|
Post by brophy on Jul 15, 2007 12:52:04 GMT -6
so do we come back to the distinction between (youth) scheme & (youth) philosophy?
or do we see them as the 'same thing'?
"That won't work at the HS level......" is something you would generally hear from someone making a statement about
1) a 160lb RB barrelling over his 100lb competitors
2) a 4.7 12-year old QB who runs around the pocket make single-handed play after single-handed play
3) toss to the fastest kid in the city and out-running all the 14 year olds who do not comprehend pursuit angles or run fits.
4) A ground-pound team that scores twice every game on the half-back pass
5) a defense blitzing everyone and getting -15 yd plays because the QB can't throw the ball and the WRs unable to catch the ball.
Those situations really don't have much to do with 'scheme' but philosophy (if they are actually planned).
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jul 15, 2007 12:58:24 GMT -6
so do we come back to the distinction between (youth)scheme & (youth) philosophy?
or do we see them as the 'same thing'? what wins games at the youth level? what wins games at the hs level? the college level? the pro level? I dont think the level of play determines what wins games, there is some carry over level to level. Most reasonable folks will agree that you must coach something simple, sound and execute well laid out schemes and have coached up sound fundamentals, avoid turnovers and penalties. It is always helpful to have the better athletes but time and time again we see that athletes are not the only peice of the puzzle. It will be interesting to see what Ken Wiz will do in the desert with the Cards this season. new schemes, new coaching...same jimmies and joes for the most part right?
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jul 15, 2007 13:01:38 GMT -6
Now that I think about it, often the same guys that say "that wont work at the higher levels" are the same guys that often say " its not the xs and os, its the jimmies and the joes"...so which is it? does the scheme matter or does it not?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 15, 2007 13:12:32 GMT -6
Valid points Brophy...but kind of different than what I envisioned starting the thread. I was talking strickly HIGH SCHOOl, now youth stuff. I don't think you see THAT big a gap in the H.S. game, and hence, thats why I asked why we see this kind of thing said by H.S coaches about H.S. teams.
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jul 15, 2007 13:17:00 GMT -6
Oh yeah, and we all know unless you coach at a huge AAAAAAAA school that you cant possibly know anything about the game. Sounding waaayyy toooo defensive coach. This conversation is getting blurred. The original post questioned if certain "schemes" would work at the higher levels. I believe the consensus amongst coaches is that any well executed scheme is a good scheme. Nothing to do with a coaches knowledge, determined by the level in which he's coaching. Best coach I know only had 30 years of youth football coaching... and he was a Pro I guy... and would kick everyone's butt with basic Iso's, counters, and FB traps. Everyone would claim he recruited the best hB's... but just the opposite was true... kids became the best HB's being coached by him... For you Illinois coaches, his last HB was Mikel LeShoure, stud boy out of champaign, getting serious offers from the big D1's... Anyway, Brophy, focused the conversation more, when he differentiated between schemes and philosophy. i can work some Wing T, Option, and air-raid packages together, to answer specific looks a team may give me. However, when I have a DW philosophy, and I'm going to Power, Counter, and Trap you to death with a couple of plays actions or die, well that's philosophy, and many believe similar philosophies will have a hard time at the higher levels... big school ball, collegiate, pro... I went on further to hypothesize on why its not seen on the collegiate and pro levels... right or wrong, those philosophies don't exist there anymore... the schemes, which are sound, continue to exist, even at the higher levels as pointed out in USC's pulling linemen, alignment off the ball, and Navy's option.... but again, those are schemes, except for Navy's option, and when they meet the big dogs, it gets tough, vs philosophies.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jul 15, 2007 13:28:45 GMT -6
A common statement from fans,cheap seaters, recliner coordinators, and daddy ballers. Hey, they don't know, they never will. But I am simply shocked to see "coaches" (perhaps loosely used, Not sure) on this board make statements that certain schemes "won't work at the high levels" or claim that certain schemes are "outdated" and that you need to be "modern" to succeed in the "big boy" levels of football. Any comments on this? Am I the only one who would want to get these guys on the schedule? We play in the highest classification in our state. In 2001, our opponent ran unbalanced wing-t, an offense similar to our opponent in the semifinals this year. In the other semifinal game this year one of the teams ran single wing.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 15, 2007 13:33:06 GMT -6
sorry, coach. I assumed.
Pro game, any more, is a completely different animal.
Top 25 and NFL teams are a business and the 'schemes' probably have more to do with their entertainment value than anything. The stuff they run WORKS, the schemes are great, but the influence of Television and marketing plays a big part on who's philosophy you're paying $6M a year to run.
I remember when I won a super bowl coaching the Dallas Cowboys and the San Francisco 49ers...........oh wait, I didn't.....nevermind.
I'm just guessing, really.
Some 'schemes' aren't relevant at the pro level, some 'schemes' just do not add any significant value (when compared to time/value ratio)......the biggest thing (IMO) in the NFL, where talent for the most part is equal, the playbook has to be as germane as possible. Because your roster will change every year and if you plan on adding that $65M man to play such-and-such position, you'd better be able to get the information across (not something entirely foreign) as fast as possible so he can contribute.
The one thing the pro teams do (and many top 25 programs) is run a simple / base scheme and get multiple to get those Million-dollar-babies the ball any which way but lose. That is why everyone looks the same.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 15, 2007 15:03:47 GMT -6
Khalfie--I don't think calande sounded "way to defensive", in fact, I think that is EXACTLY that attitude I would expect.
He knows FIRST HAND what I am talking about, and he has experienced it probably all to often. HECK, he got a dose of it in this very thread. Who can blame him for being a bit upset. Somene flat out told him "Well, your scheme wouldn't work at my level (second highest class in LA)
Even though this is primarily an offensive concept (because defenses all need to be reactionary) I don't fault him for getting a little sarcastic over the subject matter.
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Jul 15, 2007 15:29:56 GMT -6
Well, Airraider, keeping in line with the threads original intent, can you explain why such a system would not work "a high levels" (you are in the second highest class in LA), BUT WOULD work at 1 A or 2A? Isn't it all equal? Wouldn't the 1A team be blitzing and manning up with (and against) less talented players on avg because of #'s and population distribution? It might work against the Haynesvilles and other teams who may pass the ball twice a game.. but against the Catholic PC's and even the Southern Labs.. where they may have 2 or 3 stud athletes that you cannot cover all day in a man to man situation you will get burned more often than not.
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Jul 15, 2007 15:31:46 GMT -6
No, its not about "manning up and bringing everyone else." though we do some of that on occassion. Most of the time I would say we rush 5. If I find an opportunity to rush 6 and the offense doesnt handle it well i will smartly continue to rush 6. Many of my defensive ideas come from the success of Don markham who is a 300 plus game winner. his 300 wins came in the form of man to man coverages and defenses probably simpler than my own. On one clinic tape I have of his he remarked that he could "probably win 3-4 games every year just by blitzing"- an observation about high school athletes struggling with pre snap reads, pass protection, throwing and catching and in general just disrupting blocking schemes obviously. Now, as to my " 46 Gambler" defensive package specifically I would say that if you dont take the time to study the concepts of the defense that you cant give an educated interpretation of it. Yes, we use man to man coverage, yes we use man free and man cover two. We also use 'disguised" coverage in that sometimes we have two safeties and yet are in cover 0 or use two safeties and have two guys double covered or sometimes we use two safeties are have one guy double covered and one free safety or no free safety with a blitz. Its pretty simple and yet is remains sound. Have I discussed taking a Gamble now and again? absolutely! If a team insists on going empty and running I would be willing to leave someone open. I have no problems doing that and thats why I call my defense "Gambler"...im a gambling man I guess. Its not different from making an agressive move in a game of chess that might lose a piece while creating an attack. Jerry Glanville ran one of the NFLs most dominant defenses gambling like nuts...Im of the Glanville, Buddy Ryan mold. What else can I tell ya. Well sure you cant expect a youth QB to find the open man.. but I promise you.. if you try to only cover 4 of my 5 guys.. we will see you in the endzone.. If my QB cant find that guy.. then he doesnt need to be my QB. How many times have you ran the 46 Gambler vs a good Spread offense? I dont mean good in youth terms.. Im talking about a D1 level QB who can do what he needs to do to hit the open man vs a team who runs man all game? To me man up and bring the house is a JV mentality. You can stop them?? Man up and bring everyone.. maybe you will get lucky.. thats all it is to me.. Not saying man coverage is a bad thing.. but unless your athletes are better than mine.. I will score a lot of points if you just stay in man coverage all night.
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Jul 15, 2007 15:34:43 GMT -6
Now that I think about it, often the same guys that say "that wont work at the higher levels" are the same guys that often say " its not the xs and os, its the jimmies and the joes"...so which is it? does the scheme matter or does it not? I would be willing to bet your boy Markham got more of those 300 wins based on his jimmies and joes than on his X's and O's. And once again, that name means squat to me. I see that guy as a black eye on this sport. He broke all those records simply by out manning his opponents and not pulling his starters.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Jul 15, 2007 16:04:51 GMT -6
Guilty as charged... Now let me tell you why I am right. I'm a big fan of many schemes, from true DW to Shotgun Spread... however, the one thing that has become very apparent, is that the higher up you go in football levels, the only thing that changes, is'nt the proficiency of the offenses, but the execution of the defenses. Take for instance professional football. Eveyone wonders why certain offenses aren't ran... its because at the pro level, you can stop the run with a 3 man front. 3 professional defensive linemen, can basically put the kabash on the run. Similarly, in collegiate ball, 4 men fronts are usually more than enough, to make it a hard thing to run the ball consistently. High School ball... land of the 50... and sure, we have our 4 fronts and 3 man fronts, but they aren't like the professional defenses, they are loaded in the box with 7 and 8 men, even if they are only showing 3 to 4 up front. So back to the point... great executing offenses, when confronted by highly talented defenses, find it a tough thing in HS, to run the ball efficiently. Similarly in college, where you recruit your talent... running the ball is never a gimmie, and hence the pass has to be used to set up the run. Option games don't exist anymore, because READS are so fast, that they can show you pull, and still make a play on the pitch. Not to mention, second level blocks are entirely too difficult on the skill in the LB corps and the secondary. You guys can get all flustered you want... call those who don't believe as you do, all the names you want... But its true... MANY systems won't work at the higher LEVELS. despite all the back and forth and the "blurring" of the original topic ... THIS is an outstanding post and (imo) a dead-on examination.
|
|
|
Post by PSS on Jul 15, 2007 16:30:08 GMT -6
The most important thing that I have learned is that you need to have an open mind in to what you are planning on running. Having worked my way up from the smaller classifications to now the largest classification in Texas I know that the abilities of the players will change from year to year.
This is where you have to adapt your schemes / philosophy to your athletes. Some years you have the ability to be more multiple. Some years you don't. It runs in cycles.
As high school coaches we don't have the ability to recruit the perfect fit for our team (at least in Texas). So you go with what you have and adapt your schemes.
|
|
|
Post by warrior53 on Jul 15, 2007 16:40:07 GMT -6
As a general response to this thread, some of you guys have a huge chip on your shoulder. You guys get so defensive about things that are said. Why can't you guys just take something someone says at face value - their opinion. Just because someone says that something will not work at a different level doesn't mean that all the guys below him are aweful coaches. Good greif!!! Take what is said, and either agree or disagree, it is not personal. If the shoe fits wear it.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jul 15, 2007 17:14:46 GMT -6
Oh yeah, and we all know unless you coach at a huge AAAAAAAA school that you cant possibly know anything about the game. Sounding waaayyy toooo defensive coach. This conversation is getting blurred. The original post questioned if certain "schemes" would work at the higher levels. I believe the consensus amongst coaches is that any well executed scheme is a good scheme. Nothing to do with a coaches knowledge, determined by the level in which he's coaching. Best coach I know only had 30 years of youth football coaching... and he was a Pro I guy... and would kick everyone's butt with basic Iso's, counters, and FB traps. Everyone would claim he recruited the best hB's... but just the opposite was true... kids became the best HB's being coached by him... For you Illinois coaches, his last HB was Mikel LeShoure, stud boy out of champaign, getting serious offers from the big D1's... Anyway, Brophy, focused the conversation more, when he differentiated between schemes and philosophy. i can work some Wing T, Option, and air-raid packages together, to answer specific looks a team may give me. However, when I have a DW philosophy, and I'm going to Power, Counter, and Trap you to death with a couple of plays actions or die, well that's philosophy, and many believe similar philosophies will have a hard time at the higher levels... big school ball, collegiate, pro... I went on further to hypothesize on why its not seen on the collegiate and pro levels... right or wrong, those philosophies don't exist there anymore... the schemes, which are sound, continue to exist, even at the higher levels as pointed out in USC's pulling linemen, alignment off the ball, and Navy's option.... but again, those are schemes, except for Navy's option, and when they meet the big dogs, it gets tough, vs philosophies. I can tell you this, I have read or been told countless times that defensive linemen at the pro level "cant be trapped" or "linebackers cant be fooled" and its total BS. I watch NFL replay several times a week, often breaking down the games play by play, position by position (im a football junkie and a teacher so I have time for that!) and I can tell you without question that the trap works great, counter trey, power O, misdirection as simple as a naked boot, lil league reverse plays with man blocking schemes....it all works to some extent. Can they run option at the pro level every down? Youre darned right they could but my guess is that league would not allow a coach to do that.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jul 15, 2007 17:16:52 GMT -6
As a general response to this thread, some of you guys have a huge chip on your shoulder. You guys get so defensive about things that are said. Why can't you guys just take something someone says at face value - their opinion. Just because someone says that something will not work at a different level doesn't mean that all the guys below him are aweful coaches. Good greif!!! Take what is said, and either agree or disagree, it is not personal. If the shoe fits wear it. I hear ya and its not about having a chip, its about wanting folks to post stuff that they can support with real evidence rather than parroting the Monday Night football crew or whoever. Its like listening to the broadcast of a state championship football game on FOX and the color commentator and play by play guy keep referring to the double tight double wing offense as "the old wing-t" ...
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jul 15, 2007 17:18:05 GMT -6
The most important thing that I have learned is that you need to have an open mind in to what you are planning on running. Having worked my way up from the smaller classifications to now the largest classification in Texas I know that the abilities of the players will change from year to year. This is where you have to adapt your schemes / philosophy to your athletes. Some years you have the ability to be more multiple. Some years you don't. It runs in cycles. As high school coaches we don't have the ability to recruit the perfect fit for our team (at least in Texas). So you go with what you have and adapt your schemes. now that is completely true, its important to have some flexibility in your own system to account for variations in talent from year to year. heck, even down to the oline, some years you might need more double teams and angles than in other years.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 15, 2007 17:45:25 GMT -6
It might work against the Haynesvilles and other teams who may pass the ball twice a game.. but against the Catholic PC's and even the Southern Labs.. where they may have 2 or 3 stud athletes that you cannot cover all day in a man to man situation you will get burned more often than not. So is it levels or teams? or schemes vs schemes? The point of the thread is LEVELS, not schemes. Would Bastrop be successful running the 46 gambler vs West Monroe or Neville? I am not supporting the defense, (especially because this was an offensive post) BUT I AM showing it has nothing to do with "levels" The Chicago bears....didn't they win a super bowl incorporating 46 principles into their defense?
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Jul 15, 2007 17:45:39 GMT -6
Sounding waaayyy toooo defensive coach. This conversation is getting blurred. The original post questioned if certain "schemes" would work at the higher levels. I believe the consensus amongst coaches is that any well executed scheme is a good scheme. Nothing to do with a coaches knowledge, determined by the level in which he's coaching. Best coach I know only had 30 years of youth football coaching... and he was a Pro I guy... and would kick everyone's butt with basic Iso's, counters, and FB traps. Everyone would claim he recruited the best hB's... but just the opposite was true... kids became the best HB's being coached by him... For you Illinois coaches, his last HB was Mikel LeShoure, stud boy out of champaign, getting serious offers from the big D1's... Anyway, Brophy, focused the conversation more, when he differentiated between schemes and philosophy. i can work some Wing T, Option, and air-raid packages together, to answer specific looks a team may give me. However, when I have a DW philosophy, and I'm going to Power, Counter, and Trap you to death with a couple of plays actions or die, well that's philosophy, and many believe similar philosophies will have a hard time at the higher levels... big school ball, collegiate, pro... I went on further to hypothesize on why its not seen on the collegiate and pro levels... right or wrong, those philosophies don't exist there anymore... the schemes, which are sound, continue to exist, even at the higher levels as pointed out in USC's pulling linemen, alignment off the ball, and Navy's option.... but again, those are schemes, except for Navy's option, and when they meet the big dogs, it gets tough, vs philosophies. I can tell you this, I have read or been told countless times that defensive linemen at the pro level "cant be trapped" or "linebackers cant be fooled" and its total BS. I watch NFL replay several times a week, often breaking down the games play by play, position by position (im a football junkie and a teacher so I have time for that!) and I can tell you without question that the trap works great, counter trey, power O, misdirection as simple as a naked boot, lil league reverse plays with man blocking schemes....it all works to some extent. Can they run option at the pro level every down? Youre darned right they could but my guess is that league would not allow a coach to do that. What??? Not allow a coach to do it??? Thats a pretty assinine statement. The option would not work as well at that level because the defense is too good. It has nothing to do with what they would allow.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 15, 2007 17:48:33 GMT -6
GUYS...please focus. YOu can have your little "my super offense will crush your defense" argument in PM or a different thread.
I am trying to discover how other "professional coaches" can disparage other coaches schemes or offensive systems saying they are easy to defend because they are old. Not philosophies, but x and o schemes.
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Jul 15, 2007 18:09:46 GMT -6
It might work against the Haynesvilles and other teams who may pass the ball twice a game.. but against the Catholic PC's and even the Southern Labs.. where they may have 2 or 3 stud athletes that you cannot cover all day in a man to man situation you will get burned more often than not. So is it levels or teams? or schemes vs schemes? The point of the thread is LEVELS, not schemes. Would Bastrop be successful running the 46 gambler vs West Monroe or Neville? I am not supporting the defense, (especially because this was an offensive post) BUT I AM showing it has nothing to do with "levels" The Chicago bears....didn't they win a super bowl incorporating 46 principles into their defense? Im saying it doesnt matter the level when compared to number of students in a school. You are the one who brought up the level I coach at as a possible basis of my thoughts. I am saying that on the high school level you cannot be completely successful running a man scheme the entire time unless your kids are simply better than the other team. Bastrop had better kids than Neville did this year. They probably had better kids than West Monroe. They could have ran just about anything under the sun and beat 90% of the teams in the state of Louisiana.
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Jul 15, 2007 18:10:18 GMT -6
The reason why the option is not as popular now as it once was is due to QB injury not because defenses are so much better.
How often is the speed option run in today's modern spread offense?
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Jul 15, 2007 18:11:01 GMT -6
GUYS...please focus. YOu can have your little "my super offense will crush your defense" argument in PM or a different thread. I am trying to discover how other "professional coaches" can disparage other coaches schemes or offensive systems saying they are easy to defend because they are old. Not philosophies, but x and o schemes. Last time I checked man coverage all the time vs man coverage some of the time has everything in the world to do with X's and O's. Sorry some of us arent professional enough for you. So where do you coach again?
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Jul 15, 2007 18:11:56 GMT -6
The reason why the option is not as popular now as it once was is due to QB injury not because defenses are so much better. How often is the speed option run in today's modern spread offense? I believe that the defense is better answer was geared towards the NFL only.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 15, 2007 18:22:51 GMT -6
coachd,
respectfully - are there not two sides to this argument?
I'm not supporting either, but whatever the 'truth' happens to be - I'll go with it. Wisdom is justified by her children.
"easy to defend" / "easy to attack" because of .........
its easy to hold the chalk last as long as we're just drawing stuff up. Could these 'disparaging remarks' stem about from a typical exchange such as;
Coach JoJo: Hey, coach.....I have this play that is unstopable.....(absolute scenario created, leaving little room for debate)
DC From Hell: Oh, really? Let me see....my '69 Chubacabre' defense has only given up 2.3 points a game.(statement is made to support an belief - this sets up an absolute counter-point, leaving little middle ground to discuss)
Coach JoJo: Well, it involves handing off to a fullback who is 3 yards deep then having the QB continue down the line towards the DE looking to give to the tailback!! We have run this for the past 3 years and average 95 yards per run.
DC From Hell: This is nothing new....this is double-dive. No sweat.....I'd just slant my defense to the side you are running it to.
Coach JoJo: You don't know what you're talking about we would then fake like we are faking then pretend to handoff to the tightend. DC From Hell: I would just blitz my MLB and drop my NT to the deep 1/3.
A scenario like THAT,
OR........the belief that "If I haven't seen it - it isn't relevant" . This is a self-assured ignorance (arrogance). If you can execute it, it will work. The question remains, can your opponent execute its defense as well? If so, then "now what?"
Most "super power" and "bubble screen" and "option" and "mesh" arguments begin. The presumption that such-and-such is the sliced-bread offense/defense with no equal. All schemes are equal when they are taught effectively and can adapt to their competition.
I could care less what anyone else thinks, however.
There are parallels here, I think - I thought we have actually had this discussion before in the defense section regarding defenses like the 5-3 (with true DL types). Sure the 5-3 is a good defense, but by and large, it lends itself to be a YOUTH defense because it becomes real easy to victimize at higher levels where you can scheme and out position inferior athletes (something that isn't really needed at the youth level).
I would have to think there are equal parallels for offenses, though.
**I think we need to acknowledge that certain misconceptions and beliefs are coming about because the very nature of the thread is ambiguous. WHO said "it won't work" ? WHAT were 'they' referring to? WHAT context does this apply to?
It can be difficult to draw legitimate conclusions when there are no specifics involved. So now, naturally, we are all going off our own personal assumptions......
I assumed this wasn't about the NFL disparity because I assumed that that was a topic best left for sports writers and a topic argued for decades (hash mark, television/entertainment, speed, size, age, time arguments of the Pro game). I assumed that it was a youth-HS argument because that is what we probably hear/see a lot about on this board.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 15, 2007 18:47:37 GMT -6
So is it levels or teams? or schemes vs schemes? The point of the thread is LEVELS, not schemes. Would Bastrop be successful running the 46 gambler vs West Monroe or Neville? I am not supporting the defense, (especially because this was an offensive post) BUT I AM showing it has nothing to do with "levels" The Chicago bears....didn't they win a super bowl incorporating 46 principles into their defense? Im saying it doesnt matter the level when compared to number of students in a school. You are the one who brought up the level I coach at as a possible basis of my thoughts. I am saying that on the high school level you cannot be completely successful running a man scheme the entire time unless your kids are simply better than the other team. Bastrop had better kids than Neville did this year. They probably had better kids than West Monroe. They could have ran just about anything under the sun and beat 90% of the teams in the state of Louisiana. YOu said it might work against the Golden Tornadoes, (1A--lowest class) but NOT against the Kittens (also 1A) My question is in your opinion would it work against the Rebels (5A top class), but not say.. Destrehan (also 5a). (Quick synopsis for those not in LA--Haynesville is a state power with multiple state titles. The run the wing-t (power oriented, not deleware). Southern Lab is also a state power, but they are not as run oriented. West Monroe, 5A run oriented, Destrehan 5A spread pass) So I was asking if you think it would work against a 5A school, that was run oriented. Meaning: Is it the LEVEL or the OFFENSIVE SCHEME that you feel makes such a defense unreliable in this situation. Of course, as I have said, this is more an OFFENSIVE argument, because on defense, you have to be much more reactive. And for the record, I probably wouldn't base out of a 46 principled defense to play a 10 personnel team. That isn't my contention, to say that THIS or THAT defense would work against THIS or that offense. I am just really surprised when I see coaches making blanket statments that "_____________" offense won't work at "OUR" level of football. As far as the X's and o's versus philosophy, that wasn't geared to your posts, but just a blanked post because I have noticed that a lot of posters here associate schemes with philosophies. (For example, one coach who feels the wing t is easy to defend basis this from his experience playing in a similar system, where they were simple and probably did not work hard to maintain a balance in practice) He associates Wing-T (x's and o's) with philosophy (run run until it is 3rd and 12) So my comment was simply made to ensure that posters considered the differences before posting. Brophy--It was just a thread i started because I was surprised I was reading that certain offenses would work in small high school ball, but not big high school ball, ON A COACHES website. Those type of comments are usually the brainchilds (or would it be brain children) of Joe Booster... who played ball for coach numnuts back in the day, and is an expert because he did so, and watches ESPN pregame.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 15, 2007 19:45:53 GMT -6
It will be interesting to see what Ken Wiz will do in the desert with the Cards this season. new schemes, new coaching...same jimmies and joes for the most part right? I guess you're right - though, if the Cardinals problems were attributed to coaching, I would have to imagine that between Buddy Ryan, Dave McGinnis, or Joe Bugel would've righted that ship by now.
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Jul 15, 2007 19:46:03 GMT -6
Im saying it doesnt matter the level when compared to number of students in a school. You are the one who brought up the level I coach at as a possible basis of my thoughts. I am saying that on the high school level you cannot be completely successful running a man scheme the entire time unless your kids are simply better than the other team. Bastrop had better kids than Neville did this year. They probably had better kids than West Monroe. They could have ran just about anything under the sun and beat 90% of the teams in the state of Louisiana. YOu said it might work against the Golden Tornadoes, (1A--lowest class) but NOT against the Kittens (also 1A) My question is in your opinion would it work against the Rebels (5A top class), but not say.. Destrehan (also 5a). (Quick synopsis for those not in LA--Haynesville is a state power with multiple state titles. The run the wing-t (power oriented, not deleware). Southern Lab is also a state power, but they are not as run oriented. West Monroe, 5A run oriented, Destrehan 5A spread pass) So I was asking if you think it would work against a 5A school, that was run oriented. Meaning: Is it the LEVEL or the OFFENSIVE SCHEME that you feel makes such a defense unreliable in this situation. Of course, as I have said, this is more an OFFENSIVE argument, because on defense, you have to be much more reactive. And for the record, I probably wouldn't base out of a 46 principled defense to play a 10 personnel team. That isn't my contention, to say that THIS or THAT defense would work against THIS or that offense. I am just really surprised when I see coaches making blanket statments that "_____________" offense won't work at "OUR" level of football. As far as the X's and o's versus philosophy, that wasn't geared to your posts, but just a blanked post because I have noticed that a lot of posters here associate schemes with philosophies. (For example, one coach who feels the wing t is easy to defend basis this from his experience playing in a similar system, where they were simple and probably did not work hard to maintain a balance in practice) He associates Wing-T (x's and o's) with philosophy (run run until it is 3rd and 12) So my comment was simply made to ensure that posters considered the differences before posting. Brophy--It was just a thread i started because I was surprised I was reading that certain offenses would work in small high school ball, but not big high school ball, ON A COACHES website. Those type of comments are usually the brainchilds (or would it be brain children) of Joe Booster... who played ball for coach numnuts back in the day, and is an expert because he did so, and watches ESPN pregame. I do not feel that the level has anything to do with it.. If you were a 1A coach that had talent equal that of Destrehan and West Monroe.. and you tried to run cover 0 against both of them all night.. with no changes.. just what you do and what you are going to do.. then you would probably have a better chance of beaing West Monroe due to their lack of passing ability.. (although they have made a push in the last couple of years to throw the ball) The only difference in levels that I am speaking of is high school to lower levels.. On the high school level you have better coaching.. Not meaning better coaches.. but probably more of them.. and more specialized coaches.. The QBs are going to know how to recognize and beat the blitz.. receivers are going to know how to get off the press better.. so on and so forth.. At the lower levels you lock everyone up and there is a good chance that the QB cannot find an open receiver.. hit an open receiver.. or have long enough to do either.. All things equal.. you cannot run cover 0 all night against a team who is committed to throwing the football. Now, you take a Southern Lab and let them man up a Natchitoches Central and Southern Lab "Should" be able to shut them down.. being that they should have better athletes.. but I still wouldnt bet on it.. Where as you take Bastrop and man them up on just about anyone in the state and they should be able to shut them down.. but this has to do with their huge Dline.. If they would have played Shaw in the championship game with an all the time man scheme.. then Shaw would have won that game..
|
|
|
Post by flycoach on Jul 15, 2007 19:50:55 GMT -6
I don't like the double wing. I just don't. It is effective but it is BORING!
BUT..................................
Wouldn't it be cool to see a NFL team run it.
I would like to see them run the double wing more than any other offense. It would be hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by CVBears on Jul 15, 2007 20:25:14 GMT -6
Wing T teams CAN pass the ball. But do they? Some are hardcore run oriented and only pass with PA or when it is 3rd and 22+. Others can and do run and pass the ball very well and essentially takes what the defense gives them. Local team gets the majority of the talent in the area (~400,000 people), runs wing t, stuck in run mode all the time, one and done in the playoffs. Another wing t team in the state, gets all the talent from their area, runs wing t to perfection, runs and passes the ball well, wins state championships at the highest level in the state.
Both wing t, both teams have exceptional talent. The difference, as some have pointed to earlier, the philosophy. Furthermore, when a coach chooses an offense, it probably also fits his philosophy. Coach XYZ would be a moron if he choose a DW based system if he holds spreading the field with quick passes in high regard.
|
|