|
|
Post by groundchuck on Mar 29, 2006 8:01:00 GMT -6
This is a question for all the small school coaches (enrollment 400 or less)...but I encourage the big boys to chime in too!
What is too much? When do your guys become confused with scheme? Do you run the same offense and defense year to year regardless or do you always change things for your talent?
I ask this because often times I hear the big school coaches talk at clinics and they have 14 coaches and nobody plays or even practices both ways so they have all this time to install and work on stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Olineiq on Mar 29, 2006 8:40:53 GMT -6
I would flip the offensive line that way they just have to play to and play away. If you dont flip then you have to learn play to play away and with TE and w/o TE.
|
|
mike13
Sophomore Member
Posts: 108
|
Post by mike13 on Mar 29, 2006 8:56:08 GMT -6
Ground
I coach at a school of 300(9-12). I have had to change offensive schemes each year to suit our talent. I use a numbering system that makes it easy for the kids to pick up any play. We have installed anywhere from 25 to 100 plays in a season; again based on talent.
On the defensive side we were a 5-2 team until this past season. We didn't the meat to run it well. So we switched to the 3-5-3.
I sat down with one of the more successful coaches in my area, he coached at a school the same size as mine and then moved to a slightly bigger school. He told me he had to do more coaching at the smaller school in one year then he did in 15 at the bigger school. Here there are only three varsity coaches and three working with the JV and 8th grade combined. So all of us have to work our butts off, but I enjoy every minute of it.
<S> salute to all small school coaches.
|
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Mar 29, 2006 9:07:34 GMT -6
In my opinion, a system that remains mostly consistent from year to year is an advantage at the small school. Knowing that my players will mostly play offense, defense, and special teams, I don't want to overload them with things to think about. By maintaining a consistent system, much of what we do becomes ingrained.
I know there are always exceptions, but I think the small schools that are at or near the top every year tend to be the ones where a coach has been there for a significant amount of time, has his system established, and sticks to the same basic philosophy each season.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Mar 29, 2006 9:10:47 GMT -6
I think its beneficial to have an identity...every year I want to run my best/core plays better than anyone else...if i have a more talented qb or wr then ill add something to show case that...but i wont create a whole new offense. I think its rediculous how many guys ask their feeder programs to run their schemes while they change stuff every year...At one school I had to change my backfield numbering 3 times in 3 years...
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Mar 29, 2006 9:13:40 GMT -6
In my opinion, a system that remains mostly consistent from year to year is an advantage at the small school. I know there are always exceptions, but I think the small schools that are at or near the top every year tend to be the ones where a coach has been there for a significant amount of time, has his system established, and sticks to the same basic philosophy each season. Agreed. "Systems" don't have to be complex....the complexity isn't what wins games, it's the kids ability to execute. I think you CAN platoon at small schools, but even if you don't....the key should be surrounding yourself with as many coaches that stay on the same page, so tying it all together shouldn't be a chore. |
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Mar 29, 2006 10:33:25 GMT -6
In my opinion, a system that remains mostly consistent from year to year is an advantage at the small school. Knowing that my players will mostly play offense, defense, and special teams, I don't want to overload them with things to think about. By maintaining a consistent system, much of what we do becomes ingrained. I know there are always exceptions, but I think the small schools that are at or near the top every year tend to be the ones where a coach has been there for a significant amount of time, has his system established, and sticks to the same basic philosophy each season. I agree here. Most successful small school programs I can think of are basically the same year in and year out in terms of what they are running. They may throw more or run more based on talent but in general they will line up and run the same base stuff. On D I think it is slightly less important because whether you are in a 5-3 or a 4-4 does not matter so much as long as you have the right players on the field. Obviously there aer exceptions. The class A champs in Illinois switched to agun spread this year after 20 years of wishbone and wing-t and went 13-1. But for every story like that.... |
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Mar 29, 2006 10:40:40 GMT -6
To throw something else in for debate...
the majority so far feel sticking with the same basic system is key in the small school. Does that mean you should have an offense that is not "position dependent" because you never know what talent will be coming up. Like tryingto run the spread or triple option attack without a QB who can run option or pass for the spread?
You want a system that is broad (but not complex) enough to fit your talent that yearwithout straying too much from the original concept.
|
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Mar 29, 2006 10:56:08 GMT -6
I do think that a system that is not "position dependent/intensive" is a good idea in a small school. Any system can be adjusted for those times when you are blessed with certain skill position players, but there are some systems, like spread gun, that require a stud at qb.
Taking it a step further, in small schools injuries play a larger role as well. You might have a stud qb, but what happens if you build your offense around him and he goes down with a major injury? If you have a system in place, you can still move the ball effectively without having to scratch the offense and start over.
|
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Mar 29, 2006 11:04:10 GMT -6
I do think that a system that is not "position dependent/intensive" is a good idea in a small school. Any system can be adjusted for those times when you are blessed with certain skill position players, but there are some systems, like spread gun, that require a stud at qb. Taking it a step further, in small schools injuries play a larger role as well. You might have a stud qb, but what happens if you build your offense around him and he goes down with a major injury? If you have a system in place, you can still move the ball effectively without having to scratch the offense and start over. That is why I have stayed away so far from being an exclusive option team or exclusive passing team. Our #2 QB is often times starting somewhere else on offense anyway. That is one thing I like about our belly series. We can feature a stud FB, TB, QB with a keeper and option. If the OL is not as good we run more option etc. |
|
|
|
Post by coachmacplains on Mar 29, 2006 11:33:14 GMT -6
You want a system that is broad (but not complex) enough to fit your talent that yearwithout straying too much from the original concept. I believe that's it in terms of developing an offense and defense. Offensively, we are an "option team", but have tweaked the system to adapt to personnel. We have run from split back veer, wing-T (one year), and flexbone, with an emphasis on option football. As to the original question of loading kids down with info, it's a real challenge when they play both ways and most special teams, as so often happens with us. We feel one key is limiting the amount of terminology as much as possible and limiting the number of plays to be run, even though you know that some things may work that don't end up being used. You can always tweak or add something for the next opponent, but adding too much will lead to a breakdown somewhere - been there. I also agree with the assessment that most successful small school programs are pretty much the same from year to year, though even they will sometimes make adjustments. If you start with the idea that it comes down to blocking and tackling, and you do that well, then you can compete and don't have to become too complex. |
|
|
|
Post by blb on Mar 29, 2006 12:12:50 GMT -6
I think you have to have a base system that you know well and can coach, then adjust (adapt?) or highlight what you can do best from year to year.
I don't think you can say "We've got a tailback, this year, so we'll run the I", or "We've got a passer now so we'll run Shotgun."
I believe you also need vertical continuity from your freshman and/or JV teams. I don't believe they can run Wing-T as 9th or 10th graders for example, then go to something else on the varsity. I've never seen a program at any level survive, much less be successful, with that approach.
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenbear76 on Mar 29, 2006 12:16:23 GMT -6
I coach at a school with 200 kids. My first year coaching was last year. They ran I-Formation Triple Option, Counter, Trap, ISO, and Toss before I got there. Last season I got the HC to install Outside Zone, and this season going to install a Belly trap. Our philosophy is to run only 7-8 running plays during a season. Both JV and Varsity practice together, so we work all the plays with both units. It doesn't really matter if you have 40 kids or 100..you can only realistically install a few plays and be effective at it. Offensively and Defensivly we've maintained the same offense and defense over the 3 year period with this coaching staff. Each year, the team has improved..as well as the coaching. We usually have 30 guys on the varsity sideline during a game. Only about 7 of them play both ways. As an Oline coach, if I had my way, I would have nobody play both ways. I see as we hit the 4th quarter, we ware out. But so does every other team we play. So its a pretty even playing field.
|
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 30, 2006 8:05:11 GMT -6
Well, having been a HC in a big (2200+) and small (under 100) school- I have my philosophy which has basically been the same for 16 years... we have a small staple of plays that we are going to execute well. Formations may vary (ex: we may base out of 2TE or unbalanced Wishbone one year, 2 SE Wishbone the next), but we are going to run the system that has been successful over time.
Having said that, we have played some schools- both big and small who have been very multiple and very successful (some not so successful... but then those who do the same thing all the time and don't win either).
I really think that if the players buy in to the system (meaning the coaches can really sell it), they will be able to do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mustang59 on Mar 30, 2006 8:09:08 GMT -6
you have to have something that you believe in at the core of any system, but it has to be adjustable enough to fit different player capabilities year in and year out. My system has chnged a little every year, mostly to make it less complex. I try to make one part of the offense easier each year. This might mean we change the way we call something or adjust one route on a play, but the overall principals of the offense stay the same. The plays on the field do not look different than what I did 3 years ago, but the way it is called and the formations may be different today.
|
|
