|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 21, 2007 11:01:25 GMT -6
Based on the discussion on some DW based topics, I started to think about a difference of opinion between my DC (who was a HC) and myself. As an OC, he liked to run the same set (which was considered a fairly "standard" offense at the time), because he felt he knew how the defense would line up and it would make it easier to get reps against the D they would likely see in practice.
I don't ever really consider that much, we run a lot of full house offense- unbalanced, nasty slot, single-wing, etc., and I feel we have a line call system in place that allows us to adapt to anything. Still, we come in to games working primarily against- a 4-4 all week, for example, and on Friday they come out in a 3-3-5 and stunt all over, or do something we had not seen before. Sometimes, this screws us up for a while (esp. with young OL) until we can get our guys together and fix it- which is tough since almost all start of both sides of the ball, so I see his point has some validity to it, especially in a situation like ours (which is probably why we are pretty basic on D).
So here are my questions:
1. In your opinion, is there really a "standard" or "conventional" offense or defense (this may vary depending on area/level)?
2. What is your basis for leaning either toward or away from the "conventional" (ex. conventional- know what opponent will likely do, unconventional- opponent unfamiliarity)?
I'm just curious as to what people think and why...
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 21, 2007 11:06:42 GMT -6
when people draw up defenses, what do they usually draw up the world-beaters against?
Pro-I
To me, Pro-I power, Iso, Toss, Trap, Dive are the vanilla wafer offense. You can base against this and make all your adjustments off of it. That, is "conventional" as it gets in my book.
|
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 21, 2007 11:33:38 GMT -6
when people draw up defenses, what do they usually draw up the world-beaters against?
Pro-I
I agree. That is what he ran (and he did have a lot of success with it). Still, I like to do what is different- knowing they have 1 week to prepare for our formation(s) as opposed to 6 weeks against it. We see some vastly different defenses though.
I am much more unconventional on offense because I want them to make a bad decision/adjustment.
I'm much more conventional on D (43, rotation cov. 3)... because I want to avoid the bad decisions (I=stupid... a lot), and I think it adjusts to a lot of offensive variety.
|
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Mar 21, 2007 12:30:06 GMT -6
I like an unconventional offense because many opponents will try an unsound defensive scheme to stop it and because it seems to cause some teams to panic. I also think an unconventional offense can quickly establish an identity for our program.
The main reason that I like a semi-conventional defense is that an unconventional scheme may not be a sound scheme. I like to keep it simple on defense and let kids run to the ball. I don't like to change our defense just because we are facing an unfamiliar offensive scheme. We should be able to make a few simple adjustments to our scheme and stick to the basics.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachsky on Mar 21, 2007 14:13:43 GMT -6
I have found the recent conversations around the DWing and Unconventional (we used to use the word gimmick) offenses very interesting maybe even peculiar.
Here's why:
- In my state (WA), you simply don't see a lot of the DW at the high school level. Of the hundreds of HS programs maybe a handful run it. None of those programs regularly make the state playoffs. Most of the schools that run it are in the smallest division. In our area, it's more of a youth football thing.
- From my experience, see above, I find comparisons with the Wing-T laughable. Contrary to the DW, The Wing-T is one of the most popular offenses run at the HS level in my state. It is consistently the most successful offense in our state. Bellevue and Archbishop Murphy have perfected it to the point to where they are considered to be some of the best HS programs nationally. From my experience I don't understand how people lump these two offenses together. One regularly wins championships in my state the other is hardly a blip.
- I have never met coach Cisar or Calande and can certainly appreciate their zeal and passion about a system they love, there football coaching knowledge is well documented as is their coaching record. I do however, find it somewhat ironic that for all the time they spend championing, selling, and lauding the virtues and invincibility of the DWing offense that neither of them run the offense. I cant help it, it cracks me up.
- I would image that the DWing makes up less than 5% of the High School offenses and 10% of the Youth offenses. It sure gets disproportionate amount of time on Internet football boards?
- I have also wondered why you don't see the DWing above Youth or HS levels of football? DWing enthusiast will tell you it's all marketing and that it's the "cart and the horse" dilemma and the offense could be very effective at higher levels. My own theory is that the offense cannot be effective above HS because with top level athletes and the time to game plan against it, it can be shutdown. I might be wrong.
I do see the Dwing as a great "change up", "unconventional", or "gimmick" offense. It certainly makes a D coordinator think and players have to deal with something different. If I was in a coaching situation in which I had some sort of inherit disadvantage with Johnnie's and Joe's, I would consider using the Dwing or another unconventional offense.
|
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Mar 21, 2007 15:08:21 GMT -6
DW is my second choice, I run SW for a variety of good reasons, I have run the "I" , Power "I", DW, Veer and even some Spread stuff. For my kids and the constraints we deal with, the DW and SW made the most sense. Our SW BTW uses DW blocking rules. Atleast I can say Ive run those and have some first hand knowledge on the subject. Im very open minded about utilizing the system that gives my kids the best chance to compete and have fun.
The reason the Wing T which is an offense I also like but because of practice time constraints and personel we do not run, is popular in your area of the Country because of Bellevue.
In California the DW has a good following because of Colton and Clovis East ( Natinally Ranked) run it along with all the big Scoring Records Don Markhams teams have done at Bloomington.
I can support a system I find makes sense for many, but for me Ive found something that gives me all the DW gives and more (spine and T series)with a lot fewer headaches. I dont runt eh Strigth T either but I certainly know a bit about it and can comment on it.
Its the hottest thing going in Michigan, why? Because a few teams ran it and did real well and well the bandwagon started.
Virginia has a bunch of SW teams why? Giles and Prince Willima win a bunch so Osborne and Louisa jump on board and they are all playing for titles.
My guess is coaches are bandwagonners. To an extent, as many HS coaches here have poitned out you cant be someone that doesnt have confidence in themselves or are afraid of losing your job because if you dont choose somethng everyone else is running and lose its your fault, if you run what everyone else runs and lose its the kids fault LOL.
As to Calande I dont think he has a choice as to what he is running so probably unfair to paint it with that improper brush.
|
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 21, 2007 15:24:19 GMT -6
coachsky,
I can appreciate that view on the DW, though I see some connections btw. DW and Wing-T... and btw. DW and Wishbone, Wishbone and WT, etc... Biggie Munn at Michigan State ran a double wing offense, but it was quite a bit different than Markhams (Munn's was an unbalanced line, for ex.). And it came from a single wing. Tubby Raymond's mid 80s Wing T contained a set where the alignment was basically a DW, but they ran Wing-T series from that.
I think a lot of that goes back to that Eddie Robinson quote: "Don't run plays, run an offense. Adapt plays to your system, but don't run a bunch of plays from a bunch of systems". I think many of us have done that. Personally, I like the DW, but find that as a formation, it does not give me exactly what I want out of a system which is why we have not run it (we were wishbone for years... ran some wing I, Maryland I too).
Anyway, I don't really want this to be "another double wing thread". I seriously am interested in what people consider "conventional" and whether or not that consideration has positive or negative connotations to them. For example, In the 80s, 90s, some form of an "I" was a pretty common offense. Is that still the case in most places? When I see college games I see few QB+ 2 back offenses, leading me to believe that my view (and Brophy's) that a Pro I is "conventional" might just not be the case as much anymore.
I like to be different for a reason (for us it is unbalanced, nasty slot, etc...) Some people like to be more conventional for a reason. I don't care which side anyone is on- I am interested in the reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachsky on Mar 21, 2007 16:10:59 GMT -6
The reason the Wing T which is an offense I also like but because of practice time constraints and personnel we do not run, is popular in your area of the Country because of Bellevue. There were a lot of coaches in WA, Terry Enis in particular, who were successful with the Wing-t before Butch Goncharoff came out of a Youth Program to build Bellevue into a nationally recognized HS football program. There is no doubt that Butch has taken the Delaware version and put it into to TURBO! Ask DeLasalle. It's popularity in WA is not at all related to Bellevue. This years 4A state championship, Oak Harbor looks nothing like Bellevue. Oak Harbor has a div 1 QB and Bellevue passes 2 times a game, maybe. Jake Locker - UW's QB of the future set records at Ferndale running and passing in a Wing-t that is very different than Bellevue's. Nobody in WA that I know of runs the Wing-T like Bellevue. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2007 16:32:52 GMT -6
To me, patience is a virtue on the offensive side of the ball. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, in our league knows that we'll be in a 4-3 cover 2 shell and zone dog well. We're not going to create a different defense for double wing, veer, or 5-wide. We have very sound rules in place for how we handle double wing motions, triple option, shotgun zone read stuff, 5 -wide, shifts from empty to 2 back and vice versa. So we work our adjustment stuff.
We're not going to reinvent the wheel. You can run all the gimics or unconventional stuff, we try to take care of us. We really rely on our rules, and we dont' want to have anything lost in translation.
But that double wing is pretty frustrating.
|
|
|
|
Post by airman on Mar 21, 2007 16:47:48 GMT -6
People tell me I am uncoventional in the offense I run. I mean come on, doesn't every one want to run the noback offense?
however the noback is really conventional when you think about it. you are what you talking about airman. well, using the wishbone mentality(few plays run to perfection) you can run a high school passing offense from no backs. now were it gets uncoventional is when you start going pole cat, archie cooley quads stacks, trips stacks, double stacks and diamond set. still you can run the plays with a few wrinkles added in.
my theory is this, if you are going to throw the ball at the high school level you have to live and die with it. there can be no second guessing. you just do not have the time to cover a strong 3 step, 5 step, sprint out and screen package then with a zone run game. really 5 wides is no more then a 2 te, fullhouse t backfield mentality. we lineup in basically 1 set, we come at you like gangbusters, we wear you down and then we drop the bomb on you.
the above philosophy is what I believe in. I would coach the same way if I ran the fullhouse t, double wing or wing t. I believe in 2 min tempo the whole game. I am thinking if I ran the double wing I bet I could get 70 to 80 running plays in during a game.
|
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on Mar 21, 2007 17:08:13 GMT -6
We run an "Unconventional" Offense (Spread Fly Sweep) for a couple of reasons. I had a friend who was a HC in Oregon and he had been preaching it for a couple of years after seeing Mark Speckman's initial success at Willamette University. I was the new HC at a start up and we had a fast kid who looked like a "sweeper". We had a nice season and I was hooked - we've been a Fly team ever since (9 years). I've really come to like our unique scheme - no one else runs it - and our kids have bought into the idea. We run other things but the Fly is our base play, our identity.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 21, 2007 18:45:34 GMT -6
Senator
I would still consider a 2 back pro set to be conventional because as Brophy pointed out, that is what everyone draws up when they start teaching alignment and start building their defense.
I think the two TE two wing formation of the dbl wing would be conventional, but the toe to toe splits with all 11 players moves it to a bit unconventional.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2007 20:08:17 GMT -6
Unconventional and gimic are totally different. To me gimic is like running the daffy duck etc. Unconventional is something that is different or defies conventions.
Like the 1 back gun with the QB as a running threat. Then like I said, in a way you're in a 12 man offense. You've got the benefit of a 2-back running attack but you've got 3-4 receivers. Very nice offense and though we can align to it, it keeps us a bit off balance with an athletic QB.
Finally, unconventional is oddly defined. Wouldn't you think that it would be wise to make sure you can block everybody across the line from you? Sure you would. Wouldn't it be unconventional to leave a lineman unblocked? Yes. So when you run option you leave a guy unblocked--unconventional?
|
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 21, 2007 21:44:11 GMT -6
Maybe a better term would be unique or uncommon rather than unconventional. We are not bizarro on offense. For a long time we were a 2 TE wishbone team. I felt it was unconventional in our league (or one of the other "u" words), because we were the only team that ran a 2 TE, 3 back offense.
Unconventional and gimic are totally different.
True. We are unconventional... or uncommon. I do not think you could call us gimmicky since we run about 8 plays... mostly power and misdirection series football... that is pretty conventional. But the unbalanced, the nasty slot, etc. Some of those things I do specifically to get good angles/take advantage of poor adjustments... but I like that we are the only team that does it. If everyone else ran our offense, I would probably look for something different. Some people do not care about that... which is fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Mar 21, 2007 22:55:14 GMT -6
i guess "uncommon" is based upon where you play ball at. Being down here in New Mexico now, I have seen more wing-t to shake a stick at, I formation teams that suck to look like a college team, and a ton of Spread Option teams. I being a contrarian coach in nature look at what is there and then adapt my offense to what is NOT common to my area. This year as the 8th grade HC I made the switch to the double wing out of necessity (plus used to have to go against Markham's teams) and watched every opposing coach argue with teh officials over its "legality" and usually call a time out when they saw it. Up in my home state of Oregon, ost teams I coached on or agianst were gun spread, then spread option, and now Pistol teams with a real heavy dose of I formation teams.
Commonality is based on who and what you play against versus a specific set or scheme.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 22, 2007 6:30:58 GMT -6
Based on the discussion on some DW based topics, I started to think about a difference of opinion between my DC (who was a HC) and myself. As an OC, he liked to run the same set (which was considered a fairly "standard" offense at the time), because he felt he knew how the defense would line up and it would make it easier to get reps against the D they would likely see in practice. I don't ever really consider that much, we run a lot of full house offense- unbalanced, nasty slot, single-wing, etc., and I feel we have a line call system in place that allows us to adapt to anything. Still, we come in to games working primarily against- a 4-4 all week, for example, and on Friday they come out in a 3-3-5 and stunt all over, or do something we had not seen before. Sometimes, this screws us up for a while (esp. with young OL) until we can get our guys together and fix it- which is tough since almost all start of both sides of the ball, so I see his point has some validity to it, especially in a situation like ours (which is probably why we are pretty basic on D). So here are my questions: 1. In your opinion, is there really a "standard" or "conventional" offense or defense (this may vary depending on area/level)? 2. What is your basis for leaning either toward or away from the "conventional" (ex. conventional- know what opponent will likely do, unconventional- opponent unfamiliarity)? I'm just curious as to what people think and why... Heres where I start on this... conventional wisdom is to assume that "if the pros do it" or if "its run in division I " or "if big schools in Texas run it" then its an accpetable option for offense or defense. Conventional wisdom is that you must have "a balanced attack" and conventional wisdom is that you need to force the defense to "defend the whole field"... Its when a coach can stare into the conventional wisdom and say "no, I dont agree" and do things HIS WAY and STILL BEAT THE WISE ONES...yeah, thats unconventional. run and shoot was seen as unconventional, at one time the T formation was unconventional and it would be seen that way today. The wing-t was once seen as unconventional, at the high school level its not, but at the pro level it would be...the dw is considered unconventional, the single wing is considered unconventional, the wishbone is unconventional at the big school level... if youre not keeping up with the trends, then youre "old school" or "cant keep up with the game" etc. To me, the television analysts control a whole lot of high school fans and coaches like puppets. I have seen so many games where the analysts cant even identify what they are seeing yet talk about it like they are experts (ie calling floridas single wing "the old wing t" repeatedly during telecasts this year)...sigh... ...just do a search here on this forum for "the pistol" and youll see that after it was televised that the interest in it was sparked. Even now, since florida wins the championship and showcased quite a few sw plays, the offense has come up numberous times on this forum and others. unconventional probably just means "not trendy" really.... to me, a modern day unconventional offense would be something that: focuses on ball control and 4 backs running with the ball tight splits great power due to multiple long pulls by linemen down and kickout blocking rather than zone schemes play action passes only as a last resort few formations |
|
|
|
Post by realdawg on Mar 22, 2007 11:07:54 GMT -6
A few years ago we were pretty unconventional in our area. We were spread gun, and 3-5, and we were one of the first teams in our state to sale out to both. Now we are still spread gun, but its not really unconventional any more, and we are back in a more conventional under front on defense. However, there are positives and negatives to both. With an unconventional set you make the other team uncomfortable b/c they are not used to it. Getting any other coach out of his comfort level is a good thing. Also they only have a week to practice against it, and this leads to blown assignments by their kids. However, even now after several years in the spread it is not uncommon for us to practice all week against one look and the team come out in another. We have seen 4-4 teams become 3-4 teams and 4-3 teams become 5-2 teams and everyone tried to go 3-5 overnight against us. This can lead to some trouble and uncertainty. However, I have found that it usually leaves their kids more confused than ours, especially when you start motioning and shifting. I guess to cut to the chase I really like a little bit of unconventionality, as long as it is sound.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Mar 22, 2007 11:14:25 GMT -6
We're a Pro I team but we rab wishbone for a while and we did see some really different looks on defense. The Backbone, 7-2, whatever got a lot of people near the LOS. It was somewhat of a disadvantage in prepping.
|
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Mar 22, 2007 11:24:28 GMT -6
to me, a modern day unconventional offense would be something that: focuses on ball control and 4 backs running with the ball tight splits great power due to multiple long pulls by linemen down and kickout blocking rather than zone schemes play action passes only as a last resort few formations The problem with this is that the point of being conventional or unconventional is not simply to "not be trendy" for the sake of being not-trendy ("I'm a rebel like everyone else") but is to take advantage of the other teams lack of knowledge. When the spread stuff, particularly the spread-to-run spread-option stuff came out lots of guys didn't really have a good plan or a good feel of how to call a game against it. Now that is not so much the case, depending where you are. I'm not so sure that that would be the case with the offense you described. Yes it'd be unconventional in some sense, but would it create the same kind of information assymetry that the other "unconventional" offenses had for awhile? I don't see that many threads on here like "HELP! I'm facing a DW team! How do I defend against it!" This isn't saying it's not a good offense, but the fact that it is "unconventional" doesn't help you in this way. The other thing that I come back to with these discussions is, and we kind of saw this with the spread gun stuff, is that with the internet and coaching conferences and conventions and visiting and books, videos, manuals, magazines, articles, YouTube, Google Video, and websites, that it is really tough to maintain a knowledge or scheme edge for very long. A couple years, but more often like a couple games. Spread or DW. |
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 22, 2007 11:52:26 GMT -6
to me, a modern day unconventional offense would be something that: focuses on ball control and 4 backs running with the ball tight splits great power due to multiple long pulls by linemen down and kickout blocking rather than zone schemes play action passes only as a last resort few formations The problem with this is that the point of being conventional or unconventional is not simply to "not be trendy" for the sake of being not-trendy ("I'm a rebel like everyone else") but is to take advantage of the other teams lack of knowledge. When the spread stuff, particularly the spread-to-run spread-option stuff came out lots of guys didn't really have a good plan or a good feel of how to call a game against it. Now that is not so much the case, depending where you are. I'm not so sure that that would be the case with the offense you described. Yes it'd be unconventional in some sense, but would it create the same kind of information assymetry that the other "unconventional" offenses had for awhile? I don't see that many threads on here like "HELP! I'm facing a DW team! How do I defend against it!" This isn't saying it's not a good offense, but the fact that it is "unconventional" doesn't help you in this way. The other thing that I come back to with these discussions is, and we kind of saw this with the spread gun stuff, is that with the internet and coaching conferences and conventions and visiting and books, videos, manuals, magazines, articles, YouTube, Google Video, and websites, that it is really tough to maintain a knowledge or scheme edge for very long. A couple years, but more often like a couple games. Spread or DW. spread attack, there are several threads here and on every forum where guys are asking for help defending the dw. sorry man, its everywhere! I have however, never seen a "help, how do i defend the multiple pro I attack?"...not even that many spread attack defnse questions really. have you seen many of those? * Huey says the spread defense questions outnumber the dw threads 4-1 * |
|
|
|
Post by CoachMikeJudy on Mar 22, 2007 11:52:53 GMT -6
I'm all about running systems that are unique for the league you play in. But, with that said, you had better know it inside and out! Like those OC's that run Pro-I and are criticized for being vanilla, they run the same thing year in and year out, and have answers for what the defense will do to stop them.
I am telling you, don't fall into that trap of "running plays" like someone posted above- you have to run a system. A system is a "coordinated body of methods or a scheme or plan of procedure."
At my last school the HC wanted to run a hodgepodge of plays. We did so, and about 3 games into the season, defenses started to expose our weaknesses. We would then go into the week scheming to beat those adjustments. It went on and on, and we were always behind the 8 ball.
I pleaded in the offseason that we must develop or adopt a system, not run a lil' spread/I/Jet/Rocket/Wing T.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 22, 2007 12:25:06 GMT -6
I would say too that it would be unconventional to throw the ball, say 75% of the time...just air it over and over again...course i dont think youd keep a job long that way...but I could be wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Mar 22, 2007 12:29:52 GMT -6
there are several threads here and on every forum where guys are asking for help defending the dw. sorry man, its everywhere! I have however, never seen a "help, how do i defend the multiple pro I attack?"...not even that many spread attack defnse questions really. have you seen many of those? quick search (to check on factual implications, since you guys know I prefer data to 'myth') on this board showed "defending spread" threads outnumbered "defending double wing" threads approximately 3 to 1 (almost 4 to 1) ** I did not spend too long on this study ... lol ** |
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 22, 2007 12:33:38 GMT -6
sorry huey, I was wrong. I should have said that "the defending the spread threads are everywhere TOO" anyhow, I should have searched, I guess i never bothered to read those.
btw, i type in defending the spread to the search and im not getting much, what am i doing wrong? i went to the defense folder and there are quite a few dw defense threads going on just in teh first 4 pages that i have showing...anyhow- point being, its unconventional enough that theres a few out there asking for ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 22, 2007 12:50:13 GMT -6
We're a Pro I team but we rab wishbone for a while and we did see some really different looks on defense. The Backbone, 7-2, whatever got a lot of people near the LOS. It was somewhat of a disadvantage in prepping.Sometimes I think our scouting reports of their defense are almost obsolete by game day. Makes me wonder why I even do one sometimes  We have seen 4-4 teams become 3-4 teams and 4-3 teams become 5-2 teams and everyone tried to go 3-5 overnight against us. This can lead to some trouble and uncertainty. However, I have found that it usually leaves their kids more confused than ours, especially when you start motioning and shifting.And for that reason, I am willing to go in a bit uncertain, figuring we should have an advantage here. If we play a 43 team, for ex... we might run that the most with our scout D, but we will run anything we think they might do some (for us, I usually start with their goal line defense). It seems a lot on this board have that philosophy in common. Our staff is having this discussion right now... my DC still maintains that basic, vanilla, plain, etc. is not a bad thing- it just forces us to "prepare better". I do not disagree with that idea... I followed that line of thinking for a long time- but I think being somewhat unique (even if the differences are slight) is a slight advantage to us. The down side is that when we play someone for the first time, no one on our side feels very certain about what they will be in. To me, the television analysts control a whole lot of high school fans and coaches like puppets. I have seen so many games where the analysts cant even identify what they are seeing yet talk about it like they are experts (ie calling floridas single wing "the old wing t" repeatedly during telecasts this year)...sigh...
...just do a search here on this forum for "the pistol" and youll see that after it was televised that the interest in it was sparked. Even now, since florida wins the championship and showcased quite a few sw plays, the offense has come up numberous times on this forum and others. This made me think of something... 6-7 years ago When Parcells was with the NY Jets, I remember a game where they ran a lot of trips bunch... pretty close to the tackle box. They threw a lot from it (3 step stuff)... I had taped the game and drew up all their plays from that formation. The following year we ran that exact formation with a few of our plays (Toss, Veer, Midline) plus a simple screen game. Looking back, I should have run it more. People defensed it as a pass set- based on their knowledge of it (which was either "as seen on TV" or the passing teams that ran it). We were about 80-20 run-pass and... well, like i said, i wish I had run it more. it is still a (small) part of our package. Any time I see a formation- Pistol, 5 wide, SW, DW, Wing-T, Bunch... I think "what would I run from this?". I would imagine that the spread guys might look at SW, DW, 'bone... and look at those sets the same I look at bunch trips. Whether something is on tv/ not on tv has nothing to do with merit or adaptability to anyone else. If I know anything about football (not much) it is this: learn from everybody. For offense (or defense) nowhere does it say "intended use only"... which is why a Pro I could be a great (and unique) offense.
|
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Mar 22, 2007 12:50:47 GMT -6
Well, I'm not saying my point hinges on that. That may be the fact that the spread is actually no longer so unconventional.
The point I was making though is, if you face a power running team in a given week, are you as perplexed about what your plan is as opposed to some other offenses? Because that is what makes an offense "unconventional," so to speak.
This is distinct from "successful," but you said "unconventional" hinged merely on how common it was. I argue that to see any benefit from being "unconventional" there also should be less knowledge on how to defend against it. Which is where the spread was, but is not so much anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by warrior53 on Mar 22, 2007 19:38:58 GMT -6
I have faced a team that pretty much ran Pro Twins Rt and Pro Twins Lt and they were tremendous. They knew exactly what the opponent was going to do and how to adjust to it. Simple work of art. On the other hand I have seen people with all kinds of "unconventional" stuff win a lot of ball games. It is all about what you can teach your kids and fitting your style to their strengths.
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by tedseay on Mar 23, 2007 3:26:02 GMT -6
to me, a modern day unconventional offense would be something that: focuses on ball control and 4 backs running with the ball tight splits great power due to multiple long pulls by linemen down and kickout blocking rather than zone schemes play action passes only as a last resort few formations Steve: Cool! You've just described Leo Hand's "Tee" offense! ;D  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by slydaddy on Mar 23, 2007 6:48:34 GMT -6
I run the Pro-I and have won 80% of my games. It may be vanilla, but my coaches and I know what we want and how to teach it. We run power, trap, toss, and counter; it works for us. When you mix in some great play-action, it is a great offense. We don't have a lot of plays, but we have a system that we rep lke crazy. The kids know it backward and forward, and we are ready for any adjustments a defense can make. I think that even in our vanilla offense, we can still do some uncoventional things to get a defense in a bind. Personally, I like to study and talk about all of the offenses out there, but, I just stick to what has worked for me. I hark back to all the advice I have seen on this site to young coaches: coach what you know!
|
|
;D