If you ever find catch me reading, I will probably be reading something on the Xs and Os of football. Via book, website, etc.,
I just love learning and devouring ways on moving and stopping the pigskin.
Even more so, I enjoy reading more of the philosophical side of football than the Xs and Os.
To me, it helps to understand the “Why” of football before I can understand the “How” of football. I was therefore inspired to write this post after reading a statement that Washington State Head Coach Mike Leach made on his definition of balance.
When one thinks of balance, the thought of 50/50 run-pass ratio of plays will probably come to mind. Mike Leach had a different take on the term “balance”.
Here is Mike Leach’s thoughts on balance:
We want distribution. We expect a high completion percentage, and we want to be over 65 percent and we want good distribution,” Leach said. “In other words: contributing to the offensive effort, we’d like 1,400 yards-plus out of the running back position and then out of the other positions, we’d like 1,000 yards each. The inside receiver positions will probably get 1,000 yards on more touches than the outside guys. The outside guys, when they touch it, tend to go a little further.
There’s a whole myth about balance, and it’s really stupid. The notion that you hand it to one guy half the time, and then you throw it to two other guys the other half of the time, and maybe you connect, maybe you don’t. There’s nothing balanced about it. There’s two skill positions left out.
Balance, whether you run it or throw it, is getting contribution from all the skill positions. Ours is a balanced offense. The wishbone is a balanced offense. Some I-tailback offense, it may be a great offense, it may be great for the team that they play for, where you’re giving it to the back 40 times. There’s nothing balanced about it. It doesn’t even add up to balance. We try to be balanced based on contributions by all the skill positions.
-Mike Leach
Coach Leach believes in having his five skill players get equal touches of the ball over the course of the season.
If you have read any of my posts on my passing system, you know that I follow this philosophy pretty closely. All of his Air Raid concepts has built-in answers to any coverage.
I like my passing plays to have at least one Man and one Zone beater so that I will have an answer for anything thrown at me.
In some of my Air Raid dynasties, I will have multiple guys getting touches that magically seems to work out. It’s the system that does that more than anything else.
The only downside to my passing system is that I can not always give the ball to my best receivers whenever I want to.
Sometimes you just want your main stud to convert that 3rd and long for you.
In the end, the ball will find the players. So the first school of thought is “Equal ball distribution to all five players”.
The Air Raid, Run & Shoot, West Coast, Flexbone, and other triple option offenses fall into this category.
Now the other school of thought is what Leach mentioned in the second paragraph of his statement which is for 2 or 3 guys get the ball most of the time.
I like to call these types of offenses, “Force Offenses”.
These offenses are centered around 1-3 players at most get the majority of touches. Most of your pro style and power run offenses would fall in this category. These also force the defenses to act accordingly to what you are trying to do.
Here is another comment from a random poster of the article I linked in he believes in the Force Offense.
I would take it a step further. I would strive to create distortions. Balance be damned. I want to repeatedly attack that which is difficult to defend. If that’s Calvin Johnson in a crowd, then so be it. If they can’t stop it, then bludgeon them with it.
I think the ideal is to have 2+ guys that require double teams (or an extra defender). Adrian Peterson requires extra defenders in the box, and he creates distortions. Calvin Johnson requires extra defenders in coverage and creates distortions. If I have Peterson and Johnson on the same team, I could use one to create advantageous situations for the other. If Calvin is constantly left in single coverage, then I don’t want balance. I don’t want equality.
I want the guy(s) in the best position to inflict the most damages to get the largest share of touches.
This method makes as much sense as Leach’s method. Both methods can work well.
In NCAA 06, you can do the exact same thing. There are a handful of concepts and routes that beat any coverage.
By doing this, you say to the defense, “My best player is WR X and/or RB Y and I don’t care what you do, we will get them the ball”.
Lane Kiffin is great at this method. If you watched Alabama last year, Kiffin was able to give WR Amari Cooper the ball in so many ways and nobody could do hardly anything about it.
I love the idea calling plays based on what I want to do and not what the defense gives me.
In a future post, I will go over these concepts on how to give the ball to your playmakers, regardless of coverage.
This is easy to do with runningbacks since all you have to do is hand them the ball. But I will show you how to get the ball to your best receivers at will.
Your Thoughts
I want to know your thoughts on both methods. What is your definition of balance?
Do you like to give the ball your 2-3 main studs or do you like to see an even distribution to all of your skill positions?
Please pose in the comments section so we can have a nice roundtable discussion on some philosophical football.
My version tends to vary. I usually lean toward the run and I bell cow it unless I have multiple comparably-sklled runners. I’m always more a 1-2 punch guy than a by-committee guy. I tend to run three receivers and the X is usually the 1 but the 2 can be the Y or the Z. Balance often comes to my passing game just because it’s always an afterthought to my run game.
In years I have a good tight end, I’ll lean on him because of the matchup problems… I’ve heard these quotes from Leach before and I’ve sort of tended to build my offenses like I read McElwain does and I’ve seen Kiffin do as far as get your talented people the ball. I don’t force the ball where the defense won’t allow it, just keep going to the hot hand and the open man.
I remember the last time I ran a similar offense where I used a 1-2 punch as well. Both guys had over 1,000 yards but my #2 guy wanted to transfer which I thought was weird. I don’t know if I should have started him a few games or what. So don’t be surprised if that happens to you.
I think if you have a stud WR that is feeling it that game then you keep giving it to him until they double-team him. Then you can go to your HB or other good WR. It is just a give-and-take type of deal.
I like the idea behind it because you dictate the game and not the defense.
This just happened to me. I always recruit a really fast 3-star RB with good catching ability for my shotgun formations and use my best RBs in the ACe and I formations. My O-Line was young this last season and I was being sacked too often, so I ran shorgun 70 to 80% of the time. My 3rd string shorgun-only RB had over 700 yards rushing and over 1400 yards receiving and won the heisman as a sophomore. I thought for sure he would be back but he transfered to Syracuse for more playing time. Makes no sense.
I always have more trouble running out of 3-wide sets than 2-wide. I like that extra blocker, for blitz purposes and to have another run blocker.
I would like to know more on how successful you have been running from 3-wide sets. I assume you play under center most of the time correct?
grew up on Wisconsin football so i was doomed from the start. i get the biggest damn road graters i can find and pound the run until the safety drops and PA over the top. it is damn rare for my team to have more than a 50 yards difference between running yards and passing. so running to set up the pass and always take the open man
other thought: you ever have players that are faster than they should be? like as in a guy that is an 87spd that runs faster than a guy with 95. i have a power back that never gets caught in the open field but the scat back is tracked down every time and they don’t have angles on either of them
It seems that most guys who comment on here run the same offense: run the ball until a safety comes up then use play action. There is nothing wrong with that and I have used that style many times. Hopefully this site can broaden everyone’s horizons in that you can do things differently offensively if you want to, just so you don’t get bored with the game at least.
You would think that Reggie Bush, with a speed of 99, can not be ran down but sometimes he gets caught. I think you should take into account both players’ angles and not just one or the other. In all my years of playing, I have never seen it repeatedly to think, “man, they really need to fix this speed discrepancy”.
it is not a speed discrepancy per say. it is more like this player who i know should be slow is hitting the hole faster than the 99 spd 99 acc player. it happens like clockwork every 3 season i get a player that should be slow end up a home run guy because he runs faster than what his spd ability says it should be and is straight up beating the 95+spd guys
The only thing I can think of there is if fatigue plays a factor or not. I wonder if a guy with 99 SPD and ACC gets his fatigue down in the 80’s or lower if that effects him hitting the hole harder or can not get top speed on a breakaway. Just a speculation though.
That’s happened to me too. In my Kansas State dynasty I was using my Tom Osborne offense and one season I used two HBs equally. The #2 guy put up big numbers and later transferred. I think it’s a glitch in that being a backup player overrides on-field success which leads to transfers. So you’re right, it doesn’t make sense.
Sorry for responding to an old post, but I got to thinking about what Leach and the other mystery poster said. I tend to agree with both guys to an extent…..I agree balance has importance in that you don’t want to tunnel-vision your offense and be predictable, but I also agree that I want to exploit any potential weakness my opponent is showing and hammer it hard. I feel your Al-raid is a great example of both ways…..you have balance in the sense that every receiver has an opportunity to be thrown to depending on the coverage….but anytime you’ve noticed a trend or weakpoint in a defense, you haven’t been shy to call the same play/concept 3-5 times in a game to destroy the defense. It’d be idiotic to see a potential crush spot in a match but ignore it for the sake of balance. In the end things in the Al-Raid even themselves out, your top playmakers always have the most usage, but not so grossly high that your 3rd/4th/5th playmakers were ignored.
I do agree with Leach whole-heartedly about the 50/50 run/pass balance idea being ridiculous….not that a 50/50 scheme is bad, but that’s more of a RB-friendly offense since they get some of that pass action as well.
This was a great read