Author Topic: Defending the UBSW Offense  (Read 158365 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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 #75 on: June 09, 2014, 11:45:35 PM »
Dang it!! Now I gotta go back and study some more!!! :-)

Sorry Bro...it was only the Coverage Slide for the OLB's and CB's....an easy read.  :)
« Last Edit: June 10, 2014, 12:11:21 AM by mahonz »
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 #76 on: June 10, 2014, 12:33:57 AM »
Dave

In the future if I post up SW film I will add a disclaimer....not approved by Coach Cisar.  :)

That 3rd grade season was an odd year. We played 3 SW Teams....two ran your version and one ran something else. I see the SW often around here and I attribute that to you....whether they run your stuff or Reed or whatever. Its very popular.

I truly do believe some Offense's require more than simple adjustments to the base. Triple Option falls into that category since it is so rare at the youth level. And we had better figure that one out real quick or we will be playing for second place for many years to come.

Anyway...this Thread was never directed at you personally or what you do. Some of the Forum Members asked me to better explain the SW Killer D we have been running for over a decade when ever we face a smoke and mirrors Offense like the SW , DW or Wing T. The idea is to sit back and then attack.....doing more with less. It has worked out pretty good for us and a few others on this Forum...and is a rather easy install.

I don't get the smoke and mirrors comment. That seems derogatory but I'm not sure where you are coming from here.

We figure to run it down your throat plain and simple. Like Mountjoy said, "out mean" the other team. Sooner or later I don't care what defense you are in, if we punish your LB's and DB's enough we will start breaking off big plays.

I like the fact that you have come up with a reasonable way to defend the SW but I'm all for any team changing up their regular defense and installing a new defense the week of our game, I have yet to see it work.

Am I off base here, is this just a simple adjustment to your regular defense?
"The quarterback must go down and he must go down hard"

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 #77 on: June 10, 2014, 07:54:02 AM »
Dave

That is certainly where you and I differ. I am not that rigid at all when it comes to football. There are certain things I insist upon for sure but I waiver all over the place when it comes to systems.

Listening to your Interview last night was very interesting too me because we are so different.

Mike

A system isn't a "system" without rigor- it is then just a compilation of random stuff

When I had my huge program in Omaha- we weren't doing well
Some teams that had overwhelming talent were winning, most of our teams weren't
Our mission REQUIRED that we retained kids. It was critical in us achieving our stated goals
There was a direct correlating relationship between our teams that won and retention- same for our losing teams
Combined-we were winning between 30 and 40% of our games and our retention rates were about 70%
When you have 16 teams and 90 coaches with lots of transient turnover- and you want them all to have success and they aren't, IMO rigorous systems were the answer

We had no choice but to go to a system so that all of our teams could have success and help get our retention numbers up and accomplish our macro mission

It worked, the year I before I moved, we had a combined winning % of 81% and we had the best record in 9-10 A, 11-12 A, and 13-14 A
We had zero teams with losing records, I think we either won a B or maybe finished runner up in a couple of B divisions
Our retention numbers were in the 90+ % range
We dominated that league- which at the time was largest league in state- with Select and "B" levels of play

After I left- they went away from systems and allowed everyone to kind of do their own thing

The results- they haven't won any championships
They have very rarely had any winning teams
Combined they were something like in the 28% winning % range the last couple of years
Not sure about their retention numbers, but went from 16 teams to now 4 or 5

So for that program AND many others- freedom of "systems" and lack of rigor didn't work out very well
In the meantime my program here with very tight systems in place- we went a combined 34-1 last year- and weve had the best combined record in the largest league in the state for the past 5 years in a row. No problem getting kids to play- retention rates in excess of 95%. My old program now plays in our league. Against my old program we are a combined 11-0- even when we played their select teams prior to the big dropoff in numbers.  Again they are winning less than 30% of their games now.
Seems like a pretty fair and reasonable test case for systems and rigor. Prior to systems and rigor- failure. Systems and rigor implemented- amazing success. Systems and rigor gone- back to same failure as before.

The interesting thing about the rich guys that hire me to clinic and coach their teams in camps:
They are all believers in "systems" and rigor in their businesses. Be it financial services, hotels, real estate development- they all tell me the reason for their success has been systems and that is what attracted them to my approach. These guys are very successful in business and as coaches.
Just my personal experience.

There is enough flexibility purposely built into the system to accommodate talent or lack thereof. For guys like you who like to change every year or even midseason or week to week, sometimes for the sake of change- probably not your thing. That's your choice, more power to you. I'm after consistent success and refining an approach to perfection- which means there is change, but change that is gradual and specific to stress defenses or constrain them in different ways than we do now- but within the framework of our approach.

When you have systems and rigor in place- you have answers for everything and ways to diagnose. Simple answers for everything from the elaborate to a simple stack stunt like the one you have diagrammed and use against the SW teams you play. If not, then you are making up stuff on the run which doesn't work well for a lot of teams and people. 
« Last Edit: June 10, 2014, 08:07:18 AM by davecisar »
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.

Winston Churchill

Offline coachgregory

  • Benefactors
  • Gold
  • Posts: 3094
  • Total likes: 257
  • Coaching: 14 & Under
  • Defense: 6-3
  • Offense: Double Wing
  • Title: Other
Re: Defending the UBSW Offense
« Reply #78 on: June 10, 2014, 08:51:28 AM »
Mike

A system isn't a "system" without rigor- it is then just a compilation of random stuff

When I had my huge program in Omaha- we weren't doing well
Some teams that had overwhelming talent were winning, most of our teams weren't
Our mission REQUIRED that we retained kids. It was critical in us achieving our stated goals
There was a direct correlating relationship between our teams that won and retention- same for our losing teams
Combined-we were winning between 30 and 40% of our games and our retention rates were about 70%
When you have 16 teams and 90 coaches with lots of transient turnover- and you want them all to have success and they aren't, IMO rigorous systems were the answer

We had no choice but to go to a system so that all of our teams could have success and help get our retention numbers up and accomplish our macro mission

It worked, the year I before I moved, we had a combined winning % of 81% and we had the best record in 9-10 A, 11-12 A, and 13-14 A
We had zero teams with losing records, I think we either won a B or maybe finished runner up in a couple of B divisions
Our retention numbers were in the 90+ % range
We dominated that league- which at the time was largest league in state- with Select and "B" levels of play

After I left- they went away from systems and allowed everyone to kind of do their own thing

The results- they haven't won any championships
They have very rarely had any winning teams
Combined they were something like in the 28% winning % range the last couple of years
Not sure about their retention numbers, but went from 16 teams to now 4 or 5

So for that program AND many others- freedom of "systems" and lack of rigor didn't work out very well
In the meantime my program here with very tight systems in place- we went a combined 34-1 last year- and weve had the best combined record in the largest league in the state for the past 5 years in a row. No problem getting kids to play- retention rates in excess of 95%. My old program now plays in our league. Against my old program we are a combined 11-0- even when we played their select teams prior to the big dropoff in numbers.  Again they are winning less than 30% of their games now.
Seems like a pretty fair and reasonable test case for systems and rigor. Prior to systems and rigor- failure. Systems and rigor implemented- amazing success. Systems and rigor gone- back to same failure as before.

The interesting thing about the rich guys that hire me to clinic and coach their teams in camps:
They are all believers in "systems" and rigor in their businesses. Be it financial services, hotels, real estate development- they all tell me the reason for their success has been systems and that is what attracted them to my approach. These guys are very successful in business and as coaches.
Just my personal experience.

There is enough flexibility purposely built into the system to accommodate talent or lack thereof. For guys like you who like to change every year or even midseason or week to week, sometimes for the sake of change- probably not your thing. That's your choice, more power to you. I'm after consistent success and refining an approach to perfection- which means there is change, but change that is gradual and specific to stress defenses or constrain them in different ways than we do now- but within the framework of our approach.

When you have systems and rigor in place- you have answers for everything and ways to diagnose. Simple answers for everything from the elaborate to a simple stack stunt like the one you have diagrammed and use against the SW teams you play. If not, then you are making up stuff on the run which doesn't work well for a lot of teams and people.


Dave,

That was one of the better posts I have read in a long while.

It is funny because as much as Mike thinks I do a lot in the offense I run...it all revolves around a common approach. The system once installed allows us to adapt to our kids every year.  With more talent we can do more things but we always approach it first by getting good at our core series and then we adapt to what our kids can do well.  If they can catch and pass well we throw more...if we have more talented running backs we tend to use more ball carriers.  Like you, I believe what makes us good is the approach we use is deeply rooted in a system that allows us to teach basic concepts and expand on those concepts as our kids master them.  I would never be able to bounce around from offense to offense like Mike does...that takes a level of mastery in itself and my personality is not made for that kind of change every year :)

Again great post.

Jack
Exsisto Fortis, Exsisto Validus

Offline JC

  • Copper
  • Posts: 63
  • Total likes: 11
  • Coaching: High School
  • Defense: DC Pro 4-3
  • Offense: Spread Formation
  • Title: Assistant
Re: Defending the UBSW Offense
« Reply #79 on: June 10, 2014, 09:30:46 AM »
Dave,

In some of these posts, you have referenced the Level call or tag.  What is that?  I assume you are talking about having a lineman release to the 2nd level, but I looked quickly in the 303 materials this morning and did not find it.  I may not be looking in the right place . . .


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 #80 on: June 10, 2014, 11:01:23 AM »
I don't get the smoke and mirrors comment. That seems derogatory but I'm not sure where you are coming from here.

We figure to run it down your throat plain and simple. Like Mountjoy said, "out mean" the other team. Sooner or later I don't care what defense you are in, if we punish your LB's and DB's enough we will start breaking off big plays.

I like the fact that you have come up with a reasonable way to defend the SW but I'm all for any team changing up their regular defense and installing a new defense the week of our game, I have yet to see it work.

Am I off base here, is this just a simple adjustment to your regular defense?

H

Not derogatory...Im referencing an Offense where the football can be hard to find for the D....DW with the XX....SW Spinner....Wing T Bellies. Stuff like that. I have found that when facing these types of Offenses its easier to sit back and let the plays develop then play football downhill.  You aren't getting any tackles for losses but you aren't giving up the big plays either.

We do a lot of adjusting to our Defense....weekly. The hardest part about this particular deal is with the CB's since they are used to playing Bump and Run...and now they have to sit and wait. With the little dudes the adjustments are rather simple...with the older kids it can get more advanced. Everything is still the same...just different. I think sameness is death to any Defense.
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 #81 on: June 10, 2014, 11:53:36 AM »
Dave and Jack

I absolutely get where you guys are coming from so I will explain a bit more about how I think.

The Foundation holds up the Beams that supports the Floor that supports the Walls that hold up the Roof. That is the superstructure and will always be basically the same. Its the finishes that vary....greatly. That my Professional World and every Project is different and unique.

Football is no different.

That is all I do with changing Offensive systems or adding something specific to the D for a specific Offense. Have a superstructure in place that I trust and then pick a finish. I may have 50 finishes but the kids might not see more than 5 of them in a given season. These are not stunts necessarily or adjustments but finishes designed specifically for an opponent. I do that on Offense as well but its more difficult.

It has actually worked well for me and Jr over the years. Im not smarter or better or even dumber than anyone else...just willing to be more flexible. Over time I have learned that creating a "Frankenstein" of some sort is rather easy and not that demanding when it comes to the kids. If you can coach one thing well then you can coach two things well....then three....then four...as long as you trust the superstructure.

So...the only way anyone is going to learn about all of the different finishes is be willing to try them. Scary? Irresponsible? Dumb? Not at all....its all football....its all the same....just different.
What is beautiful, lives forever.

Offline MHcoach

  • Platinum
  • Posts: 7753
  • Total likes: 1847
  • Coaching: High School
  • Defense: Other
  • Offense: Other
Re: Defending the UBSW Offense
« Reply #82 on: June 10, 2014, 12:06:34 PM »
Mike

I have always been a believer in multiple fronts, I never want the offense to get comfortable where the defense will be. The other issue is to attack the offense, IMHO it's the best way to play in Youth Football. We have always felt an attacking D was the toughest for us to play against, so we always ran one. Contrary to popular thought at the time, we would attack the Wing T & were very successful. Against UBSW & DW we would always have 2 DL who would plug instead of attack. The others would attack.

I think what's important is not to make wholesale changes to what you normally do. Adjustments are 1 thing, changing everything can burn you. Rolling the FS up was part of our package, of course we would change his key depending on the offense. JR calls it inverted C2, we called it C7, a rose by any other name.

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

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 #83 on: June 10, 2014, 12:17:58 PM »
Mike

I have always been a believer in multiple fronts, I never want the offense to get comfortable where the defense will be. The other issue is to attack the offense, IMHO it's the best way to play in Youth Football. We have always felt an attacking D was the toughest for us to play against, so we always ran one. Contrary to popular thought at the time, we would attack the Wing T & were very successful. Against UBSW & DW we would always have 2 DL who would plug instead of attack. The others would attack.

I think what's important is not to make wholesale changes to what you normally do. Adjustments are 1 thing, changing everything can burn you. Rolling the FS up was part of our package, of course we would change his key depending on the offense. JR calls it inverted C2, we called it C7, a rose by any other name.

Joe

Joe

I wish I knew of a base Defense that could do it all. I dont.  :'( The hardest part of making adjustments is how it effects the big picture.

In the examples listed in this Thread moving a FS up to play taps is relatively simple. You do have to drill taps....its a science.  Pulling your DE's out to play ILB's is not unless you take away their coverage responsibilities. When we look at something I always look at the cross training aspect first. If I can cross train then pull the trigger....if not...asking for trouble.

What I REALLY enjoyed about running the 353 was...as multiple as any Offense could be...so were we. The 353 is the most difficult D to teach that I know of but worth it. Every stunt effects 3 or 4 players around that stunt and that D is Stunt heavy.
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 #84 on: June 10, 2014, 01:04:37 PM »



If they have my materials or follow my newsletters- they would have known how to defeat that defense
Nothing we haven't seen before, very simple stunt





So how would you beat it?

BTW, I agree with Cisar that coaches don't follow his book.  I have faced several that obviously had his stuff based on the low crouch and, without exception they either 1) left something out as a deliberate shortcut or  2) Failed to add or 3) Both .  I'd meet them in the playoffs and they're still running the same stuff that won them their first game.

And, as Cisar said, they still went 8-2.   The average youth coach still didn't know how to beat them.  But once they ran into somebody that knew, in one hour their season would be over.
"Football is for the kids - But let's win anyway."

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 #85 on: June 10, 2014, 01:45:25 PM »



So how would you beat it?

BTW, I agree with Cisar that coaches don't follow his book.  I have faced several that obviously had his stuff based on the low crouch and, without exception they either 1) left something out as a deliberate shortcut or  2) Failed to add or 3) Both .  I'd meet them in the playoffs and they're still running the same stuff that won them their first game.

And, as Cisar said, they still went 8-2.   The average youth coach still didn't know how to beat them.  But once they ran into somebody that knew, in one hour their season would be over.

Clark

I think Dave was referring to taps maybe?

This particular Slide is not a "stunt". 53 Cover 0 with tilted DT's and DE's setting the Force.

The secret sauce is 6 "Lb'rs' playing in 3 distinct pairs as Cousins.

One thing I will add here that I have noticed over the looooong haul is our opponents really dont know how to handle wide 9 Force players very well...UBSW or otherwise.
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 #86 on: June 10, 2014, 02:05:29 PM »
One thing I will add here....when Clark or Steve or Defensewins talk playing Cousins....LISTEN !

Its a common 46 D term and its what makes the World go round.

DE's set the Force IMMEDIATELY funneling or spilling. OLB's play Cousins off the DE's play....ILB's play Cousins of the OLB's play. The first man to show ( DE) destructs the first block funneling or spilling...the second man to show ( OLB ) distrusts the second lead block funneling or spilling...the third man to show makes the tackles...funnel ILB....spill CB or FS.

They are a team within the team. To accomplish this you must occupy the OLM with your DLM and why tilting is so effective....OLM cant jump thru or climb without leaving their buddies hanging out to dry. It also traps the trapper.

Flexing is also a great method that occupies OLM and is one of the keys to Clark's Killer Bee Defense. It confuses them. Long sticking is also another great method but advanced. Think the old Desert Swarm Defense back in the early 90's.

Flex will destruct any and all zone blocking rules. That is how Kansas City FINALLY caught up with Denver back in the Davis era. They went with a less is more philosophy and simply stayed off the LOS and ran with the Zone. VERY effective because it adds steps to the blocking rules...makes you trap proof and cut proof....hence the term lunging. Lunging is the WORST for teams that rely on double teams at the POA.

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 #87 on: June 10, 2014, 03:12:27 PM »
I don't get the smoke and mirrors comment. That seems derogatory but I'm not sure where you are coming from here.

We figure to run it down your throat plain and simple. Like Mountjoy said, "out mean" the other team. Sooner or later I don't care what defense you are in, if we punish your LB's and DB's enough we will start breaking off big plays.

I like the fact that you have come up with a reasonable way to defend the SW but I'm all for any team changing up their regular defense and installing a new defense the week of our game, I have yet to see it work.

Am I off base here, is this just a simple adjustment to your regular defense?

H

Your post reminded me of one game in particular.

6th graders....we had a really good team and happened to be running the 353 that season. A new Team had joined our League and was in our Division. They came from another League and were basically looking for better competition. They were 3 peat Champs in their old League.

They were in a different Conference within our Division so as it turned out we did not play them during the Regular Season. About week 6 it was apparent they were very good just by looking at the scores. Lots of 40-50 point wins. As it turned out we had no real opportunity to scout them before the playoffs so I intentionally missed our Game 8 to go scout them as we were playing a weak opponent.  Simple math told us they would be the one seed and we would be the three seed so we would have to play them to get into the Championship Game.

Whoooa Momma. The Game I scouted they were playing the only team that beat us during the Regular Season. This Team I was there to scout had the best OL I had ever seen and 4 RB's with incredible speed. On top of that they ran a split back full motion cross fire that was some serious smoke and mirrors. They won the Game I scouted by 40 points.

I left scratching my head.

As it turns out we played them in the Conference Championship Game. We lost 18-13 and had em on the ropes until the final possession. Had their coaches yelling at players...the refs...each other.

The team that won the other Conference Championship Game was a good friend and watched our game right after his. He had a better team than we did but learned nothing from our game. He ran his typical D and lost in the Championship Game 59-6.

This is what we did. Put two sacrificial lambs on the DL covering both OT's that were spectacular players. Played 6 LB'rs that ran the same exact stunt either left or right for the entire game. Blitz the CB off Z's motion every play....sometimes Z would look to crack and sometimes he ran jet sweep or fake jet sweep. Other CB mauled X and the FS spied the QB.

Since we already ran a 353 that was heavy into stunting...this was a rather easy teach. It isnt a Defense....its a flavor of the day goofy idea that almost took down one of the best opponent's we have ever faced. Its one of the reasons I believe that certain situations call for drastic measures. Had we played our base that day...who knows but we knew going in normal was not going to work. Nobody else had come even close to beating this team.

Their OLM didnt know what to do and and every time a RB arrived at the LOS there was an unblocked defender in the area. They did run a few QB sneaks too but our MLB took care of that and hurt the kid. They stopped doing that. If they had a Wedge play in the playbook we might have been doomed...but they didn't. What got us was two half back passes to X on 4th and long. I will never forget that game....sticks in my craw to this day.

So when someone says...do what you do and you will be fine....I don't always agree. Why? Because of goofy ideas like this that actually worked REALLY well.



« Last Edit: June 10, 2014, 03:14:39 PM by mahonz »
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 #88 on: June 10, 2014, 04:53:11 PM »
Clark

I think Dave was referring to taps maybe?

This particular Slide is not a "stunt". 53 Cover 0 with tilted DT's and DE's setting the Force.

The secret sauce is 6 "Lb'rs' playing in 3 distinct pairs as Cousins.

One thing I will add here that I have noticed over the looooong haul is our opponents really dont know how to handle wide 9 Force players very well...UBSW or otherwise.

So you think he can't beat the simple slide I put up?

OK.  I'll let him pick his own slide.  Put the one up you meant, Dave, and tell us how you'd beat it if you don't mind sharing. 
"Football is for the kids - But let's win anyway."

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 #89 on: June 10, 2014, 05:12:52 PM »
So you think he can't beat the simple slide I put up?

OK.  I'll let him pick his own slide.  Put the one up you meant, Dave, and tell us how you'd beat it if you don't mind sharing.

Clark

I was referring to his newsletter comment that you quoted.

Sorry for the confusion. I also believe anything can be beat.
What is beautiful, lives forever.