|
Post by khalfie on Jul 10, 2007 6:58:52 GMT -6
you said- I understand this totally. If 4-2, or for that matter any defense, is reading our slots then we adjust our for formation like so- ----------t-g-c-g-t----x---y-- ---------a----q----b----------- ---------------f----------------- If they are screaming up line backers or safeties we can always move our F behind the strong side tackle. This takes away our IV but opens up the Rocket/Jet sweep. By moving a SE over we are now out flanking the defense. If they match us than we will counter the hell out of them, ie YW Blue scheme. Please give me some feedback. I am interested in your take on going unbalanced in the DS. IMO going unbalanced is just like being in the wing-t's red and blue formation. The only difference is we are not running off tackle traditional wing-t stuff. We are more of the hybrid Wes Elrod wing-t, Jet and Rocket. This is the fundamental difference. When I say we are running some wing-t out of the DS I really mean we are the hybrid variety. This has turned into a very good discussion. Lets keep it going. Kalfinator- what is your take on us going unbalanced? If we saw that formation, and scouted you to be a Rocket / Jet team, with some nice PA... we'd play you as follows... with the backside CB and playside FS rotating to Up and over if they see Rocket or Jet Motion by A or B... We'd bring pressure... your 5 vs our 6/7... but once we get you out of that 4 Vert threat... we'd be very comfortable. ---------C-----------F--------C ----------W---M--S---- -------R--E---N---E-----L ----------t-g-c-g-t----x---y-- ---------a----q----b----------- ---------------f-----------------
|
|
|
Post by dolomite on Jul 10, 2007 7:30:48 GMT -6
you said- I understand this totally. If 4-2, or for that matter any defense, is reading our slots then we adjust our for formation like so- ----------t-g-c-g-t----x---y-- ---------a----q----b----------- ---------------f----------------- If they are screaming up line backers or safeties we can always move our F behind the strong side tackle. This takes away our IV but opens up the Rocket/Jet sweep. By moving a SE over we are now out flanking the defense. If they match us than we will counter the hell out of them, ie YW Blue scheme. Please give me some feedback. I am interested in your take on going unbalanced in the DS. IMO going unbalanced is just like being in the wing-t's red and blue formation. The only difference is we are not running off tackle traditional wing-t stuff. We are more of the hybrid Wes Elrod wing-t, Jet and Rocket. This is the fundamental difference. When I say we are running some wing-t out of the DS I really mean we are the hybrid variety. This has turned into a very good discussion. Lets keep it going. Kalfinator- what is your take on us going unbalanced? If we saw that formation, and scouted you to be a Rocket / Jet team, with some nice PA... we'd play you as follows... with the backside CB and playside FS rotating to Up and over if they see Rocket or Jet Motion by A or B... We'd bring pressure... your 5 vs our 6/7... but once we get you out of that 4 Vert threat... we'd be very comfortable. ---------C-----------F--------C ----------W---M--S---- -------R--E---N---E-----L ----------t-g-c-g-t----x---y-- ---------a----q----b----------- ---------------f----------------- 30 stack, nice!!
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jul 10, 2007 8:20:46 GMT -6
In my years of coaching, I have A LOT of different offenses from from a myriad of formations.
We've gone up against a few teams based out of double slot, and they all do something a little different with it. We've seen people run the Navy option out of it, live off of the various wing T misdirection, and we've seen teams that chuck the ball consistently out of it.
To me, the Navy version of the double slot is really tough defend; especially if you have good veer/midline guys running it. The combination of misdirection and option can really make your life miserable as a DC. The guys that know this offense are patient play callers; you may stop them 45 time out of 50; but with those 5 plays going for big yardage and scores.
Heck, we had one team completely shored up going into the 4th quarter. We were up by 21-14 and had really stayed on task on defense. Then; BOOM our secondary slips up a little and they hit us with on PA for a score. The SS scame down hard on the PA fake, they run a boot and dumped it off to a wing back on a drag. Slick kid, no one within 10 yards- he went 60 yards for a TD.
So, now we're tied...... They get the ball back and BOOM, hit a pitch off of the veer for another 40 yard TD. Great blocking in the perimeter, the QB gets the pitch off and the WB is off to the races.
They walked out of the game with half of the offensive production we had, but had over half of their production off of 2 plays- both going for scores. They had been jamming out over 300 yards a game on the ground all year- we slowed them down to just over half of that....
We lost the game in over time by a FG.
We slowed them down all night long; strung out their veer game, stuffed the midline and dives off of the jet and rocket, but because of patience and solid game planning, they won the game.
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Jul 10, 2007 11:14:05 GMT -6
Dolomite, very nice formations. I like the idea of out numbering the defense. What I like even more and was touched on is running the Navy style offense. This to me is where it is at. Very interesting post by CB.
What I really like, is the fact how easily you could go double tight double wing and the only thing you would be changing is the formation. To me this would be a good compliment to run in accord with the double slot, if you want to run some power football.
I also like how you can go DOT, double tight double SE. Now you can really run a nice zone package. Especially if you start motioning the SE's.
Move the Slots in behind the guards and you can now run the inverted bone, with double tights, which by the way, I have a fantastic playbook for.
Red and blue Wing T formations would be a cinch and what is more, you would be able to focus on one element of this type of offense depending on your personnel from year to year.
One question that all of this poses to me, is now what kind of team am I. With all of this, do I have too many formations and too many offenses. Or do I narrow it down?
My favorite series are sweep (with trap and waggle) belly, down, veer, midline, and power. With all of the options, counters and pass plays off of those packages. Is that too much?
|
|
|
Post by dolomite on Jul 10, 2007 13:46:12 GMT -6
Dolomite, very nice formations. I like the idea of out numbering the defense. What I like even more and was touched on is running the Navy style offense. This to me is where it is at. Very interesting post by CB. What I really like, is the fact how easily you could go double tight double wing and the only thing you would be changing is the formation. To me this would be a good compliment to run in accord with the double slot, if you want to run some power football. I also like how you can go DOT, double tight double SE. Now you can really run a nice zone package. Especially if you start motioning the SE's. Move the Slots in behind the guards and you can now run the inverted bone, with double tights, which by the way, I have a fantastic playbook for. Red and blue Wing T formations would be a cinch and what is more, you would be able to focus on one element of this type of offense depending on your personnel from year to year. One question that all of this poses to me, is now what kind of team am I. With all of this, do I have too many formations and too many offenses. Or do I narrow it down? My favorite series are sweep (with trap and waggle) belly, down, veer, midline, and power. With all of the options, counters and pass plays off of those packages. Is that too much? Here is all of our formations- ---x-----T-G-C-G-T-------Y BASE ---------A----Q-----B------- ---------------F-------------- ---------T-G-C-G-T----X---Y TRIPS RIGHT & LEFT --------A----Q-----B------- --------------F-------------- ---x-----T-G-C-G-T-------Y RAM AND LION --------A----Q-----B------- -------------------F-------- --------T-G-C-G-T----X---Y TRIPS RAM & TRIPS LION --------A----Q-----B------- Our F is behind tackle, always to the ------------------F---------- trips side when we run trips with a "nub" F In a nut shell, we have our base formation and three others that are simple for the kids because we simply flip the formation with a right or left/ram or lion call. I guess you could say that we are more Air Force/Navy than anything. As I said before, we are not a traditional wing-t team. We are of the hybrid variety. I would love for you to send me what you have on the inverted bone. I am constantly reading and critiquing every bit of football information I can get my hands on.
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Jul 10, 2007 15:44:46 GMT -6
I need to make it inot digital format, I was in the process of making it digital, but I could not get adobe to take several documents and make it into one document, and of course, the custodians have had my end of the school locked for the entire summer.
I could run a copy and mail it to you if you would like, or I could try and send you each indidual file.
It is really good stuff. I would post some of the stuff I already have out of the double slot on PPT, but I am not sure how to do that.
|
|
|
Post by coachchad on Jul 10, 2007 21:02:44 GMT -6
want to get some opinions on the "if a defense can't label you as something, you're in trouble" debate.
Not trying to crucify whoever said it (don't even remember after reading all the posts) just want to get opinions.
I certainly understand the need to be good at things rather than just being average at a lot of things. However, I would think there would be an inherent advantage if the defense has much to focus on, rather than being able to lock in on one single attack. The same argument goes for not running out of one formation -- make the defense prepare for many looks -- even if it is the same plays.
I also look at it from an offensive point of view. I would much rather face a defense that I knew exactly how they were going to line-up, even if they did multiple things out of this look. In my opinion, it is much harder to prepare for these teams that run multiple fronts and coverages -- assuming of course that they are sound in their teaching and not just calling things to look different.
Does this sound logical to anybody else, or do you feel like the defense needs to know what to start with to be an effective offense?
|
|
|
Post by tog on Jul 10, 2007 21:11:50 GMT -6
chad
i like knowing that we have enough tools in the tool chest to screw the defense no matter what they do
at least x and o wise
the personnel might negate this at times but if we can give our kids a shot to at least compete i feel good about it
|
|
|
Post by dolomite on Jul 10, 2007 21:17:10 GMT -6
I need to make it inot digital format, I was in the process of making it digital, but I could not get adobe to take several documents and make it into one document, and of course, the custodians have had my end of the school locked for the entire summer. I could run a copy and mail it to you if you would like, or I could try and send you each indidual file. It is really good stuff. I would post some of the stuff I already have out of the double slot on PPT, but I am not sure how to do that. This is the beauty of what we do. We run very few plays, and run them the same, yet we show different looks. If I line up base and then shift to trips Lion than most defenses are scrambling around like a chicken with their heads cut off, all the while, the opposing DC is yelling instructions to his kids as we snap the ball. We can run jet in any formation No rules change except for the kid/kids we moved. Worst case scenario we moved two kids, SE/F.
|
|