Author Topic: Defending the UBSW Offense  (Read 158427 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline angalton

  • Gold
  • Posts: 2570
  • Total likes: 303
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: Killer Bee
  • Offense: Wishbone
  • Title: Head Coach
Re: Defending the UBSW Offense
« Reply #270 on: June 12, 2014, 11:21:30 PM »

We play a wide tackle 6 and I'm not going to change that fact but I would shift as Bill advocates. If we aren't stiff at the line of scrimmage I might over shift, blitz the corner and invite the pass by bringing the safety up in run support. Other then that doing much more probably does more damage the good.
I believe it takes an overall game plan.

#1 I wouldn't change whatever I've been doing throughout the season on defense. Tackle, tackle, tackle!
Force mistakes, turnovers and penalties are equalizers. Do not give up the big play.

#2 I want to play ball control on offense and limit the amount of possessions permitted to the opposition.

3# I'm gonna take away the edges, which means I'm gonna give the wedge and pass and play the percentages that my opponent will not stick with the wedge and will make mistakes in the passing game with incompletions and turnovers.
Thanks coach.
The greatest accomplishment is not in never failing, but in rising again after you fail.

Offline mahonz

  • Administrator
  • Kryptonite
  • Posts: 24265
  • Total likes: 2547
  • No Wimps
  • Coaching: 8 & Under
  • Defense: 3-5-3
  • Offense: Wing T
  • Title: Head Coach
Re: Defending the UBSW Offense
« Reply #271 on: June 12, 2014, 11:26:20 PM »
#69 on my "ALIBI LIST" = "I'm being coached by SOME "coaches" on dumcoach who really are NOT really coaches, and don't have a CLUE what they are talking about"!  Y'all can keep talking this "B.S." on here for 10 years & after 268 posts I haven't seen one good idea on defending the UBSW YET!

As you know = I have ALWAYS said that "it's the Jimmys & Joes, NOT the X's & O's"!  STILL no excuse NOT to emulate the wisdom of Bob Neyland, Bud Wilkinson, & Bear Bryant = ALL of whom beat the shitski out of the UBSW in the ERA of the UBSW (& their thinking was what ran the UBSW out of business in the mid-1940's)!  They had both the TALENT AND THE KNOW HOW (if you don't have one, it's no excuse not to seek the other)!

Sports Illustrated picked Bryant Head Coach of the "All Twentieth Century Team", & Neyland his "Defensive Coordinator".   After 18-19 pages of posts by "coaches" HERE on the subject, I don't believe I have seen ANYTHING here that even remotely APPROACHES what they taught.  Further study (not a bunch of "B.S.") HIGHLY recommended.

LOL

Bill

Its late in the off season is there that.   
What is beautiful, lives forever.

Offline HCScott

  • Copper
  • Posts: 363
  • Total likes: 38
  • Coaching: 14 & Under
  • Defense: 5-3
  • Offense: Single Wing
  • Title: Head Coach
Re: Defending the UBSW Offense
« Reply #272 on: June 13, 2014, 02:29:39 AM »
#70 on the alibi list.
We gave up 40 points because I didn't read the books Bill told me to read!

I am a Wilkinson believer and I'm getting the book.
"The quarterback must go down and he must go down hard"

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 #273 on: June 13, 2014, 06:53:43 AM »
#69 on my "ALIBI LIST" = "I'm being coached by SOME "coaches" on dumcoach who really are NOT really coaches, and don't have a CLUE what they are talking about"!  Y'all can keep talking this "B.S." on here for 10 years & after 268 posts I haven't seen one good idea on defending the UBSW YET!

As you know = I have ALWAYS said that "it's the Jimmys & Joes, NOT the X's & O's"!  STILL no excuse NOT to emulate the wisdom of Bob Neyland, Bud Wilkinson, & Bear Bryant = ALL of whom beat the shitski out of the UBSW in the ERA of the UBSW (& their thinking was what ran the UBSW out of business in the mid-1940's)!  They had both the TALENT AND THE KNOW HOW (if you don't have one, it's no excuse not to seek the other)!

Sports Illustrated picked Bryant Head Coach of the "All Twentieth Century Team", & Neyland his "Defensive Coordinator".   After 18-19 pages of posts by "coaches" HERE on the subject, I don't believe I have seen ANYTHING here that even remotely APPROACHES what they taught.  Further study (not a bunch of "B.S.") HIGHLY recommended.
Bill,
   I am not sure what pissed you off about my post but I am not surprised. While I have a large amount of respect for your knowledge and your resume I do not understand why you constantly feel the need to try and belittle coaches that ask legitimate questions. Heck, I even stated that I was not trying to stir the pot. Do you know why I ended my post like that? Because I assumed you would get pissy. All I really wanted to understand(Believe me I do understand that Neyland, Wilkinson and Bryant are among the best defensive minds in the history of football)was how much the emergence of the T and wishbone offenses had to do with the decline of the wt6. I was just speculating that maybe these new offenses had something to do with the sw disappearing. I understand that the wt6 was beating the sw. What I don't know is how much sw coaches tried to adjust the sw or did they just quickly change over to the new popular offenses like so many modern coaches do. I also don't think that pointing out that those 3 coaches usually had more talent than their opponent was not something to be considered, especially by you. Of course we should all try to emulate those guys. But as you always say scheme does not win games. Why is it different with the wt6 vs the ubsw? Just so you know, we run a 4-4. We drop down to a wt6 vs sw teams. Which is probably exactly what you would tell me to do. I guess we must have some coaching ability even though I am not a "coach" apparently. Reread my other post but this time read it from a pov that I was asking a question trying to learn some history of the game and not trying to be a smart ass. That was not my intent.

Offline Michael

  • Diamond
  • Posts: 14275
  • Total likes: 2843
  • Coaching: 13 & Under
  • Defense: Undecided
  • Offense: One Back
  • Title: Assistant
Re: Defending the UBSW Offense
« Reply #274 on: June 13, 2014, 07:05:02 AM »
I wouldn't sweat the quotation marks.   His use of those is probably about as random as his use of capital letters.   Might just have been luck of the draw.
Michael can not receive PM's, emails or respond to Posts. He passed away in September 2018. To honor his contributions we are leaving his account active. R.I.P - Dumcoach Staff.

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 #275 on: June 13, 2014, 09:07:10 AM »
Bill,
   I am not sure what pissed you off about my post but I am not surprised. While I have a large amount of respect for your knowledge and your resume I do not understand why you constantly feel the need to try and belittle coaches that ask legitimate questions. Heck, I even stated that I was not trying to stir the pot. Do you know why I ended my post like that? Because I assumed you would get pissy. All I really wanted to understand(Believe me I do understand that Neyland, Wilkinson and Bryant are among the best defensive minds in the history of football)was how much the emergence of the T and wishbone offenses had to do with the decline of the wt6. I was just speculating that maybe these new offenses had something to do with the sw disappearing. I understand that the wt6 was beating the sw. What I don't know is how much sw coaches tried to adjust the sw or did they just quickly change over to the new popular offenses like so many modern coaches do. I also don't think that pointing out that those 3 coaches usually had more talent than their opponent was not something to be considered, especially by you. Of course we should all try to emulate those guys. But as you always say scheme does not win games. Why is it different with the wt6 vs the ubsw? Just so you know, we run a 4-4. We drop down to a wt6 vs sw teams. Which is probably exactly what you would tell me to do. I guess we must have some coaching ability even though I am not a "coach" apparently. Reread my other post but this time read it from a pov that I was asking a question trying to learn some history of the game and not trying to be a smart ass. That was not my intent.


PSLCOACHROB:  I know your intent was NOT to be a "smart ass".  I have great respect for you (& several others on dumcoach). 

TRUE - schemes do NOT win games, BUT that is still no reason NOT to be in the BEST scheme possible (in order to have a CHANCE because you "leave no stone unturned").

When a person needs brain surgery, you don't go to a dentist!  That is why I have tried to stress to impressionable young coaches on this site to search the best minds ever for the answers (beyond the site)!  Neyland, Bryant, & Wilkinson's materials are still available (in their books - with chapters devoted to defending the SW).

Best Regards!

PS:  It wasn't ONLY the UBSW that got run out of football (in the 1940's for the MOST part), and it wasn't because of "new offenses" as much as some of it's "disadvantages", and the "answers" presented by Neyland, Bryant, & Wilkinson).  I LOVED the Bud Wilkinson "Split-T" early on, but it was run out of football ALSO!  Notre Dame broke the "Wishbone" in the 1970's, & it declined ALSO. 
Like Gen. "Hap" Arnold said: "we can't fight WWII with WWI airplanes"! 
« Last Edit: June 13, 2014, 09:26:38 AM by billmountjoy »
My Contact Info: Coach Bill Mountjoy phone: 804-716-7038 EST /  Email: butzadams@hotmail.com

Offline angalton

  • Gold
  • Posts: 2570
  • Total likes: 303
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: Killer Bee
  • Offense: Wishbone
  • Title: Head Coach
Re: Defending the UBSW Offense
« Reply #276 on: June 13, 2014, 09:39:30 AM »
If I'm running a 3-3 stack and might face or might not face a sw team, I am probably not going to run wt6. What is the best ways with simple adjustments to defend sw out of 33 stack? I am not good enough with the time I have to change defense for maybe one team. By the way I really like Clark's KB and may end up using it this year. I just have to become a better teacher.
The greatest accomplishment is not in never failing, but in rising again after you fail.

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 #277 on: June 13, 2014, 10:50:54 AM »
If I'm running a 3-3 stack and might face or might not face a sw team, I am probably not going to run wt6. What is the best ways with simple adjustments to defend sw out of 33 stack? I am not good enough with the time I have to change defense for maybe one team. By the way I really like Clark's KB and may end up using it this year. I just have to become a better teacher.


The 3-3 Stack evolved OUT of a 5-2 (AKA: 3-4).  Vs. the UBSW play a 5-2 Monster (which IS an "Overshifted-6").
My Contact Info: Coach Bill Mountjoy phone: 804-716-7038 EST /  Email: butzadams@hotmail.com

Offline mahonz

  • Administrator
  • Kryptonite
  • Posts: 24265
  • Total likes: 2547
  • No Wimps
  • Coaching: 8 & Under
  • Defense: 3-5-3
  • Offense: Wing T
  • Title: Head Coach
Re: Defending the UBSW Offense
« Reply #278 on: June 13, 2014, 11:30:48 AM »
Honestly I found the 60 fronts a rather easy D to run off tackle against. We saw this front a lot at the 2nd and 3rd grade levels.

It would seem to me you could run Power 16 without much trouble if you are executing. Isn't the WT6 designed to stop sweep?...so don't sweep.

Double the play side DT...kick out the play side DE...lead to Sam = 4 yards.

Last season it was all 30 / 40 / 50 fronts and more of a chore....although vs much better teams. 

Just curious...the 60 front is the least common in my World. Seems to be a Super Smurf D.
What is beautiful, lives forever.

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 #279 on: June 13, 2014, 11:40:21 AM »
Honestly I found the 60 fronts a rather easy D to run off tackle against. We saw this front a lot at the 2nd and 3rd grade levels.

It would seem to me you could run Power 16 without much trouble if you are executing. Isn't the WT6 designed to stop sweep?...so don't sweep.

Double the play side DT...kick out the play side DE...lead to Sam = 4 yards.

Last season it was all 30 / 40 / 50 fronts and more of a chore....although vs much better teams. 

Just curious...the 60 front is the least common in my World. Seems to be a Super Smurf D.
I see a ton of 60s vs our dw and sw. 6-3 probably more than 6-2. But I certainly wouldn't use a 60 vs a bunch of offenses.

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 #280 on: June 13, 2014, 11:53:24 AM »
I see a ton of 60s vs our dw and sw. 6-3 probably more than 6-2. But I certainly wouldn't use a 60 vs a bunch of offenses.



The great 60 teams merely dropped the defensive ends off & a whole world of 4-2-5 stuff evolved!

Suggestions for beginning coaches:

Sports Illustrated voted Gen. Bob Neyland as the BEST DEFENSIVE COACH of the 20th CENTURY (1900-2000).
What young coaches can learn from Neyland = BELOW (even IF you don't use his X & O):

I visited Bob Neyland personally (I am mentioned in his annotated Journals, which have been published in book form).  Neyland TAUGHT his defense to "Bear" Bryant, & Bud Wilkinson (both of whom CREDITED him for their defenses).  Both Wilkinson & Bryant wrote BOOKS on defense.  I visited Bryant at Bama, & met with Wilkinson yearly at the Kodak Clinic in D.C. (1961-1970).  Also have correspondences from all 3 men.

Here is what I learned from them (all 3 followed THIS format):

Have a DEFENSIVE NOTEBOOK divided into 3 basic segments (I have mine in front of me here):
CHAPTER 1.  "Wide Tackle 6" (later evolved into today's 4-2-5)
CHAPTER 2.  "Over-shifted 6" (later evolved to the 5-2 Okie/3-4 Okie of today)
CHAPTER 3.  A third section for the "DEFENSE OF THE WEEK" = a "special" defense devoted to be the BEST way to handle whatever offense they were going to face THAT week.

They took the above THREE calls into a game.  MY notebook has the third segment ("DEFENSE OF THE WEEK") subdivided as follows:
A)  Defense of (Balanced AND Unbalanced) Single Wing, Double Wing, and Short Punt
B)  Defense of Tight-T
C)  Defense of Split-T
D)  Defense of Winged-T
E)  Defense of "I" (Power-I, Slot-I, Pro-I, etc.)
F)  Defense of Split-Back Veer
G)  Defense of Wishbone (& it's off-shoot Flexbone)
H)  Defense of Pro-Style Offense (2 to 3 WR's)
I)  Defense of Spreads with 4 or more WR's  (including Run & Shoot, Air Raid, & Zone-Read/option, ETC.)

So we would take THREE calls into a game.  Our opponents KNEW they would get the WT-6 AND Overshifted-6, but did NOT know what that THIRD defense would be (AKA: "DEFENSE OF THE WEEK").  The "DEFENSE OF THE WEEK" was what the BEST defensive MINDS in the USA used vs. those offenses (for EXAMPLE  Notre Dame's "Even-Mirror", & "Okie Dog-Pinch" calls vs. the Wishbone).  Using our defensive "numbers" this third defense was usually EASY to put into the "package".

My notebook was put together over a period of more than 50 years.  Any coach on this site who is ever in Central Virginia is welcome to see it (AND film).  I have a number of coaches stopping in (July).
My Contact Info: Coach Bill Mountjoy phone: 804-716-7038 EST /  Email: butzadams@hotmail.com

Offline mahonz

  • Administrator
  • Kryptonite
  • Posts: 24265
  • Total likes: 2547
  • No Wimps
  • Coaching: 8 & Under
  • Defense: 3-5-3
  • Offense: Wing T
  • Title: Head Coach
Re: Defending the UBSW Offense
« Reply #281 on: June 13, 2014, 11:55:30 AM »
The great 60 teams merely dropped the defensive ends off & a whole world of 4-2-5 stuff evolved!


Bill

Per this Thread that is essentially what is being suggested but the problem is if you simply drop the DE's back you now have to cross train them for coverage.....unless you drop them back to play the ILB's. Then their coverage becomes the flats, hole or first back out which is an easier teach over them playing the OLB positions.

What is beautiful, lives forever.

Offline Michael

  • Diamond
  • Posts: 14275
  • Total likes: 2843
  • Coaching: 13 & Under
  • Defense: Undecided
  • Offense: One Back
  • Title: Assistant
Re: Defending the UBSW Offense
« Reply #282 on: June 13, 2014, 11:56:03 AM »
This is like Groundhog Day.
Michael can not receive PM's, emails or respond to Posts. He passed away in September 2018. To honor his contributions we are leaving his account active. R.I.P - Dumcoach Staff.

Offline Michael

  • Diamond
  • Posts: 14275
  • Total likes: 2843
  • Coaching: 13 & Under
  • Defense: Undecided
  • Offense: One Back
  • Title: Assistant
Re: Defending the UBSW Offense
« Reply #283 on: June 13, 2014, 11:57:01 AM »
Bill

Per this Thread that is essentially what is being suggested but the problem is if you simply drop the DE's back you now have to cross train them for coverage.....unless you drop them back to play the ILB's. Then their coverage becomes the flats, hole or first back out which is an easier teach over them playing the OLB positions.

You gotta Star/Money that stuff.
Michael can not receive PM's, emails or respond to Posts. He passed away in September 2018. To honor his contributions we are leaving his account active. R.I.P - Dumcoach Staff.

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 #284 on: June 13, 2014, 12:05:41 PM »
Bill

Per this Thread that is essentially what is being suggested but the problem is if you simply drop the DE's back you now have to cross train them for coverage.....unless you drop them back to play the ILB's. Then their coverage becomes the flats, hole or first back out which is an easier teach over them playing the OLB positions.

If you look at the ORIGINAL WT-6 of Bob Neyland's going back to about 1927 they USED THE ENDS in coverage!  They generally covered FLATS on dropbacks unless hard flow to them in which case the came across to pull it up.  "5 Spoke Pinciples" & easy to teach (ball come I come - ball go I go).  I was doing this with my 8-9 year old team in 1960.

If you look at "Bear" Bryant's write up on the WT-6 from 1958 you will see he talked about lining the Ends up "OFF THE LOS" way back then (at bottom of page)!  Just back up 2-3 yds = no big deal.

PS:  This was the FIRST thing we taught 8-9 year olds in 1960, & to my 6th grade (10 year olds) & 7tyh grade (11 year olds) teams in 1961!  A SNAP to teach!
« Last Edit: June 13, 2014, 12:31:59 PM by billmountjoy »
My Contact Info: Coach Bill Mountjoy phone: 804-716-7038 EST /  Email: butzadams@hotmail.com