|
Post by coachcb on Jun 4, 2011 7:48:29 GMT -6
To be sucessfull you need 3 things: 1) talent 2) adim support 3) facility With these three things you can win I belive 1&2 are most critical. Football is the ultimate team game, 1 or 2 kids can make the difference between 5-5 & 7-3 or 8-2. Having admin on your side giving you not only the resoucres but the freedom needed to run a good program is critical. Facilities are a bonus they help draw interest, they are a tool you use. If you start saying you don't have "talent" you have just set hamstrung your program. And, IMO, it's just another excuse. You have what you have and you'd better work with it, regardless of how talented you feel the kids are. There is a program around here that had three kids commit to the D1 level and they won 3 games their senior year.
|
|
|
Post by fballcoachg on Jun 4, 2011 10:22:05 GMT -6
I agree with some posters that there are some places that are not set up for being succesful for several reasons, however I also agree that there are FAR more jobs that are average and the right coach can be succesful there. That doesn't necessarily mean going 10-0 every year but there are so many schools that are perennial losers that "should" be competitive. Whether it be changing attitudes, organization, or mobilizing the student body/school/community, there are some coaches that can find a way to make those work as long as they don't fall into the "we have no talent" argument and just accept that they can't win like school X does because their kids are different. I realize that there are hotbeds but most places have "the same" athletic type of kid in middle school, there is something that changes in HS though through preparation, training, motivation that starts to separate schools athletes.
The issue with me comes when it seems to be the same coaches that are always at dead end jobs...either they are always putting themselves in those situations with zero admin support or maybe they aren't wired to turn things around and have already accepted that they are in a no win situation so they have a built in excuse. I will always just refuse to believe that there are that many no-win situations out there, call it being naive but I just don't buy it.
|
|
|
Post by 42falcon on Jun 4, 2011 10:42:12 GMT -6
To say talent doesn't matter is dumb in fact if you think talent doesn't factor into it then your HS team can beat an NFL team? If talent doesn't count why do NCAA teams recruit, VS just drawing from the student body that chooses their school organicly?
You need talent to win. Yes there are teams with great D1 talent who don't win but there are other factors at play. All I'm saying is talent is needed no matter how good you are as a coach.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jun 4, 2011 10:49:37 GMT -6
To say talent doesn't matter is dumb in fact if you think talent doesn't factor into it then your HS team can beat an NFL team? If talent doesn't count why do NCAA teams recruit, VS just drawing from the student body that chooses their school organicly? You need talent to win. Yes there are teams with great D1 talent who don't win but there are other factors at play. All I'm saying is talent is needed no matter how good you are as a coach. You certainly do need talent to win. My feeling is that most schools are grouped together within their leagues with schools that have somewhat similar talent in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by fballcoachg on Jun 4, 2011 10:53:06 GMT -6
To say talent doesn't matter is dumb in fact if you think talent doesn't factor into it then your HS team can beat an NFL team? If talent doesn't count why do NCAA teams recruit, VS just drawing from the student body that chooses their school organicly? You need talent to win. Yes there are teams with great D1 talent who don't win but there are other factors at play. All I'm saying is talent is needed no matter how good you are as a coach. You certainly do need talent to win. My feeling is that most schools are grouped together within their leagues with schools that have somewhat similar talent in the long run. Thats what I was getting at you just said it better Fantom, most same sized schools in the same region are going to have a comparable talent pool.
|
|
|
Post by drewdawg265 on Jun 4, 2011 14:36:13 GMT -6
Airaider I am not trying to be a prick. I just have a different opinion. As to getting out to more programs my first stop as hc is known as the worst coaching situation in the state. Since our staff left the have won 4 games over three years in a league that is considered the worst at that level. There was a lot of messed up stuff that went on while we were there. I think we found a way to be successful within those circumstances because we focused on what we could control. We somehow connected with the small group of players we had and got them to fully committ to our program. We have done the same thing at another hs that was considered a tough place to win. We have never won a state title but we have totally changed the culture and I believe we are fully capable of winning one if we keep getting better. My advise to all coaches would be to not place limitations on what you or your kids are capable of in any situation. I have seen a number of adults focus on the negativity and I feel like it kept their programs and players from reaching the next level.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 4, 2011 17:34:03 GMT -6
2 simple rules...
1. Don't take a bad job.
2. If you take a bad job, you don't get to make any excuses about it.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jun 4, 2011 19:10:10 GMT -6
I think we found a way to be successful within those circumstances because we focused on what we could control. How are you defining 'success', though? Is it W-L or just changing the culture?
|
|
|
Post by drewdawg265 on Jun 4, 2011 21:25:10 GMT -6
I would define it as changing the culture, getting the community involved and excited about football and the w-l record.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jun 4, 2011 23:09:06 GMT -6
I think we found a way to be successful within those circumstances because we focused on what we could control. How are you defining 'success', though? Is it W-L or just changing the culture? Let's not kid ourselves. We're all evaluated on W-L. Unless they're expecting a state championship every year, why not?
|
|
|
Post by 42falcon on Jun 5, 2011 10:31:32 GMT -6
Agreed we are evaluated on W-L record at the end of the day that is what the kids care about and parents.
I'll pose this question to the nay sayers out there: Have you ever been part of a team (player or coach) that won a championship and all the parents complained about the coaching, the program was crap and so on?
|
|
|
Post by drewdawg265 on Jun 5, 2011 12:30:32 GMT -6
It is funny how quickly things can change. My first year at the school I am at now parents and community were just happy the players were playing hard and having a positive experience. We have not won it all but basically after every loss we got outcoached in the eyes of parents now. I think that is the nature and culture of coaching football.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jun 6, 2011 21:13:52 GMT -6
I don't really care about an 'answer' to this question, as all that really matters is that we all be the best "you" we can be (regardless of what anyone else thinks), so my question here isn't a challenge.
I don't know what the rationale is behind making judgments about other coaches being "good" or "bad", as I really believe it all is subjective (if it is ALL about W/L then 'coaching' may not be the most important thing going on, but something else).
This is all relative, take Rich Rodriguez. In 2005, this guy was untouchable and the "coach's coach" using scheme and such to gain an advantage over opponents and recruiting.
Rodriguez could write his own ticket at WVU. What if he never left WVU? At UM, he was humbled and ultimately a "failure" of a coach running that program.
What changed?
If Rodriguez never left WVU, would he still be a "bad coach"? Is there anything to be said of him taking the leap (out of the comfort zone of WVU) to a bigger pond?
NCAA ball aside, its all relative no matter where you are at - is being a "good coach" merely just being able to ride the momentum of good fortune or something else?
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jun 6, 2011 21:29:26 GMT -6
I don't really care about an 'answer' to this question, as all that really matters is that we all be the best "you" we can be (regardless of what anyone else thinks), so my question here isn't a challenge. I don't know what the rationale is behind making judgments about other coaches being "good" or "bad", as I really believe it all is subjective (if it is ALL about W/L then 'coaching' may not be the most important thing going on, but something else). This is all relative, take Rich Rodriguez. In 2005, this guy was untouchable and the "coach's coach" using scheme and such to gain an advantage over opponents and recruiting. Rodriguez could write his own ticket at WVU. What if he never left WVU? At UM, he was humbled and ultimately a "failure" of a coach running that program. What changed? If Rodriguez never left WVU, would he still be a "bad coach"? Is there anything to be said of him taking the leap (out of the comfort zone of WVU) to a bigger pond? NCAA ball aside, its all relative no matter where you are at - is being a "good coach" merely just being able to ride the momentum of good fortune or something else? Matt, I'm probably not talking to guys who are on here. Coaches who are here care. What bothers me is that there are so many guys who don't care. I've been doing this for over thirty years and still have a lot to learn. I work at it. So many guys don't.
|
|
|
Post by drewdawg265 on Jun 6, 2011 22:38:02 GMT -6
Brophy, I guess good coaching might be in the eye of the beholder. At the end of the day if you look critically at what you are doing you will find there are many things within your program that you can improve. I think I have become a better coach every year.
The things that drive me are improving every day, week and year. Getting the most out of our players. Coaching every day with more energy and enthusiasm than anyone. Making sure every player in our program has a good experience while feeling valued and important. Using every minute with our players in the most efficient manner possible during all practices. Overall preparing our team to play the perfect game every week.
If I feel good about those aspects I feel good about what I am accomplishing. I have to admit I have never felt good about all of these aspects after a losing season. The games are the overall test to see if what you are implementing is working. There are years where talent plays a role but in my mind most high school athletes can be developed into solid football players if you are doing things right. A team full of 22 solid football players that have invested years in the weightroom and have fully committed to a program can do great things. At least in my mind they can.
RichRod was not a good fit at Michigan and did not get the most out of his players. For some reason he did not connect with his players. My guess is he came in with a know it all attitude and failed to develop trust and respect with the players he had. I have a feeling Hoke is going to do big things at Michigan and it has nothing to do with X's and O's.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jun 7, 2011 6:25:35 GMT -6
I apologize for continuing the exchange – I’m not arguing or even trying to advocate a position. This is entertaining and I'm just posing some questions Yes, the Head Coach is ultimately responsible for the performance of his football program. I agree that everyone involved in a program should never make excuses for performance and have to actively be part of the solution of excellence. However, I find labeling coaches “good” or “bad” to be a trap of vanity. Its usually done to stroke an ego (“hey, I’m better than X,Y, and Z coaches because….”) and becomes a very source for retarding personal growth (incentivizing complacency). there are more good coaches than there are good programs". I see that on here fairly often. Yet the coach is responsible for building the program. This argument suggests that there aren’t as many “good coaches” as we are led to believe. That there really can’t be “good coaches” associated with ‘bad programs’ because if they were any good….it wouldn’t be a bad program. Are there Head Coaches out there that get jobs merely because they’ve got tenure or know someone (but really have no business being a head coach)? I’m sure, but would that be the norm? There may be head coaches that are losing but could’ve/would’ve done things differently and got a different result on the field, but I doubt many “good coaches” are failing because of coaching, but simply misappropriated management skills. It goes back to the question of “do good coaches take bad jobs”? If you were a good coach wouldn’t you see the iceberg (of an infertile program environment) ahead and only cherry-pick the “right fit”? Or are we suggesting that Bill Belichick could go anywhere and make a winner out of Iowa State? I believe that in most cases schools are similar to the other teams in their league in terms of school size and talent base. This assertion is what supports the rest of the stated argument (in the perfect world, all things are equal – I’m going to judge other people on a standard of the perfect world). I would strongly disagree. In four different states I’ve been involved in, I’d say only one actually had consistent parity. I feel this is especially true at the high school level because parity within administrations isn’t standard and does change from state-to-state. If your state has perennial All-State contenders, it is usually because; 1) those are good programs and 2) there are a lot classes with not great parity. This is no different than suggesting every kid, across the nation, should be able to get the same scores on a competency test [ and if those kids don't pass....well, they must have 'bad teachers'] I think that the biggest problem in "doormat" programs is coaching. I’ve heard a ton of parents say the same thing (at every high school game I’ve visited) and is premised on the parity argument. RichRod 1. was not a good fit at Michigan 2. did not get the most out of his players. 3. did not connect with his players. 4. came in with a know it all attitude 5. failed to develop trust and respect with the players I’m no fan of teams or coaches (maybe Saban), but how do you know any of this? This sounds completely based on perception with no substance/quantifiables. This implies that if Rodriguez did something different, if he wasn’t a “know-it-all” (?) Michigan would’ve ended up with a different result in the Big 10? Would we have said this in 2005? Does this standard mean Bobby Johnson or Larry Smith were ‘bad’ coaches for their former programs? It’s a dangerous or naïve proposition that borders on the same critiques we would get from (what we perceive as ignorant) parents/fans.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jun 7, 2011 6:51:14 GMT -6
are we suggesting that Bill Belichick could go anywhere and make a winner out of Iowa State? Interesting hyperbole. Earle Bruce was last head coach at Iowa State to have a winning record (53%) and was enshrined in Cyclone HOF. He won 75% at Ohio State and got fired. I don't know what my point is but I'm sure there's one in there somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jun 7, 2011 6:58:37 GMT -6
If he were a 'good coach' he would win anywhere, right? (thats what your hyperbole reference was pointing out) If you're into " where there's smoke, there's fire..." type logic, maybe we should ask why so many NCAA programs are having problems with ethics issues (OSU, rampant oversigning, USC, etc). What is the core issue with these programs? Its all about acquiring or further enticing TALENT.... Why would there be such a premium on 'ready-made' talent? I'm not trying to make this out to be a simplistic dichotomy (either its just coaching or just talent), just pointing out how, when you're judged solely on W-L, then the only thing that matters is winning.....and the only way to win consistently is TALENT. These guys are hired-fired ultimately on their recruiting classes.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jun 7, 2011 7:04:28 GMT -6
If he were a 'good coach' he would win anywhere, right? (thats what your hyperbole reference was pointing out) I knew where you were going-what you meant (and don't disagree), just your mention of Iowa State brought Earle Bruce and his contrasting experiences to mind is all. As for Belichick - apparently not Cleveland.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jun 7, 2011 7:14:37 GMT -6
I apologize for continuing the exchange – I’m not arguing or even trying to advocate a position. This is entertaining and I'm just posing some questions Yes, the Head Coach is ultimately responsible for the performance of his football program. I agree that everyone involved in a program should never make excuses for performance and have to actively be part of the solution of excellence. However, I find labeling coaches “good” or “bad” to be a trap of vanity. Its usually done to stroke an ego (“hey, I’m better than X,Y, and Z coaches because….”) and becomes a very source for retarding personal growth (incentivizing complacency). there are more good coaches than there are good programs". I see that on here fairly often. Yet the coach is responsible for building the program. This argument suggests that there aren’t as many “good coaches” as we are led to believe. That there really can’t be “good coaches” associated with ‘bad programs’ because if they were any good….it wouldn’t be a bad program. Are there Head Coaches out there that get jobs merely because they’ve got tenure or know someone (but really have no business being a head coach)? I’m sure, but would that be the norm? There may be head coaches that are losing but could’ve/would’ve done things differently and got a different result on the field, but I doubt many “good coaches” are failing because of coaching, but simply misappropriated management skills. It goes back to the question of “do good coaches take bad jobs”? If you were a good coach wouldn’t you see the iceberg (of an infertile program environment) ahead and only cherry-pick the “right fit”? Or are we suggesting that Bill Belichick could go anywhere and make a winner out of Iowa State? This assertion is what supports the rest of the stated argument (in the perfect world, all things are equal – I’m going to judge other people on a standard of the perfect world). I would strongly disagree. In four different states I’ve been involved in, I’d say only one actually had consistent parity. I feel this is especially true at the high school level because parity within administrations isn’t standard and does change from state-to-state. If your state has perennial All-State contenders, it is usually because; 1) those are good programs and 2) there are a lot classes with not great parity. This is no different than suggesting every kid, across the nation, should be able to get the same scores on a competency test [ and if those kids don't pass....well, they must have 'bad teachers'] I’ve heard a ton of parents say the same thing (at every high school game I’ve visited) and is premised on the parity argument. RichRod 1. was not a good fit at Michigan 2. did not get the most out of his players. 3. did not connect with his players. 4. came in with a know it all attitude 5. failed to develop trust and respect with the players I’m no fan of teams or coaches (maybe Saban), but how do you know any of this? This sounds completely based on perception with no substance/quantifiables. This implies that if Rodriguez did something different, if he wasn’t a “know-it-all” (?) Michigan would’ve ended up with a different result in the Big 10? Would we have said this in 2005? Does this standard mean Bobby Johnson or Larry Smith were ‘bad’ coaches for their former programs? It’s a dangerous or naïve proposition that borders on the same critiques we would get from (what we perceive as ignorant) parents/fans. Maybe we need to define our terms. When I'm talking about a good program I mean one that is generally competitive and can be a championship contender at times. There may be down years (there always will be if you stick around long enough) but not decades. It may not happen overnight. That's understood. I just don't see any reason that, in MOST CASES, a team needs to go 1-9 for a prolonged period. I do understand that some teams have competitive disadvantages. I mentioned one from our league. That team is VERY well coached. They're disciplined, they play hard, and they have a system. They just haven't been big and athletic enough. BUT- there are other bad teams in our league. They do not have the same handicaps. You have the perspective of a guy who's moved around. I haven't and that gives me a different perspective. My 30+ years have all been spent in the same area. I've seen teams go from the penthouse to the outhouse and back again. Guess what the difference has been.
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Jun 7, 2011 8:40:25 GMT -6
A good coach can only maximize what he is surrounded by. Some programs heve low ceilings due to what some of the other guys have mentioned:
Athletes (year-to-year) Admininstrative Support Parental Support Economics of school/area 1,000,000 other things
That doesn't mean that the coach has built in excuses, but everyone knows that if Vanderbilt or Duke goes 8-4 in football it is an amazing season for them. They have low ceilings due to many factors compared to their competition. I have been around coaches who have gone through perfect seasons, won titles, and had all the glory in a program, but would tell everyone that they were coaching 1000 times more and 1000 times better when they were with another program and was going 4-6 each year.
I know of plenty of coaches that are great coaches and have a decent chance to make playoffs every year, but not really a chance to go all the way. There is a great WingT coach around here that is stuck behind another team that had 14 kids sign this year. The WingT guy hasn't won a league or state title in quite a while because he is in with the other team that is completely loaded. Finished in the top 25 in the country last year. Good coaches come with all kinds of records, unfortunately bad coaches come with all kinds of records too
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jun 7, 2011 9:16:47 GMT -6
A good coach can only maximize what he is surrounded by. Some programs heve low ceilings due to what some of the other guys have mentioned: Athletes (year-to-year) Admininstrative Support Parental Support Economics of school/area 1,000,000 other things That doesn't mean that the coach has built in excuses, but everyone knows that if Vanderbilt or Duke goes 8-4 in football it is an amazing season for them. They have low ceilings due to many factors compared to their competition. I have been around coaches who have gone through perfect seasons, won titles, and had all the glory in a program, but would tell everyone that they were coaching 1000 times more and 1000 times better when they were with another program and was going 4-6 each year. I know of plenty of coaches that are great coaches and have a decent chance to make playoffs every year, but not really a chance to go all the way. There is a great WingT coach around here that is stuck behind another team that had 14 kids sign this year. The WingT guy hasn't won a league or state title in quite a while because he is in with the other team that is completely loaded. Finished in the top 25 in the country last year. Good coaches come with all kinds of records, unfortunately bad coaches come with all kinds of records too We're not disagreeing much here. That Wing T guy, is he doing a bad job because he's stuck behind a monster? Hell, no. One of the seasons that has been most satisfying in my career has been one when we finished 5-5.
|
|
|
Post by CoachMikeJudy on Jun 7, 2011 11:20:56 GMT -6
I've had a relatively short coaching career (10yrs), and in my time I can only really point to one thing that IMO describes a successful coach:
Fielding consistently competitive teams
A guy in my area has coached 35yrs at the same school, won 8 state titles, has been rivals.com regional coach of the year, and is a shoe-in Delaware HOF coach. His last few seasons were:
2010 - 6-4 2009 - 2-8 2008 - 6-4 2007 - 6-4 2006 - 5-5
These are a far cry from the 59-1 he posted over a 5 year span winning 4 State championships...
You know what has happened? Their district went bankrupt and their was a HUGE exodus of athletes to the surrounding districts and private schools, all of which were granted approval due to the woes of the district. Now he doesn't have the talent he once had.
The main point is that this guy has won with studs and he still wins with slugs...that 2-8 team would come out and punch you in the mouth for 4 quarters, just like every other team he ever fields.
To me, this guy could go 2-8 for the next 4 years and he still is a successful coach.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jun 7, 2011 11:30:32 GMT -6
Over the years I have seen many guys who were too eager to be a head coach that they took bad jobs and wound up frustrated and disillusioned.
Some were perhaps too young and inexperienced, some maybe had unfounded confidence in their abilities and believed they could win anywhere regardless of circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by drewdawg265 on Jun 7, 2011 12:20:05 GMT -6
Great points. One thing I hope I never do is label someone as a bad coach. I think there are reasons why people have a hard time winning, and reasons why they always find a way to build winning programs. In high school I think coaches have a lot of power to adjust to their circumstances and make the most out of a situation.
I never will say my players are not good enough to win a game. I never will go into a game expecting to lose. I feel if my team plays their best football as far as execution, effort, ball-security and tougness...We will have a chance to win. I always try and develop and play to what my players can do well in order to give us the best opportunity.
Last year I did not have confidence in our passing game so we built our whole offense around the run as the season progressed. We lost two games and if we passed the ball a little better we could have won them both. If I would have simplified our passing game earlier in the season and really practiced/ repped just a few plays to the point that we executed better I think we might have won a state title. So was that good coaching or bad coaching? I think it is hard to label it either. When I look at it I think we did a lot of things well but if we adjusted earlier or did things a little differently it would have made a bid difference.
IMO all programs can get better and as long as you are focusing on improving you are on the right track. I would challenge all coaches to take every excuse out of your vocabulary. Look at your program with these questions in mind...
What are you good at? What do you need to improve? How can your team get better? What will it take for you to feel your team will be successful? Is it more speed? More power? More players? Better lineman? Better QB's? Better WR's? More mental toughness? More discipline? More committment? How can you develop those traits you need to win games?
|
|
|
Post by ajreaper on Jun 7, 2011 12:42:15 GMT -6
There's always "issues" no matter where you coach- it can be low socio-economic where there is no money available for kids to pay for your summer program/camp or its a wealthy area where folks think a healthy checking account means their opinion is valid and must be heard. I think one trap some fall into is the "if" trap. "If" we had this then I could do this and be successful or "if" did not have this we'd be able to get over the hump. Our job as coaches is not just to recognize the problems but to develop solutions- if you know its broken then by God get to work fixing it. Whats the old Irish saying: No field gets plowed by talking about it.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jun 7, 2011 12:59:24 GMT -6
There's always "issues" no matter where you coach This is true. Every program has problems, just different. And if you're the head coach, you're the problem solver. In fact that's where you earn your money. There are a lot of factors that go into having a consistently successful HS program, but perhaps the two most important are quality of coaching and developing the available "talent" both in-season and out.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Jun 7, 2011 13:13:31 GMT -6
There most certainly are bad coaches out there.
I agree that W/L records aren't the primary indicator, and that there are good coaches in bad situations. But there are still indicators of a good coach, and there are indicators of a bad coach.
Bad coach:
Poorly prepared game plans. Poor fundamentals exhibited by the team. Poor execution. Teams who under-achieve their talent level. Systems mismatched with personnel - ie. running a spread O with a big slow line that can't block in space (then again - see fundamentals). Lack of basic in game adjustments.
I have a question for the HS coaches:
Scenario - other team is a spread passing team with a good athlete at QB (probably best athlete on their team), and 2-3 good - not great - receivers. Their QB is not the best player on the field, you've got a few kids that are better athletes. Minimal running game. In the second half, when you have a 2 score lead, they have had repeated 3rd and 20+ and 4th and 15+ situations (incomplete passes, stuffed runs, penalties). You have a 3 man line, with two big fat guys and one decent athlete. When they drop the QB back, their line ends up planting themselves in the middle of the field, and the QB runs around using the OL as picks. The big fat kids have no chance to catch him, the other is run into the ground by those picks and having to chase him - the QB is quicker/faster than he is. On two occasions he literally ran from the middle of the field where the ball was snapped to one sideline, reversed and went all the way back to the other sideline. On one occasion he then ran 15 yards for the first down, on the other he found a receiver 25 yards down the field. The DL was dropping from exhaustion chasing him.
What do you do on 3rd/4th and longs?
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jun 7, 2011 14:10:55 GMT -6
There most certainly are bad coaches out there. I agree that W/L records aren't the primary indicator, and that there are good coaches in bad situations. But there are still indicators of a good coach, and there are indicators of a bad coach. Bad coach: Poorly prepared game plans. Poor fundamentals exhibited by the team. Poor execution. Teams who under-achieve their talent level. Systems mismatched with personnel - ie. running a spread O with a big slow line that can't block in space (then again - see fundamentals). Lack of basic in game adjustments. I have a question for the HS coaches: Scenario - other team is a spread passing team with a good athlete at QB (probably best athlete on their team), and 2-3 good - not great - receivers. Their QB is not the best player on the field, you've got a few kids that are better athletes. Minimal running game. In the second half, when you have a 2 score lead, they have had repeated 3rd and 20+ and 4th and 15+ situations (incomplete passes, stuffed runs, penalties). You have a 3 man line, with two big fat guys and one decent athlete. When they drop the QB back, their line ends up planting themselves in the middle of the field, and the QB runs around using the OL as picks. The big fat kids have no chance to catch him, the other is run into the ground by those picks and having to chase him - the QB is quicker/faster than he is. On two occasions he literally ran from the middle of the field where the ball was snapped to one sideline, reversed and went all the way back to the other sideline. On one occasion he then ran 15 yards for the first down, on the other he found a receiver 25 yards down the field. The DL was dropping from exhaustion chasing him. What do you do on 3rd/4th and longs? Let's keep it theoretical.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jun 7, 2011 14:23:52 GMT -6
Over the years I have seen many guys who were too eager to be a head coach that they took bad jobs and wound up frustrated and disillusioned. Some were perhaps too young and inexperienced, some maybe had unfounded confidence in their abilities and believed they could win anywhere regardless of circumstances. That's the point Brophy brought up and I don't disagree with it. I'm thankful every day for some of the jobs that I didn't get.
|
|