|
|
Post by airraider on May 27, 2007 10:44:09 GMT -6
Went to a scrimmage the other day and came away shaking my head.
The team we were there scouting was playing a team that came out in 7 different formations.
They ran, in no particular order.
Maryland I
Wing-T
Split Back
Shotgun 2x2
Pro I
Wishbone
Spread under center (TE/Flanker and Twins)
Now, I am all for showing as many different formations as you can and running the same plays.. but it was almost like they were trying to decide what they wanted to run next year and were trying to give them all a shot.
Do coaches do this based on them being ignorant, or just trying to be too smart?
Or, is it simply of a matter of their playbook coming from the NCAA 2007 football game??
I mean seriously, this just amazes me.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on May 27, 2007 11:09:12 GMT -6
I've seen it so many times that it no longer amazes me. It seems to go hand-in-hand with driving for a TD in the opening possession, mostly with a 2 back running game, then coming out for the next series in spread gun and tossing the ball all over the place (or ice-versa).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2007 11:15:12 GMT -6
We ran what I dubbed Multiple-I last year just because I didn't know what else to call it. Yes, we ran multiple formations, but it was all I formation plays. Power I was our base, but we also executed out of the I, Trips with a TE, 3 x 1, 2 x 2, and offset I. But, again, it was all the same concepts and our kids had no problem with the formations. The list above does truely sound grab bag, although I hate that term.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on May 27, 2007 11:23:07 GMT -6
We ran what I dubbed Multiple-I last year just because I didn't know what else to call it. Yes, we ran multiple formations, but it was all I formation plays. Power I was our base, but we also executed out of the I, Trips with a TE, 3 x 1, 2 x 2, and offset I. But, again, it was all the same concepts and our kids had no problem with the formations. The list above does truely sound grab bag, although I hate that term. Being multiple is one thing-Lord knows we're really multiple on defense-but grab-bagging is something else. Using multiple looks to run the same plays is "multiple". Running 3 or 4 plays from 4 or 5 different systems is "grab-bagging". |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 27, 2007 13:24:34 GMT -6
respect the cognitive process
|
|
|
|
Post by warrior53 on May 27, 2007 13:57:59 GMT -6
Have been there and done that, we are coming out of it at the place I am at now. Thank the heavens - it has driven me crazy. We used to sit around every weekend and decide which offense we were going to run that week - it was aweful!!!! Every once in a while we dive back down that dark road, it takes a lot to get us out of that thinking. Some people just do not get it.
|
|
coachf
Freshmen Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by coachf on May 27, 2007 14:05:21 GMT -6
I saw a team win a state championship a couple of years ago and they were pretty multiple. They ran at least 15 or more trick plays. Every facet of the game had trick plays, Punt, Punt Return, everything. Small school too, no platooning. They tried it again this year and it bit them in the butt. However, I have never seen a team run so many different trick plays. I have no clue how they could do it. It would take 5 hour practices to pull that off.
|
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on May 27, 2007 14:20:51 GMT -6
What do you call a team that runs 8-10 plays out of 2-3 formations? Is it more sound to have multiple formations or multiple plays?
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on May 27, 2007 14:58:11 GMT -6
What do you call a team that runs 8-10 plays out of 2-3 formations? Is it more sound to have multiple formations or multiple plays? I have no problem with multiple plays or multiple formations. It's multiple philosophies (really, no philosophy) that I question. |
|
|
|
Post by lionhart on May 27, 2007 15:20:59 GMT -6
a wise man once told me "its easier to teach a kid to line up in ten different places and still run the same play, than it is to teach him 5 different plays from 5 different formations." i tend to agree with this. we will run our base spread formations (doubles, trips, bunch, empty, etc.) but we also have added an unbalanced package. 3 plays out of it...thats it. and they are our base blocking schemes anyway. the only thing that changes is the backs path. but it can certainly screw up a defenses rythym. we will also motion to and from 3x1, 2x2 etc and still just rn our base stuff. some of the motioning is functional, some is window dressing to confuse the def.
|
|
|
|
Post by airraider on May 27, 2007 15:45:51 GMT -6
a wise man once told me "its easier to teach a kid to line up in ten different places and still run the same play, than it is to teach him 5 different plays from 5 different formations." i tend to agree with this. we will run our base spread formations (doubles, trips, bunch, empty, etc.) but we also have added an unbalanced package. 3 plays out of it...thats it. and they are our base blocking schemes anyway. the only thing that changes is the backs path. but it can certainly screw up a defenses rythym. we will also motion to and from 3x1, 2x2 etc and still just rn our base stuff. some of the motioning is functional, some is window dressing to confuse the def. we are fishing from the same boat my friend.. We run: Empty (3 ways) 2x2 (regular and Tight slots) Flex (tight slots and Flexed ends) Bunch any of these from under center, 6 yard gun, or 9 yard gun. We also will get in a Twins I. Now, we run several different concepts from all of these formations.. such as Speed option Load Option Jet Sweep Trap (jet and regular) Blast (QB and TB in I) Mid-line (both with QB being the second man through and TB in I) Dart Bubbble Screen All Streak (with comebacks) Smash Over and Under (shallow and Dig) Slants and Wheels Outs and Ins Curls and Flats and a few other things.. there of course isnt anything wrong with this.. this is my "system".. its what I run.. but when you get into split backs just to run the QB Sweep and get into Gun just to run all streaks.. or get into a stacked I to just run blast.. then thats not a system.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2007 16:46:04 GMT -6
I totally agree with the last couple posts. My philosophy is to have a certain number of base concepts (about 5 run and 8-10 pass, depending on how much my players can handle) but be able to execute those concepts out of any formation.
|
|
|
|
Post by wingman on May 27, 2007 19:36:18 GMT -6
The proof is in the execution. If they move the ball and score I don't care how many formations and schemes they come out in. NOW, if they can't move the ball, obviously they need to simplify.
|
|
|
|
Post by dubber on May 27, 2007 20:11:43 GMT -6
What do you call a team that runs 8-10 plays out of 2-3 formations? Is it more sound to have multiple formations or multiple plays? I have no problem with multiple plays or multiple formations. It's multiple philosophies (really, no philosophy) that I question. True stuff here. If my formations are multiple I, multiple splitback, multiple flexbone, and multiple fullhouse backfields, and multiple shotgun sets and I run option from all these, then I'm fine (getting the mesh points down for all these would be hellacious, but you get my point). Now, if I have a flexbone set for option, a 100/900 WIng-T formation for bucksweep, multiple I for iso and power, 5-wide, Duece for zone blocking, SInglewing for super sweep, Doublewing for super power.................then I have a problem |
|
|
|
Post by seagull73 on May 28, 2007 7:11:15 GMT -6
At first glance one might accuse me of being grab bagish. We easily can give countless looks with our system. We are a shotgun team but can get under center in an "I" and do everything we did from the gun. We can go double tight and still keep the same pass concepts.
|
|
|
|
Post by panhandleslim on May 28, 2007 8:53:07 GMT -6
Doubles, trips, and occasionally empty is all we run. No matter how they line up there is a way to hurt them. If would be hard to convince me that we need anything else.
|
|
|
|
Post by easye17 on May 28, 2007 11:08:49 GMT -6
I'll say this, and I'm trying to be kind, but airraider, the ignorant part might be a little close to home. My first year as an OC, it was also my head coaches first year as a head coach. He told me what he wanted to run, and it was all based off of what hurt him as a defensive coordinator. When I tried to tell him that there wasn't an identity to what he wanted to do and that it didn't flow together, he told me that I was too young and that he was the head coach and taht was what he wanted to do. We struggle on offense to say the least. After that year, he finally realized that I was right. Ignorance isn't always bliss.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on May 28, 2007 13:04:02 GMT -6
You have got to have an offensive system with a philosophy. All of your packages must fill a niche in the system and work off of one another. It doesn't matter whether you run 2 formations or 20; you need to run a system of plays out of those formations.
|
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on May 28, 2007 13:56:18 GMT -6
You have got to have an offensive system with a philosophy. All of your packages must fill a niche in the system and work off of one another. It doesn't matter whether you run 2 formations or 20; you need to run a system of plays out of those formations. actually, i believe that you need to have a philosophy (what you are going to do) before you have the methodology (schemes) in order to be successful in the long run. |
|
|
|
Post by coachjim on May 29, 2007 4:33:21 GMT -6
At youth level: One philosophy/system, multiple looks through motion.
How anyone can get the lineman to learn all those different blocks in different systems must be either attracting kids from the math team that weight 300 lbs, have plenty of time to practice (we have 6 weeks), or play college level.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on May 29, 2007 9:04:34 GMT -6
Air Raid, your first three plays load, speed and jet in my mind are all the same philosophy. At least you are attempting to get to the edge and stretch the defense. I like this "system". As a matter of fact I like everyrhing you talk about on these boards, because it all based in one philosphy; which in my mind id "spread the defense and try to play either one on one coverage or a 7 on 6 running attack.
I coached at a wing-t only team for six years, then in 2004 I finished my masters and with it getting my certificate to teach and utlimately change careers, which led me to leave the Wing-t school. Since then, my most difficult challenge has been working as the Oline coach for teams who believe that one play is going to win the game. Especially, if no one has seen it on film.
I prefer to coach in such a way that a system is installed, then rather than trying to fool someone, you are actually making the defense adjust to what you do and if you do it correctly, the defense can't do anything right. At least through an offensive system, you can develop consistency.
|
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on May 29, 2007 12:17:17 GMT -6
The bottom line is this isn't a black or white thing. If a team runs spread and I they aren't necessarily grab bag, they may just mesh two different styles. Or run & shoot and wing-t, split-back veer and one-back, etc. It's hard to say when an offense stops being "multiple" and becomes "grab-bag" by resort to some rule of thumb of X number of offenses, but like Justice Powell's observation about pornography, "I know it when I see it."
|
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on May 29, 2007 12:19:02 GMT -6
actually, i believe that you need to have a philosophy (what you are going to do) before you have the methodology (schemes) in order to be successful in the long run. I agree with this. It may be a bit ambitious (or pretentious) of me but I am working on an article describing the proper way to think about your offense and build it from the ground up, in logical order. (The idea also works in reverse, you should be able to reverse engineer your existing offense as well.). |
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by tedseay on May 31, 2007 2:51:46 GMT -6
It may be a bit ambitious (or pretentious) of me No, merely ponderous. And dilatory. ;D  ;D |
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by tedseay on May 31, 2007 2:52:18 GMT -6
respect the cognitive process You really are my idol, you know. |
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on May 31, 2007 7:49:59 GMT -6
I translate this to: I promise to finish looking at your stuff soon! Sorry for the delay. I'm terrible. |
|
|
|
Post by dubber on May 31, 2007 10:36:16 GMT -6
The bottom line is this isn't a black or white thing. If a team runs spread and I they aren't necessarily grab bag, they may just mesh two different styles. Or run & shoot and wing-t, split-back veer and one-back, etc. It's hard to say when an offense stops being "multiple" and becomes "grab-bag" by resort to some rule of thumb of X number of offenses, but like Justice Powell's observation about pornography, "I know it when I see it." some systems, because of formation or commonness of plays, can be meshed. Spread and I mesh, because you can have the same blocking for running plays (zone read and IZ), and not have too many plays that lack commonality wing-t and run and shoot mesh well, because of formational simularities. It's not like you have to put in a special set to run jet sweep...if the kids are comfortable with the formation, then adding a wing-t series isn't going to be that big of a deal. I would disagree with splitback veer and one-back.......in theory, that would hellacious to defend if you could execute both, however, you would have to install 2 completely different systems with different skill sets.......Qb has a different skill set, RB has a different skill set. |
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on May 31, 2007 10:40:56 GMT -6
I was just using examples, I wasn't really trying to provide a list of what works and what doesn't. Just that sometimes "meshing" two offenses can be a great way to be multiple, while for others it is too much or one offense is merely enough. Those NFL offenses combine all offenses, maybe to the point where the systems lose their flavor.
|
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on May 31, 2007 10:50:47 GMT -6
For me, the "Grab Bag" term makes me think of the coach who changes complete offensive systems from week to week. It also applies to those situations in a game (or in a single drive) where the coach simply throws a play into the mix with no real plan. I think most good play callers are not just calling ONE play but are thinking 3 and 4 plays ahead and 2 or 3 possessions ahead - trying to set things up or simply exploiting your strengths (and their weaknesses). I don't feel meshing or combining facets of different systems is necessarily grab bagging, although it might not be efficient in some instances.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 31, 2007 11:55:08 GMT -6
From the defensive point of view, I like the type of teams that match formations and play selection. Played a team this past season, their coach thought they were "multiple", because they ran option, power, bucksweep, and lots of airraid passing concepts. They were ineffective because they ran option out of the wishbone, bucksweep out of the wing-t, power out of the I, and airraid concepts out of 4/5 wide.
|
|
;D