|
Post by jjkuenzel on Mar 15, 2007 17:10:24 GMT -6
Can it be done successfully?
Going into this past season we were determined to run the flexbone come hell or high water. The whole off season we researched different offenses and finally decided that running flexbone with midline and ISV as our base plays was going to allow us to be the most successful. We wanted to stick to the KISS principle and just do what we do. In week 1 we literally had less than 15 plays in our playbook.
As the season progressed, we realized that we just weren't a very good offensive team in the flexbone. Midline and ISV just plain old sucked. Part of it was our inexperience as a coaching staff running the flexbone and the other part was personnel. Our QB wasn't much of a threat running the ball, he did make very good reads though, and our FB was a converted WR.
We did have good wingbacks though, but they just weren't getting the damn ball enough. Teams were daring our FB and QB to beat them and it wasn't working out. We went ahead and implemented some basic I stuff where we could dictate who got the ball and had much more success with it.
Going into this season season we are going to have much of the same personnel issues. Not much of an athlete at QB, a mystery at FB, but some very good wingbacks/tailbacks.
My question is whether or not it is possible to just run some flexbone schemes and not sell out and still be successful?
Is it an offense that you have to sell out to in order to really make it work?
Any tips or info is greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by jhanawa on Mar 15, 2007 17:30:43 GMT -6
Don't get me wrong here, I love the flexbone stuff, but a downside to it is that it takes a lot of reps to be good at it and if your base stuff isn't going well, your other plays that don't get a lot of reps probably aren't going to either. IMO, realistically if the QB and FB aren't threats then it isn't going to work very well. My advice is to get in the gun and diversify your offense a bit. From the gun, the veer is much easier to run and can be a part of your offense, rather than the focal point of it. Doing it from the gun will allow a lot more time to develop other facets of your offense. This way, if the veer isn't cooking, you'll have a viable plan be to go to. Also, from the gun, there are a lot of ways to get your wingbacks the ball, bubble, jet, screen, counter, passing game, etc besides the option pitchout.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Mar 15, 2007 18:09:33 GMT -6
Years ago we ran the wishbone but we didn't like the fact that we couldn't get the ball to our stud RB enough. We went to the I-bone which worked well since we were an I team beore and the HC was really always an I guy at heart (plus we got the I-bone stuff from the horse's mouth at Vandy). We've gone back to the I but we still run some I-bone. The bottom line is that we continued to run powers, isos, and sweeps when were in the bone and also in the I bone. Could you put in some I while keeping the wingbone as your base? Why not?
|
|
|
Post by dacoachmo on Mar 15, 2007 19:23:01 GMT -6
Why not convert the Wingbacks to QB? If they are the best athletes they should have the ball in their hands every snap!!!
The Indiana State Champs (Warren Central) have had Qbs no taller than 5'8". quick and great athletes.
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 15, 2007 22:59:53 GMT -6
jj You have recently gone through what we did in 2003. We were flexbone midline 100%...then started 0-2. A few things we did: 1. Like you we went to some I plays 2. Ran most I plays out of flexbone set w/ motion. It did give us a basic offense which could be multiple. 3. We used a lot of motion and shifting to give us advantages #s wise (whether due to defensive over adjustments or not). 4. We put in the DW superpower play from flexbone (2 SE set). It worked very well for us. We also put in counters off of that. 5. We developed a simple passing game from that set. 6. We still ran midline, but did not rely on it as we went to more Lead Dives (give to FB, playside WB leading through B gap) or QB blast (fake to FB, WB load DE, QB keep around end).
I used to be a big midline guy. My problem was that the QBs who ran it best were: 1) not really QBs, 2) were more carefree kids who were not perfectionists... and a lot of them were not very fast and 3) while I liked being able to teach players what to see... at the HS level, we often see things better from the box, so we eliminated some of the responsibility.
I still think you can be flexbone... but having a fall-back plan was helpful to us. We started 0-2, finished 7-4... our worst season thus far here, but one where we learned a lot.
|
|
|
Post by wingman on Mar 16, 2007 0:08:57 GMT -6
I agree you shoul dput your best athlete at Qb regardless of size and I don't know how you can run flexbone without a horse at FB. If you have 2 good wingbacks, why not run splitback veer?
|
|
|
Post by playfast on Mar 16, 2007 5:42:00 GMT -6
We are a true flexbone team. We run the heck out of Mid and IV. Our philosphy is put your best athlete at QB and your second best at FB. One year our QB was 5"6 155 pounds but built like a rock and he rushed for over 1700 yards. After he graduated we converted a HB to quarterback and still had a lot of success.
The flexbone takes a lot of discipline and timing to be effective. My first year using it we lost our first four games and 2 of the teams we could of maybe beat but we were fumbling and stumbling all over the field. We finished the year winning 5 out of the last 6 and we have never looked back.
The offense is difficult and I believe you truly have to believe in it and understand it will work with great practice.
|
|
kc361
Freshmen Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by kc361 on Mar 16, 2007 5:55:15 GMT -6
wingman,
As far as needing a horse at RB to run the flexbone, I completely disagree. We had a kid two years ago who was no more than 150 pounds, sang in the chorus and was the lead in the school play (those aren't negatives, just painting a picture). He had over 1500 yards and 17 TDs because he hit the hole at full speed. He also had a tremendous feel for where his running lane would be based on the perimeter scheme we used. He is a great kid and he was committed to football (and singing and dancing). He was our leading rusher on a 12-0 football team.
kc
|
|
kdcoach
Sophomore Member
Posts: 194
|
Post by kdcoach on Mar 16, 2007 6:02:33 GMT -6
Last couple of years we have run both the I & the flex. Over 3000 yards of offense both years. I think you have to base it on the personnel that you have. We had a very good QB, not particularly fast, but very smart and he read everything. We didn't call anything from the sideline (give, keep etc..). This year based on our personnel (read linemen here) we are going to attempt to "sell out" to the flexbone. We just don't have the type of linemen that can line up and shove everyone off the ball. I believe that you need that to be consistently effective in the I. We did run a lot of veer/midline out of the I the last two years, but in our hearts we were a toss sweep, power, iso team. We spend a ton of time working on reads for the QB as well as steps and mesh. I think if you can master those it doesn't matter what formation you are in behind it. The veer path and the QB steps don't change regardless of which formation you're in so we never felt constrained to stay in one formation or the other. Also, if you have a stud Tailback you want to get him as many touches as possible that was another reason that we didn't get too far away from the I. He's graduated now and we have two kids that are about equal in ability to play on the wings and our FB from last year back. So the flex seems to make more sense to us this year.
Good luck with whatever you choose.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 16, 2007 6:23:00 GMT -6
Can it be done successfully? Going into this past season we were determined to run the flexbone come hell or high water. The whole off season we researched different offenses and finally decided that running flexbone with midline and ISV as our base plays was going to allow us to be the most successful. We wanted to stick to the KISS principle and just do what we do. In week 1 we literally had less than 15 plays in our playbook. As the season progressed, we realized that we just weren't a very good offensive team in the flexbone. Midline and ISV just plain old sucked. Part of it was our inexperience as a coaching staff running the flexbone and the other part was personnel. Our QB wasn't much of a threat running the ball, he did make very good reads though, and our FB was a converted WR. We did have good wingbacks though, but they just weren't getting the {censored} ball enough. Teams were daring our FB and QB to beat them and it wasn't working out. We went ahead and implemented some basic I stuff where we could dictate who got the ball and had much more success with it. Going into this season season we are going to have much of the same personnel issues. Not much of an athlete at QB, a mystery at FB, but some very good wingbacks/tailbacks. My question is whether or not it is possible to just run some flexbone schemes and not sell out and still be successful? Is it an offense that you have to sell out to in order to really make it work? Any tips or info is greatly appreciated. This has always been my issue with the option attack, the defense can dictate who is going to carry the ball. (i have no other argument, thats just one issue i have with it) well, that and a 15, 16 year old or whatever controlling my coaching career with his decision making... anyhow, can you make the better runners play qb and fb?..those guys will get the majority of carries right? Also, cant you build in a number of "I" and "wing-t" plays into the flexbone offense to allow your better runners to carry the ball?
|
|
|
Post by tripleoption61 on Mar 16, 2007 7:32:21 GMT -6
1. put your best athlete at qb. ( who cares if he can't throw) 2. put your second best athlete at FB.
The IV and midline take time and reps to master. Yes in certain instances the defense can dictate who is going to get the ball but you have options also. you change the formation to get a numbers advantage for your self. going to the gun doesn't give you any adavntages. IMO. going to the gun loses some of the deceptiveness than under center. option gets on the defense faster from under center.
our run playbook: 1. IV 2. Midline Double 3. Rocket toss (Navy Toss) 4. QB counter lead 5. Zone Dive
From this we probably run IV and Midline 65% of the time. KIds keep doing the same blocking schemes over and over. our line play by blocking rules so they don't have to learn a different scheme for a different front. we disguise it by using different formations so it looks like a totally different play.
|
|
|
Post by runthedangthing on Mar 16, 2007 8:12:52 GMT -6
We run the flex bone also. Best athlete at qb (has to be football smart), next best at Fullback. we motion a lot and run belly, buck , trap, power, and jet to keep everyone honest, and compliment our option game.
|
|
|
Post by coachveer on Mar 16, 2007 8:18:33 GMT -6
I must disagree with some of you folks who believe the Defense can dictate who gets the ball in the option. That may be true if we only ran Midline/IV/OV and dbl option stuff with only one interior and one perimeter blocking scheme.
Once we figure out what you plan A defense assignments are we are going to use multiple perimeter blocking schemes to expose and pitch off of everyone from the 5 tech out to the Corner.
This gives us the opportunity to get the ball into our studs hands as often as possible. If we are playing a base 43 with 4 across. 1. the 5 has FB 2. Sam/Will has QB 3. Safety or Corner has pitch.
If we want the QB to get the ball we will block/crack the Sam/Will or load Sam/Will and Crack PRS and pitch off of SRS. Because most of the time SRS will alway run to pitch.
If we want the bksd Slot to carry we may run speed option at the 5 tech. send the FB inside to block plsd LB, and block the Little's out. Or send the FB out and block the Little's in. But most HS defense tell their big old DE to "Hit the Qb in the mouth" So by running right at him we get an auto pitch to our stud running full speed.
If we want the FB to carry the ball we may outside release the OL over him. This tends to widen the DL allowing us to give the ball. We can always base block any veer scheme to get the FB the ball.
We want to go into the game with a list of blocking schemes which will get our studs the ball. We also have a coach counting how many times the Studs have gotten the rock. This allow us to stay on cycle with-in the offense.
|
|
|
Post by lsrood on Mar 16, 2007 8:50:17 GMT -6
We are going to be doing what you did last year, this year. Coachveer has been helping us get the principles of true triple option football down and he and I have had this very discussion ourselves, whether you can still run your power/base offense and be efficient in the option. We were already fairly proficient at running a dive, trap, speed Double Option format along with our regular base power/iso/stretch plays. Last year we introduced the WVU Zone Read which is a triple and our QB handled it very well. That was the main reason we decided to go to a triple option attack, his ability to handle the reads and run the football.
As Coachveer explains it in his post, you can hit where you want and dictate to the defense based on how you set your formations and blocking schemes. I know around here, the State Champions in AAA this year were a true flexbone team that ran some power and the AAAA state champions in 2005 were the same. Both teams put on option clinics in the playoffs...Another reason we decided to incorporate it.
At the same time we don't want to abandon our power game completely. I realize that you have to rep the option game properly in order to be effective, so the big question for us will be fitting in the option reps along with the base reps. I'm going in to this, as our my coaches, with the idea that we will be able to make both work. Maybe we are naive but we are going to give it our best shot. We won't be able to get a definitive answer until the fall.
|
|
|
Post by wingman on Mar 16, 2007 9:57:53 GMT -6
I guess Horse is wrong word. Best athlete or 2nd best athlete ( best at QB ) sounds like what consensus is. I always see Navy and AF with a horse there and we were fortunate enough to have one there.
|
|
|
Post by jjkuenzel on Mar 16, 2007 10:56:59 GMT -6
We tried to do everything possible to let one of our best athletes win the starting QB job, but he just couldn't do it. Didn't do well with the footwork or reads and just overall struggled picking things up. On top of that, he doesn't really want to play QB.
The kid that we have coming back is a QB. Not an athlete that lines up under center, but a QB who has a lot of the intangibles and is a pretty good passer. He should be at least a 1200 yard passer. He is our QB and we are going to have to work around what he does well.
Don't get me wrong, I like what the flexbone and option can do, but if a coach really just wants to get the ball to a certain player then shouldn't you just call his number and his number only. To me, there is nothing worse than calling an option play and having the kid you don't really want to carry the ball get it.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 16, 2007 23:12:48 GMT -6
jjkuenzel...if you are anticipating a 120 yard per game passer, I would venture to say that either you are going to be blowing some teams out, or you aren't really in the market to be an "option" team.
|
|
jman
Sophomore Member
Posts: 200
|
Post by jman on Mar 17, 2007 13:13:59 GMT -6
Can it be done successfully? Going into this past season we were determined to run the flexbone come hell or high water. The whole off season we researched different offenses and finally decided that running flexbone with midline and ISV as our base plays was going to allow us to be the most successful. We wanted to stick to the KISS principle and just do what we do. In week 1 we literally had less than 15 plays in our playbook. As the season progressed, we realized that we just weren't a very good offensive team in the flexbone. Midline and ISV just plain old sucked. Part of it was our inexperience as a coaching staff running the flexbone and the other part was personnel. Our QB wasn't much of a threat running the ball, he did make very good reads though, and our FB was a converted WR. We did have good wingbacks though, but they just weren't getting the {censored} ball enough. Teams were daring our FB and QB to beat them and it wasn't working out. We went ahead and implemented some basic I stuff where we could dictate who got the ball and had much more success with it. Going into this season season we are going to have much of the same personnel issues. Not much of an athlete at QB, a mystery at FB, but some very good wingbacks/tailbacks. My question is whether or not it is possible to just run some flexbone schemes and not sell out and still be successful? Is it an offense that you have to sell out to in order to really make it work? Any tips or info is greatly appreciated. Yes, you pretty much have to sell out to it to make it work. 1000 Reps. We have learned that in High School, the option is a QB-FB game. We began putting our best RB at FB instead of the traditional pounding type guy. This allowed our flexbone to be much more successful. That not to say we only ran IV and Midline. We also run counter, jet, and rocket pretty successfully as well.
|
|
|
Post by burtledog on Mar 17, 2007 22:20:44 GMT -6
Can I suggest using some modern Wing-T plays. If the FB is adequate he can run the belly. These great WB's can run jet and rockets till the cows come home and the double options off the belly. If the QB can't run much option, the belly rocket toss could work. Check out jetsweep.com. Wofford College (1200 students) have done well in IAA Southern Conference and stood up to App St, GaSo and Furman very well over the last several years. They mixed IV, Midline, Rocket, Belly, Rocket Belly and Belly Option so that seldom does the defense dictate who get the ball. The WB's usually get 10 or more carries a piece instead. The rockets and jets would take advantage of the those great WB's and take some of the option/decision/running pressure off the QB and the FB could be an option dive back or more of a TB if he is just tough enough to run your option dives, traps and the belly. All the time from the same formations you would use in Flexbone schemes. Just an amatures idea. Greg B
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by tedseay on Mar 18, 2007 9:28:56 GMT -6
What Greg said. (Although those aren't "Wing-T plays" per se. Rocket comes from the flexbone, and Fly/Jet from the two-back pro set...)
|
|
|
Post by burtledog on Mar 18, 2007 13:32:25 GMT -6
Thanks for the vote Ted. Greg
|
|
newb
Sophomore Member
Posts: 191
|
Post by newb on Mar 20, 2008 9:18:38 GMT -6
If you don't want your QB to carry the ball on midline, then run it as a double dive. Motion your WB a little past the FB and run midline action with the WB taking the place of the QB, you'll find it hits 110% quicker too. All the QB has to do is make one read and not worry about carrying the ball. It already sounds like the QB is making the right decisions. Not to mention, if you run this play towards a 1 tech, then your WB should be getting the ball 100% of the time, whch is who you want to carry it in the first place.
If your QB is going to pass for 120 yds a game then by all means stay in the flexbone. it allows for 4 immediate vertical threats which the defense must respect, especially with a good passer, and the I and splitbacks just don't have that. Not to mention a tremendous quick game away from motion. I think it was Coach Seay who had a great post on the WR Choice package away from motion.
Coach Seay, if it's not too much trouble would you mind explaining that again?
|
|
|
Post by airman on Mar 20, 2008 9:32:58 GMT -6
I went to u of wisconsin riverfalls for a couple years. They ran the wishbone and I got to really understand it. for them it was a qb/fb game. the best athlete was a qb even if he threw a wounded duck. they would take athletic half backs and convert them to qb. The fullback had to be tought and good athlete. the halfbacks had to be good blockers then good runners. they went to the flex bone and were sort of average to be honest. in the 1970s and 1980s they were a dominate team running the bone. in the 1990s they were okay. in the bone they would only pitch the ball once they were past the los. in the flexbone, they had to pitch it in the backfield a lot of the time and they could not run the load scheme which kept the ball in the qb hands.
now they run a oneback 3 wr zone offense.
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by tedseay on Mar 20, 2008 9:51:05 GMT -6
Can it be done successfully? Tip: Contact the staff at Wofford College and see what they will share with you. If you draw a blank with them (you won't), PM me and I'll get you hooked up with cut-ups of their Rocket Sweep series, which allows them to dictate who gets the ball and sets up the rest of their (option-dominated) offense for success.
|
|
turney
Junior Member
Spread'em and Shread'em[F4:coachturney]
Posts: 279
|
Post by turney on Mar 20, 2008 12:47:26 GMT -6
Move your QB to full back and work the Hb's at QB and HB. One of them will step up. I came into a situation with an unathletic QB that could throw, but he was a tough kid, we moved him to FB and then we had our best kid at QB and second at FB, they are going to have the ball 80% of the time. You have to force the D to stop the FB and QB first then your less athletic HB's will have wide open running range.
A coach that I am very close with said a defensive coordinator told him this about the option: If a offense runs the play 30 times in a game an runs it perfect ten times and the defense defends is perfect 1/2 of those ten times it 35 - 0 offense.
|
|
|
Post by bulldogoption on Mar 20, 2008 14:08:15 GMT -6
JJ
What do you mean 'selling out'?
|
|
|
Post by coachdawhip on Mar 21, 2008 7:08:03 GMT -6
Wofford runs a "Wing-Bone" Plays under center and in the gun.
I agree with coachveer, no one can make only on person on my team carry the ball. I want teams to take my "horse full back out of the game" because if you do, I can get speed on the corner and that means you have no one to stop it.
|
|
cls
Junior Member
Posts: 295
|
Post by cls on Mar 21, 2008 7:32:57 GMT -6
Can I suggest using some modern Wing-T plays. If the FB is adequate he can run the belly. These great WB's can run jet and rockets till the cows come home and the double options off the belly. If the QB can't run much option, the belly rocket toss could work.
Can't agree enough with this...You already have IV, Midline in these would be a very easy add, and I think it would put a lot of pressure on a defense
|
|
|
Post by coachbdud on Mar 23, 2008 13:20:43 GMT -6
Convert a run threat to QB
If you have all that talent at WB and want to get them the ball more
ADD ROCKET!!!
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 23, 2008 20:22:26 GMT -6
Going into this past season we were determined to run the flexbone come hell or high water. The whole off season we researched different offenses and finally decided that running flexbone with midline and ISV as our base plays was going to allow us to be the most successful. I realize you typed this a year ago, BUT, the FIRST thing I would do, is to evaluate your evaluation process. If you spent all offseason researching, you decided on flexbone, and now you dont like it...you need to look at your decision making.
|
|