|
|
Post by coachk007 on Dec 19, 2007 20:29:41 GMT -6
Is the flexbone a better formation for the triple or is the split backs berrer? What about the I? Does it really matter? I am sure it does or else option guys would all be in the Bone. Your opions and reasoning are welcomed.
|
|
|
|
Post by touchdowng on Dec 19, 2007 21:12:36 GMT -6
It only matters when you look at what else you are trying to do. Each system/offense that you listed have the design to feature different stuff.
So, your question is really wide open to interpretation.
What are your companion plays?
What does your passing game look like?
Are you really set on running the true triple Op?
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Dec 20, 2007 3:03:54 GMT -6
Is the flexbone a better formation for the triple or is the split backs berrer? What about the I? Does it really matter? I am sure it does or else option guys would all be in the Bone. Your opions and reasoning are welcomed. Coach: Just talking about the option from under center, since that's all I'm qualified to do by experience: There are two basic ways to initiate the first portion of the triple option: a true dive or an outside veer path by a split back, or a path by a fullback (back lined up behind QB) -- tight for IV, trap or freeze option, wider for OV or belly option. I distinguish between the two because the mechanics for the mesh are distinct -- which is also why I didn't include the midline among the paths that a fullback can run. (Midline QB mechanics are different, and it is the one "triple" option which rarely requires a pitch back.) The split-back (or as we used to call it back in the day, Houston) veer is the lone remaining example of the dive-back option still in use (unless anyone is still running an honest-to-Bud Wilkinson Split-T option -- and they didn't run the triple back in those days anyway). The fullback option systems include wishbone, flexbone, and various I formations including the I-bone. I prefer offensive sets with a fullback behind the QB, so it should be no surprise that the option football I have coached is flexbone. I happen to think it is the best platform for running an option offense for various reasons, not least of which is the chance it gives you to run complements like the Rocket Sweep series (and its killer Belly Option package) as well as limited Run and Shoot passing as a supplement. |
|
|
|
Post by coachk007 on Dec 20, 2007 6:12:41 GMT -6
Thank you for your reply. I was leaning to the flexbone since it incorporates some wing t principles as well.
I am going to commit to the true triple. Were might I find information on the flexbone?
|
|
bear55
Sophomore Member
Posts: 125
|
Post by bear55 on Dec 20, 2007 6:22:19 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by tribepride on Dec 20, 2007 8:09:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Dec 20, 2007 10:37:45 GMT -6
The benefit of splitbacks is that you can threaten both sides of the formation with midline, ISV, and OSV. If you really want to threaten a defense with veer, being able to run both ISV and OSV is extremely important.
The problem, for me at least, with the flexbone and I options is that you can't run the OSV with the FB directly behind the QB. Unless you screw with the OL splits, which I hate doing. You can stagger the FB in the flexbone of I formation, but then you can only run veer to the staggered side.
With the normal flexbone and I formation options, you can only threaten my defense with the ISV and the midline. A such, if you face any decent DC, he'll be able to live in a Cover 3 and defend you. Because of this, I am far more prepared to handle PA out of your package because I always have 3 deep.
HOWEVER, with a splitback veer team,I have to defend ISV and OSV; I am stuck living in quarters or Robber 2. I have to commit 9 guys up front, PERIOD. This sucks; because you can beat the hell out of me with PA deep. In quarters, the safeties bite up hard on PA, the middle of the field is wide open.
You can still run your wing t series (buck, jet, etc...) from splitbacks; it basically the same as the double back formations in the Delaware Wing T.
|
|
|
|
Post by djwesp on Dec 20, 2007 12:46:50 GMT -6
Is the flexbone a better formation for the triple or is the split backs berrer? What about the I? Does it really matter? I am sure it does or else option guys would all be in the Bone. Your opions and reasoning are welcomed. We like running triple out of the Wishbone Traditional. We like it because of the fullback being so close (something I and Split back doesn't have), we can run our option both ways EASILY and you genuinely have to defend the reverse options. It is also nice because counter/crossbuck and double dive fit so easily off of it. Out of Wishbone we can easily run ISV, Midline, and OSV (although we use point and ride instead of true "g-plus" mesh there) The flexbone isn't bad, because the defense has to respect the vertical threats. However, running the triple out of the flexbone is difficult to do because of timing the motions. I am also not a big fan of the difficulty in running OSV out of the flexbone (and many don't do this). |
|
billyn
Sophomore Member
Posts: 231
|
Post by billyn on Dec 20, 2007 13:43:43 GMT -6
I coached the oline in the splitback veer for 10 years, and here is my take on its advantages. 1. The backs are close to the line and you can run extremely quick hitting plays at any place along the front. When you get good enough to check runs at bubbles and the qb can read the inside and outside veer the defense literally cannot stop you without completely selling out on the run. Here is its main disadvantage over other offenses 1. The qb has to be a really good well trained player. He alone can make the offense not work (which is true in any offense, but in this one you are dependent on his decision making ability). Also, it is hard to get two qbs ready to play, so if #1 goes down your in a world of hurt, and the offense doesn't lend itself to adapting to something else easily.
|
|
