|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 9, 2010 10:48:07 GMT -6
After the most recent "we do ______ because we don't have the players we need" thread (in which a coach felt that something like the 4-3 defense should be left for colleges because they can pick their personnel...I finally decided to just be the grump and ask...WHY is your personnel so comparatively poor. How is it that so many posts here seem to be loaded with 185 lb mortals, and yet have to face wave after wave of 255lb cybernetic freaks? Or why some posters are always stating they field teams that can't run out of sight in a week, but play against the state champ 4X100 team on a game in game out basis?
We have skirted around this issue before, but I don't remember a discussion directly addressing this. And I am NOT saying it doesn't happen. This past season, helping out a friend at the Jr. high (7th/8th) grade school...there was only 1 player who had reached puberty. Just 1..and NO skill players. It was very uncommon.
So, to all the "we need to ________ (spread them out, bunch them up, speed up the game, slow the game down, ) and _______(run a 4-3, run a 3-3, run a fifty, run the bear) because we DON'T HAVE THE PLAYERS....why don't you have them.
|
|
|
Post by leighty on Jun 9, 2010 10:54:14 GMT -6
Because some staffs do a poor job of developing players?
|
|
|
Post by mattharris75 on Jun 9, 2010 11:07:02 GMT -6
I wouldn't go so far as to say that our personnel 'suck', but in our case it's because the football program is only 5 years old, and we're playing in a very established and competitive area. However, I don't see it as an excuse, but as a challenge. The challenge has been building players by building a football culture. Understanding how to compete, off-season weight room dedication, etc. It's not a lack of 'athletes' relative to our competition (for the most part). And it's certainly not a permanent situation, given the right leadership. We've managed to win some games, to develop some good players, and we are headed in the right direction as a program. But it does take time to get to that point where the more established and 'tradition-rich' programs are.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Jun 9, 2010 11:08:20 GMT -6
Because it ends the discussion of who's scheme is better? If you "don't have the players" it's over, you can't say the scheme is wrong, it's the only option.
Also, I think it makes sense to base your scheme on your personnel if you don't get to be picky about your personnel, but I see your point, it seems like every team is made of short small fat light players (yes, I see the irony of fat light players)
I think that may be because many coaches have a lack of one attribute on their team, and run their teams accordingly, but when you read the aggregate of their comments, it seems like every team out there is the worst possible.
Also, coaches are an insecure, paranoid lot. I mean that in its best sense, and include myself among them.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jun 9, 2010 11:09:04 GMT -6
Observing a couple of situations near here at the HS level: Omaha Public Schools has open enrollment Many of the better players choose to go to schools that have traditionally been competitive and field teams with high numbers One OPS school with population of 1700 kids has just 56 total kids in the program. One year they fielded a frosh team of 13 kids. They have consistently lost since about 1985 as the neighborhood changed from eastern european to hispanic.
Another OPS school has over 200 kids out and had a frosh team of 72. They usually do quite well. All the OPS schools compete against suburban schools with HUGE numbers of very well fed kids One suburban school has over 2300 students and over 250 in the football program. The last time I saw them play they were fielding 2 frosh teams of 50 and 54 kids. A team with 104 frosh out vs a team with 13 frosh out, my guess is there is a pretty wide disparity in talent. OTOH sure most of the wowe is me stories are blown WAY out of proportion.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Jun 9, 2010 11:16:40 GMT -6
my athletes suck because if we lose then it is them - they suck, remember? if we win, then i'm one hell of a coach because i must have out-coached the other guy because my athletes suck, remember?
why else??
and, to further reinforce to everyone that my athletes are no good, i can only run this one scheme i know.. i know it extremely well and it is perfect for the type of sucky kids i have so there is no need to further develop it or change what i do. i can't get too complex or in depth with anything - get out of my comfort zone - because, well, i just don't have the type of kids for that.
my poor personnel justifies everything i do and validates it.
isn't this what we are wanting to hear? hahahahahahah
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Jun 9, 2010 11:31:45 GMT -6
In the words of Lucas Bly... I'm a 2nd rate coach of a 3rd rate team...
But seriously.. some places just have the kids and some don't..
My Starting OT this year was a 5'8 180lb freshmen who could only bench 135lbs. He ran a 5.8 forty and was quite frankly, still a baby.
3 of the other 5 teams in our district made it to the second round of the playoffs.. and 2 of them made it to the quarters.
LSU has signed a kid from this district each of the last 3 years and signed 2 dlinemen last year.
I think it mainly has to do with the area.. each of the other teams in our district are small towns with a decent amount of commerce... that allows them to support a population that keeps them in the same class.
Our school was that size because 5 very small communities were pooled together. There are a couple of gas stations and churches and one community has a family dollar, but that is it.
So you end up with the bad problems of small communities multiplied times 5.
The thing is though, basketball won state back in 03.
but I can honestly say other than maybe a couple of tweener type kids, we had everyone in the school who could play of us out.. and that was only 26 kids grades 9th-12th.
|
|
|
Post by coachbdud on Jun 9, 2010 11:33:50 GMT -6
Ive honestly seen some schools just flat out get bigger kids... At my last school there were very few kids over 6 feet tall, in the entire student body.
More often than not the "weaker" schools just struggle getting their kids into the weight room from the day they come in as freshman through their last game as seniors
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Jun 9, 2010 11:49:15 GMT -6
We have a major commitment issue on the part of the kids at the school I'm at. They have excuse after excuse why they cannot come to weights or practices over the summer, so we only get to develop them IN-SEASON... We only get about 15-20 kids in the weightroom on a regular basis, go talk to other coaches during their weightlifting sessions and we see 50-60 in there. Then during the fall all the rumbling from the stands about how they don't understand why we can't coach our kids to win against the other schools.
Also, we timed 40's a couple of weeks ago... FASTEST kid on the whole team = 4.95 OMG!!!!
|
|
|
Post by mattharris75 on Jun 9, 2010 11:51:52 GMT -6
More often than not the "weaker" schools just struggle getting their kids into the weight room from the day they come in as freshman through their last game as seniors Which comes back to building a football culture. Which ultimately is a coaching issue (or at least a coaches responsibility). Although It's certainly not an easy problem to fix in many cases, and there are always extenuating circumstances...
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Jun 9, 2010 11:58:22 GMT -6
I et the theoretical problems of open enrollment, but how do the kids get across town to school every morning, do their parents not work? We have more or less open enrollment, but you don't see kids transferring across town over high school sports. Maybe it's regional.
|
|
|
Post by M4 on Jun 9, 2010 12:05:44 GMT -6
we run the spread because we always have great skill guys but can find 5 decent linemen, we start a tackle whos 185 and a tackle whos 210 a C whos 220
because of how our team is run we can't move players from DL to OL because they would not play for us and would go to our competetion so we have to make due
it's easy for you guys to say "cut them if they don't wanna help the team" but we simply can not compete with 25 kids on our roster, it just wouldn't happen
we don't have access to the players during teh off season except on a volunteer basis 1 nigth a week starting in 3 months before the season training camp opens
so we spread
|
|
|
Post by coachguy83 on Jun 9, 2010 12:25:22 GMT -6
I grew up and live in an area with a lot of small schools. The school I work at now is 4A in a classification system with 8 levels and I think it's big. In the smaller schools the ones that tend to have the best players are the schools that have a tradition of winning and do a good job of developing talent. Most of them have had the same coach for 10 or more years or if they have changed coaches the new guy came from the same program.
If you watch freshmen games around here you almost always see pretty good games. THat's because most teams have 9th graders that are similar in size and athletic ability. The teams that have good players at the varsity level are the teams that take those freshmen and get them into the weight room and make them superior athletes by the time they are seniors. The teams that have poor numbers and have freshmen starting on varsity are going to be worse off because you have a team of men playing a team of boys.
I think those are the major factors in why coaches don't have talent. It does seem that 99% of the guys on here complain because they have a team full of fat boys and midgets. I think in a lot of the cases it's because football coaches are some of the biggest worriers on the planet and we all seem to have the grass is greener complex. Why do you think so many coaches switch jobs every few years.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jun 9, 2010 13:00:59 GMT -6
I et the theoretical problems of open enrollment, but how do the kids get across town to school every morning, do their parents not work? We have more or less open enrollment, but you don't see kids transferring across town over high school sports. Maybe it's regional. Transportation is provided free of charge if your race is in low numbers in that school.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jun 9, 2010 13:04:13 GMT -6
.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jun 9, 2010 13:04:41 GMT -6
I et the theoretical problems of open enrollment, but how do the kids get across town to school every morning, do their parents not work? We have more or less open enrollment, but you don't see kids transferring across town over high school sports. Maybe it's regional. Transportation is provided free of charge if your race is in low numbers in that school. Some of the very best kids within walking distance to the very bad football school I mentioned almost always end up playing across town or the real good ones even go to private school- with the parents footing part of the bill- HUGE sacrifice, huge commitment.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Jun 9, 2010 13:14:27 GMT -6
What? your schools have race quotas? (well, not quotas, but you know what I mean) Who sits down and says: Black, white, brown, white, green? or do kids self-identify as a race?
|
|
|
Post by ajreaper on Jun 9, 2010 13:17:04 GMT -6
In most cases it is not the god given, natural talent, freak of an athlete who craps muscle that's beating you- it's the other 20-25 normal everyday teenagers that someone (a coach) has developed into very servicable players through the use of a functional program designed to improves ones athleticism. You can wait around a lifetime to just "get" enough studs to be highly competetive or you can work your fanny off making the ones you have the best they can possibly be. You may not compete for a state title every other year but you will not "suck" ever.
When coaches make comments like that they likely have players and parents saying "we'll be good when we get some better coaches". Think about it.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 9, 2010 15:16:25 GMT -6
School I was at last year...you guys would have been drooling looking at the kids walking in the hallways. Problem is that the district had a 2.0 minimum GPA to participate in extracurriculars so that significantly cut down our numbers.
Regardless, I'm not a big excuse maker. I think one of the fundamental philosophies you have to accept if you become a head coach is that if you don't like how your kids are playing, it's either because you coached it that way or you let it happen.
Excuses are like a$$holes...everyone has one and they all stink!
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 9, 2010 15:20:40 GMT -6
I worked for a guy a few years ago who used to complain about how the top schools in the league had bigger, stronger, and faster kids every year. You know what...the guy was right! The top teams DID have kids who were bigger, stronger, and faster. Those top teams also had a year-round, top-flight strength and conditioning program that featured Oly lifts and ground-based, compound exercises done in a full range of motion. The guy I worked for...his weight program was a joke. No olys or deep squats. 10 sets of bench press and curls for the girls pretty much was the foundation of the program. What a shocker that his players were small, weak, and slow...
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Jun 9, 2010 15:55:36 GMT -6
What you see on the field is what you coach.
-players/development -technique -attitude -execution -leadership -scheme
the works
|
|
|
Post by coachsky on Jun 9, 2010 16:04:18 GMT -6
Our personnel does not suck.
However we do have some challenges that I think are impacting our ability to get to the final four or state championship in the largest classification in our state.
Here are some of our challenges with personnel:
1. We have 37% Asian population. We only get one or two Asian kids out every year. Culturally they are very focused on academics. On the plus side we have a great golf and tennis team. If you subttracted those kids from our census, we would drop down two classifications and totally dominate!
2. We are a baseball community. We have a huge and very competitive Little league and select programs with great facilities. It has become a huge part of the social fabric for parents. We have one of the top regional select programs based in our area. They have great facilities and several teams per age group. We have three kids in the majors right now that are from our neighborhood, two played on the same team, one kid went to a neighboring school even though he lived in our district. Travis Snyder (Toronto), Grady Sizemore (Cleavland), Brent Lilibridge (White Sox). Another kid got drafted yesterday and he went to Texas. We won a state baseball championship. Our U13 through u17 select teams win national tournaments often. Parents in our school are have an unrealistic expectation about how far their kids will go in baseball, it is warped! This year we can't scrimmage very much or play in a 7on7 league because 5 of our best receivers, our QB, and two RB's have an 80 game summer schedule. They get told not to lift, especially upper body.
3. We are a white collar, medium income bedroom community. Someone said that there are only 6 low to moderate cost apartment buildings in our area. We have a lot of engineers and software, tech employees. I think it effects two things; size and general toughness of the kids we get. We don't have a lot of kids that came from "football" families. We don't have kids where a ton of the dads played football. A lot of our parents were in honors society, debate club, they probably recieved a lot of wedgies and are not really supportive of football. We have a lot of parents that don't want their kids involved in football, because it's "dangerous". Soccer, basketball, baseball, tennis, and golf are huge. Football; not so much.
We cannot stop coaching and quit. So we overcome!
So we develop players, support and promote the youth FB league by having camps, coaching clinics, youth night at a game. We try to support and keep an active booster club. We have a hip and motivational trainer. We have won a lot of game, and league championships the past few couple years and try to rally the community. We work with our senior players and family to get as many kids we can help get to DII and NAIA schools.
It's not easy, but we can compete, where in the past, this school has struggled. We want a ship, but can't seem to get over the hump!
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jun 9, 2010 16:14:31 GMT -6
coachsky, good post.
Every situation is different, especially in high school athletics.
There are no absolutes - as in, "You do this, this and this - and you win!"
|
|
|
Post by kylem56 on Jun 9, 2010 18:08:13 GMT -6
usually, when we have a kid who isnt very good, its because he has not ever been in one of these before:
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Jun 9, 2010 18:17:42 GMT -6
so, from what i'm reading is the reason we all seem to have lesser athletes than our opponents is because the kids just won't come to the weight room during the offseason ...
|
|
|
Post by mattharris75 on Jun 9, 2010 18:18:25 GMT -6
KyleM56. I think that's true in most cases. I think the best thing our program has done to build a successful football culture is to have a full time strength and conditioning coach. He relates well to the kids, is highly motivational, and really knows his stuff.
Strangely enough, our best player is a kid who shirks the weight room as often as possible. But similar to what someone else said earlier, it's not those couple of athletic/football freaks who make a program. It's the next 20-30 guys who buy into the program and are 'built' into football players. That's the kind of dedication required to make a program into a consistent winner.
|
|
|
Post by coachsky on Jun 9, 2010 18:37:01 GMT -6
KyleM56. I think that's true in most cases. I think the best thing our program has done to build a successful football culture is to have a full time strength and conditioning coach. He relates well to the kids, is highly motivational, and really knows his stuff. Strangely enough, our best player is a kid who shirks the weight room as often as possible. But similar to what someone else said earlier, it's not those couple of athletic/football freaks who make a program. It's the next 20-30 guys who buy into the program and are 'built' into football players. That's the kind of dedication required to make a program into a consistent winner. I totally agree with your notion that is is the next 20-30 guys. Prior to this year we had 3 really great players and another 5 or 6 good players completly dedicate themselves to our weight room. That helped lead the next 25 guys to become regular weight room guys. We really benefitted from the strong supporting cast. Our studs were already pretty darn strong. This year our top athletes are big time baseball and basketball, they are really busy and struggle to get into the weight room. We have a few bigs and one LBer who are great weight room guys, they just dont seem to have the influence to get that next 20 in their as regularly as we would like. We are still okay, not where I'd like it or where we have been the past four years.
|
|
|
Post by jgordon1 on Jun 9, 2010 18:50:54 GMT -6
we had a team in our league a couple of years ago....best offensive scheme I had seen in a while..knew just where to pressure you....we kicked their butt and shut them out..they had terrible players..coach got fired etc
|
|
|
Post by kylem56 on Jun 9, 2010 19:10:27 GMT -6
KyleM56. I think that's true in most cases. I think the best thing our program has done to build a successful football culture is to have a full time strength and conditioning coach. He relates well to the kids, is highly motivational, and really knows his stuff. Strangely enough, our best player is a kid who shirks the weight room as often as possible. But similar to what someone else said earlier, it's not those couple of athletic/football freaks who make a program. It's the next 20-30 guys who buy into the program and are 'built' into football players. That's the kind of dedication required to make a program into a consistent winner. I totally agree with your notion that is is the next 20-30 guys. Prior to this year we had 3 really great players and another 5 or 6 good players completly dedicate themselves to our weight room. That helped lead the next 25 guys to become regular weight room guys. We really benefitted from the strong supporting cast. Our studs were already pretty darn strong. This year our top athletes are big time baseball and basketball, they are really busy and struggle to get into the weight room. We have a few bigs and one LBer who are great weight room guys, they just dont seem to have the influence to get that next 20 in their as regularly as we would like. We are still okay, not where I'd like it or where we have been the past four years. Coach I agree, I have been apart of teams where we had a few guys who could be pretty damn good even if they werent dedicated in the weight room because they were genetic freaks or just plain out better than others. However like you sorta said, the weight room is more important for the "supporting cast". I have seen some great 160, 170, 180 pound guards that combined with just selling out in the weight room and being taught great fundamentals turn out to be a big reason for victories
|
|
|
Post by bouncingboredom on Jun 9, 2010 19:12:11 GMT -6
There was a post in the offense section about De la Salle High school and it included an article by Bob Ladouceur, who claimed the most important person in his program was his Strength and Conditioning coach, so maybe we've hit on something with this thread.
|
|