Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Spread Offense Viability

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by samparnell View Post
    Thanks for your reply.

    I've been looking for Counter in the Bronco offense. Against San Diego they ran it twice, plays # 11 & 13. Both times it was from an unbalanced line. They lined up in what I call Power Pistol (which looks like offset I with the QB at FB depth) then they motioned to what I call Auburn, like inverted Bone. It was keep on both plays.

    I will check on Bob Pruett. I know what you mean about getting usable information out of clinics. I think defensive coaches are more collectors of offensive systems since they study them so much. I think a defense-oriented HC would be more inclined to look at what kinds of talents his players have and then pull a playbook off the shelf and use that. Offensive coaches seem more invested in and defensive about their own system.

    As far as scoop is concerned, you mentioned influence in one of your original posts. At KC, the Broncos had their OTs set up in pass pro while the rest of the line was run blocking for Option. I thought that was very imaginative. It fooled Tamba Hali every time. He and the T just stood there and looked at each other while the play was going away.

    It's funny you should mention Offensive Football Strategies by the American Football Coaches Association. I just went and got it off my nightstand and have it right here now. Guess what article I've been looking at? "Scoring Through the Double Eagle" by Homer Smith, 1986. I remembered that article about dealing with that D. And, boom, there are the plays: Sprint Draw, FB & TB Naked Boot, Counter Sweep, Off-Tackle from Counter Action, Counter Option, SMU Option and Trap.

    If you have the same edition I do, have you also looked at Tom Osborne's article "Developing an I Series", pp.83-87? When the Broncos were running Triple Option from the I, I referred to that and found: Counter Dive, Counter Sweep and Iso Sweep with some PAPs. I found that to be in the context of our conversation. I like Smith's paragraphs and diagrams on Scoop Blocks as well as Osborne's on Fold Blocks.

    On other threads many have criticised the playcalling lately. Last night I started looking at Bear Bryant's article, "Executing in the Critical Zones", pp. 287-292. He shows Option and Counter all from the I and the Wing-T. Osborne's stuff is all I, and Homer Smith's attack on the Double Eagle showed I and Split Backs.

    "The idea is that the counter action should give the back side tackle a chance to get the LB. The problem is in running the basic veer option to set up the counter option. The presence of the SS on the LOS makes the basic option very difficult." ~ Homer Smith

    That's not perplexing at all and neither is the Iliad nor the Odyssey. The Buddy Ryan Double Eagle with the SS in a 9 and the Sam in a 7 over the TE plus the T-N-T guys is a problem for the run game. I think one way to deal with that is with the Double Wing formation we discussed before. There must be some way to exploit the OTs being uncovered. I'm encouraged by the multiple formations the Broncos are using and the appearance of Counter plays.

    Let's keep this up, Coach!
    You really have that book? Outstanding.

    I can't believe it...that's quite incredible. Really. I love that thing. My favorite part is you get a chance to read why they do what they do instead of just knowing that they do it, which you can get from film. You get the premise and principle behind the method. It gives you a chance to see through their eyes if you will.

    One of the beautiful things about that book is what those guys do with 20 practice hours. In high school, 12 is way too many. If you get 8, you did good, and most of that is rehearsing fundamentals. So most of us think "what I could do with more time" and then you get a chance to read about what they do with it. It's truly awesome because I'm in awe with how much they can install in such a short period of time. You've mentioned clinics, and that's a clinic I'd love to attend; extensible systems and installation. How they can get so many formations and motions out of that time is pretty wild.

    That shotgun formation you mentioned, that's triple option. It sounds like they moved to it to screw with secondary force. If you watch the backside...

    Here I go again and I apologize in advance. When in shotgun, if you look, the back is almost always away from the TE side. We've seen Denver use that back as the freeze/dive back. If you introduce another back, you can show a traditional triple option, albeit without the reverse pivot, so the idea is that you freeze and move directly into a sprint option...but...and I mean a BIG but, is that you have more then one place to for the QB to take it. You can use the freeze/dive back now for a QB lead and keep secondary force out of the play with the pitch stuff.

    You'll want to go back to that and see what that team was doing away from the TE to screw with their run game. Check the weakside safety first, and then formation.

    This is another part of what I'm getting at with the coaching staff - right now they're counter punching with their offense. They're doing too much to try to force something instead of reacting to it at the L.O.S. If the defense shows something, they'll do X o counter Y so they can get Z. That's great when you're running a conventional offense because that allows you to get a good athlete in a favorable situation, which is what most people consider good coaching. The option is a different approach. You need to rely more on the athleticism of the QB to make the play for you. If you adjust too much too often, you end up seeing something you're not prepared to deal with and you get 2nd and long in an offense that isn't going to get too many big ones.

    Hypothetical;

    Lets say the San Diego brackets the weakside, or shows 3 defensive backs at the L.O.S. Denver adjusts by moving to a triple option look. San Diego doesn't react. Denver respoonds the same way to it. Now, San Diego moves the imbalance over the weakside and stacks a backer - classic cover 7. Now where do you go? Weakside end is in a high technique (primary force), bracket defender or 3rd DB that side has pitch and stacked backer has secondary force. You've got a bubble weakside you can't take advantage of and a whole lotta trouble everywhere else.

    The option way of doing it would be to move no one but the back, run q QB lead and hammer it up in there. You have to have built in adjustments.

    The difference is pretty huge and it's what the coaching staff is struggling with, and that's understandable. It's going to take some time to not only change the approach from a conventional offense to an option, but the additional headache of having to be prepared to throw the ball at the NFL level and that's where you adjust. You have to be able to wear both hats at times. With 7 minutes left in the 2nd quarter, you're running your option offense. With less then 2 minutes left, in the NFL, you're a totally different animal.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by samparnell View Post
      Thanks for your reply.

      I've been looking for Counter in the Bronco offense. Against San Diego they ran it twice, plays # 11 & 13. Both times it was from an unbalanced line. They lined up in what I call Power Pistol (which looks like offset I with the QB at FB depth) then they motioned to what I call Auburn, like inverted Bone. It was keep on both plays.

      I will check on Bob Pruett. I know what you mean about getting usable information out of clinics. I think defensive coaches are more collectors of offensive systems since they study them so much. I think a defense-oriented HC would be more inclined to look at what kinds of talents his players have and then pull a playbook off the shelf and use that. Offensive coaches seem more invested in and defensive about their own system.

      As far as scoop is concerned, you mentioned influence in one of your original posts. At KC, the Broncos had their OTs set up in pass pro while the rest of the line was run blocking for Option. I thought that was very imaginative. It fooled Tamba Hali every time. He and the T just stood there and looked at each other while the play was going away.

      It's funny you should mention Offensive Football Strategies by the American Football Coaches Association. I just went and got it off my nightstand and have it right here now. Guess what article I've been looking at? "Scoring Through the Double Eagle" by Homer Smith, 1986. I remembered that article about dealing with that D. And, boom, there are the plays: Sprint Draw, FB & TB Naked Boot, Counter Sweep, Off-Tackle from Counter Action, Counter Option, SMU Option and Trap.

      If you have the same edition I do, have you also looked at Tom Osborne's article "Developing an I Series", pp.83-87? When the Broncos were running Triple Option from the I, I referred to that and found: Counter Dive, Counter Sweep and Iso Sweep with some PAPs. I found that to be in the context of our conversation. I like Smith's paragraphs and diagrams on Scoop Blocks as well as Osborne's on Fold Blocks.

      On other threads many have criticised the playcalling lately. Last night I started looking at Bear Bryant's article, "Executing in the Critical Zones", pp. 287-292. He shows Option and Counter all from the I and the Wing-T. Osborne's stuff is all I, and Homer Smith's attack on the Double Eagle showed I and Split Backs.

      "The idea is that the counter action should give the back side tackle a chance to get the LB. The problem is in running the basic veer option to set up the counter option. The presence of the SS on the LOS makes the basic option very difficult." ~ Homer Smith

      That's not perplexing at all and neither is the Iliad nor the Odyssey. The Buddy Ryan Double Eagle with the SS in a 9 and the Sam in a 7 over the TE plus the T-N-T guys is a problem for the run game. I think one way to deal with that is with the Double Wing formation we discussed before. There must be some way to exploit the OTs being uncovered. I'm encouraged by the multiple formations the Broncos are using and the appearance of Counter plays.

      Let's keep this up, Coach!
      Of course, part 2.

      I liked that much better. Proof reading it I felt more clear and concise and it wasn't muddled with a bunch of implied information I was hoping was inferred from context.

      The Kansas City game...what you mentioned fits what we've been talking about to a T.

      Remember that the NFL is indicator oriented. If you show a pass indicator, they'll play pass. They won't change what they do up front in the NFL. If you show a high hat, meaning posture taken in pass pro, that's a pass indicator and you fly upfield to the cliff. If you get depth beyond the set of the tackle and go around him and then return upfield to the ball carrier that's called a fish hook. That...is...to be very, very sure, a MAJOR FAUX PAS...don't do that. The rule is, if you do accidentally do get too much depth, then commit to it, otherwise come back inside. Better yet, take a more direct angle and don't be forced to choose one or the other. That comes straight from Tony Dungy's defensive line manual too. That's a big no-no as a pass rusher. You see it all the time in the NFL, but it's not desired.

      Denver exploited KC's unwant to change what they do. They can eliminate the spill defender with a simple pass indicator. Easy money right there. If you can eliminate the spill defender, it buys you time to run more misdirection. Think about that for a second. With a simple pass set, you can now influence every member of their front seven; the open side end with a false indicator, the linebackers with a jab step and the rest of the defensive line with micro pulls and traps. Too easy.

      With the Viking game, we have to talk about what no one mentions, what no lay fan wants to admit and you know exactly where this is going.

      Football is still an athletes game.

      Everything I mentioned presumes that the other guys won't do what the Vikings did and probably got the coach fired. I hate saying that. I hurts to do that, but we have to call a spade a spade. What they did defensively was just stupid - they made the L.O.S. an attrition war and threw everything at it.

      How do you beat that?

      Have an athlete at WR that they can't match up with.

      Think of the Bears for a minute. Every year, Chicago seems to have protection problems. Every year they acquire a new high profile body along their offensive line. Every year they lose a contributor on the perimeter in their passing game. Brandon LLoyd was allowed to leave Chicago, they traded Greg Olsen.

      If there's no one there to win a M-M matchup, why not send the farm? My least favorite game to watch was the 4 int game by Cutler vs. Washington. Watch highlights of that game and I swear to you all you'll see from Washington is 7 man pressures.

      I'm going to assume you know, but I'll type it in case someone else comes across it - certain routes beat different coverages. How do beat a blitz heavy defense? Slants, fades and posts. Slants being the easiest.

      Knox lost on a slant and that led to a pick and Jay threw a fade and that got picked too. You can not throw those, but where do the points come from? Sure you can throw the ball away, and pick your spots, but the only thing you'll get is the occasional first down, but inevitably you'll punt. You won't get points. Having athletes at WR in the NFL is quickly becoming as important as QB.

      Back to Denver. The first TD to Thomas. Vikings are all over the L.O.S. Denver fakes the freeze, Tim moves to a sprint option and holds secondary force (the corner), and Thomas goes right by him. The option fake uncovered him. The Viking staff then went bat crap crazy and threw the solar system at the L.O.S. and Denver got big plays out of it, albeit from broken plays as well.

      Comment

      Working...
      X