Under Center vs Dir...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Under Center vs Direct Snap


mahonz
(@mahonz)
Kryptonite
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 23171
Topic starter  

Last Fall was the first time we were a 100% Direct Snap Offense since the days we ran the UBSW. This discussion does not apply to an Offense like the UBSW that I believe must be DS in order to be effective. Same thing applies to the 5 Wide Empty and the Read Read.

But everything else....I have to wonder if all this DS stuff that has happened has become a detriment to an Offense.

This Spring we took our regular Offense from the Fall....Bruceja's Auburn for Youth that is all DS and reworked it so that it was all Under Center. I have to say as the DC its been a monumental improvement IMHO.  When we go team I have a hard time finding the football.

Way more deceptive and quite honestly more plays via more backfield actions without melting brains.

The Classic I formation seems to have been ruined by Pistol. I used to read up on the DWwingnuts enamored with going Wyatt Wildcat style. Made no sense too me. Im sorry but the Wing T ( Auburn's Offense ) was never meant to be run as a DS Offense. When I sat down and really studied up on the Flexbone there were teams that ran it Pistol Style. Made no sense too me. Everything was deeper and slower. We ran it traditional UC.

I suppose there are some positives going DS but its limiting.  I think going UC is a far superior system.

Just an observation I've had over the last year.  If you are going to run a traditional DS Offense...fine. Do it the right way.  Everything else... stay traditional and go UC. I think all this  gun stuff is ruining Offenses.

What is beautiful, lives forever.


Quote
blockandtackle
(@coacharnold)
Silver
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 847
 

Amen.

I know some HS coaches who think they have to be direct snap now to appease kids and parents, but it honestly has not been an improvement for a lot of them.  There are few things more frustrating than losing a game because of 7 or 8 bad snaps.

IMO, if you're not doing something that requires you to be in gun for it to work (SW, Zone Read, Power Read, RPO, etc.) all you're doing is making it tougher to get the snap off, slowing everything down, and making misdirection and PAP a lot less effective.

I've tried to run Flexbone from Pistol.  Never again.


ReplyQuote
parone
(@parone)
Silver
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 766
 

i'm a huge admirer of a well run wing T.  to me, it's one of the most enjoyable offenses to watch(as a spectator).  i can't imagine what would be added by going DS.  side saddle i get(and like even more) but i can't imagine what you get out of gun wing t.

of course football is copycat/cyclical.  if you line up under center now, you are old school/out of touch.  which means probably we all ought to be doing more of it. 

Dream Big.  Work Hard. Stay Humble.


ReplyQuote
blockandtackle
(@coacharnold)
Silver
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 847
 

i'm a huge admirer of a well run wing T.  to me, it's one of the most enjoyable offenses to watch(as a spectator).  i can't imagine what would be added by going DS.  side saddle i get(and like even more) but i can't imagine what you get out of gun wing t.

of course football is copycat/cyclical.  if you line up under center now, you are old school/out of touch.  which means probably we all ought to be doing more of it.

We're gun Wing-Tish.  For us, we do it because we like being able to read backside defenders on Buck Sweep and operate from a 1 back look.  It's also better for Jet Sweep.

That said, Waggle and the different fakes aren't nearly as good from the gun.


ReplyQuote
Bob Goodman
(@bob-goodman)
Diamond
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 9631
 

I used to read up on the DWwingnuts enamored with going Wyatt Wildcat style.

It makes perfect sense to me, in the formation Wyatt used for some yrs., with both QBs (QB & FB, 1 & 3 back) almost close enough to the snapper, as well as to each other, to take a handed snap.  My understanding is that since then he's moved them backwards to where he started with them originally.

With a pair of backs in a real QB position, almost UC, the snap is hidden extremely well, toss action can be very similar to the usual Markham style, and you get that threat of an immediate dive while the other back may have the ball.  You do lose some of what you have in Markham-style DW in that an off-tackle toss w the usual blocking assignments becomes an orphan play because of how the QB then has to step with the play side foot to pivot off it for the toss, but you gain such other deceptive opp'ties that you can't be rightly said to be telegraphing anything else in the offense.

With the backs at a depth of 3 yds. or more, then you probably have a completely different style of DW attack, which I've seen moving pix of from old times as well as recent, and then you're comparing apples to oranges.

When I sat down and really studied up on the Flexbone there were teams that ran it Pistol Style. Made no sense too me. Everything was deeper and slower.

Pistolflex/ski-gun makes sense if you're going to pass a lot.  Also, I polled coaches on what depth they preferred the mesh to take place at in a dive-or-keep option; it came out very close between those who best liked the handoff in the neutral zone (maybe an excess of midline option coaches there) and those who most liked shallow pistol depth.  (Just behind the line and shotgun depth were the losers in that poll.)


ReplyQuote
Bob Goodman
(@bob-goodman)
Diamond
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 9631
 

We're gun Wing-Tish.  For us, we do it because we like being able to read backside defenders on Buck Sweep and operate from a 1 back look.  It's also better for Jet Sweep.

That last bit surprises me.  I thought the speed & deception were much better (provided you have the practice time) with a QB who turns around from UC for that mesh.  What's better, the time the jet runner gets to survey his prospects for the sideline or cutback when he gets the ball at shotgun depth?  Slowing the play down a little so you can get blockers leading?


ReplyQuote
parone
(@parone)
Silver
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 766
 

We're gun Wing-Tish.  For us, we do it because we like being able to read backside defenders on Buck Sweep and operate from a 1 back look.  It's also better for Jet Sweep.

That said, Waggle and the different fakes aren't nearly as good from the gun.

this is why this sight is good. 

i'm a bit like mr goodman though-why is it better for jet sweep?

also, do most wing T teams read backside defenders?  by reading, do you mean option read(like the weakside spread read)?

Dream Big.  Work Hard. Stay Humble.


ReplyQuote
Bob Goodman
(@bob-goodman)
Diamond
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 9631
 

also, do most wing T teams read backside defenders?  by reading, do you mean option read(like the weakside spread read)?

I suspect there are some who read back side for a no-call naked bootleg in the buck sweep series.


ReplyQuote
parone
(@parone)
Silver
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 766
 

i've gotta put more time in studying the nuts and bolts of the wing T, not just being a fan boy.  any good books on it?

Dream Big.  Work Hard. Stay Humble.


ReplyQuote
mahonz
(@mahonz)
Kryptonite
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 23171
Topic starter  

It makes perfect sense to me, in the formation Wyatt used for some yrs., with both QBs (QB & FB, 1 & 3 back) almost close enough to the snapper, as well as to each other, to take a handed snap.  My understanding is that since then he's moved them backwards to where he started with them originally.

With a pair of backs in a real QB position, almost UC, the snap is hidden extremely well, toss action can be very similar to the usual Markham style, and you get that threat of an immediate dive while the other back may have the ball.  You do lose some of what you have in Markham-style DW in that an off-tackle toss w the usual blocking assignments becomes an orphan play because of how the QB then has to step with the play side foot to pivot off it for the toss, but you gain such other deceptive opp'ties that you can't be rightly said to be telegraphing anything else in the offense.

With the backs at a depth of 3 yds. or more, then you probably have a completely different style of DW attack, which I've seen moving pix of from old times as well as recent, and then you're comparing apples to oranges.Pistolflex/ski-gun makes sense if you're going to pass a lot.  Also, I polled coaches on what depth they preferred the mesh to take place at in a dive-or-keep option; it came out very close between those who best liked the handoff in the neutral zone (maybe an excess of midline option coaches there) and those who most liked shallow pistol depth.  (Just behind the line and shotgun depth were the losers in that poll.)

All good points but Im still in the Camp that says DS has more negatives than positives for these types of systems.

Too me...the Pistol depth is just plain dumb. Why be a tweener? Plus you MUST have a perfect snap every time. There is no "strike zone" for the C....its right here or nothing.

Not very youth friendly IMHO.

What is beautiful, lives forever.


ReplyQuote
Share: