wsc_bdgr_old
It appears that the spread offense is starting to catch on at the high school level. Coaches are starting to spread the field and trust their QB's with passing and WR's with catching. Interesting though that many of them still run the ball very successfully. What are your thoughts? Old school coaches like ball control and grinding out games, shoving down your throat type of football. Spread coaches are taking more chances, big plays. Will we see more teams using the spread? Is it effective for most H.S's? What are the negatives? I've seen it in Minnesota for a couple of years and now some western WI teams are trying it out. It certainly is a more fun type of play for players. .
Quote 0 0
Hubber_old
It is been around for some time... I played in that type of sytem and believe in it.. but the philosophy is still to run the ball.. you just try to spread it out and run.. THe key is to get a numbers advantage.. and the biggest difference is the zone blocking scheme compared to the man scheme... THe probelm with it is definatly the redzone short field and the cold weather of wisconsin late in the season. It is truly a great offense for teams that have size disadvantages and number problems in the program... short high percentage passes (long handoffs) are key and you must have a special quaterback... ala a travis london.. this is a kid that would be killed in a wishbone, midline type of offense that a somerset runs... I really believe there are spread personal, option types, and power type of players... tweaking your offense to suit the personel is the key when you don;t have size and numbers...
Quote 0 0
wsc_bdgr_old
I am not sure if the 44 yard pass was the deal breaker. It may have exposed Somersets weakness but Somerset simply had no answer for the pass and wide receivers were open a lot. Somerset did an excellent job of stopping the run until Hudson spread the field. I believe their defense is great for run stop, but certainly ineffective against a passing team. They couldn't be as aggressive in the 2nd half with the run, hence Hudson ran and passed very well later to win the game. Yes, Hudson did not have an answer for Somersets run either. Balance is the key, making d cord. really think what will they do now. I also think that Dbacks in H.S (not all) are not that good in man to man coverage. You see alot of open receivers and flags for penalties.
Quote 0 0
crevis
Quote:
ORIGINAL: Small&Poor

Quote:
ORIGINAL: crevis

I agree with just about everything Hubber said. You can have a basis for an offense, but minor changes from season to season are usually made and should be made to fit the personnel.

The problem with the ''run the ball, stop the run'' approach, as successful as it is a majority of the time, is that there are times when it is not. An example of that type of offense was showed in Somerset's state championship run in 2004. They were down by 9 points to Brillion with the clock winding down in the 4th quarter and there was no hurry up type of offense instilled whatsoever. Hennessey was getting a majority of the carries and the plays being called looked the same as they had been during the rest of the game, only the offense was just getting to the line more quickly. You have to be able to instill a passing threat in that situation. We did a great job of it against Amery in '02, we just didn't get the final pass into anyone's hands and ended up losing.

Another couple examples...this time on the ''stop the run'' side of things. It happened to Somerset against Hudson when they were running away with the game this year. Hudson throws in a spread after getting nothing going in nearly two full quarters, completes a 70-something yard TD before the half, and goes on to pass for 291 yards with the QB completing about 75% of his passes. Hudson got right back into it and ended up winning because of Somerset either not being prepared for that offense or just having mismatches. The second example was against Ladysmith in the quarterfinals of '03. Somerset was very ''run the ball, stop the run'' oriented and it had worked for them all season. However, they ran into a QB-receiver connection that went for 240 yards and 4 TD's between the two of them alone.

Point being, like I mentioned at the beginning of this post, is that it IS becoming more necessary for teams to be more prepared to stop the pass in the event they run into a team who can execute successfully. Can most teams in the MBC do that, or even in the NW section of WI do so? Traditionally no. But you look at Ellsworth and Hudson and the way they execute it as well as other playoff teams MBC teams may run into. I think to simply have a tunnel vision focus on running the ball and stopping the run, not incorporating a passing threat more often on offense, and being prepared to stop the pass on defense makes teams too predictable against more talented and better coached teams and will hurt them at some point in time.

i would argue that in both examples the inability to stop the run was the main problem. against brillion Somerset was unable to stop them from running the ball along with turning it over too many times. In the hudson Fiasco The pass that made the most difference was the fire starter with 44 seconds to go before half. That was When the db from somerset let the Hudson kid behind him to catch a nice thrown ball. In the second half somerset did not stop Hudson from running the ball out of the Spread which allowed them to throw the ball whenever they pleased. As far as preparation goes it was a little bit of a surprize that Hudson was able to execute things as well as they did for how short a period they had been working on it.


And Ladysmith? I'm guessing the focus was on stopping Newkirk and Taylor was a surprise...but I don't really remember.
"He hits from both sides of the plate. He's amphibious." -Yogi Berra

"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra

"I never said most of the things I said." -Yogi Berra
Quote 0 0
sofast
The thing that has to be realized in high school football is that a team that can run AND pass effectively will have more of an advantage than a team that can just run or pass the ball. S&P stated that Hudson won the game in the second half because somerset couldn't stop the run. This is true but somerset wasn't able to commit to stopping the run because they didnt know when the pass was coming. This proves that a team that is very balanced offensively instead of one that is only one dimentional has more of a chance to win. The one problem that i notice with most high school teams is that they only try and pass when it is completely necessary which in turn causes them to fail. I also notice that lots of teams pass only on long yardage situations. Mix up the pass and run and offensive production will have a much more potent potential.
a win is a win, whether by 1 or 100
Quote 0 0
Hubber_old
In this area ,, I really believe that teams are geared to stop power football in a limited space... if they excecute there assignment the coaches will put them in a position to be succesful... when you spread everyone out you put poeple in space... you go from 8 or 9 in the box to about 5 or 6... you create matchups... you can put the guy with the worst hands on your team and split him out he could be the worst athlete in the conference but you still are going to put a man on him... it is about matchups and putting your best in a postioin to succeed.. at ellsworth we have the luxury to put exceptional athletes out on the edge.. hence the success.. but on a down year you may put marginal athlets on the edge and focus inside.. create lanes for your studs and go with it... I really believe that is why Hudson did well against somerset in the second half.. they put a team that faced the midline eveyday in practice and got shut down in the first half ... when they spread things out they created some mismathces on the edge wich opened up the middle thus creating lanes to run...
Quote 0 0
crevis
I agree with just about everything Hubber said. You can have a basis for an offense, but minor changes from season to season are usually made and should be made to fit the personnel.

The problem with the ''run the ball, stop the run'' approach, as successful as it is a majority of the time, is that there are times when it is not. An example of that type of offense was showed in Somerset's state championship run in 2004. They were down by 9 points to Brillion with the clock winding down in the 4th quarter and there was no hurry up type of offense instilled whatsoever. Hennessey was getting a majority of the carries and the plays being called looked the same as they had been during the rest of the game, only the offense was just getting to the line more quickly. You have to be able to instill a passing threat in that situation. We did a great job of it against Amery in '02, we just didn't get the final pass into anyone's hands and ended up losing.

Another couple examples...this time on the ''stop the run'' side of things. It happened to Somerset against Hudson when they were running away with the game this year. Hudson throws in a spread after getting nothing going in nearly two full quarters, completes a 70-something yard TD before the half, and goes on to pass for 291 yards with the QB completing about 75% of his passes. Hudson got right back into it and ended up winning because of Somerset either not being prepared for that offense or just having mismatches. The second example was against Ladysmith in the quarterfinals of '03. Somerset was very ''run the ball, stop the run'' oriented and it had worked for them all season. However, they ran into a QB-receiver connection that went for 240 yards and 4 TD's between the two of them alone.

Point being, like I mentioned at the beginning of this post, is that it IS becoming more necessary for teams to be more prepared to stop the pass in the event they run into a team who can execute successfully. Can most teams in the MBC do that, or even in the NW section of WI do so? Traditionally no. But you look at Ellsworth and Hudson and the way they execute it as well as other playoff teams MBC teams may run into. I think to simply have a tunnel vision focus on running the ball and stopping the run, not incorporating a passing threat more often on offense, and being prepared to stop the pass on defense makes teams too predictable against more talented and better coached teams and will hurt them at some point in time.
"He hits from both sides of the plate. He's amphibious." -Yogi Berra

"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra

"I never said most of the things I said." -Yogi Berra
Quote 0 0
wsc_bdgr_old
I agree, until it breaks, don't fix it. Having seen some of the younger (freshman, etc) classes and looking at athletic ability I wonder if they will be able to maintain. However, I know Lars knows what he is doing and certainly is motivating his kids to excel.
Quote 0 0
ABC EZ AZ 123_old
we run the spread offense at regis- and you still try to run the ball... one of the most effective parts of the spread offense is that it also SPREADS the defense way out which opens the run game up... the spread is an extremely explosive offense and IMO is more fun to play in than a wing T, run it up the gut every play type of offense
Regis 07'

Small Cloverbelt Conference Champs '03 '04 '05 '06

Quote 0 0
crevis
Quote:
ORIGINAL: Small&Poor

Quote:
ORIGINAL: crevis

Quote:
ORIGINAL: Small&Poor

Quote:
ORIGINAL: crevis

I agree with just about everything Hubber said. You can have a basis for an offense, but minor changes from season to season are usually made and should be made to fit the personnel.

The problem with the ''run the ball, stop the run'' approach, as successful as it is a majority of the time, is that there are times when it is not. An example of that type of offense was showed in Somerset's state championship run in 2004. They were down by 9 points to Brillion with the clock winding down in the 4th quarter and there was no hurry up type of offense instilled whatsoever. Hennessey was getting a majority of the carries and the plays being called looked the same as they had been during the rest of the game, only the offense was just getting to the line more quickly. You have to be able to instill a passing threat in that situation. We did a great job of it against Amery in '02, we just didn't get the final pass into anyone's hands and ended up losing.

Another couple examples...this time on the ''stop the run'' side of things. It happened to Somerset against Hudson when they were running away with the game this year. Hudson throws in a spread after getting nothing going in nearly two full quarters, completes a 70-something yard TD before the half, and goes on to pass for 291 yards with the QB completing about 75% of his passes. Hudson got right back into it and ended up winning because of Somerset either not being prepared for that offense or just having mismatches. The second example was against Ladysmith in the quarterfinals of '03. Somerset was very ''run the ball, stop the run'' oriented and it had worked for them all season. However, they ran into a QB-receiver connection that went for 240 yards and 4 TD's between the two of them alone.

Point being, like I mentioned at the beginning of this post, is that it IS becoming more necessary for teams to be more prepared to stop the pass in the event they run into a team who can execute successfully. Can most teams in the MBC do that, or even in the NW section of WI do so? Traditionally no. But you look at Ellsworth and Hudson and the way they execute it as well as other playoff teams MBC teams may run into. I think to simply have a tunnel vision focus on running the ball and stopping the run, not incorporating a passing threat more often on offense, and being prepared to stop the pass on defense makes teams too predictable against more talented and better coached teams and will hurt them at some point in time.

i would argue that in both examples the inability to stop the run was the main problem. against brillion Somerset was unable to stop them from running the ball along with turning it over too many times. In the hudson Fiasco The pass that made the most difference was the fire starter with 44 seconds to go before half. That was When the db from somerset let the Hudson kid behind him to catch a nice thrown ball. In the second half somerset did not stop Hudson from running the ball out of the Spread which allowed them to throw the ball whenever they pleased. As far as preparation goes it was a little bit of a surprize that Hudson was able to execute things as well as they did for how short a period they had been working on it.


And Ladysmith? I'm guessing the focus was on stopping Newkirk and Taylor was a surprise...but I don't really remember.


You are correct and you have only failed to talk about the spartans losses to Amery and New richmond in 02, The nightmere in osceola in 03, and the loss last year to lancaster and you have hit all of the spartans failures over the past four years. When a team Loses a game the first thing people want to do is point fingers, It's this guy's fault or that guys fault etc.. i would rather think of it as everyone has an equal share in victory and defeat. And then their is the notion that you could also give the team that beat you credit for what they did to beat you.. Back to the ladysmith game, we put our best athlete cover guy (Billy raleigh) on talyor and tryed to help over the top. Not a great move considering that raleigh was 5'7 or so and taylor was 6'2. What are you going to do. in this game the Spartans had trouble with Moving the ball and ladysmith took it to us good. The next week Brillion played cover two with two 6'3 safety's and beat them 14-7. That was a very good Team that year for the spartans and they got beat from a very good team from ladysmith that wanted revenge from the wooping the year before in the playoffs. That is high school football.


Reason I asked about Hudson and Ladysmith was because of the passing attack they put on when they did and I was hoping to get your thoughts on it...I was going to PM you about it but you don't have them on. I wasn't really concerned about our losses to Amery and NR in '02 because they didn't pass on us much...not really sure about the '03 Osceola game because I wasn't there.

The reason I asked about Brillion was because of the fact that the Spartans were down 9 late in the fourth and needed to score quickly. I was implying that it would have helped them out to be able to spread the field more in that case and there wasn't really any kind of a hurry up offense at all. Since the pass hadn't been a big threat the rest of the game it didn't work at the time. What happened to the old trips formations the Spartans used back in the Ryan Johnson/Taylor Germain eras? [8D]
"He hits from both sides of the plate. He's amphibious." -Yogi Berra

"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra

"I never said most of the things I said." -Yogi Berra
Quote 0 0
wsc_bdgr_old
I agree it looks more fun. Running the ball(all the time) is great, but I feel football is starting to change. I mean you don't see many colleges that just run in some tight formation. Pro's have been passing for years. The cold weather factor, yeah conservatives would run, but heck isn't football a cold weather sport. Kids grow up as quarterbacks throwing and catching the ball. Pretending they are Marino-Clayton, Montana-Rice, Favre-Sharpe,Brooks, Freeman, Walker, Driver and whoever else he helped become better. They have been doing it for decades. I think coaches feel they have more control when running. I sometimes wonder how many WR's and QB's that never got a chance to play college ball because they ran all the time. Athletes put in a lot of time getting bigger, faster and stronger. (we hope) Rumor has it that UW-RF is spreading the football this year. WOW, now that will be something to see. I'm sure they will start seeing a lot more QB and WR recruited if its true
Quote 0 0
crevis
I'm not saying you guys need to pass more. Lars does a fine job of calling plays and I'm not taking anything away from the way he does it...a 49-6 record since 2002 proves both coaches are doing their jobs. The only example I made about passing and spreading the field was when time was against you at the title game against Brillion...the same way we did when we needed to score against Amery in 2002 when we were down late in the game.
"He hits from both sides of the plate. He's amphibious." -Yogi Berra

"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra

"I never said most of the things I said." -Yogi Berra
Quote 0 0
Hubber_old
If I was somerset I wouldn;t change a thing...
Quote 0 0
wissportsnet

Boys Basketball Alumni Round-up: February 21st, from @ColtonWilson23 #wisbb -- https://t.co/0K6CZzZWpf https://t.co/715tfpBGVS

wissportsnet

WSN15: Boys Basketball Top Teams #12 -- Two NCAA Division I players at one WIAA Division 4 school = state champions… https://t.co/1MThqzce9L

wissportsnet

Predicting winners of every state wrestling title plus a look By The Numbers, from @Nate_Woelfel -… https://t.co/HgU1bLP7d6

wissportsnet

Join the free Boys Basketball Playoff Pick 'Em Contest; Staff picks coming Tuesday #wisbb -- https://t.co/Y6yTA3OgP8 https://t.co/hA6Uyw9uje