LB or S out to cover the slot, then you should be able to run up the middle, or (if you're seeing Cover-0) find a favorable matchup to beat them deep. As for a comlimentary play - fake the hitch screen (we call it smoke) and have the slot fake like he's going to block the CB, but "miss" and continue downfield on a wheel route - the QB pump fakes the screen then throws deep to the slot - if you've run the base screen successfully a few times this will be wide open.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Aug 17, 2010 14:14:52 GMT -6
The question boils down to whether your object is to play a competitive game or to provide instruction or some other form of recreation. If it's a game, then treat it as a game, and play for the score, not for how it looks. If you're doing something and your opponents show no sign of stopping it, keep doing it until your win is in the bag, at which point you're no longer playing a competitive game anyway and can turn the remainder into some other form of recreation or into instruction.
In chess this subject comes up as practical/psychologic play. You may have analyzed what you plan to do and know how to stop it, but figure your opponent won't know how to.
Anyway, the point is that if you go ahead and try to win by the simplest means, eventually one of two things will happen. The first possibility is that it will cause your competition to raise their game. Scouting or no, just by the grapevine word will get around about what you're doing. Some teams will adjust late during a game just to keep from being blown out. This is, of course, good for the game.
The other possibility is that your league will stop playing a standard version of football and adopt various limitations on what offenses & defenses can do. Of course that's bad for the game, although it might serve certain instructional purposes for the short run just as the various restrictions you adopt on your practice drills do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Aug 17, 2010 15:00:25 GMT -6
Dave:
Truly, they do not adjust to anything, the examples I gave were actual plays we used last year (but as gadgets, not as a basis for an offense) and nobody adjusted, even playing the same team again in the playoffs, and even running those gadgets multiple times throughout the games.
The big limitations are that these coaches are not just regular rookies, many have never played ANY football before, not backyard touch, no sandlot, nothing. Also, the coaches are mostly high school kids that we can scrounge up (I'm 21, and I was the second oldest coach in the league last year, my co-coach was the oldest at 32) and they don't have the fullest grasp of coaching. Most linebackers are taught to start 5 yards back and "follow" the ball. The third problem affecting most teams is that they don't get practices started until 2 weeks before the games.
Doug:
I know I could make complimentary plays and a whole offense, but if I do that, I'm running a whole proper offense, which is a fair bit of work. It's like the old debate over the morality of using Tecmo Bo. Do I really want to win like that, I mean, am I really teaching my kids? I like to think that I would rather lose than win dishonourably.
Bob:
Your first sentence is exactly my question. I also don't want to force the league to change it's rules to stop me, they've got enough dumb rules restricting things already. I'm doubtful other teams will try to raise their game, they may imitate my style, but my team is the only one with a sound defense. It's a 9-man league, I also coach a 12-man team, but as a low-level assistant, and ironically, I coach most of the other coaches in the league, so creating a defense requires making your own, and most coaches don't think too hard about it.
Also, Bob, if you're looking for a job, I remember when I graduated (2009) Royal Military College of Canada was starting up a proper biology department from within the chem department, just if you were interested.
Thanks a lot, you guys are great in helping me navigate this.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Aug 17, 2010 20:36:53 GMT -6
I also coach a 12-man team, but as a low-level assistant, and ironically, I coach most of the other coaches in the league, so creating a defense requires making your own, and most coaches don't think too hard about it. Please explain how that arrangement came about. It reads as awfully unfair to you. Thanks, but if I'm going to relocate, I'd rather it not be northward! Lately I've been working odd jobs -- temping for the US census (finished week before last), proofreading and some light editing for a friend's semi-scientific books -- you get the idea. Formally I'm the science director of the Natural Clinical Trials Program, HQ'd in the Panama highlands, but unfortunately we have no clients yet and I'm not in position to help more than a little in our getting any. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Aug 17, 2010 21:34:32 GMT -6
I think I was proofing my post and I made it unreadable (the irony). I'll try to explain:
The 9-man league is just a fun league for gr. 5-6 kids, it's only been going a few seasons, and we'll take any coaches we can get.
The 12-man team is the big high school team, where I coach as an assistant, and most of the coaches for the 9-man league are players on the HS team.
As for 9-man defenses, it's much trickier than a 9-man offense, where you can strip the tackles off of an 11-man offense and run with it, as a result, you pretty much have to make your own (I'm sure there's lots of developed 9-man defenses, but I haven't come across any). Most HS kids haven't got the perspective to understand what their defense needs to do, and how they want to accomplish it, so they just put together any old front, have 2 corners, and make the assumption that every team will have 1 TE, 2 RB's and 2 WR's. (They aren't much better at putting together offenses, one team went 4 wide but never threw the ball)
The big advantage I was able to give our team was a coherent defense, that I based off an algorithm. I knew I needed the following:
All gaps filled (Obvious)
Dedicated contain players (This is youth FB, I KNOW they will run sweep all day if they can)
1 Deep player (This is youth FB, I KNOW someone will screw up)
Man coverage on all receivers outside the offensive box (Pretty straightforward)
So I numbered all my players, 1-9 and the algorithm went like this
1 - Strong side B, if it exists. If not, Strong side A (Line up in the gap, fill the gap. If anyone gets through I eat your soul)
2 - Same as 1, but weak side
9 - Deep FS
#9 calls the number of WRs, and in descending order my players cover them, so, if there is 1 WR, #8 covers him. If there are 2 WRs, #8 and #7 cover him, etc.
After that, the highest remaining number is strong side contain
After that, the highest remaining number is weak side contain
Remaining players either fill remaining gaps or if there are no gaps left, are what I called "personal pain inflictors" on the RB's
This defense was much more effective than other teams, who basically put three kids on the line and 4 kids 5 yards back and told them to follow the ball. But to get back to the original question, I know I don't have to do this, I could send the house every play and it would work, but I don't think that's how I want to win, there's no artistry in it, and I don't want to promote that sort of play.
|
|
