As most of you know many teams have gone to some variation of a spread offense. There are some notable exceptions __The Lake Taylor veer and the Salem I (Salem does split their backs on occasion and even occasionally set up in a spread attack). My question is with the long success of both programs why don't more schools go to these systems? I know in the Roanoke area only Glenvar runs a similar system---you would think with 30 years of success more schools would have copied them.
Offensive systems
- Thread starter southbottomU
- Start date
Nice topic Southbottom. If you do something well and have the personnel like Salem and LT you should stick with it. I am sure if ether team did not they would change. Think about the Championship game. Salem had a bit of success running the ball, but neither team dominated the other defense.
I can't speak for anyone else, but we (Dinwiddie) utilize the spread, but still run the ball 65% of the time. We dont have the huge bodies to move the pile like Hanover, LT and Salem, so running lanes are created by reducing the number of tacklers available inside the hashes. If you try to put numbers in the box Coach Mills will utilize screens and isolation routes. Some teams slow us down with the right coverage, but the system works for us.
I believe the main reason you don't see veers and power eye sets is, because most of the younger coaches have never seen or run the offenses utilized by LT or Salem. The athletes today are trained differently on both sides of the ball. Speed is the preferred tool. Just look at the size of the linebackers today. Much smaller than say a Jack Lambert style.
There is no real right or wrong here. I do miss some of the physical stuff, but the passing game is sure fun to watch when things are clicking. Clock eating, long drives really are rare.
I can't speak for anyone else, but we (Dinwiddie) utilize the spread, but still run the ball 65% of the time. We dont have the huge bodies to move the pile like Hanover, LT and Salem, so running lanes are created by reducing the number of tacklers available inside the hashes. If you try to put numbers in the box Coach Mills will utilize screens and isolation routes. Some teams slow us down with the right coverage, but the system works for us.
I believe the main reason you don't see veers and power eye sets is, because most of the younger coaches have never seen or run the offenses utilized by LT or Salem. The athletes today are trained differently on both sides of the ball. Speed is the preferred tool. Just look at the size of the linebackers today. Much smaller than say a Jack Lambert style.
There is no real right or wrong here. I do miss some of the physical stuff, but the passing game is sure fun to watch when things are clicking. Clock eating, long drives really are rare.
Southbottom not sure what I did exactly to have my response end up in your quote above. My apologies as I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. ;-)
I think the veer is, when taught properly, the best offense to run in high school. It is just hard to prepare defensively against it because you have different assignments and techniques that you aren't used to using. For example defensive ends their whole lives are taught to take the QB on an option play but against the veer, if it isn't speed option, you have to take the dive back. Then when you get too good at taking the dive back, they come back with quick pitch/speed option and it is hard to get outside fast enough. You don't have to have an elite quarterback throwing the ball to run the offense which is another reason why it is good at the high school level.
I like the physical play of the power i. done correctly the physicality will wear your opponent down But i think what has made Salem hard to deal with is their ability to run a play action passing game and the occasional spread. Salem's offensive versatility is hard to deal with. If you load the box they will throw it on you. Lake Taylor has been the only team to control Salem's offense the last two years and I think that had a lot to do with their outstanding corner play
The best thing to happen to veer and wing-t teams was the other teams migration to the spread. Defenses are now built to deal with spread personnel. When they face a team that wants to lineup and punch you in the mouth with a tightend or wing, they have trouble adjusting. I love when teams run the ball down people's throats. I also love seeing a spread team pick apart a secondary. The problem is that you must have a trigger man in the spread to be successful. Not every school has that guy.
I agree here. The versatility of the Salem offense, combined with the ability to adjust on the fly makes them very potent.
Back in the 70s the first teams that ran the wishbone had a big advantage. It took a couple of years for most programs to fiqure that you needed to run an even front d. Most schools went to the 4-4.
This conversation has a lot to do with personnel and demographics of the school area. Speaking just about Richmond area schools, the teams that run versions of traditional power football have some of the biggest schools and the best athletes in the area (Bird, Dale, Varina, Henrico and Cosby).
For over 25 years Thomas Dale and LC Bird have had dominant power football teams. The reason why they run traditional power offenses is simple, bc they can.
If you were in the Dominion District and had to play Bird, Cosby and Manchester every year, why would the other 5 schools (James River, Monacan, Midlothian, Huguenot and George Wythe) try to beat them with power football knowing that they do not have the numbers or athletes to compete in the traditional style.
Take a school like Monacan who had only been above .500 twice between years 2004-2013. Jim Henderson brought in the spread and in year 2 the Chiefs won 11 games and had a incredibly talented Lake Taylor team beat in the state Semi-Finals in 2014. Monacan would never ever be able to compete with the schools they play if they ran a traditional offense. Lets not forget that Monacan has not had any D-1 athletes in the 3 years Henderson has been there, while Cosby, Manchester and Bird have had at least 3-10 D-1 athletes on each team the last three seasons.
The misconception of spread football is that it means that you want or have to throw the football every play. Dinwiddieproud touched on it, but Monacan and Dinwiddie run the spread to create 1v1 match-ups on the perimeter and to take people out of the box. Both schools want and try to run the football. A lot of the stuff both schools use like jailbreak screens and short passes to the RB's are not much different than running the football.
A poster said that you need a good QB and it is not easy to find a trigger man for the spread. While not easy, a lot of schools in the RVA have a better chance of finding a dual-threat kid who can make the short passes and run the offense. Finding 5 lineman that can play power football against the defenses that Bird, Dale, Hermitage, Henrico and Highland Springs have is easier said than done.
Every coach should find the best way to give his kids a chance to compete for that season and not try to stick a square peg into a round hole.
First, allow me to welcome you to our humble little fom RVA804. Glad to have you.
Secondly, what a well stated and explained opinion. Very well articulated.
I think what separates "ok coaches" from "darn good coaches" is the type of thing you are explaining. A coach has to look at what he has to work with, and what his competition presents. I think he has to size up his regular season opposition and come up with a defensive and offensive scheme that gets him the wins and points to keep playing. But to build in enough variety that he can make adjustments as the post season progresses.
If you are totally built to fight it out in the trenches and compete with like minded regular season/district opponents, then when you run into high octane, rapid fire spread offensive type teams in the playoffs, you are in trouble. A "darn good coach" takes the talent he has and blends it with what what his opposition brings to the bear, and seizes his opportunities.
I love your example of Jim Henderson. Coach Henderson has proven himself in just the few short years he has been at the helm at Monacan. If his coaching abilities aren't enough, the quality of the man exceeds even that. I personally think his finest hour was the way he handled himself and his broken hearted players in the loss to Lake Taylor.
Secondly, what a well stated and explained opinion. Very well articulated.
I think what separates "ok coaches" from "darn good coaches" is the type of thing you are explaining. A coach has to look at what he has to work with, and what his competition presents. I think he has to size up his regular season opposition and come up with a defensive and offensive scheme that gets him the wins and points to keep playing. But to build in enough variety that he can make adjustments as the post season progresses.
If you are totally built to fight it out in the trenches and compete with like minded regular season/district opponents, then when you run into high octane, rapid fire spread offensive type teams in the playoffs, you are in trouble. A "darn good coach" takes the talent he has and blends it with what what his opposition brings to the bear, and seizes his opportunities.
I love your example of Jim Henderson. Coach Henderson has proven himself in just the few short years he has been at the helm at Monacan. If his coaching abilities aren't enough, the quality of the man exceeds even that. I personally think his finest hour was the way he handled himself and his broken hearted players in the loss to Lake Taylor.
Similar threads
