|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 25, 2007 21:25:09 GMT -6
Guys, looking to see what kind of results we have. As I described in the ground pound philosophy thread, I have seen several top 8 teams in Louisiana not win the whole thing because when they were forced to, they could not pass. They might go 13-0 and get to the semis, but then they play a team that makes them throw, and they just can't do it under fire against another championship caliber team.
So for you guys who consider yourself ground pounders...how have you faired when FORCED to pass against teams you would consider comprable to yourself.
The last high school team I helped had a ground pound philosophy (starting qb spent his time handing off in inside drill while back ups threw 1 on 1's vs the DB's) We were fine throwing against the league patsies..but when forced to throw against a championship caliber team, we didn't get it done.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 25, 2007 21:37:21 GMT -6
Dave--with the team in question, they have consitently been one of the top 10 in the state for the last 7 or 8 years, but have also been extremely one dimentional. I truly believe that if they had a change in PHILOSOPHY, not play calls, but a different commitment to the passing game, they might have gotten over the hump.
Of course, you always have John Curtis Christian..a school with 20+ state titles, defeating Hoover High at Hoover...and they really just run one play..the Dive:)
|
|
|
Post by CVBears on Mar 25, 2007 21:44:09 GMT -6
We had three games last season that we would not have won if it were not for our passing abilities.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Mar 25, 2007 21:52:11 GMT -6
this is probably tough to answer.
some games, yes, we were able to throw the ball to win. others, no, for whatever reason, we couldn't/didn't do enough in passing game to help us get a victory.
turn it around ... can say same thing if someone asked me question about the run game, too
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 25, 2007 21:57:49 GMT -6
But Huey, I would argue that the most common (by a far margin) cause for a failed run game in the high school (and college) ranks is simply strength/physicality. When DL are getting pushed back, schemes don't matter, reads don't matter, technique doesn't matter... the defense is in trouble.
When a team gets stoned trying to run the ball, I would argue it is usually because they simply aren't bigger/faster/stronger than the opponent. Rooting the 3 tech out of the B gap has vastly different components than recognizing the soft spot in the zone and sitting down while the QB is reading the same thing...
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Mar 25, 2007 22:03:28 GMT -6
But Huey, I would argue that the most common (by a far margin) cause for a failed run game in the high school (and college) ranks is simply strength/physicality. When DL are getting pushed back, schemes don't matter, reads don't matter, technique doesn't matter... the defense is in trouble. When a team gets stoned trying to run the ball, I would argue it is usually because they simply aren't bigger/faster/stronger than the opponent. Rooting the 3 tech out of the B gap has vastly different components than recognizing the soft spot in the zone and sitting down while the QB is reading the same thing... OK, you argue that.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 25, 2007 22:06:46 GMT -6
So, I take it you disagree? I am just going with my experience watching "ground pounders" They roll over the weaker opponents, and struggle with physically similar opponents. If a decently coached ground pounding team avgs 265 across, they probably won't have any problems until they run up against someone who is also 265 across.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Mar 25, 2007 22:12:03 GMT -6
I don't completely agree or disagree, to be honest.
Obviously, we are all going to struggle vs those teams that are physically better. We have to really put ourselves into good plays - attacking their weakest link, be it by formation, schemes, etc.
At the same time, the opponent can scheme us to slow us down or stop us from doing some things in the run game by front/stunt even if they don't have better talent. Now, when they do this, they are "giving up something else", so to speak. This is where the real chess match begins.
I won't drag this out, as we all pretty much have an idea of where this would go (i.e. play-calling, series of plays, etc.).
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Mar 25, 2007 22:14:20 GMT -6
btw, I didn't vote because I can't vote twice ... lol
We've won games going with Plan A (whatever that was) We've won games by being able to go to Plan B (whatever that was) We've lost games because we couldn't execute either Plan A or Plan B
Seems like the majority of the games we lost were because the opponent was successful in shutting down 1 aspect of our offense.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 25, 2007 22:22:03 GMT -6
Huey...you shouldnt be eligible to vote anyway..lol..it is a GROUND POUNDER poll. YOu are one of those effiminate coaches who throws the ball
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Mar 25, 2007 22:24:12 GMT -6
Huey...you shouldnt be eligible to vote anyway..lol..it is a GROUND POUNDER poll. YOu are one of those effiminate coaches who throws the ball Been called LOTS of things (especially from the stands) but this may be only time I've been called effiminate or a woman ... lol well, I have been called a Mother _______ quite a few times, though ..... HAHAHAHA
|
|
|
Post by los on Mar 25, 2007 23:18:49 GMT -6
Can't decide how to vote, but running the dbl. tight I, pretty much exclusively for a long time, if we didn't try to establish and then have the nerve, confidence or whatever to use our pa passing game early and as often as possible in the contest, you were just beggin to run against a brick wall the rest of the game, usually meaning lots of 3 and outs! So, did we throw a lot of td or game winning passes on a regular basis= NO Did the pa passing game used early on and then as the opportunity allowed, presenting the "threat" of a passing game help us win some games? I think so!
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 25, 2007 23:36:07 GMT -6
OK... I'll take part.
1996 we had STUDS... especially for a small school. 1 OL in the NFL, line average was 265 Backs were 190 (QB), 195 (HB) 230 (FB) and 270 (yes, 270 HB... he went to Nebraska... flunked out, played a year of NAIA). A few of our passing stories. Week 5, playing a bad team- I wanted to work on passing. 1st down inc. 2nd inc. 3rd-10, run iso, pick up 22...repeat. Late in 1st QR (leading 21-0) QB calls out from huddle "Coach... No more passes!" Sitting in the office at the end of the year I say to an assistant "You know... if someone is smart enough to be dumb enough to not cover the split end (why we even had one, I do not know... crack back blocks I guess), we will get beat.
We end 9-0 reg. season. Closest game is 36-20. We did play 4 top 10 teams (not a patsy schedule by any means, but no one who could match up to us)
Quarterfinal game- playing a team with a lot of history and tradition (we beat them in playoffs the previous year by 24). They ran a 7-4... did not cover the SE. I expect the QB to audible. he does not. We run iso. Next play, I call a pass (hitch). Remember NO ONE IS COVERING THE SE. QB audibles... to iso. We lose 24-16 (some other factors... injury to FB with a 16-7 lead, they had several future D1 guys who were JRs/sophs.)
That game will bother me to my grave. Our QB said he had "more confidence in the Iso". More confidence going 9 on 11, rather than throwing out to a wide open guy surrounded only by an area that was once prime Nebraska farmland.
I made sure this never happened again (well, 97 too... different school/circumstances... by the way, in the game to qualify us for the playoffs... first time in 15 years at that school, our opponents and us combined for -15 yards passing).
Since then, we have been able to pull out games because our kids are confident in our (still limited, but fairly effective) passing game. We even have had good success with out no huddle 2 min. offense.
When we lose, we lose because they are better (players, coaches, etc.). We will not lose because we can not pass. There is always someone bigger and tougher... if not, someone will be quicker and smarter... and if not, well, someone will just risk everything and dare you.
This year in the playoffs we lost to a team that was better. We could not run on them... we tried to throw... didn't do well. To be fair to "my philosophy" though, we had lost our top 3 QBs by that time.
I'll agree. There needs to be a level of productivity in the passing game, just like the punting game. We went 7 games without attempting a punt in 2004 (pretty weak schedule). You don't win state championships without being polished... or at least competent in all phases of the game.
Coachd, I agree with your assessment... the team that beat us in the playoffs was a DW team that could run over everyone. They just had studs. But to break away in the title game, they had to throw 2TD passes (having a pair of athletic 6'5 and 6'6 TEs did not hurt them).
|
|
|
Post by los on Mar 25, 2007 23:46:07 GMT -6
Wow, great story senator! I'm glad I stayed on late lol!
|
|
bhb
Junior Member
Posts: 259
|
Post by bhb on Mar 26, 2007 6:35:25 GMT -6
So, I take it you disagree? I am just going with my experience watching "ground pounders" They roll over the weaker opponents, and struggle with physically similar opponents. If a decently coached ground pounding team avgs 265 across, they probably won't have any problems until they run up against someone who is also 265 across. I understand you're basing this on your experience, but just to add a different perspective based on experience I would have to disagree.. As Dave stated, I've seen many, many teams that have been physically inferior to their opponents, size wise anyway, have great success.. Dave's example of Nathaniel Greene Academy in Siloam GA is a great example.. I've watched his games, not highlights- but entire games, and his boys look like a 7th grade youth team and that is NO exageration, yet they get it done, week in and week out, year in and year out.. Tim Murphy's Clovis East team is always smaller than their opponents and they just won a CIF section title in one of the toughest sections in the country without throwing a single pass in the title game.. Now, to be fair, those guys are excellent coaches, and I know for a fact Murph blocks a simple off tackle play at least 8-10 different ways per game depending on what the defense does- but that's what he feels he has to do with the size kids he has, and it's worked for him.. To be fair again though, his kids ARE monsters in the weight room- so even though they're smaller than their opponents I will say there's probably a good chance they are as strong, or stronger than most teams.. Just some of my observations..
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 26, 2007 8:10:05 GMT -6
I agree with cisar, if they ran something else they might not even GET TO THE PLAYOFFS.
lets see what happens to the Chargers in SanDiego over the next three years...
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on Mar 26, 2007 9:04:58 GMT -6
My teams have always been able to pass - sometimes we even complete them... Actually we've been able to pass when we had to (8 and 9 in the box) fairly well.
The last few years we've been a run first team but only by a 60-40 ratio. This coming season we may pass more simply because our personnel will dictate it (Excellant QB and two 6'4" WR). I think the arguement goes back to why teams run what they run. The spread came about because some coaches figured out they didn't have the studs (natural or built in the weight room) to stand toe to toe and slug/grind it out against their opponent.
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 26, 2007 9:24:22 GMT -6
By the way, I did vote YES...we have won some games that came down to our need to throw the ball.
Had the poll question been: Has your team ever NOT been able to PASS TO WIN when need be?
To be honest, I would also have to vote yes on that one.
Wow, great story senator! I'm glad I stayed on late lol!
As we all know, I get carried away sometimes...
|
|
|
Post by kcfootballwv on Mar 26, 2007 9:37:01 GMT -6
When properly coached smaller teams are often victorious over bigger opponents. However, bigger teams that bully their weak schedule often getted hammered by a same sized school because they are not prepared and often because they cant throw the ball. I see this all the time.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 26, 2007 9:44:50 GMT -6
Calande...just so you know, they ran the I. No dbl wing, no wing t, the misdirection was counter trey. I believe they could have ran things other than the I, with power, iso, zone and counter trey and gotten where they where.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 26, 2007 9:57:54 GMT -6
maybe, maybe not. We can only speculate. I look no further than Nebraska, Army...ever since they strayed from ground n pound...well, they just arent that good.
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Mar 26, 2007 10:45:00 GMT -6
maybe, maybe not. We can only speculate. I look no further than Nebraska, Army...ever since they strayed from ground n pound...well, they just arent that good. Truth be told Army was never good, but they may be worse than they were before. Nebraska's talent started to go way down when Frank took over. I am sure an ok guy, but not a recruiter. Dr. Tom's team didn't always have the best talent (but don't fool yourself, they had talent), but Dr. Tom built himself to an almost unmatched level of coaching. Dr. Tom could also find players who had tremendous talent, but not the recruiting hype. I would be curious how his teams would do today if he still coached. My guess is they would still be pretty good, but the Big 12 isn't the Big 8. His best teams would still beat anyone.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 26, 2007 10:51:57 GMT -6
maybe, maybe not. We can only speculate. I look no further than Nebraska, Army...ever since they strayed from ground n pound...well, they just arent that good. Notre Dame under Davie Notre Dame under Weis It takes all kinds - no magic formula South Carolina after Spurrier got there - any difference? The college game, moreso than any where else, the system doesn't win games as much as recruiting does. The team with the best athletes in NCAA ball generally win on Saturday.
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Mar 26, 2007 11:17:41 GMT -6
maybe, maybe not. We can only speculate. I look no further than Nebraska, Army...ever since they strayed from ground n pound...well, they just arent that good. Notre Dame under Davie Notre Dame under Weis It takes all kinds - no magic formula South Carolina after Spurrier got there - any difference? The college game, moreso than any where else, the system doesn't win games as much as recruiting does. The team with the best athletes in NCAA ball generally win on Saturday. Oklahoma under John Blake (wishbone) vs. Oklahoma under Bob Stoops (passing attack).
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Mar 26, 2007 13:02:44 GMT -6
Actually nebraska under Osborne and Solich were not the same type of offenses at all. Osbornes leading rusher was ALWAYS his "I" back, he ran option, Fb trap, TB power, Tb counter treys, great play action passing etc Solich on the other hands leading rusher was ALWAYS his QB, very different attack, very rare Fb traps, got rid of the counter trey ( NU ran it 13 times in national Championshiop win vs Miami in 1994) Solich was so predictable and couldnt manage game days worth a darn, all the delay of game penalties and burned time outs because he couldnt decide/get a play in. Solich, nice guys, hard worker, not an OC and HC material at NU. Only time he threw was 3rd and long then play action yeah thatll fool em LOL. Tom liked to throw on first down and rn a FB trap on third and long or run option etc. Osborne was the master. Solich gave us the Stack I that never worked and the "jailbreak" screen that worked one time in the 100+ times they tried it. Ans we lost our oh so great counter trey and much much more, Dave, I will trust you on Oklahoma as I didn't watch Nebraska back then. I tried to look up what offense Blake ran and on this site: espn.go.com/ncf/ouoffense/001027.htmlI believe you though as you watched the games. The talent level wasn't really up to par for Solich either, in my opinion. I never like his style either. Lord could run pretty well, but couldn't throw a lick.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 26, 2007 14:02:13 GMT -6
bottom line, the ground and pound is a proven winner. Markhams 300 wins, guys like Dick Tighe in Iowa...its just the way it is, and has been for 100 years. IF you can run off tackle well you got a chance to win some games. Youd better be able to stop the run too.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Mar 26, 2007 15:08:44 GMT -6
i know this is going to sound mean but I like to see a ground pound team pass. it usually pads our sack and int total.
I mean you wever see a double wing team pass the ball. seriously, I should bring my remington model 870 and do duck hunting.
I like forcing running teams to pass. stack the box with 9 and play man to man.
we ran the wishbone in h.s. the wr were essentially no factors. they ran the plays in. our coach uses to put kids who were like the bankers son or some big wigs kid at wr. we never threw unless we had to.
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Mar 26, 2007 15:34:32 GMT -6
I agree with Calande that that running the ball is proven, but passing the ball as the first option is becoming more proven. Now I am a ground pounder myself, everyone knows that. But I think you have to be able to do both. You can run the DW or single wing and be very effective running the ball. But you must still be efficient passing the ball. Our passing stats some games look like this: 5 att, 3 comp 120 yards and 2 TDs. That is efficient. It is this threat that helps us run the ball, b/c teams know that eventually on 1st down we are going to throw the ball off play action and hit one of our TEs after you have forgotten all about him.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 26, 2007 16:41:40 GMT -6
i know this is going to sound mean but I like to see a ground pound team pass. it usually pads our sack and int total. I mean you wever see a double wing team pass the ball. seriously, I should bring my remington model 870 and do duck hunting. I like forcing running teams to pass. stack the box with 9 and play man to man. we ran the wishbone in h.s. the wr were essentially no factors. they ran the plays in. our coach uses to put kids who were like the bankers son or some big wigs kid at wr. we never threw unless we had to. Air, talk to Knighter, his kids pass the ball very well. I know that larry harrisons boys threw the ball very well the last couple of years too. I maintain that not having to and not WANTING TO doesnt mean YOU CANT throw the ball. Just like some teams that dont want to run, or dont have to run...still can run. Its FUN to take the ball and run for 500 yards in a game and throw 0 passes. I like it anyhow. Now, if all of my playmakers were recievers then Id probably think it was FUN and EFFECTIVE to throw the ball. one thing I really love about the dw is that the wings are not only the primary runners but also the primary recievers!. Yknow, Wayne Ellington, the basketball player on UNC, ..he was in my PE classes and I REALLY THOUGHT for the first time that I had a kid coming out for football that I could just throw the ball up to over and over again and wed score 40 ppg. I havent had many of those kinds of kids over the years and with two coaches havent developed many either. I wonder if many of the older coaches here are more "run oriented" while some of the younger guys tend to be more "lets heave it up " ...would be interesting.
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Mar 26, 2007 17:15:11 GMT -6
While I appreciate you giving specific examples, there are always examples of the other side of the coin too. I think your examples are more exceptions than the rule.
But yes it can be done and is being done.
|
|