|
Post by raider14 on Mar 31, 2007 7:11:22 GMT -6
There seems to be this growing rivalry between "Spread" coaches and "DW" coaches. It's even more obvious on this forum.
I have to first say I might be somewhat biased. There seem to be coaches who fit their players into whatever offensive system they believe in. I'm one of those who adapts the system to the players. It drives me nuts watching great QB's run waggle all day, or big power RBs in the gun running zone read, when he should be in the I running power. I have run spread, but never DW.
Thinking about some of the arguments I've heard at clinics/conventions and have read on these threads, it has stimulated some thought about which system, if either, is the "better"
I have to ask the following questions:
1) Why do we see dozens upon dozens of college teams at all levels running the spread offense and not one running the double wing?
The standard answer I hear is, that nobody can recruit kids to play in the DW at the college level because it won't help them get to the NFL. Which is a fair point. But......
2) Why do you see the option, flexbone, wing-T, and even the fly offense at the various levels of college football, but not the double wing? These offenses don't help players get to the NFL.....
3) Why do we see so many spread teams in Division I-A when zero NFL teams run a pure spread offense in the mold of Utah, Florida, W. Virginia, Northwestern, etc. etc.?
4) Why is their an Air Force, a Navy, a Georgia Southern, a Wofford running flexbone, Delaware running Wing-T until a few years back, but no DW teams?
I can see the DW'ers coming over the mountain with their pitchforks and torches, but I would be interested to read answers to these quesitons.....
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 31, 2007 7:44:06 GMT -6
The NFL playbooks are nearly identical ............free agency and the need to stay balanced (can't do just one thing) being muliple on offense turns everyone into the same monster.
The Top teams in the NCAA has to stay balanced to remain competitive by being multiple (can't do just one thing) and contend with the recruiting (attraction) angle as well.
Wing-T and Double Wing and Bone and Veer require a lot of time and dedication. All that time limits the amount of stuff you can do in other areas, plus most of these schemes are double tight (bunched up) which makes it a little inflexible to use the quick-game out of it.
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on Mar 31, 2007 8:04:40 GMT -6
In my humble opionion- from a one back, Fly sweep guy...
A long time ago, a coach figured out that if you "Spread" the defense out and make them cover the entire field, then you allow your own undersized, slower, whatever team to NOT have to go up against their bigger, faster, stronger defensive studs play after play. The game became more strategic and less "my guys are bigger (tougher) than your guys".
By spreading defense out, the football ability of just one fast, athletic QB, or RB, or WR is magnified to a point where they can have a far greater impact on the game than they could by playing in a DW scheme.
D-I football is about winning now or you don't have a job. Just looking at the numbers game, its easier for a coach to recruit that ONE kid, as opposed to attracting a bunch of blue collar, down and dirty, bigger than the other guy players to run his 3 yards and a cloud of dust offense.
At D-II, III, and NAIA, football is as much about having numbers in the program as it is about winning. Many of these schools are tutition driven and if you don't have your 80, 90, 100+ kids in the program each year, then you (or the assistants!) won't be there long. Whether you're a high school or college coach, you will pitch your program to kids at some level as their opportunity to be a part of a "Strong Tradition, Winning Team, Building Character" or some other catch phrase. But now answer this - which of the following scenarios is an easier sell to a high school kid?
"Son, if you come and play for us you'll have the opportunity to get a great education, play for a great school, team, etc. AND you'll catch 30-40 passes a year ..." OR "Son, if you come and play for us you'll (similar pitch) AND you'll get to block the DE about 40 times a game while we run super power." Most kids today want to be players and from that perspective, the DW is a harder sell.
And I think you can forget the NFL part at the lower levels. D-III kids usually know they're not going to the NFL, but they do want to play and that often translates to wanting to see and touch the ball a few times. Linemen are lineman - as important as blocking is (VERY!) - adding one stud linemen to your roster simply won't have the same impact as adding that one stud QB, RB, or WR to your team
Finally, I know a few DW guys (Hugh Wyatt is one of my mentors - I actually played for the guy!) and they are all great coaches and they do a great job with their kids. I also choose to run a spread scheme because I KNOW it, and with some tweaks from season to season, it FITS our players. I would imagine the DW guys could say the same thing.
Next...
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Mar 31, 2007 8:14:27 GMT -6
I agree with Brophy; the need to stay balanced makes it tough to run more specialized offenses.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 31, 2007 10:49:40 GMT -6
EGO's and boredom. Coaches like to think that their tactical wizardy is what is leading the team to win, and the spread/passing game leads itself to more tactics than phonebooth football. When a passing team plays well, the coaches "outschemed" the other guy. "He is a great coach!" say the boosters
The option game is about teaching the reads and precision, so when an option team is successful, the coach is obviously a master at teaching those things. ""He is a great coach" say the boosters
When a dbl wing team runs power 30 times and wins, it is not appreciated because it just looks like a scrum moving down the field. "Our sons must be tougher and stronger than the other players" say the boosters.
I think FOOTBALL COACHES' interests have gone from wanting to teach blocking/tackling/leverage...to teaching SCHEMES, and then within that scheme teach blocking/tackling/leverage. This is not a bad thing, just reality. It is more fun to learn about 22 moving parts and analyze how they interact than it is to look for better ways to improve the drive block. It is a subtle difference, but the difference could be the underlying answer to many of your questions.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Mar 31, 2007 11:22:01 GMT -6
The main reason that you don't see DW (or Flexbone, Wing-T, or Veer) at high-level D.1 schools is simple- money. It's hard to sell the boosters that an "old-fashioned" system like the Veer is the way to go. Believe it that if the boosters aren't happy, the AD won't be happy. I once asked a top D. 1 DC why people don't run FB trap at that level. His answer was that nobody pays $30 a ticket to watch you run A gap.
|
|
|
Post by PSS on Mar 31, 2007 11:47:58 GMT -6
Brophy's example also allow flexibility in attacking the weakness of a defense. And when your at the D-1 Level you're going to have a premiere back and a usually a decent QB that can get the job done. Phantom also points out the factor of the powerful boosters and their backing with the money. People pay to see points scored, or maybe should I say multiple offense.
However, I have to disagree somewhat with coach5085. I've visited quite a few spring practices of some major programs. Guess what, they are structured pretty much the same as most high school practice: individual, group, and team. They are getting a ton of fundamental work, usually 30 to 40 minutes of fundamentals a day and then their individual coach coaches them "on the run" through out the entire practice. I would die to get 40 minutes of individual a day. Often college coaches have to teach technique and fundamentals to players because they just didn't get the individual coaching in high school.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Mar 31, 2007 12:07:21 GMT -6
There are many reasons one being if a coach brings in an offense like the spread and loses, since nearly all the other temas are running the spread he can blame it on the lack of talent, his players. However if he chooses a scheme that is not what everyone else is running and loses it is because he chose the wrong scheme. BTW I am not a DW coach but have coached it in the past. I dont see DW guys getting nasty here at all. This seems to be a highly spread majority and friendly forum from what I can tell. That's pretty much what I mean. It's also the reason that they won't recruit 6'0" linemen.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 31, 2007 12:08:57 GMT -6
PSS---you misinterpreted. (that is my way of saying I chose poor wording:) ). I wasn't trying to convey that coaches don't teach fundamentals. When I coached Division 1 ball, we used the same format. Everyone does the same basic format. The Indy-skell/inside-team format is pretty universal. And everyone coached on the run. It is how it is done in most 2 platoon high schools too. I feel for you that you don't get indy time.
What I was trying to convey is that coaches are more interested in schemes than they are fundamentals and techniques. Go to the AFCA convention, and you will find a 1,000 drunk men chasing women and drawing up stuff on beer napkins. (Note to young GA's--if your HC is a "player" you can get lots of brownie points by finding the hot spots) You will be hard pressed to find guys discusing how to keep their pad level low, improve hand placement and vision, teach tackling etc. Coaches get more excited about schemes than technique. Coaches spend more time discussing schemes than techniques.
Just look at the thread on suggestions--and you will see the first thing that popped into everyone's head is x's and o's
Thats what I was getting at, and this shift...from coaching going into the profession to teach blocking/tackling to coaches going into the profession to outscheme/outsmart is what is leading to the proliferation of the spread.
Coaches are more interested in scheming a player open, than they are about having a player keep his pad level low and creating a running lane.
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Mar 31, 2007 13:19:40 GMT -6
Good discussion. This is one of those eternal questions between philosophies. I am gotten to the point in my mind where I am done trying to convince or even debate schemes. I know what we do is not the end-all-be-all of offensive football but it is pretty good stuff. We win the majority of our games and have for a long time. I used the same offense at another smaller school, ended a multiple season losing streak (but never got much past that. ) I had to opportunity once to ask a pretty good college coach about why they do what they do. He told me it was mostly b/c that was his and his OC's philosophy, they knew how to teach it, and could recruit kids to play in it. He said if he ever went back to the high school level he would go back to running the wing-t or similar offense b/c of the conflicts it creates and high school kids are often times succeptable to those conflicts. Now as for the wing-t in college...Deleware ran the wing-t and Rich Gannon played there. He had a good NFL career. If you can play, you can play. I don't think any offense is truely better than another. It comes down to what you can coach, what your players can execute, and where your opponents are weak on defense. All that being in said in general, with the athletes I have worked with, being a predominantly running team, using deception and option with efficient timely passing has been the way to go. I don't run the DW. I have long been intrigued by it though.
|
|
|
Post by PSS on Mar 31, 2007 13:25:02 GMT -6
Good point coach5085. The best place other than Spring practice to observe these coaches is at their summer camps. I've had the opportunity to work several camps and have learned quite a bit at a few of them. However, now-a-days they are treated more like recruiting tools. There are some staffs out there that are willing to spend some time with you. Especially the DII schools and staffs that are trying to get themselves established.
I apologize for misinterpreting your post.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 31, 2007 13:45:59 GMT -6
Pss--no need to apolgoize, I worded my reply poorly. All I was trying to convey is that I think that coaches are more interested with schemes these days, and the spread allows for more scheming than down down kick lead.
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Mar 31, 2007 14:41:00 GMT -6
it really doesn't matter does it? i am considered a spread coach but i have learned that I fit a scheme to the kids and the future players. Case in point, this last season I ran the DW but used an Air Raid passing game for our aerial attack. And this is coming frm a former split back veer QB. ANd yes, I have been accussed of being bi-polar (LOL)
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 31, 2007 15:04:13 GMT -6
The double wing is a "small school friendly offense" that is almost never on tv and certainly not run by the NFL teams... its often mistaken for "1950s offense" so therefore it will never be really popular...if a bowl game were to showcase a dw team that was successful, then it would grow in popularity just as the Nevada pistol and now the single wing (florida) and spread sw(west va) has grown...tv is the greatest teacher of the game to many of our coaches. also, lets not forget that Madden 2007 does not include don Markhams double wing either...I think I know a few coaches that get playbooks from the EA sports guys...
Second, the rules for NCAA football are different, you can just CUT THE PILE OF BLOCKERS and make the dwers life difficult...in high school federation play thats not legal so the dw is more effective.
Third, recruiting...great athletes want to play in an offense where "look ma, here I am catching a pass!" instead of "look ma, here I am throwing a block"...what college guys do you know with the stone to run a bunched up "phone booth" "scrum" offense? ...
Fourth, its a highly REGIONAL OFFENSE, the dw is very popular only in parts of the country, in some states NO ONE RUNS IT AT ALL BECAUSE THEY DONT EVEN KNOW WHAT IT IS!!! I mean that, not one HS team in Pa runs it and when you say "double wing" here most of the coaches dont know what it is, they think "air force" or "wing-t red/blue"...they have no clue who Markham is. None. But say "double wing" in California or Oregon where 85% of the offensive records are held by dw teams...yeah, they know what it is...say "double wing" in Mass. and yes, they too know what it is. ON my website I have a tracking system for tracking where the visitors are coming from...Its amazing how many states NEVER have anyone visit...while others have SEVERAL visitors...I think Wyatts videos came out in 1997...Not sure when Markham got around to making his system for sale and Murphs only been at it a few years as well...I started selling dw info in 2003...not all that long ago. Catelogs like "syskos" only recently started carrying double wing info...its a matter of ignorance and education. Keep in mind that THE MAJORITY of coaches do not use the internet....seriously.
I can assure you that I know its a growing offense, its really gaining in popularity.
_
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 31, 2007 16:22:01 GMT -6
what do the 2-minute offenses of the Wing-T & DW look like? and outside of play-action, what does their quick passing game look like? I ask, because you can't always win, and you can't always lose - there are going to be days when the defense just has your number - so what can you do to 'adjust' and have an answer that is different from your base package (multiple)? I'm not saying "I'm right" - but maybe I just get neurotic and worry about when things go wrong too much. It's like Mike Tyson........... A phenomenal brute force with a killer wind-up right hook. Destroyed opponents in the 90's with his power. Then when he faced an opponent (Evander Hollyfield) who studied him and his tendencies, Tyson didn't have a legitimate "Plan B" he only knew ONE WAY to get things done. When you meet your match on the field, whatcha gonna do?
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 31, 2007 16:55:35 GMT -6
actually, wasnt it Buster Douglas who OVER POWERED Mike Tyson?...well before Hollyfield right?...Anyhow, like any other offense, you have to have a plan for things like "two minute drill" and some coaches smartly work on that, others dont. My guess, a greater majority of dw high school guys have a shot gun package for two minute offense or at least a double slot look...(we never had it or needed it at jr high, we just used our double tight look even in two minute situations...and it worked) ...as far as quick passing its not that hard to see 4 verticals, three verticals, use motion to create bunch and trips stuff.... screens are great with the dw. ah, why am I typing all this...chances are in a two minute situation THE DW TEAM IS KILLING THE CLOCK BECAUSE A) THEY HAVE THE LEAD AND B) THEY HAVE THE BALL.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 31, 2007 16:58:00 GMT -6
Pss--no need to apolgoize, I worded my reply poorly. All I was trying to convey is that I think that coaches are more interested with schemes these days, and the spread allows for more scheming than down down kick lead. SEE THAT IS A COMMON MISCONCEPTION. IF YOU THINK THAT THE NATIONAL SCORING RECORD WAS SET WITH "DOWN DOWN KICK LEAD" THEN YOU ARE MISTAKEN. SEE DON MARKHAMS PLAYBOOK SOMETIME AND YOU WILL SEE THAT HED OFTEN USE POST BLOCKS, REACH BLOCKS, SCOOP DOUBLES ETC IN HIS POWERS AND COUNTERS AND TRAPS. HE IS AND WAS A CREATIVE GENIUS WHEN IT COMES TO USING THE PROPER BLOCK TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF PERSONNEL AND ANGLES. ITS NOT THE WING T.
|
|
|
Post by hchscoachtom on Mar 31, 2007 17:51:31 GMT -6
Why don't we see power running offenses in college? I once heard a power running team head coach speaking at a clinic answer this question. He said the fans, alumni, paying $100 or more for a seat don't want to see Fullback trap. They want to see the ball in the air. Might also have something to do with the issue.
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Mar 31, 2007 18:02:38 GMT -6
I probably could look it up faster than I could get a response, but others might want to know as well. What level was the Markham team playing on and against?
I would be interested in seeing the quality of their opponents.
Last year Evangel Christian was placed down in 1A after winning the 5A championship. It was an attempt to level the playing field.
They were going up against teams who barely had 20 kids and whose biggest kids were around 190lbs.
They played mostly freshmen and even some 8th graders in the 4 or so games where they played some of the worst teams in the state.
If they wanted to, they could have blew every offensive stat out of the water. But they didnt.
I am not saying this was the case with the Markham team, but I just wanted to ask to make sure.
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Mar 31, 2007 18:12:43 GMT -6
I guess I just answered my own question. "Last Friday night's display of sportsmanship was out of character for Markham, oft-criticized for showing no mercy to hapless opponents throughout his 36-year coaching career. Under Markham, Bloomington averaged 63 points per game in 1994, setting a national single-season scoring record of 880 points. In a 108-20 thrashing of Jurupa Valley last season, Markham unapologetically reinserted his starters in the fourth quarter, drawing the ire of many Inland coaches. " hsi.pe.com/schools/bloomington/stories/PE_News_Local_D_sportsmanship03hsi.11cbce50.htmlIts really hard for me to take the national scoring mark as being worth a dime when he would intentionally run up the score against much lesser opponents.
|
|
|
Post by PSS on Mar 31, 2007 18:26:16 GMT -6
To get this thread back on topic lets look at what some of the coaches that are regular contributors to this site do offensively.
Multiple wise the spread option package that JH and Tog have put together are one's that I could see being very effective in High School and you see it being successful at several of the larger D-1's now. What do they do that so unique? 1. they are multiple, able to run or pass, 2. The running game can threaten any gap, 3. they continually make the defense adjust to formations and motions, 4. they are going to get the ball in the playmaker's hands a majority of the time, 5. The passing game becomes an effective weapon, not just play action. I know for a fact it is a nightmare to prepare for.
Just an opinion, but I think there are several advantages of being multiple.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 31, 2007 18:34:04 GMT -6
Just an opinion, but I think there are several advantages of being multiple. look at tothehouse who (I am going out on a limb) ARE multiple, just with the Wing-T. the issue isn't DW, Wing-T, etc its BEING MULTIPLE, not niche. THAT is what this discussion(I'm assuming) is about. At higher levels, you just can't roll with four formations and 8 plays. Defense are way too good for that at the higher levels.....and THAT is what it's all about
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Apr 1, 2007 6:22:52 GMT -6
The Olivette power T rolled pretty good using primarily double tight full house t sets at the college level.
Regarding Markham and his level of competition. I believe most of his teams were bigger schools but who knows? I dont know enough about the california leagues that hes in. I do know that level of play is often overrated and air raider types like to think that power offenses dont work at big school level...I just keep thinking of clovis east beating Midland lee...both are big schools right? ah whatever. the point was what? why its not trendy at the division I and pro levels or something? Money, fans and what they want are more important than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Apr 1, 2007 7:34:14 GMT -6
THAT is what this discussion(I'm assuming) is about. At higher levels, you just can't roll with four formations and 8 plays. Defense are way too good for that at the higher levels.....and THAT is what it's all about I think that sums it up pretty good so far. I know its hard enough when we come out in a 100/900 formation (te/wing to the right or left with a split end opposite) and teams put 10 in the box to block it in HS, I assume it would be even harder at the coll/nfl level to block 10 guys in the box. Sure you can throw the ball and get into some other formations but the core of the wing-t allows teams to load up in the box on you. The you have to start getting away from some stuff and pretty soon it prob dosen't look like the wing-t much at all.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 1, 2007 7:58:06 GMT -6
[quote Its really hard for me to take the national scoring mark as being worth a dime when he would intentionally run up the score against much lesser opponents.[/quote]
I have to agree with this one, although I would like to see WHO was scoring (frosh/soph? or was it starters) before I would be able to say he was "running" up the score. I have no problem if his young kids are running the offense and other people aren't tackling them.
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Apr 1, 2007 8:42:10 GMT -6
How many large class high school teams run the DW? How many large class champions run the DW?
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Apr 1, 2007 8:42:18 GMT -6
Good discussion. This is one of those eternal questions between philosophies. I am gotten to the point in my mind where I am done trying to convince or even debate schemes. I know what we do is not the end-all-be-all of offensive football but it is pretty good stuff. We win the majority of our games and have for a long time. I used the same offense at another smaller school, ended a multiple season losing streak (but never got much past that. ) I had to opportunity once to ask a pretty good college coach about why they do what they do. He told me it was mostly b/c that was his and his OC's philosophy, they knew how to teach it, and could recruit kids to play in it. He said if he ever went back to the high school level he would go back to running the wing-t or similar offense b/c of the conflicts it creates and high school kids are often times succeptable to those conflicts. Now as for the wing-t in college...Deleware ran the wing-t and Rich Gannon played there. He had a good NFL career. If you can play, you can play. I don't think any offense is truely better than another. It comes down to what you can coach, what your players can execute, and where your opponents are weak on defense. All that being in said in general, with the athletes I have worked with, being a predominantly running team, using deception and option with efficient timely passing has been the way to go. I don't run the DW. I have long been intrigued by it though. That's how I feel. They're all good and they're all bad, depending on talent and how you coach them.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Apr 1, 2007 9:38:02 GMT -6
How many large class high school teams run the DW? How many large class champions run the DW? what you need to ask is what % of large school dw teams win their championship, then compare it to % of large school teams that run spread and win their championship. first you have to know that there arent many dw teams to begin with (ie 0 in all of Pa) so dont just ask "how many?"...ask 'what percentage are successful?"...much better question. I dont know most of the dw hs coaches, I just dont have time to track those things. I do know that there was Clovis East in the top 25 two years ago and that Whittier Tech was #62 last year..not bad. but is that the point of this thread? to say that the dw sucks because big schools arent running it? keep in mind that its typically chosen due to a lack of athletes.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Apr 1, 2007 9:39:17 GMT -6
I am going to add this too...many many times the big school jobs go to guys with college coaching experience...do you think those with college aspirations are going to run the dw? I dont.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Apr 1, 2007 10:00:02 GMT -6
how did this turn into a double wing thread (again)? I don't believe we are trying to validate "spread" or "wing-t" (again)..... I don't think any offense is truely better than another. It comes down to what you can coach, what your players can execute, and where your opponents are weak on defense. The question really becomes, why don't you see a proliferation (or ANY) of these "niche" offenses in the higher classes of play? It isn't because these offenses "don't work" - there is another reason......
|
|