|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 24, 2007 15:31:50 GMT -6
I've got a question, and I don't mean to open a can of worms or anything, but I'd just like to see others experiences on something.
Is the prevalence of "ground-pound" run-at-all-costs offensive philosophies partly fueled by an intimidation of the quarterback position?
[/size][/center]  Here are some of my supporting rationales;
*The Quarterback position isn't rocket science. It involves teaching technique and decision-making skills. Over-estimating the complexity of the position leads folks to think that the "QB does it all", and makes some coaches uneasy because they just don't know how to coach this position up.
* Most coaches (lets face it) are predominately former Oline / Dlinemen. Most former QBs are senators or porn stars, most don't enter the coaching profession. Former DBs & WRs are still busy telling folks how good they are to actually try to help others (lol). Alright, being that most coaches are linemen, throwing mechanics and coverage recognition is quantum physics in another language.
* If you can coach a position up and set your expectations high for the position, you should never be without a quality QB. Many folks have the attitude that the kid should have the skills already (tossing the ball around / pitching in baseball) and don't really set any plan to teach the QB how to actually make the throws. The inconsistency we ALLOW (because of poor training) makes us feel that the passing game is a losing, frustrating, endeavor.
* Passing the ball = "Bomber Ball" Myth. Most competent QBs are so because they make quick throws with good decisions. The 20+ yd bomb is very rare.
* Is your best coach on your staff the running back coach?
If you're like 90% of every other HS staff, the RB position coach usually consists of "Run to the hole and go THAT way". This no-brainer approach to coaching lends itself to a security blanket mentality to running the football. Whenever we get in a sticky situation, we'll just put the ball in the fast kid's hands and put the game in HIS hands ("He's gotta make people miss"), rather than a coach instructing his kids to recognize a situation and make a decision.
DISCLAIMER!!
Now, hear me now, believe me later - I am NOT suggesting that;
1) Guys that use this philosophy are inept, uneducated,
2) Only the "cool guys" throw the ball and if you don't you're a dork.
Also, I recognize THIS board has become a haven for 'spread-sympathizers", so I'm not trying to turn this thread into Bully Sessions against "power folks". I LOVE the ground game - it is the crux of my offense - I am just making an (uneducated observation).
Also, I recognize the uproar of the double-wing posts. Relax, every offense has stood the test of time. No one is better than another. To each his own.
thank you, God bless.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachveer on Mar 24, 2007 15:51:04 GMT -6
Brophy-
I do understand where you are going. I played OL in college and have coached the big guys on both sides of the ball. I have spend a lot of time trying to learn about the little things that make things go. And I have a lot better understanding of coverages and routes. I can sit on the sidelines or in the press box and see cover 2 and know where the holes in the defense should be.
But when I stand behind our QB in Skelly sometimes I don't always see the same things they do.
But is that the reason why I am a run first guy? I think I am a run first guy because the 2 state titles I won as a player and early in my coaching career were out of run first systems. But I do know I can fix the run a lot faster then I can fix the pass.
But this may be why it is so important to work with guys who strengths are your weakness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yash on Mar 24, 2007 15:52:21 GMT -6
I think that a lot of time coaches are scared to throw the ball due to pass protection. You might not be secure with the guys up front holding their water long enough for the QB to get his drop set his feet and deliver on time. Also, some schools may not have the talent at the WR position to allow the air game to succeed. although I agree some of it has to do with the QB position scaring coaches, also it has other factors.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 24, 2007 16:03:37 GMT -6
How much time, technique, recognition goes into the Oline (seriously, you KNOW we all put a LOT of time getting those 5 - 7 guys working together using some hellacious technique)
Now, does your program invest that much into the development of the quarterbacks, or do we just say, "Hey, toss the ball around, 'k?"
|
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Mar 24, 2007 16:19:13 GMT -6
QB as rocket science/Coaches of OL: I am a former OLM and used to be greatly intimidated by throwing mechanics and reads. The more I learn the more confident I become in teaching the QB position. I have always felt comfy teaching the run game to the QB.
High expectations: We have a QB who played in the NFL for years, and one currently in the Big 10. Our HC was a QB and co-state player of the year back in his day. We have high expectations of our QBs, and spend the time to develop them through the system. Even though we are predominantly running team we will do what our QB allows us to do. We did not run the ball as effectly this year but threw it quite well by the end of the season. Next year we will go back to running the option more b/c our QB should be very good at that.
We are a school of about 1000 kids, we always seem to have a good TB and some big kids in front of him. That is a big part of our overall O philosophy.
|
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Mar 24, 2007 16:21:26 GMT -6
How much time, technique, recognition goes into the Oline (seriously, you KNOW we all put a LOT of time getting those 5 - 7 guys working together using some hellacious technique) Now, does your program invest that much into the development of the quarterbacks, or do we just say, " Hey, toss the ball around, 'k?"With the QBs, they spend most of the time either in 7on7 or working on the run game with the backs. I would say most of the time is spent on the run game, b/c our passing game consists of 3 quick passes and play action. Our OL spends a ton of time doing recognition work. |
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 24, 2007 17:09:21 GMT -6
Ground and pound philosophy comes to me because I was a diminutive corner who HATED to get run over by pulling guards and big premature beard wearing fullbacks (in the 6th grade)...it worked. it bothered me. I could cover anyone and felt good about a pass being in the air...but shoot, send three blockers at me and id crap myself.
The best coach coaches the oline, hes got 7 kids *(since I believe in the value of the two te offense) to coordinate and they have intricate assignments and techniques, the least skilled coach is the wr coach, then the next least skilled guy is the rb coach. Thats just how I do it. Im lucky if I have three on staff including me (this year I will have FOUR!!!)
does coaching qbs bother me? when I have two coaches it does...I coach the oline, assistant x coaches the backs...the qb gets coached "on the run" when we bring "team" together...its tough.
Also, its about a sort of "conservative" approach in that we want to run the ball and not turn it over (bad things happen when you pass ,sacks, ints, inc, holding etc)...
can I coach qbs? I am working on it (Darrin Slacks videos, "complete quarterbacking" book, some qb lectures and clinics...) in the end, I prefer to pound the rock and use the qb as another runner and blocker and faker, not a pretty boy prima dona who just tosses the ball our watches the play.
The ground and pound philosophy doesnt mean we cant pass, just prefer not to. doesnt mean we dont coach it, just means that given the option, we run again. Nothing worse than "second and 10" when you "pass to keep em honest" (which is nonsense since they will still be in an 8 man front even if you pass on first down)....the running game is and will always be the key to success in youth thru hs football. now, at the pro level where teams generally strive for balance you will find that most teams run the ball at nearly the same efficiency but those that can pass with a high efficiency tend to win a few more games. (someone check the stats, just a guess)....anyhow, run the rock, football is a mans game.
|
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 24, 2007 17:38:52 GMT -6
Running the ball is obviously safer, easier to coach up, and requires less practice time. That last point makes the DW an ideal JR offense (along with it's misdirection, power, equalization and attitude).
The inclination to throw also stems from a lack of willingness to take risks. In high school, I had a coach who liked to ''prove a point'' to the other team. We ran 24 iso behind me (OG) and best friend (OT) at least 20 times in row (no joke). I would help chip the NG, then the DT (50 front), and then I blocked the LB........we could've thrown for 300 yards that game, and made it easier on ourselves. Then, when we got in against tougher competition, it was the same philosophy, until we got way behind and started throwing out of shotgun.
It comes down to risk taking (against level competition, you gotta take em').......nothing ventured, nothing gained
|
|
|
|
Post by poweriguy on Mar 24, 2007 17:47:35 GMT -6
I think Daryell Royal said it best: When you throw the ball, 3 things can happen: A completed pass An incomplete pass An interception 2 of those 3 things aren't good.  |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 24, 2007 17:55:30 GMT -6
I think Daryell Royal said it best: When you throw the ball, 3 things can happen: A completed pass An incomplete pass An interception 2 of those 3 things aren't good. to use a phrase from "Any Given Sunday"..... "......and THAT's why you don't score with the ladies, man!"lol I think it was Don Coryell (or Dan Fouts) that said something like When you throw the ball, 3 things can happen - 2 are good.... A completion or A touchdown Some could argue that those 2 "bad things" happen, largely, because those QBs aren't equiped (COACHED) to make the right throws/decisions........... anyhow, run the rock, football is a mans game. which leads to another point......passing is 'effeminate'? |
|
|
|
Post by poweriguy on Mar 24, 2007 18:10:10 GMT -6
 Viki Valencourt showed me her boobies and I liked them too! -- Bobby Bouchet, Waterboy |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 24, 2007 18:19:52 GMT -6
hey, y'know, this really isn't that far from a discussion from "Pass Rushing".
We drill and drill our Dline to read and fight the run blocks. Then when it's 3rd & 13, we're wondering why the heck those guys can't get a freaking pass rush (well, probably because we rarely [disproprtionately] teach it.
Same principle, because "we" commit so much time to handoffs and the run game, that when we try to be 'balanced' by passing the ball in 3rd & 13, we lose patience / confidence in that QB (or protection) because they just "can't get it done".
If you feel comfortable enough to throw on 1st & 10 or 3rd & short equally as well as you would run the ball, THEN you are 'balanced'.
all hypothetical here, folks.....jes' sayin'
|
|
|
|
Post by fbairattack on Mar 24, 2007 18:46:47 GMT -6
DISCLAIMER: read no further unless you are equiped with a sense of humor.... As a former hs and college QB I would like to interject this: After my unsuccesful attempts to get into the " entertainment" industry that you mentioned and since I havent got the money to go into politics I figured I would give this coaching thing a whirl. My observation of the 'ground-pound' verses 'air it out' is that a lot of coaches are afraid, yes I said it, afraid to throw the ball because of the "2 out 3 are bad" theory. Too many three and outs and interceptions are scary after all. (Notice i said a lot not ALL) Plus, none of us like hearing former "all-american in their own mind" parents screaming from the stands "run the @#$% ball" Of course those same parents yell "throw the *&^% ball" when we get stopped but that is another thread. Just my two cents.....  |
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Mar 24, 2007 18:50:48 GMT -6
not sure where this myth developed that "spread" teams or "passing" teams create more 3 and outs than a "power" team or a "running" team. look at the time of possession post from a while back ... over half of the top 25 T.O.P. teams were "spread" teams.
3 and outs are result of not moving the ball.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 24, 2007 19:39:18 GMT -6
huey..the myth probably stems from incomplete first down attempts and the propensity for passing teams to actually "gasp" throw on first down. I would say the percentages of 3& outs in drives featuring a 2nd &10 are substantially higher than those featuring a 2nd & 7
|
|
|
|
Post by fbairattack on Mar 24, 2007 19:54:09 GMT -6
I dont think that passing teams create more three and outs but I do think that the fear of three and outs is what keep some coaches from throwing more.
""I would say the percentages of 3& outs in drives featuring a 2nd &10 are substantially higher than those featuring a 2nd & 7""
i agree with that line of thinking also
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 24, 2007 20:06:39 GMT -6
Also..I think that it must be mentioned here in public....that passing the ball results in more incomplete passes. Incomplete passes results in stopping the clock. Stopping the clock results in longer games. Longer games result in less time for post-game pizza and beverage consumption. Post game pizza and beverage consumption provides much needed cashflows to local establishments.
To quote the great polictical one liner..."IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID"
|
|
|
|
Post by coachveer on Mar 24, 2007 20:11:57 GMT -6
I think some coaches are afraid their guys upfront may get soft if they chuck the ball to much. That at some point in most games you need to pound the ball to win. And when that time comes the boys cant answer bell.
|
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 24, 2007 22:26:21 GMT -6
Brophy the GPI (Ground Pound Investigator) and others are on to something. I buy most of the reasons mentioned. Some of my own in addition:
1. Fear of injuries. This was not the case near as much when I was in 5A. Now, our QB is a starter on defense... and is basically a runner on O. I'm not really ready to have the offensive production come down to one position. I would imagine a Single Wing, DW, T, Wing T, Power I etc. would have less of a problem adapting to a new QB than would a team that runs Ace or 5 wide.
2. Football coaches are great copy-cats (see: ethics article). If you have a tailback with one eye who eats glass and rushes for 2500 years... we will all look for a glass eating cyclopes within our halls. Most current head coaches over 45 learned from someone during the 70s/early 80s where the passing game was not in vogue.
3. At a small school, I have a tough time finding receiver types. I have a lot of guards and fullbacks. We HAVE had good athletes here... 2 pro players (1 NFL, 1 Arena). Both are O-Linemen. We've had 3 very good backs, but we are usually without a top notch skill-player.
4. Is personal taste based on a prejudice... I played in a run and shoot in college, tried to use a Hawaii run & shoot at my first head coaching job and it failed miserably. We went to power I, and it just failed... and we actually won a few. We did not have the athletes to run the offense I tried to run, I did not have the confidence to run it, and though I did not know it then, any school willing to hire a 23 year old inexperienced head coach as I was... meant no worthy coach applied because they knew the situation was bad (it was). Unfair to blame the passing game ( it is like saying "gee, that pick-up line didn't work at the NOW convention, so I won't use it again"), but after going to the next stops in my career (all much better football schools), we used full-house sets and won... so I don't see a change coming about unless we suffer some bad years.
|
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Mar 25, 2007 8:18:56 GMT -6
We like to run the ball because there is an inherent toughness in it. It is physical. It is aggressive. The defense gets to "tee off" on the offense enough already, so we want to "tee off" on your guys too. Offensively, you can't "tee off" on anyone running a few gun zone read plays, letting your superathlete QB scramble all over the place (and kid yourself about having an "effective running game"), and chucking a few dozen passes to your basketball player wide-outs.
I don't consider "ground and pound" strategy to be "conservative" or "old school"...I consider it to be aggressive and nasty. I want to put your guys on THEIR butts a few times. We want to play chess with the defensive front and open up lanes. Then, we want to hit the homerun with our playaction passing game because we DO have a good QB coach and we DO have some talented receivers and we DO spend a lot of time on having the ability to throw.
Oh, and just to settle the demograhpics thing, I was a RB / S when I played. I've coached in several different systems. I am only 31 years old.
Run the freakin' thing and stop crying about "oh...well, we don't have the guys to DO that!!!" or "we can't get basketball players out if we don't line up in 4 wides." What the hell has football become? If I wanted to coach basketball players, I'd be coaching freaking basketball. If I wanted guys to be out-athleting each other at every turn, I'd coach freaking soccer.
Football is special because of the toughness and the strategy involved. That's why I subscribe to the "run the ball" school of thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2007 8:53:22 GMT -6
I was trying to think of a post giving my reasons for the love of inverted bone, but lochness just put it better than I ever could. A lot of what he said applies to my reasoning as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by los on Mar 25, 2007 9:04:01 GMT -6
You're probably right in a way Brophy, a lot of teams either, don't have a skilled coach for that position, dont have enough coaches period, to give the one on one attention needed, so this lack of confidence in training makes the indirect passing game (sneakier pa passes), a more viable tool for most of us and the direct passing game an ominous, scary, "percieved" mistake ridden system that we only see run to some degree of perfection on the weekends at the higher levels! lol!
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Mar 25, 2007 9:04:34 GMT -6
well, after reading a variety of posts on similar topics, I guess I should post my philosophy (according to what has been put forth in these threads) on "my" Spread Offense:
I like to chuck it around and play grab-bag with my play-calling
I am weak, soft, and can't play 'nasty'
I saw it on TV and think it makes me cool and everyone will think I am so smart.
I like getting all the pretty boy, prima-donas out for football. But, I must now chuck it to 'em all the time. Which means I always have 3 and outs and only have the ball a small amount of time during the game.
For some reason, my defense is now affected by my offense and they, too, are soft.
When I win a game, it is because I have super great athletes --- win I lose it is because I ran the wrong offense.
Shotgun = pass = can't run ball = can't control clock = can't win games = poor coach who just wants to run the "offense of the week".
|
|
|
|
Post by optionguy on Mar 25, 2007 9:28:35 GMT -6
I think the coach's decision to be run first or pass first is based upon philosophy. My view is to do what works for our team, which means implementing a flexible but easily learned system that adapts readily to the talent/skill level that is available. There were seasons when we were a power-run first team, an option-run first team, or a pass first team. One year, however, was tough, because we started as a spread gun team, which threw the ball almost every play. During that time, we averaged more than 300 yd passing per game until I kicked our QB off the team for disciplinary reasons. His replacement was more of a runner and sprint out passer than a quick drop and throw type. To compensate for the back-up's particular talents, we moved our best athlete, our MLB, to TB to be a power running threat (and he continued playing defense, what an athlete). It took us two weeks, but we transformed from a 4 wideout gun team that threw 2/3 - 3/4 of the time to a power/finesse run team (aligned in multiple sets) that ran the ball 2/3 - 3/4 of the time, and we finished second in our conference that year. Without having a flexible and easily learned system in place, we could not have done this.
|
|
locharion
Sophomore Member
Trips Right Ace Right 999 H Balloon
Posts: 203
|
Post by locharion on Mar 25, 2007 9:47:16 GMT -6
Might as well contribute to the discussion so here is my $0.02.
I was an offensive lineman. I have predominantly coached linemen throughout my young coaching career. I played in a predominantly run first offense. I understand the value of the running game and believe it is essential that you have to have a running game to win.
That being said, I am a definite "throw the rock" guy.
First, let's address the Woody Hayes quote. If you want to get techincal, five things can happen when you run the ball.
1) Big gain
2) Short gain
3) No gain
4) Loss
5) Fumble
Let's apply the same logic to throwing the ball.
1) Incomplete
2) Complete for short gain
3) Complete for medium gain
4) Complete for big gain
5) Interception
6) Sack
Wow, doesn't that equivocate to about the same odds? 50%.
Woody Hayes made that quote because he was sold on his way of offense and I think this quote reflects that he truly didn't understand the passing game. To reduce something to that simplistic of an argument should tell you something. Sadly, many coaches fall on this quote also because they do not understand or cannot coach the passing game.
I have been around three different head coaches. One was not succesful, the other was moderately successful, and one is very successful. The moderately successful coach and the unsuccesful coach could not coach the passing game to save their lives. They represented the thought that "Smashmouth football" was the way to go and who needs that passing game? Conversely, the successful coach is very much in tune with the passing game, had a great OL coach, and also stressed having a quality coach at the RB position. The other coaching staffs lacked a quality QB coach and the RB coach knew could not coach run reads if it hit them on the back of the head.
The biggest reason I think SOME coaches rely on a running game instead of a passing game comes down to this: laziness. When I say laziness, I mean that they don't want to learn more. Because these coaches don't understand the passing game, I have seen those coaches get torn to pieces when they play a good passing team. Understanding the passing game and coaching it DEMANDS a coach becomes more knowledgeable and open to new philosophies. Since few people like change (be honest), those coaches don't embrace the passing game and discard it until it is 3rd and long.
It is far easier for a coach to rely on a good running game and try to pound it instead of incorporating a balanced offense that uses both the run and the pass to dismantle teams.
Here, I believe, are the reasons you should have a strong emphasis on your passing offense.
1) Athletic kids, unless they are RBs, don't want to play in a smashmouth offense. Take advantage of those kids.
2) Outside of "blitz the hell out of them", most defensive minded coaches have no true grasp on how to defend good passing teams.
3) Playing in an offense that can throw is more fun for the players. This increases enthusiasm and morale which are essential to success.
4) It forces you, as a coach, to become better at what you do and you become a better coach.
5) You are never out of a game.
That being said, if you find yourself in a position like Gus Malzahn did at Arkansas and have two stud tailbacks and no stud WRs, you are a fool if you don't run. But having a quality passing game is essential for success because eventually, most good running teams run into a defense that has bigger linemen and linebackers that can read keys and have athleticism. That is when those teams see their season end because they can't respond with the pass.
I could go on but I probably should stop and give the soapbox to others. Thanks for listening.
|
|
marboo59
Sophomore Member
[F4:CoachSMartin]
Posts: 115
|
Post by marboo59 on Mar 25, 2007 10:16:15 GMT -6
Hey there is nothing wrong with being a young head coach. Hell I am 25 and have been the head coach for 2 years now here in Kansas. My first year we ran flexbone/wishbone went 6-4 with 2 returning starters. Last year 8 returning starters on offense and we ran wishbone down your throat for for 300+ yds a game went 9-1 (choked first round of playoffs). This year I graduate a tough FB a tough and quick 1000yds HB. I return my QB (threw for 500yds on 23 completions. I lose 4 OL and return my center who is the best athlete I had on the line. I return 2 WR's that I played at TE. I return my other HB that had 1000 + yds. My line coming up will be quick and agile and fairly strong. My thinking is do I stay in the Wishbone and maybe go 6-3 or do I use my talent and get in the Gun spread and go for another league title. If any of you coaches are like me i dont like to lose and I am not going to set my kids up for a 6-3 season when they are working for perfection. I played in the wishbone and coached it, it is tough for me to not run it every down but I beleive I have to change to my personnel.
|
|
|
|
Post by los on Mar 25, 2007 11:37:46 GMT -6
Thats funny as heck huey, lmao! Personally, I'm thinking of developing an offense based entirely on the kicking game by recruiting the best soccer and rugby players i can find! To score, you simply try to get the ball to midfield or closer, the best way you can, then kick field goals the entire game! When you KO, its through the endzone, all rugby punts go out of bounds inside the 5, then you play good defense, get the ball back in great field position and do it over again! Do ya see where I'm going with this? 3+3+3+3+3 Its a system lol!
|
|
|
|
Post by redfish on Mar 25, 2007 11:42:09 GMT -6
I'm with Lochness on this deal. But, I want the B-ball and soccer players, too. But, not on their terms, on FOOTBALL terms. For me, a WR that can't block probably won't get it thrown to him very often. Why? One - we set up the pass by running the ball.
Two - when that corner is getting his arse handed to him, he tends to loosen up his coverage a bit. Three - The kid who will block will be getting more reps. Basketball star doesn't want to play OUR way? Seeya, football ain't for everybody.
But, you'll have become a better player in your sport if you had played ours. We don't beg ANYBODY to play for us. We're going to win with you or without you.
*Disclaimer, I've never coached in a program that wasn't already developed. I'm very fortunate.*
When a new player comes into our group and says he wants to play DL, our OL's tell him, "Not till you learn to play o-line." Which is true, to a certain extent, if he has NO feet or too dumb, then he's a three tech by default. Not enough bottom end, but quick and will get after it, NG. Only older, experienced players play both ways for us. Sorry, rambling, my point is, we are fortunate enough to have an attitude on our team that OL is the top of the food chain in regard to toughness and power. My linemen WANT to play line, with run blocking and pass pro in equal priority. (unless they have me completely snowed)
I firmly believe that the best defense is an 80 yard drive. If we can run zone and power on every play that first drive, we will. Once we break the will of the other team's front eight or nine, the passing game will open up quickly. Occasionally, their will is already broken on play one when they line up 8 in the box and their corners are leaning in toward the play.
This next year, we are planning to play more spread. Why? I didn't ask. I'm assuming because our 1st and 2nd TE's graduated. (along with 4 of the 5 OL's) I'm ready. No, really, we're ready. Well, we will be.
As far as I'm concerned, 4 wide means we don't have to block the SS and the Will. Talk to me in October, I may deny making this post.
|
|
|
|
Post by CVBears on Mar 25, 2007 15:25:26 GMT -6
From my experience, the teams that have the most success at running the ball equally well as passing it have coaches that understand the passing game, teach the mechanic/dynamics well and ol coaches that can teach protection well. Ground pound coaches typically do not teach the mechanics or dynamics of the run game to their receivers or qb's well (not to mention the OL). I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEY ARE INCAPABLE OF TEACHING THESE ITEMS. I'm just saying, from my experience, ground pound coaches don't teach these things. However, I must say that some coaches that are of the ground pound school can not teach these things. This may be a reason for a stereotype. Our varsity HC is one. In his wing-t system, he never utilizes the pass. In a game that had a TON riding on it, he needed 8 yards. He ran boot pass to the right side when the ball was on the right hash. On the right side, one receiver was in the endzone after running a post-type pattern (LOS=25 yardline going in) the other receiver was on a drag no deeper than 3 yards (remember it was 8 yds to go). There was a ten yard out from the left flanker, the other two eligible receivers were in the protection. Does this sound like a coach that understands the passing game to you?
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 25, 2007 15:39:38 GMT -6
Its a matter of "pick your poison" really. If a coach is going to call 3-5 passes a game his passing attack is probably going to involve primarily play action passing plays that are well polished but the drop back or spread stuff might be very basic and even primative or crude in comparison to his intricate run schemes. I have seen some guys run 18 blocking schemes with line calls to create an additional 18 scenarios and typically they dont have very pretty passing games due to the time spent on the timing and execution of the run game. On the other hand, I have seen some great passing teams that use 4-6 run plays tops. I think the key is to use ENOUGH BALANCE , not necessarily total balance, ...enough? well, thats the battle within...how much is too much? we typically call about 5 different pass plays all year. Looking back over the years I think we should rely more on floods and waggles and screens off of those looks than the 3 and 5 step game. Just my thinking now.
|
|
