"Jimmy and Joes and not X and O"

Anyone can read a book and learn something (X's and O's). That doesn't mean you can go out and succeed just because you read that book.

No matter how much you want to avoid it, if you don't have athletes, you're not going to win the big games. However, having athletes doesn't guarantee success either. You have to have a good chemistry of coaching and athletes. We have a school in our conference who has gone through two staffs in my time here. Both staffs were excellent, and we've admitted to ourselves that we were out-coached on a number of occasions against this team. The difference? They had zero athletic ability. They had us trumped in every aspect, but their kids just couldn't do anything with the position their coaches put them in. This team has never had a winning season in my 11 years playing and coaching at my school.

This team runs a flexbone option offense now, and they have beat us up front the past two years with the veer and the rocket toss.  They adjusted it will and had us pinned in a lot of scenarios.  However, their QB and RB's couldn't outrun anyone when they got to the secondary.  The RB's were so small that they went down when the wind picked up.  When they pass blocked, their line was so slow that our D-linemen simply ran by them (while they had receivers all alone downfield because they got us to bust our coverage).  On defense, they would use great technique and shed blocks when we ran to the edge, but their OLB's and DE's simply couldn't catch our RB's.   

You could say that they didn't develop kids properly, or that they weren't getting the right kids out; nope. They're bad at every sport they have, and it's because their kids simply aren't athletic. It's a strange coincidence that a school would have so many nonathletic kids, but they do. Every athlete they have gotten has left either in middle school or their freshmen year to come to us or another nearby rival.  Athletic doesn't simply mean speed either.  Athleticism in this case also includes toughness and instinct.    

With the talent disparities in high school ball, a talented team can get away with all sorts of unsound or simplistic stuff and still win games, while a well coached team without much raw talent can do everything right and still lose because they just aren't as big, strong , or fast as the opponents. That's part of it.

I think the most useful interpretation of this, from a coaching perspective, is to remember that it's not you who wins the game, but your players. Your job is to prepare them and put them in position to win. What you know or all the fancy things you can do on a whiteboard doesn't matter if you can't communicate it or teach it to your team adequately. So often, coaches think it's all about their whiteboard mastery and blame players when that doesn't work. It's really the opposite.

I think once the players are at an equal talent level is when x's and o's and coaching comes into play.

I agree. I have been fortunate to have (mostly) coached good to great football teams in my career. I have always (whether coaching offense or defense) kept things simple and allowed the players to have a thorough understanding of what they are doing at all times. We may not do much, but we know what we're doing and do it well. If we're on D and the offense comes out in empty, two tight Power I, a heavy unbalanced set, or some crazy formation with linemen and skill guys scattered all over the field - we are prepared for it and it wouldn't confuse us.

...but a lot of "good" coaches don't get this.  

I also think that Jimmy's and Joe's win you games during the regular season, but when you want to see who can coach start going to playoff games.  A talented HS team can win its way through a typical league, but when the talent starts to equalize, that is where i think coaching has to shine.

We did it last year in the playoffs lol.  Played a conf champ from a charter school conference.  Athletically and physically, we had absolutely zero chance (O-line was probably 6'3/280 across the board, QB could run and throw about 60 yards, all of their skill guys were lightyears faster than our guys, etc).  Problem?  They literally just snapped the ball, the QB ran around (no drop) and the players ran backyard routes (run around till you're open).  They were so athletic that it didn't matter in the regular season, but in the first round of the playoffs we had our second stringers in by halftime.  They had absolutely zero coaching.  They used about 20 different defensive fronts on defense (no clue what they were trying do to in terms of coverage), and back on offense: They had no running game whatsoever.  The line just blocked the guy nearest to them and the QB just gave or tossed the ball left or right.   

True, but I think good coaching is far more than X's & O's (ie play calling). Good coaching is getting kids to utilize quality technique and consistently execute that technique. Good coaching is getting kids to be in the proper location on the field, on time (no mental errors, no paralysis by analysis).

What Fantom said.

I feel like I know a lot of $h!t about football, but I still don't know how to teach this:



Sometimes you just gotta hope you got better dudes than they do... Been too many places with guys in the right place, but not the better team. Spent this season with a lot better athletes and I appeared to be a lot better coach despite feeling like I never did less.

My takeaway from this quote has always been that coaching is about a lot more than just Xs and Os. Whether you have great talent or you don't, your job is to get your players (Jimmys and Joes) to play as hard and as well as their ability allows. That means focusing on technique, fundamentals, discipline, effort, training and culture.

You can certainly win without talent but it won't be because you drew up a fancy pass play or exotic blitz. It'll be because you've built a real team and your players are getting the most out of their ability, and playing hard and sound. The scheme stuff can help at the margins -- and the thing with scheme is you need to sort out your scheme in order to isolate the fundamentals and techniques that will be important for you -- but it's not what decides most games. That said, scheme can decide games where everything else is evenly matched, which is rare, but also tends to show up in critical moments (playoff games, etc). That's why coaching is hard.

I think the Jimmy's and the Joe's saying is true. Great players can execute simply play calling and win.

However, good coaches develop lesser athletes into the "Jimmy's and the Joe's." I've seen lots of teams with non athletic kids turn kids into phenomenal football players and win, which ultimately is coaching. Likewise, just last night I watched a team with DUDES all over the field, ridiculous WR'S that could win any 1 on 1 battles and 2 kids in the backfield that could score on any play, and they got smoked by a team with lesser athletes. Certainly the jimmy's and the joe's can be underutilized by lesser athletes. It comes down to coaches getting the most out of their athletes.

I always find it interesting that we (coaches) approach this as an either/or argument, when in reality, it never is......

Kind of like: "Would you rather have a good offense, or a good defense?"

Hell, I'll take both.

That.  Heart and toughness can compensate for a lot.  A lot of coaches egos don't let them handle a loss as anything more than the other team was better as it would be painful to admit our coaching was inadequate.