|
Post by 53 on Oct 16, 2016 19:40:52 GMT -6
I'm a spit t coach but it's pretty easy to adapt to our talent.
At small schools you're always going to have some lard ass tackles and small quick backs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2016 8:09:33 GMT -6
We run the pistol wing T and we're good at it. We don't have a quarterback that can throw worth a darn and haven't for many years. We've had running backs show interest in the school but receivers and quarterbacks keep walking. Two years ago we had a middle school quarterback that was a phenom but also a headcase. When he graduated middle school he left for a nearby private school with a huck & chuck offense and started as a freshman. Recently talked to his coach who loves the kid's talent but is already questioning if the juice is worth the squeeze. Our offense may chase some kids away but brings others in. My $.02. Without sounding like an a$$hat have you tried COACHING a quarterback??? Spend $200 Invest in the Darrin Slack materials. lol, that was my suggestion to our HC two years ago, he didn't want to do it. He's a smart guy but I don't think he knows how to teach a QB to throw - to make things worse, I think he's too insecure to admit it. I pleaded the case - how having a QB that can throw a good ball opens up other opportunities but he didn't bite. Since he's the guy that ends up with his nuts in a sling if it doesn't work I agreed to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Oct 17, 2016 8:47:36 GMT -6
Without sounding like an a$$hat have you tried COACHING a quarterback??? Spend $200 Invest in the Darrin Slack materials. lol, that was my suggestion to our HC two years ago, he didn't want to do it. He's a smart guy but I don't think he knows how to teach a QB to throw - to make things worse, I think he's too insecure to admit it. I pleaded the case - how having a QB that can throw a good ball opens up other opportunities but he didn't bite. Since he's the guy that ends up with his nuts in a sling if it doesn't work I agreed to disagree. But how does making the QB a better thrower hurt you? I cannot believe the number of teams that I have seen where the QB cannot throw. It is amazing.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith627 on Oct 17, 2016 9:13:03 GMT -6
Not to get too off task but Slack materials are amazing. I'll be blogging about my QB who has always been a receiver and his progress this offseason. His progression has been incredible.
|
|
|
Post by doubletight305 on Oct 17, 2016 10:22:50 GMT -6
So this is the conundrum we are facing right now. Tim Murphy Single wing for years, double wing before that and now we are transitioning to open enrollment. We are in a region where you can shake a tree and kids that run 4.5's will fall out, we are (arguably) the skill position capital of the country(except for my attendance boundary).
So do I abandon an offense that has been so good to us for so long because we can bring some guys from a few neighborhoods over to play? Everyone that I have spoke to has told me to transition to a more spread look because doublewing/wing-t/single wing is essentially a cuss word in our county. Even tried and true wing coaches have transitioned, albeit with mixed results.
I think the answer might be to be "spread", be "modern" but retain your identity (smashmouth power football). Does anyone have a list of examples, for me what i'm looking into is Hugh Wyatt's "open wing" as well as some Baylor stuff from previous years.
Now every situation is different,if your the only show in town and the next closest school is 25 miles away then do what you do. However; as I type this from my classroom I can look outside my window and literally SEE the next senior high school, the competition.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith627 on Oct 17, 2016 10:32:30 GMT -6
So this is the conundrum we are facing right now. Tim Murphy Single wing for years, double wing before that and now we are transitioning to open enrollment. We are in a region where you can shake a tree and kids that run 4.5's will fall out, we are (arguably) the skill position capital of the country(except for my attendance boundary). So do I abandon an offense that has been so good to us for so long because we can bring some guys from a few neighborhoods over to play? Everyone that I have spoke to has told me to transition to a more spread look because doublewing/wing-t/single wing is essentially a cuss word in our county. Even tried and true wing coaches have transitioned, albeit with mixed results. I think the answer might be to be "spread", be "modern" but retain your identity (smashmouth power football). Does anyone have a list of examples, for me what i'm looking into is Hugh Wyatt's "open wing" as well as some Baylor stuff from previous years. Now every situation is different,if your the only show in town and the next closest school is 25 miles away then do what you do. However; as I type this from my classroom I can look outside my window and literally SEE the next senior high school, the competition. We were primarily spread out last year but pounded the ball most of the time. I posted our offensive clips into the film thread. We run groupings of 10, 11, 12, 20, and 32 personnel but are mostly in 10 or 11 personnel.
|
|
|
Post by jtimmerman53 on Oct 17, 2016 10:35:20 GMT -6
Admittedly I am a young coach but I would think the best way to go about it would be to do the best with what you have and put the kids who are actually on the team in the best position to win football games. As has already been stated here before, winning takes care of everything else. There is nothing wrong with adjusting a couple of your schemes or adding in a different package or two to take advantage of your talent and keep the defense on its heels but going for a whole-sale change of philosophy just in the hopes of nabbing a few extra guys who MIGHT turn out to be good football players is not a wise decision in my humble opinion. Also keep in mind that just because you line up in the Wing-T doesn't mean you're not allowed to throw the ball as many times as it takes to win or vice versa lining up in a spread shotgun system doesn't mean you have to throw the ball 90% of the plays; do what is necessary to win. I've always liked the mantra "Players, formations, plays". It's okay to have a strong belief in whatever philosophy you prescribe to but good coaches should constantly be evaluating their personnel and figuring out the best formations and plays to let those players make plays.
|
|
|
Post by morris on Oct 17, 2016 11:49:10 GMT -6
If you are Tim Murphy shotgun DW you can dress that up. You pretty much are already using an H. The blocking schemes hold up. Just put a couple of guys out and all of a sudden you look like Auburn or Ohio St. Power is power. Counter is counter. Just use your stuff.
People having issues with the wing-t kills me. The damn offense is enough of a PITA. Add a QB that can sling it and athletes it becomes nasty. TN and AL both have no shortage of wing-TD with athletes. It is some nasty stuff.
You can pm me about the open wing stuff.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Oct 17, 2016 12:00:53 GMT -6
If you are Tim Murphy shotgun DW you can dress that up. You pretty much are already using an H. The blocking schemes hold up. Just put a couple of guys out and all of a sudden you look like Auburn or Ohio St. Power is power. Counter is counter. Just use your stuff. People having issues with the wing-t kills me. The damn offense is enough of a PITA. Add a QB that can sling it and athletes it becomes nasty. TN and AL both have no shortage of wing-TD with athletes. It is some nasty stuff. You can pm me about the open wing stuff. Agreed!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2016 12:38:15 GMT -6
lol, that was my suggestion to our HC two years ago, he didn't want to do it. He's a smart guy but I don't think he knows how to teach a QB to throw - to make things worse, I think he's too insecure to admit it. I pleaded the case - how having a QB that can throw a good ball opens up other opportunities but he didn't bite. Since he's the guy that ends up with his nuts in a sling if it doesn't work I agreed to disagree. But how does making the QB a better thrower hurt you? I cannot believe the number of teams that I have seen where the QB cannot throw. It is amazing. I'm with you, I asked that same question and didn't get an answer I could live with. I honestly think that he doesn't know how to develop a kid into a good quarterback so he just focuses on other things. I'm learning to disagree without being disagreeable. In this case it was difficult.
|
|
|
Post by sweep26 on Oct 17, 2016 13:49:54 GMT -6
We are a multiple formation pro-style offense...a.k.a. the Wing-T.
This system allows us to use the same numbering system, terminology, etc. year in and year out, regardless of the skills that our players have.
Based on our available talent, we can be as wide open or a tight and conservative as we want, or need to be. From the basic formations, we can be traditional Wing-T, Run and Shoot, Double Wing or we can be a typical Pro-style offense. Obviously we can also utilize traditional under center operations and/or we can utilize various direct snap/shot gun styles of operation.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Oct 17, 2016 14:37:49 GMT -6
Do one of two things: run what you know or run something that's unique in the conference.
Either way, on-field success will draw kids out for football. At least it will draw the FOOTBALL PLAYERS out. I, personally, don't want a kid out for football simply because he sees us running an "innovative offense".
|
|
agame
Junior Member
Posts: 378
|
Post by agame on Oct 17, 2016 15:31:17 GMT -6
Can only run what I know..
Wherever I go, whatever team I have an opportunity to install at.. they will get what I've always run Playbooks can always be manipulated to encapsulate your talent.... just gotta know what your limits are... u usually find out the hard way...
|
|
|
Post by The Lunch Pail on Oct 17, 2016 19:29:09 GMT -6
Creating a good culture and WINNING gets the athletes. First year switching to spread in '14, we were 4-7 and got 1-2 of the athletes in the hallways. Now, we're 7-2 and we've got almost 75 kids on the team in a school of 500 that competes with a powerhouse soccer team. As **** noted earlier, take a look at schools like Lamar and Maryville in Missouri. Lamar is a DTDW/Spinner hybrid and Maryville is a Delaware team. Both are fricking powerhouses in the middle of nowhere and I guarantee you they don't have issues recruiting athletes.
|
|
|
Post by fballcoachg on Oct 17, 2016 19:30:05 GMT -6
personality can be far more important than scheme...great program in ohio runs an unconventional offense, rarely throws but their HC sells that program makes it all about the kids and gets a crazy amount of athletes to buy in and sell out to it all What's the offense? The simple answer is if you win games you get kids. Every example I see just about can be adapted. A really good wr in the wing-t can be just as dangerous if not more than in the spread. Same thing with a full house offense. People are being short sighted The school I'm talking about has foot to foot splits and takes pride in mashing you. HC does a great job with character development and building a team/family atmosphere. I've seen other schools run similar philosophies that struggle with numbers where at least on the surface kids use the scheme as their reason for not playing, one of the most successful D1 programs in Ohio is a run dominant squad that going in to week 8 had only thrown the ball 11 times and their numbers are not through the roof like you'd expect.
|
|
|
Post by morris on Oct 17, 2016 19:48:18 GMT -6
Thanks for sharing. It reminded me a little bit of hybrid wing-t team with all the stuff.
|
|
|
Post by somecoach on Oct 17, 2016 20:43:23 GMT -6
used to be a DTDW team. Really hard to get athletes into the school (Your Wr's are your Db's, so not splitting out WR's meant not having an athletic secondary) Being one dimensional and having a Run:Pass ratio of 99:1 solidified this. The system added a special mentality to the team, we were able to beat up on bigger teams by grinding them with the double wing, (which was very effective when the spread craze hit our league) imo, have a system that will cater to your personnel, but more importantly bust your a$$ on getting better personnel in the first place. Right now we are a spread team. The great thing about the spread is that we adjust to personnel, who says we can't go double tights and pound the rock if we have the guys for it?, and once they crowd the box we can have the flexibility to chuck it on the soft coverage, versus being the double wing team we used to be and continuing to run into the wall and waiting for it to break. From being on this site for so long, every aspect of high school football is different from state to state, even district to district. When you say it was hard to bring in kids when you were DW....what does that mean because I have heard it a lot on here when this topic comes up. If you're a private school then I obviously understand what you mean, but if you're a public school what other choice to kids have that live in the school district besides leaving for a private school? If you're a public school don't you just get the kids that live in that town or district? We are a public school and no matter what offense we run, we're getting the same kids no matter what. we are a private school in nyc, we are competing for recruits with 12 programs within 57.92 square miles lol we were notorious for being "the school that runs that 1950's offense and doesn't throw"
|
|
|
Post by rsmith627 on Oct 18, 2016 3:48:40 GMT -6
From being on this site for so long, every aspect of high school football is different from state to state, even district to district. When you say it was hard to bring in kids when you were DW....what does that mean because I have heard it a lot on here when this topic comes up. If you're a private school then I obviously understand what you mean, but if you're a public school what other choice to kids have that live in the school district besides leaving for a private school? If you're a public school don't you just get the kids that live in that town or district? We are a public school and no matter what offense we run, we're getting the same kids no matter what. we are a private school in nyc, we are competing for recruits with 12 programs within 57.92 square miles lol we were notorious for being "the school that runs that 1950's offense and doesn't throw" Did you make a change, and did it make a difference?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith627 on Oct 18, 2016 4:57:32 GMT -6
So this is the conundrum we are facing right now. Tim Murphy Single wing for years, double wing before that and now we are transitioning to open enrollment. We are in a region where you can shake a tree and kids that run 4.5's will fall out, we are (arguably) the skill position capital of the country(except for my attendance boundary). So do I abandon an offense that has been so good to us for so long because we can bring some guys from a few neighborhoods over to play? Everyone that I have spoke to has told me to transition to a more spread look because doublewing/wing-t/single wing is essentially a cuss word in our county. Even tried and true wing coaches have transitioned, albeit with mixed results. I think the answer might be to be "spread", be "modern" but retain your identity (smashmouth power football). Does anyone have a list of examples, for me what i'm looking into is Hugh Wyatt's "open wing" as well as some Baylor stuff from previous years. Now every situation is different,if your the only show in town and the next closest school is 25 miles away then do what you do. However; as I type this from my classroom I can look outside my window and literally SEE the next senior high school, the competition. If your offense has been good to you, I think you would be crazy to make a change. If you are choking out 2-3 wins a year, 4-5 in an up year, I think it may merit discussion though. Especially if you are competing with schools around you to get kids. If you are the only show in the county or something, then I think by all means, do you. I was just looking to get a discussion going. At the end of the day my own position is that I wouldn't change what I do based off of the opportunity to bring in one or two receivers and a QB every few years. I saw this topic come up elsewhere and thought it would be an interesting talk though, and so far it has.
|
|
|
Post by doubletight305 on Oct 18, 2016 7:17:22 GMT -6
So this is the conundrum we are facing right now. Tim Murphy Single wing for years, double wing before that and now we are transitioning to open enrollment. We are in a region where you can shake a tree and kids that run 4.5's will fall out, we are (arguably) the skill position capital of the country(except for my attendance boundary). So do I abandon an offense that has been so good to us for so long because we can bring some guys from a few neighborhoods over to play? Everyone that I have spoke to has told me to transition to a more spread look because doublewing/wing-t/single wing is essentially a cuss word in our county. Even tried and true wing coaches have transitioned, albeit with mixed results. I think the answer might be to be "spread", be "modern" but retain your identity (smashmouth power football). Does anyone have a list of examples, for me what i'm looking into is Hugh Wyatt's "open wing" as well as some Baylor stuff from previous years. Now every situation is different,if your the only show in town and the next closest school is 25 miles away then do what you do. However; as I type this from my classroom I can look outside my window and literally SEE the next senior high school, the competition. If your offense has been good to you, I think you would be crazy to make a change. If you are choking out 2-3 wins a year, 4-5 in an up year, I think it may merit discussion though. Especially if you are competing with schools around you to get kids. If you are the only show in the county or something, then I think by all means, do you. I was just looking to get a discussion going. At the end of the day my own position is that I wouldn't change what I do based off of the opportunity to bring in one or two receivers and a QB every few years. I saw this topic come up elsewhere and thought it would be an interesting talk though, and so far it has. As more districts opt for open enrollment I think this is a very important discussion that can affect your talent. My theory is that your offense affects your "brand" more than anything else. In my area (South Florida) that brand not only affects offensive kids, but defensive kids as well. They don't give a damn what defense you run because the assumption is spread= modern. That's my assumption based on the football culture in my area, could be different in other places Remember though, "spread" is a loose term. I think If I adapt my offense to 20 and 11 personnel it would change our "brand", but i'm still running power and counter all day. Our identity won't change, but we would be "spread". As a coach it just doesn't make sense, and actually I hate that it works this way down here.
|
|
|
Post by somecoach on Oct 18, 2016 7:29:30 GMT -6
we are a private school in nyc, we are competing for recruits with 12 programs within 57.92 square miles lol we were notorious for being "the school that runs that 1950's offense and doesn't throw" Did you make a change, and did it make a difference? There was a change in HC, staff, and overall direction of the program. We also increased recruiting efforts by a lot, plus made physical improvements to the school, as well as the schematic changes. Overall we finally are getting better players into the school. Imo, breaking the "double wing school" notoriety did help a bit when getting people into the school.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 18, 2016 8:43:47 GMT -6
I really don't understand the premise of this argument. Atleast anywhere I have ever been, kids could not identify an "offense" or an offensive system. They are worried about their role in the offense. Most good, skilled, "football kids" identify themselves as RB and want to carry the ball. Some big lineman kids want to be a TE instead. The QB wants to throw. You might get 1-2 kids who are "real" WR types (lanky and athletic, can't play RB).
Being in a run-based, 3 back offense (Wing-t, DW, Flex ect...) doesn't stop you from throwing the ball 15-20 times. That might be more pass attempts then most spread teams have. Your QB can throw it and run around and put up stats. You can make a skilled big kid happy by letting him be a TE. You can give the ball to 2 or 3 different RB. You can throw plenty of deep balls to a true WR.
If you choose to only throw the ball 2-3 times.... sure. But that isn't an offensive system issue... thats an overall strategy issue.
For what its worth, what value are kids who want to be "spread" WR bringing your program? Do they want to go out and tackle on kickoff team? Are they going to play defense? Are they going to block? If they are willing to do those things, why does your offensive system matter? If they aren't going to do those things, are they really the kids you want to build your program around?
|
|
|
Post by mariner42 on Oct 22, 2016 9:55:03 GMT -6
Yeah, I dunno if this is a left-coast cultural thing, but we aren't having this whole "omg I wanna play in the spread" thing with kids. It's more "Coach is so mean to me" and "I wanna focus on my golf career" and "Sorry, the waves were huge this morning and I didn't want to miss the swell".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2016 16:21:53 GMT -6
I honestly think this is overrated and really only affects your first year.
If a kid won't play for you because of the style of offense you run, he probably can't be counted on to stick around in any offense. When a kid says this is why he's not playing, it's no different from "I need to concentrate on basketball" or "my mom won't let me."
I know guys who have run "boring" offenses and they got pushback from kids at first, but after a year or two things evened out when kids saw the team getting better and the other players bought in.
I know others who came in to these situations and promised to run flashy systems to "get kids out." Guess what? The kids still didn't come out because they didn't want to play football to begin with, and when the team went from 3-7 and losing 28-14 to 0-10 and losing 63-0 every week, those kids stayed away while others defected.
Sometimes you will get a few good athletes who transfer out to go somewhere they think will make it all about them, but they'd still do that for other reasons, too.
On the list of things that gets and keeps kids out, offensive system is way, way down on the list.
It's all about relationships with the kids and how you teach the game. If you do those things, the kids will accept any Xs and Os and want to play for you.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 22, 2016 16:35:39 GMT -6
I honestly think this is overrated and really only affects your first year. If a kid won't play for you because of the style of offense you run, he probably can't be counted on to stick around in any offense. When a kid says this is why he's not playing, it's no different from "I need to concentrate on basketball" or "my mom won't let me." I know guys who have run "boring" offenses and they got pushback from kids at first, but after a year or two things evened out when kids saw the team getting better and the other players bought in. I know others who came in to these situations and promised to run flashy systems to "get kids out." Guess what? The kids still didn't come out because they didn't want to play football to begin with, and when the team went from 3-7 and losing 28-14 to 0-10 and losing 63-0 every week, those kids stayed away while others defected. Sometimes you will get a few good athletes who transfer out to go somewhere they think will make it all about them, but they'd still do that for other reasons, too. On the list of things that gets and keeps kids out, offensive system is way, way down on the list. It's all about relationships with the kids and how you teach the game. If you do those things, the kids will accept any Xs and Os and want to play for you. To build on this very astute comment-- if they are bored by your offensive system...how bored do you think they will get with offseason strength and conditioning?
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Oct 22, 2016 16:51:22 GMT -6
Completely agree with the last few outstanding posts.
My only thing that I will add is to run an offense that is versatile enough to take advantage of what you do have.
Which is any offense by the way.
If you are double wing but Randy Moss is at your school, be smart enough to run the double wing one split end and develop a qb that can get him the ball. This not only takes advantage of your talent, but I promise, will make your running game even more devasting.
If you are spread it air raid and throw 60 times a game, but Bo Jackson is at your school, make sure you can hand it to him. Again, this will take advantage of your talents and enhance what you already like to do.
|
|
|
Post by utchuckd on Oct 22, 2016 17:02:46 GMT -6
Yeah, I dunno if this is a left-coast cultural thing, but we aren't having this whole "omg I wanna play in the spread" thing with kids. It's more "Coach is so mean to me" and "I wanna focus on my golf career" and "Sorry, the waves were huge this morning and I didn't want to miss the swell". Last one seems valid to me, Coach.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2016 17:19:50 GMT -6
Completely agree with the last few outstanding posts. My only thing that I will add is to run an offense that is versatile enough to take advantage of what you do have. Which is any offense by the way. If you are double wing but Randy Moss is at your school, be smart enough to run the double wing one split end and develop a qb that can get him the ball. This not only takes advantage of your talent, but I promise, will make your running game even more devasting. If you are spread it air raid and throw 60 times a game, but Bo Jackson is at your school, make sure you can hand it to him. Again, this will take advantage of your talents and enhance what you already like to do. THIS! This is the key. In HS ball, you need to be able to adapt and feature what you do have, as well as minimize your weaknesses, on a year to year basis, but you want to avoid wholesale changes that force you to start from scratch. You can do this by building your offense around a core set of blocking schemes, concepts, and techniques that stay the same every year while the actual plays and formations may change. Flexibility within a system is key.
|
|
|
Post by mariner42 on Oct 22, 2016 17:25:44 GMT -6
Yeah, I dunno if this is a left-coast cultural thing, but we aren't having this whole "omg I wanna play in the spread" thing with kids. It's more "Coach is so mean to me" and "I wanna focus on my golf career" and "Sorry, the waves were huge this morning and I didn't want to miss the swell". Last one seems valid to me, Coach. Our varsity OL coach is also the coach of our surf team. I don't think he's ever had a situation where one conflicted with the other, but I'm curious where he would come down on that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2016 19:00:08 GMT -6
Last one seems valid to me, Coach. Our varsity OL coach is also the coach of our surf team. I don't think he's ever had a situation where one conflicted with the other, but I'm curious where he would come down on that. Wait... Surf team? Really?!? Then again, a rural school I was at a few years ago had a fishing team. They went to state, too.
|
|