|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Nov 27, 2012 22:53:07 GMT -6
Next year we're going to have a metric buttload of talent. Speed, size, smarts, all of it, at every position.
The problem I'm having is deciding what scheme to run. I must have looked at 50 different schemes, offense and defense, and they all talk about being designed for teams that are small, slow, and weak. That is definitely not us.
Does anyone have any experience with a situation like this? Any suggestions?
|
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Nov 27, 2012 23:11:27 GMT -6
Why not just continue to run what the players have come up learning? If you truly want them to be their best then just build upon what they already know. In that same line of thinking, you are bound to lose some players, are you going to just up and change what you do next year because you have less talent.
Ive had years where the team I coached had multiple D1 kids on it, and even more guys going to various other college levels. Ive had years shortly there after with little to no top line talent. We ran the same scheme each year because it is what we do.
You already noted that most schemes are designed for "small, slow, and weak" kids, but thats just their sale pitch (because coaches with those kids are looking for a magic bullet). If the scheme is sound, if you know the drills to work for it, and the adjustments to make with it then its gonna work.
My only advice is to stay away from the "I'm gonna run all 50 of the schemes to show how smart I am trap." Ive seen it where you get these teams who were light years ahead of their competition (you know the pipeline, top 5 in state type squads); whose coaches feel they need to show off their knowledge by running everything they know. They win a lot because they are simply more talented than everyone else, but as soon as they run into a team with close to equal talent, BAM execution doesnt play out.
|
|
|
|
Post by newt21 on Nov 28, 2012 6:58:47 GMT -6
Why not just continue to run what the players have come up learning? If you truly want them to be their best then just build upon what they already know. In that same line of thinking, you are bound to lose some players, are you going to just up and change what you do next year because you have less talent. Ive had years where the team I coached had multiple D1 kids on it, and even more guys going to various other college levels. Ive had years shortly there after with little to no top line talent. We ran the same scheme each year because it is what we do. You already noted that most schemes are designed for "small, slow, and weak" kids, but thats just their sale pitch (because coaches with those kids are looking for a magic bullet). If the scheme is sound, if you know the drills to work for it, and the adjustments to make with it then its gonna work. My only advice is to stay away from the "I'm gonna run all 50 of the schemes to show how smart I am trap." Ive seen it where you get these teams who were light years ahead of their competition (you know the pipeline, top 5 in state type squads); whose coaches feel they need to show off their knowledge by running everything they know. They win a lot because they are simply more talented than everyone else, but as soon as they run into a team with close to equal talent, BAM execution doesnt play out. I agree with everything here. Run what you've been running, and if you're running a scheme built for "inferior talent", wouldn't it be that much better with superior talent? |
|
|
|
Post by joelee on Nov 28, 2012 7:10:47 GMT -6
Every time you change schemes every player on the team becomes a rookie.
|
|
|
|
Post by CS on Nov 28, 2012 7:23:54 GMT -6
Next year we're going to have a metric buttload of talent. Speed, size, smarts, all of it, at every position. The problem I'm having is deciding what scheme to run. I must have looked at 50 different schemes, offense and defense, and they all talk about being designed for teams that are small, slow, and weak. That is definitely not us. Does anyone have any experience with a situation like this? Any suggestions? With all do respect...... I hate you  |
|
|
|
Post by coachbuck on Nov 28, 2012 7:24:46 GMT -6
I don't know what scheme you should run. I do however think its okay to change schemes. Here is the key. Whatever scheme you choose for bigger stronger and faster you and your coaches better know the scheme inside and out. You have to have the answers when thekids ask questions. You have to have the answer when a defense is stopping you. Maybe check a local jc see what they are running meet with the coaches. ......I to hate you.....such a problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by 42falcon on Nov 28, 2012 7:28:17 GMT -6
Every time you change schemes every player on the team becomes a rookie. Yes and no on that one for me. I say this because regardless of scheme your players still have to: -block -run -catch -tackle -shed -cover They are rookies if you never teach these skills / develop them and just pull out new schemes each year yes. However CC run what you know or what you are committed to learning as well as you know your current stuff. Just tweak your current stuff to take advantage of the people you have. For example we have been a 4 man front for years we now have 5 monsters all over 240lbs (in our world vs who we play those are monsters) so we base out of a 30 front and let those guys rotate through the 3 interior positions enabling us to put our fast guys on the Spurs. Is it different than what we did this year and last year? Yes & no -terminology is the same -fronts, blitzes, coverages -gap control is the same -the fundamentals of what we do are the same at every position What is different is how we are lining up to play that is it. As a side note I think it's marketing for these "schemes" ie: if your slow, weak, dumb, blind, or don't really want to hit anyone this is the scheme that will get you to beat any team in the land. I think we just take that with a grain of salt. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Nov 28, 2012 8:11:10 GMT -6
Ok, so my attempt at being facetious wasn't obvious enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by gdn56 on Nov 28, 2012 8:43:09 GMT -6
I would go nuclear on offense and napalm on D. Takes advantage of your skills and opponents would never expect it. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Nov 28, 2012 8:50:25 GMT -6
You use big words. That hurts my brain. Screw you, Canuck. Must be our well-funded and logically organized public education system. |
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Nov 28, 2012 8:54:56 GMT -6
You use big words. That hurts my brain. Screw you, Canuck. Must be our well-funded and logically organized public education system. More big words, ouch. Communist. |
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Nov 28, 2012 9:01:27 GMT -6
Ok, so my attempt at being facetious wasn't obvious enough. Sarcasm rarely comes off as such online |
|
|
|
Post by coachabh on Nov 28, 2012 9:18:03 GMT -6
Do what scheme fits your kids the best. Remember, you will not always have this type of talent. You probably won't want to run something that you may have no chance of running in 1-3 years once the talent thins out.
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Nov 28, 2012 9:24:08 GMT -6
Next year we're going to have a metric buttload of talent. Speed, size, smarts, all of it, at every position. The problem I'm having is deciding what scheme to run. I must have looked at 50 different schemes, offense and defense, and they all talk about being designed for teams that are small, slow, and weak. That is definitely not us. Does anyone have any experience with a situation like this? Any suggestions? Find one that suits your personality, learn it inside and out, make sure that it's flexible enough to adjust to yearly personnel changes and go with it. They all work. |
|
|
|
Post by bluedevil4 on Nov 28, 2012 9:26:24 GMT -6
Ok, so my attempt at being facetious wasn't obvious enough. I got it lol. I think it is more obvious due to the "stars" under your name. |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Nov 28, 2012 9:35:06 GMT -6
Ok, so my attempt at being facetious wasn't obvious enough. That's what happens when you use big technical terms like "buttload". |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Nov 28, 2012 11:22:10 GMT -6
Metric buttload.
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Nov 28, 2012 11:35:51 GMT -6
Yeah, well the metric thing is where you lost us. |
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Nov 28, 2012 11:56:57 GMT -6
What is the conversion factor of Metric Buttload to American BoatLoad???
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Nov 28, 2012 13:34:00 GMT -6
2.224
|
|
|
|
Post by dsqa on Nov 28, 2012 13:49:17 GMT -6
Always helps to have a 12th player on the field as well...
|
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Nov 28, 2012 14:06:49 GMT -6
isn't that 9/4ths?  2.25 isn't it? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2012 15:09:56 GMT -6
Knowing your posts, cclement, I thought you were being sarcastic; I just didn't get here fast enough!
One serious point that I think Carookie gets at is I think having a talented team means you should actually cut the playbook down. If you are more talented than most of the teams you'll play, run less and just let your talent take over. Less talented teams, in my opinion, should actually run more plays, because you might have to "out x and o" the opposition more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Nov 28, 2012 16:43:24 GMT -6
I don't know, with all this talent I figure I need to do the opposite of all those other guys. They all talk about keeping it simple, so I think I should try and complicate it as much as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 28, 2012 19:05:50 GMT -6
cc--i was going to suggest that you RUN WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW. Obviously that is the way to go with a metric buttloads of talent, since when you are talentless the answer is run what you know  |
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Nov 28, 2012 19:19:20 GMT -6
cc--i was going to suggest that you RUN WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW. Obviously that is the way to go with a metric buttloads of talent, since when you are talentless the answer is run what you know Given the arguments often made...that seems to make perfect sense. I like it, coach. |
|
|
|
Post by dsqa on Dec 1, 2012 6:26:23 GMT -6
Go Deep and often!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mav on Dec 1, 2012 7:20:07 GMT -6
Before it gets deleted |
|
2.25 isn't it?
