|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 23, 2007 12:39:17 GMT -6
Think of the Lombardi sweep, and Vince had his passion for that play didnt he? Thats how I feel about the double wing toss off tackle. I think its a better play than the Lombardi sweep. It sure has won a lot of games for a lot of teams because those coaches felt the same way about it as I do. Sooner or later you have to have "that one play"...what is your one play? why does it give you a chance to be successful?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 23, 2007 13:11:33 GMT -6
I agree with you in that the game is blocking and tackling, and that it is completely illogical to think that MORE talent wouldn't mean an offense wouldn't work better.
I am simply saying that it would make more sense for a coach to say that in his opinion, his offense is the BEST to run for him, regardless of talent...if he would run that same offense at a school with talent.
I know that Most if not all "system" coaches believe in their SYSTEM, and there for it is not an "equalizer" offense because they would be doing the same thing with 22 Parade All-Americans on the club.
Maybe it is just a play on words, but I find it illogical to say that something is an equalizer if you have lesser talent, but then still run it when you have some good talent. To me, a person who says that doesn't mean equalizer, they simply mean BEST
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 23, 2007 16:01:27 GMT -6
well, if they have an all american defensive tackle and we double team him all day, id consider that a way of NEUTRALIZING if not EQUALIZING. thats the idea. if we were to try and one on one the kid all day hes going to get even more letters from div I schools "knamean?"...anyhow, "equalizer" to me means you put your kids in a position to be more successful based on numbers, leverage, angles, conflict etc...I would imagine that the Indy Colts run their system thinking that its a great 'equalizer" because Manning can look over the defense and call the play that gives his guys the best chance for success based on matchups. the question was which is BEST...I say double wing is best. Someone else says spread is best, etc...its not really any different than if someone asked 'which property is BEST to own in Monopoly?" Some guys would go low rent and say "it gets landed on more often" and some guys would go high rent and say "land on it twice and the game is over"...anyhow, add Jerry Rice to the colts and yes, their offense would probably be better...no longer an equalizer, but a dominator!
ITS A DOUBLE WING THING, YOU WOULDNT UNDERSTAND
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 23, 2007 16:10:17 GMT -6
I think this has become an argument of semantics. However, your argument does not follow the principals of duality... for light to exist there must be darkness, for good to exist there must be bad...FOR A BEST EQUALIZER OFFENSE to exist, then there must be a DIFFERENT offense that is the BEST talented offense.... If you feel this offense is one and the same, then it is simply the BEST offense, period.
I think your argument is better served by saying that the dbl wing is simply the best offense you can run period. Great when you have a lesser talented team, unbeatable when you have talent.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Mar 23, 2007 17:48:30 GMT -6
i think the double wing offense is a great equalizer offense for one simple reason. it has 4 to 6 plays and those plays get reped and repped.
the more plays you have, the less reps you get at each play. mike leach will tell you that.
when you get down to it, you only need like 6 pass plays and a couple screens from the 5 wide set.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 24, 2007 5:26:52 GMT -6
i think the double wing offense is a great equalizer offense for one simple reason. it has 4 to 6 plays and those plays get reped and repped. the more plays you have, the less reps you get at each play. mike leach will tell you that. when you get down to it, you only need like 6 pass plays and a couple screens from the 5 wide set. I saw an interview with some of the Balt colts players, one comment that was great was made by the colts star rec..."we run the same 8 plays over and over again"
|
|
|
Post by coachjd on Mar 24, 2007 5:48:31 GMT -6
this is the same reason we run mostly zone or gap schemes in our oneback offense. Zone schemes allow us to double all down defenders as we work to 2nd level and our power and counter schemes are all gap schemes or angle blocking. Many ways to skin a cat, it can be wing-t, single wing, double wing, spread, oneback w/ 2 TE's, power I, bone, etc....
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 24, 2007 6:29:32 GMT -6
well, if they have an all american defensive tackle and we double team him all day, id consider that a way of NEUTRALIZING if not EQUALIZING. thats the idea. if we were to try and one on one the kid all day hes going to get even more letters from div I schools "knamean?"...anyhow, "equalizer" to me means you put your kids in a position to be more successful based on numbers, leverage, angles, conflict etc...I would imagine that the Indy Colts run their system thinking that its a great 'equalizer" because Manning can look over the defense and call the play that gives his guys the best chance for success based on matchups. the question was which is BEST...I say double wing is best. Someone else says spread is best, etc...its not really any different than if someone asked 'which property is BEST to own in Monopoly?" Some guys would go low rent and say "it gets landed on more often" and some guys would go high rent and say "land on it twice and the game is over"...anyhow, add Jerry Rice to the colts and yes, their offense would probably be better...no longer an equalizer, but a dominator! What's kind of funny is that with the exception of the Power I / Pro I offenses, I think you've detailed the rationale behind most offenses. Especially ZONE and Veer teams.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 24, 2007 7:17:03 GMT -6
I think this has become an argument of semantics. However, your argument does not follow the principals of duality... for light to exist there must be darkness, for good to exist there must be bad...FOR A BEST EQUALIZER OFFENSE to exist, then there must be a DIFFERENT offense that is the BEST talented offense.... If you feel this offense is one and the same, then it is simply the BEST offense, period. I think your argument is better served by saying that the dbl wing is simply the best offense you can run period. Great when you have a lesser talented team, unbeatable when you have talent. Heres the deal, and theres no hiding the way I feel about it... If you ask me- "Calande is the double wing your favorite offense?" me- yes, no contest "Calande does the dw qualify as an offense that lets lesser athletes or your average athlete succeed against sometimes superior opponents?" me- absolutely, its a great equalizer! In fact, I think it can give us a chance to dominate. "so Calande, do you think its the BEST equalizer? and is it also the best offense?" Me- yes, I do believe that and yes, its the best offense FOR ME an FOR MY KIDS. Its what I know and love and what I believe in. No one can tell me I am wrong for believing it. *DISCLAIMER- Its not for everyone, beauty is in the eye of the beholder of course. Let us now refer to selection of offenses as "pro choice" ITS A DOUBLE WING THING, YOU WOULDNT UNDERSTAND
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 24, 2007 7:18:36 GMT -6
this is the same reason we run mostly zone or gap schemes in our oneback offense. Zone schemes allow us to double all down defenders as we work to 2nd level and our power and counter schemes are all gap schemes or angle blocking. Many ways to skin a cat, it can be wing-t, single wing, double wing, spread, oneback w/ 2 TE's, power I, bone, etc.... DING DING DING DING - yes, no right or wrong, just what works and what doesnt!
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 24, 2007 7:20:48 GMT -6
well, if they have an all american defensive tackle and we double team him all day, id consider that a way of NEUTRALIZING if not EQUALIZING. thats the idea. if we were to try and one on one the kid all day hes going to get even more letters from div I schools "knamean?"...anyhow, "equalizer" to me means you put your kids in a position to be more successful based on numbers, leverage, angles, conflict etc...I would imagine that the Indy Colts run their system thinking that its a great 'equalizer" because Manning can look over the defense and call the play that gives his guys the best chance for success based on matchups. the question was which is BEST...I say double wing is best. Someone else says spread is best, etc...its not really any different than if someone asked 'which property is BEST to own in Monopoly?" Some guys would go low rent and say "it gets landed on more often" and some guys would go high rent and say "land on it twice and the game is over"...anyhow, add Jerry Rice to the colts and yes, their offense would probably be better...no longer an equalizer, but a dominator! What's kind of funny is that with the exception of the Power I / Pro I offenses, I think you've detailed the rationale behind most offenses. Especially ZONE and Veer teams. Maybe, but you wont hear a dw coach mention "speed in space" or "take advantage of one on one matchups" ...maybe ever! So no, I dont think ALL OFFENSES use the same ideas or concepts. There are plenty of guys out there who NEVER use double teams or down blocks or traps yet they stand by what they do for whatever their reasons are...they might be the "hat on a hat" guys...thats another thing we dont say ever..."hat on a hat" ITS A DOUBLE WING THING, YOU WOULDNT UNDERSTAND.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 24, 2007 10:00:46 GMT -6
Calande--Just to make sure you realize, I don't think there is ANYTHING WRONG AT ALL with believing that the dbl wing is the best offense. I hope that is not how this came across.
I guess I was just arguing the logic and terms. I wouldn't consider something an "equalizer" if I also thought it would be the offense I would run if I had the best talent.
As I said, I dont think there is such a thing as an equalizer offense in football. I don't think there is an offense that coaches would run with lesser talent...and then switch when they think they have greater talent.
In basketball, If I was going into the season with a short, unathletic, and not very talented team, I would want to play a very slow pace game, since the odds are against me on each posession. However, If I had 5 McDonald's AA's on the squad, I would certainly want a much more uptempo game, since the odds are in my favor each position.
I don't think the above situation holds true in football, since system,formation, and play selection doesn't necessarily dictate tempo (in theory--since you aren't planning to throw incomplete passes)
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 24, 2007 10:40:07 GMT -6
I think this has become an argument of semantics. Exactly.
As I said, I dont think there is such a thing as an equalizer offense in football. I don't think there is an offense that coaches would run with lesser talent...and then switch when they think they have greater talent.
In basketball, If I was going into the season with a short, unathletic, and not very talented team, I would want to play a very slow pace game, since the odds are against me on each posession. However, If I had 5 McDonald's AA's on the squad, I would certainly want a much more uptempo game, since the odds are in my favor each position.
OK. So perhaps there is not an "equalizer" offense in terms of formation, plays, line rules, etc.
Maybe no equalizer offense, but maybe "equalizer offensive strategy". We are 3 back with studs or duds. When we have more duds, I am under the impression that our system (or a DW, T or any 3 yds and cloud of dust types) lends itself better to that strategy of slowing the pace (few stops of the clock), running fewer plays... basically wasting time because there are years where the more plays run in a game, the greater chance we have to lose. With more duds we also like to limit the effect special teams have on a game, so we need to be able to quick kick from our offense. With studs... we just run our offense and do not worry about time management unless a need arises (though unless we are vastly superior, ball control becomes a product of what we do).
I know Huey and others have pointed out other systems can manage the time well too. I've never tried to do so... and I do not think that my tiny mind could figure that out.
So... the equalization lies not in the system but in the implementation and strategy of using that system. Fair enough?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 24, 2007 10:56:29 GMT -6
NOW THAT...I would agree with Senator... and you can implement those equalization strategies in almost any system.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 24, 2007 14:28:58 GMT -6
ok, so the "equalizer philosophy" is really what we should be talking about. That makes sense since its hard enough to ask 'whats an offense?" ...for some its "plays of the week" for others is the same plays for 15 years with no changes....btw, regarding having duds or studs, I was at a clinic put on by a 4 time state champ coach here in Pa, he mentioned that they always ran the same 12 plays or so every year, thats where it all starts...they use tons of formations and often add and delete on a weekly basis just to screw with the opposition...but those 10-12 plays are always "the offense" regardless of talent. (btw, they won big at two schools)
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 24, 2007 14:48:27 GMT -6
"equalizer philosophy" becomes a football version of If your opponent is fast, slow the game down If your opponent is big, run away from them if your opponent is smart, cause them to be indecisive etc
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 24, 2007 14:50:04 GMT -6
did you see "300" yet...they ran the double wing!
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Mar 24, 2007 14:54:27 GMT -6
did you see "300" yet...they ran the double wing! Didn't they lose?
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Mar 24, 2007 14:56:21 GMT -6
In real life yes they lost but they were "in the game" vs incredible odds LOL.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 24, 2007 14:57:46 GMT -6
did you see "300" yet...they ran the double wing! dude, you're right...... Those freaking Persians totally got whupped by 88 Power
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 24, 2007 16:58:26 GMT -6
that and "the wedge"....no doubt it gave them a chance!
ok, so whats the "over under" on number of posts until this thread is locked? I got to get some of the action here....
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 24, 2007 16:58:56 GMT -6
did you see "300" yet...they ran the double wing! Didn't they lose? no, they just ran out of bodies. In reality they won.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 24, 2007 18:07:25 GMT -6
that and "the wedge"....no doubt it gave them a chance! ok, so whats the "over under" on number of posts until this thread is locked? I got to get some of the action here.... Whenever someone posts "D" and "W" within a post, Homeland Security is notified. If "D___ W__g" is mentioned more than five times in a thread, the threat level gets raised to "ELEVATED"
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 24, 2007 20:17:01 GMT -6
|
|