|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Aug 30, 2015 7:05:01 GMT -6
This pic shows otherwise...  It is a shame the photographer didn't use a panoramic lens because not all of the trophies are in frame. Also of note, These are only State Championship or State Runner up Trophies. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2015 7:11:28 GMT -6
What does old scheme suppose to mean? Is there new schemes that are lock and key? LOL!
|
|
|
|
Post by blb on Aug 30, 2015 7:28:32 GMT -6
Any Offense Under Center and that Huey posters refer to as the "Good Ol' _____ (50) Defense."
Both of which JT Curtis runs.
|
|
|
|
Post by agap on Aug 30, 2015 9:27:51 GMT -6
Are you talking on offense or defense? I looked quickly at their highlights on Hudl and they don't have an "old scheme" on defense.
And based on what I read about the school, I'm sure they would win no matter what schemes they use.
|
|
|
|
Post by sweep26 on Aug 30, 2015 9:55:53 GMT -6
Their program is obviously first class. Disregarding the X's and O's...as a private school, how can they keep operating at such a high level year in, and year out?
Funding a football program is difficult enough, but funding and entire school like this has to be a monumental task...how do they do it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2015 10:14:05 GMT -6
Winning in way or another begets more winning. When you win, you tend to attract a different type of clientele
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Aug 30, 2015 11:10:35 GMT -6
Are you talking on offense or defense? I looked quickly at their highlights on Hudl and they don't have an "old scheme" on defense. And based on what I read about the school, I'm sure they would win no matter what schemes they use. Their defensive alignment is predicated on their opponent. Looking at most of their hudl highlights shows them defensively against teams in 10/11 spread formations. Regarding that they would win no matter what schemes they use, that was kind of my point. Building a program and being successful is NOT about your scheme. |
|
|
|
Post by ccscoach on Aug 30, 2015 11:21:27 GMT -6
Is the 34/52 debate going to start?
|
|
|
|
Post by blb on Aug 30, 2015 11:56:40 GMT -6
I have a clinic manual with transcription of JT talking about his defense.
It is based off '50' (his term) but they do have alignment variations including a four-lineman Nickel package for Spread teams.
I also have some of his offensive DVDs and while they are a Veer team they do use some Gun-Spread as well. |
|
|
|
Post by mattharris75 on Aug 30, 2015 15:54:58 GMT -6
Are you talking on offense or defense? I looked quickly at their highlights on Hudl and they don't have an "old scheme" on defense. And based on what I read about the school, I'm sure they would win no matter what schemes they use. Their defensive alignment is predicated on their opponent. Looking at most of their hudl highlights shows them defensively against teams in 10/11 spread formations. Regarding that they would win no matter what schemes they use, that was kind of my point. Building a program and being successful is NOT about your scheme. I mostly agree, but would probably qualify that by saying that being successful IS about scheme, but only insofar as you have one that is sound and that you can effectively coach the kids up on. It's a piece of a much larger puzzle. But your point stands, the perceived modernity of your schemes is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Aug 30, 2015 16:00:18 GMT -6
Their program is obviously first class. Disregarding the X's and O's...as a private school, how can they keep operating at such a high level year in, and year out? Funding a football program is difficult enough, but funding and entire school like this has to be a monumental task...how do they do it? Private school = parents with money. Private school = recruiting. Its easy when you treat high school kids as assets and can scholarship them. Hell the local private school here has a freaking recruiter on staff. |
|
|
|
Post by dytmook on Aug 30, 2015 16:19:04 GMT -6
Their program is obviously first class. Disregarding the X's and O's...as a private school, how can they keep operating at such a high level year in, and year out? Funding a football program is difficult enough, but funding and entire school like this has to be a monumental task...how do they do it? Private school = parents with money. Private school = recruiting. Its easy when you treat high school kids as assets and can scholarship them. Hell the local private school here has a freaking recruiter on staff. Not all privates are created equal. Heck we lost 4 kids to 3 different public districts this year and that's just the returning starters. |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Aug 30, 2015 18:05:13 GMT -6
I have been at three different private schools and two public schools.
Two of the privare schools would lose athletes. Had two kids ever come in and help. One tried to get in when he moved to town and couldn't. Passed the test the next year, but didn't make to the following year. Another was a 5'5" 200 pound wing t guard.
We actually have people come to the school I am currently at to play athletics. Mainly for education and safety, put also to play.
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Aug 30, 2015 18:24:03 GMT -6
Guys, there's no reason to start another public vs. private argument. No matter how good the talent is at a school somebody has to coach them and, if they have sustained success, they must be coaching them well.
Getting back to the OP, when we were in a run of 6 state championships in 10 years, our principal called our Pro I offense a "dinosaur". Guess he missed "Jurassic Park" and forgot how dangerous how dinosaurs are.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Aug 30, 2015 18:53:53 GMT -6
forgot how dangerous how dinosaurs are. What a great comment! |
|
bulldon
Probationary Member
Posts: 11 
|
Post by bulldon on Sept 2, 2015 11:50:52 GMT -6
I have wondered about coaches who use the same scheme year after year. At what point are they coasting? It may be a chicken and egg argument but do you fit the boys into your scheme, or do you build a scheme to fit the boys?
I have to think that putting the players first and building a scheme around them is better coaching, but then as the picture at the top of this thread shows, Sometimes the old ways are the best ways.
One question I have for coaches who have stayed the course. . . have you ever wondered about the struggles of 14 year old
freshman trying to learn for the first time, a scheme you have coached for x number of years in a row?
|
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Sept 2, 2015 11:57:47 GMT -6
I have wondered about coaches who use the same scheme year after year. At what point are they coasting? It may be a chicken and egg argument but do you fit the boys into your scheme, or do you build a scheme to fit the boys? I have to think that putting the players first and building a scheme around them is better coaching, but then as the picture at the top of this thread shows, Sometimes the old ways are the best ways. One question I have for coaches who have stayed the course. . . have you ever wondered about the struggles of 14 year old freshman trying to learn for the first time, a scheme you have coached for x number of years in a row? some years we dont have the kids for what we do, but our tool box is big enough to do SOMETHING. last year was a great example - we lived and died by down option, belly option, and sprint out passing- we had terrible wings, terrible fullback but a great QB. this year, we have great wings, a decent fullback, and a newer QB - so we are living off of power/counter/down/trap and not installing option at all. to be a "one scheme year over year" team..you either have to have a great feeder system, great coaches, or a big enough system to adjust. all 3 is how you win championships. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 12:15:57 GMT -6
I have wondered about coaches who use the same scheme year after year. At what point are they coasting? It may be a chicken and egg argument but do you fit the boys into your scheme, or do you build a scheme to fit the boys? I have to think that putting the players first and building a scheme around them is better coaching, but then as the picture at the top of this thread shows, Sometimes the old ways are the best ways. One question I have for coaches who have stayed the course. . . have you ever wondered about the struggles of 14 year old freshman trying to learn for the first time, a scheme you have coached for x number of years in a row? It's the same thing year in and year out. You do x, we do y. You do y, we do z. Yada yada, yada. The older kids do the exact same things. What changes year in and year out is the window dressing and the cherries we add on top. Football is not nearly that complicated. Our kids do nearly all everything at all levels, fr. Jv. And varsity |
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Sept 2, 2015 12:38:02 GMT -6
I have wondered about coaches who use the same scheme year after year. At what point are they coasting? It may be a chicken and egg argument but do you fit the boys into your scheme, or do you build a scheme to fit the boys? I have to think that putting the players first and building a scheme around them is better coaching, but then as the picture at the top of this thread shows, Sometimes the old ways are the best ways. One question I have for coaches who have stayed the course. . . have you ever wondered about the struggles of 14 year old freshman trying to learn for the first time, a scheme you have coached for x number of years in a row? Have you ever wondered about the struggle of a high school player trying to learn a new system every year because you try and build a new system every year? Kind of sounds like you're trying to be the smartest guy in the room by saying you should constantly be switching what you do to keep up with the times. The best programs, big difference from best team, in our area and really when you look around have what I call schematic identity. IE you know what they are going to run year in and year out and they are usually good because they stick to their guns. The worst teams around? One year they are spread then they are flex bone then wing t then pistol etc etc. You probably guessed i am part part of a staff who runs our system year in and year out, wing t, no matter what. We can adapt it to what we have player wise. The day I am wearing a visor wearing neon colored sneakers and holding a picture of Bert and ernie up,to call plays is the day I have told former players to drag me off the sidelines cause I have lost it. |
|
|
|
Post by joelee on Sept 2, 2015 12:38:30 GMT -6
I don't know who made the original quote that made coachd5085 mad but I'll go one further. Drop the word old. "You can't win with schemes." You have to have Jimmies and Joes and fundamentals, effort, etc. Schemes be they good or bad simply facilitate success or hinder success.
|
|
bulldon
Probationary Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by bulldon on Sept 2, 2015 13:10:06 GMT -6
I have wondered about coaches who use the same scheme year after year. At what point are they coasting? It may be a chicken and egg argument but do you fit the boys into your scheme, or do you build a scheme to fit the boys? I have to think that putting the players first and building a scheme around them is better coaching, but then as the picture at the top of this thread shows, Sometimes the old ways are the best ways. One question I have for coaches who have stayed the course. . . have you ever wondered about the struggles of 14 year old freshman trying to learn for the first time, a scheme you have coached for x number of years in a row? Have you ever wondered about the struggle of a high school player trying to learn a new system every year because you try and build a new system every year? Kind of sounds like you're trying to be the smartest guy in the room by saying you should constantly be switching what you do to keep up with the times. The best programs, big difference from best team, in our area and really when you look around have what I call schematic identity. IE you know what they are going to run year in and year out and they are usually good because they stick to their guns. The worst teams around? One year they are spread then they are flex bone then wing t then pistol etc etc. You probably guessed i am part part of a staff who runs our system year in and year out, wing t, no matter what. We can adapt it to what we have player wise. The day I am wearing a visor wearing neon colored sneakers and holding a picture of Bert and ernie up,to call plays is the day I have told former players to drag me off the sidelines cause I have lost it. Yikes, coach. Not trying to be the smartest guy in the room; I am not even the smartest guy in the phone booth. But I instinctively cringe when i hear things like "been doing it this way since. . . " No need to constantly switch, but occasionally adapting to the players you are coaching is not heresy. I guess I don't understand the sentence " a staff who runs our system year in and year out, wing t, no matter what. We can adapt it to what we have player wise." I can not argue with the your coaching success or your programs success, but for me, the system serves the players run the system and the coaches find the best one that works. If it is last years, fine, if it is not, change. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 13:26:00 GMT -6
You ever wondered why leach seems to throw for 5k yards despite never winning the services of an elite Qb?
Here is another one, the patriots have run the exact same plays in pretty every sb appearance under BB. The window dressing, personnel have changed. Plays don't with good coaches. How they get there, who and how they use them consistently does.
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Sept 2, 2015 13:42:40 GMT -6
I have wondered about coaches who use the same scheme year after year. At what point are they coasting? It may be a chicken and egg argument but do you fit the boys into your scheme, or do you build a scheme to fit the boys? I have to think that putting the players first and building a scheme around them is better coaching, but then as the picture at the top of this thread shows, Sometimes the old ways are the best ways. One question I have for coaches who have stayed the course. . . have you ever wondered about the struggles of 14 year old freshman trying to learn for the first time, a scheme you have coached for x number of years in a row? Two questions: If I have a system that I know works why would I change it? That 14 year old, doesn't he have to learn whatever scheme you run? |
|
bulldon
Probationary Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by bulldon on Sept 2, 2015 14:01:14 GMT -6
I have wondered about coaches who use the same scheme year after year. At what point are they coasting? It may be a chicken and egg argument but do you fit the boys into your scheme, or do you build a scheme to fit the boys? I have to think that putting the players first and building a scheme around them is better coaching, but then as the picture at the top of this thread shows, Sometimes the old ways are the best ways. One question I have for coaches who have stayed the course. . . have you ever wondered about the struggles of 14 year old freshman trying to learn for the first time, a scheme you have coached for x number of years in a row? Two questions: If I have a system that I know works why would I change it? That 14 year old, doesn't he have to learn whatever scheme you run? Coach, absolutely, the boys have to learn what we teach. . . . But this forum is a testament to the football idea that there are dozens and dozens of schemes, plays, strategies. There are so many because so many work. It just might be that because a coach has mastered something, that everyone that comes after him has to learn and master the same thing. In rec and HS and college you are turning over yor roster every four years. Not unreasonable to turn over ones strategies once and while as well. If only to go through what a young player has to. Learn something new. |
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Sept 2, 2015 14:09:45 GMT -6
Two questions: If I have a system that I know works why would I change it? That 14 year old, doesn't he have to learn whatever scheme you run? Coach, absolutely, the boys have to learn what we teach. . . . But this forum is a testament to the football idea that there are dozens and dozens of schemes, plays, strategies. There are so many because so many work. It just might be that because a coach has mastered something, that everyone that comes after him has to learn and master the same thing. In rec and HS and college you are turning over yor roster every four years. Not unreasonable to turn over ones strategies once and while as well. If only to go through what a young player has to. Learn something new. The problem is, is that turning over schemes is VERY difficult...you don't read a book in the off season and go install..... I've been running the same thing for 7 seasons and I'm JUST getting the hang of it. |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Sept 2, 2015 14:21:47 GMT -6
Two questions: If I have a system that I know works why would I change it? That 14 year old, doesn't he have to learn whatever scheme you run? Coach, absolutely, the boys have to learn what we teach. . . . But this forum is a testament to the football idea that there are dozens and dozens of schemes, plays, strategies. There are so many because so many work. It just might be that because a coach has mastered something, that everyone that comes after him has to learn and master the same thing. In rec and HS and college you are turning over yor roster every four years. Not unreasonable to turn over ones strategies once and while as well. If only to go through what a young player has to. Learn something new. I'm sorry but changing for the sake of change doesn't make sense to me. If I have a system that's been proven ti be successful, one that I and the coaches understand thoroughly, and all of the sophs, juniors, and seniors understand Why would I change it. |
|
|
|
Post by sweep26 on Sept 2, 2015 14:55:52 GMT -6
To me the key to long term success in high school football is two fold...1) know your players, and 2) have a base system that is sound and adaptable.
|
|
|
|
Post by dytmook on Sept 2, 2015 15:03:27 GMT -6
We set offensive records the past two years, but lost all but 1 Ol guy and 3 touchdowns from last year. We aren't running a different offense, simply adjusting what we do. We aren't doing drop back passing as much, running to the edge more, and screening more. Same offense, different focuses based on personnel.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Sept 2, 2015 19:29:01 GMT -6
Coach, absolutely, the boys have to learn what we teach. . . . But this forum is a testament to the football idea that there are dozens and dozens of schemes, plays, strategies. There are so many because so many work. It just might be that because a coach has mastered something, that everyone that comes after him has to learn and master the same thing. In rec and HS and college you are turning over yor roster every four years. Not unreasonable to turn over ones strategies once and while as well. If only to go through what a young player has to. Learn something new. Coach, I think you are confusing "learning something new" with "doing something different". They are not the same. One could very much learn new things yearly (and JT and his staff do) ABOUT RUNNING THEIR SPLIT BACK VEER. Maybe it is learning a new way to block their veer (from an area system to a count system) maybe it is learning new ways to teach the read and the mesh. Maybe it is learning new "thens" for an if/then call sheet. I think your statements are getting some negative responses because many coaches equate what you are saying with the following : "OH, I have a quarterback that can throw the ball better than previous years, so I must now run the pistol spread" Then the next year saying "oh, I have some good running backs, I need to run the Wing-T". And then in year 3 "OH, this guy is a STUD..I need to go to the I and feed him 35 times a game". It is a common cliche to say you need a "system to fit your players", BUT when you strip away all the foolishness, good football players will be good football players. They will be good football players playing head up and 2 gapping, or playing 1 gap from a shade tech. They will be a good football player pulling and trapping. They will be a good football player catching a drag route on a bootleg or running Y stick. About the only position that falls into that "system fitting players" might be the QB position, and I think the only smart way to apply that is to NOT ask him to do something he can't really do well. |
|
|
|
Post by 42falcon on Sept 2, 2015 19:42:24 GMT -6
You never really turn ur team over. Think about it you lose ur 12's but the 11's & 10's are still there.
Truth be told there really isn't anything "new" here blocking, running, throwing & catching are not new. That's football.
In terms changing practice. Here's the thing you have to teach your system. Success comes when u have the right mix of talent & coaching. The better you get as a coach the better your kids understand & can apply that system. If you are changing year after year how do you learn to teach the fine details?
Leach, and guys like him understand the details / answers so well they teach them to perfection. They are able to anticipate the learning curve of the student. There for it's my guess the way leach teaches y-cross isn't the same now than when he first started. Mastery of teaching is about finding the way not finding a new curriculum!!!
|
|
