|
Post by 33coach on Aug 3, 2014 13:51:25 GMT -6
There is No winning without some talent. Coaching only makes up about 10-15% of how a team is going to do. Sometimes we like our egos stroked and think we play a major part but if you sit back and be honest, we will realize the truth. I find it very difficult to believe that coaching would amount to so little. If this were true, why would coaches spend all the time and effort to go to clinics, watch film, and such to only amount to 10-15%? I believe that a great coach can take a bad team into a mediocre team, mediocre team into a good team, a good team into a great team. A great coach can't turn a bad team into a great team, but they can still improve their kids chances of winning none the less. here is my take on it... we go to clinics, and spend thousands of dollars a year on tapes, and dvds and hotel stays, because in the event of having a bad team, your 10-15% is what is going to win games, so that 10-15% better be sharp. anyone can win with a team full of athletes...hell i've had years where we were so loaded with talent i barely called the defense on game day. just installed a bunch of auto checks and watched football... but its the bad years. the years where you got a bunch of kids who probably don't belong on the field at any level...those are the years that we (i at least) prepare for every off season.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Aug 3, 2014 14:25:47 GMT -6
Consistent talent IMO helps to develop confidence in what you're doing b/c you tend to win more often. As a result, you stay away from the gimmicky garbage b/c your stuff is proven on the field.
Some of us struggle b/c we don't win as often as we'd like which always leaves the "door cracked" to doubting what you're doing even if what you are doing is sound, we can't always prove it on the field. As a result, people "fish around for the next big thing" and get themselves into trouble. Talent prevents a lot of "fishing" and getting off track IMO.
Talented programs tend to "stick to the script" and run the same stuff & polish the fundamentals year after year. They get a chance to perfect their craft.
I think these type of circumstances tend to make the more talented teams seem better coached (which they may be) but sometimes it's b/c their circumstances are less challenging, making their plan easier to follow then the guy who just doesn't have the horses.
JMO.
|
|
|
Post by jg78 on Aug 3, 2014 14:55:25 GMT -6
While I think talent is the most significant factor, I believe coaching matters more in football than it does basketball and baseball.
To a reasonable extent, maybe. But coaches aren't miracle workers.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Aug 3, 2014 15:00:19 GMT -6
To a reasonable extent, maybe. But coaches aren't miracle workers.
Agreed.
But I believe the gist of the quote was that all things being equal-on a level playing field, coaching wins in football.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Aug 3, 2014 15:30:33 GMT -6
I find it very difficult to believe that coaching would amount to so little. If this were true, why would coaches spend all the time and effort to go to clinics, watch film, and such to only amount to 10-15%? I believe that a great coach can take a bad team into a mediocre team, mediocre team into a good team, a good team into a great team. A great coach can't turn a bad team into a great team, but they can still improve their kids chances of winning none the less. here is my take on it... we go to clinics, and spend thousands of dollars a year on tapes, and dvds and hotel stays, because in the event of having a bad team, your 10-15% is what is going to win games, so that 10-15% better be sharp. anyone can win with a team full of athletes...hell i've had years where we were so loaded with talent i barely called the defense on game day. just installed a bunch of auto checks and watched football... but its the bad years. the years where you got a bunch of kids who probably don't belong on the field at any level...those are the years that we (i at least) prepare for every off season. I don't know what percentage of a program's success a coach is worth but I'm sure that it's more than 15%. Great programs have great players but the coach plays a big role in that. The coach establishes a great S&C program that makes players better. The coach runs his program in an efficient, first-class manner that attracts better athletes to want to play football. The coach makes sure that his coaches on his staff are all pulling in the same direction, are dedicated to making themselves better, and are great teachers of technique. So, you've attracted better athletes, made them even better in the weight room, make them even better with great technique, and get everybody putting all of their effort in the same direction. That's a pretty good combination. If you're talking about the difference that a coach makes on a given game night maybe 10% is generous. If you're talking about the difference that a coach makes over the course of years in running his program (not "team", "program") he makes all the difference.
|
|
|
Post by sweep26 on Aug 3, 2014 15:53:22 GMT -6
"One good coach is worth 5 good players"...Not sure where the quote come from, but i believe it is factual.
Over the years, I have seen numerous teams that were loaded with talent, that really underachieved because of poor coaching.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Aug 3, 2014 20:05:10 GMT -6
I don't know what percentage of a program's success a coach is worth but I'm sure that it's more than 15%. Great programs have great players but the coach plays a big role in that. The coach establishes a great S&C program that makes players better. The coach runs his program in an efficient, first-class manner that attracts better athletes to want to play football. The coach makes sure that his coaches on his staff are all pulling in the same direction, are dedicated to making themselves better, and are great teachers of technique. So, you've attracted better athletes, made them even better in the weight room, make them even better with great technique, and get everybody putting all of their effort in the same direction. That's a pretty good combination. If you're talking about the difference that a coach makes on a given game night maybe 10% is generous. If you're talking about the difference that a coach makes over the course of years in running his program (not "team", "program") he makes all the difference. My thoughts exactly. I think it is pretty futile (and somewhat ridiculous) to try and attribute any numerical value to something like coaching. But , in this case, one must recognize that there are MANY roles of a coach (as fantom points out) and his impact is felt in numerous ways. Saying 10%-15% really discounts the impact of coaches with regards to everything outside of 2.5-3.0 hours on game day. I also agree with fantom in that saying 10%-15% represents a game day contribution is probably way overstated.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Aug 3, 2014 20:15:14 GMT -6
While I think talent is the most significant factor, I believe coaching matters more in football than it does basketball and baseball. To a reasonable extent, maybe. But coaches aren't miracle workers. Completely agree that coaching matters more in football than in any other sport I CAN THINK OF. The rules and guidelines for this sport make this so. It's the only sport I can think of where the coach tells the players between every snap to "run or pass the ball to point A". We literally have the power to control the action of the most valuable object on the field...IF... our kids can execute it. Hence, making coaching in FB very valuable IMO. That's also what makes me so passionate about this sport. We have a lot of say on what happens out their.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Aug 3, 2014 21:02:48 GMT -6
While I think talent is the most significant factor, I believe coaching matters more in football than it does basketball and baseball. To a reasonable extent, maybe. But coaches aren't miracle workers. Completely agree that coaching matters more in football than in any other sport I CAN THINK OF. The rules and guidelines for this sport make this so. It's the only sport I can think of where the coach tells the players between every snap to "run or pass the ball to point A". We literally have the power to control the action of the most valuable object on the field...IF... our kids can execute it. Hence, making coaching in FB very valuable IMO. That's also what makes me so passionate about this sport. We have a lot of say on what happens out their. Actually, I always thought this aspect DEVALUED coaching in some respects, and Increased it for sports like Basketball as it put more importance on the teaching process
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Aug 3, 2014 21:26:52 GMT -6
Completely agree that coaching matters more in football than in any other sport I CAN THINK OF. The rules and guidelines for this sport make this so. It's the only sport I can think of where the coach tells the players between every snap to "run or pass the ball to point A". We literally have the power to control the action of the most valuable object on the field...IF... our kids can execute it. Hence, making coaching in FB very valuable IMO. That's also what makes me so passionate about this sport. We have a lot of say on what happens out their. Actually, I always thought this aspect DEVALUED coaching in some respects, and Increased it for sports like Basketball as it put more importance on the teaching process Wow...interesting viewpoint. Cannot agree with it in any form or fashion but interesting. 22 guys v. 10, defending or exploiting 90 feet v. 100 yards of space. TONS of alignment rules v. none, ball handling eligibility by number v. no rules on who can handle the ball. Guys can actually physically destroy the ball handler, hence TEACHING your boys on how to protect the ball handler v. have to touch the ball only and not the ball handler. Very few breaks in action to make adjustments v. 120 + possible breaks to not only make adjustments but have to counter act adjustments. Free throws v. nothing is free. One team of 5 playing both O & D v. a group playing O - D - KO - KOR - Punt - PR - XP & XP Block. The shear numbers of people on the field combined w/ alignment rules alone make for an almost infinite number of strategies to both move and stop movement. Just not seeing your POV my friend. But I am willing to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Aug 3, 2014 21:51:46 GMT -6
Very few breaks in action to make adjustments That is precisely my point. In basketball, the coach has the opportunity to teach the players how to handle these situations and have the players internalize these concepts and apply them within the flow of the game on their own as opposed to looking on his wrist coach and doing what it says on blue 3. Now, if you backtrack to the days before coaches called plays.... you would have a similar situation, with all of the variables you discussed.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Aug 3, 2014 22:09:09 GMT -6
Very few breaks in action to make adjustments That is precisely my point. In basketball, the coach has the opportunity to teach the players how to handle these situations and have the players internalize these concepts and apply them within the flow of the game on their own as opposed to looking on his wrist coach and doing what it says on blue 3. Now, if you backtrack to the days before coaches called plays.... you would have a similar situation, with all of the variables you discussed. That's one way of looking at it. I would suggest a 2nd way of looking at it is to say that BB is not sophisticated enough to require a wrist coach. hence less coach intensive b/c again, their are only so many things you can do in a sport that only has 5 dudes and rules that restrict you from physically restraining movement of the ball DIRECTLY. In other words, their aren't nearly as many "concepts or situations" to handle. By your thought process soccer is also more coach intensive than football. Same with hockey, etc. I struggle to believe this to be true.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Aug 4, 2014 6:48:44 GMT -6
That's one way of looking at it. I would suggest a 2nd way of looking at it is to say that BB is not sophisticated enough to require a wrist coach. hence less coach intensive b/c again, their are only so many things you can do in a sport that only has 5 dudes and rules that restrict you from physically restraining movement of the ball DIRECTLY. In other words, their aren't nearly as many "concepts or situations" to handle. By your thought process soccer is also more coach intensive than football. Same with hockey, etc. I struggle to believe this to be true. Of course you struggle to believe this is true. You are a football coach. Read through this board...we think the sun rises and sets on us I don't know enough about soccer or hockey to comment on those specifically , but regarding basketball, I will say that reading threads and listening to football coaches here talk all about "packaged plays" and option routes being so brilliant one has to realize basketball has had "packaged plays" for damn near its entirety. Multiple options, that stem from multiple options and lead to even more multiple options....all based on what the opponent does, and all must be performed on the fly and in synchronization with your teammates. If the wing makes an In cut, you then go through this progression, and each of the 4 or 5 steps of the progression has 3 to 4 potential responses...if he screens instead of the in cut, you go through THIS DIFFERENT progression, and again each of the potential steps has 3 to 4 different responses..etc. The ability to be micro managed is not the only determinant of sophistication. Like I said, just a perspective.
|
|
|
Post by 90rocket on Aug 4, 2014 7:08:14 GMT -6
When I coached basketball I always felt practices were for me, the games for the players. I never tried to over coach them during games. If I had used my time wisely at practice they should be all set. I also think basketball is a grind to coach. It is during the winter 2+ games per week, practice over vacation etc.
With that said there is no question in my mind that football takes far more time and attention to detail in order for the coach to lead a successful team.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Aug 4, 2014 8:31:18 GMT -6
That's one way of looking at it. I would suggest a 2nd way of looking at it is to say that BB is not sophisticated enough to require a wrist coach. hence less coach intensive b/c again, their are only so many things you can do in a sport that only has 5 dudes and rules that restrict you from physically restraining movement of the ball DIRECTLY. In other words, their aren't nearly as many "concepts or situations" to handle. By your thought process soccer is also more coach intensive than football. Same with hockey, etc. I struggle to believe this to be true. Of course you struggle to believe this is true. You are a football coach. Read through this board...we think the sun rises and sets on us I don't know enough about soccer or hockey to comment on those specifically , but regarding basketball, I will say that reading threads and listening to football coaches here talk all about "packaged plays" and option routes being so brilliant one has to realize basketball has had "packaged plays" for damn near its entirety. Multiple options, that stem from multiple options and lead to even more multiple options....all based on what the opponent does, and all must be performed on the fly and in synchronization with your teammates. If the wing makes an In cut, you then go through this progression, and each of the 4 or 5 steps of the progression has 3 to 4 potential responses...if he screens instead of the in cut, you go through THIS DIFFERENT progression, and again each of the potential steps has 3 to 4 different responses..etc. The ability to be micro managed is not the only determinant of sophistication. Like I said, just a perspective. Coach, I've been coming on this board for a few years now and have read many of your posts. I don't think I would be saying anything earth shattering or offensive to suggest you kind of thrive on the "devil's advocate" perspective at times. With that being said, I don't feel FB is more intensive to coach b/c I'm a football coach. I think it's more intensive to coach b/c of MATH. More players = more space = more rules = more details = more coaching. No different than flag football being easier than tackle to coach. No different than 3 on 3 BB would be easier to coach than regular BB. Again, it's simple math coach. The less moving parts, the easier it is. FB has the most moving parts, requires the most teamwork and is the most detail oriented. Maybe the reason SOME of us think the sun rises and sets w/ FB is b/c we see it as the ultimate strategic challenge rather than "just b/c" as you seem to suggest. Oh well, I've been on here long enough to know you will not concede your position as devil's advocate so I will move on. Thanks for the debate.
|
|
|
Post by veerman on Aug 4, 2014 10:17:29 GMT -6
Okay here we go ball park figure. Nothing exact here, but if I had to say... 70% talent, 20-25 coaching, 5-10% just ball bounces your way. Like the comment about not being able to put an exact % on it, but discussion sake. Good coaches increase their talent but you can only increase it so much. not turning a terrible player into a elite player. Now some coaches are exception to rule just like everything. A coach who won 3 state titles and made the school a state power year in and year out took a job at another school. Want to say he won 1 game in two years. Believed he left after two years. Listened to him at a clinic and he said not everywhere is a place your going to win games at, but that's win you teach them to win in life that much more.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Aug 4, 2014 10:59:56 GMT -6
Okay here we go ball park figure. Nothing exact here, but if I had to say... 70% talent, 20-25 coaching, 5-10% just ball bounces your way. Like the comment about not being able to put an exact % on it, but discussion sake. Good coaches increase their talent but you can only increase it so much. not turning a terrible player into a elite player. Now some coaches are exception to rule just like everything. A coach who won 3 state titles and made the school a state power year in and year out took a job at another school. Want to say he won 1 game in two years. Believed he left after two years. Listened to him at a clinic and he said not everywhere is a place your going to win games at, but that's win you teach them to win in life that much more. There are places where you can't win. That's why I've always said that coaches should look at a situation VERY carefully before taking a job at a perennial loser. To me, it's all about administrative support. Now, I don't think that there are THAT many of those jobs but they do exist.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Aug 4, 2014 15:22:53 GMT -6
On basketball vs football.
Agreed that you have to teach the basketball players how to work together better on the fly. But it is only 5 players. And more importantly, if it isn't there, they can just pass it back up top and reset instead of get drilled by someone.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Aug 4, 2014 15:41:02 GMT -6
Warning, this is totally made up, but may be a good way to look at coaching.
Athletes = 50 In-season coaching = 15 Program coaching = 15 Administration = 10 Facilities = 5 Tradition/Community = 5
Whatever, you get the point.
But, 15% is actually pretty big. If all the other scores add to 60 and you add in 15 for coaching, you now are at 75. (The average team being 50).
Typical 10 game schedule could look something like this:
50 60 90 40 30 50 55 65 80 25
If you are a typical team at 50, you are better than 3 teams on your schedule and equal to 2. But if your coaching bumps you up 15 points, you are now better than 8 teams on your schedule. Of course, having a higher rating does not guarantee a win, but hope I make my point.
If your athletes, facilities, admin, and community are terrible, you can have Bear Bryant as coach and maybe only be better than 2/3 teams.
Of course, Bear would see to it that his admin, facilities, athletes, and community didn't stay terrible. Give him a few years and then see how they are. He went 1-9 his first year at Texas A&M.
|
|
|
Post by tpbuck on Aug 7, 2014 12:11:06 GMT -6
It never ceases to amaze me how as a nation and people in the same profession we love to promote the idea of success, but whenever someone actually achieves it we do whatever we can to marginalize it or excuse it away. I have coached 12 years, won two state titles as DC, state runner-up as an HC, and we were 10-3 last year (losing twice to the eventual undefeated state champion) with pretty much the whole team coming back this year. We are one of the favorites to win it all and will have a good chance against everyone we play. I have had plenty of success too. I'm certainly not sitting here with a 2-8 team every year and trying to make excuses for it. I am proud of what the teams I have coached have accomplished.
But I have also been 4-6 and 5-5 as a DC. I have been 3-7 as a HC. I have been all across the coaching spectrum and back and I know that in the years we have been highly successful we had much better players than in the years we weren't. When I went 12-1 as DC one year and 4-6 as DC at the same school the next year, I didn't forget how to coach. We lost 20+ seniors and almost all of our starters. That's the reason we struggled. When I went 3-7 as an HC one year and 10-3 and state runner-up (losing twice to schools in larger classifications) the next year, I didn't learn anything revolutionary. What mattered most was that we dropped a class and had all of our key players back, plus we picked up a good LB/OG. That was what really made the difference. Our talent (relative to our competition) was much better the next year.
In my opinion, each team has an approximate number of games that it should probably win. A great coach may turn 8-2 talent into 9-1 or 10-0. A bad coach may turn 8-2 talent into 7-3 or 6-4. On average, there's probably a variance of a couple of games each year based on good and bad coaching. But for a program like DLS to put together 150 game winning streak, there's a helluva lot more to that than just great coaching. Maybe they maximized their resources (probably so and good for them) but you could take that same staff and put them at many different schools in the country and they would have hard time even mustering a winning season, much less huge winning streaks.
The DLS coaches aren't just coaching "seasons", they have a program in place. A program they built from the ground up. They were horrible before Ladoceur took over, and he took them from doormats to dominant. How did he do that? Just by having better players? Did they all just happen to show up in 1989 and never leave? The man is a great coach, a great leader and a program builder. The fact is, he COULD bring his staff to 95% of the HS in the nation and do a better job than the group in place.
In 2001 & 2002 DLS played Long Beach Poly home and away. Poly was widely regarded as the favorite in both games due to the fact that they were much bigger and had much better athletes. More D1 prospects, too. DLS won both games by a fair margin. How did that happen when the other team had better individual talent?
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Aug 7, 2014 12:42:51 GMT -6
I have coached 12 years, won two state titles as DC, state runner-up as an HC, and we were 10-3 last year (losing twice to the eventual undefeated state champion) with pretty much the whole team coming back this year. We are one of the favorites to win it all and will have a good chance against everyone we play. I have had plenty of success too. I'm certainly not sitting here with a 2-8 team every year and trying to make excuses for it. I am proud of what the teams I have coached have accomplished.
But I have also been 4-6 and 5-5 as a DC. I have been 3-7 as a HC. I have been all across the coaching spectrum and back and I know that in the years we have been highly successful we had much better players than in the years we weren't. When I went 12-1 as DC one year and 4-6 as DC at the same school the next year, I didn't forget how to coach. We lost 20+ seniors and almost all of our starters. That's the reason we struggled. When I went 3-7 as an HC one year and 10-3 and state runner-up (losing twice to schools in larger classifications) the next year, I didn't learn anything revolutionary. What mattered most was that we dropped a class and had all of our key players back, plus we picked up a good LB/OG. That was what really made the difference. Our talent (relative to our competition) was much better the next year.
In my opinion, each team has an approximate number of games that it should probably win. A great coach may turn 8-2 talent into 9-1 or 10-0. A bad coach may turn 8-2 talent into 7-3 or 6-4. On average, there's probably a variance of a couple of games each year based on good and bad coaching. But for a program like DLS to put together 150 game winning streak, there's a helluva lot more to that than just great coaching. Maybe they maximized their resources (probably so and good for them) but you could take that same staff and put them at many different schools in the country and they would have hard time even mustering a winning season, much less huge winning streaks.
The DLS coaches aren't just coaching "seasons", they have a program in place. A program they built from the ground up. They were horrible before Ladoceur took over, and he took them from doormats to dominant. How did he do that? Just by having better players? Did they all just happen to show up in 1989 and never leave? The man is a great coach, a great leader and a program builder. The fact is, he COULD bring his staff to 95% of the HS in the nation and do a better job than the group in place.
In 2001 & 2002 DLS played Long Beach Poly home and away. Poly was widely regarded as the favorite in both games due to the fact that they were much bigger and had much better athletes. More D1 prospects, too. DLS won both games by a fair margin. How did that happen when the other team had better individual talent?
I'll chime in here at "my own risk" (lol). I also think one thing we haven't talked much about in this thread that I feel holds true quite a bit is this: Sometimes good coaches lose or win also based on what they are seeing schematically across from them. For example, maybe a coach is very good at developing his program but has inexperience v. a PARTICULAR type of offense or defense. Maybe he struggles v. something he doesn't see very often, maybe the LB Poly team sees a TON of spread and wasn't real familiar w/ the splitback veer and as a result, they struggled to make the most use of the talent they had IN THAT PARTICULAR game. Doesn't necessarily mean that the LB Poly team wasn't well coached or doesn't do a great job. Just maybe they have less familiarity with that type of scheme. As a result, they did not put their kids in the best spot for THOSE games. Maybe if you flipped the script, and looked at the 2004 game between DLS and Bellevue when Bellevue ended the streak, it doesn't necessarily make the Bellevue staff better than DLS. I would guess talent was comparable or even favored DLS to an extent. But, Bellevue runs a very unique style of wing t FB that many people just don't see very often and as a result, maybe DLS thought they had a great game plan, but again, as we all know, you never quite know until the game is played. This is all speculation of course. I just think that some guys are more comfortable scheming v. certain things v. others. As a result, I think play off brackets are HUGE in the play offs. Sometimes, the best team does not always win. Doesn't necessarily mean the staff didn't do it's job. Sometimes match ups between systems matter when both teams are good. JMO. Sorry for the length.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Aug 7, 2014 12:52:12 GMT -6
I'll chime in here at "my own risk" (lol). I also think one thing we haven't talked much about in this thread that I feel holds true quite a bit is this: Sometimes good coaches lose or win also based on what they are seeing schematically across from them. For example, maybe a coach is very good at developing his program but has inexperience v. a PARTICULAR type of offense or defense. Maybe he struggles v. something he doesn't see very often, maybe the LB Poly team sees a TON of spread and wasn't real familiar w/ the splitback veer and as a result, they struggled to make the most use of the talent they had IN THAT PARTICULAR game. Doesn't necessarily mean that the LB Poly team wasn't well coached or doesn't do a great job. Just maybe they have less familiarity with that type of scheme. As a result, they did not put their kids in the best spot for THOSE games. Maybe if you flipped the script, and looked at the 2004 game between DLS and Bellevue when Bellevue ended the streak, it doesn't necessarily make the Bellevue staff better than DLS. I would guess talent was comparable or even favored DLS to an extent. But, Bellevue runs a very unique style of wing t FB that many people just don't see very often and as a result, maybe DLS thought they had a great game plan, but again, as we all know, you never quite know until the game is played. This is all speculation of course. I just think that some guys are more comfortable scheming v. certain things v. others. As a result, I think play off brackets are HUGE in the play offs. Sometimes, the best team does not always win. Doesn't necessarily mean the staff didn't do it's job. Sometimes match ups between systems matter when both teams are good. JMO. Sorry for the length. I don't think that scheme has much to do with success when you're talking about experienced staffs.
|
|
|
Post by coachphillip on Aug 7, 2014 13:15:41 GMT -6
I don't think so either, especially in the Bellevue situation. Wing T was pretty prevalent in the NorCal area. There were more three back teams around here growing up than two back or one back sets. I get what you're saying in that LBP wasn't accustomed to SBV, but I don't think the flip could be used for DLS.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Aug 7, 2014 13:34:46 GMT -6
I'll chime in here at "my own risk" (lol). I also think one thing we haven't talked much about in this thread that I feel holds true quite a bit is this: Sometimes good coaches lose or win also based on what they are seeing schematically across from them. For example, maybe a coach is very good at developing his program but has inexperience v. a PARTICULAR type of offense or defense. Maybe he struggles v. something he doesn't see very often, maybe the LB Poly team sees a TON of spread and wasn't real familiar w/ the splitback veer and as a result, they struggled to make the most use of the talent they had IN THAT PARTICULAR game. Doesn't necessarily mean that the LB Poly team wasn't well coached or doesn't do a great job. Just maybe they have less familiarity with that type of scheme. As a result, they did not put their kids in the best spot for THOSE games. Maybe if you flipped the script, and looked at the 2004 game between DLS and Bellevue when Bellevue ended the streak, it doesn't necessarily make the Bellevue staff better than DLS. I would guess talent was comparable or even favored DLS to an extent. But, Bellevue runs a very unique style of wing t FB that many people just don't see very often and as a result, maybe DLS thought they had a great game plan, but again, as we all know, you never quite know until the game is played. This is all speculation of course. I just think that some guys are more comfortable scheming v. certain things v. others. As a result, I think play off brackets are HUGE in the play offs. Sometimes, the best team does not always win. Doesn't necessarily mean the staff didn't do it's job. Sometimes match ups between systems matter when both teams are good. JMO. Sorry for the length. I don't think that scheme has much to do with success when you're talking about experienced staffs. I guess my mindset is that I hear many guys on here talk about how they like to run the wing t or the flexbone b/c it makes them unique to prepare for as they are the only ones in their area who still run that stuff. They feel it gives them an advantage w/ only 1 week to prepare. Ultimately, don't have to beat the experienced staff, just have to beat the kids on the field who have not seen a particular offense/ defense all year. They're the ones that may make the mistakes despite being well prepared. Again, your point is well taken, I just think there's room for error when seeing unfamiliar schemes. Especially w/ teenagers involved. JMO.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Aug 7, 2014 15:11:34 GMT -6
On basketball vs football. Agreed that you have to teach the basketball players how to work together better on the fly. But it is only 5 players. And more importantly, if it isn't there, they can just pass it back up top and reset instead of get drilled by someone. Just quoted myself. LOL One more point on basketball, I can take 5 better basketball players that have never practiced as a team and beat a well coached team with decent athletes. Of course there are limits and exceptions to my statement, but you get the point. You can't even begin to do that in football.
|
|
|
Post by jg78 on Aug 7, 2014 15:42:33 GMT -6
On basketball vs football. Agreed that you have to teach the basketball players how to work together better on the fly. But it is only 5 players. And more importantly, if it isn't there, they can just pass it back up top and reset instead of get drilled by someone. Just quoted myself. LOL One more point on basketball, I can take 5 better basketball players that have never practiced as a team and beat a well coached team with decent athletes. Of course there are limits and exceptions to my statement, but you get the point. You can't even begin to do that in football. I was about to make a similar point. You could probably give a good basketball coach five good players and 30 minutes to organize them and (at the very least) put up a respectable performance (and very well may win) against a well-coached team with an established system but average talent. Same with baseball. Football? Not so much.
|
|
|
Post by coachchrisp on Aug 8, 2014 14:18:16 GMT -6
The DLS coaches aren't just coaching "seasons", they have a program in place. A program they built from the ground up. They were horrible before Ladoceur took over, and he took them from doormats to dominant. How did he do that? Just by having better players? Did they all just happen to show up in 1989 and never leave? The man is a great coach, a great leader and a program builder. The fact is, he COULD bring his staff to 95% of the HS in the nation and do a better job than the group in place.
In 2001 & 2002 DLS played Long Beach Poly home and away. Poly was widely regarded as the favorite in both games due to the fact that they were much bigger and had much better athletes. More D1 prospects, too. DLS won both games by a fair margin. How did that happen when the other team had better individual talent?
I agree with this statement regarding DLS. While DLS has certainly had some talented players, especially recently, they have whooped teams from SoCal that have had more D-1 talent on their teams for years. It all starts with the offensive line for DLS. As an OC and OL coach I marvel at what they achieve year in and year out with their o-line. Several years ago DLS played a Westlake team that had 3 legit D-1 guys on the D-line. I remember thinking going into the game this might be a year a SoCal team could give them a fight up front. After the very first play I knew it was over, complete domination by their O-line. As someone who has coached in SoCal my whole career I have been thoroughly impressed by the coaching job done by the guys from NoCal in the state bowl series. Those teams are consistently "out-talented" by the SoCal teams and generally fair pretty well. I have to think some of that comes from the standard set by Coach Lad and DLS.
|
|
go42
Sophomore Member
Posts: 147
|
Post by go42 on Aug 11, 2014 15:59:00 GMT -6
I believe it was Lou Holtz who said, "you cannot win without talent, but you can lose with talent; that is where the coaching comes in"
|
|