|
Post by retired on Apr 11, 2021 17:15:50 GMT -6
Damn that unmodern offense that won the state in the top class in 2006, 2010, 2013, 2014, 2019, 2020... Just think what could have been if the Rams ran a "modern" offense.... That doesn't prove anything. I can name 13 state titles Evangel won by passing on almost every play.
When pople say "modernized" offense they aren't necessarily saying teams can't be successful by mostly running the football. Nobody is that stupid. And they aren't saying a team has to pass as much as Evangel did to have a "modernized offense".
I think what most people mean by "modernized offense" is an offense that is diversified enough to have enough passing plays and passing ability in their game plan to keep an opponent's defense off balance. Byrd has never had that. Byrd has never tried to develop a passing game or develop talented receivers. Byrd has never passed the ball on first down since the school was founded in 1925. Byrd only passes when the defense knows full well they are going to passs. That has led to 7-3 sesons that could well have been undefeated seasons and it will continue to be the same every year until the Jackets change their one dimensional offense.
I have seen a some Byrd teams in the past I have no doubt would have won state titles if they had only been able to pass the ball when their opponent wasn't expecting a pass but they couldn't do it so they lost in the playoffs every time they came up against teams with a good defense against the run. Same thing with some West Monroe teams I have seen. What they lacked was a "modernized offense".
But bulding a good passing game while maintaining a good runnng offense isn't easy. It is difficult. So I suspect we well see the same old coaching and the same old Byrd teams in the future.
Third and six? Second and two? Here comes the same old option running play you have already seen about ten times in this game. Stop us if you can. OK, we will.Oh goodness.. I am not trying to PROVE anything, other than the "modern"ness of an offense is irrelevant. An offense needs to execute better than the opponent, and the scheme needs to have answers for what issues the defense presents. If you want to talk ball, we can talk ball. But you rarely do here these days. You argue minutiae, you miss points (you still probably have not recognized how you changed the context in several of the posts in the previous discussion...) etc. However, even though I did not post to try and "prove" anything I think the statement absolutely demonstrates that success can be had without having a "modern" offense. By the way, what you are describing is not a lack of a modern offense. It is a poor execution of certain phases of the offense. Apparently Evangel was one of the less competitive teams in the state this year, yet...modern offense? The point and context that you keep seeming to miss is that offenses are not like microchip processors. Age is not relevant in their success.
|
|
|
Post by Fast Eddie on Apr 11, 2021 18:05:29 GMT -6
How do you know what the new coach will do on offense? I don’t think it’s too far off to believe they won’t be throwing the ball on 1st or 2nd down. Who are you thinking will call the offense?
|
|
|
Post by Sixpack on Apr 11, 2021 18:35:44 GMT -6
That doesn't prove anything. I can name 13 state titles Evangel won by passing on almost every play.
When pople say "modernized" offense they aren't necessarily saying teams can't be successful by mostly running the football. Nobody is that stupid. And they aren't saying a team has to pass as much as Evangel did to have a "modernized offense".
I think what most people mean by "modernized offense" is an offense that is diversified enough to have enough passing plays and passing ability in their game plan to keep an opponent's defense off balance. Byrd has never had that. Byrd has never tried to develop a passing game or develop talented receivers. Byrd has never passed the ball on first down since the school was founded in 1925. Byrd only passes when the defense knows full well they are going to passs. That has led to 7-3 sesons that could well have been undefeated seasons and it will continue to be the same every year until the Jackets change their one dimensional offense.
I have seen a some Byrd teams in the past I have no doubt would have won state titles if they had only been able to pass the ball when their opponent wasn't expecting a pass but they couldn't do it so they lost in the playoffs every time they came up against teams with a good defense against the run. Same thing with some West Monroe teams I have seen. What they lacked was a "modernized offense".
But bulding a good passing game while maintaining a good runnng offense isn't easy. It is difficult. So I suspect we well see the same old coaching and the same old Byrd teams in the future.
Third and six? Second and two? Here comes the same old option running play you have already seen about ten times in this game. Stop us if you can. OK, we will. Oh goodness.. I am not trying to PROVE anything, other than the "modern"ness of an offense is irrelevant. And that's where you are wrong. The "modern" ness of an offense as I just described in my post above is what I believe most sensible people consider to be the definition of a"modern" offense. And that definition is anything but irrelevant. My point, if you had paid attention, is that Byrd has never had a successful passing game to go with their succesful runimg game. And that is certainly not irrelevant. It has caused them to lose games they should have won.An offense needs to execute better than the opponent, and the scheme needs to have answers for what issues the defense presents. Excuse me? Is that not exactly what I just explained in my post above? I just explained in some detail how Byrd's defense has never had answers for issues the defense presents. Did you even read what I said? Or are you just so anxious to challenge me that you think agreeing with me is a way to challenge me?If you want to talk ball, we can talk ball. But you rarely do here these days. LOL! Find something in my post above that is NOT about "ball". Go ahead, I'll wait. However, even though I did not post to try and "prove" anything I think the statement absolutely demonstrates that success can be had without having a "modern" offense. You just said above that you were trying to prove that the "modern" ness of an offense is irrelevant. Get your story straight. Don't try to prove something and then say you weren't trying to prove something. That makes no sense. And if you will read what I said in my post above you should easily find where I said nobody is stupid enough to think a team can not be successful with a running style offense. It seems you spend more time arguing with yourself and trying to prove me wrong by agreeing with me than you do by disagreeing with me.By the way, what you are describing is not a lack of a modern offense. It is a poor execution of certain phases of the offense. Apparently Evangel was one of the less competitive teams in the state this year, yet...modern offense? What? I never once said Byrd passed the ball but their problem was poor execution. I said Byrd's problem was their lack of a passing game. Please try to stay on topic. In the first place retired, there is no one accepted definition of a modern offense. You have your opinion of what constitutes a modern offense and I have mine. I clearly explained in my post above what I think most sensible people consider to be a modern offense, which is a diversified offense. An offense that is not completely predictable. Obviously no offense is going to succeed without the necessary athletic talent to make it succeed and Evangel no longer has the athletic talent to make a "modern" offense succeed. So I have no idea what your comment above about Evangel has to do with my argument that Byrd needs to "modernize" their offense by mastering a good passing game.
|
|
|
Post by retired on Apr 11, 2021 19:49:50 GMT -6
Oh goodness.. I am not trying to PROVE anything, other than the "modern"ness of an offense is irrelevant. And that's where you are wrong. The "modern" ness of an offense as I just described in my post above is what I believe most sensible people consider to be the definition of a"modern" offense. And that definition is anything but irrelevant. My point, if you had paid attention, is that Byrd has never had a successful passing game to go with their succesful runimg game. And that is certainly not irrelevant. It has caused them to lose games they should have won.An offense needs to execute better than the opponent, and the scheme needs to have answers for what issues the defense presents. Excuse me? Is that not exactly what I just explained in my post above? I just explained in some detail how Byrd's defense has never had answers for issues the defense presents. Did you even read what I said? Or are you just so anxious to challenge me that you think agreeing with me is a way to challenge me?If you want to talk ball, we can talk ball. But you rarely do here these days. LOL! Find something in my post above that is NOT about "ball". Go ahead, I'll wait. However, even though I did not post to try and "prove" anything I think the statement absolutely demonstrates that success can be had without having a "modern" offense. You just said above that you were trying to prove that the "modern" ness of an offense is irrelevant. Get your story straight. Don't try to prove something and then say you weren't trying to prove something. That makes no sense. And if you will read what I said in my post above you should easily find where I said nobody is stupid enough to think a team can not be successful with a running style offense. It seems you spend more time arguing with yourself and trying to prove me wrong by agreeing with me than you do by disagreeing with me.By the way, what you are describing is not a lack of a modern offense. It is a poor execution of certain phases of the offense. Apparently Evangel was one of the less competitive teams in the state this year, yet...modern offense? What? I never once said Byrd passed the ball but their problem was poor execution. I said Byrd's problem was their lack of a passing game. Please try to stay on topic. In the first place retired, there is no one accepted definition of a modern offense. You have your opinion of what constitutes a modern offense and I have mine. I clearly explained in my post above what I think most sensible people consider to be a modern offense, which is a diversified offense. An offense that is not completely predictable. Obviously no offense is going to succeed without the necessary athletic talent to make it succeed and Evangel no longer has the athletic talent to make a "modern" offense succeed. So I have no idea what your comment above about Evangel has to do with my argument that Byrd needs to "modernize" their offense by mastering a good passing game.
An offense is the system utilized to move the ball. Byrd runs the split back veer. It is an older offense, popularized by Bill Yeoman at Houston in the mid sixties. The same offense that Byrd runs averaged almost 18 yards a completion for Yeoman. Byrd seemingly does not execute the offense well enough in the passing phase. There are plenty of "modern offenses" that don't do that either. So, since you place a high value on such details, you should stop incorrectly describing the of Byrd, WM in the 90s etc as in need of a modern offense, and more correctly express that they would have had better success if they could better execute in all phases of their chosen offense. Championship teams of yesteryear had offenses were diverse enough to attack what was needed and had answers. Labeling the ability to throw when needed " a modern offense" is mislabeling. Now, that simply isn't always as simple as just having wanting to do it. And you alluded to that.
|
|
|
Post by Sixpack on Apr 11, 2021 21:15:24 GMT -6
Thank you for proving my point. Sixpack-- LSL's best at arguing argue minutiae and derailing a thread. Try again. Because if I am arguing minutaie and derailing a thread and you are arguing with me then you are obviously talking about the exact same things I am talking about meaning you are doing the same thing I am doing.An offense is the system utilized to move the ball. Byrd runs the split back veer. It is an older offense, popularized by Bill Yeoman at Houston in the mid sixties. The same offense that Byrd runs averaged almost 18 yards a completion for Yeoman. Byrd seemingly does not execute the offense well enough in the passing phase. There are plenty of "modern offenses" that don't do that either. No, you are trying to change the subject again. Byrd's main problem has not been an inability to execute the offense well enough to pass the ball. The problem is Byrd hardly ever passed the ball period and when they did everyone knew they were going to do it. A football team can't have a general inability to do something they don't do in thr first place. As I have said several times before Byrd's whole offense has been developed to run the ball on almost every play all game long. They have always had a one dimensionl offense just like West Monroe. West Monroe has been successful with a mostly running game but it also stands to reason that if they had been using a well practiced "modern" or balanced attack they would have been even more successful. Just like Byrd would have been more successful.
There have been years when Byrd had the athletes to execute both a passing offense well and a running offense well. The problem is Byrd never developed a passing game or installed the kind of sophisticated passing plays needed to win games. They never put any effort into developing any sort of passing game that wasn't completely predictable. And I am saying that has reduced their success on the field.So, since you place a high value on such details, you should stop incorrectly describing the of Byrd, WM in the 90s etc as in need of a modern offense, and more correctly express that they would have had better success if they could better execute in all phases of their chosen offense. That is ridiculous. Do you even realize what you are saying. West Monroe hardly ever passed the ball. Byrd hardly ever passed the ball. PASSING the ball was NOT a phase of either of those two teams' chosen offense and for you to suggest it was is just another effort to change the subject. Their CHOSEN offense was to run the ball almost every play of the game and they both did it pretty well. But my point is they both would have had even more success if they had dveloped a "modern" offense because it would have been balanced and unpredictable instead of one dimensional and predictable. That's pretty simple to understand.
Championship teams of yesteryear had offenses were diverse enough to attack what was needed and had answers. Labeling the ability to throw when needed " a modern offense" is mislabeling. Says who? What is a modern offense if it is not generally considered to be a successful running game combined with an ability to successfully throw the ball when needed? Is a one dimensional, run most of the time and only pass when everyone knows you are going to pass what you call a modern offense?Now, that simply isn't always as simple as just having wanting to do it. And you alluded to that, but that is ball talk though, not trying to argue minutiae so I will spare the details. I'm still waiting for you to point out some of this non "ball" talk you keep talking about. And remembver if you arguing with me and I am talking minutaie or non ball talk then so are you. Otherwise you would have to change the subject.
Which you seem to be pretty good at doing.
|
|
|
Post by Thumper01 on Apr 12, 2021 7:29:28 GMT -6
Congrats to CE Byrd new head coach Stacey Ballew, so I guess the "BIG" question is who will be the OC, and what offense will they use? I would like to see the Jackets continue to use their Veer, but add just enough 1st down passing to really keep the opposing defense on their toes.
Good luck Jackets!
|
|
MadLion
All-District 1st Team
Posts: 226
|
Post by MadLion on Apr 12, 2021 18:21:23 GMT -6
Give Ole Ballew a chance. People know him as a defensive guy, but I think he'll surprise you a little with his offensive knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by retired on Apr 12, 2021 21:28:16 GMT -6
Thank you for proving my point. Sixpack-- LSL's best at arguing argue minutiae and derailing a thread. Try again. Because if I am arguing minutaie and derailing a thread and you are arguing with me then you are obviously talking about the exact same things I am talking about meaning you are doing the same thing I am doing.An offense is the system utilized to move the ball. Byrd runs the split back veer. It is an older offense, popularized by Bill Yeoman at Houston in the mid sixties. The same offense that Byrd runs averaged almost 18 yards a completion for Yeoman. Byrd seemingly does not execute the offense well enough in the passing phase. There are plenty of "modern offenses" that don't do that either. No, you are trying to change the subject again. Byrd's main problem has not been an inability to execute the offense well enough to pass the ball. The problem is Byrd hardly ever passed the ball period and when they did everyone knew they were going to do it. A football team can't have a general inability to do something they don't do in thr first place. As I have said several times before Byrd's whole offense has been developed to run the ball on almost every play all game long. They have always had a one dimensionl offense just like West Monroe. West Monroe has been successful with a mostly running game but it also stands to reason that if they had been using a well practiced "modern" or balanced attack they would have been even more successful. Just like Byrd would have been more successful.
There have been years when Byrd had the athletes to execute both a passing offense well and a running offense well. The problem is Byrd never developed a passing game or installed the kind of sophisticated passing plays needed to win games. They never put any effort into developing any sort of passing game that wasn't completely predictable. And I am saying that has reduced their success on the field.So, since you place a high value on such details, you should stop incorrectly describing the of Byrd, WM in the 90s etc as in need of a modern offense, and more correctly express that they would have had better success if they could better execute in all phases of their chosen offense. That is ridiculous. Do you even realize what you are saying. West Monroe hardly ever passed the ball. Byrd hardly ever passed the ball. PASSING the ball was NOT a phase of either of those two teams' chosen offense and for you to suggest it was is just another effort to change the subject. Their CHOSEN offense was to run the ball almost every play of the game and they both did it pretty well. But my point is they both would have had even more success if they had dveloped a "modern" offense because it would have been balanced and unpredictable instead of one dimensional and predictable. That's pretty simple to understand.
Championship teams of yesteryear had offenses were diverse enough to attack what was needed and had answers. Labeling the ability to throw when needed " a modern offense" is mislabeling. Says who? What is a modern offense if it is not generally considered to be a successful running game combined with an ability to successfully throw the ball when needed? Is a one dimensional, run most of the time and only pass when everyone knows you are going to pass what you call a modern offense?Now, that simply isn't always as simple as just having wanting to do it. And you alluded to that, but that is ball talk though, not trying to argue minutiae so I will spare the details. I'm still waiting for you to point out some of this non "ball" talk you keep talking about. And remembver if you arguing with me and I am talking minutaie or non ball talk then so are you. Otherwise you would have to change the subject.
Which you seem to be pretty good at doing.First, after about 10 minutes from my initial post here (that you quoted from) I went back and edited, figuring some of the things I wrote were not really needed and would only be bickering. Then I edited again later on... seeing the original post here quoted by you being posted at 10:15---did you really spend almost an hour replying? Just a few points A modern offense is JUST THAT. It is something that has evolved recently. You are describing a BALANCED offense. Teams have been throwing the ball all over the field for over 50 years. Teams do NOT need to be balanced to be successful. However, to win at the highest level a team MUST be able to execute in all phases of the game. Byrd, WM etc rarely attempting passes is meaningless. Byrd, WM etc NOT successfully completing passes when they had to (and therefore not converting 3rd/4th downs) IS of paramount importance.
|
|
|
Post by Sixpack on Apr 12, 2021 23:01:48 GMT -6
First, after about 10 minutes from my initial post here (that you quoted from) I went back and edited, figuring some of the things I wrote were not really needed and would only be bickering. Then I edited again later on... seeing the original post here quoted by you being posted at 10:15---did you really spend almost an hour replying? uhhh, what was that you keep accusing me of doing? Not talking about "ball" wasn't it? Can you show me anything at all in what you just said that is even remotely about "ball"? Just a few points A modern offense is JUST THAT. It is something that has evolved recently. Which is like saying water is wet. Something else you accused me of doing but you just proved you do the same yourself. It's almost like hypocrisy isn't it? Most teams have not developed their offenses recently. In fact most everyone knows that more teams have been running the same offense for many years than those that have only recently developed a new offense. My definition of a modern offense is one that has been around a long time and realized their offense has been one dimensional in the past so they worked to become more balanced.You are describing a BALANCED offense. Correct, that's exactly what I have been talking about. I have been pretty clear that, in my opinion, a modern offense is a balanced offense compared to a one dimensional offense which I do not consider to be a modern offense. So what is your point?Teams have been throwing the ball all over the field for over 50 years. No they have not. This is a high school board and everything I have said pertains to Louisiana high school football teams. So if by "throwing the ball all over the field" you mean high school teams spreading the field and passing on almost every down I challenge you to name all the high school teams you can that have been doing that for the last 50 years. Virtually nobody was doing that before Evangel and not too many teams do it now. Teams do NOT need to be balanced to be successful. However, to win at the highest level a team MUST be able to execute in all phases of the game. retired, you are starting to make absolutely no sense at all in almost everything you say. Executing in all phases of the game is a PERFECT DEFINITION of balance. So in your hopelessly contradictory statement above you have somehow managed to say that a team that wins at the higthest level, A PERFECT DEFINITION of being succesful, must to be able to execute in all phases of the game, A PERFECT DEFINITION of being balanced, BUT yet teams "do NOT need to be blanced to be successful. How can I have a reasonable discussion with someone who says something like that?Byrd, WM etc rarely attempting passes is meaningless. LOL! Rarely attempting to pass means you have no passing game. If you think having no passing game is meaningless ask the fans of those two teams you just mentioned if their lack of a passing game has been meaningless. They will explain to you real quick what you can't seem to understand on your own.Byrd, WM etc NOT successfully completing passes when they had to (and therefore not converting 3rd/4th downs) IS of paramount importance. No kidding? The only time you finally make sense and all you do is make my point for me. Not completing passes when you need to complete passes is the direct result of having a poor passing game or no passing game at all. Having a poor passing game or no passing game at all is a direct result of placing no importance on developing a passing offense and not coaching the necessary skills to be successful passing the ball. That results in ONE DIMENSIONAL football teams like Byrd and West Monroe both of which could have been more successful if they had been able to pass the ball successfully. And yes thst IS of paramount importance. That's why I have been pointing it out to you for the last three days.
|
|
|
Post by kamala on Apr 13, 2021 6:36:46 GMT -6
Byrd does NOT run the Split Back Veer. You clearly haven't paid very much attention to Byrd, or you don't know much football.
Byrd runs the Double Wing with a single back, in the style of the military offenses and the old Georgia Southern offense, with just a touch of the old Delaware Wing-T thrown in to give them a power run game as well on buck sweeps and leads.
For Split Back Veer, see Curtis, Acadiana, and Carencro.
|
|
|
Post by deadman318 on Apr 13, 2021 7:03:33 GMT -6
Byrd does NOT run the Split Back Veer. You clearly haven't paid very much attention to Byrd, or you don't know much football. Byrd runs the Double Wing with a single back, in the style of the military offenses and the old Georgia Southern offense, with just a touch of the old Delaware Wing-T thrown in to give them a power run game as well on buck sweeps and leads. For Split Back Veer, see Curtis, Acadiana, and Carencro. AGREED
|
|
|
Post by 318anon on Apr 13, 2021 8:51:03 GMT -6
Man, people getting feelings hurt over nomenclature! There are so many variations out there to every system, and each coach tailor fits the system and the calls to their players, so what does it really matter?
The real question is how will the system evolve under Ballew? For a 5A school, Byrd is normally undersized on the O-line (last year being an exception) and this year will be no different. Being able to get the QB some distance from the defensive front will be key, and it's my opinion and others that having the ability to play from shotgun would fit the personnel. Something like the option offense that Coastal Carolina uses would be an upgrade for Byrd. My two cents...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2021 9:01:28 GMT -6
The flexbone system has its roots in the Run and Shoot system of Mouse Davis, so it can easily transition between the run and pass. The problem is that you're either a good option team, or you're not. So if they decide to keep running the flexbone the new OC will have to find the balance between working on the option and fleshing out a decent passing attack if throwing the ball more than 4-5 times is a concern. Parkview Baptist was a flexbone team for a while before switching to the spread and their passing attack was very basic, relying on the run game to set it up. And they were very good at running their offense, I dare say better than they are now.
|
|
|
Post by kamala on Apr 13, 2021 9:43:02 GMT -6
Football 6980....good points. Parkview was devastating for several years running the Midline out of the double-wing. And they aren't near as good now.
And you are correct about the option. You either are very good at it, or you aren't very good at it. It's not a "sometime" thing. I personally think that Byrd gets the most out of their personnel by running the offense that they run. Year to year, Byrd is not going to have the speed to run the spread and be effective. But they CAN be effective....or as effective as the possibly can be...running what they run. Same is true with Air Force and Navy. Same was true with Ga Tech. Ga Southern was the anomaly. They ran the same offense but had speed to burn! And they won a LOT because of it back in the old 1-AA days.
Talent dictates what you run. Byrd isn't going to have speed most years. They really didn't have any this year. They had a bruising fullback and two smallish, tough, quick wings who ran very well to daylight and were tough to bring down. They had a better than average O-line this year that could, at times, take over a game. And the key was their soph QB. He is a very good decision maker and a tough runner and at times, was a pretty accurate passer. And the overlooked thing about Byrd this year was that they had one of the best defenses in Suggs's time there. Add to that a pretty dependable kicking game and you have a recipe for a good season.
Anyone who thinks Byrd needs to spread it out and go to the shotgun...yada, yada, yada...is fooling themselves.
When Byrd went to the Dome a few years back, it was BECAUSE of the offense they ran. Their personnel that year was perfect for it. Any other offense, and they would have been gone by the second round.
I look for Byrd to more or less remain unchanged offensively. They may throw a little more with an experienced and capable QB returning, but I don't look for any wholesale changes.
|
|
|
Post by Sixpack on Apr 13, 2021 11:38:22 GMT -6
I agree that Byrd should not change to a shotgun or spread offense. It would be foolish to ditch what has been a good offense for them over the years. But there is a big difference in having a spread offense and having a balanced offense.
I have only been trying to make the simple point that Byrd needs to develop a balanced offense and for some reason retired seems to have a problem with that. Byrd has historically had a one dimensionale predictable running offense. They have made very little if any effort to incorporate a passing game into their system and I believe that has cost them some games they should have won.
Now that they have a new coach they have a chance to get the balance between running and passing they have never had before. I don't know if Byrd can develop a successful passing game plan that will move the chains and score points or not but they can try. They usually have a lot of good athletes. But it will take a lot of coaching time, effort and imagination to do it. LSU did it in 2019 so it's not impossible.
I know this and so should anyone else with any common sense. A team with good coaching and good athletes that can both pass the ball AND run the ball successfully will have a better chance of winning than a team with good coaching and good athletes that can do only one of those two things successully.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2021 11:52:07 GMT -6
I don't think you can use the 2019 LSU team as a measuring stick. Last year's team was a complete anomaly...they literally tossed their old playbook in the trash, installed a wide open pass-first offense in one offseason, and went 15-0 with a national championship along with numerous offensive records and a Heisman winner. But, I agree that Byrd can and should use this opportunity to enhance their passing game.
|
|
|
Post by Sixpack on Apr 13, 2021 12:12:50 GMT -6
I don't think you can use the 2019 LSU team as a measuring stick. Last year's team was a complete anomaly...they literally tossed their old playbook in the trash, installed a wide open pass-first offense in one offseason, and went 15-0 with a national championship along with numerous offensive records and a Heisman winner. But, I agree that Byrd can and should use this opportunity to enhance their passing game. I agree with everything you said and I would never suggest that Byrd could make all the changes needed to emulate what LSU accomlished. But the changes LSU made are what enabled them to have more success than the old style LSU offenses had. In other words they did what they needed to do to change their offense. All I am saying is that it is not impossible for Byrd to do what they need to do to change their one dimensional offense.
But I can just about guarantee you they won't. It would be difficult and old habits are hard to change.
|
|
|
Post by retired on Apr 13, 2021 16:28:26 GMT -6
Byrd does NOT run the Split Back Veer. You clearly haven't paid very much attention to Byrd, or you don't know much football. Byrd runs the Double Wing with a single back, in the style of the military offenses and the old Georgia Southern offense, with just a touch of the old Delaware Wing-T thrown in to give them a power run game as well on buck sweeps and leads. For Split Back Veer, see Curtis, Acadiana, and Carencro. To be honest, I have never seen Byrd play. I was just going off what I thought I read here that they were SBV. Absolutely agree that the Flex Bone differs in execution from the SBV, but I think it would be accurate to say that as being discussed here, both share a similar philosophy with regards to run/pass ratio. So while I am 100% wrong stating they were SBV, I believe the underlying rational was still the same.
|
|
|
Post by retired on Apr 13, 2021 16:36:45 GMT -6
Man, people getting feelings hurt over nomenclature! There are so many variations out there to every system, and each coach tailor fits the system and the calls to their players, so what does it really matter? The real question is how will the system evolve under Ballew? For a 5A school, Byrd is normally undersized on the O-line (last year being an exception) and this year will be no different. Being able to get the QB some distance from the defensive front will be key, and it's my opinion and others that having the ability to play from shotgun would fit the personnel. Something like the option offense that Coastal Carolina uses would be an upgrade for Byrd. My two cents... Generally, the flexbone (thank you for the correction on type of offense Kamala) is considered an offense tailor made for undersized O-lineman. It is one of the reasons you often find the Academies running it. The quick hitting nature of the under-center attack could be considered a neutralizer vs superior sized and skilled lineman.
|
|
|
Post by retired on Apr 13, 2021 16:50:14 GMT -6
I agree that Byrd should not change to a shotgun or spread offense. It would be foolish to ditch what has been a good offense for them over the years. But there is a big difference in having a spread offense and having a balanced offense.
I have only been trying to make the simple point that Byrd needs to develop a balanced offense and for some reason retired seems to have a problem with that. Byrd has historically had a one dimensionale predictable running offense. They have made very little if any effort to incorporate a passing game into their system and I believe that has cost them some games they should have won.
Now that they have a new coach they have a chance to get the balance between running and passing they have never had before. I don't know if Byrd can develop a successful passing game plan that will move the chains and score points or not but they can try. They usually have a lot of good athletes. But it will take a lot of coaching time, effort and imagination to do it. LSU did it in 2019 so it's not impossible.
I know this and so should anyone else with any common sense. A team with good coaching and good athletes that can both pass the ball AND run the ball successfully will have a better chance of winning than a team with good coaching and good athletes that can do only one of those two things successully. Balanced offense means emphasizing running the ball and throwing the ball a relatively similar amount. Regardless of how YOU define it, that is what it means. There is a substantial difference between that, and running the ball 80% of the time, and successfully using the 20% of your snaps to punish the defense with the pass. Teams have shown time and time again that you don't need to be balanced to win championships. You DO have to be EFFECTIVE throwing the ball. If you throw the ball 6 times and are 4-6 for 135 yards and 2 touchdowns, you probably aren't balanced. But you are being effective and if you are running the ball well you are probably winning games. That doesn't mean that running the ball 23 times and throwing 23 passes is bad either. Just isn't necessary.
|
|
|
Post by Sixpack on Apr 13, 2021 18:38:58 GMT -6
I agree that Byrd should not change to a shotgun or spread offense. It would be foolish to ditch what has been a good offense for them over the years. But there is a big difference in having a spread offense and having a balanced offense.
I have only been trying to make the simple point that Byrd needs to develop a balanced offense and for some reason retired seems to have a problem with that. Byrd has historically had a one dimensionale predictable running offense. They have made very little if any effort to incorporate a passing game into their system and I believe that has cost them some games they should have won.
Now that they have a new coach they have a chance to get the balance between running and passing they have never had before. I don't know if Byrd can develop a successful passing game plan that will move the chains and score points or not but they can try. They usually have a lot of good athletes. But it will take a lot of coaching time, effort and imagination to do it. LSU did it in 2019 so it's not impossible.
I know this and so should anyone else with any common sense. A team with good coaching and good athletes that can both pass the ball AND run the ball successfully will have a better chance of winning than a team with good coaching and good athletes that can do only one of those two things successully. Balanced offense means emphasizing running the ball and throwing the ball a relatively similar amount. Regardless of how YOU define it, that is what it means. You aren't letting me in on a secret. I know what a balnced offense is and Byrd has never had one. There is a substantial difference between that, and running the ball 80% of the time, and successfully using the 20% of your snaps to punish the defense with the pass. Keep making my point for me. Byrd not only has never had a balanced offense they have also never passed anywhere close to 20 percent of the time and anyone who has seen Byrd play over many years, as I have. knows that.Teams have shown time and time again that you don't need to be balanced to win championships. Why are you telling me this? Have I ever said teams need to be blanced to win championships? All I have been saying is a balaced attack is better than a one dimensional offense so unless you deny that then you are just arguing with yourself.You DO have to be EFFECTIVE throwing the ball. If you throw the ball 6 times and are 4-6 for 135 yards and 2 touchdowns, you probably aren't balanced. But you are being effective and if you are running the ball well you are probably winning games. Once again that has nothing to do with my point which you oddly continue to argue about over and over by agreeing with me. Byrd always ran the ball well but they may throw one or two passes a game they are winning and even then it's usually on third down. The only other time they pass is when they are down late in the game and they weren't very good at it. Byrd has never fooled anybody by passing. IF they had a balanced attack or anything close to a balanced attack they would have no doubt picked up some of the first downs and touchdowns they needed to win. Instead they usually just tried to overpower teams that pretty much knew what they were going to do as soon as they broke the huddle.That doesn't mean that running the ball 23 times and throwing 23 passes is bad either. Just isn't necessary. Nothing you have posted since the beginning of this discussion has changed my point. What I consider to be a "modern" offense is an offense that is diversified as opposed to being one dimensional. An offense that is not predictable. An offense that can successfully pass the ball AND successfully run the ball. You say a modern offense is anything that has been developed recently and even that doesn't matter because, according to you, modern offenses are irrelevant anyway.
In the old days Byrd was one of the biggest schools in Louisiana, maybe the biggest. They have always had good athletes all the way back to the 1940's and Suggs has been a very good coach in the last era of Byrd football. But if Suggs had put a few Evangel type passing plays in the playbook and drilled his team every day as hard on those plays as he drilled them on a running game I'm pretty sure Byrd would have been more successful than they were over his coaching years. Disagree if you want to but you are just arguing against common sense.
By the way I am not questioning your overall football knowledge. You have proved you know the x's and o's. But what good are x's and o's if you argue against common sense.
|
|
|
Post by retired on Apr 14, 2021 18:09:11 GMT -6
Balanced offense means emphasizing running the ball and throwing the ball a relatively similar amount. Regardless of how YOU define it, that is what it means. You aren't letting me in on a secret. I know what a balnced offense is and Byrd has never had one. There is a substantial difference between that, and running the ball 80% of the time, and successfully using the 20% of your snaps to punish the defense with the pass. Keep making my point for me. Byrd not only has never had a balanced offense they have also never passed anywhere close to 20 percent of the time and anyone who has seen Byrd play over many years, as I have. knows that.
I think we both know that 80/20 or 90/10 doesn't really matter much. Whether Byrd attempted 10 passes a game or 5 doesn't really change what I am saying. Teams have shown time and time again that you don't need to be balanced to win championships. Why are you telling me this? Have I ever said teams need to be blanced to win championships? All I have been saying is a balaced attack is better than a one dimensional offense so unless you deny that then you are just arguing with yourself.
I don't agree that it is somehow inherently "better"
You DO have to be EFFECTIVE throwing the ball. If you throw the ball 6 times and are 4-6 for 135 yards and 2 touchdowns, you probably aren't balanced. But you are being effective and if you are running the ball well you are probably winning games. Once again that has nothing to do with my point which you oddly continue to argue about over and over by agreeing with me. Byrd always ran the ball well but they may throw one or two passes a game they are winning and even then it's usually on third down. The only other time they pass is when they are down late in the game and they weren't very good at it. Byrd has never fooled anybody by passing. IF they had a balanced attack or anything close to a balanced attack they would have no doubt picked up some of the first downs and touchdowns they needed to win. Instead they usually just tried to overpower teams that pretty much knew what they were going to do as soon as they broke the huddle.That doesn't mean that running the ball 23 times and throwing 23 passes is bad either. Just isn't necessary. Nothing you have posted since the beginning of this discussion has changed my point. What I consider to be a "modern" offense is an offense that is diversified as opposed to being one dimensional. An offense that is not predictable. An offense that can successfully pass the ball AND successfully run the ball. You say a modern offense is anything that has been developed recently and even that doesn't matter because, according to you, modern offenses are irrelevant anyway.
In the old days Byrd was one of the biggest schools in Louisiana, maybe the biggest. They have always had good athletes all the way back to the 1940's and Suggs has been a very good coach in the last era of Byrd football. But if Suggs had put a few Evangel type passing plays in the playbook and drilled his team every day as hard on those plays as he drilled them on a running game I'm pretty sure Byrd would have been more successful than they were over his coaching years. Disagree if you want to but you are just arguing against common sense.
By the way I am not questioning your overall football knowledge. You have proved you know the x's and o's. But what good are x's and o's if you argue against common sense.My purpose for posting is that invariably when someone starts talking about schemes, a chorus of "you need to throw the ball and be 'modern'" starts to rain from the cheap seats. I don't believe that to be true, and that is why I mention Acadiana, Curtis, Carencro etc. Someone mentioned Parkview, who ran the flex bone (which is apparently what Byrd runs). All are examples of one dimensional teams that were successful.
Regarding a few other points- sticking a "few evangel type passing plays in the playbook" simply doesn't work. Championship teams have to have a system. The system builds upon core plays that utilize foundational fundamental skills. Running the flexbone and then saying "OK, lets do this from ECA" is a recipe for disaster. Also, keep in mind that the flat back stances used by flexbone and SBV teams facilitate the great get off that their OL use to execute their veer scheme. That same stance is TERRIBLE for pass protection, which is why those offenses rely on the play action for a great deal of their passing game. The QB and dive back spend a tremendous amount of time on the mesh reads and footwork. wings spend a great deal of time on pitch relationship, as well as blocking footwork (whether they insert or arc). Point being, being very good at those things takes time...and may not leave time to then flip the switch and look like Joe Burrow and the 2019 Tigers. It just isn't as easy as "ok, lets throw in some ECA plays".
But...if they didn't spend all that time at their base, they wouldn't be good at all. As I believe Kamala said earlier, you don't dabble in the option. Now, if you want to say that any time is wrong for doing that, and they should never pick such a system, I can understand that, but would disagree and say the contrarian nature of such an offense has benefits as well.
|
|
|
Post by Sixpack on Apr 14, 2021 20:50:40 GMT -6
My purpose for posting is that invariably when someone starts talking about schemes, a chorus of "you need to throw the ball and be 'modern'" starts to rain from the cheap seats. I don't believe that to be true, and that is why I mention Acadiana, Curtis, Carencro etc. Someone mentioned Parkview, who ran the flex bone (which is apparently what Byrd runs). All are examples of one dimensional teams that were successful.
What I don't undertand is what all that has to do with my point that Byrd would have A BETTER CHANCE to be successful if they had a more balanced attack. Is a more balanced offense some sort of radical idea that you just don't like? Is it a crazy and radical idea to say that, all other things being equal, having two skills on offense gives a team a better chance to succeed than having only one skill? Because that is all I have been saying. Wouldn't a boxer that has great boxing skills and also knocout power have a better chance to succeed than a boxer who has great boxing skills but no knockout power. It seems to be a matter pof common sense to me. Regarding a few other points- sticking a "few evangel type passing plays in the playbook" simply doesn't work. Championship teams have to have a system. The system builds upon core plays that utilize foundational fundamental skills. Running the flexbone and then saying "OK, lets do this from ECA" is a recipe for disaster.
I agree. And I am not saying Byrd should mess with their overall system. I am saying there should be no logical reason why Byrd could not fine tune their system to incorporate a reasonable passing game just like most other teams have. That's all I am saying and I don't see why that should be a radical idea. All those teams above that you mention being successful running style football teams probably pass the ball more than Byrd. Byrd has played football like a boxer with no knockout power. They outpoint some teams during the year but seldom advance very far in the playoffs. And it's not because they haven't had good athletes and good coaching.
Also, keep in mind that the flat back stances used by flexbone and SBV teams facilitate the great get off that their OL use to execute their veer scheme. That same stance is TERRIBLE for pass protection, which is why those offenses rely on the play action for a great deal of their passing game.
OK, suits me. I would be satisfied if and when Byrd shows up with a well practiced amd skillful play action passing game to go with their running game. I have no problem with that. I would call that a "balanced" offense.
The QB and dive back spend a tremendous amount of time on the mesh reads and footwork. wings spend a great deal of time on pitch relationship, as well as blocking footwork (whether they insert or arc). Point being, being very good at those things takes time...and may not leave time to then flip the switch and look like Joe Burrow and the 2019 Tigers. It just isn't as easy as "ok, lets throw in some ECA plays".
Well you would probably know more about that than me. But it doesn't take a genius to know that many other Louisiana high school football teams who run many different offenses seem to be able to incorporate enough of a successful passing game in their system to pick up a first down or catch a defense off guard once in a while. I can't sit here and say absolutely that Byrd can make changes in their offense that would consistently take them to the Dome but I can say absolutely that they aren't going to consistently get to the Dome with the predictable, no pass, running offense they have been using. If that worked they would have more title than they have now. If getting to the Dome once or twice every 25 years is the standard the new coach wants then they will leave things just as they are. If they want a BETTER CHANCE to win they will "balance" their offense with some sort of a passing game.
|
|
|
Post by gridiron on Apr 15, 2021 7:26:11 GMT -6
Longtime C.E. Byrd head coach Mike Suggs has announced his retirement. Suggs has been head coach of the Yellow Jackets since 1998 and led them to two state runner-up finishes during that time. There is a very short list of teams that have been more successful than WM. There is a very short list list of teams that run the ball a higher percentage of the time. I know however that they would be more successful if they didn't have to run against eight and nine man fronts. Learn to throw the ball well enough to make the defense play you honest! All the arguing in the world will not change these facts!! If this is done they will be a better team for doing it!! If they don't have the personnel of course they can't do it!!
|
|
|
Post by Sixpack on Apr 15, 2021 11:23:38 GMT -6
Longtime C.E. Byrd head coach Mike Suggs has announced his retirement. Suggs has been head coach of the Yellow Jackets since 1998 and led them to two state runner-up finishes during that time. There is a very short list of teams that have been more successful than WM. There is a very short list list of teams that run the ball a higher percentage of the time. I know however that they would be more successful if they didn't have to run against eight and nine man fronts. Learn to throw the ball well enough to make the defense play you honest! All the arguing in the world will not change these facts!! If this is done they will be a better team for doing it!! If they don't have the personnel of course they can't do it!! Exactly. You have just said in one paragraph what I have been trying to point out for four days.
And believe me there have been some WM teams in the past that have had the personnel to do it. Same thing at Byrd. Neither team has done it because it is too hard and time consuming to add an entirely different attack to a system that has been in place for decades. But it could be done at both schools. It could be done but it won't.
|
|
|
Post by retired on Apr 16, 2021 17:20:02 GMT -6
Longtime C.E. Byrd head coach Mike Suggs has announced his retirement. Suggs has been head coach of the Yellow Jackets since 1998 and led them to two state runner-up finishes during that time. There is a very short list of teams that have been more successful than WM. There is a very short list list of teams that run the ball a higher percentage of the time. I know however that they would be more successful if they didn't have to run against eight and nine man fronts. Learn to throw the ball well enough to make the defense play you honest! All the arguing in the world will not change these facts!! If this is done they will be a better team for doing it!! If they don't have the personnel of course they can't do it!! A couple of points here. Football teams have run against "8 and 9" man fronts since creation. It isn't that big a deal, particularly at the HS levels. It is something that talking heads say on Sundays (and has now trickled down to lower levels). That said, OBVIOUSLY if WM was better at throwing the ball when they chose to throw it, and REMAINED at the "same level" of aptitude regarding running the ball, they would be a better football team. Same with all of the schools in question. What I think is not as obvious to the fans in the stands is that there is most definitely a trade off. How many mesh reads are you cutting from practice to work on QB footwork, drop, and progression? How much time are you spending working on pass pro technique? The kick slide and vertical sets require different stances, different weight distributions, different movements, different leverages. It isn't just "block somebody". Now, it may be entirely true that WM and Byrd coaches are inept at coaching some of the above listed details. Or worse, the could be lazy and not wanting to work on expanding their craft. These would definitely be disappointing facts. But to Sixpack's points on this topic, it may ALSO be entirely true that in an effort to become "balanced" or even just "more balanced" they lose their core competencies and become a worse team.
|
|
|
Post by gridiron on Apr 16, 2021 18:03:28 GMT -6
There is a very short list of teams that have been more successful than WM. There is a very short list list of teams that run the ball a higher percentage of the time. I know however that they would be more successful if they didn't have to run against eight and nine man fronts. Learn to throw the ball well enough to make the defense play you honest! All the arguing in the world will not change these facts!! If this is done they will be a better team for doing it!! If they don't have the personnel of course they can't do it!! A couple of points here. Football teams have run against "8 and 9" man fronts since creation. It isn't that big a deal, particularly at the HS levels. It is something that talking heads say on Sundays (and has now trickled down to lower levels). That said, OBVIOUSLY if WM was better at throwing the ball when they chose to throw it, and REMAINED at the "same level" of aptitude regarding running the ball, they would be a better football team. Same with all of the schools in question. What I think is not as obvious to the fans in the stands is that there is most definitely a trade off. How many mesh reads are you cutting from practice to work on QB footwork, drop, and progression? How much time are you spending working on pass pro technique? The kick slide and vertical sets require different stances, different weight distributions, different movements, different leverages. It isn't just "block somebody". Now, it may be entirely true that WM and Byrd coaches are inept at coaching some of the above listed details. Or worse, the could be lazy and not wanting to work on expanding their craft. These would definitely be disappointing facts. But to Sixpack's points on this topic, it may ALSO be entirely true that in an effort to become "balanced" or even just "more balanced" they lose their core competencies and become a worse team. I'm not really dissapointed in WM success and I know we have outstanding coaches. In WM case I don't think the plan is to throw very successfully. Example:: On probably any other team in Louisiana Kiki Mingo would have been a receiver instead of a DE. It's hard to argue with that decision since he plays in the NFL. He probably could have made it as a receiver as well. WM has been successful at running against (nine man fronts) until they face a top team with a good defense and then they have trouble. A little passing game would help!
|
|
|
Post by retired on Apr 16, 2021 18:17:21 GMT -6
A couple of points here. Football teams have run against "8 and 9" man fronts since creation. It isn't that big a deal, particularly at the HS levels. It is something that talking heads say on Sundays (and has now trickled down to lower levels). That said, OBVIOUSLY if WM was better at throwing the ball when they chose to throw it, and REMAINED at the "same level" of aptitude regarding running the ball, they would be a better football team. Same with all of the schools in question. What I think is not as obvious to the fans in the stands is that there is most definitely a trade off. How many mesh reads are you cutting from practice to work on QB footwork, drop, and progression? How much time are you spending working on pass pro technique? The kick slide and vertical sets require different stances, different weight distributions, different movements, different leverages. It isn't just "block somebody". Now, it may be entirely true that WM and Byrd coaches are inept at coaching some of the above listed details. Or worse, the could be lazy and not wanting to work on expanding their craft. These would definitely be disappointing facts. But to Sixpack's points on this topic, it may ALSO be entirely true that in an effort to become "balanced" or even just "more balanced" they lose their core competencies and become a worse team. I'm not really dissapointed in WM success and I know we have outstanding coaches. In WM case I don't think the plan is to throw very successfully. Example:: On probably any other team in Louisiana Kiki Mingo would have been a receiver instead of a DE. It's hard to argue with that decision since he plays in the NFL. He probably could have made it as a receiver as well. WM has been successful at running against (nine man fronts) until they face a top team with a good defense and then they have trouble. A little passing game would help! No doubt. And to that point, where I think I disagree with those who proclaim "________ school needs a 'modern' or more diverse, or more balanced offense" is that I don't think and increased # of attempts is what provides the desired outcome. What NEEDS to happen though, is that schools that are heavily run oriented NEED to be able to use the forward pass as the HAMMER to punish defenses. Not trying to loosen up the defense, or make them play honest, but rather creating explosive plays in the pass game due to the defenses reactions.
|
|