ADVERTISEMENT

Class 5/6 Flexbone

Doesn't Ozark run it?
Yes bc they’re smart.
On a different note: Anyone else tired of seeing small, rural schools try to run the spread like they have the Jimmys and the Joes to do it? Looks like crap. They don’t have the skill set to run the spread or RPOs and it looks terrible. Ready for the trend to be running the football again...
 
Yes bc they’re smart.
On a different note: Anyone else tired of seeing small, rural schools try to run the spread like they have the Jimmys and the Joes to do it? Looks like crap. They don’t have the skill set to run the spread or RPOs and it looks terrible. Ready for the trend to be running the football again...
Very true but, those small schools also play against small schools who don't have the J and J to stop it either if you have a good QB and a couple sure handed receivers.
Every offense works at every level if executed properly. Just because you and I want to see more pounding the ball, doesn't mean the spread is a bad choice. Player talents should determine that more than fan preferences.
 
Very true but, those small schools also play against small schools who don't have the J and J to stop it either if you have a good QB and a couple sure handed receivers.
Every offense works at every level if executed properly. Just because you and I want to see more pounding the ball, doesn't mean the spread is a bad choice. Player talents should determine that more than fan preferences.
I'll respectfully disagree.
Now, there are the unique cases where smaller schools have a grade or two that have a dual-threat QB, good RB, and a couple tall guys that can catch, but this is by far the minority.
Most small schools are from rural communities and don't have this type of talent so running the ball is a much better way to be competitive and build a tradition. I would submit if you went back the last 10 years and looked at which schools were most successful, most small schools with great programs and continuously make a run for state, they run the football, not the spread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RawMeat
I would submit if you went back the last 10 years and looked at which schools were most successful, most small schools with great programs and continuously make a run for state, they run the football, not the spread.
MQUSuzc.gif
 
Very true but, those small schools also play against small schools who don't have the J and J to stop it either if you have a good QB and a couple sure handed receivers.
Every offense works at every level if executed properly. Just because you and I want to see more pounding the ball, doesn't mean the spread is a bad choice. Player talents should determine that more than fan preferences.

Operative word in that entire paragraph was IF.
 
'Most' small school dynasties have two things in common: they run the ball well and play good defense. BUT there have been some very good playoff teams that have run the spread effectively. I link it more to the effectiveness of the players in the given style of play rather than the style of play itself. I think most would agree that player skill has a larger impact on the spread offense than a run-first game...hence why the spread only teams seem to come and go where the dynasties that we have come to known heavily rely on the ground game....talent is cyclical.
 
'Most' small school dynasties have two things in common: they run the ball well and play good defense. BUT there have been some very good playoff teams that have run the spread effectively. I link it more to the effectiveness of the players in the given style of play rather than the style of play itself. I think most would agree that player skill has a larger impact on the spread offense than a run-first game...hence why the spread only teams seem to come and go where the dynasties that we have come to known heavily rely on the ground game....talent is cyclical.

Right, and if I'm concerned with success and job security doesn't it make more sense to run the ball and play good defense than wait for that once a decade class to come through with a stellar quarterback and 3 or 4 good receivers?
 
They run a class one team in a town that could field a class 4 or 5 team if not for them
 
Lamar proved that they aren't anything special but they shine in class 1 because they are extremely unique to class 1 ... nobody else draws from that population. The rest of class 1 is towns with population 1/8 of theirs. The majority of class 1 shcools are kids that bail hay after practice every day and live in a 1 stoplight towm
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Treadmill
Lamar proved that they aren't anything special but they shine in class 1 because they are extremely unique to class 1 ... nobody else draws from that population. The rest of class 1 is towns with population 1/8 of theirs. The majority of class 1 shcools are kids that bail hay after practice every day and live in a 1 stoplight towm
Lamar is class 2.
 
I have a great idea. Let's bunch up everyone in a double-TE, 3-back offense with 11 guys between the hashes and occasionally put one wideout as a decoy that we'll throw to 5 times a year - just like we did in the 60s. And the defense can put 9 in the box. That'll really be exciting. Wouldn't want to challenge the defense by making them defend the whole field.
 
If my kids coach switches to that double wing, pound the rock borefest they will lose kids right and left. If you have a good athlete who can throw accurately at QB with 2 decent receivers, a good coach can make it work without having to bore kids and parents to death. I would rather lose than have to watch flexbone for 10 Friday nights .
 
Last edited:
You guys are crazy if you think a team has to run the spread to win and has to score a ton of points to be exciting and fun to watch.

Webb City kicks ass (and did so vs. Class 6 Jeff City and Rockhurst just a couple of years ago) and they run the splitback veer.

Maryville Runs the Wing-T...Lamar runs a version of the Single Wing. These three programs score lots of points and win a lot of games.

Also...good, exciting football to watch should also involve some good play on both defense and special teams as well.

You don't have to average 60-70 points a game to win or to play an exciting brand of football.

You can be predominantly run...even in the spread which lot's of teams are. Conversely...some Wing-T and Veer teams also throw it very well.

You win with well coached players that execute and play well together in all three phases of the game...you don't win with a formation or a certain scheme.

If all you want is to see 60-80 points scored every week...go watch any good team who plays a lot of weak opponents...or go watch a good 8-man team.
 
If my kids coach switches to that double wing, ground and pound borefest they will lose kids right and left. If you have a good athlete who can throw accurately at QB with 2 decent receivers, a good coach can make it work without having to bore kids and parents to death. I would rather lose than have to watch flexbone for 10 Friday nights .
You know that the flex and double wing are 2 different offenses right?
 
You guys are crazy if you think a team has to run the spread to win and has to score a ton of points to be exciting and fun to watch.

Webb City kicks ass (and did so vs. Class 6 Jeff City and Rockhurst just a couple of years ago) and they run the splitback veer.

Maryville Runs the Wing-T...Lamar runs a version of the Single Wing. These three programs score lots of points and win a lot of games.

Also...good, exciting football to watch should also involve some good play on both defense and special teams as well.

You don't have to average 60-70 points a game to win or to play an exciting brand of football.

You can be predominantly run...even in the spread which lot's of teams are. Conversely...some Wing-T and Veer teams also throw it very well.

You win with well coached players that execute and play well together in all three phases of the game...you don't win with a formation or a certain scheme.

If all you want is to see 60-80 points scored every week...go watch any good team who plays a lot of weak opponents...or go watch a good 8-man team.
I think you misunderstood the earlier posts. Running a spread doesn't mean you have to run a gimmicky offense with 70 passes a game. You can run the ball well out of the spread. Auburn is just one example. You can also have a balanced run-pass offense. But the spread makes the opponent defend the whole field and actually opens up running lanes for a balanced attack.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BobbyMiles18
If my kids coach switches to that double wing, ground and pound borefest they will lose kids right and left. If you have a good athlete who can throw accurately at QB with 2 decent receivers, a good coach can make it work without having to bore kids and parents to death. I would rather lose than have to watch flexbone for 10 Friday nights .

I have a great idea. Let's bunch up everyone in a double-TE, 3-back offense with 11 guys between the hashes and occasionally put one wideout as a decoy that we'll throw to 5 times a year - just like we did in the 60s. And the defense can put 9 in the box. That'll really be exciting. Wouldn't want to challenge the defense by making them defend the whole field.

Flexbone is the original spread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: O line wins games
idk if it was the original spread, it was called the double slot offense early on, I would say the original spread was he lonesome polecat, run and shoot, I don't think the person knows that double wing is not flex bone, a good coach will look at your spread offense, if you don't have a line and cant run or if you only have one receiver it will be a long night
 
idk if it was the original spread, it was called the double slot offense early on, I would say the original spread was he lonesome polecat, run and shoot, I don't think the person knows that double wing is not flex bone, a good coach will look at your spread offense, if you don't have a line and cant run or if you only have one receiver it will be a long night

3 foot splits, potential for 4 ballcarriers or 5 receivers, sounds spread to me.
 
I'm not a proponent or opponent of the spread. I just think it takes talent and execution to run ANY offense and you will win with any offense if you have talent and execution. To claim one form is superior to the other is just foolish. You can get just as many yards from a good back out of the spread as ANY other offense (maybe more) if you have the defense spread out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Treadmill
The flex to me is a fun offense. The option, misdirection, option pass, play action, sweeps and jet sweeps that you can run spread the field. You cannot put 8 or 9 in the box against a good flex team
 
  • Like
Reactions: RawMeat
well hell, you have four receivers in any pro formation, wing t, dwt, single wing, so flex bone is no different, but I wouldn't call it spread
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rufus R. Jones
I have a great idea. Let's bunch up everyone in a double-TE, 3-back offense with 11 guys between the hashes and occasionally put one wideout as a decoy that we'll throw to 5 times a year - just like we did in the 60s. And the defense can put 9 in the box. That'll really be exciting. Wouldn't want to challenge the defense by making them defend the whole field.
So the Lamar method for winning seven straight titles? I hear it works great! :D

(Guess they’ll just have to dry their tears over how boring they are with those seven banners...)
 
So the Lamar method for winning seven straight titles? I hear it works great! :D

(Guess they’ll just have to dry their tears over how boring they are with those seven banners...)
This thread is about class 5/6 schools. Lots of class 1/2 schools don't have enough talent at the QB & skill positions to run a spread effectively.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MIZ...ZOU
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT