PDA

View Full Version : Favorite Offensive Shemes?


bigbluedefense
09-17-2008, 10:41 AM
Whats your favorite offensive schemes? Ive always been a fan of a run heavy vertical passing game built of PA pass.

However, recently, Ive really grown a liking to the WCO. As I study it more, the more it grows on me. In particular, Mike Shannahan's WCO. Its brilliant, I love it. And McCarthey's WCO is really good too.


If I were to rate my favorite offensive schemes in the league it would be:

1. Patriots vertical/screen pass offense
2. Shannahan's WCO
3. McCarthey's WCO

Gay Ork Wang
09-17-2008, 10:43 AM
I like the run heavy schemes like the Bears offense or Martyball

Sniper
09-17-2008, 10:49 AM
I'd have to say the West Coast Offense.

TitleTown088
09-17-2008, 10:50 AM
Pass heavy, while I recognize the importance of pounding the rock, I find it a bit boring. I'm a pass *****, love watching it, spread 'em out.Definitely the WCO. I really like McCarthey's system in particular( not solely because he's GB's coach) but it's quarterback friendly, fun to watch, and it works dammit. With that said, I believe his scheme is a great one, but it's in the wrong place. I'm not convinced it can work effectively late in the season in a place like GB. I prefer a bruiser team ( O-line) for that. I think it would work excellent in a dome or fair weather.

How similar are MM and Shanny's systems? Both WCO with ZBS....

NY+Giants=NYG
09-17-2008, 11:05 AM
1. Steelers heavy run offense (Pros)
2. Spread (college)
3. Run N Shoot
4. Option

bigbluedefense
09-17-2008, 11:13 AM
Pass heavy, while I recognize the importance of pounding the rock, I find it a bit boring. I'm a pass *****, love watching it, spread 'em out.Definitely the WCO. I really like McCarthey's system in particular( not solely because he's GB's coach) but it's quarterback friendly, fun to watch, and it works dammit. With that said, I believe his scheme is a great one, but it's in the wrong place. I'm not convinced it can work effectively late in the season in a place like GB. I prefer a bruiser team ( O-line) for that. I think it would work excellent in a dome or fair weather.

How similar are MM and Shanny's systems? Both WCO with ZBS....

Im still gettin to know both systems, but so far Ive noticed theyre very different. Shannahan's system is more of a tight system, 2 TE system that runs the rock a lot more, and uses WCO patterns with TEs much more often than McCartney does.

McCartney spreads it out a lot more, and uses a lot more full house packages, split back packages, and more traditional WCO patterns like the slant.

I really like the run blocking scheme McCartney employs. Like having 2 FBs, and running power one way with one FB blocking the backside for the cutback lane.

Im usually not a fan of the WCO bc its too pass oriented, and Im an old school run the rock type of guy, but what I like about Shanny's WCO and McCartney's WCO is that both are by design, made to thrive in the run game. Done in different ways, but both are great for the run game. As odd as that sounds.

bigbluedefense
09-17-2008, 11:14 AM
I like the run heavy schemes like the Bears offense or Martyball

Me too, but Ron Turner kind of sucks.

I liked Whistenhunt's offense in Pittsburgh a lot, and historically loved Gibb's offense.

What I love about the Pats offense is that its explosive, yet still can be run heavy, and very qb friendly.

themaninblack
09-17-2008, 11:15 AM
1. The Bengals "Play to Lose" Offense concocted by the one and only Bob Bratkowski.

bigbluedefense
09-17-2008, 11:24 AM
1. Steelers heavy run offense (Pros)
2. Spread (college)
3. Run N Shoot
4. Option

Which Steeler offense? The Whistenhunt one, or the one they employ now? Bc the one they employ now is more of a spread offense that runs sweeps and pulling guards to the outside.

Sniper
09-17-2008, 11:28 AM
The spread option, as perfected by Rich Rodriguez. 2008 Michigan Wolverines notwithstanding.

NY+Giants=NYG
09-17-2008, 11:28 AM
Which Steeler offense? The Whistenhunt one, or the one they employ now? Bc the one they employ now is more of a spread offense that runs sweeps and pulling guards to the outside.

KW.. I had a man crush on his system!

bigbluedefense
09-17-2008, 11:33 AM
KW.. I had a man crush on his system!

I loved his system in Pittsburgh too.

Cameron's system in SD was pretty good too.

NY+Giants=NYG
09-17-2008, 11:40 AM
I loved his system in Pittsburgh too.

Cameron's system in SD was pretty good too.


Ken Whisenhunt
Cam Cameron
John Hufangel

Which one doesn't belong? LOL.

bored of education
09-17-2008, 11:41 AM
Any offense that has Cutler as QB

CC.SD
09-17-2008, 12:26 PM
I loved his system in Pittsburgh too.

Cameron's system in SD was pretty good too.

The 2004-2006 Cameron offense absolutely sung when it got going, good call. A lot of Gates up the seam, with possession receivers and an emphasis on fullback powered running game for LT.

The Norv Turner offense is way more downfield, the focus has really switched around. Can't complain much either way.

For other Offenses, I have to give it up to the simplicity of Peyton's guys. Reggie on one side, Marvin on the other, with Stokely/Gonzalez filling in the slot and productive tight ends, handing off to Edge/Addai/Rhodes...stacked enough to just go out and execute. Very nice.

giantsfan
09-17-2008, 12:35 PM
I love a team that has a run heavy scheme but uses a WCO style passing game to spread the defense and keep the ball moving. IMO the vertical passing game is over-rated because it's so risky. I'd rather spend 5 more plays moving the chains than going with the bomb.

abaddon41_80
09-17-2008, 12:38 PM
I have always loved Shanahan's offense

MetSox17
09-17-2008, 12:43 PM
Whatever the hell it is that Jason Garrett is running. It's beautiful to watch.

NY+Giants=NYG
09-17-2008, 12:48 PM
Whatever the hell it is that Jason Garrett is running. It's beautiful to watch.

Yeah he is another stud OC, but you guys tend to throw more than run it right? I like those passing concepts but mix it with alot of run and I'd call that the perfect system, for me in my opinion.

giantsfan
09-17-2008, 12:49 PM
Since no one's going to mention him since he's been such a horrible Head Coach, but Scott Linehan's power running game and PA passing game was very effective in miami and minnesota.

Plus if you have the right QB Holmgren really does a great job designing plays that make things easier for his players.

MetSox17
09-17-2008, 12:53 PM
Yeah he is another stud OC, but you guys tend to throw more than run it right? I like those passing concepts but mix it with alot of run and I'd call that the perfect system, for me in my opinion.

Yeah, i think we do pass a little more, but not by a lot. It just seems that way because our passing game is so efficient. But the way Garrett calls plays is just gorgeous. Plenty of times on Monday, he caught the Eagles blitzing or off guard with draws and screens. That's pretty much how Barber got his rushing yards cause the rush D was pretty tight all game. The Martellus Bennett screen was great.

NY+Giants=NYG
09-17-2008, 12:54 PM
Not a big fan of the WCO, but the one great thing about the system, specifically Mike Martz's as an example, is the way he calls his plays. I love the use of tags for the route numbers rather than using 2 digit numbers. And it's easy for the players to remember the #s. If not I guess they can try to wear wristbands to help, but overall it's a sweet system in terms of terminology.

NY+Giants=NYG
09-17-2008, 12:59 PM
Yeah, i think we do pass a little more, but not by a lot. It just seems that way because our passing game is so efficient. But the way Garrett calls plays is just gorgeous. Plenty of times on Monday, he caught the Eagles blitzing or off guard with draws and screens. That's pretty much how Barber got his rushing yards cause the rush D was pretty tight all game. The Martellus Bennett screen was great.

Yeah I don't really watch or focus in on your games, but I will have to break a game down like I do for our team just to see what passing concepts he is running against certain coverages. But in terms of draws and screens for blitzes that's standard practice. The theory is instead of hanging back and passing while people are coming at you, you run a screen, and let them come at you and then get the linemen upfield to block, and then pass it out to the RB. Same with the Draws, you invite the rush by kick stepping, and that means you are indicating to the defensive players that it is a pass, and so they read pass, and drop back, but then you hand it off and go forward.

One great example is watch the past superbowl again. Pats started to do that with great success on us. They screened us, via different types of screens, and it was working. In my opinion, Wies would have stuck with that until we adjusted, but McDaniels was impatient and was insistent on going deep.


But the thing Garrett does well is he has set coverage beaters at all times. So he has Cover 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 beaters, and then adjusts if opposing defenses throws hybrid coverages at him. Factor in option and Choice routes, and it's a great offense.

Menardo75
09-17-2008, 02:18 PM
KW offense with the Steelars was fun to watch. I really do like Martz's version of the spread.

awfullyquiet
09-17-2008, 02:36 PM
big fan of martyball. big big fan.

Ravens1991
09-17-2008, 02:56 PM
I love WCO. I do agree w/ BBD how Shannahan has a great WCO. If I could build a O it would be...

o-line- mobile and well rounded, can pull,move and get to the 2nd level w/ RB. I would prefer there size to be around 6'4 - 6'7 300-310.
qb-A smart and poised QB, he doesnt need a Jamarcus Russell cannon but has a adequate arm. He doesnt need Mike Vick speed but can move around just enough in the pocket to buy a split second to make the pass. He can be a game manager IDC.
fb-A big mean blocker, preety much a extra o-lineman, but can play short yardage if needed. IDC if he can catch or not, it would be a plus but not needed. A good size would be around 6'0 250-265
rb-A speed back, but big enough to take a hit. He can catch out of the back field and can take it every play. He doesnt have to be a Bettis type of power back but enough to not go down on every tackle. A good size would be 5'10 - 6'0 200-210
te-A great run blocker, but big enough to be a endzone threat. 6'5 230
wr-I would use a 3 WR set a lot. I would have one WR that can turn a 2 yard slant to a 50 yard gain, they dont need amazing 40 yard dash speed but enough to get open and break a tackle, then a bigger posession WR who has perfect routes and good hands, is tall enough to be a redzone threat. Then a speedster who is as fast as hell.

hockey619
09-17-2008, 03:03 PM
How about the Colts' offense? Its been essentially the same for a number of years yet its still been effective

bigbluedefense
09-17-2008, 03:07 PM
How about the Colts' offense? Its been essentially the same for a number of years yet its still been effective

Here's my issue with the Colts offense.

How much of it is the scheme, vs Peyton Manning?


Id say its more Peyton than scheme.

rockio42
09-17-2008, 03:18 PM
My favorite has to be Ken Wisenhunts offense, probably more in Arizona than Pittsburgh but either version is great

Marlo
09-17-2008, 03:46 PM
Here's my issue with the Colts offense.

How much of it is the scheme, vs Peyton Manning?


Id say its more Peyton than scheme.

The same can be said about every system. You need the right players for your scheme or it won't work. Not necessarily the "best" players, but the right players. Manning excels in the no-huddle offense so he's a perfect fit for that scheme.

Ravens1991
09-17-2008, 04:02 PM
Peyton Manning would excel in any offense. What offense fits him best is the no huddle.

Bruce Banner
09-17-2008, 04:05 PM
A real west coast offense.

Not the **** they put on the field these days.

Martyball?
1. Run
2. Run
3. Pass
4. Punt
Predictable?

A Perfect Score
09-17-2008, 04:14 PM
I have never had more fun watching football then when Mike Martz ran teh Greatest Show on Turf. When that offense of his is firing on all cylinders, its absolutely dominant and beautiful to watch.

although I think I do enjoy wathcing the Ravens defense more, but thats a different discussion :)

awfullyquiet
09-17-2008, 04:43 PM
A real west coast offense.

Not the **** they put on the field these days.

Martyball?
1. Run
2. Run
3. Pass
4. Punt
Predictable?

No, that's not martyball, that's Childress's weekly gameplan (go watch the film)...

Dam8610
09-17-2008, 06:39 PM
Not a big fan of the WCO, but the one great thing about the system, specifically Mike Martz's as an example, is the way he calls his plays. I love the use of tags for the route numbers rather than using 2 digit numbers. And it's easy for the players to remember the #s. If not I guess they can try to wear wristbands to help, but overall it's a sweet system in terms of terminology.

Mike Martz is about as exact opposite of WCO as it gets. He's pretty close to Air Coryell.

iBoldin
09-17-2008, 06:50 PM
You gotta love Jason Garrett, he's really turned that Dallas offensive around. The creativity, the mix between run and pass, everything. Granted, he has the options to do it, some of the best players at their respective positions, but it's great to watch.

NY+Giants=NYG
09-17-2008, 07:12 PM
Mike Martz is about as exact opposite of WCO as it gets. He's pretty close to Air Coryell.

O i know I just mentioned not a fan of the WCO. I actually have 2 of Mike Martz's playbooks when he was with the Rams. That's why I am commenting on the terminology because it's basically the same as the system I coached under this past year. Now that I reread what I wrote, I perhaps didn't articulate that right. But yeah his playbooks are damn good, and extensive. I like that Air C. system, which is consistent of the systems I like, that being Run N Shoot, and Spread.

He and my OC used the exact use of #s to tag each individual route, which is what West coast offenses do actually. So it's a west course offense type labeling but the system isn't that like you mentioned.. But not really a fan of the WCO. Some of Mike martz's use of the shallow concept is really damn good!

Brent
09-17-2008, 07:20 PM
Green Bay's offensive scheme

NY+Giants=NYG
09-17-2008, 07:24 PM
Green Bay's offensive scheme

Yup I can co-sign to that. I broke that game down last year, and they have very creative formations, and very creative running plays. I love it actually! Two running concepts mixed into one running play. It's pretty damn sick!

CJSchneider
09-17-2008, 07:29 PM
Having grown up in Northern California in the 80's, Im a true, Bill Walsh - West Coast Offense lover.

Canadian_kid16
09-17-2008, 07:30 PM
spread offense thats 60% pass and 40% run...take TTU's offense and run a bit more, and you have my dream offense.

steelernation77
09-17-2008, 07:31 PM
Which Steeler offense? The Whistenhunt one, or the one they employ now? Bc the one they employ now is more of a spread offense that runs sweeps and pulling guards to the outside.

The Steelers offense has always relied on pulling guards.

NY+Giants=NYG
09-17-2008, 07:33 PM
The Steelers offense has always relied on pulling guards.

Which is why I kinda wanted Faneca.. We rely on pulling guards too, and Faneca- Snee as our two guards would have been nasty!

neko4
09-17-2008, 07:57 PM
Run N shoot and Green Bay's spread WCO.
And Walsh's original WCO

Dam8610
09-17-2008, 08:08 PM
Here's my issue with the Colts offense.

How much of it is the scheme, vs Peyton Manning?


Id say its more Peyton than scheme.

And you'd be right. The Colts offense is far more reliant on execution of a few plays than it is scheming to get good matchups against the opposing defense.

Menardo75
09-17-2008, 08:48 PM
How about that vaunted Spurrier run and shoot.

yourfavestoner
09-17-2008, 10:27 PM
The true Air Coryell. A dominant running game that sets up play action and deep passing. I'm not a big fan of the WCO, because it shrinks the field far too much. It doesn't stretch the field, so the defense can keep the safeties closer to the line of scrimmage to stop the run and the short passing game.

Say what you want about Norv Turner as a head coach, but the man is an offensive genius as a coordinator and runs the truest form of the Air Coryell that exists today. Every runningback he's ever coached has had outstanding seasons - Emmitt Smith, Stephen Davis, Ricky Williams, Frank Gore, and now LT. In the 90s, teams knew that the lead draw was coming to Emmitt on third downs, and still nobody could stop it.

Heavy passing schemes are for sissies. That **** is basketball on grass, not football.

D-Unit
09-17-2008, 10:44 PM
No particular order... but I love John Fox's running schemes. Jason Garrett, Sean Payton... love their balanced attacks. John McDaniels has a beautiful passing offense to watch.

djp
09-17-2008, 10:48 PM
Sean Payton is about the brightest offensive mind in football.

Jason Garrett is also a brilliant play caller.

Peyton Manning's system is great as well.

Bearsfan123
09-17-2008, 10:52 PM
Watching Denver's passing game off of the pa is poetry. I love the roll-outs, bootlegs, and just how the passing game runs. Running game wise, I hate the Denver ZBS and such. I like power blocking schemes. Sadly, the two dont match.

Paranoidmoonduck
09-18-2008, 01:17 AM
God help me, but watching Bill Callahan open up Jon Gruden's playbook with Rich Gannon gave me warm fuzzies, if only for a year.

I admired the Ken Whisenhunt offense in Pittsburgh and I do admire the Sean Payton offense in New Orleans (although it sure sounds better in theory than in practice).

It's hard not to admire offenses like New England's spread-esque attack and the old St. Louis Rams' attack under Martz, but so much of what made those offenses go was the sensational ability of one player (especially St. Louis'), which detracts it a little for me (not in terms of entertainment, but in appreciation).

Favorite offense flat out? I love watching a good college football pistol offense do its thing.

Dam8610
09-18-2008, 01:20 AM
Favorite offense flat out? I love watching a good college football pistol offense do its thing.

Just so I'm clear, this is an offense kind of like TTU or Hawaii, right?

Paranoidmoonduck
09-18-2008, 01:28 AM
Just so I'm clear, this is an offense kind of like TTU or Hawaii, right?

Eh, not really. Try and watch some Nevada Wolfpack football and you'll see what I'm talking about it. Hawaii has used some, but I think that Texas Tech mostly uses a more pure pass heavy spread.

diabsoule
09-18-2008, 01:45 AM
God help me, but watching Bill Callahan open up Jon Gruden's playbook with Rich Gannon gave me warm fuzzies, if only for a year.

I admired the Ken Whisenhunt offense in Pittsburgh and I do admire the Sean Payton offense in New Orleans (although it sure sounds better in theory than in practice).

It's hard not to admire offenses like New England's spread-esque attack and the old St. Louis Rams' attack under Martz, but so much of what made those offenses go was the sensational ability of one player (especially St. Louis'), which detracts it a little for me (not in terms of entertainment, but in appreciation).

Favorite offense flat out? I love watching a good college football pistol offense do its thing.

The Payton offense would be a lot more potent without Reggie Bush, in my opinion.

Paranoidmoonduck
09-18-2008, 01:49 AM
The Payton offense would be a lot more potent without Reggie Bush, in my opinion.

See, I think the theory of Reggie Bush is what makes that offense so interesting, it just hasn't played out in practice yet. Bush showed what he can provide week 1 against the Bucs, but that offense hasn't managed to be all present and healthy in a while, and it still struggled with consistency.

Maybe it would be more potent (I sorta doubt it, but it's possible), but it wouldn't be nearly as intruiging.

TitleTown088
09-18-2008, 01:57 AM
Heavy passing schemes are for sissies. That **** is basketball on grass, not football.
You've eaten too many double stacks of your avatars.

yourfavestoner
09-18-2008, 02:03 AM
You've eaten too many double stacks of your avatars.

That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that the wide open, spread offenses we're seeing these days isn't a shift to basketball and grass. Running and jumping is more important than blocking and tackling.

Paranoidmoonduck
09-18-2008, 02:10 AM
That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that the wide open, spread offenses we're seeing these days isn't a shift to basketball and grass. Running and jumping is more important than blocking and tackling.

Well, tackling was never all that important in any offensive scheme anyhow. I think that the spread has placed a lot more importance on how your wideouts and tight ends block and how well your offensive lineman can get downfield blocking going. Is it smashmouth? Not as much as it used to be. That said, schematically, it's way more interesting.

Marlo
09-18-2008, 06:47 AM
That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that the wide open, spread offenses we're seeing these days isn't a shift to basketball and grass. Running and jumping is more important than blocking and tackling.

It's a mismatch game. Get your best athletes on the field and exploit mismatches. It's getting harder and harder to pound the rock in the NFL because of the overall size and athleticism of defenders.

thule
09-18-2008, 10:17 AM
I'm not sure if anyone has taken a look in this thread about the Flex Wingback offense yet. But this is by far my favorite formation.

The thing that really gets to me is why this offense isn't in the NFL right now.

My guess is that teams don't have the build up to switch too this...but 3 years from now with all defenses built to stop the spread this offense could really shake the league up.

For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about have you watched a Navy/Georgia Tech game the past couple of years? Paul Johnson ran it at both colleges now....Tech is just running it for the first time...and last year it averaged around 444 yards a game. Not bad when you figure out how much of that was on the ground.

The offense is genius. It's basically a strong side motion I formation.

I have a couple of plays drawn up that I plan on running in pop warner this year...but I don't feel like hosting them...if this draws up enough interest I'll throw them up.

Basically this offense is meant to be ran because team speed on defense is too fast. Now when you force teams to gameplan for this offense in one week...you should be better at executing than they are...and thus win the game. Now this isn't always the case...but if a team were to implement this and be the first team in the NFL to do it....with the correct talent I have no doubts it would take the NFL by storm.

What you need is
A) Mobile QB
B) Big Tackles
C) Agile interior OL to pull when needed
D) RB/h-back that can block

Just throwing out some ideas here....this system runs a 3 back backfield. In my system I call them the A-back B-back and C-back....Paul Johnson just refers to the two flankers as A-backs...I like to differentiate them because it makes the play calling easier in the huddle.
QB - Tavaris Jackson
A - Clinton Portis
B - Peyton Hillis
C - Marion Barber

Basically I have two backs that are great blockers and pass catchers plus a bigger back to run the ball. Now the base NFL formation would be ran with two WR's but TE's can also be sub in to run a heavy formation. Or with double tackles like they run in Cleveland in short yardage situations. Hell you could even run a athletic TE at a c-back if you wanted too...guys like Witten/Cooley/ect could play there if need be....this offense is about execution. If it is ran to perfection all they team speed in the world isn't going to stop it.

If your looking for a comparison think about the old Alabama Wishbone offense....but instead of having 3 back in the backfield you run a flanker. Mix that with a little of Tom Osborne tripple option and old school Lambardi pull sweep football you get where this is going.

Weakness in the offensive system is pretty easy. Passing vulnerability. Big chunks of yardage are going to be hard to come by in obvious passing situations. Now this isn't a huge problem because your base formation can run trips or 3 wide just with a little shift or motion but when your a running team your not going to execute as well in obvious passing situations...because in this offense you probably only carry 4 WR's max...although having two good TE's on the outside helps out....the RB depth on the roster is going to limit how many pure WR's you have on your team.

I'd be interested to see if anyone can debate my offense.

Gay Ork Wang
09-18-2008, 10:24 AM
That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that the wide open, spread offenses we're seeing these days isn't a shift to basketball and grass. Running and jumping is more important than blocking and tackling.
I totally agree

Brent
09-18-2008, 10:35 AM
Just so I'm clear, this is an offense kind of like TTU or Hawaii, right?
http://static.flickr.com/48/148785901_53974a7d44.jpg

It's like the shotgun but the QB is close to the center, it's very good in aiding the passer with reading coverages and etc pre-snap. Basically, you can take any formation and make it pistol offense. After Nevada started using it, I know that Sam Houston State started using it from time to time. I think it's great.

Menardo75
09-18-2008, 11:16 AM
Eh, not really. Try and watch some Nevada Wolfpack football and you'll see what I'm talking about it. Hawaii has used some, but I think that Texas Tech mostly uses a more pure pass heavy spread.

Yeah Mizzu has a pistol package. Nevada is base pistol though. It is the best formation to run dive option out of.

CJSchneider
09-18-2008, 11:46 AM
http://static.flickr.com/48/148785901_53974a7d44.jpg

It's like the shotgun but the QB is close to the center, it's very good in aiding the passer with reading coverages and etc pre-snap. Basically, you can take any formation and make it pistol offense. After Nevada started using it, I know that Sam Houston State started using it from time to time. I think it's great.

That looks alot like a "Flex-bone" formation. Lots of school used to run the "Veer" offense out of that.

And also to YFS, the WCO may not deepen the field, but it opens it the way an old-style can opener rips open a can. Look at The 49ers of the 80's and how they used it. You have Roger Craig, the only back ever to have 1000 yards rushing and 1000 yards recieving in the same season and Jerry Rice who's YAC records are amazing.

NY+Giants=NYG
09-18-2008, 12:53 PM
I'm not sure if anyone has taken a look in this thread about the Flex Wingback offense yet. But this is by far my favorite formation.

The thing that really gets to me is why this offense isn't in the NFL right now.

My guess is that teams don't have the build up to switch too this...but 3 years from now with all defenses built to stop the spread this offense could really shake the league up.

For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about have you watched a Navy/Georgia Tech game the past couple of years? Paul Johnson ran it at both colleges now....Tech is just running it for the first time...and last year it averaged around 444 yards a game. Not bad when you figure out how much of that was on the ground.

The offense is genius. It's basically a strong side motion I formation.

I have a couple of plays drawn up that I plan on running in pop warner this year...but I don't feel like hosting them...if this draws up enough interest I'll throw them up.

Basically this offense is meant to be ran because team speed on defense is too fast. Now when you force teams to gameplan for this offense in one week...you should be better at executing than they are...and thus win the game. Now this isn't always the case...but if a team were to implement this and be the first team in the NFL to do it....with the correct talent I have no doubts it would take the NFL by storm.

What you need is
A) Mobile QB
B) Big Tackles
C) Agile interior OL to pull when needed
D) RB/h-back that can block

Just throwing out some ideas here....this system runs a 3 back backfield. In my system I call them the A-back B-back and C-back....Paul Johnson just refers to the two flankers as A-backs...I like to differentiate them because it makes the play calling easier in the huddle.
QB - Tavaris Jackson
A - Clinton Portis
B - Peyton Hillis
C - Marion Barber

Basically I have two backs that are great blockers and pass catchers plus a bigger back to run the ball. Now the base NFL formation would be ran with two WR's but TE's can also be sub in to run a heavy formation. Or with double tackles like they run in Cleveland in short yardage situations. Hell you could even run a athletic TE at a c-back if you wanted too...guys like Witten/Cooley/ect could play there if need be....this offense is about execution. If it is ran to perfection all they team speed in the world isn't going to stop it.

If your looking for a comparison think about the old Alabama Wishbone offense....but instead of having 3 back in the backfield you run a flanker. Mix that with a little of Tom Osborne tripple option and old school Lambardi pull sweep football you get where this is going.

Weakness in the offensive system is pretty easy. Passing vulnerability. Big chunks of yardage are going to be hard to come by in obvious passing situations. Now this isn't a huge problem because your base formation can run trips or 3 wide just with a little shift or motion but when your a running team your not going to execute as well in obvious passing situations...because in this offense you probably only carry 4 WR's max...although having two good TE's on the outside helps out....the RB depth on the roster is going to limit how many pure WR's you have on your team.

I'd be interested to see if anyone can debate my offense.




Can you draw a picture or do you have a visual image of this formation? I think I get what you're saying but I am a visual person so I want to see just to make sure.

ATLDirtyBirds
09-18-2008, 01:04 PM
Depends on what players I have. As far as high school/college offenses, I have always loved the spread option. As far as the NFL, I like Garret's and Payton's. I'm a big fan of sending people in motion.

CJSchneider
09-18-2008, 01:26 PM
The first image is a double wing

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/Double-wing2.GIF

The second image is what they call a flexbone

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Flexbone_Formation.PNG

which one are you refering to?

NY+Giants=NYG
09-18-2008, 01:27 PM
The first image is a double wing

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/Double-wing2.GIF

The second image is what they call a flexbone

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Flexbone_Formation.PNG

which one are you refering to?



I saw that too. But he said, assuming we are talking about the same post, 3 backs in the backfield. So I am thinking full house, but that's why I asked him to provide a picture of his formation.

CJSchneider
09-18-2008, 02:17 PM
Paul Johnson at Navy runs a flexbone, so that would be the bottom one with the Slots pulled in basicly.

NY+Giants=NYG
09-18-2008, 02:24 PM
Paul Johnson at Navy runs a flexbone, so that would be the bottom one with the Slots pulled in basicly.

All the service schools run an option due to recruiting issues and being smaller than most schools. So that's why they rely on angles and deception. When I coached last year we played military school that had a HC who coached in that system. Impressive offense.

Brent
09-18-2008, 04:54 PM
That looks alot like a "Flex-bone" formation. Lots of school used to run the "Veer" offense out of that.
That is the only pic I could find. They actually have several formations based on this, but what I was trying to show is how the QB and other backs are lined up.

CJSchneider
09-18-2008, 05:15 PM
I love the flexbone, its real easy to disguise other packages such as a single wing or "full house" which works real well at the middle school level.

Paranoidmoonduck
09-18-2008, 09:34 PM
I'd be interested to see if anyone can debate my offense.

I like the theory that as NFL offenses become more pass oriented (or at least spread oriented) and as defenses adjust, innovative offenses built around the run stand a greater chance of success.

That said, what worries me isn't defensive speed, it's defensive power. NFL defenses may be placing a premium on speed, but defensive linemen have never been bigger or stronger, and that trend will only continue. Weakside running in your offense would flat out require perfect execution, and defenses which learned to blitz so as to discourage certain actions (things like Jim Johnson does today, but on a grander and more focused scale) could limit the advisable running lanes to a low number and force a passing game to be developed.

If you're correct and the future innovation will return to the running game, it may be most likely that we see a distinct change in the function of the quarterback. The position's concept of proper mechanics and the like would have to change, because I don't think any one dimensional offense can truly succeed at the pro level. Running an offense like the one you suggest is intriguing, but it would undoubtedly have to majorly develop the pass aspects of the system.

neko4
09-18-2008, 09:43 PM
I love the flexbone, its real easy to disguise other packages such as a single wing or "full house" which works real well at the middle school level.
I used to play in a flexbone, wing T sort of thing. Im pretty sure that they are similar right? Anyway it was boring for me since Im kinda slow and we never threw the ball. I was also a backup, but it was boring running it in practice. In that system your hardly even a QB, more like just another RB who will occasionally throw the ball.

Also if its 3rd Quater and your down 14 or so points your probably not coming back unless the defense gets a TD too.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
09-18-2008, 09:44 PM
1.Anything with Cutler in it.
2. The option, with Cutler in it.
3. The wishbone, with Cutler in it... at RB.

yourfavestoner
09-18-2008, 10:22 PM
I love the flexbone, its real easy to disguise other packages such as a single wing or "full house" which works real well at the middle school level.

Exactly. We run the flexbone at Ayala. Our offensive coordinator calls it "Wings n Things."

thule
09-19-2008, 05:02 AM
The second image is what they call a flexbone

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Flexbone_Formation.PNG

which one are you refering to?

I'm refering to this package.

thule
09-19-2008, 05:29 AM
I like the theory that as NFL offenses become more pass oriented (or at least spread oriented) and as defenses adjust, innovative offenses built around the run stand a greater chance of success.

That said, what worries me isn't defensive speed, it's defensive power. NFL defenses may be placing a premium on speed, but defensive linemen have never been bigger or stronger, and that trend will only continue. Weakside running in your offense would flat out require perfect execution, and defenses which learned to blitz so as to discourage certain actions (things like Jim Johnson does today, but on a grander and more focused scale) could limit the advisable running lanes to a low number and force a passing game to be developed.

If you're correct and the future innovation will return to the running game, it may be most likely that we see a distinct change in the function of the quarterback. The position's concept of proper mechanics and the like would have to change, because I don't think any one dimensional offense can truly succeed at the pro level. Running an offense like the one you suggest is intriguing, but it would undoubtedly have to majorly develop the pass aspects of the system.

Don't get me wrong the Flexbone is a great running offense...but with elite athletes such as the NFL presents you can pass just as easily as run. My point is that right now in the NFL you have elite teams that pass the ball to gain the lead then successfully run the ball at the end of the game. I'm not sure if that will change in the next 10 years...however with the advancement of safeties in the league and the disappearance of FB's in the league teams are starting to play more nickel and dime packages. If teams are switching to more fluid LB'ers and more man on man coverage safeties than there becomes some weakness's to expose.

Here are a couple of simple plays I drew up...nothing fancy just some simple entry level stuff I wanna show some kids I'm going to be teaching. Notice how I have three formations branched all off of the base....and imagine all the possibilities. This is essentially a disguise for any single offensive formation you want in the NFL outside of shotgun formations...and I think that is why this could ultimately come out and work in the NFL.

http://gra.midco.net/airplaneparts/Offense/base.JPG
http://gra.midco.net/airplaneparts/Offense/base-counter.JPG
http://gra.midco.net/airplaneparts/Offense/base=toss.JPG
http://gra.midco.net/airplaneparts/Offense/strong.JPG
http://gra.midco.net/airplaneparts/Offense/strong-wrscreen.JPG
http://gra.midco.net/airplaneparts/Offense/wide.JPG
http://gra.midco.net/airplaneparts/Offense/wide-trippleoption.JPG

Now those are completely rough sketches by me obviously....lineman assignments weren't my worry as much as the skill positions as I drew this up for a running back of mine. Obviously the base formation I have shown here would be the goalline...and the Wide would be my NFL base formation. Put both WR's on one side with your a/c back split out you have trips...this formation is easily manipulated to get matchups you like. TE on corners....RB on linebackers....WR's on safeties....just like any offense...this offense just does a better job of hiding a play presnap.

I honestly think with a brilliant NFL mind that this scheme would succeed in the NFL right now and it would be great to see it work. Would remind me of the one year wonder down in chicago when the WR screen was the biggest play for the Bears for like 6 weeks into the season. I love simplicity...so maybe this is just a way to dumb down NFL defenses but I love how much can be evolved off of the base formation.

NY+Giants=NYG
09-19-2008, 09:20 AM
I am not a fan of that actually. Pro DCs will find a way to shut that down. I would run a 4-3 base defense, and run as many different fronts as I can to shut that down. Also, you probably will end up showing all your plays against an offense during the course of the game, so it would give a DC enough to scout during practice.

Didn't you say though you had 3 backs? Where are those?

Brent
09-19-2008, 09:35 AM
I hate the option/wishbone offense. It's great when you are in those lower levels because kids arent always going to be the same size/speed but I think it only succeeds because people in that age group dont do a good job of sticking to their assignments. All the middle schools in my ISD ran the same offense, which was the same as the HS so that all the kids knew the plays when they got to HS. So, from 7th grade to HS we had all been in a pro style offense where I-Form was the base formation.

Paranoidmoonduck
09-19-2008, 10:53 AM
Didn't you say though you had 3 backs? Where are those?

There's only 4 players lined up off the line. One is the quarterback, all the others are backs.

I don't know Thule, conventional wisdom in the NFL is that east-west running, especially in situations where it is that parallel and close to the LOS, is probably asking for trouble. It relies so much on the offensive line not allowing a single penetration.

NY+Giants=NYG
09-19-2008, 11:18 AM
There's only 4 players lined up off the line. One is the quarterback, all the others are backs.

I don't know Thule, conventional wisdom in the NFL is that east-west running, especially in situations where it is that parallel and close to the LOS, is probably asking for trouble. It relies so much on the offensive line not allowing a single penetration.

Dcs would run alot of bear, over bear, cub, over cub fronts, to negate that system. Not to mention that's not even scratching the surface to the other 4-3 fronts that could run. I am not sure I would really like this sytem at the pro level.

yourfavestoner
09-19-2008, 01:36 PM
There's only 4 players lined up off the line. One is the quarterback, all the others are backs.

I don't know Thule, conventional wisdom in the NFL is that east-west running, especially in situations where it is that parallel and close to the LOS, is probably asking for trouble. It relies so much on the offensive line not allowing a single penetration.

Exactly. Schemes like this require downblocking and pulling on almost every play. Any defense that can get penetration in the backfield against these types of blocking schemes will eat them alive, as you'll be able to disrupt the timing of of the pullers.

This type of offense works so well at the high school level because most high schools run a 4-4 type of defense. This type of offense (and its wing derivatives) is tailor-made for a 4-4 because the blocking angles make downblocking very easy, and the defensive line and linebackers often pursue way too far upfield, making them easy targets to trap and kick out will pull blocks.

Xonraider
09-19-2008, 01:59 PM
Wing T and Spread.

thule
09-19-2008, 02:03 PM
I think you guys are downplaying the offense.

I threw up pop warner plays.

A guy like Paul Johnson could draw up unlimited number of plays. SMS there are no ends of plays...all it is is a way to hide your formation presnap.

And yes this offense would require pulling...just like the Lambardi Sweeps and the Tom Osborne offense....guards and tackles and centers all have to be agile and make blocks in space.

What makes an I formation different from this.

I really think you guys are dumbing down this offense and just going with the norm when saying it wouldn't work.

Because this offense is whatever you want it to be.

I'm not saying it's the greatest offense ever thought of..because obviously it has some flaws because it's never made it to the top level...but it also hasn't had as much exposer as other offenses. People thought the spread offense was crazy back in the day too.

Everything is about evolution...and you can't take the argument of neglecting team speed...because the arguement of "defensive lineman being bigger and stronger with speed" would directly correlate to offensive lineman in this day and age as well.

I think the reason I like this offense so much is because of my favorite part of the NFL today. The NFL is all about making adjustments at halftime. You can turn around and completely switch the tempo of the game in the locker room and all the adjustments that you make could cause problems.

This is different from some of the schemes that are out there right now. For instance take a Jason Garrett "Zampese Offense" scheme and try to switch it up at halftime....not a lot of switching unless you wanna run a heavy TE formation....

jth1331
09-19-2008, 02:04 PM
I love what Shanahan is doing now a days with that offense. He finally can use all of his creativeness and not hold back like he did with Plummer.

skinzzfan25
09-19-2008, 02:27 PM
Zornfence.

NY+Giants=NYG
09-19-2008, 03:12 PM
Depends on what your bread and butter running play is. DCs would adjust to that via their fronts they would put up. They would not worry about the passing game as much, and would try to stop the run. But they wouldn't neglect the passing game too, so they would use different fronts to try to stop you. Because the formation is "tight" by nature, the Lbs would try disrupting your pulling linemen, meaning they don't need to make a play as so much as blow up your linemen, so he can't get to his assignment, so that means your RB is running without an escort. Also, I am an offensive coach, but defensively I would have my DL squeeze, which means use the offensive linemen to block their own gaps. So I wouldn't really want to shed the blocks to make a play, but rather squeeze your offensive linemen into their own gaps, so make your Rb bounce it to the outside, and from there have my LBs spill. So instead of scraping I want to squeeze and spill my backers and stop you from going to the outside, by eliminating all inside gaps.

See the Vikings and their DTs. They are so big that you can't move them, but they do a good job of making guys bounce, and meanwhile their Lbs make plays. They make a good amount of tackle, don't get alot of sacks, but do a good job of squeezing, which when they played us killed us. Jacobs needs a big hole, and we couldn';t because they were squeezing our linemen into the gaps, so jacobs would have to bounce it, and their Lbs and safeties had force and secondary alley support.