|
|
Post by jcarbon2 on Jul 16, 2007 8:51:09 GMT -6
Once a old coach told me that one must pick the plays to run based on three points.
One, must be simple so that time spent in practice is worth the yards gained during the game. Two, must fit into every formation you run with minimal tweaking. Three, must work against 95% of the fronts you face regardless.
So when I see a coach talk about this "NEW" play I always wonder how it is better than some old play that has survived the test of time.
Anybody have any criteria when it comes to picking the plays you fit into your playbook??
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by tedseay on Jul 16, 2007 9:03:12 GMT -6
Anybody have any criteria when it comes to picking the plays you fit into your playbook?? John: You know my philosophy -- if I can't wedge a play into an existing play series, or create a new series around it, and in a straightforward and reasonably intelligent manner, I don't add it. |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 16, 2007 9:16:51 GMT -6
every play drawn up can work............but not every play is idiot-proof / bullet-proof.
If, for instance, I have a monster-super-cool defensive scheme and my players can eat your children, so long as you stay in ONE formation...........but once you get out of your formation and play the "shell game" with motions and shifts - the minute there is a propensity to cause a disconnect / loose wire in our TEAM, then it is a bad idea (not worth it).
1) how versatile is the play (can work against the majority?)
2) how much time is needed to teach it (is it a different concept altogether)?
3) how idiot-proof is it? If we can screw it up, we will.......does this create a liability for us (instead of the opponent)?
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jul 16, 2007 9:38:42 GMT -6
To me, new plays are about blocking schemes. If a new play doesn't involve a new blocking scheme then it's no problem to me. If it does involve a new scheme then some other scheme has to come out.
Defensively, it's about coverages and, as Brophy said, adjustments. If something new is easily adjustable, fine. If it requires intricate adjustments then it had better be REALLY good.
|
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Jul 16, 2007 10:18:10 GMT -6
I will throw my toolbox analogy in again. You need enough tools in the tool box to get the job done. Anymore than that and your toolbox is too heavy to carry around or the tools simply fall out and get lost.
I think it is in a Coverdale ppt somewhere where he talks about "how expensive a play is" to install and practice. You can only have so many expensive plays before you break the bank.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jul 16, 2007 10:28:04 GMT -6
Once a old coach told me that one must pick the plays to run based on three points. One, must be simple so that time spent in practice is worth the yards gained during the game. Two, must fit into every formation you run with minimal tweaking. Three, must work against 95% of the fronts you face regardless. So when I see a coach talk about this "NEW" play I always wonder how it is better than some old play that has survived the test of time. Anybody have any criteria when it comes to picking the plays you fit into your playbook?? hey JC- When designing the playbook I want to make sure that I can put every defender in some kind of conflict. i want to make sure that my plays are packaged into two basic series : 1) a direct attack, that is often called "full flow" smacking the defense where it hurts most with as many bodies as we can bring and bring fast. 2) an indirect attack, misdirection or "split flow"- We want to break keys, reads and ankles with misdirection or plays that seem to look alot like the direct attack. The simplest way I can put this is that we have a 10 gapped offense and i expect to hit all of the gaps with a) extreme power or b) some misdirection. if a play attacks a point of attack with power and another attacks the same point of attack with misdirection, do I really need another play to do the same thing? lets look at our trap plays as an example, we can run a trap that appears to be full flow, then we can trap with the same blocking up front with different backfield action to create misdirection and still a different backield action to create split flow. The blocking doesnt change. lets look at the sweeps as another example, I want a power sweep hitting the flank hard with alot of bodies, kicking out the corner...but then i want another sweep that logs the corner. finally i want a sweep with a misdirection attempt (we call that a reverse like most folks)... another way to do that same thing is a bootleg. |
|
|
|
Post by wingt74 on Jul 16, 2007 11:03:27 GMT -6
Some plays are only pulled out a handfull of times a season...some are pulled out maybe once or twice a game.
These are the plays coach's talk about (or SHOULD be talking about) when they say they've come up with a new play.
Lombardi had a quote - A play is only as good as the play it sets up, or the play that set it up....something like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by warrior53 on Jul 16, 2007 11:27:52 GMT -6
Just a question wingt74, are those plays you pull out a handful of times a season - trick plays? or are they part of your regular offense?
|
|
|
|
Post by jhanawa on Jul 16, 2007 11:46:05 GMT -6
Once a old coach told me that one must pick the plays to run based on three points.
One, must be simple so that time spent in practice is worth the yards gained during the game. Two, must fit into every formation you run with minimal tweaking. Three, must work against 95% of the fronts you face regardless
That's a smart old coach....lol
We will not install anything that isn't compatable to all of our motions and all of our formations. This might limit us in someways but really makes our tendencies harder to pinpoint.
To me, new plays are about blocking schemes. If a new play doesn't involve a new blocking scheme then it's no problem to me. If it does involve a new scheme then some other scheme has to come out.
Can't agree more with this.
IMO this also applies to the percentage of time spent on certain areas just as much as a total number of plays. If more focus is put on the pass game & protection or option game, then less total plays is a result....Even though our "book" has a lot in it, when we install for a season it is based on the personnel and is streamlined as much as possible, so we are pretty good at tearing out pages and not installing what we don't need. We want to look as complex as possible while keeping it KISS simple. In this regard, terminology and communication is the most important thing in any system.
|
|
|
|
Post by jjkuenzel on Jul 16, 2007 12:21:15 GMT -6
I did a little exercise at the end of the season to try and figure out if we did indeed have the right amount of plays. Now keep in mind this little exercise was very unscientific.
For every play that we had, I assigned it a point value 1-10. ISV was a 10 since it was most expensive, while Iso was a 4 since it required a lot less practice time for it to be effective. I did this on down the list of plays and came up with a total of 115.
With the total of value of 115 for all of our offensive plays, I then broke it down by the number of practice hours we had. Our total number of practice hours for the length of the entire season was roughly 110.
We play kids both ways and split our practice time into offense and defense. Therefore, every hour of practice time was worth 2 points of offensive plays.
Now I am aware that there are tons of other factors that go into whether a play is worth it, but this did give me some insight into our overall offensive efficiency.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jul 16, 2007 12:30:55 GMT -6
1. Can I run it with an existing blocking scheme?
2. What kind of/how many counters can I run off of it? without installing a new counter scheme
3. Can I run it out of every formation?
4. Does it work with my personnel?
5. What kind of overal package/series do I have with this play?
|
|
|
|
Post by wingt74 on Jul 16, 2007 13:15:04 GMT -6
Just a question wingt74, are those plays you pull out a handful of times a season - trick plays? or are they part of your regular offense? Neither. I run my "regular" offense / core plays 90% of the time. If a game is tight, and I am struggling to move the ball, adjustments don't seem to be working, I'll dig a little deeper in the playbook. Or if a play will exploit a specific defender on defense I run Power-I, Off-Set I, and Ace. A new package that I may or may not run is 5 Wides, unbalanced, or T (For example) I usually only have 1 or 2 "trick" plays most of the time to add a little fun to the offense. I run maybe 2 or 3 all season. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2007 14:21:45 GMT -6
I've spent too much time fishing this summer, but it produces a great analogy.
In A River Runs Through It (the book) Paul only carries about 6-8 flies in his hatband and explains that he only needs them because he fishes them a variety of ways, at different depths, and so on. He says you can have 30 flies and not know how to fish any of them very well but you can use the same fly 5 different ways and have all the success you want.
|
|
|
|
Post by warrior53 on Jul 17, 2007 10:46:27 GMT -6
wingt74 - I ask that question to say this...
if you only bring out a play that is in your regular playbook only a handful of times - are you wasting practice time practicing them?
This is NOT an attack on you. Just a question. I am on the opposite side of the spectrum. I am on the side that says if you are going to run it only a few times - you don't need it.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jul 17, 2007 10:57:56 GMT -6
wingt74 - I ask that question to say this... if you only bring out a play that is in your regular playbook only a handful of times - are you wasting practice time practicing them? This is NOT an attack on you. Just a question. I am on the opposite side of the spectrum. I am on the side that says if you are going to run it only a few times - you don't need it. Not if it has big-play potential. |
|
|
|
Post by warrior53 on Jul 17, 2007 10:59:33 GMT -6
Every play has big play potential if executed properly.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jul 17, 2007 11:09:19 GMT -6
True but not really true. A time or two a year you see a weakness that will lead to a big play. You can take advantage of something that the bad guys do. Plays like that are worth the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by warrior53 on Jul 17, 2007 11:21:06 GMT -6
So you are willing to spend hours of practice time running that play for two big plays a year? Remember we are talking installation, team, skelly/inside, individual technique time and film time - that is a ton of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Jul 17, 2007 11:55:54 GMT -6
So you are willing to spend hours of practice time running that play for two big plays a year? Remember we are talking installation, team, skelly/inside, individual technique time and film time - that is a ton of time. Disagree here......the best trick plays do require execution, BUT not the same execution required to run your bread and butter. I'm not going to spend a couple hours a week working on a Reverse Flea Flicker, but hopefully I don't need to work it that much for it to be effective. |
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Jul 17, 2007 11:57:18 GMT -6
Catching the defense off guard makes up for the lack of percision
In your bread and butter, your percision makes up for the lack of the defense being caught off guard
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jul 17, 2007 12:20:59 GMT -6
Catching the defense off guard makes up for the lack of percision In your bread and butter, your percision makes up for the lack of the defense being caught off guard Exactly. We're not going to spend hours on a trick play. |
|
|
|
Post by warrior53 on Jul 17, 2007 14:14:55 GMT -6
I didn't think we were talking about a trick play - I thought it was part of the offensive system that he only uses a handful of times. Trick plays are a totally different story.
|
|
