|
Post by jg08mhs on Nov 27, 2010 16:39:57 GMT -6
As I'm watching a year-after-year contender simply route their state-final opponent, I wonder what separates them from everyone else. Every good team works hard in the weight room. Every good team works hard in practice. Every good team emphasizes fundamentals. But there are those few teams that just seem to dominate year after year. Kind of a broad question, but what do you think it is that consistently puts those teams over the top?
|
|
|
Post by bluedevil4 on Nov 27, 2010 17:23:53 GMT -6
It's the culture and the tradition. Those programs (in any sport) are the ones who year after year, has a constant amount of kids committing to their program during and not during the season. For these teams, it's their sport that is usually the symbol of the school and the town they represent. It's the event that everyone in town knows about. These winning histories are brought up by constant repitition of these things. All the talk and history that is heard by the kids from the parents makes them want to be a part of it. People who aren't from this "winning" town go there so their kids can be a part of it. It's just like every kid's dream to play in the NFL, but their dream is at a high school level.
Coaching plays a big factor, but it's impossible to gain this prestige in a program without the help and commitment of the town, teachers, players, students, parents, etc.
Our program is really struggling, but there is a team 20 minutes down the road that have the program you mentioned. We have off season workouts, camps and all that. At the other school however, they don't! Why are their players so ready to play and win? They go to the gym themselves in the offseason. They get together and go to other football camps. They actually go to the coaches and ask for their help in improving during the offseason. It shows how committed they are. When you see their parents or other members of the city, they are decked out in school colors, and are constantly holding events and fundraisers supporting that program.
At our school, we have to call kids and parents just so we have hope that maybe 20 kids show up to our work outs all week. The passion and commitment just isn't there. Yes, we have those committed players and families. We have the fundraisers. What we don't have is a complete team commitment and tradition. We're trying hard to install this attitude, but the coaches can only promote this idea. It's the town and players' choice to execute it.
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Nov 27, 2010 18:02:07 GMT -6
I'm going to echo the culture part. Some schools whether you know it or not, does not get every good athlete out for the football team. The schools where football IS what the school/community is all about you get every able athlete out for the team which then creates very good competition among every position. There's a lot of good athletes out there that do not come out for various reasons and has nobody knocking at their door to get them to play.
You also have the obvious to why teams are alway good. Good coaching, lifting programs, off-season participation etc
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Nov 27, 2010 19:05:17 GMT -6
I have coached in three solid, big programs and the one that was the most successful (power house) stood out in the following ways:
1. The HC is the best coach and person I have ever been around. He treats knows how to get the absolute best out of his staff and the players by treating them well.
2. The staff has been together for years; they communicate in a very professional manner and work well together. They are no bullsh-t folks; if there is an issue, it is addressed quickly and effectively. This has allowed the HC to surround himself with a fantastic staff.
3. The program is built around dedication and hard work. If you want to play on Friday nights for this team, you had better pay your dues on the field and in the weight room. There is no room for laziness or bad attitudes; prima-donnas don't last. It is a team game and everyone makes sure the kids know it; the teams gel well.
4. Everyone in the lower levels (freshman-JV) plays and there is no argument about it. If a kid works hard, he'll get at least a series. There is no question about it; the lower levels are designed to develop players and to build enthusiasm. Winning is secondary but, because of the fantastic coaching, the teams are consistently good. There's nothing quite like coaching on a soph team that not only goes 8-2 but also plays every single kid.
5. The 'duh factor' is there. The offensive and defensive schemes are simple, sound and very well coached. Fundamentals are beat into the kids all year long.
6. Because of everything described above, the kids kill themselves in the off-season. They bust their a--es in the weight room and in throwing sessions. Throwing sessions, summer workouts and camps aren't 'mandatory' but the kids are there; not showing up isn't even a consideration.
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Nov 27, 2010 19:54:34 GMT -6
Genetics?
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Nov 28, 2010 0:39:23 GMT -6
If we're talking about playoff success I think that experience is a big factor both for players and coaches. Even if the players were young kids who didn't play much having been through the playoff process helps a lot. If they've been through the changes in routine, the hoopla, and the pressure they don't come in as starry-eyed.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Nov 28, 2010 1:44:32 GMT -6
Genetics? Funny you mention that. One of the best programs in our conference (and they just won a state championship) has been putting out the same last names every seasons for years and years. If your great grandad could play, and your grandad could..and you father...then you and your brothers can probably play (and your cousins probably can too). Now, thats in the small-school realm where you have two-way players and you might only have 15 kids that can be put on the field. When they can have a steady supply of "smith's" that's a big plus.
|
|
|
Post by rpetrie on Nov 28, 2010 8:14:42 GMT -6
I think the culture aspect is VERY important. When programs can draw from 25-30% of the male enrollment for football, the result is they get the best core athletes in the school and can compete year-in-year out. As already stated...football is the signature sport in those schools. We don't have that blessing from the football gods because it is not a cultural thing in our school. We are a small school with an overall small athletic population. Mostly 2-3 sport athletes...same names season after season. Lifting is something WE as a staff have to make them understand is important...other sport coaches do not...parents do not as a whole. We have to cultivate the concept of team because its not in the values of most...it's more about the individual. There is acceptance that competing is ok and that a winning record is good enough...tough to overcome that mentality vs. teams that EXPECT to be in championships every year. We have cycles where we are competitive for 2-3 years...and then down a couple. Never have we gotten over the hump of going far in the playoffs...cause as PHANTOM said...they are starry eyed and don't respond to that kind of pressure. It's actually seen across the board of sports in our school that championship pressure is not something they are accustomed to and the end results show.
Genetics...2nd most important. We just don't have 6'2 250lb kids walking our halls. Each year or 2 we might get 1 kid of decent size on our OL. Next year we won't have a lineman (OL or DL) over 215lbs. It is what it is...we get physically worn down as the season goes on because of the size factor and that we have a hard time with depth because of the cultural factor.
Not sure how to fix it either? We do all the right things in & out of season...7v7's, weight room (everyday after school, 4 morning lifts available a week @ 6AM, 2-nights a week), camps, skill workouts, speed & agility training, fundraising, team building activities, etc. It just is what it is...hopefully it catches one year and sticks for 10+ more.
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Nov 28, 2010 10:06:48 GMT -6
It's the culture and the tradition. Those programs (in any sport) are the ones who year after year, has a constant amount of kids committing to their program during and not during the season. For these teams, it's their sport that is usually the symbol of the school and the town they represent. It's the event that everyone in town knows about. These winning histories are brought up by constant repitition of these things. All the talk and history that is heard by the kids from the parents makes them want to be a part of it. People who aren't from this "winning" town go there so their kids can be a part of it. It's just like every kid's dream to play in the NFL, but their dream is at a high school level. Coaching plays a big factor, but it's impossible to gain this prestige in a program without the help and commitment of the town, teachers, players, students, parents, etc. Our program is really struggling, but there is a team 20 minutes down the road that have the program you mentioned. We have off season workouts, camps and all that. At the other school however, they don't! Why are their players so ready to play and win? They go to the gym themselves in the offseason. They get together and go to other football camps. They actually go to the coaches and ask for their help in improving during the offseason. It shows how committed they are. When you see their parents or other members of the city, they are decked out in school colors, and are constantly holding events and fundraisers supporting that program. At our school, we have to call kids and parents just so we have hope that maybe 20 kids show up to our work outs all week. The passion and commitment just isn't there. Yes, we have those committed players and families. We have the fundraisers. What we don't have is a complete team commitment and tradition. We're trying hard to install this attitude, but the coaches can only promote this idea. It's the town and players' choice to execute it. Tradition definitely comes out of all the factors mentioned that produce these "powerhouse" programs. In our state, East Grand Rapids just won their 5th straight state championship. They have "it". One of the things I thought was very interesting and it's related to this tradition aspect is that while they were playing in the title game last night, announcers mentioned that throughout the week of preparation for the game, 56 football alumnists representing several different years came to practice to observe and motivate the team. They just wanted their presence to let the players know how important East Grand Rapids Football was to each of them. The alumnists also wanted to let the players know that they weren't just playing for themselves...they were playing for East Grand Rapids football teams past and present. That's tradition. Tradition is a powerful driving force that I know, without a doubt, influenced the outcome of their championship game yesterday. Amazing and just flat out neat.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 28, 2010 10:47:46 GMT -6
...hopefully it catches one year and sticks for 10+ more. It does seem often that having "it" is very much a snowball effect. One thing that coaches of several of the "it" teams do down here (Louisiana) have commented on is the extended practice it allows them. Win a couple of games, and your underclassmen essentially have an extra spring practice--actually new rules limiting spring to 10 practices means win ONE playoff game, and you can get the equivalent. Not sure if/how they structure their practices to maximize the benefits of this, but a team that concentrates efforts on individual periods and technique/ fundamentals gets the benefit of some extended work. This becomes a cumulative with each passing year. At schools such as John Curtis/Evangel/West Monroe/Acadiana/South Plaquemines--Their Sr's this year have had potentially 10-12 WEEKS more of practice opportunities than their opponents. Handled well, that is potentially 72 extra practices. A few things I have noticed about the "it" teams in Louisiana. 1) Public "It" teams are NOT from the MOST major metropolitan surrounding New Orleans or Baton Rouge or Shreveport. They are from lesser metro areas near Lafayette, Monroe, or are smaller rural schools. 2)Private "It" teams ARE from the major metro areas included in New Orleans and Shreveport and Baton Rouge. ----Side Note--- Private "it" teams are often accused of being football factories, and they DO exhibit traits different than other private schools of similar enrollment size. Here in LA, I would say that we have different levels of "It". We seem to have the same 10-12 schools fighting it out to get into the final 8 and 4 every year in each class. I would call these schools that have "it" However, we have a few SUPER ELITE schools such as Curtis (25+ state titles since inception in 1969 ) West Monroe ( 5-7 titles since 1993) Evangel (11+ titles since early 90's) who are seem to win a title every other year (WM had a dry run when Evangel played in the top class). In class 2A (second smallest) since 2007, You could have just played Evangel vs John Curtis in August, and moved on to basketball season.
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Nov 28, 2010 11:38:03 GMT -6
I knew this one team that had "it"...
but they got some medicine, and "it" all cleared up!
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Nov 28, 2010 11:49:51 GMT -6
...hopefully it catches one year and sticks for 10+ more. It does seem often that having "it" is very much a snowball effect. One thing that coaches of several of the "it" teams do down here (Louisiana) have commented on is the extended practice it allows them. Win a couple of games, and your underclassmen essentially have an extra spring practice--actually new rules limiting spring to 10 practices means win ONE playoff game, and you can get the equivalent. Not sure if/how they structure their practices to maximize the benefits of this, but a team that concentrates efforts on individual periods and technique/ fundamentals gets the benefit of some extended work. This becomes a cumulative with each passing year. At schools such as John Curtis/Evangel/West Monroe/Acadiana/South Plaquemines--Their Sr's this year have had potentially 10-12 WEEKS more of practice opportunities than their opponents. Handled well, that is potentially 72 extra practices. Piggy-backing on this, if you call up some JVs for the playoffs they get exposed to the way that things are done on the varsity.
|
|
|
Post by coachplaa on Nov 28, 2010 12:02:28 GMT -6
Great posts. It was touched on, but coaching continuity is a big part of this "culture" as well. Our coaching staff is great about reflecting on what we did well and what we didn't, and making changes and learning from mistakes. I feel like every year, we have a starting point that was further along than the year before. WE are far from being an elite program, but I think we are on our way. And we don't have all the answers, but I feel like our staff is 3-4 years closer to being where it needs to be.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 28, 2010 12:16:37 GMT -6
It does seem often that having "it" is very much a snowball effect. One thing that coaches of several of the "it" teams do down here (Louisiana) have commented on is the extended practice it allows them. Win a couple of games, and your underclassmen essentially have an extra spring practice--actually new rules limiting spring to 10 practices means win ONE playoff game, and you can get the equivalent. Not sure if/how they structure their practices to maximize the benefits of this, but a team that concentrates efforts on individual periods and technique/ fundamentals gets the benefit of some extended work. This becomes a cumulative with each passing year. At schools such as John Curtis/Evangel/West Monroe/Acadiana/South Plaquemines--Their Sr's this year have had potentially 10-12 WEEKS more of practice opportunities than their opponents. Handled well, that is potentially 72 extra practices. Piggy-backing on this, if you call up some JVs for the playoffs they get exposed to the way that things are done on the varsity. Not sure if rules are different elsewhere, but I think this is one great reason to have the team structured so that there is just one "team". The Varsity..with JV games being played by underclassmen who don't play in the Varsity game. Now there is no "calling up", and the culture is such that those underclassmen get those extra practices.
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Nov 28, 2010 12:35:50 GMT -6
Piggy-backing on this, if you call up some JVs for the playoffs they get exposed to the way that things are done on the varsity. Not sure if rules are different elsewhere, but I think this is one great reason to have the team structured so that there is just one "team". The Varsity..with JV games being played by underclassmen who don't play in the Varsity game. Now there is no "calling up", and the culture is such that those underclassmen get those extra practices. Some teams are entirely too big to adhere to such a philosophy. Some of the bigger schools in Illinois have a and b freshman teams, Sophomore teams, then Varsity teams. I've heard of a few programs, that have Sophomore teams and JV teams... entirely too many players for a 1 program philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by bluedevil4 on Nov 28, 2010 14:03:05 GMT -6
About the genetics part. Size and speed is a nice luxury, but it I don't believe it's key to "having it." Belleview High School in Washington has one of the best known and successful programs in the state. Almost all of their players are under 6 feet and under 200 lbs. If you ever watch them, it's like watching a bunch of 12 year olds with RB's playing the O-line, but they execute extremely well and are very explosive off the line. They are committed and clearly get their offseason workload in.
|
|
|
Post by coachbdud on Nov 28, 2010 14:22:32 GMT -6
Ive lived my entire life in the same city as De La Salle.
They never have size. What makes them good is their committment to the offseason, they arent big but they are strong. Their OL is unbelievable at getting off the ball, and they are very well coached. Everytime they travel down south to LA, or to TX, or play a powerhourse from anywhere, they win, and they are always physically outmatched. They have 2 D-1 players on their Defense this year (a DE, and MLB) and thats actually the most talent ive seen them have in the last 6 years or so. They dont get absolute physical studs with D-1 bodies. they get good football players
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 28, 2010 14:54:37 GMT -6
I don't buy into the "genetics" argument much either with regards to physicality. I think what actually influences it more is the IMPORTANCE, COMMITMENT, and EXPECTATIONS that comes from the parents/family than the actual DNA.
Sure, some great players help. And don't get me wrong, as I stated, some of Louisiana's SUPER "it" programs don't look like other squads on the hoof ( ECA and JC have enrollments of 300 students total, and routinely dress out 2 deeps that rival schools with 2,000 student enrollments). But For the most part, the other 8-10 "it" teams that seem to advance to the quarters/semis every other year aren't like this.
But I have never understood this "genetic" argument unless you are talking about Private Schools, or schools with open enrollments where athletes can choose where to go.
|
|
|
Post by rpetrie on Nov 29, 2010 14:52:28 GMT -6
Genetics is also not only about speed, height, or general athleticism...power potential and strength are also linked with this. Genetics creates the ability to perform at a higher level...training and commitment maximize what you have. If your potential is natually higher...you can achieve more. It is not the end-all, but it certainly makes a difference in a team sport that requires 11 at a time to succeed. You can get away with masking some deficiencies with hard work and good coaching...but genetics often makes the difference on those 1 or 2 plays that can determine a win or loss. It's not the 1 stud that worries me, or even the top 3 or 4 players...its the comparable athleticism of my 9th through 15th performers that concerns me. That's where genetics factors in the most with football...and that is where the culture of having more "genetically" gifted athletes comes back into conversation as being important to success.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Nov 29, 2010 18:09:09 GMT -6
Not sure if rules are different elsewhere, but I think this is one great reason to have the team structured so that there is just one "team". The Varsity..with JV games being played by underclassmen who don't play in the Varsity game. Now there is no "calling up", and the culture is such that those underclassmen get those extra practices. Some teams are entirely too big to adhere to such a philosophy. Some of the bigger schools in Illinois have a and b freshman teams, Sophomore teams, then Varsity teams. I've heard of a few programs, that have Sophomore teams and JV teams... entirely too many players for a 1 program philosophy. Every program (except for the one I'm running right now) that I have been involved in have a freshman, sophomore and JV program. The freshman and sophomore program are truly separate and the JV guys are basically the scout team for the varsity. But, there is a HUGE difference between the top dog of these three programs and the others; the team with 'it' makes sure that they get everyone playing time in those lower levels. The other two programs do pretty poor job of getting the sub-varsity guy playing time and it shows in the numbers. They just have fewer guys out each year and there's no way around it. There's also not as much enthusiasm within the program; the kids don't hit the the off-season very hard. And, I can't blame them. A kid goes out, does everything that is asked of them during the season and then rides the bench all year. They're really not going to want to play football anymore much less hit the weights for 9 months if they're not going to play.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 29, 2010 19:57:02 GMT -6
Genetics is also not only about speed, height, or general athleticism...power potential and strength are also linked with this. Genetics creates the ability to perform at a higher level...training and commitment maximize what you have. If your potential is natually higher...you can achieve more. It is not the end-all, but it certainly makes a difference in a team sport that requires 11 at a time to succeed. You can get away with masking some deficiencies with hard work and good coaching...but genetics often makes the difference on those 1 or 2 plays that can determine a win or loss. It's not the 1 stud that worries me, or even the top 3 or 4 players...its the comparable athleticism of my 9th through 15th performers that concerns me. That's where genetics factors in the most with football...and that is where the culture of having more "genetically" gifted athletes comes back into conversation as being important to success. Coach, it is funny that you replied to the thread, because I was actually thinking about the difference between Long Island football, and Jersey Football when I was typing. No genetic differences between the state lines, but a HUGE difference between overall quality of play.
|
|
|
Post by rpetrie on Nov 29, 2010 21:49:37 GMT -6
Genetics is also not only about speed, height, or general athleticism...power potential and strength are also linked with this. Genetics creates the ability to perform at a higher level...training and commitment maximize what you have. If your potential is natually higher...you can achieve more. It is not the end-all, but it certainly makes a difference in a team sport that requires 11 at a time to succeed. You can get away with masking some deficiencies with hard work and good coaching...but genetics often makes the difference on those 1 or 2 plays that can determine a win or loss. It's not the 1 stud that worries me, or even the top 3 or 4 players...its the comparable athleticism of my 9th through 15th performers that concerns me. That's where genetics factors in the most with football...and that is where the culture of having more "genetically" gifted athletes comes back into conversation as being important to success. Coach, it is funny that you replied to the thread, because I was actually thinking about the difference between Long Island football, and Jersey Football when I was typing. No genetic differences between the state lines, but a HUGE difference between overall quality of play. WIth the exception of Don Bosco & probably Bergen Catholic, some of the top teams on LI can certainly play with comparable size schools in Jersey...but you would have to look seriously at where (geographically) those schools are located and you start to see a difference. Let's get back to the "culture" discussion first: Jersey kids that play football are generally football players 1st...on Long Island they are generally lacrosse players 1st, then football players. My reference is that some areas JUST DON'T HAVE the genetically gifted athletes that others do...year in/year out. Here on Long Island, the South Shore & Central Island teams tend to dominate. Culturally they are tougher areas with deeper "football traditions." In the northern districts the priority is not football and there are CLEARLY genetic differences in size, speed and potential across the board. It's not that they don't put out good football players, but the overall teams are typically less athletic, slower and smaller...it is what it is. They are fantastic kids and great to work with...but rarely does a North Shore team compete in the championships.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 29, 2010 23:24:29 GMT -6
Coach, it is funny that you replied to the thread, because I was actually thinking about the difference between Long Island football, and Jersey Football when I was typing. No genetic differences between the state lines, but a HUGE difference between overall quality of play. WIth the exception of Don Bosco & probably Bergen Catholic, some of the top teams on LI can certainly play with comparable size schools in Jersey...but you would have to look seriously at where (geographically) those schools are located and you start to see a difference. Let's get back to the "culture" discussion first: Jersey kids that play football are generally football players 1st...on Long Island they are generally lacrosse players 1st, then football players. My reference is that some areas JUST DON'T HAVE the genetically gifted athletes that others do...year in/year out. Here on Long Island, the South Shore & Central Island teams tend to dominate. Culturally they are tougher areas with deeper "football traditions." In the northern districts the priority is not football and there are CLEARLY genetic differences in size, speed and potential across the board. It's not that they don't put out good football players, but the overall teams are typically less athletic, slower and smaller...it is what it is. They are fantastic kids and great to work with...but rarely does a North Shore team compete in the championships. Coach, that was my point. Jersey football is better because of the culture, not genetics. People talk about "inner city" (code for predominantly poorer and black) schools having all this speed. And while it may be true, it isn't simply because of "genetics"--look at the Patriots right now--- that too is a cultural thing. Instead of playing Nintendo, they are outside running. Instead of playing in nice calm organized leagues, they are playing against much older competition in pick up type games... Not necessarily genetics, but rather the culmination of YEARS and YEARS of activities. Is there some science discussing musclefibers...probably, but I know a lot of slow black kids too... And, can someone please explain to me HOW places separated by a few miles can claim some type of genetic difference.
|
|
|
Post by hsrose on Nov 30, 2010 0:22:00 GMT -6
How about the teams that don't have "it"? There is a team in the area that is the largest in NorCal - 4,000+ students. They are right next to the BART public transit system and used to get a lot of players out of Oakland the the Hwy 880 corridor. Don't think that happens so much these days, schools changed their transfer rules. They have the athletes, couple in the pros, and should be a power to rival De La Salle. But they don't.
They play in weak league and while they schedule a good pre-season, they are hardly ever challenged in league. They have gone 1st, and maybe 2nd round in the playoffs. They can beat the snot out of the league, get the league champ patch, get the playoff patch, and then spend Thanksgiving at home. This year they are 8-3 with a 26-6 first round loss. Last year they were 7-4 with a 59-37 first round loss.
They should be great. I'm not sure why they aren't. They have the athletes (several RB's/WR's have been nationally ranked track stars), they have the booster support, they have good coaches (I think), but it never works for them. Why aren't they great? What is preventing them from becoming a true power?
|
|
|
Post by coachbdud on Nov 30, 2010 1:06:20 GMT -6
How about the teams that don't have "it"? There is a team in the area that is the largest in NorCal - 4,000+ students. They are right next to the BART public transit system and used to get a lot of players out of Oakland the the Hwy 880 corridor. Don't think that happens so much these days, schools changed their transfer rules. They have the athletes, couple in the pros, and should be a power to rival De La Salle. But they don't. They play in weak league and while they schedule a good pre-season, they are hardly ever challenged in league. They have gone 1st, and maybe 2nd round in the playoffs. They can beat the snot out of the league, get the league champ patch, get the playoff patch, and then spend Thanksgiving at home. This year they are 8-3 with a 26-6 first round loss. Last year they were 7-4 with a 59-37 first round loss. They should be great. I'm not sure why they aren't. They have the athletes (several RB's/WR's have been nationally ranked track stars), they have the booster support, they have good coaches (I think), but it never works for them. Why aren't they great? What is preventing them from becoming a true power? coach i know exactly who you are talking about. As of last year they were actually the biggest school in all of California (enrollment numbers might have changed just slightly this year, idk) part of it is their enrollment is inflated, they have a very large amount of asian/filipino kids that go to the school they arent football players. I agree with most of your points but one... I havent seen them play a ton, but it appears as if their coaching loses the games. They have just as much if not more size than anyone in Norcal. they have more speed than most in Norcal. They usually lose to East Bay teams in the playoffs, and usually its because they are outcoached. They have more athletic talent than the teams they play the kids just arent great fundamentally and they are VERY basic in the things they do, from the film i have seen. The stereoptype i have seen here in Norcal, is that the coaching here in the east bay is better than on the other side of the hill in the oakland/hayward/san leandro/fremont/unioncity areas. (ive heard coaches from both sides saying the same thing, east bay coaches talking trash, and bay coaches admitting some deficiencies) In reality i think each side has good coaching, but it seems some of the bay teams think they can out athlete everyone, and struggle when they go up against a fundamentally solid opponent
|
|
|
Post by coachbuck on Nov 30, 2010 2:49:49 GMT -6
I dont believe in the "it" factor. I think there is good coaching and bad coaching. Coaches that can motivate and have a good game plan, mixed with talent. Where I live I coach a freshman team and our cross town rivals have the "tradition". Every year they kick the snot out of our varsity team. Every year I hear about their tradition. Its not tradition, it is hard work, talent and a belief that you can beat anyone anytime. It starts with the HC and trickles down to the lower coaches. There is no magic or luck. Its old fashioned hard work! I hear even some of our coaches gush about our rivals "man that guy is just a winner". It honestly pisses me off that these guys wont look in the mirror fix the issues and start acting and coaching like winners.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Nov 30, 2010 8:02:30 GMT -6
How about the teams that don't have "it"? There is a team in the area that is the largest in NorCal - 4,000+ students. They are right next to the BART public transit system and used to get a lot of players out of Oakland the the Hwy 880 corridor. Don't think that happens so much these days, schools changed their transfer rules. They have the athletes, couple in the pros, and should be a power to rival De La Salle. But they don't. They play in weak league and while they schedule a good pre-season, they are hardly ever challenged in league. They have gone 1st, and maybe 2nd round in the playoffs. They can beat the snot out of the league, get the league champ patch, get the playoff patch, and then spend Thanksgiving at home. This year they are 8-3 with a 26-6 first round loss. Last year they were 7-4 with a 59-37 first round loss. They should be great. I'm not sure why they aren't. They have the athletes (several RB's/WR's have been nationally ranked track stars), they have the booster support, they have good coaches (I think), but it never works for them. Why aren't they great? What is preventing them from becoming a true power? I think that playing in a weak conference has a lot to do with this. These teams get used to pummeling people week in and week out; they don't know how to handle better teams or how to play tough games. Around here, the teams from the eastern side of state are ALWAYS the toughest teams. Someone from the eastern conferences is always playing for state titles and they're generally playing ANOTHER team from the eastern portion. That side of the state is just more competitive; the teams spend all year beating the crap out of each other and then waltz through the play-offs. IMO, those eastern teams that don't make the playoffs because of their conference records would tear through the first round every year. I coached for a program in the central conference and we rolled into the playoffs every year only to lose in the first round. The conference is just very weak; it's easy to make the play-offs but it's tough to get going when you play a solid team instead of the Sisters-Of-The-Poor.
|
|
|
Post by dacoordinator on Nov 30, 2010 9:50:48 GMT -6
I would say having a good nucleus of guys and constantly having that. I think it was said before about culture, and having a good nucleus of leaders constantly pushing the envelop to be better than what is average is what drives teams to be good. If the good group of guys understand that the culture of the program is to work hard and play hard, they will try to push the rest of the team to do the same. its all about what you portray to your kids as a coach.
IMO I think that with good teams playing wise anyway. Coaches push leaders, leaders push team. Not saying that coaches negate the rest of the players. Just saying that when it comes to drills, weight room and some of your more competitive situations you really push your leaders/best players to work hard and push themselves. They will in turn seeing and know what you want and push their friends and teammates.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Nov 30, 2010 10:00:34 GMT -6
[quote author=coachd5085 board=general thread=42310 And, can someone please explain to me HOW places separated by a few miles can claim some type of genetic difference. [/quote]
Please.
|
|
|
Post by mattharris75 on Nov 30, 2010 10:17:41 GMT -6
There's a good chance that 3 of the 6 state champions in Alabama this year will be from schools within roughly 30 miles of one another (1A Sweet Water, 2A Leroy, 4A Thomasville). Culture, genetics, radioactive water supply, some combination of the above? Probably. Just an observation...
|
|