|
Post by CoachMikeJudy on Feb 3, 2016 11:35:46 GMT -6
Another great question is:
In your quest for ultimate control are you actually hurting the MS/youth coaches in the process and, in turn, hurting the kids? If that coach doesn't believe in what you believe, and you try to force him to do it, could he develop some disdain for you and your staff...and those negative feelings be communicated (inadvertently possibly) to the kids?
|
|
|
Post by cwaltsmith on Feb 3, 2016 12:16:43 GMT -6
Yep--and so why should the 11/12 volunteer coach worry about running the stuff that the coach who might be fired that year is running anyway? Hopefully, he wants what is best for the program and wants to see it succeed. If the guy gets fired that doesn't happen. Hopefully He isnt in coaching to push his on agenda. Hopefully he wants the kids and ultimately the program to succeed. Thats the biggest problem. Regardless of system the main thing is belief in the system. every system out there has won championships every system has been terrible. Its not the system ... its the belief in the system and the ability of kids to play the system that ultimately leads to success or not. If the 11/12 coach is in it for right reasons he wants to help that program become the best it can be. If hes isnt feeding that program then he shouldnt care.
|
|
|
Post by coachmonkey on Feb 3, 2016 12:56:42 GMT -6
I am curious for the youth coaches how much you stress playing time. Meaning, do you make sure every kid gets in the game, no exceptions, or do you play your best. If you play all kids, do you make sure they all play in both halves of the game? Do you make sure each kid is in the game at a critical point? I coach Varsity, but also coach at JV games. I ask because on JV I make sure very kid plays in each half for us. Curious what you guys think in this regard.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Feb 3, 2016 13:18:19 GMT -6
I am curious for the youth coaches how much you stress playing time. Meaning, do you make sure every kid gets in the game, no exceptions, or do you play your best. If you play all kids, do you make sure they all play in both halves of the game? Do you make sure each kid is in the game at a critical point? I coach Varsity, but also coach at JV games. I ask because on JV I make sure very kid plays in each half for us. Curious what you guys think in this regard. We make sure every kid gets 15 full snaps per game. And in a game of 80 or so snaps. (10 minute quarters) I feel that's fair. It's also an argument for hurry up type offenses. The more total snaps, the more potential for more playing time.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Feb 3, 2016 14:05:42 GMT -6
Our youth league requires I think 4 snaps per half. The only time we had kids only get 4 was if they were missing practices during the week, otherwise we got them at least 6 each. We had a full team (32 kids) and played 8 minute quarters so it was a challenge for certain positions.
Youth ball is a little weird, we played against teams with fewer kids that had a better chance at winning because they didn't have as many to worry about getting in each half so their "studs" played more. Only level of football I've seen where more numbers decreased your chance of winning the game. To be clear I'm 100% in favor of playing every kid in every half.
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Feb 3, 2016 14:31:42 GMT -6
I am curious for the youth coaches how much you stress playing time. Meaning, do you make sure every kid gets in the game, no exceptions, or do you play your best. If you play all kids, do you make sure they all play in both halves of the game? Do you make sure each kid is in the game at a critical point? I coach Varsity, but also coach at JV games. I ask because on JV I make sure very kid plays in each half for us. Curious what you guys think in this regard. I coach a travel rep/select team. Best players play. That said, because we have 50+ kids on our roster we can two platoon which means we get more players game action than if we didn't platoon.
|
|
|
Post by tiger46 on Feb 3, 2016 14:37:34 GMT -6
I am curious for the youth coaches how much you stress playing time. Meaning, do you make sure every kid gets in the game, no exceptions, or do you play your best. If you play all kids, do you make sure they all play in both halves of the game? Do you make sure each kid is in the game at a critical point? I coach Varsity, but also coach at JV games. I ask because on JV I make sure very kid plays in each half for us. Curious what you guys think in this regard. If there is a youth coach out there that doesn't know how to keep up with mmp(minimum must play) players, he won't be a coach for long. The board and the player agents(parents) will eat him alive. There aren't too many leagues that don't, in some way, enforce mmp rules. Everybody plays. And, they get a certain number of plays. I actually coach in a league with no mmp rules. But, that doesn't let me completely off the hook. I'm a youth coach, if that isn't obvious by now. When it is suggested that a program be built bottom-top instead of top-down, it'd be very hard for me as a HS coaach to trust my job security to what I learned by watching a youth program. I readily admit that. But, it is an idea that crosses a youth coach's mind every once in awhile. Diving into the hypothetical; let's say a first-time HS HC(not the same as a 1st year coach) takes over a traditionally losing Wing-T program in a town that has a long-time successful youth program. The HC is a DW guy. But, the youth program is Spread. As an experienced HS coach, would it be so inconceivable to adapt to and learn Spread? The youth coaches could get you started with the basics. HS programs have more resources and better coaches, generally speaking. It may not be outlandish to attend clinics, buy materials, talk to youth coaches, MS and HS coaches, alike, to prepare your staff to implement that system to which your players (current and future) already know the basics. You will be ramping the players and concepts from youth level up to HS level. Why take an excellent route running WR and turn him into a wingback? What about defensively? What if the players have ran a 4-3 since they were 8yr olds? Would you force them to run a Split 4-4 or 3-4 defense? Or, would you bring their 4-3 up to HS level by teaching them additional coverages, stunts, blitzes, or whatever? Every coach has to find something he hangs his hat on. But, how many HS coaches have never ran anything but one offense and one defense their entire careers? How many HS coaches have only faced one offense or defense their entire careers? How many have only been part of one staff their entire careers? Adaptability and flexibility seem to be strong-suits of HS coaches. Genuine question here: As a HS coach, is it better to trust your career to your gut (run what I know) than to trust it to your intellect (I am a good, experienced coach. I can adapt, learn and implement this new system and be sucessful.)? Contrary to the consensus here, youth coaches indeed do get fired. I've sent a few 'coaches' down the road, kicking rocks. Heck, I've fired an entire staff. But, I do understand what HS coaches mean by stating that I don't lose my lively-hood if I were fired from my youth organization. I would only lose my opportunities of staring at single football moms up close. Of course, I'd also lose my reason for spending too much time and money on football. And, I'd lose my reason for not ever getting enough sleep. So, the trade-offs may not be too bad. Lol.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Feb 3, 2016 15:52:37 GMT -6
I think there are a couple of factors at play when we're discussing this whole youth vs. HS thing.
The first is the kids - it's my take that my responsibility is to the kids whose parents paid for them to play THIS YEAR, not to some future 5-6 years away that they may or may not even have, with a coach who may or may not still be there. In short, I believe that youth football is about retention. Within that priority of retention comes everything else - winning, fundamentals, improvement, fun, whatever. Not developing kids so they are better at the end of the year than they were at the beginning of the year isn't going to bring them back. Playing only the best players isn't going to bring everyone back. Teaching unsafe techniques isn't going to bring them back. Putting kids in positions they can't succeed in isn't going to bring them back. Getting our as*es kicked losing every week isn't going to bring them back. And in the end, my best shot at providing that environment is to be able to run systems I understand and can coach.
Now, I want the kids to look up to the HS program and want to be part of it. So if I can accomplish all of that by working with the HS program, cool. All for it. But frankly, IMO it's MORE important for retention to keep the kids competitive and developing their skills than the HS involvement. Both is best, but if I have to pick one, it won't be the HS.
Another factor is that we're all human beings. I picked systems to run that I understand and make sense to me, and I have spent a LOT of time and a LOT of money on furthering my knowledge so that I can hold up my end of things with the kids. Do I know as much "football" as a typical HS coach? Probably not. But I guarantee I know more about coaching football for 8-12 year old kids than any coach who has not coached that age group. So yeah, if a HS coach disrespects my time, effort and expertise enough to march into my program and start dictating to me what I'm doing, then my fight or flight instinct is going to kick in and my attitude will be pretty antagonistic, to the point it'll be more like I'll be damned if I'm going to put up with that from some glorified gym teacher. And I'm sure MOST of you HS coaches would do the same if you encountered similar circumstances. Respect the fact that I've spent at least as much time and money learning my sh*t as any of your AC's have spent learning your sh*t. Is that ego? Maybe, I don't know. But regardless, respect the work that I've put in and whatever it is won't come into play - I will be HAPPY to cooperate with a HS coach who knocks on my door looking to collaborate so the kids can have a better experience this year.
Please also note that I am fully aware that many, many youth coaches are not worthy of that respect for a variety of reasons. Heck, I don't respect them either. But you cannot assume you know which group they fall into, until you actually know. And for what it's worth, you'll probably know pretty quickly, LOL.
|
|
|
Post by leighty on Feb 3, 2016 16:00:45 GMT -6
I think you can be adaptable and flexible within your system. Personally, I don't have a whole lot of respect for coaches who jump from scheme to scheme because they think the personnel dictates it. In my experience, changes in personnel very, very rarely dictate wholesale changes in scheme. Some of you may disagree.
At the end of the day, I think a head coach is going to want to run what he's most comfortable with, which is probably exactly what he should do. I also think a guy's going to do what he wants because he's finally "the guy," and I think that's ok, too. There's something to be said for the coaches having fun in addition to the players.
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Feb 3, 2016 16:10:28 GMT -6
I think you can be adaptable and flexible within your system. Personally, I don't have a whole lot of respect for coaches who jump from scheme to scheme because they think the personnel dictates it. In my experience, changes in personnel very, very rarely dictate wholesale changes in scheme. Some of you may disagree. Agreed. My new OC this year was stunned when I said that I don't change what I do on defense. If I have a particular skill set from a player or two I might add a wrinkle to what we do but by and large I do not change my defense to suit the personnel otherwise I'd be changing every year. We get the kids coached up as best we can but more importantly we try to put kids in a position where we think they can be successful based on the few things we're asking them to do. I also believe this is true on offense. As long as what you do is simple and has some adaptability built in then I feel there is no need to change based on personnel.
|
|
|
Post by utchuckd on Feb 3, 2016 16:30:02 GMT -6
As a middle school coach I'm on my 4th offense in 4 years due to turnover at the high school. The HS header when I took over had zero input or contact with us so we did what we wanted. He left and the new guy worked with us to install his offense the second year. He left after that year and the next header came in (this past season) and worked with us on running his offense. At the end of said season we have decided to make a wholesale MS-HS change to another whole new offense. Ironically what we're going to is the first offense I ran 3 years ago (hybrid wing-t), so I don't know if that actually counts as 4 offenses in 4 years or not lol.
Plus there are some rising juniors at the HS that have run a version of this offense before, so I consider myself a visionary.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Feb 3, 2016 17:31:21 GMT -6
A lot of times the fundamentals go with the system & vice versa. "Proper fundamentals" can be a little subjective. If we were a wishbone team I woudn't want my Jr. High OL vertical pass setting and playing pitty pat all day. Below that level I don't think it matters. But it does help A LOT if everyone is using the same terminology/practice schedule/indo. This! Agree 100%, would much rather MS players have fun, be enthusiastic, hit hard and have great fundamentals than run the same system. But, if you're doing all that what's wrong with running at least a little bit of what the HS runs, with the same terminology and fundamentals? You don't think that would make your players more successful in the future? Why do good NFL 3-techniques struggle when they move to a 4-technique? They obviously have skill and were probably coached proper fundamentals. Or why do professional players struggle when they get a new coordinator and system? They learned great technique in the past right? Or for another analogy, do you think a kid in school will be more successful and have an easier transition if every math teacher along the way speaks the same math lingo and uses the same strategies and methods for solving equations and problem solving? To me it is exactly the same thing. I run a 5th/6th grade program. Most of my kids (in fact, most kids who play youth and middle school football) never even play high school football. That's why youth coaches need to do what is best for the kids they have now, not what is best for the handful of kids they have who will stick it out for all 4 years of high school football.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Feb 3, 2016 17:43:52 GMT -6
I am curious for the youth coaches how much you stress playing time. Meaning, do you make sure every kid gets in the game, no exceptions, or do you play your best. If you play all kids, do you make sure they all play in both halves of the game? Do you make sure each kid is in the game at a critical point? I coach Varsity, but also coach at JV games. I ask because on JV I make sure very kid plays in each half for us. Curious what you guys think in this regard. 5th/6th grade... Our rule is that every player starts somewhere. If we have too many kids and not enough positions, we establish a rotation (usually 2 plays in, 2 plays out). But everyone plays quality reps...our kids play a TON of football. I HATE coaching against the guys who play their top 11 kids on offense and defense and the rest of the kids, if they are lucky, get in for the last couple minutes. Those guys are the worst...they are coaching for themselves and their own ego. It's not about the kids for guys like that. (exception is anyone coaching for a select youth team or an elite traveling team)
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Feb 3, 2016 18:09:01 GMT -6
This! Agree 100%, would much rather MS players have fun, be enthusiastic, hit hard and have great fundamentals than run the same system. But, if you're doing all that what's wrong with running at least a little bit of what the HS runs, with the same terminology and fundamentals? You don't think that would make your players more successful in the future? Why do good NFL 3-techniques struggle when they move to a 4-technique? They obviously have skill and were probably coached proper fundamentals. Or why do professional players struggle when they get a new coordinator and system? They learned great technique in the past right? Or for another analogy, do you think a kid in school will be more successful and have an easier transition if every math teacher along the way speaks the same math lingo and uses the same strategies and methods for solving equations and problem solving? To me it is exactly the same thing. I run a 5th/6th grade program. Most of my kids (in fact, most kids who play youth and middle school football) never even play high school football. That's why youth coaches need to do what is best for the kids they have now, not what is best for the handful of kids they have who will stick it out for all 4 years of high school football. really? in this area thats the opposite case. we see about a 1-3% drop rate between ages in youth ball. and less then 1% drop from MS to Freshman (what happens after that...cant be attributed to us) most of the varsity roster played for me.
|
|
|
Post by hsrose on Feb 3, 2016 18:15:38 GMT -6
My experience: Coached in a private/non-Pop Warner league for 3 years at the bottom of the SF Bay area. Averaged 35 players per season, had a 4 play per quarter requirement, players had to be evenly split between O & D. In 3 seasons I lost 1 player, there were teams that would lose 8+. Took over for a staff that was extremely poor, they were the worst set of coaches that I had encountered. My son (age 9) would make himself physically ill before practice because all they did was yell at the kids. Nothing planned, nothing set, ran 3 different offenses during the season. Had the kids running until they puked, basically all practice, because they couldn't get off on the 3rd hut on offense in late October. Parents, including myself, stayed at practice to make sure the kids were safe.
I took over the following season and ran the single wing and GAM defense. Used a numerical formula to identify the potential players from data we collected while the kids went through tryouts. While other teams were having the players get in stances and throwing the football, we were doing dots and 20- and 10- speed tests, taking pictures and such. 1st season we won 3 games which was more than the team had won the previous 5 combined. The kids were 8-12 with some lighter 13's. I had a great staff and we continued to improve each year, 2 points away from playing in the championship game before I left. After I left they continued and won 3 of the next 4 league championships until the staff finally faded away. The league fed 6 different local high schools so no way was there a way to run any one O/D.
Where I am now I am building the relationship with the local Pop Warner group. This has been going on for the past few years by my predecessor. There are 3 levels, usually 18-24'ish on the roster size, 3-4 coaches. I was not able to do much last year, my first as the HS HC. But they didn't just want to run what we were running, but they wanted the Bible, all the plays, all the calls, all the blocking schemes. They wanted to run what we were running because they were all local boys and wanted the HS to be successful, they are tired of losing (in 2014 the HS got the 400th loss in school history). This year I am planning clinics and a shared fund-raiser. We all want to work together, they want to get better, we want them and the players to get better.
I do not expect them to run the O (Pistol triple option) or D (4-3) the way that we do. We've run the offense for the 2014 and 2015 seasons. For the seniors in 2014 it was their 4th offense in 4 years so continuity at any level was not present. But I would appreciate the same calls, the same blocking techniques. Run the triple, but call the give/keep/pitch. I want them to give me players that love the game and want to play. I want them to teach them the fundamentals for blocking and tackling and running and jumping. The more they get into the O/D the more the players know and the sooner we get them up to speed at the HS level. We don't have the numbers for a Frosh team so it's JV & varsity.
I've seen a number of youth coaches who thought they were the reincarnation of Vince Lombardi when they were really just screaming at the kids to go block somebody. I've seen a lot of jerks at the HS level who think nothing of onside kicking up by 40 with a minute left to get another score with their 1st team still in the game. There are jerks and really good coaches at each level. The key for me is to attempt to influence the youth coaches to help me get better by providing them with as much information about what we do as I can manage.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Feb 3, 2016 18:19:49 GMT -6
I run a 5th/6th grade program. Most of my kids (in fact, most kids who play youth and middle school football) never even play high school football. That's why youth coaches need to do what is best for the kids they have now, not what is best for the handful of kids they have who will stick it out for all 4 years of high school football. really? in this area thats the opposite case. we see about a 1-3% drop rate between ages in youth ball. and less then 1% drop from MS to Freshman (what happens after that...cant be attributed to us) most of the varsity roster played for me. We really start to see drops going into 7th grade and then even more in 8th grade. I think as puberty hits you start seeing a bigger differentiation between athletes (and non-athletes), and the collisions get very real. If you aren't going to play as a freshman, not a lot of point playing in 8th grade as there isn't much difference. We also lose the weight limits in 8th grade so that makes it even more similar to HS ball. Most of the kids left playing in 7th and 8th grade play in HS. Read more: coachhuey.com/thread/72303/ask-youth-program-run-stuff?page=4&scrollTo=752439#ixzz3z9beB3hF
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Feb 3, 2016 20:28:44 GMT -6
I run a 5th/6th grade program. Most of my kids (in fact, most kids who play youth and middle school football) never even play high school football. That's why youth coaches need to do what is best for the kids they have now, not what is best for the handful of kids they have who will stick it out for all 4 years of high school football. really? in this area thats the opposite case. we see about a 1-3% drop rate between ages in youth ball. and less then 1% drop from MS to Freshman (what happens after that...cant be attributed to us) most of the varsity roster played for me. Dave Cisar has done quite a bit of research on this. There's a little more than 1,000,000 kids who play high school football in the United States and about 3,000,000 kids playing youth football. More than half of those kids will never suit up for a high school game and even fewer will play all four years of high school ball. Obviously, some areas will have better participation rates than others.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 3, 2016 20:31:32 GMT -6
Sadly--as usual when this thread comes up (and it does a few times a year) the same thought process seems to have come up again, with the undertones of HS coaches generally being "HS is what counts and youth ball should support US"
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Feb 3, 2016 20:34:11 GMT -6
really? in this area thats the opposite case. we see about a 1-3% drop rate between ages in youth ball. and less then 1% drop from MS to Freshman (what happens after that...cant be attributed to us) most of the varsity roster played for me. We really start to see drops going into 7th grade and then even more in 8th grade. I think as puberty hits you start seeing a bigger differentiation between athletes (and non-athletes), and the collisions get very real. If you aren't going to play as a freshman, not a lot of point playing in 8th grade as there isn't much difference. We also lose the weight limits in 8th grade so that makes it even more similar to HS ball. Most of the kids left playing in 7th and 8th grade play in HS. Read more: coachhuey.com/thread/72303/ask-youth-program-run-stuff?page=4&scrollTo=752439#ixzz3z9beB3hFBiggest drop-offs we see happens after 6th grade and 8th grade. Our 7th and 8th grade program is school-affiliated. Practice every night, eligibility, less playing time...we lose a lot of kids after 6th grade as a result. After 8th grade, a lot of kids quite because it is kind of a natural "break" before high school football starts. Our current freshman class has about 12 players. When I had those boys in 6th grade, we were 30+. Some kids just aren't willing to put in the time and effort required to be a high school football player.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Feb 3, 2016 20:36:03 GMT -6
Sadly--as usual when this thread comes up (and it does a few times a year) the same thought process seems to have come up again, with the undertones of HS coaches generally being "HS is what counts and youth ball should support US" See and I hate for this to devolve to that. My point was merely, if you do want a vertical program..... don't be this a$$hole that I have to deal with..
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 3, 2016 21:05:17 GMT -6
Your premise is flawed (although I believe you were not altogether serious) because kids would obviously get bored running the same low-level schematics year after year and more importantly not be challenged to further develop to their potential.
But it is not. For whatever reason you seem to think that my premise is for the HS team to run the exact same stuff the younger level is running (same low-level schematics, and not be challenged) That is NOT what I was suggesting. I have seen many posts from HS coaches saying they would want younger players to run a "scaled down version" of their system. What I am saying is why does it seem so astronomically inconceivable for the HS coach to decide the HS would run an expanded and more complicated version of what the youth team does?
|
|
|
Post by blb on Feb 4, 2016 6:11:48 GMT -6
Your premise is flawed (although I believe you were not altogether serious) because kids would obviously get bored running the same low-level schematics year after year and more importantly not be challenged to further develop to their potential.
But it is not. For whatever reason you seem to think that my premise is for the HS team to run the exact same stuff the younger level is running (same low-level schematics, and not be challenged) That is NOT what I was suggesting. I have seen many posts from HS coaches saying they would want younger players to run a "scaled down version" of their system. What I am saying is why does it seem so astronomically inconceivable for the HS coach to decide the HS would run an expanded and more complicated version of what the youth team does?
Sorry, coachd, I failed that Mind Reading class. This is the first you have mentioned of that.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 4, 2016 7:00:02 GMT -6
But it is not. For whatever reason you seem to think that my premise is for the HS team to run the exact same stuff the younger level is running (same low-level schematics, and not be challenged) That is NOT what I was suggesting. I have seen many posts from HS coaches saying they would want younger players to run a "scaled down version" of their system. What I am saying is why does it seem so astronomically inconceivable for the HS coach to decide the HS would run an expanded and more complicated version of what the youth team does?
Sorry, coachd, I failed that Mind Reading class. This is the first you have mentioned of that.
Not to be snippy here, but does it HAVE to be mentioned? I think your post and the mind reading comment just further my point. When an intelligent and successful coach such as yourself believes it would require mind reading to understand that running what the lower level is running to achieve vertical integration" does not mean running a "low level schematic" any more than having the lower level running what the HS is running does not mean 12 year olds running the entire Varsity playbook...it shows a definite but illogical mindset.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Feb 4, 2016 7:23:23 GMT -6
It's the English teacher in me - I take things very literally.
I disagree that it's an "illogical mindset." As I have posted, the most consistently successful programs I have seen over 40 years have both low staff turnover and Vertical Continuity. Anecdotal perhaps but based on observation, not theory or wishful thinking.
Back on topic, obviously the HS HC's attempt to demand 33 run his system was counterproductive.
If the MS, Junior High, or youth coaches have no ties to the HS program or feed into more than one HS, what they run is going to be up to the coaches at those levels. They can choose to "integrate" their team(s) into what the HS is doing or not.
There have been persuasive arguments made for both methods. The HS HC who has no "control" over a Sub-Varsity program showing up uninvited to try to strong arm the MS coach to fall in line as in 33's OP is certainly NOT the way to get cooperation.
|
|
|
Post by funkfriss on Feb 4, 2016 10:02:34 GMT -6
This! Agree 100%, would much rather MS players have fun, be enthusiastic, hit hard and have great fundamentals than run the same system. But, if you're doing all that what's wrong with running at least a little bit of what the HS runs, with the same terminology and fundamentals? You don't think that would make your players more successful in the future? Why do good NFL 3-techniques struggle when they move to a 4-technique? They obviously have skill and were probably coached proper fundamentals. Or why do professional players struggle when they get a new coordinator and system? They learned great technique in the past right? Or for another analogy, do you think a kid in school will be more successful and have an easier transition if every math teacher along the way speaks the same math lingo and uses the same strategies and methods for solving equations and problem solving? To me it is exactly the same thing. I run a 5th/6th grade program. Most of my kids (in fact, most kids who play youth and middle school football) never even play high school football. That's why youth coaches need to do what is best for the kids they have now, not what is best for the handful of kids they have who will stick it out for all 4 years of high school football. I get your point. Probably the small town in me speaking here. I'm used to one or two youth teams and one JH feeding into one HS so our attrition rate is nowhere near yours (I would say 90% of our youth and 70% of our JH kids play 4 years in HS). I suppose it would be odd in a bigger district where you have numerous youth teams and 3-6 MS's feeding into one or two high schools for every team to run the same offense and/or defense.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 4, 2016 10:03:13 GMT -6
It's the English teacher in me - I take things very literally. I disagree that it's an "illogical mindset." As I have posted, the most consistently successful programs I have seen over 40 years have both low staff turnover and Vertical Continuity. Anecdotal perhaps but based on observation, not theory or wishful thinking. Back on topic, obviously the HS HC's attempt to demand 33 run his system was counterproductive. If the MS, Junior High, or youth coaches have no ties to the HS program or feed into more than one HS, what they run is going to be up to the coaches at those levels. They can choose to "integrate" their team(s) into what the HS is doing or not. There have been persuasive arguments made for both methods. The HS HC who has no "control" over a Sub-Varsity program showing up uninvited to try to strong arm the MS coach to fall in line as in 33's OP is certainly NOT the way to get cooperation. I would be extremely confident in saying that the programs you are discussing would have been just as successful with all other parameters being the same, and the offensive schemes that were run were chosen at random and did not mirror themselves.
One thing I do think nearly everyone agrees on is that the High School coach described in the original post did not do himself any favors.
|
|
|
Post by funkfriss on Feb 4, 2016 10:19:36 GMT -6
As I have posted, the most consistently successful programs I have seen over 40 years have both low staff turnover and Vertical Continuity. Anecdotal perhaps but based on observation, not theory or wishful thinking. I couldn't agree more with this statement. Along with these two components I would add that the consistently successful programs play tons of kids all the way through fresh/soph, not just the 11-13 best kids. They get a ton of reps running the same basic drills and plays and hear the same lingo throughout. There's a very successful team year-in-year-out at our level that runs flexbone triple and they start in 5th/6th. Imagine how good those QB's are by the time they are Seniors! Can't know for sure, but I doubt they'd be the same had they run Wing-T the first 4 years.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Feb 4, 2016 10:27:12 GMT -6
As I've stated before, it's most important to have those youth/MS coaches teaching proper fundamentals. Yes, as a former HS HC, I would have loved to see out feeder MS running our stuff but I wasn't going to die on that mountain. I can't say that I was terribly thrilled with the stuff they were running as they were very grab-bag but I kept my suggestions to a minimum and just made sure that I was seeing proper tackling, shedding and blocking form.
I only came down on them when I saw how poor their fundamentals were even after I had gone through very solid drills that would ensure good technique. But, I wasn't a dictator about it, I just told them that they needed to stress fundamentals more if they wanted to be successful in their season. They understood and we moved on from there. Things got a little bit better but they had several bad seasons simply because their scheme was crap. We talked about that briefly but it was more than obvious that I wasn't going to get anywhere.
"Never wrestle with a pig as you'll both end up covered in sh.t but the pig will enjoy it".
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 4, 2016 10:28:19 GMT -6
As I have posted, the most consistently successful programs I have seen over 40 years have both low staff turnover and Vertical Continuity. Anecdotal perhaps but based on observation, not theory or wishful thinking. There's a very successful team year-in-year-out at our level that runs flexbone triple and they start in 5th/6th. Imagine how good those QB's are by the time they are Seniors! Can't know for sure, but I doubt they'd be the same had they run Wing-T the first 4 years. We will have to agree to disagree here. I believe the degree of diminishing returns of running the same "x's and o's " system for 5 or 6 years is very high. I would say being in the same PROGRAM SYSTEM for 5 or 6 years provides SIGNIFICANTLY more benefit than having run midline 2 more years.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Feb 4, 2016 10:44:44 GMT -6
I think there are systems that are intricate enough and require a specialized skill set that yes, the more years spent in that system the better, although that's usually more for the QB. And certainly most option systems would fit that bill.
But generally football is an athlete sport - almost any good athlete who is willing to hit can get enough coaching quickly to be able to produce somewhere on the field. QB is a different animal - some have the knack, sure, but I know in our town, the HS tends to just use the QB's we give them. It's pretty rare in our town for a kid to move to QB in HS and beat out the kids we've trained, even though we don't use the HS "system". Frankly, I think some of that is the incompetence of our HS staff at developing/teaching, but that's a whole 'nother story.
I also think there is a little bit of chicken and egg thing going. I would argue that the successful programs that are vertically integrated are successful because the coaching is good across the board, and not specifically because of the scheme integration. And I would argue they would continue to be successful even if they started running something different at the youth level, because their coaching is good across the board. But why not be integrated if everyone is on the same page? I don't believe integration is necessary, but done well I believe it can be good and it sure doesn't hurt. So why not, as long as those pieces are in place?
I don't think any of the youth coaches are saying that integration can't ever be a good thing. I think the overall point is that it's not necessary, and therefore probably shouldn't be done if forced and/or if the situation isn't really conducive to it.
|
|