Author Topic: Malcolm?  (Read 833 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DumCoach

  • Administrator
  • Brett Favre
  • Posts: 3671
  • "What me worry? I'm not far enough behind yet!"
    • View Profile
  • Coaching: 10 & Under
  • Offense: DC Wing T
  • Defense: DC 46
Malcolm?
« on: September 07, 2010, 06:14:19 AM »
How are you blocking OSV for this:

                        F

      C        W    M      S        C   
         E      T     N      T     E
            O  O  O 0 O  O  O
                        O
                        O
                 O             O

Assume the DE is "boxing" and easy pickings.

Does this change anything?:

                        F

      C        W    M      S        C   
         E        T   N    T       E
            O  O  O 0 O  O  O
                        O
                        O
                 O             O
"Football is for the kids - But let's win anyway."

Offline JrTitan

  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 505
    • View Profile
  • Coaching: Middle School
  • Offense: I Formation
  • Defense: Split 4-4
Re: Malcolm?
« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2010, 09:26:52 AM »
This is how we would block it:



  • PSE - Gap - Down - LB
  • PST - Gap - On - LB (#2 playside)
  • PSG - Gap - On - LB (#1 playside)
  • C - Reach - On - LB (#0)
  • BSG - Reach - On - LB
  • BST - Reach - On - LB
  • BSE - Down field
  • PSH - Alley defender

Vs.  odd fronts, the PSG makes a GAP call which alerts the playside that the Nose is being counted as #1 and he is blocking down (diagram to the left).  Interstingly enough, we play a double eagle front this week (diagram to the right) and we are not making the GAP call, which means center and backside are reaching playside, the PSG is blocking on, and the PST is blocking down and reading up to the ILB.  We feel we need to get the MLB sealed for the play to work.
"They call it coaching but it is teaching. You do not just tell them...you show them the reasons"

“…you have no bad habits to break, other than what we allow to exist… We either coach it or are allowing it to happen.”

CoachKell

  • Guest
Re: Malcolm?
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2010, 02:12:48 PM »
How are you blocking OSV for this:

                        F

      C        W    M      S        C   
         E      T     N      T     E
            O  O  O 0 O  O  O
                        O
                        O
                 O             O

Assume the DE is "boxing" and easy pickings.

Does this change anything?:

                        F

      C        W    M      S        C   
         E        T   N    T       E
            O  O  O 0 O  O  O
                        O
                        O
                 O             O


Ov is not a favorite from the bone , so 1st thing I'd do is split out one of those halfbacks

----------------------------------------F

------------------C----------------S---M----W
-------------------------E---------T----N----T---------E-----------------------------C
--------------------------O---O---O---X---O---O---O
----------------------------------------O----------------------------------------------O

-----------------------------------O---------O

from there it's pretty much cake

Running to our right:

PSG double down with center try to work up to thighboard of Mike
PST Down to thighboard of DT
PSE Down to thighboard of WILL
Backside:
BSG Zone step to center work flat up to 1st defender to show
BST -Cut blocks defender located over guard
BSE Scoop defender crossing field work up to FS
FL- drive defender deep and at least 3 yards outside

QB -Step into Los at PSG Sprint to mesh point with Diveback, key outside shoulder



« Last Edit: September 07, 2010, 02:14:32 PM by CoachKell »

Offline DumCoach

  • Administrator
  • Brett Favre
  • Posts: 3671
  • "What me worry? I'm not far enough behind yet!"
    • View Profile
  • Coaching: 10 & Under
  • Offense: DC Wing T
  • Defense: DC 46
Re: Malcolm?
« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2010, 02:35:48 PM »
This is how we would block it:





I'm always surprised to see someone else elsing GOL rules.   8)

Obviously, I block it the same except in the example on the right we would have the RG fold around the RT which alllows RT to maintain his GOL rule.

The reason I asked Malcolm the question is because he uses his play side HB to run the dive and not FB (Hits much faster and at a much better angle.).  But then I'm wondering what he does with his FB?  He must be leading on the corner...Maybe Jem knows?
"Football is for the kids - But let's win anyway."

Offline jem

  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 783
  • "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
    • View Profile
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Offense: Option
  • Defense: Other
Re: Malcolm?
« Reply #4 on: September 07, 2010, 07:49:37 PM »
The reason I asked Malcolm the question is because he uses his play side HB to run the dive and not FB (Hits much faster and at a much better angle.).  But then I'm wondering what he does with his FB?  He must be leading on the corner...Maybe Jem knows?


FB drops-steps one step with his right foot (OSV Right) and runs toward the sideline turning up field outside the DE usually blocking the man responsible for the deep third of the defense... even though I would make sure he takes the FS (my 'Lead' call).
RHB takes a 6 inch jab/slide step to the right and dives for the outside foot of the right tackle.
QB steps down the line meshing with the RHB .
LHB runs his pitch route.


Really just swapping the FB and RHBs responsiblities, but the FB must take the drop-step to time it up and the RHB his right jab/slide step to line him up.

On the 3 techs I would also probably fold the RG and RT.

At least that is the way I would do it.

j

« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 12:58:11 AM by jem »
"Victory is always possible for the person who refuses to stop fighting."  Napoleon Hill

"I have learned that success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as by the obstacles which he has had to overcome while trying to succeed."  Booker T. Washington

Offline malcolmrobinson

  • Moderator
  • Varsity
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
  • Coaching: 14 & Under
  • Offense: Multiple
Re: Malcolm?
« Reply #5 on: September 08, 2010, 02:22:33 AM »
Jem:

We used PS HB as diveback for the quickness of the action. in the past we've sent the FB in the B gap opposite to screw with LB reads. But as you point out, if you want FB on PS, the FB would have to couner step or adjust to allow him to be come a lead blocker on the play outside of the dive.

Offline DumCoach

  • Administrator
  • Brett Favre
  • Posts: 3671
  • "What me worry? I'm not far enough behind yet!"
    • View Profile
  • Coaching: 10 & Under
  • Offense: DC Wing T
  • Defense: DC 46
Re: Malcolm?
« Reply #6 on: September 08, 2010, 12:20:41 PM »
My FB is an extra yard deeper at 4 yards than Malcolm's.

                              F
              C         W  M      S               C
                    E   T    N     T         E                   
              O        O O 0 O O|     O
                               O---->|       ____O
                        O              |      /
                           \   O---->|__/   /
                            \__________/

I figure I ought to be able to get FB over with just a straight run.  This places HB one yard behind him on pitch and not in pitch path.  QB pitches before crossing LOS.  FB takes C.  QB takes F.  TE has S.  RG climbs to M.  LT and LG have W.  SE runs the post behind.  Thoughts?

Call is "Mini 46 Quick Option".
"Football is for the kids - But let's win anyway."

Offline Coach Kyle

  • Brett Favre
  • Posts: 1934
    • View Profile
  • Coaching: 10 & Under
  • Offense: Single Wing
  • Defense: 5-3
Re: Malcolm?
« Reply #7 on: September 08, 2010, 01:10:25 PM »
My FB is an extra yard deeper at 4 yards than Malcolm's.

                              F
              C         W  M      S               C
                    E   T    N     T         E                   
              O        O O 0 O O|     O
                               O---->|       ____O
                        O              |      /
                           \   O---->|__/   /
                            \__________/

I figure I ought to be able to get FB over with just a straight run.  This places HB one yard behind him on pitch and not in pitch path.  QB pitches before crossing LOS.  FB takes C.  QB takes F.  TE has S.  RG climbs to M.  LT and LG have W.  SE runs the post behind.  Thoughts?

Call is "Mini 46 Quick Option".

Wouldn't it be easier to just motion the HB right and have him dive? I guess it might tip off the play.

CoachKell

  • Guest
Re: Malcolm?
« Reply #8 on: September 08, 2010, 02:06:29 PM »
My FB is an extra yard deeper at 4 yards than Malcolm's.

                              F
              C         W  M      S               C
                    E   T    N     T         E                   
              O        O O 0 O O|     O
                               O---->|       ____O
                        O              |      /
                           \   O---->|__/   /
                            \__________/

I figure I ought to be able to get FB over with just a straight run.  This places HB one yard behind him on pitch and not in pitch path.  QB pitches before crossing LOS.  FB takes C.  QB takes F.  TE has S.  RG climbs to M.  LT and LG have W.  SE runs the post behind.  Thoughts?

Call is "Mini 46 Quick Option".


To be honest that's alot more like IV than OV.  I can only remember once I've ever seen a QB pitch on an OV play. 

One issue I see is if thay aren't in man coverage, you motion to the dive point and they fill with SAM but the Corner sits, then you have 2 defenders (E-key, and Corner) just waiting.  Plus the Dive is plugged.

If anything I'd try to motion the flanker toward the Sideline to see if the corner covers him, run a deep route away from the play, or stalk him , thereby removing a defender in the alley

Another consideration is the Nasty.. Although moving the TE out gives you QB more breathing room it also gives the defense more breathing room, IE he can see whether or not the ball is pulled. 

I think if you tighten up the nasty playside, set the flanker/wingback...whatever, out as a rec, and run OV with the idea the QB is only going to give or keep (or pitch FAR downfield) you'll do fine with it   

Offline malcolmrobinson

  • Moderator
  • Varsity
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
  • Coaching: 14 & Under
  • Offense: Multiple
Re: Malcolm?
« Reply #9 on: September 08, 2010, 03:18:10 PM »
One of the real, pure advantages of running a 2 TE wishbone set is the balance that comes with that look. With that balance also comes the fact that the defense is now forced to balance up or find themselves out numbered by a simple check-off by the QB right before the ball is snapped.

Sometimes we may not have the personnel to use such a 'balanced' set - our personnel is a great deal stronger one way or the other and we shy away from attempting to run to our weaker side. But, if you have the luxury of equally talented people on either side of the center, a truly balanced offense is a thing of beauty. You now get to dictate to the defense what they must do pre-snap. You force them to align in a balanced alignment. You prevent overloads and 'good guesses' as to what you tendencies might be.

The 'bone' can give you that advantage and you can dive either HB and run OSV to each side with the numbers that favor the offense.

Offline jem

  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 783
  • "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
    • View Profile
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Offense: Option
  • Defense: Other
Re: Malcolm?
« Reply #10 on: September 08, 2010, 08:25:12 PM »
My FB is an extra yard deeper at 4 yards than Malcolm's.

                              F
              C         W  M      S               C
                    E   T    N     T         E                   
              O        O O 0 O O|     O
                               O---->|       ____O
                        O              |      /
                           \   O---->|__/   /
                            \__________/

I figure I ought to be able to get FB over with just a straight run.  This places HB one yard behind him on pitch and not in pitch path.  QB pitches before crossing LOS.  FB takes C.  QB takes F.  TE has S.  RG climbs to M.  LT and LG have W.  SE runs the post behind.  Thoughts?

Call is "Mini 46 Quick Option".


Clark,
Are you reading the dive still?

The way I understand what you are saying is that you are reading the Dive and if you get a pull read then you are gonna pull and pitch for sure, so, therefore you let the FB take C and then the QB takes 'F' after the pitch.  However if you get a give read, then you give to the WB like a regular OSV.... correct?

And with your FB deeper than the WB he would not have to counter or drop step... that part is fine. 

With the boxing DE that you mentioned, you should get a Give read every time ... at least until he stops boxing anyways.

Rich mentions the nasty split with the DE being able to play dive and QB... I don't see that as a problem with the boxing DE, but with a 9 tech who follows the TE down and then takes the QB that could be a problem because if you pull & pitch then the QB will not be able to get to 'F' to block him because the DE will be tackling him, however that is solved by teaching the WB that if he doesn't get the ball then to block the Safety (F) [see my diagram above].  Of course if the WB is tackled by the DE, then the QB can still pitch and go block 'F'. 

Anyways I hadn't thought of getting to the pitch like that on OSV, but it is very interesting.   Basically you have a Give or Pitch option, instead of a Give, Keep & maybe Pitch.  That takes a load off your QB... especially if you don't have a speedy QB.  Hmmmmm I think I like it.  It is a different mindset.  Basically like Rich said... it is an ISV play being run to the OSV hole.

j



« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 08:31:40 PM by jem »
"Victory is always possible for the person who refuses to stop fighting."  Napoleon Hill

"I have learned that success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as by the obstacles which he has had to overcome while trying to succeed."  Booker T. Washington

Offline DumCoach

  • Administrator
  • Brett Favre
  • Posts: 3671
  • "What me worry? I'm not far enough behind yet!"
    • View Profile
  • Coaching: 10 & Under
  • Offense: DC Wing T
  • Defense: DC 46
Re: Malcolm?
« Reply #11 on: September 08, 2010, 10:36:03 PM »
Wouldn't it be easier to just motion the HB right and have him dive? I guess it might tip off the play.


It would, indeed, tip off the play.  But, since DCWT has WB in motion every down, this tips off nothing.  It's the same motion used for lead option to the weak side.
"Football is for the kids - But let's win anyway."

Offline DumCoach

  • Administrator
  • Brett Favre
  • Posts: 3671
  • "What me worry? I'm not far enough behind yet!"
    • View Profile
  • Coaching: 10 & Under
  • Offense: DC Wing T
  • Defense: DC 46
Re: Malcolm?
« Reply #12 on: September 08, 2010, 10:55:20 PM »
To be honest that's alot more like IV than OV.  I can only remember once I've ever seen a QB pitch on an OV play. 


The dive is to "C" gap so it is OSV.

I don't like my QB's pitching downfield so, if a pitch takes place, it's not against a defender.  The QB is simply pitching to become a lead blocker for the HB pitchman.  HB now has two lead blockers, QB and FB.




Quote
One issue I see is if thay aren't in man coverage, you motion to the dive point and they fill with SAM but the Corner sits, then you have 2 defenders (E-key, and Corner) just waiting.  Plus the Dive is plugged.


If the corner sits he gets run over by my FB who is assigned to him.

The dive being plugged by Sam is why I asked Malcolm how he blocked this play.  He's done it. Go to straight to the horse's mouth, I always say.   In my case, TE would go straight to Sam and RT would crab a "4" tech DT.



Quote
Another consideration is the Nasty.. Although moving the TE out gives you QB more breathing room it also gives the defense more breathing room, IE he can see whether or not the ball is pulled.


The "nasty" forces the DE to crash straight down the line to get there in time.  In fact, he has to begin the crash on snap.  He can't step upfield at all (automatic give).  So he's trucking to get there.  He can't play both players at that speed.

And while the QB has more "breathing room", the ride time is only a split second.  QB can't think about it long same as DE can't think about coming inside very long.  If DE is out to far too make the tackle, he gives.  A "pull" read would require a serious commitment to the tackle by the DE.

 
"Football is for the kids - But let's win anyway."

Offline DumCoach

  • Administrator
  • Brett Favre
  • Posts: 3671
  • "What me worry? I'm not far enough behind yet!"
    • View Profile
  • Coaching: 10 & Under
  • Offense: DC Wing T
  • Defense: DC 46
Re: Malcolm?
« Reply #13 on: September 08, 2010, 10:57:53 PM »
One of the real, pure advantages of running a 2 TE wishbone set is the balance that comes with that look. With that balance also comes the fact that the defense is now forced to balance up or find themselves out numbered by a simple check-off by the QB right before the ball is snapped.

Sometimes we may not have the personnel to use such a 'balanced' set - our personnel is a great deal stronger one way or the other and we shy away from attempting to run to our weaker side. But, if you have the luxury of equally talented people on either side of the center, a truly balanced offense is a thing of beauty. You now get to dictate to the defense what they must do pre-snap. You force them to align in a balanced alignment. You prevent overloads and 'good guesses' as to what you tendencies might be.

The 'bone' can give you that advantage and you can dive either HB and run OSV to each side with the numbers that favor the offense.


Rather than describe my players as "equally talented" mine are better described as either "unequally talented" or "equally untalented".  And my formation reflects that.
"Football is for the kids - But let's win anyway."

Offline DumCoach

  • Administrator
  • Brett Favre
  • Posts: 3671
  • "What me worry? I'm not far enough behind yet!"
    • View Profile
  • Coaching: 10 & Under
  • Offense: DC Wing T
  • Defense: DC 46
Re: Malcolm?
« Reply #14 on: September 08, 2010, 11:09:18 PM »
Clark,
Are you reading the dive still?


I have taught a QB to read it.  But you can call it from the sideline too.


Quote
The way I understand what you are saying is that you are reading the Dive and if you get a pull read then you are gonna pull and pitch for sure, so, therefore you let the FB take C and then the QB takes 'F' after the pitch.  However if you get a give read, then you give to the WB like a regular OSV.... correct?



Correct. 

Quote
And with your FB deeper than the WB he would not have to counter or drop step... that part is fine. 

With the boxing DE that you mentioned, you should get a Give read every time ... at least until he stops boxing anyways.


Most DE's have been screamed at enough not to come inside.  I've never had a QB get a "pull" read.  But I don't run the play every down, all game either.



Quote
Rich mentions the nasty split with the DE being able to play dive and QB... I don't see that as a problem with the boxing DE, but with a 9 tech who follows the TE down and then takes the QB that could be a problem because if you pull & pitch then the QB will not be able to get to 'F' to block him because the DE will be tackling him, however that is solved by teaching the WB that if he doesn't get the ball then to block the Safety (F) [see my diagram above].


That's my solution also but my assumption is that if DE doesn't have the ball, it's because DE tackled him.


Quote
Of course if the WB is tackled by the DE, then the QB can still pitch and go block 'F'. 

Anyways I hadn't thought of getting to the pitch like that on OSV, but it is very interesting.   Basically you have a Give or Pitch option, instead of a Give, Keep & maybe Pitch.  That takes a load off your QB... especially if you don't have a speedy QB.  Hmmmmm I think I like it.  It is a different mindset.  Basically like Rich said... it is an ISV play being run to the OSV hole.


 :)


j
[/quote]
"Football is for the kids - But let's win anyway."