|
|
Post by dubber on Apr 20, 2007 16:44:22 GMT -6
This something Tony Franklin says; about how the spread offense brings out the athletes on your team.
I know kids would rather catch balls then block middle 1/3 all game....
OK we are a smaller school.....mid-30s 9th-12th. We made a living off the full-house T-tight with the combonation of mulitple I power running and PA's. Our linemen kept getting smaller and smaller, and we decided to move to a more wide open attack (double slot, spread gun, etc.). We started throwing the ball in November, and we really haven't had any kids drop off all through winter and spring lifting and conditioning. We are looking at 50+ and a lot of those are athletic basketball types.
I love full house football, and if I had it my way, I'd run that and IZ and OZ out of multiple formations........but if we do that, we probably won't get these athletic kids out. BTW, our discipline or toughness (staple of our program) won't be lowered any, just our scheme will be different.
What do you guys think: Are getting athletes out worth junking your philosophy? Is it in the best interest of the team for the coaches to adapt?
This is not a "adjusting your scheme to fit the players you have" question, this is a "adjusting you scheme to entice the best players" question.
|
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Apr 20, 2007 16:56:31 GMT -6
ok first of all you need to define what your philosophy (the why we do things) and get it messed up with your methodology (the how we do the things we do). Too many people, myself included at one time, think that running a specific system or scheme is a philosophy when in all actuality they are dealing with a specific methodology. Philospohy is more of "I plan to score everytime my team has the ball by executing the fundamentals of our positions, creating disadvantageous positions for the opposing team through the use of special teams to create favorable field position battles, and to execute the weekly game plan to the highest level of efficiency." or something like that.
Methodology is being an 'I' , wishbone, double wing or spread team. Those are schemes that can lead to very specifc philosophies, such as creating mismatches through the use of multiple receiver sets, shifts, and motions; or to outman the defense at the POA by using multiple blockers, pulling, and trapping to create an advantage.
I know it isnt always polite to mention another website, but the Coaches Learning Network website has an excellent article about "philosophy" and "methodology" in football.
|
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Apr 20, 2007 17:09:01 GMT -6
OK, is it worth junking your methodology?
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Apr 20, 2007 17:24:12 GMT -6
Is it in the best interest of the team for the coaches to adapt? when would the answer to that question ever be "no"? |
|
|
|
Post by fbairattack on Apr 20, 2007 17:47:53 GMT -6
OK, is it worth junking your methodology? To me this comes back to what you can coach. If you cant coach the spread becuase of whatever reason....dont fully understand...dont fully agree with...etc...etc... then NO WAY! but if you can coach it then changing or adapting is part of the game. As far as doing it to entice athletes to come out....I personally wouldnt do it. IMO football is a love it or leave it game and if the only reason they are going to come out is becuase they think they will get to catch 10 passes & 5 TDs a game then what happens when you go through a drought with your QB or they are asked to block *gasp* for one whole half and dont see the ball? So I wouldnt try to entice them out...but if they want to come be a part of it then use their abilities to the fullest, adapt to them, succeed with or without them. |
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Apr 20, 2007 18:00:11 GMT -6
Is it in the best interest of the team for the coaches to adapt? when would the answer to that question ever be "no"? Whenever the adaptation is so you can get the best athletes out on the team......that's my question......is it worth it? |
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Apr 20, 2007 18:00:56 GMT -6
OK, is it worth junking your methodology? As far as doing it to entice athletes to come out....I personally wouldnt do it. IMO football is a love it or leave it game and if the only reason they are going to come out is becuase they think they will get to catch 10 passes & 5 TDs a game then what happens when you go through a drought with your QB or they are asked to block *gasp* for one whole half and dont see the ball? So I wouldnt try to entice them out...but if they want to come be a part of it then use their abilities to the fullest, adapt to them, succeed with or without them. This is the type of feed back I was hoping to get......thanks coach |
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Apr 20, 2007 19:29:37 GMT -6
my question is "what does spreading it out have to do with the number of kids that come out to play?"...I tell my kids up front that Im a ground pounder and still get great numbers...i think kids thinking that they have a chance to win has more to do with numbers than anything else. Just one mans opinion...now, regarding gettign selfish "look at me, im terell owens" types..yeah, sure , the "wide recievers" (ever school has 100 of those) will come out in droves for that...sigh...
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Apr 20, 2007 19:50:45 GMT -6
If your staff doesn't believe in throwing the ball it is a recipe for disaster if you're doing it just to appease the kids.
Why do you think the kids like throwing the football around?
How much "spread" do you feel you can adapt to your Full-T offense?
Is it an evolution of your offense or do you feel that you are 'selling-out' by embracing different philosophies?
A lot of small fast kids get intimidated (and that fear paralyzes them from even thinking about football) when you just cram everybody in a scum and expect them to mash it out - that 'fear' is going to inhibit a lot of the 'fringe' players from coming out.
What do you want to accomplish?
Do you really WANT players coming out?
Why do you think 4 man backfields and mash it out philosophies 'repulses' some kids from coming out for football?
I don't want to make this into some pass vs run argument - but what is it about the 'spread' that brings out the athletes (do you think)?
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Apr 20, 2007 19:53:00 GMT -6
This is another thread that just points out; THERE'S MORE THAN ONE WAY TO SKIN A CAT!
You can build a great program running a wide variety of schemes and philosophies.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Apr 20, 2007 19:57:05 GMT -6
yeah, you sure can...Its funny being a (former) middle school/jr high guy how often I had kids come out and sign up "im a really good wide receiver"...lol..slow, fat, clumsy, cant catch...but their image of themselves is "fast, always open, jump to the moon, great hands, electric" lol...isnt football great!?...
one time I actually had a kid whom I thought "wow, this kid would be a GREAT wide receiver!" ..hes playing basketball at North Carolina (Wayne Ellington)......
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Apr 20, 2007 20:14:21 GMT -6
Ground Pounders!? Ouch. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Apr 20, 2007 20:19:06 GMT -6
for most, making the switch to the spread isn't really about trying to entice more players to come out, it is about trying to entice more PLAYERS to come out .... lol
|
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on Apr 20, 2007 21:19:56 GMT -6
As long as those players are not just PLAYAS'...
|
|
qbguru
Freshmen Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by qbguru on Apr 20, 2007 21:20:30 GMT -6
I think kids want to emulate what they see on TV on Saturdays and Sundays at the high school level.
They want to be the next Reggie Bush, or Matt Leinart or Mario manningham, etc.
They don't see full house T and double Wing O on TV. They see texas Tech, and Michigan, and Florida. Spreading it out and getting the ball to skilled players in space.
just a thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by SAcoach on Apr 21, 2007 9:04:09 GMT -6
Mix both ideas and put them together...
Go shotgun and run the same things you have been running before...just out of gun...
Would the kids really know the difference?
They would just see that you were in shotgun... and had the ability to get the ball to skilled players...
Next sell your offense as better than the other spread offenses...because of such and such reasons....
|
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Apr 21, 2007 17:46:02 GMT -6
I think kids want to emulate what they see on TV on Saturdays and Sundays at the high school level. They want to be the next Reggie Bush, or Matt Leinart or Mario manningham, etc. They don't see full house T and double Wing O on TV. They see texas Tech, and Michigan, and Florida. Spreading it out and getting the ball to skilled players in space. just a thought. I'm sorry, did you say Michigan spread out and throw the ball? OH THE TRAVESTY! |
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Apr 21, 2007 18:41:45 GMT -6
yeah, you sure can...Its funny being a (former) middle school/jr high guy how often I had kids come out and sign up "im a really good wide receiver"...lol..slow, fat, clumsy, cant catch...but their image of themselves is "fast, always open, jump to the moon, great hands, electric" lol...isnt football great!?... one time I actually had a kid whom I thought "wow, this kid would be a GREAT wide receiver!" ..hes playing basketball at North Carolina (Wayne Ellington)...... I hear you on that one....... One year, in a team of 20 kids, I had 4 say they were QBs and 11 say they were WRs during the first practice of the year..... |
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Apr 22, 2007 20:17:29 GMT -6
If your staff doesn't believe in throwing the ball it is a recipe for disaster if you're doing it just to appease the kids. Why do you think the kids like throwing the football around? How much "spread" do you feel you can adapt to your Full-T offense? Is it an evolution of your offense or do you feel that you are 'selling-out' by embracing different philosophies? A lot of small fast kids get intimidated (and that fear paralyzes them from even thinking about football) when you just cram everybody in a scum and expect them to mash it out - that 'fear' is going to inhibit a lot of the 'fringe' players from coming out. What do you want to accomplish? Do you really WANT players coming out? Why do you think 4 man backfields and mash it out philosophies 'repulses' some kids from coming out for football? I don't want to make this into some pass vs run argument - but what is it about the 'spread' that brings out the athletes (do you think)? yeah, these are the questions I'm asking----Exactly what I'm trying to get at. We are not afraid to throw the football, and this is an evolution of offense....take the T, put the HB's in the slot and widen the TE's. It's still series football. I just noticed a lot more kids coming out and sticking it out since we placed a bigger emphasis on passing........maybe this is a non-causal factor. Oh yeah, as long as they are decent kids, we want everyone to play football for us. |
|
|
|
Post by ccscoach on Apr 23, 2007 8:05:30 GMT -6
Dubber Go to Coaches Choice and by the book Coaching the T bone offense by Al Baldock its spread from the fullhouse TEE formation great stuff here is a link to Baldock book - www.coacheschoice.com/product.cfm?pid=3985 |
|
|
|
Post by realdawg on Apr 23, 2007 9:10:50 GMT -6
If you can win in the Gun-and you can coach in the gun go for it! But a wise man once told me, you cant coach what you dont know. So if the gun makes you uncomfortable, do even think about it, stick with your ground and pound philosophy.
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Apr 23, 2007 10:08:02 GMT -6
you can ground and pound from the gun
in fact, i think it may be a better way to do it, as you can have the qb heading downhill as a rb right now, instead of "wasting" him by just handing it off to someone
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Apr 23, 2007 10:36:12 GMT -6
But a wise man once told me, you cant coach what you dont know. good, sound advice. wouldn't recommend changing just for sake of changing. if, however, a coach feels a need to make a justifiable change, then i think they really need to have the entire staff dive in head first in learning as much about the philosophy of each scheme, how they fit together, how they are installed, practice drills and organization, etc. don't just stop at the plays, look at the big picture. |
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Apr 23, 2007 21:04:21 GMT -6
But a wise man once told me, you cant coach what you dont know. good, sound advice. wouldn't recommend changing just for sake of changing. if, however, a coach feels a need to make a justifiable change, then i think they really need to have the entire staff dive in head first in learning as much about the philosophy of each scheme, how they fit together, how they are installed, practice drills and organization, etc. don't just stop at the plays, look at the big picture. Great Advice......I echo these sentiments. We know enough and have been around this offense. We have ran T-tight for a while at our school, but the type of athletes we have demand a change. So, is it worth it change to a different scheme just because you think better athletes will want to come out and play? |
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Apr 23, 2007 21:05:52 GMT -6
Maybe I should clarify......we didn't which to a more wide open attack with the intention of luring better athletes......it just happened-a by-product of our new direction, and I was wondering if anyone switched in order to lure better athletes
|
|
|
|
Post by realdawg on Apr 24, 2007 7:29:47 GMT -6
We switched not to throw the ball-allthough it did help our passing game, but we didnt have good enough linemen to keep running the Wing-I. We noticed when we spread out some we were able to run the ball better, so we spent the off season 6 yrs ago at Clemson, learning the offense, and went to it full time the next year. We didnt really notice an increase in athletes coming out. We had some that thought they were athletes, but no real ones
|
|
|
|
Post by joebradshaw on Apr 26, 2007 12:51:01 GMT -6
No, I don't think you make the switch to get players out. When you do, there's a great chance that it'll lead to other concessions to keep those kids out.
|
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Apr 26, 2007 13:36:37 GMT -6
If your staff doesn't believe in throwing the ball it is a recipe for disaster if you're doing it just to appease the kids. Why do you think the kids like throwing the football around? How much "spread" do you feel you can adapt to your Full-T offense? Is it an evolution of your offense or do you feel that you are 'selling-out' by embracing different philosophies? A lot of small fast kids get intimidated (and that fear paralyzes them from even thinking about football) when you just cram everybody in a scum and expect them to mash it out - that 'fear' is going to inhibit a lot of the 'fringe' players from coming out. What do you want to accomplish? Do you really WANT players coming out? Why do you think 4 man backfields and mash it out philosophies 'repulses' some kids from coming out for football? I don't want to make this into some pass vs run argument - but what is it about the 'spread' that brings out the athletes (do you think)? I think, as someone mentioned earlier, that it has a lot to do with what they see on Saturday and Sunday on TV. I also think that many kids today are softer and would prefer to play football without all the contact; they might see the spread as being less about the physical play and more about athleticism (the basketball on grass concept). |
|
|
|
Post by oguru on Apr 29, 2007 1:23:59 GMT -6
To me you run the spread becauser you can not physically match up with your opponents on the schedule. You stillw ant to be physical and everything. However you just can't line up and go head to head with the other teams in your conference. Therefore you try and spread people out and get mismatches. This is what Northwestern and Urban Meyer have done. The whole basketball on grass thing to me is the old Run N' Shoot. Throwing the ball 60 times a game. Urban Meyer runs a run first offense as did Northwestern when they were totally spread.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Apr 29, 2007 3:19:59 GMT -6
I also think that many kids today are softer and would prefer to play football without all the contact; they might see the spread as being less about the physical play and more about athleticism (the basketball on grass concept). I see it no different than the one-on-one matchups between OL & LBs. Nothing worse for an OLineman than to try to run around to find a guy 4-5 yards deep to block, because you know you'll probably 1) never reach him 2) never get a good angle on him 3) never be able to get your hands on him However, there is nothing more an OLineman loves more than to have a big slow defensive lineman in front of him to tee off on. Why? Because there is a comfort level there in "Big on Big". Why would a 165lb kid WANT to try to win a 1 yard war with a 265lb kid? Mass x Force equation that they will more often than not be on the losing end of the formula. "Spread " philosophy appeals to the "athletes / basketball" kids because it is an equation they can contribute and be a part of (that appreciates the skills they bring). |
|
