|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Jul 15, 2007 22:42:05 GMT -6
The original question seems to be about a view held by some coaches that certain things will not work in the higher classifications of HS ball. Is it clear thinking or close-mindedness? A few observations: While a lot of big school programs do mirror collegiate programs, there are still many great programs (all classifications) run seemingly simple schemes (power I, full house T, wing-t, DW, SW, some type of option: wishbone, flexbone, etc.)- if that system takes in to account the many things they could see defensively through a teachable, adaptable blocking system, if the players can execute the system well, AND if the coaches/players believe in that system.. then 1A, 5A, 48A... that system will help teams win games. It is also important for the play caller to truly understand his system. A lot of true power guys don't mind a 2-3 yard gain. A lot of passing guys don't get flustered with 3rd and 10 (I would assume... never really having been a passing guy... but it still scares the hell out of me when a good passing team is in 3rd and 10). I see a lot of bad teams run some of the above mentioned offenses. (Ex. the best team we played in the last 3 years ran DW. The worst team we played in the last 3 years ran DW). My take on this is coaches SEE some great program run an offense (say a Wing-T), but do not have a true understanding of it, do not have their philosophy aligned with the scheme and... well these wing-t teams might panic and throw on 3rd and 4 (not that it is a bad call... we have thrown on 3rd and 4... maybe twice in 16 years ;D)... and those spread teams might resort to gimmicks on 3rd and 10. If you run a system without really understanding it (which I have done in my career), you can win out when it comes to physical mismatches... but will struggle against the well prepared, sound teams. As far as the big-small argument: From my experience there were more external pressures in 5A (or whatever is biggest) than 1A... none of my current kids (1A) expect DI offers; most of my 5A kids did. O-Linemen (and their fathers) are concerned that if they don't get to pass block, no DI will take them, QBs want to throw and WRs want to catch passes, not block all the time (what is a WR anyway ?). There were more one-sport athletes (mostly basketball kids) that would be more inclined to play football if the brand were a more wide open game. It is true, 1A is more likely to have absurd physical mismatches. I've only seen two really bad 5A teams with rosters in the 20s (both in the inner-city in Denver)... that happens a lot in 1A. Many years, we have 2-3 games where we could do just about anything and win. But when it comes down to winning a title- all classes- 1A included- are going to have a teams of good guys too- so the mismatch argument will only work for a few games in 1A. If you want to win it all -at some point, someone else is good too (which is relative, as per level/classification), and your team (players, coaches, systems, techniques) had better be ready to execute. 5A generally IS more competitive, but that competitiveness does not negate a system if it is run properly. Any comments on this? Am I the only one who would want to get these guys on the schedule? No.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Jul 15, 2007 23:08:33 GMT -6
good post, senator
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Jul 15, 2007 23:16:35 GMT -6
Some coaches watch game film of other teams and that is where they come up with their offense.
I am sorry, but I am not that smart to do that. I would rather take someone else's proven system and study it and become a master. And as I studied and became more adept at said particular offense, I would the begin to add some rifts into particular situations based on kids or defenses I might see.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jul 16, 2007 6:27:28 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. Play calling is very important in any offense, probably especially so when it comes to series football and setting up defenders to take what you want. Taking what they give you is a by product of creating conflict, seeing its availability for the taking is half the battle. No different than an option team or single wing or double wing team, you set defenders up (jab jab jab) and then you knock em out with the KO punch. That can of course be an effectively timed pass. (not telling you anything you dont already know of course) but if a team is running running running then perhaps they see something available to them.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jul 16, 2007 6:31:06 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. How do you explain the success of NFL teams that play man to man most of the time? how do you explain the frequent use of the 46 at the pro and college level with bump and run coverage? is it really THAT EASY to beat? or just on paper?
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jul 16, 2007 6:34:02 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. It will be interesting. I dont THINK Buddy Ryan was given a fair shot, nor did he have the talent that Wiz will have...NOR did he have the offensive schemes (power, "trickeration") that wiz brings...My prediction is that the Cards have a winning season and go 9-7 or 10-6. Im not much for predicting but I did watch their mini camp and rookie camp and was impressed with what I saw when compared to the other camps I saw.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jul 16, 2007 6:41:58 GMT -6
When I coached 8th grade football, we lived and died by the veer. We were good at it; fundamentally sound in every aspect of the attack. We won more than a few games with this scheme.
When I moved up to freshman ball full time, our OC had a bad attitude towards option football.
"It doesn't work for the pros, so we're not going to run it."
So, we ran a multiple I formation offense more suited to his taste.
We lost every game that season w/ this offense. Was the scheme itself unsound; NO. Was his philosophy unsound; YES. Were we fundamentally sound; NO, NO, NO.
What cost us those games; poor philosophy and poor fundamentals.
So, we keep talking about being fundamentally sound; lets talk about what does/doesn't make a team fundamentally sound.
Lets go back to the flexbone/wing t teams I described in an earlier post. What is the differences between those units that makes them so different?
Team A (the solid Wing T unit) plays a smaller OL that gets off of the ball, pulls and traps very effectively. His OLs generally average less than 200 lbs, but they're athletic kids that hit you in the mouth every down.
Team B (the poor unit) plays a huge OL; big, slow, unathletic kids. They play OL because the HC feels that the bigger the OL, the better the blocking. But, they don't get off of the ball and they can't pull or trap to save their lives.
This simple personnel choice right here make a huge difference between winning and losing for this unit.
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Jul 16, 2007 6:53:59 GMT -6
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. How do you explain the success of NFL teams that play man to man most of the time? how do you explain the frequent use of the 46 at the pro and college level with bump and run coverage? is it really THAT EASY to beat? or just on paper? Im not talking about bracket coverage.. 2 deep man.. or anything like that.. Also, the NFL is a totally different monster.. You WILL have 5 good coverage guys on most NFL teams.. where as in high school you are blessed to get 1.. If someone in the NFL was stupid enough to bring 7 people and let 1 go free all night, then they too would have 100 hung on them.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jul 16, 2007 6:56:12 GMT -6
I have seen several NFL teams bring 7 on a blitz package; several teams do it consistently. They rely on getting to the QB before he can get the ball off.
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Jul 16, 2007 7:27:26 GMT -6
I have seen several NFL teams bring 7 on a blitz package; several teams do it consistently. They rely on getting to the QB before he can get the ball off. But they dont do it all night.. that would get you fired.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jul 16, 2007 7:35:34 GMT -6
The Eagles were well known for bringing 6-7 most of the night while playing various coverages behind it; man and zone. They brought this kind of heavy pressure more often than not; inside their 40 they live in these packages.
This is exactly what this thread is talking about; saying that a scheme will unequivocally not work.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 16, 2007 7:39:39 GMT -6
The Eagles and the like routinely bring 2 or 3 LBs & Safeties.............thing is, they are also dropping DE's & DTs in coverage. They aren't voiding anything. The thing is, most color-commentators will remark how that when the bandits show/creep before the play they will SAY the defense is in 'man-coverage', when really they are not - they are just in a type of "bronco" zone matchup.
Another good example is Arkansas. Reggie Herring will come out no matter WHO they play and play bump-and-run every down. Works great against your Louisiana-Monroes, but can pull your hair vs your LSU's & Auburns.
If you only have 3 receivers on routes in 7-man protection, then you really don't necessarily gain anything in blitzing 7.
Now, from a 21 personnel perspective, "sending the house" / JV mentality will work. But when you're facing 5-wide or one-back or teams that CAN check-release or throw HOT, or who's backs can motion out of the backfield and victimize slow LBs that have to stay with them.........and your 'support players' are chasing someone else down the field - you're screwed.
1) If you are playing a team that can't hurt you when you blitz, there is no reason for you NOT to blitz
the other side of the coin........ 2) If you are playing a team that can't hurt you when you blitz, then that team's philosophy/scheme is flawed, because they cannot adapt.
3) If you are playing a team that CAN hurt you when you blitz, and you still are intent on running a kitchen-sink blitz.......well, now you're just gambling, because you are willingly putting holes in defending the field. Which is like saying, "I want to stop the strong power, so I am putting 3 players in C gap, but no one in weak A and B gaps."
Just like a team that can't hurt a defense if they aren't running power 40 times a game....once the defense stops power, they have no other threat.
And isn't that what the whole point is? The point of offense /defense isn't to Run X,Y, & Z because that is the way its "supposed to be done", but to move the chains and score points (THAT is what wins games). If you aren't moving the chains or scoring points, you have to take a look at the philosophical things that are holding you back.
Philosophically, you can get away with only passing twice a season in youth ball. The same is not true at higher levels, where teams will FORCE you to be more than one-dimensional.
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Jul 16, 2007 7:50:15 GMT -6
The Eagles and the like routinely bring 2 or 3 LBs & Safeties.............thing is, they are also dropping DE's & DTs in coverage. They aren't voiding anything.
If you only have 3 receivers on routes in 7-man protection, then you really don't necessarily gain anything in blitzing 7.
Now, from a 21 personnel perspective, "sending the house" / JV mentality will work. But when you're facing 5-wide or one-back or teams that CAN check-release or throw HOT, or who's backs can motion out of the backfield and victimize slow LBs that have to stay with them.........and your 'support players' are chasing someone else down the field - you're screwed.
1) If you are playing a team that can't hurt you when you blitz, there is no reason for you NOT to blitz
the other side of the coin........ 2) If you are playing a team that can't hurt you when you blitz, then that team's philosophy/scheme is flawed, because they cannot adapt.
Just like a team that can't hurt a defense if they aren't running power 40 times a game....once the defense stops power, they have no other threat.
And isn't that what the whole point is? The point of offense /defense isn't to Run X,Y, & Z because that is the way its "supposed to be done", but to move the chains and score points (THAT is what wins games). If you aren't moving the chains or scoring points, you have to take a look at the philosophical things that are holding you back.
Philosophically, you can get away with only passing twice a season in youth ball. The same is not true at higher levels, where teams will FORCE you to be more than one-dimensional. umm.. exactly!!
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jul 16, 2007 8:01:25 GMT -6
My only point with this follows coachds point with this thread- there are very few situations where we can say a scheme, defensively or offensively "won't work", period.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions around here; I'm not questioning that.
|
|
|
Post by fatboy04 on Jul 16, 2007 8:19:17 GMT -6
There are several of us in Texas that run a 4 back double tight offense and believe in it. We can also move in to trips and some other sets but as far as the offense we are predominantly double tight. We had two great backs, one was a D1 and the other a D2 guy, we lost both to ACL injuries before district and went two rounds in the playoffs because of the system. There were at least 5 games this year where we had over 80 offensive snaps, and two games over 90 snaps. I had a little trouble believing in the double wing because no one ran it in high school in Texas until I saw Joaquin(Wyatt version) in East Texas on film and they believe in it. It is a small school but they are usually ranked in the top 10 every year. I like the simplicity of the double wing and I am researching it at the moment. I love power football Hey Falcon, Just to clarify, Coach Gandy at Joaquin worked for Coach Don Davis at Danbury, TX (2A), and I believe that was the first Double Wing team in Texas. Made a pretty big turnaround there during their tenure before Coach Gandy went to Joaquin and Coach Davis went to Laredo Martin. Laredo Martin has been running the DW for two seasons now and made the playoffs last season for the first time in fifteen years, also recording the best overall record in 38 years. BTW, nearly all the teams in their district are spread shotgun teams.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jul 16, 2007 8:19:25 GMT -6
This is an issue that isn't just limited the the threads; it works its way over to the whiteboard too.
There have been many situations where someone has drawn a sound offense or a defense on the whiteboard; something that they have ACTUALLY run with success.
But, someone in the room has stated point blank: "THAT WON'T WORK".
Now, like I said, these are schemes that guys around here have run and won games with. But, egos prevail and an argument ensues.
Lile I said, people are entitled to their opinions, but in order to have good conversations on here, EVERYONE needs to be open minded.
I'm more than happy (as are most guys) to listen to what everyone has to say. But to state that something "absolutely won't work" isn't going to help this site out.
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Jul 16, 2007 9:03:47 GMT -6
Speaking on Defense. I think an interesting philosophy is, "I am betting that your 16 or 17 year old kid is going to make a mistake". Meaning, that blitzing can cause kids to mess up and create a good situation for a team.
To say, "hey let's blitz every play tonight", is like saying, "let's run the ball" every play tonight. Probably not always the best philosophy.
I really liked the comment about running the veer at the eighth grade level and then going up a grade and not being able to run it. Good stuff. People coach what is familiar to them.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Jul 16, 2007 9:05:33 GMT -6
Read all the posts.........not smart enough to comment on them........
One item I would address is novelty at the higher levels. Historically, a novel scheme gives you an advantage, if you have the players and the execution.
The Chicago Bears and Halas started running T and won the championship game 70-0.
Whenever SS's in the NFL were basically linebackers, the run and shoot teams came in and dropped huge numbers
Urban-mania
Few years ago the Packers started running 22 personnel in a lot of games (basically power I)
At the higher levels, when you can do something unique (and therefore, initially harder to practice against/prepare for), you have an advantage.
If the Panthers came out in the doublewing next season, they'd probably do well the first couple of games, until teams caught up.
I agree with Khalfie and Brophy-----you need the multiplicity of the "Pro" offense because of defenses, narrowness of the field relative to speed, and matchups.
Running the ole Power-I as a change-up can give you an advantage, put you can't sit in it all season-------you need a multiple offense that can give you mulitple answers
|
|
|
Post by CoachMikeJudy on Jul 16, 2007 9:38:45 GMT -6
HOLY SCHNIKEES
How the heck did we get from this simple post to all this defensive and contradicting hub-bub?
Major differences level to level come in the pass game. With that said, as the level of play increases, so does the production of the pass game. Hence defenses must change their structure (coverage) to compensate and the 10-in-the-box-blitz-or-die "gambling" defaults to a more sound philosophy as to not get beat by hot reads/mismatches regularly.
Same goes for offenses.
"Soundness" is relative- if a team can't beat you with the pass, then stuff the box and blitz the heck out of them. If it works, keep doing it!
And the other variable is that the higher up you go, the more likely your livelihood depends on coaching. A high school coach can afford to run something unorthodox and fail, because they might fire you as a coach but you still keep your $50K a yr teaching job. Most youth coaches are lucky to get paid at all, so you can run whatever you want- who'll tell you otherwise!
A college coach can't afford to gamble with their lives like this because if the boosters/AD deem you unsuccessful, regardless of lack of talent, they'll point to the fact that your "double tight power I" or "blitz-crazy" defense is unsound or too old fashioned and FIRE YOU. Then you are likely black-balled for running crazy $hit...
Anyway, much respect to those coaches that keep it real and run the double wing/singlewing/wing-t/2TE power I year after year. I love it and you guys have some brass balls.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jul 16, 2007 9:40:35 GMT -6
Couldn't have said it better myself.
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Jul 16, 2007 10:13:13 GMT -6
A lot of true power guys don't mind a 2-3 yard gain. A lot of passing guys don't get flustered with 3rd and 10 (I would assume... never really having been a passing guy... but it still scares the hell out of me when a good passing team is in 3rd and 10). As far as the big-small argument: It is true, 1A is more likely to have absurd physical mismatches. execute. 5A generally IS more competitive, but that competitiveness does not negate a system if it is run properly. I agree about the big school small school arguements here. Having coached at a big school and a small school you can certainly be outmanned in a smaller school more easily b/c you don't have the athletes walking around the halls to recruit out. We talk to our backs a lot about being happy with the 3-4 yard gain. Because our philosophy is those 3-4 yard gains will eventually turn into 10-15 yard gains after we wear you down. Getting flustered on 3rd and long: I would not say I get flustered because we prepare for it but I certainly prefer to stay in 3rd and 2. Everyone does. We just don't have a huge menu of pass plays for 3rd and 10. Heck on 3rd and 10 a good play call for us might be trap!
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Jul 16, 2007 10:14:30 GMT -6
One item I would address is novelty at the higher levels. Historically, a novel scheme gives you an advantage, if you have the players and the execution. dubber - Great point! At my previous coaching job, we were a shotgun spread team (had been one since 1997). Every team in our conference and MOST of the teams we saw in the playoffs were Wing T, Wishbone, or some kind of Power I. We had a HUGE advantage over those teams because when they played us, they were out of their comfort zone...they knew how to defend smashmouth football and the Wing-T, but had no idea how to defend the spread and because they only saw it once a year (when they played us), they were at a huge disadvantage because of lack of experience. That's largely the reason (along with a nice streak of great athletes) why we went 44-12 or something like that during a 5-year stretch. Now, fast forward 10 years...every team in the conference is running some kind of shotgun spread sets...the good teams in the conference have several years of experience in defending the spread...teams we see in the playoffs either run the spread or have a lot of experience in defending it...point is, their really is no advantage in running the spread in the conference now because everyone else is doing it! In fact, if I was a HC in that conference, I would seriously consider running the DW, Straight T, or Wishbone because it would be a unique offense and the other teams wouldn't be familar with it. Offenses are like lifting weights...EVERYTHING works for a while, regardless of the level of ball, but eventually, adaptation sets in and you have to be able to tweak your philosophy in order to stay competetive. (even guys who run the Wing T or Wishbone or Super Duper Face Melting Unstoppable Offense for years add and subtract things as they go).
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jul 16, 2007 10:30:53 GMT -6
How do you explain the success of NFL teams that play man to man most of the time? how do you explain the frequent use of the 46 at the pro and college level with bump and run coverage? is it really THAT EASY to beat? or just on paper? Im not talking about bracket coverage.. 2 deep man.. or anything like that.. Also, the NFL is a totally different monster.. You WILL have 5 good coverage guys on most NFL teams.. where as in high school you are blessed to get 1.. If someone in the NFL was stupid enough to bring 7 people and let 1 go free all night, then they too would have 100 hung on them. ok so I got one good coverage guy, how many good receivers do you get?
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jul 16, 2007 10:33:45 GMT -6
The Eagles were well known for bringing 6-7 most of the night while playing various coverages behind it; man and zone. They brought this kind of heavy pressure more often than not; inside their 40 they live in these packages. This is exactly what this thread is talking about; saying that a scheme will unequivocally not work. Exactly its simply "Monday Night football booth talk"...yknow no different than when a parent yells out "Coach, they have EIGHT IN THE BOX!!!" in a high pitched girly panic...and youre winning 30-0 and are getting 7 yards a pop on your power off tackle despite 9 guys crammed between your tightends. Rediculous. Some of the stuff i hear about defenders beign too fast to run option against makes NO SENSE...the offense has those fast guys too! I liken it to the "prepare them for the next level" argument too, yknow if you dont play in a pro style attack starting at age 7 youll never be a pro.
|
|
|
Post by knighter on Jul 17, 2007 8:25:16 GMT -6
I will weigh in my thoughts on this.
In the NFL and in College, the nature of the beast is that you are in the process of or will eventually be fired as the head coach. You are also more than likely going to get a job at another place, so your scheme needs to be similar to what everyone else is running in order to be able to step in at your new job and not have to reteach everything.
To say that any offense will not work at "X" level is ridiculous. Give me any NFL's defense, and I sincerely believe I can coach them to run the DW and run it well, against anyone. That is my belief. You all can think what you want, it does not matter.
The cookie cutter offense mentality at the "higher" levels of football is a simple matter of job security IMO.
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Jul 17, 2007 9:13:17 GMT -6
What I don't get about option is, are they really that much "faster" than they were in 1994 when Nebraska was just butt pounding people with belly option? I don't think so, but that perception is out there.
Heck it's out there at the HS level. I know kids aren't faster than they were in 1993 when we ran the Nebraska I stuff, but no one runs it anymore because it's "obsolete" because of all the "speed" defenses have.
The success of an offense just depends on 1. your school- some places have spread athletes, some have wing t types 2. how good those kids are 3. how much the coache believes in it. Really that's all it takes
I firmly believe the next great "rebirth" in football will be of the option. It's sort of already happening out of the spread, but I see it catching fire again out of I and other formations soon.
|
|
|
Post by los on Jul 17, 2007 9:21:23 GMT -6
I think some series or plays, of any offensive system would be successful from pee-wee thru the nfl, whether run or pass! Its just common sense. These plays have been around for so long, cause they work! Its just the frequency of use that changes as the level of athletes and coaching increases? Like a lot of guys already said! A very simple example= QB sneak/wedge on a silent count. Would this work at any level? Sure! But where it may be successful 4-5 times per game at the youth level, it may only work once at a higher level. You can apply that to any basic play or series in football with the same results!
|
|
|
Post by CVBears on Jul 17, 2007 11:54:41 GMT -6
I think some series or plays, of any offensive system would be successful from pee-wee thru the nfl, whether run or pass! Its just common sense. These plays have been around for so long, cause they work! Its just the frequency of use that changes as the level of athletes and coaching increases? Like a lot of guys already said! A very simple example= QB sneak/wedge on a silent count. Would this work at any level? Sure! But where it may be successful 4-5 times per game at the youth level, it may only work once at a higher level. You can apply that to any basic play or series in football with the same results! very good post coach
|
|
|
Post by wingman on Jul 17, 2007 15:09:50 GMT -6
A lot of 46 stunts will bring 7 but some of those rushers will peel off if needed. Often, the 2 widest rushers are coming hard and "green dog" a one back set. If the back swings their way, they take him and the other outside rusher keeps coming. Or if that back steps up into the middle both rushers keep coming. That back might be uncovered releasing up th emiddle but the qb will never get the ball off with a 7 man rush and no back blocking. So techically you may have a man uncovered but it's situational.
|
|
|
Post by wingman on Jul 17, 2007 15:13:03 GMT -6
Amen Wildcat that's why we're SBV in the home of teh spread passing game ( So cal ).
|
|