|
Post by Coach Klemme on Nov 30, 2007 8:26:16 GMT -6
Being fairly green to different offenses and how people are using them, I had a tough time answering my headers question about what kind of offense we should move to next season. We have a QB that is immature, but no one to push him. We were a pro I team this season mostly, but we will not have a true I back type coming back. We will have several smaller quick, but not bruners, athletic backs. A decent line with some good interroior linemen. Unsure on the TE yet. He's a D1 basketball recruit adn after going 0-9 this year he may focus on b-ball. There has been some discussion of a version of the wing-t. but does that lock you in? being a large school and studnents come and go, if we were to get an athletic RB or QB do you scrap the plan to do whats best for the kids that you have? I felt bad that I couldn't directly answer his question on what to do. Our D should be fairly solid vs the run and pass next year too. Any suggestions on what type of plan fits these type of kids?
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Nov 30, 2007 8:30:06 GMT -6
Sure sounds like you have the makings of a good double wing team.
|
|
|
Post by morris on Nov 30, 2007 8:48:25 GMT -6
Even though we are looking at changing our offense here is my POV so tak eit for what its worth.
Lets say you go to the Wing T (both the offense and the formation) you start with a large scope of offense. Each year you keep a base set and then just use the parts of the offense that fit your talent that year. If you get a good QB then you might throw it more. IF you get more of a TB type then you would focus elsewhere. It does not force you to scrap the offense but you just change your focus a little.
the past few years we have been a I/power I team. When we have a good WR then we run more I with PA deep and the such. If we do not have it then we go more power. If we have speed we run more toss. If we have a back that can read well then we run more off tackle to let him cut it up or bounce it. We run the same stuff for the most part but our focus is a little different.
You can always go to Wing T without the formation. You can always go to a spread (1 or not TE) look and run an I with 3 WRs in hope of stretching things ad using the quick guys. I will say this if your QB is like what you say I would put as little in his hands as you can get by with. Limit his options in the passing game until he gets on board. We have always believed we can teach a monkey to hand off the ball. We just need a guy that will run downhill fast and hard.
|
|
|
Post by tcm57 on Nov 30, 2007 14:34:59 GMT -6
Wing-T is NOT a formation
|
|
|
Post by jraybern on Nov 30, 2007 15:50:13 GMT -6
"Wing-T is NOT a formation"
I'm confused by this. Do mean that because you believe the wing t is an offense, a mindset, a plan. If this is what you mean, OK I can see that.
But it actuall IS a formation. I mean, even if I wasn't running traditional wing-T principles, I would call the traditional wing T "formation" the wing-T. Isn't the wing T "formation" backs set in what is called a T (as opposed to I or split backs) and there is a wingback, usually to a TE side? Don't we get the double wing "formation" from the 2 (double) wingbacks? A coach made the comment on another thread that they were an "I wing" team. You guessed it - backs in the I and a wingback.
Could you just elaborate on your comment or could someone help me see what I am missing. I don't usually pick out comments like this, but that doesn't make sense to me. I thought the wing T was a formation (AMOUNG ANOTHER THINGS). And if it is these other things you are referring to, then reread my first paragraph.
|
|
|
Post by tcm57 on Dec 1, 2007 11:42:05 GMT -6
jraybern: To respond to your post/question I was trying to emphasize that you cannot categorize the wing-t as a formation. It is anything but. I have read/talked to some coaches that think of the wing-t as a particular formation, and it is not. Most coaches think of the wing-t as what we wing-t coaches refer to (Delaware terminology) as the 100 or 900 'formation'. Example of the 100 formation is SE to the left, tightend to the right with a wingback aligned 1x1 from the TE. A fullback aligned 4 yds. behind the QB and the Left HB aligned even with the FB on the outside leg of the Left Tackle. The wing-t is an offensive system. There are many formations (double wing alignments, power alignments, etc.) that are utilized in the wing-t.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Dec 1, 2007 13:02:46 GMT -6
This is the way I think about switching up offenses-
--You've spent several seasons repping a scheme; the blocking schemes, the footwork, the terminology, the pass packages, etc... You have a good chunk of kids that know and understand at least the basics of that system. You have a good understanding of your system as well. If you switch systems, you will have, in a way, wasted the practice time spent in the prior seasons.
-- Instead of completely changing your system, do 3 things- ------1. Figure out how to get better at what you already run. All offensive systems can work; as long as you can teach the fundamentals and understand the play calling. ------2. Add/remove the packages that may/may not work with your athletes. Don't change your offensive system completely; REFINE IT. Example; add or remove option plays based on your QB. Example; if you have a blazing fast kid, run jet and rocket sweeps with him. ------3. Change your play calling to take advantage of your athletes.
|
|
|
Post by burtledog on Dec 1, 2007 13:11:37 GMT -6
First, there is a wingt formation. 100 and 900 are the original set, and can rightfully be called the wing-t formation. Yes, it evolved into a great system of series/sequences of plays.
2d, to second what an earlier gent said, a wing t offense (especially a hybrid with flexbone) would be great for you. It is adaptable. Your quick not so big guys at HB/SB/WB, a bruiser, quickster or TB type can be a Wingt FB. You can have a very athletic QB to use in options or not so and emphasize buck, belly or jet and rocket series with a whole host of passing concepts. Grace Alone, Greg
|
|
|
Post by tcm57 on Dec 1, 2007 13:55:32 GMT -6
As a coach who runs it, studied it and researched the history of the offense, you still do not classify the wing-t as a formation.
|
|
|
Post by jraybern on Dec 1, 2007 17:12:00 GMT -6
So lets say I am a "Pro I" team. Every once in awhile instead of having a split receiver to the TE side I wanted to move him in to a wing position - maybe for bunch passing or an extra blocker. Then, in other situations, I liked to offset my TB to see how the defense would adjust. I liked to do this in passing situations because I felt the TB was in a better position to help block a stud DE. This is all hypothetical. Maybe in some situations I did both. I have a split end to the left, a TE and wing to the right and my TB behing the left tackle at 4 yards. From this formation I ran some kind of bunch pass concepts with the TE, wing, and FB and sent the SE out on an individual route or deep to hold a safety while the TB helped pick up the pass rush. Am I not in a "wingT" formation without being a wingT team?
I understand your point and agree. At the same time I disagree with the statement that the wingT is not a formation. Can it be a formation in some systems (maybe for the coach who is looking at switching out of the I), and be THE SYSTEM for other teams?
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Dec 1, 2007 19:22:41 GMT -6
The term "wing t" can be used to describe the formations, the philosophy, etc....
HOWEVER- to line up in wing t formations (particularly double slot/WB formations) and NOT run Wing T schemes akin to lining up in the Wishbone and running an air raid scheme.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 1, 2007 19:34:35 GMT -6
Why would anyone waste time arguing over what someone calls something? Obviously anyone can call any set anything they want, so tcm is wrong in his statement. If he says HE doesn't classify the wing-t as a formation, then he is correct, because he is speaking for himself.
THAT is another mindset that should be changed..that names/numbers mean anything....but lets not hijack this post arguing over what a name or title means.
|
|
|
Post by coachcoyote on Dec 2, 2007 1:09:31 GMT -6
Amen.
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by tedseay on Dec 2, 2007 5:23:01 GMT -6
Why would anyone waste time arguing over what someone calls something? Because using the words "shuffle" or "shuttle" to describe the shovel pass is ignorant. [OK, I'm ducking and covering right about now...] ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by coachjd on Dec 2, 2007 6:28:24 GMT -6
we have a team in our conference that runs wing-t and they 2 main sets are broken bone and double slot. Yes, they will run some 100 and 900, but that is more of their short yardage formation.
|
|
|
Post by tcm57 on Dec 2, 2007 9:21:38 GMT -6
I was just trying to impress on the fact that the wing-t offense should not be categorized as a FORMATION. I understand that some people consider it a formation (by coaches who do not run the offense) but that doesn't describe what it is (the offense). I wasn't posting to "split hairs" about terminology.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Dec 2, 2007 9:55:36 GMT -6
Being fairly green to different offenses and how people are using them, I had a tough time answering my headers question about what kind of offense we should move to next season. We have a QB that is immature, but no one to push him. We were a pro I team this season mostly, but we will not have a true I back type coming back. We will have several smaller quick, but not bruners, athletic backs. A decent line with some good interroior linemen. Unsure on the TE yet. He's a D1 basketball recruit adn after going 0-9 this year he may focus on b-ball. There has been some discussion of a version of the wing-t. but does that lock you in? being a large school and studnents come and go, if we were to get an athletic RB or QB do you scrap the plan to do whats best for the kids that you have? I felt bad that I couldn't directly answer his question on what to do. Our D should be fairly solid vs the run and pass next year too. Any suggestions on what type of plan fits these type of kids? Mindsets die hard, and they should. What do you believe in? Do you want to run the ball? Do you believe in power football? What style of offense do you believe in? In your gut you have a strong feeling for something. What is it? The wing-t is a great offense if you commit to it. That's the thing. To be really good at it you have to really sell out with it. If you don't see yourself as a career wing-t guy, do you want to do that for a year or two? IMO, you need to have a system, offensively or defensively, that allows you to play the type of football that you believe in but adjust for personnel. That's true regardless of what system you run.
|
|
|
Post by tcm57 on Dec 2, 2007 9:57:50 GMT -6
Now THAT deserves an AMEN
|
|
|
Post by Coach Klemme on Dec 6, 2007 17:22:53 GMT -6
From all my experience with the wing - t I've been told that the FB is the most important back to move the ball. if you get shut down on 1st and 2nd down or get into long yardage situations the offense can almost work against you. Many of you are much wiser than myself and have a lot more experience no doubt. Some people will live and die with the wing-t, but I think it takes a few years and many reps to get it down. We see ourselves of having a 2 year window with a superior sophmore class. I do'nt know if we'd be able to compete as well as a team whose been running it for several seasons.
|
|