jimmys and joes vs. x's and o's

fballcoachg---
Don't confuse COACHING with "x's and o's"

Coaching is ALWAYS a factor... "x's and o's"...not so much.

Coaching IS Jimmy's and Joe's.

Anyone who thinks that "coaching" equates to your schemes is missing the entire point.

Coaching is developing and motivating the Jimmy's and Joes. It's establishing a PROGRAM.

What I see way too much of on this message board is coachings crying about "not having this that or the other thing" in terms of players, and then begging like vultures for magic bullet schemes.

"PLZ SUMBUDY SEND ME ORAGON PLAYBOOK! NEED TO TALK TO CHIP KELLY ASAP! FAST PASE OFFENCE NEEDED. KAN'T KOMPETE WITH BIGGER BETTER FASTER SCHOOLS!!!"

How do you think those schools got bigger, faster, and better??

Coaches, especially those newer to the game, shy away from the player development stuff and tend to go toward schemes and x's and o's. That's because X's and O's are easier and more fun, and give you more to talk about on message boards and at clinics. BUT, that stuff isn't going to win ballgames for you in the long run. It might make you feel smart to be able to run the new Whiz-Bang Flamethrower Offense and the Superblitzer Stack Defense...but you can't outschme superior PLAYERS. The only way you can get there is to work on the athleticism and skills of those guys. Then, it doesn't matter what your schemes are as much.

But, coaches get lazy and sucked into thinking that Chip Kelley is going to save them, because that's much easier than working on the kids in the weight room and doing boring repetitive drills on the practice field.

If coaches would focus more on actually developing players (in and off-season), we'd have a much better sport and a much better reputation as coaches.

I love this thread.

the reason I ask is I get so frustrated with some coaches minimalizing the job other coaches do by simply saying, well its all about the jimmys and joes, they have studs. I guy I worked with my first year said this all the time, then he went to the school he was saying any slapd*ck could coach to a championship and they have since went into the tank. I completely agree scheme has little to do with it as opposed to how you teach and coach it and the kids was just wondering if I was by myself on that one.

Interesting example. I seem to be caught in the mediocrity bubble (as far as a program), and I have been wondering what it takes to be great. I am wondering if the little things that i am seeing are what is keeping us from being great. Well, actually I know it is, it's just hard to watch it happen.

I think what may be even more painful is the coaches who offer the "coachspeak" on the player development issue as if they understand that the only way to truly succeed is to outwork people in developing their players athletically and in the mental toughness aspect. Yet, these same guys through their actions seem to be just sitting and waiting on better "Joes" to show up. I mean, I can almost stand these guys coming on here looking for better schemes because at least they are attempting, albeit errantly, to solve a problem. It is absolutely painful to work alongside a guy who acknowledges the issues in the program and the lack of detail in player development (i.e., our players are just bad, we just dont execute), yet does NOTHING to try and change it.

There are 2 different things the saying can mean:

1. That differences in the talent will be decisive. The coaching can be a very big factor in that case if part of the coaching involves picking players, which it did in our club. We drafted our Jimmies, Joes, and a Jane, and by the great scouting effort of one of our coaches, put together a team that was bound to run the rack.

2. That coaching is primarily about human relations. You don't coach Xs & Os, you coach people. You still have to know what to tell the players to do, but getting it across to them is a limiting factor.

Dunno why, but your post made me think of The Blind Side by Michael Lewis. Lewis was discussing how Michael Oher's HS coach was so used to have to be creative/innovative/schematically brilliant that he was unhappy, unsatisfied, or just plain BORED when he had a player who would allow him to run the same play 50 times a game and win by 30. Interesting notion because it gets to the heart of our own individual motivations to coach.

Developing superior players happens via the weight room and effective coaching. What you do with their players once you've developed them is your own prerogative; some want to go warp-speed fast, some want to make it a brawl in a phone booth, some want basketball on turf. But whatever you want, X's and O's ought to be secondary to player development. If you cannot do the latter, what you do for the former is kinda moot, y'know?

I could not agree more that player development (both weight room and personally) exceeds scheme. I have instituted a player development at the school I am at and it catching on like wildfire. That being said...

What about the people that watch a Chip Kelley offense or a Kirby Smart defense and think it may be something that is viable for them based on their personnel? They then come to this forum, because it is by far the best around, and use it as their starting point for finding information.

I think you are using a very blanket statement that anyone who ask for information on a scheme or system is being lazy. There is a huge difference between a coach who asks for a playbook and a coach that asks about the structure/development of a scheme. As most of us know, playbook language is so different from all coaches that they are of little help. That being said, inside zone is inside zone no matter what you call it and that is where scheme understanding is so helpful.

Also, another thing that makes this forum so great, opens up access to countries from across the nation that otherwise would be limited. Being that I am from Ohio, I am not going to be able to make any spring practices at Oregon or Auburn. Chip Kelley or anyone from his staff will most likely not be speaking at any of the clinics that I will be attending. So in order to garner information on how they do things, in order to figure out if it wold fit our personnel, I would come here in my search.

I agree that younger coaches tend to be the peoples that come on here and are requesting playbook information. I think many younger coaches (as I did first starting out 5 years ago) do not yet understand that a playbook is going to get them very far. It took me attempting to read through 2 or 3 massive playbooks to understand that I was getting no where and actually learned nothing. That being said, this is an Xs and Os forum. The idea on here is to share ideas, which include schemes. Maybe we should add a player development tab to the forum in order to help out the younger guys.

No doubt that developing players physically, mentally, emotionally, fundamentally, and teaching them to compete is most important.

X's and O's are secondary to that.

But, Jimmy and Joe's are huge. Ask Urban Meyer. A year ago, he was it. Lost Tim Tebow. Uh-oh. But, if he still had Cam Newton, then Meyer would still be it.

Jimmy and Joes become Xs and Os during a game when you are able to take advantage of situations.

But the Season is only so long and the Training so much longer.

So if you only have "Average" Players then you cant have a "Good" Program. What is it that holds a programm back, Coaching or Players?

After this weekend, no one can convince me other wise.... coaching matters.

and you also see the player development aspect when that state champ with the outstanding senior class comes back the next year with 1 or 2 returning starters and wins it again.

At the beginning of each off-season, our staff sits down together and rates every player on offense, defense, and special teams. A (+) is a kid who is going to help us win football games. A (0) is a kid who isn't going to help us win, but he isn't going to cause us to lose either. A (-) is a kid who will cause us to lose. Our goal is to turn the (-)'s into (0)'s and the (0)'s into (+)'s in a years time, and that's not just lip service. We bust our @sses and theirs to reach that goal. Usually, if the kid sticks it out, we reach that goal. I agree with the guy above who said, you have to build your own Jimmies and Joes.