|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 7, 2019 8:45:23 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.
|
|
|
Post by rosey65 on Mar 7, 2019 10:10:32 GMT -6
Taco Bell only has 17 ingredients in their restaurant.
They have a solid base of items that never changes.
Every few months, they add some wrinkles to the menu with tweaks to already-existing items, just to keep things different, while knowing I'm still gonna order a healthy dose of the tried-and-true.
Periodically, they even add an entirely new item (I see you, chicken biscuit taco) and let it run while it's hot, then take it off when it's time to move on.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Mar 7, 2019 15:28:31 GMT -6
There’s also a survivorship bias there. You hear about guys who ran the same thing, at the same place, for decades. It’s newsworthy. Some guy who’s been more or loess mediocre running the same stuff for decades doesn’t get heard about beyond his own county, or some guy who wanted to run the same stuff forever was eventually forced to change or he was fired when things weren’t working.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Mar 7, 2019 16:19:45 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 I watched a special once on tv about Joh Madden. Might have been a FB life or 30 for 30 or whatever. Any way, JM said when he was young he went to listen to Vince Lombardi talk & he said going into the clinic he was real cocky and felt like he knew a TON of football. He said, he was sitting in the back, didn't have his notebook opened and ready, none of it. Typical know it all youngster. Then he said VL proceeded to talk about his famous Packer Sweep and he discussed this ONE PLAY for about 8 hours. JM said when he left that clinic he realized how little he really knew about football. I think the point was, that it's not what you do but the level in which you do it. I think guys who stick w/ the same thing learn little nuances about what they are doing all the time. No matter how long you do it, you learn a tweak here , a technqiue there, some of it stolen from others, some of it self discovery. But.....after several years of doing the same thing you have built an entire foundation out of miniscule scraps you have picked up over the years and it has turned into a system w/ answers to almost every conceivable situation you can think of. That type of expertise IMO cannot be mastered when you consistently change what you do. And let's face it, many coaches are as bad as the fans, they change b/c they saw something cool on tv so they think it will work the same on Friday night as it does on Saturday afternoon telecasts despite the fact they are trading a lamborghini for a lawnmower. I believe expertise & execution win the day & that take years to acheiev. JMO of course.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Mar 7, 2019 18:59:50 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. In the twelve seasons between responses in this thread, we either ran or drilled bucksweep 27,359 times.
|
|
|
Post by funkfriss on Mar 8, 2019 8:18:25 GMT -6
The best advice I can give anyone who aspires to be a HC or have autonomy in their offense is to come up with a system that you are comfortable with, but also can be adapted year-to-year based on talent at different positions.
I think running the same system of base plays is vital because your players get to the Varsity level with a great foundation that can be easily perfected. However, you can’t be a slave to your favorite plays if you don’t have the cat(s) to run them.
I remember when I was in HS. We were an I, Power football team. Our coach had always had a 200+ pounding FB, a good lead RB, and a fast wing/slot. My senior year, we had a decent RB, nobody to fill the FB or wing roles, two great TEs, and the most athletic QB he’d ever had. Our solution? We continued to run FB Dive and Power and everything else he’d run in the past with kids that really didn’t fit while at the same time neglecting the talent he had at the QB position.
All that really had to be done was create a decent short passing/sprint out game, run more option looks (which we had in the playbook), and let our run game complement our QB. We would still be running basically the same plays we already knew (maybe a few new pass concepts) so the carryover and expertise would still be there.
In short, I think some coaches are happy with a certain degree of success (we went 6-3 that year) and become complacent. To me, I coach by three mantras.
Bobby Bowden: “You don’t prepare to beat the average team on your schedule. You prepare to beat the BEST team on your schedule.”
Bill Parcells: “Every player deserves the chance to win and it is your job as a coach to give them the best chance to win.”
Every intelligent offensive mind: “Get your dudes the ball!”
|
|
|
Post by CS on Mar 8, 2019 8:27:02 GMT -6
I see everyone talk about changing or adapting their system year to year but how many people are actually getting different kinds of kids year to year?
I have never been in a place that was like that. You may have a 1 in a 1,000,000 class or athlete come through but normally towns have the same "type" of kids every year
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Mar 8, 2019 8:52:58 GMT -6
I coach by three mantras. Bobby Bowden: “You don’t prepare to beat the average team on your schedule. You prepare to beat the BEST team on your schedule.” Bill Parcells: “Every player deserves the chance to win and it is your job as a coach to give them the best chance to win.” Every intelligent offensive mind: “Get your dudes the ball!” Excellent
|
|
|
Post by breakerdog on Mar 8, 2019 8:55:47 GMT -6
One of the best things about this board is when coaches who maybe aren't at the high end of the technological skill set use the search function and then respond to threads from over a decade ago. Then all the currently active posters come piling on and continue the conversation from 12 years ago without missing a beat.
The subject of this post and most other things about coaching football are as relevant today as it was in 2007 and probably was in 1987.
|
|
|
Post by mkuempel on Mar 8, 2019 9:11:54 GMT -6
I see everyone talk about changing or adapting their system year to year but how many people are actually getting different kinds of kids year to year? I have never been in a place that was like that. You may have a 1 in a 1,000,000 class or athlete come through but normally towns have the same "type" of kids every year I agree with this, but I feel there is some correlation to the system teams run for decades and the kids they get. What I mean is that successful programs have young kids who watch and look up to successful high school plays and want to eventually be those guys, so as they get older they gravitate towards those positions (usually skills positions) and although they aren't exactly the same type, they have learned the position and understand what needs to be done. Also, a lot of programs who have had sustained success over years, generally have generational players, or numerous players from the same family which lead to similar type of players over time. All of this, I feel, leads to the ability to run the same stuff year and year and be generally successful at it and once they get a class of studs then they win state titles, just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by funkfriss on Mar 8, 2019 9:16:22 GMT -6
I see everyone talk about changing or adapting their system year to year but how many people are actually getting different kinds of kids year to year? I have never been in a place that was like that. You may have a 1 in a 1,000,000 class or athlete come through but normally towns have the same "type" of kids every year Boy I tell you that must be nice!! Maybe it’s b/c we’re a smaller school? Here’s a snippet of what we have. Two years ago, the best RB we’ve ever had, good throwing and running QB, fastest kid on the field, meh receivers, experienced OL. Majored in run game, especially run option. This year: QB was back, less experienced OL, two RBs that were both decent, best crop of receivers we’ve had. Less run, more pass, more QB designed runs and RPOs. Next season: New QB (never taken a meaningful snap at any level), no true RB, great receivers, even less experienced OL. More quick pass/screen/sprint out game. More option runs. Limited drop back. Again, we’re not changing WHAT we do so much as HOW we do it. More emphasis on different formations, packages and plays.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Mar 8, 2019 9:43:30 GMT -6
I see everyone talk about changing or adapting their system year to year but how many people are actually getting different kinds of kids year to year? I have never been in a place that was like that. You may have a 1 in a 1,000,000 class or athlete come through but normally towns have the same "type" of kids every year I agree with this, but I feel there is some correlation to the system teams run for decades and the kids they get. What I mean is that successful programs have young kids who watch and look up to successful high school plays and want to eventually be those guys, so as they get older they gravitate towards those positions (usually skills positions) and although they aren't exactly the same type, they have learned the position and understand what needs to be done. Also, a lot of programs who have had sustained success over years, generally have generational players, or numerous players from the same family which lead to similar type of players over time. All of this, I feel, leads to the ability to run the same stuff year and year and be generally successful at it and once they get a class of studs then they win state titles, just my opinion. Probably some truth to this. And I think years ago when we were a less transient society this was prob true in your small farm towns & rural communities, etc. In today's day and age I think this applies more to the private school sector where going to ST BLANK is a family tradition. In which case (not looking to start a public v. private war here just stating a fact) those schools tend to the have the edge over much of their competition to begin with due to socio -economic status, sporting family tradition, non boundaries, etc. I think in most public setting s, and some private settings you need to develop expertise in a system but have some flexibility to mold and shape to your talent. That's why as a flex bone coach I love our system as I feel it is extremely flexible to talent variation. JMO.
|
|
|
Post by CS on Mar 8, 2019 11:23:10 GMT -6
I see everyone talk about changing or adapting their system year to year but how many people are actually getting different kinds of kids year to year? I have never been in a place that was like that. You may have a 1 in a 1,000,000 class or athlete come through but normally towns have the same "type" of kids every year Boy I tell you that must be nice!! Maybe it’s b/c we’re a smaller school? Here’s a snippet of what we have. Two years ago, the best RB we’ve ever had, good throwing and running QB, fastest kid on the field, meh receivers, experienced OL. Majored in run game, especially run option. This year: QB was back, less experienced OL, two RBs that were both decent, best crop of receivers we’ve had. Less run, more pass, more QB designed runs and RPOs. Next season: New QB (never taken a meaningful snap at any level), no true RB, great receivers, even less experienced OL. More quick pass/screen/sprint out game. More option runs. Limited drop back. Again, we’re not changing WHAT we do so much as HOW we do it. More emphasis on different formations, packages and plays. But this is exactly what I'm talking about. We are a flexbone team and we plug players into the system where they can help the team. Your great running back and QB sound like a great 1-2 punch for our system. If we had a guy who could throw well we would run veer pass and waggle a few plays more a game but that's really it. My point is that if you have a system you really don't need to change anything. Just plug them into a spot where they get the ball as much as possible. Then when you have average talent your not jumping to some other system and vise versa. This is just my opinion
|
|
|
Post by mkuempel on Mar 8, 2019 14:07:58 GMT -6
Question that must popped into my head, are there any examples of these types of systems (spread, air raid, etc.) being pass heavy over a long period of time and maintaining success or is most of this success predicated on running the football? From what I'm reading it seems that teams are usually run first and if they get an exceptional athlete they add passing into their system, what are the groups thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by chidesta on Mar 8, 2019 14:35:50 GMT -6
Question that must popped into my head, are there any examples of these types of systems (spread, air raid, etc.) being pass heavy over a long period of time and maintaining success or is most of this success predicated on running the football? From what I'm reading it seems that teams are usually run first and if they get an exceptional athlete they add passing into their system, what are the groups thoughts? Well it makes sense from an execution stand-point, for me it's a product of simple economics. I believe that in High School you can teach anyone to run the football, you can have small Rb's (not a problem). You can have small Olineman--well that's great--run the wingT. However, if you can't find a guy that can throw the football and another dude that can catch the football then how can you throw the football in High School? I think High School is very different than college, in college you can recruit, but usually in High school you are a boundary High school, and have to live with what you get. So if you are in a school that always has some stud QB--then great--you don't need to run a series based offense that runs the ball first, instead just chuck that thing. However, if you are at a smaller school and have 1 or 2 athletes, I think you gotta pound the ball when you have to.
|
|
|
Post by The Lunch Pail on Mar 8, 2019 17:57:32 GMT -6
Question that must popped into my head, are there any examples of these types of systems (spread, air raid, etc.) being pass heavy over a long period of time and maintaining success or is most of this success predicated on running the football? From what I'm reading it seems that teams are usually run first and if they get an exceptional athlete they add passing into their system, what are the groups thoughts? Well it makes sense from an execution stand-point, for me it's a product of simple economics. I believe that in High School you can teach anyone to run the football, you can have small Rb's (not a problem). You can have small Olineman--well that's great--run the wingT. However, if you can't find a guy that can throw the football and another dude that can catch the football then how can you throw the football in High School? I think High School is very different than college, in college you can recruit, but usually in High school you are a boundary High school, and have to live with what you get. So if you are in a school that always has some stud QB--then great--you don't need to run a series based offense that runs the ball first, instead just chuck that thing. However, if you are at a smaller school and have 1 or 2 athletes, I think you gotta pound the ball when you have to. I disagree with this. It’s not “oh we have small linemen, so we’re running the Wing-T” this year and “oh we have an athletic QB, so we’re running veer option” the next. Teams who do that in my experience, which is all at rural schools of >600 kids, never have long-term success. Predictability from year-to-year is GOOD imo! Have an identity! The best PROGRAMS I know (not the best “teams”) are winners in part because they can execute their scheme at a higher level than the opponent can execute theirs. At Webb City (MO), their QB’s have been reading outside veer since they first put shoulder pads on. They have good-above average athletes, but they play fast as hell and mistake free! They don’t beat themselves with fumbles or missed blocks because they are so confident in what they’re doing. If they just decided they had to switch to a four-wide spread because they had a pocket-passing gunslinger, they would be a lot sloppier. And probably wouldn’t be 14-1/15-0 every year. If you run a true SYSTEM, you should be able to adapt to personnel without making wholesale changes. And for the love of God, I wish high school coaches would stop specializing their kids! I’m sick and tired of hearing stuff like, “ope, gotta switch to a 4-2-5 since we’ve only got two LB’s! That old 4-4 won’t work for us anymore”. Why do we look for prototypes at every spot? A TE can do just fine at the HS level being 5’10/190#. I’ve seen ILB’s that are 5’6 160# but they are professional a$$kickers. You can and should tweak your offense/defense a little every year. But never wholesale change. As mentioned earlier in the thread, that makes your upperclassmen freshmen all over again.
|
|
|
Post by funkfriss on Mar 8, 2019 20:36:30 GMT -6
Boy I tell you that must be nice!! Maybe it’s b/c we’re a smaller school? Here’s a snippet of what we have. Two years ago, the best RB we’ve ever had, good throwing and running QB, fastest kid on the field, meh receivers, experienced OL. Majored in run game, especially run option. This year: QB was back, less experienced OL, two RBs that were both decent, best crop of receivers we’ve had. Less run, more pass, more QB designed runs and RPOs. Next season: New QB (never taken a meaningful snap at any level), no true RB, great receivers, even less experienced OL. More quick pass/screen/sprint out game. More option runs. Limited drop back. Again, we’re not changing WHAT we do so much as HOW we do it. More emphasis on different formations, packages and plays. But this is exactly what I'm talking about. We are a flexbone team and we plug players into the system where they can help the team. Your great running back and QB sound like a great 1-2 punch for our system. If we had a guy who could throw well we would run veer pass and waggle a few plays more a game but that's really it. My point is that if you have a system you really don't need to change anything. Just plug them into a spot where they get the ball as much as possible. Then when you have average talent your not jumping to some other system and vise versa. This is just my opinion Agreed, I don’t advocate changing systems at all, but I do like adapting what you do year to year. Emphasizing certain formations and plays, adding a few wrinkles that you may not have used the past couple years (like adding a sprint out game), etc. To use flexbobe as an example, one of the problems I’ve seen with FB teams is when they have a weak spot at QB, FB or WB it’s too easy as a defense to force you to give it to your weak link. So for me, I would adapt to the personnel. Weak at FB? Run less triple and midline and more Load option and Jet/Rocket schemes where you can use the FB as a blocker or trap/counter player just to keep defenses honest. Also maybe go with more empty formations to get either a TE or another receiving threat into the picture. All things still within the FB system, but maybe not exactly what was run the past couple years. You see this a lot in the pros. One example, the Skins get RG III and they take their zone running concepts and turn them into options, RPOs, boots and sprint outs to compliment the player. Cousins now the starter? A lot less read, more downfield progression concepts and pocket PA passes. No wholesale change, just adapting the system. The Patriots are another one where their system is the same, but they adapt so well year-to-year to fit personnel.
|
|
|
Post by option1st on Mar 9, 2019 7:31:00 GMT -6
The high school I played at ran split back veer for a solid 22-23 years. As a middle school player we ran 80% of the high school playbook. Same names, numbering and calls. When we showed up as freshman, Rb’s knew the aiming points, lineman knew the blocking schemes and Qb’s and Wr’s knew their role. It was really great as far as continuity. We were able to play fast and play without a lot of hesitation due to overthinking. As a Q, i was pretty damn comfortable checking in or out of any play in the book as we had been working in the same system since 7th grade.
As a AC I’ve coached in a ton of different systems, but I’m a huge fan of picking something you foresee that you can stick with for a longer period of time and getting really damn good at what you do.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 9, 2019 8:17:17 GMT -6
Question that must popped into my head, are there any examples of these types of systems (spread, air raid, etc.) being pass heavy over a long period of time and maintaining success or is most of this success predicated on running the football? From what I'm reading it seems that teams are usually run first and if they get an exceptional athlete they add passing into their system, what are the groups thoughts? Well it makes sense from an execution stand-point, for me it's a product of simple economics. I believe that in High School you can teach anyone to run the football, you can have small Rb's (not a problem). You can have small Olineman--well that's great--run the wingT. However, if you can't find a guy that can throw the football and another dude that can catch the football then how can you throw the football in High School? I think High School is very different than college, in college you can recruit, but usually in High school you are a boundary High school, and have to live with what you get. So if you are in a school that always has some stud QB--then great--you don't need to run a series based offense that runs the ball first, instead just chuck that thing. However, if you are at a smaller school and have 1 or 2 athletes, I think you gotta pound the ball when you have to. I would argue part of that is because QB play is probably the worst coached aspect of football at all levels, and the skills of throwing and catching are some of the most undercoached skills in the game.
|
|
|
Post by cbnindian on Mar 9, 2019 8:55:31 GMT -6
I am not going to abandon what I have run as a head coach just to say I run the spread or this popular offense. I am going to run what I know so I can make adjustments in the game from experience. The adjustments that I know or hopefully know will work(A lot of the time those may not work because of the “jim’s and joe’s on the other side). I will look at my talent that we have now and possibly the future to see what we could possibly do with our offense but I am not going to change just to go with the flow of what is popular.
I don’t agree with the statement that the Wing-t won’t win at the big level. I have seen it be successful at all levels. The bottom line is when they were successful they had the players.
We run the Wing-t and it is a good thing because people have to prepare for us. Every other team around us in our region runs the spread except for one team so us being different is a good in the sense of people preparing for us.
I have had a QB before in our offense that could throw it so we threw it. Still ran our base 5 running plays but yet we threw it some because of him. I have had a running QB so we put in a few plays for him to run it but we still had our base 5 plays. We do adjust to our talent but yet our kids know what we will run from the time they enter our program in the middle school until they graduate.
Bottom line is with the way kids are now days in transferring along with knowing that they are in your program for 4 years at the most you better do the things you know and have confidence in during crunch time of the game.
I definitely agree with lunch pail about having an identity. We have 5 base plays and we do our best to execute them at a high level.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Mar 9, 2019 9:10:43 GMT -6
In my opinion, the only weakness of the wing t is when you have that "stud" qb. I mean the kid who is the best athlete on the field every game or close to every game. Who can run and throw. Who can run over people and run away from people and make people miss.
I had that qb for 2 years. We changed from the wing t to the spread for those two years. Right or wrong, that is what we did.
|
|
|
Post by CS on Mar 9, 2019 9:25:09 GMT -6
But this is exactly what I'm talking about. We are a flexbone team and we plug players into the system where they can help the team. Your great running back and QB sound like a great 1-2 punch for our system. If we had a guy who could throw well we would run veer pass and waggle a few plays more a game but that's really it. My point is that if you have a system you really don't need to change anything. Just plug them into a spot where they get the ball as much as possible. Then when you have average talent your not jumping to some other system and vise versa. This is just my opinion Agreed, I don’t advocate changing systems at all, but I do like adapting what you do year to year. Emphasizing certain formations and plays, adding a few wrinkles that you may not have used the past couple years (like adding a sprint out game), etc. To use flexbobe as an example, one of the problems I’ve seen with FB teams is when they have a weak spot at QB, FB or WB it’s too easy as a defense to force you to give it to your weak link. So for me, I would adapt to the personnel. Weak at FB? Run less triple and midline and more Load option and Jet/Rocket schemes where you can use the FB as a blocker or trap/counter player just to keep defenses honest. Also maybe go with more empty formations to get either a TE or another receiving threat into the picture. All things still within the FB system, but maybe not exactly what was run the past couple years. You see this a lot in the pros. One example, the Skins get RG III and they take their zone running concepts and turn them into options, RPOs, boots and sprint outs to compliment the player. Cousins now the starter? A lot less read, more downfield progression concepts and pocket PA passes. No wholesale change, just adapting the system. The Patriots are another one where their system is the same, but they adapt so well year-to-year to fit personnel. I still disagree. You can’t use any nfl team as a comparison because it’s a completely different environment where these guys do it for a job and you can change $hit on them no problem. And your analysis of the flexbone IME is incorrect and we actually had that exact scenario this year. Graduated a fullback that broke Deangelo Williams all time rushing record at the school...(freak)with a kid who was ok but nothing special. Still rang up 35 a game with the tried and true
|
|
|
Post by cbnindian on Mar 9, 2019 9:30:29 GMT -6
Silky What did you do after 2 years in the spread?
Where did you learn the spread you put in for those 2 years and how much time did it take you to learn it? Was it worth the effort?
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Mar 9, 2019 10:32:31 GMT -6
Silky What did you do after 2 years in the spread? Where did you learn the spread you put in for those 2 years and how much time did it take you to learn it? Was it worth the effort? Went back to wing t. I had run spread at a different school. Yes, it was worth it. Our line still down blocked, trapped, cut, kicked, and wrapped. Those fundamentals stayed the same.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Mar 9, 2019 10:56:23 GMT -6
Went back to wing t. I had run spread at a different school. Yes, it was worth it. Our line still down blocked, trapped, cut, kicked, and wrapped. Those fundamentals stayed the same. and you didnt and do not make the logical conclusion that what you call it makes no difference? Not sure what you are trying to say or ask.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Mar 9, 2019 11:01:17 GMT -6
The high school I played at ran split back veer for a solid 22-23 years. As a middle school player we ran 80% of the high school playbook. Same names, numbering and calls. When we showed up as freshman, Rb’s knew the aiming points, lineman knew the blocking schemes and Qb’s and Wr’s knew their role. It was really great as far as continuity. We were able to play fast and play without a lot of hesitation due to overthinking. As a Q, i was pretty damn comfortable checking in or out of any play in the book as we had been working in the same system since 7th grade. As a AC I’ve coached in a ton of different systems, but I’m a huge fan of picking something you foresee that you can stick with for a longer period of time and getting really damn good at what you do. Agreed. Everything you said has value. What's the point of a feeder if you are always changing what you do? It minimizes the effectiveness.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 9, 2019 12:20:41 GMT -6
Not sure what you are trying to say or ask. All the fundies stayed the same, correct? If you mean the fundamentals of the game of football (pad level, eye discipline, violent striking,) probably stayed the same. If you are talking about the fundamental way that silkyice approached the game...that probably did change. His quarterback no longer started each play by turning his back to the defense as one does in many wing-t series. His offensive mindset was no longer to put defenders in conflict with down blocks or kick out blocks, but through other measures.
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Mar 9, 2019 13:00:41 GMT -6
Getting likes on a 12 year old post be like...
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Mar 9, 2019 15:37:12 GMT -6
Not sure what you are trying to say or ask. All the fundies stayed the same, correct? yes
|
|
|
Post by chidesta on Mar 11, 2019 15:33:35 GMT -6
Well it makes sense from an execution stand-point, for me it's a product of simple economics. I believe that in High School you can teach anyone to run the football, you can have small Rb's (not a problem). You can have small Olineman--well that's great--run the wingT. However, if you can't find a guy that can throw the football and another dude that can catch the football then how can you throw the football in High School? I think High School is very different than college, in college you can recruit, but usually in High school you are a boundary High school, and have to live with what you get. So if you are in a school that always has some stud QB--then great--you don't need to run a series based offense that runs the ball first, instead just chuck that thing. However, if you are at a smaller school and have 1 or 2 athletes, I think you gotta pound the ball when you have to. I disagree with this. It’s not “oh we have small linemen, so we’re running the Wing-T” this year and “oh we have an athletic QB, so we’re running veer option” the next. Teams who do that in my experience, which is all at rural schools of >600 kids, never have long-term success. Predictability from year-to-year is GOOD imo! Have an identity! The best PROGRAMS I know (not the best “teams”) are winners in part because they can execute their scheme at a higher level than the opponent can execute theirs. At Webb City (MO), their QB’s have been reading outside veer since they first put shoulder pads on. They have good-above average athletes, but they play fast as hell and mistake free! They don’t beat themselves with fumbles or missed blocks because they are so confident in what they’re doing. If they just decided they had to switch to a four-wide spread because they had a pocket-passing gunslinger, they would be a lot sloppier. And probably wouldn’t be 14-1/15-0 every year. If you run a true SYSTEM, you should be able to adapt to personnel without making wholesale changes. And for the love of God, I wish high school coaches would stop specializing their kids! I’m sick and tired of hearing stuff like, “ope, gotta switch to a 4-2-5 since we’ve only got two LB’s! That old 4-4 won’t work for us anymore”. Why do we look for prototypes at every spot? A TE can do just fine at the HS level being 5’10/190#. I’ve seen ILB’s that are 5’6 160# but they are professional a$$kickers. You can and should tweak your offense/defense a little every year. But never wholesale change. As mentioned earlier in the thread, that makes your upperclassmen freshmen all over again. Well i don't think I did a good job of explaining my point if you disagree with what I am saying. In fact, I very much agree with your post. I don't think it works to change your system year-in and year-out, I think you highlight the specific talents of your athletes based upon play calls with a system. However, thought I was trying to answer the question of are there examples of pass-orientated systems that have stood the test of time at certain high schools. I think you eventually find success at certain schools partly due to what type of athletes you get at those schools. At bigger schools I could see a team running airraid forever just based upon what types of kids you have available at some of those schools. Sorry if you thought I was suggesting to run WingT one year and then Splitback Veer the next and then Airraid the year after that, I don't think that works. Now I will say this, I do think that there are certain systems that work best at certain school. I think based upon culture and expectation it pays to run the system that works best for that school. I think if Roderique were to leave a place like Webb City and move up to a 4A or 5A world that he might run a different system, I know that when he had one of his sons at QB he ran some spread stuff and diamond stuff out of the gun because his QB could throw it a bit, so I think he runs splitback veer because of the history with that system at his school.
|
|