Mesh Depth in ride and decide

JT CURTIS MAY GIVE YOU IDEAS BUT COACH..EASTON ...He'll be right here everyday to answer your questions...

CUI

Okay...RIDE AND DECIDE..I coached the RIDE AND DECIDE at Ga. Southern for three years. My thoughts are:

The longer the ride....the more time the QB has to decide..hence the name.

The longer the RIDE the more the defense has to react to the ball in the belly of the FB.

The defense has to tackle the FB....with possibly two defenders( If they are sound) Should be read defender and BSLB. That in itself will keep players from playing FB to QB to Pitch. You want the defense to COMMIT to their responsibilities.

The key to the Ride and decide is to make the defenders hesitate, react, pursue. He who hesitates will never regain the speed to catch up to the ball. At least that is the philosophy.



Deac14

Ga. Southern was a flexbone team.

FB's aiming point is crack of the guard. we also took a 2 ft. split..had a 24in rope to constantly check.

QB can open to 4-4:30 depending on mesh point and will reach ball back to FB..keeping his eyes on the read. He will ride to front foot

I understand the point method by Coach Easton....but with our FB reading the 1st downlineman inside the QB's read...the FB would sometimes bend back....if the QB's momentum is going too much downhill, he'd impinge on the bendback.

Different ways of doing things....if you have a Big Bruising FB.( strictly straight ahead runner..then The point would make sense(IMO)...

The key is not blocking back..so the center would reach, cut and psg would climb to pslb. If center is having trouble then you would have G take a tighter split to help or just check "over" the play to the other side depending on coverage.

Yes, the FB would read the N and possibly bend it back behind the centers block.

I've seen 5 techs that can get their hat in front of FB, so I don't agree that it's an automatic give.....ride and decide

Hey Deac,

Great comments as always. Like you say, different ways to get the job done. To me, running the ISV and the read aligns in a 5 is ABSOLUTELY a give by the QB for a single reason. A DT who aligns in a 5 tech PROVIDED YOU HAVE THE RIGHT FB, SHOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO JAM THE HOLE BEFORE THE DIVE BACK IS THROUGH IT. If he can, then I would get another FB who possess the QUICKNESS AND EXPLOSION TO GET TO THE HOLE. Getting his head across is a definite possibility but a good Veer Dive back running with explosion off the ball and quickness is going to win the battle most of the time, just my opinion as always.

CUI- we always ran the ISV/OSV from the "I" or the bone, never split backs, where of course the FB is directly behind the QB with his knuckes at 4 yds of the ball. I know you have read my posts on the point most dilligently over the last few years and truly feel you are making the right decision by sticking with what you know (ride and decide) and what you are most comfortable with coaching. Deac was an NFL QB, Iwas not, but I did run the veer and will always be of the opinion that the point method is the greatest thing that ever happened to any Qb who runs the option, based on my experience. Guess that's why we have chocolate and vanilla and sometimes if we are lucky we get neopolitan. Different strokes for different folks.

Coach Easton-TIGER ONE

Last year when we faced a 1, 4, and 9 to the play side, our OT had trouble veer releasing to the play side LB. We doubled the 1 with C and G to BS LB, sent the OT to PL LB and either arced the TE to the safety or just had the TE block the 9. The OT would get held up with the 4. This 4 tech was just plain better than our OTs.
I guess the common answer is outside veer?

Yo Deac,

As you say the OT does not have to ALWAYS release inside, but if I had to pick a guy who has the most trouble in answer to your question it would have to be him, especially if he is facing a really good, experienced 4 tech. Just my opinion as always.

Would love to take you fishing, but if you hate it we can have a good dinner somewhere and sit and talk football. In fact, I have a coach coming up from Florida this next week to do just that. Anytime your in the area, just give me a call and we will get together. We just started a friendship right here on the forum and I am looking forward to meeting him in person. Have met a lot of really good men on this forum!

Coach Easton-TIGER ONE

If we outside release the PST, we send the PSG to the playside LB as well in case he's filling hard. Then you have to single the NT, which is fine to me. But, the backside LB can make a mess of the veer if you don't handle him. The BSG on that LB is not a good match up in my opinion.

We're working on a scheme combining midline and veer. Against a 0 tech nose, we will triple the NT and try like heck to get the PST inside. But we're using a midline path and getting in behind that triple team. Should be a long way to go for the 4 tech to get there and we're kind of hiding the diveback behind some big butts. We think it will be good against any odd front, but we think it will be especially good versus the one true 5-2 team we play. The front side LB tries to scrape out for the QB while the 4 tech squeezes. Its a pull read, but we're not able to get a body on that front side LB.

Deac - When you say base block and give to the FB, how would this look vs a shaded nose? I'm assuming the C would base the 1 tech and the PS G would go to PS LB?
Have you ever just blocked an insive veer and had the QB keep and go back side right behind the center's block?
Thanks for the help.

I'm with you. Thanks.
What formations do you like when running the flexbone options vs a 4-4 defense?
I am liking Double TE trips (double tight since that is what our team has this year). If they remove their OLB/SS and keep the other three stacks over the guards and weak TE, midline and ISV to the strong side, with cutback, trap, and counter to keep them from flowing. This is what I am predicting from most of the 4-4's we will see. I think they will roll to a cover two.
If they leave the DL where they are at and slide the LB's over one man, we could really run either way since it is now a 4-3 and they have matched our personnel to each side of the ball.
If they slide everyone over, we are looking at running weak for sure.
I'm not sure we would need any more running plays besides maybe some sprint out and / or toss.
We will throw the dump, 4 verticals, and smash.

Does this sound like enough or too much?

Any other game planning advice would be great. I am the head coach and D coordinator. My OC is great, but this is our first year as a true option team.

We will split the H out about 5 or so yards and motion him in outside the TE often, but that is it.
Iowa
AHST High School
faustc@ahst.k12.ia.us if you'd rather not say anything on here. I am uncomfortable with sharing stuff on the internet, but the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, imo.

Good point Bill. What are your thoughts on running the option from double tights? I have noticed that most flexbone teams don't run double tights. I have seen Colerain and John Curtis use double tights to run the option at times on their DVDS's however. Like I said above, the main reason we will use a lot of double tight is that we have better TE type of bodies rather than good WR types right now.

I can see us using one or no TE's in certain situations, but I would say we throw the ball as much or more than any team in our district and that is only about 30% of the time. As a DC, I am jamming the box and taking chances with the secondary regularly in order to stop the run. We could run 3 WR sets here and still have 8 men near the box regularly. The TE might as well be there as an extra blocker if the defense is going to stack the box anyway, right? Weather plays a huge factor here as the season goes on. With double tights, we have 4 quick receiver threats and we make the defense defend 8 gaps with the option and a running threat at QB. I don't like to see those things when I'm on defense. I think it is also simpler to learn blocking assignments for the OL since they don't have to know the blocking scheme with a TE and without (although I hope we can figure this out as the season goes on). We can run our plays either way out of any formation.
Those are the pros, in my opinion.
Cons of running double tight flexbone option:
-Will probably pull an extra defender into the box compared to the run and shoot type of formation.
-
I'm sure there are more. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. THanks for sending the formations Bill.

Deac or anyone else, what are your thoughts on running the option / flexbone out of double tights? We are going for it no matter what, but maybe by learning of more possible weaknesses I can figure out ways to make up for them.

Bill is right on with his answer of putting four defenders on each side as it places the QB in a bind right now! He is taught to "pick a side" in the option game (which side do we have a NUMBERS advantage on?) and you have taken that choice away by being balanced at all times in the PSL. That being balamced at all times was a major selling point in my switiching to the 4-2-5 base 20 years ago as it keeps the field balanced at all times PROVIDED YOU KEEP THE FS IN THE MOF.

Coach Easton-TIGER ONE