|
Post by davecisar on Mar 19, 2007 13:19:26 GMT -6
Amen amen to that has been my point all along. Each team is a unique group of individuals, with various talents. Each scheme has its strenghts and weaknesses. Add to it the constraints of the dynamic and there is a scheme that matches that group best. Think Navy and Option football, what would happen if they tried to go 4 wide? Army was a .500 or better club when they were running option Bobby Ross brings in a balanced attack and they flop, AFA with FD cleans up with the option attack etc. Maybe for that grouping of kids and their constraints Option ball is the best fit. Maybe Im a bit off but I love watching Paul Johnston oprion football with those Navy kids. USC and the overwhelming talent they get, Pete Carroll has the best system in place for that dynamic etc etc etc.
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Mar 19, 2007 13:59:33 GMT -6
I agree.
I don't think you would see Navy type offenses in the SEC very often. At least not with sustained success. Now Navy does well considering who they have and who they play...
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Mar 19, 2007 14:16:39 GMT -6
I find it funny how Double Wing guys talk out of both sides of their mouths. They will say "use the system that best suits your athletes." It seems that no matter what type of athletes you have though, the Double Wing or Single Wing is the answer. Funny how that works out. Proponents of other systems, however are full of it. It seems like a case of "we are always right" and "you are always wrong, unless you agree with how we do things." It gets old. Coach, I couldn't disagree with you more. I wish everyone would quit jumping on the DW band wagon so it could go back to being unique. If I had it my way, everyone else would run spread and no one else would run the DW. Anyway, here is a thought from a pretty successful coach who once ran a version of the DW: "There are no miracle coaches, and no coach has any great secrets or any unsolvable plays that make him successful. The successful coaches are those who know how to handle men, who pay great attention to a thorough teaching of the rudiments of the game, who have a comparatively few basic plays which they can teach their teams to execute flawlessly, and who have good material to work with." Glenn S. "Pop" Warner, "Football for Coaches and Players" 1927
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Mar 19, 2007 14:24:30 GMT -6
"There are no miracle coaches, and no coach has any great secrets or any unsolvable plays that make him successful. The successful coaches are those who know how to handle men, who pay great attention to a thorough teaching of the rudiments of the game, who have a comparatively few basic plays which they can teach their teams to execute flawlessly, and who have good material to work with." Glenn S. "Pop" Warner, "Football for Coaches and Players" 1927 Excellent. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Mar 19, 2007 14:27:58 GMT -6
I agree. I don't think you would see Navy type offenses in the SEC very often. At least not with sustained success. Now Navy does well considering who they have and who they play... Navy is not in the SEC and they dont get SEC type players, the kind of kids that everyone wants and have NFL aspirations. The NAvy kids CANT play in the NFL etc. Navy plays a schedule that independents play and seem to do well in Bowl games inspite of being outmanned. I just love everything about that program.
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Mar 19, 2007 15:09:14 GMT -6
I think we are in agreement.
I was just showing both sides of the issue. For Navy, what they do works for who they have and what the goals of the program are.
For SEC teams with different goals and different types of players, a different type of scheme is more often employed.
Both types of programs do what they think they need to do be successful.
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Mar 19, 2007 15:11:45 GMT -6
I find it funny how Double Wing guys talk out of both sides of their mouths. They will say "use the system that best suits your athletes." It seems that no matter what type of athletes you have though, the Double Wing or Single Wing is the answer. Funny how that works out. Proponents of other systems, however are full of it. It seems like a case of "we are always right" and "you are always wrong, unless you agree with how we do things." It gets old. Coach, I couldn't disagree with you more. I wish everyone would quit jumping on the DW band wagon so it could go back to being unique. If I had it my way, everyone else would run spread and no one else would run the DW. Anyway, here is a thought from a pretty successful coach who once ran a version of the DW: "There are no miracle coaches, and no coach has any great secrets or any unsolvable plays that make him successful. The successful coaches are those who know how to handle men, who pay great attention to a thorough teaching of the rudiments of the game, who have a comparatively few basic plays which they can teach their teams to execute flawlessly, and who have good material to work with." Glenn S. "Pop" Warner, "Football for Coaches and Players" 1927 I like the quote. I think you are in the minority as far as the DW is concerned. Most DW coaches I have seen on the internet or have talked to claim that it is the best system for non-talented players and is "unbelievable" with talented players. I have yet to see a coach say "I don't think the DW is the right system for x type of players."
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Mar 19, 2007 15:28:24 GMT -6
I think we are in agreement. I was just showing both sides of the issue. For Navy, what they do works for who they have and what the goals of the program are. For SEC teams with different goals and different types of players, a different type of scheme is more often employed. Both types of programs do what they think they need to do be successful. Yes, With all those thoroughbreads it wouldnt make much sense to run the option. Well maybe Vandy LOL. I would however like to see it run with a bunch of great players like Nebraska did in the 80s and 90s, I just selfishly enjoy watchng that kind of football.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Mar 19, 2007 15:31:36 GMT -6
Coach J,
I think you will find that sentiment true of a great number of coaches who are passionate about their systems, however.
As an experiement, look around the board for posts with questions like:
"Hey, what is the best offense for me to run?" and you'll invariably see a multitude of answers:
Spread Gun Single Back with an H-back Double Wing Wing-T Veer Option etc etc
The bottom line is that ANY offense is a good offense, or otherwise it would not exist. The key is picking the offense YOU think is best for YOU. That usually has a lot to do with your own personal philosophies, your coaching strengths, and your personnel types.
I think the thing that I absolutely can't understand is the number of coaches who come on the board and ask that very question: "Hey...what offense should I run?" Don't any coaches have their own set philosophies any more? Isn't there anyone who is just comfortable running in THEIR system (NOT something they liked at a clinic, and NOT something that Urban Myer did on TV) anymore? It seems like everyone is always scrambling around for a magic offense or defense. Unfortunately, no such thing exists, guys. I mean...really...it doesn't.
Find a system that you understand, believe in, and can sit in for the long-haul with minimal adjustments each year. Learn everything you can about it and the base plays within it. Build the rules and terminology so that it is flexible enough to make adjustments to (the key here is MAKE ADJUSTMENTS, not CHANGE THE OFFENSE to whatever is hot), so that you can adapt it to your personnel as needed.
Sometimes I feel like not too many people think this way any more. I personally think there is a tremendous amount of pride and history that goes into a long-standing offensive or defensive system. It represents years of refinement, blending, adaptation, and evolution. It is something that you, your staff, and your entire program can be proud of. BUT you have to give it a chance, men! Don't read something out here on a message board or listen to Coach Bob Zero at a clinic and think "EUREKA!!" because none of us have the 100% total answer.
My best advice is to take IDEAS of the coaches you communicate with and make decisions in the off-season as to whether or not these things are good for you. Always ask yourself:
1. Does it fit with our system? 2. Does it tie to my philosophy (come to think of it...do I HAVE a philosophy)? 3. Is it good for my program (feeder, sub-varsity, varsity, etc.) all the way through? 4. Why do I really want to do this (did someone "sell me" on it, or do I really want to run this)? 5. Is this something I can sit in for years to come, or is it the offense of the week?
|
|
|
Post by warrior53 on Mar 19, 2007 19:21:31 GMT -6
I really did not want this thread to take this type of turn. All I wanted to get out of it was where these teams that are running this system of offense and how they started running it. I know how passionate they are when they post about their offense. I just admire their passion and wanted to hear their stories. I too am passionate about the offense that I am involved in (air raid) and get fired up when others are passionate about their work as much as I am. I hope this thread can turn back into what it was intended to be.
|
|
|
Post by tog on Mar 19, 2007 19:29:43 GMT -6
I really did not want this thread to take this type of turn. All I wanted to get out of it was where these teams that are running this system of offense and how they started running it. I know how passionate they are when they post about their offense. I just admire their passion and wanted to hear their stories. I too am passionate about the offense that I am involved in (air raid) and get fired up when others are passionate about their work as much as I am. I hope this thread can turn back into what it was intended to be. this is a good discussion. I like just seeing how others think about things.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Mar 19, 2007 19:32:37 GMT -6
The only difference would be the DW guys wouldnt slam your air raid, make snide remarks about it or ridicule it with cartoons etc. If they bothered to get involved with the thread at all it would be logic and factual, just a respect thing, common courtesy. If you were successful with it they would just pat you on the back and try and learn something has been my experience any ways and I dont run the DW. Ive read a ton of Mike Leach stuff with a very open mind, just dont have the personnel to run any of it, but did take a few coaching points for my passing attack.
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 19, 2007 19:40:03 GMT -6
There are quite a few Double Wing teams here in Nebraska. Aside from those dave mentioned, there are 3 class B (3A-4A) schools out west in the panhandle. One has been DW for 15+ years and they have enjoyed good success. The other two were DW and changed with new coaches within the last 3 years. The team that went to a 4-5 wide package has done quite a bit better when they were DW, the other went to a Pro I and has done considerably worse. In Class C (2A-3A), there are 3 others I can think of right off- 1 perennial power, who has only recently been a bit down, 1 school out west that plays near .500 ball and one near us who played in a Championship game within the past 5 years, and who generally wins about 65% of their games. In our class (D... smallest;tiny-1A), the best team and State Champion ran a DW and the worst team we have ever played ran a DW. There are a few others who have run it or who currently dabble in it a bit (which I would not recommend). While there may not be A LOT of DW, there are still a lot of 3 back offenses here. The West Coast at U of N has had some impact on the HS game, but not a tremendous amount. Everyone has said- no offense is a magic formula... unless you are selling something... then offense X is brand X and to sell anything- I'll mention the 4/5 who had success and not the guy who would have if he was not bitten by a squirrel (I think that one was for trident or some kind of gum). I like the DW, we run some principles of it (we are Single Wing/ Wing I), but some of the selling points are just that (for me), selling points that I do not buy completely; like any argument, there is rhetoric involved. The DW is a mindset- line up and kick your butt- and you do not need to be physically superior to run it- the players do need the tough demeanor though. I think a lot of teams run it here for that reason... we have tough kids who work on farms, do rodeo and demolition derby for fun, box and wrestle in the off season and like to beat up on other people. This most recent Double Wing debate has made me reexamine some conclusions about coaching football. When I began coaching, I remember reading an article by Eddie Robinson where he talked about his first year as a coach. A mentor told him "Get a system", adding that he could beg, borrow and steal other's plays as long as he could fit them in to his system. "Run a system, don't run a bunch of plays", he was told. Coach Robinson settled on a Wing-T, and it was a fantastic offense for him. I like that too- it is multiple and can take a lot from other offenses and make them fit in to the system. DW can do that as well, as can many other sets. I've learned a lot from spread guys...one of our best plays is a wr screen (slip screen/jailbreak screen) that has really been a great play for us (in spite of the fact that "Spread" here means 1 split end- 3 backs ).
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Mar 19, 2007 20:09:29 GMT -6
What I learned from the DW guys was their philosophy and some very good blocking schemes tied with tight splits and integrated series. I also learned just because someone lines up with two wings and a FB doesnt mean they are a "DW" team. At first I thought Navy was a DW team or even some flexbone teams, not so as I studied it further. IN my immediate area we have a few teams that run it, it is their base and they have done well with it. In our youth league we saw a few teams try and run some of it and fail miserably because they tried to incorporate larger splits and deeper fullbacks to just name a few of their nuances that made it fail. Also of course their base blocking schemes and drills didnt fit the DW. I might add one has to have the right practice prirotities as well, good emphasis on defense and special teams which is BTW what we put in first. Im only personally aware of the Bellevue team, Stanton and Steve Cozad ran it up in Lyons. Steves took over a team that hadnt had a winning season in 15 years and in just 3 years turned em upside down and State qualifier, he headed to greener pastures. larger school somewhere in Kansas and is now running the Dead T I heard.
|
|
|
Post by warrior53 on Mar 19, 2007 22:10:25 GMT -6
The only difference would be the DW guys wouldnt slam your air raid, make snide remarks about it or ridicule it with cartoons etc. If they bothered to get involved with the thread at all it would be logic and factual, just a respect thing, common courtesy. If you were successful with it they would just pat you on the back and try and learn something has been my experience any ways and I dont run the DW. Ive read a ton of Mike Leach stuff with a very open mind, just dont have the personnel to run any of it, but did take a few coaching points for my passing attack. What? Where did this come from?
|
|
|
Post by tog on Mar 19, 2007 22:14:29 GMT -6
Yes, With all those thoroughbreads it wouldnt make much sense to run the option. Well maybe Vandy LOL. What? I WANT to run the option with athletes. What makes it good with average talent makes it even more explosive with TALENT.
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 19, 2007 23:08:28 GMT -6
Im only personally aware of the Bellevue team, Stanton and Steve Cozad ran it up in Lyons.
Still quite a few in NE Nebraska (David City Aquinas, Crofton, Homer until this year, Dodge, Walthill) and out West (Garden Co, Hemingford, Scottsbluff- they are the class B team still running it. Gary Hartman did a good job with it at a smallish B school. He coaches the western Nebraska All-Star game a lot... runs Double Wing). Only 1 A school west of Kearney (North Platte) and only 1 in the NE (Norfolk). It's still alive and well in the small schools.
I have not kept up with Colorado lately, but there were a quite a few there through 2000 (Centarus, Monarch, Regis, Longmont...all 4A/5A schools, plus I believe 1A Limon ran it through a 30 something win streak... Superpower would know this).
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 20, 2007 5:43:04 GMT -6
Yes, With all those thoroughbreads it wouldnt make much sense to run the option. Well maybe Vandy LOL. What? I WANT to run the option with athletes. What makes it good with average talent makes it even more explosive with TALENT. See, I agree with Tog here 100%, if a system is considered " an underdog system" or "an equalizer" than to me it only makes sense that it would be that much better with great talent. Remember how good the Sooners were back in the 80s? HOLY COW THAT WAS FUN TO WATCH!!! ...sure, they underutilized keith jackson...but he was part of the explosion wasnt he. option, dw, sw...wing-t whatever...its all going to work better with great talent (seems kinda funny to even type that lol)...
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 20, 2007 6:09:08 GMT -6
"I think the thing that I absolutely can't understand is the number of coaches who come on the board and ask that very question: "Hey...what offense should I run?" Don't any coaches have their own set philosophies any more? Isn't there anyone who is just comfortable running in THEIR system (NOT something they liked at a clinic, and NOT something that Urban Myer did on TV) anymore? It seems like everyone is always scrambling around for a magic offense or defense. Unfortunately, no such thing exists, guys. I mean...really...it doesn't. "
I was thinking the exact same thing. Whenever I see a thread titled "what is the best...." I usually cringe.
SYSTEMS are irrelevant, and the evidence is indeed in this dicussion. I do agree with what coach J alluded to to SOME extent. Not about DW coaches thinking they are always right and you are wrong...but with regards to the fact that when someone believes in their system, it is THE RIGHT SYSTEM. Just look at the thread--When you have bad athletes, you are "supposed" to run option, wing-t, dbl wing, spread...BUT when you have great athletes, you have even better results running option, wing-t, dbl wing, spread....
System is irrelevant. Getting your kids to do what you want them to do is paramount.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Mar 20, 2007 6:14:44 GMT -6
What? Where did this come from? [/quote]
I guess you didnt see all the Chuck Norris references or the Chuck Norris Kangaroo cartoon on the other DW thread, or the "unstoppable" offense thread. Always seems to come up when a discussion on the DW comes up for whatever reason by DW detractors. I have my favorites, Veer, Flexbone,Straight T, Single Wing, Double Wing, etc but I gain knowledge from them all and dont put down any. If you are successfull with an offense thats right for your kids more power to ya. Doubt any of those kind of comments or cartoons from the DW guys would go over very well or be appreciated on the "Why we run the spread" threads. To each their own.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 20, 2007 6:22:41 GMT -6
Coach, I couldn't disagree with you more. I wish everyone would quit jumping on the DW band wagon so it could go back to being unique. If I had it my way, everyone else would run spread and no one else would run the DW. Anyway, here is a thought from a pretty successful coach who once ran a version of the DW: "There are no miracle coaches, and no coach has any great secrets or any unsolvable plays that make him successful. The successful coaches are those who know how to handle men, who pay great attention to a thorough teaching of the rudiments of the game, who have a comparatively few basic plays which they can teach their teams to execute flawlessly, and who have good material to work with." Glenn S. "Pop" Warner, "Football for Coaches and Players" 1927 I like the quote. I think you are in the minority as far as the DW is concerned. Most DW coaches I have seen on the internet or have talked to claim that it is the best system for non-talented players and is "unbelievable" with talented players. I have yet to see a coach say "I don't think the DW is the right system for x type of players." I resemble that remark in many ways because for the most part I DO THINK that every school has kids that can double team, pull, wedge , trap, angle block, fake and cover the ball with two hands. Some schools have all of that and a boy who can throw, make good decisions as well as 2-3 kids who can shake loose from coverage and make the great catch, or better yet, make the catch even when covered. I DO THINK that the dw is a great system and I DO THINK that it does create advantages for my kids. We dont have to be the better group of athletes but if we are, well, look out! Now, I have reason to believe what I believe. I am sure every coach has their reasons for doing what they do. Some do it because "the pros do it" or because "we did it in college" or because "I want to coach college ball some day so I run a college system", some do it because "its what I know" and some do it because "it fits my kids" (because they are so good that they could switch from power I , to fun gun and on to triple option on a year to year basis based solely on the type of kids they had? I am not that good a coach) I think it starts with a basic philosophy... my bare bones offensive philosophy starts with : power is created by numbers and angles- two is always better than one. conflict is created by being so overwhelming that the defense has to do SOMETHING to stop the bleeding, creating a weakness somewhere else take what we want by force, be intimidating in our unrelenting approach to taking what we want, but be smart enough to take what they give us on a silver platter. use the jab to set up the knock out. keep jabbing. take the ball, keep it until we score, get it back quickly. choose a system that is flexible enough for any kind of kids and user friendly enough that the coaches of the 8 year old team can make it work. I could surely design a spread attack that would do those things...
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Mar 20, 2007 6:44:58 GMT -6
Coach, I couldn't disagree with you more. I wish everyone would quit jumping on the DW band wagon so it could go back to being unique. If I had it my way, everyone else would run spread and no one else would run the DW. Anyway, here is a thought from a pretty successful coach who once ran a version of the DW: "There are no miracle coaches, and no coach has any great secrets or any unsolvable plays that make him successful. The successful coaches are those who know how to handle men, who pay great attention to a thorough teaching of the rudiments of the game, who have a comparatively few basic plays which they can teach their teams to execute flawlessly, and who have good material to work with." Glenn S. "Pop" Warner, "Football for Coaches and Players" 1927 I like the quote. I think you are in the minority as far as the DW is concerned. Most DW coaches I have seen on the internet or have talked to claim that it is the best system for non-talented players and is "unbelievable" with talented players. I have yet to see a coach say "I don't think the DW is the right system for x type of players." I went 0-9 in 2005 at my previous school. We had a bunch of soft kids who wouldn't have won no matter what offense they ran. There is absolutely no magic bullet offense. If you don't have kids who are willing to do what it takes, you aren't going to be successful just because you run a specific offense.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 20, 2007 7:17:18 GMT -6
I will say this, folks. 1) I have coached and played in the Wing-T offense. I started in coaching eating up the Hugh Wyatt stuff, mainly because he was able to bridge the gap from the Wing-T to the Double Wing offense. Everything Wyatt talks about makes sense. 2) I run the double wing now (at the youth level), but will be coaching in the spread come Fall. I appreciate the double wing and have no problems with it. Guys like Brad Knight and the like have really perfected the effectiveness of this offense. 3) I have defensed the double wing (at the HS level). To me, it really doesn't change a whole helluva lot from defending the wing-t. Stop the base plays and there isn't much else that is going to beat you. (Counter IS a base play). 4) My biggest observation is ......A) If a team executes flawlessly, nothing you do will stop them - they are just better than you are. ......B) If all you have is one formation, as a defensive guy, this is wonderful. As a defensive guy, the last thing we want to deal with is a bunch of formations that will screw us up. As a coach, running a handful of plays makes me a little uneasy, because either it works or it doesn't....and when it doesn't...now what? There is no inherent flexibility (IMO) to adjust and adapt by spreading the field out or trying to attack the field / defense in any way other than what's out of the box. High School and college defensive players can handle multiple assignments and can shed blocks.....conditioning them to stop 6-8 plays a game is no sweat....it's when those 6-8 plays are coming out of 12 different formations and threaten you with passes, runs, traps, screens, etc that the hesitation is going to set in. Now, out of my ignorance and naivety, I have overlooked some glaring weakness and need to be corrected. Those are just my observations (and biases). discuss....talk amongst yourselves...
|
|
bhb
Junior Member
Posts: 259
|
Post by bhb on Mar 20, 2007 7:18:38 GMT -6
I went 0-9 in 2005 at my previous school. We had a bunch of soft kids who wouldn't have won no matter what offense they ran. There is absolutely no magic bullet offense. If you don't have kids who are willing to do what it takes, you aren't going to be successful just because you run a specific offense. Absolutely. Soft kids are something I ran into, and I'll tell you what- there is not a system in the world that can work with a bunch of softies.. Unfortunately, I wasn't a good enough coach to break them of the softness that was ingrained in them. I learned a lot that year, probably more than any other season I've coached. Ever since then I've been huge on building a "Team Tough" attitude- double teams help with that on offense.soft kids on defense?. that adds up to a looooooooooooooooooooong season.
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Mar 20, 2007 7:46:43 GMT -6
Good post, Coach, especially the part about soft kids on defense. We actually moved the ball against most teams when we went 0-9, but we didn't stop anyone. Before that season I may have been more like some of the other DW coaches who thought the DW was going to work with any type of kids, but I now know from experience that there are no miracle fixes on either offense or defense. As Lombardi used to say, "The team that blocks and tackles better is going to win."
|
|
bhb
Junior Member
Posts: 259
|
Post by bhb on Mar 20, 2007 8:03:03 GMT -6
Superpower, It sounds like our experiences mirrored each others. I came into this team-(who was in the middle of an epic losing streak, one in which they hadn't even scored in 2 seasons, and actually went an entire season without getting a 1st down)- fresh off of a run at the Championship the past 3 years in a row thinking I was gonna "git-r-done"..LOL..
I figured I had my systems, and they were proven. Sure, I knew that with their past history obviously they were weak on talent- but heck, I had the double wing- the great equalizer- everything would be different right? Wrong. Now, like you, we did move the ball on EVERYBODY- even the best teams in the league couldn't believe how well we moved the ball on them.. But like you, we couldn't stop anyone on defense. When you need 14 plays to go 56 yards, and the other team can take it to the house in one, that's a tough road to walk every week.
I do think the DW was good to us- but the end result was we didn't win. I guess in a situation like that you have to re-define "success". For this group, actually scoring every game was something they were very proud of- for me, losing every game was something I never thought could happen. It was a very humbling, yet educational experience.. I read a lot of the things guys say about how it's all coaching, and I look at their practice plans, and suggestions, and think "I did all that- and still went 0-8"- sometimes the perfect storm hits, and when it does, having any positive results can be tough..
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Mar 20, 2007 8:04:34 GMT -6
I want to make sure people realize I never meant to attack the DW as a system, philosophy, lifestyle, or anything else. Like coachcalande said, it encompasses his personality and he firmly believes in it. I think that is a great thing. When you buy into something on personal level, it can make you really great at that scheme.
My staff and I don't personally use the DW. We have played some DW teams.
My only comment is you will unlikely see a DW guy say to a coach "It isn't right for everybody." Most (not all) of them believe it IS the system for EVERY team. You have no talent? Double Wing. You have loads of talent? Double Wing. You have medium talent? Double Wing is the answer. That is the perception I get from reading this board amongst others.
Like anything we are passionate about, DW people will come up with all kind of reasons why it IS the system of choice. Why would I or anyone else expect less? I completely understand the defensive nature too, because I imagine people that don't understand have often given them undeserved flack. People often mock what they don't understand.
My only contention is that there are situations, groups of players, or coaching philosophies out there that might not be into the DW. Just as the DW IS right for some coaches situations, it is NOT right for others.
We can argue until we are blue in the face, but that is my opinion. T
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 20, 2007 8:06:50 GMT -6
bhb- well at least your kids could hang on to the ball for 14 plays instead of going three and out and putting them back on defense. thats part of the reasoning behind choosing an offense like the dw in the first place ...
|
|
bhb
Junior Member
Posts: 259
|
Post by bhb on Mar 20, 2007 8:12:19 GMT -6
Steve, Yeah, I hear ya- and you're right. Now, don't get me wrong we didn't go 14 plays every drive- but to score we knew we needed to- that's just a fact of life when you have a team who can block a counter perfectly, backs fool everyone, have a lane a mile wide to run through and then your speedy counter back gets count from behind by......................... the DT..LOL.. Obviously, we weren't overcoming any penalties, or wasted plays- if that happened it would kill darn near every drive..Crazy season.
Like I said, I guess some seasons you have to redefine 'success'
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 20, 2007 8:12:49 GMT -6
I want to make sure people realize I never meant to attack the DW as a system, philosophy, lifestyle, or anything else. Like coachcalande said, it encompasses his personality and he firmly believes in it. I think that is a great thing. When you buy into something on personal level, it can make you really great at that scheme. My staff and I don't personally use the DW. We have played some DW teams. My only comment is you will unlikely see a DW guy say to a coach "It isn't right for everybody." Most (not all) of them believe it IS the system for EVERY team. You have no talent? Double Wing. You have loads of talent? Double Wing. You have medium talent? Double Wing is the answer. That is the perception I get from reading this board amongst others. Like anything we are passionate about, DW people will come up with all kind of reasons why it IS the system of choice. Why would I or anyone else expect less? I completely understand the defensive nature too, because I imagine people that don't understand have often given them undeserved flack. People often mock what they don't understand. My only contention is that there are situations, groups of players, or coaching philosophies out there that might not be into the DW. Just as the DW IS right for some coaches situations, it is NOT right for others. We can argue until we are blue in the face, but that is my opinion. T I would say that there are times when a group of dwers on the forums will work hard to sell a newcomer on the system and all of its glory...and there are times when someone comes in with ideas of dabbling or wanting to be creative and "merge" ideas...and the resounding advice is always DO NOT DO IT. So, I cant totally agree with your post, but I dont disagree with it completely either. For WHATEVER REASON double wingers are very passionate, cultish and nutty... ITS A DOUBLE WING THING, YOU WOULDNT UNDERSTAND. ;D I mean who else would think a game with 60 wedges running over a defense was "awesome!"...yeah, a different breed so Its definitely NOT for everyone. I have worked with guys who always want to "get the ball outside" or are constantly worried about " 8 in the box" and cant seem to "get" the fact that we are scoring a point a minute already and dont need to do anything different. It takes a different mind set to be willing to call power, power, power, power, trap, power power, counter td. go for two, onsides kick...power power power , uh oh, 4th and 3...power power power power trap, counter td. go for two... etc
|
|