This is actually something I've never been asked. I'd imagine the default would be to add either a tight end (and play games with formation strengths with field/boundary) OR possibly add another slot back (to give a trips look to the strong side).
@@Flexbone101 there is a school that won the highschool national championship that uses the flexbone formation and concepts. curious on your thoughts playcalling, 2-3 yards wont cut it each play. would you call more pull+pitch rather than the dive? more rocket and counters?
Hello coach, I'm not sure if you answer questions but I have one that really bothers me: why do the service academies' offenses do so poorly when they face each other? Triple option proponents always talk about how the offense allows you to compete with more talented teams, and yet the offense seems to struggle against the least talented defenses that the service academies face (other service academies). I think that running the jet out of the double flex formation is closest thing you can run to the conventional outside zone run. I hope that flexbone teams start doing more of it and get rid of that annoying zone option play.
Happy to answer - and yours is a question that's come up a few times. My best educated guess has to do with the scout look. In a normal matchup, the opponent has to try to simulate the plays/reads and the defense is only really seeing it the week they play a service academy. When two academies play each other, the scout look is great, because the it's the same offense that they've been going up against all through camp. I could imagine a situation where the offensive coaches actually work with the defensive coaches as to the best way to stop certain things
@@Flexbone101 So are you saying that the only reason the TO is effective at the higher levels of football is because it is difficult to prep for, as opposed to some inherent superiority in the scheme itself? Because from an X's and O's perspective, I don't see why a good TO team couldn't just literally run inside veer every play and still put up 40 unless they were vastly out talented. Isn't the point of optioning to make the defense wrong no matter what they do? Or maybe you are just saying that no offense, regardless of scheme, will look good when it's, in effect, playing against it's own defense. Is that what you meant?
"superiority" is pretty subjective. I do think it's a mix of both (scheme superiority and difficulty to prepare for). Being out talented is an issue, but the idea is to run triple as much as possible. However, defenses can stunt/influence your reads to say, always force a give read. In that case you need your constraint plays to take advantage of what the defense is doing. Your last point is pretty on the nose. I'm not sure if it's an all or nothing situation... but it's a lot easier to play against something you see all the time vs. something you only see once/year.
The A back either needs to bounce it up quicker and get what he can OR needs to bow back around the 9/WR block. Neither are great and I think you're hoping to get back to the LOS
is there a companion play that can be called to counter that off the same action. I'd assume that would leave the 9 vulnerable to a play hitting inside?
@@briansass4865 That's what I was wondering. If there is no constraint play, why not just have your LB steamroll the in line receiver every time you get this formation? I guess there is a reason this play is rarely run
