|
Post by jcarbon2 on Jul 12, 2007 7:50:10 GMT -6
Coaches,
I have been coaching football for over 14 years and in that time I have run just about everything from the old single wing to the modern spread. I kind of wonder how some coaches just hang their hat on one scheme and run maybe 4-5 run plays and win state championships. These same guys (mostly older "ledgend" types) seem to never have a bad year. Anybody have any feedback??
John
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Jul 12, 2007 8:06:28 GMT -6
We are like that. We have been running many of the same core plays for the last 20-30 years. Not to say we never do anything different year to year or add a wrinkle here and there but if you watched tape from 25 years ago you would see the same offense.
Coaches who coach this way usually spend a lot of time on fundamentals and executing each play to perfection. We will spend what seems like an inordinant amount of time on footwork for our belly series or a simple play action pass. But when we run these in the game I really think the kids could do it with thier eyes closed. Okay not literally, but that is the level of execution we want.
It is the same offense and terminology from 7th grade on up, and the same coaching points on each play are emphasized so by the time a freshman runningback becomes a senior he has run "Valpo" 100,000 times. Or the line has blocked trap etc.
So I would say it is an emphasis on execution, fundamentals, mental toughness, let's not forget great defense. Also if you as a coach believe in something very strongly it is easier to sell your staff and players on it as well.
|
|
|
Post by coache67 on Jul 12, 2007 8:19:03 GMT -6
I am on the other side of this issue as I have seen teams with great talent stunted b/c the coach refused to change his offensive philosophy. I am a firm believer that you have to let your talent dictate your scheme.
That being said it doesn't have to be a radical overhaul year by year, just tweaking. For example say I have run the wing T for 25 years, great success etc... All of a sudden I have a QB coming up through the ranks like we have never had before - He can run, he can throw, he can throw on the run etc. Now, do I have to change "what I know" just b/c I have a good QB? No, we can still run the wing T but maybe institue some gun T plays to get this kid more involved in the running game and give him options in the pass game. And in today's climate, maybe me being willing to change and showcase him a bit more keeps him at my school as opposed to transferring elsewhere.
Something I just typed is really what it boils down to. A lot of coaches just run what they know b/c that is all they know. They really don't look outside of what they've done b/c of past success or b/c that is what they have been running since 1976. I don't get that attitude.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Jul 12, 2007 8:28:09 GMT -6
I heard a old coach say this one time, every time you change your offense or defense you upperclassman become freshman all over again. I guess this is why some guys adopt a system and stick with it.
for me it never fails I get calls from people, hey I finally have a qb who can throw the ball and a couple rec and now I want to pass the ball. I tell them qb are made as are rec. it would be a waste of your time to start throw the ball unless you are going to adopt a passing system.
I am like lavell edwards we are going to live by the pass.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jul 12, 2007 8:41:32 GMT -6
I coached under a guy like that for a few years. His philosophy was simple; we're going to run what run better than you can stop it. He mixed things up a little based on their talent, but he always had the same core plays. The kids new these plays inside and out and had run them a thousand times.
His offenses were always based on running the ball, but they also ran very, very good PA schemes that the kids knew just as well as the ground game. Each running scheme had a good counter off of it also.
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Jul 12, 2007 8:47:09 GMT -6
I think you need to have a base system and be able to adapt it to your players every year. We run the wing-t and last year we had 3 great backs and ran the ball alot, I think we attempted 60-70 passes all year in 12 games. Those guys are gone now and we have some talent comming up but realize we need to do some stuff different this year, with in our system. So now we are looking at some shout gun wing-t, working on our passing game more, and looking to get our athletic qb running the ball more. Just because we have a different set of players with different skills doesn't make us abandon the wing-t. We will still run bucksweep, belly, power, counter trey etc....but prob line up in some diffrerent stuff run the qb more and def throw some more. I have never understood how some guys seem to switch it up every year this is my third year in the wing-t and I am still learning stuff everyday about the O. Couldn't imagine changing it up every year or two.
That may have been off topic a bit but more on topic- We have a guy in our area who runs Student Body about 75% of the time. He coached at the big private school I coached at for ten years, he was gone when I was there, and is the all time victory leader there with. He left that school and went to a small rural public school that had the longest loosing streak in the state at the time. That was a few years ago and now they are constantly in the top 3 of their league with a district title. Guess what he runs 75% of the time. Student body and when I say student body I mean he runs it to the right never to the left. I think some of these coaches who run the same thing year after year have also instilled an attitude in there players that hey they know whats comming but they have no idea how well we run it till they play us. I don't know maybe I am way off but just my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jul 12, 2007 9:40:54 GMT -6
First of all, our system is flexibile enough that we can emphasize different parts of it from year to year. We'll always run the ball but we can and do run drop-back. The only thing that varies from year to year is the ratio of plays.
The other thing is that we tweak and evolve, we don't overhaul. Our top play is Power. We're going to run in, period. Two years ago, though, we changed the way we execute our double-team and the play has become more effective. When we put in zone we started blocking our sweep with zone blocking. Defensively we've evolved over the last 19 years from a Shade 50 to a 4-3 to a Virginia Tech Robber, back to a Cover 4 4-3. We never changed our terminology or basic approach. We changed who does what, not what we do.
The guys who talked about fundamentals are right. It's a simple game. Block and tackle better than the other guy and you win.
|
|
|
Post by coache67 on Jul 12, 2007 10:32:23 GMT -6
^^^^^Definitely agree. This also might be of interest about a Ada, OH QB Zac Dysert his coaches from www.jjhuddle.com : Like most great athletes, football isn’t the only game in Dysert’s portfolio, but over the last four years it has become his best. As the numbers piled up on the grid iron it was obvious football was Dysert’s ticket to D-I college athletics. “When I started high school I was thinking baseball, but when Coach (Micah) Fell arrived football started to become my main sport,” said Dysert. Fell, a veteran coach who has spent time at Columbus Grove and Celina, was a run first coach making the marriage of him and Dysert an interesting one. But in a move that spoke loudly of Dysert’s skill, the coach scrapped the split T offense and went back to school. He headed to Troy State (Alabama) last summer to learn the spread offense and shifted his coaching philosophy in an effort to take full advantage of Dysert’s skills. “When Coach Fell got the job he told me he was going to keep the spread offense. He spent last summer at Troy State and brought back their offense,” Dysert said about his coach.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Jul 12, 2007 11:00:41 GMT -6
I think you need to have a base system and be able to adapt it to your players every year. We run the wing-t and last year we had 3 great backs and ran the ball alot, I think we attempted 60-70 passes all year in 12 games. Those guys are gone now and we have some talent comming up but realize we need to do some stuff different this year, with in our system. So now we are looking at some shout gun wing-t, working on our passing game more, and looking to get our athletic qb running the ball more. Just because we have a different set of players with different skills doesn't make us abandon the wing-t. We will still run bucksweep, belly, power, counter trey etc....but prob line up in some diffrerent stuff run the qb more and def throw some more. I have never understood how some guys seem to switch it up every year this is my third year in the wing-t and I am still learning stuff everyday about the O. Couldn't imagine changing it up every year or two. That may have been off topic a bit but more on topic- We have a guy in our area who runs Student Body about 75% of the time. He coached at the big private school I coached at for ten years, he was gone when I was there, and is the all time victory leader there with. He left that school and went to a small rural public school that had the longest loosing streak in the state at the time. That was a few years ago and now they are constantly in the top 3 of their league with a district title. Guess what he runs 75% of the time. Student body and when I say student body I mean he runs it to the right never to the left. I think some of these coaches who run the same thing year after year have also instilled an attitude in there players that hey they know whats comming but they have no idea how well we run it till they play us. I don't know maybe I am way off but just my two cents. this guy sounds like a guy I know. he runs the power I and to the right most of the time. he is always talking about his team imposing there will upon the other team. you know it is coming, but can you stop it. his theory is it mentally wears down a team when you run the same few plays over and over from a few formations.
|
|
|
Post by djwesp on Jul 12, 2007 11:03:01 GMT -6
This conversation reminds me of Arkansas Coaching Great Don "The General" Campbell.
Campbell had a playbook of 8. YES 8! Plays, that he would even give to opposing coaches that if they asked for it. He would even feed coaches that came scouting, and give them details on how each play was ran.
"As the game was winding down with his East team (it was an all star game) firmly ahead, however, they lined up in a formation very familiar to high school football fans across the state; the Diamond-T. "We had some good receivers, so that's fine," Campbell said. "People wanted a wide-open game, and we gave them one. We ran it at the end when we ran out the clock. That's a good clock-eater." Campbell used the formation to historical success at coaching stops at Corning, Sheridan and Wynne. When Campbell announced his retirement in December, he had 257 wins, 98 losses, six ties with two state championships in 31 years as a head coach and 39 years in the profession overall."
"Campbell spent 17 years at Corning, including the last 10 as the high school coach, losing just 28 games in 10 seasons.
He then took over a Sheridan program that was 14-64-1 in the nine years before his arrival and in the midst of a 27-game losing streak.
After taking over, Campbell recalls an assistant saying that they didn’t have a right tackle who could block a particular play.
“Well, we better find one, because we’re running it,” Campbell replied.
Sheridan won seven games in his first year before losing to Wynne in the state playoffs. Sheridan then won 11 in Campbell’s second season, helping turn around that program in his five years. "
Wynne was WAY down this year. Campbell's team, still advanced far into the playoffs, losing to Pulaski Academy (a spread team) 43-42. They had 500+ yards on the ground (if my memory is right).
They lost to a team lead by USC incoming freshman Broderick Green and TT incoming freshman Stephan Loucks.
|
|
|
Post by fbcoach33 on Jul 12, 2007 11:41:31 GMT -6
I have run the same system going on 12 years now and been pretty fortuante to have some success, one thing that I think Ive come strongly to believe in is that I learn more about my offense and defense every year and what minor tweaks I may need to make during a game to make things run better, I dont know if I would have that if I was changing systems. I like to tweak things each year to better utilize the strong areas we have on that particular team but as I said before Im still learning things about the multibone after 12 years.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 12, 2007 12:18:02 GMT -6
It's funny to see this thread today. A few weeks ago a guy who runs a Texas Longhorns site asked me to participate in some stuff, so I did. He asked about keeping your scheme steady, etc. I don't know much about the 'Horns but I gave it a shot. I'd be curious what some of you guys thought. www.burntorangenation.com/storyonly/2007/7/12/05023/4899
|
|
|
Post by realdawg on Jul 12, 2007 12:41:35 GMT -6
I swear Shelby HS in NC has been running a variation of the wing t since the 1960's and have won back to back state titles the last two years
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jul 12, 2007 12:44:43 GMT -6
We used to play a team that ran Air Raid concepts like you wouldn't believe. Had a great QB, fast, athletic, great arm; based out of 5 wide and through the ball all over the place. They ran zone read, jet sweep, and QB counter as they're base running package. Tough to stop, no matter how you cut it.
The QB graduated and the next kid in line was fast, but didn't have an arm on him. They returned a great backfield also. Did they scrap the whole scheme?
Nope, kept the same package in, but ran the zone read, jet sweep, and QB counter, and screens all day long. The kids knew their running package inside and out and they ran it better than anyone could stop them. They were a very tough team to stop.
They very easily could have panicked a little and gone with something the "experts" would deem as more appropriate for their talent. Maybe some veer, power I etc...But, they stuck with what the kids knew, emphasized fundies and mad eit work for them.
|
|
|
Post by briangilbert on Jul 12, 2007 13:02:39 GMT -6
I played for a coach that had success in D6 in Ohio running an offense from 1972 that was basically the Wing T out of a Pro 21 set. We'd run every year (His terminology) *Power (Think Buck Sweep 26/27 both guards pull with misdirection by FB) *Power Trap (32/33) *Power Waggle (26/27) *Iso's
Our passing game consisted of 3 step Slant (X and Z did Slants everyone else stayed in to max protect) Fade (X and Z did Fades everyone else stayed in) Pop Passes Screens (sometimes)
Only problem this coach had is he was coaching Division 1 football in Ohio. The teams I played for had lots of talent with a Division 1 QB for 2 of those years. We couldn't throw, and teams would load up the box with 8 or 9 guys and play cover 0 and dare us to throw on them. Our defense was one of the best in the state, but our offense was always ranked as one of the worst in Ohio.
So when I think of running the same stuff forever I think of my HS playing experience. Where the man I played for didn't want to learn anything knew and personally I don't think he was smart enough to learn any new tricks at this point in his career.
Apparently for the 2007 season they are SWITCHING to a spread offense, but I'll believe it when I see it.
As a coach now I look at my playing days in HS as what never to do as a football coach.
|
|
|
Post by briangilbert on Jul 12, 2007 13:05:33 GMT -6
^^^^^In Ohio Division 1 is the biggest division and Division 6 is the smallest via enrollment.
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Jul 13, 2007 6:42:38 GMT -6
They very easily could have panicked a little and gone with something the "experts" would deem as more appropriate for their talent. Maybe some veer, power I etc...But, they stuck with what the kids knew, emphasized fundies and mad eit work for them. Coach: A lot of this has to do with what Chris referred to as "sunk costs"...you have made a massive investment in player hours learning one scheme, and much or all of that can be wasted by chopping and changing to a new system. So, you go Darwinian and adapt...
|
|
|
Post by CoachMikeJudy on Jul 13, 2007 7:22:27 GMT -6
I really believe that having/developing a system that can stand the test of time is the answer.
I'm in search of this holy grail as we speak...I thought I had it but I started messing around with jets/rockets a couple of years back and it totally threw me off track.
I tried to adopt the traditional wing-t but it's just not me- I'm a zone/power o/count GT/playaction coach to the bone...It's what I believe in and know the best.
Next time I'm in a position to OC, I will be running what I believe in for sure
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jul 13, 2007 9:10:53 GMT -6
They very easily could have panicked a little and gone with something the "experts" would deem as more appropriate for their talent. Maybe some veer, power I etc...But, they stuck with what the kids knew, emphasized fundies and mad eit work for them. Coach: A lot of this has to do with what Chris referred to as "sunk costs"...you have made a massive investment in player hours learning one scheme, and much or all of that can be wasted by chopping and changing to a new system. So, you go Darwinian and adapt... Yup- I agree whole heartedly. But, we have all seen teams that seem to throw something new at you each and every year. They're never very good at anything because, as people pointed out, they're starting over each year. It was funny with the team I described though- people in the town and around the program were screaming to get out of the SG. "We need to go I formation, we need to run veer option, we need to do what so and so does...." Blah, blah. They came out and punished people using the same schemes that they had always run- just a little different emphasis in practice. Instead of focusing on the Air Raid concepts during practice, they placed emphasis on the ground game. Same formations, same blocking, SAME scheme, just adapting what they had run to who they had.
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Jul 13, 2007 10:11:02 GMT -6
It seems that every December, I start looking at other programs- taking ideas, plays, blocking rules, motions, etc. and get everything down. It ends up being a few thousand pages of chicken scratch. By the end of all of that, there are a few tweaks... maybe a change to something in the passing game, but for the most part things are the same.
I kind of look at my offensive philosophy as it was in 1994 (my first 3 years were steeped in confusion).
Since 1994:
We've run the same core plays all of those years:
Our blocking scheme has not changed at all (in 99 we did add a call... and occasionally kids will come up with something for a particular situation, but our line call system is the same as it was 14 years ago)
We've had the same auxiliary plays every year (so: we may run midline some years, and not others, etc.)
Formation has evolved from 3 back, 2 TE every down to 1-2 SE, Wings and motion and occasionally shotgun (single wing).
Formation had evolved from balanced every play (94-97) to mix of balanced and unbalanced (98-05) to unbalanced every play (06-07).
I guess that I'm trying to cheat and be on both sides of this issue at the same time. I want to run the same stuff over and over... and we often do. But inevitably we get in to a game where the opponent is just physically superior, and I never want to be left thinking "what do we do now"?.
2 reasons stick out as to why I made the change: 1. We had a game in 1998 (we were 9-2 that year) where we could do nothing against the eventual state champion- and we had no good way to attack them. We were 2 TE wishbone, they played a 6-2 and cheated the CBs up (their secondary has 2 guys currently in the NFL, so they could easily cover our ineffective passing game). I looked over that tape a lot (and saw them play several other games) and felt like if we had more formation variety, we could dictate things (alignment, adjustment) more than we did.
2. Most of the time, we would scout say a 5-2 or a 4-4 team, and they would come out in a 7-2 or 6-3 or 4-5 where they covered the G and T and stunted like banshees... so we never really knew what they would be in defensively. Practice for the OL became running our plays against every defense we could think up. Since this became our practice habit, and we were "getting ready for anything" anyway. I figured we would be no worse off to vary our formations, since different adjustments should not have an effect on us if we were coaching them up correctly.
|
|
|
Post by dolomite on Jul 14, 2007 10:29:33 GMT -6
I am on the other side of this issue as I have seen teams with great talent stunted b/c the coach refused to change his offensive philosophy. I am a firm believer that you have to let your talent dictate your scheme. That being said it doesn't have to be a radical overhaul year by year, just tweaking. For example say I have run the wing T for 25 years, great success etc... All of a sudden I have a QB coming up through the ranks like we have never had before - He can run, he can throw, he can throw on the run etc. Now, do I have to change "what I know" just b/c I have a good QB? No, we can still run the wing T but maybe institue some gun T plays to get this kid more involved in the running game and give him options in the pass game. And in today's climate, maybe me being willing to change and showcase him a bit more keeps him at my school as opposed to transferring elsewhere. Something I just typed is really what it boils down to. A lot of coaches just run what they know b/c that is all they know. They really don't look outside of what they've done b/c of past success or b/c that is what they have been running since 1976. I don't get that attitude. I agree.The person who started this post made the comment that he has seen teams that run the same 5-6 plays winning state. I disagree. I think this suits small ball. 1a/2a. In Illinois if your not inventive you're not going to be able to hang with the Jone's. You will see wing-t/DW teams have success in the lower levels, but when talent is stepped up and your playing big ball with the big boys in the Chicago area you must be able to adjust your game plan and out wit an opponent. Athleticism will even itself out. IMO the best way to beat a system is to have better athletes. In small ball this is not such a problem. This is why you don't see 8a teams running the wing-t. I know you DW guys are going to speak the obvious-Clovis- they are an extreme exception. Tell me another DW team their size that has had similar success.
|
|
|
Post by dolomite on Jul 14, 2007 10:37:07 GMT -6
Spreadattack said on another web site-
"For starters, I don’t believe it is ever "prudent" to junk your system and teach some entirely foreign system. It may be the right move, but it is always drastic. The goal instead is to have a system flexible enough so that you never have to completely go back to square one."
Well said spread!!!! This is what real coaching is all about. Any Joe smoe can go out there/learn a system and stick to it. Whereas a real coach can tweak a system to best suit his athletes year to year. JMO!!!
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Jul 14, 2007 11:33:48 GMT -6
A good point was made by fbcoach33 about learning more about the system you currently run. You can only do that by sticking with it each and every year. I have been in the same system now for about a decade between running the system as an assistant and as a head coach. I learn more about ways to tweak things and teach things each year.
|
|
|
Post by jjkuenzel on Jul 14, 2007 12:18:23 GMT -6
This question is one that I have also wrestled with and immediately brings me back to my playing days in HS.
The 3 most successful programs and coaches in our conference (us and 2 others) were teams that had been running the same system year after year. The coaches had also been at their respective schools for 20+ years and each had made multiple state tournament appearances and won state titles.
Each program had a little bit different way of doing things, but 90% of the offenses stayed the same for nearly 20 years. All 3 of them would adapt the play calling depending upon the athletes, but the overall system never changed. I have no doubt in my mind that I could still line up under center and run our offense without missing a beat.
To be brutally honest, during my playing days I really wondered about the wisdom of the offense that we ran. (wing-t, wishbone, slot I hybrid) It didn't always suit the skill set of the players we had. There were some different things that we could have done and I believe we would have been more successful.
That being said, what running the same system for 20+ years allowed our HC to do was to be prepared and aware for every situation. There was not one thing that a defense could do that could fluster him or that we didn't have an answer to schematically. Now there were nights when we were physically outmatched, but I never walked into or out of a game and felt unprepared. If it did nothing else for us, it gave us great confidence knowing that we were prepared to win every game.
At the same time, I also believe that it is imperative to still be learning and advancing ones knowledge. There are always tweaks and adjustments that can be made within the system to give your team a better chance to succeed.
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Jul 14, 2007 12:49:05 GMT -6
I agree.The person who started this post made the comment that he has seen teams that run the same 5-6 plays winning state. I disagree. I think this suits small ball. 1a/2a. In Illinois if your not inventive you're not going to be able to hang with the Jone's. You will see wing-t/DW teams have success in the lower levels, but when talent is stepped up and your playing big ball with the big boys in the Chicago area you must be able to adjust your game plan and out wit an opponent. Athleticism will even itself out. IMO the best way to beat a system is to have better athletes. In small ball this is not such a problem. This is why you don't see 8a teams running the wing-t. I know you DW guys are going to speak the obvious-Clovis- they are an extreme exception. Tell me another DW team their size that has had similar success.
I usually avoid these arguments... but...
I don't know about true DW on this. but Columbine (5A Colorado) has won several state titles running a straight T- very few plays... 1-1 passing in the last title game I saw them play (they won 41-14). I haven't seen Millard North (NE) in a while, but they've won several (Class A- largest in NE) titles running a Wing-T (from a DW formation). Again very few plays. Really, the two states I've coached in have been dominated in the big class by those who run a few plays extremely well. I'd throw in Yankton (SD) too... they won a lot running wing-t (but since SD only has 17 "big" schools and few DI kids, that's a harder argument to push).
I've seen great teams (big and small) that "do what they do" no matter what, and great teams (big and small) that really adapt to personnel. And I don't think this is a big school - small school issue- I've coached in both worlds and we do the same stuff and have similar success (have probably been a bit better in the small school world... but we have a lot more things going for us too-facilities, commitment of players, tradition, etc.).
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jul 15, 2007 9:11:31 GMT -6
Additional Ammo for the DW guys: most teams go to DW because they are consitently outmanned. Im not convinced it is a great choice that maximizes talent if you have real good players that can play "in space".
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jul 15, 2007 12:24:56 GMT -6
I am on the other side of this issue as I have seen teams with great talent stunted b/c the coach refused to change his offensive philosophy. I am a firm believer that you have to let your talent dictate your scheme. That being said it doesn't have to be a radical overhaul year by year, just tweaking. For example say I have run the wing T for 25 years, great success etc... All of a sudden I have a QB coming up through the ranks like we have never had before - He can run, he can throw, he can throw on the run etc. Now, do I have to change "what I know" just b/c I have a good QB? No, we can still run the wing T but maybe institue some gun T plays to get this kid more involved in the running game and give him options in the pass game. And in today's climate, maybe me being willing to change and showcase him a bit more keeps him at my school as opposed to transferring elsewhere. Something I just typed is really what it boils down to. A lot of coaches just run what they know b/c that is all they know. They really don't look outside of what they've done b/c of past success or b/c that is what they have been running since 1976. I don't get that attitude. I agree.The person who started this post made the comment that he has seen teams that run the same 5-6 plays winning state. I disagree. I think this suits small ball. 1a/2a. In Illinois if your not inventive you're not going to be able to hang with the Jone's. You will see wing-t/DW teams have success in the lower levels, but when talent is stepped up and your playing big ball with the big boys in the Chicago area you must be able to adjust your game plan and out wit an opponent. Athleticism will even itself out. IMO the best way to beat a system is to have better athletes. In small ball this is not such a problem. This is why you don't see 8a teams running the wing-t. I know you DW guys are going to speak the obvious-Clovis- they are an extreme exception. Tell me another DW team their size that has had similar success. Whittier Tech, ranked 62nd in the nation won a big school state superbowl and was runner up in another. Btw they ran the dw. That bs about it not working at bigger schools is tired. big schools run the dw and do well with it, its just never going to be "main stream". Does every spread team win? does every pro I team win? does every zone read team win? No. Bloomington was a big school when they set the 14 game scoring record and Clovis East is a big school and has beaten other big schools. Just because its not popular at the big school level doesnt mean it doesnt work. I watched the Chic Bears and Pitt Steelers run the Power O to the last two superbowls. You wouldnt think Pro teams would have so much trouble defending that play would you?
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jul 15, 2007 12:29:01 GMT -6
is Colton a big school? Is Dominguez a big school? those teams but up big numbers from what I can see.
|
|
|
Post by dolomite on Jul 18, 2007 9:35:35 GMT -6
is Colton a big school? Is Dominguez a big school? those teams but up big numbers from what I can see. I didn't mean to strike a nerve. It's just my opinion. I like the DW, I also believe in it!!! I was just making an observation.
|
|
Colonel Perry
Sophomore Member
Random Thought: Parents who call plays from the stands should join my staff.
Posts: 142
|
Post by Colonel Perry on Mar 7, 2019 8:27:25 GMT -6
You play the cards you're deal with, and for some coaches we don't have a large talent pool so you play to your players' strengths and hide their weakness. The Double Wing is a great system and with athletes you can expand from it.
|
|