|
|
Post by jraybern on Jan 15, 2008 16:45:40 GMT -6
I am sorry but I just can't take this coach what you know best stuff any more. There are tons of coaches on here who keep saying that every time someone asks what scheme such and such school should go with. I am going to propose my scheme "solution" for SMALL SCHOOLS. I want you to understand I am speaking in terms of those schools that have a very small enrollment <150 lets say.
First off, for those coach what you know best coaches, how did you get to know that offense/defense so well? Was it because it was the scheme you played in high school or college. Well I'm sorry, but if you are running a college scheme at a small high school level where more than likely most of your starters are going to be two way starters, you are going to overwhelm those kids. And who says the scheme you know the best is worth a dam? The scheme I played in high school produced an 8-2 team and it was not that great. There were TONS of things we didnt have an answer for and relied on athletes to make plays many times.
This is what I am going to propose to you small school coaches who want to know what to run. Look around at what you have to work with and exploit it. Why is the triangle offense in BB so popular at higher levels? It isolates the best talent. Why is the spread becoming so popular? It allows you to isolate your best talent. If your best weapon is a smashmouther - run smashmouth. If your best weapon is a passer - throw the football. I see too many small schools try to run some system rather than let their best players be as successful as possible.
I have a problem with all of the double wing people out there that say it is the best thing in the world for those schools that are so outmatched it isn't even funny. I know a coach in our state who runs the double wing. His teams are aweful and he can't get any athletes to play football - why - because they run smashmouth football and those kids aren't really excited about getting rocked on every play. Then the coach wonders why the kids won't play football - WAKE UP! Run a system where those smaller type athletes can be successful - maybe more spread concepts - and you might attract those players. And anyone who has ever coached in very small schools knows that one player can mean the difference between 2-7 and 5-4.
Now, if I had a mediocre (not aweful) line and hard running backs I would run the double wing in a heartbeat. I think it is a great offense for that set of players. In fact, I am going to the single wing next season (maybe some double wing as well).
Now here is my problem with the coach what you know best attitude especially for small schools. You have one of two options here. 1. Try to turn your stud option QB into a spread passing QB because what you know best is the air raid. OR 2. Learn some option schemes in the offseason and put your best player in positions where he can be successful. At small schools, this kid may be the best player on the field in 2/3 of your games. He may be twice the player of anyone else on your team. Are you going to try to force him into the mold you are most comfortable with? I would say the coach who won't learn what it takes to be the most successful he can be for his team is lazy. If you aren't willing to put in the time in the offseason to learn a new scheme you need to get out. That is what boards like this and other coaches out there are for. It won't kill you to learn a new scheme.
We have under 100 kids in our high school. I took over a program this year that went 0-9 last season. I sold the two best athletes (basketball players) in the school in a spread passing game where the QB isn't going to take that many shots because we are creating space for him. Both players we first team all league players. We went 6-3 and just missed the playoffs. Best record in school history. QB is playing in a postseason all star game.
Both guys are seniors. Our next "QB" type player in the entire district is a 7th grader. We have a decent line and 3 good backs returning. Guess what. I am learning the single wing. It is easier for me to learn a new system well enough to execute it than it is to ask my backs to get good at throwing the ball down the field. I shouldn't say its easier because actually it requires me to spend a lot of time and energy. But we will win more games next season and the season after and the season after by running the single wing than we will running the spread. So I could run what I know best (which honestly at this point could be just about anything because I haven't coached long enough to really know anything THAT well) or I could work hard this season and learn what will help my kids be successful.
AT SMALL SCHOOLS, give up this idea of this is what I know best so the kids are going to have to do this. It doesn't work unless you are one hell of a coach. The best coaches are the ones that adapt. How many of the best double wingers out there started off as double wingers? How many of the best spread guys out there started off as spread guys? The best coaches are the ones that say what we've been doing doesn't work as well as this new idea would. And then they adapt. I certainly wouldn't lump myself in with the best coaches, but I will beat the teams out there with equal talent whose coach is forcing them into a system that doesn't best serve the personnel of the team.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jan 15, 2008 18:14:49 GMT -6
If you're not going to coach what you what are you supposed to coach? That doesn't mean that you have to stay frozen in time. You just have to keep learning. If you're saying that small school coaches have to change schemes from year to year to match their personnel I couldn't disagree more.
I'm not at a small school but I'd never consider changing systems from year to year. We've changed defensive schemes three times in the 19 years I've been at the school and each time was a gradual change. We'd research and dabble in it for a year or two and finally make the plunge on the third or fourth year. We want to be sure to completely understand it before we decide to completely make the switch.
Somebody a lot smarter than me said it best- "Every time you change offense your seniors become freshmen".
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 15, 2008 18:33:13 GMT -6
Well thought out post...
However, I would say that save for a few distinct type of offenses, "knowing" any other offense would entail knowing how to best utilize the players available within your system. For example, with Rich Gannon at the helm of the Deleware Wing-T in 1986, the Blue Hens attempted 361 passes. In 1982, Rick Scully only attempted 246 passes as the Hens signal caller.
|
|
|
|
Post by k on Jan 15, 2008 18:34:56 GMT -6
You can have a football team with an enrollment of less than 150?...
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jan 15, 2008 18:36:38 GMT -6
you're sick of "coach what you know"?
Hey, we're all sick of "I'm a new head coach.........now what do I do?" threads....
lol
"coach what you know" means YOU ARE ONLY GOOD AS WHAT YOUR PLAYERS CAN EXECUTE. You can't execute what you cannot teach - and if you cannot prepare your players effectively (knowing their assignments / coaches teaching those bullet-proof assignments), then you have ALREADY lost Friday night's game.
I don't care if you run double-wing, wing-t, wishbone, single-wing, air-raid, or the Chubacbre Face Melter Special......if your staff does not believe in what you are doing schematically, cannot teach it efficiently, and cannot adapt to your competition,....YOU WILL SUCK.
Lastly, if you have any experience at all in facing opponents or watching other teams play, you will see systems that you feel you could steal / borrow to implement in your own. That creates SPECIFIC questions to ask ("hey, so-and-so ran a speed sweep on us a few times this year, and I think WE could use it. How do you implement a jet-sweep play in a Wing-T offense?").
Playing "pin-the-tail-on-the-OC" (heck and peck for "the best offense") is no way to go into planning for your program.
|
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jan 15, 2008 18:36:41 GMT -6
The key is to implement a system that has enough tools in the toolbox to adapt iin a given year. Other than that, what you are describing will result in a grab bag approach. You don't coach what you know, you coach what YOU BELIEVE IN. Very few coaches, particularly at the high school level, will change their stripes. You will rarely find a I formation coach willing to embrace the Run-n-Shoot. It requires commitment. That is why you think not year to year, but PROGRAM. Even at small schools, you have to develop and implement a system that you believe in, that you have Faith in, and that you know inside and out. I know a guy who took over a wishbone team and implemented the Run-N-Shoot. People thought he was nuts, but in two years he had them in the playoffs. Why? Because he implemented something that he knew like the back of his hand and that he believed in.
The problem, and I mean no offense, is finding people who really know their stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlexboneOne on Jan 15, 2008 18:47:42 GMT -6
I have to disagree phantom.
There is another old saying that actually end up as an interview answer: "you run what best fits the kids". For me, in my past HC and OC roles, it has always been a form of the option. Whether it be flexbone (which is my favorite), I set, or Demeo Gun Triple. If it has option in it, I've hung my hat on it at one time or another.
As far as keeping learning, well I agree with that. That being said, you can't reinvent the wheel. People see small changes in formations (Pistol, for example) and next thing you know everyone believes it's the next great offense! Or the Spin...cripes, that is just single wing in the gun for crying out loud! Barring actual rule changes, everything that is *new* is actually OLD, just tweeked. In other words, every offensive philosophy ever created and that is in use today has a single direct decendent, usually created through a rule change if you get my point. Defenses, too. Its all related...that is why I dont get it when you said (and I'm not busting your stones) that you dabbled in another D...actually you didnt. In every D someone has contain, someone has FB, etc. Its all the same, just tweeked.
My .02 on the small school thing is that you can run some form of option at every level with any type of kids, lineman and skill alike. BUT ONLY IF YOU HANG YOUR HAT ON IT AS A PHILOSOPHY. It is the best all around offense for average joe's, IMHO. Have an option philosophy all the time, and the years you have a talented thrower, you can spread it out...big line, you can bring it in...etc.
end rant.
|
|
|
|
Post by dacoachmo on Jan 15, 2008 19:51:35 GMT -6
small school
FIRST.
run option,
1) easier to find a runner than a thrower.
2) the offense can shift focus with personnel...from QB to RB to FB...
3) don't have to block every man at the LOS
SECOND
1) always have a QB in each class, even if the kid is a starting WR, he can learn the offense.
A close second would be some misdirection offense...Wing-T,Single Wing...
good luck coach!
|
|
|
|
Post by deaux68 on Jan 15, 2008 20:02:32 GMT -6
Probably better said...........
Know what you coach.
Many of us played in a certain offense, but coach somthing else now.
I hate to be the typical Alabama fan, but Alabama's great run in '70's was started with a change in offenses. The wishbone. The most passing yards by a Bama QB in a game comes from the 1969 Auburn game. Three years later they rushed for almost 800 yards in a game versus Virginia Tech.
The great coaches adapt and modify their scheme. There may be times when an offense or a program needs an overhaul. A la Bama in 1971.
|
|
|
|
Post by ajreaper on Jan 15, 2008 20:55:12 GMT -6
Hmhmhmhm correct me if I'm wrong but if you are going to work hard and learn the offense in the off season then you will be coaching what you know come the fall. You proved the importance of coaching what you know while attempting to argue against it.
|
|
|
|
Post by amikell on Jan 15, 2008 21:05:41 GMT -6
Hmhmhmhm correct me if I'm wrong but if you are going to work hard and learn the offense in the off season then you will be coaching what you know come the fall. You proved the importance of coaching what you know while attempting to argue against it. quote of the day |
|
|
|
Post by coachnichols on Jan 15, 2008 21:27:42 GMT -6
You seem a little excited about this subject. Has someone pissed in your cheerios lately or something Coach?!  On a more serious note, good post and good points. I think, while this might hurt some people's feelings, we all know that there are some people coaching who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. So, that said, many coaches know what they know (or think they know) and just stick with that. The guy that took over my most recent school is terrible and it showed offensively. He has no clue. He took a 5-4 team and turned them in to a 0-9 team in a mediocre league, averaging about 9-10 points a game with one of the best players in the league at TB. I guess what I'm saying is, some coaches can't/won't go out a learn. For whatever reason, they stick with what they know. |
|
|
|
Post by CVBears on Jan 16, 2008 0:39:27 GMT -6
Can a coach truly know a system in one year?
|
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Jan 16, 2008 0:40:07 GMT -6
I think it is obvious that you shouldn't coach anything you don't know (ie "hey that team is running 5 WR, Ive never seen that before; we'll try it next week). I've coached with someone like that, it don't work.
That being said it does not mean you can ONLY know one thing.
Example the HC at my alma mater has been there since the schools inception, the first Sr. class graduated in '97, in that time I have seen them switch what they ran numerous times; sometimes year to year.
In the three years I played varsity ball their We went from a 5-2 cover 3, to a 4-3 cover 2/qtrs team on defense and contended/ won league each year.
Offense is more of a guess. My SR. year our O-line avg. 6'1 295, we ran an I-back Counter/Iso offense. 3 Years later they have 3 D1 Wr's; they took everything from the gun and passed left and right. 4 Years later they have a couple great runners, and became a wing option team.
They are one of the most succesful programs in the region; yet year-to-year they are willing to "change" what they do. I write this not to try to validate one side or another in your argument, simply to point out that it is possible to switch what you run based on your personel. It would be impossible to run anything other than what you know, but it is possible to know more than what you run. And it is possible to know different things.
|
|
zwaps
Freshmen Member
Posts: 29 
|
Post by zwaps on Jan 16, 2008 6:50:08 GMT -6
Most of us know how to implement most given schemes.
What it really comes down to, the difference between winning and losing, is details and technique, not scheme.
After all is over and the ball is snapped, you still have to play football.
If you can't teach them how to execute, you are going to lose in any scheme.
Just look at successful coaches. They teach the game, not the scheme.
If you run spread and you just about know how zone works, you are going to lose. You need to have an answer for every question a player might have. You need to envision and know every move that you want to see later on.
Then you win.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jan 16, 2008 6:57:44 GMT -6
"I have a problem with all of the double wing people out there that say it is the best thing in the world for those schools that are so outmatched it isn't even funny. I know a coach in our state who runs the double wing. His teams are aweful and he can't get any athletes to play football - why - because they run smashmouth football and those kids aren't really excited about getting rocked on every play. Then the coach wonders why the kids won't play football - WAKE UP! Run a system where those smaller type athletes can be successful - maybe more spread concepts - and you might attract those players. And anyone who has ever coached in very small schools knows that one player can mean the difference between 2-7 and 5-4."
I would think that many a double winger who sings the praises of the system has something to compare it to. typically its some kind of huge turnaround after installing the attack. Theres a bunch of those stories surrounding that offense!
For me, I started as an option guy, thought "yeah baby, we will run wild" - then my qb would keep constantly against the weak teams and pitch constantly against the good teams and almost never give to the fb... the kid had way to much control. also we had to bench him for a game because he skipped practice ...hed also sometimes make horrible decisions and fumble a bunch...so as he went, so did our offense... dw doesnt have those issues soooooo, its my holy grail of offense. To me it does allow slow, weak, small linemen an advantage. to me it does afford small slow backs and advantage and it allows a weak arm qb some chance for success too. its also easy to coach with just two coaches!
now, second point, there are bad double wing coaches just as there are bad wing-t or spread coaches. I was certainly a bad option coach. its not the xs and os but the jimmies and joes doing the COACHING in some cases. make sense? ALL COACHES ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL, ALL PLAYERS ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL AND ALL DW OFFENSES ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL so to say "coach x runs the dw and they suck therefor its not a great offense that its made out to be" or whatever... maybe his particular flavor was just weak and poorly coached???
...give me thirty seconds looking at his game film and ill tell ya why they stink...hey, maybe its their defense???
regarding his offense and lack of athletes, thats a silly argument, clovis east has a huge roster and they are a dw team...they have some great athletes come out for football...why? because THEY CAN WIN. want more kids to play? get relationships going with them and show them they can win, they will play.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jan 16, 2008 7:03:04 GMT -6
...btw regarding "coach what you know" - I THOUGHT I knew option football...I didnt, not well enough I guess. For me the double wing made sense, I understood it and I understood that I could plug ALMOST ANY of the kids I had into most of the positions and make it go. It was much less "athlete dependent" and more "execution dependent" in my opinion. I can only control some things, I felt like I could teach the double teams, down blocks and trap blocks better than I could teach a 14 year old to make the right option reads for example. with in two years I felt like I knew the double wing VERY WELL.
|
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Jan 16, 2008 7:30:27 GMT -6
If you're not "coaching what you know" then, by definition, you're "coaching what you don't know." Now, I know that's a simple break-down, but think about it.
If you are sick of people saying "coach what you know," I am JUST as sick of people saying "hey, next year I only have 24 kids out for football...so what offense do I run?" That is the most objective, foolish question you can ask. Nobody on this board, regardless of experience and expertise is capable of answering that question accurately. In the end, you're only going to get answers of what has worked for individual coaches in their own individual situations. Most coaches are simply going to tell you to use some version of whatever system they already use.
I guess I just don't understand how anyone can answer the question that typically leads to the "coach what you know" answer honestly with anything else. No coach on this board can pretend to understand the exact situations these coaches who are asking the "what do I run" questions. There are hundreds of variables that need to be considered when answering that question. Examples of some of those variables are:
1. What has the school traditionally run?
2. What is the attitude of the kids?
3. What is the level of aggressiveness at each position?
4. What types of kids do you have or do you not have (FB's, TE's, WR's, etc.)?
5. What is the skill level and strengths / weaknesses of your QB?
6. What is the size, experience, and disposition of your OL?
7. What kind of things have been done in your youth programs?
AND YES...THE BIG ONE
8. What offenses best reflect the knowledge and skills of the coaching staff?
Typically, since I don't have the answers to 1-7, nor will I understand them from someone saying "well, we have a small line, good backs, average QB, and more WR types then TE types," or something like that...I typically focus the coach who asked the question on the answer I am most confident in.
I don't understand how anyone can be in a HC or a coordinator position and not have a deep enough knowledge of the game to know that running certain things with certain groups of personnel are going to be better than others.
I guess it's somewhat arrogant of me to expect coaches to do some research on their own before presenting the dreaded "hey guys, what do I run" question. I guess what I would expect is that a coach would have SOME idea of what they want to run based upon all the variables (and more) that I listed above. It's much easier to answer a question that says, "Hey guys, I'm really interested in running a power football scheme at this small school, perhaps some kind of fullhouse set. Can anyone give me any pointers as to what the scope and focus should be with such a small enrollment?"
In your initial post, you talked about how you had ideas about what needed to be done based on your knowledge of the game and your future personnel. Did you get this information by asking other coaches what you should run?? No, it seems like you went out and did some analysis and research on your own and formulated a solution you liked. You THEN probably came to the board and asked for specific help on that solution so that, come implementation time you COULD be "coaching what you know!"
I guess my whole point is that I firmly believe that nobody can answer the basic "what do we run" question accurately. So, rather than sit back and watch 13 posts reply with 13 different answers (which is what typically happens), I will say "coach what you know," because that's more helpful than the coach actually believing that anyone on this board is better qualified to analyze and diagnose that coach's situation than HIMSELF.
|
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Jan 16, 2008 7:35:43 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2008 7:59:29 GMT -6
The team that switches offenses every year may not be who I want to see the first week of the season because I will not have seen film yet, but I would definitely like to see them after week 1.
I understand the frustration with hearing "coach what you know" because by definition there would still be a lot of 5-2 guys trying to defend the 5-wide in their Base.
But you have to find something to hang your hat on. It may not be your best play year in and year out, but you've got to have something that you can always run--even if it's running Trap. You can be a 1-back team that runs trap well, you can be a double wing team that runs Trap well. You can do whatever pleases you from one week to the next, but you have to have something.
Pete Carroll said it best, if you can't sit down and write out your philosophy in a few sentences, then you don't have a philosophy--and if you don't have a philosophy then you don't have a starting point.
|
|
|
|
Post by jraybern on Jan 16, 2008 8:03:11 GMT -6
Thank you fellas for pointing out that if you are willing to go out and learn the best system for your guys that you are now indeed running what you know. I had not thought about this argument and I see the point. Please don't miss the point of my thread because I hadn't thought to make this point as well.
My argument is not against that. It is against the idea that a coach should come into any situation and adapt whatever system he already knows regardless of the tools around him. I am not suggesting anyone is really ever arguing that when they say "coach what you know" but it sure appears that way sometimes.
lochness, I think fundamentally we are on the some page. Actually a post you made on another thread made me think of this topic again. You said something along the lines of run what you know but if what you know isn't good enough learn something else. THAT is precisely the point I am trying to make here as well. Maybe that is common sense, but it seems every time some asks what scheme several others say run what you know. Maybe we should be saying learn to run what is best in YOUR situation deaux68 said know what you coach. I like that better also.
Run what you know sounds like you should take the scheme that you understand the best and go with it withour regard for the situation. Again, I am not arguing that any of you really mean to blindly impliment the scheme that you know best, but when you simply post "run what you know best" without qualifying it, it sounds like that is what you are suggesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Jan 16, 2008 8:36:00 GMT -6
I think the post about the "details" of a system is right on. You have to be in a system for a while to learn how teams will adjust against you. I like knowing going into a game that when the other teams takes away "A" they leave themselves vunerable to "B", "C" and "D".
I go to every clinic I can and I am always trying to learn "new" stuff. But I am better prepared and more "successful" now sticking with the same system and tweaking it.
Example:
In 2006 I had a good running QB who was a below average passer. Lucky for us we had 2-3 dominant runningbacks and so we put the load on them and ran option (because the QB was really good at it). I think we called 5 passes a game, tops.
This season I had a tall lanky kid at QB who could throw. This year most games we put it up 10-15 times (alot for us) with good success on play action passes. Even used more trips b/c it allowed us to run trap and the FB belly with fewer defenders in the box. In 2006 we did not care if you put 8-9 in the box. this year 8 in the box was tougher.
So we ran the same exact system just emphasized different aspects of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by information on Jan 16, 2008 8:36:18 GMT -6
What if you don't know anything? Then what do you coach.......just kidding.
In all seriousness do what you believe and can teach....it all comes down to execution.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlexboneOne on Jan 16, 2008 9:11:20 GMT -6
"I have a problem with all of the double wing people out there that say it is the best thing in the world for those schools that are so outmatched it isn't even funny. I know a coach in our state who runs the double wing. His teams are aweful and he can't get any athletes to play football - why - because they run smashmouth football and those kids aren't really excited about getting rocked on every play. Then the coach wonders why the kids won't play football - WAKE UP! Run a system where those smaller type athletes can be successful - maybe more spread concepts - and you might attract those players. And anyone who has ever coached in very small schools knows that one player can mean the difference between 2-7 and 5-4." I would think that many a double winger who sings the praises of the system has something to compare it to. typically its some kind of huge turnaround after installing the attack. Theres a bunch of those stories surrounding that offense! For me, I started as an option guy, thought "yeah baby, we will run wild" - then my qb would keep constantly against the weak teams and pitch constantly against the good teams and almost never give to the fb... the kid had way to much control. also we had to bench him for a game because he skipped practice ...hed also sometimes make horrible decisions and fumble a bunch...so as he went, so did our offense... dw doesnt have those issues soooooo, its my holy grail of offense. To me it does allow slow, weak, small linemen an advantage. to me it does afford small slow backs and advantage and it allows a weak arm qb some chance for success too. its also easy to coach with just two coaches! now, second point, there are bad double wing coaches just as there are bad wing-t or spread coaches. I was certainly a bad option coach. its not the xs and os but the jimmies and joes doing the COACHING in some cases. make sense? ALL COACHES ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL, ALL PLAYERS ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL AND ALL DW OFFENSES ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL so to say "coach x runs the dw and they suck therefor its not a great offense that its made out to be" or whatever... maybe his particular flavor was just weak and poorly coached??? ...give me thirty seconds looking at his game film and ill tell ya why they stink...hey, maybe its their defense??? regarding his offense and lack of athletes, thats a silly argument, clovis east has a huge roster and they are a dw team...they have some great athletes come out for football...why? because THEY CAN WIN. want more kids to play? get relationships going with them and show them they can win, they will play. Coach, I'm just gonna comment on what I bolded in your statement. As an option coach and in my expereince, If a qb is not making the correct reads, it is due to one of these two reasons: 1. He is not effectively coached in the process 2. He's not the guy you want running the option I am NOT busting your stones, so please dont think that I am. Whenever I run into a similar situation with a QB, I always address #1 first. It all starts with me. If I am satisfied that I have done all i could, I then consider #2. This philosophy has never failed me. Just my .02 |
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jan 16, 2008 9:13:09 GMT -6
thats why I said I was a lousy option coach. I THOUGHT I knew the option, thought I could coach a kid to make the right read. bottom line though, either I wasnt a good coach or the best option qb I had wasnt right? I really dont know ...so I moved on. still I maintain that its way too qb intensive or focused on one player for me. I prefer something that allows an average player at the qb position...just in case we dont have that special distributor.
|
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Jan 16, 2008 9:18:00 GMT -6
Here's what I know: I've coached at a both a small and now a large HS. The best teams on either schedule are the teams that do the same thing year in year out. The best 2 teams on the small school schedule: #1 - 8 time state champs, 54 game winning streak, wing-t offense, 44 defense from scrimmage 1 through the state finals. Year in year out, same 5 running plays, same 3 pass plays. #2 - Wing-T offense, 52 cover 2 defense. Buck, Belly, Jet series. #1 pass play is waggle. Perennial playoff team. Big school schedule: #1 - option offense, it will be 95% of their play call, 33 defense cover 2 & 3. Perennial playoff team. #2 - multiple I offense, 43 cover 2 defense. Perennial playoff team. Now maybe at your school you just haven't found a system that you believe in, but if you're ever going to be good, and I mean really good, you're eventually going to find a system on both sides of the ball that you believe in, your kids buy into, that you can teach, coach, adapt and adjust. Maybe it is different in other states, but the best teams in Ohio just do what they do, and as an opponent, you know what they are going to do coming in...all you have to do is stop what you already know. Great post. I think this is true in Kansas as well. The best teams are the ones who run the same system year after year. There will be some upstart teams every year, but the ones making the deep run in the playoffs have a system that they hang their hat on. Everyone knows what they are going to do, but they execute it because not only do the coaches know it, but the players know and believe in it as well. |
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jan 16, 2008 9:54:06 GMT -6
4 time pa state champs cb west were noted for running the same 10 plays every year...then they let talent dictate other packages
|
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jan 16, 2008 10:19:17 GMT -6
The key is to implement a system that has enough tools in the toolbox to adapt iin a given year. Other than that, what you are describing will result in a grab bag approach. I, too, agree that the toolbox approach is best. You have a toolbox for game planning, and a tool box for team planning. Have a system (team toolbox) that allows you to use a great passing QB, or a brusing RB, or a quick RB, or a great WR, or a quick option QB. Figure out what you have and implement it. I think the wing-t can do this. Wing-t can highlight a brusing FB or quick RB's. It can highlight a dropback passer or an option QB. It can use more misdirection or more power. But I will always have a small set of core plays that I can run no matter the talent because I know it, can coach it, and my kids can execute it. This will allow us to be successful as a program over the long haul, but also allow us to adapt to our talent or injuries for a given year. For example, if my QB is slow, belly option and belly keep are out, but belly sweep is in. Belly pass is a core play and will always be in no matter what. Since we will make wing-t our system, he will have been throwing the belly pass since 7th grade. If he can throw, then belly pass and some extra variations are added in and highlighted. I think most good offenses can also adjust like this if you really know the offense. I know I could give examples for the spread, I, double wing, etc. of this very thing. You also have to have a toolbox for game planning. You have to have a play for 3rd & 1 and 3rd &12. You have to be able to go 2 minute O or slowdown O, etc. Have a system, learn it, adjust it, tweak it, teach it, coach it. Have some core plays, but definitely adjust it to your talent. The only way that what you ran last year is EXACTLY what you should run this year is if you won state and every single starter is coming back. |
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Jan 16, 2008 10:25:48 GMT -6
The key is to implement a system that has enough tools in the toolbox to adapt iin a given year. Other than that, what you are describing will result in a grab bag approach. I, too, agree that the toolbox approach is best. You have a toolbox for game planning, and a tool box for team planning. Have a system (team toolbox) that allows you to use a great passing QB, or a brusing RB, or a quick RB, or a great WR, or a quick option QB. Figure out what you have and implement it. I think the wing-t can do this. Wing-t can highlight a brusing FB or quick RB's. It can highlight a dropback passer or an option QB. It can use more misdirection or more power. But I will always have a small set of core plays that I can run no matter the talent because I know it, can coach it, and my kids can execute it. This will allow us to be successful as a program over the long haul, but also allow us to adapt to our talent or injuries for a given year. For example, if my QB is slow, belly option and belly keep are out, but belly sweep is in. Belly pass is a core play and will always be in no matter what. Since we will make wing-t our system, he will have been throwing the belly pass since 7th grade. If he can throw, then belly pass and some extra variations are added in and highlighted. I think most good offenses can also adjust like this if you really know the offense. I know I could give examples for the spread, I, double wing, etc. of this very thing. You also have to have a toolbox for game planning. You have to have a play for 3rd & 1 and 3rd &12. You have to be able to go 2 minute O or slowdown O, etc. Have a system, learn it, adjust it, tweak it, teach it, coach it. Have some core plays, but definitely adjust it to your talent. The only way that what you ran last year is EXACTLY what you should run this year is if you won state and every single starter is coming back. Hammer impacts direclty with nail's head! Exactly! |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jan 16, 2008 10:44:44 GMT -6
Have a system, learn it, adjust it, tweak it, teach it, coach it. Have some core plays, but definitely adjust it to your talent. ....and that is the entire point of the "phrase". You run the Wing-T. Next year, you have a rifle-armed QB. What do you do? You adjust the Wing-T package to accentuate the talent on hand. You use more roll outs, more two-man route concepts.... INSTEAD of scrapping your entire system to run "air-raid" for a season, then complaining how the "air-raid" sucks (because you could get it to adjust to your needs / your players become learning retarded because they had to learn an entirely new system / concept). Successful teams have a common thread of continuity and consistency (no matter what 'scheme' they run). |
|
