|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 20, 2007 15:15:10 GMT -6
I read this comment in the now closed dbl wing thread, and i found it amusing since I had thought the same thing while driving to work today, but for different reasons.
I don't view the dbl wing as similar to the "stall" in basketball because it is a ball control offense. However, I do think that by running the dbl wing, you can completely change what the other team does in "normal" circumstances. For example, I have read threads about opposing defenses "tackling" dbl wing lineman to prevent pulls, submarining or cutting at the point of attack, etc.
I would say this is similar to running the stall against a zone team in basketball. YOu get up by 5 or 6, and then you hold the ball on your hip, and make them play man to man or lose the game as the time ticks off. You make the defense do soemthing that they normally would not do.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 20, 2007 15:30:06 GMT -6
how about just saying "Stall Tactics on Offense" period. I would hate for this to be singled-out to be just a double wing thread and folks take a narrow minded view of it. You can run the clock in any offense. Wing-T guys have the same philosophy as most DWers, but instead of power, they hang their hat on double-dive.
Does "Stall Ball" have its place as a legitimate offensive philosophy?
I wanna say that there was a "analysis" actually done on this (analytical study of the efficiency of hurry-up vs stall ball in the course of the game) and that something like the hurry-up gained 10 more offensive snaps a game. The reasoning was that the more chances the offense had with the ball, the chances of them scoring increased or something.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2007 16:28:11 GMT -6
Stall ball? Don't see why not. It can be an equalizer, but you still have to pick up first downs for it to be effective. If the other team is complaining, they can always buck up and force a three and out.
|
|
bhb
Junior Member
Posts: 259
|
Post by bhb on Mar 20, 2007 16:35:31 GMT -6
Why did the DW thread get locked? hmmmm- it didn't seem like there was any hostility, or uncivility to me, but maybe I missed something.
|
|
|
Post by PSS on Mar 20, 2007 16:45:24 GMT -6
This is a great opportunity to shift the focus from offensive systems to offensive philosophies. The philosophies being that of the types of tempos one would rather use. I know that as a defensive coordinator I've faced the no huddle offense many times and also the the slow tempo "use up the clock" offense. It has always been my job to prepare my players to what they were going to face that week. What gets difficult is preparing for teams that will use different tempos within one game. Now you are working on disguising coverages at different cues, stemming fronts at different cues, and working vs no huddle. Just my take on it, teams that vary their tempo usually cause more headaches for defenses.
|
|
|
Post by jhanawa on Mar 20, 2007 17:51:50 GMT -6
those are good points PSS. Its something we practice & use based on situation, huddle and refocus which slows it down some, huddle and milk the clock late in the game, use our normal no huddle "up tempo" and our "hurry up" tempo. Generally, I like no huddle and up tempo but it is necessary to change pace depending on situation.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Mar 20, 2007 17:53:41 GMT -6
you all are going to laugh but back in my basketball coaching days I ran the Pete Carrill and Dean Smith 4 corners offense as my offense. It was great and it is wonderful vs man to man teams. zone teams you have to make them come up and it can be done.
however football on offense I am a throw the rock kind of guy.
I would nto say the double wing is a stall ball. to me stall ball is when a team just has a player stand out on the top of the key holding the ball. this was done this past weekend in the wisconsin state boys basketball tourny. this coach will have his player stand their as long as the defense stays in a zone. they did it twice for 3+ min.
if you are going to say the DW is stall ball then you have to lump all run based/anti forward pass offenses as stall offenses. the theory is to run the ball, keep the ball and shorten the game by keeping the clock running. I have the opposite theory, lengthen the game, make the defense endure and score lots of points on a tired defense.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 20, 2007 17:53:58 GMT -6
Well, its a misconception that the dw is about stalling. Just keep in mind the scoring that dw teams typically do..., several high school scoring records are held by dw teams...now stalling in general, wise tactic when you have the lesser athletes. why go three and out in 15 seconds when you can run off 4-5 minutes and limit the posessions that the high octain team gets. shoot they wont even be warmed up before half time hits.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 20, 2007 17:55:48 GMT -6
Why did the DW thread get locked? hmmmm- it didn't seem like there was any hostility, or uncivility to me, but maybe I missed something. I dont know. I hope no one thought I had my panties in a wad. I was enjoying the thread personally. Its all good.
|
|
|
Post by mncoach72 on Mar 20, 2007 18:13:30 GMT -6
Stalling, or "Clock Management" can be a huge advantage to a team. A couple of years back we played the #1 team in our section and eventual state qualifier. We were a 1st year wing T team that finished 3-6. We decided that we were going to sllloooowwww the game down and control the pace of the game. It seemed to work really well, we lost but it was only 21-12 against a team averaging in the 30's. We had a coach on the sideline with a stopwatch and he would keep track of the play clock and we would send the play in at the 10 second mark.
I don't see this as cheating because you are given this much time, we just decided to use it all.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 20, 2007 18:22:18 GMT -6
Ummmm...lol You guys kind of went WAY off of what I was trying to say. I wasn't comparing the dbl wing to the stall because of clock management AT ALL... I was saying that it when a team runs a dbl wing, many defensive coaches are forced away from doing what they do in the coventional sense, and are forced to play football in the phone booth.
In basketball, teams that run a 4 corners or stall once they get up a few buckets against a zone team basically make the zone team come out and either trap or play man (or lose as the clock just runs out as Airman described)
THAT was the comparison I was talking about forcing the opponent to do something outside of what they would do in a "conventional" situation. ..not actual time management issues...sorry I didnt get that across.
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 20, 2007 18:54:11 GMT -6
I am the exact opposite of airman as far as philosophy goes. We are 3 back power offense (not necessarily DW, but some have some similar thoughts). We try to shorten the game. I always figure, the more plays, the better chance the best athletes will make a play to win. Often times, I do not think we have this. When we do, like Calande said, we can put up huge numbers. Two games really stand out in my mind when we let the play clock go down to 1, avoided the boundary, etc. and made the game as short as possible.
However, I do think that by running the dbl wing, you can completely change what the other team does in "normal" circumstances.
This was our whole goal...and when it works it is a thing of beauty. Really though, it is probably not much different from Airman's philosophy. I would imagine teams have to restructure their defense for them. When we played the great passing teams, we had to make some changes (nickel, cover 4 or man/zone combos) to our base coverages.
Now being on the 3 back ball control side, I always get the feeling that especially when we played less patient teams, they would panic a bit on offense, feeling like it could be 10 minutes before they had the ball again. One of those games I remember we won 9-6. Down 6-2, we killed 11:04 of the 3rd quarter on a scoring drive. When they had the ball, they (Pro I balanced team) could have moved the ball on us (they had earlier, they scored on 1/3 possessions and achieved a few first downs on the other 2), but panicked a little and went away from their comfort zone and threw a lot of dropback passes, which was not their strength. We took over with 9 min. left at our 28 and ran the clock down to about a minute before giving it up. I would suppose that air attack teams get this response as well (other O feels like it has to "keep up", which might force a little impetuousness).
|
|
|
Post by PSS on Mar 20, 2007 18:56:20 GMT -6
Ummmm...lol You guys kind of went WAY off of what I was trying to say. I wasn't comparing the dbl wing to the stall because of clock management AT ALL... I was saying that it when a team runs a dbl wing, many defensive coaches are forced away from doing what they do in the coventional sense, and are forced to play football in the phone booth. In basketball, teams that run a 4 corners or stall once they get up a few buckets against a zone team basically make the zone team come out and either trap or play man (or lose as the clock just runs out as Airman described) THAT was the comparison I was talking about forcing the opponent to do something outside of what they would do in a "conventional" situation. ..not actual time management issues...sorry I didnt get that across. Coach, not trying to direct it towards a certain system. You can run the clock in any offensive system. I've faced many spread teams that were no huddle that would not snap the ball until the play clock reached 5 seconds. So the so called "stall" is not limited to any certain offensive system. What I would like to see is a discussion of why people would want to stall an entire game, go up tempo (no huddle), or vary their tempo. Then someone might get more out of this thread than what they bargained for.
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 20, 2007 19:02:34 GMT -6
THAT was the comparison I was talking about forcing the opponent to do something outside of what they would do in a "conventional" situation.
I guess I missed it a bit too. And that is right... we see 10 man fronts... pretty sure it isn't base defense. But neither is our own base a 32 with a lot of stunts and combo coverages, but we ran that against an outstanding passing team we played several years ago (they scored 64 on us the previus year before we modified our 43 by taking out a DT and a LB and bringing in 2 DBs. The 32 modification worked well against them, but I wouldn't use it as a base).
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 20, 2007 19:03:04 GMT -6
again, I don't think this is anything exclusive about the Double Wing.
It's called game planning. No more "game planning" is required for the double wing as it is for Wing-T, Flex Bone, Wishbone, Pistol, or any "unconventional" offense.
It's all relative.
Offense runs something weird or uncommon to take defenses out of their comfort zone.
Likewise, defenses do the same doggone thing. Take the offense out of their comfort zone.
Imagine a defense schemed to force the double wing to PASS the ball. Same song.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2007 19:04:17 GMT -6
I can give a good example of where I feel a slow templ helped us win. In the 2005 season, we played a team that had many more athletes than we did. Our backs did not fumble, so if we could gain first downs, we were going to dominate time of possession. We had an assistant coach whose only job that game was to watch the ref spot the ball and signal the play clock. Our offense huddled up, the QB found the coach who signaled when we had ten seconds left to run the play. When we got to the ten second mark, QB called the play, we lined up, QB watched the ref count and we snapped the ball at 1.
We won 26-14 and had a time of possession of over 35 minutes. So, the other team scored 14 points and had the ball less than 13 minutes. I feel if we had given them more chances, we would have lost. Obviously, our O didn't do too bad, but I still feel the tempo is why we won.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 20, 2007 19:12:00 GMT -6
Judging by the responses..I guess my little thought process doesn't give with others. I just know that I hear more about gimmick defenses (dline submarining at snap etc. ) agains the dbl wing. Against other things like brophy said, people game plan, but against the dbl wing, I hear other coaches talk about doing things that just aren't fundamental football...kind of like holding the ball at midcourt against a zone team in basketball.
Ok, I am unique here...nothing wrong with that.
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 20, 2007 19:36:38 GMT -6
I just know that I hear more about gimmick defenses (dline submarining at snap etc. ) agains the dbl wing. We see stuff like this- I really can not remember it working throughout the course of a game. We talk to our guys about stuff like this a lot, I tell them we might be in 3rd + 12 more than usual... and we might break off 60+ yard runs more too.
All it tells me is they have hit the panic button if they drastically change (we've panicked too...$*%&! 5 wide) - which I think is true with any good offense. Now maybe I am off base here, but I remember a thread (last year maybe) where people discussed "unsound things opponents do that screw up your team" (like OL who give bad run/pass reads, meandering/clueless option read). Last year, we played a team that was so consumed with our toss (superpower), they just packed in and stunted the off-tackle alley (C-D gap area). They basically left 1 guy to defend A and B gap. It took me a few plays to figure out we wouldn't be able to run toss well that game (I am not very smart... and I am stubborn). Eventually, we ran 3 Isos for about 60 yards each and averaged about 18 yards on a dang wedge play... so yeah, we see some goofy stuff. Like I've said, the best teams run their base. They adjust it, but they run base defenses.
Of course, this leads to the "jimmy/joe" argument: If you've got the players and the confidence in a system, why change it for DW, SW, wishbone, etc.? It is when you have to grasp at straws and you are becoming unsound because personnel wise you just do not match up- would it matter that much what you did if the opponent is vastly superior? Probably not- for that game at least.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Mar 20, 2007 19:37:01 GMT -6
time of possession is dependent on 2 factors ... 1 being more important than the other, but when you combine the 2 you can milk the clock immensely:
1) run plays in succession to gain first downs 2) keep the clock running in between plays
typical 3 runs & a punt burns up to 2 minutes off the clock i.e. 4 minutes on clock when 1st down is snapped - 40 seconds off clock when ball is snapped on 2nd down (3:20). 40 more seconds gone when ball is snapped on 3rd down (2:40) left. Burn off 40 more seconds when ball is punted and other team takes over with 2 minutes left. this is the 'higher' end of the spectrum so it may actually be less.
now, do same thing but throw the ball 1 time for incomplete, you lose 40 seconds. you gave the opponent only 1 more play.
Now, that is of the mindset that it is ONLY about running the ball. Not entirely, it is ALSO about running plays in succession that allows you to get at least 1 first down. If throwing the ball is the only way you have a chance to achieve a first down (within that first 3 & out possibility, NOT after you have gained at least 1 first down that drive) then you are essentially 'gambling' 1 extra play for the opponent for the chance to take away 4 of his ... that's 3 plays in your swing. (which could mean almost a minute and a half more burned off the clock)
think about this in your "stall" stactics ... 3 runs & punt = 2 minutes ... but, if you can snap the ball 7 times & punt you are looking at more than that, assuming you stick to sound play calls based on what defense is willing to accept.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 20, 2007 19:42:44 GMT -6
defenses will adjust their defense if you came out and ran the POLECAT as your base offense, too. What does that say?
Every week, defenses change. You don't just line up and let 'er rip. You have a plan and purpose for running what you run based off what the offense presents.
The same can't be said for offense. You have a base offense and you tweak it and add to it based on personnel matchups from week to week.
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 20, 2007 20:09:27 GMT -6
Every week, defenses change.I don't want to argue what I think is just a matter of semantics here... I mean 43s go to 54s with a totally different set of responsibilities type of "change"- or LBs who read FB suddenly read Guards "this game only" change. I don't mean to oversimplify defense, sorry if it came off that way- but we will run what we run unless we have a darn good reason to make big changes. That is no different than offense- we ran a power Single Wing and played a HUGE team (DW offense by they way) in the quarterfinals- and not for a second did we think about doing anything different (probably should have... looking at it now). Teams have a base (or base concepts) We are a tiny school, everyone plays both ways, we have one front- that's it. It has worked for us, so we do not abandon what works...and I think some teams do that at times. Some teams have to, but I think we sometimes get too caught up on trying to outsmart the other guy (offensive coaches are much worse on this from what I've seen). Some places can run 3-4 and 4-3 or a multiple 33, etc. or multiple Bear package, etc. To me- that is their defense (or defensive package). What I am referring to in "defensive change"is to abandon what you believe in because Coach X of Ekalaka, Montana held the powerhouse DW rival to -18 yards total offense running a 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1. Good for them, but I ain't gonna be able to put it in for one week and have much confidence. Maybe some places can do this (maybe not the 1-1-1, etc.) If you platoon, I'm sure you can do a lot more and players will still feel comfortable in it and can react and play...but no one here (players or coaches) is smart enough to do that. It takes us 3 weeks for our DEs to learn what to do correctly (All 3 reads). BTW, Polecat, or Swinging gate...whatever... we basically run our base, we do shift our line , as we do in most unbalanced situations-but I don't call that a change but an adjustment. I think we are saying about the same thing here though... (I just say more :
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Mar 20, 2007 20:17:52 GMT -6
Blutarsky- Thats great coaching and clock management, Like the Guiness commercial- Brilliant.
I agree with you 100% we played a very big and fast undefeated inner-city team in 2004 with an all rookie team with zip zip size. The other team was so big and fast I refused to let my tiny rural kids look at them during pregame. We recieve, drive it down the field 3-4 ypc in our Single Wing we are taking every second off the clock, no passes and no out of bounds runs. We score and onside kick, get it again get a few first downs. By this time we are well into the second quarter, they get the ball and of course score, we get it back and drive on em all the way to the 8. Just a minute to go before half, they get desperate, we get a turnover and score with 2 ticks left before half. We do the same in the second half and hang on for a 6 point win. They tried to score quick and took too many chances, we got em to jump offsides got a few first downs etc and stole a game we had no business winning, they hadnt lost in 2 years. They were so confident they would blow us out, embarrassed afterwords, The next year we blew them out, they quit believing, meanwhile our kids thnk they can score on anyone every time they have the ball LOL.
When we think we are the even or the better team we go no huddle hurry up because more possessions mean one-two whacky plays mean less.
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Mar 20, 2007 23:09:41 GMT -6
Since I am the one the comment is probably referring to, I don't think DW=Stall in Basketball. I think some coaches choose to stall by grinding out the clock and onside kicking. So they say. Their version of keep away.
I have seen DW teams light up a scoreboard with 40, 50, 60+ runs. I don't consider that much of a stall tactic.
I am not even saying it is wrong, just that I wouldn't choose to play football that way.
So in summary the DW doesn't =Stall, but some coaches choose to stall. Not saying it is wrong, just not my cup of tea so to speak.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Mar 21, 2007 5:17:56 GMT -6
Coach Joe, Most consider the onside kick to be quite a gamble, an exciting play. Personally I dont think it is unless I have a guy that can boom it deep and have a bunch of thoroughbreads that can run down the opps best player "in space". Then it is a gamble LOL. As a coach trying to maximize my teams chances of winning the game, limiting the other teams possessions seems like good strategy. For our team it's much harder for us to score when the other team has the ball than when we have it. It's even more of a factor if the other team can score at will and my team can move the ball and get first downs. ie use up the clock.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 21, 2007 5:44:11 GMT -6
my experience with kicking deep is that its most often run back to the 40 yard line or so anyhow. might as well onsides it now and again and at least give ourselves a chance to recover. amazing how many games are decided each year by ko returns
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Mar 21, 2007 7:04:14 GMT -6
Ummmm...lol You guys kind of went WAY off of what I was trying to say. I wasn't comparing the dbl wing to the stall because of clock management AT ALL... I was saying that it when a team runs a dbl wing, many defensive coaches are forced away from doing what they do in the coventional sense, and are forced to play football in the phone booth. In basketball, teams that run a 4 corners or stall once they get up a few buckets against a zone team basically make the zone team come out and either trap or play man (or lose as the clock just runs out as Airman described) THAT was the comparison I was talking about forcing the opponent to do something outside of what they would do in a "conventional" situation. ..not actual time management issues...sorry I didnt get that across. I think your point is valid, and I do think that is an advantage of the DW - making the opponent prepare for something unconventional. That is why I would prefer that there weren't so many people running the DW. I don't want it to become so familiar to our opponents. I want it to stay unique so teams are forced to do something on defense which is different or unconventional.
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Mar 21, 2007 7:15:36 GMT -6
Coach Joe, Most consider the onside kick to be quite a gamble, an exciting play. Personally I dont think it is unless I have a guy that can boom it deep and have a bunch of thoroughbreads that can run down the opps best player "in space". Then it is a gamble LOL. As a coach trying to maximize my teams chances of winning the game, limiting the other teams possessions seems like good strategy. For our team it's much harder for us to score when the other team has the ball than when we have it. It's even more of a factor if the other team can score at will and my team can move the ball and get first downs. ie use up the clock. I guess we disagree. I am fine with that. I think it is ok to have different opinions.
|
|
|
Post by coachparker34 on Mar 21, 2007 7:25:25 GMT -6
Early in the thread, it was identified that because of the style of the Double Wing offense, defenses have to do some things differently than they normally might do. Not just the Power, but the misdirection plays are a huge part of that too. It was also suggested that the DW was a Stall offense.
Here's the part I love: I run the DW as a hurry-up for about 30% of the game - especially the first series. I keep my guys fresh by rotating players while the defense doesn't typically have a chance to get a lot of practice reps during the week to prepare their second string. In addition, because the defense is doing some things differently, I don't like to give them a much of a chance to make adjustments. Finally, hurry-power-hurry-power-hurry-counter. It works beautifully.
I DO love this offense.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 21, 2007 7:44:41 GMT -6
what are things defenses HAVE to do to change up to stop the double wing?
If you are in a league that primarily feature ground-pound Wing-T / Wishbone, then that lone step-child team from nowhere runs the 5 wide........is that not the same paradigm shift in practice time for opposing defense, or am I missing something?
Btw, Double Wing rocks and has proven it's an effective offense.
Are the tight-splits of the DW comparable to the super-wide splits of the old split back veer teams? In their "unconventionalness"?
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Mar 21, 2007 7:56:21 GMT -6
what are things defenses HAVE to do to change up to stop the double wing? If you are in a league that primarily feature ground-pound Wing-T / Wishbone, then that lone step-child team from nowhere runs the 5 wide........is that not the same paradigm shift in practice time for opposing defense, or am I missing something? Btw, Double Wing rocks and has proven it's an effective offense. Are the tight-splits of the DW comparable to the super-wide splits of the old split back veer teams? In their "unconventionalness"? I agree with your thinking, Brophy. It isn't just the DW that is unconventional; there are plenty of other systems that are different from the norm. I personally hope that the spread continues to grow in popularity because the more teams that run it, the more practice reps we get against it. And if more teams are running the spread, the DW is once again a unique system that teams have to prepare for.
|
|