Is it wrong to simplify our schemes?

Its not about a 100 different play every Friday night.....but you still need 6 or 7 different words for boot pending how many ways you run boot...then the tags....you end up with the same wording.

you really think that is all eh?
watch:
brown rt naked this week is going to be with mesh....
brown rt naked this week is going to be with shallow....
brown rt nake this week will be with the qb reverse pivot
brown rt naked  this week will be to the te
brown rt naked this week will be with motioning away.
brown rt naked this week will be with z setting the mesh and Y running the corner.
brown rt naked this week will be with power blocking.
brown rt naked this week will be off of  g blocking.

Now If you think kids easily get confused, then their is no way that will work every single week.

I don't need to do it all. It doesn't matter why. My only point is that simplicity has its limits.
And you don't scheme your plays at all? for different defenses? you run the play the same way every single week? I doubt that.  Or you have 100 plays to choose from every single week. 

what if you want a different action? It doesn't matter what it is, why you would do it. doesn't matter what the defense is....and you are already sort doing what I am sort of saying you have at least 3 different ways to call it and it has a reason...does it matter if that is not simple enough to some? is it to complicated for your kids?

what types of play-action are there?
qb fakes one way & moves the pocket the other
qb fakes one way & moves the pocket in the same way.
qb fakes one way but stays in the backfield

what other "action" do you need?  you can either move him opposite using a naked protection or by pulling a guard.  you can fake a zone, stretch, toss, or lead action.  you don't have to do all of them but depending on your system you might call it 2 ways .... say 43 naked and 49 naked.  faking 2 different runs yet essentially the protection is the same with a slightly modified backfield.

I don't need a myriad of routes with that concept.  the qb is moving out of the pocket - it's a sprintout situation.  i just need some type of "triangle" with a flat option, a deep/corner option, and some type of intermediate/middle/crosser option to complete the triangle.  you can now do it from either 1 formation tree (2x2) or you can use motion into 2x2 or you can use a slightly different term when running it from say 3x1 that would still get you back into this "triangle"

other play-action routes can be thought of the same way.

now, what you are doing is trying to keep from having this long drawn out play call that says all of this.  you don't need "naked with shallow" or "naked with mesh" or whatever.  THAT's what i'm talking about, not the overall depth of a playbook.  but, if you can eliminate some things you could gain things in another area - be it ...

never mind. ...  should have followed my own advice and just smiled and waved.

is blue flip open to long a formation call? how about blue flip open 92 switch x post? is that to long?

yes
particularly if that is what is needed to call every play

we need our kids to run a play to attack the opponent not play Simon before the snap

Easiest way to simplify things is to run everything out of one formation. Then you can call just the adjuster and play. We had a 2 minute deal where we could run our entire package with one of two words.

Push or pull was power right or power left.
Ice or cube was iso right or iso left
King or queen was quick pitch right or left
Heads or tails was flip sweep right or left.

The plays had longer names but we repped it so everyone knew what each word meant.

there is no right or wrong way....if you want to use something like the old WC vernacular (which is just carry over from the wing-t series stuff....which lead to route trees....which lead to multiple different motions...etc). Go for it.

But IMO you open yourself up to a greater liability of retention. We all struggle with getting our kids to process football, so this would be true no matter what system you use. However, segmenting your system into various moving parts creates great multiplicity, but at the cost of time and learning/retention. Is that cost worth having dozens of variations? Is a dozen types of sprint out needed or can I live with just one?

It is entertaining to pick at that old Coach Huey board scab ("Route Tree vs Concept"), but route trees are a big result of why terminology is so complex.


To pick on Gruden, whom I have the utmost respect for the amount of dues he eventually paid, but doing things because thats the way we've always done it may provide some type of affirmation (look at me, I am dedicated and hardcore because I learned all this the hard way!!), but it comes at the expense of adapting and gleaning the vital elements of a play. Strip that {censored} down, play fast and focus on execution.

That is right out of tony franklin air raid system.

thanks for the info.
I sent you something.

from 6 years ago.....

even he doesn't use that stuff anymore

tfs.

Interesting debate.

Im a Youth coach. About 15 seasons ago I started in on a What You Hear is What You Do play calling system(s). It has a very distinct blueprint that is flexible.

Nobody has a harder time with retention than the average Youth player. Simplifying a play call is counter productive because it actually forces them to retain more.

So those of you all for simplifying a play call....are wrong IMO. I have seen the difference what no thinking play calls will do for the youngest of minds. Its easier to execute when your brain in not going on full memory alone. If a play call gets a little wordy...so what...your players are only listening to a particular part of the play call anyway.

Football is hard....why fight it and create more memorization? Makes no sense too me anymore.

My take.