|
Post by coachcalande on Nov 7, 2007 7:23:23 GMT -6
I think with the spread you are using series football too if you know what you are doing. you are putting COVERAGE in conflict arent you?...
|
|
|
Post by tog on Nov 7, 2007 7:26:07 GMT -6
steve i agree totally about the identity thing
and the
"let's just do what we do" thing
i have been on the staff where we put in 10 totally new plays with no carryover for anyone a week
it was miserable
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Nov 7, 2007 7:29:53 GMT -6
we got smacked 33-0 when we got away from what we did well. The kids were begging to go "back to what we have been doing"....
|
|
|
Post by tog on Nov 7, 2007 7:31:34 GMT -6
I think with the spread you are using series football too if you know what you are doing. you are putting COVERAGE in conflict arent you?... coverage fronts everything i look at the whole field and see what is there see what i can attack find the weak player find the weak alignment and then try and make em pay then it is up to the kids--and a big part of that is us putting them in those situations to be able to execute by not overwhelming them with grab bag stuff, stuff that has no carryover we are a zone/veer/jet/screen/short passing game/vertical passing game team we have huge guards we won't be running bucksweep anytime soon lol i am a hybrid/modular/spread guy but have learned a lot by reading wing t books and the conflict stuff they talk about
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Nov 7, 2007 7:43:07 GMT -6
hitch and hitch and go...series football
sprint and sprint draw...series football
|
|
|
Post by tog on Nov 7, 2007 7:45:15 GMT -6
just not on back to back plays
|
|
|
Post by warrior53 on Nov 7, 2007 12:26:50 GMT -6
lionheart, I feel for you, I am the "OC" on our staff and that is exactly what I do. I am the organizer of the offense. The Head Coach calls the plays - fine with me. But, we used to be a grab bag offense of the week type of team before we went to a system. Used to drive me nuts!!! It has really helped the signal caller out. He is on board with the system and knows more about what to do than before. I urge you to do that with your head coach - go get something he belives in and you can live with, so you are not doing this every week. It is still not a perfect world for me, but it is something I can live with right now.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Nov 7, 2007 16:52:17 GMT -6
I think the question is better put as, "How much system?"
What if I have one play, the inside veer. I would think that is a system, any one of three guys can carry the ball.
Ok so I add a play action pass off the inside veer. Maybe I add the outside veer. I add a sprint off the veer pass. Still a system? All veer looks right?
Now I install Iso. Uh oh. But wait, I also install a bootleg pass off iso, and maybe a quick trap or a counter where I show an Iso look. Am I back in system land? Or does it really matter?
Now I'm a spread team. I have 10 5-step and 3-step pass plays, and I have a QB draw. I would think this is a system. What if my pass plays can only be run from different formations? What if they can all be run from 5-wide no back. What about those pass plays makes them fit more or less well as a "system" (hint: the answer involves how well the defense can pattern read).
Now I want to expand my run game. I add another draw to the RB, I install a QB trap. Now I run a bunch of screens, all off my pass look. I'd say this counts as a system. But what if I install a gun run play like IZ or power with the QB reading. Then I throw in jet motion and I motion a receiver over to be in a pitch relationship.
Urban Meyer would say this is still a system. But is it? What honestly does the gun run game have to do with the spread passing game, other than the QB in the shotgun and maybe both benefit from the bubble screen? Is that enough? Nebraska ran a pre-Rodriguez revolution version of the gun run game, with the QB handing off, pitching, or sprinting out and it seemed to work well within their "system."
Last hypothetical: I'm Red Faught. I run the run and shoot. I line up in 4 wide trips and doubles, I throw the ball, I run the draws and the dives, I roll my QB out, and I throw the ball all over the field. But I also like to get into the Delaware wing-t and run a little option, bootleg, shovel passes, dives, etc. I (and those who ran this offense at Georgetown Ky after him) averaged close to 60 or 70 points a season for roughly a decade with many championships.
Now, is this a system? Or is this grab bag?
What if I do this and I add the splitback veer. Is this a system or grab bag now? What if I now average 95 points a game and my started play 8 plays and we average 6 touchdowns a game on those 8 plays. A system? Now say that, after I installed the splitback veer to go with my run and shoot and my Delaware wing-t, we now average 8 points a game total. Grab bag? Or System. Sounds more like grab bag now.
I don't have answers but the point is really more about how much "system" you need. Some look like pretty pure "systems," like the traditional shoot or the wing-t. Some look less so. How many series makes a system, and how many series breaks a system?
Hence where it becomes more art than science.
|
|
|
Post by lionhart on Nov 7, 2007 17:29:48 GMT -6
the most frustrating thing is that this WAS hammered out in the pre-season. i have our offensive philosophy / system / implementation all types out in a handbook. we review it as a staff and i spoke in great detail about keeping things simple. all coaches were in agreement. then when the hc comes to me and says we shouild run wham or rocket sweep out of a delaware set... i remind him of our original plan to keep things SIMPLE. his response is "coach,. wham is like a pop warner play.... how hard could it be to teach it?" the issue is that we have deviatyed greatly from our original plans, and thats what hurts us in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by optionguy on Nov 7, 2007 18:22:42 GMT -6
Homer Smith influenced me greatly with his view that an effective offense consists of mini-systems. We packaged our mini-systems into play concepts designed to run attack the defense inside, at the tackle-box, and the perimeter; and to attack the pass defense with horizontal and vertical stretch concepts. Our mini-systems were based on the isv, which had a counter and two playactions (dropback and boot); a flow action, consisting of iso, isz, a counter, a dropback look, and a boot; sweep, fb belly, a counter, a dropback look, and a boot; a sprint pass, a dropback and quick pass actions, all of which had draws and screens off of them. We also used various formations--I, gun, flexbone, one-back, and receiver alignments--pro, twins, trips, etc. We could utilize approximately 75% - 80% of our plays out of any formation, but some plays were more formation specific.
We probably looked grab bag to people, but since we game planned based on attacking our opponents at certain points, we had answers to what to call during games. In addition, based on our personnel, we would emphasize a particular mini-system more than others during the season; and we utilized different run/pass concepts within our mini-systems in games according to our assessment of our opponent's tendencies, weaknesses, etc.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Nov 8, 2007 13:27:39 GMT -6
The real difference is...
running plays vs running an offense
|
|