|
|
Post by coachweav88 on Mar 21, 2007 8:45:35 GMT -6
Coaches,
I want to hear your opinions on the offense that best levels the playing field for teams with inferior talent (small, slow etc.) I also want to hear your rationale.
example: option because it gives you great blocking angles and allows you to create a numbers mismatch.
that's not necessarily my opinion but just an example of what I'm looking for.
|
|
|
|
Post by playfast on Mar 21, 2007 8:49:32 GMT -6
Flexbone option- Deceptive, takes timing gets the best athletes to handle the ball
Great blocking match-ups since we will read off guys
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 21, 2007 8:50:53 GMT -6
The double wing (just read A FEW of the threads on here and youll see why)  |
|
|
|
Post by seagull73 on Mar 21, 2007 9:02:22 GMT -6
I don't run it but the single wing. It is so unique and deceptive. It can be run well by a less talented team. The problem is you still have to stop the other guy.
The system I use is a shotgun system with some single wing type of plays, using the Qb as a runner & using an option and misdirection element.
|
|
|
|
Post by runthedangthing on Mar 21, 2007 9:17:04 GMT -6
option: great angles for blocking, you dont block two of the men, you can take a stud defender out of his game. we mix a little wing t in there to get some misdirection.
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Mar 21, 2007 9:35:22 GMT -6
1. wingt style misdirection (this includes a lot of styles here, yes even the DW)
2. option
3. air raid
4. a mix of all 3
|
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 21, 2007 9:52:45 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 21, 2007 9:55:51 GMT -6
OK, now that i made my joke:
take your best throwing athlete and put him at QB. then, using motions, jets, options, shifts, formations, etc. utilize your best true athlete in conjunction. Easy to throw a hitch, because only these two guys need to execute (line can just cut).
Or,
If you can learn it and teach it and get the players to buy into it, DW.
|
|
|
|
Post by CVBears on Mar 21, 2007 16:40:41 GMT -6
whatever offense the other coaches in your league haven't ever seen or can't understand. to me, it wouldn't make sense to run spread as an equilizer if the whole league runs spread. same could be said for wing t variants. or even polecat/swinging gate for that matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 21, 2007 16:44:09 GMT -6
I do not think such an offense exists.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Mar 21, 2007 17:14:49 GMT -6
For me, the great equalizer has always been 3 step drops and sprint outs- no matter what specific offense we're running,
|
|
|
|
Post by airman on Mar 21, 2007 17:57:32 GMT -6
olivet fullhouse t offense. every play looks the same so it is both forceful and deceptive all at the same time.
it is a fb trap up the middle, a offtackle isolation play with a lead blocker and a qb keepout or boot leg and you can run a counter player. all same action. 1 or 2 formations and that is about it.
great no huddle offense as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Mar 21, 2007 18:39:02 GMT -6
I do not think such an offense exists. Exactly |
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 21, 2007 19:53:05 GMT -6
olivet fullhouse t offense. great no huddle offense as well. Great thought! Man that would be insane for a defense to combat! |
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Mar 21, 2007 22:09:33 GMT -6
If you havent seen those Michigan teams run the Dead T its pretty amazing stuff.
With the layered handoffs and 20 yds fakes hard as heck to figure out. Fun to watch for me anyways.
That may be my next project, I get bored LOL.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 22, 2007 5:59:12 GMT -6
My rational for thinking that such an offense does not exist is simply that nobody coaches to lose. The key to football is simply to get your players to do what YOU tell them to do better than the OTHER guy can get HIS players to do what HE tells them to do.
EVERY offense (even the standard pro I) offers blocking angles, dbl teams at point of attack, and the ability to scheme so that your best player gets the ball.
A sound/well coached offense is the best equalizer.
|
|
|
|
Post by burtledog on Mar 22, 2007 6:13:23 GMT -6
Well, they do seem to appear. Largely because everyone jumps on a bandwagon. When Chicago started the T in the Pros it was only a year or two that Washington and NY were the only Single Wing teams left. Remember the 70's. I remember when nearly the entire SEC, SWC, Big8 were either Veer or Wishbone within 5 years of Texas and Houston developing them. Now it is the different shotgun spread schemes.
Greg
|
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Mar 22, 2007 6:26:34 GMT -6
My rational for thinking that such an offense does not exist is simply that nobody coaches to lose. The key to football is simply to get your players to do what YOU tell them to do better than the OTHER guy can get HIS players to do what HE tells them to do. EVERY offense (even the standard pro I) offers blocking angles, dbl teams at point of attack, and the ability to scheme so that your best player gets the ball. A sound/well coached offense is the best equalizer. Some coaches may coach not to lose, but with the goal of Not to get fired. That may be the goal of some. They may run what everyone else runs so that if they lose they can just blame the talent levels. However if you coach something that all the rest are not using and lose its your fault for making the choice for the different scheme. |
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 22, 2007 6:43:12 GMT -6
seems pretty simple to me, there are most definitely different systems and some are definitely better for kids with lesser athletic ability than others. I can put a runner in a wing position that will run for 1500 yards and score 18 tds yet cant run the 40 under 5.0 ....thats not going to happen too often with a pro I for example because there isnt as much power or misdirection available for my kids adn we will have to have enough talent to run vs 8-9 in the box if we cant throw...honestly ,I think those that dont believe, just havent tried it themselves. I have been very successful with the I formation but I will be the first to tell you that its much more talent dependent than our dw is. by far.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mav on Mar 22, 2007 6:56:03 GMT -6
I agree 100%. Because of our desire to get an edge on our competition, they'll always be someone there with the 'equalizer' elixlir...  My rational for thinking that such an offense does not exist is simply that nobody coaches to lose. The key to football is simply to get your players to do what YOU tell them to do better than the OTHER guy can get HIS players to do what HE tells them to do. EVERY offense (even the standard pro I) offers blocking angles, dbl teams at point of attack, and the ability to scheme so that your best player gets the ball. A sound/well coached offense is the best equalizer. |
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Mar 22, 2007 17:31:47 GMT -6
I have always felt that being able to have a way to consistantly run the football, incorporate some type of option, and being able to consistantly throw the ball well is a good equalizer. That is very general so to narrow down my thoughts a little:
Have a base run and a counter and play action off it (think wing-t buck sweep/trap/waggle pass) or belly series (FB/TB/dump pass). There are others too. If you do not want to committ to the option I understand, but you can run some outside veer and double option (pitch off EMOL) without too much problem.
Then as far as throwing the ball a little three step is good and high percentage play action passes off your best runs.
|
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Mar 22, 2007 18:45:50 GMT -6
I believe that in any circumstance, but especially when you have inferior talent, the greatest equalizer is COACHING in general.
That being said, I strongly believe that at times such as that, you must run whichever offense (or defense) you as a coach know the best and can teach the best.
Any offense is a good offense, or it wouldn't exist in the first place. The key is, how well do you know it, believe in it, and teach it!!
|
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 22, 2007 20:26:05 GMT -6
Offseason workouts is the greatest equalizer
Then coaching
Then scheme and personnel
IMO
|
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 22, 2007 21:03:24 GMT -6
I do not think such an offense exists.
I do. Any offense you know- inside and out- the strengths, weaknesses, adjustments, what teams do to try to stop you and ways you can maximize the talent to your total team philosophy (how it relates to defense, special teams, platooning, etc.)... AND one you can sell to the players, coaching staff (and bonus if the parents and administration are on board) that is maybe not an equalizer, but a great offense nonetheless.
I can put a runner in a wing position that will run for 1500 yards and score 18 tds yet cant run the 40 under 5.0 ....thats not going to happen too often with a pro I for example because there isnt as much power or misdirection available for my kids adn we will have to have enough talent to run vs 8-9 in the box if we cant throw...honestly ,I think those that dont believe, just havent tried it themselves. I have been very successful with the I formation but I will be the first to tell you that its much more talent dependent than our dw is. by far.
I completely disagree... we go to I from 3 back when we lack talent (more precisely- when we lack talent distribution). Some years, we just do not have 3 backs... I'd rather give the far and away best HB the ball 40 times from an I, then run right 30 and left 10 because there is such a difference in talent between the halfbacks. We run the same stuff from I and 3 back... misdirection might be just a counter step as opposed to a back going away from the play... but run power a lot (with success) and you get about the same defensive reaction. There is no reason you can not adapt plays from one system and run them in another. Ex. We have been a "3 back premise" forever... but we run Belly (double dive) much better from an I.
Some coaches may coach not to lose, but with the goal of Not to get fired. That may be the goal of some.
They may run what everyone else runs so that if they lose they can just blame the talent levels.
However if you coach something that all the rest are not using and lose its your fault for making the choice for the different scheme.
..or they run what others run because it is familiar, it is what they know, it is, by their reasoning, the best chance for success, or it is the best way to get the best players on the field. etc., etc., etc.
Maybe I am too far out in the sticks... and in small school ball occasionally there are coaches who are coaching football because they need someone to do it and it is not their passion (2-3 I can think of... like the position was for head BB and head football, so the BB guy had to take football)... but I know of no one who coaches with the idea "not to get fired" And-- if that exists, I really doubt that applies to anyone on the board here. Everyone here is hard core football minded.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 22, 2007 22:09:00 GMT -6
Senator--obviously you caught yourself at the end of the first paragraph, recognizing that you were describing a good offense, and not an "equalizer" offense.
Calande--must disagree with you on the theory behind your thoughts. Answer this--if you were coaching at Hoover High..or Longview...or John Curtis Christian..or any of the other national power house programs, would you run your DW? I think we know that answer.
The above point kind of chimes in with another coaches post that proponents of a system, almost ANY system often sing the praises of their system and how it is great for lesser talented (a term we should probably describe) players, and then go on to gush about how great their system would be WITH talented players. What I read into this is simply that "THEY LOVE THEIR SYSTEM AND THEY THINK IT IS THE BEST SYSTEM OUT THERE"
Absolutely NOTHING wrong with believing in your system, in fact you would be a pretty foolish coach if you didn't run what you thought was the best system. But I do think there is a distinction between equalizer and best.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 23, 2007 5:16:51 GMT -6
Senator--obviously you caught yourself at the end of the first paragraph, recognizing that you were describing a good offense, and not an "equalizer" offense. Calande--must disagree with you on the theory behind your thoughts. Answer this--if you were coaching at Hoover High..or Longview...or John Curtis Christian..or any of the other national power house programs, would you run your DW? I think we know that answer. The above point kind of chimes in with another coaches post that proponents of a system, almost ANY system often sing the praises of their system and how it is great for lesser talented (a term we should probably describe) players, and then go on to gush about how great their system would be WITH talented players. What I read into this is simply that "THEY LOVE THEIR SYSTEM AND THEY THINK IT IS THE BEST SYSTEM OUT THERE" Absolutely NOTHING wrong with believing in your system, in fact you would be a pretty foolish coach if you didn't run what you thought was the best system. But I do think there is a distinction between equalizer and best. It would not matter to me where I coached, or what level I coached. IF I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE I AM CHOOSING WHAT I KNOW AND LOVE and that means DOUBLE WING FOOTBALL for my team. If I have more talent, then the double wing will just roll that much better! It make no sense to think that more talent means it wont work as well? Thats completely illogical. The game is still about blocking and tackling and we will still have our studs and they will still have theirs, we will still put them in a bind and create conflict even if our back now runs a 4.5 and their lbers do too. Yes, I love the double wing, yes ID run it at the biggest stage possible. That , my friend, is complete confidence and passion for what I do. |
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Mar 23, 2007 5:34:51 GMT -6
Blutarsky,
Senator, it sounds like you have a very interesting offensive structure from what I've read on the boards here. Do you mind going into a little more depth about your system and what you run?
|
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 23, 2007 9:26:04 GMT -6
Blutarsky,
Senator, it sounds like you have a very interesting offensive structure from what I've read on the boards here. Do you mind going into a little more depth about your system and what you run?
No prob. I'll PM you so i don't fill up the boards with more drivel.
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Mar 23, 2007 11:54:11 GMT -6
The above point kind of chimes in with another coaches post that proponents of a system, almost ANY system often sing the praises of their system and how it is great for lesser talented (a term we should probably describe) players, and then go on to gush about how great their system would be WITH talented players. What I read into this is simply that "THEY LOVE THEIR SYSTEM AND THEY THINK IT IS THE BEST SYSTEM OUT THERE" Absolutely NOTHING wrong with believing in your system, in fact you would be a pretty foolish coach if you didn't run what you thought was the best system. But I do think there is a distinction between equalizer and best. It is the "Crane Kick" philosophy from Karate Kid. Most people think that if done right, there is no defense for their offense. The great equalizer is your ability to coach the kids. All offenses can be stopped. No offenses create 2 for one situations on everyone. Unless you have an offense that somehow circumvents the rules and allows for 22 players. I don't know of one offense in the world where someone on your team will eventually have to win a battle with someone on the other team. If you are as undertalented as you want to make us all believe and not one of your kids could block one of my kids, then I will win. Some offense can create angles in blocking, or isolated individual player matchups, but please show me the offense where a group with no talent can win. Even if I allow my player an angle block, who is to say he doesn't get blown up trying to execute it. Even if you have a double team, whats to keep a better player from still pushing your players back? I have seen 1 guy manhandle two pretty frequently. You can say it comes back to coaching, which would mean we are in agreement. Certain systems might allow you to sneak up on a team that is a little more talented, but some coaches make their teams out to be the "Tiny Tims" of the football world. If you are hoping to take Tiny Tim's to a championship, good luck. |
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Mar 23, 2007 12:12:44 GMT -6
"There are no miracle coaches, and no coach has any great secrets or any unsolvable plays that make him successful. The successful coaches are those who know how to handle men, who pay great attention to a thorough teaching of the rudiments of the game, who have a comparatively few basic plays which they can teach their teams to execute flawlessly, and who have good material to work with." Glenn S. "Pop" Warner, "Football for Coaches and Players" 1927
|
|
