|
Post by groundchuck on Apr 1, 2007 10:05:28 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 I have used this analogy before, but your offense is like a tool box. You need to have enough tools to get the job done but if you start carrying around every tool you might possibly need then you have too big a tool box to carry. Successful "simple" offenses (and defenses for that matter) have enough ways to attack the defense without sacraficing simplicity. Whether that offensive scheme is ground based or air based it does not matter. What matters is how well the coaches know how to pull the trigger and how well the players execute the calls.
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Apr 1, 2007 12:15:08 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. My post had nothing to do with the level of play he was playing at in regards to why he was running the DoubleWing. I was asking what level of teams he was playing. Like here, you could be a 5a team with a 2000 student enrollment and only have 4 teams in your district, thus only playing 3 district games. You may end up getting the other 7 games against 1-4A. So if this 5A team broke the state record against 7 one and two A teams, and the 3 who are in their district, it wouldnt mean as much to me as a team who had a 7 district game schedule and played 5A teams for the other games as well. Also, going back to what I found out about him putting his starters back in during the 4th quarter, that is just gutless. I know 20 teams off the top of my head who could have done the same thing. John Curtis, the team who beat Hoover on national tv.. they were moved down to 2A after many many many years of dominating 4A. They stopped allowing teams to play up to make them less attractive to possible move ins.. Well JC could have scored 60+ a game each of the last two years if they wanted to leave their starters in all game. They averaged 44 points per game enroute to a 14-0 season. Here are some results and the record of the team they beat. 40-0 vs 12-3 50-6 vs 8-4 47-6 vs 11-2 59-12 vs 11-3 41-07 vs 12-3 All of these games were over at or before halftime. So you can easily see they could have left the starters in all game and scored 100 or beyond in all of them. This does not even include the subpar teams they played. And Im not here posting them to glorify the spread offense, because John Curtis as we all know is a split back veer team. I am just saying that the only reason the Markham record still stands is that some coaches have morals and would not play their starters in the 4th quarter when you have over 100 on the board. And I do not care what you run.. I am sure there are several doublewing teams who could have beaten the Markham record if they wanted to.. But there is no solid backing in calling the Doublewing the best ever because it is the offense that was used to set the national scoring record.
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Apr 1, 2007 12:16:42 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. 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. [/quote] In that article it says that he re-inserted the starters in the 4th quarter, so that tells me all I need to know about this class of this coach.
|
|
|
Post by PSS on Apr 1, 2007 12:30:44 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. Actually you pointed it out in the thread before, teams usually run the DW because they lack athletes or they are familiar with the offense and don't want to change. As far as your last post, the quote above, that's not true in Texas. Most HC that get hired either have a proven record or they have ties to someone. Very few have coached or even go on to coach at the college level. For one thing the money is better at the HS level. But I will restate what I have posted on this thread before. Teams that are balanced will have more success against defenses that have better athletes. It just gives you more tools to attack a defense.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Apr 1, 2007 13:38:49 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. My post had nothing to do with the level of play he was playing at in regards to why he was running the DoubleWing. I was asking what level of teams he was playing. Like here, you could be a 5a team with a 2000 student enrollment and only have 4 teams in your district, thus only playing 3 district games. You may end up getting the other 7 games against 1-4A. So if this 5A team broke the state record against 7 one and two A teams, and the 3 who are in their district, it wouldnt mean as much to me as a team who had a 7 district game schedule and played 5A teams for the other games as well. Also, going back to what I found out about him putting his starters back in during the 4th quarter, that is just gutless. I know 20 teams off the top of my head who could have done the same thing. John Curtis, the team who beat Hoover on national tv.. they were moved down to 2A after many many many years of dominating 4A. They stopped allowing teams to play up to make them less attractive to possible move ins.. Well JC could have scored 60+ a game each of the last two years if they wanted to leave their starters in all game. They averaged 44 points per game enroute to a 14-0 season. Here are some results and the record of the team they beat. 40-0 vs 12-3 50-6 vs 8-4 47-6 vs 11-2 59-12 vs 11-3 41-07 vs 12-3 All of these games were over at or before halftime. So you can easily see they could have left the starters in all game and scored 100 or beyond in all of them. This does not even include the subpar teams they played. And Im not here posting them to glorify the spread offense, because John Curtis as we all know is a split back veer team. I am just saying that the only reason the Markham record still stands is that some coaches have morals and would not play their starters in the 4th quarter when you have over 100 on the board. And I do not care what you run.. I am sure there are several doublewing teams who could have beaten the Markham record if they wanted to.. But there is no solid backing in calling the Doublewing the best ever because it is the offense that was used to set the national scoring record. well maybe, heres the deal, I have that game where markhams boys scored over 100 two years ago (that was not he year bloomington set the record btw and the year they did he had about 20 kids on the team) , he certainly didnt try to run it up at all and to say that the starters were back in the game is a bold face lie. I think 9 different kids scored tds, several on kick returns, blocked punts, ints, fumble returns..the other team was horrendous, a spread team that also tried to run wing-t and option...they couldnt tackle and seemed to give up. its simply not true that he inserted his starters to run the score up. glad you have the time to look all of this up, i dont, but ill tell ya some of the competition markhams teams face..hes at bloomington now, 5 cif championships, so he had to beat some pretty good teams along the way, this year he lost to colton, lost to dominquez, both are big schools as far as I can tell. im pretty sure they faced those teams back in 94 - someone correct me if im wrong but i think bloomington has split is district since then. anyhow, you go ahead and hate on markham, hate on the dw and hate on the running game. life is good for the dwers and we will always love what we do even if you dont. you really should try it before you bash it though.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Apr 1, 2007 13:41:18 GMT -6
just a question, folks
WHY DOES EVERY THREAD GET HIJACKED ABOUT THE DW?
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Apr 1, 2007 13:43:07 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. Actually you pointed it out in the thread before, teams usually run the DW because they lack athletes or they are familiar with the offense and don't want to change. As far as your last post, the quote above, that's not true in Texas. Most HC that get hired either have a proven record or they have ties to someone. Very few have coached or even go on to coach at the college level. For one thing the money is better at the HS level. But I will restate what I have posted on this thread before. Teams that are balanced will have more success against defenses that have better athletes. It just gives you more tools to attack a defense. define "balanced"- if you mean pass and run the ball equally for both yards and attempts Ill argue that you cannot back that statement up at all. there are many championship teams throughout history that have a heavy run emphasis. "balance" should be defined as the ability to take what you want and take what the defense gives you. for some of you, you see "8 in the box" and think "we HAVE to pass"- we dont, we can block it so we dont have to. running left is balance to us. 4 different ball carriers is balance to us, play action and series football is part of balance for us. we certainly dont buy into the idea that we must mix up the run and pass equally to be successful. no way.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Apr 1, 2007 13:43:59 GMT -6
just a question, folks WHY DOES EVERY THREAD GET HIJACKED ABOUT THE DW? broph- the whole point of this thread was to discuss dw ..."stir the pot"...seems obvious to me. Here is the orginal post...how many times do you see "double wing?" "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..... " Its all good.
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Apr 1, 2007 13:49:30 GMT -6
My post had nothing to do with the level of play he was playing at in regards to why he was running the DoubleWing. I was asking what level of teams he was playing. Like here, you could be a 5a team with a 2000 student enrollment and only have 4 teams in your district, thus only playing 3 district games. You may end up getting the other 7 games against 1-4A. So if this 5A team broke the state record against 7 one and two A teams, and the 3 who are in their district, it wouldnt mean as much to me as a team who had a 7 district game schedule and played 5A teams for the other games as well. Also, going back to what I found out about him putting his starters back in during the 4th quarter, that is just gutless. I know 20 teams off the top of my head who could have done the same thing. John Curtis, the team who beat Hoover on national tv.. they were moved down to 2A after many many many years of dominating 4A. They stopped allowing teams to play up to make them less attractive to possible move ins.. Well JC could have scored 60+ a game each of the last two years if they wanted to leave their starters in all game. They averaged 44 points per game enroute to a 14-0 season. Here are some results and the record of the team they beat. 40-0 vs 12-3 50-6 vs 8-4 47-6 vs 11-2 59-12 vs 11-3 41-07 vs 12-3 All of these games were over at or before halftime. So you can easily see they could have left the starters in all game and scored 100 or beyond in all of them. This does not even include the subpar teams they played. And Im not here posting them to glorify the spread offense, because John Curtis as we all know is a split back veer team. I am just saying that the only reason the Markham record still stands is that some coaches have morals and would not play their starters in the 4th quarter when you have over 100 on the board. And I do not care what you run.. I am sure there are several doublewing teams who could have beaten the Markham record if they wanted to.. But there is no solid backing in calling the Doublewing the best ever because it is the offense that was used to set the national scoring record. well maybe, heres the deal, I have that game where markhams boys scored over 100 two years ago (that was not he year bloomington set the record btw and the year they did he had about 20 kids on the team) , he certainly didnt try to run it up at all and to say that the starters were back in the game is a bold face lie. I think 9 different kids scored tds, several on kick returns, blocked punts, ints, fumble returns..the other team was horrendous, a spread team that also tried to run wing-t and option...they couldnt tackle and seemed to give up. its simply not true that he inserted his starters to run the score up. glad you have the time to look all of this up, i dont, but ill tell ya some of the competition markhams teams face..hes at bloomington now, 5 cif championships, so he had to beat some pretty good teams along the way, this year he lost to colton, lost to dominquez, both are big schools as far as I can tell. im pretty sure they faced those teams back in 94 - someone correct me if im wrong but i think bloomington has split is district since then. anyhow, you go ahead and hate on markham, hate on the dw and hate on the running game. life is good for the dwers and we will always love what we do even if you dont. you really should try it before you bash it though. Please point out where I hated on the Doublewing. I was simply making a point that holding the scoring record does not always hold water. And, that if a coach is going to do what he can to score 100, then I have no respect for him. I am not saying that he put the seniors back in, I was not there.. But based on what that article said, he did. I cannot confirm nor deny this.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Apr 1, 2007 13:51:49 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Apr 1, 2007 13:53:20 GMT -6
just a question, folks WHY DOES EVERY THREAD GET HIJACKED ABOUT THE DW? broph- the whole point of this thread was to discuss dw ..."stir the pot"...seems obvious to me. Here is the orginal post...how many times do you see "double wing?" "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..... " Its all good. The original post also mentioned Wing-T, bone / flex-bone offenses as well. There is a big picture here, I was kind of hoping we could maybe review trends with the author, and not turn into a crusade for Markham (and folks wonder where the Chuck Norris / Kool Aid comments originate from.....). God Bless the DW - but for the sake of THIS discussion, it was no different than Wing-T, Single-Wing, Flexbone, Wishbone, Split-Back Veer, etc.......
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Apr 1, 2007 13:56:32 GMT -6
Heres a typical conversation with a dw lover and a dw hater
dw guy- "we scored blah blah blah points and won blah blah games"
dw hater " you had talent, you could have run anything"
dw guy- "well, in such and such a year we had 8 sophs starting and scored blah blah, and won blah blah"
dw hater- yeah well, it wouldnt work in big schools, no one runs it the pros, how come no division I school runs it?
dw guy- fans want to see the ball in the air, not off tackle and wedge and counter
dw hater- it wont work at big schools, it only works against inferior competition- real coaches dont coach the dw, only guys who dont know football...heck its a pop warner offense
dw guy- yeah well clovis east was ranked 23rd in the country with it and beat big schools like clovis west, midland lee...
dw hater- they had talent, they could have run anything and been successful...
* come now, we have all seen this conversation umpteen times on the net now havent we? It really does get to be kind of funny.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 1, 2007 14:01:47 GMT -6
brophy...gotta disagree with you here.
The HEART of the original post was as follows.
1. No colleges run the dbl wing. A quick knee jerk reaction to say thats because it is not developing kids for the nfl but:
2. You see flexbone-option-and wing T at various levels in college. These 3 don't develop players for the NFL either..therefore why no dbl wing.
3-- There are plenty of BCS schools running spread stuff, yet nobody runs zone read in the Nfl.
So the original post is indeed asking...if we see all of these other styles in college..why not the dbl wing.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Apr 1, 2007 14:05:34 GMT -6
Nichol State in louisiana (DI subdivision) runs the double wing. Now what? this is turning into lose-lose for everyone, because EGOs are married to VIEWPOINTS
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Apr 1, 2007 14:06:19 GMT -6
I do know of two nfl backs that were dwers...eric bienemy and deshawn foster. Anyone know of any others? I also know that Olivette went looking for dwer type tough kids for the olivette T a few years ago...the dw is not marketed by college guys, therefore there are alot of hs guys and college guys who dont know of it. period.
funny that markham was a youth coach when he developed alot of his ideas (which he learned from guys like red sanders) and hes got 300 plus wins with it...he tried to disappear and keep it quiet but some others have done a pretty good job marketing it for a couple of years now. only recently has "coaches choice" put dw materials in their ads/catalogs. Its growing/spreading...cultish for now.
i saw a clinic speaker who advertised "defending the double wing"...he didnt defend the dw that i know for sure. he brushed over it quickly and moved on to something else...oh yeah, he summed it up as "down down and kick" too. IT WAS OBVIOUS that he didnt know anything about it as he talked about stopping the fb primarily (ala a wing-t)
|
|
|
Post by PSS on Apr 1, 2007 14:08:10 GMT -6
just a question, folks WHY DOES EVERY THREAD GET HIJACKED ABOUT THE DW? broph- the whole point of this thread was to discuss dw ..."stir the pot"...seems obvious to me. Here is the orginal post...how many times do you see "double wing?" "There seems to be this growing rivalry between "Spread" coaches and "DW" coaches. It's even more obvious on this forum. 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..... " Its all good. I'll answer #2 and #4 together. Being a HS coach for 15 years now and involved in the recruiting process I have somewhat of an insight on these questions. You look at the academic standards of the schools that run these offenses. The majority of them have such high academic standards that they can't go out their and get the athletes that Florida, USC, LSU, Texas, Utah, Oklahoma, or any other top tier D-1 team can get. To answer #3. It takes Athletes to run those offenses and NFL teams will draft those players and fit them into their schemes.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 1, 2007 14:08:53 GMT -6
Brophy. They do not run the double wing. I coached at NSU. They run flexbone airforce option stuff.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Apr 1, 2007 14:09:10 GMT -6
Nichol State in louisiana (DI subdivision) runs the double wing. Now what? this is turning into lose-lose for everyone, because EGOs are married to VIEWPOINTS broph, i think the rest of us are actually enjoying this...arent you?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Apr 1, 2007 14:10:11 GMT -6
How come no DI programs run doubletight punt packages?
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Apr 1, 2007 14:11:34 GMT -6
good question, some of our big schools here have and done really well with it. Might have something to do with the rules? not sure.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Apr 1, 2007 14:14:48 GMT -6
Heres a question for you...
1) how many assume that a guy who coaches college ball is a better coach than a guy who coaches high school ball? same with pros vs college and pro vs high school...
2) how many of us have seen guys move up or down and flop!?...
I do not base my choices on what the pros do, what colleges that recruit and give scholarships do, I do not base my choices on what huge schools with huge staffs do...I base my choices on what i think works best for me, my staff, my kids and our program. Its comparing apples to oranges when we compare what the college teams do vs what the local hs teams can do. I see it every fri night...teams that cant get the daggone center/qb exchange to work but they try to run the west coast offense. They try to run pro defenses but their safeties are too slow to help out anywhere, etc etc etc..."college game day" IS NOT a good teacher of the game for a high school coach in my opinion. Want to learn the hs game? watch the hs games.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Apr 1, 2007 14:14:49 GMT -6
what else can a team run with foot-to-foot splits?
Nothing wrong with the double wing at all, IMO. But if you are double wing, you really don't dabble in other stuff, I mean you are either ALL IN or you aren't, right?
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Apr 1, 2007 14:15:56 GMT -6
Im out, see ya tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Apr 1, 2007 14:17:58 GMT -6
Heres a question for you... 1) how many assume that a guy who coaches college ball is a better coach than a guy who coaches high school ball? same with pros vs college and pro vs high school... 2) how many of us have seen guys move up or down and flop!?... I do not base my choices on what the pros do, what colleges that recruit and give scholarships do, I do not base my choices on what huge schools with huge staffs do...I base my choices on what i think works best for me, my staff, my kids and our program. Its comparing apples to oranges when we compare what the college teams do vs what the local hs teams can do. I see it every fri night...teams that cant get the daggone center/qb exchange to work but they try to run the west coast offense. They try to run pro defenses but their safeties are too slow to help out anywhere, etc etc etc..."college game day" IS NOT a good teacher of the game for a high school coach in my opinion. Want to learn the hs game? watch the hs games. I assume that the higher level you coach, the higher level of competition you face. The greater the competition, the more you have to scheme. When I go to clinics, I generally prefer the HS coaches, however (because I can't recruit or get free agents). I don't assume a guy's record is indicitive of his ability to coach, either. It is generally assumed that the higher level of competition, the greater value on the coach. While a coach may be a great teacher of football, having "high school" or "College" or "Pro" experience usually is a strength for knowing HOW THINGS RUN/OPERATE. There are a lot more dynamics of coaching a particular level, than just teaching a kid how to drive block. Mentoring athletes with age-specific problems (boosters, agents, eligibility, training, etc) as well as the community/administrative massaging (recruiting, dealing with parents, budget review, etc) that you won't find on the "lower levels". This kind of exposure/experience would be what qualifies a coach for a higher-level position, rather than trusting the guy will get on-the-job-training.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 1, 2007 14:20:17 GMT -6
I do not base my choices on what the pros do, what colleges that recruit and give scholarships do, I do not base my choices on what huge schools with huge staffs do...I base my choices on what i think works best for me, my staff, my kids and our program. Just playing devils advocate...DO YOU REALLY? You have already made it quite clear that if given the power, you would run dbl wing. Therefore, you are conveying that you would run dbl wing regardless of your asst coaches/players/ and program. As far as defining a "good" coach, well that depends on your definition of "good". I would say that having coached middle school/high school/ Div 1 Scholarship ball, and Div 1AA need based ball, that the higher you go, the more intricacies (spelling?) you deal with. Mismatches become less pronounced, but more important. Things such as techniques change base on coverage/schemes and reactions. Nuances such as Hash coverages start to become more imporant. YOu need many more tools in your toolbox at the higher levels to be consistently successful. But does all that make you better than a guy who can take 5 13 year old turds and teach them to drive block? Not necessarily. Just different.
|
|
|
Post by los on Apr 1, 2007 14:36:21 GMT -6
Also, lets include the dbl tight I formations in here too Brophy, my favorite pet! lol Everyone makes a great point for their pets but like phantom said earlier, they can all be bad as well, turn around and bite you in the hand when you need them most, lol! My pet could run against 8 in the box like steve's, as long as they weren't too athletically superior. It was kind of an ugly pet at times getting dirty and not very exciting rolling around on the ground for 3-4 yds. We often heard crys from the gallery, "Hey coach, can your pet do some more tricks, like stand up and beg or jump thru a flaming hoop"? My pet was very uncomfortable in 3rd and long or when we were trailing late in the show and noone in the stadium was buying my pets pa fakes, when we desperately needed a big pass play! So, guess the original question would be, can you train your pet to be diversified enough to go to the bigger shows or should he just stick to winning where he can?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Apr 1, 2007 14:40:30 GMT -6
117 NCAA DI Coaches refuse to run the double wing because they are ego-maniacs trying to prove they are 'geniuses' but there exists small pockets of 'enlightened' individuals who run the Double Wing at midget-league, Middle School, and a few select high schools. This double wing has no equal, cannot be stopped, and resistance against it is futile. These individuals will be raptured in the final days and be spared the 120 years of torment by the Dragon and Harlet......er....wait........that was sarcasm there, folks, in case you missed it.
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Apr 1, 2007 15:23:51 GMT -6
Nothing wrong with the double wing at all, IMO. But if you are double wing, you really don't dabble in other stuff, I mean you are either ALL IN or you aren't, right?
Not really... I know that is a selling point of the scheme and often people say mixing the DW can not/should not be done I guess I wasn't smart enough to listen to the horror stories of those who did this unsuccessfully... we mix it and it has worked.
I like Groundchuck's toolbox analogy. Take what you need but don't carry around a bunch of stuff just to carry it around.
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......
The standard answer does make sense. Having the ability to recruit is the biggest issue. The DW has a lot of doubleteams, wedge blocking, no quick passing game if the base set. Great when you do not have talent across the board. If you can recruit (OL are 6'2 290#, not 5'9 165#; Split End runs 4.4, not board member's kid who IS 4'4"), really why not take advantage of skills? The DW COULD be run at the college level (if you came in to the U. of Nebraska, ran it AND won... there would be no problem), but I think people do not because: 1. A scholarship lineman should be able to block without the constant aid of a doubleteam 2. 4 yards will move the football, but at the college level and up, teams 2 platoon- best big athletes are usually on D-line. Finding the mismatch on the OL is tougher, consistency in winning the scrum is tougher to achieve (you win 2/3 at the LOS, it is 4th and 2; in the spread, you win 1/3 intermediate routes, it is 1st down again for the O). 3. I've said this before, I have always felt of these 6 phases of offense: Power, Option, Misdirection, Controlled passing, Deep passing, Screen/Draw. You need to do 2 well, and be competent at another. Therefore, according to this premise, you could run the ball every down... However in a true DW, you have power and misdirection- the option game (except speed option and outside veer) is difficult to run (midline is nearly impossible with the splits... I have tried and failed). Since the DW is sold, packaged and perceived as a "drink it straight only" offense, THAT is probably why it is not seen often above a 3A HS level... more athletes (on the other side) require more tools. I argue that you could run it as part of a package at higher levels... but with that stance, both DW and not DW guys would tell me how dumb I am for saying that. The DW is not just 2TEs 2 wings... the blocking rules, and especially the line splits are what make the DW the DW. How many coaches vary line splits with formations? (I do not know... I am under the impression that not many do. We do- we have 2 sets of splits by call, I would imagine some do, but I've seen a variety of splits in 2 teams we've played in the last 4 years, so I do not think it is much). Bottom line, right or wrong, the DW comes off as an "All of none" offense...and almost all coaches (pro and con) see it that way and no one wants to be in the big game, where the D has shut off the power and misdirection and be saying: "now what?" The DW has with it the perception that it is limited. I disagree- it is as limited as the coach is willing to make it... but I will agree that you will not see it in the more elite levels of play unless there is a hard core DWinger who is dynamic, a renegade, eccentric who is willing to implement it.
* 5 years ago I quit as a HC at a 5A school (2200 students) to become an administrator and HC at an 8 man school in the middle of nowhere. The term "career suicide" was one I heard a lot when I made the move... if ever I move back up and get in a college... you may see the Double Wing...
Otter: ... I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.
Bluto: We're just the guys to do it.
|
|
|
Post by CVBears on Apr 1, 2007 15:28:40 GMT -6
Why don't you see DW in DI and NFL? Football in a phonebooth = piles. A few "plugger" type DT's take out a few blockers. Defensive coordinators don't like to trade a hat for a hat. But, they will definitely trade one of our hats for two hats from the offense. This leaves defenders untouched. Unblocked linebackers on screaming at the ball carriers. Another reason is due to the zero line splits and gap control nature of defenses. If a linebacker's gap is already closed, what does he do? He scrapes to the ball carrier. But with all that misdirection, how does that scraping LB know where the ball is? Follow the guards. In "pure" DW the guards tell you where the play/run is going. The DW coach could start flexing out wings or TE's, but that wouldn't be "pure" DW as most DW'ers have described it to me. When a coach starts using different formations and plays to achieve mismatches to exploit, that is being multiple. Speaking of multiple...what happens when that team shuts down your run game and no bites on the pa? Why wouldn't you want another "tool" to use for that job. Why make the choice to stay the course when it's not working Just my thoughts on why we don't see the DW in the NFL or DI.
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Apr 1, 2007 15:41:48 GMT -6
The DW coach could start flexing out wings or TE's, but that wouldn't be "pure" DW as most DW'ers have described it to me. When a coach starts using different formations and plays to achieve mismatches to exploit, that is being multiple.
Agreed. Which is why I am not on the DW bandwagon. IF you can stay in 2 TE DW all game and beat the pooh out of your opponent... you are completely superior and could do so in anything.
To be honest, the good DW teams I've seen Nebraska and Colorado at the HS level will split out or flex 1-2 ends at times, and will even flank or slot a wing. They might motion in, run the same stuff a lot, but where I see it as a great offense is with a threat of the quick passing game and an ability to have a threat of a SE crack back block along with the "smashmouth" short yardage potential in the 2TE set.
|
|