Installing Today’s Hybrid Pistol Offense Run & Pass from Top to Bottom
This manual provides you with the full offensive line, receiver, and quarterback mechanics for installing each offensive play presented. Coach Campbell has left no stone unturned for implementing today’s Pistol Offense into your program.
Guys, looking for some opinions here. I know there is no right or wrong way but which is prefered amongst members of the forum: (A) Numbering offensive plays with a back and hole designation; ie- 28 Sweep 2 back through the 8 hole (B) Numbered series; ie-all TB plays are the 20 series all options are 10 series etc. or (C) Words ie-Veer Right? Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
Wise men talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something.---Plato
Whichever seems to be the easiest for the kids to grasp, and you feel the most comfortable with. My running game, I use numbers. My passing game, I use a combination of numbers for some, words for others. We use words to audiblize, (colors) as well as numbers.
Coach Easton
J.C. EASTON<BR>HEAD COACH<BR>GA TIGERS FOOTBALL<BR>PROFESSIONAL MINOR LEAGUE
Whichever seems to be the easiest for the kids to grasp, and you feel the most comfortable with. My running game, I use numbers. My passing game, I use a combination of numbers for some, words for others. We use words to audiblize, (colors) as well as numbers.
Coach Easton
J.C. EASTON<BR>HEAD COACH<BR>GA TIGERS FOOTBALL<BR>PROFESSIONAL MINOR LEAGUE
I think there are pro's and con's to each. Back-to-hole system is simple, but i feel it runs into problems when you want to start adding counter plays or reverses. Do you number the play according to where the ball is going, or by the play that is the fake? I have coached in a back-to-hole system. Every play was a 2 or 3 digit number with a word. the last digit told the line where the ball was going, and the word told them how to block (trap, iso, power, etc).
In the wing-t plays are in series, and the last digit is the lineman the ball is run over. But again, there are some plays where the backs must remeber that they are faking away from the hole being attacked.
I have seen I-formation coaches number there plays in a series. For example:30's are dive option plays (FB dives over OG, TB is pitch man); 50's are power series (tradtional I-formation iso and power); 40's are Belly series(FB dives over inside leg of OT). The last digit of the 2-dogit call tells the ine the POA and the name gives the blocking.
Last, but not least, I have been around coaches who do not number the plays. They simply call the play by its name and give the direction (iso right, sweep left, counter right). They teach the players the concept of the play (i.e. iso is always run at first LB from OC out). I don't know how or if they audible, but I know that it works for them.
Hope I've helped, or at least given you some food for thought.
Great question, one I'm struggling with a bit in my planning. Superchief covered a lot of it concerning the running game. I've numbered the passing game using a passing tree moving from left to right to call routes, e.g., in a pro set a 432 would be a Post by the X, Shoot by the Y, and curl by the Z. Very flexible, but am I overloading the kids by having them learn all nine routes on the tree? Plus I have to give the line a blocking queue, so it'd be something like 80-432 (80 being 5 step or gun BOB). I'm wondering if this year it'd be better to name patterns, like Wildcat for the Kentucky Mesh, Gangster for the R&S Slide, Sledge for the Smash combo, etc. That would be great for no huddle or hurry up, but I never had a situation last year where a hurry up would have really helped.
I do recall my 9th grade coach did something that worked: Dive right or left, Student Body R or L, Wing Trap R or L, Pass 1 R or L, etc. and it worked fine. I think about that sometimes and wonder if I'm overcomplicating things for the level I'm working, but on the other hand the kids got it last year, but this year it's a different group of kids. As you can tell, I'm still workin' on it....
"The quality of a man's life is in direct proportion to his pursuit of excellence." - Vince Lombardi
Coach4life- that is the whole idea as to why I use the word method. I think it is easier though not necesarily best (which is why I pose the question in the first place). I actually asked our players, which they prefered and overwhelmingly they said words only like Dive Right. When we call passes in our 3 step game we say "slant-arrow" for the slant concept or double slant. We use colors and hand signals to change things up then.
I also think it is easier to call plays. When I called plays by number sometimes my sheet looked like the math homework I assigned. Numbers all over. Also I think kids relate better to words and it is very simple to say DIVE RIGHT.
Wise men talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something.---Plato
I think the original post asked for what we did, so I thought I'd say we do the series. 10 series is double dive - FB always dives to the A gap and TB dives to C. So a 16 would mean fake to FB, give to TB, QB fakes around end. Line must know how to block the given play, we don't add any blocking cues, unless we change the initial method of blocking. 20 series is lead blocker - iso and power, TB always carries. 30s are toss. If we want to run a trap, we always know the guard to the call side (RG on a 12, for example) pulls and the side opposite the call blocks accordingly. I think this is simpler than the traditional numbering of back and holes, but my assistants don't agree. Lucky for me, I get the final say. Seriously, I think this works well, but the other way would probably work too. Also, last year we called pass plays with a 3-digit # and a pattern tree similar to Coachforlife. We ended up using the same combos all season and not using it effectively. We will just use names for our combos this year and all the receivers will have to learn the combos. We are obviously cutting down our options for diversity, but I think we will do what we do better, which is what it's all about. Just my experience, which is little.