jmg999
Junior Member
Posts: 263
|
Post by jmg999 on Jan 21, 2014 18:47:02 GMT -6
This thread raised an interesting point, but I didn't want to take it off-topic, so I decided to start a new discussion. Do you find it better to teach kids (JC/university level) in-depth schemes that'll end up w/ them mastering none of them? Or, do you believe that it's better to limit what you teach them in an effort to allow them to excel in certain areas? I spent two years working for a DC, who had these really complex schemes, and it seemed to me that quite a lot of it went over the heads of the players. He would constantly switch up alignments/coverages, and it didn't allow much fluidity or comfortability. There was so much going on at once that it seemed too much for them to grasp.
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Jan 21, 2014 19:21:42 GMT -6
KISS.
If you do a whole bunch of things without mastering a small number of them, what do you fall back on when times get tough?
|
|
|
Post by bluboy on Jan 21, 2014 19:51:48 GMT -6
A long time ago a grizzled coach told me, "It's not what you know. It's what your kids know and can do."
|
|
jmg999
Junior Member
Posts: 263
|
Post by jmg999 on Jan 21, 2014 22:36:42 GMT -6
Where do you guys draw the line? What I mean is, if a particular defensive scheme is designed to stop a particular offense, how do you decide what might be too much for your kids to learn? And, even though you may be able to teach them a this particular scheme, do you simply rely on a base, b/c you know that they understand the base?
|
|
fugulookinat
Junior Member
"Eye see DEAD people!"
Posts: 437
|
Post by fugulookinat on Jan 22, 2014 11:19:54 GMT -6
In Defense there are 2 laws to live by...
#1 Never sacrifice speed for size. #2 Never slow those speedy players down by having them think too much.
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Jan 22, 2014 11:56:12 GMT -6
Where do you guys draw the line? What I mean is, if a particular defensive scheme is designed to stop a particular offense, how do you decide what might be too much for your kids to learn? And, even though you may be able to teach them a this particular scheme, do you simply rely on a base, b/c you know that they understand the base? If your scheme is designed to stop only one sort of offense, you may want to re-evaluate the scheme.
|
|
|
Post by coachb0 on Jan 22, 2014 12:33:29 GMT -6
In Defense there are 2 laws to live by... #1 Never sacrifice speed for size. #2 Never slow those speedy players down by having them think too much. is this not true for offense, too?
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jan 22, 2014 12:38:47 GMT -6
In Defense there are 2 laws to live by... #1 Never sacrifice speed for size. #2 Never slow those speedy players down by having them think too much. is this not true for offense, too? Not necessarily. I'm not especially worried about our OL's 40 times.
|
|
|
Post by coachb0 on Jan 22, 2014 12:51:30 GMT -6
is this not true for offense, too? Not necessarily. I'm not especially worried about our OL's 40 times. May not be a 40, but how about a 5 or 10 yards time? Would you prefer an OL who is faster/quicker the couple of first steps or who is bigger (technique is the same)?
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jan 22, 2014 13:01:48 GMT -6
Not necessarily. I'm not especially worried about our OL's 40 times. May not be a 40, but how about a 5 or 10 yards time? Would you prefer an OL who is faster/quicker the couple of first steps or who is bigger (technique is the same)? If technique and work ethic are the same I'll take bigger every time.
|
|
jmg999
Junior Member
Posts: 263
|
Post by jmg999 on Jan 22, 2014 13:16:32 GMT -6
larrymoe, I think that his scheme was designed to be adaptive to each opponent. That's where the problem, in my estimation, comes in. As you adapt to each, individual opponent, you're incorporating new structures, and you're changing old ones. I realize that this is something you would keep in mind, in saying, 'Well, we can't just blow up everything we've done to this point, and start over,' but the more you change, the more you get into that gray area of presenting the kids w/ too much to handle.
dcohio, I like your reasoning, b/c it seems to put the responsibility back on the coaches to get it right, but it does lead into an area that I find personally frustrating. It's that situation, where you've tried to educate the kids over and over, and their belief is that their athletic ability will substitute for not working hard in the film room, the weight room, and/or the practice field. I suppose that it could raise the question: Am I using the best methods for getting the information across to them in a way that they understand it?
|
|
|
Post by coachb0 on Jan 22, 2014 14:01:11 GMT -6
May not be a 40, but how about a 5 or 10 yards time? Would you prefer an OL who is faster/quicker the couple of first steps or who is bigger (technique is the same)? If technique and work ethic are the same I'll take bigger every time. can you elaborate on reasons for this? thanks.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jan 22, 2014 14:10:38 GMT -6
If technique and work ethic are the same I'll take bigger every time. can you elaborate on reasons for this? thanks. On the OL? Really? They have to move people. How far are they going to have to run? They have to be somewhat athletic for pass pro but speed? Who cares? If they're equal in technique why wouldn't prefer the bigger guy?
|
|
|
Post by windigo on Jan 22, 2014 14:30:32 GMT -6
I think it has to do with how you approach it. We strive to me masters of techniques not plays. We have basic fundamental techniques. Our run blocking is 3 techniques down block, pull kick out, pull lead up.
That is it.
We build plays off of these techniques. We run many concepts off of this and we adapt concepts to fit these techniques. For instance if a concept calls for a double team like power we just down block it. But if a concept doesn't fit with our techniques we don't run it. We will not add a technique just to run one concept.
A fundamental flaw of a big playbook isn't the plays as much as it is the different techniques needed to run them. Indy practice time becomes diluted with way to many different drills teaching different things.
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Jan 23, 2014 10:10:30 GMT -6
larrymoe, I think that his scheme was designed to be adaptive to each opponent. That's where the problem, in my estimation, comes in. As you adapt to each, individual opponent, you're incorporating new structures, and you're changing old ones. I realize that this is something you would keep in mind, in saying, 'Well, we can't just blow up everything we've done to this point, and start over,' but the more you change, the more you get into that gray area of presenting the kids w/ too much to handle. dcohio, I like your reasoning, b/c it seems to put the responsibility back on the coaches to get it right, but it does lead into an area that I find personally frustrating. It's that situation, where you've tried to educate the kids over and over, and their belief is that their athletic ability will substitute for not working hard in the film room, the weight room, and/or the practice field. I suppose that it could raise the question: Am I using the best methods for getting the information across to them in a way that they understand it? I read it as- We run a 3-3 to stop a spread, a 4-4 to run against I teams, etc... We run a 4-4, but depending on the offense we play we can look like a 4-2-5 or a 4-3. Against double tight, wing t we can look like a 5-3 or a 6-4. Not different defenses, or really even terribly different packages, just line up differently. Our base is very simple as is all these different looks. Where we've gotten into trouble in the past is when we try to put too many wrinkles into each package. If you keep the responsibilities the same, you can look a million different ways, but still be pretty simple. Kind of like running the same 4 plays out of 10 formations on offense.
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Jan 23, 2014 10:12:11 GMT -6
In Defense there are 2 laws to live by... #1 Never sacrifice speed for size. #2 Never slow those speedy players down by having them think too much. Someone should tell Vince Wilfork and the like this.
|
|
fugulookinat
Junior Member
"Eye see DEAD people!"
Posts: 437
|
Post by fugulookinat on Jan 23, 2014 10:49:19 GMT -6
In Defense there are 2 laws to live by... #1 Never sacrifice speed for size. #2 Never slow those speedy players down by having them think too much. I disagree with this. I never use to and then I started coaching at bigger schools and while I agree everyone needs to be able to run, there are times where you need to be big and not necessarily fast. Slant and angle and all that is great until they take those 6'4" 285 lb olinemen and go foot to foot and smash mouth it. You ain't got to be too fast to get to the B-gap but you best have some @$$ to you when you get there. Actually I think that is the great thing about football. One week you play a double TE, I team with a 215 lb TB behind a 240 lb FB and the next week you play gun 5 wide and their only run plays are QB draw, QB trap and Jet. So my opinion on the never sacrifice speed for size part. I don't need the biggest and the fastest, I need big enough and fast enough. Of course in an ideal world my entire Dline would be 2 Reggie Whites and 2 Warren Sapps but seeings as how that's probably never going to happen...we have to find a middle ground. I used to think that also when I was younger, Bigger is Better, but there is no way to overcome lack of speed in a football game. Doesn't matter if it's offensively or defensively the faster, more athletic team will win 9 times out of 10 (as long as coaching is equal). I've coached for 20 years and can't think of one single time when I lost a game and then thought to myself "If only we were bigger we could have won". I have however lost a game and said "We couldn't match up with their speed". It's one of those topics that you're either on one side of the fence or the other. I agree with DC, wish I had big guys with speed but at the High School level it's rare to coach one. So if I have to choose between big or fast I'm going with speed every time and it's worked well for me.
|
|
|
Post by windigo on Jan 23, 2014 10:51:14 GMT -6
Stanford isn't faster than the teams they play. They simply run you the hell over.
|
|
|
Post by mholst40 on Jan 24, 2014 1:11:37 GMT -6
larrymoe, I think that his scheme was designed to be adaptive to each opponent. That's where the problem, in my estimation, comes in. As you adapt to each, individual opponent, you're incorporating new structures, and you're changing old ones. I realize that this is something you would keep in mind, in saying, 'Well, we can't just blow up everything we've done to this point, and start over,' but the more you change, the more you get into that gray area of presenting the kids w/ too much to handle. dcohio, I like your reasoning, b/c it seems to put the responsibility back on the coaches to get it right, but it does lead into an area that I find personally frustrating. It's that situation, where you've tried to educate the kids over and over, and their belief is that their athletic ability will substitute for not working hard in the film room, the weight room, and/or the practice field. I suppose that it could raise the question: Am I using the best methods for getting the information across to them in a way that they understand it? I read it as- We run a 3-3 to stop a spread, a 4-4 to run against I teams, etc... We run a 4-4, but depending on the offense we play we can look like a 4-2-5 or a 4-3. Against double tight, wing t we can look like a 5-3 or a 6-4. Not different defenses, or really even terribly different packages, just line up differently. Our base is very simple as is all these different looks. Where we've gotten into trouble in the past is when we try to put too many wrinkles into each package. If you keep the responsibilities the same, you can look a million different ways, but still be pretty simple. Kind of like running the same 4 plays out of 10 formations on offense. Agreed... the principles of the defense don't change even though alignment does. This to me is akin to a multiple formation offense that runs only a limited number of plays. Look like you do a lot to your opponent, but keep it simple for your players.
|
|
|
Post by sweep26 on Jan 24, 2014 9:36:23 GMT -6
The debate regarding Speed or Size can go on and on...it is easy to see both sides of this debate, either can win.
In reality, being successful actually comes down to match-ups (assuming both teams are equally well coached).
|
|
|
Post by coachklee on Jan 24, 2014 10:03:46 GMT -6
can you elaborate on reasons for this? thanks. On the OL? Really? They have to move people. How far are they going to have to run? They have to be somewhat athletic for pass pro but speed? Who cares? If they're equal in technique why wouldn't prefer the bigger guy? I'm agreeing. As long as the kid has enough knee bend and lower body strength to do truly do a parallel squat with weight on their back over 300 pounds, bigger is better. If the kid can't pull, limit or completely avoid running schemes that require that kid to pull. The line of scrimmage needs to move and in most cases, the more beef and knee bend a kid has, the more they will be able to move their block backwards let our ball carrier fall forward for the 3 to 4 yards needed to stay "on schedule".
|
|
fugulookinat
Junior Member
"Eye see DEAD people!"
Posts: 437
|
Post by fugulookinat on Jan 24, 2014 10:13:12 GMT -6
Stanford isn't faster than the teams they play. They simply run you the hell over. I'm talking about winning Championships. Stanford is a great team and they have won tons of games running the football, but have no National Championships to show for it. Always lose 1 or 2 games a year to a team like Oregon or USC who are not bigger than Stanford but are surely faster.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jan 24, 2014 10:31:08 GMT -6
On the OL? Really? They have to move people. How far are they going to have to run? They have to be somewhat athletic for pass pro but speed? Who cares? If they're equal in technique why wouldn't prefer the bigger guy? I'm agreeing. As long as the kid has enough knee bend and lower body strength to do truly do a parallel squat with weight on their back over 300 pounds, bigger is better. If the kid can't pull, limit or completely avoid running schemes that require that kid to pull. The line of scrimmage needs to move and in most cases, the more beef and knee bend a kid has, the more they will be able to move their block backwards let our ball carrier fall forward for the 3 to 4 yards needed to stay "on schedule". A couple of things that I should mention about speed: 1. I believe in speed but we do not set our starting lineup based on their 40 times (or 20 or 10). We want guys who PLAY fast, not just guys who run fast in shorts. 2. Defensively, we do make an exception on the "size over speed" rule for our 3 tech and 1 tech. You do need guys there who can hold up against the power game. We don't have those SEC 3 techs who weigh 320 and run a 4.7. We may sub a faster guy in on passing downs but on 3rd and 2 we can't use a DT who runs a 4.6 but gets knocked off the ball.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jan 24, 2014 10:34:15 GMT -6
Stanford isn't faster than the teams they play. They simply run you the hell over. I'm talking about winning Championships. Stanford is a great team and they have won tons of games running the football, but have no National Championships to show for it. Always lose 1 or 2 games a year to a team like Oregon or USC who are not bigger than Stanford but are surely faster.
For the record, Stanford is 5-2 vs. USC, 3-4 vs. Oregon in Harbaugh-Shaw era.
Oregon hasn't won a national championship, either.
Not bad for school with much higher academic standards than other two.
|
|
fugulookinat
Junior Member
"Eye see DEAD people!"
Posts: 437
|
Post by fugulookinat on Jan 24, 2014 10:36:52 GMT -6
Never said they did. Simply stated that Stanford hasn't done it yet.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jan 24, 2014 10:42:15 GMT -6
Never said they did. Simply stated that Stanford hasn't done it yet. You can't evaluate a program, coach, or player based solely on whether they've won championships. There's a lot of luck involved in winning championships.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jan 24, 2014 10:52:20 GMT -6
Never said they did. Simply stated that Stanford hasn't done it yet. You can't evaluate a program, coach, or player based solely on whether they've won championships. There's a lot of luck involved in winning championships.
Since 1990 there are over 100 BCS/FBS/D-IA programs who haven't won national championship - yet.
Implying Stanford "hasn't done it" because they are a "Power" team instead of "Speed" like Oregon is specious.
|
|
|
Post by windigo on Jan 24, 2014 11:13:41 GMT -6
While the national championship argument is specious Alabama doesn't exactly race teams out of the stadium.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jan 24, 2014 11:14:36 GMT -6
You can't evaluate a program, coach, or player based solely on whether they've won championships. There's a lot of luck involved in winning championships.
Since 1990 there are over 100 BCS/FBS/D-IA programs who haven't won national championship - yet.
Implying Stanford "hasn't done it" because they are a "Power" team instead of "Speed" like Oregon is specious.
Something that drives me nuts is this recent talk about NFL QBs' "legacies". The idea is supposed to be that if a QB hasn't won a championship, or hasn't won enough, he wasn't very good. Yeah, sure. Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, and Sonny Jurgensen were scrubs.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 24, 2014 11:20:01 GMT -6
Never said they did. Simply stated that Stanford hasn't done it yet. If we are measuring teams and success based on winning the BCS championship game, then according to you, any school not in a gulf coast state has not been successful for the last 8 years...
|
|