|
Post by doublewing on Jan 17, 2014 17:09:41 GMT -6
Have been seeing the co-coordinator concept becoming more and more popular. In fact the college I visited today uses it on both sides f the ball. Just wondering how many out there utilize this concept. And if so what's the plus and minus to it? My initial plus it allows better focus and detail on one area. Today's game has become so detailed I can see the advantage. If any use it, post the guidelines and protocol when implementing this concept.
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Jan 17, 2014 17:47:17 GMT -6
Honestly, I think it's a terrible idea to have true Co-coordinators. Who calls the plays? What if you're not on the same page? I can see having an assistant coordinator who does some of the work so the true coordinator has more time to focus on other things.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by coachphillip on Jan 17, 2014 17:54:36 GMT -6
I never really got it either. I'm the DC but I have a right hand guy who's always checking out passing stuff for me while I watch the front. He's not officially the "Co-DC" or "Pass Defense Coordinator" but, he does the same thing. I'm not trying to bash the thread. I, too, am curious as to what that relationship and title entails.
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Jan 17, 2014 18:06:57 GMT -6
I'm trying to look at this a different way....Most of us would say whoever calls the plays is the real coordinator, but throw that notion out, and just think of it as one of the duties an OC would half. If the two coordinators split some of the duties up, collaborate on the most important ones, are generally on the same page, and one who embraces his job and truely doesn't care/want to call plays, then it can work.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by gibbs72 on Jan 17, 2014 19:29:46 GMT -6
Defensively I love it. We are a 425 split cover D so our front 6 are divorced from the coverage. Having a coordinator for each would be useful. They would only need to come together for Fire or Overload blitzes
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Jan 17, 2014 22:07:47 GMT -6
To me it still seems like part of the whole "Let's give everyone a title!" stuff. One guy is still ultimately going to call the shots and plays. Need someone to watch another part of the game? That's what you have assistants for. Why does a guy need to be "co coordinator" to watch coverages?
|
|
|
Post by doublewing on Jan 18, 2014 4:48:30 GMT -6
The way I learned it was the head coach would call run or pass. The coordinator in charge of the call area would then make the call according to the D/D. On defense the head coach would call out the pressure, example 4 man and the coordinators would signal the front call and the coverage. On the high school level I could see this concept as a plus. Especially in situations where you have lay coaches who are coordinators and between their jobs and family attention to football can be tough. Now the guy has to just focus on one area of the game. Defensively, I just feel the detail each could cover would allow for a greater ability to pick up tendencies and match ups The whole thing boils down to ego........coaches who have them would be a problem. As a head coach you are getting a lot more done and the coaches will then take more ownership of the program. But then at the same time the head coach will have to hold them accountable.
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Jan 18, 2014 5:44:30 GMT -6
The way I learned it was the head coach would call run or pass. The coordinator in charge of the call area would then make the call according to the D/D. On defense the head coach would call out the pressure, example 4 man and the coordinators would signal the front call and the coverage. On the high school level I could see this concept as a plus. Especially in situations where you have lay coaches who are coordinators and between their jobs and family attention to football can be tough. Now the guy has to just focus on one area of the game. Defensively, I just feel the detail each could cover would allow for a greater ability to pick up tendencies and match ups The whole thing boils down to ego........coaches who have them would be a problem. As a head coach you are getting a lot more done and the coaches will then take more ownership of the program. But then at the same time the head coach will have to hold them accountable. Why would it be harder for a "lay" coach to pay attention to football?
|
|
|
Post by doublewing on Jan 18, 2014 6:23:02 GMT -6
I Have nothing against lay coaches, in fact I have the upmost respect. I started my career as one and when I coached in college I worked construction during the day. With that being said I know the limitations you have in regards to film and prep. As a teacher, the job is pretty Cush, you have prep periods, iPads and you are not doing manual labor.....so you just have more time as a teacher. Again nothing against lay coaches, been there done that.......so I know limitations do exist, so the co- coordinator concept would help that type of situation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2014 7:14:27 GMT -6
As with most things, it depends on the situation. When I was a "lay coach", I actually had more time for football than I do as a fulltime teacher.
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Jan 18, 2014 9:39:13 GMT -6
As with most things, it depends on the situation. When I was a "lay coach", I actually had more time for football than I do as a fulltime teacher. Agreed. With teaching 7 of 8 periods I think all of my lay coaches spend more time on football stuff than I do.
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Jan 18, 2014 14:18:53 GMT -6
Moving into my 2nd stint as a "co-coordinator", but in all reality it is:
1) Other guy is the "run game coordinator and playcaller", and makes the decision on run/pass, and overall gameplan 2) I am the "pass game coordinator", and make decision on passing concepts, teach the routes, teach the reads, and all things passing game. Plus I call the pass plays when the decision to call a pass play is determined.
Worked very well the 1st time around... I was hired by a guy who had never worked with me before and he wanted to see how I did things before he just gave me the keys, but I was the 100% guy after about week 3. This time around is slightly different. Going to a school who has been VERY SUCCESSFUL in the past few years and just line up with their OL, TE's, and RB's and are VERY GOOD in the run-game. Every starting RB for them the last 5 years has 1500 or more yards, but they haven't gotten past the 2nd round of playoffs due to running into someone who can slow down the run game enough to beat them because they have not even been efficient enough in the pass game to keep less than 9 defenders in the box. As soon as I resigned my HC job at the school I was at (got smoked by these guys both years we faced them) they have put on a full-court press to get me to help teach their entire offensive staff pass-game and to call all the pass plays. Basically going to teach the staff and players how to pass the ball from scratch.
Been really fun so far working with the other guy and figuring out how the dynamics will work, but I am going into it with the mentality that they shouldn't stop what they have been doing... running the football and running it very well (probably about 80% run plays draws and screens), but in that other 20% of the time when they need to drop back and throw, can do some damage. Even just enough to get that 8th/9th man in the box out of there so they can run even better.
|
|
|
Post by jlenwood on Jan 19, 2014 6:45:30 GMT -6
As with most things, it depends on the situation. When I was a "lay coach", I actually had more time for football than I do as a fulltime teacher. What the heck is a "lay" coach?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2014 8:08:44 GMT -6
Based on usage, I'm assuming it means a coach who isn't employed by the school he coaches for as a teacher. I've never heard it used outside of this board, however.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 19, 2014 10:00:41 GMT -6
The way I learned it was the head coach would call run or pass. The coordinator in charge of the call area would then make the call according to the D/D. On defense the head coach would call out the pressure, example 4 man and the coordinators would signal the front call and the coverage. On the high school level I could see this concept as a plus. Especially in situations where you have lay coaches who are coordinators and between their jobs and family attention to football can be tough. Now the guy has to just focus on one area of the game. Defensively, I just feel the detail each could cover would allow for a greater ability to pick up tendencies and match ups The whole thing boils down to ego........coaches who have them would be a problem. As a head coach you are getting a lot more done and the coaches will then take more ownership of the program. But then at the same time the head coach will have to hold them accountable. I guess some people have tried this and had success, BUT I think this is pretty much the least streamlined and least efficient method of playcalling I can imagine. And it seems very limiting, both with regards to personnel usage, getting into rhythm, and setting up various counters and such. Also could potentially lead to fingerpointing and divisiveness. Regarding the "pick up tendencies/match ups" and "focus on one area of the game", AGAIN (it seems to be a somewhat common occurrence here lately) I think it is just an example of the different views on coaches responsibilities. Many of the things I see coaches here saying are the roles of "co-coorindators"...have always just been duties of an assistant coach.
|
|
|
Post by bluboy on Jan 19, 2014 10:37:37 GMT -6
I am not a big fan of co-coordinators. Remember: a zebra was a horse built by committee. I am the DC. I have one guy who is my right-hand man. He helps breakdown video,makes good suggestions, and works very closely with me in preparing the game plan. On game night, he will make substitutions and make suggestions, as well as communicate with kids as they come off the field (so that I can focus on making calls). I make the final decision. The bottom line is that if we can't stop anyone, the head coach comes directly to me.
|
|
|
Post by coachsample on Jan 25, 2014 13:20:41 GMT -6
I think Co-Coordinators can work, but I might not be a good person to talk to, cause last season I was the co-DC, and it was a horrible situation.
I was told that we were going to a co-DC setup the day of the pre-Spring Practice Coaches meeting, with no guidance from my HC on how HE visioned the partnership. So, me and the co-DC decided that I would take care of the "front of the house" (since I coached the DL) and he would run the "back of the house" (since he coached the LB's). However, I still broke down all the film, created the game plan(which was always "approved" by the other DC) ran the meetings, did all the practice scripts, ran all of the practice team segments EXCEPT Skelly, and still called plays on Friday night.
So guess who got blamed/scapegoated when the Defense didn't produce like the HC wanted? I did, so play calling went to the other DC after week 3.
Did the defense produce the results I wanted? Not even close, so I can't be too mad at the HC for making the move.
However, I think the multiple voices that the defenders heard confused them, not necessarily the coaches saying different things, but saying the same thing DIFFERENT WAYS, which is such as bad.
If you want it work, everybody has to be speaking the same language, without fail, and both parties need clear expectations about what part of the overall scheme of the group he is responsible for.
|
|
|
Post by indian1 on Jan 25, 2014 14:05:40 GMT -6
I just think it disperses responsibility. At some point 1 guy is responsible in reality.
In my experience with this I was a position coach and teacher. The DC was a lay coach. During the season his job responsibilities increased so the HC decided to make me "co-DC". Which meant I was then to do all the film prep, draw up scout cards, make sure all of our adjustments were sound. The other guy called the D on Fridays.
Very valuable experience for me but I don't like a 2 man system. Someone is in charge
|
|
|
Post by leighty on Jan 27, 2014 11:04:30 GMT -6
At the college level, I think it's rarely more than resume fluff and/or a justification to admin to pay a guy more money.
|
|
|
Post by leighty on Jan 27, 2014 11:05:58 GMT -6
In my experience with this I was a position coach and teacher. The DC was a lay coach. During the season his job responsibilities increased so the HC decided to make me "co-DC". Which meant I was then to do all the film prep, draw up scout cards, make sure all of our adjustments were sound. The other guy called the D on Fridays. Did you coach at the same place the next season?
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Jan 27, 2014 11:14:25 GMT -6
At the college level, I think it's rarely more than resume fluff and/or a justification to admin to pay a guy more money. I think at the high school level is even worse. CQ's situation as pass game coordinator is one of the only ways "co-coordinators" could work, but that situation is very rare at the high school level. I feel at the HS level one of the co-coordinators is really the "real", or main coordinator's assistant. The real title should be Assistant to the OC or DC. As many have already said, one guy is ultimately in charge.
|
|
|
Post by indian1 on Jan 27, 2014 12:19:01 GMT -6
In my experience with this I was a position coach and teacher. The DC was a lay coach. During the season his job responsibilities increased so the HC decided to make me "co-DC". Which meant I was then to do all the film prep, draw up scout cards, make sure all of our adjustments were sound. The other guy called the D on Fridays. Did you coach at the same place the next season? No, but not because of that. I had a chance to become a HC.
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Jan 27, 2014 12:38:50 GMT -6
Ive been there before, me and another guy, was not a good mix. We both had been DCs before and had different philosophies. I got the final call come game time, but just too many varying ideas and plans left us all over the map. You have to have one chief and then a lot of Indians.
Also seen situations on offense where you have a "run game coordinator" and a "pass game coordinator" this led to similar issues.
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Jan 27, 2014 12:47:07 GMT -6
I think if there are too many chef's in the kitchen the meal is going to suck on either side of the ball. and I don't even know what the think about coverage being divorced from the front. I don't think I've ever heard of that. It just doesn't sound right. I've never heard of that either.
|
|