Bluegrassrivals

Real Badman Wrote:Elkhorn City won state back in the 60's I believe with this offesne. East Ridge also tried too run it 05-06

We tried it coach Allens last year and it worked well. i loved the offense he ran.

Football1 Wrote:Your point here is why I love the bone. No matter how old it appears, the fact is it gives an offense the fastest way to outnumber a defense (blockers to tacklers) at the point of attack. The power I formation gives away your strong side whereas the bone is even and harder to predict. Even teams with athletes that are not as big or strong can move the ball with this powerful formation by attacking a hole with 2 lead blockers followed by a patient back. I hope teams continue to use this style of play for years to come!

But...that works both ways.

The wishbone's innate weakness is it can actually bottleneck an offense's effectiveness when that team has the better athletes. Coach Haywood made a GREAT move in switching to the Veer when he had the all-star backs.

Additionally, the conservative nature of the wishbone makes it very difficult to play from behind (even run successfully, the clock winds down continuously). Also, the blocking and backfield choreography is so dependent on proper execution of its parts that it precludes having sufficient time to prepare more than a rudimentary passing attack (not to mention the disadvantaged placement of receivers in the alignment). It shares this trait with a Wing-T, although the T has the advantage of having the wings in close proximity to the flats (for short passing).

I have a corollary question:

Is it better to mold the players to fit an established system, or fit/change the system to better suit the available players ?!?

oneijoe Wrote:I have a corollary question:

Is it better to mold the players to fit an established system, or fit/change the system to better suit the available players ?!?

I don't intend to be vague, but I truly think the answer lies in between. Great programs and great coaches all have a system, or at least an identity, in place. When you have a system in place you can extend it to your feeder systems so they can pick up the basic plays, blocking schemes, and terminology at an early age. One of the ultima6te reward of a strong feeder system is the fact coaches do not have to invest their hard pressed time at the HS level to teach the basics.

I view a system in "construction" terms as being the original drawings. You have a really good idea of what is going to happen, you know what you have to have to complete the project, and year after year you can replicate it with relative ease. But, to get to the final specifications you may tweak a few things, make a few upgrades to the latest technology, and architecturally try to highlight your strongest features.

What it all comes down to is there is only a certain number of hours in a week and in a season for coaches to prepare. If a coach can free up more of that time to work on wrinkles in the gameplan, individual skill development, and to focus on correcting small problems, then that coaches team will come out ahead in the long run.

oneijoe Wrote:I have a corollary question:

Is it better to mold the players to fit an established system, or fit/change the system to better suit the available players ?!?

EKUs points on this question are spot on. Still, I would lean more to the side of putting players into your system than bending the system for players. That is assuming you have a stream of relatively good talent. Clearly if you don't have a QB who can throw; you cant air it out.

I am a big fan of the "Bone" power football but also feel you need to build your offence around the talent you have. The bone requires a strong bruiser kind of kid that runs well, that could be good full back material. The lead blocker kind of guy who can also give you 3 or 4 yards up the middle when you need it. The bone is a type of offence that pounds and pounds in every hole across the line. Then when the opponent make ajustments to stop you inside, you can counter, sweep, option or even play action pass.

I have to disagree that the Wing T has an issue throwing the ball or that it is a weakness. The wing t is great for throwing the ball for a number of reasons.

The bone is not the best offense to overwhelm at the point of attack either. Its good because you can get guys across the midline of the offense quickly to either outnumber of give you a chance. Double wing and single wing offenses can get as many and often more to the point of attack faster than any other offense.

The question about fitting the system or molding the kids is a very common question. When you talk about a system you are talking about the entire playbook, techniques, and terminology. Molding a system to you players might mean using different formations one year due to the type of kids you have. It might mean putting in a few more pass plays because you can throw or changing the series on which you focus on or add. The wing t is a good example of this. A team might always run the belly or down series every year. If they have certain kids then they might run jet one year or throw more. They might use more red/blue formation or they might go with the standard 100/900 stuff because they have 2 solid rbs. You might run some outside veer because you have the QB. That is adapting your system to your players. I think that is different then changing the complete scheme from year(s) to year(s) like going from a wishbone to a 4 wide offense just because you have a QB or want something different.

Another reason you see all this one back or spread team with no lead blockers is because they are trying to zone block. The zone blocking scheme should allow you to handle the backers without a lead blocker. If you watch college or pro games where they use zone you'll notice the FB (if there is one) is often used to block the end away from the direction of the run and not inserting for backer. Zone is tough to teach even when you know how to teach it and even harder for OL guys to get good at with the limitations most HS face.

I'll give you guys a complete 180. The empty formation is the greatest formation in football because it makes the defense tip their hand. A lot of people in Eastern Kentucky give the spread a bad rap, and no offense to anyone out their who ran it, but most don't know how to do it effectively. You don't have to have athletes to make it work, but they do help. I coach 5A football in Georgia in the metro Atlanta area (originally from KY). Our fastest kid runs a 4.7. Almost every team we play has D1 commits, and we still find a way to be successful.

We play run-oriented teams all the time and shut them down because they are one dimensional. Any good coach should be able to do that. What gives people fits is that they can't account for how fast we play during practice and they can't get to the QB because of quick game and screens. We have 5 new o-linemen this year (2 are d-line converts) and are 6-0.

I know most don't agree, but throwing the ball with big o-linemen makes it very easy. Plus, you'll never see any more than 5 or 6 in the box, and that's a lot easier for those big guys to block that have 8 or 9 guys in there.

Just some of my rambling thoughts.

Jackson05 Wrote:I coach 5A football in Georgia in the metro Atlanta area (originally from KY). Our fastest kid runs a 4.7. Almost every team we play has D1 commits, and we still find a way to be successful.


Just some of my rambling thoughts.

Where do you coach at? I live in Lawrenceville now and follow Grayson. Your offense sounds alot liek South Gwinnett's except they have plenty of speed burners.

Real Badman Wrote:Elkhorn City won state back in the 60's I believe with this offesne. East Ridge also tried too run it 05-06

They did..The same Jack Hall led ECHS to a state championship in '64..