Author Topic: Defending the UBSW Offense  (Read 158414 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline davecisar

  • Platinum
  • Posts: 9078
  • Total likes: 854
    • Winning Youth Football Coaching Site
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: Wide Tackle 6
  • Offense: Single Wing
Re: Defending the UBSW Offense
« Reply #150 on: June 11, 2014, 01:53:40 PM »
Never said Mark wasn't a good coach.  Only coached against him once "head to head" (2001) & we won 28-7.  He had talent THEN (at Armstrong).  He gave us "bulletin-board material" by mentioning in the paper that he ran an offense that was "unstoppable". 

 At Louisa he was LOADED with talent by 2006 (I don't think Mark would deny this).  He ran more detached people than I have seen in your DVD's.  Also based almost everything on "spinners".  I have a "write-up" of his offense.

I did think the first part of your book was very good (until you get to the X's & O's).  I told you as much in an email (PM).

Best wishes for continued success.

The year Mark played for a title- they may have been a 2-3 loss team- but went deep
I think it may have been year 2- they were awful and he said so. More importantly his game tapes showed he was

Let just end on the things we can both agree on:

Football is good
Soccer is evil
Many politicians aren't very honest    ;D ;D
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.

Winston Churchill

Offline MHcoach

  • Platinum
  • Posts: 7753
  • Total likes: 1847
  • Coaching: High School
  • Defense: Other
  • Offense: Other
Re: Defending the UBSW Offense
« Reply #151 on: June 11, 2014, 01:56:05 PM »
CMJ

I have played against teams from VA in youth. During my time at Mint Hill we played VA teams every year in the regionals. None have ever scored on us. My last season we had trouble getting games so we scrambled, we were invited to Faquier to play this "Super" team. Our buses were late getting there, we had 15 minutes to warm up after a 6 hour bus ride. We were told just how powerful our opponent was. It was 32 -0 in the first qtr, & we went on to win 56-0.

We also played teams from Hampton Roads & Stafford, we had similar results.

Joe 
"Champions behave like champions before they're champions: they have a winning standard of performance before they are winners"
Bill Walsh

Offline DumCoach

  • Administrator
  • Platinum
  • Posts: 9872
  • Total likes: 702
  • "What me worry? I'm not far enough behind yet!"
  • Coaching: 10 & Under
  • Defense: DC 46
  • Offense: DC Wing T
Re: Defending the UBSW Offense
« Reply #152 on: June 11, 2014, 01:57:16 PM »

Clark

The defense in the film is from slide 10


There are several ways to address that defense directly from the playbook

The one that comes to the top of my head is 14 Power
We came up with this play maybe 6-7 years ago when JJ first came out with his taps defense
There was a team in our league running it. We would wedge them to death- but we wanted something other than wedge to use.

We really should come up with a different name for that play- because it varies quite a bit from our 16 Power

Everyone blocks GOD with the exception of the PT who blocks the LB sliding into his inside gap
The RTE blocks near backer
We are letting the DT over the PT come through- we are basically trapping him with the BB
Neither PT or RTE are allowed to hit a downlineman on the play- just like the trap--we tell them to avoid defensive lineman like they have a communicable disease

Like the 16- the FB leads- but he blocks the DE- not the CB

The WB has options- on the base play he can peel off and help on the OLB or on "YES"- he runs a reverse action behind the 1 back and rubs his outside hip faking a reverse to the 5 hole or so. It depends on what we see backside as to what we do here. If they are cross keying him and playing tight- we run yes. If not, we don't. SInce these OLBS play so wide and we are so close to the LOS we wouldn't need to block him- we hit that pretty quick. Their CBs are playing so wide, they cant make a play. The safety is a good player and could make the tackle- but he's deep enough we will take the gain. We have a couple of LBs being blocked by 2 of our best players, so that may create something he has to bump around.

That is directly out of the playbook
However if I was playing this team- I might consider adding a couple of tags to make a good play even a better one. Widening the WB a bit to put that DE in conflict, if he wants to engage the WB he takes himself out of the play entirely. My widening the WB we also widen the CB even more and would just have the WB block the CB

Since by rule that NT would be blocked by 3 different players- we would probably release the RT with a level call- sending him to second level against the safety. In all fairness- sometimes we have a kid at that position that wouldn't be able to make that block. We play non select football and have to get everyone in- so we don't have great athletes at every position. Some years we would have a kids who could make that block, some years no chance.

Against that Safety- who again is a pretty good player, we have to get him thinking pass. So we would run several different pass plays where he would need to get into coverage off of that backfield action- so he wouldn't be thinking he could play downhill. We don't have to win on paper or beat a coach- in this case we have to beat an 8 year old  ;D

We could also release our LE via a "paul" call which is our fake Jump pass call.

With the spacing on this alignment- I really like the wedge. We don't have the whole film, but on the 2 wedge plays they ran it looks like they got 7-8 and maybe 3 yards. However neither of the wedge plays threatened the both perimeters like Mouse 32 Wedge or Spinner 32 wedge- 2 very basic plays most teams this age are running. Even without any good backfield action- both of those plays seemed to work.

Thanks for the explanation. I thought you had dropped out.  Without you, this debate stopped.

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

Offline Pearls of Wisdom

  • Gold
  • Posts: 4611
  • Total likes: 73
  • Read Only Account. Please no PM's or Emails
  • Coaching: High School
  • Defense: Undecided
  • Offense: Undecided
  • Title: Retired
Re: Defending the UBSW Offense
« Reply #153 on: June 11, 2014, 01:57:25 PM »
The year Mark played for a title- they may have been a 2-3 loss team- but went deep
I think it may have been year 2- they were awful and he said so. More importantly his game tapes showed he was

Let just end on the things we can both agree on:

Football is good
Soccer is evil
Many politicians aren't very honest    ;D ;D

AGREED.  In 2006 I think Mark ended 13-1 (ask him).  It was an EXCEPTIONAL team.
My Contact Info: Coach Bill Mountjoy phone: 804-716-7038 EST /  Email: butzadams@hotmail.com

Offline davecisar

  • Platinum
  • Posts: 9078
  • Total likes: 854
    • Winning Youth Football Coaching Site
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: Wide Tackle 6
  • Offense: Single Wing
Re: Defending the UBSW Offense
« Reply #154 on: June 11, 2014, 02:02:04 PM »
Thanks for the explanation. I thought you had dropped out.  Without you, this debate stopped.

 :)

Clark

No worries had to rush to Omaha for the day for best buddy's moms funeral
Put me behind on all other commited tasks
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.

Winston Churchill

Offline mahonz

  • Administrator
  • Kryptonite
  • Posts: 24264
  • Total likes: 2547
  • No Wimps
  • Coaching: 8 & Under
  • Defense: 3-5-3
  • Offense: Wing T
  • Title: Head Coach
Re: Defending the UBSW Offense
« Reply #155 on: June 11, 2014, 02:02:12 PM »
For those who are specifically wondering how to stop the UBSW, maybe someone should start a thread in General Defense about defending the UBSW.

LOL
 
 
What is beautiful, lives forever.

Offline davecisar

  • Platinum
  • Posts: 9078
  • Total likes: 854
    • Winning Youth Football Coaching Site
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: Wide Tackle 6
  • Offense: Single Wing
Re: Defending the UBSW Offense
« Reply #156 on: June 11, 2014, 02:15:54 PM »
Dave

You should flip that around. We'd all rather be driving that 57 Chevy.  ;)
Mike

I owned a cherry 57 Chevy 2 door with chrome 5 spoke rims in 1980
I had to sell it to move from Omaha to attend Texas A&M- I needed something I could use to move my stuff down there with
Hated doing that
Ive owned I think 31 different cars from Porsche Cabriolet, 57 Chevy, Audi, Lexus 400, Jag XJ6 etc
Now with 4 kids and being an old man- its just metal and rubber tires- could care less, Get me from point a to point b reliably ;D
« Last Edit: June 11, 2014, 02:18:58 PM by davecisar »
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.

Winston Churchill

Offline mahonz

  • Administrator
  • Kryptonite
  • Posts: 24264
  • Total likes: 2547
  • No Wimps
  • Coaching: 8 & Under
  • Defense: 3-5-3
  • Offense: Wing T
  • Title: Head Coach
Re: Defending the UBSW Offense
« Reply #157 on: June 11, 2014, 02:37:31 PM »
Mike

I owned a cherry 57 Chevy 2 door with chrome 5 spoke rims in 1980
I had to sell it to move from Omaha to attend Texas A&M- I needed something I could use to move my stuff down there with
Hated doing that
Ive owned I think 31 different cars from Porsche Cabriolet, 57 Chevy, Audi, Lexus 400, Jag XJ6 etc
Now with 4 kids and being an old man- its just metal and rubber tires- could care less, Get me from point a to point b reliably ;D

Dave

Dang wife and kids !

Here is our Hi-Lite film from that playoff game...but its our Hi Lite film so the opponents good stuff is gone. Sorry there is no sound. I had music attached but Youtube killed it?

My Grandson is #48...the one who has to pull his pants up after every play.  ::) He was the Position tapping over the DT most of the game. In the second half we stopped doing that because as you suggested in your response to Clark...they started gashing us with Wedge so we went to a double MIKE. Im not sure if you will see anything new compared to that short clip. The entire game is on Hudl but of course I have no idea how that thing works. Your suggestions are appreciated since we will surely see more SW. I move down to coach the next Grandson in line in 2015 and your Systems have been incredibly popular at the second grade levels.

On a side note...when we got Hudl last year some plays of your Screaming Eagles vs Manhattan was automatically on there as a Hudl example. Thought that was pretty cool. What a neat venue.

Anyway...the team in black went on to win their Championship in their Division in 2013. They did go undefeated. This film is from 2012...8 year olds.

http://youtu.be/cXZL7Q_uGUI
What is beautiful, lives forever.

Offline DumCoach

  • Administrator
  • Platinum
  • Posts: 9872
  • Total likes: 702
  • "What me worry? I'm not far enough behind yet!"
  • Coaching: 10 & Under
  • Defense: DC 46
  • Offense: DC Wing T
Re: Defending the UBSW Offense
« Reply #158 on: June 11, 2014, 02:51:55 PM »

Clark

The defense in the film is from slide 10


There are several ways to address that defense directly from the playbook

The one that comes to the top of my head is 14 Power
We came up with this play maybe 6-7 years ago when JJ first came out with his taps defense
There was a team in our league running it. We would wedge them to death- but we wanted something other than wedge to use.

We really should come up with a different name for that play- because it varies quite a bit from our 16 Power

Everyone blocks GOD with the exception of the PT who blocks the LB sliding into his inside gap
The RTE blocks near backer
We are letting the DT over the PT come through- we are basically trapping him with the BB
Neither PT or RTE are allowed to hit a downlineman on the play- just like the trap--we tell them to avoid defensive lineman like they have a communicable disease

Like the 16- the FB leads- but he blocks the DE- not the CB

The WB has options- on the base play he can peel off and help on the OLB or on "YES"- he runs a reverse action behind the 1 back and rubs his outside hip faking a reverse to the 5 hole or so. It depends on what we see backside as to what we do here. If they are cross keying him and playing tight- we run yes. If not, we don't. SInce these OLBS play so wide and we are so close to the LOS we wouldn't need to block him- we hit that pretty quick. Their CBs are playing so wide, they cant make a play. The safety is a good player and could make the tackle- but he's deep enough we will take the gain. We have a couple of LBs being blocked by 2 of our best players, so that may create something he has to bump around.

That is directly out of the playbook


Would Y have M and PT have S?
"Football is for the kids - But let's win anyway."

Offline davecisar

  • Platinum
  • Posts: 9078
  • Total likes: 854
    • Winning Youth Football Coaching Site
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: Wide Tackle 6
  • Offense: Single Wing
Re: Defending the UBSW Offense
« Reply #159 on: June 11, 2014, 03:10:53 PM »
According to diagram 10- which is what he was running- PT blocks near backer which is FS
Y blocks near backer- for him that's the OLB- S

This team obviously doesn't like to throw- from the film Ive seen they've thrown just 1 pass and it was a horribly designed play= not in my book
They have done nothing to make the safety play pass or back up and not play downhill
It appears he has snuck up to about 5 yards- which is crazy even at the 3rd grade level
In 2012 my 3-4 grade team had something like 15-16 TD passes- and we weren't allowed to throw after up by 21- which we did in 10 of 11 games that year IIRC and most of those were in the first or second quarter.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2014, 03:14:12 PM by davecisar »
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.

Winston Churchill

Offline PSLCOACHROB

  • Administrator
  • Diamond
  • Posts: 12511
  • Total likes: 2440
  • Coaching: 14 & Under
  • Defense: 5-3
  • Offense: Multiple
  • Title: Retired
Re: Defending the UBSW Offense
« Reply #160 on: June 11, 2014, 03:48:25 PM »
I firmly believe that run heavy teams need to throw early and often. Break the tendencies.

Offline mahonz

  • Administrator
  • Kryptonite
  • Posts: 24264
  • Total likes: 2547
  • No Wimps
  • Coaching: 8 & Under
  • Defense: 3-5-3
  • Offense: Wing T
  • Title: Head Coach
Re: Defending the UBSW Offense
« Reply #161 on: June 11, 2014, 04:05:02 PM »
According to diagram 10- which is what he was running- PT blocks near backer which is FS
Y blocks near backer- for him that's the OLB- S

This team obviously doesn't like to throw- from the film Ive seen they've thrown just 1 pass and it was a horribly designed play= not in my book
They have done nothing to make the safety play pass or back up and not play downhill
It appears he has snuck up to about 5 yards- which is crazy even at the 3rd grade level
In 2012 my 3-4 grade team had something like 15-16 TD passes- and we weren't allowed to throw after up by 21- which we did in 10 of 11 games that year IIRC and most of those were in the first or second quarter.
Dave

The FS you are referring too is the MIKE. He actually gets too deep in our design. He has NO pass coverage responsibilities.  We play pure man 100% Cover 0. The CB's dont play their coverage on the TE's...the OLB's do....CB's have WB's, SE's or Slots.

Our FS is either playing taps over the DT or as a Double MIKE. All Cover 0.

If the PT blocks near backer ( FS playing taps) and Y blocks near backer ( Sam)...who blocks the DT over the PT?

What they were doing until they stopped pulling was....by GOD rules...Y and PT were blocking the DT over the PT and to assure this happened the DT shoots the gap in-between the Y and PT. We also put our best DLM at that DT position. QT next to the PT....by GOD rules...covers for the pulling G leaving a huge hole for the FS to shoot thru underneath the pulling G and right into the backfield.

During the regular season they played a lot of Nasty Y but they stopped doing that because the DT over the PT was too strong to get BOB'd. I dont think they ran a single Nasty Y in the playoff game and had the WB going to Sam and why we had our DE over that WB maul him every snap.

Goes back to the philosophy of keeping the second level clean...and if you jump thur or climb you will pay because the first level is now up to bat...so to speak.

Seems the only way to combat this is getting into and teaching the "what ifs" ( tags) of your system. How far do you think the little dude coaches that are rookies to your systems get into what ifs.

What did work and why we stopped the taps was the QT now started blocking to his outside because they stopped pulling and #8 who was their pulling G was a VERY good player so he could handle our NG BOB style. So they did make adjustments but it doesn't sound like they followed your book when they did. 

As far as passing....you cant pass the football cleanly vs a wide 9 playing Force unless you are AT least 5 yards deep. The close up backfield alignment actually worked against them in this respect.  The results...terrible passing because the wide 9 is in the passers face way too soon....even off play action. They already knew from the Regular Season game that there would be no roll out passing allowed vs our Defense. That is a really bad idea vs a pair of wide 9 Force players. Still...this opponent did not pass well.

Hope this helps to understand the mayhem.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2014, 04:09:19 PM by mahonz »
What is beautiful, lives forever.

Offline mahonz

  • Administrator
  • Kryptonite
  • Posts: 24264
  • Total likes: 2547
  • No Wimps
  • Coaching: 8 & Under
  • Defense: 3-5-3
  • Offense: Wing T
  • Title: Head Coach
Re: Defending the UBSW Offense
« Reply #162 on: June 11, 2014, 04:31:44 PM »
On a side note here....I have suggested to Dave about looking into Zone blocking principles. All of the "what ifs" are built in.

I used to think zone blocking would be a terrible idea for the SWingnuts because of the depth of the backs. Now Im not so sure about that. A smart guy like Dave could figure it out.

Change is hard and now thanks to Michael I am moving away from pure Zone blocking entirely. So thank you for that you Meathead.  You better be right ! :P
What is beautiful, lives forever.

Offline davecisar

  • Platinum
  • Posts: 9078
  • Total likes: 854
    • Winning Youth Football Coaching Site
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: Wide Tackle 6
  • Offense: Single Wing
Re: Defending the UBSW Offense
« Reply #163 on: June 11, 2014, 05:08:47 PM »
Dave

The FS you are referring too is the MIKE. He actually gets too deep in our design. He has NO pass coverage responsibilities.  We play pure man 100% Cover 0. The CB's dont play their coverage on the TE's...the OLB's do....CB's have WB's, SE's or Slots.

Our FS is either playing taps over the DT or as a Double MIKE. All Cover 0.

If the PT blocks near backer ( FS playing taps) and Y blocks near backer ( Sam)...who blocks the DT over the PT?

We trap the DT with the BB- like I said in the original post- instead of kicking the DE- we kick the DT- no biggie
Its a very simple stunt- that we saw in JJ Lawsons defense and blocked that way
The PT blocks closest 2nd level defender- the guy stacked over the PT coming to the inside- The Y- RTE blocks near backer SAM which is your OLB
Very simple play


What they were doing until they stopped pulling was....by GOD rules...Y and PT were blocking the DT over the PT and to assure this happened the DT shoots the gap in-between the Y and PT. We also put our best DLM at that DT position. QT next to the PT....by GOD rules...covers for the pulling G leaving a huge hole for the FS to shoot thru underneath the pulling G and right into the backfield.

Again, see above- we have both of them blocked. Stunt we see all the time

During the regular season they played a lot of Nasty Y but they stopped doing that because the DT over the PT was too strong to get BOB'd. I dont think they ran a single Nasty Y in the playoff game and had the WB going to Sam and why we had our DE over that WB maul him every snap.

It wouldn't matter if you mauled the WB- the RTE gets Sam

Now that's right from our playbook- but again if I saw you doing that I would just widen the WB- if the DE wants to come with him, great, we take him wide with us to the CB- we don't need the WB to block SAM. The CB is too wide to make the play- but we can either block him or not- it wont matter. Again we may just as well call "yes" and fake the counter behind if the team we are playing is counter heavy. That is right from the playbook.

Goes back to the philosophy of keeping the second level clean...and if you jump thur or climb you will pay because the first level is now up to bat...so to speak.

Seems the only way to combat this is getting into and teaching the "what ifs" ( tags) of your system. How far do you think the little dude coaches that are rookies to your systems get into what ifs.

No what ifs- it was by the basic design of the play. There aren't any decisions to be made
The only tags are what I added to make a very good play a great one. We could definitely lived without them. But again the base play is a yes or no- WB in for reverse fake or not- that's how we practice it.


What did work and why we stopped the taps was the QT now started blocking to his outside because they stopped pulling and #8 who was their pulling G was a VERY good player so he could handle our NG BOB style. So they did make adjustments but it doesn't sound like they followed your book when they did. 

Again on 14 Power the RG doesn't pull

As far as passing....you cant pass the football cleanly vs a wide 9 playing Force unless you are AT least 5 yards deep. The close up backfield alignment actually worked against them in this respect.  The results...terrible passing because the wide 9 is in the passers face way too soon....even off play action. They already knew from the Regular Season game that there would be no roll out passing allowed vs our Defense. That is a really bad idea vs a pair of wide 9 Force players. Still...this opponent did not pass well.

Hope this helps to understand the mayhem.
Thanks,

I watched 17 minutes of film,- I only saw 1 pass, it wasn't a very well designed play, it was thrown on a 3rd and long it looked like and it was poorly thrown with an awful 1 player pattern. We play against 9s all the time and still throw. We double team the 9 with the BB and FB on 1 play ( we got called for illegal man downfield in our playoff loss 2 years ago- because they drove him to the second level and ref didn't realize both were backs LOL) , the BB is our most physical player- he does a nice job blocking the 9s on the jump pass as well. Out of Spread SW- we don't roll out at all and we have 9-10 throws off of that.

Ive always found when OLBs are in man against a TE and also have run responsibilities- like they have in GAM- its a tough deal in real life. That's IF you are willing to throw early and often or even just release downfield via our "paul" call. Back in the day when the GAM was popular we loved playing games like that. We don't see them very often nowdays.

So if the OLB has the TE and CB has the WB and your other guy is taping and going, and your Mike has no coverage resp- so who takes the BB in the flat on the Sweep pass? We dump that quickly with just the FB on the DE

Kudos on the good tackling  ;D
« Last Edit: June 11, 2014, 05:33:57 PM by davecisar »
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.

Winston Churchill

Offline mahonz

  • Administrator
  • Kryptonite
  • Posts: 24264
  • Total likes: 2547
  • No Wimps
  • Coaching: 8 & Under
  • Defense: 3-5-3
  • Offense: Wing T
  • Title: Head Coach
Re: Defending the UBSW Offense
« Reply #164 on: June 11, 2014, 05:28:47 PM »
Dave

Covering the TE with an OLB from depth is tough to teach...takes lots of drilling especially for the little dudes. They didn't play a traditional BB so we didn't worry about it. ILB's would have first back out responsibilities....in this case MIKE or the Double MIKE's. We also can go into full blown 46 mode which kills the taps and posts up the TE's with those OLB. We felt that would be too aggressive vs this team and since they didn't pass well....not necessary.

When I ran the UBSW my favorite passing plays were to the BB. He is absolutely invisible to the defense. I cant remember ONE TIME where he was covered.

We trap the DT with the BB- like I said in the original post- instead of kicking the DE- we kick the DT- no biggie
Its a very simple stunt- that we saw in JJ Lawsons defense and blocked that way
The PT blocks closest 2nd level defender- the guy stacked over the PT coming to the inside- The Y- RTE blocks near backer SAM which is your OLB
Very simple play


This is a good plan. Is this in any of your materials? This sounds like a tag too me that has to be called or is it an automatic vs taps?  Taps vs any Offense is a handful. How did you handle full taps with 3 DLM and 3 LB'rs coming at once? The BB cant pick them all up or did you just focus on the POA?

Thanks for the feedback.
What is beautiful, lives forever.