Help MosleyTheCat keep the forum running smoothly. Please DONATE using PayPal!

Author Topic: Series based play calling  (Read 2217 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BigHatJack

  • Copper
  • Posts: 27
  • Coaching: 10 & Under
  • Defense: 3-3 Stack
  • Offense: Single Wing
  • Title: Head Coach
Series based play calling
« on: May 16, 2017, 11:10:04 AM »
How do you all approach implementing different series during a game? Do you stick to a SW series of plays for an entire drive or jump around and call any play from any formation and any series at any time?

Offline angalton

  • Silver
  • Posts: 2274
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: Killer Bee
  • Offense: Wishbone
  • Title: Head Coach
Re: Series based play calling
« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2017, 12:29:36 PM »
Run your core plays and change formation to see how D adjusts. One series can do everything you need.
The greatest accomplishment is not in never failing, but in rising again after you fail.

Offline PSLCOACHROB

  • Moderator
  • Diamond
  • Posts: 11364
  • Coaching: 14 & Under
  • Defense: 5-3
  • Offense: Multiple
  • Title: Positions
Re: Series based play calling
« Reply #2 on: May 16, 2017, 12:31:15 PM »
For us, if we thought changing to a totally different formation could gain an advantage during a series we would do it. We ran super hurry up so it often did. The issue with that is we had a bunch of personnel groupings that were formation based. Our spread guys were usually a different set of players from our sw guys. But dw and sw were almost always the same group. Sometimes we would change system because after using a few different tags or plays it was decided a different formation would better work for the defense we were facing. If we couldn't block a teams backers we got out of dw and went spread to formation those guys out for example.

For doing it throughout a game it was about getting kids plays to a large extent. Our best 11 started defense no matter what. We would do some subbing on defense but very little. We could put guys in position to succeed easier on offense and some offenses are better for that than others. We never "hid" mpr types at wr so we had to be a little more creative and actually coach up those guys. Again, we ran the different formations with personnel groupings. Never did we have an offense on the field that was solely consisting of mpr types. We had a few in each offensive set except the best 11 set for when we really needed to win a game. And honestly, that group probably wasn't as good as the other starter groups simply because they didn't get the same amount of reps. But some games we would primarily stay sw or dw. We could still work everybody in (the beauty of wrist bands and similar blocking schemes) to get their plays it just might take a little longer. If we found something that worked we stuck with it though. No reason to get out of sw if they can't stop it.

Offline PSLCOACHROB

  • Moderator
  • Diamond
  • Posts: 11364
  • Coaching: 14 & Under
  • Defense: 5-3
  • Offense: Multiple
  • Title: Positions
Re: Series based play calling
« Reply #3 on: May 16, 2017, 12:41:25 PM »
Run your core plays and change formation to see how D adjusts. One series can do everything you need.
It can if you have the right tags installed and you execute flawlessly or at least very well. Then it becomes all about execution. I just like having more up my sleeve. I remember the first two years we were at nationals NOBODY else ran super hurry up. Back then a bunch of stuff we did was contrarian and everybody said it couldn't be done. Now half the teams at nationals run hurry up. Much of what we did people here still say is a bad idea. Well, ok, it won us two NCs and almost two on top of that so what we did can't be that wrong. I'm not saying running more is better or worse. I'm just saying that the nay sayers simply say nay because they haven't seen it done well, don't know how to do it themselves or have had success with doing it another way and don't have a reason to change. If you look at Clark's offense you will see it is designed to actually run dozens of plays and a bunch of series. Cisar is the same to some extent. It can be done, it just needs to be well thought out, SUPER organized and your practice has to be extremely effective.

Offline angalton

  • Silver
  • Posts: 2274
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: Killer Bee
  • Offense: Wishbone
  • Title: Head Coach
Re: Series based play calling
« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2017, 02:08:32 PM »
It can if you have the right tags installed and you execute flawlessly or at least very well. Then it becomes all about execution. I just like having more up my sleeve. I remember the first two years we were at nationals NOBODY else ran super hurry up. Back then a bunch of stuff we did was contrarian and everybody said it couldn't be done. Now half the teams at nationals run hurry up. Much of what we did people here still say is a bad idea. Well, ok, it won us two NCs and almost two on top of that so what we did can't be that wrong. I'm not saying running more is better or worse. I'm just saying that the nay sayers simply say nay because they haven't seen it done well, don't know how to do it themselves or have had success with doing it another way and don't have a reason to change. If you look at Clark's offense you will see it is designed to actually run dozens of plays and a bunch of series. Cisar is the same to some extent. It can be done, it just needs to be well thought out, SUPER organized and your practice has to be extremely effective.

I think it was how the question was phrased, that made me respond like I did. I will run smash, blast, and dive series with the same blocking scheme. The pitch in the dive series and P/A passes are blocked different. Everything is situational. I may see trap play open up for me, but if I am leading, I may hold off from using it. It's hard to really know until you are in the game. If I am leading big or getting trounced, I may work on more of my offense  in the game.
The greatest accomplishment is not in never failing, but in rising again after you fail.

Offline PSLCOACHROB

  • Moderator
  • Diamond
  • Posts: 11364
  • Coaching: 14 & Under
  • Defense: 5-3
  • Offense: Multiple
  • Title: Positions
Re: Series based play calling
« Reply #5 on: May 16, 2017, 02:40:56 PM »
I think it was how the question was phrased, that made me respond like I did. I will run smash, blast, and dive series with the same blocking scheme. The pitch in the dive series and P/A passes are blocked different. Everything is situational. I may see trap play open up for me, but if I am leading, I may hold off from using it. It's hard to really know until you are in the game. If I am leading big or getting trounced, I may work on more of my offense  in the game.
And I'm not saying that your answer was wrong. Just different. I think you can over due complexity and simplicity. Many youth coaches that subscribe to the run 5 plays theory and stress execution don't have answers to problems the defense creates. Like Joe always says "You always have to have an answer. It doesn't have to be the right answer but you have to have an answer." So if you subscribe to the simplicity through execution philosophy you still need answers. Just try it again or run one of our other 3 plays isn't going to always cut it. People will now insert DLS when they read that statement. Well, DLS does have answers and they run an option offense. Option is a whole other monster and NO youth coach will ever be in a situation to even approach the level of execution of DLS so nobody go there. It just is not a fair comparison. Don't compare maybe the best hs program in the history of football to any youth squad.

Offline BigHatJack

  • Copper
  • Posts: 27
  • Coaching: 10 & Under
  • Defense: 3-3 Stack
  • Offense: Single Wing
  • Title: Head Coach
Re: Series based play calling
« Reply #6 on: May 16, 2017, 03:49:56 PM »
I was wondering if anyone does something like this:

Series 1: Stick to the base power series.
Series 2: Run only plays from the spin series.
Series 3: Run only plays from the spread series.

Before the offense takes the field, telling the team we are running spin down the field until they are dizzy. Then running hurry-up, but the offense knows it's all spin until otherwise changed. The series listed above are just examples and would be based on information gained from the previous drives.

Offline parone

  • Bronze
  • Posts: 749
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: 10-1
  • Offense: Single Wing
  • Title: Other
Re: Series based play calling
« Reply #7 on: May 16, 2017, 03:50:07 PM »
we only had a few plays(6 i think)

but we had very simple formational variants(nasty split, end over, and backfield variants) that were only adjustments for one or two players, but gave us different looks/advantages/ways to block those plays-in case the defense was able to stop us.

this was an attempt to keep it simple for almost everyone, but still have something to counter failure on game day.
Dream Big.  Work Hard. Stay Humble.

Offline PSLCOACHROB

  • Moderator
  • Diamond
  • Posts: 11364
  • Coaching: 14 & Under
  • Defense: 5-3
  • Offense: Multiple
  • Title: Positions
Re: Series based play calling
« Reply #8 on: May 16, 2017, 04:41:29 PM »
I was wondering if anyone does something like this:

Series 1: Stick to the base power series.
Series 2: Run only plays from the spin series.
Series 3: Run only plays from the spread series.

Before the offense takes the field, telling the team we are running spin down the field until they are dizzy. Then running hurry-up, but the offense knows it's all spin until otherwise changed. The series listed above are just examples and would be based on information gained from the previous drives.
Series work when you stick to them. You can mix in a few series together but you need to establish the base plays first. So we would almost always start off in a base seies. Whatever our b&b was. Then we could introduce say the spinner base plays. Then we would run plays from both series. I would think most coaches probably stick to a series each series. I think to open the game, the first couple of drives you can do what you say but then you can start mixing it up some. Or not.

Offline Coach Correa

  • Silver
  • Posts: 1252
  • Loved by few but Respected by All
    • generalgridiron.com
  • Coaching: 14 & Under
  • Defense: 5-3
  • Offense: Wing T
  • Title: Head Coach
Re: Series based play calling
« Reply #9 on: May 16, 2017, 07:15:43 PM »
Series work when you stick to them. You can mix in a few series together but you need to establish the base plays first. So we would almost always start off in a base seies. Whatever our b&b was. Then we could introduce say the spinner base plays. Then we would run plays from both series. I would think most coaches probably stick to a series each series. I think to open the game, the first couple of drives you can do what you say but then you can start mixing it up some. Or not.
Great explanation  Bro can't be said any easier than that.
Head Coach Tito Correa
Danbury Hatters 14-U
Offense-Hybrid Wing
Defense-M-50-Stack

Offline CoachParker

  • Copper
  • Posts: 80
  • Play for Fun and Winning is Funner!
    • Youth Football Coaching Tips, Talk & Plays
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: Wide Tackle 6
  • Offense: Multiple
  • Title: Assistant
Re: Series based play calling
« Reply #10 on: June 25, 2017, 09:48:36 AM »
I usually run three formations that are short yardage, mid yardage and Wide / Sweep.  I love multiple formations with similar plays and several blocking calls to throw off the Defense adjustments.  I will also have a few plays that are opponent specific based on scouting.  I will either save opponent specific plays for the second series or first series of second half. 

For me I usually run Beast Tight / Wide as a short yardage formation, what I call a Beast Fat or Pie quasi dw / sw for mid yardage and a Off-set I with crack motion for sweeps and Beast Jumbo Trips for sweep option passing.  But every formation has a complete series of plays too; short, med and sweeps but use the formations to their strengths.  This way if I am in Beast Tight I can catch them adjusted tight and run a wide sweep or counter or pass.

I will usually stick to one formation the first series and if that is not working move to another and test the waters with the Multiples to test out the Defense.  Just this past season, one opponent adjusted well in the second half to the Beast Fat and I went to a Trig or Diamond formation and that change threw them off for a series and then I went back to Fat after we scored with the Diamond series.

I have found over the 20+ seasons coaching tackle youth football that when you play really good teams one formation seldom works to get to the playoffs and Super Bowl, consistently.  Just my opinion.

Hope this helps,
Parker




How do you all approach implementing different series during a game? Do you stick to a SW series of plays for an entire drive or jump around and call any play from any formation and any series at any time?
Coach Parker
CoachParker.org
Fort Worth , Texas
Power Wing Beast Offense
62 Multi 8 Defense

Offline Prodigy

  • Silver
  • Posts: 2281
  • Banned
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: Undecided
  • Offense: Undecided
  • Title: Other
Re: Series based play calling
« Reply #11 on: June 25, 2017, 07:11:19 PM »
My first year as a head coach I ran Dave Cisars UBSW.  We ran the sainted six or whatever they were and I also fell in love with the spinner series and had my heart set on installing it, whether we needed it or not.  We did really well for the first half of the season and the second half, not so well.  Spinner didn't buy us anything at all.  Our backs started really stinking at blocking and I figured an easy way of addressing this would be to go into "super" where you come out in a trips look.  That didn't help the situation one bit.

Quite a bit has happened since that first season and I eventually gave up on the UBSW and moved to the double wing.  We're able to hit everywhere on the field and create the matchups we want with only a handful of plays.  That hasn't stopped me from wanting to install other stuff, I looked at belly, I looked at midline...I guess I just wanted to tinker. 

I spoke with Coach Dave Potter about midline and he asked what I had hoped to accomplish that I couldn't do with my base double wing.  I didn't have a solid answer for him and felt like a nitwit and have since given up on tinkering and have focused more energy on running what we have...better.

When I look at our film, out of a possible 11 points for 11 players doing everything correctly on a given play, we're probably averaging something like 3 or 4.  We're physical enough and violent enough that we steamroll the teams we play against...but I'm always working towards that 11 for 11.  Something to think about.  Think about why you want to run another series, can you accomplish the same thing within your base series with adjustments or tags?  Does the new series attack an area of the field in a way that your base doesn't?

When it comes to the UBSW, it's not a bad offense but for me it had shortcomings.  You've got the plays that always hit the heavy side and you've got plays that always hit the short side.  In the base power series, you've got your trap off of your blocking back to the short side and your reverse to your wingback on the short side.  Your strong / heavy side is halfback to the 6 and halfback sweep...then your wedges.  It's really 100% smashmouth with next to no deception.  If the team you're playing against is more smashmouth than you are, you're pretty much done for...so it's almost a necessity to run something extra that includes some level of deception, like spinner...But the spinner is SLOW and that short side of the formation is a weak link in the armor (IMHO). 

If you show up for a fair fight, you are unprepared.

Offline Bob Goodman

  • Platinum
  • Posts: 8748
  • Coaching: 9 & Under
  • Defense: 5-3
  • Offense: Wing T
  • Title: Assistant
Re: Series based play calling
« Reply #12 on: June 26, 2017, 09:59:33 AM »
Sorry to quote the whole thing, also sorry the format here doesn't allow a subthread to be broken out.  I could change the subject line, but I don't even know what to change it to.  There's just so much in UCS's post.
My first year as a head coach I ran Dave Cisars UBSW.  We ran the sainted six or whatever they were and I also fell in love with the spinner series and had my heart set on installing it, whether we needed it or not.  We did really well for the first half of the season and the second half, not so well.  Spinner didn't buy us anything at all.  Our backs started really stinking at blocking
Do you have any idea why they changed that way?  That observation really sticks out.  Ordinarily I'd think that means they needed to work again on their skills, not change the system, but I wonder whether there was something that made them worse mid-season.  Maybe the other teams just kept improving their skills in beating blocks.  I'd like to see your ideas.
Quote
and I figured an easy way of addressing this would be to go into "super" where you come out in a trips look.  That didn't help the situation one bit.

Quite a bit has happened since that first season and I eventually gave up on the UBSW and moved to the double wing.  We're able to hit everywhere on the field and create the matchups we want with only a handful of plays.
A Markham-style DW: handed snap, sniffer back, super power pulling for toss?
Quote
That hasn't stopped me from wanting to install other stuff, I looked at belly, I looked at midline...I guess I just wanted to tinker. 

I spoke with Coach Dave Potter about midline and he asked what I had hoped to accomplish that I couldn't do with my base double wing.  I didn't have a solid answer for him and felt like a nitwit and have since given up on tinkering and have focused more energy on running what we have...better.

When I look at our film, out of a possible 11 points for 11 players doing everything correctly on a given play, we're probably averaging something like 3 or 4.
Is it the same 3 or 4, or do different players misexecute on diferent downs?  Was there a pattern as to who misexecuted on which type of play?
Quote
We're physical enough and violent enough that we steamroll the teams we play against...but I'm always working towards that 11 for 11.  Something to think about.  Think about why you want to run another series, can you accomplish the same thing within your base series with adjustments or tags?  Does the new series attack an area of the field in a way that your base doesn't?

When it comes to the UBSW, it's not a bad offense but for me it had shortcomings.  You've got the plays that always hit the heavy side and you've got plays that always hit the short side.  In the base power series, you've got your trap off of your blocking back to the short side and your reverse to your wingback on the short side.  Your strong / heavy side is halfback to the 6 and halfback sweep...then your wedges.  It's really 100% smashmouth with next to no deception.  If the team you're playing against is more smashmouth than you are, you're pretty much done for...so it's almost a necessity to run something extra that includes some level of deception, like spinner...But the spinner is SLOW and that short side of the formation is a weak link in the armor (IMHO).
Dave Cisar's system is optimized to go with the presence of some minimum play players.  Do you have players at certain positions you'd consider scrubs?  (This goes together with the previous question about who's misexecuting.)  So I'll point out that there are other UBSW systems, including some with plays that hit quick to the weak/short side, but also that if you have the players to be effective at a Markham-style DW, you may not need to have a weak side.  OTOH, it's hard for me to imagine a Markham-style DW as being effective with only 3 or 4 players per down on average executing properly, because it's not a very forgiving system.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 10:02:26 AM by Bob Goodman »

Offline Prodigy

  • Silver
  • Posts: 2281
  • Banned
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: Undecided
  • Offense: Undecided
  • Title: Other
Re: Series based play calling
« Reply #13 on: June 26, 2017, 11:56:17 AM »
Coach BG-

Remembering that it's been many years since that first year as a header...I suppose that our backs were never really blocking extremely well.  They did what I coached them to do based on my level of experience at the time.  We won several games and I mistakenly thought we were doing well and didn't hold them accountable for bad blocking, nor did I spend enough time working on blocking.  I let the wins hide our need to improve and fix mistakes.  It became more evident later on in the season when teams had a better idea of what we were doing.  I do agree that we needed to work on our skills and not change the system.

SUPER:  Cisars base is HB & FB foot to foot splitting the snapper in half. Direct snap  They are in a crouched position to keep the snap low and also to hide from the defense.  Sniffer back is aligned between the RG and RT in a 3 point stance and then you have a wing on the right 1x1 yard at a 45 degree angle.  In super, the FB, Sniffer (BB) and WB line up playside basically on top of the guys they are blocking.  Many teams think it's going to be a pass play.  The theory on super is that it's supposed to make it easier for the backs to get to their blocks, which is why I tried this later on in the season...figuring maybe if I made it easier for them to FIND their blocks that they could execute them better...it didn't help much.

Missed execution:  It's not a single player who is consistently messing something up.  If that were the case, we'd fix that player or those couple of players and move on.  It's more like, periodically our end will block out instead of down.  Our entire offensive line will "hit and forget", where they aren't sticking to their blocks, they'll rubberneck the play and chase the ball carrier down the field not bothering to hit anyone else along the way.

What I want and what I get are two different things.  I'm always working towards what I want.  Coach Bob Lad' from De La Salle calls this "chasing perfection".  What I want on every play is 100%, I want my offensive line pancaking every defender, if they aren't pancaking them, I want them stuck to the defender like they are inseparable  and I want them smashing the crap out of the defender until well after the whistle.  If you pancake your man, I want you running down the field finding someone else to smash the crap out of, whether they are near to the play or far from the play.  I want hitters.

When I ran Cisars UBSW, I utilized his plan for the MPR kids and rotated them into the short-side of the formation.  The basic premise of that offense is to run away from the short side...so the two MPR kids playing left guard and left end could basically not even be on the field.  You're playing a game of 9 vs. 11...by no means am I knocking the UBSW or Cisar, I recommend his book constantly to people because I feel there's so much knowledge in that book and his videos that spending the money on them is going to put ANY beginning coach well ahead in the game.  I had the pleasure of seeing Jim Sansone's team "Black Knights" whip the living crap out of our 8th graders.  Jim Sansone is referenced in Cisars book.  He had a select team and they executed the UBSW to near perfection.  They had been running it for years and there was no stopping them...I won plenty of games with the UBSW and it's a solid system...so why did I move away from it?

I gave up on the UBSW because I felt the teams we were playing against, were more smashmouth than we were.  I looked at the double wing and I had a group of guys telling me to run it.  The double wing is more balanced and more deceptive than the UBSW.  Not only that but the TOSS puts MORE blockers at the POA (specifically to the second level) than the UBSW does...yes I was surprised to discover this myself. 

Yes the DTDW has more personnel (coaching?) requirements than the UBSW.  All of my linemen need to know how to pull, how to cut, how to down block and how to wedge.  But here's what's really beautiful about the DTDW when compared to the single wing: we can hit any area on the field from the same look, without motion or with motion and it's basically blocked the same regardless of where we are hitting.

With the UBSW if you want to run off-tackle in both directions, you're flipping.  Any defensive coach worth his salt is going to account for your strength.  We can attack both directions in a multitude of ways and create the matchups that we want with the play-call, on the line.  My backs have their own characteristics as do members of the offensive line.  Normal toss right, my "A BACK" is getting the ball, right side of the line is blocking down and left side of the line is pulling.  I can run a cutback with my A-back where the left side of the line is down blocking and the right side of the line is pulling...you can't do this sort of stuff with the UBSW...it works well for us.
If you show up for a fair fight, you are unprepared.

Offline davecisar

  • Platinum
  • Posts: 8563
    • Winning Youth Football Coaching Site
  • Coaching: 12 & Under
  • Defense: Wide Tackle 6
  • Offense: Single Wing
Re: Series based play calling
« Reply #14 on: June 26, 2017, 12:36:32 PM »
Coach BG-

Remembering that it's been many years since that first year as a header...I suppose that our backs were never really blocking extremely well.  They did what I coached them to do based on my level of experience at the time.  We won several games and I mistakenly thought we were doing well and didn't hold them accountable for bad blocking, nor did I spend enough time working on blocking.  I let the wins hide our need to improve and fix mistakes.  It became more evident later on in the season when teams had a better idea of what we were doing.  I do agree that we needed to work on our skills and not change the system.

SUPER:  Cisars base is HB & FB foot to foot splitting the snapper in half. Direct snap  They are in a crouched position to keep the snap low and also to hide from the defense.  Sniffer back is aligned between the RG and RT in a 3 point stance and then you have a wing on the right 1x1 yard at a 45 degree angle.  In super, the FB, Sniffer (BB) and WB line up playside basically on top of the guys they are blocking.  Many teams think it's going to be a pass play.  The theory on super is that it's supposed to make it easier for the backs to get to their blocks, which is why I tried this later on in the season...figuring maybe if I made it easier for them to FIND their blocks that they could execute them better...it didn't help much.

Missed execution:  It's not a single player who is consistently messing something up.  If that were the case, we'd fix that player or those couple of players and move on.  It's more like, periodically our end will block out instead of down.  Our entire offensive line will "hit and forget", where they aren't sticking to their blocks, they'll rubberneck the play and chase the ball carrier down the field not bothering to hit anyone else along the way.

What I want and what I get are two different things.  I'm always working towards what I want.  Coach Bob Lad' from De La Salle calls this "chasing perfection".  What I want on every play is 100%, I want my offensive line pancaking every defender, if they aren't pancaking them, I want them stuck to the defender like they are inseparable  and I want them smashing the crap out of the defender until well after the whistle.  If you pancake your man, I want you running down the field finding someone else to smash the crap out of, whether they are near to the play or far from the play.  I want hitters.

When I ran Cisars UBSW, I utilized his plan for the MPR kids and rotated them into the short-side of the formation.  The basic premise of that offense is to run away from the short side...so the two MPR kids playing left guard and left end could basically not even be on the field.  You're playing a game of 9 vs. 11...by no means am I knocking the UBSW or Cisar, I recommend his book constantly to people because I feel there's so much knowledge in that book and his videos that spending the money on them is going to put ANY beginning coach well ahead in the game.  I had the pleasure of seeing Jim Sansone's team "Black Knights" whip the living crap out of our 8th graders.  Jim Sansone is referenced in Cisars book.  He had a select team and they executed the UBSW to near perfection.  They had been running it for years and there was no stopping them...I won plenty of games with the UBSW and it's a solid system...so why did I move away from it?

I gave up on the UBSW because I felt the teams we were playing against, were more smashmouth than we were.  I looked at the double wing and I had a group of guys telling me to run it.  The double wing is more balanced and more deceptive than the UBSW.  Not only that but the TOSS puts MORE blockers at the POA (specifically to the second level) than the UBSW does...yes I was surprised to discover this myself. 

Yes the DTDW has more personnel (coaching?) requirements than the UBSW.  All of my linemen need to know how to pull, how to cut, how to down block and how to wedge.  But here's what's really beautiful about the DTDW when compared to the single wing: we can hit any area on the field from the same look, without motion or with motion and it's basically blocked the same regardless of where we are hitting.

With the UBSW if you want to run off-tackle in both directions, you're flipping.  Any defensive coach worth his salt is going to account for your strength.  We can attack both directions in a multitude of ways and create the matchups that we want with the play-call, on the line.  My backs have their own characteristics as do members of the offensive line.  Normal toss right, my "A BACK" is getting the ball, right side of the line is blocking down and left side of the line is pulling.  I can run a cutback with my A-back where the left side of the line is down blocking and the right side of the line is pulling...you can't do this sort of stuff with the UBSW...it works well for us.

A lot of this is wrong

First off- we NEVER have told anyone to put MPRs at both LG and LE
The LE is an MPR postion with at least 1 ringer

LG is NOT an MPR he is a starter
BUT your best Linemen are as follows:
RG
PT
C/RT
RE- athlete- usually a backup RB
LG- Legit lineman- starter
LE- rotate MPRs

We do NOT teach a deep crouched position- fingertips to ground

We NEVER have our sniffer in a 3 point, we want him to be ready to take a snap. - Weve never had him in a 3 point
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.

Winston Churchill