coachf
Freshmen Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by coachf on Apr 5, 2006 10:21:55 GMT -6
I loved to watch the old Oklahoma games with JC Watts at QB. I just like a well executed option offense. Nebraska with Tommie Frazier is great as well. I don't know if I would like to coach that offense. I would probably get my QB killed.
|
|
|
Post by coachmallory on Apr 5, 2006 10:29:01 GMT -6
I hate seeing teams come out and run zone strech and zone read, it is so boring and it seems like everybody does it.
I am an option coach so anytime I can see a team run the option (from under center) I am drawn in. I also love seeing those air raid teams play
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Apr 5, 2006 10:34:17 GMT -6
I just like a well executed option offense. Nebraska with Tommie Frazier is great as well. I don't know if I would like to coach that offense. I would probably get my QB killed. Agreed. Some of my best film is stuff I taped back in the 90's with NU.....what was fun about them is how they could just run ANYTHING or the SAME THING and still smoke teams. lol
|
|
|
Post by coachank on Apr 5, 2006 13:25:05 GMT -6
we dont run it, but I love to watch it.. and that is a good option team... 90's NU, or even Navy..
|
|
|
Post by knighter on Apr 5, 2006 13:28:36 GMT -6
DW vs. anything that has been "invented" to stop it.
Say DW vs a 9-2 or a 10-1....laughable.
|
|
coachf
Freshmen Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by coachf on Apr 5, 2006 13:39:10 GMT -6
Wing-T would be a little more exciting than the DW, in my opinion....although they are really the same thing. I just like the traditional looks with some open space in between men.
|
|
|
Post by knighter on Apr 5, 2006 14:00:52 GMT -6
coachf
as long as you pound the rock it sure is pretty ain't it? wing t run well is beautiful to watch (just not as beautiful as phone booth football! LOL
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Apr 6, 2006 10:15:10 GMT -6
I think you could put georgetown college kentucky in the R&S flexbone category Coach: That's true, but Georgetown was actually running an updated version of the ORIGINAL, Tiger Ellison R&S -- not the Mouse Davis/John Jenkins/June Jones version I was talking about...
|
|
|
Post by ccscoach on Apr 6, 2006 12:34:37 GMT -6
yea your right its a little different terminology but the concept is the same and they all come from Ellison I know Mouse Changed up the reads and some of the routes but in my eyes RED FAUGHT is the best run shoot coach ever because he won a National Championship all be it NAIA.....I like Jones stuff I think Jenkins really did a lot to hurt the offense and helped lead to the idea that the shoot is a renegade offense....Would you agree with that coach???
|
|
|
Post by jonnyboy on Apr 7, 2006 13:02:55 GMT -6
My favorite offense is one that keeps me guessing...don't know if a run or pass is coming, can't predict what they're running, no noticeable tendencies with formations/motions etc...
also, the offense where the run the same play 9 times in a row and the other team has no chance at stopping it.
polar opposites i know
|
|
|
Post by gunandrun on Apr 12, 2006 21:34:20 GMT -6
Red Faught's Run and Shoot was one of teh most fun to watch. get a hot dog and miss three scores.
Balance, Hell pass
Love his motto "Stay Loose, Go Wreckless , Score"
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Apr 13, 2006 8:15:31 GMT -6
I think Jenkins really did a lot to hurt the offense and helped lead to the idea that the shoot is a renegade offense....Would you agree with that coach??? Absolutely. The man was no diplomat, that's for sure -- and all the best HC's have a little bit of diplomacy in them. Bear Bryant was a classic example -- he could thrash your team to within an inch of its life, then have you laughing in conversation after the game.
|
|
|
Post by guiltydgp on Apr 14, 2006 12:21:58 GMT -6
Coach: That's true, but Georgetown was actually running an updated version of the ORIGINAL, Tiger Ellison R&S -- not the Mouse Davis/John Jenkins/June Jones version I was talking about... 1: Which version would you say is better? And Why? 2: I asked you this question in a post on the Passing Game forum, where you said.... 4 verts is the only route conversion concept I still useWhy do you no longer use route conversion concepts? Thanks in advance. I think Jenkins really did a lot to hurt the offense and helped lead to the idea that the shoot is a renegade offense....Would you agree with that coach??? Absolutely. The man was no diplomat, that's for sure -- and all the best HC's have a little bit of diplomacy in them. Bear Bryant was a classic example -- he could thrash your team to within an inch of its life, then have you laughing in conversation after the game. Here's some info on John Jenkins for those unfamiliar with him. www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Field/8581/mellor2.htmlwww.cbc.ca/story/sports/national/2005/11/07/Sports/renegades051107.htmlcoachhuey.proboards42.com/index.cgi?board=pass&action=display&thread=1131802495
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Apr 15, 2006 11:09:49 GMT -6
I really enjoy watching 1940s single wing action.
|
|
coachf
Freshmen Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by coachf on Apr 15, 2006 12:11:10 GMT -6
calande, why do you think the teams in the 40s were able to be some much more exciting with the offense? I agree with you I always thought those early teams were so deceptive and fun. I've always thought its because those coaches probably had the opportunity of selling the game and offense to the players. I mean today the kids have seen everything and they probably don't get to involved in a particular style of play. I might be wrong, but what do you think?
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Apr 15, 2006 12:57:47 GMT -6
Joilet Catholic runs a nice Wing-T, but the BEST Wing-T in Illinois HS football is run by the Blueboys down in Carthage. I agree! Just imagine them if they had maroon jerseys. You'd never find the ball.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Apr 15, 2006 17:03:21 GMT -6
calande, why do you think the teams in the 40s were able to be some much more exciting with the offense? I agree with you I always thought those early teams were so deceptive and fun. I've always thought its because those coaches probably had the opportunity of selling the game and offense to the players. I mean today the kids have seen everything and they probably don't get to involved in a particular style of play. I might be wrong, but what do you think? well actually, i think todays teams are to concerned about being multiple...multiple multiple and more multiple means they are good at nothing. i was watching penn state vs fla state, have it on tape and breaking it down...the faking on runs or play action was so poor i just couldnt believe it, my jr high kids fake better. think about that. back in the 40s coaches believed in good fakes adn hiding the ball...now im not so sure. again, the amount of plays is rediculous, guys pull off a sloppy play and it gets 6 yards...if they executed and faked itd go to the house. just one thought. also, i think there are some great sw teams out there still ...i have soem great conway springs footage from kansas....great fakes, hard to find the ball, great power.
|
|
coachf
Freshmen Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by coachf on Apr 15, 2006 17:44:05 GMT -6
good point calande. I think you are right. I have noticed this in my own maturity as a coach. It seems like the older I get, the less I run. I really thank you for the insight on fakes, because I believe that will be something that I will really focus on this fall. I don't know why I didn't pay attention to it before. Also, groundchuck and wildcat, my HS had to play Carthage in the semi's 2 years ago. We ran the DW and they ran that Wing-T and ate us to pieces. They are very good in that backfield. I also went and watched JCA and Morris this year in the playoffs. If John Dergo were in that JCA backfield I am pretty sure that it would have looked a lot nicer
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Apr 15, 2006 18:00:46 GMT -6
calande, why do you think the teams in the 40s were able to be some much more exciting with the offense? I agree with you I always thought those early teams were so deceptive and fun. I've always thought its because those coaches probably had the opportunity of selling the game and offense to the players. I mean today the kids have seen everything and they probably don't get to involved in a particular style of play. I might be wrong, but what do you think? well actually, i think todays teams are to concerned about being multiple...multiple multiple and more multiple means they are good at nothing. i was watching penn state vs fla state, have it on tape and breaking it down...the faking on runs or play action was so poor i just couldnt believe it, my jr high kids fake better. think about that. back in the 40s coaches believed in good fakes adn hiding the ball...now im not so sure. again, the amount of plays is rediculous, guys pull off a sloppy play and it gets 6 yards...if they executed and faked itd go to the house. just one thought. also, i think there are some great sw teams out there still ...i have soem great conway springs footage from kansas....great fakes, hard to find the ball, great power. Faking is a lost art and I agree part of it is trying to be too multiple. Faking is something you have to take pride in. Playing LB in high school nothing screwed me up like a team that was deceptive. Yes we keyed guards but heck if you are 16-17 years old you are going to peak in the backfield and get screwed up. Faking is not just going on and saying to a kid "fake like you have the ball." There is technique you have to teach and then demand they do it all the time in practice and games.
|
|