|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Jan 16, 2006 16:50:00 GMT -6
in my mind, the qb should be a "distributor" of the ball. regardless of the offense, his job is to distribute the ball to the appropriate playmaker in the ultimate goal of moving the ball down the field.
DISTRIBUTE & MOVE THE BALL!!!
the offensive scheme is irrevelant, really, when you boil it all down.
|
|
|
|
Post by airman on Jan 16, 2006 16:59:23 GMT -6
to me your offense will only go as far as your qb will take it. he has to be a leader. you have to give him some control.
teams which go to state, usually have a great leader at qb no matter what offense they run.
|
|
|
|
Post by jhanawa on Jan 16, 2006 17:27:48 GMT -6
You know, I tried to right a response and couldn't fit everything in it that is wrong with the NFL's image, so my short version is that IMO Peyton Manning pouting isn't as big an issue as the individual attention seekers. There are some good guys playing the game for the right reasons, but it seems that they get overshadowed by the antics of Individuals for individual reasons.....
|
|
|
|
Post by los on Jan 16, 2006 17:43:51 GMT -6
"to me your offense will only go as far as your qb will take it." I will certainly agree with you on this buddy! While our HC has given our two QB's the "control" of the gun spread offense he's installed and nurtured them and allowed them to learn how to read and pass the ball, we've averaged 5 turnovers per game for the past two seasons and won 5 out of 21. The games we did win were by good play by the defense or by establishing a good power run game, then allowing the QB to throw a relatively easier playaction type pass, which they could complete at a much higher percentage! I just find it difficult to work the crap out of my linemen and FB's/LB's every day(promising them that hard work will eventually pay off) when this kind of BS is going on with some of the skill guys! Its kinda hard to explain to the guys getting pounded doing their job every play that we lost cause "we" made too many mistakes! See what I'm saying here airman? |
|
|
|
Post by los on Jan 16, 2006 18:00:32 GMT -6
I have a general distain for quarterbacks. period. At a young age, I was kidnapped and abused by a ravaging band of renegade quarterbacks. From that day on, I vowed my life to serve the purpose of harassing and frustrating their evil kind. OK fella's, I'll admit it! I'll take it step further than Brophy, as an ex-member of football's (do the dirty work crew) and now line coach, we actually can't stand any of the skill guys, well except maybe fullbacks! They will block sometimes! Ha!!! |
|
|
|
Post by tog on Jan 16, 2006 18:07:30 GMT -6
knew this might spark some converstation  |
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 16, 2006 18:51:21 GMT -6
I love that picture of Eli whenever I see it.
Peyton's a stand up guy from everything I understand, certainly I don't think any of us would doubt his desire to win football games. I don't know if it is entirely team oriented in the sense that he is going to try to push himself super hard and he expects everyone else to see that and follow along, compared to say a Brady type who from what I understand, like those commercials, really does bring half the Patriots with him wherever he goes.
Peyton wants over the hump desperately. Probably, if I was both God and his coach I'd morph him into more of a "Joe Cool" kind of reserved guy, but that's not his personality. He's definitely a winner. There's not many other QBs I can imagine with the kind of pressure he was under be that successful.
I won't get into the airman importance-of-QBs convo, but certainly in the Pros most teams must have good quarterbacking, but it is tough to overrely on any position. This is one critique I have of certain (though not all) I-offenses and is one of the tough things about the spread-option stuff, is it is VERY dependant on one guy. Either your I-back or your QB, etc. I definitely believe in feeding the playmakers but the ball must be distributed as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by los on Jan 16, 2006 19:09:12 GMT -6
"qb is like any other position, they are developed. if you do not want to develop qbs, the run some thing like the double win. I understand a lot of coaches do not want to take the time nor do they want to keep their ego incheck. when you throw the ball, you have lost total control of the game. you are not incharge. sure you can tell them what pass to throw, but they have to throw it. see I think you have already lost when you tell a qb to just do not lose the game for you. if you want to use this line of thinking, they you better take the ball out of his hands and give it to other guys on the team. the problem with this line of thought is, you are always playing 10 on 11 football." No, we'll make him carry out his fakes after he hands off and someone on the defense will chase or tackle him! This is just my own experience now airman so don't read too much into it but let me think back a little? In 11 seasons with my QB's, being a ball distributors(to use hueys words) mostly just handing off/pitching, carrying out fakes, running about as much as the FB, blocking a little on certain plays and throwing about 5-7 times a game(all playaction passes only) , in conjunction with solid defense and special teams(nothing very fancy) we had a winning percentage of approximately 75-80%. With the new team I help(high school not the Pro's) and the QB's having a good bit of control(which seems to translate into more turnovers and worse field position for our defense) our winning percentage is,including our first jv season, (6 Wins and 22 Losses) 20-25% at best? If you're a mathematician or just a coach trying to keep his job, which philosophy might sound better to you? |
|
|
|
Post by airman on Jan 16, 2006 21:22:12 GMT -6
"qb is like any other position, they are developed. if you do not want to develop qbs, the run some thing like the double win. I understand a lot of coaches do not want to take the time nor do they want to keep their ego incheck. when you throw the ball, you have lost total control of the game. you are not incharge. sure you can tell them what pass to throw, but they have to throw it. see I think you have already lost when you tell a qb to just do not lose the game for you. if you want to use this line of thinking, they you better take the ball out of his hands and give it to other guys on the team. the problem with this line of thought is, you are always playing 10 on 11 football." No, we'll make him carry out his fakes after he hands off and someone on the defense will chase or tackle him! This is just my own experience now airman so don't read too much into it but let me think back a little? In 11 seasons with my QB's, being a ball distributors(to use hueys words) mostly just handing off/pitching, carrying out fakes, running about as much as the FB, blocking a little on certain plays and throwing about 5-7 times a game(all playaction passes only) , in conjunction with solid defense and special teams(nothing very fancy) we had a winning percentage of approximately 75-80%. With the new team I help(high school not the Pro's) and the QB's having a good bit of control(which seems to translate into more turnovers and worse field position for our defense) our winning percentage is,including our first jv season, (6 Wins and 22 Losses) 20-25% at best? If you're a mathematician or just a coach trying to keep his job, which philosophy might sound better to you? clearly the teaching aspect of the game is not happening. the coach needs to put the qb in position to be successful. I feel the biggest mistake coaches do is think h.s. teams can be like college teams and be both a passing and running team. just like the double wing fouces in a few run plays and even fewer pass plays. the passing team should do the same. IMO you need 2 screens(middle and hitch) and 6 dropback pass plays and 1 quick pass play. big problems is passing teams have way too many plays. pare them down to the basic few and you will be fine. just my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Jan 16, 2006 21:33:31 GMT -6
I think that the Colts' debacle yesterday showed that they DO need an OC calling plays...
Manning is a great talent, no doubt. However, he made some highly questionable decisions in the last six minutes of the game. If Manning could have just concentrated on performing rather than coaching, the outcome probably would have been different...
|
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Jan 16, 2006 21:38:10 GMT -6
Manning--I think he is a great competitor who wants to win. I think if you had as many camaras on Johnny Unitas or Fran Tarkenton in thier day you would see the grimmaces and faces of disgust. My point is they show it too much.
That pic of Eli Manning is great.
|
|
|
|
Post by airman on Jan 16, 2006 21:49:35 GMT -6
I think that the Colts' debacle yesterday showed that they DO need an OC calling plays... Manning is a great talent, no doubt. However, he made some highly questionable decisions in the last six minutes of the game. If Manning could have just concentrated on performing rather than coaching, the outcome probably would have been different... the colts send in two plays a run and a pass. he picks one of the two. not rocket science. |
|
|
|
Post by mitch on Jan 16, 2006 22:34:24 GMT -6
Did anyone else notice that airman said he had too much respect for himself to run the Double Wing? I don't run the double wing, but what was that all about?
|
|
|
|
Post by mander on Jan 16, 2006 22:53:22 GMT -6
While everyone blasts Manning, what happened to E. James? The colts had 58 yards of rushing (and James averaged over 4 a carry). When the Steelers have more offensive balance than you, you are in trouble.
FYI: Belichik is a "D first" head coach, and he usually plays the odds. Does that mean he doesn't "Play to win?"
|
|
|
|
Post by airman on Jan 16, 2006 22:57:25 GMT -6
Did anyone else notice that airman said he had too much respect for himself to run the Double Wing? I don't run the double wing, but what was that all about? well, if you have talent, why would you run the double wing? if you have developed good wr, year in and out, why would you run the double wing. every double wing coach I know has a woe is me tail of how they do not have great athletes and that is why they run the double wing. so one must think then, the double win is for talentless teams. it affords them a chance to compete with other teams which have better talent. i could become a DW coach. It would certainly be easier then to throw the ball. lineup, run the 4 plays and be done. still I feel bad for rec on these teams. you tell them they are really not needed. lets be honest, the dw is a rb offense and that is it. two wingbacks are going to get the lionshare of the carries. the te's block and every once in awhile get a bone tossed there way. if the drop the bone, just once, good luck getting another one tossed their way. I guess I want all kids to feel they are apart of the offense and give them a chance to handle the ball. |
|
|
|
Post by airman on Jan 16, 2006 23:02:42 GMT -6
While everyone blasts Manning, what happened to E. James? The colts had 58 yards of rushing (and James averaged over 4 a carry). When the Steelers have more offensive balance than you, you are in trouble. FYI: Belichik is a "D first" head coach, and he usually plays the odds. Does that mean he doesn't "Play to win?" no, he plays not to lose. that is what d coaches do. they try to eliminate all bad things which can go wrong. they are the coaches who say, only 3 things can happen when you throw the ball and 2 are bad. personally I think 4 things can happen and two are good. penalty or a catch, a int is bad, incomplete pass means we get to lineup and try again. at least we did nto lose yardage. I do agree, had the colts been able to run the ball, things would have been different. I find it interesting, when a run team gets shut down, the talking head in the media, the dcs who use the run game, never say, well we go shutdown. but when a passing team gets shut down, oh my gosh, the world has now ended. it is sort of like my theory, it is okay to run up the score as long as you are running the ball, but if you have the lead and you throw just one pass, well you are a bad coach and you are running up the score. |
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Jan 16, 2006 23:04:46 GMT -6
no, he plays not to lose. that is what d coaches do. they try to eliminate all bad things which can go wrong. they are the coaches who say, only 3 things can happen when you throw the ball and 2 are bad. personally I think 4 things can happen and two are good. penalty or a catch, a int is bad, incomplete pass means we get to lineup and try again. at least we did nto lose yardage. I do agree, had the colts been able to run the ball, things would have been different. I find it interesting, when a run team gets shut down, the talking head in the media, the dcs who use the run game, never say, well we go shutdown. but when a passing team gets shut down, oh my gosh, the world has now ended. it is sort of like my theory, it is okay to run up the score as long as you are running the ball, but if you have the lead and you throw just one pass, well you are a bad coach and you are running up the score. while not advocating 100%. airman does bring up some very good points. |
|
|
|
Post by mitch on Jan 16, 2006 23:05:52 GMT -6
I'm not debating the merits of the double wing, airraid, or whatever else. You might be 101% correct. I just thought it was a little offensive, especially for a moderator.
|
|
|
|
Post by airman on Jan 16, 2006 23:50:25 GMT -6
to add to my double standard points. don markham put up 108 points against a team this year. double wingers hail his as their god.
it i put up 54 points on ateam throwing the ball, I am a bad guy.
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Jan 17, 2006 6:28:21 GMT -6
moderators have opinions too mitch
airman is just bringing up things to discuss
look at his name on here, look at where he hangs out and what he likes talking about
it's obvious he is a strong proponent of the passing game
|
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Jan 17, 2006 6:52:17 GMT -6
I agree to a point. If for example you run the option as your bread and butter and you break a long option run for a TD against the other team with the game wrapped up most people generally say it is okay b/c they ran the ball. If you are a passing team and your WR converts a hitch to a fade and you hit it for a TD people get upset b/c now you are "running up the score.". I know what you mean airman. But here is where I think there is a big difference. If I am up 35-00 and I am throwing the ball the clock stops on an incompletion. If I am running the ball the clock keeps running and the game ends sooner.
Is there a double standard here? Yes. BEcause in essense you are simply doing what you team does. If you are passing team and your #2's are in the game they need to work on throwing the ball. If you're an option team the kid needs to work on his reads. If you are a power team...etc. So there is a double standard here. Bottom line too is you cannot tell your guys "hey go out there but don't score."
|
|
|
|
Post by coltscoach on Jan 17, 2006 7:00:56 GMT -6
I agree with everything that everyone said. I love the doublewing and the ablity to run the spread out of it. I love the fact that the Manning brothers are great quarterbacks and the fact that they and their daddy have never won the big games. I love the defensive minded coaches and their ablity to take chances on offense. From a former quarterback... no wait was I a QB or a LB I cant rember too many hits to the head. Sincerly Troy Aikman ....Winner of 3 superbowls, left OU becuase coach Switzer wanted me to run the double wing.  |
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Jan 17, 2006 7:08:07 GMT -6
While everyone blasts Manning, what happened to E. James? The colts had 58 yards of rushing (and James averaged over 4 a carry). When the Steelers have more offensive balance than you, you are in trouble. FYI: Belichik is a "D first" head coach, and he usually plays the odds. Does that mean he doesn't "Play to win?" no, he plays not to lose. that is what d coaches do. they try to eliminate all bad things which can go wrong. they are the coaches who say, only 3 things can happen when you throw the ball and 2 are bad. personally I think 4 things can happen and two are good. penalty or a catch, a int is bad, incomplete pass means we get to lineup and try again. at least we did nto lose yardage. I do agree, had the colts been able to run the ball, things would have been different. I find it interesting, when a run team gets shut down, the talking head in the media, the dcs who use the run game, never say, well we go shutdown. but when a passing team gets shut down, oh my gosh, the world has now ended. it is sort of like my theory, it is okay to run up the score as long as you are running the ball, but if you have the lead and you throw just one pass, well you are a bad coach and you are running up the score. Hopefully I used the quote feature right... Curious...what are the thoughts here from defensive minded coaches? Are we close to the vest or is this just a stereotype...like ex-QBs who just want to throw it all over? IMO-it really depends on personnel. If you do not have a QB who can win games throwing or in general you offense is not that good you play safe, field position football. If you are explosive on O you can take chances. |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jan 17, 2006 7:19:59 GMT -6
If I remember correctly,
A few years ago....their kicker Vanderjagt got in trouble for publicly criticising Manning for not showing (any) or 'enough' emotion...to which Manning responded during the Pro Bowl - referencing Vanderjagt as, "that idiot kicker....all liquored up...".
There will always be things to criticise.
I have been a quarterback coach -love good quarterbacks and a thinking-man's offense- but being brought up on defense, I have a general disdain for the 'pretty boy / golden boy' aura of high-profile QBs. On defense, if you can cut off their leader (generally QB) you've got a good shot of winning. I have also coached wing-t, doublewing, and one back offenses - football principles are football principles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2006 7:59:57 GMT -6
Two David Letterman lines I thought were hilarious. My apologies in advance as they aren't near as funny as hearing him deliver them, but you'll get the gist.
1. "Thanks to the Indianapolis Colts, I am no longer the most dissappointing thing to come out of Indiana!"
2. "I am a glass half full, positive thinker. The way I see it, now Eli and Peyton can watch the Super Bowl together!"
|
|
|
|
Post by airman on Jan 17, 2006 11:06:37 GMT -6
for those who want to understand my thinking, I suggest you read the ny times magazine article on mike leach..
I would run the ball but it would have to fit my following beliefs.
1. the offense would have to spread the defense out. make them defend sideline to sidline and endzone to end zone.
2. the offense would to be be able to be run from wide oline splits.
3. it would have to be able to get 14 to 20 explosives( plays 12yds or more)
4. it would have to be able to be run from no huddle
5. it would have to be able to be a fast strike offense.
I sort of actually respect the dw in away. its theory is, we will perfect a few plays and we will keep running them right at you, over and over and over.
If ran the double wing, it would be hurryup tempo. basically I believe you need to tire a opponent out. i could see this happening from the double wing.
my only concern with any run offense is, if you get down, your offense works against you and for the other team.
the university I went to ran the wishbone. as long as they were ahead on the score board, the game was fine. behind, the knew they had to pickup the pace
and have the defense basically win the game by shutting down the opponent.
I qoute"the texas tech offense is not just a offense, it is mood:optimism. it is designed to maximize the possiblity of something good happening rather then to minimize the possibility of something bad happening. "
|
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 17, 2006 11:22:47 GMT -6
no, he plays not to lose. that is what d coaches do. they try to eliminate all bad things which can go wrong. I disagree with the characterization of Belichek. The Pats lead the league in passing yards this year (at least Brady was the highest individual). He also goes for a fair number of 4th downs, etc. He is probably one of the most OPEN minded coaches when it comes to looking hard at the statistics and the realities of football. In many ways it is passing coaches and coaches like Mike Leach (who I respect very, very much) who are the more stubborn coaches because they are too caught up in having an "identity" that they forget to win football games. Now, many times having an identity, particularly at the HS level (DW, Airraid, etc) leads to winning games, but it can just as often get in the way of doing what is needed to win and help your kids be successful (which includes not asking your QB do too much or even if he can do them, to not take so many hits). |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jan 17, 2006 11:29:45 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by airman on Jan 17, 2006 11:46:43 GMT -6
that looks more like the del. wing t then the double wing offense I know. the dw offense i know is shoe to shoe splits and pull the bs g and t. |
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Jan 17, 2006 12:58:17 GMT -6
This gets back to a whole different discussion which is do you fit your players into your ID as a coach. The mentality that "we are a wishbone triple option team"....or the philosophy that "okay this kid can run and this kid can throw...let's build around that."
Both can be and are very successful philosophies. Which leads to this question: In a small school (less than 400 kids) which philosophy is more prudent. The one that says "let's see what we have this year and go from there..." or the one that plugs kids in spots b/c "that is the offense we run".
Advantage to the former: Take advantage of your players talents
Advantage to the latter: Kids know what to expect from year to year.
Some coaches feel you cannot be a physical run team from the spread. Others spread it out so they can be physical...just fewer bodies to have to be physical with.
Part of the DW philosophy is to play football in a phone booth. Pack it in and get max blocking at the POA. Running from the spread is the opposite. Remove defenders and play physical. At least that would be the philosophy of spread teams that employ alot of zone read, counter read etc.
|
|
