The Official Banter Away Thread

[bahester]

A good option offense is a disaster to prepare against - we just don't see it often. It causes the defense to have to be SO disciplined. And, of course, it's even more deadly when you have elite athletes carrying the rock.

The guy that went to ECU plays LB now, and is built like an absolute rock. Well, he was the same size in HS and played RB. I'll see if I can dig up the video of him carrying 3 guys into the endzone.

 

[Damaikis]

You guys play against any teams who run the triple option? My high school's team does that. It's very interesting to watch sometimes.

 

[Jman]

It really does have some advantages. We definitely couldn't have run this offense last year - we had a 300+ pound tackle that just couldn't keep up. He was a great kid but would've collapsed in this offense.

We're a man blocking team..we very rarely ever run any type of zone blocking..and the smaller lineman allow us to excel. I'm a big counter-trey guy and we run it almost to perfection. Our backside guard and tackle get on their horse and go. It'll allow us to be very successful with some screens this year as well.

You sir, are speaking my language. I love love love the counter, add to that we used a MEAN downhill (not stretched out) sweep and you can just get on people. Love it dude.

We played the wishbone offense in high school. It was dumb how many teams we'd run over. Both RBs eventually went on to play Division 1. One at Duke, one at ECU.

Got to coach in the 'bone three years, I love it. Mark my words too, in HS its all going to come back around to that in the near future too. As D's get more complex to stop the spread, no huddle, spread option game (i.e. the 3-3-5 defense) they simple cannot adjust to a true option (bone, flex, power) offense. It'll come back around, the game goes in cycles.

 

[Steel President]

We played against a team that runs a double wing offense and it's a pain in the rear as well. They are always stacked with athletes and just throw them at us.

They're out of our conference this year though so we don't have to worry about that until potentially the playoffs.

 

[JR]

I am staying the hell out of the Rant thread, it's about to get ugly.

 

[bahester]

We played against a team that runs a double wing offense and it's a pain in the rear as well. They are always stacked with athletes and just throw them at us.

They're out of our conference this year though so we don't have to worry about that until potentially the playoffs.

The wishbone we ran excelled so great because we never really played any teams that had HUGE offensive linemen and beastly LB's to fill gaps and stop it. We also had massive offensive linemen that were good at moving people out of the way. Without those big d linemen to plug gaps, you just arent going to stop the wishbone for 3-4 downs and 10 yards. It was boring to watch but won a ton of games.

 

[Steel President]

Jman, gotta' have the horses to run a double wing or wishbone though. I don't have any experience coaching it so I'm not particularly versed enough but it's a tough system to run without superior TB's.

 

[bahester]

Jman, gotta' have the horses to run a double wing or wishbone though. I don't have any experience coaching it so I'm not particularly versed enough but it's a tough system to run without superior TB's.

It was unique how ours worked out. Was a really good fit. Big, but quick enough off the ball offensive linemen. A very large 250 lb RB that ran like a freight train to run it up the gut, and a quick, agile, and blazing track star to run finesse plays (option pitches, direct snaps, etc.). My best friend was the QB and he was very good at reading which one to hand it off to, or to throw once teams started getting overzealous with CBs/safeties.

 

[Jman]

Jman, gotta' have the horses to run a double wing or wishbone though. I don't have any experience coaching it so I'm not particularly versed enough but it's a tough system to run without superior TB's.

Eh, with the double I agree. With the 'bone though you can cater it to grinding if you don't have those two hosses at the TB spots. We ran it both ways under a HC who has run it for 30 years now as an HC. His mantra with it is 3 yards and a cloud of dust, that's all you need each play.

I can still hear him yelling GOOD! after every 3 yard play in a game haha

 

[bahester]

Eh, with the double I agree. With the 'bone though you can cater it to grinding if you don't have those two hosses at the TB spots. We ran it both ways under a HC who has run it for 30 years now as an HC. His mantra with it is 3 yards and a cloud of dust, that's all you need each play.

I can still hear him yelling GOOD! after every 3 yard play in a game haha

So boring to watch, but it's crazy how defenses wear down having to be on the field for 10 minute drives of 3 yards a piece.

 

[Steel President]

Eh, with the double I agree. With the 'bone though you can cater it to grinding if you don't have those two hosses at the TB spots. We ran it both ways under a HC who has run it for 30 years now as an HC. His mantra with it is 3 yards and a cloud of dust, that's all you need each play.

I can still hear him yelling GOOD! after every 3 yard play in a game haha

Yeah, that makes sense. Like I said, I'm sure you're more well versed in it than I am. Does make sense though.

What are your thoughts on the 3-3-5? I'm far from a defensive expert but I just do not like it at all. I love game planning against a 3-3-5, even as a team that runs a spread offense.

 

[Jman]

Yeah, that makes sense. Like I said, I'm sure you're more well versed in it than I am. Does make sense though.

What are your thoughts on the 3-3-5? I'm far from a defensive expert but I just do not like it at all. I love game planning against a 3-3-5, even as a team that runs a spread offense.

As an offensive guy, I love it like you do hahaha.

I'm not a fan, unless you have a hawk of a safety, a stud mike, and a BEAST of a nose it just is not that effective in my humble opinion. I dunno though, I've seen some scrappy teams run it really well and some athletic teams just hurt themselves by going to it.

 

[SW]

Yeah, that makes sense. Like I said, I'm sure you're more well versed in it than I am. Does make sense though.

What are your thoughts on the 3-3-5? I'm far from a defensive expert but I just do not like it at all. I love game planning against a 3-3-5, even as a team that runs a spread offense.

We ran a 3-3-5. When the right keys were in place and coached properly we could handle any offensive system. Our conference was mostly smash mouth but since 2 of the teams liked to throw and we were slow white kids the coaching staff wanted as much speed on the field as possible to combat that. When we played a run first team we would drop the ends down and roll up the safeties. That allowed the line to suck up blocks and free the outside backers and safeties to make a play.

--
Tapatalk2

 

[Jman]

We ran a 3-3-5. When the right keys were in place and coached properly we could handle any offensive system. Our conference was mostly smash mouth but since 2 of the teams liked to throw and we were slow white kids the coaching staff wanted as much speed on the field as possible to combat that. When we played a run first team we would drop the ends down and roll up the safeties. That allowed the line to suck up blocks and free the outside backers and safeties to make a play.

--
Tapatalk2

And THAT is why that defense is affectionately called the b'stard 5-2/5-3 in coaching circles. LOL

 

[Steel President]

As an offensive guy, I love it like you do hahaha.

I'm not a fan, unless you have a hawk of a safety, a stud mike, and a BEAST of a nose it just is not that effective in my humble opinion. I dunno though, I've seen some scrappy teams run it really well and some athletic teams just hurt themselves by going to it.

Coaches seem to have a tendency to blitz aimlessly out of an odd stack. I think teams in the odd stack end up relying too much on the offense making a mistake rather than playing solid fundamental defense. I don't like the idea of coaching a defense to try and free up a blitzing player.

You're pretty much limited to cover 3 or man out of the odd stack. You better have the horses in the secondary to keep up with our kids or it's going to be a long day. Give me the TE all day, give me the flats all day, and good luck staying with our crossers.

We're a pretty base 4-4 team - rather vanilla on defense honestly. My personal preference would be to ran a 4-3 with a monster - gotta' have the right kid to do it though.

 

[Jman]

Coaches seem to have a tendency to blitz aimlessly out of an odd stack. I think teams in the odd stack end up relying too much on the offense making a mistake rather than playing solid fundamental defense. I don't like the idea of coaching a defense to try and free up a blitzing player.

You're pretty much limited to cover 3 or man out of the odd stack. You better have the horses in the secondary to keep up with our kids or it's going to be a long day. Give me the TE all day, give me the flats all day, and good luck staying with our crossers.

We're a pretty base 4-4 team - rather vanilla on defense honestly. My personal preference would be to ran a 4-3 with a monster - gotta' have the right kid to do it though.

I hear ya.

I'm a 4-2-5 guy through and through. I can coach up some pretty damn mean DE's out of the 4-2-5....

Not to mention I was a pretty damn mean one myself, lol

 

[Steel President]

I hear ya.

I'm a 4-2-5 guy through and through. I can coach up some pretty damn mean DE's out of the 4-2-5....

Not to mention I was a pretty damn mean one myself, lol

The 4-2-5 intrigues me. I really started to pay a little more attention to it last year. It's a great defense if you have the athletes to run it.

Do you run more zone pressure or man pressure from the 4-2-5? I've seen a mix of both. I've also seen teams go Cover 0 with it..I've seen teams play 2 high with it - any preference there?

I'd also worry about my strong side DE being vulnerable. I'd guess that most running a 4-2-5 have the strong side end in a 7 tech. I think I could exploit that with a power play by blocking down on the 7 tech with my TE and kicking out the OSS.

 

[SW]

And THAT is why that defense is affectionately called the b'stard 5-2/5-3 in coaching circles. LOL

Haha, on film we looked like a 3-5-3. It was always fun hearing the calls between center/guard as they tried to adjust to an odd front.

--
Tapatalk2

 

[Jman]

The 4-2-5 intrigues me. I really started to pay a little more attention to it last year. It's a great defense if you have the athletes to run it.

Do you run more zone pressure or man pressure from the 4-2-5? I've seen a mix of both. I've also seen teams go Cover 0 with it..I've seen teams play 2 high with it - any preference there?

I'd also worry about my strong side DE being vulnerable. I'd guess that most running a 4-2-5 have the strong side end in a 7 tech. I think I could exploit that with a power play by blocking down on the 7 tech with my TE and kicking out the OSS.

We were always VERY multiple in our coverages out of it. Simple calls and adjustments made it easy to move in and out of coverages as we needed. We could do it all coverage wise (didn't mean the kids would do it right of course lol).

On personnel you are right, you need a pretty salty DE and 5-tech, strong nose that can command a double, and an intelligent FS with a solid Mike to make it really click right.

I love it because of the stunt packages you can bring and because of just how multiple you can be out of it when necessitated by the offense you are going up against. As far as the end, a straight 4-2-5 does use a 7 and that's how we ran it in HS but our 7 (I was the 5 opposite him) was 6'7 285 and could move and hold his own against the down of a TE. Base rules with it though are to never be outflanked by 2 on the LOS so he could adjust depending on the front.

We however grew to a modified 4-2-5 with a 5 and 1 weak, 3 and the DE head up on the TE instead. Our ends and 5's were also taught to wrong arm the oncoming pull/etc rather than keeping outside free. We wanted it spilled and killed to the ollies.

Lots of philosophies on the 4-2-5 out there for sure though.

 

[Jman]

Haha, on film we looked like a 3-5-3. It was always fun hearing the calls between center/guard as they tried to adjust to an odd front.

--
Tapatalk2

Believe me I know, its why my O-lines had hard rules to every play. Get their big butts (or in my sad case their undersized butts) to stop thinking and go. lol

 

[Steel President]

We were always VERY multiple in our coverages out of it. Simple calls and adjustments made it easy to move in and out of coverages as we needed. We could do it all coverage wise (didn't mean the kids would do it right of course lol).

On personnel you are right, you need a pretty salty DE and 5-tech, strong nose that can command a double, and an intelligent FS with a solid Mike to make it really click right.

I love it because of the stunt packages you can bring and because of just how multiple you can be out of it when necessitated by the offense you are going up against. As far as the end, a straight 4-2-5 does use a 7 and that's how we ran it in HS but our 7 (I was the 5 opposite him) was 6'7 285 and could move and hold his own against the down of a TE. Base rules with it though are to never be outflanked by 2 on the LOS so he could adjust depending on the front.

We however grew to a modified 4-2-5 with a 5 and 1 weak, 3 and the DE head up on the TE instead. Our ends and 5's were also taught to wrong arm the oncoming pull/etc rather than keeping outside free. We wanted it spilled and killed to the ollies.

Lots of philosophies on the 4-2-5 out there for sure though.

Hahaha, yeah, 6'7" 285 can squash just about any theory if he has some talent. That's a beast of a human being.

That's part of the reason I like the 4-2-5 - it's very flexible. Like you said, any coverage scheme can be employed from the 4-2-5. Zone pressure and man pressure can both be very effective.

I like the sound of that modified 4-2-5 you ended up running but I'd imagine your Mike would need to be NASTY.

 

[Jersey Nate]

My head is spinning from all this football banter, LOL.

 

[Steel President]

My head is spinning from all this football banter, LOL.

Haha, football coaches are tough to stop once they get rolling!

 

[Jman]

Hahaha, yeah, 6'7" 285 can squash just about any theory if he has some talent. That's a beast of a human being.

That's part of the reason I like the 4-2-5 - it's very flexible. Like you said, any coverage scheme can be employed from the 4-2-5. Zone pressure and man pressure can both be very effective.

I like the sound of that modified 4-2-5 you ended up running but I'd imagine your Mike would need to be NASTY.

Eh, just not afraid to hit the hole with a purpose. It certainly makes life easier though. The blitz combos you can utilize, blitzes with a purpose I might add as you and I both know some D's blitz just to blitz, is what really hooks me to it. Its sound, it can adapt, it can be really multiple in looks. It like anything else though you have to adapt to your personnel.

My head is spinning from all this football banter, LOL.

Hehe, sorry JN. It was engrained in me for 22 straight years of my 28! lol

 

[Kobey]

Sure am glad I have to leave for a karaoke gig in a bit, maybe all the football talk will be over by the time I get home.