|
Post by midsfan on May 14, 2008 20:07:19 GMT -6
Coaches, Something that has been on my mind for about a year now. HOW DO YOU DEVELOP YOUR PHILOSOPHY as far as Offensive or Defensive scheme? Why do you like to run option? Why does Mike Leach and June Jones throw the ball pretty much every play? At my new job, I am learning the Air Raid, Texas Tech Style, Offense. Believe it or not a lot of the philosophies are similar to the veer option philosophy. Our entire offense is about 4 run plays, 7 pass plays, and about Eleventy Billions Fast Screens, Jail Break Screens, and Middle Screens. I thought that I would be an option coach forever, but now I am seeing my overall philosophy at work, just a NEW way to do it. Obviously it will depend on my personell. But, how do you develop it? A lot of coaches are bad about wanting to do what they saw on Monday Night Football and trying to put it in for Friday or Saturday's game. What made you guys decide to go to the option? What makes guys chunk it 500 times a game? What makes you run the Wing T? GIVE SOME FEEDBACK!!!
|
|
|
Post by warrior53 on May 15, 2008 3:40:33 GMT -6
That is a pretty broad topic.
First let me say that I am an offensive coordinator at a small school. I work for a great head coach who allows me to do what I need to/want to as long as it fits into his grand scheme (that is not the only reason he is great).
Secondly, my philosophy was not something I came up with. It was pretty much the one that made the most sense and I stuck with it. I think that is something most people have too big an ego to allow this to happen with themselves. Most people get caught up in trying to have an offense or a defense that they "put their mark on," rather than going with something that is proven to work. (I know, I know - there are some out there that have made that work - how good are their athletes? - that is the true mark of a good system/philosophy - will it work with kids who aren't great athletes)
But the philosophy I decided to go with for the most part just fit what I liked to do. It made the most sense to me. I didn't tweak it and I didn't try to change it. I have to adjust what I run to fit my players year in and year out, but the philosophy doesn't change. What I believe was passed down to me.
I guess my advice would be to find something you believe in, learn all you can about that and then put it into practice. I am not smart enough to meld two or three philosophies and make them "my own" much less make kids understand all those philosophies and put them into practice and most aren't either.
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by tedseay on May 15, 2008 5:03:29 GMT -6
I thought that I would be an option coach forever, but now I am seeing my overall philosophy at work, just a NEW way to do it. Coach: I think you've hit on an important point here. What you learn first tends to stay with you, although not always in the obvious way. For you, it was option football; for me, it was the Wing-T. In both our cases, our views on what made an offense effective were shaped by our early experiences with the veer and the Wing-T, respectively. In your case, you learned the importance of putting defenders in conflict and forcing them to play assignment football. In mine, it was the importance of misdirection and series-based football. Even as we moved on to different systems, those underlying beliefs in what makes up an effective offense stayed with us, and will continue to inform our views as we explore new ideas. So -- what you start with shapes your outlook to a great extent, and also filters how you adapt new concepts into your view of the game. (I think both you and I were lucky, by the way. Coaches who started off in a 1970's USC-style offense learned the importance of lining up in a Pro-I and handing off to the fastest kid on the team...and that kind of lesson doesn't transfer as well as the ones you and I learned...)
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on May 15, 2008 12:00:21 GMT -6
Being an ex-QB at both the HS & College level, I have experienced MANY offenses in my playing career (Pro-Split, Pro-I, WingT, Flexbone, Spread, I-Zone (IZ/OZ)... and a couple others
But as I learned each system and the "rules", "ideas", and "philosophies" associated with each one, I have developed a philosophy that ALL offenses work and ALL offenses don't work!
For example... My knowledge of the WingT has helped me develop many ideas into my running game, by trying to show my lineman the way to "get an angle" on the defender I am responsible for blocking, the same way that the "WingT-philosophy" uses the 2 pulling guards to give the other players along the line good angles for their down-blocks or kick-out blocks depending on what position they are in.
Therefore, even though I run an I-formation based offense with a lot of Iso/Power... I use the concepts of a WingT offense to explain my techniques to my kids.
I think that in order to be a good coach or teacher you must beg/borrow/steal from whoever you can to try and find the best way to teach "that kid", or "that group of kids"...
|
|
|
Post by dubber on May 18, 2008 10:57:43 GMT -6
Ted's Wild Bunch is a must read for ANY offensive coordinator. The beauty is less in the plays, but more in the how's/why's of his system (*philosophy*)
It is easy to be influenced by something that "works". I see Hawaii lighting it up, and I think about running the run and shoot. I see Navy hang with the big boys, and I think triple option is the holy grail.
Here's kinda what I think, though I am far from being a coordinator:
Stealing and paraphrasing from Ted, for me it boils down to CONFLICT and EXECUTION.
1. I want things simple to us, yet appear complicated to our opponents. I'll take a kid confident of his assignment, over a kid somewhat less sure who has the ability to change based on defensive reaction (for example, I want my kid breaking the huddle thinking: "I running a great corner route here" rather than trying to check the CB's alignment and cutting off his post-snap movement.)
Although I absolutely love these offenses, I choose not to run them, because I feel "reading" a defense is something I cannot teach, and would take practice time away from my multiplicity and execution.
Among them are: run and shoot, flexbone, shotgun option, split veer, etc.
I love those offenses and will study them until I die, but at least for right now, they don't work for me.
To appear complex, I need multiple shifts and motions and formations. I want to create doubt in the defense's mind, have the defense spend more and more time on coverage checks and rotations in practice than they do on actual football skills, and create favorable matchups where their neckroll player is guarding my wristband player.
2. I want to be able to attack every defender on the field.
This is critical. Force the defense to defend all areas, and something is bound to give.
The tricky part is I want to accomplish this in as few plays as possible.
If I had to start an offense tomorrow, It would be 2-back gun, obviously with the ability to get into 2x2 and 3x1, as well as the ability to get undercenter and run the same plays.
6-7 Air Raid passes (plus quick game) gives me all the passing attack I need in each area of the field (flats, deep, underneath----both vertical and horizontal stretches).
[****A QUICK ASIDE:
This is just my study and personal thinking involving the best ways to move the football. However, it appears to me that defenses DO NOT want two things to happen:
1. They do not want an offense to establish the run
2. They do not want to give up the deep pass
To me, this means they are willing to concede shorter passes. I feel we have a great advantage if we can get GREAT at throwing the ball short. High execution in this area is essential.......WCO philosophy*******]
For the run game, I have three plays.
A. The backbone of the running game is OZ lead. You see WVU run this a ton. This one play puts the DE in a inside/outside conflict; making him wrong everytime is our goal. Also, it quickly out numbers the defense to one side or another.
B. To compliment this is the conflict I have for DT's that overplay the OZ.....trap, influence trap if we can based on front.
C. To slow down playside pursuit, I'd run 4+ reverses a game.
Now, it is matter of complimenting my drop back passing game and run game.
I would run a lead draw from gun and undercenter (one of my all time favorite plays), various naked boots and waggle, and screens.
Right now, that is where I am at.......what I like about this system is I didn't just say "WOW I love what WVU does, I'm gonna run that!"
Instead, I decided what I wanted in an offensive attack, and then formulated plays (which I think are series based) around that.
The other thing I like is it allows me to over-coach the two positions that, imo, need the soundest fundamentals: QB and OL.
The QB has no runs or really reads of much account to make, so we can work more on making him a better thrower. Plus, Air Raid is perfect for accelerating a QB's read progression due to it's simplicity.
The OL obviously only has two run concepts to learn (reverse is based off OZ movement), plus pass pro. Everything else is based off that (like pass pro sets up draw and screens).
That's just the insight into the pains I put into developing a system (which I hopefully, I have chance to use someday)
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by tedseay on May 18, 2008 12:20:13 GMT -6
The beauty is less in the plays, but more in the how's/why's of his system (*philosophy*) Well, I think they're real purty... Seriously, thanks. I'm glad it makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by revtaz on May 18, 2008 13:09:06 GMT -6
Defensively, A Philosophy is the key to what we do.
If you have a clear philosophy, you can always refer to it.
Pete Carrol asked that if you don't have a philosophy, then what are you doing?
For me the Defensive Philosophy for my team is this:
1. Create Turnovers 2. Eliminate the "Comfort" zone for the Offense. 3. Fundamentals: Tackling, Pursuit, Block Destruction
We plan our practices around our Philosophy, we design our gameplan around the philosophy.
It comes from the idea that a clear plan with simple objectives is better than an all encompassing plan with many objectives. It's easier to focus.
Taz
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on May 19, 2008 10:54:00 GMT -6
I agree with most of the responses but I kind of disagree with the question. The word "philosophy" gets thrown around too much. We're not academics. We're not trying to invent a theory of football; we're trying to win football games. If I had to label my "philosophies" by terms commonly used in those contexts, I would say en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism Pragmatism, and empiricism en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism. In other words, I want to win. I think the way "philosophy" is thrown around is just your style. Your style is your style. There's no theory to why Mike Leach wants to throw the ball so much. He'd like to say it's because it levels the playing field, or spreads the ball around, or even that he thinks throwing the ball wins him more games. But those are just post hoc rationalizations, at least beyond a point. Who knows really why? Your style is probably a mix of what you've been exposed to and what you're drawn to, combined with what is successful. Everyone needs some mix to keep the defense or offense off balance, and from there that may even seep into your style. It's all too murky to nail down. And with all due respect, things like being detail-oriented or having a coherent system does not a "philosophy make," they are baselines for success. For example, the Wild Bunch is amazingly well put together. The style is one based on spreading the ball to different playmakers and using R&S, Bunch, jet sweep, and other concepts together. I wouldn't say the fact that it is well put together and detailed makes it a "philosophy." If there is one thing from the "Wild Bunch" I would call a statement of philosophy, it is that deception works. That's a fundamental belief underlying the whole thing, and it transcends a collection of plays or series, no matter how well put together. Just some thoughts. Lots of fun "philosophical" threads on here lately.
|
|
|
Post by coach4life on May 19, 2008 11:35:51 GMT -6
I look at it this way. A philosophy is a general statement of how you see the world through the lens of your values, beliefs, and experience. This grounds your thinking and provides a foundation for your success. However philosophy alone is not enough, it must be accompanied by principles and practices. Principles are more specific statements about how you will operate within a given domain. Practices are the things you do to enable the application of the principles. It includes the prep work necessary for success and rules for executing in that domain.
In a football context an overly simple example might be:
Philosophy - It is essential to run the football to establish control of the game. The best way to run the ball is zone running. Principles - We will establish an inside zone and outside zone running game. We will keep it simple for the O-line and allow our backs to use their athleticism. Practices - Drills for the O-line and backs, prep work for running against the different fronts you will see, call sheets to clarify when and where to run the ball during a game.
I use this as s a framework for breaking down the philosophy and applying it to a successful outcome.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on May 19, 2008 13:22:11 GMT -6
Philosophy is the why System/scheme is the what Don't pick a "what" just because it looks good Develop your "why", then see what fits in to that spreadattack is right, it does have alot to do with your exposures as a coach, and sometimes we reason from those what's to our why's (like ted did with Wing-T......."ok this system works, why?" thinking) Sometimes a philosophy can be gleaned from statistics (ie, time of possession, explosive plays, turnovers, etc.) You find common "winning" statistics, then you formulate your philosophy around maximizing those things. Or, it comes from studying the other side of the ball. For example, I believe a defender's effectiveness go down when they are put into conflict (A stud pass rushing DE has to keep tracking down screens, and eventually his pass rush suffers) Philosophy, like coach4life said, is the framework, or a point of reference. It is essential IMO. Spreadattack, as long as we are throwing around wikipedia references to philosophy here existentialism Kant
|
|
|
Post by lochness on May 19, 2008 13:40:51 GMT -6
Right now, that is where I am at.......what I like about this system is I didn't just say "WOW I love what WVU does, I'm gonna run that!" Instead, I decided what I wanted in an offensive attack, and then formulated plays (which I think are series based) around that. Coach, I love it! I think there are a lot of people that could look at what you wrote here and what Ted's stuff is all about and understand that TRULY developing a philosophy is NOTHING about seeing something on TV or at a clinic (WVU is the most common "WOW I gut 2 do what they iz doin'" example for whatever reason) and doing it...and it is all about defining what YOU believe, based on your experiences and values, and then having a way of IMPLEMENTING that through the type of system and plays that you run, how you install them, how you marry techniques with plays, etc.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on May 19, 2008 17:20:35 GMT -6
Yeah, clinics and videos are great for......
1. Learning how better to do the "whats", or finding a "what" that could help you better realize your philosophy
2. Being a football nut who watches everything football related (guilty)
But absolutely, you gotta know why first. Kinda like building a house based on what you like from your buddies' houses, instead of having a blue print.
Off the subject here, but I believe TV makes players seem slower. I have some WVU cut-ups and all I can say is sweet Jesus!
Fast is terribly inadequate a description.
These guys don't have prototypical OL or TE's, but they are super fast at all 6 skills........they are just "in the endzone" right now.
Good scheme.............fantastic athletes
|
|
|
Post by dubber on May 19, 2008 21:43:30 GMT -6
What's the difference between what works and what doesn't work?
Why does one team have a bad to the bone flexbone offense, and another team with equal talent doesn't?
I think having a philosophy, a plan of attack, a blueprint, etc., is the difference (along with great detail coaching-----also part of a philosophy). Knowing what to do comes from knowing why you do it.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on May 20, 2008 5:51:05 GMT -6
What's the difference between what works and what doesn't work? Why does one team have a bad to the bone flexbone offense, and another team with equal talent doesn't? I think having a philosophy, a plan of attack, a blueprint, etc., is the difference (along with great detail coaching-----also part of a philosophy). Knowing what to do comes from knowing why you do it. Reason 1: Anyone can put in any offense. The question is "do you truly understand it?" Team 1 (the bad to the bone flexbone guys) probably runs it as a true OFFENSE. They understand how everything fits together. They have plays and playcalls designed to take advantage of how the defense is playing them. They have complimentary plays, etc. Team 2 is just lining up in the formation and running the plays. Reason 2: Coaching, coaching, coaching. Team 1 is most likely extremely well-coached in the fundamentals and exeecution of that offense. They have a very well-structured practice plan, their drills all direclty relate to their offensive scheme, and their techniques also directly relate. Team 2 is most likely not well coached. They go out and "run drills," but maybe not the right drills, and maybe not with the proper instruction or the proper "progression." Team 2's OL is probably not as well coached. Reason 3: Execution. Because Team 1 has the better coaching and the better offensive "philosophy" (to get back to the point of the thread), they are going to execute better than Team 2, who runs the same formations and plays with the same talent, but isn't well coached, and doesn't understand how to implement and execute the offense. That would be my guess. Ultimately, it all comes down to "coaching" in that scenario.
|
|
|
Post by spartancoach on May 20, 2008 10:05:19 GMT -6
Philosophy - Overachieve.
Play at a higher level than your talent pool would be expected to play by blocking, tackling, running, throwing and catching after every practice better than you did before every practice.
Improvement through meticulous attention to detail and repetition.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on May 20, 2008 15:43:19 GMT -6
Philosophy - Overachieve. Play at a higher level than your talent pool would be expected to play by blocking, tackling, running, throwing and catching after every practice better than you did before every practice. Improvement through meticulous attention to detail and repetition. This would be a good point to distinguish between different areas of philosophy This would be a philosophy of team management Running the DW over the spread is a philosophy of attack I'm sure you can subcategorized those even further. I would say stuff like what spartancoach said are universal to almost every coach, but by verbalizing it, you emphasize it.
|
|