Second guessing aft...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Second guessing after the season is over

Page 1 / 2

IMMIRU
(@immiru)
Copper
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 21
Topic starter  

BLUF Are we using the correct philosophies with schemes on O & D?

We are a MS Team.  I was hired to coach a team last year that had split in half due to redistricting and we play in a conference with schools as large as 1200 students while we are about 440.  We showed up in July 2020 late and went with the schemes that had been at the school (me + 2 coaches).  Post 2020 we brought on some more coaches (staff of 5 + me) and evaluated what we should consistently see in the near term.  Short term goals are to grow the program and improve the culture of the team.  Midterm goals are to increases the caliber of returning players with strength and conditioning in the off season and general football knowledge. (teach the game and lexicon)  Long term goal includes getting back to the championship level the team was at before redistricting (4 conference titles in 10 years).  We ran predominantly a possession focused power scheme out of a T formation on offense and a 3-5 stack on defense. (rationale was angle blocking to mitigate the size difference on offense and speed/stunt on the defense staying mainly in a cover 3 shell or quarters if the D&D dictated a longer passing attempt)

Our evaluation shows that we are likely to remain the smallest team in the conference with other school averaging an OL of 185 to 230lbs.  We also assess that we will have average speed with an occasional fast/shifty runner.  (we have one above AVG HB returning next year that weighs in at approx. 135lbs.  We lost a really strong 180lbs FB this year and the drop off next year is right now about 30lbs.

SO......we are asking ourselves did we pick the wrong formation and scheme given the horses in our stable now that it looks like we consistently appear to be a light team for a few years. 

 

 

Roster size

8th

7th

6th

Conference Record

PPG against

PPG for

OL AVG Size

2020

30

14

9

7

0 - 4

37.5

6.5

185.4

2021

44

22

14

8

1 - 6

24.2

14

166

Three losses in 2021 were by 8 points or less with two of them coming on ST kick returns for TD because of a kicking error and one in OT with a fumble on 2nd and goal from the four. 


Quote
CoachDP
(@coachdp)
Kryptonite
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 17927
 

The number of players should have no impact on the scheme you run.  You teach what you're qualified to teach.  I've coached at the 10th smallest and the 10th largest schools in the state.  And 3 others in between.  Size never dictated what we ran.  Why should it?

--Dave

"The Greater the Teacher, the More Powerful the Player."

The Mission Statement: "I want to show any young man that he is far tougher than he thinks, that he can accomplish more than what he dreamed and that his work ethic will take him wherever he wants to go."

#BattleReady newhope


ReplyQuote
gumby_in_co
(@gumby_in_co)
Platinum
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 4550
 

When Mahonz and I had that under-sized Spring team, we changed our schemes. Not by a great deal, but a few tweaks, especially up front so that we could use space as an ally. We ran the table that year running a "zero" front version of the 33 stack and an "A-11" look that was really our normal offense out of a weird formation.

However, to DP's point, Phil Bravo carved out a remarkable career running the Double Wing with a severe size disadvantage at Monarch HS here in CO.  

Going into this season (5th graders), we are big up front, but lack the play makers on offense that our competition seems to have. OC and I decided to try the flexbone option. Found out early that we are simply not up to it. Or, if we were, we would have to commit to it 100% and spend a great deal of practice time. So, we pulled the plug. OC is moving after the season, so next year, I will run the DW. Nothing to do with my personnel, although I think it's a great fit for our guys.

When in doot . . . glass and oot.


ReplyQuote
Coach Kyle
(@coach-kyle)
Platinum
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 3964
 

Run a thought experiment. Let’s say you had the perfect line. They were all big and fast. Hypothetically you could run any blocking scheme you wanted, and you would clearly want one on one blocks, and you would clearly want them to block towards the play side because if they blocked away, you’d be minus one player. Since college and NFL get the biggest and fastest players, they run zone blocking. That’s essentially what zone blocking is.

 

However, if you are not confident in your players to make one on one blocks to the play side, you can run angle blocks that give your players a leverage advantage. Or you can outmatch a big player with 2 weaker players AKA double teams. All of these scheme sacrifice a lineman, but they ensure that the play side hole is made, and you ensure that you get yards.

 

That being said, you can run any style out of any formation and it would work. So you’ve asked a bad question.

Deaths while walking 4,743Deaths from football 12


ReplyQuote
Coach Kyle
(@coach-kyle)
Platinum
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 3964
 

Run a thought experiment. Let’s say you had the perfect line. They were all big and fast. Hypothetically you could run any blocking scheme you wanted, and you would clearly want one on one blocks, and you would clearly want them to block towards the play side because if they blocked away, you’d be minus one player. Since college and NFL get the biggest and fastest players, they run zone blocking. That’s essentially what zone blocking is.

 

However, if you are not confident in your players to make one on one blocks to the play side, you can run angle blocks that give your players a leverage advantage. Or you can outmatch a big player with 2 weaker players AKA double teams. All of these scheme sacrifice a lineman, but they ensure that the play side hole is made, and you ensure that you get yards.

 

That being said, you can run any style out of any formation and it would work. So you’ve asked a bad question.

Deaths while walking 4,743Deaths from football 12


ReplyQuote
COCoachKC
(@cocoachkc)
Bronze
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 356
 
Posted by: @gumby_in_co

I will run the DW.

I might just consider coming out of retirement!  If I haven't moved to Orange Beach, AL.


ReplyQuote
IMMIRU
(@immiru)
Copper
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 21
Topic starter  

Dave, as always I appreciate your feedback.  You asked why should it?  Some schemes work more effectively with different-sized players.   Many blocking schemes are heavily influenced by F=ma2 so we need to compensate by changing our line of force on that target.  However, that sometimes comes at a cost as you know.   As for the # of players, there is a point where it really doesn't factor.  Our assessment going into this year was to be conservative and increase our TOP because of the drop off of talent and size down our depth chart.

To my point

Frank Gatski was 6-3 233lbs retired in 1956

Forrest Gregg was 6'4 249lbs and retired in 1971

Dan Dierdorf was 6'3 275lbs and retired in 1983

Bruce Matthews was 6'6 289lbs and retired in 2001

Willie Roaf was 6'5 300lbs and retired in 2005

Jonathen Ogden was 6'9 345 and retired in 2007

The # of NFL players over 300lbs went from 3 in 1980 to over 460 just 9 years ago.  In 2018 the Steelers alone had 14 players on their day one roster over 300lbs.  If the size of a player doesn't matter then teams would not see an increase this drastically in player size.  This data is only to demonstrate that the size of a player does matter and is one of several factors that in my opinion should be considered in the scheme you use.  Why would the size increase if it didn't benefit the scheme? The dead T uses a count system drive block execution.  We adjusted that to a gap scheme like you may see in the Cisar Singlewing to help offset some of the Newton physics stuff.

 

To state my earlier post differently.  We are reevaluating our philosophy of being as conservative as a dead T scheme is based on the gains we made. to determine if we can execute the program better.


ReplyQuote
CoachDP
(@coachdp)
Kryptonite
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 17927
 
Posted by: @immiru

Frank Gatski was 6-3 233lbs retired in 1956

Forrest Gregg was 6'4 249lbs and retired in 1971

Dan Dierdorf was 6'3 275lbs and retired in 1983

Bruce Matthews was 6'6 289lbs and retired in 2001

Willie Roaf was 6'5 300lbs and retired in 2005

Jonathen Ogden was 6'9 345 and retired in 2007

The # of NFL players over 300lbs went from 3 in 1980 to over 460 just 9 years ago.  In 2018 the Steelers alone had 14 players on their day one roster over 300lbs.  If the size of a player doesn't matter then teams would not see an increase this drastically in player size.  This data is only to demonstrate that the size of a player does matter and is one of several factors that in my opinion should be considered in the scheme you use.  Why would the size increase if it didn't benefit the scheme? The dead T uses a count system drive block execution.  We adjusted that to a gap scheme like you may see in the Cisar Singlewing to help offset some of the Newton physics stuff.

Defensive players have also increased in size, as well.

The increase in size isn't due to the NFL scheme requirements.  It's due to the fact that every generation is bigger, taller, healthier and lives longer than the generations that preceded them.

--Dave

"The Greater the Teacher, the More Powerful the Player."

The Mission Statement: "I want to show any young man that he is far tougher than he thinks, that he can accomplish more than what he dreamed and that his work ethic will take him wherever he wants to go."

#BattleReady newhope


ReplyQuote
CoachDP
(@coachdp)
Kryptonite
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 17927
 
Posted by: @immiru

Some schemes work more effectively with different-sized players.

Which ones?

--Dave

"The Greater the Teacher, the More Powerful the Player."

The Mission Statement: "I want to show any young man that he is far tougher than he thinks, that he can accomplish more than what he dreamed and that his work ethic will take him wherever he wants to go."

#BattleReady newhope


ReplyQuote
IMMIRU
(@immiru)
Copper
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 21
Topic starter  
Posted by: @coach-kyle

 

That being said, you can run any style out of any formation and it would work. So you’ve asked a bad question.

No, I have not a bad question. I said we were looking at our scheme and formation and you addressed the thoughts we were evaluating about the scheme and I appreciate it.  The scheme we used was not the scheme that the Dead T used but we ran our scheme out of that formation.  Please don't be a pedantic anal aperture with a comment like that when you clearly addressed the question.


ReplyQuote
Coach Kyle
(@coach-kyle)
Platinum
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 3964
 

@immiru

 

You're running a power scheme right with down blocking? You're already sacrificing a man play side by having them block away. So your question makes no sense. 

Deaths while walking 4,743Deaths from football 12


ReplyQuote
IMMIRU
(@immiru)
Copper
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 21
Topic starter  
Posted by: @coachdp
Posted by: @immiru

Some schemes work more effectively with different-sized players.

Which ones?

--Dave

Flexbone works better with faster linemen and typically smaller linemen are quicker.  Pass-centric offenses can benefit from linemen that can anchor their gaps and heavier lineman have an advantage in that scheme over a light lineman.  We were more effective this year using a gap scheme than a big on big scheme but we couldn't overcome the limitations of a T formation well enough to make it over the hump.  Coach Kyle had a great point about using a zone scheme to the playside as an alternative. 


ReplyQuote
IMMIRU
(@immiru)
Copper
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 21
Topic starter  
Posted by: @coach-kyle

@immiru

 

You're running a power scheme right with down blocking? You're already sacrificing a man play side by having them block away. So your question makes no sense. 

We ran power with one or two pulling OL and the TE and Tackle blocking down.  So would you "zone" playside and still pull BSG?


ReplyQuote
Coach Kyle
(@coach-kyle)
Platinum
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 3964
 

@immiru

You're misunderstanding. I'm not suggesting that you run zone if you have slower/smaller lineman. I said zone was harder because you're trying to get a 1 on 1 block play side. If anyone misses their block, you're SOL. With a gap scheme you block someone back side, which is gives you leverage. Down blocks are easier than reach blocks. That's what I said. 

Deaths while walking 4,743Deaths from football 12


ReplyQuote
chucknduck
(@chucknduck)
Bronze
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 410
 

Coach, I've been in your spot trying to execute a run heavy scheme and running into a brick wall over and again.

I don't care what scheme you run, if the opponent is a lot bigger and much more athletic at every spot, you aren't going to score many points running the ball.

However, if you have access to the kids in the off season you might want to use a pass heavy offense.  

I had a 7-1 freshman team one year where our running backs were averaging less than one yard a carry.  

Also, I platoon in youth and high school so I'm usually pretty thin on talent.

It sounds ludicrous but If you can take the physicality out of the game a bit and make it about your team's execution,  you got a shot to win.

Screens and quick game.  I've pretty much eliminated everything else.  I want the ball out in 2 seconds or less.  We're not taking sacks.

I've cut things down to about five base plays that we rep over and over.  Then run those five plays over and over in games.  We get pretty good at them after a while.

 

 


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 2
Share: