Some 5 Wide Highlights for you..

Great example on how to spread the field, move the football with the pass with lesser talent. The passing game can be a great equalizer.

Coach: Very nice indeed.

You've combined the best features of the Dutch Meyer TCU Spread from the early 50's (sprint/running pass from 5 wide, some of the running game), Archie Cooley's "Satellite Express" offense at Mississippi Valley State from the early 80's (diamond quads wide to one side, then throw to your best receiver -- Jerry Rice, in his case -- wide to the other side), and the modern spread shotgun attack, as typified by Evangel Christian HS in Louisiana (scrimmage kick formation with passer 7 or more yards deep to protect the center from immediate attack, and the multiple screen game).

And as you say, you won that game with less talent than your opponent. Image if talent had been equal...

Win or lose, you got the most out of your talent with that scheme -- a great job of coaching.

question for debate/thought---lets say you ran something else, dbl wing, wing t, veer..etc......couldn't you have scored 2 times ...but managed the clock such that the bad guys didn't get a chance to get 54?

I personally do believe it would have been any better..

Funny thing is.. we went into this game with a game plan of going in the I and running the ball and letting the shot clock roll so that they would not score 54..

but.. 3rd play.. FB tears his ACL and is hauled off in an ambulance..

So..

but they were so much more physically better than us.. we would not have been able to run the ball on them..

And it wasnt like time would have run out.. they scored several of their TDs in 5 plays or less.. even opened the game by returning the kick off for a TD..

We just did not have the line or the Wings to block well enough to run anything other than what we did.

valid points--and know that I am not questioning the choice of offense...just throwing out some good debate topics. At the HS level, where you aren't able to "recruit" kids to fit your offense (or even at colleges where you get the bottom of the barrel kids like ULM or ULL etc..)...while the 4-5 wide offense works on the grease board schematically, when you factor in things such as ball control, physical toughness of team/defense, etc...is it a good choice for a "bad" team.

air---don't think ANYONE is saying anybody should feel anyway...just putting everything out on the table. When you go with the "spread" there are things that go with it...just like if you say we are going to play foot to foot, I am going to get 9 on your 5, and on defense we are going to play man and go and get you.....

Do you prefer 4x1 or 3x2 when you go to your empty sets?

Imagine you are playing the #1 HS team in the country, where all 22 starters and several backups are all going to major D-1 schools. You have 12 guys and are seriously considering lining up a couple of your players' girlfriends at nose guard because they are bigger than the guys you currently have.

Let's say your only goal is to hold them under 30. Is the answer to take a knee every play and try to milk the clock? Well, you're giving up the chance to win, but you hopefully won't fumble. Now maybe you want to run the wedge scheme and get 2 yards a play but if you break one every few plays for 6 yards you might get a first down. Little chance of scoring much but hey, no fumbles, no risks, and milk the clock right?

Or you could open it up. What is opening it up? Maybe it's option. Maybe it's more faking and things like that. Maybe it's some screens, maybe it's some jet sweeps and option off of that look, maybe it's going 5 wide in 4x1 and 3x2 sets. What happens? Well, your chance of scoring has gone up, but so has your chance of turning the ball over. What if they get cold and make some mistakes? Well maybe you could then score a couple easy tds or get the ball in good field position, make a run at them. Or let's say you turn it over a few times. Might get ugly.

The point is like airraider said. If you've got nothing to lose, do you play to win? Or do you play to keep it respectable? I think the only "respectable" thing is to play to win. Save the low-risk 2 yards and a cloud of dust for when you've got the lead in the 4th quarter.

The flipside is if you're the team with great talent. Is the incentive there for you to go 5 wides every play and throw hail marys and run the crazy option and whatever else? I'm not so sure - you could beat them doing a lot of things - why take on the extra risk? But you might need that stuff to beat a team just as good as you.

The one thing I'll say about the NFL is that, even with the Patriots, there's no sisters of the poor there. and among the conferences most all those games are quite evenly matched. So they have to always play smart and take calculated risks. That's what football is, it's not sticking your head in the ground, it's taking the calculated risks. (And practicing and repping things so much that you reduce that risk.)

airraider, I've been thinking about this a lot since our season ended. We had a rookie qb (came out for football as a senior). 90% of our passing game was quick game with presnap reads. Post snap we read defenders and make decisions based on what they do. I took the deeper and more complicated routes out of the playbook to keep it simpler for him. But he struggled.

Half way thru the season, we opened it up a lot. Put more complicated routes in, deeper drops.
Essentially told my QB, throw to the open guy.

He played very well the rest of the year. Confidence went way up. I wish maybe I hadn't "coached" him so much early in the year. Anyway this got me thinking a lot about qb's and how we coach them. When I played, I struggled with the route progression reads. I needed to have defensive reads and keys on every play. I needed to be "coached" heavily. My qb two years ago was like this aswell.

Are all QB's different? Will some excel without reading defenses? Will some others struggle with that style? If so, how can we figure out which style is best for each as soon as possible?

Well dave sure. I worried that my post would be seen as "all small schools must pass." That's not really what I meant. I do think that if a team has big horses and you try to plow into the line with no misdirection just trying to end games mercifully, that's no good. But I understand the logic.

Much of it depends how your defense is. It's like in basketball - if you can play good D, keep the scoring low (and not a running game) and push it to the end of the game, you have a chance. I suppose that's what that HS coach was angling to.

And also just because you throw it doesn't mean that (a) you can't control the clock, or (b) you have to be no huddle. You will have more incompletions but if you throw a lot of short passes and screens and move the chains you can be ball control as well. And like I said, your equalizer could be a Paul Johnson type offense or something else. It doesn't have to be 5 wides. Not sure if I'm totally clear, but the idea is just how do you give yourself a chance to win when overmatched? And I think you have to take on more risk in one way or another, which may increase the chance you'll get blown out, but also could increase the chance you'll do some big stuff.

The corollary depends on your D though. If you do not reasonably think you can hold them under 4 or 5 touchdowns, you have to take on some extra risk to get more points. All offense is a risk/return tradeoff. That's why you practice your option pitches, your passing game, your pass protection, and your reads. Look at the Patriots - you can throw it 40 times a game if you never get sacked and rarely throw interceptions (Tom Brady).

Nice job airraider... I can't believe how well these kids executed this difficult offense, just learning it during this first season. Awesome teaching job there dude!

Airraider--amazing what a Highlight film/ cut -ups can portray eh? ;D
(to avoid any confusion, I am pointing out that 2 posters have talked about Air's team using the spread to beat a more talented team. Unfortunately, Air has said they lost this game 54-19)

I do think you guys executed the plays shown pretty well though.

los--lol... I thought it was funny that not one but TWO posts conveyed that same message.

You have to give Air credit though, it was a tough situation to be in.