Flexbone books/info??

Stowers has a good book.It covers the basics.I got a couple of good ideas from the book and reinforced alot of things I was already doing.Maybe this is why I am recommending . LOL!!!

Hey,
I was wondering if maybe we could start a converstation about the differences between different wishbone derivatives. Airforce flexbone, Wofford wingbone, Navy/GaSo spread option, true wishbone and any other derivative (Colorado I-bone?) that may come up. I am a true amature, but as I read manuals and see articles on line, there seem to be differences in the philosophies used. ie, some spread option teams use some run and shoot. Flexbone seems to be more wedded to pure wishbone philosophy in the passing game, Wofford's offense is a flex + wing-t.
Greg B

This is completely useless, but this is my impression of each derivative of the wishbone you mentioned:

Air Force- Air Force was a true wishbone team, but decided to make their offense more "flexible" (hence the name flexbone). Over the last few years, it seems they've become too flexible, and have gotten away from the core running plays that their system is built on. They spent more time in the I in 03 than some I teams do. Their brand of option football is built around a lot of double option and some midline. They still run the triple, but not as much as they used to. Air Force uses a front recognition system to determine reads and perimeter blocking.

Navy/GaSouth- The Paul Johnson system (make no mistake....it's HIS system) is unique in the position of the B-back (fullback). He's not a typical fullback unless they have a prototype (see Kyle Eckel). He's typically a thick tailback who can handle the beating it takes to run between the tackles. They use a tailback because a) they like to use the B-back as a pitchback on some options b) His depth is deeper than the traditional wishbone fullback, needs to be quicker to get to the mesh on time c) they zone block the triple and ask the B-back to read and cut on the run, even on the triple (ex, vs ODD defense, the B-back reads the NG, vs. even, he reads the DT). They also typically don't use a tight end, although they did a lot more of that at Navy this year. Johnson uses a 1-2-3, inside-out count system to determine reads and perimeter blocking.


True Wishbone- When you say wishbone, everyone thinks of it a different way. Are we talking about the old Texas wishbone, based on power football, or the Oklahoma-style that is based on speed? The wishbone is the grandaddy because Bellard/Royal wanted a formation to run the triple option from that wasn't predicated on the threat of a passing game, as the Split Back Veer was considered to be. They came up with a 3-back attack specifically designed for one play: the triple option. Everything about the wishbone is conducive to the triple option, from the fullback's tighter alignment, to the relationship between the pitch back and the blocking back, to the split end that prevent the defenses from running the alley with reckless abandon. Only in the last 15-20 years have teams evolved into moving the halfbacks to make their blocks easier, and spread defenses out, but Oklahoma was a dominant force in the 80s running the plain old wishbone. Some time ago, Barry Switzer (I believe) was quoted as saying "if wishbone coaches had stayed committed to the wishbone, or if someone had the guts to run it today, it would be dominant in this era of spread passing, and defensive linemen being coached to run upfield and rush the passer." Common criticisms od the wishbone include the lack of a catch-up passing attack, and inability to spread the defense without breaking formation. True wishbone teams normally use an outside-in count system to determine reads and perimeter blocking.

I-Bone- I'll be the first to admit that I don't know a lot about the I-bone. What I do know is that it was very successful, but didn't stick around very long in D1A football. It was a system that took full advantage of what the I-formation has to offer and option team: your inside runner runs inside, and your outside runner runs outside. The I-bone is different from a normal, 2-back I-formation in that they had a blocking back that could be moved to either side a split second before the snap of the ball. This prevented the offense from being outnumbered to the playside.

Veerbone,

You must have read my mind. I was just wondering "why" Air Force has so drastically changed their option game, formations, etc.,



Text

Does Rice still run any true wishbone or have they broken the bone as well?