|
Post by brophy on Jun 15, 2006 8:09:30 GMT -6
All HS's have a 'feeder' school (where they get their MS talent) it all depends on how much communication they have with the MS staffs. I really don't think MS staffs are supported enough by the HS's to begin with. I really don't see a problem with a MS running whatever they wanted so long as good football was being taught, but it only benefits the kids when they develop confidence with consistent systems. The main thing, is fostering growth - you can't do that when the house is divided (HS & MS staffs at each other's throats). The MS should support the HS and the HS should support the MS. It shouldn't be that the HS staff perches themselves in their Ivory tower mandating what the MS should run or complain about what they are doing. This is football. period. support the sport in whatever you do. We used to have our MS coaches up in the box because we trusted them so much on Friday nights and they were just as much a part of our staff as the Sophomore coaches. It shouldn't be YOUR team / MY team mentality, but what do I know....
Is it necessary that the MS run what the HS runs? Not really....but I think it could help, ESPECIALLY if the HS sticks with that "system" (always exceptions that prove the rule).
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 15, 2006 8:18:44 GMT -6
Bluto
The point is that I am just trying to show the perspective. Why aren't the HS guys looking at it from this perspective "Hey, our MS feeder coach runs the DW, so WE should run the DW at the High School level to keep continuity"
I don't hear that being suggested much.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jun 15, 2006 8:52:15 GMT -6
Coachd- Someone else also pointed out that MS coaches aren't going to get canned for having a rough season- the HS coach will. Thats why they're not going to revamp their programs to run what the MS runs.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jun 15, 2006 9:19:54 GMT -6
One thing I have seen cause friction between HS and MS staffs is when the MS is successful running gadgets or gimmicks that can fool and thus be effective against other 7th or 8th grade teams, but not so much higher up, at the expense of fundamentals and what they may need as they progress through their careers.
This is exacerbated if the HS struggles and parents (and in some cases even the lower level coaches) wonder aloud how those kids were winning before but can't at varsity level.
Case in point: A junior high coach I know of was very successful running a T formation with a lot of counters, reverses, HB passes, etc. on offense and blitzing nine players almost every play defensively.
He was promoted to head coach at a Class A (1500 students) HS and, running the same system, won eight games in three years before resigning.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jun 15, 2006 9:25:46 GMT -6
I have seen a lot of problems arise on the defensive side of the ball when the MS coaches are given free reign. As blb stated, the LBs and DL don't learn how to read and react because in years prior they've been coming on blitzes every single play.
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Jun 15, 2006 9:36:48 GMT -6
Why aren't the HS guys looking at it from this perspective "Hey, our MS feeder coach runs the DW, so WE should run the DW at the High School level to keep continuity"
For the same reasons the HS physics teacher doesn't defer to the MS or Elem. science curriculum for his teaching materials, or for the same reason the Senior English teacher doesn't formulate his/her syllabus based on what the 5th grade is doing. Generally, the desired skill level is set by those in the final stages of development. I see no difference in football or academics when it comes to skill development and knowledge base. Obviously though in that situation, the curriculum should be aligned so there is a building block of skills.
That being said, when I was in the big school with 4 teams (Frosh A and B, JV, var.), There was a year the JV coach strayed from our standard 2TE wishbone at times and ran a trips shotgun set. It worked for them. The following year when all those guys were on varsity, we restructured our 2 min. O and added in several plays from a trips gun...and ran that set in many situations, not just in our hurry-up O. I wouldn't have done this unless I saw it work. We didn't do a wholesale change, but we did pick up stuff from the JV. I wanted to give ourselves the best chance to win each week. To me, that is how a program should run- all units work together. That is what we have here and I really believe that it serves us better than any other structural makeup.
I understand your point though coachd...
My point is that there is no clear answer. Here it works and is necessary. There, it may not work and might be unnecessary.
What do you like better... red or blue (We are blue...so I choose that).
Now I'm done.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jun 15, 2006 9:38:23 GMT -6
Someone else already said, most HS coaches wont be there whem my 10 year olds get to HS and most likely they won't be running the same offense, so who cares? My job is to make sure that kid loves football so much he will still be playing my age 15-16, That Ive taught him proper funadamentals and given him a good dose of positive male role modeling and overt sportsmanship along the way. In youth ball the dominant programs rarely win because of talent despit what the losers on the other side say, if they win year in and year out, its because of coaching solid funadmentals, well structured practices, great priorities and a solid sound scheme. Not one year wonders the ones that win EVERY YEAR.. The kids in my program love the game, are fundamentally sound ( the HS teams ove getting our players) know how to win ( yes there are kids that know and expect to win and those that exopect to lose) and are still around playing the game. Had they played on teams losing every week , many wouldnt have been playing today.Blaming the youth program for a HS teams ineptness is just laying the blame at the feet of someone other than where the real blame lies, at the HS coaches feet. Its an excuse I see from losers all the time, blame someone else. A youth coach can win, have fun and teach fundametally sound football, I do. Im a volunteer and Im giving my family time aways free, Im going to run what I want and whats best for MY players. Hire me as an employee and maybe we talk a different tune, but I as are most youth coaches., not interested in coaching HS kids.
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Jun 15, 2006 9:53:57 GMT -6
davecisar,
I couldn't agree more... I'm looking at this purely within a school system.
NOW... I'm done.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 15, 2006 10:01:45 GMT -6
Coach CB..why not?
Why wouldn't a Jr High coach lose his coaching position? I disagree 100% there. If the players aren't performing well, and the principal is displeased with the organization of the program, i can easily see the coach being replaced. Same as the HS program.
Why wouldn't a HS coach who wants continuity, and has a MS coach is running a true system... not just gimmicks and grab bag plays, use that system?
Bluto-- i would differentiate between SKILLS...and formations, philosophies, terminology, play selections etc. I agree, the SKILLS are universal, but the mirroring the programs are not necessary (in my opinion). As to the academic reference, I would argue that only the foundations must be vertically intergrated (critical thinking, analysis etc), not necessarily the subject matter. Some academic subjects are sequential, some are not. History for example, builds only on academic skills, but not subject matter. Math, is obviously sequential.
All that said, the Jr high experience I had was in a k-12 school, and we did have success using a similar offense in the same system. But as you said, when it is inhouse..it just makes SENSE.
I agree about some of the defensive problems mentioned (the most common is just stunting gaps, not learning how to play off of blocks) , HOWEVER, there is often several reasons for it. PUBERTY. TIME AVAILABLE. OPPOSITION. Not every jr high kid is strong enough to post an OL. LB's might not be mature enough yet to get a read and flow, ESPECIALLY if their DL is getting whipped as they are trying to play technique. So, now you are in a bind. You teach technique...and get whipped because your players aren't physically able to perform...or you do what the other teams do. Not saying it is the right thing to do...I am asking, what would YOU do if YOU were in that situation. I can't imagine too many of the coaches here saying to their JR HIGH team "Ok boys, we aren't really good enough physically to do what the varsity does, HOWEVER, we are going to do it anyway, and don't you worry about going 0-6 for two years guys...It will pay off 5 years down the line when yoou are seniors."
Got any takers on that line? If so, would love to see you sell that not only to the kids, but to the parents.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jun 15, 2006 10:09:20 GMT -6
I have not seen a MS coach fired yet- in two school districts.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jun 15, 2006 10:09:30 GMT -6
I think we're arguing for the sake of arguing now.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 15, 2006 10:22:40 GMT -6
Brophy, there are two sides of this discussion, and I do believe we have hashed them out pretty well. My only point was to play a little devils advocate, and let the HS guys know that perhaps it shouldn't be "BAM, this is how WE Do it..so this is how YOU do it. "
I maintain, that although the numbers are different, should Nick Saban have said..HEY, I am the flag ship school in LA, and I play Bump man. I have 60 kids on the roster from LA, and I think all of them should play bump man in HS to help me at LSU?
|
|
|
Post by CatsCoach on Jun 15, 2006 10:36:40 GMT -6
I think that the kids need to be taught the basics of football. Along with teaching them discipline, a love for the game and a never quit attitude in what ever system they are playing in. Now where I’m at we don’t have a middle school program. Our youth program is from ages of 7 all the way up to16. Now we also go by weight, so it the combo of weight and age. Some of our coaches have got help from the high school(s). The town that I live in the kids in our organization will go to one of 3 high schools, so there is no way for us to have any kind of feeder program.
It really comes down to the kids learning the fundamentals of the game, that’s most important. Just my lowly 2 cents
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jun 15, 2006 12:03:27 GMT -6
Bluto The point is that I am just trying to show the perspective. Why aren't the HS guys looking at it from this perspective "Hey, our MS feeder coach runs the DW, so WE should run the DW at the High School level to keep continuity" I don't hear that being suggested much. i suggested that to our varsity once....once. lol.
|
|
|
Post by wingt74 on Jun 15, 2006 12:49:47 GMT -6
I played in a feeder program...and I now coach a feeder program.
We use the HS coaches holes, back #ing system, defensive terminology, and cadence. Thats all he wants, cause he even admitted that he might be running something different in 3-6 yrs.
One other thing to note: All you highschool coaches that push so hard to have your feeder programs run EXACTLY what you run...ever notice how hard it is to find and keep coaches?
|
|
|
Post by bulldogoption on Jun 15, 2006 12:53:02 GMT -6
bulldog---you (and many others in this thread) have used the term beneficial...but nobody has ever made it clear WHO it is beneficial for. The kids at the Jr High level? The kids at the HS level (less kids)..the coaches at the HS level? The coaches at the jr high level... HS coaches and HS kids. IMO the most important thing is how many games the varsity program wins (assuming everything is on the up and up). Youth/JH/FROSH/JV conf champs are not as impt as a Vars Conf Championship. The HS coaches AND players benefit from a feeder program dedicated to developing players that begin to learn the varsity program. An entire community will buzz/rally around a winning varsity program, not the lower levels. Kids will remember their varsity games more than any other level. Just because a feeder runs the varsity stuff doesn't guarantee HS success. We all know there is a lot more that goes into it. But I can't see how it could ever hurt their chances.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 15, 2006 13:26:58 GMT -6
Again bulldog, one could make an argument that college program wins are exponentially more important than Friday Nights. I know in LA, Saban was basically annointed after 2003 and nearly the entire state, rather than just a community buzzed and rallied after they win an SEC championship. I know those players remember Collegiate games more than any other level. Saban had more than 50% of the team from LA, so naturally, then ever H.S. in LA could be considered a feeder program.
The big difference...YOU are at the HS level. Therefore THAT is what is important to YOU.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jun 15, 2006 13:34:00 GMT -6
The problem with that picture is there are maybe 15-16 starters on the Varsity team and maybe 50 kids on it. Meanwhile there are 100s of kids in the youth program. Many never will play for the varsity, could care less, they and their paying parents could CARE LESS WHAT THE VARSITY does, they want whats best for their son now, and most of these kids never will play varsity football . My guess is many quit due to poor coaching, like being foreced to run something that is not age appropriate and the result is they get smoked most games. The best team I Omaha, Millard North gets fed by 2 teams, One is a no splits DW team with no QB option or passing game, another is a wide split Wing T team that also NEVER runs option. Millard North on the other hand is an "I" option, multiple formation and Wwingbone Option team. HMm the coach there is a great coach, he teaches the kids a new sytem, The feeder by the way is a winner, the kids know how to win, know nothing of his system. Those that blame the feeders are laying the blame from where it should be. If its continuity you want the HS should be running my system, its worked at HS around the country, Ive used in the last 5 years, inthe meantime our HS has had 3 different offenses and 2 different coaching staffs during that window. Im gonna be around alot longer than them.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jun 15, 2006 13:41:29 GMT -6
I((MO the most important thing is how many games the varsity program wins (assuming everything is on the up and up). Youth/JH/FROSH/JV conf champs are not as impt as a Vars Conf Championship. ))
The most important thing to that kids and his parents is the game he is playing that day. Most wont ever play HS ball. A good coach has a HS player for 4 years 6-7 days a week for 3-4 months plus weights, camps. conditioning, Spring, etc etc. Heck we get these kids just 6 hours a week for most of us, if a HS coach cant train the kids in that time frame ( how many start as 9th or 10th graders?) he ought to be looking for a new job. he gets the kids at least 180 hours during the season and how much more in the off-season? I see the kids for about 90 hours a year, come now.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jun 15, 2006 14:25:14 GMT -6
good point there about exposure. The MS season down here is like 5 weeks, the Varsity program is 9, and your college program is like 13.
The exposure (practice time) where we were dealing with was exponentially greater at the HS level than the MS program, and the college so much more than the little time in HS.
When kids leave the HS, he could NOT play again Play another sport in Colleg - if he does, he has a choice of JUCO DIII DII DIAA DI NAIA DI
Now break that down even further, how many schools can that individual now go to in your state (let alone out of state)?
Whereas, a kid goes to middle school, he has the choice of maaaaaybe two or three high schools (around here it's five).
|
|
|
Post by bulldogoption on Jun 15, 2006 18:10:45 GMT -6
Again bulldog, one could make an argument that college program wins are exponentially more important than Friday Nights. I know in LA, Saban was basically annointed after 2003 and nearly the entire state, rather than just a community buzzed and rallied after they win an SEC championship. I know those players remember Collegiate games more than any other level. Saban had more than 50% of the team from LA, so naturally, then ever H.S. in LA could be considered a feeder program. The big difference...YOU are at the HS level. Therefore THAT is what is important to YOU. Apples and Oranges Maybe we need some perspective/clarification. When I talk I am speaking from a small community point of view. 3000 people. One elementary, One JH/HS. Any type of feeder program would lead into the one and only HS. I am not sure where our kids will go after HS. They have a multitude of colleges to choose from. I suspect others who have opinions come from a host of different scenarios. I am at the HS level and yes, that is most impt to me. However I still think most kids will remember their HS playing days more than anything else. $$ adds a whole different aspect to it that I don't have to think about. Do the parents and kids seem to have a sense of entitlement because they have paid money?
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jun 15, 2006 18:37:58 GMT -6
Lets see, when you go to your local tire store and pay $150 for a tire, do you feel "entitled" to a tire that will meet your needs? If the parent is payijng $150-250+ to play ball they could care less if that kids is going to be running the HS offense that may or may not be around 5 years from now. What they care about is that the kid is having fun , learning fundamentals and getting to play. BTW after many of the kids go through puberty , the few that are still playing may very well be playing brand new positions. For the majority youth ball will be the last ball they ever play, most never go on to HS ball thanks to the youth coach that knows nothing or is forced to run a system that makes no sense for his kids or loses all or most of his games.With the HS coach having 4 yeaars and endless hours of time with these players , plenty of time to train them properly. As I pointed out earlier, here in Nebraska and mnay other places the dominant teams "feedr programs" run a totally different system, they win , but woth a 100% different system. If a HS coach isnt getting it done hes at fault, not the youth coach, the MS coach, the bogey man , sasquatch, the lochness monster or ALiens.
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Jun 15, 2006 18:40:49 GMT -6
History for example, builds only on academic skills, but not subject matter. Math, is obviously sequential.
I disagree… one’s repertoire comes about by all previous experience and learning. Studies of History may not be may not necessarily be sequential, but are dependent on prior learning for in depth analysis on any historical event. That is unless the study of history is a NCLB style and depends only on trivial facts and memorization. That is certainly true in English/Literature as well. The average reader has trouble with TS Eliot... unless you've read Romeo & Juliet (9th grade), The Iliad (10th) and the Inferno and Shakespeare... (previous semester) (OK… off the soap box now)
(By the way… I keep coming back to this because 1) I can’t seem to NOT read follow up posts and 2) Since I am being addressed, I feel it is rude to not reply)
Why wouldn't a HS coach who wants continuity, and has a MS coach is running a true system... not just gimmicks and grab bag plays, use that system?
If it is the MS coach who gets criticism from the media and parents, if it is the MS coach who handles the organizational aspects of the program and makes the ultimate decision on player discipline... basically if the MS coach's butt is on the line much more than the HS coach's butt is...then I agree with you. This is not to say a HS coach couldn't nor shouldn't follow sound advice of a "better way". It does mean the ultimate decision rests with the HS HC.
Yes, the HS HC gets the "power" and the "big salary"...but pitfalls come with the perks. In every case the HC has earned a right to be in that position (at least by someone's perspective), and as "the boss" has earned that right to make the decisions to run the program for which HE is held accountable.
I guess… to give another scholastic analogy…if your department chair/ curriculum director wants you to cover a certain subject matter- you must do that. That is part of being professional. That is part of being a team player- that is part of being a good worker. So the question boils down to this (rhetorical… no need to answer): Are you the football department chair?
Some MS/JH coaches: were hired by the AD/HC (indirectly or directly), are part of a system that feeds ALL of your PLAYERS (not those who quit/move) to ONE system; and if you are part of that one system… then the professional, the proper, the prudent thing to do is work with that HC and at least get his system in place. You are not the football department chair.
Some MS/JH coaches were hired by the admin. in their building, are perhaps part of a district, but not necessarily a system… SOME of your players will attend one HS, SOME will attend another. The proper and professional thing to do there is run your program to prepare them to be successful in the next level (whether or not they plan to play at the next level). You are the football department chair.
Comparing this to college… is a weak and ridiculous argument. In one sense I agree… I want every player in my program to be prepared to play college football- if they so desire to do so. But in last 5 years I’ve had players at: Dana Coll. U of South Dakota, Wayne State C, Colo. School of Mines, Nebraska Wesleyan, Briar Cliff College and Oklahoma State. (some coaches and all of my former players let us know how well prepared they are when they enter the programs at that level) Which one should I pattern my program after? Hey, I’d run USD’s offense (for example) if I know all of my seniors would get scholarships to play there… I’d love to be a “feeder” for a college. How many parents would complain then?
The answer comes down to this- if you are the boss- run your program and don’t worry about it. I would recommend that these coaches find out what the HS are doing (just as I go and visit local colleges yearly… and do get ideas from them), but they are not obligated to do what they are doing.
If you are not the boss then the only way to get it your way is go to Burger King, or become the boss- move to a JH that does not feed exclusively to a school under the heading of one athletic department, or work towards becoming a HS head coach.
The biggest cause for confusion here is what is a “feeder school“?
For purposes of my discussion it is one JH/MS that feeds in to one HS. Whether this school is on the same campus site as the HS is irrelevant. More importantly, does the AD/admin. consider 7-12 under the heading of a schools total program? They do this some places (where I am now), they do not do this other places (where I was before here). If you are in this situation… no amount of argumentation, logic, banter, wailing, threatening (short of the infamous Faber parade) will change anything. Whether the boss (HC and or AD) is an idiot… that’s immaterial. He’s the boss. If you don’t like it, do what I did… become the AD (boss). Now I’m the idiot (“The time has come for somebody to put his foot down… and that foot is ME).
A JH/MS that feeds to more than one HS, a JH/MS that is not headed by the admin. under the direction of one athletic program… any non-scholastic program (youth, Pop Warner, club, etc.) is NOT a feeder program. You guys keep doing what you have been doing… and for those of us who have benefited by having solid players developed through your instruction… we thank you.
We all bit on the argument here… myself included and I’m trying to get out (and yes, Brophy… am probably arguing for argument’s sake at this point).
One of the great allures to my return to the school where I am at now was the idea that we could set up a true feeder program. It was not a “deal-breaker”, but an asset I considered. If I wanted to coach MS and liked doing my own thing (which I’ll admit, I would), this might not be the best place for me to be.
We have a philosophic difference… let’s leave it at that.
Really… Brophy hit it on the head with this one:
San Dimas High School Football rules!
Be excellent to eachother.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jun 15, 2006 19:02:14 GMT -6
I think the Senator has hit the nail on the head. If the HS HC is considered the MS/JH coach's boss, the MS should run the high school's program. If the MS coach is part of an independent organization but feeds one HS, he's free to do whatever he wants bh tut learning the HS program would be helpful. I think that it's incumbent on the HS coach to work with the MS coach since he's the one who gains the most from that relationship. In the case of a MS thatt feeds more than one HS, he's a complete free agent.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jun 15, 2006 19:14:28 GMT -6
If you were running SDs system and sending 5 kids a year to them to play football ( an usually high number for a HS to send to play college ball in Nebraska) that would mean the other 45-90 kids on your team were not going to South Dakota. IF SDs system would not maximize the potential of the kids and team you had, you would be short changing them and the parents would have grounds to complain. Face it, most of your kids and most HS kids do not have the ability or desire to play College football at any level so foring them to run something that just 4-5 kids are going to benefit from while it wont benefit the large majority would be cutting them short. Lets say I have the QB for a great option team with all the rest that makes for a great option team. The option QB is just 165 lbs and he wont ever play college ball and throws poorly, I dont have a good recieving corps and no throwing QB, would I be short changing the kids or not if I ran a west coast throw it every down offense and go 1-7 because Im gonna feed SD ? The answer is a big fat yes. Then I go off and blame the MS and youth coaches for my 1-7 record. My guess is those kids that play for the 1-7 team dont get much college attention and many lose interest and quit altogether.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jun 15, 2006 19:27:42 GMT -6
It appears you need to read senatorblutarsky's last post again - you missed the point altogether.
From all your posts on this thread, you obviously have issues with high school coaches in general, perhaps one or two specifically.
Continued good luck to you with your little fiefdom.
Bluto - I'm out!!
|
|
|
Post by bulldogoption on Jun 15, 2006 19:50:15 GMT -6
I don't think that most HS coaches are going to blame their lack of success completely on lack of continuity between HS/Youth programs. I also don't think most HS coaches want you to run their schemes completely. Most HS coaches will be thrilled if you run a base version of their stuff and add the rest of your own. That way kids have a little bit of familiarity with the HS scheme which I still can't find a negative for.
Also, I personally would not expect a youth program that fed into multiple HS's to run our HS schemes.
I had a poor experience with a feeder programs in one of the schools I have coached at.
We had a community run JH program that fed into one HS. They were not interested in running the HS offense for many of the reasons stated by members on this post. They also refused to split the kids into two teams. IMO they were more concerned with winning than splitting the kids up and guaranteeing them more playing time. I talked to parents that said their kids hated going to practice and hated games because they never got to play. Those kids QUIT playing football. AS a result our frosh numbers were lower than they might have been if that program ran things differently or didn't exist all together.
If I could get just one youth coach to buy into the idea that kids need real game time experience to get better than I will be happy and shut up. Game time experience to me, means playing for a whole series which ensures that the kid is going to be put in some real situations eventually.
BTW, I try to practice what I preach. I coached JH hoops this year. I put kids on a rotation and let them play. We ended up with a 500 record, but I say real improvement in some of the middle to lower kids that they simply would never have gotten in practice only. It was ugly for some of those kids at the beginning of the year, but by the end of the year they had made huge strides, because they knew that whether they were up by 20, tied or down by 20, when their rotation came up they were going in.
Peace out
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Jun 15, 2006 19:51:14 GMT -6
thanks blb
dave. I sent you a PM. I gotta agree here with blb. I know my post was long-winded, but ether re-read... or withhold comment if you did not read.
coachd and others- I have enjoyed debating this issue (at times).
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jun 15, 2006 19:57:12 GMT -6
I haven't seen a MS coach yet lose his job over his record- he loses it because he's bad with the kids, not teaching them fundamentals, and not playing all of them. This isn't so with the HS program, I have known a number of coaches who were solid coaches and great guys who lost their jobs over a losing record.
As a MS coach, I ran the HS offense, even when it wasn't asked of me. I did so because it was an effective, proven attack that was easy to teach and easy to run. The only thing I disliked about the offense was its lack of a sprint out- so I added it. The MS coaches that I have worked around always have a problem with running an offense other than own and it never has anything to do with the kids. Its always about them and their bs arrogance.
If you're coaching at the MS level and sending all of the kids onto the same HS- why wouldn't you want to run the HS offense and defense?? You're sending well prepared kids to the HS level who are going to have a great chance to be successful because they know what they're running. There's no learning curve to over comes- the kids know the basics of the schemes and now they can focus on getting better at skills and fundamentals. Yes there will be position changes- but the kids will understand the overall scheme a whole lot better- making that transition easier. Plus- who gives a f--k if only a small number of the kids go on to play at the varsity level- those kids will have the advantage of being involved with the same scheme for the majority of their football careers.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jun 15, 2006 20:15:45 GMT -6
(((Plus- who gives a f--k if only a small number of the kids go on to play at the varsity level- those kids will have the advantage of being involved with the same scheme for the majority of their football careers. )0
Ok on one hand the consensus is make sure all the kids get a chance to play then on the other hand who cares " f---k" about the ones that dont go on to play HS ball. A bit of a disconnect. I care about the kids I coach, of which by national statistics most will not go on to play HS ball, so do I run a sysytem that is not age appropriate and drive off the kids that want to play so I can make a HS coach feel good? I play em all. BTW Again for the umpteenth time how many of them are going to be around 5 years from now and if they are how many will be running the same offense, answer is VERY FEW, lets be honest here.My kids will know how to block, tackle, pull , trap, fold double team, amoung others. If you cant teach them to play your scheme in 4 years, golly gotta find another job.
|
|