|
Post by kcbazooka on Jan 3, 2013 13:38:26 GMT -6
if your less talented you better try to trickyfunk them... misdirection, formations, unbalanced, etc.
If you're going to be down cuz you are young you probably have to limit the scheme and hope the learn to do some things right.
then those years you have studs you can do anything you want...
i do agree that if you are down you try to work the clock to give yourself a chance in the fourth quarter.
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Jan 3, 2013 13:51:14 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Jan 3, 2013 13:57:53 GMT -6
if your less talented you better try to trickyfunk them... misdirection, formations, unbalanced, etc. Trickyfunk...outstanding! That's definitely a new one Coach.
|
|
|
Post by coachbw on Jan 3, 2013 14:44:53 GMT -6
In the years that we have done this, we have run fewer plays using more formations and shifts. THe thought processes is that we can line up and motion as well as anyone regardless of our talent level. If we have 2 or 3 runs plays we are able to run, then we will use our alignment to try to put us in the best position to run those plays.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2013 15:18:39 GMT -6
I ended up with a Good rating, but that still doesn't really address our issues for next year. We will have GREAT kids, intellegent kids, kids who listen and respect the coaches and generally play well together, but couldn't tackle my dead grandmother...see my point?! The intangibles I know will help us, as in years past in this area I've been a part of team where the kids absolutely hated each other and no matter what you did it never worked b/c they either didn't believe in you as the coach or the players that they were being asked to execute with. This is NOT the case with the bunch I've got coming back, like I said they are GOOD people, POOR athletes... Duece
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Jan 3, 2013 16:07:37 GMT -6
I ended up with a Good rating, but that still doesn't really address our issues for next year. We will have GREAT kids, intellegent kids, kids who listen and respect the coaches and generally play well together, but couldn't tackle my dead grandmother...see my point?! The intangibles I know will help us, as in years past in this area I've been a part of team where the kids absolutely hated each other and no matter what you did it never worked b/c they either didn't believe in you as the coach or the players that they were being asked to execute with. This is NOT the case with the bunch I've got coming back, like I said they are GOOD people, POOR athletes... Duece I hate to say it but it could be worse. They could be untalented a$$hole kids. Fortunately I haven't had to coach a group like that and I'm keeping my fingers crossed that I don't ever have to. Trust me, I know the feeling of having a group of good people, poor athletes. Sounds like the first two teams I coached. We weren't good at all. We went 1-17 in those two years. My first year, when we went 0-9, that same survey evaluation score was: Below 42 - Chaos - Seriously consider finding another team (or another job). But I stuck with it and came out on the other side. The following two years we went 4-5. Doing a lot of the same things. Still good kids but they were more talented and I had better, more competent assistant coaches on board. So it can be done. And if you believe it cannot, then start looking because you've got to believe. If you don't, nobody will.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2013 18:01:03 GMT -6
I ended up with a Good rating, but that still doesn't really address our issues for next year. We will have GREAT kids, intellegent kids, kids who listen and respect the coaches and generally play well together, but couldn't tackle my dead grandmother...see my point?! The intangibles I know will help us, as in years past in this area I've been a part of team where the kids absolutely hated each other and no matter what you did it never worked b/c they either didn't believe in you as the coach or the players that they were being asked to execute with. This is NOT the case with the bunch I've got coming back, like I said they are GOOD people, POOR athletes... Duece I hate to say it but it could be worse. They could be untalented a$$hole kids. Fortunately I haven't had to coach a group like that and I'm keeping my fingers crossed that I don't ever have to. Trust me, I know the feeling of having a group of good people, poor athletes. Sounds like the first two teams I coached. We weren't good at all. We went 1-17 in those two years. My first year, when we went 0-9, that same survey evaluation score was: Below 42 - Chaos - Seriously consider finding another team (or another job). But I stuck with it and came out on the other side. The following two years we went 4-5. Doing a lot of the same things. Still good kids but they were more talented and I had better, more competent assistant coaches on board. So it can be done. And if you believe it cannot, then start looking because you've got to believe. If you don't, nobody will. Yeah, I've coached a few "below 42's" myself...ain't fun... Duece
|
|
|
Post by countercoach on Jan 3, 2013 18:17:02 GMT -6
In my opinion find an offense and defense that is hard to prepare for in a week. Examples are wingt misdirection and option. Be multiple in formations but keep schemes down to perfect blocking. Same thing for defense. Example 3-5-3 with your best athletes at MLB and fs to limit the big plays or 4-2-5 if you have the lineman. Two platoon lets everyone master one side instead of splitting time on fundamentals
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2013 19:15:05 GMT -6
I marked the option about keeping the scheme the same, but after thinking about it, I'm not sure that's how I feel. To me, the cupboard being bare refers more to a season-long struggle as opposed to an individual game so I'll answer based on that perspective. In a way, I guess I agree with the Schembechler logic blb provided earlier.
If I'm a firm believer in my offense and defense, I'll probably keep the bases of my systems in place. However, in my opinion, if I'm less talented, I may have to blitz and stunt more on defense or utilize more formations, more misdirection, and maybe a trick play or two on offense. Now, if I feel I'll be more talented and skilled than most of the teams I play, I'll actually limit my scheme a little bit and let the talent advantage take over. A lot of variables in this, but that's my base philosophy in regards to having, or not having, a physically gifted team.
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Jan 3, 2013 19:43:16 GMT -6
If I'm a firm believer in my offense and defense, I'll probably keep the bases of my systems in place. However, in my opinion, if I'm less talented, I may have to blitz and stunt more on defense or utilize more formations, more misdirection, and maybe a trick play or two on offense. Now, if I feel I'll be more talented and skilled than most of the teams I play, I'll actually limit my scheme a little bit and let the talent advantage take over. A lot of variables in this, but that's my base philosophy in regards to having, or not having, a physically gifted team. Good news. What you've described above is what I've done in my coaching experience. I thought I was the only one who voted for an increase in scheme with less talent. But what has become reasonable and almost necessary on this forum is being curious as to who the votes are coming from. Are they head coach, OC, DC votes or not? Like another thread has discussed, it's not about what you WOULD DO, it's about what you HAVE DONE. I know there are many coaches that in a situation with less talent would run more schemes in an effort to try to help their team win. When you're working with a less talented team, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Of course you have to strike a balance between trying to do too much. But just sticking with your base, that only a talented team could beat anyone with, is simply another way of saying you'd grin and bare it. JMO.
|
|
|
Post by jsk002 on Jan 3, 2013 19:57:49 GMT -6
I have been in this situation 4 times during my short career (8 years so far). Will all of this help you win a state title with lesser talent? Probaly not but these are some things we have done to "make the journey easier". X & O's -Have a systematic offense in place (i.e. Wing-T) **we usually run LESS plays but just as much or more formations **along these lines, RUN THE FOOTBALL ! teach your QB to watch for the backjudge's hand to go up at 5 seconds left on the playclock to run as much time as possible -Keep it simple on defense (focus on being great at tackling and practice creating turnovers every day) **We have 1 zone coverage (Cover 3) and man coverage. Thats it and we play in the highest level of HS football in Ohio. The less your kids think the better. Especially with lack of talent - Be aggressive on special teams (alot of squib kicks, suprise onsides etc. play like nothing to lose) Agree 100% - I went through a 17 game losing streak (5 forfiets) mostly because the cupboard was bare. You can't make chicken salad out of chicken sh**. Defensively we were simple, but offensively we throw the ball too much. If I had to do it again we would run the ball and milk the clock.
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Jan 3, 2013 21:24:35 GMT -6
You can't make chicken salad out of chicken sh**. Haven't heard that one in a little while. Not a normal phrase in my arsenal. But it is still true.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jan 4, 2013 7:28:42 GMT -6
Was he just saying that the less talented teams need to do more to take the game while the more talented teams just need not give it away? That's the way I interpreted it.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jan 4, 2013 7:36:25 GMT -6
There is a difference between "doing only what is needed" as opposed to refusing to pitch the ball or throw deep to your best receiver, and playing only one-two Defenses or not blitzing (as examples) because you're the favorite and don't want to "give the game away."
|
|
|
Post by coachbuck on Jan 4, 2013 7:41:43 GMT -6
Duece, I think the thing to remember is that they may not be talented but you said they are smart. Use this to your advantage. Run formations, change up candences be different on special teams. Study the heck out of your opponent and take chances on the other teams tendencies. Like Davishfc said it could be worse, you could have no talent and be dumb. I had that this year. Not really dumb, just new to football. We played very very basic football. Just the fundementals. Hard long year.
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Jan 4, 2013 11:24:18 GMT -6
Was he just saying that the less talented teams need to do more to take the game while the more talented teams just need not give it away? That's the way I interpreted it. Ok I wasn't the only one. I'm glad that's the way I interpreted it because that's what I believe.
|
|
|
Post by coachweav88 on Jan 4, 2013 11:40:35 GMT -6
In my experience, teams have gotten better as the schemes have gotten simpler. That includes teams with little talent
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jan 4, 2013 12:17:42 GMT -6
Let me add this- I think that the poll question is flawed.
Defensively, if we're outmanned we might have to depend more heavily on playing smart football. We'll need to look hard at tendencies and maybe uses checks or try to outguess the other guy. That doesn't mean that we need to add stuff to the playbook. We can probably use what we already have but commit to it differently.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2013 14:01:50 GMT -6
Let me add this- I think that the poll question is flawed. Defensively, if we're outmanned we might have to depend more heavily on playing smart football. We'll need to look hard at tendencies and maybe uses checks or try to outguess the other guy. That doesn't mean that we need to add stuff to the playbook. We can probably use what we already have but commit to it differently. Somehow...I knew you'd say that... Duece
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Jan 4, 2013 14:08:02 GMT -6
Let me add this- I think that the poll question is flawed. Defensively, if we're outmanned we might have to depend more heavily on playing smart football. We'll need to look hard at tendencies and maybe uses checks or try to outguess the other guy. That doesn't mean that we need to add stuff to the playbook. We can probably use what we already have but commit to it differently. Somehow...I knew you'd say that... Duece Did you rethink how you phrased each of the options after you posted the poll Deuce?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2013 16:36:06 GMT -6
Somehow...I knew you'd say that... Duece Did you rethink how you phrased each of the options after you posted the poll Deuce? Ehhh...no... Duece
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Jan 4, 2013 17:10:40 GMT -6
Did you rethink how you phrased each of the options after you posted the poll Deuce? Ehhh...no... Duece Alrighty then. Just checking.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jan 4, 2013 18:49:19 GMT -6
To get back to poll question:
I checked "keep the scheme the same regardless of talent."
If you don't believe in your religion when you're in trouble, you never really believed in it at all.
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Jan 4, 2013 19:03:54 GMT -6
To get back to poll question : I checked "keep the scheme the same regardless of talent." If you don't believe in your religion when you're in trouble, you never really believed in it at all. Or you believe in your religion even more so when you're in trouble, so you revisit the scripture to find another way to reaffirm your faith. Hence, when you have less talent, keep the same scheme but revisit the playbook, and add just a couple wrinkles when you have less talent.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jan 4, 2013 19:26:08 GMT -6
Or you believe in your religion even more so when you're in trouble, so you revisit the scripture to find another way to reaffirm your faith. Hence, when you have less talent, keep the same scheme but revisit the playbook, and add just a couple wrinkles when you have less talent. Well I may be wrong, but I don't consider "wrinkles" increasing the amount you scheme (from Poll). And if the "wrinkles" are so beneficial - why weren't they part of the "faith" to begin with?
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Jan 4, 2013 19:42:42 GMT -6
Well I may be wrong, but I don't consider "wrinkles" increasing the amount you scheme (from Poll). I suppose we'll have to leave that to Deuce to clarify. That's the way I understood it. Any more scheme, even subtle scheming, added to what you already do. And if the "wrinkles" are so beneficial - why weren't they part of the "faith" to begin with? Why? Because you didn't need them. You weren't in trouble. Your faith wasn't tested. You were just flat better than everybody.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Jan 4, 2013 23:41:11 GMT -6
the amount we "scheme" has less to do with our talent - be it alot or be it down - and more to do with our capacity to master a current scheme.
some teams are "smarter" than other teams and can process more schematic things - shifts, motions, plays, etc.
some teams lack the ability to play outside of a small box - for whatever reason they are comfortable only with a certain amount of things.
so, how much we "scheme" is dependent on mastery, being comfortable, etc. and not nearly as much as talent.
2 examples... 2009 vs 2012. in both years we had similar talent. however, we had 'smarter' players (football wise) in 09 so we did all kinds of things. this year, our kids had a comfort zone and we weren't very good getting too far out of it, so we scaled back. both teams won the distirct, both were good offensive ball clubs. similar talent - different 'mastery' and 'comfort zones'.
2010 vs 2011 - again, same talent .. both more talent than the 09 & 12 teams. we did tons of things with both of them. but, 2011 never found a rhythm so we scaled back to achieve it. they were very talented physically, but their mastery of certain things wasn't as good. had to scale back to achieve the appropriate level of success. in 10, we had a few guys that "got it" and we could continue to add things as the year went along.
taylor your schemes to the mastery level of your players is my advice... focus less on 'talent' and find what you're good at - both physically & mentally.. then, build on that as much as your team's competency level will allow.
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Jan 4, 2013 23:55:08 GMT -6
some teams are "smarter" than other teams and can process more schematic things - shifts, motions, plays, etc. some teams lack the ability to play outside of a small box - for whatever reason they are comfortable only with a certain amount of things. so, how much we "scheme" is dependent on mastery, being comfortable, etc. and not nearly as much as talent. Well said Huey.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2013 6:32:06 GMT -6
I agree Huey good post. Now what do you do to find what you're good at? May sound like a stupid question, but hear me out. In practice, you may look like a world beater running power with your good RB, however when put in game situations things fall apart b/c your opponent is that much better than you. This is t like drag racing where you can take a test run, tune, run again, tune etc. in football, by that time you might be 0-4.
As far as what I was asking, it wasn't about THE scheme so much as was it do you teach the basics as best you can & line up & play, or do you do some more exotic things in your playbook to hide your deficiency (I'm thinking smoke-n-mirrors here)?
Duece
|
|
|
Post by coachbuck on Jan 5, 2013 7:52:43 GMT -6
To get back to poll question: I checked "keep the scheme the same regardless of talent." If you don't believe in your religion when you're in trouble, you never really believed in it at all. What if your religion is adaptability? Nothing wrong with running what you know but if your small and your running back is weak how well will a power running game work? As a coach shouldn't we try and put our kids in the best position to win. Just because you have taught a certain offense for a long time doesn't mean you cannot learn a new concept. Duece, I like the smoke and mirrors approach. Of course you will get exposed from time to time but your attempting to put the kids in the best possible situation to win and that is the goal. To win the game.
|
|