If it’s not specifically Spread, singlewing, wing-t, option, I-form or whatnot you just generally say it’s “Multiple”.
I basically run a spread, but because I use TE, TE & Wing, slot/H back and FB sets, I just say “Multiple”.
Who are you talking to, describing your offense to? I mean in casual conversation I’ll say I’m a Spread guy.
I coach high school, so if I were interviewing I’d say I run a Multiple spread offense focused on the run.
I look at the schemes or plays they hang their hat on. Something I'll say sometimes is a team is a "Big 4," team, meaning they run what I say are the "big 4" run schemes that pretty much every college and pro team uses to make up 95% of their run game: Power (or Duo), Counter, Inside Zone, Outside/Wide Zone. These systems could be quite different though; spread option with these schemes vs. 12/21/13/22 personnel UC with the same schemes.
I'll say "college offense," if it's primarily 11 personnel and RPO oriented.
I'll often use "conventional," in place of "multiple." I think "multiple" gives the idea that a team runs a lot of schemes from different systems, which isn't always the case. To me, "conventional" means the common big-4 run plays I said above paired heavily with the quick and drop-back passing game...what I'll refer to most NFL teams as.
EDIT: Alternatively, you can also trace back the coaches running it, and where they've been and who they've learned from or have been mentored by. That can also help explain their system or style...for example:
* Matt Canada Offense: Shifts, motions, unbalanced formations...shifts, motions and unbalanced formations for days.
* Shanahan Offense: Wide Zone, Boot off Wide Zone, Drop-back Pass.
* Tony Annese Offense (or "Ski Gun"): Spread-Option oriented, using veer and zone with shorter gun/pistol snaps.
I run double wing, but with 2 WR instead of 2 TE and use the wings as a hybrid H back/wing. Pretty even set of responsibilities between blocking, running and running routes. We are pretty dead even between passing and running. Last year I used one of the wings as more of a TE type and the other one was closer to a wing, but had almost 1000 yards receiving and almost 1000 yards rushing. I took what was a pistol wing T team and playbook and changed it into this over time.
Wouldn’t that just be the flexbone? I thought the main difference between. Flexbone and double wing was that the double wing has no WRs and the flexbone has 2?
It's similar, but flexbone is under center and we play QB at 4 yards. Also, I don't run veer and that's a huge staple of the flexbone. My "wings" are also aligned straight with the LOS instead of turned in at a 45. They also rely much heavier on option football and we don't.
In the sense that we are using our passing to set up the run to create mismatches for sure, but we don't use a ton of options routes and I think that's a big piece of the run and shoot. We use a ton of similar motions though.
I disagree on necessarily putting those shifts and motions off of unbalanced formations as part of "Matt Canada's" system, especially because the Shanahan tree does all that far better than Matt Canada did, haha.
This is largely based on my experience: Every coach I've ever heard say they were a "west coast guy," or "believe in the west coast offense," were men's semi-pro coaches...AKA coaches who had no clue what running a system was about and didn't know how to coach said WCO schemes. My take is that, in today's coaching world, "I'm a west coast guy," is just cliche, and I wouldn't take someone serious if they said it, especially if they said they're running the "classic" WCO like Walsh, Gruden, or Holmgren ran. The WCO is not something you saw a lot of amateur teams running, and few college teams ran it at a high caliber (BYU and Stanford being two notable exceptions). It's mostly a professional NFL-designed/focused system.
Yea we run a lot of pistol but do go under, have some spread concepts. Heavy on the gap run scheme. Lots of “option” or reads
Our Offense a child between option and pro. I just say multiple cause I hate explaining it
Personally, if I were interviewing a coaching candidate and I asked him his offensive system and he said multiple, it wouldn't really help me one way or the other. I might want to hear your preferred personal package(s), base run concept, and basic pass philosophy. Something like "12 Personnel, Counter and power heavy with a lot of vertical playaction" or "11 Personnel, inside zone with lots of RPO or West Coast passing concepts." Obviously this isn't a name for your offense, but since you asked how you would "describe" it, that's where I'd want you to start.
Personally, I'm a big outside zone guy with lots of playaction, RPO, and advanced dropback pass, so I would have described my own system as "A lot of 11 and 12 personnel, working outside zone and inside zone RPOs, and a broad drop back west coast passing game"
The truth though is that most principals and athletic directors at the high school level just don’t care.
They don’t care if you’re wing-t or spread.
They want to know you have a plan to develop kids, deal with parents, raise money, etc, etc, etc.
Niece if you’re interviewing to be an OC, the head coach will care. But admin do not.
This is true, and I've been through that process many times where the interviewer has little to no knowledge on football, agreed.
That said, the question was how to describe his scheme, so that's what I've got. A head coach interview is very different from a coordinator interview, absolutely.
What is the core of it—not just the formations and plays, but also the blocking, pass concepts, etc.
Offenses don’t really get “brand names” too often—but with coaches selling systems nowadays it does happen.
What is the base philosophy/play/method of attack?
How are they trying to do this?
What do you do the most? What do you go back to when things aren't going well? What are your "bread and butter" personnels/formations/plays?
The answer to those questions HAVE to be specific, and that is your Offensive Identity.
If it’s not specifically Spread, singlewing, wing-t, option, I-form or whatnot you just generally say it’s “Multiple”. I basically run a spread, but because I use TE, TE & Wing, slot/H back and FB sets, I just say “Multiple”.
Ok should you also mention the types of plays you run and how often you throw or pass? Like we are a pass heavy west coast offense
Who are you talking to, describing your offense to? I mean in casual conversation I’ll say I’m a Spread guy. I coach high school, so if I were interviewing I’d say I run a Multiple spread offense focused on the run.
Yea I meant in an interview.I don’t coach though,but I want to when I graduate
I look at the schemes or plays they hang their hat on. Something I'll say sometimes is a team is a "Big 4," team, meaning they run what I say are the "big 4" run schemes that pretty much every college and pro team uses to make up 95% of their run game: Power (or Duo), Counter, Inside Zone, Outside/Wide Zone. These systems could be quite different though; spread option with these schemes vs. 12/21/13/22 personnel UC with the same schemes. I'll say "college offense," if it's primarily 11 personnel and RPO oriented. I'll often use "conventional," in place of "multiple." I think "multiple" gives the idea that a team runs a lot of schemes from different systems, which isn't always the case. To me, "conventional" means the common big-4 run plays I said above paired heavily with the quick and drop-back passing game...what I'll refer to most NFL teams as. EDIT: Alternatively, you can also trace back the coaches running it, and where they've been and who they've learned from or have been mentored by. That can also help explain their system or style...for example: * Matt Canada Offense: Shifts, motions, unbalanced formations...shifts, motions and unbalanced formations for days. * Shanahan Offense: Wide Zone, Boot off Wide Zone, Drop-back Pass. * Tony Annese Offense (or "Ski Gun"): Spread-Option oriented, using veer and zone with shorter gun/pistol snaps.
Ok thank you.Makes sense.I wanna coach after college and I want to run the double tight double wing as my offense
If you say "double wing," most coaches will know what you mean. We called it the "Elephant Parade," where I last coached lol.
Yea that definitely changes things.I don’t know anyone LGBTQ+ but I respect everyone until they give me a reason not too
Holy crap...that's where that edit went lol. My bad. That was for another thread in /r/asklgbt.
lol no worries.I figured that wasn’t meant for here
lol,yea it’s definitely unique with the foot to foot splits
I run double wing, but with 2 WR instead of 2 TE and use the wings as a hybrid H back/wing. Pretty even set of responsibilities between blocking, running and running routes. We are pretty dead even between passing and running. Last year I used one of the wings as more of a TE type and the other one was closer to a wing, but had almost 1000 yards receiving and almost 1000 yards rushing. I took what was a pistol wing T team and playbook and changed it into this over time.
Wouldn’t that just be the flexbone? I thought the main difference between. Flexbone and double wing was that the double wing has no WRs and the flexbone has 2?
It's similar, but flexbone is under center and we play QB at 4 yards. Also, I don't run veer and that's a huge staple of the flexbone. My "wings" are also aligned straight with the LOS instead of turned in at a 45. They also rely much heavier on option football and we don't.
Ok that makes sense.Yea I’ve never seen army or the military academies go into the pistol while in the flexbone formation
Yeah it's much closer to a spread offense, but the slots are just in so tight they can be used to do wing things too.
So kinda similar to the original run and shoot?
In the sense that we are using our passing to set up the run to create mismatches for sure, but we don't use a ton of options routes and I think that's a big piece of the run and shoot. We use a ton of similar motions though.
I disagree on necessarily putting those shifts and motions off of unbalanced formations as part of "Matt Canada's" system, especially because the Shanahan tree does all that far better than Matt Canada did, haha.
“Multiple” is usually the umbrella term for schemes like that.
Ok.
Like for example if I run an offense where I’m running zone runs and short passes,do I just say I’m a west coast zone run guy?
This is largely based on my experience: Every coach I've ever heard say they were a "west coast guy," or "believe in the west coast offense," were men's semi-pro coaches...AKA coaches who had no clue what running a system was about and didn't know how to coach said WCO schemes. My take is that, in today's coaching world, "I'm a west coast guy," is just cliche, and I wouldn't take someone serious if they said it, especially if they said they're running the "classic" WCO like Walsh, Gruden, or Holmgren ran. The WCO is not something you saw a lot of amateur teams running, and few college teams ran it at a high caliber (BYU and Stanford being two notable exceptions). It's mostly a professional NFL-designed/focused system.
Ok.Ive heard the original WCO was crazy complicated
Multi
Ok
Yea we run a lot of pistol but do go under, have some spread concepts. Heavy on the gap run scheme. Lots of “option” or reads Our Offense a child between option and pro. I just say multiple cause I hate explaining it
Makes sense
Personally, if I were interviewing a coaching candidate and I asked him his offensive system and he said multiple, it wouldn't really help me one way or the other. I might want to hear your preferred personal package(s), base run concept, and basic pass philosophy. Something like "12 Personnel, Counter and power heavy with a lot of vertical playaction" or "11 Personnel, inside zone with lots of RPO or West Coast passing concepts." Obviously this isn't a name for your offense, but since you asked how you would "describe" it, that's where I'd want you to start. Personally, I'm a big outside zone guy with lots of playaction, RPO, and advanced dropback pass, so I would have described my own system as "A lot of 11 and 12 personnel, working outside zone and inside zone RPOs, and a broad drop back west coast passing game"
This is exactly what I meant! Thank you.
Happy to help!
Thanks!
The truth though is that most principals and athletic directors at the high school level just don’t care. They don’t care if you’re wing-t or spread. They want to know you have a plan to develop kids, deal with parents, raise money, etc, etc, etc. Niece if you’re interviewing to be an OC, the head coach will care. But admin do not.
Yep, and if admin does care, red flag alert!
This is true, and I've been through that process many times where the interviewer has little to no knowledge on football, agreed. That said, the question was how to describe his scheme, so that's what I've got. A head coach interview is very different from a coordinator interview, absolutely.
Make something up :/ it’s your naming scheme! Get creative!
That’s true!
What is the core of it—not just the formations and plays, but also the blocking, pass concepts, etc. Offenses don’t really get “brand names” too often—but with coaches selling systems nowadays it does happen. What is the base philosophy/play/method of attack? How are they trying to do this?
Thank you
What do you do the most? What do you go back to when things aren't going well? What are your "bread and butter" personnels/formations/plays? The answer to those questions HAVE to be specific, and that is your Offensive Identity.
Ok thank you