erat76
Freshmen Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by erat76 on Sept 20, 2007 12:50:33 GMT -6
Just wondering what you guys thing about an offensive system vs just having a lot of different plays. We run the I mixed with a little spread. We have several different plays but it seems we can never get into a playcalling rythm due to the fact that we have so much to choose from. When I was part of a Wing T system we knew what would work and when to call it. With our offense now I can't really get a feel for what to call. Is it better to have a defined offensive system, ie Spread Option, Wishbone, Wing T, than to try to include a combination of a few different systems? Just trying to figure out how to make us a little better. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Sept 20, 2007 13:01:24 GMT -6
I would never go without a system offense again. Before I began using a system, I was guilty of the "grab bag" system of play calling. Now that I have an offensive system, I know what to call and when to call it. With a system you always have a game plan.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Sept 21, 2007 5:50:13 GMT -6
play calling is both an art and a science. you have to know why you are calling a play..what is it that the defense is giving you and which players are put into conflict by the play call. Im a system guy and belive in series football.
|
|
|
Post by wingt74 on Sept 21, 2007 6:19:44 GMT -6
What are examples of "systems" ? Double Wing, Spread?
I'm a defensive guy at heart, I find it easier prep'ing my kids to stop a system...and seem to have to work harded prep'ing the kids for a team that runs a lot of formations and plays.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Sept 21, 2007 6:33:12 GMT -6
A well-coached and properly designed "system" is EVERYTHING in high school football, in my opinion.
1. The system allows you to have a teaching progression to everything you do.
2. The system, if properly designed, compartmentalizes things for the players and coaches, and is designed so the offense makes logical sense.
3. A system allows you to game plan much better. If you understand your system and the plays within it, you know that you have a compliment for every play in your offense. If they take away the Lead, you have the Lead Counter and the Lead Reverse.
4. A system is harder to defend because of those complimentary plays. LB's, DE's, etc all have to stay focused and disciplined and defenses must play you honest.
5. Usually teams with good systems do not have as many formation and field position tendancies as grab-bag or (I love how they call themselves) "multiple" teams.
6. It is easier to employ an offensive system throughout all levels of a program, all the way down to the youth level. This fosters consistency, and helps the kids learn the plays and the techniques much better.
7. Most systems use all the same techniques, and most grab-bag teams use whatever technique is appropriate for the individual play they want to run. For example, I've seen teams run "I" and "spread" and in the "I" they have the OL down in 3 point stances and they're running power blocking schemes. Then, they go "gun spread" and the linemen are all in 2 point stances and they are zone blocking. Offenses seldom work well if taught that way.
8. It's easier to bring new coaches into a comprehensive system, because there are consistent rules, logical terminology, etc. that make sense with minimal study.
9. Game days are easier to call with a system, because there's a logical flow to everything. The OC / press box guy knows what to look at on every play, because you know what defender you are looking to affect, and you know what play to run if they are taking away something or over adjusting to something.
10. A good system is something that a team can be proud of and something that is easy for the coaches to believe in and sell to the kids. It allows the "personality" of the team and the "philosophy" of the head coach to be clearly defined. You always have an identity and something to hang your hat on, which I think is important.
|
|
|
Post by olinecoach61 on Sept 21, 2007 6:34:09 GMT -6
I would have to say that its best to use a system. We were a triple option team and had success with it, but in the last two years have developed our own system without the triple. We spent all winter brainstorming and sharing ideas and have created a nice system. Its ours and the entire staff has at least a basic understanding of what we are trying to do. Its helped alot during games as know the defensive coaches will call up to the box and say hey ______ is open, or the Jet boot is there, etc.
|
|
|
Post by wingt74 on Sept 21, 2007 6:38:35 GMT -6
I would say in all of our minds, we have a "system"
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Sept 21, 2007 7:15:18 GMT -6
What are examples of "systems" ? Double Wing, Spread? I'm a defensive guy at heart, I find it easier prep'ing my kids to stop a system...and seem to have to work harded prep'ing the kids for a team that runs a lot of formations and plays. Coach, That's a good question. I think there's a distinction between a "canned" or "adapted" offense and a "system." Running a system does not necessarily mean that you must run something that is fairly standard (Wing-T, for example). Our system (for example) is multi-formational and is based on a wing-I concept. It's not an offense that we learned from any one place. It's something that we evolved over the years. What makes it a SYSTEM is that we have rushing plays designed into series, blocking categorized into "schemes," and consistent adaptable terminology for everything. When I say we have plays designed into "series," I mean that if we run the Belly as our base offensive play (double dive), then we have a Belly Counter, Belly Keeper, and Belly Pass...and we have 2-3 other series built the same way. When I say we have blocking designed into "schemes," I mean that we have plays that we man block, plays that we power block (isolation), and plays that we trap block (counters and traps), and the OL knows which plays fall into what schemes, and we block all those plays that same way. So, the OL isn't learning 12 different plays, they are only learning the 3-4 different schemes and memorizing which plays fall into what scheme. I actually wrote an article for "Gridiron Coach" a few years ago about building and evolving a system over time. I think there is nothing more interesting than watching a HS football game and seeing a team run an offensive system that you know they developed over time and has evolved and grown.
|
|
|
Post by wingt74 on Sept 21, 2007 8:23:09 GMT -6
What are examples of "systems" ? Double Wing, Spread? I'm a defensive guy at heart, I find it easier prep'ing my kids to stop a system...and seem to have to work harded prep'ing the kids for a team that runs a lot of formations and plays. Coach, That's a good question. I think there's a distinction between a "canned" or "adapted" offense and a "system." Running a system does not necessarily mean that you must run something that is fairly standard (Wing-T, for example). Our system (for example) is multi-formational and is based on a wing-I concept. It's not an offense that we learned from any one place. It's something that we evolved over the years. What makes it a SYSTEM is that we have rushing plays designed into series, blocking categorized into "schemes," and consistent adaptable terminology for everything. When I say we have plays designed into "series," I mean that if we run the Belly as our base offensive play (double dive), then we have a Belly Counter, Belly Keeper, and Belly Pass...and we have 2-3 other series built the same way. When I say we have blocking designed into "schemes," I mean that we have plays that we man block, plays that we power block (isolation), and plays that we trap block (counters and traps), and the OL knows which plays fall into what schemes, and we block all those plays that same way. So, the OL isn't learning 12 different plays, they are only learning the 3-4 different schemes and memorizing which plays fall into what scheme. I actually wrote an article for "Gridiron Coach" a few years ago about building and evolving a system over time. I think there is nothing more interesting than watching a HS football game and seeing a team run an offensive system that you know they developed over time and has evolved and grown. Yeah, exactly. I believe a coach can come up with his own system. I run T, I, and a gun formation. I Right 23 Lead Sets up the I Right 8 Screen (we fake a 23 lead) Sets up the I Right 8 Screen and Go (We fake an 8 screen) On sets up the other and so on...sometimes I skip ahead in the series because I know I've been scouted and may not have run the screen and go. In T 22 Lead 47 counter 19 Boot 31 Wedge In all four plays, the backfield action is almost identical for the first 2 steps. I Right - 3 Motion 28 Pitch 28 Pitch Pass Fake Pitch, 34 Counter 59 Flood All off that 3 back(FB) motioning. Then have some powers, some 3 step drops etc. Do I have a "system" or a collection of plays? I dunno...seems to work well.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Sept 21, 2007 8:55:42 GMT -6
What are examples of "systems" ? Double Wing, Spread? I'm a defensive guy at heart, I find it easier prepaing my kids to stop a system...and seem to have to work harded prep'ing the kids for a team that runs a lot of formations and plays. I will agree that many times it is easier to prepare to stop a system than a team with a ton of plays and formations. However, it is easier to actually stop the team with a ton of stuff than a team with a system. Just my opinion.
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by tedseay on Sept 21, 2007 10:26:36 GMT -6
Do I have a "system" or a collection of plays? I dunno...seems to work well. You have (at least) three identifiable play series, which beats the heck out of grab-bagging. What is a system? Let me use an example I know pretty well, the Wild Bunch offense I designed. I start with the Fly Sweep series as my core running game from a one-back set that resembles an "exploded" Red/Blue Wing-T formation (i.e., TE/wing are flexed out together several yards, SE is wider than normal for Red/Blue). The Fly motion ties the series together and allows me good deception as I run the base play (Fly Sweep), various counters (Dive, Boot, Smash, Truck, etc.), and play-action off of both the base and the counters. So far, pretty standard -- it's a play series. Then, I add an additional layer of deception in designing my passing game. I will motion the slotback across the formation to form a Bunch to the TE/WB side, or else I will motion the wing across to form Run-and-Shoot style Trips to the SE side. Until the motion back passes behind the QB, this looks exactly like Fly motion in either direction. (I've seen some defenses prepare for the Fly Sweep by scooting edge defenders up toward the LOS as the motion back approaches the QB, then drop back to cover a pass after the motion back passes by him. I've subsequently added plays to take advantage of this defensive reaction -- both the "Bunch Crunch" toss and play action, for example.) One more example -- the 60-series (R&S Trips) Go route package has been a huge part of my offense for years, and has grown over time into its own series -- tags off of each of the key pass routes, but also a flow screen away from the QB rollout, and even a Statue of Liberty play, Boise State style, to keep backside defenders honest. But beyond that, I've installed an Iso play using the same 60-series motion that I use to run Go and its tags, and then I've created a play-action pass that fakes the Iso. That gives me not only a pass route package (Go) and an entire complementary series (Go/Switch, Go/Choice, Go/Mesh, Go/Crease, Go/Flow Screen, Go/Statue); it also gives me a pass-action run - the Iso - and in addition a pass-action-run-action pass, the Iso pass. Unlike most play-action passes, and like a fake Draw pass, the Iso pass can be used in 3rd & long situations with regular success. So what you're looking at with the Wild Bunch is not just a series of running plays and play-action passes that resemble each other; it is a set of interlocking series designed to slow down defenses both when they see a man in motion, and for that crucial half-second after the snap -- and that's all I think you can ask play design and offensive system design to do for you. So that's how I define "system" in offensive football.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Sept 25, 2007 16:15:53 GMT -6
smartfootball.blogspot.com/2005/09/what-is-system.htmlWhat is a system? People are always discussing "systems." The Urban Meyer system, the Charlie Weiss system, the Norm Chow. The Airraid or what Mike Leach does "is a system." Does this mean anything or is this just the self-important tautology of football coaches and fans? Are they "systems" or just a series of instructions? If they are systems, is what the team who hasn't won a game in 10 years does a system? Why not? They have a series of plays and communications. I want to highlight a point: A system, in ordinary terms, is no more than a series of parts that interact and work together to form a unified whole. The word unified is helpful since it implies that things work together. I'm not going to touch today how they work together, that's more of what the past few articles about making plays look alike and even route conversions were for. But the other side of a system is its further definition, "for serving a common purpose." A system is supposed to work! Sometimes there is much made of "being a spread team" or "having an identity" and such. The only limitating factor for a football offense is what can be executed effectively. It has nothing to do with what you already do, what "we hang our hat on," "we're a passing team," "we're a physical team." These shouldn't even be considerations. You should just try to win games. That's it. It begs the question: how do you win games? For now I'll just say that one possible answer is "Score more points." So--forgive me for taking the long way to get here--you need the proper "tools" (plays, schemes, formations, etc) to defeat each individual strategy the defense employs. While some plays are more useful than others, everything has a defense, so you need at least one offensive strategy for every defensive strategy (at least broadly defined) that you might face. Otherwise the rational response by the defense would be to do the same thing every down that you have no answer for. "So you've told me that offenses only are concerned with scoring points (and other offensive goals like getting first downs at important times to control the clock) and defeat what the D is doing. What a great blog buddy!!!" It seems simple but is important for two reasons: 1) it can help you be a better coach, and 2) it's not actually true. First, thinking like this should get rid of many slack concerns, particularly stat watching. What was our passing percentage? What was our YPC? How many formations did we run? "Oh but it looked good coming out of your hand, it was a nice spiral, even though it was an interception." All this is meaningless if the point is to win games. We all know this, but we have to defeat these mental traps at every turn. However, on the second point, sometimes there are other considerations. At the NFL level, it really is all about winning games. The only time things like style and all that are invoked is as an explanation for success. "Oh, the Patriots win because they play it close to the vest." "The Steelers have a great record because they are a physical team." This might be true in a sense, but it mostly comes down to them having effective strategies against their opponent, with each effective strategy being a combination of talent and scheme. Conversely, at other levels, particularly high school or major college football, you can get more mileage out of being "exciting" than you can out of being "3 yards and a cloud of dust." I'd be lying if I didn't say that I enjoy the passing game more than more staid elements of the run game. Is it purely strategic? Fans would rather watch their team lose 42 to 63 than 28-7 (though that isn't a fair comparison since 42/63 is a better ratio). Anyway, the overall message is do not worry about identities or styles or systems in the sense of how they look. The question is are they effective? Why is the Norm Chow system effective? Because in about 12 pass plays he has an answer for almost all defensive strategies. Where other coaches need 80, he has 12 (or 10-16 or so, give or take). If you must concern yourself with "style" then that is fine to a point. Sometimes it is more psychological than anything. But a true "system" is simply concerned with how good the individual parts are at working together to help you win games. If you could win all your games and never throw a pass, I would suggest you do it. Same if you never ran the ball. More likely, you need a mixture of strategies, integrated in such a way to be teachable to kids aged 14-18 (or 18-22, even 10-13, etc) during limited time. It's not easy.
|
|
|
Post by coachjaz on Sept 25, 2007 22:12:03 GMT -6
Good points as always Chris
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Sept 25, 2007 23:26:29 GMT -6
smartfootball.blogspot.com/2005/09/what-is-system.htmlWhat is a system? People are always discussing "systems." The Urban Meyer system, the Charlie Weiss system, the Norm Chow. The Airraid or what Mike Leach does "is a system." Does this mean anything or is this just the self-important tautology of football coaches and fans? Are they "systems" or just a series of instructions? If they are systems, is what the team who hasn't won a game in 10 years does a system? Why not? They have a series of plays and communications. I want to highlight a point: A system, in ordinary terms, is no more than a series of parts that interact and work together to form a unified whole. The word unified is helpful since it implies that things work together. I'm not going to touch today how they work together, that's more of what the past few articles about making plays look alike and even route conversions were for. But the other side of a system is its further definition, "for serving a common purpose." A system is supposed to work! Sometimes there is much made of "being a spread team" or "having an identity" and such. The only limitating factor for a football offense is what can be executed effectively. It has nothing to do with what you already do, what "we hang our hat on," "we're a passing team," "we're a physical team." These shouldn't even be considerations. You should just try to win games. That's it. It begs the question: how do you win games? For now I'll just say that one possible answer is "Score more points." So--forgive me for taking the long way to get here--you need the proper "tools" (plays, schemes, formations, etc) to defeat each individual strategy the defense employs. While some plays are more useful than others, everything has a defense, so you need at least one offensive strategy for every defensive strategy (at least broadly defined) that you might face. Otherwise the rational response by the defense would be to do the same thing every down that you have no answer for. "So you've told me that offenses only are concerned with scoring points (and other offensive goals like getting first downs at important times to control the clock) and defeat what the D is doing. What a great blog buddy!!!" It seems simple but is important for two reasons: 1) it can help you be a better coach, and 2) it's not actually true. First, thinking like this should get rid of many slack concerns, particularly stat watching. What was our passing percentage? What was our YPC? How many formations did we run? "Oh but it looked good coming out of your hand, it was a nice spiral, even though it was an interception." All this is meaningless if the point is to win games. We all know this, but we have to defeat these mental traps at every turn. However, on the second point, sometimes there are other considerations. At the NFL level, it really is all about winning games. The only time things like style and all that are invoked is as an explanation for success. "Oh, the Patriots win because they play it close to the vest." "The Steelers have a great record because they are a physical team." This might be true in a sense, but it mostly comes down to them having effective strategies against their opponent, with each effective strategy being a combination of talent and scheme. Conversely, at other levels, particularly high school or major college football, you can get more mileage out of being "exciting" than you can out of being "3 yards and a cloud of dust." I'd be lying if I didn't say that I enjoy the passing game more than more staid elements of the run game. Is it purely strategic? Fans would rather watch their team lose 42 to 63 than 28-7 (though that isn't a fair comparison since 42/63 is a better ratio). Anyway, the overall message is do not worry about identities or styles or systems in the sense of how they look. The question is are they effective? Why is the Norm Chow system effective? Because in about 12 pass plays he has an answer for almost all defensive strategies. Where other coaches need 80, he has 12 (or 10-16 or so, give or take). If you must concern yourself with "style" then that is fine to a point. Sometimes it is more psychological than anything. But a true "system" is simply concerned with how good the individual parts are at working together to help you win games. If you could win all your games and never throw a pass, I would suggest you do it. Same if you never ran the ball. More likely, you need a mixture of strategies, integrated in such a way to be teachable to kids aged 14-18 (or 18-22, even 10-13, etc) during limited time. It's not easy. Also, a system is based upon a practice structure/methodology that allows for maximum efficiency (yeah I can dream right?). AS Dennis Creehan said, " you can have a playbook, and run the plays, but they are just lines on a pages unless you know how to practice them efficiently." Running a system allows for that as long as the coaches are immersed into the system and are learning constantly how to better the practice elements to better their game day production. A case in point is this year I moved from NM where we were running a bunch of plays that the HS HC called his "west coast offense", but was actually a bunch of plays, to NE Arizona where we run the wing-t. We are series based (power and belly) with the base play, counter, play-action etc all coming off of it. We as a staff, and especially me beign a former spread coach, are constantly learning from as many different sources as possible on how we can make our teaching progressions and practices better so that we can affect game day production.
|
|
|
Post by goldenbear76 on Sept 26, 2007 1:01:00 GMT -6
I look at our playcalls such as this. When you watch film, you pretty much know where to run or pass..and how they are going to stop you. When we call plays..we usually start out with what we know a defense will give us. Example, If they have 8 in the box and are really aggressive. We like to throw slants early, or screens. Get the linebackers on their heals. Then we'll work in runs that we know should work given a soft linebacker. (Basically the bubble in a defense's front 7 or 8)
Versus a read and react defense..we like to run early to get the linebackers coming up..and then use our playaction and boot stuff. (ISO pop, Zone boot etc.) I'm sure we have tendancies that we do..to me that is the challenge..to call plays that aren't part of a tendancy. Even if you call a play thats a 3 yard loss, you will know why its a 3 yard loss and should be able to mix up your alignment etc..to either make that play work..or use a different play to take advantage of their alignment weaknesses.
After thinking about..we don't really have a system per se. We run 8 or 9 pass plays, and 6 or 7 runs..but we use varied alignments. Every week we add a few wrinkles, but nothing major..just simple things that can get that defense we're facing to have to think.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Sept 26, 2007 6:31:10 GMT -6
"tampa two" isnt a defense, its a SYSTEM. its HOW THINGS ARE DONE. Thats right from dungys mouth.
|
|
|
Post by bulldogoption on Sept 26, 2007 20:19:34 GMT -6
In my experience systems give you ANSWERS. It could be a complementary play (counter, PA) or they give you small tweaks for the same play (could be a different blocking scheme for the same play). Being multiple cuts into your practice time.
If your wing is having a hard time sealing the invert, than you can call a completely different play or make a slight blocking adjustment. Maybe you have the SE crack, maybe you block the invert out and change the path fo the ball carrier. Small adjustments let most kids do the exact same thing on the play. Again, in my experience, small tweaks or complements take less practice time than an entirely new play.
I tried to merge two systems. I thought one was the complement to the other. It sucked. I scrapped one completely and went whole hog with one of them and ITS ANSWERS and COMPLEMENTS. Our players are more comfortable now. For example I was asking my kids to run plays that needed wide splits, close to the ball along with plays that need tight splits back off the ball. I'm an idiot, in other words.
In my experience, a system is easier on the kids.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Sept 27, 2007 6:41:01 GMT -6
systems give you "if then" play calling. ever see coaches that do this...
middle screen sweep right sweep left shotgun draw iso
just all over the place...running PLAYS instead of running an OFFENSE.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Nov 6, 2007 13:19:22 GMT -6
looking at this, I think you can have a "system" in place and STILL come across as 'grab-bagging'.
Mainly, "series" is a way of saying you have an identity.
You run series to establish your identity within a game. Once you establish something in a game, you can work off of it with complimentary plays.
Counter works great after toss is established.........etc.........
I've seen many teams that base out of ________ and are good at it, but get taken out of rhythm by a defense, so they really never get around to establishing anything within a game, and play into the defense's hands to pin their ears back on them.
Once you establish a run game/ quick passing game / effective deep game /etc within a game, you have a launch point to keep the defense on their toes.
|
|
|
Post by tog on Nov 6, 2007 13:30:49 GMT -6
systems give you "if then" play calling. ever see coaches that do this... middle screen sweep right sweep left shotgun draw iso just all over the place...running PLAYS instead of running an OFFENSE. this sounds like a good series of plays to me mess with the dl force the edge force the other edge sucker em again then run right at em we do all of that stuff the thing a lot of people need to realize is, that yes you have answers-but assume that the other guy knows your answers too sometimes to follow up the sweep, with the sweep, and then they start stopping it a bit, and then run trap off of the sweep the very next play isn't always too sound they know the answers the secret to me is to make them off balance how YOU want them to be while taking what they give you. take what they give you but also hit where you want with who you want for the reasons you want when I see teams that are toooooo system oriented it is almost laughable at what comes the next play ok there is the buck ok here comes trap ok here comes waggle here comes punt write it down, use it a couple of plays later don't make it obvious
|
|
|
Post by tog on Nov 6, 2007 13:31:55 GMT -6
i agree with lochness here for sure though really, it boils down to how much carryover can you have blocking schemewise to then add all the little wrinkles for the skill kids to hit things differently from different spots
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Nov 6, 2007 17:05:30 GMT -6
To me, an offensive system is designed with these things in mind-
1. The plays are designed to stress a defense in a manner that compliments several other plays within the offense. For example; we treat our sweeps (jet, rocket, standard toss) as compliments to our off tackle power and veer. These plays compliment each other by stressing the way a defense aligns and defends the perimeter.
Now, this doesn't necessarily mean a series such as the jet, rocket, or belly; although series are great at accomplishing these goals.
2. The blocking schemes are- a. limited but still effective b. work with every formation.
3. Because you're blocking schemes work with every formation, then you can run most of your plays out of all of your formations.
A good example of this is the jet series- we can run this out of every single formation in our playbook and not have to change any blocking schemes or footwork patterns.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Nov 6, 2007 19:10:52 GMT -6
To me a system has more to do with how you do things, everything from how you practice, how you call plays, how you determine who plays where, what formations to use, and the terminology used to create a picture of assignments for the kids...how the blocking rules and schemes all come together...how formations, backfield actions and motions create series football ....
ie for me, one small part of the "system" has to do with a set of rules that are used to open the hole regardless of where we are attacking. I teach my kids the GOOD GOD rules and we can open holes 0-7 with a likely double team and kickout and lead thru at the point of attack...the backfield actions can vary but the oline will do the same thing to open those holes. The motion tags I use also tell the qb which way to open...thats built into my system...of course I can attack each hole with different blocking too but my blocking tags clearly explain that to my kids, ie a 2 hole trap is blocked different from a 2 hole blast play...
the plays...again, thats part of the system,- I start with the idea that I need to attack each poa with brute force or be able to attack it with deception and misdirection. so... i want series football...i have a FULL FLOW series (all backs go to the point of attack including compliments and counters and play action) and a SPLIT FLOW series that threatens three points (middle and both flanks) and I can add SEMI FULL FLOW (sort of an option flow look) threatening b gap or off tackle and one flank at the same time. I like to build in play action passes (and screens off those) off all of the key plays...thats what a system is to me. each play compliments the last within that SERIES.
Its nice to know that if player A is doing Technique A to stop it, then I can go to Play B to punish player A for his actions. If a team has 3 players doing technique A then I need to go to series B lol.
I also think a good system is always a work in progress as coaches are always trying to improve what they do.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Nov 6, 2007 20:26:27 GMT -6
I keep waiting for someone to come on here and just go
System? What's a system? We just run random plays with no thought behind them at all! Isn't that what everyone does?!!
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Nov 6, 2007 20:31:14 GMT -6
I keep waiting for someone to come on here and just go System? What's a system? We just run random plays with no thought behind them at all! Isn't that what everyone does?!! good point somebody has to be a liar on this thread! we definitely see the "grab bag" approach more than the system approach. Q: Why do we run sprint-draw? A: Because other teams run it and they do well with it Nice.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 6, 2007 21:37:33 GMT -6
SYSTEM VS. SERIES
I think this would be a better discussion. Is the I formation a "system" even though most wouldnt consider the multiple I "series" football.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Nov 7, 2007 7:02:46 GMT -6
one former coach I know said "who cares if we dont run series football, who cares if our last play didnt compliment the next"- he was fired with a 3-27 record. The team simply had NO IDENTITY at all.
|
|
|
Post by lionhart on Nov 7, 2007 7:13:42 GMT -6
you guys want to really laugh? here's the situation im in.... my head coach knows NOTHING about offense, period. he was hired as a discipline guy and to get the kids in our building to come out and play. the program was in shambles before he got here, winless for 3 years with maybe 20 kids total. he has dobe a GREAT job of gettign the athletes to play and our numbers here are tripled. i was brought in to run the offense, and installed the shotgun spread last year. we havent been dominant, but we have been competetive and the kids are learnung the system little by little. but EVERY week, during meetings, the hc will say, "well, this week we need to be in i formation and run toss becasue we can get to the edge on them." so we spend valuable practice time teaching a new play, then neglect our base stuff. the following week after playing a delaware team he says "i want to run some kind of wham play coach, becasue thats what they did to us last week and it worked." my frustraion has boiled over now, and im ready to walk. great kids, trememndous athletes coming back next year, but im just not sure we can succeed with this "plays of the week" nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Nov 7, 2007 7:20:02 GMT -6
to me all of that stuff should be hammered out in the off season...who are we? what are we going to be known for? what plays do the other guys have to stop or we crush them? ...for us, we settled on a very basic set of plays...toss sweep, power, counter trey, iso strong and weak, trap and counter trap...and of course waggle. we must rep those plays a million times a week and its paid off for us. every coaching meeting someone wants to add a bunch of new wrinkles and ultimately we kill two hours before saying "why dont we shine and polish what we do?"...
we are headed to district play, first time since 1996.
|
|
|
Post by tog on Nov 7, 2007 7:21:33 GMT -6
define compliment?
i think there is a misconception here
wing t coach runs bucksweep, then runs trap---it is series football and those plays compliment each other because they are off the same action
spread coach runs a screen to the left, then runs zone-the screen helps wear down the dl and slows their attack, then zone hits em in the mouth
it's just a different way of looking at it instead of saying ok, let's run sweep, dangit, the end is too wide and hestopped us, let's now run power at that wide end
i like to think of it more like this we are no huddle and this kind of warps the thinking here as we ARE taking what they are giving us by alignment we line up see that the end is wide and call veer off the jet we line up see that the end is reachable and run jet or qb sweep we line up see that the corners are way off and throw a wr screen out there or sometimes just decide to throw a shot downfield to get the secondary thinking about it
we want to stretch the defense as much as we can horizontally and vertically to make them defend the entire field, we will throw and catch good enough to hurt them, if we can't then we will do it with jets and be more series oriented but the zone or veer away from the jet won't be the NEXT play. It might be two plays later or the next series after their coaches have come up with some adjustment to jet
losing the guessing game of coach thinks the end is tight-run sweep coach thinks the end is tight-run sweep coach thinks the end is tight-run sweep---oh crap he lined up out wide now we can't reach it and that play is dead ok i got em now, they want to stop the sweep---i will call power---dangit, the end is tight again
punt
|
|