|
|
Post by agap on Aug 25, 2024 15:32:44 GMT -6
I coached at a school that went 1-8 running spread. We then started running the Power-T and went 3-6, 0-5 (COVID season), and 1-8. Running a different offense doesn’t mean you’re going to win more games when the players don’t get in the weight room either way. For the record, I would run Wing-T if I had the choice because that’s what I learned early on coaching so I’m not trying to push a spread offense. But did you know how to run that offense? I see guys run the flex all the time and know they don’t know what they’re doing. There is more nuance to those offenses than most understand and arguably more than spread offenses I didn't coach offense there. The head coach and the offensive assistants met with a team here who has won multiple state titles running Power-T. Then the head coach brought in a former head coach of one of the top programs in the biggest class who ran Power-T. It's true you need to know how to run any offense, but at the end of the day it comes down to talent. We were more competitive running Power-T but when the other teams had players who are now playing for the Cowboys, Iowa, NDSU, etc, the offense we were running didn't matter. |
|
|
|
Post by CS on Aug 25, 2024 15:34:50 GMT -6
But did you know how to run that offense? I see guys run the flex all the time and know they don’t know what they’re doing. There is more nuance to those offenses than most understand and arguably more than spread offenses I didn't coach offense there. The head coach and the offensive assistants met with a team here who has won multiple state titles running Power-T. Then the head coach brought in a former head coach of one of the top programs in the biggest class who ran Power-T. It's true you need to know how to run any offense, but at the end of the day it comes down to talent. We were more competitive running Power-T but when the other teams had players who are now playing for the Cowboys, Iowa, NDSU, etc, the offense we were running didn't matter. If you were more competitive running the T I would say offense does matter. |
|
|
|
Post by doubletight305 on Aug 25, 2024 15:43:15 GMT -6
Lets not demonize the spread. There are more factors than just "Spread vs. non-spread". For us I use two factors:
1. What is the talent available to me
2. What does my league run the most.
From 2019-2021 we played in a league where most teams ran wing based or power based offenses. We ran a simplified veer and shoot system out of 10 and 11 personnel with gap runs and gap RPO's and made the title game all 3 years.
We moved to a tougher conference where everyone runs 10 personnel, we have a couple of good TEs and now we base almost exclusively out of 12 personnel and still run all of our old concepts.
Some people call us "Gun wing-t" some call us power spread; the label is not important. What is important is that it is a scheme and personnel grouping that A. fits our current personnel and B. gives DC's a different look than what they are used to.
Be better or be different
|
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Aug 25, 2024 18:35:12 GMT -6
Lets not demonize the spread. There are more factors than just "Spread vs. non-spread". For us I use two factors: 1. What is the talent available to me 2. What does my league run the most. From 2019-2021 we played in a league where most teams ran wing based or power based offenses. We ran a simplified veer and shoot system out of 10 and 11 personnel with gap runs and gap RPO's and made the title game all 3 years. We moved to a tougher conference where everyone runs 10 personnel, we have a couple of good TEs and now we base almost exclusively out of 12 personnel and still run all of our old concepts. Some people call us "Gun wing-t" some call us power spread; the label is not important. What is important is that it is a scheme and personnel grouping that A. fits our current personnel and B. gives DC's a different look than what they are used to. Be better or be different Or be both! But I am onboard with your post fully. |
|
|
|
Post by 44special on Aug 25, 2024 18:42:34 GMT -6
i don't think anybody was demonizing the spread.
just teams who run it with a qb that can't throw and or receivers that can't get open or catch the ball.
i don't know about now, but for awhile, it seemed nearly everybody ran it regardless of what they had.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachdubyah on Aug 25, 2024 19:17:49 GMT -6
It's so frustrating. Like... Be good at like FOUR THINGS and you're off to a nice start! F*** just get good at zone read + step/bubble screens and you're miles ahead of a fair number of folks I see. In 2014, we went all in on the NZone (Noel Mazzone) system. It's still around, although I think Bobby Acosta spearheads it now. We were not very good. Had some receivers that could catch but none were game breakers. Just average old high school kids. We got good at: Inside Zone, Power (with H Back), Stick Draw Threw fast and bubbles off of that with the "Fox" (bubble go's). Also built these with motions. Some quick game. Playactioned Y Cross and Y sail (as ran by the Air Raiders). That was it. We just sold our soul to doing that no matter what we saw on Saturday and Sundays. We had the best season that place had in years. Probably the best coaching job I've ever been a part of. Not tooting my own horn we just made a conscious effort to say NOPE were just doing this. A lot to that last statment. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Aug 25, 2024 19:30:38 GMT -6
i don't think anybody was demonizing the spread. just teams who run it with a qb that can't throw and or receivers that can't get open or catch the ball. i don't know about now, but for awhile, it seemed nearly everybody ran it regardless of what they had. Isn't that just an example of bad coaching though? As in teams running an offense with OL who can't block and RBs that can't hit the hole? I find it interesting (but I do believe I understand why, as outlined in my earlier post), that throughout football's history, particularly at the HS level, coaches don't view the elements of the passing game as things to coach and develop, but rather things players just "come with" |
|
|
|
Post by 44special on Aug 25, 2024 20:32:19 GMT -6
absolutely.
substitute "coaches" for "teams" in my 2nd sentence.
does that make it better?
i'm not, and most people aren't, what you would call wordsmiths, able to word things in a way to say exactly what you intend. i'm really not good at it. even on short posts, it takes me awhile to try to say what's in my (feeble) mind, and i still don't quite get it right sometimes.
when you have no talent, it doesn't matter a whole lot what you run. you'll stink.
but you can have a scheme to limit turnovers and penalties, and run the hell out of the clock when you have the ball.
i have coached on a few of those.
we ran wing-t, with angle blocking and double teams, had no pitches in the offense (fewer chances at fumbles), and a guy on the sideline with a stopwatch (before everybody had end zone clocks) that the qb would watch so we snapped the ball with less than 5 seconds (usually about 1-2) on the playclock. it kept the ball from the other team, won us a few games, kept us competitive with some teams, and kept us from losing by 40-50 points against good teams.
but i coached against many teams (i think late 90's, early 2000's) when everybody tried to run the spread offense. when you're not good, 3 incomplete passes and a punt leads to bad losses, 40-50-60 points, that eventually get you (and everybody on staff) fired.
there are lots of bad teams, bad coached teams, etc.....
i'm simply saying that bad spread teams are the worst, because 3 incompletes and a punt gives the other team much more time with the ball.
that was the point of my earlier posts.
if someone sees that as demonizing the spread, so be it.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Aug 25, 2024 20:38:41 GMT -6
Let me be clear, I didn't reply to disparage 10 personnel offenses. I've coached in some my greatest seasons with a spread offense.
My particular point was to the general public reaction to offenses that were NOT spread.... even if those non-spread offenses lead to success.
Case in point HS I coached at was spread to throw it around, local D2 college was veer based offense. Both teams were very good and very successful. Most average football fans thought the HS was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and also thought the college team was 'boring'.
|
|
|
|
Post by agap on Aug 25, 2024 20:55:46 GMT -6
I didn't coach offense there. The head coach and the offensive assistants met with a team here who has won multiple state titles running Power-T. Then the head coach brought in a former head coach of one of the top programs in the biggest class who ran Power-T. It's true you need to know how to run any offense, but at the end of the day it comes down to talent. We were more competitive running Power-T but when the other teams had players who are now playing for the Cowboys, Iowa, NDSU, etc, the offense we were running didn't matter. If you were more competitive running the T I would say offense does matter. We were more competitive while running the T but there are also other factors. We changed defenses, special teams, etc. The head coach was hired two weeks before the season started when we ran spread and the rest of the staff had never worked together before. We had a whole off-season together before we started running the T. The new head coach at that school is running spread with RPO and one could argue they are just as competitive now as when we were running the T there. |
|
|
|
Post by 44special on Aug 25, 2024 20:56:06 GMT -6
i have also been part of a few very good spread (4 rounds deep in the playoffs) teams.
but we had talent.
|
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Aug 25, 2024 22:01:24 GMT -6
i don't think anybody was demonizing the spread. just teams who run it with a qb that can't throw and or receivers that can't get open or catch the ball. i don't know about now, but for awhile, it seemed nearly everybody ran it regardless of what they had. Isn't that just an example of bad coaching though? As in teams running an offense with OL who can't block and RBs that can't hit the hole? I find it interesting (but I do believe I understand why, as outlined in my earlier post), that throughout football's history, particularly at the HS level, coaches don't view the elements of the passing game as things to coach and develop, but rather things players just "come with"Ive seen this a lot, and sadly at a lot of levels, and not just with passing but with most every aspect of the game. |
|
|
|
Post by veerwego on Aug 26, 2024 9:48:16 GMT -6
The thing that doesn't make much sense is if you stink, regardless of your offense, run the ball and get it over. Enough already with all the incompletions. We all know what is going to happen, lets go home.
|
|
|
|
Post by blb on Aug 26, 2024 12:22:06 GMT -6
The thing that doesn't make much sense is if you stink, regardless of your offense, run the ball and get it over. Enough already with all the incompletions. We all know what is going to happen, lets go home. The problem is the "fans" (parents) would rather see long incompletions than a well-blocked and executed Power play that gains six yards. They seem to believe if you're running the ball (Heaven forbid from UC) you're not trying to score much less win. |
|
|
|
Post by 3rdandlong on Aug 26, 2024 13:30:45 GMT -6
There is a belief among some coaches that kids won't come out unless you are running a Spread offense, especially the "athletes." Ergo running a Spread is a way to get numbers up. Further I imagine some small-school coaches have convinced themselves the only way to compete with bigger schools-teams is to "spread 'em out" and throw it around. I have heard triple option coaches (split veer and flexbone) say the exact same thing as to why they run their offense. "If you can't block em, read em" or something to that effect. |
|
|
|
Post by blb on Aug 26, 2024 15:43:06 GMT -6
I also still hear a lot of the “we’re too small to block anybody up front, so we have to spread everybody out.”. What they really mean is that their OL sucks and they don’t know how to fix it, so they hope a spread offense means they can find ways to score without blocking people. I have heard triple option coaches (split veer and flexbone) say the exact same thing as to why they run their offense. "If you can't block em, read em" or something to that effect. The difference is TO OLs come off the ball full speed going forward-attacking LOS whomever they're blocking, not retreating and passively "catching" the DL-pass rushers. |
|
havs54
Sophomore Member
Posts: 155 
|
Post by havs54 on Aug 26, 2024 18:48:09 GMT -6
As a defensive coordinator it's great to see especially the less talented teams...so many bad spreads on film scouting other teams too that fumble snaps left and right.
I've convinced myself if I'm ever a head coach at a smaller school, we're going gun double Wing or some 22 personnel gun but just ramming it down people's throats.
|
|
|
|
Post by cwaltsmith on Aug 27, 2024 8:43:20 GMT -6
To me this discussion is too broad... What does "spread" mean??? For instance, I would have been considered a "spread" guy. Mainly bc I like to be in the gun & I wear a visor lol. But I LOVE to pound the rock and run the football down people's throats. So I think there are different categories of the "spread". I agree with what has been said, poorly coached is poorly coached regardless of system. I personally like the best of a few worlds. I consider myself a "GUN-T OPTION" guy. I want to give defenses lots of formation problems... run the ball... and read defenders so I don't have to block them. I mean most people don't understand that the FLEXBONE & RUN & SHOOT both came from the same offense. 1 guy took it and went AIR (Mouse Davis), other guy went GROUND (Paul Johnson). I know it derived from wishbone, but Johnson himself says he morphed it from run and shoot stuff. I don't think he would be considered spread lol. Then you have play calling ability in both styles as well. I believe play calling is an "ART", not a science. Especially at the high school level where talent is less equal. And now I'm rambling lol. Ultimately, like stated above the Spread isn't the devil and neither is the 2 tight double wing or T or whatever. Its all about ability to teach system, get buy in, and call the correct play at the correct time.
|
|
havs54
Sophomore Member
Posts: 155
|
Post by havs54 on Aug 27, 2024 9:06:59 GMT -6
To me this discussion is too broad... What does "spread" mean??? For instance, I would have been considered a "spread" guy. Mainly bc I like to be in the gun & I wear a visor lol. But I LOVE to pound the rock and run the football down people's throats. So I think there are different categories of the "spread". I agree with what has been said, poorly coached is poorly coached regardless of system. I personally like the best of a few worlds. I consider myself a "GUN-T OPTION" guy. I want to give defenses lots of formation problems... run the ball... and read defenders so I don't have to block them. I mean most people don't understand that the FLEXBONE & RUN & SHOOT both came from the same offense. 1 guy took it and went AIR (Mouse Davis), other guy went GROUND (Paul Johnson). I know it derived from wishbone, but Johnson himself says he morphed it from run and shoot stuff. I don't think he would be considered spread lol. Then you have play calling ability in both styles as well. I believe play calling is an "ART", not a science. Especially at the high school level where talent is less equal. And now I'm rambling lol. Ultimately, like stated above the Spread isn't the devil and neither is the 2 tight double wing or T or whatever. Its all about ability to teach system, get buy in, and call the correct play at the correct time. IMO that's not what is discussed....I see so many teams on film that run zone or dive but don't fire off the ball with any violence at all. A few teams we've played have been 20/21 and actually fired off the ball from the gun but it's very few and far between. It's almost like a lot of coaches treat the run game as something they unfortunately have to do...also a lot of these teams get in specific formations when they want to "pound the rock" that aren't their base offense. It's very easy to scheme for in that instance. For example a True spread team that gets in power I to "pound the rock"...it doesn't work yet they keep doing it |
|
|
|
Post by pitt1980 on Aug 30, 2024 7:43:14 GMT -6
There is a belief among some coaches that kids won't come out unless you are running a Spread offense, especially the "athletes." Ergo running a Spread is a way to get numbers up. Further I imagine some small-school coaches have convinced themselves the only way to compete with bigger schools-teams is to "spread 'em out" and throw it around. I also think that, for many coaches under about 35-40 years old, all they know is “Spread.” Ever try talking to one of them about Wing T or option football? Some have ears that perk up out of curiosity, but a fair amount I’ve worked with and talked to will tell you they simply hate those “outdated” styles of offense and have no interest in learning and running them with their own teams. I also still hear a lot of the “we’re too small to block anybody up front, so we have to spread everybody out.”. What they really mean is that their OL sucks and they don’t know how to fix it, so they hope a spread offense means they can find ways to score without blocking people. I probably shouldn't engage with this, but what the hell... Back when Wing T, I and Option teams were more common, there was no shortage of terrible teams that ran those style of offenses, fwiw, most of my playing experience consisted of playing on terrible offenses that first ran the Wing T, (until he got fired), then ran the I (that coach lasted until after I graduated). It's been my experience, that if you're OLine isn't very good, you're likely to have a tough time, no matter what magic X and Os you draw up. That said, in the bell curve of different body types, what's the distribution of guys you need to make things work? I would say the spread can be pretty friendly in that regard, guys who make decent slot receivers aren't especially rare, the QB, everyone has different opinions on this, but to me, it's more getting a guy to make solid quick decisions than some sort of rare physical ability. If you find a guy who can get the ball out of his hands quickly, you can take a lot of strain off what you need the OLine to do... |
|
|
|
Post by CS on Aug 30, 2024 8:28:15 GMT -6
I also think that, for many coaches under about 35-40 years old, all they know is “Spread.” Ever try talking to one of them about Wing T or option football? Some have ears that perk up out of curiosity, but a fair amount I’ve worked with and talked to will tell you they simply hate those “outdated” styles of offense and have no interest in learning and running them with their own teams. I also still hear a lot of the “we’re too small to block anybody up front, so we have to spread everybody out.”. What they really mean is that their OL sucks and they don’t know how to fix it, so they hope a spread offense means they can find ways to score without blocking people. I probably shouldn't engage with this, but what the hell... Back when Wing T, I and Option teams were more common, there was no shortage of terrible teams that ran those style of offenses, fwiw, most of my playing experience consisted of playing on terrible offenses that first ran the Wing T, (until he got fired), then ran the I (that coach lasted until after I graduated). It's been my experience, that if you're OLine isn't very good, you're likely to have a tough time, no matter what magic X and Os you draw up. That said, in the bell curve of different body types, what's the distribution of guys you need to make things work? I would say the spread can be pretty friendly in that regard, guys who make decent slot receivers aren't especially rare, the QB, everyone has different opinions on this, but to me, it's more getting a guy to make solid quick decisions than some sort of rare physical ability. If you find a guy who can get the ball out of his hands quickly, you can take a lot of strain off what you need the OLine to do... There are terrible wing t, I and option teams now. Bad coaching is bad coaching. But assuming good coaching in both styles a down hill running game gives you a better chance to compete from year to year regardless of talent. I will die on that hill |
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Aug 30, 2024 8:34:41 GMT -6
High school football up until the early 2000's: "We can't run spread, we don't have the athletes. We have to run the ball out of the I/Wing-T/SBV/Flexbone (etc..) All levels of football, post early 2000's: "We have to run the spread, we don't have the athletes. We have to spread the defense out." (Pattern Match C3 DCs laugh in the background..). |
|
|
|
Post by pitt1980 on Aug 30, 2024 8:45:00 GMT -6
I probably shouldn't engage with this, but what the hell... Back when Wing T, I and Option teams were more common, there was no shortage of terrible teams that ran those style of offenses, fwiw, most of my playing experience consisted of playing on terrible offenses that first ran the Wing T, (until he got fired), then ran the I (that coach lasted until after I graduated). It's been my experience, that if you're OLine isn't very good, you're likely to have a tough time, no matter what magic X and Os you draw up. That said, in the bell curve of different body types, what's the distribution of guys you need to make things work? I would say the spread can be pretty friendly in that regard, guys who make decent slot receivers aren't especially rare, the QB, everyone has different opinions on this, but to me, it's more getting a guy to make solid quick decisions than some sort of rare physical ability. If you find a guy who can get the ball out of his hands quickly, you can take a lot of strain off what you need the OLine to do... There are terrible wing t, I and option teams now. Bad coaching is bad coaching. But assuming good coaching in both styles a down hill running game gives you a better chance to compete from year to year regardless of talent. I will die on that hill One of the nice things about that football is that its complex enough of a game that you can be really effective doing a lot of different things, especially if you commit to it and teach it well .... "a down hill running game gives you a better chance to compete from year to year regardless of talent", I would put "a short passing game" where you put "a down hill running game", but its ok if we disagree, different coaches trying to win different ways is why its an interesting game. |
|
|
|
Post by CS on Aug 30, 2024 8:59:02 GMT -6
There are terrible wing t, I and option teams now. Bad coaching is bad coaching. But assuming good coaching in both styles a down hill running game gives you a better chance to compete from year to year regardless of talent. I will die on that hill One of the nice things about that football is that its complex enough of a game that you can be really effective doing a lot of different things, especially if you commit to it and teach it well .... "a down hill running game gives you a better chance to compete from year to year regardless of talent", I would put "a short passing game" where you put "a down hill running game", but its ok if we disagree, different coaches trying to win different ways is why its an interesting game. I agree with this. My only problem with that way of thinking is throwing and catching requires a good throw and a catch. Easier to hand it to someone to grind out short yardage than throw for short yardage |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Aug 30, 2024 11:03:01 GMT -6
One of the nice things about that football is that its complex enough of a game that you can be really effective doing a lot of different things, especially if you commit to it and teach it well .... "a down hill running game gives you a better chance to compete from year to year regardless of talent", I would put "a short passing game" where you put "a down hill running game", but its ok if we disagree, different coaches trying to win different ways is why its an interesting game. I agree with this. My only problem with that way of thinking is throwing and catching requires a good throw and a catch. Easier to hand it to someone to grind out short yardage than throw for short yardage Also, the defense has to play along for the short pass game to work. You can't really say the same thing with running teams that can get in 21, 22, 31, 32, 23 personnel. Now don't get me wrong, if they are better, stack the box, and you can't make them pay, you will most likely be in for a long night. BUT, you also could limit possessions make a few 4th and 2's and win also. |
|
|
|
Post by mrjvi on Aug 30, 2024 11:55:25 GMT -6
Good thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Aug 30, 2024 13:19:22 GMT -6
I'm a caveman's caveman when it comes to offenses but I coached in my share of "spread" schemes. And, I had a whole lot of fun coaching in most of those spread offenses. IMO, I don't think we're noticing the chitty spread schemes just because there are more of them. Those awful spread teams stand out more than their poorly coached, UC counterparts.
When the wheels fall off of the bus for a bad spread team, it is typically catastrophically bad. There's a mountain of turnovers, plays for big losses (the gun..), many, many dropped balls and prolonged a$$-beatings because the clock is stopping. I've been on the bad side of one of those losses and it friggin' sucks to coach through it.
I'm not saying the same thing doesn't happen within other schemes, I just see it more often with bad spread units.
|
|
|
|
Post by morris on Sept 1, 2024 6:12:18 GMT -6
If you’re a spread team (for the most part) you better have at least 3 guys that can really coach. OL, QB and WR all need legit coaches. Now those guys do not have to be elite but they better know that heir drill structure and stick within the frame work.
There are other offenses where you can get by with two or structure practice where a coach can make up for other coaches. You can teach in more of a group/team setting.
I coach in a spread offense. If you look at our stats they would look like a wing-t or maybe an option offense more than a spread. We probably only have 12 or so plays total. I spent a lot of time (and still do) studying wing-t, double wing, single wing, and option offense. Much more time on those than spread teams.
One thing I would love to do is run one of the “outdated” offenses at a place with buy in. If nothing else for the reason I know that whole week of scout team would suck for my opponent.
|
|
|
|
Post by blockandtackle on Sept 1, 2024 8:11:36 GMT -6
I also think that, for many coaches under about 35-40 years old, all they know is “Spread.” Ever try talking to one of them about Wing T or option football? Some have ears that perk up out of curiosity, but a fair amount I’ve worked with and talked to will tell you they simply hate those “outdated” styles of offense and have no interest in learning and running them with their own teams. I also still hear a lot of the “we’re too small to block anybody up front, so we have to spread everybody out.”. What they really mean is that their OL sucks and they don’t know how to fix it, so they hope a spread offense means they can find ways to score without blocking people. I probably shouldn't engage with this, but what the hell... Back when Wing T, I and Option teams were more common, there was no shortage of terrible teams that ran those style of offenses, fwiw, most of my playing experience consisted of playing on terrible offenses that first ran the Wing T, (until he got fired), then ran the I (that coach lasted until after I graduated). It's been my experience, that if you're OLine isn't very good, you're likely to have a tough time, no matter what magic X and Os you draw up. That said, in the bell curve of different body types, what's the distribution of guys you need to make things work? I would say the spread can be pretty friendly in that regard, guys who make decent slot receivers aren't especially rare, the QB, everyone has different opinions on this, but to me, it's more getting a guy to make solid quick decisions than some sort of rare physical ability. If you find a guy who can get the ball out of his hands quickly, you can take a lot of strain off what you need the OLine to do... Thank you for engaging, coach, and I agree with you on this. I’m not knocking “the spread,” really. If you know how to coach it and develop your players, it’s as good as any offense. I do feel like coaches fall into a lot of groupthink at times, though, to their own detriment. Studying other styles of offense can be a great opportunity to learn and grow as a coach. |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Sept 2, 2024 8:39:25 GMT -6
Around here it's common to see teams snap as wing T sometimes and shotgun spread others. If they're equally competent at both and are doing it situationally, good for them. If they don't seem to meet those criteria, it may just mean I'm not as good as they are at seeing the reasons. Or they may just be scatterbrained.
|
|
