|
Post by khalfie on Mar 26, 2008 14:03:29 GMT -6
To me most kids want to play catch and score points, most don't like handing the ball off 50 times in a game and scoring 14. Yes its tough to kill the clock, score in the red zone and your kids will become soft on defense IF YOU DONT HAVE ANSWERS FOR THOSE SITUATIONS AND DONT COACH UP THE DEFENSE. Bah Humbug! Most kids want to win... and if I can show them how to win... I'll keep most kids... If I start coaching based on what kids like to do... we wouldn't have any linemen... everyone would be the QB... Air Raider... You can't compare previous teams success or failure, to current teams success or failure... If you could... then every undefeated Freshman team, would automatically get state championships... kids get better, bigger, faster, stronger... all of a sudden for whatever reason, it clicks... and busters all of a sudden become studs... so the comparing of previous to present... is disingenious... The 5 Wide... You say you didn't have studs... Did your QB complete passes? Did your WR's catch passes? O-line give you 2.5 seconds? Sounds like studs to me. Run 5 Wide and have your kids drop the ball on 3rd down? Have your line give up your QB off of a 3 man rush... Have your QB just miss, and miss, and continue to miss... 5 Wide becomes a death sentence... If I'm a lesser quality team... and those things are occuring... it would behoove me to move the clock. It would behoove me to practice an offense, that also allows my defense to become better tacklers. It would behoove me to have a system in which the majority of parts are replaceable... I've coached some bad teams... in which catching, wasn't a given... throwing, definitely wasn't a given, and blocking... well, if we could block, we wouldn't have been a bad team. Smashmouth... all I need is three yards... two tough linemen, and 1 kid that can learn to fall forward!
|
|
|
Post by airman on Mar 26, 2008 14:07:59 GMT -6
i think Mr. K. has been stung by the 5 wide offense over in illinois.
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Mar 26, 2008 14:18:12 GMT -6
I didnt have a stud at QB either.. and probably wont again this year.. I only had 1 decent receiver.. and he caught 69 passes.. the rest were just kids who could settle in space and would catch the ball "most" of the time we threw it to them.. had NO deep threat players this year.. I will this coming year at a differnet school though.. I had probably the worst line in the country.. and against the best team in our district.. my QB was sacked twice.. all about the sprint out.. 5 wide doesnt have to be ALL about the pass.. we run Jet Sweep and speed option.. plus a few plays for the QB.. put a bigger athlete at QB late in the game.. motion someone across the formation to kick the end and run a single wing power play.. because that 3 yard bubble could be 1 and done.. 1 missed tackle could lead to a TD.. that 3 yard run has to go through a lot of meat to score. In my state (Louisiana) 3 out of 5 of the state champs were spread teams who threw the ball a lot. And with Louisiana being one of the top football states in the country.. I would venture to say my state champ would kick your state champs butt What does Urban Meyer (2006 champ) or Les Miles (2007 champ) do when they are in a bind??? Urban spreads them out and runs his monster.. and Les spread them out in a 4x1 tackle over and throws to the uncovered TE.. No I there.. You dont have to ask your QB to read coverages and look off defenders.. put those defenders in a bind.. make it an easy read.. Its not all about the slant.. the slant is good in certain situations.. but only when they beg you to run it.. I think you prove my personal opinion on why not more people run it.. people just do not understand it.. they assume its a throw it every down with a super QB who has to read and make perfect decisions while hiding behind he NFL quality Oline.. Our system is put a great athlete at QB and attack the defense with him.. and allow him to dink and dunk it to open guys if the defense allows that.. Here's the deal... NSure, you snuck up on some people and gave them a game, but I will be more impressed when you do it this year and the year after and the year after that. The thing is, at least the way I am looking at it, is that you ran an offensive scheme last season that the other teams in the conference weren't really prepared for. Because you were doing something different, something that had never been done at your school before, something that didn't match the previous identity there, you were able to throw some curve balls. Now, let's see how you guys fair this year...now that everyone in your league has tape on you and knows what your identity is. That's how I measure success...consistency over several seasons. Furthermore, that has NOTHING to do with your offense...I would be saying the same thing if you guys had success this year with the Dub Wing, The A-11, or the Insane Face Melting Atomic Offense... You guys did great things this year and it certainly is a step in the right direction, but let's see where you are in 4-5 years...will you be winning more games? Will you be a contender? Or, will you still be measuring success by "morale" victories?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 26, 2008 14:20:07 GMT -6
let me just say, this is a great subject to completely take out of context and offend everyone! This should get interesting........ What is interesting is; 1) The argument posed as "Why aren't MORE teams running this?", then supported later with "most of the state champion teams run 4 wide" (wouldn't the question be answered by the current trend heading in that direction?).
2) the distinction we make that running Power,Toss, Iso, and dive, but is more 'invovled' because we can block it a bunch of different ways (which requires more coaching)
is somehow different than; running Mesh, Shallow, Sail, Choice, and Flash Screen with a bunch of tags.
"less is more", just an inverse of philosophies.
3) Dicotomy of identities. Passing is weak = Passing is for intellectuals Running is only for the strong = Running is for dummies
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Mar 26, 2008 14:29:32 GMT -6
I didnt have a stud at QB either.. and probably wont again this year.. I only had 1 decent receiver.. and he caught 69 passes.. the rest were just kids who could settle in space and would catch the ball "most" of the time we threw it to them.. had NO deep threat players this year.. I will this coming year at a differnet school though.. I had probably the worst line in the country.. and against the best team in our district.. my QB was sacked twice.. all about the sprint out.. 5 wide doesnt have to be ALL about the pass.. we run Jet Sweep and speed option.. plus a few plays for the QB.. put a bigger athlete at QB late in the game.. motion someone across the formation to kick the end and run a single wing power play.. because that 3 yard bubble could be 1 and done.. 1 missed tackle could lead to a TD.. that 3 yard run has to go through a lot of meat to score. In my state (Louisiana) 3 out of 5 of the state champs were spread teams who threw the ball a lot. And with Louisiana being one of the top football states in the country.. I would venture to say my state champ would kick your state champs butt What does Urban Meyer (2006 champ) or Les Miles (2007 champ) do when they are in a bind??? Urban spreads them out and runs his monster.. and Les spread them out in a 4x1 tackle over and throws to the uncovered TE.. No I there.. You dont have to ask your QB to read coverages and look off defenders.. put those defenders in a bind.. make it an easy read.. Its not all about the slant.. the slant is good in certain situations.. but only when they beg you to run it.. I think you prove my personal opinion on why not more people run it.. people just do not understand it.. they assume its a throw it every down with a super QB who has to read and make perfect decisions while hiding behind he NFL quality Oline.. Our system is put a great athlete at QB and attack the defense with him.. and allow him to dink and dunk it to open guys if the defense allows that.. Here's the deal... NSure, you snuck up on some people and gave them a game, but I will be more impressed when you do it this year and the year after and the year after that. The thing is, at least the way I am looking at it, is that you ran an offensive scheme last season that the other teams in the conference weren't really prepared for. Because you were doing something different, something that had never been done at your school before, something that didn't match the previous identity there, you were able to throw some curve balls. Now, let's see how you guys fair this year...now that everyone in your league has tape on you and knows what your identity is. That's how I measure success...consistency over several seasons. Furthermore, that has NOTHING to do with your offense...I would be saying the same thing if you guys had success this year with the Dub Wing, The A-11, or the Insane Face Melting Atomic Offense... You guys did great things this year and it certainly is a step in the right direction, but let's see where you are in 4-5 years...will you be winning more games? Will you be a contender? Or, will you still be measuring success by "morale" victories? how did it sneak up on them? We trade film down here.. they were able to see the two previous weeks.. I am not longer at that school.. I am now at a 4A school with LOADS of athletes.. instead of 5.2 and 5.3 receivers.. I have 3 out of the 5 who run in the 4.5 range.. should be interesting..
|
|
|
Post by airitout616 on Mar 26, 2008 14:32:07 GMT -6
Why do we coach ? Most would answer because they love working with kids and coach FOR the kids. Yes every kid wants to be the QB but its our job as coaches to sell to those kids the "TEAM" factor whats best for the TEAM. I'm sure you will argue throwing the football isn't best for your team and thats fine just different philosophy's as a coach which makes this football world go round but to say one coach is wrong because of his philosophy is ignorant. I was just simply stating kids love to throw the football and will work at it year round in the off season so you DON'T need studs. Simplicity of the offense allows you to get maximum reps for throwing, catching and pass blocking. If your kids don't get better when all they do is throw, catch and pass pro then you have to look at yourself as a coach to see what your doing wrong. Running the ball and controlling the clock is fine just not my thing and just because of different philosophy doesn't make it wrong. Just because Airman and Airraider and the other pass happy coaches like to throw it doesn't mean its wrong same goes for you ground pound guys.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Mar 26, 2008 14:34:20 GMT -6
This debate is just like every other "mine is better than yours" debate. There's no right or wrong answers, and there's no convincing anyonne who has already made up their minds. I will always hold my ground on these ponts: "It's an equalizer offense." Bullcrap. Any offense that's well coached and intelligently utilizes personnel is an equalizer. "It's fun." Bullcrap. Winning is fun. If the kids are winning, they don't care if they're running ND Box or A-11. "It's more interesting for the players." Bullcrap. For what players? Do you really think the OL enjoys pass blocking on 75% of the snaps? Last time I checked, there were 5 guys inside who typically take a great deal of pride in doing other things. "It's where football is headed." Bullcrap. Football is DIVERSE and multiple-receiver offenses are becoming more prevailant now, but you will never see (ESPECIALLY in High School) the decline or disappearance of the wing-t, I, veer, etc. That's what makes football great! Do you really want everyone running the same offense? "It appeals to kids because they can play catch in the backyard" Bullcrap. Part of what makes full-pads 11-on-11 football special is that there are certain aspects (like the running game) that you cannot duplicate under any other circumstances. Once again, it's not the offense or the schemes...it's what YOU believe in. Don't make it about "my offense is better than yours" or "only real, talented, and innovative coaches run (insert my offense here)" because that's a load of...
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Mar 26, 2008 14:38:02 GMT -6
MOST COACHES BY NATURE ARE INSECURE AND CONTROL FREAKS. THEY PLAY NOT TO LOSE THE GAME INSTEAD OF PLAYING TO WIN THE GAME. THEY ARE GLASS HALF EMPTY INSTEAD OF GLASS OVER FLOWING KIND OF PEOPLE. THESE TYPES OF COACHES LIVE IN FEAR OF WHAT CAN GO WRONG INSTEAD OF WHAT CAN GO RIGHT. Agree with control freaks, not sure about insecure. Yes, as coach I do want to control the game, whether we are running or passing or optioning. Many a great coach has said that the first key to winning a game is not losing it. That does not mean you play not to lose. It means you limit your mistakes and capitalize on the mistakes of your opponents. You are implying that teams that run the ball aren't coaching or developing their players. Sure, for the qb it is easier to turn around and handoff, but there are 10 other guys on the field. Is it easier to run a route or block? Don't we all say that pass blocking is easier than run blocking? I have coached teams that threw for 2500 yards and coached teams that have run for 3500 yards, so I have experience on both types of teams. I have coached spread and wing-t. I have even run 5-wide for the majority of some games. To imply that the passing game takes more or better coaching is not true. It is just different. One thing that I have learned is that the spread is a miserable offense to be in if you don't have athletes. If you can't produce big plays out of the spread or make the defense think that you can produce big plays, then you are in for a long night. My definition of a long night is your team getting its butt kicked even if you throw 200 yards. I believe that your "football" players line up closer to the ball and your "athletes" line up further away from the ball. If you don't have athletes and spread them out, then you are asking for trouble. If you don't have "football" players or "athletes", then it doesn't matter what you do!
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Mar 26, 2008 14:46:06 GMT -6
This debate is just like every other "mine is better than yours" debate. There's no right or wrong answers, and there's no convincing anyonne who has already made up their minds. I will always hold my ground on these ponts: "It's an equalizer offense." Bullcrap. Any offense that's well coached and intelligently utilizes personnel is an equalizer. "It's fun." Bullcrap. Winning is fun. If the kids are winning, they don't care if they're running ND Box or A-11. "It's more interesting for the players." Bullcrap. For what players? Do you really think the OL enjoys pass blocking on 75% of the snaps? Last time I checked, there were 5 guys inside who typically take a great deal of pride in doing other things. "It's where football is headed." Bullcrap. Football is DIVERSE and multiple-receiver offenses are becoming more prevailant now, but you will never see (ESPECIALLY in High School) the decline or disappearance of the wing-t, I, veer, etc. That's what makes football great! Do you really want everyone running the same offense? "It appeals to kids because they can play catch in the backyard" Bullcrap. Part of what makes full-pads 11-on-11 football special is that there are certain aspects (like the running game) that you cannot duplicate under any other circumstances. Once again, it's not the offense or the schemes...it's what YOU believe in. Don't make it about "my offense is better than yours" or "only real, talented, and innovative coaches run (insert my offense here)" because that's a load of... But it is an equalizer.. If you line up in an extremely well coached Wing-T offense, but your 180lbs linemen are going up against 240lb LBS and 300lb linemen.. then there is nothing in your favor.. but you can get that 120lb receiver settling between those 210lb safeties and get him the ball.. he may get split in half after he catches it.. but the point is.. he caught it.. and you have now gained ground on what might be a superior team. If you do not think that a majority of the players in the country find throwing the ball more fun and interesting.. then you are out of touch with reality and what kids really like.. just like dunks vs free throws in basketball.. they count for the same point value.. but everyone would rather watch the dunks..
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Mar 26, 2008 14:56:09 GMT -6
how did it sneak up on them? We trade film down here.. they were able to see the two previous weeks.. I am not longer at that school.. I am now at a 4A school with LOADS of athletes.. instead of 5.2 and 5.3 receivers.. I have 3 out of the 5 who run in the 4.5 range.. should be interesting.. Right...but there is a world of difference between watching a team on film and then seeing them live. Furthermore, you guys were kind of grab-bag, weren't you? Experimenting with the 6-wide during the season and doing things like that that were not neccessarily on the exchange tape, right? My guess is that many of the teams really had no idea what to expect from you each week...there is something to be said about unpredicatability, right? Doesn't that favor your offense?
|
|
|
Post by kurtbryan on Mar 26, 2008 14:56:33 GMT -6
Gonna have to agree with this one about the beauty of High School football is ALL OF THE VARIOUS systems out there being used successfully.
In fact our system blends several systems into one, and I love the fact that many teams are different.
To me, other than athletically, the Pro Game is freaking Boring, when compared to high school and college. And, I say that respectfully - in terms of lack of overall innovative diversity at the Pro level.
KB
|
|
|
Post by eickst on Mar 26, 2008 14:57:30 GMT -6
Really? I don't think I am out of touch with what kids want to do. They want to win. Winning is fun. Throwing the ball 40 times a game and losing isn't fun. Running the ball 40 times a game and losing isn't fun.
Throwing the ball 40 times and winning is fun. Running the ball 40 times a game and winning is fun.
Stop talking scheme like the 5 wide is the best thing since sliced bread. There is more than one way to skin a cat, yours is not the best. It may the best FOR YOU, but please don't preach it like it's gospel.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Mar 26, 2008 14:57:32 GMT -6
This debate is just like every other "mine is better than yours" debate. There's no right or wrong answers, and there's no convincing anyonne who has already made up their minds. I will always hold my ground on these ponts: "It's an equalizer offense." Bullcrap. Any offense that's well coached and intelligently utilizes personnel is an equalizer. "It's fun." Bullcrap. Winning is fun. If the kids are winning, they don't care if they're running ND Box or A-11. "It's more interesting for the players." Bullcrap. For what players? Do you really think the OL enjoys pass blocking on 75% of the snaps? Last time I checked, there were 5 guys inside who typically take a great deal of pride in doing other things. "It's where football is headed." Bullcrap. Football is DIVERSE and multiple-receiver offenses are becoming more prevailant now, but you will never see (ESPECIALLY in High School) the decline or disappearance of the wing-t, I, veer, etc. That's what makes football great! Do you really want everyone running the same offense? "It appeals to kids because they can play catch in the backyard" Bullcrap. Part of what makes full-pads 11-on-11 football special is that there are certain aspects (like the running game) that you cannot duplicate under any other circumstances. Once again, it's not the offense or the schemes...it's what YOU believe in. Don't make it about "my offense is better than yours" or "only real, talented, and innovative coaches run (insert my offense here)" because that's a load of... But it is an equalizer.. If you line up in an extremely well coached Wing-T offense, but your 180lbs linemen are going up against 240lb LBS and 300lb linemen.. then there is nothing in your favor.. but you can get that 120lb receiver settling between those 210lb safeties and get him the ball.. he may get split in half after he catches it.. but the point is.. he caught it.. and you have now gained ground on what might be a superior team. If you do not think that a majority of the players in the country find throwing the ball more fun and interesting.. then you are out of touch with reality and what kids really like.. just like dunks vs free throws in basketball.. they count for the same point value.. but everyone would rather watch the dunks.. raider, And THIS is why you are good at your system! You believe in it and you will never see it any other way. It's like calande with the DW or Brophy with the "coverage dictates the front"...you know it, love it, breathe it, and swim in it! All I'm saying is that I think it is wrong for you to assume that other people who don't believe in the same stuff are wrong. I don't know how many more times I can say it...but ANY well coached offense is an equlaizer. Not JUST 5-wide. Because if you have 5 WR who are all 5'4 and run a 5.4 40 yard dash being covered by 6 DB who are all 6'2 and run a 4.6 40 yard dash...then WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW??? You see my point, the argument is the same as your OL vs. DL argument...just from a different perspective! All I'm saying is we have to understand that point. And, my experience is that, although QB's and receivers DEFINITELY find it "more fun" to throw the ball than to run it, the OL and RB's find it "more fun" to run the ball rather than to pass block and run check-down routes all day...so again...it's just a different perspective..."More fun" for whom? Yikes... This is a very good debate...but I fear we are not being as objective as we can be in looking at things a bit more "globally."
|
|
|
Post by eickst on Mar 26, 2008 15:06:18 GMT -6
how did it sneak up on them? We trade film down here.. they were able to see the two previous weeks.. I am not longer at that school.. I am now at a 4A school with LOADS of athletes.. instead of 5.2 and 5.3 receivers.. I have 3 out of the 5 who run in the 4.5 range.. should be interesting.. Right...but there is a world of difference between watching a team on film and then seeing them live. Furthermore, you guys were kind of grab-bag, weren't you? Experimenting with the 6-wide during the season and doing things like that that were not neccessarily on the exchange tape, right? My guess is that many of the teams really had no idea what to expect from you each week...there is something to be said about unpredicatability, right? Doesn't that favor your offense? The problem with being unpredictable on offense is that your kids will run it unpredictably.
|
|
|
Post by eickst on Mar 26, 2008 15:07:40 GMT -6
If I saw 5 wide with the types of athletes that airraider says he has they would never get off of the line of scrimmage. Don't have to cover anybody when they are all flat on their back.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 26, 2008 15:07:54 GMT -6
I don't know how many more times I can say it...but ANY well coached offense is an equlaizer. But when and WHY did this thread turn into that? I agree with Kurtbryann and his assessments. Airraider wondered why the empty concepts haven't become more mainstream. Does this HAVE to turn into a "Black vs White" / "Hot vs Cold" argument to answer that question?
|
|
|
Post by eickst on Mar 26, 2008 15:09:13 GMT -6
I don't know how many more times I can say it...but ANY well coached offense is an equlaizer. But when and WHY did this thread turn into that? I agree with Kurtbryann and his assessments. Airraider wondered why the empty concepts haven't become more mainstream. Does this HAVE to turn into a "Black vs White" / "Hot vs Cold" argument to answer that question? The universe would not be in balance if we didn't have at least one thread each week of all pass vs all run offenses.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Mar 26, 2008 15:12:40 GMT -6
I don't know how many more times I can say it...but ANY well coached offense is an equlaizer. But when and WHY did this thread turn into that? I agree with Kurtbryann and his assessments. Airraider wondered why the empty concepts haven't become more mainstream. Does this HAVE to turn into a "Black vs White" / "Hot vs Cold" argument to answer that question? I think we are asking the same questions here, Brophy.... I also agree with what Kurt said earlier, and I think ultimately my posts reflect that.
|
|
|
Post by tog on Mar 26, 2008 15:28:10 GMT -6
not every kid wants to play qb
some want to knock the hell out of someone
interesting debate here fellas
keep it nice please
|
|
|
Post by eickst on Mar 26, 2008 15:35:43 GMT -6
not every kid wants to play qb some want to knock the hell out of someone interesting debate here fellas keep it nice please Yep, I asked a kid at sign ups the other day if he'd rather be the running back and score TDs or be a LBr and lay people out and he would rather lay people out.
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Mar 26, 2008 15:41:44 GMT -6
Really? I don't think I am out of touch with what kids want to do. They want to win. Winning is fun. Throwing the ball 40 times a game and losing isn't fun. Running the ball 40 times a game and losing isn't fun. Throwing the ball 40 times and winning is fun. Running the ball 40 times a game and winning is fun. Stop talking scheme like the 5 wide is the best thing since sliced bread. There is more than one way to skin a cat, yours is not the best. It may the best FOR YOU, but please don't preach it like it's gospel. Slow down there catdaddy.. never did I say it was the best.. and never did I say it was better than anything else.. I said it worked for us.. and it gave US a chance to gain ground whereas we would not with other offenses..
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Mar 26, 2008 15:46:17 GMT -6
If I saw 5 wide with the types of athletes that airraider says he has they would never get off of the line of scrimmage. Don't have to cover anybody when they are all flat on their back. Are you talking about the ones I had.. or the ones I have?
|
|
|
Post by eickst on Mar 26, 2008 15:55:48 GMT -6
If I saw 5 wide with the types of athletes that airraider says he has they would never get off of the line of scrimmage. Don't have to cover anybody when they are all flat on their back. Now who is saying they are almighty?? Are you talking about the ones I had.. or the ones I have? I meant the ones you had in this last season, not the upcoming season. And I'm not trying to attack you personally, it just seems through your posts that you are arguing the merits of your scheme versus other schemes, and I think that there are a lot of other coaches who know their schemes pretty well and could have accomplished the same as you did or better, not because of scheme, but because of the quality of the coach. And saying that kids don't have fun in a running oriented offense is pretty ludicrous, hence my previous post and other's posts about WINNING being fun. Losing sucks. If your kids have fun while losing great, but I lack the ability to convey joy and fun when losing. So maybe you are a better coach than me. My players had fun when we won games and pretty much shut down when we lost them. I know it's not my half time speeches either because I stole mine from Bill Murray in meatballs.
|
|
|
Post by tog on Mar 26, 2008 15:56:48 GMT -6
[glow=red,2,300]keep it nice please[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Mar 26, 2008 16:02:31 GMT -6
Now who is saying they are almighty?? Are you talking about the ones I had.. or the ones I have? I meant the ones you had in this last season, not the upcoming season. And I'm not trying to attack you personally, it just seems through your posts that you are arguing the merits of your scheme versus other schemes, and I think that there are a lot of other coaches who know their schemes pretty well and could have accomplished the same as you did or better, not because of scheme, but because of the quality of the coach. And saying that kids don't have fun in a running oriented offense is pretty ludicrous, hence my previous post and other's posts about WINNING being fun. Losing sucks. If your kids have fun while losing great, but I lack the ability to convey joy and fun when losing. So maybe you are a better coach than me. My players had fun when we won games and pretty much shut down when we lost them. I know it's not my half time speeches either because I stole mine from Bill Murray in meatballs. I do not feel as if MY way is better than anyone else's way.. I do not think that 5 wide football is "better" than any other type.. In my way of thinking its the best for me.. heck.. if I didnt think it was the best, then why would I run it? I feel however that its hard to argue that kids prefer to pass and catch the football.. Now I dont mean all kids.. but I am sure if you took a sample.. the majority would rather throw the football.. just like my basketball reference.. ask 100 kids if they would rather hit 10 free throws in a row or be able to dunk a basketball.. and a majority would rather dunk.. sure some would like to hit those free throws.. but dunking is sexy... just like throwing the ball around..
|
|
|
Post by tiger46 on Mar 26, 2008 16:15:01 GMT -6
I certainly won't try to comment on any of the "pass" vs. "run" at HS level stuff. I'm only a youth coach and ya'll are way above me as coaches. But, this is something that I've observed. It probably doesn't matter whether kids in the schoolyards and backyards are practicing being Troy Aikman, Barry Sanders or, Jerry Rice because you can bet that none of them are out there practicing being Mike Munchak, Larry Allen or, Anthony Munoz. You're going to have to lay a foundation and build from somewhere. It's up to you on what you want to build. Without a decent o-line, all that stuff in the backfield is just a bunch of irrelevant, fancy prancing, anyhow.
|
|
|
Post by eickst on Mar 26, 2008 16:18:26 GMT -6
Big men help skinny guys look good.
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Mar 26, 2008 16:52:59 GMT -6
Yes, when it comes to having small kids.. maybe the spread is "better" for that particular team than say the Wing-T or the Power I.. if you have big slugs who are strong but slow, then maybe the Wing-T or Power I is "better" for that particular team.
Please do not confuse what I am saying with the spread is better than smashmouth football and the spread team will always win.. because that is not what I am saying..
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Mar 26, 2008 17:21:56 GMT -6
So....how 'bout them Red Sox???
|
|
|
Post by eickst on Mar 26, 2008 17:47:47 GMT -6
Yeah, I like watching a well executed offense no matter what the scheme, especially if you have three or four stud players. Usually you are lucky to have one stud.
We may have a few this year, but my HC is a Power I guy and has been for 30 years so I didn't even bother pitching a new offense, I'm pretty sure he has that one down! I just quietly took over the defense ;D
|
|