shs06
Junior Member
Posts: 288
|
Post by shs06 on Sept 27, 2007 6:55:37 GMT -6
Guys I have noticed that we have receivers that will bust their route when we move them to a new spot on the field. Example we are running smash and the slot guy on our base formation is outside on a different formation. Well now he has to run the hitch instead of the corner (it is fine with the older guys, but the jv is having some trouble getting it correct).
I was considering next season having locked in routes, example if the play is smash right and Y is the right slot he will run the corner route no matter where he lines up. If in the slot then he will run the corner, if he is outside then he will rail the route (crossing on the inside and back to his orignal alignment.) Not sure if this makes since or not. I am interested in seeing if some of you do it this way or know of anyone that has done this and been successful. Thanks for the help.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Sept 27, 2007 7:22:35 GMT -6
(it is fine with the older guys, but the jv is having some trouble getting it correct). I was considering next season having locked in routes, example if the play is smash right and Y is the right slot he will run the corner route no matter where he lines up. why not just keep it simple at the lower levels Moving a guy from #1 to #2 is completely do-able, and if you lock in the routes, then there is no point in moving them in the first place. Stay with the packaged routes - the tree ONLY benefits the (lazy) receivers |
|
wccoach
Sophomore Member
Posts: 159
|
Post by wccoach on Sept 27, 2007 10:15:38 GMT -6
We just tell them the route in the play call. Doubles 30 hitch/Seam is Double slot, 30 protection (3 step Pro), Outside rec. runs a hitch and the inside rec. runs a seam. We have not had a rec. run a wrong route all year. They have run some pretty lousy routes, but the pass concept was not nullified by a wrong route. When we get in a 3 x 1 set it is something like: Trips 60 Fade/Out/Arrow. Trips formation, 60 pass pro, Outside rec. fade, middle rec. out (out is a 12 yd out), inside rec. arrow. The backside single receiver runs a hitch, slant, fade option that he signals to the QB. This is a basic flood package, but every rec. knows what route he is running. Its just another way to teach a concept system that has worked for us. Just my opinion, but I'm an idiot!
|
|
|
|
Post by spartancoach on Sept 27, 2007 13:49:50 GMT -6
We got away from the tree and listing routes into just concept names to force the players to UNDERSTAND the route combinations. So, we will call simply 22 (2X2 formation) 50 (5 step pro) Mesh. Each receiver must know each pattern, which really helps them understand the whys and the need for appropriate spacing.
|
|
|
|
Post by ocinaz on Sept 27, 2007 14:13:45 GMT -6
We TRY and teach each of our passing plays to our WR's as the entire play....WE teach them how the entire Smash looks like, not just X has a hitch and Y has a flag...So when we do move guys around, they know the entire play, hopefully...
|
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Sept 27, 2007 18:55:02 GMT -6
This is my first year using tree routes...like it a lot. I think it provides a lot of flexibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Sept 27, 2007 19:08:57 GMT -6
I heard from some air raid guys that it is advantageous to have players stay in the same positions......it doesn't seem like much, but that way, the Y rec. only learns to run a shallow route right to left.
Of course you can;t always keep it this way (usually you want to isolate your best rec. in trips, so guys have to learn routes both sides so you can flip trips back and forth, and injuries happen), but the more you can, the better the rec.'s will run their routes
That's the idea anyway
|
|
shs06
Junior Member
Posts: 288
|
Post by shs06 on Sept 28, 2007 6:38:37 GMT -6
All of you have some very good points. I do not want to use a route tree; I have been in places before and do not like them. I prefer concept passing i.e. Mesh: all routes are locked, Smash: all routes are locked, etc...
"Moving a guy from #1 to #2 is completely do-able, and if you lock in the routes, then there is no point in moving them in the first place."
The reason that I would want to move a receiver is to force a mismatch. If we are seeing man to man and my base formation is not providing the mismatch that I want I can move a players alignment, but he will still be running a route that is familiar to him (The thought behind is much like what dubber talks about in his post. The thought is that if Z runs a corner route 25 times a day and a hitch 25 times a day he will be ok at both, but if he runs the corner 50 times a day he should be pretty good at understanding what he is looking for and comfortable catching that ball.).
I agree that you must be able to move players around and isolate them and create and advantage. I really think that by just using 6 base formations with 5 tags that apply to all of the different formations we can give a ton of different looks, but keep our system simple for the kids by having them run a certain route on a certain play. It will also allow me to target out kids that excel on a certain type of route and put them in a chance to be successful on a more consistent basis. (I THINK?)
Thanks for the insight guys please keep it coming.
|
|
