|
|
Post by fballcoachg on Jun 27, 2012 11:20:46 GMT -6
On footballscoop today they had the following excerpt from Hal Mumme...
"I have this mentality that if you're at a place that isn't supposed to win, you have to live on the edge or you'll have no chance of winning. If you do something in the extreme, and you do it really, really well, and you rep it all the time and that's what you do well, when teams play you they're going to have to play in the extreme. And you're good at it because you do it all the time, and they only practice it for that one game."
I thought it was a pretty solid point which goes to the conversations that pop up here sometimes about being contrarian etc. and being different then those around you. It may be that I am an assistant and have the ability to think about these things with out my job on the line but I wonder if more of the HCs that take over struggling or down programs should subscribe to this thought that "playing in the extreme" may be the way to go. Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jun 27, 2012 11:40:15 GMT -6
That's all well and good for a struggling program but you also have to look ahead. You're not planning to be a struggling program forever, are you? Do you plan to live on the extreme when you regularly have talent that's as good or better than your opponents?
|
|
|
|
Post by fballcoachg on Jun 27, 2012 12:39:20 GMT -6
www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2012/6/26/3118498/hal-mumme-interviewlink to the whole interview Fantom, that's a good point and he addresses that with his thought which is you stick with what you have been doing because it is the system you know and have been having success with. Which creates an issue if you moved to the extreme for the sole purpose of creating momentum or trying to gain an edge...is that edge the same when you get the momentum/develop better players...I don't know but I would assume it would be hard to go back more traditional/conservative/or balanced if you were having success just as it is difficult to change anything when you are successful.
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jun 27, 2012 12:59:34 GMT -6
www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2012/6/26/3118498/hal-mumme-interviewlink to the whole interview Fantom, that's a good point and he addresses that with his thought which is you stick with what you have been doing because it is the system you know and have been having success with. Which creates an issue if you moved to the extreme for the sole purpose of creating momentum or trying to gain an edge...is that edge the same when you get the momentum/develop better players...I don't know but I would assume it would be hard to go back more traditional/conservative/or balanced if you were having success just as it is difficult to change anything when you are successful. Would it be hard to become more conventional once you've become successful? I don't think so. Seems that most people do. |
|
|
|
Post by Coach.A on Jun 27, 2012 13:26:57 GMT -6
At one time the Air Raid offense that Mumme helped develop was considered "living in the extreme". Now you have already successful programs adopting this offense.
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jun 27, 2012 13:54:50 GMT -6
At one time the Air Raid offense that Mumme helped develop was considered "living in the extreme". Now you have already successful programs adopting this offense. It depends how you define "extreme". There was a long thread about that a while back. |
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Jun 27, 2012 14:01:13 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jun 27, 2012 14:44:33 GMT -6
The question is, though, whether Mumme would have been the same risk-taker if he'd established a consistently strong program at the highest level. Just to make it clear I'm not questioning Mumme's ability as a coach or the effectiveness of his offense. |
|
|
|
Post by 4verts on Jun 27, 2012 14:54:29 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jun 27, 2012 14:57:45 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Jun 27, 2012 17:22:16 GMT -6
I think the point people are missing here is the "rep it all the time".
If you are at a place that isn't supposed to win, you probably have inferior athletes. If you have inferior athletes you are going to have to out execute your opponent; which is done by doing a few things and doing them over and over again.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Jun 27, 2012 17:26:55 GMT -6
I couldn't agree more!
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Jun 27, 2012 18:11:57 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Jun 27, 2012 18:48:16 GMT -6
love how he looks at it though
gotta do something to shake the status quo
We will be one of the few NON spready teams in our area next year. I like being the contrarian.
|
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jun 27, 2012 19:44:19 GMT -6
Well, I guess what I would ask fantom is why would I change anything once the program became good if not great? Why? Keep doing what you're doing? If what you did worked with average kids then it will work magnificently with great kids.
For example, would what June Jones does and has done throughout his career not work at Alabama, Michigan, etc? Absolutely it would work and it would not simply work but thrive.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by buckeye7525 on Jun 27, 2012 19:45:01 GMT -6
I remember hearing Tony Franklin saying something similar to this. He compared themselves to Navy/Air Force/Army, all of those option teams. Saying that they both lived in the extremes, those option teams running the ball and them throwing the football, and that when you lived in the extreme and it was all you did then you got really good at doing those things. Interesting food for thought, for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jun 27, 2012 19:52:31 GMT -6
Well, I guess what I would ask fantom is why would I change anything once the program became good if not great? Why? Keep doing what you're doing? If what you did worked with average kids then it will work magnificently with great kids. For example, would what June Jones does and has done throughout his career not work at Alabama, Michigan, etc? Absolutely it would work and it would not simply work but thrive. Thoughts? Actually I'm not talking about the offense so much as the other "risky" areas-not punting, etc.. The tendency is to take less risks as the personnel gets better because the risk/reward isn't as favorable. |
|
|
|
Post by Coach.A on Jun 27, 2012 20:00:35 GMT -6
Actually I'm not talking about the offense so much as the other "risky" areas-not punting, etc.. The tendency is to take less risks as the personnel gets better because the risk/reward isn't as favorable. I think we're talking about two different issues here...taking game situation risks vs. installing "extreme" or unconventional systems. In my opinion, running an uncoventional style of offense and/or defense isn't necessarily "high risk" if you install it and rep it from day one. |
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jun 27, 2012 20:00:38 GMT -6
Fantom: that clarifies things a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Jun 27, 2012 20:20:20 GMT -6
As far as the "dance with the one that brought you" "don't change once you get the program rolling" argument...
Well, most of the time when you are "extreme" you create more variables in the equation. Inferior teams a lot of times have to create more variables, in order to have a chance. It's the risk/reward fantom is talking about. If you have better personnel, why would you want to create more variables adding to the risk? Wouldn't you want to keep it as vanilla as possible and only have two variables in the equation: your players and their players? Creating more variables such as unorthodox formations, motions, trick plays, etc can sometimes backfire because they create opportunities for penalties, negative plays as well, and more opportunities for bad execution.
|
|
|
|
Post by shotgunfivewide5 on Jun 27, 2012 20:27:07 GMT -6
several years ago i spent several thousand dollars on the tony franklin system and what i brought away from it was this. The system was nothing special but i thought was he did very well was how they practiced there system and they developed a program where they could practice there system and get "quality reps". The key is having a plan, any plan better than know but know how to practice what you do really well. one of the quotes he stated and i paraphrase here, " to win big you must be willing to lose big," thought it was a good quote.
I have never taken over a successful program, always really a rebuilding job. You have to dare to be different and you must develop some type of offense and defense that gives even the worse talent a chance to win. Do you want to be a contrarian all the time, no, but you should have a plan before you ever start with how you want to mold your team. Very rarely can you do one or two things well and run one or two formations and beat many people. I think every coach wants to win and always be competitive and i always approached it in my head like this, never telling my players or assistant coaches:
who is the worst and best in your league, before you can be the best of the best you had better be the best of the worst, most times you start with no momentum and you have to do something that gets the ball rolling...when we get to be the best of the worst i set my sights higher. In my current program we are nowhere close to playing for a championship having finished second in our region two years in a row. I do see that three years into the program we have younger players that will keep developing we can have a shot to play for a title, right now we are trying to capture a region title and now developing a mentality that we are setting ourselves up to beating the two or three teams that we will have to beat to be the best in our divison, i guess the next step on the ladder. I think that making goals to win the state championship every year is really unfair to your kids, fans and coaches. the only thing we continually set for is to get better each week as a team and a individual, for both players and coaches. All in all i think the worse you all the more chances you have to take to even give your team a chance to win. the only other way really is to try and play it close to the vest and just try to lose close. I do not think however that being a contrarian means you do crazy stuff, i believe thinking outside of the box is not contrarian..you owe your kids that....advice worth what you paid for it
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jun 28, 2012 5:26:54 GMT -6
1. Talking about 'inferior' talent at the high school level is a slippery slope. It draws our attention to schemes and away from what's really important and that's coaching. It's a different story at the college level where recruiting is the name of the game.
2. Being contrary is great but it's not necessary to turn around flailing programs. Line up in the I-formation and jam it down people's throats: just coach it well. Throw five wide on the field and chuck-n-duck all day long: just coach it well.
|
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jun 28, 2012 5:36:45 GMT -6
In CFB these days with the amount of passing going on Air Raid is no longer "extreme," more the norm.
Teams that run "Pro-style" offenses - Stanford, Michigan State, Wisconsin, others - are in the minority.
Georgia Tech and Navy would seem to be the current "extremes."
Maybe some desperate AD will hire a coach who will run Single Wing or Double Wing!
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jun 28, 2012 6:16:26 GMT -6
???h In CFB these days with the amount of passing going on Air Raid is no longer "extreme," more the norm. Teams that run "Pro-style" offenses - Stanford, Michigan State, Wisconsin, others - are in the minority. Georgia Tech and Navy would seem to be the current "extremes." Maybe some desperate AD will hire a coach who will run Single Wing or Double Wing! The Single Wing is a gun-offense so that's probably not a far stretch.. |
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jun 28, 2012 6:43:17 GMT -6
Single Wing may resemble a Gun offense in that QB is not UC.
However I haven't seen any CFB teams line up with shoeshine splits, UB line, two TEs, and a Blocking Back, running Buck-Lateral or Spinner series recently.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jun 28, 2012 7:27:45 GMT -6
Single Wing may resemble a Gun offense in that QB is not UC. However I haven't seen any CFB teams line up with shoeshine splits, UB line, two TEs, and a Blocking Back, running Buck-Lateral or Spinner series recently. Well known facts between football coaches but not quite true for the average AD. Chances are they'll be calling it that "Teebow offense". |
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Jun 28, 2012 7:51:04 GMT -6
Single Wing may resemble a Gun offense in that QB is not UC. However I haven't seen any CFB teams line up with shoeshine splits, UB line, two TEs, and a Blocking Back, running Buck-Lateral or Spinner series recently. But, but, but the wildcat is the single wing. Just ask football analysts. |
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jun 28, 2012 7:56:13 GMT -6
Just ask football analysts. You mean the "experts" who insist on calling Jet Sweep a Reverse? We don't even run Jet Sweep and that irritates me. |
|
|
|
Post by fatboy04 on Jun 28, 2012 9:02:10 GMT -6
This all just reinforces why I'm a Double Wing guy.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoachCP on Jun 28, 2012 9:30:41 GMT -6
I think the idea is not necessarily what scheme will get you to win. They're good at something because they rep it over and over again. Being on the extreme is just an aspect of it. If you can out execute someone, even if their physically more talented then you, I think you'll have success. You might now always win, but you'll still have success.
If you watched us last year, you'd say we just out athlete you because we run the I and we're fairly predictable. However, if you look over the past 5-6 years when we've made 3 state semi appearances (or higher), we out execute people. We don't have many D-I kids, maybe 1 every 2 years if we're lucky (usually D-IAA too). The top teams at our level usually have 1 or more a year. But we do always produce a crap ton of D-III's because we're so good at fundamentals because we rep fundamentals everyday. Our concepts recycle technique and concepts so we play really fast.
So I don't buy the living on the edge thing. Any system can work as long as you're well organized, fundamentals can be taught at a high level, and the kids have a great understanding of all the plays. I don't think living on the edge hurts, but I think the big thing is they're really good at something and they hang their hat on it. People caught up to them, and they're no longer out executing with subpar talent, so the success leveled off.
|
|
