|
Post by coachjps on Mar 6, 2013 10:49:18 GMT -6
Fundamentals, a quality scheme can not make up for poor fundamentals.
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Mar 6, 2013 10:55:37 GMT -6
If you have a couple of superior athletes it can. I have seen teams that were fundamentally terrible, beat teams with much sounder fundamentals because a great running back can run and a great QB and receiver can beat you. It can be done. Just because coaches say it can't does not make it true. I think we should all strive to make each kid fundamentally better but Emmitt Smith always carried the football in the wrong arm(when running to the right) . Ha!
|
|
|
Post by blb on Mar 6, 2013 10:57:08 GMT -6
Emmitt Smith always carried the football in the wrong arm. Ha! He always carried it in his left arm so he was "right" some of the time (when running to his left).
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Mar 6, 2013 10:58:11 GMT -6
I added that, knew someone would call me on it!
|
|
|
Post by coachweav88 on Mar 6, 2013 11:15:35 GMT -6
|
|
moball
Junior Member
Posts: 254
|
Post by moball on Mar 6, 2013 16:01:18 GMT -6
I sometimes drive my assistant coaches crazy. I KNOW I drive our parents crazy. Because I am perpetually looking at ways we can reduce and simplify our playbook. I approach all 3 phases of the game this way. If you've seen the movie Moneyball, I guess you could say I'm looking for that kind of magical theory that can be applied to small high school (300-400 students) football. When someone proves to me that they are smart enough to beat teams that are stronger in the weightroom, faster on the track, more physical, and that don't miss blocks or tackles, and that they can beat them simply by installing and running more creative stuff, then I'll come be an assistant for them. On the contrary, I've had plenty of teams that beat better athletes because we played 1000 MPH. People talk about the NFL as being so complex. Look at how many pro teams run only inside zone, outside zone, and a counter of some sort while only throwing the ball a minimal (relative to the NFL) amount of times. Look at all the teams in the state of Michigan that are still winning with the straight T, or all over the country running double wing. In my opinion, the reason that the spread had success in it's infancy was not because of it's superiority. By the same token, the older school systems are not returning to vogue because they were better all along. Here is the real point of the issue. It's hard at the high school level to build a defense that can defend everything well. The first year I coached we began teaching our defense by showing them how we lined up to a pro-I formation. We played robber to the tight end side. To the single receiver side we manned up with the corner and screwed our safety down to play the run and told him if the TE ran a vert by him then we were probably going to yell at the 9-tech for not holding his butt up at the LOS. Now I teach 2 read to my kids before I even issue a mouthpiece. We play a 4-3 that really could be called a 4-0-7 because my linebackers don't look any different athletically than my DB's. I love when I see shotgun spread teams now, emphasis on now. You know what I hate to defend now? The same stuff that I used to love to defend. It's not because I've forgotten how to defend it, it's that it's like playing an entirely different sport for my kids. How many kids in high school can run with the best athlete on the opposing team when they bring a back out of the backfield AND be able to take on a 235lb fullback on ISO? Not very many. I think we turn this game into chess when need be only checkers. Kids run offenses. Kids stop offenses. Teach them how to do both well.
|
|
|
Post by cocoach on Mar 6, 2013 16:10:55 GMT -6
Chicken or the egg?
|
|
|
Post by eaglemountie on Mar 6, 2013 19:03:54 GMT -6
It's obviously a correlation between the two where if you cannot execute one soundly then the other has no matter.
Stance, starts, blocking and tackling need some direction of purpose while power, trap, fire zones are worthless without the desired end result.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Mar 6, 2013 19:10:36 GMT -6
Both must be sound if you're going to give your kids a chance to win-be successful.
As must game planning-play calling.
The implication is too many coaches teach plays, alignments, stunts etc. without properly teaching execution.
Unless you just out-personnel everybody.
And that is rare-will catch up with you at some painful point.
|
|
|
Post by rwb32497 on Mar 7, 2013 6:22:01 GMT -6
I agree with a couple of the other guys on here in that, your basic scheme is part of your fundamentals. I believe that fundamentals are most important. I also believe that your basic front or offense philosophy is part of those fundamentals. Defensively I consider our base defense adjustment to trips and empty all a fundamental part of what we do. On offense our two best runs and our two best passes against a 3-4 and 4-3 is part of fundamental day one work also. I feel like if you accompany that with good alignment, blocking, tackling, and footwork that makes you fundamentally sound.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Mar 7, 2013 9:36:41 GMT -6
The OP started out by mentioning that the speakers at this year's clinics were talking more about technique than scheme. IMO, that doesn't mean that one is more important than another. In my experience clinics do cycle like that: a lot of scheme talk one year, more fundamentals/program stuff the next.
Both are equally important. The better the fundamentals have been mastered the more scheme you can run. You need to work fundamentals every day because they're habits and must be built and maintained.
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Mar 7, 2013 10:09:44 GMT -6
An effective scheme requires sound fundamentals to operate at a HIGH level. Effective fundamentals in an unsound scheme WILL NOT matter.
|
|
moball
Junior Member
Posts: 254
|
Post by moball on Mar 7, 2013 10:52:37 GMT -6
When coaches suggest that we worry less about scheme than fundy's, I don't take that to mean they are saying it's ok to run things that are unsound. I think what they are saying is this. Don't spend 80% of your practice time teaching formations, schemes, motions, checks, protections, post snap reads, blah, blah, blah. Spend 80% of your time teaching a blocker how to get a pancake and a ball carrier not to fumble as he runs right by that pancake. It doesn't matter how many plays you run out of how many formations. Once the ball is snapped you have to block somebody. Do it well.
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Mar 7, 2013 11:23:14 GMT -6
It doesn't matter how many plays you run out of how many formations. Once the ball is snapped you have to block somebody. Do it well. I don't know about you, but I've had guys brag about the missed assignment that they had which resulted in a pancake block. There they are pumping themselves up in the film room. I'll rewind, then pause it, and say "that's great, but the defender you should be blocking just tackled our running back in the backfield at the mesh point and caused a fumble." Seems silly to be happy about the useless pancake block. That doesn't mean anything to me unless it's on the right guy. I would much rather have a stalemate on the correct defender than a pancake on the wrong one. It also seems pointless to have a conversation with the ball carrier about ball security when they didn't even gain possession before getting blown up because one of their linemen blew an assignment. JMHO.
|
|
moball
Junior Member
Posts: 254
|
Post by moball on Mar 7, 2013 12:15:58 GMT -6
It doesn't matter how many plays you run out of how many formations. Once the ball is snapped you have to block somebody. Do it well. I don't know about you, but I've had guys brag about the missed assignment that they had which resulted in a pancake block. There they are pumping themselves up in the film room. I'll rewind, then pause it, and say "that's great, but the defender you should be blocking just tackled our running back in the backfield at the mesh point and caused a fumble." Seems silly to be happy about the useless pancake block. That doesn't mean anything to me unless it's on the right guy. I would much rather have a stalemate on the correct defender than a pancake on the wrong one. It also seems pointless to have a conversation with the ball carrier about ball security when they didn't even gain possession before getting blown up because one of their linemen blew an assignment. JMHO.
|
|
|
Post by 353coach on Mar 7, 2013 13:16:51 GMT -6
It depends on your Talent. If your kids are not good, you need to make sure you are running something that you can out scheme people with and get the POA outnumbered. If your kids are better you can just gap them and go with fundamentals and let them out play opponents.
That's why we swithed to a 3-5-3 from a 62. We just were not getting the kids we needed to gap and play. No studs for the LB spots, etc. We had to pick something a little more flexible to really try to out call other coaches, give our kids a chance.
Now, we focus on fundamentals...especiall Pursuit and Getting off blocks. But we game plan hard and really try to get our kids in a good position to overcome disadvantages talent-wise.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Mar 7, 2013 14:36:31 GMT -6
For us we teach them almost at the same time
Alignment Stance Eyes Calls Assignment
Every day.
Assignment is both...what to do..and where to do it
Sent from my ADR6410LVW using proboards
|
|
rosi
Junior Member
Posts: 359
|
Post by rosi on Mar 12, 2013 12:17:27 GMT -6
Coaches, do you have any list of fundamentals by position? List of basic techniques by position? Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Mar 12, 2013 13:10:23 GMT -6
Coaches, do you have any list of fundamentals by position? List of basic techniques by position? Thank you. This is actually my point. My fundamentals are not your fundamentals. Scheme dictates fundamentals Sent from my ADR6410LVW using proboards
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Mar 14, 2013 9:47:57 GMT -6
Absolutely. There are some fundamentals that transcend scheme like blocking and tackling. But they can also be fundamentals that are scheme-specific meaning because of your adopted scheme, blocking for example, might be somewhat different. 2 point vs. 3 point, hands vs. shoulders, etc.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Mar 14, 2013 10:38:49 GMT -6
Absolutely. There are some fundamentals that transcend scheme like blocking and tackling. But they can also be fundamentals that are scheme-specific meaning because of your adopted scheme, blocking for example, might be somewhat different. 2 point vs. 3 point, hands vs. shoulders, etc. but even blocking and tackling.... i probably tackle differently then you do, and i probably teach blocking differently. so i would say there is almost nothing that could be considered "fundamental" in terms of execution from coach to coach concepts...yes. execution no
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Mar 14, 2013 11:17:33 GMT -6
Absolutely. There are some fundamentals that transcend scheme like blocking and tackling. But they can also be fundamentals that are scheme-specific meaning because of your adopted scheme, blocking for example, might be somewhat different. 2 point vs. 3 point, hands vs. shoulders, etc. but even blocking and tackling.... i probably tackle differently then you do, and i probably teach blocking differently. so i would say there is almost nothing that could be considered "fundamental" in terms of execution from coach to coach concepts...yes. execution no I think there are most certainly similarities in the techniques and perhaps differences in terminology. But I don't believe that changes the fact that blocking and tackling are fundamental skills to the game of football. Just because we teach them differently doesn't mean that they are not fundamentals. If we left it to the different terminology that coaches use in football to refer to anything, we wouldn't even have any fundamentals.
|
|
|
Post by PIGSKIN11 on Mar 14, 2013 11:29:28 GMT -6
I don't know anyone who is going to say fundamentals are less important than scheme. Through their actions, good coaches will SHOW that fundamentals are more important than scheme, but I'll put dollars to pesos that you can't find someone who thinks scheme trumps fundamentals. It's the equivalent of going to a MADD convention and asking if anyone wants to get a beer afterwards. You're not going to get anyone to speak up. I also don't know why it's a zero sum choice where you can't have one without the other. Sometimes you scheme to cover your poor fundamentals (Justin Smith could base tech for his life at the end of the season, so the Niners slanted him pretty much every play), sometimes your fundamentals cover your poor scheme (being a great reading defense can fix a whole lot of stupid DC calls), but it's not like they exist separate of one another. If you're going to forsake one for the other, let it be scheme, but don't miss the forest for looking at the trees. I will admit it... I was more into WHO than HOW in my first year... I also had zero support from assistants in the summer so I had no choice, and I loved it... I feel if they know WHO to block, which is a mental task, they can just be physical when they get there... A crappy block at the right point of attack is better than him blocking the wrong guy very well... I still like to to teach the WHO aspect early and often. Sh!t, just get there and hold him for all I care HAHA!!!
That's how I feel... Let the attacks begin...
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Mar 14, 2013 11:41:15 GMT -6
I don't know anyone who is going to say fundamentals are less important than scheme. Through their actions, good coaches will SHOW that fundamentals are more important than scheme, but I'll put dollars to pesos that you can't find someone who thinks scheme trumps fundamentals. It's the equivalent of going to a MADD convention and asking if anyone wants to get a beer afterwards. You're not going to get anyone to speak up. I also don't know why it's a zero sum choice where you can't have one without the other. Sometimes you scheme to cover your poor fundamentals (Justin Smith could base tech for his life at the end of the season, so the Niners slanted him pretty much every play), sometimes your fundamentals cover your poor scheme (being a great reading defense can fix a whole lot of stupid DC calls), but it's not like they exist separate of one another. If you're going to forsake one for the other, let it be scheme, but don't miss the forest for looking at the trees. I will admit it... I was more into WHO than HOW in my first year... I also had zero support from assistants in the summer so I had no choice, and I loved it... I feel if they know WHO to block, which is a mental task, they can just be physical when they get there... A crappy block at the right point of attack is better than him blocking the wrong guy very well... I still like to to teach the WHO aspect early and often. Sh!t, just get there and hold him for all I care HAHA!!!
That's how I feel... Let the attacks begin... I agree with you pigskin. But to take it a step further. Once they know where to go, let's coach them to get their faster and more aggressively when they arrive.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Mar 14, 2013 12:30:22 GMT -6
but even blocking and tackling.... i probably tackle differently then you do, and i probably teach blocking differently. so i would say there is almost nothing that could be considered "fundamental" in terms of execution from coach to coach concepts...yes. execution no I think there are most certainly similarities in the techniques and perhaps differences in terminology. But I don't believe that changes the fact that blocking and tackling are fundamental skills to the game of football. Just because we teach them differently doesn't mean that they are not fundamentals. If we left it to the different terminology that coaches use in football to refer to anything, we wouldn't even have any fundamentals. I don't know, do you consider shoulder blocking or alligator roll tackling as a fundamental skill? i do, its the only blocking and tackling we teach. just like hands blocking is not a fundamental, if it was...we would teach it.... but it isnt. thats exactly what im saying, in practice there are no fundamentals...only in concept do these things exist. blocking and tackling, fundamental concepts.. but if they were a fundamental in practice, why arnt we teaching it the same way?
|
|
|
Post by PIGSKIN11 on Mar 14, 2013 13:42:09 GMT -6
I will admit it... I was more into WHO than HOW in my first year... I also had zero support from assistants in the summer so I had no choice, and I loved it... I feel if they know WHO to block, which is a mental task, they can just be physical when they get there... A crappy block at the right point of attack is better than him blocking the wrong guy very well... I still like to to teach the WHO aspect early and often. Sh!t, just get there and hold him for all I care HAHA!!!
That's how I feel... Let the attacks begin... I agree with you pigskin. But to take it a step further. Once they know where to go, let's coach them to get their faster and more aggressively when they arrive. AMEN!!! WHO then HOW...
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Mar 14, 2013 13:56:26 GMT -6
I agree with you pigskin. But to take it a step further. Once they know where to go, let's coach them to get their faster and more aggressively when they arrive. AMEN!!! WHO then HOW... we install backwards. Where, then WHO, then How like teaching a linemen pulling on power: start from the fit position on the player at linebacker depth. then work backwards from there.
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Mar 14, 2013 16:43:28 GMT -6
I think there are most certainly similarities in the techniques and perhaps differences in terminology. But I don't believe that changes the fact that blocking and tackling are fundamental skills to the game of football. Just because we teach them differently doesn't mean that they are not fundamentals. If we left it to the different terminology that coaches use in football to refer to anything, we wouldn't even have any fundamentals. I don't know, do you consider shoulder blocking or alligator roll tackling as a fundamental skill? i do, its the only blocking and tackling we teach. just like hands blocking is not a fundamental, if it was...we would teach it.... but it isnt. thats exactly what im saying, in practice there are no fundamentals...only in concept do these things exist. blocking and tackling, fundamental concepts.. but if they were a fundamental in practice, why arnt we teaching it the same way? Because there's a 1000 ways to skin a cat. This is what makes the game great. There are only a few objectives and exactly how they are performed is up to those in charge of programs, teams, units, position groups, etc.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Mar 14, 2013 16:55:15 GMT -6
I don't know, do you consider shoulder blocking or alligator roll tackling as a fundamental skill? i do, its the only blocking and tackling we teach. just like hands blocking is not a fundamental, if it was...we would teach it.... but it isnt. thats exactly what im saying, in practice there are no fundamentals...only in concept do these things exist. blocking and tackling, fundamental concepts.. but if they were a fundamental in practice, why arnt we teaching it the same way? Because there's a 1000 ways to skin a cat. This is what makes the game great. There are only a few objectives and exactly how they are performed is up to those in charge of programs, teams, units, position groups, etc. exactly my point so how can you say any action is "fundamental" i go back to my statement, there are fundamental concepts, but not fundamental actions.
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Mar 14, 2013 17:57:49 GMT -6
Because there's a 1000 ways to skin a cat. This is what makes the game great. There are only a few objectives and exactly how they are performed is up to those in charge of programs, teams, units, position groups, etc. exactly my point so how can you say any action is "fundamental" i go back to my statement, there are fundamental concepts, but not fundamental actions. I understand what you're saying. This is turning into a discussion of semantics. The definition of the noun "fundamental" is... - a basic principle, rule, law, or the like, that serves as the groundwork of a systemBlocking and tackling are fundamentals of the game of football. In other words, blocking and tackling are basic principles the serve as the groundwork of football. Those fundamentals can be taught differently but regardless, the methods must be sound otherwise they're ineffective at which point the system fails...the team loses...the head coach loses his job.
|
|